senordesol said:
Just remember that context is everything and dismissing an entire industry just because of some business practices you don't like or aren't used to really isn't fair to the many talented people who are trying to create compelling products but are trying to earn money at the same time. The fact is: we HAVE to understand how to retain and monetize people. If we make a quality game that can be finished in a day: we're screwed. If we make a quality game that doesn't pay for itself: we're screwed. It's simply not enough to 'make it good' and let the rest take care of itself.
FOREWARD: This turned out longer than expected, and I will try to space it enough that it's readable.
1) F2P FROM A REGULAR GAMER
I'll be honest, I lament the direction some games are going. Specifically multiplayer F2P games.
F2P mandates jerking the player around to make money because the model carries higher fixed costs than "traditional" games.
In fact, it's turning out like MMOs have, where some forced "progress" method or pay/grind wall is required.
While I won't speak for anyone else, I'm snapping back against grind more and more lately; mostly because the model conflicts with the changing nature and necessities of my life. I just don't want to spend time doing busywork during my leisure time now.
Worse, the concept of F2P is still relatively new. That "wild west" you describe lends itself towards exploitation, as most new markets experience. So not only are F2P games coping with developing solutions to problems inherent in their emerging model, but there's a strong drive to exploit players as much as possible, either for a quick buck, or just in case the whole thing turns out to be a bust in the long run.
------------------------------------------
2) EXAMPLE: TRIBES 2 VS TRIBES ASCEND
To provide some personal context, I'm going to use an example.
Tribes 2 vs Tribes: Ascend.
Though separated by a large gap in age, it's safe to say that they're basically trying to be the same game aimed mainly at the same audience.
Yet, my Tribes 2 experience was by far superior because I didn't feel like I was being yanked around for money or time.
I pick a server, play a match, and I stop. Simple, offers closure, and effective.
All classes, weapons, packs, skins and maps were available to me from the start in Tribes 2.
In Tribes Ascend, the player is basically stuck with whatever class they pick for a long, long time due to the credit grind unless they open their wallet. This gets even worse when cosmetics are introduced, for obvious reasons.
In Tribes 2: Servers were local or community-hosted, and the scale of a match supported that model just fine.
But the drawback is of course, community servers are not always reliable or well-policed. But it worked well enough.
(if it didn't, there wouldn't be a market for Tribes: Ascend to begin with)
Yet, Tribes: Ascend would not even exist without the F2P model, because Tribes is multiplayer and current investors look at multiplayer successes like Call of Duty and get dollar signs in their eyes. So the idea is to bring the game back and funnel all the players of that game into one place. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, since a multiplayer game is only worth more the larger its playerbase is.
But to achieve that funneling, they need dedicated servers. To pay for the servers, the developer must monetize the game persistently, which means breaking out the MMO standbys: Subscriptions or Paywalls. Either of which requires grind to force the player to stick around longer by adding a monetary value to the investment of time.
So now, I (the regular gamer) am caught in an unfortunate (and ironic[footnote]*Ironic, because for the longest time, I was restricted in the types of games I could play online due to my shitty dial-up. Now that I (and most of the market) has broadband, the market has latched onto its existence as an excuse to milk players and enforce online gating.
"Everyone has broadband now, so stop whining about the online requirement and play."
The parable of Adam Orth, I think, should have been a wake up call for everyone in the business.[/footnote]) scenario where if I want to play these types of games, I have to put up with more arm twisting grind and/or paywall bullshit.
Keep in mind:
Nothing has actually changed in the core concept or style of the game; only how its content is priced and balanced.
I mean, if I were to actually buy all content in an average F2P game, it would cost me many times more than the cost of a "traditional" equivalent of that game. Worse, I would lose all of that if the servers or developer went under.
Ugh...I've gone off on a tangent. Sorry.
------------------------------------------
3) SUMMARY AND CLOSING THOUGHTS
But my point is: I'm pretty sure I understand the plight of F2P developers. But I don't think the F2P model will ever evolve past the point where I won't feel like I'm being jerked around for more money. And in that, I am always going to be at least somewhat dismissive of the F2P model.
The added persistent cost of hosting servers offers some convenience, but demands a greater cost/concessions in gameplay design, and some gamers like me aren't pleased about that. Some leading to open hostility. *glances at topic*
And I think such open hostility is now pushing a dangerous reactive mentality, like that in the GDC this year:
"Forget the regular gamer. It's just not worth trying to please them anymore. Focus on milking the gullible big spenders (whales) instead and finding new ways to shunt the fallout."
That, I think, is a more "civil", subdued explanation of the things Jim is railing against.
At least, as I interpret it.