Not the most useful poll, but I'll bite. It should always be no.

Here's how I logistically think about subscription based vs. F2P. Yes F2P is nice, in the sense, that well...that game is free. Yet, when a game is F2P, that company needs to make money somehow. So how do they do it? By putting items up on the market (among other incentives) that you buy. Now I'm not going to argue about whether this type of method creates a pay-to-win environment, but I will say this. Once they have your money, what's the incentive to keep you? You're not a subscriber, you're not dedicated to them, so why should they obligate themselves to ensure they release a patch on time, or have friendly on-time customer service, or do anything else for that matter to keep you. Not to say they wouldn't, but the answer is they don't have to, because once they have your money, that's it. They can move on and try to entice the next free-playing gamer to give up his/her money. You aren't subscribed to them, so in their eyes, you are not a guaranteed customer. You see, when you make a game for free, it opens the door for more people to try. With more people willing to try the game because there are no repercussions (in this case loss of money), it is much easier for that developer to lose that customer since there will likely be thousands more taking his/her place in playing their free game. Thus a thousand more opportunities to have that player pay for some item in the in-game market. You could decide to give them money one day and the other day decide to leave. Some may say that this is why F2P is better because they then try to produce content to keep you from leaving, but you have to remember that this only shows that money is an end to their means. Meaning, whatever ends are placed in the game, are only placed as a means to get your money, and this is because you are not dedicated to them through a subscription, thus they don't need to be dedicated to you. The focus in this scenario, soon becomes on how to make money off of the player.

On the other hand, with a subscription based model, the developer has an incentive/an obligation to keep you. Of course it's because of money, but what company doesn't want money? They need to make a living too. Rather, the point is, that money in this case is a means to an end rather than an end like in the F2P model. Why? Because they need to keep you to continue to subscribe. How? By appeasing/listening to the subscriber through producing content on a frequent basis, solving game bugs, releasing frequent patches, etc. And it can take time for some of these things, albeit sometimes longer than necessary, but more often than not, they are done. So money is a means to an end to keep the gamer subscribing to their game so that yes, they make more money, but only so they can produce more and better content to keep the subscribed gamer happy and thus continue to receive their subscription. It's almost like you the gamer, share stock in this company that you are paying a monthly fee to. As a stockholder, not only do you contribute to the improvement of this game, but you have a right of say in regards to the direction a game goes. On the other hand, F2P you have no right, as you are not subscribed to them, and because you pay a one time fee (could be numerous one-time fees if you're a sucker) it's not the equivalent, as you are a fleeting moment in the game's present condition, with no bearing on its future state.

It's like going to Starbucks and choosing from two items on the menu. A large cup of coffee for $3 or a shot of decaf that you can get for free with the option to spend $1 to make large, $1 if you want it hot, $2 if you want caffeine in it.

The thing is, ultimately, that free-to-play isn't really free. The model has been around for some time, and the companies that develop these games are usually pretty clever about making sure that customers will have incentives, or simply be frustrated enough, to pay for stuff that will, at the very least, boost their enjoyment of the game. I don't think it has to mean that they don't care about the customer because she's not a subscriber (they want you to stay and keep spending money on stuff, after all), but it does give rise to a feeling that you're viewed less as a person than as an account.

So financially, it amounts to more or less the same thing, at least in principle. My impression is that the strong opinions many here express against the F2P model are to a large extent rooted in the feeling that there's something disingenuous about calling a game free when in fact you are, in one way or another, manipulated into paying for the ability to fully enjoy it. By comparison, being told up front that you have to pay a fee to play a game, which then entitles you to enjoying everything it has to offer, has a much more straightforward and honest feel to it. In a word, there is something sleazy about the F2P model, certainly in many people's perception.

Last but not least, there's a practical aspect to this, I think—even if the actual expense of a fee-based title vs. a F2P game were to be more or less the same, having to deal with 'micro-transactions' at every turn is simply a hassle.

Where's the "briefly" option? I'd finish up what I want to accomplish, but once I did that, I'd cease playing. And I certainly wouldn't be a revenue source during that transition period.

I would never play a F2P game again - in the past I've paid £100's of pounds in a very short amount of time as it was simply too easy to "just click the button".

Subscription based games are the cheapest and the most feature rich games in my experience - as yes in theory F2P games are free to play - but in reality unless you have all day to play the game the only way to get even an average service is to spend some money on the game.

Bottom line is that game companies don't make games out of sheer kindness and goodwill - they make games to make a profit - hopefully a large one and the only way to do that in a F2P game is for players to pay for the supposedly "free" game.

Sypherioth wrote: »

Cant get worse right? even if we pay they seem to screw patches over and over.

If patch should be solving 10 things they solve 5 of them so 5 problems are left and then they make sure they create another 5 problems so they have still 10 problems.

It can get worse, because if it were f2p, all development would go into cash shop crap and pay-walled content. You would see so many stupid pets and mounts and armors it would make your head spin.

The issues other games had that are or went F2P, are not due to a bad game necessarily but stupid people being greedy and just poor choices.

it always amazes me how ignorant people are of the F2P model. just because a lot of games that use it have crappy PVE AI(trust me that is a big gameplay issue) or are pay to win scenarios...does not mean that they do not/can not afford to fix bugs and release new content without being F2P. The GW2 model I feel is a good one, buy the game play for free, sure there are a lot of things that can give you a boost in their store, but nothing that you cannot accomplish without using the store aside from some cosmetic items....you do realize just on game sales alone ZOS probably made up for money spent making the game, as well as, turning a bit of profit....I could be wrong but I am assuming they sold a minimum of 1.5 mil copies...multiply that times the cost of the game and POOF! This is just guestimation, but like all men, I will just leave it at that and ASSUME I am correct

there is absolutely no logic in that statement, or these discussions.

Armitas wrote: »

It's like going to Starbucks and choosing from two items on the menu. A large cup of coffee for $3 or a shot of decaf that you can get for free with the option to spend $1 to buy a ticket with a chance make it large, $1 if you want a chance to make it hot, $2 if you want a chance to have caffeine in it. Also you dont really get a cup just a plastic bag with the liquid and you have to pay for the cup in order to drink in any reasonable fashion.

Fixed.

I feel like AoC did well with going f2p. You can play the entire leveling experience for free and purchase _starter_ endgame or PvP gear. For access to all the good zones you need a sub still though.
IMO it caters to both crowds without taking anything away from either. There is no pay to win, there is pay to play.

If this game goes f2p (which it won't) i will not be sticking around. I don't like f2p games at all, so they can say goodbye to me if they ever do it.

Not a chance, i quit Archeage because of the F2p model.

I voted no. Absolutely not.

The subscription model keeps a lot of the 'riff raff' and kids that I prefer not to play games with. You think zone chat is bad now?

FTP is one sure way to totally ruin your gaming community.

ESO subs are up. Beta was a screw up, it drove many players (including myself) from the game due to CONSTANT crashes over multiple phases of beta (I was in 4 phases of beta, reported the same crashes every 30 to 45 seconds) that were never fixed.

Things are looking up, I decided to finally try the game and I am loving it, telling my friends how awesome it is etc. There is absolutely no reason for ESO to go FTP.

I will tolerate a lot, the two things I wont tolerate?

#1: FTP model.
#2: WoW style rep/treadmill grind.

FTP is probably the only way I'm gonna keep playing.