It's not a "free" MMORPG anymore.

[Kaida23]

Jagex wants RS as a whole not cater to a select few who seperate themselves'.

Like those who choose to pay for extra content?

 

This will not bring the community together, it will only splinter it further.

[Huzzah]

I can actually see the fact that they're hiding inactive accounts and such as being better for competition. I mean sure, It would be nice to remember the top players but besides the first or second to the top nobody seems to remember them anyways. Can anyone, for example tell me the third player to max melees in classic? Also for the new player I believe it wouldn't be such a daunting task. I mean I wouldnt enjoy being level 40wc and looking at the current high scores. Also its not Jagex seperating the game I very much believe its the hardcore F2P players. I mean a natural progression would normally end in someone getting membership if they enjoy the content and I'm sure Jagex would rather those type of players. I mean they have to pay their bills somehow, right?

[LordAdib]

Can anyone, for example tell me the third player to max melees in classic?

 

Was it Ladykilljoy, right after Gearshifter, who was after Zonghui?

[Blaze The Movie Fan]

I don't care if Jagex only cares about money, it doesn't give them the excuse of restricting the free game too much. Deleting bots is one thing, but taking away something most free games have is totally unacceptable.

 

How can you guys even defend that decision? I will admit that I am against the free game, I think it's just incredibly boring, but do I want people who don't pay for the game being unable to compare their scores with others? Hell no.

 

I lost my respect for Jagex when they banned people for swearing when they didn't even use swear words. And the fact that they all of a sudden allow people to say the F word in the game proves their hypocrisy.

 

If you defend Jagex's decision to remove the ability to compare scores with other players, I have no respect for you, I'm sorry. Again, I hate the free game, but making a decision that will discourage free players from playing the game is a sign of bad business.

[homer205]

Can anyone, for example tell me the third player to max melees in classic?

 

Was it Ladykilljoy, right after Gearshifter, who was after Zonghui?

Twas Gregechidna6, here's an interview he did for the Times. http://www.tip.it/runescape/index.php?times=68

[Huzzah]

Twas Gregechidna6

 

Rock on. He used to pop on for awhile but I haven't seen him in a bit.

[Monky]

Hate to be one of those guys but... free to play has enough in it to keep someone going indefinitely. They have staff that makes the updates... the staff needs paying.

[Gandorf61]

Hate to be one of those guys but... free to play has enough in it to keep someone going indefinitely. They have staff that makes the updates... the staff needs paying.

 

Taking away F2P highscores doesn't help pay staff, which is what's being complained about. I agree that F2P don't need updates but taking away existing services and then giving a bad excuse for it is something that's wrong.

[Blaze The Movie Fan]

Hate to be one of those guys but... free to play has enough in it to keep someone going indefinitely. They have staff that makes the updates... the staff needs paying.

 

Taking away F2P highscores doesn't help pay staff, which is what's being complained about. I agree that F2P don't need updates but taking away existing services and then giving a bad excuse for it is something that's wrong.

 

Not only is it wrong, it also discourages new players from paying the full game, that's what I have a beef with.

 

I say if you hate the free game, pay for the full game, it only costs six dollars a month which isn't a lot.

 

But how is anyone gonna be interested in the full game if they can't even submit their scores in the free game? Almost every free game has a score system, so taking that away is not only stupid, but also hurts the game.

[Erewhon2]

If being F2P is about the challenge of playing the game in a restricted way (strange way to go about it, but your choice) and not in any way about the money. Then why not become a fee paying F2P community?

 

Think carefully about your answer before you reply, and for goodness sake....don't put "why would I pay for a free game?" the answer is above!

[diablo6669]

come on guys it is after all a business it does take money to run it you can make more then 8 dollars a month collecting cans on the side of the road give me a break stop griping and start recycling in america anyway cans are 60 cents a pound and copper is like 1.75 a pound start diving dumpsters

[Saradomin_Mage]

The whole point of the topic sure flew over your head, didn't it?

[Erewhon2]

Interesting that not one person in this thread have responded to my post.....hmmmm, wonder why? :wink:

[essiw]

Interesting that not one person in this thread have responded to my post.....hmmmm, wonder why? :wink:

I've asked the same question once too, didn't get a reply to it as far as I know.

 

I still think letting f2p-ers pay 1-2 euro's for the highscores would be reasonable.

[Erewhon2]

Interesting that not one person in this thread have responded to my post.....hmmmm, wonder why? :wink:

I've asked the same question once too, didn't get a reply to it as far as I know.

 

I still think letting f2p-ers pay 1-2 euro's for the highscores would be reasonable.

 

Well I have to admit it would be a hard to find an appropriate response to our questions...unless money is the issue. But then of course if money was the issue it throws out all the other arguments made. :huh:

[highlanders]

Free mmorpgs don't exist. F2P games push you into buying stuff from the cash shop. P2P games allow you to test and then subscribe if you liked it. While some big name P2P games only give you 30 days or something to test, RS gives you forever. But I think the general idea is that if you like RS, you subscribe so that you get access to everything, you're not meant to play competitively on the F2P version.

[Blaze The Movie Fan]

you're not meant to play competitively on the F2P version.

 

You know that simply destroys all the arguments I had.

 

Yeah, the free game is only meant to be an example. Why didn't I think of that when I made my arguments?

 

Goddamn it, I really am an idiot.

[Kimberly]

[snipity snip]

 

I still think letting f2p-ers pay 1-2 euro's for the highscores would be reasonable.

 

Well I have to admit it would be a hard to find an appropriate response to our questions...unless money is the issue. But then of course if money was the issue it throws out all the other arguments made. :huh:

 

Why not? Microtransactions. And that's a whole different discussion.

[Mateusz328]

F2P = demo

P2P = full version

 

If you're not satisfied with demo, buy full version or quit. Simple like that.

 

But yes - there are many totally free* MMORPG games that are a lot better than RuneScape, there's not doubt about it. It's up to you, it's your choice.

 

*you don't have to pay for playing. Ofc, there are those "item-malls" where you can buy items for real-cash.

[Erewhon2]

[snipity snip]

 

I still think letting f2p-ers pay 1-2 euro's for the highscores would be reasonable.

 

Well I have to admit it would be a hard to find an appropriate response to our questions...unless money is the issue. But then of course if money was the issue it throws out all the other arguments made. :huh:

 

Why not? Microtransactions. And that's a whole different discussion.

 

Ugh! don't even go down the microtransactions route! Ever played the dying game of War of Legends? People have spent thousands of dollars on that and there is only a hard core of people who play it anymore.

 

As for RS, it's too late to change the structure and nature of the game in that way, possibly it could have worked for RS if anybody had known what microtransactions were when it was originally designed. In the meantime my original query was this:

 

If being F2P is about the challenge of playing the game in a restricted way (strange way to go about it, but your choice) and not in any way about the money. Then why not become a fee paying F2P community?

 

Think carefully about your answer before you reply, and for goodness sake....don't put "why would I pay for a free game?" the answer is above!

 

It would be great if someone actually answered it (based on the current game, not microtransactions or changing the structure of the game).

[quitthegame]

If being F2P is about the challenge of playing the game in a restricted way (strange way to go about it, but your choice) and not in any way about the money. Then why not become a fee paying F2P community?

 

Well, they can't really just wave a magic wand and become a fee-paying F2P community, they'd have to lobby Jagex to implement some kind of system for that. Perhaps one where they get members bank size, no ads on F2P worlds, and show on highscore as "special F2P only contributor"-- but can't log in to members worlds, use members skills/items, and on official forums they show as "f2pworld membership" or something. Obviously someone in an F2P community isn't going to want to buy membership without that, they'll look like they "cheated" or whatever you'd call it. So if your question is meant to be exactly that: why aren't the "serious" f2p'ers lobbying for such a system, if it's not about not paying for the game...then yes, I agree completely, why aren't they? I'd argue that they feel entitled after this long.

 

But then of course if money was the issue it throws out all the other arguments made.

 

I guess I'm confused by this statement. If money is the issue, it throws out ONE argument, that it's not about the money. How does it throw out "all the other arguments"? That argument isn't even all that common.

[Erewhon2]

If being F2P is about the challenge of playing the game in a restricted way (strange way to go about it, but your choice) and not in any way about the money. Then why not become a fee paying F2P community?

 

Well, they can't really just wave a magic wand and become a fee-paying F2P community, they'd have to lobby Jagex to implement some kind of system for that. Perhaps one where they get members bank size, no ads on F2P worlds, and show on highscore as "special F2P only contributor"-- but can't log in to members worlds, use members skills/items, and on official forums they show as "f2pworld membership" or something. Obviously someone in an F2P community isn't going to want to buy membership without that, they'll look like they "cheated" or whatever you'd call it. So if your question is meant to be exactly that: why aren't the "serious" f2p'ers lobbying for such a system, if it's not about not paying for the game...then yes, I agree completely, why aren't they? I'd argue that they feel entitled after this long.

 

But then of course if money was the issue it throws out all the other arguments made.

 

I guess I'm confused by this statement. If money is the issue, it throws out ONE argument, that it's not about the money. How does it throw out "all the other arguments"? That argument isn't even all that common.

 

I think one of the points that many F2P's have made is about playing the F2P game as it stands; because it's 'harder' and more of a 'challenge', so changing it would negate that. Hence my point of pay a membership fee, to get highscores etc. But keep the difficulty by only playing on free F2P worlds. Not for me, but it is an option.

 

My other point was that if not paying for membership was mainly about money, then the arguments about being a 'pure F2P' on principle, or playing F2P because it is a better game or better community etc...would be questionable ('throws out' may have been a bit strong :wink: )

[Guest jrhairychest]

Free mmorpgs don't exist. F2P games push you into buying stuff from the cash shop. P2P games allow you to test and then subscribe if you liked it. While some big name P2P games only give you 30 days or something to test, RS gives you forever. But I think the general idea is that if you like RS, you subscribe so that you get access to everything, you're not meant to play competitively on the F2P version.

 

The man's got a point..............................

 

Perhaps a limit on timescale should have been imposed on F2P to avoid all this in the first place. Plucking numbers out the sky here but initially say 3 months then after that you subscibe for at least 1 month. Then go back to F2P for a max of 1 month before you have to re-subscribe.

[firebird308]

Perhaps a limit on timescale should have been imposed on F2P to avoid all this in the first place. Plucking numbers out the sky here but initially say 3 months then after that you subscibe for at least 1 month. Then go back to F2P for a max of 1 month before you have to re-subscribe.

 

Then they would have lost me because I played f2p for years as a teenager and didn't have a way to pay for the game. And I'm sure there were and still are plenty of people in that position.

[quitthegame]

I think one of the points that many F2P's have made is about playing the F2P game as it stands; because it's 'harder' and more of a 'challenge', so changing it would negate that. Hence my point of pay a membership fee, to get highscores etc. But keep the difficulty by only playing on free F2P worlds. Not for me, but it is an option.

 

You're just restating your point, which I understood already, without addressing the issues that I raised with it. The main one being: even if you don't take advantage of member's worlds, by becoming a member you'll look like you are, which is a negative to f2p purists.

 

 

My other point was that if not paying for membership was mainly about money, then the arguments about being a 'pure F2P' on principle, or playing F2P because it is a better game or better community etc...would be questionable ('throws out' may have been a bit strong :wink: )

 

Yes...obviously. You already said that. Why did you repeat it? Perhaps you are confused, for most people it's mainly about money, but for some it's not. You have to address each group of people with arguments that address their arguments, no single argument will suffice for alll groups.