[KieraKittie]

I have to say after playing both types.. I would prefer Pay to Play over Free to Play item stores any day. The games always seem to be better maintained, customer service is always better, as are world events and such. Everyone works and earns what they have. I hate the idea of paying real money for a mount or IG items that I should be able to walk out and earn myself. I know its true that after a game makes it big you have those extremely stupid or really brave folks who buy virtual items from other players but its not the same as playing a server where if you want good items you have to simply just go buy them.

I don't like using my credit/debt card, i simply go buy gamecards once a month or longer depending how long I care to play. Now I will admit they both seem to have good sides and bad sides.

My Top Reasons for P2P:

1: Servers are Always Well Maintained
2: Customer service is always better
3: Everyone is on the same page, (team work for items, if you have Awesome armor its because you earned it and didnt just go buy it)((usually**))
4: Better team work
5: Spammers are bad everywhere, but they are always worse on F2P


Bad Side:
1: Well you have to pay.. to play..
2: Friends have to pay to play with you (lol)

[Eligor]

Pay to play with a good community, nowadays some F2P games actually tend to form better communities than P2P ones (look at early Aion as an example).

[Mercnet]

I am all for the P2P model, for many of the reasons stated. F2P models tend to be more expensive in the long run, which is why I avoid them.

Lotro has the best F2P model of any mmo. Free players are not so restricted that the game is no fun, and many of the features of being VIP can be bought and used while being a free player as well. Many other F2P models force you give them money to experience the true nature of the game. This is a big problem for people like me because I for one, do not buy games with out trying them. If your model is going to force me to pay to try your game, you won't ever get money from me.

This is why the P2P model works best for me. Most will have trials, or free time. I tend to pre-order a game, play its open beta to see if I can "groove" in it. If I get that vibe I will keep the preorder, and play the game. No one likes paying for anything that they may not like, and I hope AA will be worth my money. It looks beautiful, but thats just one aspect. Combat looks kinda weird, but looks like it can grow on me.

Speaking of growing, that is one of the big things in this game. Community. "Growing" a village complete with trees brings soft tears to my eyes. Long have I waited to actually feel like I own something in the game. This is where I hope AA doesn't go apeshit on a F2P model, because I seriously do not want to pay for more production or recipes just to have something decent in the game. I would rather work for it in the game. That is where the F2P model fails me. I will pay for a game, but I do not want to drop $50 every month like my wife does in Entropia.

That said, if they do a F2P model, I hope they are wise about it and not make it so people like me will end up not playing it because we are not made of money. Besides, I already need to upgrade my PC to play this (and BF3) so I need all the brakes I can get.

[KeksX]

Either you pay every month 10 bucks for a great game or you keep playing a shitty game and eventually pay to break it even more, but for your advantage...

Definitely pay to play, I don't see how a game with an item shop could work. Such games are fundamentally broken as it is already saying "This game won't be fun unless you pay lotsa money duh".

[Cavarath]

There is not a single F2P game out there where the ones paying are not the ones winning.
And they are paying more than they would for a P2P.

Nothing else to say to this.
F2P is crap and will always be. As long as it stays as it is.

I could accept a model where you can have different subscription models.
Like:
Free Account: Not possible to take part in auctions, send mails, trade with other players or own something on the third continent, not able to wear better than average gear.
8$/€ Account: First 3 possible. Last two not.
Full Account (13$/€): Anything possible.

[Daxiongmao]

As Cavarath said, there are no F2P models (that I've seen) where the people with the most money have the better advantage. I would only agree to a F2P model if the items purchased had no effect on your characters performance, but instead, the items were vanity rewards. Since this is never the case, my vote is for P2P.

[Muzza]

Always been a P2P gamer for my MMOs, as stated in previous posts I always find games that follow these pay schemes to have better content and are far more reliable for server hosting and connections.

[Feely]

I don't necessarily have a preferance as long as the game is taken care of.

Food for thought however. Since this game will most likely revolutionize a lot of things why not the pay system too? F2P with in game adds supporting the game. Banners, billboards, etc. all modified to fit the setting. I realize this may not be THE game for it, but it's bound to happen soon.

[Eligor]

EA already done that in Battlefield 2014 or whatever year they used... It put a cookie in your pc and displayed real adds on the ingame billboards based on the info the cookie provided.

[ohiojosh78]

F2P should be called FTPBYSHTPTRPTG but the acronym for Free To Play But You Still Have To Pay To Really Play The Game" is too long"

[Jojin]

First, Free to Play concept doesn't really belong in the MMORPG Genre. It is more suited to games where a high profit can be made from vanity items, like League of Legends. Those have a much lower overhead so it can be quite profitable without effecting the actual game play.

Secondly, I think most who ask for F2P games are quite disillusioned. If one takes a long look at any game which is F2P, they will see it winds up costing more to play and often times find it will be a necessity to pay to play effectively. Instead I think most of the verbal demand comes ahead of time from those who are impoverished but still wish to play.

Now lets assume money isn't really an object, then I guess F2P model can be enjoyable. However, most times, the object of enjoyment switches slightly as you are paying to be better than others rather than playing to be better than others. So its more of an e-peen thing. Which is fine, if you like that. Personally, games which I have done so, offer me a hollow fulfillment and quickly lose their fun.

Best option is to offer limited play, combined with a fixed or variable subscription. The Limited play would allow people to play the game and get enticed to subscribe to enjoy the full game, basically a trial. The subscription could then be fixed or do something like FFXIV did where you had a base fee for subscription and then additional fees for each character and retainer (storage/PC Store).

[KieraKittie]

wow I didn't think so many where against F2P and Item shops like I am.. Nice heheh

[Mercnet]

KieraKittie, on 05 May 2011 - 07:55 PM, said:

wow I didn't think so many where against F2P and Item shops like I am.. Nice heheh

That's because most mmo players play the game to play the game.

[Feely]

I think people love the F2P "idea", but the way it has been practiced/implemented (pay to win) turns a lot of people off. Fashion, slight chance to increase refines, things that don't give the cash shoppers that much of an edge (none would be nice, but then why pay) imo is the ideal F2P.

[Cavarath]

The only acceptable "F2P" games are games that offer different subscription models while the cheapest is for free and maybe a shop with items that dont influence the game at all. Like different looking mounts that arent better than others or something like that.

But i for sure dont love this idea...

P2P games are one of the cheapest possibilities to have fun. Cheaper than almost any other video game. No idea why people complain about it.

[Raxzar_]

P2P all the way no bs like getting advantages from a store.

[Feely]

Cavarath, on 09 May 2011 - 04:10 AM, said:

P2P games are one of the cheapest possibilities to have fun. Cheaper than almost any other video game. No idea why people complain about it.

I'm with you 100% on that one. People who complain about P2P clearly can't afford rent.

[Glorion]

I'm totally against F2P models in MMOs. Look at RoM - can cost $400+ to min/max your gear for raiding. However, if the Devs introduce Mircotransactions, on an item store that provides purely cosmetic advantages (as many have mentioned) I wouldn't be against this. Devs can also open up more money sinks, by allowing players to purchase these "micro-transaction items" for extravagant amounts of in-game currency. There's nothing wrong with spending a little coin to make your character more individual, a little more you.

[End Dream]

I really hope its P2P.. $15 is a small price to pay for all of the content of a well made game

[Helspyre]

Mercnet, on 03 May 2011 - 12:29 AM, said:

...
Lotro has the best F2P model of any mmo. Free players are not so restricted that the game is no fun, and many of the features of being VIP can be bought and used while being a free player as well.
...

All I know is, I started playing Lotro to play with some friends once it became F2P, and as soon as I got to the auction house and found out I couldn't use it without paying, I logged out and uninstalled the game. I don't know what else in the game I might have had to pay for to use, but I wasn't going to wait to find out. I'd rather pay $15 a month and have access to everything in the game.