Ripper's definition of F2P - how does it apply to Dark Legends?
First, a little bit about me:
I've been playing game a long time. I'm part of the original Atari generation (actually started with Pong) and have played tabletop and electronic games through my entire life, including MMOs for over 15 years. I was a de facto "unofficial" team member for Dungeon Runners and Associate Producer for a game called Dungeon Bandits that won't ever see the light of day (unfortunately).
One of the ways in which games have evolved over the years has been specific to the payment model. Subscription games have lessened both in popularity and profitability and microtransaction-supported "F2P" games have gained in popularity, due in large part to how profitable they can be. As gaming has evolved, I have too. I grew up, my career has taken off, I've had a family and my entertainment priorities--along with their financial dependencies--have changed over the years. I enjoy both subscription and F2P games, but F2P game seem to fit my life a little better as I'm getting older. I can play a number of games casually instead of being tethered to just one that I have to play "because I paid for it".
With the proliferation of various "F2P" games over the last few years, there's been a lot of player discussion about the concepts of "pay-to-win", "nothing is free" and "there's no such thing as F2P". A lot of games have given players reason for such discussion. From my perspective, the issue really pertains to marketing. Games are marketed as "F2P", but there really aren't any standards that define that term. So, I've come up with my own definition (which I've posted a few places over the last year or two) of what constitutes a "real F2P":
1) The client must be free - if there's a barrier to entry, such as having to buy the client , then the game does not qualify as "F2P". Guild Wars is an excellent example of a game that can be played for free, but only after an initial purchase of the client license.
2) The "game" must be free - What's the "game"? Playable content. All levels, quests, dungeons, instances, etc... must be free. No velvet-ropes cordoning off content. Alganon is an example of a game for which players must pay real money in order to progress beyond a certain character level (30). This is where many studios/publishers get into semantic gray areas, as far as I'm concerned. With Alganon, one can technically play free "forever", never progressing beyond level 30, but why? Wizard101 is a fantastic game (and one for whom several friends work), but I disagree with how it's marketed as being free-to-play. In the case of Wizard101, the semantic arguments are even more egregious. Yes, one can play free forever, but new players are essentially locked into "newbie island". That's not truly "F2P", IMO.
3) No pay-to-win sales - Simply put, a F2P game cannot offer items for sale that give a significant competitive advantage over non-paying/less paying (ex: two players might both spend $50, but one spends it on weapons and another on sparkly ponies) players. Please note, this really only matters in games in which competition matters in terms of progression, rewards, etc... If, for example, you legitimately cannot level without assistance from RMT (Real Money Transaction) items then you're paying to win. If your guild keep can't be maintained unless you buy items that defend against intruders then you're paying to win. Imagine a very competitive game like Darkfall selling uber weapons for real money? What if only those guilds whose members bought the uber weapons were able to be successful in game? Definitely pay-to-win.
Examples of some games that were truly F2P in my opinion were Dungeon Runners and Faxion Online.
So, with those definitions in mind (which are entirely my own opinion), how does Dark Legends stack up?
1) Is the client free? Yes.
2) Is the "game" free? Yes.
3) Are there pay-to-win sales? No. Yes, as of now the most powerful items in game do come from platinum purchases, but they don't affect PvP so significantly, IMO, that they adversely affect the outcome of matches. There are far too many other variables, such as character level, player skill and powers chosen for one to state unequivocally that plat weapons determine the outcome of any match. Even so, PvP in Dark Legends is meaningless fun. There are leader boards, but so what? PvP doesn't affect the "game", as a whole. There aren't any PvP rewards and you can't level up through PvP. As such, the use of platinum weapons--as they exist today--in Dark Legends PvP is fairly meaningless. Yes, they're more powerful than any items currently found in game, but they aren't magic "insta-kill" weapons, either.
Please note, however, if experience or rewards are ever implemented in Dark Legends PvP then I would most definitely want to see items that could be found and traded in game that were at least equal to platinum items of the same level, otherwise I might refine my opinion of #3.
So, based on my personal definition of what constitutes a true "F2P" game, Dark Legends is really F2P!
I'm really curious to hear other player's thoughts on this topic.
Ripper's definition of F2P - how does it apply to Dark Legends?
When it comes to PvP though I in a way must agree, though sorta disagree, some of the better items can be attained through platinum, but in the end the difference between platinum items and PvE acquired items is sorta filled in by the skill of the user.
So basically if u are a very good PvP fighter, you can still win against someone with better stats, though this may change, that is how I see it at this moment
