1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. To chat with the GameOgre community, you need to have at least 15 posts. Once you have the 15 posts, post at Become A New Ogre
    Dismiss Notice

Free-To-Play FPS vs Buy-To-Play FPS

Discussion in 'MMORPG' started by ogreman, Aug 24, 2009.

Who is winning this debate?

  1. ScareCrow

    8 vote(s)
    53.3%
  2. Weehut

    8 vote(s)
    53.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Admin Post
    ogreman

    ogreman Ogre In Charge Staff Member GameOgre Admin

    Messages:
    37,231
    Likes Received:
    7,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Credit:
    18,033.26
    This debate will be between ScareCrow and Weehut and it will be for the championship . Start whenever you are ready:).
     
  2. ScareCrow

    ScareCrow Not just a Scared Crow The Pit

    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    2,043.80
    You first weehut, you pick sides.
     
  3. Weehut

    Weehut New Member

    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    30.00
    Thanks. Uhm... I'll choose buy-to-play. I'll edit this post with my opening argument after I finish typing it up.

    Alright, I've got my caffeinated beverage, my metal music, and I'm ready to roll.

    First of all, in order to make such a debate feasible, we must define the term "better." The term better, in my eyes, simply means a game that is more fun to play. The reasons I list below will support why buy-to-play first person shooters are simply "better," or overall more fun to play than free first person shooters.

    Buy to play first person shooters- Everyone's heard of them, and they're industry standards~ Counter-Strike: 1.6, and Source, Call of Duty: 4, and World at War, the huge line of Battlefield FPS games, Team Fortress 2, and the oh-so-legendary VALVe single-player shooters: Half-Life, Portal, and Left 4 Dead. Chances are, you've played it, either at a friends' house, or buy buying it yourself. They're available on a variety of platforms, PC, XBox 360, and sometimes on the PS3//Wii.

    The quality of such games are simply un-matcheable. Just playing the old 1990's Half-Life shooter is like playing a modern FPS, just with a worse graphics engine. Half-Life revolutionized the FPS genre forever, making seamless cutscenes to constantly keep you in Gordon Freeman's shoes. Team Fortress 2 revolutionized multiplayer FPS by bringing it to a whole new level. Cartoon graphics, and class-based team combat was suddenly brought to a whole new popularity level. Many experts agree that many games in the future will try to copy the cartoon-sey graphic quality of the game, and they were right. (Battlefield Heroes, just to name one.)

    First Person Shooters that had to be bought-to-play have been proven again and again to be the top quality in gaming quality. The gameplay is unmatched- running around a huge map, shooting zombies with a shotgun, trying to reload and apply a health patch at the same time. Running around on a battlefield, yelling commands to your teammates, throwing flash grenades and storming the enemy lines. They have exponentially attained popularity, and the most popular FPS game is still Counter-Strike 1.6, an original Half-Life mod. Despite the graphics, the gameplay has been simply unmatched, even by it's own sequel, Counter-Strike: Source. The graphics in the newest buy-to-play FPS games are now over-the-top amazing. Just one rundown on one map of Counter-Strike: Source will make you feel like you're actually in Iraq, and in a high-conflict highly tactical military firefight.

    But there are those who choose to not play those games, simply because of the cost. So free first person shooters stepped into the gaming front.

    Originating with such titles as Soldier Front and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, these games hoped to attain popularity to gamers who preferred a free gaming environment. However, these games are seriously flawed. Because these free-to-play games are completely free to download and play, almost ALL have included a weapons shop. This enables people just starting out with the game already to have an un-fair advantage over veteran players simply because they can choose to purchase a better gun.

    Another problem constantly plaguing the Free FPS community is hackers. Since the game is so easily distributable, every single FPS game has a large legion of hackers. These can be hidden, using wallhacks or chams, or quite obvious, using aimbots. Regardless of the type, nobody likes playing with someone using a hacking tool to gain an unfair advantage. It's never fun, and it never will be. Buy-to-play FPS games have, statistically, far fewer hackers. This brings me to my next point.

    The free-to-play FPS world is virtually unknown to tournaments and professional clans. This is simply because no professional gaming league has room to add in a free FPS game. The free FPS game genre has been, and will always be of poorer quality than buy-to-play FPS games. This is simply because the developers of BTP FPS games are paid more. They have motivation, they have innovation because of backing from major companies like VALVe, and they have the task force behind the company-issued grants to carry them out successfully. A free-to-play FPS game is made, thought up, and paid for by usually just a couple of companies, never more than three. Because of this, the overall outcome of the game will always be of poor-er quality then that of a multi-million dollar company, being backed by multiple other companies willing to fund such a project. since buy to play FPS games have such a large tournament exposure, many people who play BTP FPS games play them in hopes of joining a respectable clan, and playing in a tournament. Since all tournaments have extremely strict hacking rules, if the players' motivation is joining a tournament, then they will most likely not hack.

    FPS games that are buy-to-play do not have ranks to unlock guns, and each gun has tactics that need to be learned to use them efficiently. A free-to-play gun has guns that need to be bought, that are made specifically to be easier to use, and easier to kill with. There are no tactics necessary, for example, to use a Dragonuv bought with G-Coins in Soldier Front. It is simply a PSG-1 sniper rifle with a much higher hit-count. However, in buy-to-play FPS games, professional gamers are just as effective, in, say Counter-Strike 1.6 with a Scout sniper rifle, as they are with the famous AWP.

    Free-to-play FPS games will always be of lower quality then Buy-to-play FPS games, simply because of the feasibility of such projects. BTP FPSgames are funded by huge corporations that demand huge results. BTP FPSgames also statistically have much less hackers, and get much larger tournament exposure. Because of these reasons, and others listed above, it is clear that buy-to-play first person shooters are much "better" than free-to-play first person shooters.

    [EDIT]
    I'm going away to a school orientation camp for three days. Won't respond until Saturday. Apologies.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 25, 2009
  4. ScareCrow

    ScareCrow Not just a Scared Crow The Pit

    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    2,043.80
    Kk, I like a challenge.

    If it's ok, i'll post mine up tomorrow, i've got a killer amount of homework due.

    I'll edit this post when i'm done.

    Ok here goes.

    Yes, the majority of free FPS games are crap, to put it simply. But your forgetting that some of the best shooters today are free.

    To start with, Quake Live. It is a free version of one of the most popular games in history, Quake 3. But whats more it improves on its predecessor. It can be played from the browser, with only a small plugin download. It has many social features, you can play against people of a similar skill level, and you can enjoy one of the best FPS experiences in history, all for free. And trust me, Quake Live does not have a weapon shop, or any other gameplay advantage that can be bought. Indeed there membership simply allows you to make private rooms for you and your friends.

    And then there is battlefield heroes, which has got to be one of the most casual, fun and entertaining game ever. Once again it is played from the browser. Completely free, it is a great game, even compared to B2P games.

    And if I may take us back to a time when there was a tournament. Yes i'm talking about the shooter showdown.http://www.gameogre.com/forums/online-game-battles/1743-online-shooter-showdown.html

    Against the likes of Call of Duty 4, Counter strike: Source, Team Fortress 2 and Left 4 Dead, one game prevailed.

    A free Game.

    And that game was CrossFire.

    The ghost mode, the realism, the supremely wonderful gameplay, and of course it's cost, absolutely nothing, save of course a download.

    CrossFire won the tournament, it won a direct match against Counter Strike: Source, and against Team Fortress 2.

    And theres a reason people voted for it, and gave it good reviews.

    It was as you say, CrossFire was "better", simply more fun to play.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 28, 2009
  5. Admin Post
    ogreman

    ogreman Ogre In Charge Staff Member GameOgre Admin

    Messages:
    37,231
    Likes Received:
    7,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Credit:
    18,033.26
    Ok, I will put the poll up when you give your answer.
     
  6. Weehut

    Weehut New Member

    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    30.00
    Although Quake Live is a great first person shooter as you mentioned right off the bat, you are forgetting that it still has no tournament exposure. Sure, GotFrag has a section on Quake Live, but it has NO hosted tournaments on it.

    Battlefield Heroes has almost no community. It has less players than Soldier Front, another free-to-play FPS that has been out there for YEARS. Plus, Battlefield Heroes has blatant ripoffs of Team Fortress 2, the FIRST FPS to revolutionize the graphics to make them cartoon-sey.

    Cross Fire won because of its ghost mode, and because it was free. Those were the ONLY two reasons. Because it was free, lots of people preferred it over Counter-Strike: Source only because it was free. Counter-Strike: Source has a MUCH bigger playerbase than Cross Fire, and that proves that to the general public, much more of them would rather play CS:S than Cross Fire. You state~ "The ghost mode, the realism, the supremely wonderful gameplay, and of course it's cost, absolutely nothing, save of course a download."

    The ghost mode I have to admit was revolutionary.

    The realism? The realism was no different than the realism in any other first person shooter. I would even say that it is less realistic because they made the gun recoil so damn easy to handle. The graphics realism is no better than Soldier Front, and they are much worse than even Counter-Strike: 1.6.

    The supremely wonderful gameplay? Spare me your professional connotations, they are irrelevant. How is the gameplay of Cross Fire superior to, say, Team Fortress 2, as you compared it to? Team Fortress 2 also has a MUCH bigger playerbase than Cross Fire on a DAILY basis, and it is growing still. This must mean that to the general public, the gameplay of TF:2 is much better than that of Cross Fire.

    The cost~ I always hate it when people bring up the cost. We're comparing whether or not a free-to-play is better than a buy-to-play, and the simple fact is that although you have to pay around 10 bucks, you get a huge playerbase, MUCH greater gameplay, (which cannot be refuted because of the simple fact that more people play it. And you can't blame hype, because I have yet to see a SINGLE buy-to-play first person shooter ad, when I see HUNDREDS of free-to-play ads EVERYWHERE.) and much more tournament exposure.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 30, 2009
  7. Admin Post
    ogreman

    ogreman Ogre In Charge Staff Member GameOgre Admin

    Messages:
    37,231
    Likes Received:
    7,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Credit:
    18,033.26
    A poll has been added to this debate:).
     
  8. ScareCrow

    ScareCrow Not just a Scared Crow The Pit

    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    2,043.80
    No tournament exposure?

    Quakecon maybe? Their was a tourney at E3 as well.

    As for CrossFire, unless you are inside the heads of all those that voted and reviewed CrossFire, i'd say you should limit the use of the word "Only".

    Besides it still won, if ghost mode and free are why it won, then ghost mode and free must be good, why means ghost mode and free must be better than TF2.

    Hell while where on your wavelength for a moment, you are saying that it won only because of those two things, therefore implying that those two things are better than TF2, I must agree with you.

    Databases? Wasn't TF2 released over a year before CrossFire? That seems like an excellent reason for a larger more dedicated player base, but give it a year or so, and we'll see.

    Cost.

    Cost, cost, cost, cost and cost.

    $10, yea, maybe for a used copy of Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon. Try more like $50 for game like TF2, CoD4 etc. The list goes on. While $50 might not sound like much at first, considering how many of your supposedly quality games there are, you going to have to buy a fair few.

    Now assuming we only by the basic essentials, e.g TF2, CoD4, CoD WaW, Half Life 2 etc. It's adding up to $200+.

    Thats a lot of money.

    I frankly would rather buy 100 big macs, but meh. Why pay all that money when you can get heaps of free, QUALITY, action on free-fps.
     
  9. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member Ogre Veteran

    Messages:
    11,336
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Credit:
    8,318.17
    I give ScareCrow the edge!
     
  10. awesomedrako

    awesomedrako Clubbed

    Messages:
    2,704
    Likes Received:
    445
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    2,802.14
    Scarecrow is doing really well to defend free-to-play FPSs, so I give him my vote.
    Weehut, you're also doing well in the argument too, but not as good as Scarecrow imo.
    I have to admit though, buy-to-play is better than free-to-play because they normally have better single-player (or at least they have it), though free-to-play is really catching up nowadays.
     
  11. Admin Post
    ogreman

    ogreman Ogre In Charge Staff Member GameOgre Admin

    Messages:
    37,231
    Likes Received:
    7,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Credit:
    18,033.26
    Close vote:). Is the debate going to continue?
     
  12. MMOWiz

    MMOWiz Well-Known Member Ogre Veteran

    Messages:
    3,820
    Likes Received:
    114
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Credit:
    2,494.79
    i tied the voting:p.
     
  13. ScareCrow

    ScareCrow Not just a Scared Crow The Pit

    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    2,043.80
    Idk, it's weehuts turn.
     
  14. Weehut

    Weehut New Member

    Messages:
    282
    Likes Received:
    5
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    30.00
    Should I simply post another round?

    Tight voting.
     
  15. Admin Post
    ogreman

    ogreman Ogre In Charge Staff Member GameOgre Admin

    Messages:
    37,231
    Likes Received:
    7,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Credit:
    18,033.26
    You can keep debating for as long as you want to. When somebody is done, we will go to the voting to determine the winner.
     
  16. Joker

    Joker Well-Known Member Ogre Veteran

    Messages:
    11,336
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Credit:
    8,318.17
    I voted for Scarecrow. I think he did a better job of getting his point across.
     
  17. ScareCrow

    ScareCrow Not just a Scared Crow The Pit

    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    2,043.80
  18. Admin Post
    ogreman

    ogreman Ogre In Charge Staff Member GameOgre Admin

    Messages:
    37,231
    Likes Received:
    7,019
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Credit:
    18,033.26
    Are you going to continue this debate? The voting is tied so there is no winner yet.
     
  19. Webber

    Webber Well-Known Member Ogre Veteran

    Messages:
    7,790
    Likes Received:
    310
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Credit:
    10,903.11
    I voted for ScareCrow. Voting is not tied anymore:p.
     
  20. eXoZmM

    eXoZmM Clubbed

    Messages:
    1,381
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Credit:
    353.00
    tl;dr

    I have some points on both people I'd like to correct:

    WeeHut - "Originating with such titles as Soldier Front and Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, these games hoped to attain popularity to gamers who preferred a free gaming environment. However, these games are seriously flawed. Because these free-to-play games are completely free to download and play, almost ALL have included a weapons shop. This enables people just starting out with the game already to have an un-fair advantage over veteran players simply because they can choose to purchase a better gun."

    Soldier Front has Nationals and Internationals. The closest thing any p2p game had to that was CPL and that's dead. So, free FPS' CAN have a good competitive scene. In fact, SF has one of the largest competitive scenes out of all FPS games. It's right up there with BF2/CS 1.6. CS:S if your counting the European Scene.

    ScareCrow - The only reason CF won is because at the time most people were playing CF and still are BECAUSE it's free. Not because it's the better game. CS:S and TF2 are without a doubt the better games, and I shouldn't think there would be any argument from anyone there.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page