|The thread starter probably works for the OFT.|
This space left intentionally blank.
Pageof 3 First / Last
|The thread starter probably works for the OFT.|
This space left intentionally blank.
@meme I've played a fair number, and in general they are never as much fun as the games I've bought outright because the mechanics are driven towards payment. Even the good ones are spoiled by the mechanic.|
That I can recall of the top of my head in last year or so:
New Star Soccer (not actually free but same mechanic)
Jetpack something or other
CSR Racing (Probably the least irritating)
Tiny Planes (forget the name - a huge dull slog without purchase)
Plus obligatory Zynga crap.
Also to dismiss two points used to defend F2P games:|
1. It's what people want
Rubbish. Leading the market in a direction then claiming it's what people want is ludicrous.
2. It's opens up gaming to those with less money
Who then are spending more to have less fun on games botched deliberately to get you to spend money? Hardly democratising is it.
Also, these are the same publishers who are trying to ban used games, they hardly have the interests of the poor at heart.
I'm with meme on this. If you have to pay to get levels that annoying, but if you can still pay the core game (and can do so for free) then that a great. |
You could also take a look at it and say, "This game we free. If I'd bought it I would have spent £30, so i'll spend that on buying stuff." I bet there wouldn't be much of the game locked still after that, if it was ever really locked in the first place.
|High scores have become no longer a measure of ability but of how many in game 'credits' you're willing to throw at the thing. One of my pet hates. Played Triple Town and loved it until I saw how the microtransactions could impact on the scoreline.|
|Pay £1 to progress has no sense of achievement.|
|Well that's the issue, you're looking for achievement in an area which is just designed to offer you progress.|
RobTheBuilder wrote:rob that isn't how F2P models have to work. There's a difference between making someone pay to advance and giving someone the option if they can't complete a level.
And as I said, if you do need to pay the equivalent of the full price of the game to unlock everything, then what's the problem?
Edited by CosmicFuzz at 15:41:38 12-04-2013
|The people who hate F2P are also the people who want the whole game for free.|
Again, the mechanics for most of them are driven towards payment if you want to complete the game as quickly as possible. Which is kind of the key. If you're playing a city builder and a building will take two real-time hours to complete, or 50p to complete now, you can - and I know this is foreign to a lot of gamers - put down the game for a couple of hours (or even longer) and let it finish, then dip back in afterwards. That's model 1, which is basically all Farmville-esque games.|
Then there's model 2, which are games that are inherently uncompletable endless runners or puzzle highscore chasers, but rely on achievements or missions as a form of progress (Jetpack Joyride, Temple Run, Triple Town etc). With these, the only thing you can buy are powerups or skips. Nothing you can buy inherently changes the game you play. All buying stuff means is you complete the missions or earn the achievements faster - and I know this is again foreign to a lot of gamers - but you don't have to earn them all as quickly as humanly possible.
Then we have model 3, which are subscription MMO games that drop the subscription in favour of cash stores and auction houses and the like. Considering most MMOs (to the layman) are little more than repetitive grind-fests anyway, all that's really happened there is making the $15.99 a month optional depending on how involved you want to get.
Finally, model 4, things is like Real Racing (and presumably this Ridge Racer game), which is a standard game model of levels and progressions, only with the option to pay to advance faster up that progression. Once more, this only ultimately becomes a problem if progression and advancement is the be-all and end-all of games, rather than just having a couple of races and then leaving it for a while. If you endlessly play the same three races again and again and again in quick succession in order to progress, of course it's going to be a grindy slog. If you just drop in every once in a while for a quick burst, it's fine.
Yes, there are games that take the piss in all four models (especially in model 1, which are inherently aimed at children and this is where the primary problem is, and something that does need addressing), but these are easy to spot and easy to avoid as an adult consumer.
Also, the other key thing to note about the Ridge Racer thing is this isn't being done instead of a premium game. It's being done as well as a premium game. They're not shunning one market in favour for another, they're handling both. But yes, ultimately, they're going to head in favour of where the money is. That doesn't make things inherently "bad", just "not to your taste".
The only thing the freemium model is inherently against is the "must play this game to exhaustion then move onto the next ASAP" aesthetic. Which you could make the argument is just as commercially exploitative, just in a different, more subtle way - (channeling people to play and experience the game ASAP on launch where it's still 40 quid and they'll maximise revenue, rather than waiting a couple of months for it to be a fiver in a Steam sale or something - exploiting the fear of missing out).
|Someone's channelling Jin! I'll read that later|
1. Grinders - no fun to play and you are essentially grinding your way to achieve anything
2. Paying to skip isn't as bad, but still usually results in games custom designed to make you want to skip as the levelling up is so slow
3. At least there's a long term goal but still stacks gamers up by how much they can buy not how good they are.
4. Game structure destroyed to drag out as many payments as possible rather than reward on skill or effort.
Almost all of them take the piss, even the better designed ones are still botched up to make it more grinding to encourage payment.
It is good that RR won't lose the standard type of game, but the use of this type of game is still nothing to be celebrated.
There is not a single F2P game I have played or seen that wouldn't be ten times more fun sold for a one off fee of between 69p and £2 and a proper level structure. I know for a fact I would have spent far more money on those.
|That's a very glib interpretation.|
@meme Very witty. Apart from (perhaps) CSR racing I have never seen or played a F2P game that didn't act the way I described there.|
Edited by RobTheBuilder at 15:58:51 12-04-2013
|I love F2P, it makes it easy to discover which games aren't worth my time.|
|Even more essentially: you're clearly not the target audience so the fact you don't like that style of game really doesn't matter.|
F2P isn't so bad. Check out pogo if you want to be sucked of every last penny. They charge you for a sub, have F2P games and straight up pay-for games. On top of that they have a separate form of money called "gems" that you can only use to buy certain things. My wife accidentally bought more gems than she wanted to by a BUNCH and they wouldn't reimburse her. She is limited to buying stupid things like new outfits for her avatar.|
Obviously owned and run by your friends at EA.
@disusedgenius What, someone who plays a lot of games, owns a smartphone and is happy to spend money on them?|
Apart from the games aimed at getting kids to spend a fortune I'd say I'm pretty core market.
Well, it was. You've basically ignored the entire crux of my post, which is that most of them are only "grindy" and "drawn out" if you have the mindset I mentioned in my last paragraph (something else that was ignored).|
Like, take this:
"2. Paying to skip isn't as bad, but still usually results in games custom designed to make you want to skip as the levelling up is so slow"
This is entirely the point. "leveling up" or "progressing" or "completing a mission" in these types of games (Jetpack Joyride, Temple Run etc) doesn't change anything within the game itself, it just opens up an arbitrary "NEXT MISSION". You're still playing the exact same game, whether you're starting fresh for the first time or playing it after the hundredth hour. Going into the game thinking "I MUST REACH THE TOP LEVEL, I MUST PROGRESS" is where you're going wrong with these things. They're enjoyable timewasters you can play for ten minutes every once in a while over the span of weeks, months, years, not something you'll blast through in one single ten hour session.
Edited by meme at 16:06:36 12-04-2013
RobTheBuilder wrote:I own a console and have disposable income. That doesn't automatically make me the target audience for a JRPG, mostly because I hate them.
|See Path of Exile for a F2P game that's doing things right. The only things you pay for are cosmetics.|
@meme To say that wanting progression in your game is wrong is silly, every game is based around progression. Going for a high score is progression, unlocking things is progression. Gaming doesn't exist without progression.|
Again, those type of games where the game doesn't change, and the goal is simply a high score aren't as bad as the other three, but they are still enforced grinding which saps the fun away.
If they are solely timewasters, then why would anyone ever buy an add-on? - Which means they would surely make more money as a normal one off payment game?
|@disusedgenius That's a genre of game, different thing.|
|Yeah, again you're missing the point. Games are inherently about progression (whether it's getting to level 2 or beating your own high score), yes, but they're not inherently about progressing as quickly as humanly possible. Drop that idea and most freemium games are more than playable. Even, dare I say it, fun?|
Let's put it this way - if someone plays a racing game, are they playing it for the experience and fun, to drive a car in a virtual environment and enjoy racing, or are they playing it solely to cross the finish line until the game is complete? Who gets more out of Gran Turismo - someone who enjoys the simulation and noodles around on their favourite tracks, occasionally unlocking something new that they then noodle around with for a bit more, or someone who concentrates solely on completing all the licenses and unlocking every car and then shelves the game and moves onto the next?|
Who do you think ultimately will spend the most money (whether it be through microtransactions or buying more games) in both premium and F2P models? Who do you think best represents the "modern gamer"?
I am so angry about F2P that I put my foot through the monitor and sent the bill to Namco!|
The easy way to find local, live musicians and entertainment.
shamblemonkee wrote:Team Fortress 2 is one of the greatest mutiplayer games ever made and it's completely free. You don't have to spend a penny to be competitive.
Anything you buy is cosmetic or a "side grade".
The only progression is your own skill and your collection of hats.
magicpanda wrote:I sold a hat once for a few hundred quid. True story.