Why do people hate free 2 play??

[Silverbeard]

Im sorry I just dont get it. Would you rather spend $60 on a game outright hope and pray you like it then $15 on DLC.OR would you rather have the game free then only pay if you enjoying it or YOU think its worth it.

Every free-to-play game I've seen has been a multiplayer title; that's part of the business model to force players to shill out their money to compete with other players. I'm not interested in a multiplayer title, I want a single player title and that's not normally in a free-to-play developer's agenda. Creating a story or character driven game- that is, a game in which the player only competes with the AI, not other players- would not net very much money for the developers.

I should add by way of suffix that my own exposure to free-to-play titles has been very limited; I don't have one of them new-fangled smart phone doohickeys and browser games are not at all in my forte. So maybe there really are great single-player free-to-plays out there that disregard everything I've typed. I wouldn't know, but do tell if you, dear reader, know of any.

 

[renegade7]

A few reasons.

1.) It seems like a marketing gimmick. Free things can of course be very good (Avast anti virus, Linux, Google, libraries, Firefox, Dwarf Fortress, etc) but when I see "free" as a primary selling point that raises a few red flags. Like they're telling me it's free just so they can get me to download it in the interest of...

2.) Pay-to-win mechanics. Oh sure, you may be able to "play" for free, but not paying may saddle you with all sorts of awful inconveniences. Longer respawn timers, no access to certain content, inferior gear, slower XP gain, etc. Basically, people who pay have an advantage over those who do not. So instead of just charging you once, they trick with a promise of "it's free" and then twist your arm with inferior gameplay to force you into paying.

3.) Microtransactions. Now, these aren't all bad. Sometimes there's bonus content you're not interested in and won't want to pay for up front, or things are released after the launch date and give you an opportunity to upgrade the content. However, they can also be a serious inconvenience. For instance, sometimes a game may be very good on its own and I would happily pay up front for it, but instead they want me to pay for microtransactions multiple times, and that's just irritating.

Now there are some really good free to play games. Examples: Dust 514, Planetside 2, and Dwarf Fortress come readily to mind.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I have no problem with the Free to Play model. Provided of course that it's done well ie the stuff available to buy via microtransactions isn't vital to my enjoyment, but instead is a nice to have.

 

[CriticalMiss]

Free-to-play is rarely done well and usually ends up being pay-to-win, which is a terrible strategy. F2P games can be done well, Team Fortress 2 doesn't require you to pay a penny to play and buying things doesn't make you win. Every piece of equipment that has a benefit also has a downside, so you aren't just buying better equipment. Plus you can freely trade some items with other players meaning that if you do buy something and end up not liking or using it you can swap for something else. And you can also find items just by playing, no payment necessary unless it is a crate.

But most games don't have anything like the TF2 model. They cut out some items/content and hide it behind a pay wall so you never get the full game or the best items. Worse is when they actively make the game harder/less fun for people who don't pay and hope that for some reason they enjoy the game enough to want to pay for shortcuts.

 

[DEAD34345]

The free to play price model actively encourages developers to make their games worse, in order to make people pay to improve it. With a standard price model the game is sold at the beginning, so the developer might as well make the game as good as possible in order to increase overall sales. With the free to play model, a game that is great to begin with probably won't make as much money as a bad or mediocre game that charges you to make it better.

Some games might be good despite the free to play model, but I can't see any way it could result in a better game than it would have been without it. (Although, obviously, it might be cheaper to play)

 

[lacktheknack]

There's nothing inherently wrong with Free to Play, so long as it's not Pay to Win.

However, it's like how I would rather buy full albums than just the el-cheapo single songs... I just would rather have the whole thing and not be assed about missing anything.

This is also why I tend to buy games after they've released ALL their DLC, so I can snag it on sale with a compiled DLC pack and never worry about it again.

 

[Sir Thomas Sean Connery]

It's just an issue of track record for me.

The only good free to play game I can think of from recent memory is World of Tanks.

In addition, free to play almost always means pay to win.

Finally, for the most part, any game that is truly free is going to have less money put into it and thus, less time on it and fewer talented people on the dev team.

 

[deleted139124]

DELETED

 

[cthulhuspawn82]

It's not "pay to win", its "pay to have fun" which is much worse. Free to play games tend to revolve solely around "getting things". Getting that next piece of armor, mount, character level, etc. You spend your time grinding endlessly for these things while the game constantly taunts you with the fact that you could just buy them instantly.

In single player games you just play the game and go on adventures. The items come naturally. You don't grind for the +1 sword, or even go looking for it specifically. You defeat the evil goblins harassing the town, and after taking out their leader, the sword is just there.

 

[Waffle_Man]

The same reason people hate iron sight based shooters with persistent level based multiplayer: It's so over saturated and a number of companies don't really understand what made them popular in the first place, but continue to pour resources in order to cash in on the booming market that could have gone to games that better serve the primary niche of the company.

This might sound like blasphemy, but I honestly don't think that such a prospect is a bad thing. One of the lesser talked about benefits of older companies moving into homogenized spaces while leaving the niche they used to serve is that it has been insanely beneficial for the indie scene simply because it frees up previously monopolized genres to competition.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

A few reasons.

1.) It seems like a marketing gimmick. Free things can of course be very good (Avast anti virus, Linux, Google, libraries, Firefox, Dwarf Fortress, etc) but when I see "free" as a primary selling point that raises a few red flags. Like they're telling me it's free just so they can get me to download it in the interest of...

2.) Pay-to-win mechanics. Oh sure, you may be able to "play" for free, but not paying may saddle you with all sorts of awful inconveniences. Longer respawn timers, no access to certain content, inferior gear, slower XP gain, etc. Basically, people who pay have an advantage over those who do not. So instead of just charging you once, they trick with a promise of "it's free" and then twist your arm with inferior gameplay to force you into paying.

3.) Microtransactions. Now, these aren't all bad. Sometimes there's bonus content you're not interested in and won't want to pay for up front, or things are released after the launch date and give you an opportunity to upgrade the content. However, they can also be a serious inconvenience. For instance, sometimes a game may be very good on its own and I would happily pay up front for it, but instead they want me to pay for microtransactions multiple times, and that's just irritating.

Now there are some really good free to play games. Examples: Dust 514, Planetside 2, and Dwarf Fortress come readily to mind.

this, plus i would like to add ridiculously longer grind times inbwetween content, sometimes it just gets fucking ridiculous (this can go along with the pay to win mechanic, they use a simple "oh, it's taking too long? here, use this gear and you'll own that goblin and get to the dragon for epic loot!" **for 1 easy payment of 10 bucks**

now i don't mind and understand grinding around and stuff inbetween quests, but when you are grinding for hours, very efficiently mind you, just to beat a single quest, it gets fucking old quick.

 

[Something Amyss]

Jimquisition has said for a long time the $60 business model isnt working, so why are so many gamers intent on keeping it the way it is and sleep walking the industry into another crash? I really dont get it.

This looks dangerously like a false dichotomy; that either we have to embrace the 60 dollar model or F2P.

Also, note the same Jimothy Sterling is against F2P, so you can actually look at his reasons why:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7811-Fee-to-Pay

Yeah, this probably isn't the best way to prop up the industry.

And yes, this can very well apply to "free-to-play" as well as the up-front vs F2P.

 

[Lunar Templar]

Example: you have three character slots at the start (meaning, you can only make 3 out of the 6 (8 for Koreans) possible characters).

I snipped the rest cause, well, it's pretty spot on. Save one OTHER thing.

The max characters you can have is 9 in the US, not 6

And the vanity items from bosses are not for sale in the cash shop. those are drops ONLY.

other then those to errors, pretty spot on, that said, skill/upgraded class 'grind' doesn't bother me, but then that game seems to actually reward play with good loot more then some other MMOs I've played (F2p or P2P)

 

[Fonejackerjon]

Jimquisition has said for a long time the $60 business model isnt working, so why are so many gamers intent on keeping it the way it is and sleep walking the industry into another crash? I really dont get it.

This looks dangerously like a false dichotomy; that either we have to embrace the 60 dollar model or F2P.

Also, note the same Jimothy Sterling is against F2P, so you can actually look at his reasons why:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7811-Fee-to-Pay

Yeah, this probably isn't the best way to prop up the industry.

And yes, this can very well apply to "free-to-play" as well as the up-front vs F2P.

Think you misunderstood Jim, he is against paying $60 for a game THEN paying for DLC and micro-trans. THAT is despicable.

 

[Waffle_Man]

Also, note the same Jimothy Sterling is against F2P, so you can actually look at his reasons why:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/7811-Fee-to-Pay

Watch the video again. Jim isn't against free to play games.

At 5:03- "And like I said, it's not that free to play is a bad idea. A well designed freemium game like Blacklight: Retribution or Tribes: Ascend can be so good anyway that you're happy to give the money. But most importantly, they're free. They're free to play and if I'm going into that arrangement knowing the deal, accepting the compromise of a free experience, knowing the serpent is going to be around my neck, I'll be glad to indulge. But sixty dollars for a game that is designed not to give you an entertaining experience foremost, but to tease you with better experiences before trying to psychologically pummel you into submission? Guh! That is gross."

He is against full price retail games incorporating free to play elements, simply because it carries all of the negatives of both while largely negating the positives of both.

 

[Something Amyss]

Think you misunderstood Jim, he is against paying $60 for a game THEN paying for DLC and micro-trans. THAT is despicable.

I just said that it could ALSO be applied here. If you didn't figure that out from me explicitly stating it, perhaps you're the one who doesn't understand.

However, he dabbles in the issues of free to play in the video, and since you lauded him so thoroghly, I thought yuo might want to look at the full breadth.

Watch the video again. Jim isn't against free to play games.

He also talks about the psychology of F2P, encourages us to google it (spoilers: this is not a very positive thing) and compares it to pitting willpower versus the freemium aspect (spoiler: this does not just apply to freemium in paid games).

Honestly, given how long ago I clarified that (3 seconds after my original post) I almost think that this is intentionally dishonest. But then, I've noticed people don't take the whole of what Jim says, they only cherry pick the parts which are favourable to their argument.

Clearly, his encouragement to research the psychology of F2P was praise for it. My bad, and Thank God for Jim!

And to clarify, I had just watched the video. While he gives limited praise to token games, that doesn't exactly speak well of free to play as a whole. It's even offered as a freaking disclaimer, rather than the thrust of his argument. Fox News did more to demonstrate that not everyone agrees games lead to murder in their "murder simulator" article.

Alas, since I posted this in an edit a whole fifteen seconds later, it will be ignored too....

 

[Olas]

I don't mind Free-To-Play games, it's Free-To-Grind games that I dislike, especially when they never stop reminding you of all the things you're missing out on by not paying.

Don't even get me started on Pay-To-Win.

 

[Mirroga]

It's all about the relationship of Free-To-Play combined with its much hated counterpart we like to call "Pay-To-Stay." Sure, it's free to play. But to even be close to being competitive or even being strong enough to enjoy the game, actual currency is used. The best example for me is Travian. I loved the whole MMORTS aspect. But without using actual currency, you won't stand a chance in the late game. Not to mention the whole game/war thing lasts for a whole season/year. So you might know how much actual money is used to simply survive/win the game.