nope
I prefer subs
as for frugal-- it's very frugal imo. Costs less yearly than every other entertainment in a month, or a week depending on what you like to do.
nope
I prefer subs
as for frugal-- it's very frugal imo. Costs less yearly than every other entertainment in a month, or a week depending on what you like to do.
The simple truth:
F2P is a myth. Someone always pays to keep the game going. F2P relies on a minority who are willing to pay far more than $15 a month BECAUSE there are so many who are not willing to pay anything. The game is then engineered toward those who pay.
If you do not want to pay for a game that relies on income to keep running then you are simply someone riding the coat tails of those who pay.
I do not want the game engineered around a minority footing the bill and I certainly do not want the free loaders not willing to contribute to the game.
I am completely ok with ZOS eventually making the starter islands free to play with no ability to communicate or trade to paying customers. A trial test only with limited content.
Ultimately the pay model depends on the success of the game but I'd rather see it start out a sub.
fwiw
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-02-27-free-to-play-misleading-advertising-in-europe
This is exactly what a F2P game really is.It brings in an absolute ton of people who never spend a dime.Why some people cant see that is beyond me.
lol this thread again really? no I am not turned off by the cost the pricing of 60 dollars purchase and 15 dollars a month has been standard in MMORPG's since 1998 when Ultima Online raised their price from 9.99 a month to 14,99 a month
Yep, this.
If you want free to play because you don't want to pay, that is basically saying you want others to pay the way for you.
If you want free to play but would still plan on paying for extra sparklies or whatever as "donations" then what's the big deal? You are still paying.
I personally want to see them finish all of Tamriel and it takes manpower to do so, which takes money. I'm open to alternative systems if they are better, but alternative systems for the sole reason of "I don't want to pay" doesn't fly with me. Games are not produced for free.
Nope, actually I'm very much in favour of the sub, anything to prevent nickel-and-diming. Also please add your complaint to one of the 1000+ threads already on this topic, these subscription complaint threads are taking up space that valuable, interesting and varied discussions could be using.
Cash shop.
The people playing for free are being subsidized by the people paying more than what sub-fees would cost through the cash-shop.
Yeah.
$132 nzd for imperial edition plus $18nzd per month, plus a cash shop is pretty fail.
I don't want to invest money into a game which will kill itself.
Agreed. Up until now my game of choice has been GW2 (SWTOR and LOTRO before that), and by switching to this game I actually be SAVING myself a fortune every month
Not at all, it is right on par with what I expected it to be and pretty much what I am used to paying. In fact was happy with the cost, f2p or b2p, I would not have been intrested at all.
Thrilled there will be a subscription fee. If that translate into more frequent content additions, say 2x a year, it would be perfect. I could care less how and why another game works 'perfect' with another pricing model. I am interested in THIS game. I suspect F2P is a cash cow at first, but may not turn out to be in the long run. Besides the built-in nickel and diming of supposedly 'Free to Play' gets old after a while. Whomever wants F2P game have many to choose from now - so you should be in hog heaven.1
I am more put off by the fact that bugs that have been reported throughout every weekend beta so far, still haven't been fixed...
Personally, no.
Been in MMO's for over 15 years. Spent over 10 playing EvE online at about $15 a month. I'm not rich by any means, but I guess if your used to the fee, paying this much for a great game is nothing, really.
I've yet to play a free-to-play that I thought wouldn't be better served on a monthly sub, though. There are these subtle differences that make the f2p feel 'cheap'.
$60? you don't know how to shop around do you? i found the version i bought for £28 which is about $46.. knowing the game has a sub and you still complain and tell them to drop it, that's a serious entitlement issue and nothing short of monetary blackmail
Successful people business (especially in Western cultures) are very aware of one very important concept - don't EVER nickel and dime; state the price up front and stick to it. And yes, deliver what you promise. In this way the people buy it or they don't. Its the add-on 'hidden' costs that always makes a customer feel like they are being hustled. Never works in the long run.
But thats the irony.F2P always end up svcking, so their search goes on for the next F2P game.
^^ Exactly. GW2 is indeed an interesting model and comes across as notable exception. I would love to know how they are really doing (profitability) with their model. Then again they don't have a lot of 'endgame' content, which I surmise is the most expensive to develop and why staying away from it.