Life some restrictions for F2P?

[Warrgames]

Depends on what you buy. A hypercrate is $40(around 4500cc) or more. If a sub chooses not to get any extra cc and they get 500cc per month at 15 bucks a month that would be 9 months and $135 for the one hypercrate. If they're trying to get unlocks then most likely it would be cheaper. For other items I'm not so sure. Can't say subbing is cheaper 100% of the time.

 

If that is where their interest lies, buying CM junk than the restrictions are meaning less to them...

Edited October 27, 2014 by Warrgames

[CaldaRaric]

I'm a subscriber. I will always be.

 

However, MMO's future prospect is reflected in the number of players enjoying the game regardless of their subscription status. Not many of you are going to play this game forever. A game needs constant inflow of new players, some of which will subscribe. Otherwise, the game will stagnate and die eventually.

 

Compared to other recent games such as Tera, SWTOR both have very harsh restrictions on F2P model and relatively low number of of F2P/preferred players. I wish the game had opened up more so to allow inflow of new F2P players on the game. It doesn't damage us subscribers in any way, if anything it makes game world more vibrant with lives. Subscription status should give convinient bonuses on top of regular gameplay, rather than restricting F2P from properly enjoying a game; it shows in the dininishing number of new players of SWTOR.

 

How is the F2P model restrictive? You can play practically the entire game for free. There probably aren't as many f2p players because they end up subscribing because the game is so awesome!

[LordArtemis]

So let me see if I can summarize.

 

1) Generally speaking, those that wish to ease some of the F2P restrictions would like to do so to draw in more players...

 

...but it could also be for selfish reasons, IE they want to go free themselves and benefit from their efforts.

 

2) Again, generally speaking, those that wish to keep things the same, or perhaps even increase restrictions would like this to be because they believe that F2P gets too much already, giving away too much for free is not healthy for the game, and F2P players do not support the game like subscribers...

...but it could also be because they simply do not like players getting something for nothing, and do not care if the game dies as a result. They would rather see the game perish then give it over to freeps.

 

So really, it is possible there is a lack of trust from both sides. Naturally those that want restrictions eased and those that want them to remain, or increase, will be enemies with respect to this discussion.

 

It is two separate points of view.

 

A few problems though.

 

The market has changed. The largest games in the market, by leaps and bounds, are free to play games. A very simple point can be made.....

 

...if F2P players do not support a game, how do the top F2P games in the industry dominate the market in players, profits and income?

Read this

 

LoL and WoT are two of the top juggernauts in the industry. This game is a minor player compared to both of those games based on revenue, total players, profits.

 

So...I would say more than enough evidence exists that proves, without a shadow of a doubt that the folks that spend the most play F2P games.

 

That is the problem with absolute facts. Hyperbole rarely can stand against them, even if presented with passion.

Edited October 27, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LyraineAlei]

I'm starting to think that there is a miscommunication about what F2P is.

 

SWTOR has three account types, F2P, Preferred, Subscriber.

 

The first pays nothing whatsoever.

 

The second had at least once paid some money into the game.

 

The third pays approximately $15 USD a month as a bare minimum for full access.

 

In order for F2Ps to be contributing to the profit margins, they have to spend real money. Which bumps them up to Preferred Status in SWTOR.

 

I think that when SOR becomes available to all subscribers, Prefs should get up to 55 and Makeb as an incentive to buy a subscription, either a monthly bill, or a timecard method. But that's my opinion, and I have no idea of how the business works other than a gut feeling of "sounds like a logical and good idea".

 

I know some people lump Prefs and F2Ps into the same group, but for this discussion there are three account types and lumping one with another to make them somehow two, makes it confusing to follow.

[IndigoHawk]

No, you're wrong.

 

An individual f2p player does not have to spend any money to make money for SWTOR. f2p make money as a group. Some f2p players pay, others do not. Since they contribute collectively, there is no reason they should have so many restrictions. As a group they make money for SWTOR, so as a group they should be encouraged to play.

 

Let's say I go to a restaurant with a couple friends. I decide to treat my friends to dinner. The waiter says that's ok, but my friends can't get water, can't use the restroom, aren't allowed to have any bread, and will only get 1 fork each, no knives or spoons. This wouldn't make any sense. I would expect everyone to get good service even though I'm paying. And if my friends were treated that badly, they wouldn't stay even if I was paying for them. And if my friends aren't staying, then neither would I. That's what f2p is like. Not everyone pays but collectively the bill is paid, and everyone, both subs and f2p, need to have a good time for the model to work.

 

Players are content. Players who buy stuff, sell stuff, group with people, roleplay, chat, pvp, whatever ... Interacting with players keeps other people playing. With enough people playing, more stuff is purchased. So, a f2p player who pays nothing is still content for other players and can still make money for the game.

 

Restrictions against f2p being content for other players should be removed. f2p should not have credit limits. It prevents them from buying stuff from subs. Why should subs have to sell cash shop items for less than 200k/350k? (Actually, the credit limit is a huge benefit to f2p. Subs have to sell many items for cheap because f2p can't pay more.) Why should subs have long queues for ops because f2p can't fill slots? Why should subs have groups with people who can't equip good gear?

[theUndead]

No, you're wrong.

 

An individual f2p player does not have to spend any money to make money for SWTOR. f2p make money as a group. Some f2p players pay, others do not. Since they contribute collectively, there is no reason they should have so many restrictions. As a group they make money for SWTOR, so as a group they should be encouraged to play.

 

Let's say I go to a restaurant with a couple friends. I decide to treat my friends to dinner. The waiter says that's ok, but my friends can't get water, can't use the restroom, aren't allowed to have any bread, and will only get 1 fork each, no knives or spoons. This wouldn't make any sense. I would expect everyone to get good service even though I'm paying. And if my friends were treated that badly, they wouldn't stay even if I was paying for them. And if my friends aren't staying, then neither would I. That's what f2p is like. Not everyone pays but collectively the bill is paid, and everyone, both subs and f2p, need to have a good time for the model to work.

 

Players are content. Players who buy stuff, sell stuff, group with people, roleplay, chat, pvp, whatever ... Interacting with players keeps other people playing. With enough people playing, more stuff is purchased. So, a f2p player who pays nothing is still content for other players and can still make money for the game.

 

Restrictions against f2p being content for other players should be removed. f2p should not have credit limits. It prevents them from buying stuff from subs. Why should subs have to sell cash shop items for less than 200k/350k? (Actually, the credit limit is a huge benefit to f2p. Subs have to sell many items for cheap because f2p can't pay more.) Why should subs have long queues for ops because f2p can't fill slots? Why should subs have groups with people who can't equip good gear?

 

No actually you are wrong.

 

And your rather silly real life analogy aside, the fact is pure F2P players contribute NOTHING to the game. They get the entire base game for free which is pretty much 1- 60 content. Yet according to you because they don't actually pay they deserve the same perks as subs. No, it really does not work like that.

 

At least the preferred players actually do contribute by buying coins, by making some revenue for the game. I would even say that some restrictions for preferred players should be relaxed, so I will soften my position to that. For example, things like; credit cap and bars should be increased and even a bug forum for them.

 

However, pure free players in my view do not deserve support and most especially not access to the forums. Yeah I know it is harsh, yeah I know it is a little mean, but that is how I feel about it. If you want to get access to the best features then sub or pay for unlocks. But IMO it is more cost effective to actually sub.

 

Oh and players are NOT content. I don't understand how can say that. Please enlighten me? What is content, however, is what the devs create that we as players consume. Not a sub sect of players. Again I fail to understand what you mean by that. But I digress. No the restrictions should stay for pure free players but maybe a few less for preferred I could get behind.

[Loadsamunny]

I fail to see how being able to play the entire base game for absolutely free is too restrictive.

 

If someone enjoys the game enough that they want to do anything more than dabble in it then they should be willing to subscribe to it.

Failing that, most things can be unlocked with in-game currency.

 

 

F2P is too restrictive = First World Problem.

 

The one that really needs to be unlockable isn't without being and staying a sub: Unlimited Credit Cap.

 

Needs to be a Cartel Market item to lift this cap, even if the cost is hefty (let's say 1500 cartel coins).

Edited October 27, 2014 by Loadsamunny

[CloudzDeven]

snip

 

Interesting way to think about, but I'm ok with most of the QoL restrictions being locked for f2p. The only things I really want changed are the things that prevent them from doing things even without the expansions like the restriction of operations without a pass, the loot for flashpoints and the armor. Credits and the other restrictions associated with it are actually fine with me.

 

snip

 

F2P players contribute plenty to the game. What they don't contribute is money towards the company. F2P players still queue for flashpoints, do missions with people and can still sell items. Some can even do level 50 operations if they can afford a pass from the gtn. F2P may not need access to the forums as a whole, but better that than direct customer support. The FAQ is often outdated and useless so giving them that option alone is a joke. At least with the forums (maybe 1 specific area they can post in like Customer Support) the players can help other players. Which is usually the case anyway. Also unless something changed F2P are locked at level 50 so I'm not sure where you got 1-60 from.

[Ratajack]

No, you're wrong.

 

An individual f2p player does not have to spend any money to make money for SWTOR. f2p make money as a group. Some f2p players pay, others do not. Since they contribute collectively, there is no reason they should have so many restrictions. As a group they make money for SWTOR, so as a group they should be encouraged to play.

 

Let's say I go to a restaurant with a couple friends. I decide to treat my friends to dinner. The waiter says that's ok, but my friends can't get water, can't use the restroom, aren't allowed to have any bread, and will only get 1 fork each, no knives or spoons. This wouldn't make any sense. I would expect everyone to get good service even though I'm paying. And if my friends were treated that badly, they wouldn't stay even if I was paying for them. And if my friends aren't staying, then neither would I. That's what f2p is like. Not everyone pays but collectively the bill is paid, and everyone, both subs and f2p, need to have a good time for the model to work.

 

Players are content. Players who buy stuff, sell stuff, group with people, roleplay, chat, pvp, whatever ... Interacting with players keeps other people playing. With enough people playing, more stuff is purchased. So, a f2p player who pays nothing is still content for other players and can still make money for the game.

 

Restrictions against f2p being content for other players should be removed. f2p should not have credit limits. It prevents them from buying stuff from subs. Why should subs have to sell cash shop items for less than 200k/350k? (Actually, the credit limit is a huge benefit to f2p. Subs have to sell many items for cheap because f2p can't pay more.) Why should subs have long queues for ops because f2p can't fill slots? Why should subs have groups with people who can't equip good gear?

 

Actually, you are wrong.

 

A F2P is more like your friends expecting you to treat them to breakfast, lunch and dinner every day.

 

If you want to treat your friends to game time so they can play without restrictions, then you can do so via game time cards. If you choose not to treat them and they choose not to pay for themselves, then nobody is paying for that "meal", right?

[Lotharofxev]

LOL and WoT are also F2P, but with purchaseable items.

 

Wot:

 

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/31/oct-financial-event/

 

League of Legends:

 

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/store/sales

 

Now, not having played either, I can't tell you if you have to purchase anything from either game to be "competitive". But suggesting they are "F2P" is like claiming Germany recently made all universities "free".

 

At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

[Kalfear]

Every time I see a thread like this all I see is: I'm sub and want to go to f2p so remove restrictions so I can enjoy the same as a sub without paying for it.

 

I'm sorry the only thing F2P offer to the game is more people to queue with they offer no money to the game. Sub spending money in CM is where the money coming from. If the f2p are buying so much from CM, wouldn't it be cheaper to just sub?

 

Yup that is how it reads to me as well

 

Oh they will claim they will always be a subscriber but everyone with a brain knows that's pure BS

They want it free and clear and like to pretend 1000 players not paying anything > then 1 player paying a monthly sub

 

News flash OP, $0.00 < $15.00

 

And lets not forget the eventual self serving post that points out how the subscription model was failing in the game and how F2P saved the game. Of course they refuse to look at the whole picture that this game did amazing original sales (which is proof positive millions of people still willing to sub if the game delivers).

 

Original devs are why this game went down hill out of the gate

Fact is subscription model MMORPGs dont kill MMORPGs

BAD DEVS kill MMORPGs

 

SWToR made a endless stream of very arrogant and obnoxious mistakes and screw up out of the gate and ignored feedback that would have corrected many of those mistakes.

 

The down fall of this game after the initial sales had nothing to do with subscriptions and everything to do with short sighted and arrogant developers combined with a very unfriendly and draconian forum experience.

 

So bored of the "gimme gimme gimme gimme crowd"

 

.

 

I know some people lump Prefs and F2Ps into the same group, but for this discussion there are three account types and lumping one with another to make them somehow two, makes it confusing to follow.

 

as it stands a single $5.00 purchase makes you preferred

 

Sorry but I dont really see a difference between that and F2P

 

Now if they made Preffered pay $5.00/month to actually support the game on a ongoing practice.

Then I agree and like your suggestions

 

But long as they don't have to actually support the game to play 20-30-40-50 hours a week

Well then I fully endorse level 50 max with a ton of cartel only unlocks they have to purchase to reach 55 and enter Makeb.

 

You get what you pay for and they simply are not paying their fair share for future content development

Edited October 27, 2014 by Kalfear

[Khraizin]

Snip

 

The problem with this is that the Free to Pay system is so obtuse and restrictive that it actually negatively impacts me as a paying customer. What if I want for a friend to try the game with me? Two or three plants in i'm like 3-4 levels higher than him because I am earning xp at an accelerated rate. He/She can either try to make up the different in extra activites (Which is unlikely since she/he's limited to a few a week) or...Well, that's pretty much it really. The biggest problem here is that it negatively affects my ability to play the game with a friend without paying into a system designed to squeeze blood from a stone. At this point it isn't just a freebie problem, it's my problem as a -paying customer- and that's just not okay.

 

Edit: In another note, another problem with this system is it leaves free players with little to do and consiquently they are less likely to stick around for an extended period. This may seem fine so long as new people are constantly comming in to try the game...Except the game has been out for three years already and the supply of curious people looking for something new is not infinite. Player retention even amongst Free players is just as important because it helps keep the server population up.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Khraizin

[LordArtemis]

LOL and WoT are also F2P, but with purchaseable items.

 

Wot:

 

http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/pc-browser/31/oct-financial-event/

 

League of Legends:

 

http://na.leagueoflegends.com/en/news/store/sales

 

Now, not having played either, I can't tell you if you have to purchase anything from either game to be "competitive". But suggesting they are "F2P" is like claiming Germany recently made all universities "free".

 

At the end of the day, there is no such thing as a free lunch.

 

They are F2P. To suggest otherwise is silly. You can certainly make the contention that in order to be competitive in those games you have to spend cash....but the same can be said for this game and almost any other F2P game on the market.

 

The mistake folks make is that they think F2P means never spending any money...and sure, in almost all F2P you can enjoy some aspect of the game without paying for it.

 

But naturally, if you want to enjoy the game and be competitive you have to shell out cash.

 

WoT is often cited as having a much better revenue model than LoL. But both are presented as models for the industry.

Edited October 27, 2014 by LordArtemis

[LordArtemis]

I would like to add the following, because it seems a few folks are bent on spreading false or misleading information as truth.

 

100 players subscribed/15 each = 1500

100 F2P players/70 players that pay nothing/30 players that pay 100 = 3000

 

This was demonstrated in more than one study....F2P games depend on whales...a small portion of the F2P population that will past vast amounts of money in game. That can be anywhere from 5 percent up to 30 percent.

 

The studies concluded, on average, that 30 out of 100 F2P players will generate twice as much as 100 subscribed players...that means those 30 players are laying out almost 7 times as much as subscribers in a 30 day period.

 

This is one the reasons why F2P games dominate the industry in total revenue, profits and players.

 

Now, in all fairness I have to note that Bioware mentioned that subscribed players were making the lions share of CM purchases in this game...so this game COULD break the mold, so to speak.

 

Or...it could speak to the weakness of the F2P model here.

 

This information has been posted in this forum time and time again, with the relevant studies linked. Yet some folks are still clinging to the fantasy that there is still a real market for subs (represents a fraction of the market now) and that Subs pay more than Freeps.

 

Both are completely foolish self serving contentions IMO. The reality is that the market has changed, and that is that.

 

It is unlikely we will ever return to the days when the sub was the king. Now it is the freeps.

Edited October 27, 2014 by LordArtemis

[Warrgames]

They are F2P. To suggest otherwise is silly. You can certainly make the contention that in order to be competitive in those games you have to spend cash....but the same can be said for this game and almost any other F2P game on the market.

 

The mistake folks make is that they think F2P means never spending any money...and sure, in almost all F2P you can enjoy some aspect of the game without paying for it.

 

But naturally, if you want to enjoy the game and be competitive you have to shell out cash.

 

WoT is often cited as having a much better revenue model than LoL. But both are presented as models for the industry.

 

LOL

LordArtemis I love how you find anything to try and prove your point. Even if you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Please enlighten us how LoL is anything like SWTOR? Why not compare SWTOR to Daiblo, Halo, Minecraft, Pong.....

Why not compare similar games. WoW, GW2, Rift...

[hadoken]

BioWare has stated that the majority of CM purchases are done by subscribers. I don't think the subscription model is failing, it's just the introduction of a store on top of that has kept the game floating. The F2P part of the game is complete junk and I would never recommend that to anyone. This is a subscription game.

[Warrgames]

I would like to add the following, because it seems a few folks are bent on spreading false or misleading information as truth.

 

100 players subscribed/15 each = 1500

100 F2P players/70 players that pay nothing/30 players that pay 100 = 3000

 

This was demonstrated in more than one study....F2P games depend on whales...a small portion of the F2P population that will past vast amounts of money in game. That can be anywhere from 5 percent up to 30 percent.

 

The studies concluded, on average, that 30 out of 100 F2P players will generate twice as much as 100 subscribed players...that means those 30 players are laying out almost 7 times as much as subscribers in a 30 day period.

 

This is one the reasons why F2P games dominate the industry in total revenue, profits and players.

 

Now, in all fairness I have to note that Bioware mentioned that subscribed players were making the lions share of CM purchases in this game...so this game COULD break the mold, so to speak.

 

Or...it could speak to the weakness of the F2P model here.

 

This information has been posted in this forum time and time again, with the relevant studies linked. Yet some folks are still clinging to the fantasy that there is still a real market for subs (represents a fraction of the market now) and that Subs pay more than Freeps.

 

Both are completely foolish self serving contentions IMO. The reality is that the market has changed, and that is that.

 

It is unlikely we will ever return to the days when the sub was the king. Now it is the freeps.

 

Link to the study?

 

So F2P games are beating WoW?

 

That is too funny. When WoW stream beta of their new expansion, every other streamed game lost so many people watching because people wanted to see what was new in WoW.

Edited October 27, 2014 by Warrgames

[LordArtemis]

LOL

LordArtemis I love how you find anything to try and prove your point. Even if you are comparing apples to oranges.

 

Please enlighten us how LoL is anything like SWTOR? Why not compare SWTOR to Daiblo, Halo, Minecraft, Pong.....

Why not compare similar games. WoW, GW2, Rift...

 

No MMO that I am aware of is anything like a MOBA....though some have some MOBA like elements of course.

 

I clearly proved my point. All I had to do was speak truth.

 

Naturally folks can make excuses why they believe SWTOR will never make any more money than it makes at present, and that is fine, since we are all speculating on that point.

 

But always happy to entertain you Wargames.

[LordArtemis]

Link to the study?

 

So F2P games are beating WoW?

 

That is too funny. When WoW stream beta of their new expansion, every other streamed game lost so many people watching because people wanted to see what was new in WoW.

 

You and I have been down this road Wargames, therefore you are well aware of the studies I am speaking of. They are common knowledge here.

 

So, as usual...no links. Look them up yourself. Or dismiss my point. It is your choice.

 

And yes, F2P games are CLEARLY beating WoW in leaps and bounds, players, revenue and profits.

 

Again, this is not some secret information, a cursory search will provide all the answers you need.

[Warrgames]

No MMO that I am aware of is anything like a MOBA....though some have some MOBA like elements of course.

 

I clearly proved my point. All I had to do was speak truth.

 

Naturally folks can make excuses why they believe SWTOR will never make any more money than it makes at present, and that is fine, since we are all speculating on that point.

 

But always happy to entertain you Wargames.

 

You failed to talk about WoW which is the same type of game. It is only the truth in your little world.

 

Never played WoT but I have played LoL. You either play random characters they choose for you or you buy characters that you like playing. When you buy a character you get a couple looks, so to get your own look you have to buy another appearance. They make their money buy forcing you to play what they want and the way they want you to look or you pay to play the way you want.

[Warrgames]

You and I have been down this road Wargames, therefore you are well aware of the studies I am speaking of. They are common knowledge here.

 

So, as usual...no links. Look them up yourself. Or dismiss my point. It is your choice.

 

And yes, F2P games are CLEARLY beating WoW in leaps and bounds, players, revenue and profits.

 

Again, this is not some secret information, a cursory search will provide all the answers you need.

 

We have been down this road so many times. You talk out your *** with ZERO FACTS and when someone ask for you to prove your facts, you dance all around them.

[LordArtemis]

BioWare has stated that the majority of CM purchases are done by subscribers.

 

I made sure to mention that point in my post, and also conceded that this game could very well "break the mold" for the hybrid model as a result. Any logical person has to concede that IMO.

 

I don't think the subscription model is failing, it's just the introduction of a store on top of that has kept the game floating.

 

Well, the industry statistics and this games history both clearly demonstrate that subscription based models are in fact failing in the market compared to their F2P brethren. WoW is still very healthy, and for an MMO has a substantial population, but for the market for online games it is a small slice of current players.

 

MOBAs dominate the industry, and F2P MOBAs dominate the revenue and profit margins.

 

The F2P part of the game is complete junk and I would never recommend that to anyone. This is a subscription game.

 

I don't think that is unfair to say. I think the F2P model here needs improvement. But naturally one could argue the entire F2P system is bad for the market, and there is an argument for that certainly.

[LordArtemis]

We have been down this road so many times. You talk out your *** with ZERO FACTS and when someone ask for you to prove your facts, you dance all around them.

 

No, I provide plenty of facts, most of the time in the same thread where folks ....well, strenuously demand I provide links so they can forum PVP.

 

Your the one dancing Wargames and you know it. You have internet. Search.

 

Or, you could just choose to keep up. That would work as well.

 

Of course, you could choose to stick to this contention instead....

Every time I see a thread like this all I see is: I'm sub and want to go to f2p so remove restrictions so I can enjoy the same as a sub without paying for it.

 

Sums up your views pretty well I think.

Edited October 27, 2014 by LordArtemis

[hadoken]

Well, the industry statistics and this games history both clearly demonstrate that subscription based models are in fact failing in the market compared to their F2P brethren. WoW is still very healthy, and for an MMO has a substantial population, but for the market for online games it is a small slice of current players.

 

MOBAs dominate the industry, and F2P MOBAs dominate the revenue and profit margins.

 

I think lumping MOBAs into MMOs as part of a huge "F2P Market" is disingenuous. They are very different kinds of games that cater to very different kinds of players (as a core, though some overlap). MOBAs are by nature short term play oriented - get in for a game and get out. MMOs are a longer investment time-wise, intentionally.

 

I still think the reason F2P MMOs are successful is because those specific ones aren't worth paying a subscription for, not that the payment method itself is a failure. People don't subscribe to WOW because they have no alternative. That's never been the case. They subscribe because it is a quality product, which a lot of MMO companies fail to realize. You can't just spit out a product and throw a monthly fee on it and call it a successful MMO. That's the recipe for going F2P in less than a year from launch. Again - not a failure of the business model, a failure of the product itself.

[LordArtemis]

I think lumping MOBAs into MMOs as part of a huge "F2P Market" is disingenuous. They are very different kinds of games that cater to very different kinds of players (as a core, though some overlap). MOBAs are by nature short term play oriented - get in for a game and get out. MMOs are a longer investment time-wise, intentionally.

 

I still think the reason F2P MMOs are successful is because those specific ones aren't worth paying a subscription for, not that the payment method itself is a failure. People don't subscribe to WOW because they have no alternative. That's never been the case. They subscribe because it is a quality product, which a lot of MMO companies fail to realize. You can't just spit out a product and throw a monthly fee on it and call it a successful MMO. That's the recipe for going F2P in less than a year from launch. Again - not a failure of the business model, a failure of the product itself.

 

I think claiming it is disingenuous is unfair...but one could argue it is not a fair comparison certainly.

 

There is a good report out on how the market looks overall, revenues across both types, and why the market should be looked at as a whole.

 

http://www.superdataresearch.com/market-data/mmo-market/

 

I encourage anyone to read it and make up their own minds. Superdata is a great resource for market information studies IMO.

 

But I would agree with you on one point....Quality certainly sells in the MMO market. Unfortunately that market is transforming into something more and more casual oriented.

Edited October 27, 2014 by LordArtemis