Uber needs to save Chris Taylor from World of Tanks

Only in the early days did you have to buy it. It's since become free-to-play:

How bizarre.

Please. no gamer doesn't know about TF2. the image was aimed as a contradiction. https://forums.uberent.com/threads/...from-world-of-tanks.64370/page-2#post-1003690

it's just that what is going on with TF2 is not applicable to RTS.

there's no way you can say TF2 = F2P - P2W -> PA = F2P - P2W.

The irony, someone else in this thread literally said "But you pay got tf2, it's not f2p"

Anyway, never said you could! He just said there were no f2p games the we're not p2w, which is incorrrct.

TBH that's a poor example of 'not p2w'. We already have stuff like LoL, Dota and (early) path of exile, which were all f2p, with absolutely no p2w elements at all.

are you kidding me?

you don't play lol I take it?

You aren't familiar with lol's inside joke of "release it then patch it" jig riot always runs with champions right?

I don't see how that's relevant?

as soon as you start playing LoL, you have the champs on free rotation, which sufficiently cover all the different roles, they'll always have an AD, AP, support, Tank, etc. you can pay to permanently unlock new champions, but you don't need to, and tbh it's trivial to earn the free currency to unlock new champs that way. The only things gated off behind a pay wall are cosmetic skins and the ability to be lazy with rune pages, that's it.

At the rate they release new champs these days, people who play LoL regularly are drowning in IP, more than enough to unlock whatever new champ comes around for free.

because champs come out intentionally faster then you can make points so if you want to buy every new one on Day1 (and you do since they win you every game) you have to chip in real cash every one in a while.

there you go... pay to win in it's best camouflaged form.

Please read a post before you reply to it.

Also, I don't think your claim about new champs being OP is actually true, i think there are a few cases in which that was certainly the case, and you've expanded that into a generalisation.

Your reluctance to accept F2P as a valid, proper, monetization strategy is beyond me. And, there have already been F2p RTS's see Gas Powereds AOE:O. It was a preety solid RTS.

it rather will be called world of total annihilation ...

seriusly, but after SupCom 2, I think that he is Total Annihilation George Lucas

it is never a single person who develops a game anyway. It's a team working, using the resources they have. Judging a single person of that team without knowing the team or the resources is pretty meaningless.

I still don't see how SC2 was horrible, it definitely didn't live up to FA but it wasn't horrible.

It wasn't a supcom game, good, fun, but not supcom.

Is essentially what it boils down too.

that's not true, it simply isn't.

and it doesn't matter.

if there is a way for you to win by paying then you're playing p2w, stop trying to beautify the dirty reality, stop trying to protect lol.

no it wasn't.

and I'm sorry for my reluctance. I'm absolutely positive I'm right on this matter.

I will protect LoL against false claims. Heck, I'll protect anything against false claims, misinformation grinds my gears somethin' fierce, even if it's about something I don't like.

I was a Legendary founder on Mechwarrior online and I'll be the first to agree that they dun messed up royally. Because they did.

It just feels like you've decided you hate F2P already, and now you're making up arguments and forcing examples to try and fit your conclusion.

The problem is that the only thing required to completely dismantle your entire argument is the existence of a single F2P game that isn't P2W, and we already have several.

What is actually that bad about p2w if the pay part has heavy diminishing returns after a certain point?
PA in a way is p2w as well: You can't even play (and not playing = never wining at all obviously ) if you don't pay. If you pay you pay once so you get a chance to win since you can play. Paying more, while quite possible in the armory, has a 0% increase in your chance to win.

Thought experiment: Imagine PA would be free to play in general. However the free version only has all units at 20% normal health. To get more unit health you'd have to pay. Let's make up a formula such that you'll get 100% unit hp at 40$ spent. You are free to spend more and that will be somehow visible, but unit hp will only increase by 0.1% per 1000$ spent, so getting any real advantage by spending more require you to basically fund a substantial part of the game by yourself.
Now this is certainly a setup that is somewhat weird and in reality the diminishing returns would need to be implement in a different way, this is only a quickly made up example.
But it should be clear that by using a setup like this you'll basically have a f2p demo of the game that is actually fully playable and can get people started playing the game, while at the same time anybody who wants to play serious needs to pay 40$. Beyond that is more or less meaningless, unless you happen to throw a million $ at PA, in which case I am completely fine with you having imba units in return.

THERE are MANY examples of FTP done right, to say otherwise is arrogant, and to say it can't happen to this genre is even more so. Look at the facts and the examples, there's just too much evidence for rather than against. I'm not saying f2p is perfect or without flaw, but its a very valid business model.