PopCap Boss Defends Free-To-Play

[Andy Chalk]

PopCap Boss Defends Free-To-Play

PopCap CEO Dave Roberts says the studio took a lot of flak for making Plants vs. Zombies 2 free-to-play but defends the move as both necessary and a great way to reach a huge audience.

I've purchased the original Plants vs. Zombies at least four times - the regular box, plus three collector's editions - and I also have it on Steam, although I'm not sure how it ended up there and whether or not I actually paid for it. The point is that I've thrown a lot of money at this game, and I was disappointed to learn back in June that the sequel would be a free-to-play [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/124550-Plants-vs-Zombies-2-Its-About-Time-Coming-Next-Month] release. It may be an unjustified bias, but it's there nonetheless: I'd far rather pay up front for the full game than horse around with nickels here and dimes there as I play.

But PopCap CEO Dave Roberts defended the change in an interview last week, even as he acknowledged that not everyone was thrilled with it. "We've gotten a lot of flak in the games industry for going free-to-play. Everyone is, 'Free-to-play is so evil'," he told Geekwire. "But part of it is, look, we can now talk to a million people in a day or two million people in a day or five million people, or whatever it is going to end up with today. That's a huge deal. People forget that freemium can really be a great thing because we are really showing a lot of people the game, and they are excited about it."

Roberts said that from a financial standpoint, free-to-play is where it's at these days, pointing out that the top-grossing games on the App Store are F2P and "you have to get down to 70 or 80 or 90 [in the list] before you see a paid game." He also noted that PopCap's previous model, based on a 60-minute trial, drew criticism from gamers too and had a tiny conversion rate of just two percent - and was just as open to "abuse."

"There were notorious games that had 63 minutes of great game play that sucked," he said. "I think there are ways to abuse any business model, and people sometimes say, 'Yeah, you can do horrible things with that.' Yeah, of course you can... With PvZ we have a pretty important brand here and we are trying to protect it."

Source: GeekWire [http://www.geekwire.com/2013/qa-popcap-ceo-dave-roberts-zombies-power-freetoplay-games/]

Permalink

 

[Solo-Wing]

I really doubt Popcap had any say in the matter. This is EA we are talking about here. If Popcap had free reign over it Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare would never be happening let alone PvZ2 going Free to Play. They are probably contracted to say these decisions are theirs alone.

Again remember that EA owns them. When this stuff happens around them it is best to suspect them and be weary of the "Features" put in their games.

 

[Covarr]

Games like Team Fortress 2 have gone free-to-play without ever giving a straight advantage to whoever spends the most, and nobody was bothered by it, because nobody has an inherent issue with F2P. What we have an issue with is when companies like PopCap and Zynga extend that into pay-to-win.

P.S. Thanks

P.P.S. I would totally play Plants Vs. Zombies online with TF2-style hats.

 

[-Dragmire-]

2 things...

I wonder if this is the game they would have made had they not have been bought by EA.

If you're talking about how many people you can reach as the incentive for F2P, why put it on a single platform?

 

[Absolutionis]

My main issue with free-to-play is the advantage gained by paying money. Some games like Planetside 2, Blacklight, Warframe, and Team Fortress 2 grant you convenience with microtransactions. Any advantage you gain from these microtransactions are things you could get from regular play and nothing is strictly better than the "starter" gear, it's all just versatility in options or cosmetics.

...and then there are games like Plants vs Zombies 2. You can pay real money for strict advantages like the rake that is essentially buying "cheats" for the game. There is no sense of accomplishment for playing the game because you're just buying your way through it.

Considering EA's history with microtransactions in PAID games that grant you a strict advantage (Dead Space 2, etc), it's not comforting when someone from EA defends the practice.

How many times has EA recieved flack for their decisions only to have the studio head say, "I am the head of Maxis/Bioware/PopCap/Visceral and the decisions you hate in SimCity/MassEffect/PlantsVsZombies/DeadSpace was part of this studio and not from EA. Also, I like keeping my job and not being fired."?

 

[Jumwa]

I just don't enjoy games where I feel like I don't have the full package. I was fine with DLCs up until some companies began to abuse them and release a dozen or more for a single game in a short time span, but I've had my fill.

I'll stick to games which don't nickle and dime me, and I have no problem paying a premium for the privilege.

 

[Jaeger_CDN]

I just don't enjoy games where I feel like I don't have the full package. I was fine with DLCs up until some companies began to abuse them and release a dozen or more for a single game in a short time span, but I've had my fill.

I'll stick to games which don't nickle and dime me, and I have no problem paying a premium for the privilege.

I'm pretty much in the same line of thought myself. It's to the point where if I ever buy DLC, it's for something that actually extends gameplay and not for a new set of digital underwear for my character.

Atleast with PC, if you can wait a year or so for the GoTY version you can get all these silly horse armour DLCs rolled into one package that will cost half of what you would have paid for them piece meal(especially during Steam sales!).

 

[-Dragmire-]

If you're talking about how many people you can reach as the incentive for F2P, why put it on a single platform?

I imagine because the original game sold extremely well on iPhones, or because EA had an exclusivity deal with Apple.

Those are the usual culprits.

Seems odd though, doesn't it? Exclusivity deals cost a shit tonne of cash to be worth limiting your demographic to one platform and I don't see this F2P game helping to sell more iPads and iPhones to be worth the cost to Apple.

 

[Ed130 The Vanguard]

I would believe you, but then I remember I'm just talking to a meat puppet.

In my family of 5 there are at least 7 paid copies of PvZ across two platforms. At this rate there will be at max two copies (and that's assuming you release it onto the Android platform) of the sequel. And neither of those two will spend any money on your game.

Sounds like going to F2P was a great idea!
/Sarcasm

 

[WhiteTigerShiro]

If you're talking about how many people you can reach as the incentive for F2P, why put it on a single platform?

I imagine because the original game sold extremely well on iPhones, or because EA had an exclusivity deal with Apple.

Those are the usual culprits.

Seems odd though, doesn't it? Exclusivity deals cost a shit tonne of cash to be worth limiting your demographic to one platform and I don't see this F2P game helping to sell more iPads and iPhones to be worth the cost to Apple.

It's more than likely a timed exclusive. Kinda like how a lot of DLC for various games will launch on Xbox first with "no mention of PC or PS3 release", but they all eventually make it. The next PvZ is not going to be permanently exclusive to the iPhone.

 

[Atmos Duality]

"There were notorious games that had 63 minutes of great game play that sucked," he said. "I think there are ways to abuse any business model, and people sometimes say, 'Yeah, you can do horrible things with that.' Yeah, of course you can... With PvZ we have a pretty important brand here and we are trying to protect it."

Protect it? Don't you mean "exploit" it?
The value in branding is recognition; recognition to be exploited.

I'd say that PvZ doesn't need open defending right now; the market will decide for itself whether it wants this particular kind of F2P exploitation or not.

 

[-Dragmire-]

If you're talking about how many people you can reach as the incentive for F2P, why put it on a single platform?

I imagine because the original game sold extremely well on iPhones, or because EA had an exclusivity deal with Apple.

Those are the usual culprits.

Seems odd though, doesn't it? Exclusivity deals cost a shit tonne of cash to be worth limiting your demographic to one platform and I don't see this F2P game helping to sell more iPads and iPhones to be worth the cost to Apple.

It's more than likely a timed exclusive. Kinda like how a lot of DLC for various games will launch on Xbox first with "no mention of PC or PS3 release", but they all eventually make it. The next PvZ is not going to be permanently exclusive to the iPhone.

That seems far more likely, it also allows for more new release time in the public eye as it gets released from platform to platform.

 

[wulfy42]

Much like Kwil, I would totally have purchased PvZ2 for $20 or even more. I have not spent a cent though, and have finished it myself. Meanwhile my wife, and 2 other friends I know who were waiting for it...got bored somewhere in the pirate level and have stopped playing it all together. None of us spent any money on the game.

I didn't even ever use any coins for the player powers in mine. Finished it with pure plants the way it was meant to be played.

I missed some plants from Pvz1...but more then anything...it just seemed repetative to me. The star challenges don't really make things more fun...and you have to do a ton of them along the way. The endless modes were somewhat fun..but only once each really for me. After finishing the game I would rather go back and play PvZ 1...in endless mode (which I hadn't done for years)..then play PvZ2.

So over all it's a failure.

If they release another area that we have to pay for.....I might think about getting it...but honestly I doubt I would at this point. I was very dissapointed by this game

 

[Mirrorknight]

Free to play is awesome and you should like it. I'm saying this of my own volition and the EA pod monster that was not inserted into my skull is not making me say that.

 

[Doom972]

2 things...

I wonder if this is the game they would have made had they not have been bought by EA.

Hard to say. Why it's easy to assume that EA is behind every bad decision, it doesn't seem unlikely to me that PopCap would give this model a try.

If you're talking about how many people you can reach as the incentive for F2P, why put it on a single platform?

My guess would be that Apple gives them a bigger cut for the exclusivity, or that they don't think that the users of other platforms would be willing to spend that much money on in-game items.

 

[Something Amyss]

"There were notorious games that had 63 minutes of great game play that sucked," he said. "I think there are ways to abuse any business model, and people sometimes say, 'Yeah, you can do horrible things with that.' Yeah, of course you can... With PvZ we have a pretty important brand here and we are trying to protect it."

Of course, you could just not do that.

Then again, there's a similar issue with Free 2 Play/freemium/buzzword here games. It often costs significantly more to buy a la carte than it does to just buy the game in the first place, and the whole setup comes off as inherently deceptive. Whereas, by comparison, demos can be deceptive.

The easiest solution, as I said, is just to not do that.

I really doubt Popcap had any say in the matter. This is EA we are talking about here. If Popcap had free reign over it Plants vs Zombies Garden Warfare would never be happening let alone PvZ2 going Free to Play. They are probably contracted to say these decisions are theirs alone.

Again remember that EA owns them. When this stuff happens around them it is best to suspect them and be weary of the "Features" put in their games.

There's a certain level of Occam's Razor to these issues, isn't there? Is it more likely that all these companies bought out by EA suddenly come to conclusions that completely turn around their business strategies, or is it more likely pressure from the new owners? I find it hard to believe it's the former.

I'm not trying to run the EA hate train or anything, but this does sound more like EA than PopCap. And there's the rub. The one, effectively, IS the other now.

 

[sid]

This is semi-related, but I was looking through the app store and saw plants vs zombies 2 in first place. Even though it has all of its lingering problems like taunting your wallet with every move and being related to EA, it had an almost unanimous rating of 5 stars. In fact, around 50 thousand people gave 5 stars on it, which isn't far from the number of total voters. Anyways, I clicked reviews.

Every single review for as long as I could scroll down gave it 2 stars or lower.

Has anyone ever covered this? I mean, I know most people that don't know much about mobile games tend to buy them on ratings, but if the ratings are pretty glaringly faked for a game such as PvZ, what does that say of Apple's entire store?