|
| Thread: Free 2 Play |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
posted September 01, 2012 03:27 AM |
|
|
Free 2 Play
I'm seeing a lot more games based on this kind of business model. What do you guys think of it? Is this the future of gaming?
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 03:34 AM |
|
|
|
Not really, coz it has nothing to do with gaming but instead with marketing (it has been around for a few years), what seems free isn't always so....
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 03:54 AM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 03:55, 01 Sep 2012.
|
|
carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 12:39 PM |
|
|
It depends, if the F2P game is good, the company might lose out on making it f2p; some fix this by adding cheap dlc to the game.
But in general, it's a good way to get a game-studio known, and increases the chances of people seeing their other games.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 02:44 PM |
|
|
F2P games are indeed very good, for gamers and developers alike. The steady income (from 'bonus' mini content) and the constant updates keep the game alive, and not abandoned soon after production, save for a few patches and DLC.
Plus the F2p aspect of the game makes gamers 'give it a try' and get them hooked on it, then they start spending to improve their gaming experience.
Over the years I spent £150 on a F2P game, LoL to be precise (it allows you to check your spending) been playing it since the beta, and fun, but if I started out and was asked to give up even £10 I'd refuse. So yes it's a very good long term profitable set-up. Makes developers work for their money, requires constant work and employment, and not a one time thing, waiting for a big 'payoff'.
I believe F2P gaming will offer stability of all things.
Though my concern is that F2P games don't come close to some games quality and immersiveness wise, plus your spending can mount up on you. Have a friend who has this attitude toward his PS3 and LoL, "It's only £3". Though it can't be that bad if you've invested so much time in it (3-4 years now I think) While I play most of my current games (save the obvious ones like TW and Skyrim) for a week tops. (to complete or get the 'kick' I needed, then it goes away to gather some dust)
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 03:44 PM |
|
|
A lot of people think "Free 2 Play" should actually be "Pay 2 Win". Many F2P games are indeed free, but then they nickel and dime you to death once you download the game. Without paying anything you can technically play, but to be competitive (get better guns, abilities, whatever) you have to pay real cash. In the end, you might spend more money than you would for a regular game.
My problem with F2P is the same one I have with MMO and DLC. I would rather pay one lump sum for a game and get every feature available. I don't like this increasing tendency of gaming companies to try to turn my game into a constant cash source.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 03:55 PM |
|
|
Some games use that method, and it is indeed, frustrating, but then there's other games, like LoL, since it's a good example, where the only things you can pay for is looks. Game experience is unchanged, and there's no way to buy power. Other games like Tribes: Ascend and TF2 use this method as well, so far I've heard no complaints about it.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
gnollking
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 04:03 PM |
|
|
Yes, in TF2 you can pay for items, but they work really hard on making every weapon as balanced as possible. Like in LoL, everything people buy is usually just for the looks. There is even no need to pay for anything in the game, since you can get any item you wish by trading and random drops. You get the same items you can buy with real money for free by these random drops, that have a limit per week (7-9) to get. No need to pay anything.
The system works, since there are many (IMO, dumb) people who actually buy items, weapons or hats, doesn't matter, from the in-game store.
TF2 isn't Pay-to-win, like some people say, since every weapon has it's own advantages & disadvantages. For a 20% bonus damage, you'll get, for an example, a -20% ammo or movement or whatever.
____________
|
|
EvilLoynis
Famous Hero
The Dark Shadow
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 08:00 PM |
|
|
I have to agree with Cor that I prefer to buy a game for a lump sum rather than paying lesser amounts every month I play it.
This was the main reason I didn't play WoW (World of Warcraft) for the longest damn time and then only the free trial. The problem with WoW was that they made you actually buy the discs and box from the store but all that got you was the privilege of installing the game so that you could spend more money to actually play it. They could have smoothed this over with me by making a single player offline version of it kind of like Diablo2.
Actually the only MMORPG that I have actually spent money on is Ragnorok Online. I really prefer the TBS genre though which ofc is why I post on the Heroes forums.
____________
"I am both selfish and instictive. I value nature and the world around me as means to an end as well as an end in itself; at best I ... too long to display...
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 08:58 PM |
|
|
I don't think free to play (f2p) games can all be put under the same roof.
Hopefully this development means there'll be no need for copy right protection anymore. The good games will be those were you get the content for free and then can pay extra for minor, non-essentiel, stuff or donate, if you decide to. The same game will keep on developing, in stead of getting "finished" followed by the developers moves to their next project, abbandoning the game they just sold.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 11:36 PM |
|
Edited by carcity at 23:37, 01 Sep 2012.
|
You know, developing a game costs money, which is why there are so few Free to Play games that people know of. And the ones who are are either side-projects from major companies or turned Free to Play after they were already successful. But constantly nurturing a game that gives no profit is not something that can be done in the long run, which is the reason most Free to play have an alternative way of making money.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 11:44 PM |
|
|
True, if you want to build the graphics and game world of what we see in bestsellers. But former bestsellers, such as pac-man, tetris, minesweeper, heck even mario, can now be made by anybody who look into it, using very few tools and very little time.
It doesn't mean these games are worthless today, I still play pac-man from time to time. It means that everyone has a chance of creating stuff, the way they would like it.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 11:52 PM |
|
|
Even such a simple game as PacMan requires a lot of time to make. Everything has to be planned and done. For example, Fez, a small platformer game, only different from other 2D platformers was that you could switch to 3D from time to time, sort of like Paper Mario, took 5 years to develop before it could be released.
Huge games like WoW or Zelda have fancier graphics than say, Super Meat Boy, yes. But both of them still take about equally long to develop, as the people working on Zelda are many more and have much more resources.
A game is not something that can be thrown together in an afternoon. In classes, we've had projects, where groups of up to ten people work on a game as tasks. And we can spend months on something, and we wouldn't get far enough on it to release an Alpha version.
Game Development take a lot more effort and time than expected. What money are the developers to use during that time or after, if they can't make any money from their game?
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 01, 2012 11:59 PM |
|
|
It really depends on what ressources you've available. Tetris and Minesweeper can be made within a days time. I don't know about mario or pac-man, because I haven't tried making those games, but I know someone who's made pac-man, and he told me it was easy and went rather quick.
The thing is, back in those days, a game like Mario was something a big gaming company like Nintendo would release as their major release. Now there exists a huge number of mario clones, made by single persons. It doesn't matter how long it took them, the point is, something like that would have taken years back in the 80's and 90's. Today it can be done on a time scale of days to months, depending on the ressources you've.
With a good game creator designed specifically for mario, it could probably be done in a few hours.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted September 02, 2012 12:06 AM |
|
|
Yes, but ask yourself, if a game like pacman came out today, would you buy it? There are a lot of games like pacman or mario, equally simple, but, as you said, took a lot less time to develop.
Just about everyone of them can be found on sites like NewGrounds, where they're free. Would you play them there? Probably. Would you buy one of them should it have been released in stores? Most likely not.
While games today are more complex, and games like pacman can be easily made, in order for a game to be successful and actually profitable, it needs to be unique; which isn't something that you can just throw together in an afternoon.
I know from personal experience that if I want something unique, I can spend weeks or even months just planning it.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 02, 2012 12:31 AM |
|
|
Games like pac-man aren't worthless today. Pac-man wasn't a success because it could be sold to the home computer. There was no home computer. It was played in the arcades were simple games were preferable.
I'm not talking about the ability to sell games. I'm talking about the ability to make games which are entertaining to play.
Games similar to pac-man took years to develop back then, for a gaming company. The pac-man clone I like to play, took 3 years for its designer and his team to develop, back around the late 1980's. Today an amateur could do it in much less time.
You're right the planning is a big part of it, but I'm not really talking about the planning of the game. I'm talking about the part where you know what you want and have some good game creator kits, so you can make a game of a specific time much easier and elegant than you could make a map for heroes.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted September 02, 2012 12:47 AM |
|
|
Wrong. Pacman wasn't a success because it was a simple game. It was a simple game because there was no option. You went to the Arcade. You could play Pacman or Asteroids, that was it.
Today there are thousands of games, and that much harder to get noticed. There are literally hundreds of games more entertaining and enjoyable than the big sellers like Battlefield or CoD; but no one buys them because no one knows they exist. Marketing is also something that costs, and something that is often required to get known.
Making a game still means nothing if you lack the proper funding. The Indie games that are known today were marketed, Super Meat Boy and Braid got the front page in Xbox marketplace when they were released cause they were funded by Microsoft.
The one game I can think of that got big without marketing was Minecraft, but that was only because it was so radically different, and it still took well over a year before people really started noticing it. And Notch struggled badly during that year.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted September 02, 2012 01:01 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Wrong. Pacman wasn't a success because it was a simple game.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the premise under which pac-man was a success required it to be a simple game. Not that any simple game would get this success, nor that it was a success solely because it was a simple game.
If you had diablo 2 in the arcade, it wouldn't have been a success. It's build for the home computer, while pac-man is build for the arcade.
It's a really important difference in this matter.
But I'm still not talking about the success of selling games, so I don't know why I'm even responding to this, to be honest.
Quote:
Today there are thousands of games, and that much harder to get noticed. There are literally hundreds of games more entertaining and enjoyable than the big sellers like Battlefield or CoD; but no one buys them because no one knows they exist. Marketing is also something that costs, and something that is often required to get known.
Like I said, I'm not talking about the success in selling games, on a highly competitive market. Here's a quote from the post you're responding to:
"I'm not talking about the ability to sell games. I'm talking about the ability to make games which are entertaining to play."
Going back to my initial post, I see my entire point is that anyone today can make an entertaining games of the same level of bestsellers from the 70's and 80's, and doing so even faster than the big gaming companies could back then. I don't know how you managed to get it be something about the ability to sell games, or have other people play your games.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
carcity
Supreme Hero
Blind Sage
|
|
posted September 02, 2012 01:45 AM |
|
|
Yes, you're right in that. But this thread, and my point, is about the validity of Free to play games as a thing. And my point is that they can be, but if we want Free to Play games from smaller/indie companies, there's gonna be some type of alternate way for them to profit from the game; having the game being entertaining won't be enough.
____________
Why can't you save anybody?
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted September 02, 2012 01:53 AM |
|
|
Free to play is good, as long as all content related to gameplay is available without cash (aesthetics is exempt from this rule.)
EDIT: IMHO, aesthetics should be available too, it should just be harder to obtain aesthetic features, maybe even unreasonably so. 
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
| |
|
|
