Firefall's Mark Kern changes the perception of free-to-play

@cliktea

Time = money. In any game, people that spend the most time or money will always stomp other people. That's why there's levels, cookie cutter builds, new content, etc.

I agree there's an extent... I don't want to see total cash-shopped players rolling over frees, but some kind of incentive to spend some cash to get a slight edge or at least save some time is similar to the P2P model, where it just takes time and the money has already left your wallet.

I have a real tough time justifying the thought of buying a gear advantage and I probably never will be able to and that is why I choose to not play MMOs of that nature.

Personally I'm fine with cosmetic changes, pets, xp potions but don't spam me with sales either.

I'm an old schooler I suppose. These new F2P "mmos" feel like cheap, watered down, money squeezing, written in flash, pieces of garbage.

I guess Guild Wars does it well though, if I were forced to support a F2P game.

@cliktea

I don't know if I'm an old schooler (started MMOs with DaoC), but I used to have your viewpoint. But RoM really changed that idea for me. Not only was the game (to me) better than WoW, they got the right balance of sales in their cash shop so that a player could effectively spend less a month than $15 and still get lots of stuff that would either cut down on the grind or give them a slight edge in crafting/currency/etc. Whereas in WoW, if I take a month off (which I often do in MMOs), or if the month was very slow in terms of new content (oh look I raided on and off for a month and didn't get any new items) I still spent that $15.

Ideally, they're just two different ways to get you to pay your money. The P2P model falls down because when people stop playing, they cancel for good. Whereas a F2P ha sa good chance of showing you a sale and hooking you back in...

I don't really see the sustainability of the P2P model in the long term, excluding WoW obviously. TOR... I'm skeptical...

@(Unverified)

I guess daoc is oldschool enough! I'm a Ultima Online baby myself. I've never played rom as it doesn't interest me in the slightest but if what you say is true and someone can't buy their way into a fighting advantage that's fine. Cutting down on the grind is not something I have a problem with. I have a problem when I've been playing for a lot longer than joe mcjobber and he comes and slams my head off because he spent $20 on a weapon 5 minutes ago. That will never sit well with me and I will refuse to play that sort of game. I'd rather just quit MMOs altogether if they went that route, I already don't like very many MMOs as it stands. Not to mention I've yet to see a F2P "mmo" that actually looks like real quality or isn't some browser based hack job.

@(Unverified)
" lots of stuff that would either cut down on the grind or give them a slight edge in crafting/currency/etc"

The problem with this is that the same people selling you buffs also create the world - the reason to use cash shop items is directly proportional to how much of a grind there is. More grind = more sales, so if they create more grind they make more money.

Grind is cheaper than content so the financial incentive in F2P is towards adding grind.

In P2P, they need to keep players subscribing and not getting bored so the financial incentive is towards less grind and more content.

In F2P as long as they can sell you the solution to it, slightly boring = good. Feeling under-powered or not quite heroic enough = more $$ for them.

The reason a lot of us are angry about the P2P/F2P conversions is not seeing the cash shoppers run around in stuff they didn't earn, it's that the mere existence of an XP potion or buffs in a cash shop and the resulting financial incentive towards creating grind and adjusting difficulty levels to encourage purchases affects our core gameplay.

edit-
Another quick thought - if the company is selling things to compensate for a difficulty level that they have full control over, isn't that a bit like insider trading? Think about it - should it even be legal? They control both supply and demand in a cash shop situation.

@HiroProtagonist7

"They control both supply and demand in a cash shop situation."
and neither of them are real.

@Samael

Oh yeah, I agree that they do charge by the piece than the bundle, but there are also bundle-packs with several items on discount. But generally, you do seem to get more for your money...sometimes.

I've been in quite a few games that kept being the same. We all got content and some pieces, but not "special" pieces. I will state, I am a buyer, not everyone is.

It has been hinted that the people that do buy those three items, as per your example, are paying for the "virtual subs" of other folks. The number is estimated about 10% of a playerbase. I know we've heard stories of people spending $100 or more on items a month. Crazy people? Perhaps.

You can't make everyone happy with this, but, think of this analogy to explain the human psyche in this case: It's like a buffet at a restaurant. Some people pay the one price and can have all that content. Now, Buffet prices are going up and I've seen a range of $8-$20 US. Of course, you can find lunch buffets for $5 and under, but not often. So, in addition to someone feeling that, for example, $20 is high, maybe the person feels they can't eat what they feel is $20 (or more) of food. And heck, maybe they want a restaurant special that is not served during buffet hours. So, for that person, maybe they get the special and a drink for $7-9. It could be higher than the buffet or lower, but the person is satisfied with what they picked.

Again, I see both sides. You can have your choice of various foods and nibble or gorge yourself or, if you don't feel that hungry or you want something specific or feel that money (and the potential food) is going to waste, you can by the item individually.

@PacketBurner

I dislike when folks call the Lotro model 'extended trial'. It is one of the few that allow players the ability to earn points for the cash shop by just grinding instead of spending money. Games that do not allow progress without spending money are extended trials (see WoW now) but Lotro is definitely not an 'extended trial'.

@(Unverified)

While it's possible to earn Turbine Points by just playing the game, farming for them is so slow that you should get more WAY more TP per hour by putting a lemonade stand on the street and spending your profits in TP.

It's a fairly brilliant ploy: players get enough TP to have an incentive to look at the store, and the TP earning rate is just large enough to make it feasible to, with patience and alts, have the hope of eventually getting all content for free, but slow enough that everyone but the most headstrong players will go for the shortcut of buying TP.

I do like it, though, because it means a fully maxed character earns a few dozen dollars of TP by itself, so I'm assured to have the TP to pick the things I find important for each character.

@C Rose

From the sound of it, the lawsuit will only affect Firefall's Korean release without bothering the NA release much at all, since Firefall is a US-developed game being released in an Asian market and not the other way around. Without knowing the details it sounds like Webzen's suit is little more than a retaliatory attempt to gain some leverage against Red 5's attempt to void their contract. If Red 5 wins its original lawsuit Webzen's suit is just piss in the wind.

@C Rose

Sorry, forgot to point out that the lawsuits are over the Korean distribution rights, not the North American, which is why it probably won't affect our version of the game.