4 ms·

I think that there is a big gap between predatory mobile style F2P and other F2P games. I like the F2P games. In the past, you had to spend money to have somet

I think that there is a big gap between predatory mobile style F2P and other F2P games. I like the F2P games. In the past, you had to spend money to have something to play and the game would last you for a short while. Nowadays, if you are into competitive gameplay, you can just install League of Legends, DOTA2, TF2, Paladins, Starcraft 2 and lots of MMOs and play for years without paying anything. In most of these games, you only pay for cosmetic stuff, or for early unlocks, but they aren't really necessary to progress. That's the good side of F2P. But then you have the nasty "you run out of energy, pay $5 to recover" games, which milk you each step of the way and aren't fun at all without paying. These should be frowned upon.

beaconstudios 9y ago
I think one of the main reasons F2Ps have become so prominent is that players want something for nothing - sure, you get all these games for free (but then, most players could easily afford $40 for a game they'll spend hours on) but then your weighted cost of development will get offloaded onto either some rich person with too much time on their hands (ethically fine) or someone with chronic gaming addiction or depression who spends all their money on microtransactions (ethically not fine). I'd much rather live in a world where people were just more happy to pay for things they consume - we'd have a lot less exploitative business practices if this were the case.
- Kurtz79 9y ago
  "I'd much rather live in a world where people were just more happy to pay for things they consume" As an "old" and grumpy gamer, I agree, but I think we are past that point. Nowadays I think new gamers are losing track of the fact that they are supposed to play to have fun, and see getting rewards as the only end-goal. Recently Hearthstone (collectible card game) announced a free roguelike single-player mode, and the only thing many people in the community can think of is that the only reward for completing it is a minor cosmetic item, and that is not sufficient, that they should be better compensated for the time "invested" in it. Mind, it is an attitude that is a consequence of the culture of microtransations and lootboxes that also Blizzard helped to establish, so it's hard to take the company's side.
  - beaconstudios 9y ago
    yeah I think both sides of the equation feed into each other to create some kind of Skinner box with mutually-dependent researcher and subject. It's not a pleasant formula and it's started to leak into paid AAA games too (for example, Battlefront II's loot-box controversy and Deus Ex's single player microtransactions).
  - colmvp 9y ago
    > Recently Hearthstone (collectible card game) announced a free roguelike single-player mode, and the only thing many people in the community can think of is that the only reward for completing it is a minor cosmetic item, and that is not sufficient, that they should be better compensated for the time "invested" in it. To be fair to Hearthstone players, the reason why they have this mentality is because the game is expensive and the amount of in-game currency one earns by playing every day is pretty small. So spending a few hours of entertainment time on Dungeon Run's is essentially giving up potentially earning gold for a pack. I don't think this would be as much of an issue had they not removed Adventures, which had a traditional purchase model (pay $20 to get complete content).

beaconstudios 9y ago

I think one of the main reasons F2Ps have become so prominent is that players want something for nothing - sure, you get all these games for free (but then, most players could easily afford $40 for a game they'll spend hours on) but then your weighted cost of development will get offloaded onto either some rich person with too much time on their hands (ethically fine) or someone with chronic gaming addiction or depression who spends all their money on microtransactions (ethically not fine). I'd much rather live in a world where people were just more happy to pay for things they consume - we'd have a lot less exploitative business practices if this were the case.

Kurtz79 9y ago
"I'd much rather live in a world where people were just more happy to pay for things they consume" As an "old" and grumpy gamer, I agree, but I think we are past that point. Nowadays I think new gamers are losing track of the fact that they are supposed to play to have fun, and see getting rewards as the only end-goal. Recently Hearthstone (collectible card game) announced a free roguelike single-player mode, and the only thing many people in the community can think of is that the only reward for completing it is a minor cosmetic item, and that is not sufficient, that they should be better compensated for the time "invested" in it. Mind, it is an attitude that is a consequence of the culture of microtransations and lootboxes that also Blizzard helped to establish, so it's hard to take the company's side.
- beaconstudios 9y ago
  yeah I think both sides of the equation feed into each other to create some kind of Skinner box with mutually-dependent researcher and subject. It's not a pleasant formula and it's started to leak into paid AAA games too (for example, Battlefront II's loot-box controversy and Deus Ex's single player microtransactions).
- colmvp 9y ago
  > Recently Hearthstone (collectible card game) announced a free roguelike single-player mode, and the only thing many people in the community can think of is that the only reward for completing it is a minor cosmetic item, and that is not sufficient, that they should be better compensated for the time "invested" in it. To be fair to Hearthstone players, the reason why they have this mentality is because the game is expensive and the amount of in-game currency one earns by playing every day is pretty small. So spending a few hours of entertainment time on Dungeon Run's is essentially giving up potentially earning gold for a pack. I don't think this would be as much of an issue had they not removed Adventures, which had a traditional purchase model (pay $20 to get complete content).