5 ms·

They also made the game free to play. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438194/rocket-league-free-to-play-release-date-psyonix-epic-games https://www.thever

by ffpip 5y ago

They also made the game free to play. https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438194/rocket-league-free-to-play-release-date-psyonix-epic-games https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/15/21438194/rocket-league-fr...

dymk 5y ago
Which is a big middle finger to those who had purchased the game. And I can't think of a game that didn't have the quality of its player base (and so, gameplay) decline after going F2P (looking at you, TF2).
- ketzo 5y ago
  The costs and benefits around a game going F2P are too numerous to list in a HN comment, but I think it is extremely reductive to call it a “middle finger” just because you spent $20 four years and 500 hours of game time ago. More people playing the game you like is very good for that game receiving more investment/developer time. Shorter queue times, more revenue for the game in the form of mtx, and gameplay in a competitive multiplayer game should never (this is a big should, but in the ideal) get worse for an existing player because of skill-based matchmaking (something TF2 lacks).
  - riskable 5y ago
    Making Rocket League F2P meant that skilled players could register as many new accounts for themselves as they wanted and "rank up" their buddies in competitive matchmaking. This completely ruins the competitive aspect of the game since it's far too common to join a game and get completely crushed by some grand champion playing on a brand new account, teamed up with his friends. Another problem it enables is trolls: People make new accounts then join games to ruin the fun for everyone else. Account got banned? No problem: Make a new one. Repeat. The ranked play aspect of the game was completely ruined after Epic bought Rocket League.
    - ketzo 5y ago
      Those are problems, true, but literally every modern competitive ladder deals with the three problems you're describing: smurfs, boosting, and trolls. Overwatch dealt with all three even when the game cost $40! In return for those problems, the game gets an instant, massive increase in players. Monetization usually increases, since modern mtx are usually much more effective than either subscription or one-time-purchase models. I'm not saying there are zero problems with going F2P. Obviously there are. But just as obviously, since so many studios have chosen to go that route, the benefits are worth it for the company. If the revenue benefits are worth it, they keep developing the game, keep running the servers, keep fixing bugs, rather than just letting the game die. That seems pretty good.
      - krageon 5y ago
        > Monetization usually increases, since modern mtx are usually much more effective than either subscription or one-time-purchase models. Are you posing this as not a problem? This makes a game the digital equivalent of cancer: There's a lot of it, it grows fast, but nothing about it is worthwhile or good. It just exists to prey on everything around it.
  - joeman1000 5y ago
    TF2 has competitive matchmaking. And anecdotally I’m usually placed in casual matches with similarly ranked players.
- Zambyte 5y ago
  As someone who bought the Rocket League and plays on Linux... :(
- shaggyfrog 5y ago
  "Because I paid for the game, and despite the fact I was happy to pay for it and I enjoy playing it, I think everyone else should need to pay for it, too. Otherwise all that enjoyment I had will be undone." c.f.: sunk cost fallacy
  - dymk 5y ago
    I'm happy to pay for a game I enjoy playing, the game is made F2P, it becomes inundated with Eternal September players, it is no longer fun to play, I am annoyed.
  - brimble 5y ago
    The changes made when games go F2P tend to change the product you paid for in significant ways, often in ways that some players will think ruin it. There's a reason I haven't played TF2 in years, and it's not because I'm indignant that others didn't have to pay for it.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    As a long time player I'll say that surfing definitely increased by a lot when it went free to play, it's not entirely sunk cost fallacy. Im high enough now that it's not much of an issue but lower ranks are rife with surfing and even in my diamond 1 games I see them enough to be annoying, at least.
    - thatguy0900 5y ago
      *smurfing
superkuh 5y ago
That is because Epic was buying up popular games, removing non-$exploitable$ platforms from them, and securing them behind it's software walled garden. The point of buying Rocket League and then giving away "free" versions of it away was to get people stuck in their walled garden with the hope they'll use it and buy other things. They also ramped up the microtransactions. I don't like not being able to play the game on my OS anymore, but that's just a tree in the forest of behavior. Epic anti-competitive monopolist behavior is completely transparent if you've been watching from the start. They also attacked companies that created popular games using their engine by copying the games and releasing them for free to undercut their own engine customers (see: Fortnite vs PUBG). Epic uses their "free" software as a weapon, just like Microsoft did in the 90s.

by ffpip 5y ago

dymk 5y ago

Which is a big middle finger to those who had purchased the game. And I can't think of a game that didn't have the quality of its player base (and so, gameplay) decline after going F2P (looking at you, TF2).

ketzo 5y ago
The costs and benefits around a game going F2P are too numerous to list in a HN comment, but I think it is extremely reductive to call it a “middle finger” just because you spent $20 four years and 500 hours of game time ago. More people playing the game you like is very good for that game receiving more investment/developer time. Shorter queue times, more revenue for the game in the form of mtx, and gameplay in a competitive multiplayer game should never (this is a big should, but in the ideal) get worse for an existing player because of skill-based matchmaking (something TF2 lacks).
- riskable 5y ago
  Making Rocket League F2P meant that skilled players could register as many new accounts for themselves as they wanted and "rank up" their buddies in competitive matchmaking. This completely ruins the competitive aspect of the game since it's far too common to join a game and get completely crushed by some grand champion playing on a brand new account, teamed up with his friends. Another problem it enables is trolls: People make new accounts then join games to ruin the fun for everyone else. Account got banned? No problem: Make a new one. Repeat. The ranked play aspect of the game was completely ruined after Epic bought Rocket League.
  - ketzo 5y ago
    Those are problems, true, but literally every modern competitive ladder deals with the three problems you're describing: smurfs, boosting, and trolls. Overwatch dealt with all three even when the game cost $40! In return for those problems, the game gets an instant, massive increase in players. Monetization usually increases, since modern mtx are usually much more effective than either subscription or one-time-purchase models. I'm not saying there are zero problems with going F2P. Obviously there are. But just as obviously, since so many studios have chosen to go that route, the benefits are worth it for the company. If the revenue benefits are worth it, they keep developing the game, keep running the servers, keep fixing bugs, rather than just letting the game die. That seems pretty good.
    - krageon 5y ago
      > Monetization usually increases, since modern mtx are usually much more effective than either subscription or one-time-purchase models. Are you posing this as not a problem? This makes a game the digital equivalent of cancer: There's a lot of it, it grows fast, but nothing about it is worthwhile or good. It just exists to prey on everything around it.
- joeman1000 5y ago
  TF2 has competitive matchmaking. And anecdotally I’m usually placed in casual matches with similarly ranked players.
Zambyte 5y ago
As someone who bought the Rocket League and plays on Linux... :(
shaggyfrog 5y ago
"Because I paid for the game, and despite the fact I was happy to pay for it and I enjoy playing it, I think everyone else should need to pay for it, too. Otherwise all that enjoyment I had will be undone." c.f.: sunk cost fallacy
- dymk 5y ago
  I'm happy to pay for a game I enjoy playing, the game is made F2P, it becomes inundated with Eternal September players, it is no longer fun to play, I am annoyed.
- brimble 5y ago
  The changes made when games go F2P tend to change the product you paid for in significant ways, often in ways that some players will think ruin it. There's a reason I haven't played TF2 in years, and it's not because I'm indignant that others didn't have to pay for it.
- thatguy0900 5y ago
  As a long time player I'll say that surfing definitely increased by a lot when it went free to play, it's not entirely sunk cost fallacy. Im high enough now that it's not much of an issue but lower ranks are rife with surfing and even in my diamond 1 games I see them enough to be annoying, at least.
  - thatguy0900 5y ago
    *smurfing

superkuh 5y ago

That is because Epic was buying up popular games, removing non-$exploitable$ platforms from them, and securing them behind it's software walled garden. The point of buying Rocket League and then giving away "free" versions of it away was to get people stuck in their walled garden with the hope they'll use it and buy other things. They also ramped up the microtransactions. I don't like not being able to play the game on my OS anymore, but that's just a tree in the forest of behavior. Epic anti-competitive monopolist behavior is completely transparent if you've been watching from the start. They also attacked companies that created popular games using their engine by copying the games and releasing them for free to undercut their own engine customers (see: Fortnite vs PUBG). Epic uses their "free" software as a weapon, just like Microsoft did in the 90s.