Mobile Dev Foresees Free Skyrim Analogue Making Millions

[ASnogarD]

Well... just try Battlefield:Heroes for an example of Ben Cousins idea of microtransactions done right.

... or I could save you the trouble and summarise it here :

Make the player either require a lot of time to aquire in game currency so that player can barely keep up, or pay a few bucks and get the best stuff in seconds.
In game currency items, you rent... for a few bucks you can get the items permanently.
For a few bucks you can suddenly pull a tank out your arse and turn the tables on the fight.
For a few bucks you... ah you get the idea.

I was happy with the older pay for the game , get the game... the whole game model. If the game was a huge success then release an expansion or two later down the road, not this make a game with the intent on selling parts of the game as DLC later on, or this proposed micro payments.

You all know what will happen right ? You will find yourself paying more in the long run for a Skyrim but in installments, the game will tease you and put up blocks that only for £££ you can get past and carry on, and you can forget about mods at all.
Skyrim mods, noooo that may interere with the business model... sell you some mod like changes yes but not allow the public to mod the game.
It will also eliminate used games on consoles, after all all the micro transactions will be tied to one account, a player would have to sell thier account as well as the game.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

That's basically an empty space game that you fill with your money. Um, no thanks. I'd rather buy a finished product with all the features for $60. Hell, Skyrim is a steal for $60.

 

[Marudas]

I've always liked the -concept- of free to play an micro transaction based games. Games where you pay money based on how much you want to play. Instead of paying the up front buy in price, then hoping you like the game and get your moneys worth, rather just pay for content bit by bit.

HOWEVER, I have a strong aversion to this model right now. Currently, many publishers and developers seem to think that free to play is a method of subtly squeezing money out of players. I have played and seen far too many payment models for free to play games that are absolutely wallet crushing. When considering games that would otherwise be a subscription based game, you also run into the problem that sometimes developers seem to see free to play as an excuse to not be required to provide content updates, as they would have to with a subscription based online game.

Free to Play is a great idea, but until developers and publishers start using the model responsibly, I find myself wary of all titles that roll in under that guise.

 

[Amarok]

I actually rather don't like the idea of a microtransaction Skyrim at all. I can get on board with it for online games to a degree but if I'm trying to sit back and enjoy a nice immersive single-player being asked for my credit card details every few hours would really put me off.

I know it's not quite the same thing, but I just plain stopped playing Dragon Age: Origins when that dwarf gave me a quest to go buy some DLC. (Warden's Keep)

 

[Hitchmeister]

Great, I hope this fails...horridly.
I hate the DLC for 'true story ending' crap, don't need ANOTHER reason to get nickle and dimed.

Dear EA/Ubisoft/other 'tards trying to screw me:

This is why we can't have nice stuff.

The suggestion here is giving away 25% to 40% of a game like Skyrim absolutely free. More or less a huge demo. Download it. Play it. Decide if you like it before you spend a single penny. Then, if you do, here's nice affordable $5 to $15 chunks to but at your own pace as you can afford them to extend and expand the game. By the time you spend $60, you will have gotten the whole game that you currently have to buy not knowing if you'll like it or not. Then, with this model, it's easy to keep adding chunks and giving you more game to play at relatively low cost per transaction*, and the company keeps making money. Win-win.

But no. The nerd-raging internet flips the table at any change, even when it's to their benefit. Every week I find it harder and harder not to have sympathy for the likes of EA and Activision.

*Compare this to the current model of selling you basically the same game over and over again each year at full price so you can keep playing Modern Warfare, Battlefield, etc. multiplayer.

 

[TheRightToArmBears]

Because that wouldn't dick all over any immersion, would it? Besides, I'd bet a great deal of money that it works out as us spending more.

 

[Ophiuchus]

I think we all know where this is going:

"New Word learned! Force (Fus)! Spend 1 Dragon Soul and $2 to unlock it!"
"Smithing Level Up! Smithing 99! Your Smithing skill has gone as high as it can go.. Spend $1.50 to unlock the next Level!"

Exactly what I thought. There's few greater ways to pull you from the game than when the real world stops you from playing.

I would much rather just pay my lump sum of money and have the WHOLE game available to me; none of this stupid microtransaction nonsense. When I play a single player game I commit to the whole experience, with the exception of any available multiplayer.

I doubt this idea will be as successful as this Ben Cousins guy seems to think it will be.

Couldn't have put it better myself. Admittedly I don't completely hate the idea of 'get game now, pay for game over the course of however long', but the benefit doesn't outweigh the potential negatives. And, y'know, I don't have a problem with paying for a game upfront in the first place.

The main thing I've taken from this is that 'freemium' is apparently a word now. (insert suitable table-flipping image macro here)

 

[PrinceOfShapeir]

Only from gamers would you see the offer of free stuff met with such boiling hot rage. What is -wrong- with you people?

 

[Susurrus]

They had a similar thing in Dragon Age Origins - they had a character trying to take you to Warden's Keep, with a dialogue option "Purchase Warden's Keep DLC" or something. It was annoying as hell, and every time I saw the guy afterwards, it yanked me right out of any immersion I felt.

 

[Hashbrick]

Only from gamers would you see the offer of free stuff met with such boiling hot rage. What is -wrong- with you people?

They are not talking about DLC here they are talking about selling you pieces of the game. Who the hell wants to be playing a single player game walk up to an NPC and get "Buy this quest from the store!" Leave that shit for MMOs it can stay over there just like every cookie cutter piece of shit MMO that comes out with the same boring X design. If this happens how long do you think it would take before single player games are the same design with cash shop items.

It's ridiculous and if the industry does decide to go this way I won't support it. DLC is bad enough, most content not lasting more than 30mins for $10+

 

[Icehearted]

EA already has a policy like this, doesn't it? If you want freemium stuff you have to pay a few dollars extra, a la Tiger Woods 2013. Oh wait, that already costs £40 plus extra to unlock most of the courses.

I could certainyl see how something like this would work. Taking Skyrim as an example:

You get the game itself free, but then perhaps you can't customise your characters looks unless you stump up a few dollars for the character customiser. Then the guilds cost you a few each. A couple of new spells, not much more powerful than the normal ones, but they look cooler or something, a few dollars.

Skyrim sold a few million, but imagine how many would play it if it were free. I don't know if they really would make more, or even the same, as the standard pay $60 model, but it seems to work for MMORPGS, so it must be a viable strategy.

Many F2P games still have a cover charge. Guild Wars 2 won't be free to get, but it will be free to play and work much like you've otherwise described, more or less. I think Diablo 3 is about on that level as well, except with the odd choice of making players pay each other real money for fake goods.

 

[Vkmies]

What I am getting out of this is: "Let's make even MORE overpriced DLC and make the need for downloading it MORE, making our games have LESS lifetime and LESS collectibility in the future while people pay MORE money for a complete product.

Fuck this industry. I'll go back to play some Mega Man 3, which, by the way, is a complete game that has all the content when you buy it, AND you can buy it used AND you can play it without an internet connection AND it costs like 3 dollars now AND no-one will antagonize you for buying it used AND is completelly and utterly freaking awesome.

 

[QtheMuse]

Free To Play Skyrim:

YOU HAVE RUN OUT OF STAMINA PLEASE PURCHASE A 2.99 STAMINA REFILL IN OUR IN GAME SHOP OR WAIT 8 HOURS FOR YOUR BAR TO REFILL!!

This article is basically wrong because the only real 2 gimmicks that all the successful F2P games have are 2 things. A carrot and stick gimmick and cosmetic. THAT'S IT. Anything that diverts from that is fail. Name any other game that was full at release with no gimmicks and was F2P. Except for like one rare game in Asia you are not likely to find it.

The carrot an stick is simple. Oh you need more (energy, faster build time) use this which you need to buy which gives instant gratification right away. Like farm ville and most of all the other city building type games which punish you with waiting. With a game like skyrim you want to play all the time.

Next would be buy cosmetic, power or unlock the story with money. And that won't get as much profit since face it once you buy more power its over. And walking around in a single player game in a santa outfit is basically useless. You dress up in online games to stand out. The only person you are impressing by spending 5 dollars to look like santa is well no one in a single player game. And unlocking the story is just basically making it a long drawn out shareware experience with a big wall that says YOU SHALL NOT PASS thus annoying me.

Free 2 Play type skyrim game will fail and I will enjoy watching it fail when it does happen.

 

[blackrave]

They had a similar thing in Dragon Age Origins - they had a character trying to take you to Warden's Keep, with a dialogue option "Purchase Warden's Keep DLC" or something. It was annoying as hell, and every time I saw the guy afterwards, it yanked me right out of any immersion I felt.

Wait there was something like that?
I heard that DA:O was good, and was going to buy and check it, but now I feel disturbed about that game

 

[Kargathia]

Only from gamers would you see the offer of free stuff met with such boiling hot rage. What is -wrong- with you people?

The boiling rage isn't due to the offer of "free stuff": it is frustration at the certain prospect of being badgered for money every 5 minutes. Think of the beggars in AC, except that now they're breaking your immersion while they're at it.

They had a similar thing in Dragon Age Origins - they had a character trying to take you to Warden's Keep, with a dialogue option "Purchase Warden's Keep DLC" or something. It was annoying as hell, and every time I saw the guy afterwards, it yanked me right out of any immersion I felt.

Wait there was something like that?
I heard that DA:O was good, and was going to buy and check it, but now I feel disturbed about that game

As he said: it's an NPC in your camp with a problem, but in order to do his quest you need to purchase the DLC. It's annoying, but as it's an isolated issue I wouldn't call it game-breaking just yet. I still recommend giving it a try, as it's very good even after factoring this in.

 

[Susurrus]

SNIP

In fairness there was only one instance of this, and you can get a fairly cheap copy of DA2 + awakening + all DLC so it shouldnt be a problem, but it is in a recurring area, and whilst there is no obligation to talk to him, unless you buy the DLC, the actor's only point is to get you to buy it.

 

[omicron1]

The problem I see here is the whale model so common to f2p games. In sum, 10% of the people pay 90% of the cost, so for a game to have equivalent revenue to a standard-model game, either the market must grow tenfold (unlikely) or the price for the full game must grow tenfold (probable).
This is the same principle visible in almost every new f2p release - MS Flight, for instance, where the "free" part of the game is about 10% of what FSX offered, and doubling your content will cost you about $40. In other words, the same amount of money nets you 1/5 as much game.

Take this to its logical conclusion with a hypothetical F2P Skyrim and you have what is essentially a demo tied to a $300 outlay for what used to cost $60. Everybody (but the publishers) loses - the people who shell out pay five times as much, the people who don't get what is essentially a demo, and $60 nets you a fifth of what it used to.
Any questions?

 

[Callate]

"I don't see what the problem is... It's not like we don't have DLC now..."

...I'm just waiting for the day when day-one and pre-order sales come to a screeching halt because the majority of gamers realize that in a few months the "Game of the Year" edition will have the ugly bugs patched and include most or all of the DLC, likely for the same price.

It used to just be the "standard market model"- you paid the retail price and you got a finished game. But, you know what? I'm actually okay with paying $50 or $60 to not have my game experience interrupted by reminders that I could be playing a slightly cooler game or spending less of my time doing gratuitous busy-work in that game if I would just slip the company another tenner.

Oh, and, quick show of hands... Does anyone else find it both incredibly arrogant and markedly ridiculous that in the face of all the media company consolidation and absorption, all the rise in development budgets, all the attendant risk aversion and franchise-sequel-stagnation, that someone still has the chutzpah to suggest that audience complaining is "the reason we can't have nice things"?

We have concerns about the way they're running the show. We didn't roughhouse in the living room and knock over the fucking lamp, Auntie Mabel.

 

[Jonny49]

I imagine this idea is under the title 'Immersion killer 1.0'?