xa_chan: No : with a free to play, even if you never buy anything, you can play. With a monthly fee, you bought a game, then you have to pay again each month just to keep the right to play. So, if you stop paying, you can't play anymore (no offline mode).
Would you agree to buy a book and to be permitted to keep it only if you pay something each month? No, I guess. That's the same with games.
Cormoran: The book analogy is irrelevant, lets get rid of any type of analogy and actually talk about MMOG's, this isn't Star Trek Voyagers "magic meeting room", equating an MMOG with a book doesn't make it work like a book.
As to what you're saying I completely disagree, try actually enjoying the free to play game without spending money, it gets you in, gets you hooked, makes it annoying and then you pay.
Some people pay, and pay, and pay, and pay and before they know it they're paying THOUSANDS a month, not just the standard 15, thousands, that's two more digits than the standard subscription. Many of these free to play games have purchases that reach upwards of a hundred dollars, that's over six months of subscription on a single purchase that can disappear within a week.
You can say you never pay, and guess what, going back to the drug dealer analogy that potzato seemed to think the sub model fits there's some people who never get hooked, but those who do end up being victims that spend far more than they would have under a subscription model. It's an insidious model, one that sneaks up on you. At least with a subscription you can happily budget for it.
MMO is based on the principle that your game experience is based on the amount of game time accumulated on your characters.
The more you play, the more value (in game advancement, emotionnal, monthly fees accumulated) your account has. So the more the time passes, the more you have to lose when you stop.
There are people who are fine with 'arg! this game bores me, I'm done with it, it was cool, I spent 200$ total in it, no biggie, time to play something else', and that's good for them .....
.... but people who are 'hooked' just can't do that easily.
I'm not discussing F2P games because I don't know really much. However, it's not because some F2P games are plain scam that fees in videogames are fine in my opinion.
Past the fact that stepping OUT a 'feed' (preterit of 'to fee' ?) videogame is hard, there is the fact that while you're IN the common human behaviour is to take the most possible out of your money : play as much as you can. Playing stops being a distraction and becomes a duty : you have to get as much as you can of the fees you paid.
I am totally aware that many people don't have any issue with that, but my opinion stays the same.
The book analogy of xa chan is often discarded in that kind of discussion but it is quite interesting in my opinion : the making process of a book and a videogame is the same basically (one or more people write things by hand or computer, they draw things by hand or computer ... ). Even if the medium is different it's legitimate to ask oneself why there are so much differencies in the distribution model (I don't say the differencies are not ok, just pointing out their existence).
Cormoran: You can say you never pay, and guess what, going back to the drug dealer analogy that potzato seemed to think the sub model fits there's some people who never get hooked, but those who do end up being victims that spend far more than they would have under a subscription model. It's an insidious model, one that sneaks up on you. At least with a subscription you can happily budget for it.
I agree that my point of view goes against the interest of people who can manage just fine. But I think it causes so much harm to people who get 'hooked' that I'd like that those companies which ask for fees be really responsible (again, I'm not saying they aren't). I really consider those MMOs with fees a social hazard, people should be very carefull.
Food for the mind : In this drug triangle, who is the most to blame when issues happen ; the dealer ? the human mind/metabolism ? the addict ?