Financial concerns might be one side of the coin, but let's not also forget time investment. A Farmville player (we'll keep using it as an example) might not be paying money for their game, but they are paying in time. Sure, so is the person who pays $60 for a game, but most traditionally released console titles are finite, i.e. they have an end. As far as I know, Farmville does not. There is no end goal or end state to the game. You simply grow and maintain your farm ad infinitum.Dastardly said:3. The clear point the author was making with the "smartness" of the Farmville player is in the financial sense. Rather than shelling out $60 up front, hoping for a good game, these players are choosing experiences that are free to start, and then only paying for what interests them, and only if it interests them. They are encouraging a pricing model that gives them, the player, far more control over the cost of the experience... whereas a lot of us happily roll over and shell out $60 because that's just the norm.
You could argue that that further cements Farmville as a smarter financial choice, but I would argue that it's just a bigger time sink. Once I finish my $60 game, I'm usually done with it, unless it's particularly good or there is extra content outside the game ending that makes it worth playing. For me, I've had an experience with a beginning, a middle and an end. The Farmville player has a beginning and then a never ending maintenance schedule, unless they choose to quit, at which point they have nothing to show for it except a slowly deteriorating farm and the hours sunk into the game. I've usually experienced a story, at least, and I have the satisfaction of beating the challenge that any given game presents. Farmville may be challenging in a sense, but you can't ever "beat" it.
So who's really smarter here? Either? I do know that personally I value the time spent in the console games I play more than the time I spent trying out games like Mafia Wars or Farmville. It was readily apparent to me that both games I mentioned would not satisfy me and in fact, were designed in a way that would leave me continually unsatisfied. That is the whole point of those games, it's the way they keep you engaged. There's always that next level, that next tier of gear, the next boss in the hierarchy. I don't see how subjecting oneself to that form of "gaming" is inherently better than any other sort. Sure, it's free if you choose not to pay, but there are scads of players that do invest not only time, but money into these "free to play" games.
Does this mean we need a third category? The smart Farmville player, the stupid Farmville player and the inferior to both "hardcore" gamer?