'Free to play' - gaming enricher or scourge? *spawn

[Shifty Geezer]

TBH PS4 supporting F2P scares me. F2P really means pay-to-win, and the total cost to play is obscure. Look at some of the crazy prices for DUST, for example, versus just buying a $60 game and having access to all of it. Mobile game design is saturated by a philosophy to design the game around encouraging the player to buy stuff, which means it's no longer game design but economic-exploitation design. I despise 'F2P' as nickel-and-dime-ware, and I'm not enthused by a future where developers go this route. The only way I'll be in favour is if there's also the option to buy outright, one price and no hidden or extra fees.

Remember, the only reason devs will choose this route is because they make more money from it, meaning the player are spending more than otherwise. The shift of focus to milking money instead of creating good games is the very opposite of what games are about.

 

[borntosoul]

TBH PS4 supporting F2P scares me. F2P really means pay-to-win, and the total cost to play is obscure. Look at some of the crazy prices for DUST, for example, versus just buying a $60 game and having access to all of it. Mobile game design is saturated by a philosophy to design the game around encouraging the player to buy stuff, which means it's no longer game design but economic-exploitation design. I despise 'F2P' as nickel-and-dime-ware, and I'm not enthused by a future where developers go this route. The only way I'll be in favour is if there's also the option to buy outright, one price and no hidden or extra fees.

Remember, the only reason devs will choose this route is because they make more money from it, meaning the player are spending more than otherwise. The shift of focus to milking money instead of creating good games is the very opposite of what games are about.

I totally agree and im also pissed about it, one good example is age of empires 2 (one of my fave games) vs age of empires online.

 

[Cjail]

@Shifty Geezer

Yeah I know what you mean but I am open minded on F2P and anyway I go case by case.
Dust 514 sadly was meant to be P2W since the beginning; CCP really designed the entire game around in-game items/stats rather then players' skills which is/was the perfect environment for P2W.
I don't' know about Warframe or Blacklight, I didn't play them long enough to tell.

Anyway too many devs now are afraid to make a new game and ask money for it, even if the is game genuinely good, which IMO is also scary.
Maybe with more F2P coming on console we will see a change, maybe more will drop the P2W model like Wargaming.net.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

The moment you change to a F2P model, the emphasis on game design as a means to make money has to shift to monetising the app. The other model, a single upfront price, has to focus on making a great game that sells on its merits. Unless a developer takes a novel approach to F2P, such as donation ware ("Like our game? Donate £5 to encourage updates and new titles!"), game design will change under the F2P model with designers looking for ways to add monetising hooks. If it's just a case of getting people to try your game and then spending on it because its good, go with a free trial option. Have the first 3 player levels or whatever free, with the option to play against full players or just trial players, and then if it appeals, buy the game at full rate.

If we take a game like Starhawk, I bought that because the beta was good. If it was F2P, but you ahve to buy in-game building blocks to create buildings and vehicles, I wouldn't bother.

 

[Arwin]

I don't like F2P for everything, but it's not bad by definition.

The most important thing however is that I think this is a decision for publishers, not for platform holders, and for consumers to show which they prefer.

 

[Gradthrawn]

TBH PS4 supporting F2P scares me.

Regardless of your concerns with the F2P business model, surely you're not advocating not allowing them on the PS4/PSN, and be extension actually advocating for fewer games?

I don't like F2P for everything, but it's not bad by definition.

The most important thing however is that I think this is a decision for publishers, not for platform holders, and for consumers to show which they prefer.

Exactly. Let publishers take whatever monetization model they want. Users will decide if they like it based on their wallet. The industry may head down a path many don't like, but clearly that won't happen unless there's enough support (ie users) to make it financial feasible. Trying to artificially block market forces at a platform level won't help things, just stagnate the platform.

 

[-tkf-]

Regardless of your concerns with the F2P business model, surely you're not advocating not allowing them on the PS4/PSN, and be extension actually advocating for fewer games?

Exactly. Let publishers take whatever monetization model they want. Users will decide if they like it based on their wallet. The industry may head down a path many don't like, but clearly that won't happen unless there's enough support (ie users) to make it financial feasible. Trying to artificially block market forces at a platform level won't help things, just stagnate the platform.

F2P is a part of PS3 now, i see no reason why it shouldn't be possible on the PS4. On a personal level i am totally fed up with it and i think it's a perfect example of why mobile gaming sucks. Lucky for me the only one playing them is 7 years old and understands that they are just trying to milk money from us. And this includes games that you pay for. Publishers should create a 3rd option, Premium games that play just as F2P games just tuned to be fun without being milked dry.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Regardless of your concerns with the F2P business model, surely you're not advocating not allowing them on the PS4/PSN, and be extension actually advocating for fewer games?

No, I don't consider free-market control like that in this content good. However, I also don't consider free-market economics the way to get the best out of life and people, and though business practices like F2P may be better money-makers, I think that course of action could well be detrimental to the quality of gaming. So the appearance of F2P on PS4 isn't an encouraging sign for me and the platform. It's a step away from proper gaming and towards the monstrosity of mobile 'gaming', and that's a step towards the death of real games.

Of course, F2P is somewhat in its infancy, and maybe things will balance out in the long. I'm just never going to greet its announcement with enthusiasm.

 

[patsu]

The only free-to-play game I have tried is Clash of Clans on iOS. It's pretty cute and addictive.

My wife gave up a month ago because she got tired of all the waiting. The game encourages you to spend by lengthening build time.

But she had lotsa fun for the past few months playing the game. Only spent $5 to buy an extra builder. So all in all, it's not a bad deal.

I agree the gameplay could be even better if they are not so hung up on making $. The thing they got right is the simple but addictive gamplay. Some core games are difficult artificially. Some are kinda draggy to justify for $60. The developers are probably trying to find a balance for every game.

Edit: lol. I realized that I tried Dust514 last night. Didn't play it long enough to understand the game. Will comment after I figure out the game. I want to try FFXIV and a few others too.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

That's the thing though. F2P encourages negative-gameplay experiences like time wasting or grinds, just to annoy you into spending money. That's the very opposite of 'entertainment'! You should be paying because you enjoy something, which means more along the lines of a subscription, "I enjoy this and want to keep playing it," or outright purchase. In theory it's possible to manage F2P with value-add, and basically sell additional content on an otherwise free experience (eg. different character classes, new arenas/territories, etc.), but that's basically a free trial model, hardly anyone goes that route, and you run the risk of people being satisfied with just the basics. I seriously doubt the lure of F2P monetising through negative design choices will be resisted by most devs. I believe that's the only reason they are going with the F2P model in the first place.

 

[Arwin]

No, I don't consider free-market control like that in this content good. However, I also don't consider free-market economics the way to get the best out of life and people, and though business practices like F2P may be better money-makers, I think that course of action could well be detrimental to the quality of gaming. So the appearance of F2P on PS4 isn't an encouraging sign for me and the platform. It's a step away from proper gaming and towards the monstrosity of mobile 'gaming', and that's a step towards the death of real games.

Of course, F2P is somewhat in its infancy, and maybe things will balance out in the long. I'm just never going to greet its announcement with enthusiasm.

That's fine. Previously though you were complaining that Sony never delivered on the promise that PSN would be good for MMOs, but with all but one or two MMOs being F2P ...

On PS Vita I have 54 hours on my in-game clock for F2P jewel-matcher Trials of Montezuma ... it's obscene. I have only bought coins once, and purely to show some appreciation for the devs. I have now gotten good enough that I can almost just keep playing and hardly have to wait. It's the best game of its genre I have played, on any platform (Candy Crush on iOS wasn't bad either by the way, but that game did get me sick of it after 146 levels ... lol). The whole system of balancing your coin income against the powerups you use actually contributes in a fun way.

I think in a sense, as an RPG system, I almost like it that you can't play forever (I probably would have stopped playing).

That said, there too I would still have preferred some game modes that you could play as much as you like, unrelated to the coin system.

 

[patsu]

That's the thing though. F2P encourages negative-gameplay experiences like time wasting or grinds, just to annoy you into spending money. That's the very opposite of 'entertainment'! You should be paying because you enjoy something, which means more along the lines of a subscription, "I enjoy this and want to keep playing it," or outright purchase. In theory it's possible to manage F2P with value-add, and basically sell additional content on an otherwise free experience (eg. different character classes, new arenas/territories, etc.), but that's basically a free trial model, hardly anyone goes that route, and you run the risk of people being satisfied with just the basics. I seriously doubt the lure of F2P monetising through negative design choices will be resisted by most devs. I believe that's the only reason they are going with the F2P model in the first place.

We were still entertained by Clash of Clans. It's more a deal of how long we're gonna play the game before we get sick of it. For RFOM, I played every night for 2+ years. CoC lasted 6 months or so (for my wife). In fact, we saved money playing CoC. Would have loved a Core Gamer edition but I guess we will have to leave it to the game industry to figure the economics out.

 

[rockaman]

TBH PS4 supporting F2P scares me. F2P really means pay-to-win, and the total cost to play is obscure. Look at some of the crazy prices for DUST, for example, versus just buying a $60 game and having access to all of it. Mobile game design is saturated by a philosophy to design the game around encouraging the player to buy stuff, which means it's no longer game design but economic-exploitation design. I despise 'F2P' as nickel-and-dime-ware, and I'm not enthused by a future where developers go this route. The only way I'll be in favour is if there's also the option to buy outright, one price and no hidden or extra fees.

Remember, the only reason devs will choose this route is because they make more money from it, meaning the player are spending more than otherwise. The shift of focus to milking money instead of creating good games is the very opposite of what games are about.

There are a few rate exceptions. One major one is Dota 2 which has absolutely no elements which carry between matches.

Team Fortress 2 is an OK example as well, but it's no longer as purely without Pay2Win as before.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

I did some calculations once, and getting all the most expensive cars in EA's Real Racing 3 (the ones that are practically impossible to purchase unless the player converts real money to game money) will amount to about €200.
That's as much as four copies of Grand Turismo 5 for Playstation 3.

 

[Arwin]

I did some calculations once, and getting all the most expensive cars in EA's Real Racing 3 (the ones that are practically impossible to purchase unless the player converts real money to game money) will amount to about €200.
That's as much as four copies of Grand Turismo 5 for Playstation 3.

That game was a nice example of how not to do it imho. To be fair though, for GT5 you could also add all available DLC ...

 

[jonabbey]

One of my favorite casual PSN titles, PAIN, has so much DLC that it almost feels free to play, except that I paid for the game, and spending a few bucks for the ability to hurl David Hasselhoff through a plate glass window felt very rewarding.

 

[patsu]

One of my favorite casual PSN titles, PAIN, has so much DLC that it almost feels free to play, except that I paid for the game, and spending a few bucks for the ability to hurl David Hasselhoff through a plate glass window felt very rewarding.

Heh heh

 

[Cyan]

F2P is a part of PS3 now, i see no reason why it shouldn't be possible on the PS4. On a personal level i am totally fed up with it and i think it's a perfect example of why mobile gaming sucks. Lucky for me the only one playing them is 7 years old and understands that they are just trying to milk money from us. And this includes games that you pay for. Publishers should create a 3rd option, Premium games that play just as F2P games just tuned to be fun without being milked dry.

I barely tried F2P but had the experience of playing a couple of games using this system on the PC -I usually play GOG games and other spare titles on it.

I can say that I am not sure I like it either. Playing those games never amounted more than a couple of hours, if not minutes.

Now they are more prominent amongst *typical* games as a few companies are more likely to forego their usual development style in lieu of more resources to the AAA game. :/

 

[patsu]

Like Shifty, I am a wee bit apprehensive about all these f2p games.
I can't explain why yet.

Will have to try a few and see what's up.

 

[AlphaWolf]

Planetside 2 is pretty bad imo, but their f2p model is tolerable. It doesn't try to go too far out of its way to make you spend real money. Every f2p game has it's issues in that regard which try to get you to spend to make the game enjoyable, for me, if I am not enjoying a game because of some built in time wasting metric required to achieve, I will be spending 0 on it.