ChloroFiend":36si85b5 said:
Maybe I'm just cynical or jaded, but free to play seems to be a nicer way of saying "will be shuttering in six months" or "no matter what else we say, you're going to pay microtransactions out the ass in order to have any fun".
If it's done terribly, then yes the "free to play + microtrans" model is horribly anti consumer, and creates a culture of haves and have-nots. A great example of this is the Call of Duty: Elite subscription. Those willing and able to shell out an additional $50 per year get access to more advanced items and maps before everyone else does.
http://meincmagazine.com/gaming/news/2011 ... o-play.ars However, if done properly, the games can be radically fun and enjoyable for all.
Take Team Fortress 2 for example. While you can purchase different weapons and items to enhance your character, generally each item has some sort of drawback that requires a certain level of skill to account for. A rocket launcher for a Soldier could have +50% damage, but is -50% accurate. The most finely tuned gaming mouse and super fast Internet connection still couldn't give someone perfect results. It's all about balance.
Guild Wars is another great example. Free to play, and while it's nowhere near as popular as WoW, it's been around for over, what? Five years?
If there's one thing I hate, it's adding another subscription cost to my bills. Hopefully we can add MWO to the list of fair and successful free-to-play multiplayer games.
