Why do people hate free 2 play??

[cridia]

I don't hate it, but I dislike it a lot when elements that are designed to entice the player to pay money get in the way of the overall core gameplay and gameflow. Take Plants vs Zombies 2 for instance; I think that game was better of simply staying a paid title. For one, because the game now has "grinding" which simply doesn't work with the core gameplay. The grinding slows down the flow by a lot, and you are not even guaranteed the spoils you are grinding for (ie. those keys). Secondly, because the game requires you to backtrack, completely destroying the flow which was very well designed in its predecessor. Now we don't get to experience new kinds of levels after 10 or so levels in the current world, no, we have to redo other levels in order to gain stars. We cannot get multiple stars in one level at once, so in order to get all the stars you have to do it a minimum of 3 times. Since the star requirement of the second stage is quite high, there is no way to advance without having to backtrack or to sink extra money into the game.

I was actually really looking forward Plants vs Zombies 2. I played the first title a whole lot, more than most games, and was planning to do the same for the second. I have gotten to the point where I can collect stars to get to the next stage, but I haven't touched the game ever since. Free 2 Play can work, but not in this way.

 

[johnnyLupine]

I'm dubious about free to play games because Its a model which is likely to have strings attached. A company's top priority is never going to be optimising your enjoyment, money is priority number one and its just a happy coincidence that our satisfaction with a product or experience is usually a significant step towards making lots of it.

 

[Tanakh]

-snip-

Because I have more money than time, not that have that much of either tbh but for me grinding days or waiting weeks is way more valuable than $60.

I would probably react more favorably to F2P shit if I was a penniless youngster with time to spare.

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

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

Well I didn't mean how many slots you can have, but how many characters (Elsword, Rena, Eve, etc...) are available.

 

[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

Well I didn't mean how many slots you can have, but how many characters (Elsword, Rena, Eve, etc...) are available.

ah, it read like slots.

In that case, meh, nit picky thing, the NA severs will always be behind the KR servers when the game is from Korea. And speaking as some one who has played all 6 (and has all three class branches in Eve's case) the 6 we currently have are enough for anyone to easily find a character they like and suits their preferred play style. Does it suck we don't have Ara or Ellise, well, yeah, course it does, but it's not like there's some glaring hole those two are leaving by not being state side yet.

 

[Waffle_Man]

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).

That's not the point. It's not that freemium hasn't been used to do shitty things. Rather, it's that singularly demonizing the entire idea is intellectually lazy.

Honestly, given how long ago I clarified that (3 seconds after my original post) I almost think that this is intentionally dishonest.

No, it's not. I felt compelled to point out a verbatim snippet of text because it feels as though you are (deliberately or not) simplifying Jim's opinion to the point of distortion. Speaking of which...

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.

Huh, that sure seems familiar. Notice how I didn't immediately retort with "free to play is good." That isn't the point. The point is that you're trying to force the video into a set of premises that it can't really entertain.

Just so that I'm not just using abstract generalizations (and so I can be obnoxiously pedantic), let me give a very specific general summery of each part of the video.

0:00-0:20: The intro.
0:20-1:27: Jim mentions how he found it sad that he specifically had to mention that leveling up in Dynasty Warriors 8 with gold had nothing to do with real money. Note that Dynasty Warriors 8 is a traditional retail game.
1:28-1:42: Free to play started out as a good idea, and then the industry missed the point.
1:43-1:56: Jim specifically mentions games that have free to play elements that aren't free to play.
1:57-2:22: Dead Space 3's micro transactions were justified by their presence in mobile games.
2:23-3:02: Jim fears that the practice of retail games with micro transactions is likely to continue.
3:03-3:40: Jim mentions arguments by defenders of the practice that the entire system is optional.
3:41-5:02: This is an entire explaining of how adding free to play elements fundamentally how a game play system works.
5:03-5:27: Jim specifically says that this isn't a problem with true freemium games because they are free and therefore the game system being designed with microtransactions in mind isn't a problem.
5:28-5:40: Paying for a game to advertise to you is a disgusting idea.
5:41-6:21: Dead Space 3 was a lesser experience than it's predecessors because the previously made design was compromised to facilitate micro transactions.
6:22-6:43: The idea of publishers complaining about single player games being too short and then selling ways to beat the game faster is hypocrisy.
6:44-7:37: The industry is planning on making more money not by expanding the audience, but by trying to squeeze as much money out of the consumer.
7:38-7:50: The practice of changing game design to fit micro transactions isn't optional to the consumer.
7:51-9:00: The decision to do all of this is being made by people who have no idea how game design works.

Where is the big condemnation of free to play games that isn't a case of cherry picking?

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.

Has it ever occurred to you that he may wanted to specifically say that the video wasn't arguing for the exact point that you're trying to make with it?

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

Jim wasn't doing the conspiracy theorist bullshit practice of avoiding critical questions by saying "do the research." No, he was simply saying that the way free to play games work and necessarily impacts design, and therefore, there is no way to avoid being affected by the presence of microtransactions. Id est, it's not a problem with freemium games, it's a problem with freemium games that you're expected to pay up front for.

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

Well, you can just dismiss me and I can, in turn, dismiss you. But what does that do other than shut down the conversation?

 

[MysticSlayer]

ITS GOOD BUSINESS why do so many gamers resist it?

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.

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.

 

[The_Echo]

I love Free to Play.

But I HATE Buy to Win, which often wears the mask of Free to Play.

 

[SecondPrize]

In my case it's because, with the exception of Path of Exile, every free to play game I've tried has been awful.

 

[Aesir23]

A lot of people associate F2P with "pay to win" or with a bad community. Personally, I really think it depends on the game. I haven't played many that were obviously pay-to-win and I could still do pretty well based on what I got in the game itself. Except for certain aspects in various games, the community was no worse than any P2P game I'd been in. Actually, one of the games with the best community I've ever found was an F2P game.

There's only one I've found that was just unabashedly pay-to-win and that was the Age of Wushu. If you wanted anything beyond basic items you either had to buy it at the store (which were only temporary) or spend hours at a stall waiting for people to buy crafted items from you. You also had to pay to "unlock potential" and get standard xp gain as well.

As I said, it really does depend on the game because, just as I've found good F2P games, I've found P2P games that I wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.... again.

 

[V8 Ninja]

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 is where I really have to question the extremity of your stance. There are a lot of asterisks attached to Jim Sterling's statements about $60 games not working. And thinking that another crash could happen is just stupid, especially considering that the "Big 3" are not only competing against themselves but also competing (to a lesser extent) with the mobile game markets/PC digital distribution services.

Sure free to play can get abused by despicable publishers *cough* Square *cough* but it is the future and we should embrace it! games are not worth $60. Period. No ifs no buts.

Alright, you're definitely an extremist on the subject. Let me do my best to argue for the $60 game market;

No, you shouldn't go spending $60 each week getting a brand new game. No, not every game is worth $60. Yes, some games have worked fantastically well with Free to Play models. (Blacklight Retribution is undoubtedly awesome.)

HOWEVER, an upfront $60 allows devs and players to do what they want without restrictions. From a developer standpoint, the studio is allowed to refine mechanics/presentation without worrying about post-release profitability. From a player's perspective, the user can enjoy content at their own pace without waiting/playing a game of psychological warfare. Saying that an avenue leading to more freedom should be demolished in favor of a more accessible but ultimately restricting road is just illogical on many levels.

 

[Keiichi Morisato]

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.

Im sorry but I have yet to see a F2P game that FORCES you to buy something to progress, You may have to wait hours or may have to grind but so what? the thing is free.

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.

Sure free to play can get abused by despicable publishers *cough* Square *cough* but it is the future and we should embrace it! games are not worth $60. Period. No ifs no buts. Killer instinct and Blacklight show how its done. Pay a little bit see if you like and pay some more if you want to carry on or get new characters ITS GOOD BUSINESS why do so many gamers resist it? honestly it really annoys me. Imagine if you could buy the single player and multiplayer separately, how good would that be?

Free to play is good if done right and without it the industry will not have a future!

Can you can honestly say you are happy with the rip off $60 price model as it is now or would you rather a future where you have the choice what parts of the game you want?

S-E doesn't have a single F2P MMORPG, Nexon is what i think you are thinking of... S-E only made All The Bravest.

 

[Trippy Turtle]

I don't mind free to play at all but there is nothing wrong with paying $60 for a game. If you don't think its worth it you may be in the wrong hobby.
i have to pay as much as $100 for a new game over here and I still think its worth it for some games. F2P games just don't get the budget Triple A games do either. I know budget isn't everything but it certainly helps.
Games like Halo or Dark Souls never would have made it free to play.

 

[Rednog]

A lot of my gripes have already been said by other people...
But for me personally the biggest gripe about free to play is that it turns a lot of things into a grind fest. While this might be great for the younger age groups who have mountains of time on their hands, this really blows for the older age groups who usually have a 8+hour job. The whole grind essentially forces you to just dump massive amounts of hours into that game and that game only to play it free. If you want to pay to use short cuts your more often than not end up just paying more. So as a person who has limited amounts of time to play games I'd rather just pay the cost of the game upfront, have all the content, and be able to play at my leisure.

 

[Windcaler]

For me, it ultimately comes down to the games business model. Games like Path of exile (that rely on cosmetic items) or Blacklight retribution (that rely on massive customization that everyone can access through in game currency earned by playing the game) are business models that I like.

However there are games that are, quite literally, Pay to win and these are the games I have a major issue with. However as free to play gets better Im having a harder and harder time thinking of new games that fit the pay to win model rather then the free to play model. Yet there is stilla stigma from the time most games were pay to win and it takes time for those to die out

If you want a bunch of free to play games that are not pay to win I suggest you check out these: Everquest, Tribes: Ascend, Path of Exile, Blacklight Retribution, Star trek online, Raiderz, Neverwinter, Planetside 2, League of legends, Smite (although that game has major balance issues last time I played it), Realm of the mad god, Super monday night combat, Tera Online, Warframe, Dragon's prophet, Rift, Dungeons and Dragons online, Firefall, Ghost recon online, Airmech, and Gotham City imposters. There are probably a lot more but I those are the good ones I have played

 

[Kanova]

I don't like being told to buy something every single time I log in or try to do something. Star Wars is the fucking worst at this. It reminds you every couple seconds that you suck and that you should subscribe. Also, I hate pay to win. That is also pretty fucking stupid. Having to grind also kind of sucks, halving what should already be apart of it. Kill this thing, you get 200xp. Not 100 because you don't to pay a bunch to actually enjoy the damn game.

 

[LaoJim]

I'll say up front that I've never played a F2P game. Partly because I can't play on-line games where I am (and I don't particularly want to) but mainly because I find the idea very uncomfortable.

At the moment when I buy a game I read reviews and forums to see what other people think of the game. Then I decide whether its a day one purchase, whether I'll wait for the price to drop to about 20 pounds, 10 pounds or 5 pounds or if its simple not worth playing. Of course sometimes I'll get it wrong and waste money on a game that is average or alternatively find that a 5 pound game was far better than I was expecting, but in any case I feel in control and I know what I've spent on it.

Then once I've bought the game I don't need to worry about what I'm spending on it. I can relax and play. Sure if it's been a tough month, but I decide I just have to have GTA V new then I might feel guilty about the money. I don't want to think about my finances while I'm trying to enjoy playing a game and I'm especially going to feel stressed if the item is needed to win.

I also go into it knowing that the company is going to want to make money off me somehow, so before I've started I'm feeling grumpy and over-analysing every design decision wonder if its done to make money from me or to make the game better.

I don't like the idea that I might have to give up the game halfway through because I find that I'm required to spend more money on it than I was planning, or I'm not having fun with the free model.

Hypothetically, as I don't play them, if it was an on-line game which I knew would be playing for a long time, I'd be much happier with a subscription model. If the company tells me upfront that I will be paying 5 pounds, or whatever, a month to play the game then I'm fine with that. I can work out if it's worth my while, sit back and play, and if the game gets boring or if the company is not adding enough content I can cancel my subscription. Once I'm subscribed the company shouldn't be bugging me for more money* or doing anything except trying to ensure that I'm enjoying myself.

*(I know they probably will these days)

 

[Dominic Crossman]

"Free 2 play" is no issue at all, actually. "Pay to win" is an issue. However, sadly, they oftentimes accompany each other.

Beaten to it, but the one thing worse then this is games you pay for AND THEN have to pay to win, many mobile/tablet games are guilty of this imo.

 

[infinity_turtles]

I dislike F2P games on principle. Not because it's dicking players over, but because complex media are supposed to be greater then the sum of their parts, and gating off individual elements runs counter to design philosophy that keeps that in mind. Large interconnected bits of content like expansions are fine because they can be a separate whole so to speak, and I'd argue the best expansions are usually or could be standalone. But individual elements? Not cool. CCGs are prehaps the only exception to this for me, because they make acquiring the elements of the game as much a part of the content as actual play. Odd how that works, but gating off individual elements adds to the greater whole in this instance.