I think most if you are missing the point of a F2P game. Free to play simply means you can download the game for free and there is no cost to play. It does not mean you get to have every weapon unlocked and all the skins avalible. It does not mean you will gain exp at a breakneck speed. Think of it as gettin to sample a game before you buy it. You get to see how the gameplay works, what weapons or upgrades woul be useful, and if you even enjoy the game. Once that is established you can decide if your going to be a long term player and drop a few bucks on faster exp gain or shiny new toys. The Devs are not going to allow free players access to anything without a substantial grind. They are in this to make money. F2P is the way of the future. You can't pirate a F2P game or the cash to buy the really useful items or xp. The game is designed on purpose to get you to spend some money, it is not a charity. The argument of P2W and F2P is mute. Sony has to pay their employees so they will design games with the intention of enticing you to spend money. If you want a totally free game then design it yourself. If you don't think the game is fun then don't spend money on it. Then the Devs will design another that you will feel is worth money. I personally love F2P for this exact reason, I don't have to drop $60 on a game and find its a buggy pos, I can play for awhile and then show support by buying a few things or show them that they missed the mark and not give them a dime.
Hate it - Who cares, you paid nothing for it. Like it - Cool, still don't have to pay ANYTHING to play it and experience every single weapon and vehicle in the game. Like it a lot - Awesome, pay some money for some extra benefits while also supporting the developers for making a game you enjoy and contributing towards some developers having a stable job for the next decade.
The problem is, people define p2w differently; some people think p2w means I give them money, I get a kick-butt weapon that absolutely destroys, never mind the fact that someone who didn't pay can eventually get the weapon. Some people say that XP boosts are p2w because they give money which allows them faster access to stuff. Heck, some people say that cammo is p2w because "they paid money and it's harder to kill them because I can't spot them as easily." The devs have clarified what they define p2w as; pay-to-win means offering weaponry/vehicles/cosmetics that are definitively better than other weapons and the ONLY way to get those items is through physical money. There are two ways to avoid p2w; 1) offer every item that has the ability to kill someone else to everyone (either through time in-game or through monetary exchange), B) don't make items that are definitively better than other items (i.e. side-grade weaponry). They've definitely gone the route of the former (cammo is the biggest argument anyone can make against it, but even then, it comes to down to being aware of surroundings), and they've mostly gone the route of the latter (although, having a gun that fires and reloads faster, with the same damage and range as the default gun is pretty much "better").
I don't understand why people complain about pay-to-win. Any free-to-play game uses this model to generate income and profit, the concept is not a new one.
This whole system is based on 'keep up with the Jones' mentality. Everyone wants to 'own', so they're going to find a way to do that, even if it means spending money. Sony knows this, and is experimenting with the model. Personally, I'd rather pay the $60 for a game and have access to ALL weapons right away, and get to the part that forces players to use skill. I don't want to 'grind' anything in a game. I already 'grind' to pay my bills and live via work. Games should be about relaxing and playing with skill, rather than who has the most time to waste to get superior equipment. Yes, I can take solace that I can still hold my own with the 'free' default weapons with some extra earned certs, and that in itself is 'skillful' playing but there is no denying the fact that I do less well against players with stronger armor, weapons and higher rank. This suggests inbalance, and it is Pay2Win, if they paid and I didn't, and it gives them a damage/defense advantage. Stop pretending it isn't P2Win. Of course it is. The same way EA released expansion packs for BF2 (Spec Ops) that had more accurate and powerful weapons, that drove players to upgrade to those packs in order to keep a competitive edge. Now do i "QQ" about it? No.. I'm too busy using Q to spot... and play the game as is and take it as it comes. The concept should be **** upon.
The problem however is that you're not getting 100% of the content for 60 dollars/euros. You can pay 300 dollars and still not unlock everything in the game. But considering that people are "supposed" to spend money on the game, atleast equal or greater than the normal purchasing price. I wouldn't call it pay2win. As long as you're not some freeloader you can really work out which playstyle works for you, and upgrade that to the maximum with station cash. That said, I am not paying for this game as I find that it doesn't really matter too much anyways, this game is not competitive so I don't mind there being people with superior weapons. In the end it's all about numbers and not actual upgrades.
The weaponry can all be purchased via station cash or certs, ALL of it. Same with all our nice little class upgrades, all our vehicle upgrades, so on and so on. Literally just by playing the game you can and WILL unlock anything your greedy little heart desires with the exception of cosmetic items that don't do crap against a tank shell in your rear end. I bought some station cash and grabbed that L80 sniper rifle for my cloaker. Did it make me a better sniper? Marginally at best. I have to lead a little less, that's it. It still takes 2 shots to the body if I use the default sniper or the arguably best sniper NC can get. Still takes 1 to the head with both rifles as well. All the guns are side-grades, and should be chosen based on what you wish to do while wielding said weapon. Heck I think the best carbine for all purpose is the starter mercenary. Good up close and medium range, fast reload. Slap a 2x, foregrip, flash muzzle on it and the thing contends with any footsoldier out there. Got that puppy and all it's parts for a heafty zero dollars and a few certs earned by killing with it. For vehicles it's all upgrades however, as it should be. Tanks hit harder against certain types. Sundies get the chance to spawn your fellow soldiers or rearm friendly vehicles shelling the crap outta the enemy. Good stuff, again all free if you just play. Your arguement about not wanting to grind is one of the goofiest things i've heard in this game. Dude, just play the game and don't worry about what he has vs what you have. I have died to a BR1 player (i'm at the time of posting this br14). And I have killed a fully upgraded high ranking heavy with my default merc wielded by a weak little engineer by simply aiming and controlling my recoil better than he did in that specific firefight. Having all the guns and upgrades in the game aren't gonna make a bit of difference against a player with superior skill. C4 still gonna eat you alive. Tanks still gonna hurt like heck. And snipers are still gonna blow your head clear open in one shot and snicker at the tiny withering glob of grey matter that sprays out all over the guys behind you. Worry less about what you have, play the game. And please, suck less.
What is the difference between paying $60 for a game and then having to drop $10 to $15 a pop for downloadable content? Without buying those your locked with an outdated game you blew $60 on.
Personally, even if i pay 60$ for a single player game i wouldnt want all weapons handed to me right away. If you dont want to "grind" then pay. I dont understand whats so hard about that concept. If you dont want to pay with cash, then you'll pay SoE with time spent on the game. One way or the other you're paying something, it all comes down to what you can afford. Some of us cant afford the time, some of us cant afford the money- those who cant afford either are just SOL. Its pretty obvious that the reason why gun prices are so high. Its because if you care enough about the game to need those weapons, you're suppose to purchase them. Notice how you cant buy scopes and other items? also notice how those same items have a somewhat reasonable cert price (30- 500)? Its because SoE doesnt expect anyone to WANT to grind 1000 certs just for a gun, but they do think you should be playing long enough to earn that C-4.
anyone who calls this game P2W should be ignored because they obviously have no idea what it even means
That's fine. Personally, I don't. I play games for fun and challenge, not to slave another few hours after I get home. Paying does not cover 'grinding'. One must still collect XP just to play a game. Hey, we're both different in what we find fun, we'll have to agree to disagree. Easy there cowboy. Rabidly defending a corporation's strategy at releasing a game will set you on the yellow brick road to Fanboi-ism. Whether I pay or not is still up to debate. This game is a demo until I decide what I want to do. Making something a grind like World Of Warcraft, and this whole obsession of 'leveling'-up didnt matter to previous games, and we played them for years (Ie. TF, TFC, CS). Really? I thought it was some arbitrary $7 price set by Sony for a virtual weapon. There are reasons? Does the price go up and down on the stock market due to demand or not? Oh...I guess not.. Then there is no real reason is there? If the game is entertaining to me, and appeals to the type of gameplay I want, then I will pay. Howver, this payment model may just not appeal to me in the end. Great game, stupid execution.
Start thinking of f2p games not as "free to play" think of them as "expensive as you want them to be". OR even better, think of it like hot software trend of the 90's. Your playing a 'demo' of ps2..the free version. To enjoy all its features costs money, but the free one is usable forever..just limited. Then the whole skewed concept of "what you mean I cant get for free, the same things people giving your company money for revenue gets??!" makes even less sense.
it's pay2win, you can pay money for a weapon advantage against other players, yes it is that simple. it's also significantly more acceptable because that advantage can eventually be negated by some players, but when the prices are so high it's unlikely that most players ever will. although as far as I'm concerned if you're gonna make your game F2P you need to keep things relatively fair to both paying and playing customers, firstly because of integrity, it's just mean to discriminate one player from another because they can afford to dump more cash on something fundamental to the game, why even give them the game for free if you're gonna drive them away with a gimped experience (not that SoE are doing that, I think their terms are very reasonable apart from perhaps the steep time investment for some cert unlocks) and secondly is PERCEIVED integrity, games that rely so heavily on larger populations can't really afford to lose the free players, they really need them to keep the whales around, and that's how they make money.
For those claiming it's pay-to-win, are you drawing no distinction between games that give weapons to paying players that non-paying people CAN'T have? Is there no difference between a "lite" version of a game with limited access to everything offered versus a game that allows you access to everything if you just put in enough time? So let's say a new person logs in for the first time and buys a bunch of weapons and increased abilities. I've been playing for 6 months and have the same abilities even though I haven't given the game one red cent... how is that pay to win? Or even if you say it is pay to win (pay money + get weapons = p2w), then you're drawing no difference between this game versus a game where someone who pays money gets access to a definitively more powerful weapon that I can't get unless I give money.
