Is F2P the new curse word for gamers?

[Sonereal]

It doesn't seem long ago that whenever a DLC was announced for a game, many gamers would shout and holler and treat DLC as the worst thing that could happen to their favorite series of games.

Then F2P games went big. They've always existed, but it is only recently that they're so popular. However, whenever I hear a major studio coming out with a MMO or any game, I check to see if it is F2P because if it is, I have to lower my expectations greatly.

That is not to say there aren't good F2P games. World of Tanks and War Thunder are both games I thought played pretty well, even if you're a freebie. Planetside 2 and Team Fortress 2, though the former is more P2W than the latter, manage to balance the need to turn a profit in order to fund expansion and cover costs with giving users the most bang for their back.

Then we get Battlefield Heroes, Marvel Heroes, DC Universe, The Old Republic which are "F2P" in the sense that standing in line for a rollercoaster can be considered a F2P portion of the experience.

Inexplicably, F2P are almost never really free, which is fine, but then you run into the situation where to progress at all in a game, you have to pay or you're brickwalled. This usually comes in the form of massive amounts of DLC.

Take Command and Conquer for example. Command and Conquer 4, which was released like any normal game and cost money to play like any normal game, is something I prefer immediately over Command and Conquer (Generals 2), which EA has announced will be F2P because at the end of the day, I know companies like EA will gradually release DLC that overtime will supercede the cost of the game had it been released like a normal game.

The reason why I think F2P has become a curse word, not just an annoyance, is because it is three letters that seem almost universally derided by gamers. Command and Conquer could (could) be a great game, but the fact it is F2P is enough to raise doubts.

(That and it is by EA and one of the alpha testers were impressed by queuing move orders, but that's another story).

 

[Joecoolyo]

I wouldn't consider Planetside 2 pay to win at all. You can gain any weapon in the game if you play long enough, and they've balanced it pretty well so most weapon purchases are side-grades as opposed to upgrades. The only thing you can buy that you can't get for free are stupid stuff like helmets and skins, or what not. You can't even buy the upgrades to your vehicles, gotta earn them.

But other than that, I have no comment. Move along!

 

[Thrawn]

I wouldn't say it's a new curse word, I've pretty much always looked at F2P as a bad thing. Lately, a few developers are doing F2P what I would call the right way, like Path of Exile and DOTA2, it's when in game stuff gets put behind a pay wall that I'm not a fan.

The biggest problem I have with F2P games is that they rely on what're called Whales. Those people who spend inordinately large amounts of money on the game. This is a good article on it, and pretty much sums up my problems with F2P.

And from the perspective of someone who will be entering the game development industry, F2P is tempting because of how much you can make, especially from selling in game consumables (which is the big money maker according to a couple local developers at this years NZGDC), but I don't want to take advantage of whales. To me that feels wrong, I'd rather make games that are worth their purchase price up front, fun to play, and don't put pay walls in front of any in game content.

 

[GoodGame]

Nope. Free-2-Play games are probably the most popular, world-wide. Exceptions are the staple franchises that still deliver like DICE's Battlefield series, and indie games.


I'd say the problem with F2P is not the gamers willingness to buy into it, but rather the greed of developers. In theory, developers are given a very free hand in F2P game development, such that if they hit pay-dirt in theme, gameplay/quality, and paying target audience, then there are very few limitations other than law (e.g. no illegal gambling) that limit their imaginative developments.

Purist gamers will probably find examples in which the F2P games are not level playing fields where all and are more pay-2-win.
But as OP mentions, not all F2P games are implemented the same, again because of the free-hand given to developers once they have major funding. Some F2P games appeal to purism and aesthetics/altruism of gamers (DOTA2 comes to mind). Some games toy with going both ways---pay2win in some aspects, but then flirting with purist position that all advantages can be bought with in-game currency that is earned in-game. There's probably some psychology and marketing going on as purist players look sceptically at some F2P games, and developers try to win over purists to achieve maximum target audience popularity.

The main pros of F2P games is to have alternatives to mainstream distribution which used to be solely subscription based online games, and big box store boxed games-of-the-month. The main pro being incremental distribution without, in theory, requiring major investment from the gamer in exchange for the gamer being 'content' for paying gamers to enjoy. And the market for games continues to diversify with cheap indie games and indie bundle distributions. Because F2P game are a major alternative to traditional methods of computer gaming, they gained popularity.

So definitely they are not a 'curse word', but rather it's the "me-two" syndrome in which (less-talented) developers see the successes of others and try to emulate. 'Me-two' happens in all kind of industries and is sometimes a good thing---providing cheaper alternatives, but sometimes just provides cheaper quality. If you see good F2P games and poorly made F2P games, think of "Me-two" syndrome.

 

[Sonereal]

I wouldn't consider Planetside 2 pay to win at all. You can gain any weapon in the game if you play long enough, and they've balanced it pretty well so most weapon purchases are side-grades as opposed to upgrades. The only thing you can buy that you can't get for free are stupid stuff like helmets and skins, or what not. You can't even buy the upgrades to your vehicles, gotta earn them.

But other than that, I have no comment. Move along!

I know. I think PS2 is rather balance, which is why I said it is only slightly more P2W than TF2.

It is largely the $7 weapon purchases, which goes to Thrawn post.

I wouldn't say it's a new curse word, I've pretty much always looked at F2P as a bad thing. Lately, a few developers are doing F2P what I would call the right way, like Path of Exile and DOTA2, it's when in game stuff gets put behind a pay wall that I'm not a fan.

These are the kind of F2P games I'm talking about really. I used to see F2P games as that, F2P. But now whenever I hear about a new F2P, especially by an established company, I assume there is a paywall and am surprised when there isn't, not th eother way around.

I haven't played DOTA2 to comment on it. I know LoL has a rotating system of free heroes, but I haven't played LoL enough to really make much of it.

And from the perspective of someone who will be entering the game development industry, F2P is tempting because of how much you can make, especially from selling in game consumables (which is the big money maker according to a couple local developers at this years NZGDC), but I don't want to take advantage of whales. To me that feels wrong, I'd rather make games that are worth their purchase price up front, fun to play, and don't put pay walls in front of any in game content.

That was the impression I got. I played a few Facebook games before I felt trapped by the fact I'm not dropping cash into these games. Want an extra life? Pay a dollar or two!

Nope. Free-2-Play games are probably the most popular, world-wide. Exceptions are the staple franchises that still deliver like DICE's Battlefield series, and indie games.

Call of Duty is an extremely popular series. If you compare a FPS with Call of Duty however, it is an insult.

 

[Maniacal]

Yeah its usually a bad sign when a game is F2P, but it isn't being used as a swear word since its usually included with a descriptive swear word like "crappy".

 

[GoodGame]

Call of Duty is an extremely popular series. If you compare a FPS with Call of Duty however, it is an insult.

Huh? I think in fact you are only semi-correct. People make CoD jokes, but there's no denying that someone plays them, or else they wouldn't be made anymore. And FPS is a very broad category of games. There's elitists who only play ARMA-type game, and that's good for them. There's FPSs for all types. There are qualities and methods of determining quality for all types of people, not one absolute measure that states CoD is for inbred retards, and ARMA2 is for the best of the best FPS owners.


SO really F2P being popular does not really imply or deny they have some level of quality that some people will consume.
Coke or Pepsi?

Or put it like this: even if a sort genre/theme is a 'curse word' / uncool for a type of consumer, it doesn't mean all such consumers agree. In that light, all you're doing is just polling the forums.....F2P cool or not?


My answer is cool, if the developer is good and trying to make a mostly purist game, within reason (i don't expect them to operate as a non-profit).

 

[Maniacal]

Its an insult to compare an FPS to Call of Duty not because of its popularity, but because of its numerous problems. Largely the more or less stagnant design of the game that has seen little significant change since Call of Duty 4. Tiny maps, some poor weapon balancing, aging graphics, very arcadey gun mechanics & play, annual releases and pretty much being milked for all its worth. Also its hugely popular amongst people like the "dudebro" type of person who doesn't really buy or even play more than a few games a year and isn't interested (if they are even aware of) the 100s of far better and deeper games.

 

[GoodGame]

Its an insult to compare an FPS to Call of Duty not because of its popularity, but because of its numerous problems. Largely the more or less stagnant design of the game that has seen little significant change since Call of Duty 4. Tiny maps, some poor weapon balancing, aging graphics, very arcadey gun mechanics & play, annual releases and pretty much being milked for all its worth. Also its hugely popular amongst people like the "dudebro" type of person who doesn't really buy or even play more than a few games a year and isn't interested (if they are even aware of) the 100s of far better and deeper games.

Then you miss the point. You are among the elite of FPS fans who demand higher quality in your FPS games. But obviously there's hypothetical hoardes of 8 years or such who are eating up CoD. The quality suits the audience but doesn't necessarily make it an insult unless specific consumer is outside of that target audience.

 

[civvver]

I don't care if a game is free to play. I do care when micro transactions in any form (DLC, fees in f2p games, expansions) are pushed on me and when I don't feel I've gotten my money's worth for a game. For example it bothers me that civ5 releases civilizations as dlc that costs $5 at times. It doesn't seem like a good value and I'd rather get them all in one expansion pack. Like you said most f2p games are geared at scamming whales into paying more than they would otherwise play. Candy crush is a huge example. I heard it makes something like $800,000 daily for that company in micro transactions.

Dota2 and HoN are the only games where I've seen the f2p model used very well. In Dota2 you can buy items but they are 100% aesthetic (and thus optional, I've never bought anything). Different armor and accessories for your heroes and hud. What's also extremely cool is they take submissions from the community and if they publish yours you get a chunk of the sales, something like 30%. Now they still try and bait you by awarding you treasure chests at the end of matches with a hidden item inside and you have to buy a key to unlock, but again it doesn't affect gameplay at all.

HoN is similar. They charge for early access to a new hero, basically if you want to play new heroes in beta phase. Then after a bit everyone can play the hero. So you are paying for content but it's still very optional.

But in general it seems f2p is just kind of a demo mode like with the old republic or even world of warcraft, or is a scam to get you to pay more than you otherwise would for a game. F2p WoW is like the definition of a demo version, capped at lvl 20, no mail, limited chat etc.

Unfortunately I don't see this changing. It seems like your game gets more exposure as a f2p and they amount people spend on dlc and micro transactions is a lot more than what they'd pay for a release. Unless that game is GTA5. 14 million copies already GG.

 

[Dell19]

Now they still try and bait you by awarding you treasure chests at the end of matches with a hidden item inside and you have to buy a key to unlock, but again it doesn't affect gameplay at all.

TF2 has the same thing and I'm not a fan of it. If I'm going to spend money on something then I would like to know in advance what that thing is actually going to be. I don't think that the F2P version of TF2 worked that well at least from my perspective as there feels like there are too many combinations of items so the classes are less unique whilst quite a few of the people that I used to play with stopped playing. I guess it has gotten new people to play it though.

The main other F2P game I've played is League of Legends where you can unlock all the characters simply by playing the game but can pay money to unlock things quicker. Paying to unlock characters can be detrimental as it can be better to master playing some of the cheaper characters first rather than unlocking all the characters and then not being very good with any of them. I did end up spending some money on this game after I had played the game for a while and brought some of the custom skins for characters to make them a bit more unique.

 

[coanda]

Free to Play is generally a non-starter for me. If they're truly free (no in-game purchases), it was probably a low-budget game making it's revenue off ads, which means quality is unlikely to be high... but I'll occasionally try a game like this if I hear good things about it.

If they have in-game purchases, there's just so many ways that can end badly. I'm not about to waste my time on a game only to find out after playing 3-4 hours that it's only worth playing if I'm willing to stop playing, pull out my credit card, and shell out a couple bucks every hour, or that skill is really not important and success is purely determined by grinding and how much money you are willing to spend. I'm sure there are good Free 2 Play games out there with in-game purchases. I'll probably never find any of them, because there's too much junk for me to spend time wading through it looking for gems.

 

[civvver]

F2p doesn't bother me as much as dlc tbh. F2p games you can simply avoid. Dlc, you are usually intentionally being shafted in the hopes you'll pay more than retail prices to unlock content you would have gotten for free, or in a full expansion, in the past. Like civ5 civ dlcs and mass effect weapon dlcs and dragon age mission dlcs. You could argue just don't buy the dlcs or they wouldn't even be available at all if not for paid dlcs, but I still think it's getting to the point devs make decisions like we could try and get this into the release, but wait, it's fairly modular, let's just make it a dlc for later and charge people for it.