F2P challenge, still waiting

Posted on October 28, 2013 by SynCaine

Last week I asked F2P fans to comment/post on why the F2P model for an MMO is better for both devs and players. I’m still waiting…

About SynCaine

Former hardcore raider turned casual gamer.
This entry was posted in RMT. Bookmark the permalink.

84 Responses to F2P challenge, still waiting

  1. Ettesiun says:
    October 28, 2013 at 10:23 am

    Because I do not want to pay a monthly fee, (better for the player) and they will not have my money if they try to do it anayway (better for the developer). ;-)

    More seriously, I have already previously explained on this blog comment section, why I think that the F2P (or B2P) is better for some player and thus for the dev targetting this market. Is it really useful to restate it ? I will not convince you – and I think this is false – that F2P is better for *you*. For other players ? Hell yeah !

    I am a casual player. I enjoy that leveling is “short” because it means that High level play is achievable for me. I do not want to play a game for 10 years, neither I don’t want to wait during my play time. 1hour is the maximum activity time I tolerate, I don’t want to have a quest/minigame/castle battle/… that take more than one hour. I love to explore new worlds, find small hidden secret, etc… That’s why I love Themepark PvE. I love also massive quick battle without a meaning as in WvW in GW2. I hate to grind hours to achieve someting, and I want that all players are equal in PvP/MassivePvP – at least in term of Character power. I do not want to adapt my agenda for the game/guild. I understand that Hardcore gamer are the players that create a life in my guild and I thanks them for that. I hate to not have the illlusion I posess the game and that I can play whenever I want. I hate renting games.

    From the dev perspective, I think my playstyle is not unique – even if it is a minority – thus adressing this market can be a good idea.

    • SynCaine says:
      October 28, 2013 at 10:31 am

      F2P doesn’t work by getting $5 per month off you vs $15 if it was a sub, unless the amount of $5 payers is 3x what the sub numbers were, and that’s just not the case long-term (the first month, sure, as Turbine/SOE are all-too-quick to tell us about).

      Players like you have some value to a dev, sure, but you are not the target audience. You don’t play enough to play the role of cattle, you don’t spend enough to play the role of a whale, and their aren’t enough of you to support a game outright.

      So yes, F2P works for you, as a player, but it doesn’t work for the devs here (GW2 is not F2P, in large part because of players like you. They need that $60 off you because it’s the only serious contribution you are going to make).

      • Brian 'Psychochild' Green says:
        October 29, 2013 at 1:35 am

        This is the problem, Syn. I’ve pointed out the benefits on both sides but you ignore the points and make sweeping generalizations based on false assertions.

        For example, I explained before that the increase in players from being free-to-play does remain compared to levels in subscription games. If you think that a decrease in peak players is failure, then every subscription MMO fails because subscription games lose players after their peak rapid as well. Games like DDO and LotRO almost certainly have more players playing now than they would have if they were still subscription games. Sadly, specific numbers are trade secrets that can’t be revealed but, yeah, let me tell you that the data backs me up here.

        On the dev side, the important thing is revenues. And free-to-play generates more revenue than subscriptions do. On a warm-and-fuzzy artistic level, it’s also nicer to have more people playing your game than less. And, as I’ve said many times before, the box sale and subscription are an obstacle for many potential players.

        • Kryss says:
          October 29, 2013 at 6:23 am

          Nice graphs, but you can look at them the over way – by 2013 you have basicaly 3 subscription MMORPG and over 9000 F2P trash, and revenue generated by trash still barely exeeds revenue generated by sub…

        • SynCaine says:
          October 29, 2013 at 8:06 am

          Profit is the important piece, not revenue, but yea.

          As for player count, its not about having more under F2P vs sub, its about having SUBSTANTIALLY more as now under F2P most aren’t paying a dime. And, not only do you need far more under F2P, you also have to somehow keep them shopping, and you don’t do that by providing great content updates; you do it by providing ‘attractive’ offerings in the cash shop.

          In a way I feel really bad for F2P devs, because your job is no longer about creating the best possible game, but the best vehicle to get someone into the shop. So long as you get a few in there and spending hundreds, the rest be damned, even if that’s achieved by making a fluffy garbage game with $25 sparkle pony collections. As long as you have a catchy idea and a few good screenshots to ‘sell’ the download, you ‘win’.

          Bad but really, really grindy content doesn’t work in a sub MMO; either the stuff is fun-enough to justify the monthly expense, or its not. Dev and players are aligned, not fighting each other.

        • reformedgamer says:
          October 29, 2013 at 8:10 am

          Not exactly true Kryss

          Top 3 F2P MMOs make 3x times more money than the whole subscription based mmo industry combined. and this is EXCLUDING Chinese and korean games.
          If you add Asian games, sub based industry lost this race a couple of years ago.

          ps you seem to be focused on zynga based F2P when judging mmos. There are awesome F2P games that you seem to be always forgetting (on purpose or accidentally)

        • SynCaine says:
          October 29, 2013 at 8:21 am

          Also as much as I respect Raph, his post is wrong: EVE.

        • Amalec says:
          October 29, 2013 at 9:36 am

          @ReformedGamer “Top 3 F2P MMOs make 3x times more money than the whole subscription based mmo industry combined. and this is EXCLUDING Chinese and korean games.”

          Can you cite a source for this? Otherwise, I’m calling bullshit.

        • Kryss says:
          October 29, 2013 at 11:22 am

          reformedgamer, look at second graph provided by Brian, untill you can get similar link about “Top 3 F2P MMOs make 3x times more money than the whole subscription based mmo industry” (did they even have names, or you just call them “first/second/third top F2P MMO”?) i’d call your claim bullshit, sorry.

  2. Joseph Skyrim says:
    October 28, 2013 at 7:07 pm

    Though I admit I’m not the most verbose or knowledgable on the topic I’ll take a crack at it! Should be easy cannon fodder for you, Syncaine! ^_^

    Player Advantages:
    -No barrier to entry. People can try it out and enjoy it whenever they please.
    -No obligation to keep logging in due to monetary reasons / subscription.
    -You can be selective on what you spend your money on, if you decide to spend any at all.
    -Easier to bring friends / guilds with members who have low or otherwise no income across to F2P games (actually easier regardless of income).
    -Easy to play multiple F2P games concurrently, as opposed to having multiple subs continually draining your money while you can only play one at a time.

    Dev Advantages:
    -Items for the cash shop are often the easiest content to make.
    -Items can be reused / more valued by putting them only for sale on 1 month, then with-holding the same item until next year (no coding required next time).
    -Easy to make events that give out Cash Shop items as a reward chance. If you focused on items, you’d have a large inventory to choose from. Every once in awhile you might even decide to reward your “cash” equivalent.
    -Focus is pretty easy for your team: items items items with simple events in the mix.
    -If you are doing well you then can even develop more content/story/plot/lore on the side (which is the focus of sub games I’d guess). :P
    -When people finish story/lore/plot etc. what’s left? In a F2P, there’s always (or should always be) new shineys coming out and silly events to earn them in.
    -In a sub-only game (no cash shop) every player spends x per month. That’s it.
    -F2P Players don’t have an upper limit of expediture. Some spend thousands per month (like in Mabinogi), as long as you continually have nice and useful things in your shop for people to buy.
    -A sub-game with a cash shop negates this, but you’ve already limited your audience with the barrier to entry – and you’ll probably get some hate from your players having to spend additional funds above their sub fee.

    • SynCaine says:
      October 29, 2013 at 8:19 am

      Well good try :)

      Your player advantages sum up to “you can log in”. Sweet! Now what do I get when I do log in? A half-game (SW:TOR), an infomercial (DDO, LotRO), a beating (Atlantic Online) or just complete garbage (most F2P MMOs).

      So I’m going to bring my guild into the above? Not likely. And once I’ve experienced the above, am I really going to jump at the next F2P dumpster that comes along? Again, not likely. Remember, we are all still waiting to spot the unicorn (a great F2P MMO).

      Your dev advantages further make my point. Instead of making the game better, the devs are focused on creating cash shop inventory. And so long as the inventory is moving, your game is ‘working’. See how that structure directly conflicts with player interests (outside the whales)?

      • Joseph Skyrim says:
        October 29, 2013 at 4:28 pm

        Hehe great reply! As someone who likes beatings though (seriously, I played Wizardry Online. F2P Permadeath ahoy!) I think I should check out this Atlantic Online… is that Atlantica Online?

        Where you see dumpsters… I see unicorns! Wait… oh crap now I sound like a bronie. In your last line you say that the structure directly conflicts with player interests. That got me thinking a bit…

        I login to enjoy an interactive world, the company of my guild and friendly strangers. Also to kick some pixel ass every now and then and a pinch of story (not really necessary for me). Almost every game offers all the above so I just wanted to check what “interests” I was lacking that only comes from sub games? :D

  3. sid6.7 says:
    October 28, 2013 at 7:54 pm

    I’m not a fan, but here is the unflattering truth of why it’s better…

    #1 – It appeals to players who like to buy an advantage with real money and to players who like to freeload off others.

    #2 – It makes an otherwise shitty game that only a handful of people like profitable.

    Of course, the question itself is poorly phrased. You shouldn’t be asking “why the F2P model is better” — you should be asking “WHEN and to WHOM IS the F2P model better”…

    • sid6.7 says:
      October 28, 2013 at 7:56 pm

      Adding on to #2 — the fact that it’s profitable is better for that small handful of players who actually enjoy playing that shitty game because it keeps said shitty game from going out of business.

    • Rammstein says:
      October 29, 2013 at 6:12 pm

      I generally agree with everything you’ve said except I would unironically replace the word better with worse in every instance.

      • sid6.7 says:
        October 29, 2013 at 8:38 pm

        LOL – I don’t understand it either but there are masochistic players who like this type of thing. For them, it’s better.

        As I said, “when and to whom” is it better…

  4. Derrick says:
    October 28, 2013 at 8:20 pm

    *shrugs* I don’t think it is. The f2p model is awesome for multiplayer combat games (MWO, World of Tanks/Warplanes, LoL) but IMHO is terrible for games like MMO’s which require ongoing commitment and static groups.

  5. Halycon says:
    October 29, 2013 at 12:43 am

    It’s a chicken/egg problem. So far as I know we’ve never had a truly “good” mmo go f2p. We’ve had failing mmo’s go f2p. And f2p may have given that game a shot in the arm which kept it going a lot longer, but the original problems which caused it to be circling the drain in the first place are still there.

    Part of it I think is the amount of hand holding in mmos now days. Why on earth would I pay for an exp boost for an mmo now days when they pretty much give you exp for free. It used to take half a year to a year to hit top level in a single class. Now it takes a few weeks to a single month. If you’d given me an option to pay a few bucks back in the original Everquest to double my exp for a day I’d have jumped on that before a heavy game session. If I could have spent a couple bucks which helped me with the unforgiving death traps old mmo dungeons used to be, I’d have pay for that a few times too. At least till I learned the thing well enough to take the training wheels off. Heck, I have paid money in Eve so I could sell a PLEX when times were hard. And if I ever suffer a devistating loss of assets which takes me back down to a near 0 bank balance I’ll do it again.

    F2p isn’t a model problem, it’s a game design problem. No one has figured out the secret sauce, but I kinda doubt anyone ever will in a keeping up with the Joneses world. Because I don’t think f2p works in the accelerated world of content progression mmos churn through now days. I think getting f2p to work is in the past when games were long slow burns and dropping the cost of helpful items from several dollars to 50 cents to a dollar. The sort of impulse buy cost that a candy bar is at the checkout counter of stores.

  6. Brian 'Psychochild' Green says:
    October 29, 2013 at 1:36 am

    Syn, I offered two games that do the business model well, but you have a violent disagreement with one game and won’t even try the other. If you aren’t willing to at least try suggested games, your challenge isn’t exactly meaningful if you can “win” it by refusing to participate in it.

    • reformedgamer says:
      October 29, 2013 at 3:59 am

      Who is Syn and why the guy developing Everquest tries to prove something to him?

      These discussions are turning into a trollfest. F2P haters invite people and then have fun ignoring valid objections.

      • Kryss says:
        October 29, 2013 at 6:30 am

        Yeah, valid objections like “F2P ig good couse it’s like FREEE it’s FREEEEEEEEEE what’s not to like! You can play like HUNDREDS shitty games in a week, cose its FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE”

      • Anti-Stupidity League says:
        October 29, 2013 at 7:04 am

        I think Kryss here just nicely demonstrated your point, reformedgamer. You cannot use logic to persuade subscription-fanboys, they’re too busy frothing to even try to understand.

        • Kryss says:
          October 29, 2013 at 11:37 am

          Yeah, sorry about all that frothing, i just don’t understand why i can’t pay someone 15$ a month for some descent game, why everyone think i’m retarded child who needs constant handholding, press x for purplz and pretty pony from shop…
          What about some sandbox, player generated content, living economy. How long EVE and DF will stand alone?

      • Amalec says:
        October 29, 2013 at 8:06 am

        Actually, it’s the other way around. F2P opponents have explained over and over how catering to a f2p model forces devs to compromise gameplay. I’ve yet to see a compelling argument from a f2p proponent on why this isn’t true.

        I realize that f2p has it’s audience. But considering that I can pay a subscription fee for less than the cost of a decent meal, and that my gaming time is limited, I’ll take a good game over a free game any day.

        • reformedgamer says:
          October 29, 2013 at 8:13 am

          Well if by gameplay you mean “Kill ten rats” – I see no difference with F2P. And actually F2P allows me to skip that “Kill ten rats” experience and go directly to endgame and PvP. Making my experience better.

        • Matt says:
          October 29, 2013 at 9:08 am

          Subscriptions also force devs to compromise gameplay. Half the grind in MMOs wouldn’t exist if not for the need to give players a reason to log on to justify paying the subscription.

          Business models in general compromise gameplay. The question is which compromises you can live with.

        • Anti-Stupidity League says:
          October 29, 2013 at 12:30 pm

          Amalec says: “I’ll take a good game over a free game any day.”

          I can easily play Planetside 2, League of Legends, Path of Exile, Team Fortress 2, Dota 2, America’s Army, Lotro, Warframe, War of the Roses, Dwarf Fortress, Tribes, DDO, Jagged Alliance Online, or Rift any time that I want.

          …but that’s because I can play good games that are also free and I’m not as anal how the game is monetized as you subscription-fanboys are. I feel sorry for you as you can’t even consider testing any of these, them all being free games, you know.

        • Amalec says:
          October 29, 2013 at 2:06 pm

          @Anti-StupidityLeague
          Who are you arguing with? Because it doesn’t seem to be me. At no point did I say I would never play a f2p. Or that free games are bad. Or even that f2p was a bad idea. I said only that f2p games have a serious drawback inherent to the payment model and that it’s oft cited advantage is irrelevant to me.

          And honestly, what the hell is that list? We’re talking about f2p MMOs, and you’re hauling in a bunch of single player games, mobas and ‘truly free’ games like Dwarf Fortress. Under your logic, I can include pretty much every game ever sold as subscription – since technically when you buy a box you are paying for a lifetime license to use the software. But I wouldn’t do that of course, because I wear my shorts around my waist instead of my head.

          In any case, I’m not particularly attached to the subscription model. I’d consider EVE’s PLEX a f2p implementation, in fact. While you can buy your way ahead, I have no problem with it because the devs aren’t sacrificing gameplay.

          LoL (though I do not consider it a MMO in the context of our current discussion) also manages to implement f2p in a way that doesn’t compromise gameplay.

          On the other hand, I tried to play LOTR because I’m a huge LOTR fanboy. I wanted to get lost in Tolkien’s world. Instead, I got endless immersion breaking ‘please buy things’ and just couldn’t get interested.

    • SynCaine says:
      October 29, 2013 at 8:12 am

      Are you really going to make me play Puzzle Pirates? Fine, then you have to play DF:UW, and let it ruin DDO for you. Deal?

      • reformedgamer says:
        October 29, 2013 at 8:14 am

        Syn. DF would be a better place if it was F2P.

        1) more players
        2) less grind
        3) a lot more pvp
        4) more money to devs = better game eventually because those guys are awesome and with more cash they will turn it into a brilliant product.

        • SynCaine says:
          October 29, 2013 at 8:25 am

          Hahahaha.

          You actually believe this, don’t you?

          I mean I get that you know nothing of the DF community, and likely little of that entire sector, but even ignoring all of that, the above is 100% trolling right?

        • reformedgamer says:
          October 29, 2013 at 8:45 am

          see this is a problem – you are making made up assumptions and base your reasoning on them.

          you assume that all f2p are equal (trash) and designed to squeeze money out of players. Which is true for many games, but not all of them.

          + i did play old and new DF and WOW (a lot) and a lot of other subs.based mmos – which basically means that you like using false assumptions in defending your position.

        • Anti-Stupidity League says:
          October 29, 2013 at 8:48 am

          I’ve really enjoyed all your recent posts of DarkFail and its lively community, syn.

        • Rammstein says:
          October 29, 2013 at 4:34 pm

          “you assume that all f2p are equal (trash) and designed to squeeze money out of players. Which is true for many games, but not all of them.”

          Aren’t you here assuming that he’s assuming that about F2P games? Hilarious.

          This endless train of accusing everyone else of assuming things, then having those people call those accusations themselves assumptions is quite amusing, but a bit of a waste of time, eh? Can’t we just admit that in the real world, conclusion vs assumption vs wrong conclusion vs wrong assumption is shades of gray, not black and white, and focus on getting the facts right rather than on whether someone’s evaluation of a situation is a conclusion or an assumption?

          As an aside, there’s plenty of games that I’ve played where I wouldn’t consider that I knew much about the community. Aren’t you assuming that the community you apparently think you know is the same as ‘the community’ which he is, in actuality and specifically, referencing?…Just kidding. I am kidding, right?

        • reformedgamer says:
          October 30, 2013 at 5:05 am

          ramm. your songs are really good)))
          open your eyes.. i didn’t assume anything. he said all f2p games are trash.

          while he instead of attacking opinions with facts he attacks individuals which his false assumptions

          which was the goal of the post. invite people and troll them

      • Rynnik says:
        October 29, 2013 at 8:15 am

        Let me know when you sub Brian. I will throw some gear your way and bring you on a DF dungeon field trip. For science!

      • Brian 'Psychochild' Green says:
        November 1, 2013 at 2:35 am

        Look, it’s your challenge. I’ve already played a great PvP game with use-based skill advancement, thanks, and I know i don’t currently have the time to invest to play another one properly.

        Anyway, you asked, I answered. Ball’s in your court to follow up on that challenge.

    • Rynnik says:
      October 29, 2013 at 4:58 pm

      Brian you said:
      “Syn, I offered two games that do the business model well, but you have a violent disagreement with one game and won’t even try the other. If you aren’t willing to at least try suggested games, your challenge isn’t exactly meaningful if you can “win” it by refusing to participate in it.”

      I had no background with DDO so I downloaded it.

      First screen comes up with two of the buttons flashing at me to get into the cash shop and spend some money transporting me to a couple places (no idea what that is for) and offering me account upgrades. The button for character creation is significantly smaller then those two buttons and wedged in between them. I don’t have a reason to be interested in either of those cash shop draws though so I ignore them and get into character creation.

      I take a look at the character creation setup (every possible character creation tab leads to a display of a locked option requiring a cash shop purchase). And decide to take a nostalgia trip and try out a half-elf druid like I would play back in table top days. Both locked. Checking this out I also discover that I only get 28 character creation points, but the cash shop will save me and allow me access to a full 32 point creation process.

      I do the math on it and for a package that gives me half-elf and the 32 creation point purchase (also half-orc access) plus the druid class is 4290 turbine points to get. Over to the point purchasing page and the smallest package that will buy me that stuff is 6300 turbine points for the small one time cost of $59.99 and that is provided I don’t find any of the other conspicuous offers something I want to pick up.

      And I haven’t made it into the game yet.

      I would MUCH rather pay $60 bucks up front and a sub cost for $15 a month and have the full game than deal with that scam of a cash grab for the class/race I want (with many many more options left to unlock with more money thrown at it). Before I even start looking at the packages for content. Any bets on my ability to have consumed those at a greater rate than $15 a month?

      Forget the design flaws of instances and balance designed to get you buying some of the cash shop power – just being able to access anything outside of vanilla character options is expensive. I don’t mind paying for stuff I like, but this is pretty intimidating threshold costs, and I have no desire to even finish the free character creation and get in the game (with a character I wouldn’t choose to play). This is the business model done well in your estimation?

      • Brian 'Psychochild' Green says:
        November 1, 2013 at 2:33 am

        Except Druids and Half-Elves are expansion content. Your complaints about DDO’s restricted races/classes are like complaining that WoW doesn’t let you roll a Panderan Monk out of the gate. So, is Blizzard with its subscription model the scum of the earth because you have to pay about $60 for the WoW expansions to play Panderan Monks? Or to play Wargen, Goblins, Blood Elves, or space goats? And then you still have to pay a subscription or they take away access to that character you spent $60 on.

        I don’t pay a subscription and I still get access to all the characters I’ve ever rolled on DDO. And, some content like races/classes and 32 point builds are unlockable in the game without paying for them. Back in the subscription days, of course, you didn’t have any option to purchase them before unlocking them via gameplay so some of those would have been restricted anyway. And, you will also earn a bunch of Turbine Points as you play the game.

        So, yeah, you went looking for places where you could spend money in a free-to-play game and, SHOCKER, you found some! Congrats! Maybe look at the other 70% that’s offered for free. Next time, try rolling a Dwarf Rogue/Ranger. One of my favorite characters, and you don’t have to plop down any cash to start playing it.

        • Rynnik says:
          November 1, 2013 at 3:29 pm

          As I have said in other comments, I don’t find discussion on price point is really indicative of inherent strengths and weakness in F2P business models, so don’t worry about that aspect of it.

          My post was mostly fueled by how surprised I was by the cost of DDO! I guess I was associating F2P cashshop with microtransaction size prices or something because I was expecting (and planning to pay) $1.99 or 99 cents or something for the ‘character creation locks’ in order to make a character I would be interested in. I was just blown away what what could be considered an industry average price for entire game expansions in order to unlock a couple classes/races whatever. (I just did the math and in order to have access to every character creation option you would need 13,760 turbine points which would work out to the $200 point package with points left over or the $100 plus the $35 package. Holy fuck my life.)

          My style means I would have a very hard time getting into any game where grind/cost/whatever would be related to character creation locks. Playing EVE Online and Darkfall has spoiled me I guess in being able to choose and enjoy a character based on what I want it to be, and identifying with and enjoying that process (hell I even do a bit of role playing now and again in these games). DDOs approach to that is a huge enjoyment killer for me, which doesn’t mean much other than that even if it was run under a more workable business model I wouldn’t be playing the title anyways.

          The more and more I ponder this topic and the discussions we have had on it, the more I recognize how right CCP is doing things with EVE.

          They run a subscription game so cleverly that some people have even convinced themselves it is F2P (after all they can play for free lol). They have a pure fluff cash shop that people can dump money after if they like (or also spend for ‘free’ under the same mechanism as the sub) without advertising it in game or having to have the button for it perma-highlighted or flashing or anything (and which doesn’t show up at all when you are ‘playing’ the game ie undocked). And they offer a few different free trial and low threshold techniques to get hooks into you without a box cost or sub fee up front.

          I will probably still be happily giving those sly Icelanders $15 every month 10 years from now on the games 20th anniversary. I really think other MMOs will be gravitating towards their system as the market continues to evolve.

        • Brian 'Psychochild' Green says:
          November 2, 2013 at 1:34 pm

          Rynnik, actually, one thing I didn’t mention since I was in a rush yesterday: if you want to play your Half-Elf Druid, you can pay a subscription and those character options will be available. In fact, almost all those character options become available, except for Drow that are easily earned in-game, and the Favored Soul and Artificer class that can be earned in-game at higher levels. 32-point builds are not available by merely subscribing (just like before the free-to-play conversion). And, just other subscription games, as soon as you stop paying they’ll dutifully hold your non-free characters hostage.

          As a subscriber, you also get most of the non-expansion content with that payment, just like in a traditional subscription game. Although, unlike other subscription games, you don’t have to buy a (digital) box up front to enjoy the game. (You do have to buy expansions, though, but that’s a pretty recent thing and most expansions are for higher level [15+] content.) This is one reason why I think the DDO model does things better than other free-to-play games, because they still offer a subscription aspect if you want. I don’t subscribe, as I’m happy to spend about the same amount of money as a subscriber but buy my content and own it for as long as they run the game.

          Want to give Turbine $15 until the end of time for permission to play their game? Hey, you can do that, too, and they give you pretty much what you would have gotten before the free-to-play conversion. Want to play a 32-point character or Artificier out of the gate without playing to “earn” them? You can plunk down some cash to do that, too. Hooray flexibility!

          I find it pretty funny that you say price point isn’t an issue, then the very next paragraph is all about prices! There are smaller “micro” purchases you can make in the game but that’s for things like healing potions (which you can also buy in game for gp/pp), but you can get groups just fine without being loaded up with cash shop stuff. Also, there are sales. If you’re patient, you can purchase all those options for 20-30% off the full price. So, yeah, if you’re that stereotypical weak-willed free-to-play person that needs absolutely everything that Syn seems to think are the only players in the game, you might pay that price. But, for someone with a bit of patience, you can get it cheaper. Needless to say, I bought all my options on sale.

          So, anyway, if you have your heart set on playing that Half-Elf Druid, it’s actually only $15 away (and then $15 every month you can to keep playing) instead of OMG spending all that money up front even though money isn’t an issue for you, I guess. I’d really recommend rolling a free character first, though, to see if you actually like the game. If you give it a chance and dig into it, you might find that you really like the character system since it’s about as complex as the character system in EVE once you really get to understand it. Or, you can stick to a single class and have a really fun character as well. If you do give it a serious go, I’m on most of the time as “Tezano” or “Riija” (which is a wonderfully complex dwarf Rogue/Monk/Fighter) on the Cannith server. I’ll be happy to show you the ropes.

        • Rynnik says:
          November 2, 2013 at 2:54 pm

          “I find it pretty funny that you say price point isn’t an issue, then the very next paragraph is all about prices!”

          What I said was that price point isn’t an issue for debating business models. Different price points are always an issue (a very personal although still interesting to discuss one). Because F2P games can be cheap to expensive and subs can run through that same spectrums I just don’t find discussions on them strongly arguing one way or the other towards a business model. I started discussing the price point of DDO however because it I wasn’t expecting what I found so thought it worthy of comment.

          Out of curiosity I have mentioned EVE Online a bunch of times in a variety of examples and you have never commented on that subscription game at all. Is there a particular reason why? Are you precluded from discussing it due to a work thing?

          Dungeons and Dragons character creation has always been a huge part of those games for me. I have probably played more Neverwinter Nights (1&2) character creation then I have actual game. :-P If I was going to do DDO I probably would sub then. Drow, artificer, and favoured soul have never been on my really fun short list so I would be perfectly happy without those options, although it seems like a lot of ‘buts’ for unlocked content after subbing.

        • SynCaine says:
          November 3, 2013 at 1:10 am

          Another F2P issue: Even when you can sub, you still get less than a normal sub. DDO is a great example. Does subbing stop the cash shop advertising spam? Nope. Does subbing get me the whole game, or at least all of what was offered prior to F2P? Nope.

          It gets you some stuff, on loan, while you still get to deal with much of the hassle, and all of the poor design decisions, of the F2P model.

          I also find it fairly disingenuous when you try to dismiss the act of attracting whales, as if F2P doesn’t revolve around them. If the real money in F2P was around getting $5 from many, vs getting $1000 from a few, the design choices would reflect that, but they don’t, and anyone who takes one look at the average F2P MMO sees why.

        • Brian 'Psychochild' Green says:
          November 3, 2013 at 5:23 pm

          Rynnik wrote:
          What I said was that price point isn’t an issue for debating business models. Different price points are always an issue (a very personal although still interesting to discuss one).

          It feels very much that you want to have it both ways, ignoring my criticisms about how much subscription games force you to pay, while pointing out OMG LOOK HOW MUCH THIS “FREE”-TO-PLAY GAME MAKES ME PAY!

          For me, price point is a major issue here. As a player, I like the control that free-to-play gives me in how much I want to spend. I like having access to my characters if my budget doesn’t allow for a subscription. You may not think this is a big deal, great, but it is a valid reason for others who aren’t stupid to appreciate the model.

          Out of curiosity I have mentioned EVE Online a bunch of times in a variety of examples and you have never commented on that subscription game at all. Is there a particular reason why?

          Frankly, I never really cared for the game the few times I tried to get into it. The time-based character advancement seemed like a transparent attempt to get people to subscribe longer. The low-level gameplay just isn’t engaging enough to make me want to pay every month for it. I know a lot of people really love the game, so I try not to slag on it too much. I’ve also read enough about the business issues to know that holding it up as “the subscription model done right” is laughable.

          I have probably played more Neverwinter Nights (1&2) character creation then I have actual game.

          Warning: DDO character creation is heavily influenced by 3.5, but not exactly the same. They’ve changed a lot of mechanics to make it work as an MMO. The system is a lot more complex and unrestricted than tabletop or NWN. Get ready to fuck up your first character and want to roll another one sometime later. Although, previous experience will prevent you from doing things like taking a 10 Wisdom Fighter then trying to multi-class into Cleric. (Although I think the game does warn you about that.)

          although it seems like a lot of ‘buts’ for unlocked content after subbing.

          Those “buts” were there before the free-to-play transition as far as I know, except for the content that was added afterwards. Just trying to be complete so that nobody accuses me of not giving the whole story. Business models are complex, and not even WoW or EVE is as simple as “Pay money per month and play the game with no restrictions.”

        • Brian 'Psychochild' Green says:
          November 3, 2013 at 5:42 pm

          SynCaine wrote:
          DDO is a great example. Does subbing stop the cash shop advertising spam?

          Er, what advertising spam? The only time I can think of that you see cash shop stuff in normal gameplay as a subscriber is loading screens, and those screens are more advertising the adventure packs and explaining access rules (“Free for VIPs!”) There’s also the in-game mails you get when you earn free points, but if you’re going to whine about them mailing you about giving you something free, you’re grasping at straws.

          Now, LotRO is much worse it. This is one reason why I say DDO instead of “Turbine Games” as good examples of free-to-play.

          Does subbing get me the whole game, or at least all of what was offered prior to F2P?

          Uh, what don’t you get access to that you did before? I admit, I didn’t play before the transition, so I might not be missing anything that changed. My better half subscribes, though, so I know what subscribers get.

          And if you mention the hearts of wood thing, I swear to the gods I will end you. Or, at least, remove your blog from my RSS reader because you are just a worthless troll at that point.

          If anything, subscribers get more now than they used to. 10% increased experience, the ability to open harder quest difficulties at the beginning, and free cash shop points that didn’t exist before the transition.

          I also find it fairly disingenuous when you try to dismiss the act of attracting whales, as if F2P doesn’t revolve around them.

          I’m sorry, did you say you designed a free-to-play game? Well, I have. The intent of the design wasn’t to attract whales, it was to get a higher ARPU (average revenue per user) that was at least equal to subscription rates.

          Yeah, this can be accomplished by attracting a few people who spend a fuckload of money but as some social game companies are showing, this isn’t sustainable like it is in Las Vegas. (You see some companies pursuing this model because they’re copying it from Las Vegas where it works like a fucking charm.)

          The better way is to focus on getting people to make purchases when they can afford to do so. As I said getting, getting people to even try your game is the hardest part, and getting them to subscribe is still difficult if you go beyond the inbred current market. We wanted to attract people to the game, get them to fall in love with it, then want to pay more than a subscription would allow them to do. The real beauty from a business point of view is that the person who spends $30 one month and nothing the next is actually a better customer than the person who spends $15 each month those two months.

          You seem to be mistaking “the game allows players to spend more money than a subscription” with “the game requires players some players to spend way more than a subscription.” You’re placing that assumption upon the business model, it’s not inherent in the business model.

        • Supplantor says:
          November 3, 2013 at 7:17 pm

          Brian ‘Psychochild’ Green wrote (https://syncaine.com/2013/10/23/people-of-f2p-mmos/):
          “As a developer, I want to create a great game. I want to create a landmark title that will stand the test of time. I want to create new forms of gameplay that will astound even the most jaded MMO player. That isn’t happening with a proposal with a subscription-based model.”

          Then

          Brian ‘Psychochild’ Green wrote:
          “I’m sorry, did you say you designed a free-to-play game? Well, I have. The intent of the design wasn’t to attract whales, it was to get a higher ARPU (average revenue per user) that was at least equal to subscription rates.”

          And this is why F2P is not good for gamers, because the intent of the design stops being “I want to create a landmark title that will stand the test of time.” and starts being “get a higher ARPU (average revenue per user) that was at least equal to subscription rates.”

        • Rammstein says:
          November 3, 2013 at 7:42 pm

          Brian Psychochild Green wrote: “I’ve also read enough about the business issues to know that holding it up as “the subscription model done right” is laughable.”

          then : “I’m sorry, did you say you designed a free-to-play game? Well, I have. ”

          also: “It feels very much that you want to have it both ways, ignoring my criticisms about how much subscription games force you to pay, while pointing out OMG LOOK HOW MUCH THIS “FREE”-TO-PLAY GAME MAKES ME PAY!”

          Well, Brian, it feels very much that you want to have it both ways, pulling out the *I’m totally a professional in the field and this is how we did it behind the scenes* to defend your chosen model, but when you talk instead about a game that you’ve barely played, you’ll judge them instead by reading blogs on the internetz.

          Have you designed any games that anyone here actually likes, or is this not only about how much money games make, but about how much money you’ve made designing games, which then makes your opinions right?

          I wasn’t going to go down this route, but if you’re going to go down it yourself, I’ll jump in the basket too.

          Tell me about your company, where you designed F2P games. It started around when CCP started, right? How’s it doing these days? If it’s not around, does that make your opinion “laughable?”, too? You seem like a decent guy, but the shit you’re slinging in this thread is sticking to you pretty badly. Can’t we go back to discussing which MMO’s we play and why without all this sideshow?

        • Brian 'Psychochild' Green says:
          November 4, 2013 at 2:50 pm

          Supplantor, a game company is still a business and still needs to make money. Subscription games need to focus on getting people to maintaining subscriptions just as much free-to-play games need to focus on getting people to spend money. As I said in a previous comment, things like EVE Online‘s time-based training or limited daily quest reputation grinds are both designs that work to keep people subscribed for longer periods of time. The main difference is that people here are used to paying subscriptions, so you more readily overlook the commercialization of the design of a subscription game.

          Art happens despite commerce, and no game where someone needs to make a living working on it is divorced from commercial concerns. As soon as you start taking money for your game, you need to either manage the commercial aspects or you go out of business and can’t make any more games. (Or take a day job and keep making indie games in obscurity.) So, to keep pretending that free-to-play somehow corrupts the pure art of making a game is pure bullshit.

          So, when I say I want to make an awesome landmark game and that I want my game to be profitable, those are not contradictory statements. They’re the reality of what it takes to run a business making games, especially games to the scale of what you would recognize as an MMO.

        • Rynnik says:
          November 4, 2013 at 3:12 pm

          “Subscription games need to focus on getting people to maintaining subscriptions just as much free-to-play games need to focus on getting people to spend money. As I said in a previous comment, things like EVE Online‘s time-based training or limited daily quest reputation grinds are both designs that work to keep people subscribed for longer periods of time. The main difference is that people here are used to paying subscriptions, so you more readily overlook the commercialization of the design of a subscription game.”

          No, not quite. This is a clever twist but it neatly sidesteps the entire point. I am MORE than open eyed about the commercialization of subscription games.

          I WANT to keep playing a game. I don’t mind design that leads to ways to keep me playing longer because the way to do that is by making an amazing game. I can see right through ‘Korean grind’ and don’t play those games. EVE’s time based training gets you completely pvp viable in a frigate in a shorter timeframe the any other PvP MMO I have played.

          The difference is that while the commercialization of subs doesn’t have to directly conflict with what I want out of a product; F2P does because if I am not content gated or inconvenienced enough they don’t get a dollar out of me. And if I am, then I quit playing the game anyways since being content gated or inconvenienced isn’t something I enjoy in my free time.

          “So, to keep pretending that free-to-play somehow corrupts the pure art of making a game is pure bullshit.”

          No. No, it most definitely isn’t bullshit. It is the expression of a desire to pay for a product striving to be the best product it can be (and therefore keep me paying for it longer) rather than being a bunch of tricks and ads to get me spending based on denying me what I want to be provided as a baseline.

        • Supplantor says:
          November 4, 2013 at 6:47 pm

          Brian,
          I agree game companies using a sub model can still focus on trying to make more money using tricks, this is true.
          But it is possible (¿and possibly even more profitable?) for a game company to use a sub model then focus all design on making the best game possible. Which as a gamer is what I want, the best game possible.
          Current F2P models do not allow this type of developement, you even said yourself that these games are designed to get the highest ARPU that they can.
          What we all want to know is the F2P model that magically allows for the design to make the best game possible, and to get the highest ARPU possible.
          They appear to be contrary design focus, you say they are not, but you have not said how they are not.
          The only plus that you have put forward for the F2P model is that you can get funding easier for a game designed for highest ARPU possible, rather than designed for best game possible, but as a gamer I fail to see how this is a possitive for me.

        • Rammstein says:
          November 5, 2013 at 12:22 pm

          “The main difference is that people here are used to paying subscriptions, so you more readily overlook the commercialization of the design of a subscription game.”

          This is your main point, in terms of being the only point you made that isn’t obviously true to everyone here. This point, sadly, you have not supported at all.

          The point which underlies this point is the question of whether certain payment models are more ‘naturally suited’ to MMORPGs, i.e. whether they corrupt the game experience less. The sub proponents here are making that argument, which you are handwaving away with statements that “sub payers are just used to that model”. No, we’re not just used to that model, we’ve seen and experienced both, and we think the sub model is better. You ignore this point in your own arguments as well, instead making the point that the F2P model provides a higher revenue per user, which I don’t think is actually true in the long run, but is a red herring anyway for the real disagreement between the parties here.

          I’m sorry, but if you’re going to completely ignore the actual arguments going on, and write paragraphs of completely obvious truths combined with a few completely unsupported arguments which are actually the hinge point of your entire comment, then this discussion will continue to go nowhere and prove nothing, despite the fact that you are an ‘industry insider’.

  7. Anti-Stupidity League says:
    October 29, 2013 at 2:45 am

    Because I’ve told you already but you weren’t listening. You’re a sub-mmo fanboy so bringing logic to the conversation accomplishes nothing.

    Even in your last post, you said something like “If we don’t take into account these good and successful f2p games, has there been any good and successful f2p games? No, there hasn’t! Subscriptions for everyone!”, which makes extremely little sense as I’m sure many of your readers understand, but you might not, because of your sub-fanboyism. But that’s okay, certain ideas need fanboys, especially archaic and perishing ideas like subscription-based games.

    • Rammstein says:
      October 29, 2013 at 4:25 pm

      1. Learn to read.

      2. The best feature of sub games is that people like you aren’t there. (And the best feature of difficult and PVP-centric sub games is that people like you definitely aren’t there)

      3. No, seriously, multiple insults per post doesn’t substitute for proper reading comprehension.

      • Anti-Stupidity League says:
        October 29, 2013 at 5:00 pm

        Shut up, baby, the adults are talking.

        • Rynnik says:
          October 29, 2013 at 5:03 pm

          I love the irony of your handle.

        • Rammstein says:
          October 29, 2013 at 5:19 pm

          I’d almost think he was perpetrating a troll, but he’s been doing it for so long now.

        • Anti-Stupidity League says:
          October 29, 2013 at 7:07 pm

          Do I hear the flapping of the wings of butt-monkeys? Ah yes, here they are, defending their subscription-fanboy champion. Well done, lads, jolly good.

          As I said already, there’s no point bringing in logic and any intelligent arguments when conversing with frothing fanboys in the internet.

          It’s easy for me to taunt you as I know I’m right and you’re wrong and you’ve already lost this battle ages ago. Do you see a dedicated section for subscription-based games in Steam (hint: no, you don’t)? Is there one for Free to Play games (hint: yes, there is)? Do think that Valve thinks that Free to Play games are a dying breed? How come they don’t promote subscription-based games the same way? Yes, I know, I’m confusing you with facts and I apologize. Continue making fart noises as that’s what you’re good at.

        • Rammstein says:
          October 29, 2013 at 7:20 pm

          Nice froth.

        • Anti-Stupidity League says:
          October 29, 2013 at 7:26 pm

          Translation: “I’m confused and I don’t know what to say so I’ll just copy what you just said to me. Oh boy, I’m so intelligent, syn is going to be so proud of me!”

        • Rammstein says:
          October 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm

          Translation:

          “I’m confused and I don’t know what to say so I’ll just spaz out a huge ream of insults. Oh boy, I’m so intelligent, everyone is going to be so proud of me!”

        • SynCaine says:
          October 29, 2013 at 7:35 pm

          You do realize Steam recently launched a subscription option for games, starting with DF:UW, right?

        • Rammstein says:
          October 29, 2013 at 7:43 pm

          I don’t see it catching on though Syn, that’s just diverting money to a middleman. I see DF:UW going to Steam as a sign of weakness, not of strength. You don’t subscribe to cable or premium channels like HBO by logging in to Amazon, and Blizzard doesn’t necessarily want you logging in to Steam to subscribe to Wow. Valve/steam is known for deep sales, if subscriptions are positioning themselves as ‘premium’ experiences, then that’s not necessarily the route they want to take. Obviously if Steam gets enough market dominance then it might play out differently, but I’m still not convinced.

        • SynCaine says:
          October 30, 2013 at 8:21 am

          For PC gaming, I think Steam has been the dominant delivery platform for some time now, and IMO anything not available on Steam is fighting an uphill battle from day one.

          I know personally if something is not on Steam, it has to be really, really special to get my attention, while at the same time if something looks even moderately interesting, I’ll grab it on a sale.

          That aspect combined with what Greenlight (how DF:UW got on Steam, in record time) is doing for small studios, and I’m very high on Steam right now.

        • Rammstein says:
          November 3, 2013 at 3:54 pm

          I finally set up steam a few months ago, but I’ve only gotten a few games from it so far. I personally like Steam, but I’m not sure it makes business sense for sub MMOs to use it. I suppose that either all the sub games continue to stay off Steam because it works out better for them to stay off Steam, in which case ASL is wrong, or they all jump on Steam, in which case ASL is wrong, so we can at least agree on that.

      • Matt says:
        October 30, 2013 at 7:21 am

        The best feature of sub games is that people like you aren’t there.

        Honestly, this is probably the long and short of it. Exclusivity has always counted for a lot in the MMO world.

  8. sid6.7 says:
    October 29, 2013 at 10:36 am

    Are there many sandbox F2P games? I’m not a fan, but games where the progression is not linear seems like they would be the best fit in the MMO space.

    You start with a limited toolkit for free and need to buy more tools from a cash shop. So I can run around and attempt to build my castle with my toy shovel or I can buy a backhoe and castle mold for $10.

    • kalex716 says:
      October 29, 2013 at 1:17 pm

      Wurm online. Though it does require a sub to train skills past 20. Most everything can be built though with 20 and under skill, with crappier tools.

      • sid6.7 says:
        October 29, 2013 at 8:45 pm

        If it requires a sub, then it’s a hybrid like EVE.

        Which, as I commented about in the other post, can be defined as F2P because you can use PLEX to both purchase an advantage and play for free.

        • Rammstein says:
          October 29, 2013 at 9:58 pm

          “Free2Plex”, as opposed to the more typical F2P, “Free2Pain”.

          I plex 7 accounts in EVE, but I still don’t call EVE Free 2 Play in any way shape or form, because it took me a few hundred dollars in sub fees to get enough ingame knowledge and capital to be able to plex 7 accounts without too much effort. I don’t know about you all, but where I come from, a video game which cost you $300-400 wasn’t free. I’m sure there are people out there who never paid a cent for EVE, but I think they’re in a small minority. Even Gevlon’s spent a reasonable amount of money on EVE, iirc. (100+ dollars)

        • sid67 says:
          October 30, 2013 at 1:20 am

          Here’s the thing – you could remove subscriptions from EVE entirely and require each player to need 1 PLEX to pay for a monthly “pilot” license and the system would be indistinguishable from what exists today.

          You are stuck on the stigma of what you believe F2P to be based on poor implementations of it. EVE is a good implementation of F2P. To such a degree that you’ll argue it’s something else.

          Fact is, you can play for free and pay to gain in-game advantages. By definition, that’s F2P. I’m willing to concede it’s a hybrid, however, simply because it still offers the standard sub model.

        • SynCaine says:
          October 30, 2013 at 8:26 am

          EVE is a sub MMO not because you can or can’t play for ‘free’, but more because of the lack of cash-shop focus, and that the model is still what a sub model is (deliver content that keeps people logging in vs keeps them shopping).

          That’s what makes this topic difficult ,because its not just as straight-forward as “can I download the game for free? Yes? Then its F2P”. That said, I know most of the reading audience gets that, and we can have the type of discussion we have had. That and ASL trolling, but I enjoy that as well.

        • sid67 says:
          October 30, 2013 at 5:01 pm

          A cash shop is not the defining characteristic of F2P. That’s a logical fallacy akin to saying that all MMOs must have quests.

          You can play for free and pay for in-game rewards. Those are the defining traits.

        • SynCaine says:
          October 30, 2013 at 5:10 pm

          Where would one buy said “in game rewards”?

        • Rynnik says:
          October 30, 2013 at 5:10 pm

          Sid you can’t have an active account on EVE Online without a sub fee being paid for it. It is, by definition, a subscription game.

        • sid6.7 says:
          October 30, 2013 at 6:20 pm

          Where would one buy said “in game rewards”?
          By buying PLEX and selling it for ISK that is used to purchase these rewards obviously. To be clear, I’m merely pointing out that it fits this definition and that it’s an example of how a style of F2P can be implemented well.

          I’m not a fan of traditional F2P or RMT in general. However, I recognize that at least one implementation of it works in a way that makes sense.

          Personally, I credit the fact that they hired an economist who I suspect’s main job is to ensure that the in-game economy protects the value of PLEX.

          You can fall back on talking about the need for a subscription — which is why I’ll concede it’s a hybrid — but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s F2P.

          It’s like having multiple finance options for a car. You can lease it or take out a loan. These are very different things but they aren’t mutually exclusive and two different methods of making money on the same car.

        • Xyloxan says:
          October 30, 2013 at 6:56 pm

          Sid, I am confused. How come leasing a car and buying a car are NOT mutually exclusive? I think you meant something different…

        • Rammstein says:
          October 30, 2013 at 8:01 pm

          “You can play for free and pay for in-game rewards. Those are the defining traits.”

          Personally, the defining trait is “you can play for free”, because the name is “free-to-play”.

          I disagree that “you can play for free” in EVE, for most values of “you”. Yes, it is possible for some people to play for free, you start your trial account with 3 weeks if you use a referral(or is it 4 now?), and if you can plex your account while your account is still in trial (which means that there are a lot of things you can’t do due to being in trial, so it’s annoying to do so), then yes, you can play for free. (If someone who did pay transfers you ISK so that you can plex, then that’s a bit of an edge case, I’d still call that B2P I think, by proxy) This is very very rare, which brings us to the semantic question, does the ‘you’ in ‘you can play for free’, refer to an extremely unusual individual, or to the average player? I think that in common parlance, it’s the latter. You’re quite free to choose the former definition for yourself, but that is a semantic distinction only. Under your definition, EVE is indeed F2P–until you make an interesting argument which your definition facilitates that is left unclear under the common definition, *shrug*. I would guess that 95% + of the people who routinely plex accounts in EVE started out with 1 or more months of paid gametime, which means that for them, in practice, EVE was B2P, not F2P.

        • sid6.7 says:
          October 31, 2013 at 3:15 pm

          @Xyloxan-

          What I mean is that a car dealership can make both financing options available to a car buyer for the same exact car. With regards to your choice of car, they are not mutually exclusive in the sense that the buyer would not need to choose a different car if they chose a different financing option.

          This is the analogy I was making to EVE. You could use only PLEX earned in-game to play the game. Or you can pay a subscription. Or both. With either payment method, you get the same product — EVE. They are NOT mutually exclusive.

          The analogy falls down (as they most often do at some point) in the car example because you can’t both lease and take out a loan for the same car. So in that sense, you are right.

        • Rammstein says:
          November 3, 2013 at 4:04 pm

          if you sometimes use PLEX, and sometimes pay the sub, then EVE isn’t F2P, for you, because paying isn’t free. If you ever pay any money whatsoever for EVE, then it’s not F2P.

          In the same sense, most F2P games aren’t actually F2P for the players that matter to the developers, those that paid, because once you pay money to unlock game content, the game that you are actually playing wasn’t free, because you paid money for it. F2P, in practice, is pretty much a scam, only unnotable because deception from purveyors is rampant in the real world and we expect it in virtual life.

          The game which everyone constantly holds up as the F2P paragon, LoL, doesn’t trumpet the fact that it’s “free to play” all over its website. I had to click around “about LoL” pages on their website for a minute or so to finally bring up the “play for free” button on one of them. Good on them, they’re actually honest about the fact that they’re going to try to sell you stuff.

  9. KennyG says:
    October 30, 2013 at 10:38 am

    I don’t mind Sub based MMOs they have better production values and communites

    but ive been stung by SWTOR and TSW
    why pay for box and Sub only for it to go FTP and the content free
    thats my fear for TESO so im gonna wait to see if its a success

    • Anti-Stupidity League says:
      October 31, 2013 at 3:12 am

      “why pay for box and Sub only for it to go FTP and the content free”

      Because when you’re a sub-fanboy, of course you want to pay for the box and pay a monthly fee (but absolutely nothing more, ever! Okay, maybe you can pay a monthly fee for another account or six, or maybe for a server transfer, but absolutely no additional extra costs in my subscription-only life! Well, maybe possibly changing your character’s name or icon, but those don’t count so nothing more, or else!).

      It’s the monetization scheme that makes the game great, you know, never the actual gameplay or content.

Comments are closed.