Jump to content
NEurope
Beast

The Future Could Be Free-To-Play....At a Cost

Recommended Posts

The future is apparently free-to-play...but is that a good thing?

 

After reading that? HELL NAH! Just look at one of the quotes that was in that article:

 

“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.”

 

LOOOOL! I don't care if I absolutely adore the game, I wouldn't pay a dollar every time to reload, it's the most stupid idea I've heard. EA are just wrong! Trust me, if there ever was a game to carry through this idea and it's a series I love such as Battlefield, rest assured I will never be playing that game on multiplayer ever! What next, it'll ask you to pay to reload on single player too? lmao.

 

Can you imagine games in the future? If you're on single player modes, I wouldn't be surprised if EA asks you to pay to play the next level after completing the last one!

 

Fingers crossed this either won't happen or it's fake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I would do:

 

I would play as many of these "Free to play" games as possible. The moment it asks for money, I stop and move to the next one. I'd try to convince as many other people to do the same. I'm sure sites like NeoGaf (and even 4chan) would also have a similar ideas.

 

Use us as much of their resources as possible but give them no money. Until they learn.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't mind doing it this way, if the overall cost of playing the game was in-line with the current cost of a full game. That way, if i liked a game, i'd play it, and i'd spend around £40 doing so. If i didn't like it, i'd only have spent £5 or so playing the first few levels, and i'd have saved myself £35.

 

Clearly the reloading thingy is ridiculous though, that'll never catch on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be like if you were watching a film, after 20 minutes something pops up sating "please insert your credit card to pat £1 for the next 20 minutes".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...that sounds like a "rage quit" moment to me :/

 

I don't mind paying to play, but playing and then paying... Well I suppose if you are enjoying the game that much you would. Provided it didn't cost more than £30 throughout the entire duration of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It would be like if you were watching a film, after 20 minutes something pops up sating "please insert your credit card to pat £1 for the next 20 minutes".

 

Totally agree.

 

This is a terrible idea when it comes to single player experiences, for example, a Zelda or Mario title. I can see the appeal (kinda) in some MMORPGs or something, but for everyday console gaming...no.

 

Play the first hour of Goldeneye for free, then pay a level at a time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Totally agree.

 

This is a terrible idea when it comes to single player experiences, for example, a Zelda or Mario title. I can see the appeal (kinda) in some MMORPGs or something, but for everyday console gaming...no.

 

Play the first hour of Goldeneye for free, then pay a level at a time.

 

Yes but if you enjoyed Goldeneye, (and who wouldn't) then you would pay for each level, and end up having paid for the full game.

 

However, if it is a shittier game, like Sonic 2006 (to steal from another current thread) then you may well give up after the first level having not paid anything. I don't think that's too crazy.

 

With the film analogy, if you walked out after the first 20 mins of a film, and only had to pay for that 20 mins, you would be 'quids in' as some people (not me) might say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is a terrible idea because it'll end up costing far more than the game would normally cost. Doing so creates a barrier of mistrust between consumer and developer.

 

If it does that, the games will fail. The game industry will fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Playing then paying = No. Thats not right, i wouldn't succumb to this style. I don't mind paying for DLC to add to the game, thats fine. But paying to reload a gun is too money-grabbing if that comes in.

 

Imagine paying real money to get more arrows in Zelda, or paying to get that Metal Cap in a Mario game in order to get that tricky star. I couldn't do that honestly, and if this is how EA see themselves going then so be it. I'll be saying goodbye to them once they've gone bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOOOOL! I don't care if I absolutely adore the game, I wouldn't pay a dollar every time to reload, it's the most stupid idea I've heard.

 

You can't have read the article properly. The example, and I should stress again that it was just an example, was that after you play for 6 hours you need to pay to reload, once. Not every single time you reload.

 

I actually think it's a relatively good idea for single player games if implemented in stages. It means that if you complete the game you pay full price but if you don't complete the game you don't pay full price. Sounds fair to me as long as the max price for the game is the same as you'd be paying normally.

 

Multiplayer is a different story though as there's much more replayability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see way too much potential for abuse of this system.

 

I like the way Valve does it with Team Fortress 2: You can get the full game experience without having to pay anything. You can choose to pay for a bunch of extra stuff if you so wish, but none of it is essential.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I could support this system if we could guarantee that every game would have a fair price. Pay 15 for a relatively short game, 40/50 for huge games filled with content...

 

But not even DLC can guarantee that. As long as that hurdle is not yet surpassed, I'm not trusting any developer with this proposed system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, I think it's a great idea.

 

I know there's quite a few games who now take this on, especially MMOs as they simply aren't making the money by asking people to pay subscription costs straight away, people are more likely to pay for something after they've given it a go and sometimes a 'trial' period just isn't enough.

 

Take for example Runescape, it's a Free 2 Play game, which also has a membership side, which gives you more content etc etc, their system earns them a lot of money because people can still play a pretty decent web based game without having to pay.

 

They've recently released micro transactions, which seems to be taken 50/50 some people hate it (its always going to be that way) but it gives the option to purchase items for in-game with real money, its not something you need to have in-game, but it gives you that option.

 

Music services do it too (I know we're talking about gaming here) they provide a free service and then provide subscriptions if you want extra content, there's no forcing you to go to the extra content, but its there.

 

I think the problem nowadays is that gaming companies are relying far too much on DLCs and not focusing enough on the initial game, Fable was a classic example of this and you had to buy dyes, I mean...geez and they weren't exactly cheap either. I think if they are set to a decent cost, they will entice people and certainly add a little more to F2P. Will it work for every company? Maybe not, but its definitely the way things are turning for some MMOs and it seems to be making them a decent profit.

 

In the end, yes, depending on price and what is offered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes but if you enjoyed Goldeneye, (and who wouldn't) then you would pay for each level, and end up having paid for the full game.

 

But who is to say that the cost would be the same? What about multiplayer? Would you have to pay for each option separately, too? So what exactly do you get when you have it "for free", just the first level?

 

I don't see what is wrong with the current package that we have and that has been around for a reasonable amount of time. Pay a price, play the game. Of course, I do think some developers and publishers are taking liberties with this, releasing yearly updates of the same game, releasing DLC at a cost when perhaps it should have been available on the game disc.

 

However, if it is a shittier game, like Sonic 2006 (to steal from another current thread) then you may well give up after the first level having not paid anything. I don't think that's too crazy.

 

With the film analogy, if you walked out after the first 20 mins of a film, and only had to pay for that 20 mins, you would be 'quids in' as some people (not me) might say.

 

I totally disagree with this. Here's why: Under the examples you have just given, you say that if we don't like the first level or first 20 mins, we just give up. Well, what about games that start intentionally slowly, or games that don't wow you from the start? Or games that you have to sink time into to fully appreciate. If we did what you did, then we could be missing out on some fantastic games that way.

 

Also, how intrusive would this system be? At the moment, I am playing Xenoblade. It's seamless, there are very little loading times, and the game is pretty heavy on the use of exploration, but also cut-scenes. What happens if this new model came in and I reached a new area, would I need to pay then? What about when an awesome cut-scene just kicks in, which is then followed by a payment screen?

 

Finally, with this system, we are judging games on the quantity within it, rather than the quality of it. I paid full price for ExciteTruck and I'd do it again. But, that doesn't have as much content as something like Super Smash Bros. Brawl. How exactly would they go about quantifying that?

 

Yes, this system does have a place with MMO. But, it shouldn't be applied to every genre out there (just because somebody "thinks" it can be done).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't mind doing it this way, if the overall cost of playing the game was in-line with the current cost of a full game. That way, if i liked a game, i'd play it, and i'd spend around £40 doing so. If i didn't like it, i'd only have spent £5 or so playing the first few levels, and i'd have saved myself £35.

 

Clearly the reloading thingy is ridiculous though, that'll never catch on.

 

This is the theory, and whilst it's arguably a good idea; it really isn't very often the actual practise.

 

As Serebii and others have pointed out, what about when it leads to your game costing more than retail? What happens when, you buy a game, and frankly, have no end in sight? It feels seedy, like hooking someone on crack to then rack them up with a huge debt to the drug in little hits.

 

Personally, I think it's a great idea.

 

I know there's quite a few games who now take this on, especially MMOs as they simply aren't making the money by asking people to pay subscription costs straight away, people are more likely to pay for something after they've given it a go and sometimes a 'trial' period just isn't enough.

 

Take for example Runescape, it's a Free 2 Play game, which also has a membership side, which gives you more content etc etc, their system earns them a lot of money because people can still play a pretty decent web based game without having to pay.

 

They've recently released micro transactions, which seems to be taken 50/50 some people hate it (its always going to be that way) but it gives the option to purchase items for in-game with real money, its not something you need to have in-game, but it gives you that option.

 

Music services do it too (I know we're talking about gaming here) they provide a free service and then provide subscriptions if you want extra content, there's no forcing you to go to the extra content, but its there.

 

I think the problem nowadays is that gaming companies are relying far too much on DLCs and not focusing enough on the initial game, Fable was a classic example of this and you had to buy dyes, I mean...geez and they weren't exactly cheap either. I think if they are set to a decent cost, they will entice people and certainly add a little more to F2P. Will it work for every company? Maybe not, but its definitely the way things are turning for some MMOs and it seems to be making them a decent profit.

 

In the end, yes, depending on price and what is offered.

 

I did think of MMOs when reading, and Runescape in particular. Then I realised that's not really the same thing, it's a subscription/no subscription. Flat fee that puts you on the level with everyone else, not lots of little transactions for every bit of content. Freemium isn't quite the same as the subscription system, which certainly isn't as new.

Edited by Rummy
Automerged Doublepost

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Then I realised that's not really the same thing, it's a subscription/no subscription.

 

A common MMO thing is free to play with lots of mcirotransactions. Some lesser known ones start off with it, while some big franchises (Lord of the Rings, Star Trek) resort to it when they fail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The free to play idea is incredibly interesting. It offers a massive advantage and a massive disadvantage and I think the latter is why it gets the most stick.

 

The advantage: It's free. You can get a grip of the game without putting down a single penny. If you don't like the game, no biggie! You wasted a couple of hours, but no money (unlike those instances were you put down £40 for a new console release, to lose a tenner or so selling it back). If you end up liking it however..

 

The disadvantage: You potentially end up paying more than you would if it wasn't F2P, which is the big thing every one focuses on. Sometimes, I can relate to it, but some times I can't.

 

Take the example in the article. If it was literally "every reload = $1", I'd agree, that's fucking ridiculous and no one in their right might would bother. But I personally don't read it as that, I read it as $1 buys you 6 hours of gameplay. The wording is far too vague and to be honest, knowing EA, you guys are probably right about $1=reload.

 

The problem I have with such complaints is the fact that these games can mostly be played for free no problem, you just have to recognise the restraints such as item availability, peak times or maybe even playing for a limited time each day. You don't have to buy these items or features. Considering this is a gaming forum, chances are we share some unity with the majority of gamers and if the majority of you guys wouldn't pay X for FeatureY, chances are not a lot of people will either and they'll have to balance it to a price people don't mind.

 

Take that in for a second. If not enough people are buying the stuff that they need to keep the game afloat, they can quickly change the price. And if that doesn't work, they try again. They'll have to keep trying to eventually meet a mutual point, discontinue the game or put it in retail as a full game without the F2P junk. F2P games could potentially be the market democracy this industry needs.

 

Don't knock it until you try it. Remember, you guys have the money they want, you hold the power. I've read a lot about 'gamer entitlement' recently, but it's all bullshit, it's distracting people from the real issue of publisher entitlement. You're entitled to a good product for your money, and the collective shapes what they'll charge.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A common MMO thing is free to play with lots of mcirotransactions. Some lesser known ones start off with it, while some big franchises (Lord of the Rings, Star Trek) resort to it when they fail.

 

Oh, I know that, I was mainly talking about the sub/no sub flat. I do wonder where the freemium model has its origins, is it in the MMOs or elsewhere? I've noticed it creeping up more and more in recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I do wonder where the freemium model has its origins, is it in the MMOs or elsewhere? I've noticed it creeping up more and more in recent years.

 

A quick Google points to Achaea, Dreams of Divine Lands, a 1997 text-based multi-user dungeon, as the origins of the format.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that most of these examples don't even fit in to the freemium model. Paying for reloads? Paying for the next level? The whole point of freemium is that you can play for free, but can pay to get better perks/items/weapons etc. Those examples you can't play for free, that's just a delayed payment, more akin to an arcade game for free.

 

Let's use BF as an example. Under a freemium model you would still be able to play it without paying a penny. However you would most likely have the option to pay for better weapons, more health, better equipment etc. So you could pay for free, but you would be seriously disadvantaged. Although they may allow you to pay for things which you can unlock through experience. Lots of games do this, meaning you aren't necessarily disadvantaged as a free player, but it will take you a lot longer to get to the same point. I'd like to point out that BF3 already offers this, you can buy unlocks that would normally take you hours of gameplay.

 

In fact it looks like they've now launched BF3 Premium, which appears to give you extra items and upgrades, more assignments, higher queue priority, early access to DLC etc. http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/premium/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm currently playing Star Trek Online which went f2p about half a year ago. It's a pretty fair system because anything you have to pay for can also be obtained by other - albeit very tiresome - means. Still I talked to a guy who spent about 40€ on boxes with a surprise item inside - most of the contents ranged between useless and alright.

With f2p the dev has a big incentive to exploit your weaknesses (for instance a drive to collect stuff) and design the game in a way to encourage buying stuff - for instance by introducing new items all the time.

Now with an MMO it makes at least somewhat sense because you would have to pay a monthly subscription fee anyways and you actually expect to get new content, but still it's annoying to have to ask yourself: "Is it really worth spending money for this item?" Especially if there's a good chance the item will be outclassed within a few month and you have to fork out money again. Before f2p you only had to ask yourself: "Do I want to buy this game?" and when you bought it, you got the whole package.

 

If they really want to give us f2p, they should say the game is free for two hours. If you like it, you have to buy the whole game. Then there's no incentive to exploit the consumer and the devs can work on actual gameplay rather than creating hundreds of collector's items to be sold at unproportional prices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

If they really want to give us f2p, they should say the game is free for two hours. If you like it, you have to buy the whole game.

 

Isn't that basically the demo system? That's what i do on xbox live right now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't that basically the demo system? That's what i do on xbox live right now!

 

Yeah that's pretty much it. But on the PC a lot of devs complain that making a demo takes extra effort and such. Also usually in a demo you can only play certain parts of the game. If you have a timer which allows you to play for two hours you can check out anything you like, be it multiplayer or singleplayer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regardless of whether the price of a game works out the same, I still don't like it. Same for DLC.

 

What we're seeing is probably the backlash against consumer power where gamers have been able to game on their own terms, which in most cases, means they've been able to play more for less money, vis pre-owned games, trading/lending physical copies of games, playing their orignal copies over downloads etc.

 

To me DLC, cloud streaming, and pay to play etc all go too far the other way where gaming is done more on the terms of the publishers, where they set how you "own" games, how much you'll pay, as well as other restrictions.

 

Back in the day you paid a price up front and you got a physical copy with all the content and few restrictions on how you play it, it was a straightforward and fair exchange. DLC and play to play just seem too sly and manipulative in comparision, the consumer can feel milked and manipulated.

 

Of course you should pay for you're games, and nobody is forcing you to buy anything, but the old way just feels more comfortable and more transparent to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I play an rts/mmo game online called chronicles of merlin, the game itself is totally free to play. However, there is a gold "currency" that you can get small amounts day to day with playage, but any useful amount is paid for. Golders can get weapons faster, it can be used to shorten development cooldowns, and buy some items not available to f2p users. It's addictive, and people have taken it and added a gambling element (say you buy a chest with your gold and it has a *chance* of giving you something awesome, but usually just something shit).

 

I see a lot of games going this way - its gonna eliminate the issue of piracy, and you are gonna get fools who will spend hundreds of pounds on these games... without a doubt. The genius bastard who invented the idea is laughing his head off to the bank.

 

It will NEVER be a case of you have to pay to keep playing, that's not a good business strategy. People will just turn off. If you leave the seed in their mind that they COULD have some good weapons, they won't turn off, and are far more likely to end up buying some later. If a user is told you cannot play anymore without putting money in they'll be so pissed off they'll never load up the game ever again.

 

downside: temptation to spend a lot of money, limited play for some people

upside: eliminates piracy, the high spenders pretty much even out the f2p profit loss, everyone can play

 

I think its good to have a mix of both. I love f2p, but my addictive nature says I really shouldn't go near them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×