You just answered your question here. It is a good business model: One that developers and publishers are seriously considering for their games now. Do you want to know why it is a business model that works and is highly appealing to publishers right now? Because, in the end, you are likely to spend more money on the game than the one you bought for $60 and then followed it up for 2-3 $5-15 DLC packs.Fonejackerjon said:
Here's the way that a F2P business model works:
Everyone can get into the game without having to pay anything. In other words, there is absolutely no risk involved on the part of the consumer, so there is very little reason for them to ignore the game unless they have a terrible Internet that won't allow them to download it. From this, you are likely to get more players than you would from charging for the game upfront and/or taking a more subscription based route, as the other two options require a risk on the part of the consumer, which will make many consumers unsure about the product decide to back off from it.
Once in the game, though, then the developers are sure to put in incentives to spend money. There are many that won't force you to buy something, but as you've already noted, the alternative is a massive grind to collect enough in order to get whatever you want without spending real cash. The problem is, most people hate the extensive grinding necessary to pull off keeping the game completely free. As a result, they're more likely to spend the money to unlock whatever areas, costumes, characters, etc. that they want. You can imagine that, over time, they are likely going to spend more money on this one game, as they keep buying more and more for the game, including the expansions and microtransactions present in the game. Though the initial entry was free, the long-term investment is going to be much greater, potentially getting to hundreds of dollars depending on how much the person is willing to spend their money on. When you combine this potential for each person to spend more and the fact that more people are going to spend, then you have a very successful business model, which you've already recognized is the case with F2P.
However, here comes the problem. For starters, I'm spending more money on the game than if I got a $60, and the quality of the game is likely not that much greater. Second, it requires them to make the game in such a way that I'm basically forced to choose between monotonous grinding and giving the publisher money. I don't mind grinding to an extent, but for the F2P business model to work, then the publishers must make the grinding overbearing enough that the average person, especially one who has a life outside of gaming, won't want to do it. In other words, though I have the option, I am basically being forced to spend more money on the game than I would otherwise if I want to see all that game has to offer. So the end result is that I spend more money on the game I could have gotten for only $60.
In reality, F2P is a model that looks good on paper, but it really hurts the consumer in the end. You think you are getting a game for free and that you spend less, but chances are, you are going to be spending much more. If that wasn't the case, then the developers would have stuck to the current business model rather than pursuing an obviously flawed one.
