The Great DLC/F2P debate.

[Grall]

Not sure where you get that...

It's the general "feel", due to the nebulous wording of the letter. They're not saying anything about what they really WILL be doing, just some handwavy hints and innuendo, leaving everything up to interpretation by the reader. To me, this feels like they're doubling down on their previously chosen path. If I'm wrong, then so much the better.

And F2P doesn't mean crap.

I didn't say "crap" now did I? It would be a decent idea of my view of the entirety of F2P though. It exists SOLELY to make you pay more for the game than you would have if it had been sold at a single initial price. Otherwise, what would be the point? It accomplishes this by nickling and diming you constantly, "microtransactions" (which often aren't all that micro, really), and so on. Making you pay over and over, like a coin-op machine did back in the arcade era. That's bullshit, and I'm having none of it, none at all. Ever.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It exists SOLELY to make you pay more for the game than you would have if it had been sold at a single initial price. Otherwise, what would be the point?

Statistically that's not true. Most players of F2P pay nothing or very little. I suppose on average it could be true, but it's not as if F2P and retail price are actually compared side-by-side with a product to see which makes most money. We have no like-for-like comparison. One can also point to Crytek's financial woes as some proof that F2P doesn't get more money from people than a retail product.

F2P is also a wide pricing model, covering everything from nickel-and-diming consumables to trial-and-unlock style games. Importantly, it removes the entry barrier for trying the game. Demos very rarely give a good enough idea of the game, whereas a F2P that let's you play for some hours provides a natural progression into a bought product rather than an uncertain buying consideration.

 

[Grall]

I wouldn't be surprised if people end up paying less for F2P, but the nickling-and-diming IS there to try and MAKE you pay more. If you expect to earn LESS, then why on earth would you ever release your game as F2P? It doesn't make sense.

The only logical reason is developers/publishers believe - quite possibly mistakenly, because who likes to be nickled and dimed - that they can earn more this way. That's why they do it.

 

[joker454]

It would be a decent idea of my view of the entirety of F2P though. It exists SOLELY to make you pay more for the game than you would have if it had been sold at a single initial price. Otherwise, what would be the point?

It's more of an alternative to the existing $60 model which is currently both hugely risky, and has an uncertain future as the amount of money people are willing to pay for a game is not going up in tandem with how much it's costing to make them. Right now you spend a ton to make a game and risk it all by putting it out there and hoping that people will take a risk and drop $60 on it. F2p in theory minimizes the risk by allowing a much larger audience a chance to play the game and thus let the game spread through social media, etc, with the hopes that having such a large audience can mean a more consistent return on all your games. So rather than have ten $60 games where nine are losers and one makes a lot of money, maybe with f2p then can have ten games that don't necessarily make a ton of money but they all do make money. And who knows, with so many people trying them maybe one of those games will be a breakaway hit. Additionally, f2p can minimize developer risk because you don't have to necessarily ship a completed product like you do with the traditional game model. You can build on it over time since the game is free after all.

I guess I don't see f2p as a great evil like others do, I see it as an alternative to, in my mind, the current broken financial model of making games. I personally don't feel it's come about due to corporate greed, I think it's come to be more out of sheer necessity. Maybe it could also return some stability and lifestyle to the industry which is right now a colossal unstable mess of crunch and layoffs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I wouldn't be surprised if people end up paying less for F2P, but the nickling-and-diming IS there to try and MAKE you pay more. If you expect to earn LESS, then why on earth would you ever release your game as F2P? It doesn't make sense.

The only logical reason is developers/publishers believe - quite possibly mistakenly, because who likes to be nickled and dimed - that they can earn more this way. That's why they do it.

That's true, but you can't begrudge them that. It's the economic society we live in. Consumers all want to get everything for nothing, while producers want to take everything everyone's got for as little effort as possible. Not pursuing a better revenue source would be bad business and confuse economists. What are the investors in Crytek going to say if the financials are low and they ask, "why aren't you pursuing F2P?" and Crytek respond, "Although F2P tries to take more money from people and may be more profitable, we feel morally against just trying to make as much money as possible and would rather make less money from the work we do."??

 

[Silent_Buddha]

It exists SOLELY to make you pay more for the game than you would have if it had been sold at a single initial price. Otherwise, what would be the point? It accomplishes this by nickling and diming you constantly, "microtransactions" (which often aren't all that micro, really), and so on. Making you pay over and over, like a coin-op machine did back in the arcade era. That's bullshit, and I'm having none of it, none at all. Ever.

That's a very narrow view of things when F2P covers a very large gamut of payment models.

Many of the early F2P games as well some some of the current "quick and dirty" F2P games still do that. PWI's MMOs, for example are notorious for requiring some payment at some level for progression into the upper tiers of useable items. However, even then the entire game was still available. Generally these are also considered "pay to win." But these are a dying breed with fewer and fewer of them getting made.

Some early F2P models, like Sony's early F2P MMO (can't remember the name but it was targeted towards children and women), locked content behind paywalls. Most of the game was free, but some dungeons and many classes required payment in order to gain access to them with no in game method to gain access. That was in addition to the cosmetic items. These types could also be somewhat considered "pay to win" if people felt that the locked classes were more powerful than the free classes.

More modern F2P games, however go about things differently. Money is more about convenience than gaining access to content which is locked away.

Path of Exile, for example, is purely about paying for cosmetics and conveniences like larger guild vaults. And many consider it a significantly better game than Diablo 3 or Torchlight 2, both retail games.

Warframe you can gain everything purely in game if desired. Only extra storage slots for weapons, warframes and companions as well as some cosmetics can only get gotten through the use of Platinum, their version of real world currency. But even that can be gotten in game if you are willing to sell items you got in game to other players in game for their platinum. So players can get every single thing in game without paying a single thing.

Guildwars 2 is a hybrid where it's single purchase for the game, but in terms of MMO's has a F2P monthly model with cosmetics and convenience items serving to maintain their server costs as well as bring in revenue.

DOTA 2, Team Fortress 2, etc. - purely cosmetic like POE. Many F2P games are like this.

LoL, Smite, etc. model - cosmetic and characters locked behind either a paywall or significant in game grind. The alternative model generally followed by F2P games.

F2P games that lock content behind a paywall without an in game method (even if it requires a bit of a grind) of unlocking that content are a dying breed.

So what happens?

1. A very large number of people try the game out because it's F2P, maybe have fun for a few days or weeks and then stop never paying anything.

2. Another chunk of players will continue playing the game for months, again without paying anything.

3. A smaller chunk of players will spend roughly the same as they would for a retail game (40-60 USD) and that's all they ever spend on the game.

4. And then a very small chunk of players (relative to all the players that have ever tried the game so this could be hundreds of thousands if multiple millions of people have tried the game) will spend more than what a retail game would have cost. But they will also likely play the game and have more fun with it than any retail game they've bought.

A lot of games fall into case [1] for me. Ghost recon online, League of Legends, DOTA 2, etc. Had fun, decided it wasn't my type of game for longer term enjoyment and didn't spend a dime. On the other hand I know people that have spend hundreds or thousands of dollars.

A few games fall into [2] for me. Team Fortress 2 or Path of Exile, for example. I've play it off and on for the past 3+ years and haven't spent a dime.

One game falls into [3]. Smite. I paid 40 USD to unlock all characters and all future characters. So same as I would have spent on a retail game. But did not spend any money on cosmetics (I know some people that have spend over 100 USD On cosmetics).

And one game falls into [4]. Warframe. I've now spent about 240 USD on the game. And will probably be spending more on it in the future. Mostly as a way to reward the developers for making a game that I have been playing for over 2 years now. The only thing that rivals that for me is MMOs, which generally have a monthly fee. On the other hand I've had friends that played with me for months at a time that never spent a single dime on the game.

What's the point of all this? The games are F2P, you pay whatever YOU want to pay. Don't want to pay anything? Then don't. Want to reward the developers for making a game you love and encourage them to make either more content or more games? You can (Like I'm doing with Warframe).

I fail to see why offering the players a choice is somehow bad. Smite at the 40 USD offers SIGNIFICANTLY more value than I'd get out of a standard retail game. How many standard retail games are still releasing content updates 2+ years after you started playing it? Warframe I'm actually paying more than I would for a retail franchise spread over multiple games because I want to reward them for making a game I really REALLY like to play...a LOT. I have more real world currency in game than I actually know what to spend it on (I grind out everything in game and don't buy it).

And the rest of them? I got to play them and try them out without spending a single dime of my own money. Some for just a few days. Some for weeks or months. And a few for years off and on.

It's always your whether to spend money on these games. And if a person chooses to spend their money, no matter how much they spend, it is never "wrong." I'm not going to tell anyone how they should spend their money. If they spent their money and had fun, then that is all that matters.

Regards,
SB

PS - this post was probably too long, but don't feel like trying to put in a TL: DR summary.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Warframe you can gain everything purely in game if desired. Only extra storage slots for weapons, warframes and companions as well as some cosmetics can only get gotten through the use of Platinum, their version of real world currency. But even that can be gotten in game if you are willing to sell items you got in game to other players in game for their platinum. So players can get every single thing in game without paying a single thing.

Although technically true, a recent British Advertising Standards ruling showed that 'you can' isn't close enough to 'you don't need to' to be allowed. Dingeon Keeper is doable without spending a penny, but the extremes were considered by the board to be unreasonable to the degree that the game shouldn't claim to be free.

Not that that disagrees with your point, which I agree with, but just saying that it's a grey area as far as subjective opinion is concerned, is where attitudes can be very prejudiced. Being technically free to play isn't the same thing as actually being free. Of course, these games have to make money too, and people wanting to experience the whole thing without paying a penny are as...singularly focussed as companies trying to take every cent a guy makes.

 

[Davros]

Dunegon Keeper is an absolute disgrace..
perhaps Dingeon Keeper is too

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Dunegon Keeper is an absolute disgrace..
perhaps Dingeon Keeper is too

Dunegon, Dingeon, and Dungeon Keepers all are bad.

 

[NRP]

I actually don't mind the F2P model at all. As long as the devs keep adding value to the game, I don't mind pouring money into it to keep it going. I fully realize it's riskier and riskier to bet your company's future on a lone $60 sale, especially with all the damn piracy.

 

[Grall]

It's more of an alternative to the existing $60 model which is currently both hugely risky, and has an uncertain future as the amount of money people are willing to pay for a game is not going up in tandem with how much it's costing to make them.

Not all games cost $60. Indie games generally cost significantly less for example, same with mobile games - Square titles are the exception, though... (Okay I lied; not even those cost $60.)

Also, most F2P games aren't as well-made and polished as $60 games, and of those that are, they're generally mostly or only PvP, with little or no story mode/single-player aspect to them.

I guess I don't see f2p as a great evil like others do, I see it as an alternative to, in my mind, the current broken financial model of making games.

I see F2P as the devil which will eventually destroy the gaming market as we know it.

How about that?

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Not all games cost $60. Indie games generally cost significantly less for example, same with mobile games - Square titles are the exception, though... (Okay I lied; not even those cost $60.)

Also, most F2P games aren't as well-made and polished as $60 games, and of those that are, they're generally mostly or only PvP, with little or no story mode/single-player aspect to them.

That isn't necessarily true. Path of Exile is considered by most to be massively better than Diablo III and better even than Torchlight 2. And it focuses on the single player as much as both of the retail counterparts.

If I go through Steam and Console shooters release in the past 1-2 years, there's a lot (and I mean a LOT) of stinkers on the retail side that are far far worse than most F2P shooters.

There are even F2P RTS games that are significantly better than many of the RTS games (what few of them there are) that are released to retail.

Just because some F2P games are really bad doesn't make it worse than the retail market, as the retail market also has some really bad games. Distribution model =/= quality of game.

If you go into things with an open mind, there are a lot of very high quality F2P games out there that exist because they can't exist (lack of market) as retail games. World of Tanks wouldn't exist. Mechwarrior Online wouldn't exist. DOTA 2 wouldn't exist. League of Legends wouldn't exist. All of them exceptional games. None of them with even the slightest ability to exist in traditional retail form.

And that doesn't even go into formerly retail games (with a heavy focus on story but happen to have a multiplayer component) which are now F2P. And as a result have a larger player base AND make more money than when they had a traditional retail payment model. Those games would be shut down and defunct now if not for the F2P model. Star Wars: TOR is perhaps one of the largest examples of this.

There is no reason F2P can't co-exist with traditional retail. It allows games to exist and flourish that would otherwise not get made or would get made and instantly fail and lose the publisher and developer lots of money.

And you know the best part of it? Noone is forced to play them. It's all up to an individual whether it is worth it for them or not.

Regards,
SB

 

[joker454]

Not all games cost $60. Indie games generally cost significantly less for example, same with mobile games - Square titles are the exception, though... (Okay I lied; not even those cost $60.)

Sure there will always be cheaper indie games, I don't think that will ever change. I was thinking more along the lines of Crytek and other AAA studio thinking, in that is it worth it to keep betting the farm on $60 games, more so when said games keep getting pricier and pricier to make.

Also, most F2P games aren't as well-made and polished as $60 games, and of those that are, they're generally mostly or only PvP, with little or no story mode/single-player aspect to them.

It's definitely a genre in transition as it were, it's still in it's infancy so there are issues but that will all get worked out over time if the model proves successful on a wider scale. The formula is still being worked on.

I see F2P as the devil which will eventually destroy the gaming market as we know it.

How about that?

Harsh! I'd have thought the total loss of quality of life for game developers was going to be what ultimately destroyed gaming, but it turns out there is an endless stream of young males that are willing to work unlimited hours for free Chinese takeout.

 

[Dominik D]

I didn't say "crap" now did I?

True, the wording was "mediocre bullshit".

It would be a decent idea of my view of the entirety of F2P though. It exists SOLELY to make you pay more for the game than you would have if it had been sold at a single initial price. Otherwise, what would be the point? It accomplishes this by nickling and diming you constantly, "microtransactions" (which often aren't all that micro, really), and so on.

Most of F2P is just that, but it doesn't mean it has to be. I know it's been beaten to death by now but there are ways to do F2P that doesn't feel (and isn't) about draining people's wallets. I'm not sure I know how to do it properly, but I'm sure there are people figuring it out right now.

Killer Instinct is an interesting approach to F2P. At any given time you can play for free as one of the characters against any and all characters. You don't have to pay anything and you can try different portions of the complete experience at different times. You can buy a characters or a bunch of them. Basically you're deciding yourself how much time vs. money you want to invest in the game. And time doesn't even mean grinding and being in disadvantage but spreading your experience around.

I bet you could do this in FPS and what not as well if you wanted to.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I see F2P as the devil which will eventually destroy the gaming market as we know it.

How about that?

1) If gaming moves towards a service, F2P is just a take on that.
2) Plenty can argue that the gaming market as we know it is broken and needs to change. Change isn't always bad. The end of $60 games and the introduction of ongoing revenue for devs to sustain games, with people paying for what they are playing instead of for work done building a monstrous piece of code and content, could be a very good thing for the industry. It'd eliminate a lot of financial pressure from the industry. Like everything though, it needs to be done right, and at this transition period people are making mistakes that's souring the concept. If F2P has been introduced in a completely working, fair way, I doubt anyone could be complaining (save those who just hate change when it's different).

 

[Rodéric]

Games like Guild Wars show that selling a pay to play with cosmetic micro-transactions is quite profitable...

If games just had demos it would be easier, no need for pay to win

 

[Deleted member 13524]

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Despite laughs, that's not true. DLC was additional content, and has been by and large, at least on consoles. Day one DLC may annoy some people, especially when it's on disk but inaccessible, but DLC is about extending a game and making money beyond the initial purchase, which is only fair when DLC has a development cost.

 

[Deleted member 13524]

DLCs are just a digital version of the PC's old "Expansion Packs". They appeared originally with the intent to extend a game without forcing people to wait another 2/3 years for the sequel.
Given the rising costs of AAA games, it made sense to release a Expansion Pack about 8 months to 1 year after the game's release, saving the cost and time of developing a new engine, interface, gameplay, controls, etc.

Then the publishers saw the Expansion Packs as a way to fight the second-hand market and make more money.
If these were only available through digital distribution and forced gamers to "attach" the expansion packs to a personal online account, they wouldn't be able to sell the expansion pack and they would also feel more reluctant to re-sell the original game. Hence, the DLC was born.

This "DLC" invention went so well that many publishers decided to attack the second-hand market directly by always attaching each game's copy to an online account.
(Later on, for the PC they even implemented constant online monitoring on single-player games to make sure all [strike]criminals[/strike] PC gamers were paying for their copies. Microsoft even tried to do that in a console.)


Then, after blatant attacks to gamers' intelligence and self-respect like horse armor and day-one DLCs, many publishers reached the brilliant conclusion that the most effective way to rip the money out of their customers would be to completely strip away the game itself and sell only horse armor day-one DLCs.
Of course, they could only do that if they gave the illusion that the gamers were being given the choice to pay, that they could even play the game without paying any money. Sure, trick them into that and make sure to give them the most frustrating gaming experience ever if they don't keep paying for those horse armor day-one DLCs.
Hence, F2P was born.


We will only have a market made of horse armor day-one DLCs if we pay for them and keep making these publishers rich.
Should Crytek continue to follow the F2P route, I'm hoping for them to burn so hard and so fast that it'll set an example to scare away other bean counters in charge of a dev studio with the idea of doing the same.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Then, after blatant attacks to gamers' intelligence and self-respect like horse armor and day-one DLCs, many publishers reached the brilliant conclusion that the most effective way to rip the money out of their customers would be to completely strip away the game itself and sell only horse armor day-one DLCs.

I see next to no evidence of that in the games I play. I buy games and they are complete. I then have the option down the line to buy added content.

I think some older gamers are forgetting how small games used to be. There was very little content by and large and cost to produce was sane. Now games can grow to stupid sizes to fit the masses of RAM and storage available, but that has to be paid for. So games that give the same amount for $50 as $50 of game used to get you, and then offer additional, unnecessary content on top of that, is fair.

One can probably point to a couple of high profile games like racing titles as proof that games come with little real content that doesn't have to be bought in addition, but I dare say they aren't at all representative of the status quo. The DLC I've seen has tended to be level packs, maps, or very obvious optional customisations (and more fool you if you want to spend 79p on a different hat!). I've not bought a game this generation that was clearly broekn/empty before buying the 'optional' DLC.

We will only have a market made of horse armor day-one DLCs if we pay for them and keep making these publishers rich.

The Horse Armour was a joke. It was a first ever test of this new market, and always better to test high than throw profits away from underselling, but gamers laughed and the cost of DLC soon normalised to something sane. LBP's content has been very reasonable by-and-large. Sure, you could spend a fortune on stickers and costumes if you wanted, but the added value of the level packs with their additional content was well worth it. Same with Borderlands extra levels. Same with Uncharted's. So I'm not sure why you're using the first ever, unrepeated example of grossly overpriced DLC as the basis for your argument.