My Feedback for what its worth

[MJ12]

Except that's not how the most successful F2p games' business models work :|

Successful f2p models sell convenience and cosmetics, never power. Anything that can affect gameplay should be available for free with some grinding or immediately available for cash. Otherwise it's not a f2p game, it's a demo with microtransactions.

The 'most successful' F2p games' business models? Are you talking about LoL? Which has/had the advantage of being the only professionally made free to play MOBA out there for a fair amount of time and is a single data point (i.e. not saying anything in and of itself), as well as being the one MOBA designed to be "noob-friendly" (which gets it flak from self-proclaimed "pro gamers" but is a pretty good idea in general). Of course, we actually don't know how successful it is, because we have no idea about the average revenue per user or its percentage of paying users. I expect they're profitable but they could literally be making a quarter off of every registered user and be hugely profitable. It took them a million bucks to develop LoL and even at terrible conversion rates they'll have made that back tenfold. The issue with this model versus Warframe is that Warframe almost certainly didn't cost just a million bucks to develop.

On the FPS front, we have Tribes: Ascend, which has 800,000 users. (http://www.vg247.com...-console-plans/). The unapologetically pay-to-win Battlefield: Heroes has 7 million users (http://www.rockpaper...-million-users/). Planetside 2 only has 1.6 million users, but it's new so I don't want to make a direct comparison. (http://massively.joy...thing-more-tha/). I'd like to look at BL:R's stats but the only ones I can publically find are these (http://glmf.f-off.co...1_FT0_steam.jpg) which are, frankly, kind of depressing for a F2P game. If the Tribes Ascend userbase:active Steam users ratio holds for BLR it will have roughly 1.5-2 million players.

There doesn't seem to be any real relationship either way in a similar genre. In fact, what this implies would be that the user-friendliness of a F2P game is the primary reason or lack thereof of its large userbase, and Pay-to-Win/not-Pay-to-Win is at best an extremely minor negative effect on user numbers.

Edited January 6, 2013 by MJ12

[Litego]

Except that's not how the most successful F2p games' business models work :|

Successful f2p models sell convenience and cosmetics, never power. Anything that can affect gameplay should be available for free with some grinding or immediately available for cash. Otherwise it's not a f2p game, it's a demo with microtransactions.

Says the guy from BLR... *cough*nodes*cough*

Nah, it's not that bad in BLR, but it's still there to a certain degree. Anyways, I completely agree with you, f2p can thrive on convenience, cosmetics and sidegrades. And I myself can not stand pay2win, not because I don't have the money, I do. I just do not like being more powerful than others, it ruins the game for me. So if it's pay2win, instead of me paying them money for sidegrades I'll just skip the game and not pay them at all. With that said, this is a PvE game and I don't really care so much here, well not yet at least. In its current state I can't even play the game, so whatever.

[Aggh]

Says the guy from BLR... *cough*nodes*cough*

Nah, it's not that bad in BLR, but it's still there to a certain degree. Anyways, I completely agree with you, f2p can thrive on convenience, cosmetics and sidegrades. And I myself can not stand pay2win, not because I don't have the money, I do. I just do not like being more powerful than others, it ruins the game for me. So if it's pay2win, instead of me paying them money for sidegrades I'll just skip the game and not pay them at all. With that said, this is a PvE game and I don't really care so much here, well not yet at least. In its current state I can't even play the game, so whatever.

The funny thing about nodes is they're more play to win than pay to win since someone would have to spend an absurd amount of money on chance packs to actually get good ones. There are piles of servers with them disabled anyways.

[Aggh]

The 'most successful' F2p games' business models? Are you talking about LoL? Which has/had the advantage of being the only professionally made free to play MOBA out there for a fair amount of time and is a single data point (i.e. not saying anything in and of itself), as well as being the one MOBA designed to be "noob-friendly" (which gets it flak from self-proclaimed "pro gamers" but is a pretty good idea in general). Of course, we actually don't know how successful it is, because we have no idea about the average revenue per user or its percentage of paying users. I expect they're profitable but they could literally be making a quarter off of every registered user and be hugely profitable. It took them a million bucks to develop LoL and even at terrible conversion rates they'll have made that back tenfold. The issue with this model versus Warframe is that Warframe almost certainly didn't cost just a million bucks to develop.

On the FPS front, we have Tribes: Ascend, which has 800,000 users. (http://www.vg247.com...-console-plans/). The unapologetically pay-to-win Battlefield: Heroes has 7 million users (http://www.rockpaper...-million-users/). Planetside 2 only has 1.6 million users, but it's new so I don't want to make a direct comparison. (http://massively.joy...thing-more-tha/). I'd like to look at BL:R's stats but the only ones I can publically find are these (http://glmf.f-off.co...1_FT0_steam.jpg) which are, frankly, kind of depressing for a F2P game. If the Tribes Ascend userbase:active Steam users ratio holds for BLR it will have roughly 1.5-2 million players.

There doesn't seem to be any real relationship either way in a similar genre. In fact, what this implies would be that the user-friendliness of a F2P game is the primary reason or lack thereof of its large userbase, and Pay-to-Win/not-Pay-to-Win is at best an extremely minor negative effect on user numbers.

Now name a succssful f2p game that is p2win. Because there were successful games that were p2win. But they're all slowly dying and no one gives a crap about their sequels with the influx of high quality f2p games that aren't p2win and provide all their content for free or for cash. Try and find a person that actually cares about soldier front 2. Or people that actually still play AVA consistently. Combat arms couldn't even stay on the top one hundred on steam for even a day. It's just crappy Asian exports that rely on that kind of business model now and even they'll have to see the light sooner or later.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Aggh

[genesx]

The game is fun, but is also a pay-to-win. Seriously, the game is really restrictive for those who play free. It's in the interest of the developres finding a better way to handle it... Warframe rotations, maybe? Games like League of Legends or World of Tanks are very free-to-playable, and developres are earning a lot from them.

If not this, make a 1 time honest payment (like a buy to play) to unlock all the premium features, and aesthetics items for real money. If the game is played by a lot of people it will be remunerative without the need to charge real money for nearly everything.

[Scyfle]

@MJ12

7 million registered users for BFH.

It doesn't say what the active community is.

@genesx

The game isn't that bad. They don't charge money for nearly everything. The real premium issue is the pro system.

[Gland]

I understand the rage...... just take moms credit card and become a grand master...

[Mourneblade]

I understand the rage...... just take moms credit card and become a grand master...

Is that your own plan, little fella? Don't get grounded!

[Seventhwolf]

The Pro upgrade should be available as well with credits. Problem solved! I know it might be a little too late to suggest to imitate SWTOR, which was developed by Bioware, and give the founders of the game an exclusive shop where rare items can be bought. You might say ridiculous, but what Bioware did was only giving armors which are not the strongest in the game. They're just rare and if you take a look at BF Heroes, just see how many rare outfits they're animating which cost €50 each and which are very limited! I play BF Heroes a lot and often see that these outfits get sold within a week even though it's only for the looks. Most people spend money in a (F2P) game because they want to have rare stuff and be proud of it. Maybe that's a solution to this never ending post?

[Sealgaire]

I posted this in another thread, but I guess it's more relevant here.

So I agree that locking half of a frame's or weapons levels behind a paywall is a problem. Especially because it halves the amount of mod slots, and since mod bonuses are exponential at the moment, the power potential of a frame or weapon with double the slots is way more than doubled.

But to the people who choose not to pay (and I truly believe there's nothing wrong with that), are you aware the devs are planning on allowing players to earn platinum in game? So my question to you is: what is an acceptable rate for accumulating platinum for you? What amount potentially earned each day of play will make it feel like you're not wasting your time?

Edited January 7, 2013 by Sealgaire

[TenderSugar]

Not to mention the fact that, like a few people have mentioned already: this game isn't PvP based. The extra weapons/levels/abilities that you gain essentially let you complete missions/gain credits (for the team, I might add) quicker. It's a co-operatively based game, for crying out loud.

I'd like people stop saying "It's not P2W if it isn't PvP", because it certainly doesn't make it any better.

With enough money you can buy enough things to allow you to steamroll a level without the help of anyone.

If you're able to do that, it is NOT co operation, which I'd like to remind people that it's the WHOLE @(*()$ POINT OF THE GAME : CO OPERATION.

SECOND

Even if, as you said, it is for the TEAM, again, it doesn't make it any better, because if you're the only able to do a things, it's not fun for the rest of your team who didn't paid.

It simply ruin the fun for the guys who plays for free.

THIRD

Pay to win doesn't stand only for PvP, it stand for games who allow you to win simply by putting enough money that the game is asking, simple as that.

You win

Because you pay.

Saying that the game isn't pay2win is pure stupidity.

[genuwine21]

I'd like people stop saying "It's not P2W if it isn't PvP", because it certainly doesn't make it any better.

With enough money you can buy enough things to allow you to steamroll a level without the help of anyone.

If you're able to do that, it is NOT co operation, which I'd like to remind people that it's the WHOLE @(*()$ POINT OF THE GAME : CO OPERATION.

SECOND

Even if, as you said, it is for the TEAM, again, it doesn't make it any better, because if you're the only able to do a things, it's not fun for the rest of your team who didn't paid.

It simply ruin the fun for the guys who plays for free.

THIRD

Pay to win doesn't stand only for PvP, it stand for games who allow you to win simply by putting enough money that the game is asking, simple as that.

You win

Because you pay.

Saying that the game isn't pay2win is pure stupidity.

Definitely agree, but I think this argument is tough, on the one hand there are players who want to see Digital Extremes make money and they feel like the only way to make enough money and be free to play is to have these advantages purchaseable while others believe they can ride on just cosmetic items and boosts.

Personally after sitting down and thinking about all the F2P games I have invested more than $20 in I realized I could only sink money into a game that my friends who don't have money were able to play through without those advantages. In a game like this or Tribes I find it perfectly fine to buy weapons and armor with real money to get the stuff you want (my roommate played a ton of matches in Tribes to unlock one gun at a time, while I wanted a very particular kit, and decided to pick up what I wanted to get full enjoyment out) but both of us still sat down and played the same matches and had fun because we both were equally strong in our respective roles even though I bought this equipment. The same goes for League of Legends, I have sunk 2 years of my gaming life in that game and over 5 grand into it. I play with a group where 2 of the 5 players doesn't buy any currency. In fact I have actually purchased currency cards for them because I wanted them to have some champs and skins.

With this game my roommate is certainly very interested and into playing it, but he is a number cruncher at heart, and when he sat down and realized he would lose a ton of potential it was a little disheartening. While I am in the situation where I can hand him money to get these upgrades not everyone is in that position. I understand it is only a few bucks, but not everyone has much if any disposable income. And I would rather have his skill in my squad than someone who sunk a bunch of money in and was only better because he had statistically more damage or defense or effects.

[Master_Shadow]

While I am in the situation where I can hand him money to get these upgrades not everyone is in that position. I understand it is only a few bucks, but not everyone has much if any disposable income.

For me it's less the actual cost of the items. I'm not strapped for cash. It's the principle and the fact that if we as consumers say it's ok, then we start seeing it creep up everywhere. As meager as my on little vote may be among the masses, I'll vote with my wallet to NOT support P2W games like this.

I saw a dev post about sticking around and implying they were changing it which is the only reason I've not uninstalled yet but that will only last so long...

[PaleMinerva]

If it weren't for the Pro thing, I couldn't seriously say this game is pay2win. Credits are easy to come by, progression and personal skill contribute far more to performance than any items I've seen.

[Sargeron]

i really hope DE doesn't follow through with their current pay2win model, I had quite a bit of fun playing (and breaking) their game and I would hate to see a potential gem get washed away to sea by other potentials that had a better game model.

[[DE]Steve]

Hey guys, jumping in again to repeat that we will be making changes based on your feedback. If we hadn't been firefighting bugs, it would be done already.

I agree with the sentiments and general tone of the thread but forgive me if I am leery of generalizations and perceptions. Respectfully, I don't believe it's as simple as selling hats or copying LoL. But I do believe that we have to change a few things and that we will always be in a state of tuning and changing.

Our goal is to make our players proud to support a game that is giving good value to paying players and a fair shake to those that contribute their time and attention.

[Experimentalist]

Hey guys, jumping in again to repeat that we will be making changes based on your feedback. If we hadn't been firefighting bugs, it would be done already.

I agree with the sentiments and general tone of the thread but forgive me if I am leery of generalizations and perceptions. Respectfully, I don't believe it's as simple as selling hats or copying LoL. But I do believe that we have to change a few things and that we will always be in a state of tuning and changing.

Our goal is to make our players proud to support a game that is giving good value to paying players and a fair shake to those that contribute their time and attention.

I like the way you think, Admin

[genuwine21]

Hey guys, jumping in again to repeat that we will be making changes based on your feedback. If we hadn't been firefighting bugs, it would be done already.

I agree with the sentiments and general tone of the thread but forgive me if I am leery of generalizations and perceptions. Respectfully, I don't believe it's as simple as selling hats or copying LoL. But I do believe that we have to change a few things and that we will always be in a state of tuning and changing.

Our goal is to make our players proud to support a game that is giving good value to paying players and a fair shake to those that contribute their time and attention.

This raises a strange question, does this mean if they change the whole pro thing will we get back the platinum from the change?

[Horu5]

I think you're missing the point here completely. No one is arguing that the developers shouldn't make money off of their game. In fact, I am in full support of them making money so that they will hopefully make some new damn maps. The issue is not IF DE should make money, its HOW they are attempting to make it.

Again, I call to attention FireFall. If you are lucky enough to get into that Beta, I dare you to give it a try. THAT is how Free to Play should be handled. Guild Wars 2 is another superlative example of how to correctly handle the Free to Play business model.

War frame being primarily (only) a PVE oriented game is irrelevant. I'm assuming you have never played a single IOS or Android game with in-app purchases in your life? Most games that have IAPs are Pay to Win models, and many, if not MOST, have some form of multiplayer, and still more than a few are co-op PVE. Pay to Win is not strictly limited to PVP games only. You should perhaps do a little more research on what dictates a Pay to Win moniker and stop having such a narrow definition only when defending a game you clearly enjoy.

Ask yourself these question regarding Warframe:

Can you purchase premium currency which can then be exchanged for performance upgrades, abilities, more powerful weapons, stat boosts, and/or more powerful characters?

Do these purchases effectively make you more powerful than other players restricted to unpaid versions, without requiring you to modify your personal skill within the game?

Do these purchases allow you to solo more difficult missions besides the entry level Tier of missions?

If the answer to any of these is yes, the game in question exhibits a Pay to Win model. The more you pay, the more you win. I'm pretty well certain that the answer is yes to all of these questions. Attempting to justify this form of business model and calling it fair is just ridiculous.

Damn...you are so right. I'll admit that I was definitely responding to a narrow part of the issue: I honestly tend to get caught up that way if I react/respond quickly to an issue rather than thinking about it for a bit.

I can honestly answer yes to all those questions you pose, but I guess I enjoy the game so much I want to hold hope that all these things are being done for the right reasons.

While I still stand by the idea that those who put money into the game should get more, indeed it should not be to a point where I don't need teammates anymore to complete missions. It still, effectively, breaks apart the core concept of co-op/PvE. I was indeed thinking only of "well I'm not beating someone else directly, so why would people complain?". But even though I'm not in direct competition against someone, doesn't mean me being able to get all the kills/xp, because I can kill things soo quickly compared to the amount of time I've played, is necessarily fair.

That being said, I'm still glad I put my ~$50 into this game because, at the very least, I'm helping keep the game alive enough to hopefully get to a point where there are little to no complaints.

<3

[Anzuul]

I´ve played this game the last 2 days and it´s amazing but you cannot deny the pay to win factor. Paying allows you to have more mod slots/higher dmg etc. So paying makes you stronger then you are when not paying without any way to get the same bonusses.

That's exactly the definition of pay to win. I'll continue playing this nonetheless cause I like it and want to give the devs a fair chance to see how they will deal with this but I will never pay for it as long as pay equals being better then free to play. Adding PRO slots or Warframe for really high prices (Like 200.000 or something) so that you have to play for a full week or 2 to obtain them would be fair to me. Same as champions in LoL or other games. Cosmetic changes on the other should be bought with money, there's nothing unreasonable in paying for cosmetic changes. That has been the case in pretty much every online game in the last years.

If I can give a piece of advice it's: Don't turn into the Buy to enjoy the game business model that Star Wars: The Old Republic is currently using. People will think of you as money grubbers and the game will go down the drain. Reason i'm taking my time to say this is is because this game is unique, pretty much the only in it's kind and people WOULD pay money if they enjoyed this game. I've already passed keys to multiple friends of mine and we are having the best time ever doing the most random S#&$ (making flips and yelling barrel roll etc)

I wish the devs/adminstrators/gm's/moderators etc the best of luck and i'll wait for the next updates.

[Seventhwolf]

Okay, I agree with the pro upgrade. But I do think they should make more weapons and armors which are only available by using real money. We, payers (a part), like to just jump in a game and show off what (rare) items we have. It's like having the red flaming head in Halo Reach Legendary Edition which costs €150 and where people in MP say:"Wow, how did he get that effect on his helmet?" If you, non-payers, want the pro upgrade completely free, then I think it's fair that we should have a "rarity" shop in return for payers.

Edit: it's a co-op game. You play together to defeat your in-game foes together. You all win if you finished a mission.

Edited January 7, 2013 by Seventhwolf

[Mezecs]

Okay, I agree with the pro upgrade. But I do think they should make more weapons and armors which are only available by using real money. We, payers (a part), like to just jump in a game and show off what (rare) items we have. It's like having the red flaming head in Halo Reach Legendary Edition which costs €150 and where people in MP say:"Wow, how did he get that effect on his helmet?" If you, non-payers, want the pro upgrade completely free, then I think it's fair that we should have a "rarity" shop in return for payers.

Edit: it's a co-op game. You play together to defeat your in-game foes together. You all win if you finished a mission.

Only if it's cosmetic.

[bringdownthesky]

I've been playing this game for a few weeks now and have been having the utmost fun - it plays fantastic early on. I just came in here to say that I greatly appreciate the devs listening to what we're everyone is saying and I look forward to seeing the changes they're looking to enact. I'd love to try more warframes without having to drop any more actual cash (yes, I'm guilty of making a small platinum purchase already).

[AndersCy]

"Pro version" should be removed if they want more people on this game and want it to stay online...

Like i said on my other post ... Cash items in the game could be XP boost, Credit boost , Unique weapons , Unique Materials or Material packs for blue prints and warframes , Cosmetic ...

Please make the game Balanced!

Edited January 7, 2013 by AndersCy

[Ingway]

As far as i'm concerned any game that gives you the ability to acquire power for you character trough cash has alredy gone down a big steep in likability for me. It dosn't matter if the focus is on PvE, if someone can faceroll the game because he payed cash for it, there's something wrong. And the "pro" system is exactly that. I'm fine with everything else, cosmectics like changing the color of your frame and etc should be cash related so they can get some income from people who want to look cooler in the game.