The sad future of F2P

FomaldehydeJim

I was playing a mobile game on the bus the other day; it was one of many involving linking chains of jewels together in a grid. I am sure you are all familiar with these games but I will run through the details anyway: -

• There are several largely homogeneous levels spanning several "worlds".  

• In each level you have a certain number of turns to clear X number of X type of jewel, or vegetable, or ice block, or some other widgit. You do this by moving a jewel to an adjacent square within a grid and thus making a chain of three or more jewels of the same kind, which then vanish and add to your score.  

• If you fail to clear X number of jewels within X number of turns you lose a life.

• You have a finite number of lives, usually five, and when they are all gone, new lives are locked behind either a time wall or a pay wall.    

• There are times when a level loads and you can immediately see by the configuration of jewels that the level is impossible and a life is forfeit regardless of what you do.  

Now, I have understood the psychology behind these games and their monetary success for some time and it is not far removed from the psychology behind gambling addiction, so nothing that follows came as a shock to me. The game threw up several impossible starting configurations on the same level and I ran out of lives. I was then given a timer of an hour or so until the next life became available, or the opportunity to buy more lives for cash. I took the third option and uninstalled the game.  

 

Basically these games rely entirely upon player frustration rather than player enjoyment to create revenue, and that frustration is cultivated in the most obnoxious and barefaced manner possible.  

 

The reason that I raise this is because cash shops in many mmos now also seem to rely upon player frustration rather than enjoyment to create revenue. The obvious example is gambling boxes, which have now appeared in many games, with Neverwinter going so far as to announce when another player receives a flashy item so as to add envy into the mix of negative emotions they can foster in their playerbase.

 

There are fail states on upgrading armour that can be overcome with real life cash. There are flashy items that can be bought for real life cash so as to separate out the haves from the have-nots; it seems that now even our mmos have a class system so everyone can aspire to move up a level and spend their hard earned cash doing so.    

 

With time locks now introduced on quests, aptly named daily quests, one wonders when a pay wall will be introduced as an alternative.

 

Conclusion  

 

The current trend in mmos seems to be to foster negative emotions, to rely on envy and frustration to earn revenue, rather than to rely upon positive emotions, such as simple, old-fashioned enjoyment. I hope that it turns out to be a flash in the pan that gutters under player rejection, but alas I think it is set to continue for the foreseeable future. 

 

Please share your thoughts.

 

Edited to add: At this point I really should restate what I thought was clear in the OP. This was not intended as an anti-F2P thread, it was intended as anti the specific methods of monetisation that many F2P games seem to be increasingly utilising. There are many F2P games that I feel have good monetisation models. There are others that have gambling boxes; fail states on armour upgrades; pay walls; world-wide announcements when someone wins a shiny; nickel and diming;  fake prices in a fake store which do not marry up with the real world price of fake currency bundles, thus compelling people to buy more than they need and then buy yet more to supplement the left over fake coins they have.  

 

These are the types of monetisation that prey on frustration rather than fun. But I am fairly sure that was all clear in the OP (alas most people here don't read them, preferring to knee-jerk on the basis of a title or "misunderstand" posts to suit their own viewpoint).  

Charlie.Cheswick

And that's the incredible truth. Testify!

Axehilt

Bad games get made regardless of business model.  Early MMORPGs were the first to introduce excessive tedium, so they had their own brand of badness.

If you're doing mobile puzzle games, personally I'd go with Marvel Puzzle Quest or Gems of War. Neither are particularly pinchy in terms of free play, and both add a fun tactical layer on top of typical match-3 gameplay, as well as longer term progression with some light strategy elements.

Nilden

In general I don't even care. I just won't play them. Grats F2P the only 2 I have supported are Path of Exile and Marvel Heroes with $20 bucks each just to get bank/stash space and I felt I wanted to pay for the games because of my enjoyment with them but at the same time was disappointed by having to buy bank space...

Loke666

Hmm, you might have a point there. But frustrating the players is a risk, they might sod the game and play monopoly or D&D instead.

I can't say I have fun all the time I play MMOs, sometimes I grind gold or XP but if the fun level hits below 50% I play something else. And if too many are too boring I either play a turned based strategy game (love the AoW, CIV and HoM&M series) or just stay the #¤%& away from my computer until something actually good comes out.

If I want to gamble away money there are more fun ways to do that then in an itemshop or to unlock stuff. I could invite some buddies for a poker night with some beer and whiskey instead, and maybe a Cuban cigarr or 2.

I think between F2P games that only want to sell you stuff all the time and P2P games who tries to keep you playing with timesinks we are missing more and more out on the fun stuff.

Daily quests ain't fun and neither is fighting a hoard of worthless moblins. Fun is when the game challenges me, twhen I explore new places and civilizations... To boldly go... You get the point.

On the plus side does this mean that when someone actually makes a really fun MMO again (there are a few that is acceotable right now but not really fun) they wont have a shortage of players.

Po_gg

Originally posted by FomaldehydeJim

The obvious example is gambling boxes, which have now appeared in many games, with Neverwinter going so far as to announce when another player receives a flashy item so as to add envy into the mix of negative emotions they can foster in their playerbase.

Share your thoughts... it was chewed to the bone already numerous times over the years

Just a fix to the part above, it's not a Neverwinter issue, both the boxes and the announcement are "here" since cheap SK grinders exist... and they are present in the other PWE games too, the first Cryptic one they added the boxes was STO, back in 201...1 I think? Not sure, was long time ago.

Missed the worst part of it btw, it's not the world announcement of box opening, it's the fact that you can't switch it off

AAAMEOW

The people I talked to who actually spend a lot of money on the gamble box says they like gambling.

The truth is, if you don't want to spend money, don't.  Besides, most of those games allow you to buy items in those gamble box from other gamblers.  

goboygo

It seems most of the people responding to this post have missed the OP's point and have instead countered with justifications or character flaws as reasons why cash shops and pay walls make sense in computer games.  Which is based only on what they have been exposed to and have learned to accept.

Which is the reason why they clearly exist.  The human condition is an amazing adaptable thing.  If you immerse yourself in anything long enough it will seem normal, anything at all imaginable.

Gamer54321

I have a better name for F2P games:

PAY-AND-PAY (PAP games)

Loktofeit

Originally posted by goboygo

It seems most of the people responding to this post have missed the OP's point and have instead countered with justifications or character flaws as reasons why cash shops and pay walls make sense in computer games. 

I think we're reading two different threads. I didn't get that impression at all from their posts. 

 

"Conclusion  

The current trend in mmos seems to be to foster negative emotions, to rely on envy and frustration to earn revenue, rather than to rely upon positive emotions, such as simple, old-fashioned enjoyment. I hope that it turns out to be a flash in the pan that gutters under player rejection, but alas I think it is set to continue for the foreseeable future. 

Please share your thoughts."

 

Far from it. They cater to competition, completionists, achievers, and people who are driven by that next ding. More importantly, they realize people spend if they are having fun, and don't spend if they aren't. Negative emotion is the opposite of what they want, which is why some games (ex: Candy Crush Saga) will actually toss you a bone when you're stuck on a level for too long or answer their Fun-o-meter with a low rating on a board you are frustrated with.  While there are some that will spend out of envy or frustration, that's rarely a motivator. The desire to be envied and the appeal of convenience and  of faster gains are far more enticing and lean toward the positive end of the scale. 

• "I'm not enjoying this. Maybe if I spend more, i will." Not really how it works. There are some that might spend money in that scenario, but if they aren't having fun, playing while glittered or playing faster isn't going to keep them. That person moves on. 
• "I'm enjoying this. What can I get to do better or have even more fun?" People spend. An enthusiast actively looks for ways to get more engaged in their hobbies and get more out of their leisure entertainment. 

killion81

Originally posted by AAAMEOW

The people I talked to who actually spend a lot of money on the gamble box says they like gambling.

The truth is, if you don't want to spend money, don't.  Besides, most of those games allow you to buy items in those gamble box from other gamblers.  

 

Most heroin addicts will tell you they really like heroin too.

SpottyGekko

F2P is here to stay, there's no doubt about that.

 

It will be expanded and evolved, but it's currently the most effective way for companies to make money on their games, because it places no "artificial" cap on player spending.

 

It works beautifully for both parties:

• Companies can devise an almost unlimited number of ways to sell content to players.
• Players can invent an almost unlimited amount of justifications to pay for that content.

 

It's a win-win situation the likes of which has never been seen before !

Superman0X

Originally posted by FomaldehydeJim

 

Conclusion  

 

The current trend in mmos seems to be to foster negative emotions, to rely on envy and frustration to earn revenue, rather than to rely upon positive emotions, such as simple, old-fashioned enjoyment. I hope that it turns out to be a flash in the pan that gutters under player rejection, but alas I think it is set to continue for the foreseeable future. 

 

Please share your thoughts.

I dont see how anything you presented relates to F2P, or MMO's. You basically stated that you found a single player mobile game you didnt like, and that was not worth paying for.

Axehilt

Originally posted by Gamer54321

I have a better name for F2P games:

PAY-AND-PAY (PAP games)

Well you're just making a joke of course, but in reality F2P games are very much Free To Play, and the only way you could legitimately improve on the name would be to incorporate With Optional Payments part (F2PWoP?)

moonbound

People are awakening up to dlc and free to play rip offs and finally making a stand, there is no point to video games anymore if you pay to unlock everything instead of earning them that completely looses its sense of progression and is no longer rewarding or fun thats just like entering all the cheats you could in the older days of gaming like god mode, yea its fun when your a kid but you realize one day whats the point in spending money on those games when you cannot even play it progress? Your bored within 10 min of playing.

Axehilt

Originally posted by moonbound
People are awakening up to dlc and free to play rip offs and finally making a stand, there is no point to video games anymore if you pay to unlock everything instead of earning them that completely looses its sense of progression and is no longer rewarding or fun thats just like entering all the cheats you could in the older days of gaming like god mode, yea its fun when your a kid but you realize one day whats the point in spending money on those games when you cannot even play it progress? Your bored within 10 min of playing.

Why not post about real life, instead of this strange convoluted fantasy you've created for yourself?

• The hard evidence shows that gamers aren't making a stand against F2P (though if your intent was to imply they're making a stand for F2P, you'd be right.)
• If you can name any games where you can "pay to unlock everything" then you'll ahve named a game where unlocking everything isn't the point of the game (like LoL where you can pay to unlock everything, but doing so is completely optional and doesn't harm the game's integrity.)  You can't name any good progression-focused game where you can pay to unlock all progression.

Real life has a lot of interesting nuance, so why post this fabricated nonsense?  Why not post true things about what actually happens?

Bitrip

F2P will stay because there are too many stupid people out there who expect gaming to be free. Until those people stop playing games, we will be impacted by their poor thought processes.

Flyte27

I don't believe there is an issue with making a game that is too difficult.  The problem lies with allow them to pay their way past the problem.  There really is no point to paying your way past something complex.  It doesn't gain you anything.  This seems similar to arcade games of the early years.  You had to put in more coins to play.  This went away when consoles started to release.  Now it's back with digital sales.  The up front cost is always better for the player IMO.  You might end up not liking the game, but you are never encouraged to spend in order to advance while playing the game.  You pay for the product itself instead of the ability to advance in the game.  This concept actually made some measure of sense in arcade systems due to no one owning their own device.  That is the only way they could make money out of it.  In this case it is simple a choice of the developer.  They don't have to choose this method to coerce money out of the player.

SpottyGekko

Originally posted by moonbound
...

...whats the point in spending money on those games when you cannot even play it progress? Your bored within 10 min of playing.

Many game companies have capitalised on this fact. They produce an endless stream of trash games with no sustainable game play, because they know they can keep selling "new" games to bored people every 10 minutes...

Phry

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

F2P is here to stay, there's no doubt about that.

 

It will be expanded and evolved, but it's currently the most effective way for companies to make money on their games, because it places no "artificial" cap on player spending.

 

It works beautifully for both parties:

• Companies can devise an almost unlimited number of ways to sell content to players.
• Players can invent an almost unlimited amount of justifications to pay for that content.

 

It's a win-win situation the likes of which has never been seen before !

If players are having fun in a game they are more likely to spend more, particularly if they are rewarded for doing so, which most F2P games do, the only ones to really complain about this factor, are usually the ones who are unwilling to pay a bit themselves, that players are sometimes rewarded quite strongly for their spending habits is just something those types of players will have to accept, in a F2P game, the bias will always be towards those who contribute.

Volgore

The OP will make Richard Aihoshi very very mad!

Flyte27

Originally posted by Phry

Originally posted by SpottyGekko

F2P is here to stay, there's no doubt about that.

 

It will be expanded and evolved, but it's currently the most effective way for companies to make money on their games, because it places no "artificial" cap on player spending.

 

It works beautifully for both parties:

• Companies can devise an almost unlimited number of ways to sell content to players.
• Players can invent an almost unlimited amount of justifications to pay for that content.

 

It's a win-win situation the likes of which has never been seen before !

If players are having fun in a game they are more likely to spend more, particularly if they are rewarded for doing so, which most F2P games do, the only ones to really complain about this factor, are usually the ones who are unwilling to pay a bit themselves, that players are sometimes rewarded quite strongly for their spending habits is just something those types of players will have to accept, in a F2P game, the bias will always be towards those who contribute.

I believe there are a lot of issues with this payment model. 

Generally the issue is if you have some measure of intelligence it is obvious they are trying to coerce money out of players by providing a free product and then constantly asking for more money.

A better model IMO is to just have an up front cost and then you own a copy of the game.  With this copy of the game you can play as much as you want without having to constantly provide a stream of income to a greedy developer.

The other issue is this type of payment scheme is not enjoyable when you are playing the game.  It's far to obvious that it's a money making play to keep you paying non stop IMO.

I'm sure developers of free to play games will argue they need more money, but I disagree.  They survived just fine in the past on one time payment models.  It is simple a matter of wanting more money.

The bigger issue though is people accept this payment model.  It is IMO worse then a subscription model (which IMO is also a money grab).  I wish people would stop paying for this type of model.  Obviously there are a lot of people who just don't understand this is a bad model for them.  They think they are actually using a better model since they get to try the game out first.  In reality games should provide a demo (and did in the past) which will allow you to decide if you want to (buy/own) it.  They should not give you a free trial, sell your information to advertisers, try to coerce you out of money via subscriptions/free to play, etc.

At this point I often think we would be better off without MMOs or tablet games.  The only games I still enjoy are the single players games you pay for up front.

Axehilt

Originally posted by Flyte27
I don't believe there is an issue with making a game that is too difficult.  The problem lies with allow them to pay their way past the problem.  There really is no point to paying your way past something complex.  It doesn't gain you anything.  This seems similar to arcade games of the early years.  You had to put in more coins to play.  This went away when consoles started to release.  Now it's back with digital sales.  The up front cost is always better for the player IMO.  You might end up not liking the game, but you are never encouraged to spend in order to advance while playing the game.  You pay for the product itself instead of the ability to advance in the game.  This concept actually made some measure of sense in arcade systems due to no one owning their own device.  That is the only way they could make money out of it.  In this case it is simple a choice of the developer.  They don't have to choose this method to coerce money out of the player.

Up-front costs are terrible for gamers. How many times have you spent $60 on a game you played less than an hour?  I've been the victim of bad B2P games countless times. But I've never spent a dime on a F2P game I didn't enjoy (because before spending you always get enough time to play them to know whether you like them.)

Meanwhile your big concern here seems to be games letting players pay their way past something difficult.  I'm sure if you believe this to be a widespread and real issue you can easily rattle off several games which actually do this.  Concrete evidence would help make your point better than vaguely demonizing the business model.

moonbound

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Flyte27
I don't believe there is an issue with making a game that is too difficult.  The problem lies with allow them to pay their way past the problem.  There really is no point to paying your way past something complex.  It doesn't gain you anything.  This seems similar to arcade games of the early years.  You had to put in more coins to play.  This went away when consoles started to release.  Now it's back with digital sales.  The up front cost is always better for the player IMO.  You might end up not liking the game, but you are never encouraged to spend in order to advance while playing the game.  You pay for the product itself instead of the ability to advance in the game.  This concept actually made some measure of sense in arcade systems due to no one owning their own device.  That is the only way they could make money out of it.  In this case it is simple a choice of the developer.  They don't have to choose this method to coerce money out of the player.

Up-front costs are terrible for gamers. How many times have you spent $60 on a game you played less than an hour?  I've been the victim of bad B2P games countless times. But I've never spent a dime on a F2P game I didn't enjoy (because before spending you always get enough time to play them to know whether you like them.)

Meanwhile your big concern here seems to be games letting players pay their way past something difficult.  I'm sure if you believe this to be a widespread and real issue you can easily rattle off several games which actually do this.  Concrete evidence would help make your point better than vaguely demonizing the business model.

I know its crazy and unheard of in your day and age but there was this amazing thing called free trials in mmorpgs where players could play 1 or 2 weeks and find out if they truly enjoyed the game and would even have discounts for buying the game through the free trial, like I said crazy!

VengeSunsoar

Most newer games don't offer free trials for several months.

The underlying point still stands, try before you buy is a great concept that benefits the consumer.

In a free to play game I get to try almost every single part before I plunk any money down. If the game isn't fun first, they don't make any money. In pay 2 play money is made from the expectations of the game before you actually play it.

That is why the model is really with subscription, get all those people at the rush, then go free to play later and stay high with the profits.

CrazKanuk

Originally posted by moonbound

Originally posted by Axehilt

Originally posted by Flyte27
I don't believe there is an issue with making a game that is too difficult.  The problem lies with allow them to pay their way past the problem.  There really is no point to paying your way past something complex.  It doesn't gain you anything.  This seems similar to arcade games of the early years.  You had to put in more coins to play.  This went away when consoles started to release.  Now it's back with digital sales.  The up front cost is always better for the player IMO.  You might end up not liking the game, but you are never encouraged to spend in order to advance while playing the game.  You pay for the product itself instead of the ability to advance in the game.  This concept actually made some measure of sense in arcade systems due to no one owning their own device.  That is the only way they could make money out of it.  In this case it is simple a choice of the developer.  They don't have to choose this method to coerce money out of the player.

Up-front costs are terrible for gamers. How many times have you spent $60 on a game you played less than an hour?  I've been the victim of bad B2P games countless times. But I've never spent a dime on a F2P game I didn't enjoy (because before spending you always get enough time to play them to know whether you like them.)

Meanwhile your big concern here seems to be games letting players pay their way past something difficult.  I'm sure if you believe this to be a widespread and real issue you can easily rattle off several games which actually do this.  Concrete evidence would help make your point better than vaguely demonizing the business model.

I know its crazy and unheard of in your day and age but there was this amazing thing called free trials in mmorpgs where players could play 1 or 2 weeks and find out if they truly enjoyed the game and would even have discounts for buying the game through the free trial, like I said crazy!

What do you need a free trial for? The whole diggity-damn game is free now Even WoW!!!! 

 

I agree that F2P is being blown up beyond logic and reason. I have 4 boys at home and they all play MMOs. The only thing that they've ever asked for is the Preferred Package ($4.99) in SWTOR so they could get the damn mount. Actually, my one son who is my uber-WoW player has spent over $100 in WoW (a sub game) on a character boost and a mount (nightmare warhorse or something). So as far as the MMORPG genre goes, I think that F2P really an issue and has the same pull as any other model. The difference is that you have a choice to pay. As far as cash shop, it'll be the same damn thing in any game of any model.