This sounds like a slight-of-hand argument. How is "free to play" design anything other than a lottery ticket of another kind? Sure, if you get a free-to-play

This sounds like a slight-of-hand argument. How is "free to play" design anything other than a lottery ticket of another kind? Sure, if you get a free-to-play hit, it's likely easier to quit your day job while resisting the siren call of "grow the company". (because the revenue doesn't all show up at once) But what are the odds of having a free-to-play hit? What are the odds of keeping it going? Are they even as high as the odds of having a traditional game hit so big that its revenues could support a developer for several years? (if one judiciously sat on the up-front revenue and refused to grow the company) And by using the broad term "free to play" he's casually conflating the worst of in-app practices ("pay to win", "pay for moves") with the defensible corners that just graft on-going revenue onto largely packaged games ("pay for digital hats", ad-supported gaming). I've never played Triple Town. I don't know where it falls on the spectrum of "digital hats aren't hurting anyone" to "nice skinner box you've got there". But it seems to me these are very different things and the sins of the latter can't be excused by allusions to the harmlessness of the former. And beyond all that: The hit-driven nature of game development is no different than in any other medium where people try to create for a living. "One Hit Wonders" are the vast majority of writers, musicians, artists, moviemakers -- even toymakers. Are all those industries "anti-creator" too? And while free-to-play may not be anti-creator, it incentivizes the worst aspects of creation: stagnation, repetition, pandering, conditioning, etc. And while maybe that makes it easier to run a business, it looks anti-art to me. Which is to say: in saying it enables developers to provide a lifestyle hobby for their players, it looks more to me like it's going to kill the hobby for everyone.