Username
Password
    
The Future is Apparently Free-to-Play, But is That a Good Thing?
The Future is Apparently Free-to-Play, But is That a Good Thing?
Written Tuesday, July 03, 2012 By LeeBradley

The future is free, apparently. With stores closing and retail revenues dropping, an increasing number of studios are looking to the free-to-play business model as their saviour. Encouraged by its success on PC and mobile, console devs are now looking to get in on the act. But is that such a good thing? 

Free-to-play games remove the barrier of entry for prospective users, allowing them to play a chunk of content for nothing. Once engaged, the player then has a number of purchasing options with which to supplement the free experience, all of which comes at a price. A combination of free and premium, the model is referred to as freemium.

Freemium has been a huge success. On mobiles and PC, games of this type generate far more revenue than their premium counterparts. From Bejewelled Blitz to Team Fortress 2 and any number of MMOs, the switch away from premium has led to rocketing users, healthy in-game purchases and significantly increased revenue. Put simply, it’s a model that works. 

As such, console developers are starting to sit up and take notice.

Speaking at GDC Taipai last week, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said that freemium titles represent the inevitable future of the industry. "We've been building these games like Gears of War where you go into the store and you buy a piece of plastic!,” he said. “You just buy this DVD. That is going to change rapidly.”

He’s not the only one that thinks so. Crysis devs Crytek recently announced their commitment to the freemium model. Very soon, everything they make will be free-to-play. “I think this is a new breed of games that has to happen to change the landscape, and be the most user-friendly business model,” said CEO Cevat Yerli.

The positives are clear. In theory, it means that you’ll never spend $60 on a rubbish game before you’ve even played it. It also reduces the risk for developers who can steadily add to the scope of the game according to popularity. In the best case scenario this leads to more interesting and less risk-averse games. These are all good things.

But is freemium really “the most user-friendly business model”? Not on current evidence.

Freemium games are designed in a completely different way to premium games. Their success rests entirely on their ability to suck you into buying things. Sure they have to be fun, but if you don’t spend any money then the designers have failed. As such, freemium games employ various tactics to encourage you to invest.

This usually means putting the non-paying user at a disadvantage, with less powerful equipment, time caps and content restrictions. The design of such games often means that if you’re willing to spend money you can effectively pay to win. It’s not about skill, or reactions, or problem-solving acumen, it’s about cash. The worst freemium games aren’t really games at all, but skilfully constructed traps.

Super Meat Boy developer Edmund McMillan has even stronger opinions on the subject. In a recent blog post he said, “There is a whole shit load of wrong out there these days, from abusive and manipulative money making tactics, to flat out stealing. 

“To us the core of what is wrong with the mobile platform is the lack of respect for players. It really seems like a large number of these companies out there view their audience as dumb cattle who they round up, milk and then send them on their way feeling empty or at times violated.”

He continued, “Words cannot express how fucking wrong and horrible this is, for games, for gamers and for the platform as a whole. This business tactic is a slap in the face to actual game design and embodies everything that is wrong with the mobile/casual video game scene.”

Harsh words. Yet following the startling success of the model, such behaviour is now set to infect core AAA games. Speaking at a stockholder’s meeting last year, EA CEO John Riccitiello outlined the company’s vision of a free-to-play future. It makes for terrifying reading.

“When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you’re really not that price sensitive at that point in time.”

“So essentially what ends up happening, and the reason the play-first, pay-later model works nicely, is a consumer gets engaged in a property. They may spend ten, twenty, thirty, fifty hours in a game. And then, when they’re deep into a game, they’re well invested in it.

Riccitiello continued, “At that point in time the commitment can be pretty high. It’s a great model and it represents a substantially better future for the industry.”

A better future for the industry, perhaps, but certainly not for gamers. Aggressive implementation of the freemium model has already led to consumer outrage in the mobile market, with some publishers - including Capcom - forced to introduce caps on monthly in-game purchases. When a business needs to be regulated in this way, is that good for consumers? Clearly not.

And what about games that don’t lend themselves to the freemium model? Will narrative experiences like Assassin’s Creed charge you to unlock each chapter, weapon, location and mission? Should we prepare to pay to see the story’s final cutscene? Or will non-freemium-friendly game designs simply cease to exist? None of those things are good for the consumer either.

Free-to-play isn’t the answer for everyone. The profits on traditional AAA blockbusters continue to outstrip those of freemium titles. Add in subscription services like Elite and Premium and there’s life in the old model yet. However, the fact remains that we’re going to be seeing a lot more free-to-play games in years to come.

The world of video games is evolving at a hugely accelerated rate and change is good. But when that future threatens the very way in which games are designed, when that future points to ridiculous things like paying to reload, when that future involves exploitative practices, then there’s a very serious problem. 

Console games may be heading towards a free-to-play future, but let’s hope a way is found to make that news as good for gamers as it is for publishers’ bank balances.





 
 

User Comments
 
Forum Posts: 1017
Comment #1 by nintendo64X
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 03:59:40 AM
(4Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Free to play on multiplayer games is ok, provided its something like in team fortress 2's case where it can be played without spending a cent...

I still prefer my games complete, thus I don't mind spending $60+ aud on games, especially since I can import, I can manage my budget...

But if this goes to single player (refer to the story about crytek and doing f2p on single player games) I will NOT support it, I bought the games as a whole and expect the full product, I don't support single player f2p...

And I will not support companies that do this.

 
Forum Posts: 1677
Comment #2 by c1ned1ne
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 04:24:58 AM
(2Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I played a lot of MMORPGs back in time and I really despise free-to-play.
Most F2P games have a terrible childish douchebaggy community, a prominent "SPEND MONEY HERE!!!"-game design which makes playing a real pain, if you don't _rent_ the standard things and - what I found worst - steadily turn free content into paid content.
Like in the Mobile sector: If you blatantly milk your customer, it will backfire and you will be hated.

They really should stop to look for the "future of gaming", which was stated to be
- strong Online component, MMO-like gameplay
- Indie developers
- Casual gaming
- Mobile gaming
- Free to play
- subscription based
in the last 2-3 years IIRC.

 
Forum Posts: 54
Comment #3 by Atreyu_1220
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 04:28:05 AM
(6Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Free to play can suck my balls.

 
Forum Posts: 284
Comment #4 by drkrZEN
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 05:14:45 AM
(2Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I definitely won't support companies and/or developers that do this.

If this is used in a multiplayer setting, that's fine and dandy. It could work well if its implemented in a way that gives the gamer choices. But when I spend nearly $60 bucks on a single player experience, I want the whole experience on disc... start to finish I want to work at my own pace and not deal with, if avoid entirely, micro-transactions that limit my gameplay experience, essentially.

Not everyone can budget out this way, either. A dollar here and there for DLC is one thing, and its a choice, as is throwing down $40-60 bucks for a game to bring it home and play it. But F2P is an entirely different beast.

That said, I don't want to ramble on too much. EA is headed in a direction I don't like... and they're looking to switch up the single player experience, or get rid of it entirely, when its worked so well for 25+ years. I'm just disgusted with EA, anymore, and once I grab Borderlands 2, this year, that may be one of the last transactions I have with 'em.

 
Forum Posts: 34
Comment #5 by Chillout1984
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 06:08:07 AM
(-2Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@#1:

You don't get the meaning of free to play. It means you download the game for free, you don't have to pay to purchase it, that's why it's called "Free to Play". But if you download it at first, a lot of content is closed off and has to be unlocked by micro-transactions.

On PC a lot of MMO's work this way and most previously paid MMORPG's have converted to this format, like Star Trek Online, Dungeons and Dragons Online, The Lord of the Rings Online and it's rumored that in the near future Star Wars the Old Republic will go F2P too.

On consoles there is also 1 MMORPG that has this format: DC Universe Online. With this game you can pay for more character slots, more kinds of powers, more levels, etc. But initially it's free to download and free to play.

In this regard: I welcome more free to play games in the future on console, but only if it will still be possible to get all trophies/achievements without microtransactions (expansions not included).

 
Forum Posts: 298
Comment #6 by Benmahalf
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 08:38:40 AM
(14Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
“When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you’re really not that price sensitive at that point in time.”

What a prick.

 
Forum Posts: 1343
Comment #7 by AverySegaw
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 02:15:27 PM
(7Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
The second a game tries to make me pay to reload my weapon is the second I stop playing it.

 
Forum Posts: 24080
Comment #8 by mjc0961
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 06:54:38 PM
(3Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
“When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you’re really not that price sensitive at that point in time.”

Bitch, I'll never be 6 hours into playing Battlefield if it's going to ask me for a dollar to reload. I'll never be 6 hours into anything that's going to ask me for a dollar to reload.

 
Forum Posts: 30
Comment #9 by Shadowaz13
Tuesday, July 03, 2012 @ 09:19:59 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I don't think the current pricing model is the problem with games at the moment.

I personally think that some of the problems with games at the moment is that the market is flooded with sequels on an annual basis that don't really do anything different to their predecessors (see: Assassin's Creed BH/Revs, CoD series) and that DLC is being released far too quickly after the launch of a product, which pisses off people as it feels like they've bought an incomplete product (see: Mass Effect 3).

If game devs want people to consider purchasing their products then they should stop rehashing the same crap every year and be more creative with what they put out there (see: Catherine, Watch Dogs).

 
Forum Posts: 2783
Comment #10 by yewjhin
Wednesday, July 04, 2012 @ 03:28:56 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
If you ask me for a dollar to reload, your game is in Virtual Recycle Bin the next minute.

If it's a model where I pay $10 for the disc, and there is no longer any Online Pass but you still want me to pay to "unlock weapons" or "reload", I'm selling your disc to the next player and getting my money back, without any of the proceeds going to you as is the current Used Games Market practice.

 
Forum Posts: 157
Comment #11 by Alos88
Wednesday, July 04, 2012 @ 04:49:00 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
A dollar to reload? I wouldn't pay a penny.
And guess what? You try pulling that sort of crap and your customers will go elsewhere. The person responsible for that gem of an idea should be fired immedietly.

 
Forum Posts: 47
Comment #12 by Theophobos
Wednesday, July 04, 2012 @ 02:42:16 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I don't mind them so called Free to play games. Been playing 'em for years on my cell, yet never invested a single penny. So I don't get the whole experience outta this or that game... it's a free game anyway and nobody forces me to p(l)ay. And if you can't control the expenses, you shouldn't play at all.

That said, I ain't no fan of them F2P games. I prefer the classic model, and that'll always be around. F2P ain't no future, but a temporary hype, a fad. Here today, gone tomorrow.

 
Forum Posts: 1655
Comment #13 by SonicBelmont
Wednesday, July 04, 2012 @ 06:26:52 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
The day companies switch their games to F2P is the day when companies truly stop caring for the consumer and the gaming community. This model is effective from a business standpoint but as a gamer it's seen as a rip off.

It's like drugging someone to the point that when you stop giving the person drugs they have to keep buying and using or they suffer.

This is essentially the same. A player gets so invested in a game that to continue playing they must pay money, and they do because at the time they're focused primarily on the game.

This is how it appears to me. It's wrong morally and to support a complete transition to this is wrong. I will, however, support a game that I can get full enjoyment out of, and if I feel like paying extra to get a little more content out of it, I will.

Overall, it's a fine way to play, but nobody should support a COMPLETE switchover to free to play titles.

 
Forum Posts: 762
Comment #14 by DarkByke
Wednesday, July 04, 2012 @ 06:29:37 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Sorry. F2P makes me invest ZERO emotion into the game I'm playing.

 
Forum Posts: 6
Comment #15 by pranksterGod
Wednesday, July 04, 2012 @ 10:05:33 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I think the F2P model will end up existing along side what we have now. Companies who plan to change everything to f2p are shooting themselves in the foot. The core gamer doesn't want this for the majority of his games. People will get fed up with getting pressured really fast if they feel the model is forced on them.
Personally I'd much rather pay a one time sum for a console game or a monthly fee for an mmo and be done with it than having to track my microtransactions in every game I play.
This will totallly screw up the second hand market, the bargain bin deal and even playing older games. I suspect the thought of eliminating the first two are thought of as positives by EA and the like but it certainly isn't for the consumer and especially those on a budget.
Older f2p games will be trash because once the support for the game dissapears you'll be stuck with a game you either can't log on to or if no logon is required is full of content you'll never be able to access.
I don't think gamers will take this, but it's a scary thought that it might become the standard. Just say no, starting today!

 
Forum Posts: 65
Comment #16 by ShadowDraygon
Wednesday, July 04, 2012 @ 10:36:34 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I am really scared of what I read.

1st: They are actually doing it with DLC. I am not an FPS Fan but when I look a FPS Game with all the DLC coming so fast I am happy to dislike the genre cause I know I would buy every DLC(at least Map). I want to vomit when I see an Elite subscription for COD. COD MW3 was free with my PS3 and DLC made me return my game still sealed and there is Capcom DLC(For fighting Game)

2: If all company do worst than Capcom and EA I will learn Japanese to play Old Import. When game was conceived to be good and impress the players to made it come back when they will release a new product.

3: If IGN says it's good people will love it. We are sheep and very good sheep for the industry. I am afraid

3. Damn I think it's time to move on something else.

Please Japan Save Us and let Capcom alone be greedy.


 
Forum Posts: 65
Comment #17 by ShadowDraygon
Wednesday, July 04, 2012 @ 10:38:20 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Free Game on PS+ are free cause there is DLC to buy.

 
Forum Posts: 98
Comment #18 by bobbygo20
Thursday, July 05, 2012 @ 09:10:07 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
look at the first picture without reading anything first.... GAY

 
Forum Posts: 66
Comment #19 by truth320
Thursday, July 05, 2012 @ 06:27:12 PM
(-1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Freemium might be a good idea for the developers that make these games but definitely would not be for gamers that play it. why cant people just leave things the way they were.

ps @#17 this article has nuthing to do with ps plus whatsoever

 
Forum Posts: 65
Comment #20 by ShadowDraygon
Friday, July 06, 2012 @ 09:57:18 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
In respond to Comment #19 by truth320.

You are perfectly right but it has something to do with DLC.
The concept of Freemium is just worst than our actual DLC on console.
I mean if you wish to enjoy a freemium you need to buy the DLC.

The concept is the same if you get a PS+ game and buy some DLC for the game,
they give you a game and you buy DLC you will never buy in first case if you dont possess the game. You understand lol

When I read your Post I see someone who repeat what he read in the article and someone who wish to troll at me with PS+ without thinking. Bravo

 
Forum Posts: 44
Comment #21 by N7 Hammer
Friday, July 06, 2012 @ 02:41:26 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
No one tell es about this I can imagine what they could do with this...
Your playing head 2 head seasons on the latest FIFA AMD ur one on one wiv the Kepler and about to shoot when suddenly a message pops up "for only 4.99 u can upgrade your game to take a shot"

 
Forum Posts: 44
Comment #22 by N7 Hammer
Friday, July 06, 2012 @ 02:42:46 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I h8 auto spell on my phone

 
Forum Posts: 108
Comment #23 by Callam001
Saturday, July 07, 2012 @ 03:30:47 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
i can see it now, few months/years from now. You will download the game and you will need to buy the movement pack (to move in all four directions). The damage pack (to shoot bullets, throw grenades) etc

 
Forum Posts: 82
Comment #24 by Damoxuk
Monday, July 09, 2012 @ 05:16:58 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
@ 23 You forgot the unlock 2nd analog stick "premium pack" for shooters. :)

 
Forum Posts: 43
Comment #25 by ShadowFlame01
Monday, July 09, 2012 @ 11:58:34 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Free to play, pay to win

 
Forum Posts: 762
Comment #26 by DarkByke
Thursday, July 12, 2012 @ 11:18:35 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I hate F2P games. The quality is usually garbage.

 
Forum Posts: 2470
Comment #27 by AstroFlibble
Friday, July 13, 2012 @ 05:54:48 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I have very little experience with F2P games as I don't bother playing on my PC and have only recently bought a mobile which I can play these types of games on. However, I would not support any major games company which switches completely to this model as there is too much room for abuse. I wouldn't mind paying a small amount for a great single player experience and a basic multiplayer mode, and then have extra expenses for a more in-depth multiplayer experience, as then I would only pay if I decided it was good enough and/or active enough. Anything more takes the piss.

The CEO's mentioned above don't really seem to have a clue what they're on about either, especially the EA one. If he was a employee of a lesser position and I was his boss, he would be looking for new employment right now - it is a disgusting comment. Free-to-play is a model that will never 100% control the market, just like download only simply because too many gamers don't want it. Companies like EA seriously need to learn that they have NO power what-so-ever - all of their business depends on consumers, and those consumers can screw them over anytime they like. The problem is that consumers don't realise they have ALL of the power. Stop buying EA products and the company would crash and burn very quickly.

 
Forum Posts: 2
Comment #28 by Blackplasmoid
Friday, July 13, 2012 @ 06:33:00 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
If work for a large corporation has taught me anything, this model will suck for the game consumer. Mainly because after a very short period of time in the f2p model, big businesses will forget about making people enjoy their games and just start maximising their profits, hell it has already started with dlc. Do you want 5 more mins of exactly the same thing for AUS$20! I just hope some studios resist the change because once everyone starts making f2p then the big companies will solidify their control over content :(

If done right f2p could be great for the consumer, but unfortunately it won't be because it won't make the most money :(

 
Forum Posts: 362
Comment #29 by Catalyst08
Monday, July 16, 2012 @ 06:16:11 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
greed

 
Forum Posts: 218
Comment #30 by GooseDaPlaymaker
Tuesday, July 17, 2012 @ 10:59:23 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Hey, anybody remember NBA Jam in the arcade? You had to add more quarters if you were losing at the end of the 1st quarter to continue...lol.

This is some bullsh*t. It just amazes me that, in this era of video game development, that the high majority of companies would rather charge for on-disc dlc, or institute a free-to-play model (industry-wide), versus making a full, 50 gig bluray disc game. Classic...

I promise you, WHEN this business-savy approach to making games are implemented mainstream into the console-gaming realm, and console makers FINALLY destroy the used games market (with download-only systems), I'll turn in my gaming resignation...

 
Forum Posts: 1142
Comment #31 by vikebone
Friday, July 20, 2012 @ 03:45:03 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Free to play may work for some types of games, but it will never work for others, as pointed out in the article.

Pay to reload? Are you kidding me? I would never play a game where you have o do that. That is just plain stupid.

Why not just charge people for every minute that they play? Or what about charging them every time that they die before they can respawn? Maybe you could also charge them to see their stats and k/d ratio?

Gimme a break. I'll stick to games where I'm not nickeld and dimed to death.

 
Forum Posts: 110
Comment #32 by Re_Davo
Monday, July 23, 2012 @ 01:20:31 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I've played a few games that are F2P.
They are designed so you grind hours to get something decent. You play the game longer for free but can shortcut at a price.

I'm gonna compare Battlefield 2 and Battlefield F2P.
Battlefield 2 looks better, in terms of skins and world design.
More players can play online and you have access to decent weapons already and after a few promotions you got a couple of decent guns.
BF: F2P Because it's free, they are not gonna give 110% to make to make things look amazing. You have less ppl playing in one game, game design is pretty average and character/vehicle skins looked like someone was doing this as a favour for a 6 pack. There are more weapon unlocks (however this came out post COD) but they don't come easy as COD.

The root of all these problems started when consoles started connecting to the internet. Once consoles became connected to the internet, that's when publishers started to get away with handing out shit to the consumer. Games were being released with bugs and errors.
That shit wouldn't fly before this current generation. Games had to come out working or it was unfit to be released. Imagin playing Resident Evil or Metal Gear Solid (before internet to consoles) and there were, "Elder Scroll: Skyrim problems." Companies wouldn't make money because everyone would return them. Companies had pride in their work.
Now the attitude is, "Oh fuck it! We'll just release a patch and it would fix the problem. Here's an idea, lets make more money releasing DLC's.

Now lets make a half ass job of a game and make ppl pay for something that we advertise that's free to play. Free2Play is a lie. It's P2E, Pay2Enjoy.

 
Forum Posts: 48
Comment #33 by Krotchy
Thursday, July 26, 2012 @ 07:28:53 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Free to play is always, I mean ALWAYS!!! PAY TO WIN!!! Those games aren't about skills of players, it's about the deepness of their pockets!!! These games are for suckers that are too stupid to know that they are spending more money in a ''Free-to-play'' game than on regular games!!!

So, BOOOOOOOO!!!

 
Forum Posts: 44
Comment #34 by BrunoBomb16
Thursday, July 26, 2012 @ 02:50:18 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Well free to play is a good, if they don't come with glitches, but when they release games to PS3, who is PS+ SHOULD HAVE GAMES FREE, who disagrees with me is a dumbass rich that likes spending you're money to games, dlc's, ... and then you reclaim games for free then patchs you have to pay. If you don't buy the game or the DLC's, you'll see they will give away that DLC/game.

 
Forum Posts: 1492
Comment #35 by SoPoF
Friday, July 27, 2012 @ 01:29:48 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Horrible.

However ... playing Battlefield six hours in ... is that even possible? Not meaning to hate, but aren't these games kind of short anyways?

Aside from not liking the whole free2play model in general, if f2p has tought us one thing so far it's that games that are "free" to play are the games no one would spend money on to begin with. Exceptions may exist.

 
Forum Posts: 83
Comment #36 by playdude28
Friday, July 27, 2012 @ 03:01:37 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I hate all this free to play crap, and dlc is just as bad, if I spend my hard earned cash on a game I want the whole game not just part of it.

 
Forum Posts: 98
Comment #37 by bobbygo20
Friday, July 27, 2012 @ 05:03:43 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
This is how it goes:
Free to play, Pay to win.
Fuck free to play then

 
Forum Posts: 21
Comment #38 by Ominatorx
Friday, July 27, 2012 @ 11:39:26 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
It's like they look at the games on facebook and decide that zynga is creating the future. Look at how good zynga is doing at the stock market, lol. They only attracted a lot of people, ie mafia wars, when they were free. Once they started charging for everything, people dropped and went to the next game.

Runescape in its early days wasn't a bad game (or model) to play and they laid out exactly what you were going to get for free, I spent countless hours on it but it wasn't nag-ware like a zynga type game(where they nag you for money or make you nag your friends for crap to do stuff.)

There are countless games with the same type system, 2moons. They aren't bad games but once you hit the max out, you can spend the money if you feel it's worth it.

EA on the other hand are probably incorporating scientists from WW2 to come in and use psychological warfare to extract every freaking penny out of your ass. Anything from adding nicotine to the aroma of the disk or subliminal messaging during cut scenes to sound waves to turn you into a zombie and give them your life.

As much as I love gaming, I have recently gone into my archives and pulled out old dos games. They may not look great but they provide just as good, if not more, entertainment value that most of the schlock that's out there. If it goes virtual then Lord British can entertain me from now on.

 
Forum Posts: 303
Comment #39 by ColeIsOnARoll
Sunday, July 29, 2012 @ 10:56:35 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
They should make it free to play on a whole game. Then release DLC frequently to gain revenue.

 
Forum Posts: 7194
Comment #40 by DarkStar83x
Sunday, July 29, 2012 @ 12:49:36 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
If free to play becomes the norm, I'll only play older games from then on.

 
Forum Posts: 840
Comment #41 by kensredemption
Monday, July 30, 2012 @ 02:53:09 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
MMOs and online multiplayer games should be free to play, in my opinion. I wouldn't mind paying for the software - especially when it comes to franchises that never failed to deliver a new standard of quality before. Metal Gear Solid, The Legend of Zelda, Halo and Final Fantasy (Up to XIII anyway) were all franchises that I'd gladly fork up half of my monthly budget for when I was growing up, because with that price I knew I could expect something great from a team who had enough of an incentive and a fanbase to try and impress. But to be forced to pay even more just to enjoy it? Let alone progress through it? What a crock of shit. It sucks the fun and entertainment value out of it and turns it into a financial commitment.

Oh, and enough of the ignorant EA bashing. Activision deserves more of your scorn since they can't seem to get it through their fucking skulls that CALL OF DUTY IS DEAD. You want to know who really wants to bleed you dry, you need look no further than them. After all, all EA did was ask for an extra $10 for day one DLC - 10 bucks - TEN FUCKING BUCKS. Better to be ripped off for $10 than to lose my house to the fucking BofA. Fucking twats.

 
Forum Posts: 1441
Comment #42 by JackC8
Wednesday, August 01, 2012 @ 08:30:17 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Free to play is getting popular on PC because all the piracy makes it impossible to make any money selling a game, so they have to make their money getting people to pay to play it. Not a problem on the PS3. As far as studios closing, we're in the middle of a very long worldwide recession.

 
Forum Posts: 5
Comment #43 by Darth Bambrox
Saturday, August 11, 2012 @ 05:06:22 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Christ, the guy sounds like a drug dealer, people are so invested they will spend more money to continue the experience......

 
Forum Posts: 307
Comment #44 by kizza92
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 @ 08:20:58 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
The second I start getting charged to "reload" in battlefield is the final moment before it is shelved for good. Don't get me wrong I don't mind forking out abit extra for DLC if it's worth it but this F2P model will not benefit gamers I can assure you all!

Fuck I really hate EA these days..oh wait who made Darksiders II wasn't it THQ? :P

 
Forum Posts: 15
Comment #45 by Violated Minds
Tuesday, August 14, 2012 @ 02:19:54 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Been sort of zoning in and out of this article and the one thing that stuck out like a bitch was the bit on being 6 hours into Battlefield paying a dollar to reload. Oh fuck that shit for a laugh! The moment this gets implemented in FPS games or indeed any game with online mode as a primary selling point I will never play a shooter again. I adore the genre but that struck a nerve with me reading that.... What an arsey comment that doesn't help the argument in any way shape or form. Anyway, I thought free to play existed in some cases... They're called Demos.

 
Forum Posts: 0
Comment #46 by Kinoholic
Wednesday, August 15, 2012 @ 07:41:41 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Free to play isn't a good thing in my opinion because all that will lead to is "pay to get ahead" situations. If someone is more financially secure than you they can obtain a lot of good things that you might not be able to in the game even though you could be a lot better than them in terms of skill. Just look at GW2.

 
Forum Posts: 432
Comment #47 by darthadi
Tuesday, August 21, 2012 @ 04:15:39 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
lets face it the whole game thing is a rip off,i dont mind paying for certain things but somethings are not right,for example i buy borderlands when it firts came out £40 then pay about £6 for 3 dlcs thats £58 in total. a few months later you can get the game of year edition which includes dlcs for like £20 so if you are a loyal customer who buys the game as soon as it comes out you lose out,paying to pay online would be acceptable if its not too expencive and dont even get me started on EA ultimate team licence to print money

 
Forum Posts: 3905
Comment #48 by starcrunch061
Monday, August 27, 2012 @ 02:34:40 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I still can't help but think that the problem with the game industry is the fact that we remain in a fairly deep economic malaise. Whether US or EU, people just aren't spending like crazy. There used to be this (idiotic) mantra that video games were recession-proof, but like any other business that deals in non-essentials, video games go quickly.

Anyone who buys a game on the day of release now is either a huge fan, or a huge fool, and the number of both seem to be dropping. At the same time, game companies expect 5,000,000+ sales on any "blockbuster" they release. This simply will not happen anymore.

The Freemium model looks good now, but it really depends on a crowd that sees gaming as a fad more than anything, IMHO. If companies go 100% this route, they will find in 5 years that the grass really isn't greener on the other side.

Companies could learn something from smaller outfits like NIS America, which sell smaller games to smaller markets (a sort of gaming equivalent to "counterprogramming" which is prevalent in movies).

 
Forum Posts: 4
Comment #49 by NickOwns
Friday, August 31, 2012 @ 01:02:24 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Fuck freemium, buying add ons is stupid enough

 
Forum Posts: 1379
Comment #50 by SerpentSeed
Thursday, September 06, 2012 @ 07:56:29 AM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I don't even buy DLC so I don't want to see a world like this.

 
Forum Posts: 20
Comment #51 by Mackeenboyle
Saturday, September 08, 2012 @ 03:49:41 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Alright look, they are going about this all wrong. DLC is fine, a game comes out, does really well and the fans want more but don't want to wait two years for the sequel so they decide to calm us down with the DLC in the meantime. No problem with that (though I hate when I have 100% trophies in a game and then it becomes an 87% because of it).

Freemium is not a bad concept but it is just that. A concept. Look at World of Warcraft, huge amount of success in the gaming world but it is a pay to play. I always thought that was stupid. If I pay $40-$50 for my game, I bought it. I own it. I should be able to play it without getting charged every month afterwards.

Runescape, for those who know it, had the best system. Very similar to freemium. Everyone could join for free and play the game since it was a 2D game till now when it is a huge 3D success. They had a world with a small section for members only and some premium items and abilities when one became very high leveled. That is how it should be in huge games.

I want to be able to play the initial game and experience it fully and IF I become a fanboy of the game, I might consider paying extra for more of the same but don't say buy our game and give us more money to play.

Freemium on consoles? Who knows if it's a good or bad thing? It may kill the industry but who knows?

 
Forum Posts: 76
Comment #52 by Cadaz
Thursday, September 13, 2012 @ 06:08:57 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
The model can work under the right set of circumstances.

What people don't want is that feeling that "only the rich (or the stupid) can win".

Games should be about skill not about who is prepared to invest the most.

 
Forum Posts: 186
Comment #53 by DeathMask Divine
Sunday, September 30, 2012 @ 11:12:17 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I recently downloaded a game to my Samsung Galaxy S3 called Eternity Warriors 2. In the game anytime you die you have to pay to revive or wait until the next day when you get your once a day free life. The game was a genuinely cool hack and slash. Sort of a scaled down Diablo. But after being faced with the dilemma to either pay to revive or wait a day to be able to play again a few days in a row.

I deleted it.

If I had good reason to believe a mobile game was good and it was a reasonable price upfront like 9.99. I would have no problem paying for it. But I refuse to be roped in to paying for extra content after I've already accuired a game. This is why I stay on the in game gold side of the auction house in Diablo 3. The only "Extras" I'll pay for in a game is the occasional DLC. But at the end of the day I can even do without them so long as I can still get my platinum. I feel insulted these publishers think he gaming community is filled with people who can be so easily manipulated. It's a shame because a few free to play games have sparked my interest.(Such as the upcoming release "Hawken") But if tactics similar to the ones described above are going to be employed in them. Then they certainly won't be getting my business. Thank god there are already enough PS3 games on the market to keep me busy for the next few years if this is the true future of gaming.


 
Forum Posts: 0
Comment #54 by shell2012
Wednesday, October 03, 2012 @ 10:22:48 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
its rediculous to compare a market thats good for a quick 5 minute play on the bus or tube to a market thats meant to be providing an experience that tells a story and can provide hours of gameplay.

i like my games to have a good story and provide me with 10+ hours of gameplay which i dont see happening in this "i just want your money" concept. i can imagine rpgs will be terrible in this model and try to fleece you out of more money than you would pay for a standard game.

Also i can see games released being of lesser quality in terms of story and gameplay due to them concerntrating on what they can get you to buy rather then how they can make their game better.

I agree game companies should concentrate on making better quality games for the money they charge and they wouldn't have to try and stoop so low

 
Forum Posts: 796
Comment #57 by Vaile23
Sunday, October 28, 2012 @ 10:39:52 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
I've stopped downloading iPhone games because every one of them now comes with in-app purchases, which are effectively required for the complete experience.

The day that console titles implement F2P is the day that I stop gaming...

 
Forum Posts: 2
Comment #58 by DJAndy2K
Monday, October 29, 2012 @ 08:16:46 AM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
This is a really bad idea.

 
Forum Posts: 0
Comment #59 by xiaojie2
Sunday, November 18, 2012 @ 08:02:43 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
------- http://www.likesurprise.com/ -----------

hello,This is a wholesaler's web site.

Items, fashion, and: popular personality.

Product quality,commodity price is absolutely!

Always deeply overseas friends love and support.

Please stop you progress in your choice so, need!!!!!

------- http://www.likesurprise.com -----------

 
Forum Posts: 1328
Comment #60 by Ramez05
Wednesday, November 21, 2012 @ 06:10:41 PM
(1Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
i played DC Universe Online on the ps3 for more than one and a half years. after the first year it switched from subscription to free2play. it brought more users to the game but at a very high cost. they put out less content and every little piece of small content they released had a price tag, most of which still cost money even if you were still a subscriber. also because of all the new casual free to play people they released 'pay2win' type tokens that made aspects of the game easier and more accessible to the free2play people instead of having them naturally progress through the game learning the basics. content that should of been free for subscribers now had a price tag on it even though they were already paying a subscription. free2play changed the developers mindset from enhancing and improving the game to milking as much as possible from the free2players as they could. less and less fixes occured and long standing bugs and exploits remained while the devs were busy releasing lame purchasable items in the store to help all the nooby free2players which further imbalanced aspects of the game. this completely separated the community and made a lot of players including myself leave the game completely because of what the game was becoming.

this is just my one experience with free2play and i know that every free2play game isnt like the one i experienced such as games like League of Legends. free2play though as some nasty potential though if put in the wrong hands. i wouldnt be surprised if activision inplemented a free to play model in the future for its call of duty series that included paying to unlock guns early or paying to prestige. there are lot of people who would do so and though it would make a lot of money for activision it would only cheapen an already cheapened gaming experience and drive a wedge in its community.

 
Forum Posts: 5
Comment #61 by djfoxynulla
Friday, July 26, 2013 @ 01:54:45 PM
(0) Thumbs Up Thumbs Down Report Comment
Did play dust 514 in closed beta turn it off after a half a hour, still did not go back to that game


You need to register before being able to post comments.

 


 
Most Viewed Trophy Lists
 
 
Most Viewed Trophy Guides