Mobile Dev Foresees Free Skyrim Analogue Making Millions

Marshall Honorof

New member
Feb 16, 2011
2,200
0
0
Mobile Dev Foresees Free Skyrim Analogue Making Millions


The next generation of free-to-play games will target single-player experiences and provide content as compelling as Skyrim, says an ngmoco manager.

Many of you paid $60 for The Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim on launch day and never looked back. Most folks agree that the game was well worth the price of admission. For the price of a semi-upscale dinner for two, Skyrim provided dozens - if not hundreds - hours of content with polished sound and visuals to envelop the experience. Now, here's the question: would you have been willing to pay that same $60 in several small installments? Ben Cousins, general manager of mobile game company ngmoco Sweden, thinks so. According to him, free-to-play games are about to enter their third wave, and within two years, something akin to a free-to-play Skyrim will ignite the core gamer market for massive profits.

"I believe that single-player will be the next to be cracked in terms of freemium monetisation," says Cousins. "[Traditional], story-based, scripted, linear and non-linear single-player that we see on consoles." Cousins holds the view that free-to-play games have had two distinct generations so far: an early one where only cosmetic items were for sale, and the current one where payments eliminate annoying roadblocks in a player's way, like accelerating construction time in CityVille. He envisions a third generation that appeals to core gamers by offering traditional single-player experiences with a staggered payment model. "A game like Skyrim, where you accrue skills and equipment over time, that you can play for hundreds of hours, is actually one of the easiest games to develop for a free-to-play model. That would be a big hit."

As for how much money a game like this could make, Cousins believes it has the potential to exceed even modern-day blockbusters. He argues that free-to-play single-player games make a "lifetime" investment of $60 easier than an up-front payment, and thus could attract swaths of traditional core gamers, as well as those in growing markets like South Asia and Africa. Cousins predicts that such an industry could collectively grow to $100 billion, but even more conservative estimates place a single-player, free-to-play industry into the billion-dollar-plus range.

The free-to-play single-player game isn't actually as bizarre as it sounds. Think about the proliferation of DLC and how AAA series from Assassin's Creed to Mass Effect are already selling players small chunks of an overarching story. The economics, tools, and customer interest for the third wave of freemium games are already here; now someone just needs to make an excellent game to go along with them.

Source: GamesIndustry [http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-03-28-cousins-predicts-free-to-play-equivalent-of-skyrim-in-two-years]

Permalink
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
Great, I hope this fails...horridly.
I hate the DLC for 'true story ending' crap, don't need ANOTHER reason to get nickle and dimed.

Dear EA/Ubisoft/other 'tards trying to screw me:
 

razer17

New member
Feb 3, 2009
2,518
0
0
EA already has a policy like this, doesn't it? If you want freemium stuff you have to pay a few dollars extra, a la Tiger Woods 2013. Oh wait, that already costs £40 plus extra to unlock most of the courses.

I could certainyl see how something like this would work. Taking Skyrim as an example:

You get the game itself free, but then perhaps you can't customise your characters looks unless you stump up a few dollars for the character customiser. Then the guilds cost you a few each. A couple of new spells, not much more powerful than the normal ones, but they look cooler or something, a few dollars.

Skyrim sold a few million, but imagine how many would play it if it were free. I don't know if they really would make more, or even the same, as the standard pay $60 model, but it seems to work for MMORPGS, so it must be a viable strategy.
 

samsonguy920

New member
Mar 24, 2009
2,921
0
0
The idea of being able to pick up a game to play with nothing out of my wallet sounds appealing, but listening to this guy makes it all feel slimy.

No. Thank you, but no. I would just as soon get the developers their money at the get-go so they can get going on the next game I expect to enjoy.
It just feels like there is bound to be a loser in this deal, and if it isn't the customers, then it is going to be the people doing the actual work on the game.
 

Troublesome Lagomorph

The Deadliest Bunny
May 26, 2009
27,258
0
0
Isn't that what we have already?


Minus the free to play part. Also: Imagine Skyrim if 98% of the game had to be purchased in over priced chunks. It would be AWFUL!
 

Absolutionis

New member
Sep 18, 2008
420
0
0
It could be fine if done right... but only if done right...

If I could go through all the choices I made in one playthrough of Skyrim and only end up paying $20 or so, then great! People that want only a single playthrough will pay $20 and those that want multiple playthroughs will make incrementally different choices so the second playthrough will cost an additional $5. Maybe I can get a massive unlock for $60.

But the problem remains that I'm ultimately having to be money conscious throughout the entire game, and that breaks immersion. I don't care if you call it Gems or Crystals or Skyrimbux or Bioware Points or whatever. I still see dollars and it'll break immersion.

Then people like EA, Activision, Bethesda, Ubisoft, or Capcom will come along and show the most exploitative way players can be milked. Play-to-win. Then the Korean online market will catch on and pump out a gazillion clones of something that marginally works.

It'd be great if done right... but it's unlikely to be done right...
 

Baresark

New member
Dec 19, 2010
3,908
0
0
I don't agree at all. I would rather just buy a game like Skyrim at the start. I have to profess, I don't ever play F2P games. I play some... I play some League of Legends when my friends are around occasionally. I was in the Tribes Ascend beta (awesome game) and the Blacklight Retribution beta (awesome game ruined by timed unlocks). But since release of Tribes, I haven't touched it. I bought and loved DCUO (being a massive comic book dork), finished in a month or two, and then never touched it again after it went F2P. It's just that... I spend money on games, I play them. I have something invested. I have zero invested in the majority of F2P games, so I don't really play them.

I probably wouldn't play a F2P Skyrim. Why you ask? Nothing breaks my immersion more than being given a sales pitch mid game. And most of the time, immersion is a major part of a single player game.

I don't know why all of these devs push mobile gaming so hard. The model is easier I suppose. You don't even need to make a working product to get people to buy that shit. I'm all for expansion, but mobile gaming is a step backwards. It like the original Gameboy. Sure there were some cool games on it, but they were all just smaller counterparts of the some full sized games. And as it stands now, that is all mobile games are. I don't want a smaller counterpart for Skyrim, even if I don't have to pay for it. I don't care for the Minecraft Mobile game because I play Minecraft on my PC. The 3DS ad Vita are at least offering full sized games on them and not mobile versions of existing games, which is all most Mobile/Smartphone games are.

It's not impossible, but I think it's just folly to think it's gonna happen soon.
 

viranimus

Thread killer
Nov 20, 2009
4,952
0
0
Yip Yip

Completely expected the "pay to win" analogy to get thrown in here.

Heres what I dont get. Why the hell do people even allow free to play to exist knowing full well its built around a microtransaction model.

Seriously people are getting penny, nickle and dimed to death in an economy that is pure shit, and they want to extend it into what may well be the last bastions of gaming purity?

For fucks sake people, quit buying shit like this so they will quit trying to sell us shit like this and force the medium to become exclusively shit like this.
 

TheProfessor234

New member
Aug 20, 2010
168
0
0
It could be fine if done right... but only if done right...
I agree with this. It would be sweet if I could download a game, play it, see if I like it, before shelving out any cash. It's just highly unlikely that it would be done correctly. The wrong kind of content would be shaved off.

Free to play and micro transactions aren't a bad way to do something but that doesn't stop people from using it incorrectly. Which is a funny way to look at it because doing it in such a way would grant the company more profit.
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
And aren't people forgetting about playing the game like 5 - 10 years from now?

With this 'pay as you go' and 'digital only'...if a company goes under.
You're boned.

It sucks.
 

blackrave

New member
Mar 7, 2012
2,020
0
0
Well, at first I disliked idea of small DLC chunks
But if developer realizes that there are players who dislikes wasting time on buying/unlocking DLCs (like me), it could be ok.
Let's say along other offers, free game comes with optional VIP pack- pay 60-70$ and you get every DLC/content pack that was/will be released in first 5 years. If game is being updated for more than 5 years, then Extended VIP pack for 20-30$ should be available for next 5 years.
For example, I bought such pack, and started the game, in main menu windows pops out with new and existing stuff, where I can simply choose what to install and what not. And stuff is being downloaded while I play, when download is done, it applies after I restart the game. Simple as that.
 

Rad Party God

Party like it's 2010!
Feb 23, 2010
3,560
0
0
As an advocator of the F2P model, or would I say, good F2P models like Turbine's, I don't like the idea of having a single-player game and being rammed in the face with "convenience" items.

First, it would need a constant internet connection just to play SP, see how well it did with UbiSoft and how good it will fare with Blizzard and EA.

Second and would be included in the first line, if the company goes down, your game too and only the customer gets utterly screwed.

And third, microtransactions in an SP game (beyond DLC), just... no.
 

Covarr

PS Thanks
May 29, 2009
1,559
0
0
He envisions a game like Skyrim, but we savvy consumers know how to correctly translate such marketing speak to "crummy Skyrim clone".

That being said, if any game is gonna go F2P, I could see it working a lot better for something like an Elder Scrolls game than for something else. Give 'em the main story for free, sell quest packs as DLC. If quests can be done either before OR after beating the story, then it doesn't feel like a requirement nor does it discourage players who have finished the game from buying it. The thing is, this would only work in such an open game. Wise players will realize that a DLC dungeon is a more fun way of gaining experience than grinding in the forest, but not feel cheated since it's still an optional part of the game.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. Advertising captchas? Wow.
 

Gather

New member
Apr 9, 2009
492
0
0
Cousins holds the view that free-to-play games have had two distinct generations so far: an early one where only cosmetic items were for sale, and the current one where payments eliminate annoying roadblocks in a player's way, like accelerating construction time in CityVille.
So... The future Skyrim shall put up in-game roadblocks in the same style that arcades did "back in the day" with impossible challenges with the intent of taking as many dimes as possible out of our pocket?

You know, like in CityVille, a prime example of the latest freemium items where players can (And are semi-expected to) buy "upgrades" from the distributor.

If anything is done right; practically anything would be awesome. However ideas like this are MUCH MUCH more likely to turn a customer into an even larger open wallet compared to what some companies consider the average consumer today.
 

Abedeus

New member
Sep 14, 2008
7,412
0
0
That worked out GREAT for Half Life and Sin Episodes.

The only game that didn't just suddenly die because of this Episodes shit is Sam and Max.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
I disagree with this model, I'd rather just pay for a complete game straight out and am already annoyed by DLC and wish it would go away. If I can't play single player games without being harassed for money I might very well quit gaming.

Generally speaking the idea here isn't to collect the $60 in a "staggered" way, it's to try and make more than the price for just selling the game over a period of time in hopes that by spending the money gradually people won't notice that they are paying more for games.

That's how I see things at any rate. The infrastructure exists for someone to try this model, but that doesn't mean it's a paticularly good, or fun, idea, especially for the consumer. One of the biggest issue s with this kind of model already is that it's nearly impossible to tell what the level of financial committment to play well is going to be when you start, and that's one of the things the developers rely on.
 

Proverbial Jon

Not evil, just mildly malevolent
Nov 10, 2009
2,093
0
0
Buretsu said:
I think we all know where this is going:

"New Word learned! Force (Fus)! Spend 1 Dragon Soul and $2 to unlock it!"
"Smithing Level Up! Smithing 99! Your Smithing skill has gone as high as it can go.. Spend $1.50 to unlock the next Level!"
Exactly what I thought. There's few greater ways to pull you from the game than when the real world stops you from playing.

I would much rather just pay my lump sum of money and have the WHOLE game available to me; none of this stupid microtransaction nonsense. When I play a single player game I commit to the whole experience, with the exception of any available multiplayer.

I doubt this idea will be as successful as this Ben Cousins guy seems to think it will be.