Actually, I think it was magicpanda who even guided me through the bizarre world of TF2 item selling. That was like a peek inside the Matrix or something.|
Edited by meme at 16:45:39 12-04-2013
I hate F2P • Page 3
Pageof 3 First / Last
andytheadequate 8,581 posts
Seen 47 minutes ago
Registered 4 years ago
magicpanda wrote:Planetside 2 is similar. You could easily play that game without paying anything. I bought a few guns just because I felt guilty for not having paid the developer anything for it. The system isn't perfect but it's far cheaper than paying a monthly sub (like ps1) or even paying £35 for the game in the first place
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.
See Path of Exile for a F2P game that's doing things right. The only things you pay for are cosmetics.
Anything you buy is cosmetic or a "side grade".
The only progression is your own skill and your collection of hats.
Edited by andytheadequate at 16:52:40 12-04-2013
@meme I'm not talking about progressing as quickly as possible though, you said that. I'm talking about progression that is laid out in a fun way with no artificial grinding.
The gimped progression / grinding system still makes them less fun that they would be if they were a normal one payment game.
meme wrote:It's not possible to do something else while the thing is repairing. The game forces you to sit in front of it until it's done.
RobTheBuilder wrote:If it's glib it must be an easy argument to dismantle.
@meme That's a very glib interpretation.
Tell you what, I'll list the F2P/freemium games I've played, you list yours, we'll see how it matches up.
There are games that take the piss, but they're easily noticeable and easily avoided. And they're almost all farmville clones.
Really the unlock is giving you your life back.
RobTheBuilder wrote:Yes, and I've always been saying that. You're countering a point I'm not actually making. Though for what it's worth even premium games suffer from artificial padding and grinding, so it's somewhat of a moot point anyway. Though I'd still like an actual answer to the Gran Turismo scenario - who do you think gets the most out of the game and who spends the most money overall?
@meme I'm not talking about progressing as quickly as possible though, you said that.
Ultimately it all comes down to consumer value. Did I enjoy the few hours I've put into Jetpack Joyride over the course of several weeks? Yes. How much did I spend? Fuck all. And to be honest I wouldn't have felt particularly bad if I had chucked a dollar at it to get the steampunk jetpack sooner rather than later.
The argument really makes me think of arcade games. They were specifically, specifically, designed to be artificially hard for most people, tailored so that people would find level 4 or the third lap or whatever difficult, if not impossible, to progress without chucking in another 50p. And so on and so forth. And you know what? I fucking love arcades. Even the shittier games are often worth playing. I'd happily go in a decent one now and spend as much as a full price game costs and emerge a couple of hours later feeling like it was time and money well spent.
Edited by meme at 17:37:31 12-04-2013
@meme i take the arcade point, but arcades are different though too.
You pay per go and everyone has the same opportunity and difficulty.
You could also argue that part of arcades was part of their downfall.
Some F2P games contain fun of course, but I maintain that I have never played a single one with micro transactions that wouldn't have been improved by a standard game format.
Aargh. wrote:Exactly this, to be honest. If freemium's doing anything, it's making gaming somewhat better for people who aren't obsessive and afflicted with ADHD.
Really the unlock is giving you your life back.
Going back just to the nineties you'd have games that could potentially last you months, if not years. What the fuck happened to that? I still quasi-regularly play Transport Tycoon, and I bought that in 1994. I replayed Gabriel Knight 2 the other week, and that was still awesome. Tomb Raider seems like an outdated and distant memory already that will never be touched again, and that's barely even a month old. XCOM was a good game, but I'm not going back to it like I am the original.
Sod the problems with F2P and freemium, it's the whole damn industry that's fucked up.
Edited by meme at 17:48:49 12-04-2013
@meme I'm not sure if that is more a perception than a reality. Most games from the 90's were short and have very little replay value. There was the odd Sim/Tycoon games but mostly things were just as disposable as they are now.
I should on this debate too, I do believe games that you pay for which THEN offer gimped micro transaction mechanics are certainly worse than F2P ones that do.
On your arcade theme. I'd even prefer that. 5 free credits and then pay 99p to get 20 credits. At least that way there's no grinding.
Of course it's a perception. I've made that point several times that everyone moves on as quickly as possible due to the so-called fear of missing out. That didn't really exist to such an extent back then. You could arguably blame the internet for a large chunk of that, but it's still a feature of modern society, right down to stuff like twitter, text messaging and all sorts. If people stopped giving such a fuck as to what everyone else is doing and that you might be ten minutes late sharing a meme or seeing a viral video or playing a game then the world as a whole would be better off.
I'd actually make a large argument that the massive rise in films and games centred around avoiding spoilers is a construction partially to exploit that. "PLAY/SEE GAME/FILM X AT FULL PRICE RIGHT NOW BEFORE EVERYONE RUINS THE TWIST FOR YOU" and so on and so forth.
Edited by meme at 18:01:01 12-04-2013
Don't forget that you also view the world through the eyes of someone who frequents a gaming forum. I don't think most people particularly care if someone else beat a game before them.
I agree that the world's effed up, though.
Well, exactly. By that same token only people on gaming forums really give a fuck about F2P or freemium as a general concept. So anyone talking of boycotts or taking a stand against it a) won't accomplish anything and b) are basically telling other people that their way is the best, especially when they start applying random labels like "bad" or "evil", as I've seen people do.
The whole "kid spends thousands of quid on Croods Village Builder" is a different issue to that, though, and one that should be addressed as a wider issue.
Edited by meme at 18:10:59 12-04-2013
@meme it would certainly be a tactic you'd expect to see. Fear of missing out is an interesting phenomenon
@meme But as people on gaming forums who understand and play lots of titles. We are the ones who should be leading the way In calling out shit games and mechanics.
If people like them that's fine, but I think you'll find that they just get them because they are what fills up the system. Also, when those mechanics start to affect the games that those of us who frequent forums play, that's when it becomes something to get annoyed about.
It's something to get annoyed about, sure, but to blankly go "The only just announced Ridge Racer is F2P therefore it'll be shit and evil and everything wrong with gaming" isn't quite the same thing. At least wait until the damn thing's more than a teaser trailer before shouting for a boycott.
Yeah, gamers have a voice, but we're often irrational and make ourselves look petty and terrified of change.
@meme point taken, but I think given the ratio of bad f2p games is about 8000 bad: 1 good it's not unreasonable to expect it to suck.
Besides, personally at least I've been saying the idea and mechanic is shit rather than the game. I hope they'll be the ones to finally do it well. Either that or it fail hideously so they never make another f2p console game again..!!
That's not the ratio in the slightest, though. Which is half of what I've been saying. There are exploitative and shit F2P games, yes, but the vast majority of F2P aren't exploitative, they're just not -your- sort of games. Plus, the vast majority of them are casual tablet/phone games. Bigger PC F2P games have enjoyed a lot of success, both critically and commercially, including racing games. EA's Need for Speed World wasn't even that bad (although I'm not sure if it's still going), and Trackmania almost set the template for F2P.
MrTomFTW Moderator 41,276 posts
Seen 4 hours ago
Registered 12 years ago
This thread has reminded me I wanted to try Planetside 2. So I'm downloading it now.
Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
@meme it was an obvious exaggeration
I like all sorts of games, So think my opinion on their quality is as valid as anyone's.
Trackmania isn't really F2P though. That's a standard game format in chunks, not a free base with a paid upgrade progression
Back in 2005 or whenever it was big, it was F2P with optional microtransactions to buy their ingame currency rather than earn it playing the games. Though if memory serves it was all offline and very easy to use trainers to give yourself unlimited coppers anyway. It's since changed to different models closer to shareware, but it basically set the tone for such things, especially the apparent "grinding" method that seems to be the big bugbear.
But still, that was just one example. Most F2P games are perfectly playable, a large percentage are decent, several as mentioned above are excellent, bordering on superlative. And if this Ridge Racer one doesn't appeal to you, fine. They've already said it's going to be alongside traditional stuff, not replacing it.
Edited by meme at 19:28:53 12-04-2013
mrpon 30,136 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 8 years ago
The iPad Diablo-esque game, Heroes Call, did it well. You could pay to speed up the "identify this loot" stage of the game or not pay and it just did it slower. The good part is you could close the app and go off and do something else and it would send out a notification when it was ready.
Give me $10 I'm worth it.