'Free to play' - gaming enricher or scourge? *spawn
- Thread starter Shifty Geezer
- Start date
The main target of f2p is to drain more money from customers, so if you will pay 60€ for a game, they want that you pay way more. Simple as it is.
The worse backside effect is that the gameplay is built to gain money and not to enjoy him anymore, so the whole sense of gaming is lost.
Personally I avoid any f2p on smartphone and if a particular platform will be infected by it, I will not buy it, ps4, x1, wiiu, nomatterwhat.
This marketing model can kill gaming.
The worse backside effect is that the gameplay is built to gain money and not to enjoy him anymore, so the whole sense of gaming is lost.
Personally I avoid any f2p on smartphone and if a particular platform will be infected by it, I will not buy it, ps4, x1, wiiu, nomatterwhat.
This marketing model can kill gaming.
F2P is a choice, you dont have to play it if you dont want too.
But the vast majority of people will respond in the same way. They will see the term 'Free' to play and automatically engage. The whole thing is set up to play on cognitive biases that all people share.
Love_In_Rio
Veteran
Because they are shitty projects developed to take your money as you play,so no same design priorities as "traditional" games.
Whereas colonial marines/simcity were shitty projects developed to take your money before you play, so not the same design priorities as "F2P" games
.Seriously, some F2P games are actually pretty good/well designed/not P2W... [ok, and some are horrible skinner boxes].
If they offer an inferior experience and charge too much, they may die in a year or two. We will still be around.
If they learn and improve their games, then perhaps they can sit shoulder to shoulder with the other great titles. And yes, at that time, existing games may consider learning from these success stories.
I think free to play or as it should be called pay to play is a horrible thing for the future of games.
It is true that core mechanics have to still be compelling in a free 2 play game, but it's the way they leverage people to purchase that I think is obnoxious.
If you aren't familiar with the genre you should find some talks/interviews with f2p designers, discussing using social pressure to effectively leverage customers to purchase.
I'm old school when it comes to game design, it should be about what works in the game, not what generates the most money. In f2p designers optimize for a single metric monetization through micro transactions.
It is true that core mechanics have to still be compelling in a free 2 play game, but it's the way they leverage people to purchase that I think is obnoxious.
If you aren't familiar with the genre you should find some talks/interviews with f2p designers, discussing using social pressure to effectively leverage customers to purchase.
I'm old school when it comes to game design, it should be about what works in the game, not what generates the most money. In f2p designers optimize for a single metric monetization through micro transactions.
F2P reminds me of the people at SF piers doing the tricks on the sidewalks. Everyone gathers around for the newest trick but when it comes time to donate/pay for what you just saw, most people run off to the next trick in line.
For every one of the those acts that pays off, many others are just left with facepaint without enough money for removal product.
For every one of the those acts that pays off, many others are just left with facepaint without enough money for removal product.
But that's no different than currently making games, 10% make money, the reason that f2p is popular with execs in the industry right now is that it completely eliminates piracy, and the upside is better because you continue to monetize if players continue to play.
If I were building a PC game right now it's the only model I'd consider.
A friend of mine works for Arena Net, now Guildwars isn't "free" 2 play, but it is largely financed by micro transactions, and it's astonishing to me just how much money they generate a month with that model. It certainly to me says that there is scope to develop AAA titles with a F2P model and make money at it.
I guess it technically eliminates copyright infringement of the core game, if the core game is available for free and spreading it by any means necessary would be fine.
Not sure about some form of F2P version of piracy. What's it called if someone is able to hack their game so that some of the game elements behind a paywall become accessible, or exploits a bug that does the same thing?
It is a balance the designers need to strike.
We are at the early stage.
Home is free to "play", and does everything to convince me not to go there. Yet it seems to make money from those who hang out there.
People will get frustrated eventually if the designers keep using cheap tactics. No doubt they will evolve to survive.
One of my concerns are more pertaining to the f2p MMO games. Because of the scale, the scope is massive. Like MAG and Dust514, it's easy to get lost and die repeatedly during the initiation. That's a bad way to start. Wondering if they can at least let me spectate or recommend some useful videos. Not the newbie videos, but solid tips. I learned how to play Demon's Souls by watching how others play (invasions, secret items, boss tactics, blah).
The smaller f2p games are easier to start. I don't mind free games as demo, like AngryBirds and Draw Something.
We are at the early stage.
Home is free to "play", and does everything to convince me not to go there. Yet it seems to make money from those who hang out there.
People will get frustrated eventually if the designers keep using cheap tactics. No doubt they will evolve to survive.
One of my concerns are more pertaining to the f2p MMO games. Because of the scale, the scope is massive. Like MAG and Dust514, it's easy to get lost and die repeatedly during the initiation. That's a bad way to start. Wondering if they can at least let me spectate or recommend some useful videos. Not the newbie videos, but solid tips. I learned how to play Demon's Souls by watching how others play (invasions, secret items, boss tactics, blah).
The smaller f2p games are easier to start. I don't mind free games as demo, like AngryBirds and Draw Something.
But that's manageable with account bans. The bought items are all on your server.
Gives you a mechanism to monetize outside initial purchase, and I think that's the draw.
It's a business model that doesn't rely on being able to control distribution which as the music industry has demonstrated, you can't.
I'll talk only about good F2P games. Yes there are many awful F2P games, especially on iOS, its better just to ignore their existence
First of all, You guys look at F2P from the bad angle. Like example of Real Racing 3 and buying all cars which cost 200E and comparing that to Gran Turismo. In both games You can obtain stuff with ingame money, in both it requires tons of grinding, but You can do eventually do it. In both games 95% of players dont use more than 20% available cars. But one of those games can be played for free and for second You have to pay 60$ [i dont say GT is not worth 60$, hell no]
If You sum everything thats available in F2P games, it will cost sometimes even thousands, thats true. But even the most hardcore players dont need to spent more than 100-150$ on them and thats subsidize for months. Most MP games are played for 20-100 hours by average and thats playtime that can be achieved completely for free in even worse F2P without having any disadvantage.
You dont have DLC in those games, those gamers are services, so they've upgraded all the time and get content constantly, which also means that they dont split community every year/year and a half with new title or split community in the same game, because some people dont have DLC maps or modes.
Most current MP games are already based on grinding [BF, COD, Uncharted etc]. All have perks and unlocks that consume hours of gameplay and yet they still cost 60$.
And there are F2P games [which becomes more and more popular] that do not offer any advantages with money, like: Path of Exile, DOTA 2, Neverwinter or League of Legends. All microtransactions in them cover cosmetics or stuff You can obtain easily ingame.
Ps. From what i heard and read Dust 514 is not pay to win, everything is obtainable with ingame currency and its not that expensive. But i would not recommend playing Dust 514 currently, wait a year and check it out, it will have at least 5 times more content, it will be better balances and finally will come out on platforms that it was designed too.
First of all, You guys look at F2P from the bad angle. Like example of Real Racing 3 and buying all cars which cost 200E and comparing that to Gran Turismo. In both games You can obtain stuff with ingame money, in both it requires tons of grinding, but You can do eventually do it. In both games 95% of players dont use more than 20% available cars. But one of those games can be played for free and for second You have to pay 60$ [i dont say GT is not worth 60$, hell no
]If You sum everything thats available in F2P games, it will cost sometimes even thousands, thats true. But even the most hardcore players dont need to spent more than 100-150$ on them and thats subsidize for months. Most MP games are played for 20-100 hours by average and thats playtime that can be achieved completely for free in even worse F2P without having any disadvantage.
You dont have DLC in those games, those gamers are services, so they've upgraded all the time and get content constantly, which also means that they dont split community every year/year and a half with new title or split community in the same game, because some people dont have DLC maps or modes.
Most current MP games are already based on grinding [BF, COD, Uncharted etc]. All have perks and unlocks that consume hours of gameplay and yet they still cost 60$.
And there are F2P games [which becomes more and more popular] that do not offer any advantages with money, like: Path of Exile, DOTA 2, Neverwinter or League of Legends. All microtransactions in them cover cosmetics or stuff You can obtain easily ingame.
Ps. From what i heard and read Dust 514 is not pay to win, everything is obtainable with ingame currency and its not that expensive. But i would not recommend playing Dust 514 currently, wait a year and check it out, it will have at least 5 times more content, it will be better balances and finally will come out on platforms that it was designed too.
I think you miss the fundamental problem though. In any population of notable size, there are exceptions, and you may find some great F2P games out there. However, the underlying premise of the F2P game is to make money from within the game itself, and most of the thinking behind that isn't making a good game, but manipulating people into shelling out, such as the social peer pressure ERP has mentioned, or the forced waits or grind just to bore you into paying, or the overpowered competition where you need to pay to remain competitive.Read my post carefully
F2P actively discourages good game design. In a well designed game, boring grind would be designed out to keep the game entertaining. In F2P, it may well be actively encouraged for the very opposite. Up-front payments may be bad business compared to F2P profitability, but it's better for the art.
Read my post carefully
Neverwinter for example has more than cosmetics available for purchase, so your post is incorrect. There are delay timers you can buy away.
Name any long-term retail MP game released in last 2-3 years thats not grind based.
And i said at the beginning of my post that we are talking about good F2P. Quality of F2P games increases drastically, because the is more and more competition.
Ps. What F2P games have played and for how long?
---
Yeah, there are convenience based items/features, but You can easily buy everything via ingame currency. Watch Kripparrian videos about this game. He got to end-game and highest tiers of gear without spending anything. He also put more like 200h into it, again without paying a cent.
Last edited by a moderator:
