Can we stop pretending that Path of Exile is free to play?

"

yamface wrote:

If a game is p2w, it invalidates any benefits you're supposed to be getting from a f2p game. Which is why arguing that a game can be both is a dead end argument, even if it's true.

"

ajo wrote:

Who cares? Would you rather prefer if the thread was called "can we stop pretending that poe isn't a glorified demo"?

"

KillerKrug wrote:

poe is free to play for like first couple hours ( bevor mapping ) or completly free as a SSF sine you dont have to pick up everything jsut want you need etc..


but if you wanna enjoy PoE to the fullest, than you need atleast map tab / currency / 3-4 premium tabs everything after thath is not necessary

"

q7bee wrote:

To claim that monetisation invalidates a game's free to play claim is nonsense.

"

q7bee wrote:

"

yamface wrote:

If a game is p2w, it invalidates any benefits you're supposed to be getting from a f2p game. Which is why arguing that a game can be both is a dead end argument, even if it's true.

I don't see the two concepts and directly connected, free to play doesn't mean it's pay to win (or isn't) and pay to win doesn't mean you don't have to pay an entry fee as well.
To claim that monetisation invalidates a game's free to play claim is nonsense. Rather you should address the monetisation issues directly, because otherwise you're arguing a strawman.

"

ajo wrote:

Who cares? Would you rather prefer if the thread was called "can we stop pretending that poe isn't a glorified demo"?

I would prefer if the thread was named after the topic of discussing monetisation instead of resorting to essentially name calling.

"

KillerKrug wrote:

poe is free to play for like first couple hours ( bevor mapping ) or completly free as a SSF sine you dont have to pick up everything jsut want you need etc..


but if you wanna enjoy PoE to the fullest, than you need atleast map tab / currency / 3-4 premium tabs everything after thath is not necessary

Again PoE is a game based on the free to play model no matter how you interact with it. A 30$ investment in stash space is not a deal breaker for me if you choose to commit to play a game for a longer period of time.
Though I'd say that to play SSF comfortably might actually be more demanding on your stash than playing trade league, as in trade league you can convert useful stuff you don't currently need to currency. Which saves up space.

"

ajo wrote:

Who cares? Would you rather prefer if the thread was called "can we stop pretending that poe isn't a glorified demo"?

"

yamface wrote:

"

q7bee wrote:

To claim that monetisation invalidates a game's free to play claim is nonsense.

I like how you talk about strawmans, then you write one yourself.

"

q7bee wrote:

The very pretext of this thread makes any real discussion hard.

Free to play is in essence the concept that there is no fee to access the game.

Whether you like the implementation of the model or not, it still uses that model. Starting the discussion pretending that free to play is equal to free to play without feeling any need to pay more to get a better experience is dishonest. You can't just make terms mean what you want them to mean for your purpose.

Pay to win is a bit harder to define, but as other people point out you can't pay your way to continuous power growth. So calling it pay to win is not really obviously justified. You can argue that a minor investment in expanding your stash features can provide some tangible benefits in terms of in game power, but it is a far cut from clear cut pay to win features where you can bypass the in game mechanics to obtain game play items by spending real life money.
Someone else argued that you might as well make it fully P2W because it already is, which is just a stupid claim. I couldn't continue playing the game for long if actual game play items went purchasable (like exp boosts, increased IIR/IIQ etc. or the loot collector bots someone mentioned) as it would kill my drive to do stuff. Ridiculously priced cosmetics don't do that, even though I think it's detrimental to gameplay. (Resources are being dedicated to generate these purchasable items, while depriving something potentially obtainable through gameplay).
Stash upgrades only provides limited benefits up to a ceiling that's not above normal game prices. The only reason I've used close to 100$ on the game (since 2015) is that I'm a borderline compulsive looter/collector playing SSF (I generally end leagues with several currencies overflowing in the currency stash, currently at 8.5k wisdom scrolls fx).

I would prefer the game to be based on a different financial model, but I can understand why it isn't, I believe F2P is just more effective at generating revenue for this type of game (F2P is more effective at attracting new players and MTX makes a lot of people more likely to spend larger total amount of money compared to single purchases).

Mainly I want to argue that if you want to discuss issues, be direct and stop using buzz words to make your point.

Discussing the financial model is fine, it's not perfect and I probably would agree on some points. But it really grinds my gears, no pun intended, that the conversation always has to start on some more or less ridiculous F2P argument. From my perspective stash tabs are not the worst baseline to expect to get some revenue.
I do believe you get a single premium tab now, so you can somewhat comfortably try the full game for some time before you invest any money. And a 20-30$ investment would allow you to reasonably play without being a hardcore minimalist.

Where my issues start are the price tag on the cosmetic mtx and the amount of money you are invited to spend through supporter packs, it undoubtedly leads some people to overspend and probably is my largest moral issue with PoE's model.

"

ajo wrote:

"

Phrazz wrote:

you have no idea what F2P is. In addition, you seem to not know what a demo is, nor the difference between them.

Then please explain the difference and why it would be technically wrong to call the free version just that.

"

Redthorne82 wrote:

I guess I'm a confused old man. I see things like Apex Legends, who put out an event pack of MTX that, if you wanted everything in it, would cost about $180 USD. The internet f'n exploded. Like...sent death threats to Respawn employees and stuff.

OVER COSMETICS.

And yet, the number of people who are fine with POE creating actual pay for (pretty severe) convenience that can easily run into the $100s of dollars, PLUS overpriced MTX constantly, with a $480 pack every year...

There's not a massive amount of hate for that. I'm just honestly curious where the difference lies. Maybe the mentality of the playerbase? Less teenagers who base their entire life's worth on cosmetics playing POE over Apex?

Like I said, I've put plenty of money into POE, and I don't regret it. I've even seen a lot of comments through here saying this is a topic that has repeatedly been brought up, but I've never seen it in the few months I've been paying attention to the forums.

The sliding scale on thoughts on this seems to range from, "It's fine, shut up" to "I guess it's a little unfortunate, but it's mostly okay."

Just amuses me that a F2P FPS got railed over a big MTX pack but GGG gets pretty much no flak for it.

Just a weird thought.

"

q7bee wrote:

"

yamface wrote:

"

q7bee wrote:

To claim that monetisation invalidates a game's free to play claim is nonsense.

I like how you talk about strawmans, then you write one yourself.

Ok, I'll admit that one was a stretch. But the point is that p2w mechanics are methods of monetisation and that doesn't contradict a game being free to play.
For example if a hypothetical game sells x power for 10$ and you can grind that in an hour. Then you can hypethetically play the game for free 10 hours a day and get the same power level as someone who buys power for 100$ a day and is not playing the game.
The game is free to play for the grinder and pay to win for allowing the other player to attain the power without having to play the game.
Edit: Reread it and yeah, I kind of did morph it in my head, my apologies. It should have addressed the invalidates the value of F2P.