...So I was entirely wrong about free to play games being 100% unable to provide the same quality of gameplay. However, I reinforced the other half of my thoughts on F2p games: The business (f2P) model is incapable of sustaining a game, regardless of quality, on the same level as a subscription game. It is inherent to all F2P games that the cash shop must be used. It is thus inherent to all F2P games that the developers must be constantly thinking of ways to get players to use the shop. The result is a conflict of interest between developing a quality product and developing a product that makes money. I submit that the two can not ever exist in harmony.
I agree with Keen. F2P with cash shops seem to be the wave of the future, but I do not want to play a game for months only to have the company raise cash shop fees and make it virtually mandatory that I have to buy things from there. I'd rather pay a subscription up front and know that I won't be milked like a cow.
From the comments section:
It’s sad to see Allods collapse like it has (just noticed the huge cost on some of the newer items), but I stopped playing weeks ago because I was wary of what would happen to the game and didn’t want to make the investment to see it wasted.
Exactly my thoughts.
Last Edit: Mar 23, 2010 7:31:24 GMT -5 by Morreion
I hate being forced to purchase stuff in order to be competitive.
KESA (Killer 73.33%, Explorer 60.00%, Socializer 46.67%, Achiever 20.00%) The dead are likely dull fellows, full of tedious complaints – 'the ground's too cold, my gravestone should be larger, why does he get more worms than I do...' - "Dolorous" Edd Tollett