If You Pay, You Have No Say On F2P

[NukeMarine]

George Carlin made an enlightened observation: "They say, 'If you don't vote, you have no right to complain,' but where's the logic in that? If you vote, and you elect dishonest, incompetent politicians, and they get into office and screw everything up, you are responsible for what they have done. You voted them in. You caused the problem. You have no right to complain." Now, personally, I look at it like "if you take part in the election, you accept that your candidate(s) might not win". In other words you've agreed with the system and the results by taking part in it. Only those that chose to opt out can complain about the winning candidate. Now the RS point....

 

If you pay for membership, you forfeited all reasonable input about free to play gameplay. Your concern should be the member servers and the gameplay on those servers. F2P getting a new quest? Not your concern unless you stop paying. F2P getting a new skill? Not your concern unless you give up membership. On top of that, traditionally any update to F2P has also been a more significant update for P2P (updated Lumbridge graphics, Lumbridge tasks, Dungeoneering, Fist of Guthix, etc.) In those cases, you can complain about the P2P portions of the update cause it's impact on you.

 

Think about it, if you're a resident of Tennessee, went to school there, had a house, and other stuff then it makes sense that you have a say in the politics and upkeep of Tennessee. You later decide that you want to pay extra cost of living and move to California. Guess what, you've lost all reasonable input in the internal workings of Tennessee. You owe nothing to Tennessee and Tennessee owes nothing to you. Doesn't matter if the time you lived there there was no high speed rail, mass transit, or better paying jobs and high quality of life with the same cost of living. Sure, you could offer your opinion on the matter, but is anyone going to pay attention to you if the most you offer is "They shouldn't be living as good as we are in California unless they pay more in taxes like we do!"? Although reasonable opinions on whether something is a good idea in other areas of the world will likely be respected.

 

Now, if you have a problem with Jagex's business model, I suggest you invest in Jagex's company. Renting an account is not investing anymore than buying game at GameStop. I'm talking use your cash and buy part ownership in Jagex. Then you have actual say on what can create a better return on your money while still keeping in line with the Company's overall vision. Until then, if you do want to question and offer suggestions on a business model, at least keep the business concept in mind while you do it.

 

Perhaps to sum it up: Paying $6 a month gets you access to members content and basic input on that content. Jagex is a smart business so it might listen and adapt to that input, though is under no obligation to do so. Assuming more than that is just delusions of grandeur. By all means, offer input on what you think can improve situations even if you have no dog in the fight. Offer reasoned debate and discussion. However, don't presume that your $6/month gives you power over a game (F2P RS) that's not meant for you or over a company that you don't own any stock.

[quitthegame]

Anyone can make an F2P account, so anyone has equal say/power over F2P. Which basically amounts to roughly negative 500 say/power units.

[K4ylan]

Assuming this is about highscores:

 

All F2pers want them to stay, and most P2Pers want them to stay the same as well. So, it really doesn't matter in this case.

[NukeMarine]

Anyone can make an F2P account, so anyone has equal say/power over F2P. Which basically amounts to roughly negative 500 say/power units.

Many do make secondary accounts such as pures and play them on F2P. Those persons have legit cause about improving F2P gameplay even if they also have a P2P account. My thesis is about those that complain about improvement to F2P servers when they're playing on a P2P server.

 

Now, yes, there is some crossover. When you open up more resources on F2P, that will have an economic impact on P2P. Usually, such cases in arguments are non-existant. It's more along the lines of "You can't have nice things".

 

Assuming this is about highscores:

 

All F2pers want them to stay, and most P2Pers want them to stay the same as well. So, it really doesn't matter in this case.

No, this goes beyond that. Anytime there's talk or suggestions about improving the F2P experience there are the trolls and Cartman's out there bleeting "No pay no say" with nothing else to add to the discussion. The highscore "discussion" with those very replies just got me thinking more about it.

[Sorator]

Very nice comparison, but you missed a few points.

 

Think about it, if you're a resident of Tennessee, went to school there, had a house, and other stuff then it makes sense that you have a say in the politics and upkeep of Tennessee. You later decide that you want to pay extra cost of living and move to California. Guess what, you've lost all reasonable input in the internal workings of Tennessee. You owe nothing to Tennessee and Tennessee owes nothing to you. Doesn't matter if the time you lived there there was no high speed rail, mass transit, or better paying jobs and high quality of life with the same cost of living. Sure, you could offer your opinion on the matter, but is anyone going to pay attention to you if the most you offer is "They shouldn't be living as good as we are in California unless they pay more in taxes like we do!"? Although reasonable opinions on whether something is a good idea in other areas of the world will likely be respected.

 

The problem here is that you still own a house and such in Tennessee. While you would have to specify whether your primary residence was in TN or in CA for the purpose of some voting rights, you would still retain property voting rights in both states - you still get a say in things like property tax increases, because it still directly affects you, though you can still only vote once in the presidential election.

 

Likewise, even though our primary residence may be in members worlds, we still have the option of playing in free worlds - thus, we still get some say in how the free worlds operate. Even more importantly, both members and free players are currently/were previously listed on the same high scores list - thus, both free players and members get a say in how the high scores list operates. (While it might seem like members have nothing to lose by booting out countless free players from the high scores list, that really depends on the person - I personally would rather see how I rank among all players, not just members.)

 

Now, if you have a problem with Jagex's business model, I suggest you invest in Jagex's company. Renting an account is not investing anymore than buying game at GameStop. I'm talking use your cash and buy part ownership in Jagex. Then you have actual say on what can create a better return on your money while still keeping in line with the Company's overall vision. Until then, if you do want to question and offer suggestions on a business model, at least keep the business concept in mind while you do it.

 

Ah, but if a significant amount of your customers dislike something that your business does, is it not worthwhile to reconsider? Certainly, pressure from investors will get a much faster result, but pressure from customers will often get a result as well - if no one's willing to pay for your product the way you're selling it now, then your investors won't be very happy. I doubt that enough people would quit to cause that kind of reconsideration on behalf of Jagex, but you'd still want to reconsider if your actions are generating a lot of bad publicity - and that's exactly what's happening here, I do believe.

 

 

Again, I like your thoughts, I just think you missed a few points.

[Troacctid]

See, the thing is, if I care about the health and the future of the game as a whole, I have to care a lot about what happens to F2P, because the free game is crucial to RuneScape's well-being. Every new subscribing member starts in F2P. If the F2P experience is bad, RuneScape will fail to attract new players, and its playerbase will wither and die over time. But if the F2P experience is top-notch, RuneScape will attract new players to the free game who can then go on to spend money on it.

 

Since we're in analogy-town already, your argument is a lot like saying "Why should you care about how bad the school system is? You don't have any kids."

[Makoto_the_Phoenix]

I like your argument and in principle you're right, but you're also incorrect. The biggest thing is that yes, while players don't have a say in anything since they own no stake in the company, customers themselves can vote with their feet if they're truly dissatisfied. Giving your feedback about the game doesn't have quite the same effect as sitting on a board of directors, but it can be felt - if enough customers leave the company behind, then it's just as good as having a stake.

 

Waving money in front of Jagex doesn't mean you own them, but it does mean that if the dissatisfaction of the critical mass reaches a peak, then there'll be a lot of change.

[NukeMarine]

I like your argument and in principle you're right, but you're also incorrect. The biggest thing is that yes, while players don't have a say in anything since they own no stake in the company, customers themselves can vote with their feet if they're truly dissatisfied. Giving your feedback about the game doesn't have quite the same effect as sitting on a board of directors, but it can be felt - if enough customers leave the company behind, then it's just as good as having a stake.

 

Waving money in front of Jagex doesn't mean you own them, but it does mean that if the dissatisfaction of the critical mass reaches a peak, then there'll be a lot of change.

Let me apologize by not emphasizing this is more about the negative input from members that claim that only people that pay should get benefits. They're complaining about positive changes to the free portion of the game as if it's an insult to them. Unless the change negatively implacts member gameplay, as pointed out above and by yourself, complaints about them ring of nothing more than selfishness.

 

By the way, I did imply that a smart company will listen to the reasonable inputs of its customers when I wrote: "Jagex is a smart business so it might listen and adapt to that input [from players], though is under no obligation to do so." By all means, players should vote with their pocket book but realize that Jagex is looking at all votes (those that end up subscribing, and stay subscribe) not just them most vocal ones on the forums.

 

It's a complicated issue with a lot of give and take. No question of that in my mind.

[Troacctid]

Let me apologize by not emphasizing this is more about the negative input from members that claim that only people that pay should get benefits. They're complaining about positive changes to the free portion of the game as if it's an insult to them.

Then you have very poor timing, since you're posting this right in the middle of a big ol' controversy about a negative change to the free game. :mellow:

[Sorator]

Yeah, didn't realize that's where you were aiming this. And my apologies for missing that; that was entirely my fault.

[Bxpprod]

F2P has userbase of x% (which, factually, is not 100%), meaning that the p2p userbase is (100-x)%. Now, sure, we can have an "uprising" in F2P if we want. Falador Riots of old, because lets face it, they've worked everytime. I mean, they eventually did take away restricted trade, right? It only took 3-4 years. But to absolutely remove the remaining portion (that portion, of course, being P2P) removes a fair proportion of the voices.

 

To isolate yourselves as "the only people who have a say" takes out a substantial support base, of people - who, in the eyes of Jagex, seem to have a bigger say - many of whom have stood against this series of updates and said "well, this is unacceptable." Now, by all means, you are able to publically denounce these people because "they have p2p" and therefore "have no say on F2P" (we'll get to that in a moment shall we?) but to alienate a substantial support base like you are suggesting is not going to assist your cause, infact, it has the potential to be negative.

 

Whilst I agree there are people who are both members and do not support the F2P player agenda ("you don't pay, you don't have a say), you cannot reasonably expect uniform support for your stance. It's not going to happen. Instead of removing affiliation with the entire P2P community, which from all accounts, is what you are suggesting, you should be making use of the support you are getting from segments in the P2P community. Because, frankly, uniform statements about who has a right to speak and who doesn't, has the potential to create enemies to the cause.

 

Moving onto the "P2P vs F2P" thing. You have to understand, that myself, as a paying customer, do have a right to get angry and make statements regarding F2P. Why? Because I'm not paying solely for P2P. There is overlap, things that F2P get, I get as well (of course, it is not the same in reverse). While some of the decisions that are made do not affect me directly - such as the highscores thing, a) because I'm a member and b) because I don't really care - while others will (such as a new F2P skill).

 

As an addendum, I can use the George Carlin quote as a means of "F2P don't have a say" quite easily. You don't pay (of course, a substitute for voting), you don't get to whinge. But that's not constructive in this situation at all.

 

Edit: Nuke, you are P2P, so as a final note, what gives you the right to make statements about "who can and can't talk for F2P" when you aren't F2P yourself. Seems a bit contradictory. Just a thought.

[NukeMarine]

Let me apologize by not emphasizing this is more about the negative input from members that claim that only people that pay should get benefits. They're complaining about positive changes to the free portion of the game as if it's an insult to them.

Then you have very poor timing, since you're posting this right in the middle of a big ol' controversy about a negative change to the free game. :mellow:

Actually, it was all the "no pay no say" in the thread about F2P high score removal that was the final straw if you will. Now, one can argue that the change has a benefit to members as many, many players will see a huge boost to their levels. However, the naysayers weren't even thinking that far. They only said "Guys should be glad for what little they have and should have less than that anyway."

[Fra]

My philosophy is this, let f2p have anything they want, until the point where my membership cost is about to increase. Then, I'd put a foot down. I don't really care if they have more benefits until it starts effecting me. If they are taking down the highscores for f2p to save me a dollar a month, why not. However that's only an "if". I personally think that f2p deserves highscores, but that's really none of my business at the moment.

[Returnofmic]

However, if what happens in Tennessee also affects you when you move to California, you ought to be able to voice your concern over what happens not only in California, but in Tennessee as well.

[Yay0siris]

members put money into the game and should receive the benefits.

 

f2p players don't put money into the game and shouldn't receive updates unless it's a graphical update.

 

why should i pay money so some twerp can get an update? i don't associate with the f2p players nor do i care if they're there.

 

it's the same as a jobless person. they contribute nothing financially into the community so they shouldn't get government funding.

[Bxpprod]

members put money into the game and should receive the benefits.

 

f2p players don't put money into the game and shouldn't receive updates unless it's a graphical update.

 

why should i pay money so some twerp can get an update? i don't associate with the f2p players nor do i care if they're there.

 

That's a poorly constructed argument on both accounts.

F2P costs are covered by advertisements. You as an F2P player, are displayed advertisements as an off-set for not directly contributing. You are contributing simply by being there - no F2P, no advertisement revenue,l ess income for Jagex.

 

it's the same as a jobless person. they contribute nothing financially into the community so they shouldn't get government funding.

 

Unemployment benefits (pensions etc) -> able to buy things -> buy things that are taxed and see businesses profit, who also pay tax, and employ people, who also, funnily enough, pay tax. Not contributing?

[Randox]

The way I look at it, the f2p game exists (now) for the sole purpose of creating potential future subscribers. I think the fact that the game has not become a total demo with things like level caps, or a gameplay time limit is quite frankly amazing. I'd have to assume Jagex is either a super nice company, or the ad revenue is enough to pay for the free game (which could very well change now since I suspect that most of the bots being f2p boosted ad revenue considerably), which is why they are happy to let people who will never become members continue to play their game. The other thing is that since the free game has always been unlimited in these aspects, it doesn't cost them to keep it this way, and on the whole, it probably doesn't do that much harm. The people who never get members, probably never were going to anyway, so that's cool.

 

I don't have a problem when f2p gets updates that further its role as a recruitment tool though. The more members the game gets, the more money Jagex has and that means more cool stuff gets developed. I do have a problem with free players who somehow feel entitled to more than updates that are geared to making f2p more effective as a recruitment tool. It is there to showcase and sample the game, and it shouldn't be funded to do anything more than that. I was f2p for 3 or 4 years, and this was when I was much younger, and I never felt entitled to anything.

 

Sure, some of the members are really rude, or being really stupid about it. But there is no shortage of ungrateful free players either. I don't think either side can take the high road.

[Huzzah]

I agree 100% about the jobless response. Also its meant for the sense they don't become homeless as once someones homeless it would be even harder for them to get a job don't you think? Bad thing to compare it to. As for F2P paying in ad fees, it might only cover their bandwith? I doubt Jagex is pulling in enough to pay their programmers based off viewing ads. I bet most have never even clicked an ad, thb. IF you have, good for you but I still feel the majority doesn't and wouldn't. ..And some even complain about them being there.

[Bxpprod]

As for F2P paying in ad fees, it might only cover their bandwith? I doubt Jagex is pulling in enough to pay their programmers based off viewing ads. I bet most have never even clicked an ad, thb. IF you have, good for you but I still feel the majority doesn't and wouldn't. ..And some even complain about them being there.

 

When I meant F2P costs, I did mean servers and bandwidth, rather than staff costs, which are funded presumably from other areas (brb being jagex and knowing, but I'd say P2P subscription would cover a part of that). As for ads, Jagex gets the money for advertisement space regardless of whether or not you click. There could be no hits on the advertisements, but they are still paid for taking up the space.

[Omali]

it's the same as a jobless person. they contribute nothing financially into the community so they shouldn't get government funding.

 

Every $1 spent on unemployment generates $1.90 in the economy, but that's a topic for a different discussion.

[Th e Doctor]

it's the same as a jobless person. they contribute nothing financially into the community so they shouldn't get government funding.

 

Every $1 spent on unemployment generates $1.90 in the economy, but that's a topic for a different discussion.

 

Citation needed.

 

On topic : Members have access to both members and f2p content. So why should we not get a say in content which we get to access? Flawed argument is flawed.

[Bxpprod]

In response to citation needed:-

 

Similarly, the Congressional Budget Office says unemployment checks offer the biggest bang for the buck of any government policy designed to jump-start economic growth anywhere from 70 cents to $1.90 for every $1 spent on benefits. Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Analytics, pegs the figure at $1.61.

 

USA Today

 

Couldn't find the Moody's Analytics article on it. Furthermore

 

Allowing unemployment benefits to lapse would result in the economy being slower by an additional quarter of a percent and cost 200,000 jobs [...]

Lower-income recipients and people getting unemployment benefits tend to spend the money quickly on day-to-day necessities.

 

Washinton Post

 

[/derailment]

[inb4deleted]