Thanatos2k said:
Rabid_meese said:
Can... Can I... can I get one of those flashdrives? For... a friend
There is a very malignant attitude towards free to play games. You shouldn't design a game around the notion of "Whales." Its unsustainable business. That "Whale" is going to sing somewhere else eventually.
You should design your game in a way that's fair. Free To Play games like League of Legends do this well. You're never required, or coerced into buying something. In fact, the only reason that store is in (atleast, in the beginning) was to keep the business afloat. League was a labor of love that Riot wanted to give out for free. They felt that having a paywall blocks potential players from enjoying their pet project. The paying features are only cosmetic or a boost that really doesn't change the dynamics of the game. Buying every champion in the game, or one of their skins, doesn't give you an advantage over someone who just players the rotated champions. It gives them more options, but not more power.
That's the free to play model I have faith in. The kind that puts the game before the money - not the money before the game. That is sustainable - League's not going to die out any time soon. A year from now, who's gonna remember Dungeon Keeper?
No, Dota was a labor of love that was given out for free. League of Legends places restrictions on the players over what heroes they can use unless they pay. It absolutely contains walls that lower player enjoyment. League of Legend is better than others but NOT a good example of a good free to play game.
Actually, there aren't really any examples of good free to play games. TF2 is another one often thrown about but TF2 was not made as a free to play game.
I figrued I shouldn't have mentioned LoL, because I knew some fanboy would get his jollies twisted by it. DoTA was not a free game - it was a free mod, that required WarCraft III to play. It was iterated. League was the first big one that was standalone, without a paywall attached. DoTA 2 later followed. League is much more of a progression based multiplayer game - DoTA is not.
Owning a champion isn't an increase in power. If you want to put it in TF2 terms - its a sidegrade. The 6300 champions don't out perform the 4800's, who don't out perform the 3100's, the 1500's, or the 450's. If I was a player with no previous knowledge, owning a champion that's not on the free rotation doesn't give me anything over those who don't. Champions off the rotation aren't any better or worse then those on rotation - it was a design choice. It fits both a progression based model and a form of monetization. The only aspects of that game that DO offer a power upgrade - Runes and Masteries, are unlocked either freely or are not allowed to be purchased with real world money.
League was made to streamline DoTA - which was very unintuitive, and had many design redundancies that only served to lengthen the game, not make it more enjoyable. Part of that was the learning curve. If I'm a fresh newbie, I already have the internal mechanics to try and come to terms with - adding "knowing the mechanics of 100+ characters" to that list initially makes for a steeper learning experience. By limiting the initial interactions, you allow the player to get much more comfortable before adding in higher tier champions.
Owning every champion is not a requirement of play. Its not even a requirement of high level play - if you don't play a certain role, you don't have to waste your points on champions of that role. The requirements to unlock champions is fair and relatively quick. Saying there are walls in place is akin to pointing to any game with a progression system and calling it 'unfair.'
And, lets be real. DoTA 2 was published by Valve - a company that can (and initially did) release games at a loss because Steam will more then cover their asses. DoTA 2 was not a solvent game for a very long time - mostly because it was launched as free, with very little microtransactions. It was a money pit for Valve - costing them money on tech support, servers, and a whole host of other things. Not every company can design a game like Valve does. If League had launched with relatively.
People seem to forget that buying power is not the same as buying convenience. If you could buy a double damage relic, or if the Champions at the 6300 IP range were stronger then the lower tier champions, you'd be absolutely right. There would be a paywall that stops enjoyment. But the game is relatively well balanced - champions are only sidegrades to other champions, not upgrades. Brand is not an upgraded version of Annie.
Also - no good free to play examples? Really? TF2 is extremely fair - even if it wasn't designed as a F2P game. It became one. Its former origins of "You have to buy a retail copy to play" doesn't diminish how it stands as a free to play title right now. Path of Exile - you want to talk about fair free to play titles. It's a dungeon crawler, the likes of Diablo. It's extremely in depth, giving you full access to its rich story and gameplay. Cosmetics, such as animations or pets, and an upgraded shared stash - not inventory, mind you, just a bank. RuneScape is basically a game that splits its free to play and pay to play communities in half - a Pay to Play member has a lot more features at their disposal, but none of them are active on a Free to Play server. That's a pretty fair system - you can enjoy that game as much as you want, and neither way will interfere with the other. Hell, I even just downloaded Tetris on my android phone - 100% free, it just has ad's on the main blade and sometimes between matches.
To say Free to Play hasn't been done right at all either means you're just spouting off, or you've never played a free to play game before. Free to play is a design choice that has to have the entire game structured around it - remember, game designers need to eat too. Good examples of Free to Play are games that don't solicit or require payment to enjoy - things where the only thing you can buy are cosmetics, of conveniences that don't come at the expense of another player.