Free-to-play is the WORST thing to happen to video gaming.

[Little Gray]

I gotta say I love f2p games. As long as you are not forced to buy anything to play it works out great for everybody. If somebody wants to pay money to unlock something faster/earlier or buy an advantage in a single player game then they can go right ahead. It does not have any effect on me and it lets them have more fun so why not.

F2p games also have the added bonus of if it turns out to be shit it has not actually cost you anything other then time. The same can not be said about the thousands of piles of shit for sale on the steam store.

 

[DoPo]

Agreed. PoE is an example of F2P done right. Sure, the extra inventory space you can buy (once!)

You can buy extra inventory more than once.

To me, "good" F2P games are even worse than the bad ones, because they encourage people to think of the business model as being not inherently bad, and thus the bad ones benefit by proxy.

I like how your argument supposes a payment method is inherently morally aligned. It's just a payment method. It has as much power as the market collectively allows it. Also, how people will just go with a bad F2P monetization system because some hypothetical person says "Well, Dota 2 and TF2 work as F2P. Star Trek Trexels and Dungeon Keeper must be legit too."

I'm also a fan of how the complaints about F2P being "inherently" anything (I don't think I've seen anybody saying they are inherently good) somehow imply anything you pay for is inherently good.

 

[Bigggg BRIM77]

Free to play isn't a replacement for buy to play video games. A free to play single player experience doesn't work. Free to play is a replacement in the mmo bracket for the subscription model. Let's do some math here, and see what kind of subscription you were paying to League of Legends.

I played for two years until Spring 2011 I realized that I had spent over $150 on that game.

2 years, is 24 months. If you paid a total of 150$, then you were paying about 6.25$ a month. That's pretty good, especially since League of Legends, and almost all free to play games, don't have an up front cost associated with the game. If I wanted to subscribe to the big MMO, World of Warcraft, I would be paying 12.99$ a month, and that's not counting the cost of any new expansions that are coming out.

I also bought Diablo 2 back in 2000 for $50 and I can still play that game ONLINE today (as recently as last year), what's your point?

 

[Ark of the Covetor]

For the most part, I agree. I particularly hate that it's taken such root in the MMO market. People used to whine about hating monthly subs, but then turn around and end up paying even more over the same period of time in microtransactions for the same content. One of the reasons my MMO of choice is FF14 is precisely because it's a sub game (in addition to being pretty damn good), and I don't need to weigh my options, consider the best value, wonder if I should get piece or content or not. I just log in and know the whole game is available to me.

And that right there is what I most despise about F2P games; the total cost. Actually go and dig into these F2P games' shops and total up all the basic stuff - not even the "fun" cosmetic things or the account services like extra character slots just the normal things you would expect to see as part of a full-price-up-front game - and it can come to hundreds, even thousands of pounds/dollars.

That content wasn't any harder or more expensive for a F2P dev to create than it would have been for a normal game, yet the pricing structure for most F2P games is based around trying to recover from the player an equivalent amount of money to an up-front purchase with only two or three item sales, because the know any particular statistically-average player will only buy that much. The result is that people who actually have some semblance of impulse control get far less game for their money than if they'd just bought a full-price-up-front title, and the devs just pocket free money from those members of the player base who do love the game enough to want full access or who're susceptible to the ethically-questionable psychological manipulations that come with F2P titles.

On top of that, a lot of people draw a distinction between "cosmetic stuff" and "pay to win", but personally I think it's a distinction without a difference; it's all gameplay content. When I'm playing an MMORPG then my avatar's appearance is every bit as much a part of the character I'm trying to create and play as what skills they have and what the stats on their gear are, hell for a lot of people that aspect of MMO's - the character creation and cosmetic aspect - IS the game, so why is that gameplay "ok" to section off and charge through the nose for, but selling a +1 Sword of PewPew is beyond the pale? I'd left SWG before all the trading card bullshit, but when I think back to all the fun I got out of that game and try to imagine how I could have had those same experiences if this set of armour or that bit of clothing cost £5+ a pop and I just can't see it working, yet I'm expected to believe I can find that same level of fun and enjoyment in an MMORPG that does operate a F2P/freemium model? Aye right.

What most annoys me about F2P though is that people seem to be accepting it, hell some people actually thank devs for ripping people off because "at least I get to try before I buy" - if that's your issue, don't acquiesce to a business model that operates entirely for the benefit of the developer/publisher, fucking get angry and demand these bastards compete for your cash by offering proper representative-of-gameplay demos like they used to.

 

[Bigggg BRIM77]

Your example about League of Legends is a classic Hanlon's Razor "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

This, this, this. We can end this fucking idiotic thread now.

In this context, a Razor is used to eliminate unlikely explanations for a phenomenon. You are both wrong as there IS a likely explanation. Anything of interest happen to Riot in 2011? Anything big at all, such as Chinese company Tencent BUYING a majority stake in Riot Games for $400 million dollars in Spring 2011? Gosh, that was right before Yorick was launched too! What a coincidence!

When a company buys your company for $400,000,000 they expect a return on their investment. Its that simple. "Well Brim, they wouldn't just buff a champion so people would buy him!" Yeah, and gas station don't collude on price either. The price just seems to magically go up $.30 on Fridays or $.50/gallon right before a holiday weekend! What a PHENOMENON!

 

[Drizzitdude]

Lost all faith in the thread when I read "League was the first FTP game I played, and was the first one to turn me off to the idea" when league is by far one of the best examples of a ftp game. You keep all progress you make (unlike other free-to-play games where they last a certain duration), it is incredibly easy to make ip and RP is really only needed for nonessential items and skins. It isn't like you buy Yorick and instantly win every game as him or something.

You are getting a product FOR FREE. If you do not like the product, you can just get rid of it and lose absolutely nothing in the process. If you hit a pay gate and don't like it, then who cares? It isn't like you lost anything. There are plenty of good examples of ftp games that you are judging for no real reason.

Micro transactions have been around forever, and while free to play games did cause them to become more widespread it isn't a free-to-play games fault if a big developer tries to monetize silly things in their AAA game. Want a skin in gears but it costs money? That isn't league, or planetside, or guild wars fault.

 

[Sian]

Free to play isn't a replacement for buy to play video games. A free to play single player experience doesn't work. Free to play is a replacement in the mmo bracket for the subscription model. Let's do some math here, and see what kind of subscription you were paying to League of Legends.

I played for two years until Spring 2011 I realized that I had spent over $150 on that game.

2 years, is 24 months. If you paid a total of 150$, then you were paying about 6.25$ a month. That's pretty good, especially since League of Legends, and almost all free to play games, don't have an up front cost associated with the game. If I wanted to subscribe to the big MMO, World of Warcraft, I would be paying 12.99$ a month, and that's not counting the cost of any new expansions that are coming out.

I also bought Diablo 2 back in 2000 for $50 and I can still play that game ONLINE today (as recently as last year), what's your point?

I have 3 points. I explained one of them already so.

2. Free to play is the worst possible name for the business model. Mostly in that it's not free. To get a satisfying experience, you almost always have to spend money. Yes there are exceptions, but it's risky, and hard to do.

3. MMOs are constantly being patched, updated, and releasing new content. A game without some kind of sustained revenue can't do this. With the many subscription based MMOs that have failed, it's not viable to release a game like that. Free to play is the best way for a sustained revenue system that allows this kind of long-term support.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

As a system, F2P has a lot of potential. The problem is a lot of publishers take to it as an excuse to print money for themselves. As much as I can relate with the OP's concerns, I'll list a few F2P games that handle their pay wall smartly.

DOTA 2 and Team Fortress 2 are the first two examples that come to mind. Both are free, both are entirely and fully playable in their vanilla state, and the only things you pay for are cosmetic in nature. Actually, when TF2 is concerned, you need absolutely jack shit to play it. Everything extra unlocks over time, or can be obtained using Steam's trading or bartering system.

Even if you never unlocked any extra gear and never picked up a single hat, the vanilla weapons will see you through any match if you know how to handle your selected class.

Loadout, by Edge of Reality, also comes to mind. You can pay for XP and currency boosts, and the currency is only ever used to purchase cosmetics. The game unlocks its own additional weapon assets over time, and once they're unlocked, they're yours. Forever. Basically, the "freemium" aspects of the game are simplified to a tip jar-like system. I tossed in twenty bucks as a way of supporting the developer, and that's it.

So you *can* handle Freemium right, but the right way doesn't generate torrential amounts of cash. All EA et al. really care about is the moolah. Ergo, they pick the shortest, fastest and most invasive ways to surgically plug themselves to your wallet.

 

[Entitled]

Given the insanely high amount of games being released nowadays, I find it likely that even if 90% of all games were free to play, that would all be an extra, beyond the industry's size from when there was no free to play. The alternative to free to play gaming is not a plethora of other quaality games, but the industry shrinking bback to it's former size and making less games.


While I'm personally not a big fan of the F2P model specifically, I love this general trend of games moving away from the old "go to store, grab a box, pay $60, go home" model, and relying on models where it's OK that there are freeloaders and paying enthusiasts, as long as money keeps flowing in the devs general direction.

Every new business model innovation in te past years, that was particularly noticeable in PC gaming, from humble bundles, crowdfunding, free to play, steam summer sales, early access, etc, have the same common point, that there is a rush to profit from gamers without just carging a flat rate from everyone for obtaining the game.

 

[babinro]

I disagree with the OP based on my own actions.

My 2 favorite games of 2014 have been and continue to be:
1) Marvel Puzzle Quest
2) Hearthstone

Both games are free to play and both games are amazing. The OP has a point that psychological games are played with the F2P genre but I don't feel that makes them inherently bad. Ultimately, this is just a term we use for simplicity. We could call these games "No Access Fee" so be it. The end result is the same. You can play free for life but you'll progress about 100x slower than someone who spends even $5.00 a month.

Accept it.
Play as long as you're having fun regardless of whether or not you choose to support them financially.

Personal Note: I've spent no money on Hearthstone. I've spent plenty of money on MPQ early on but I haven't continued to put money into it and I never plan to again.

 

[Techno Squidgy]

Good game, too bad it's community is overrun with elitist snobs who only give a shit about their stats and start insulting their own team before the match even begins.

As a "tomato" doing my best to get better at the game and not fail my way to tier X, I partially agree with this statement. There are a few elitists about, but mostly I just get nationalist/racist dickheads, griefers and players who I think may genuinely be mentally handicapped. The number of times I've seen Polish players get abuse, simply for being Polish is unbelievable, and so many times I have been pushed out of bushes in front of enemy guns by idiots in heavy tanks or intentionally blocked around corners...

I guess you must play on the NA servers? I hear there's more elitism on NA than the other servers, don't know if it's true. Never fancied trying to grind up from tier I with a higher ping, it's hard enough to get better when I don't have massive lag.

 

[laggyteabag]

F2P sparked the rise of microtransactions, and I blame F2P games as a whole for bringing microtransactions into AAA premium games. You can have your cake and eat it too. You either charge for the game and then make the rest of the content "free", or you make the game free and then your charge for little pieces of content. World of Warcraft is a HUGE abuser of this. You have to buy the game to have access to the content, you then have to pay a subscription fee (that is rising in the UK) to even play it, and then there are microtransactions in the game that can range anywhere up to £40. I get that WoW is just a little money printer, but damn, that is a lot of sinister ways to generate revenue.

 

[cdemares]

I don't mind free-to-play. I only hate that many of the tactics used are potentially exploitve of children and those with poor impulse control. I feel like I'm paying what I want to.

As for companies thinking gamers are money-cows, they have proven that they are. I didn't buy the $99 Total Annihilation beta, for a game that released at $40. But somebody clearly did. Somebody is buying GW2 gems. I have never paid for an MMO subscription, and never thought the idea would even take off. But here we are, and WOW is king. Gamers are indeed money-cows.

 

[jklinders]

Good game, too bad it's community is overrun with elitist snobs who only give a shit about their stats and start insulting their own team before the match even begins.

As a "tomato" doing my best to get better at the game and not fail my way to tier X, I partially agree with this statement. There are a few elitists about, but mostly I just get nationalist/racist dickheads, griefers and players who I think may genuinely be mentally handicapped. The number of times I've seen Polish players get abuse, simply for being Polish is unbelievable, and so many times I have been pushed out of bushes in front of enemy guns by idiots in heavy tanks or intentionally blocked around corners...

I guess you must play on the NA servers? I hear there's more elitism on NA than the other servers, don't know if it's true. Never fancied trying to grind up from tier I with a higher ping, it's hard enough to get better when I don't have massive lag.

Yeah, I'm on the NA server. Lots of arty hating twerps there. The abuse was actually bad enough that it combined with my (then) shitty computer to make me quit for a few months. I'm thinking about getting back into it. Not sure if it's worth it though. Been shoved out of bushes a few times, once by a heavy while in a glass cannon TD. He was pissy because I was not "pushing " with him. Sorry if my toaster is too thin armoured to fight the front lines with you there bub but piss off is basically what I said to him.

The window licking from other players in that game is truly astonishing. Sorry to hear about the nationalist abuse though. From Russian players I expect? I guess I should have known there was still some bad shit going there.

 

[Vigormortis]

"The wanton abuse and misuse of the Free-to-play model is one among many of the WORST thingS to happen to video gaming."

There. Fixed that for ya.

Also:

Change the color of your weapon in Gears of War 3? $5.00. Want one more character slot in Guild Wars 2? $10. Want to participate in the beta period for Galactic Civilizations 3 which GREATLY helps out developers fix bugs and iron out glitches in their own game so its smooth at launch? Oh that's, no longer free, that'll be $100.

This has absolutely nothing to do with free-to-play monetization models. This is simply game developers and/or publishers nickel-and-dime'ing players with superfluous content in premium priced games.

And before anyone says that F2P games brought about micro-transactions, just know that you're wrong. Micro-transactions were a 'thing' long before the F2P model started becoming more prevalent.

Also, also:

Subscriptions in games made send in the late 90's and early 2000's when server costs were so expensive. Now? There is no reason for them, other than to line the companies' pockets.

Um...servers are still expensive. It costs a lot of money to host thousands to millions of players a month. I'm not sure where you get the idea that companies can just host games online for a pittance....

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Look. I get how frustrating poorly implemented F2P models can be. Trust me, I've been there. Some can feel as though they're sole goal is to take advantage of the players.

However, this isn't an inherent flaw in the model. It's an inherent flaw in human nature. In fact, I'd go so far as to argue that the F2P model is one of the better things to happen to gaming.

When done correctly, it allows access to a wealth of game content to the community at no charge. It can even spur community involvement in the game's future support and content creation. (see TF2, Dota 2, etc)

Is it an easy system to abuse? Yes, of course. Most monetization systems are. However, it's also a system that can be used to achieve great things that benefit everyone.

 

[DBLT4P]

It seems to me that FTP has an inherent balancing issue, the more incentivized any monetized option is the less balanced and/or fun the game will be in order to incentivize it, because it has to offer some sort of advantage to warrant paying for it. I don't think that FTP games can survive by having the only monetized items be cosmetic because not enough people will buy them, and whales have little reason to buy lots of them. On the other hand, there are really only two other ways to monetize FTP, either throttling progress for free customer/accelerating play for paying customers (basically the same thing), or buy having gameplay where you pay for power (what those into cars might call a drag racing dynamic: want to go faster? pay more money) but in this case- want to gank n00bs? spend money).

Really I feel that it comes down to this: for conventional pay-$60-for-your-game-and-be-done-with-it games you make a successful game (i.e. make money) by making it fun, for FTP you make money by doing the opposite; making sure that it is only just fun enough to keep you playing, but not so fun that you don't need to spend money.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

...as opposed to Planetside's 20 hours straight for a fucking sight.

Now I've got to look at you funny here. The most "expensive" weapon sight in the game is thirty certification points, or 7500 experience points. If you're smart about where you take part in a battle, and are diligent with support classes, you can earn that many certs in twenty minutes. Never mind that each faction has one or two "starter" sights you can get for five certs.

Now if you want to talk about the high-end stuff like tank cannons, aircraft gear and some infantry weapons, yeah, a thousand certs can take a good while to get. But there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that shine in their roles.

 

[RealRT]

And before that, DLC.
And before that, sequels.
And before that...
Free to play as a concept at its core is neutral. By its nature, it's neither good, nor bad. It just is. It's how its realized is either good or bad. And yes, far too many people suck at making F2P good. But there are examples of the contrary.

I should add that I've tried Path of Exile, TF2 and Dota 2 and these are the only FTP games that do it right. Unfortunately, these are anomalies in the giant steaming pile of shit known as free-to-play games.

After spending a year in Nosgoth (first closed Alpha, then closed Beta) I gotta say, it's shaping up to be another addition to the short list of Free To Play games that aren't horrible abominations and actually treat their players right.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

...as opposed to Planetside's 20 hours straight for a fucking sight.

Now I've got to look at you funny here. The most "expensive" weapon sight in the game is thirty certification points, or 7500 experience points. If you're smart about where you take part in a battle, and are diligent with support classes, you can earn that many certs in twenty minutes. Never mind that each faction has one or two "starter" sights you can get for five certs.

Now if you want to talk about the high-end stuff like tank cannons, aircraft gear and some infantry weapons, yeah, a thousand certs can take a good while to get. But there are plenty of cheaper alternatives that shine in their roles.

Yeah I think you might have a point. I might've been thinking of the silencer or muzzle brake thing, my mistake. It's a horrible pain just trying to earn that. Or much anything else for that matter, especially an AA launcher.

You mention starter sights, I haven't played the game in a few months and that sounds unfamiliar to me, so my impressions might be a bit dated.