Nobody in this thread has mentioned Path of Exile.
That is the best F2P model I have seen so far....bascially because I played for like 4 days before I was even aware that it had a cash shop.
I'll never spend money on a F2P game. It's designed to make you spend more money than traditionally, setups up unbalanced play schemes...How would feel if playing chess and the other player could buy back their queen after you take it...not very fun and most people would balk at the idea but that is what F2P caters to...those people who want to buy an advantage or underage kids who dont have thier own money.
I gave PS2 a fair go, it's a nice game, I like it...spent about 75 bucks on it....wont spend another dime and I am way behind the gear curve now, to the point I dont bother to play now. But that is also by design, they want you to spend money on impulse buys in small amounts then down the road realize what you have done and leave to make room for the next sucker.
But I see more and more gamers getting tired of the F2P models, because they are realizing that F2P is a gimmick. I put F2P publishers in the same catergory I put used car salesmen, Rent to Own, Payday Loans, and reverse mortages in...disgusting unethical, morally reprehensible businesses that prey on the unintelligent and gullible.
There is a huge difference between a PvP F2P game, and a PvE one. PvE you can always play at your own pace, and there is no "falling behind".
And i don't see players are tiring of F2P. In fact, F2P is gaining share on P2P. People like free games.
And what-gimmick? You can always have some free fun before hitting a pay wall, and quit and move on to the next game. I play PoE, Marvel Heroes, STO and a bunch of F2P games. I never paid a cent, and always have fun (otherwise, why would i even spend a second?). It works for me.
The entire concept is absurd, Borderlands 2 isn't a single-player game the way they're using it, you cannot buy a drop from someone else in a single-player game because, by definition, there's no one else to buy it from. Borderlands 2 is a multi-player game with a single-player campaign attached.
Originally posted by Cephus404 The entire concept is absurd, Borderlands 2 isn't a single-player game the way they're using it, you cannot buy a drop from someone else in a single-player game because, by definition, there's no one else to buy it from. Borderlands 2 is a multi-player game with a single-player campaign attached.
This is true, but we the lines between single and multiplayer have been getting blurred for years, we already can see each others achievements. How long before you can sell something to another Steam or Origin user? The thrust of the gaming industry is to create a gaming market, across games, across platforms. F2P has heralded this concept in MMO's, the cash shop has become accepted, the in game dlc shop for single player games is accepted.
What we are seeing is the ushering in of a totally new gaming ethos, one where money rules. And this is only just getting started, what we are seeing today is the tip of the iceberg.
Diablo style AH'ing (buy/sell drops) ruins a game even before real money is involved, in games focused on loot progression and a slot machine-like loot system.
...which was always pretty bizarre given that Blizzard understood this with WOW and made most items soulbound, with very strong limits on what gear actually is able to be bought with in-game gold.
...so even before real money is involved, IGN is proposing a bad idea that would ruin the game.
If you decouple the idea from their bad idea you get something more like:
Borderlands 2 becomes free to play
Free players have access to 2 of 6 classes
Free players have access to 2 of 6 weapon types
Free players lack access to certain zones
Everything, even existing DLC content, can be slowly earned via in-game grind.
...but it's faster to purchase unlocks via premium currency
So basically set it up to be Lateral Purchases, like all of the truly successful F2P titles.
(Although in the case of weapon types, I think it would be better to allow free players access to all weapon types, but only certain weapon manufacturers. But I don't think there's a big difference between manufacturers right now -- or at least I never perceived it as a very short-lived player of BL2. But if each manufacturer has a very distinct flavor, then you can let all players access all weapon types (which seems better) but not all flavors of that type (if you want the high-power Jakobs-manufactured weapons you have to pay to unlock that maker.))
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Diablo style AH'ing (buy/sell drops) ruins a game even before real money is involved, in games focused on loot progression and a slot machine-like loot system.
...which was always pretty bizarre given that Blizzard understood this with WOW and made most items soulbound, with very strong limits on what gear actually is able to be bought with in-game gold.
...so even before real money is involved, IGN is proposing a bad idea that would ruin the game.
If you decouple the idea from their bad idea you get something more like:
Borderlands 2 becomes free to play
Free players have access to 2 of 6 classes
Free players have access to 2 of 6 weapon types
Free players lack access to certain zones
Everything, even existing DLC content, can be slowly earned via in-game grind.
...but it's faster to purchase unlocks via premium currency
So basically set it up to be Lateral Purchases, like all of the truly successful F2P titles.
(Although in the case of weapon types, I think it would be better to allow free players access to all weapon types, but only certain weapon manufacturers. But I don't think there's a big difference between manufacturers right now -- or at least I never perceived it as a very short-lived player of BL2. But if each manufacturer has a very distinct flavor, then you can let all players access all weapon types (which seems better) but not all flavors of that type (if you want the high-power Jakobs-manufactured weapons you have to pay to unlock that maker.))
Why would a smart consumer opt to pay more to unlock all the options in a game than what would be available to them at a standard price otherwise?
That is the motive of DLC/Microtransactions, they take stuff that would otherwise be included IN the game itself, that you could actually PLAY for and ask for your credit card instead.
Why would a smart consumer opt to pay more to unlock all the options in a game than what would be available to them at a standard price otherwise?
That is the motive of DLC/Microtransactions, they take stuff that would otherwise be included IN the game itself, that you could actually PLAY for and ask for your credit card instead.
Imagine all the games you've ever purchased where you felt like you didn't get your money's worth.
Now imagine you didn't spend money on trying those games, because they were free to play.
Now as a consumer it's up to you whether to take that money (which might be quite a substantial amount) and spend it on other free to play games, or simply to play the games you enjoy for free too. Keeping in mind that with a Lateral Purchase system you'll never be disadvantaged by not paying -- you simply get to enjoy the game for free.
Why wouldn't a smart consumer want that? It's win/win for both developers and players alike when it's a lateral purchase setup.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Originally posted by worldalpha The F2P battle will never end... This is going to be around for a long time to come...
The battle in the market place is already over. Most games will be F2P.
Sure, some people will keep ranting. However, if you take any issue, you will find someone who will rant till the end of time.
I don't think it is over, in the long run I'm not convinced the model is sustainable. F2P relies on the whales, the small minority of players who drop a lot of money on a game whilst the majority play for free or contribute only a little.
If we add in single player AAA titles going down that route to the increasing amount of MMOs then it's easy to envision a time when there's simply far too few whales for too many games. When that happens, the bubble bursts.
As to the original premise of the thread, BL2 is a bad example to use imo. BL2 have taken the mickey with the DLC, I almost bought it in a recent Steam sale but the list of 30+ DLC put me off. I didn't want to trawl through trying to find out which DLC actually adds substantial content as opposed to fluff.
DLC done right isn't a bad thing, one thing I love about Bethesda is generally they produce good DLC and, where they add minor things like weapon packs, as they did for Dishonered and FO:NV, it's clear and straight-forward and done as a small bundle.
Think about it, nobody wants to die, there's rules to this game son, I'm justified.
Keeping in mind that with a Lateral Purchase system you'll never be disadvantaged by not paying -- you simply get to enjoy the game for free.
(....)
Very few f2p games have an item mall setup that does not cause disadvantage in aspects that the game considers important.
League of Legends was balancing on the edge for quite some time, but now when the game has been out for so long, the "champion"-buying and "runes"-buying aspect is such a small factor among the players who do not already own what they want. Furthermore vanity was never even remotely a focus of League of Legends, so selling vanity on the item mall is completely okay.
Path of Exile is a good example since vanity is not remotely a focus in Path of Exile, the power of your character is. They don't sell any direct or indirect power enhacing items such as exp boosters. The only hickup would have been the extra stash space you can buy, but since they allow multiclient and were genereous with character slots, it is a minimal issue.
Guild Wars 2 is a b2p case where the item mall has not been implemented as good as the two other cases I mentioned. The game puts quite a big focus on vanity unlike Path of Exile and League of Legends; this is evident by the existance of "Legendary" tier which is basically a vanity version of the "Ascended" tier. That's why the direct and indirect "vanity"-buying is far more harmful in GW2 than it is in PoE and LoL.
I don't know. I am torn. On one hand, I like that I can try out games. My main issue with MMO games is subscribing. Not the money issue, just that I start to feel obligated to play the game all the time if I am paying money to play it every month. I love video games too much to dedicate all of my time to just one game. F2P takes that sense of obligation away and I end up playing a crap load anyway.
And I like certain systems. I like that Aion doesn't really sell much in their cash shop. I like how The Secret World does it also.
On the other hand, when it becomes P2W then we have a problem. I just don't think you should be able to pay for power. I am all about subscribers getting bonuses and such; they deserve it for paying a sub. But a cash shop should not be filled with a bunch of items just to make things super easy for those with cash to burn.
I don't know. I am torn. On one hand, I like that I can try out games. My main issue with MMO games is subscribing. Not the money issue, just that I start to feel obligated to play the game all the time if I am paying money to play it every month. I love video games too much to dedicate all of my time to just one game. F2P takes that sense of obligation away and I end up playing a crap load anyway.
And this is the big divide with P2P and F2P players. I would venture to assume you like to dabble at multiple games and not focus on one. It's a very valid gaming style and that type of gaming suits F2P.
I on the other hand like to commit to one MMO and want to be engrossed by it. That makes me the perfect candidate for P2P. I hate being reminded every time I log in that in order for me to access all the content and to be able to acquire any item (vanity or not), I have to pay. I'd rather toss my $15/month and know everything is available to me if I commit my time and effort.
I don't think it is over, in the long run I'm not convinced the model is sustainable. F2P relies on the whales, the small minority of players who drop a lot of money on a game whilst the majority play for free or contribute only a little.
It is over for the next year or so. Entertainment changes so fast that no one can project 5 years out anyway. 5 year ago, no one can predict MOBA, games like WOT will be beating MMOs in terms of popularity.
I don't know. I am torn. On one hand, I like that I can try out games. My main issue with MMO games is subscribing. Not the money issue, just that I start to feel obligated to play the game all the time if I am paying money to play it every month. I love video games too much to dedicate all of my time to just one game. F2P takes that sense of obligation away and I end up playing a crap load anyway.
And this is the big divide with P2P and F2P players. I would venture to assume you like to dabble at multiple games and not focus on one. It's a very valid gaming style and that type of gaming suits F2P.
I on the other hand like to commit to one MMO and want to be engrossed by it. That makes me the perfect candidate for P2P. I hate being reminded every time I log in that in order for me to access all the content and to be able to acquire any item (vanity or not), I have to pay. I'd rather toss my $15/month and know everything is available to me if I commit my time and effort.
Indeed. I tend to schedule out what I play in a week since I am usually sharing time between a few games at a time.
I understand your PoV as well. Some people get into one game and focus. I can do that as there are plenty of games that pull me in. Heck, I have spent plenty of money on The Secret World on the issues. Even subbed a month. But I can empathize, though I did put mad hours into The Secret World.
TO be honest, I think these opposing kind of views will always exist.
Originally posted by Cephus404 The entire concept is absurd, Borderlands 2 isn't a single-player game the way they're using it, you cannot buy a drop from someone else in a single-player game because, by definition, there's no one else to buy it from. Borderlands 2 is a multi-player game with a single-player campaign attached.
This is true, but we the lines between single and multiplayer have been getting blurred for years, we already can see each others achievements. How long before you can sell something to another Steam or Origin user? The thrust of the gaming industry is to create a gaming market, across games, across platforms. F2P has heralded this concept in MMO's, the cash shop has become accepted, the in game dlc shop for single player games is accepted.
What we are seeing is the ushering in of a totally new gaming ethos, one where money rules. And this is only just getting started, what we are seeing today is the tip of the iceberg.
If I, as a single-player gamer, never see another player-controlled character or have any access to any other-player generated content, then I cannot buy anything from anyone else because I never see it. That's what a single-player game is, by definition. One person, no one else.
The problem is, money has always ruled, they're just finding new and creative ways to extract it from you. Personally, I don't play that way and never will. I never buy anything from stores, I never pay anything for anything, outside of an initial purchase. Those companies that make it difficult to have fun without the constant use of my credit card will find themselves cut off from my initial purchase completely.
On the other hand, when it becomes P2W then we have a problem. I just don't think you should be able to pay for power. I am all about subscribers getting bonuses and such; they deserve it for paying a sub. But a cash shop should not be filled with a bunch of items just to make things super easy for those with cash to burn.
There is no P2W in pve games.
I have been playing Marvel Heroes. Most of the cashshop stuff is new heroes and costumes, and you don't need any of those to get through the game. True that you can also buy xp potions, but how fast others go through content has zero impact on my game.
Heck, you can even earn heroes. So i see that as a perfect F2P (with respect to the business model, not the game itself, the game can be improved) set up.
Very few f2p games have an item mall setup that does not cause disadvantage in aspects that the game considers important.
League of Legends was balancing on the edge for quite some time, but now when the game has been out for so long, the "champion"-buying and "runes"-buying aspect is such a small factor among the players who do not already own what they want. Furthermore vanity was never even remotely a focus of League of Legends, so selling vanity on the item mall is completely okay.
Path of Exile is a good example since vanity is not remotely a focus in Path of Exile, the power of your character is. They don't sell any direct or indirect power enhacing items such as exp boosters. The only hickup would have been the extra stash space you can buy, but since they allow multiclient and were genereous with character slots, it is a minimal issue.
Guild Wars 2 is a b2p case where the item mall has not been implemented as good as the two other cases I mentioned. The game puts quite a big focus on vanity unlike Path of Exile and League of Legends; this is evident by the existance of "Legendary" tier which is basically a vanity version of the "Ascended" tier. That's why the direct and indirect "vanity"-buying is far more harmful in GW2 than it is in PoE and LoL.
Your opening statement seems to imply disagreement with what I've said, but your examples seem to support that there are indeed games with Lateral Purchases as a model.
In fact there are many more than just those examples (TF2, DOTA2, Smite, Tribes, Hero Academy, etc) of games which use Lateral Purchases -- which don't compromise gameplay quality, refusing to sell vertical power increases, and only selling lateral playstyle or content unlocks.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I prefer money having no influence over my play experience. I have not bought many single player games that have come out recently because of this. If these games are successful then great, good for them, but my money will go elsewhere.
I cannot stand being gated from something because of money. I hate games that want to show a leaderboard but they have a cash shop that can boost you much higher.
Originally posted by Cephus404 The entire concept is absurd, Borderlands 2 isn't a single-player game the way they're using it, you cannot buy a drop from someone else in a single-player game because, by definition, there's no one else to buy it from. Borderlands 2 is a multi-player game with a single-player campaign attached.
This is true, but we the lines between single and multiplayer have been getting blurred for years, we already can see each others achievements. How long before you can sell something to another Steam or Origin user? The thrust of the gaming industry is to create a gaming market, across games, across platforms. F2P has heralded this concept in MMO's, the cash shop has become accepted, the in game dlc shop for single player games is accepted.
What we are seeing is the ushering in of a totally new gaming ethos, one where money rules. And this is only just getting started, what we are seeing today is the tip of the iceberg.
If I, as a single-player gamer, never see another player-controlled character or have any access to any other-player generated content, then I cannot buy anything from anyone else because I never see it. That's what a single-player game is, by definition. One person, no one else.
The problem is, money has always ruled, they're just finding new and creative ways to extract it from you. Personally, I don't play that way and never will. I never buy anything from stores, I never pay anything for anything, outside of an initial purchase. Those companies that make it difficult to have fun without the constant use of my credit card will find themselves cut off from my initial purchase completely.
In the next few years we will all have to make a decision about whether we going to play "single player" games that use a cash shop that sells dlc after launch. Already nearly every single player game on Steam and Origin has dlc, how long before that content becomes needed rather than a preference? This cash shop monetisation of your gameplay is going to become ubiquitous, you will not be able to avoid it, perhaps indie gaming will be behind the curve, but none of the big players will let themselves be left behind. Like you I will preferentially select those games that do not make you require to pay after launch. But I do not feel there will be enough of us who will, the tide of new players and players from new markets will wash those principles of gaming away.
"That is the motive of DLC/Microtransactions, they take stuff that would otherwise be included IN the game itself, that you could actually PLAY for and ask for your credit card instead."
This has been the whole point of the changes we have seen. The introduction of the cash shop into MMO's, the creation of an online shop like Steam that integrates the shop with the games on your PC, the gradual shift to all updates being done by the online shop's client, the integration of a friends social network, bringing in modding to the store.
The aim is to have it all under one roof, the online shops roof and slowly ensuring there will be no gaming outside of that shop's market. Currently we have a handful of such online stores competing for first place and different platforms make it hard for one online shop to suit all. But the monetisation will just keep marching on, the sky is the limit as far as that's concerned.
In the next few years we will all have to make a decision about whether we going to play "single player" games that use a cash shop that sells dlc after launch. Already nearly every single player game on Steam and Origin has dlc, how long before that content becomes needed rather than a preference? This cash shop monetisation of your gameplay is going to become ubiquitous, you will not be able to avoid it, perhaps indie gaming will be behind the curve, but none of the big players will let themselves be left behind. Like you I will preferentially select those games that do not make you require to pay after launch. But I do not feel there will be enough of us who will, the tide of new players and players from new markets will wash those principles of gaming away.
You are actually making good points. We may disagree because we have different preferences, but often i do appreciate your reasoning and insight.
Now .. back to the discussion.
F2P MMOs have not been successful in making the "paid stuff" needed rather than a preference (evidence ... a majority of players do not pay and consume just the free content). I think it is pretty hard to make DLC "needed". Players can easily jump to games they can enjoy with DLCs or cashshop purchases.
I also think you need to separate out content DLC (like an expansion with extra story and levels) from gameplay DLC (like a weapon pack). The former is never needed.
I do agree that there are not enough people who will boycott the market because of DLC and other monetarizing methods. It is very simple. If there is good value for fun, why should i refuse it?
Lastly, there is a positive effect, like f2p MMOs (or freemium mobile games). Because different players have different levels of willingness to pay, you can afford to make the entry level of a game free, or very low price. So many who don't pay will benefit from free entertainment.
Comments
There is a huge difference between a PvP F2P game, and a PvE one. PvE you can always play at your own pace, and there is no "falling behind".
And i don't see players are tiring of F2P. In fact, F2P is gaining share on P2P. People like free games.
And what-gimmick? You can always have some free fun before hitting a pay wall, and quit and move on to the next game. I play PoE, Marvel Heroes, STO and a bunch of F2P games. I never paid a cent, and always have fun (otherwise, why would i even spend a second?). It works for me.
Of course. The devs are trying new things. If these are successful, they will make more, just like MOBAs.
Personally i don't play or like MOBAs (although my sons like LoL). You don't see me ignoring their successes just because i don't like them.
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
The battle in the market place is already over. Most games will be F2P.
Sure, some people will keep ranting. However, if you take any issue, you will find someone who will rant till the end of time.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
This is true, but we the lines between single and multiplayer have been getting blurred for years, we already can see each others achievements. How long before you can sell something to another Steam or Origin user? The thrust of the gaming industry is to create a gaming market, across games, across platforms. F2P has heralded this concept in MMO's, the cash shop has become accepted, the in game dlc shop for single player games is accepted.
What we are seeing is the ushering in of a totally new gaming ethos, one where money rules. And this is only just getting started, what we are seeing today is the tip of the iceberg.
IGN phrased the question very poorly:
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
Why would a smart consumer opt to pay more to unlock all the options in a game than what would be available to them at a standard price otherwise?
That is the motive of DLC/Microtransactions, they take stuff that would otherwise be included IN the game itself, that you could actually PLAY for and ask for your credit card instead.
http://xivpads.com/?1595680
http://guildwork.com/users/murugan
Imagine all the games you've ever purchased where you felt like you didn't get your money's worth.
Now imagine you didn't spend money on trying those games, because they were free to play.
Now as a consumer it's up to you whether to take that money (which might be quite a substantial amount) and spend it on other free to play games, or simply to play the games you enjoy for free too. Keeping in mind that with a Lateral Purchase system you'll never be disadvantaged by not paying -- you simply get to enjoy the game for free.
Why wouldn't a smart consumer want that? It's win/win for both developers and players alike when it's a lateral purchase setup.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I don't think it is over, in the long run I'm not convinced the model is sustainable. F2P relies on the whales, the small minority of players who drop a lot of money on a game whilst the majority play for free or contribute only a little.
If we add in single player AAA titles going down that route to the increasing amount of MMOs then it's easy to envision a time when there's simply far too few whales for too many games. When that happens, the bubble bursts.
As to the original premise of the thread, BL2 is a bad example to use imo. BL2 have taken the mickey with the DLC, I almost bought it in a recent Steam sale but the list of 30+ DLC put me off. I didn't want to trawl through trying to find out which DLC actually adds substantial content as opposed to fluff.
DLC done right isn't a bad thing, one thing I love about Bethesda is generally they produce good DLC and, where they add minor things like weapon packs, as they did for Dishonered and FO:NV, it's clear and straight-forward and done as a small bundle.
Think about it, nobody wants to die, there's rules to this game son, I'm justified.
Very few f2p games have an item mall setup that does not cause disadvantage in aspects that the game considers important.
League of Legends was balancing on the edge for quite some time, but now when the game has been out for so long, the "champion"-buying and "runes"-buying aspect is such a small factor among the players who do not already own what they want. Furthermore vanity was never even remotely a focus of League of Legends, so selling vanity on the item mall is completely okay.
Path of Exile is a good example since vanity is not remotely a focus in Path of Exile, the power of your character is. They don't sell any direct or indirect power enhacing items such as exp boosters. The only hickup would have been the extra stash space you can buy, but since they allow multiclient and were genereous with character slots, it is a minimal issue.
Guild Wars 2 is a b2p case where the item mall has not been implemented as good as the two other cases I mentioned. The game puts quite a big focus on vanity unlike Path of Exile and League of Legends; this is evident by the existance of "Legendary" tier which is basically a vanity version of the "Ascended" tier. That's why the direct and indirect "vanity"-buying is far more harmful in GW2 than it is in PoE and LoL.
I don't know. I am torn. On one hand, I like that I can try out games. My main issue with MMO games is subscribing. Not the money issue, just that I start to feel obligated to play the game all the time if I am paying money to play it every month. I love video games too much to dedicate all of my time to just one game. F2P takes that sense of obligation away and I end up playing a crap load anyway.
And I like certain systems. I like that Aion doesn't really sell much in their cash shop. I like how The Secret World does it also.
On the other hand, when it becomes P2W then we have a problem. I just don't think you should be able to pay for power. I am all about subscribers getting bonuses and such; they deserve it for paying a sub. But a cash shop should not be filled with a bunch of items just to make things super easy for those with cash to burn.
And this is the big divide with P2P and F2P players. I would venture to assume you like to dabble at multiple games and not focus on one. It's a very valid gaming style and that type of gaming suits F2P.
I on the other hand like to commit to one MMO and want to be engrossed by it. That makes me the perfect candidate for P2P. I hate being reminded every time I log in that in order for me to access all the content and to be able to acquire any item (vanity or not), I have to pay. I'd rather toss my $15/month and know everything is available to me if I commit my time and effort.
It is over for the next year or so. Entertainment changes so fast that no one can project 5 years out anyway. 5 year ago, no one can predict MOBA, games like WOT will be beating MMOs in terms of popularity.
Indeed. I tend to schedule out what I play in a week since I am usually sharing time between a few games at a time.
I understand your PoV as well. Some people get into one game and focus. I can do that as there are plenty of games that pull me in. Heck, I have spent plenty of money on The Secret World on the issues. Even subbed a month. But I can empathize, though I did put mad hours into The Secret World.
TO be honest, I think these opposing kind of views will always exist.
If I, as a single-player gamer, never see another player-controlled character or have any access to any other-player generated content, then I cannot buy anything from anyone else because I never see it. That's what a single-player game is, by definition. One person, no one else.
The problem is, money has always ruled, they're just finding new and creative ways to extract it from you. Personally, I don't play that way and never will. I never buy anything from stores, I never pay anything for anything, outside of an initial purchase. Those companies that make it difficult to have fun without the constant use of my credit card will find themselves cut off from my initial purchase completely.
Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
Now Playing: None
Hope: None
There is no P2W in pve games.
I have been playing Marvel Heroes. Most of the cashshop stuff is new heroes and costumes, and you don't need any of those to get through the game. True that you can also buy xp potions, but how fast others go through content has zero impact on my game.
Heck, you can even earn heroes. So i see that as a perfect F2P (with respect to the business model, not the game itself, the game can be improved) set up.
Your opening statement seems to imply disagreement with what I've said, but your examples seem to support that there are indeed games with Lateral Purchases as a model.
In fact there are many more than just those examples (TF2, DOTA2, Smite, Tribes, Hero Academy, etc) of games which use Lateral Purchases -- which don't compromise gameplay quality, refusing to sell vertical power increases, and only selling lateral playstyle or content unlocks.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I prefer money having no influence over my play experience. I have not bought many single player games that have come out recently because of this. If these games are successful then great, good for them, but my money will go elsewhere.
I cannot stand being gated from something because of money. I hate games that want to show a leaderboard but they have a cash shop that can boost you much higher.
Its sad.
Then you must love F2P because those are the only games where some content is not gated by money.
In any box or sub games, you are obviously gated by the box price or the sub-fee.
And i guess you never buy expansions here.
Nice strawman.
I just really dislike the psycological warfare games are becoming.
Final Fantasy 7 released on steam a few weeks ago. It offered health and mana refills and gil in a cash shop.
Games designed for gameplay are dying out and its sad. Game makers are trying to make more money rather than put out better products.
It is your own logic.
Don't tell me you don't know that a box sale is gated by $60, and a sub is gated by $15 a month, and an expansion is gated by $40.
All gated "because of money", in your own words.
So what F2P games you going to enjoy next?
In the next few years we will all have to make a decision about whether we going to play "single player" games that use a cash shop that sells dlc after launch. Already nearly every single player game on Steam and Origin has dlc, how long before that content becomes needed rather than a preference? This cash shop monetisation of your gameplay is going to become ubiquitous, you will not be able to avoid it, perhaps indie gaming will be behind the curve, but none of the big players will let themselves be left behind. Like you I will preferentially select those games that do not make you require to pay after launch. But I do not feel there will be enough of us who will, the tide of new players and players from new markets will wash those principles of gaming away.
"That is the motive of DLC/Microtransactions, they take stuff that would otherwise be included IN the game itself, that you could actually PLAY for and ask for your credit card instead."
This has been the whole point of the changes we have seen. The introduction of the cash shop into MMO's, the creation of an online shop like Steam that integrates the shop with the games on your PC, the gradual shift to all updates being done by the online shop's client, the integration of a friends social network, bringing in modding to the store.
The aim is to have it all under one roof, the online shops roof and slowly ensuring there will be no gaming outside of that shop's market. Currently we have a handful of such online stores competing for first place and different platforms make it hard for one online shop to suit all. But the monetisation will just keep marching on, the sky is the limit as far as that's concerned.
You are actually making good points. We may disagree because we have different preferences, but often i do appreciate your reasoning and insight.
Now .. back to the discussion.
F2P MMOs have not been successful in making the "paid stuff" needed rather than a preference (evidence ... a majority of players do not pay and consume just the free content). I think it is pretty hard to make DLC "needed". Players can easily jump to games they can enjoy with DLCs or cashshop purchases.
I also think you need to separate out content DLC (like an expansion with extra story and levels) from gameplay DLC (like a weapon pack). The former is never needed.
I do agree that there are not enough people who will boycott the market because of DLC and other monetarizing methods. It is very simple. If there is good value for fun, why should i refuse it?
Lastly, there is a positive effect, like f2p MMOs (or freemium mobile games). Because different players have different levels of willingness to pay, you can afford to make the entry level of a game free, or very low price. So many who don't pay will benefit from free entertainment.