5punk

Few of us play F2P games, in fact few Westerners play F2P games. There's an occasional interest in one now and then, like Porq and Spangya, but for the most part they are ignored.

Personally I find myself ignoring them too. I assume that the game is going to be somewhat childish and not really worth paying a lot of money for. That I might pay a little were it not for the fact that my interest would be short lived and doing it by halves would only be wasted cash. And that playing for free would put me at such a disadvantage over paying players that there's no real point competing.

However, a long time advocate of F2P games made me think. People who pay for their stuf in games want an audience to show off to. That's fairly undisputable - it's a genuine reason why many play MMOs, even if the weight of that reason varies. So in order for these paying players, the ones who support the game financially, to get their kicks they need the hordes of non-paying players to show off to. By extension then the designers need to make the game entertaining to the non-paying masses.

This is something that has never occurred to me before. I had always assumed they made F2P games a bit crap for non-paying customers in order to encourage them to pay. I'm finding myself questioning this though. With the masses of F2P games out there, maybe there are a few worth my attentions.

It's a difficult balancing act keeping both sides smug about the other. The paying customers need to see an immediate benefit with the stuff they pay for, whether that be more easily beating new players or simply having one's costume admired. The non-paying customers need to be able to still compete on some level, although it may require more effort/time and the most zealous can feel glee at having done it the 'hard way' or with a basic-looking character.

The ones that seem to work best are where there's not always a single way to get all the improvements or add-ons. Some can be earned, some bought, but there are rough equivalents in each camp.

That way people with less money, but lots of time can master the game, whereas people with no time but pots of cash can shortcut some of the grind, but still have fun and mix it up with the best.

The ones that require you to do BOTH are a bit fail in my view, as are ones which require an almost obsessive addiction to gain ground in - I found Porq a bit like this, in that it went beyond casual gaming.

I used to play Silkroad, but the hordes of bots (which I hear is a problem with most of F2P games) and the horrible quality (this too) put me off.

I found that F2P games don't really keep my attention as long as paying ones do. They seem to lack the depth, I tried Perfect World when Grimmie posted it a while back, and it was good for a bit but just seemed repetitive. I know the same could be said of WoW, but I can't put my finger on what makes one repetitive and grindy and the other fun and interesting.

I have played in the F2P sense, both Maple Story and Runescape (oh yes!).

Maple Story is based on the buy items concept along with a few other tidbits rather than subscriptions, whereas Runescape is subscription based for the members area.

It's all about striking the balance, there's quite a bit to do in free RS, but it really pales to the members side, Maple Story didn't have that effect, it really seemed a case of "why pay? Unless I spend loads, I won't see any returns" as it was on a pay-per-item service for items and perks.

Undoubtably some stuff that boosts your experience isn't obvious to free players, but I just couldn't see the benefit.

buzzmong wrote:I have played in the F2P sense, both Maple Story and Runescape (oh yes!).

Hahaha memories...