[quote name='marsilies']I can't figure out a way to comment on the actual blog page, so I guess I'll do it here.[/QUOTE]
Yeah - I ran into the same problem. I don't think they have it enable for guest or new users.
[quote name='marsilies']The article is interesting, but I think the author gets a lot of points wrong.
First off, he conflates F2P with a free demo, like the demo period on XBLIG games. I think there's a big difference between a game demo, which is upfront about it being only part of a game, and you can get the full game with no restrictions for a price, and a F2P title which presents itself as complete and free, and then hits you repeatedly for purchases to "complete" to experience, or just make it tolerable. It's the lie of some F2P titles that upsets people.[/QUOTE]
I think you have a point with this. I do have some reservations about the demo stance but I want to talk a little bit about "F2P games that lie." I think that going into a F2P game should come with some knowledge that you will be prevented form getting the full experience unless you pay into it - with the exceptions of F2P games that have NO cash involved items/services. About Demos - I think that with the climate of the current retail gaming market that one is never truly sure if they are getting the FULL GAME. I saw this because DLC blurs the lines in a lot of ways for the retail gaming scene. While there are different types of DLC - one is usually left with the question of whether they "need" this DLC to get the full experience of the full game.
[quote name='marsilies']Then he argues that F2P purchases are just a monetization scheme, similar to better graphics, using established IP, or even fan service. The difference, however, is that companies use better graphics, etc. to make their games appealing to players, by enhancing the game experience or giving the players what they think they want, so that they'll buy the game, recommend it to friends, etc. F2P, by contrast, often uses methods that
detract from the game experience and
deny the players what they want, with the fix being a purchase. So while both game developers are out to make money, developers using the traditional model have to do so by pleasing the gamer, while F2P titles often do so by annoying the gamer.[/QUOTE]
I think some F2P games do use the annoying tactic but that seems to be fading, IMO. I've notice a lot of F2P titles go more into content/experience barrier route like Banner Saga and others like it. You get to play but you are just locked out of a certain type of content - in this example SP. That's not really annoying but more of a honest selling tactic. You get the MP for free to play with no problem or restriction. If you are curious about the other side, you going to pay. Which is a model I would much rather see flourish. I think the days of "lie" F2P are coming to end as F2P is becoming mainstream and ppl are getting wise to the tactic and difference btw F2P types.
[quote name='marsilies']The argument the PC gamers can "pay-to-win" by buying better computers or faster internet connections is only correct to a point, and only with fast-twitch games. Any turn-based game isn't going to give an advantage to a person with faster PC or internet, and console games even smooth out the hardware edge. Moreover, some F2P games blatently let people earn higher scores. This Wired article details someone getting the world record in a F2P game after spending $25 on it:
http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/11/life-after-disc-pay-to-win/[/QUOTE]
We good on this.
[quote name='marsilies']The author mentions spending on crystals in Triple Town, and how that's not a bad thing. The thing is though, the creator of Triple Town specifically limits how many items you can buy in a given round of the game, and that gamers playing for free earn the in-game currency used to buy such items. So a player can't simply buy infinite crystals to get the high score in Triple Town. This was by design by the developer, so the people paying for the in-game coins wouldn't have an edge. As the Wired article above points out, not all F2P games restrict purchases this way.[/QUOTE]
Sounds awesome.
[quote name='marsilies']The author says "playing a f2p game seriously is all about figuring out how to get as far as possible by spending as little as possible. It becomes a hardcore min/max strategy game, and figuring out the strategy is really fun." He's basically spinning the tension of constant purchase decisions as
fun.[/QUOTE]
I was actually in this camp. I loved loved loved loved finding ways to play 100% and yet still get best gear and kill other paying players in combat in games like AVA and others. I never did buy anything from the game itself but I used all the codes the company emailed and those that other players gave me + finding and unlocking stuff was fun for me. Not so much anymore. I fell out of online MP with strangers as a whole and I have been enjoying LAN and online play with ppl I know in RL + webgames....+ DooM + webgames
But I did have fun doing the best I could with the free stuff I found. I never felt like the other side was way over my head with stats that I could not win.
[quote name='marsilies']Going back to Triple Town, I play the game for free. The main restriction this creates is the number of moves I can make. I have a limited number that regenerates over time. The only "strategy" involved is waiting for more turns, basically exiting the game and returning to it later. This isn't fun, it's annoying, but its an annoyance I endure in order to keep playing the game for free. I could pay a one-time fee to get unlimited turns, but I'd rather pay for free. But make no mistake, the waiting game I have to play isn't a serious strategy game on its own, and it's NOT fun. For another example, here's a review of Real Racing 3, where the reviewer feels that the artificial waiting times in the game detract, not enhance, the playing experience:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/real-racing-3-is-a-brilliant-game-crippled-by-eas-greed
Overall, I agree that not all F2P titles are evil. However, it very much depends on how the game tries to monetize its players. Path of Exile is a F2P game where the game truly is free to play. There's no restrictions to playing the game for people playing for free, and the only advantages people paying get are cosmetic. This has turned out to be a profitable strategy for them, as fans of the game are paying for the cosmetics simply to support the studio and show their appreciation. It lets people pay because they feel like the game deserves it, not because they have to in order to progress or make the game tolerable:
http://penny-arcade.com/report/article/path-of-exile[/QUOTE]
Agreed. Like I said earlier the new methods of F2P are going to gain traction and we are going to see more and more players picking the route they want as the older models either change or go offline.
Thanks for your thoughts!
it Forever!
