Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Should singleplayer games go the same approach as freemiums?

TheScavengerTheScavenger Matrix, NYPosts: 911Member Uncommon

Since singleplayer, multiplayer and MMO are all inter-connecting and blending together. There is little to tell the differences between some of them. Games considered multiplayer, are now called MMOs...MMOs now have many singleplayer features.

 

Singleplayer games (like Skyrim) haven't taken the approach of MMOs however. There is no cash shop, you can't play Skyrim for free (legally) and there is no score board or anything. 

 

My idea is this...take a singleplayer game, turn it free to play (it works really well for MMOs)...and then charge for extra content. I'm thinking every quest should cost 1-2 dollars...and the major quest chains (like if something similar to the Dark Brotherhood), it should cost 5-10 dollars. Of course still having regular expansions and DLCs. Also have unlocks, like certain items are locked (more so, the rare ones) and you have to pay to unlock them. But leave the main story line, the basic items and basic crafting, all free for the player.

 

I think this approach would work really well, and make the company doing this, a lot of money. Everyone dives into a free to play MMO, and spends more than a normal pay to play MMO...and they carry all the free to players. MMOs that went free to play or freemium, from pay to play...have seen a HUGE boost of sales, income and population. And I think it could help singleplayer games a lot. Not just Skyrim, but racing games, FPS games...other RPG games...I think it would do really well. 

 

If all someone wants to do is go through the main story, and not worry about sidequests or leaderboards...he can do just that and not pay a cent. However, I imagine many would want to do all the side missions, unlock the rare items and buy items, exp bonuses and everything. The company would make more than enough, to offset the free players. 

image
«1

Comments

  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Matrix, NYPosts: 911Member Uncommon

    And since not every game has sidequests, and some just have a story to go through, and don't even have multiplayer.

     

    For every chapter of the story, one would have to pay 5-10 dollars to unlock the next one. Kind of like buying DLC to unlock further parts of the story.

     

    Now, the choices for a very linear game would be more limited...and a freemium wouldn't exactly work for every game. But, the more chapters people unlock, the more money the developer has to add even more chapters. That would the theory be for that one, and is already done sometimes.

     

    A singleplayer freemium would only really work with a game that isn't 100% main story. Of course, multiplayer games already have freemium features to them...so they've already cornered that market. But even then, many singleplayer games could work really well...

     

    And even then, even a 100% linear game, could add a free feature for people to play through. Maybe they would have to pay to unlock a certain part of the game. Just some free feature that lets them play for free or experience a certain part of the game without paying, and then they can pay for more. They could even still add items for people to buy...could be something simple, like cosmetics. Those tend to make quite a bit of money.

     

     

    image
  • kb4blukb4blu Fuquay Varina, NCPosts: 683Member Uncommon

    One question do you work for EA ???

    Its bad enough with day one DLCs. If single player games do that crap then I will burn my PC and Xbox.

     

  • GwapoJoshGwapoJosh Auburn, INPosts: 991Member Uncommon
    This is the absolute worst idea I've seen in a long time.. No thanks.

    "You are all going to poop yourselves." BillMurphy
    image

  • ForumPvPForumPvP KingstownPosts: 871Member
    Originally posted by GwapoJosh
    This is the absolute worst idea I've seen in a long time.. No thanks.

    And thats why free to play MMOs are bad.

    There is actually people doing this.

    Let's internet

  • TheScavengerTheScavenger Matrix, NYPosts: 911Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by ForumPvP
    Originally posted by GwapoJosh
    This is the absolute worst idea I've seen in a long time.. No thanks.

    And thats why free to play MMOs are bad.

    There is actually people doing this.

    Yes, and these MMOs make a ton of money. Whether one doesn't like the idea or not, doesn't matter as these free to play MMOs make more money than any other MMO...with this model. Especially the freemium ones. And everyone can play a free MMO without needing to buy anything. So they get into game, get hooked, buy stuff. 

     

    Singleplayer games could make a lot of money with this approach, just like freemium MMOs do. And developers could even add powerful items to the cash shop...it wouldn't really be pay to win, because it wouldn't affect anyones game except the person who bought the item in the first place. Companies would sell SO much just from items, let alone everything else. In return, people can play the main story (or part of it), for free and not have to spend anything...if they don't want to. 

     

    It would be exactly like a freemium MMO, but for singleplayer games instead.

    image
  • ForumPvPForumPvP KingstownPosts: 871Member
    Originally posted by TheScavenger
    Originally posted by ForumPvP
    Originally posted by GwapoJosh
    This is the absolute worst idea I've seen in a long time.. No thanks.

    And thats why free to play MMOs are bad.

    There is actually people doing this.

    Yes, and these MMOs make a ton of money. Whether one doesn't like the idea or not, doesn't matter as these free to play MMOs make more money than any other MMO...with this model. Especially the freemium ones. And everyone can play a free MMO without needing to buy anything. So they get into game, get hooked, buy stuff. 

     

    Singleplayer games could make a lot of money with this approach, just like freemium MMOs do. And developers could even add powerful items to the cash shop...it wouldn't really be pay to win, because it wouldn't affect anyones game except the person who bought the item in the first place. Companies would sell SO much just from items, let alone everything else. In return, people can play the main story (or part of it), for free and not have to spend anything...if they don't want to. 

     

    It would be exactly like a freemium MMO, but for singleplayer games instead.

    Free™ Skyrim,hmmm what kind of experiment that could be.

    Base game for free  (huge risk)

    Player made content with modding tools is Bethesdas property,and they will then sell those to players. (worse than how it is now)

    Or they remove those modding tools. (not good idea)

    Even now when they charge from their  own content its worse than player made content. (so  players suffers from this)

    Quest lines removed and made DLC etc, (Metacritic score 3 abouts i bet)

    from player point of view,it just gets alot worse.

    But if every single game takes that approach,it would open huge market for games like  "buy once,DLC free ,your way"

     

    Let's internet

  • WolfenprideWolfenpride San''doria, WIPosts: 3,988Member
  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member

    Like it or not, I think this is the way things are going.  It will have its ups and downs, but like any sort of change, people insist on blowing it all out of proportion.

     

    A Gamespot blog entry on the subject..

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  • ForumPvPForumPvP KingstownPosts: 871Member
    Originally posted by Vhaln

    Like it or not, I think this is the way things are going.  It will have its ups and downs, but like any sort of change, people insist on blowing it all out of proportion.

     

    A Gamespot blog entry on the subject..

    About that piracy thing,would not change a thing,then they would just hack those DLC items,and maybe even sell those for cheaper,like we see goldsellers now on MMOs.

     

    Let's internet

  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member
    Originally posted by ForumPvP
    Originally posted by Vhaln

    Like it or not, I think this is the way things are going.  It will have its ups and downs, but like any sort of change, people insist on blowing it all out of proportion.

     

    A Gamespot blog entry on the subject..

    About that piracy thing,would not change a thing,then they would just hack those DLC items,and maybe even sell those for cheaper,like we see goldsellers now on MMOs.

     

     

    Of course, hackers will be able to hack almost anything that doesn't go the way of D3.  I don't think this would prevent anything.  I just think it would make piracy less enticing.  I'd be more likely to pay a few dollars here and there, once I've tried the game, and feel it'd be worth it.  Pirating it wouldn't be worth the trouble, anymore.  Can only speak for myself, but I think there's a ton of grey area here.  

     

    They should be thinking of it as working with potential consumers, rather than working to stop theft.  The problem with most anti-piracy efforts is that they refuse to acknowledge the issues and reasons people pirate.  They just take an all or nothing adversarial stance, that ends up just driving even more people away from buying anything.

     

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  • FromHellFromHell NY, NYPosts: 1,311Member

    Oh my dear lord please NO.

     

    Getting enough nickeled and dimed with additional cost "DLC" which is already finished when a game is released.

     

     

    Secrets of Dragon?s Spine Trailer.. ! :D
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwT9cFVQCMw

    Best MMOs ever played: Ultima, EvE, SW Galaxies, Age of Conan, The Secret World
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2X_SbZCHpc&t=21s
    .


    .
    The Return of ELITE !
    image

  • TheLizardbonesTheLizardbones Arkham, VAPosts: 10,910Member

    That would only work if they had trouble selling the single player games. They don't really have trouble selling the single player games so I don't see that being a better option for developers.

    I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.

  • GhavriggGhavrigg Halifax, NSPosts: 777Member Uncommon
    The answer is an emphatic NO! I'd rather pay full price and get the full game. Unfortunately, can't even do that anymore with developers purposefully leaving out content simply to sell it as DLC down the road.
  • KabaalKabaal Edinburgh, ScotlandPosts: 3,012Member Uncommon

    It's already headed that way with so much day one DLC. Why anyone in their right mind would advocate it unless they have a vested interest completely boggles.

     

    Edit typo

  • CastillleCastillle KhobarPosts: 2,703Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wolfenpride

    ^

    ''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
    ( o.o)
    (")(")
    **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**

  • SlampigSlampig Chantilly, VAPosts: 2,376Member Uncommon
    So I get the game for free but then have to pay fo each quest, not to mention exoanions and DLC? No thanks.

    That Guild Wars 2 login screen knocked up my wife. Must be the second coming!

  • VhalnVhaln Chicago, ILPosts: 3,159Member

    I think there are all different ways to do it.  Some more offensive than others.  Some might force you to pay, just to progress in the game, but others might just offer things like most nickle and dime DLC, where you pay for fancy weapons, extra side missions, or a special companion.  

     

    Even in Skyrim, with all its mod ability and everything,  imagine if the DLC were exactly the same, but tacked onto a freemium model, instead of a box price.  Even with all the mods, people still buy that DLC, right?  Except, a lot more people might buy some of the DLC, if the base game were free, and they'd completely eliminate needing to pay a cut to retailers.  That's why it could potentially make more money.

     

    Not saying its definately the way to go, but I think there's a good chance it would be more lucrative than the current model.

    When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.

  • CastillleCastillle KhobarPosts: 2,703Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Vhaln

    I think there are all different ways to do it.  Some more offensive than others.  Some might force you to pay, just to progress in the game, but others might just offer things like most nickle and dime DLC, where you pay for fancy weapons, extra side missions, or a special companion.  

     

    Even in Skyrim, with all its mod ability and everything,  imagine if the DLC were exactly the same, but tacked onto a freemium model, instead of a box price.  Even with all the mods, people still buy that DLC, right?  Except, a lot more people might buy some of the DLC, if the base game were free, and they'd completely eliminate needing to pay a cut to retailers.  That's why it could potentially make more money.

     

    Not saying its definately the way to go, but I think there's a good chance it would be more lucrative than the current model.

    Im assuming the OP meant something along the lines of what f2p phone rpgs are doing.  Which is making it into a huge grind and sometimes making progress impossible unless you buy new gear from their cashshop.

    Edit : If you guys havent played DLC quest...you should! Its epic

    ''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
    ( o.o)
    (")(")
    **This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**

  • CleffyCleffy San Diego, CAPosts: 4,625Member Uncommon

    I think a DLC approach to single player games can be interesting at keeping player interest alive and reducing initial investment in a game.  However, I don't think it will come to a point of offering a game for free.

    I can see myself paying $20 for a game, then $20 for an expansion to the game 6 months later.

    However, paying for stupid overpowered crap is kind of pointless to me.  I don't think it would pan out well for a company either since in the single player arena, players are not competing with each other.  They are looking for a challenge and engaging content.  Free to play cash shops reduce both of those which is why taking a similiar approach in offers would not pan out too well.

  • mgilbrtsnmgilbrtsn belleville, ILPosts: 1,710Member Uncommon
    don't even mention that.  all of the people who play single player games might hunt you down.  As for me, I find it hard to play single player games anymore.  I like that competition brought on by interacting with other humans.  The only exception for me are simulation type games.  I enjoy building cities and stuff.

    Concentrate on enjoying yourself, and not on why I shouldn't enjoy myself.

  • ForumPvPForumPvP KingstownPosts: 871Member
    Originally posted by Vhaln
    Originally posted by ForumPvP
    Originally posted by Vhaln

    Like it or not, I think this is the way things are going.  It will have its ups and downs, but like any sort of change, people insist on blowing it all out of proportion.

     

    A Gamespot blog entry on the subject..

    About that piracy thing,would not change a thing,then they would just hack those DLC items,and maybe even sell those for cheaper,like we see goldsellers now on MMOs.

     

     

    Of course, hackers will be able to hack almost anything that doesn't go the way of D3.  I don't think this would prevent anything.  I just think it would make piracy less enticing.  I'd be more likely to pay a few dollars here and there, once I've tried the game, and feel it'd be worth it.  Pirating it wouldn't be worth the trouble, anymore.  Can only speak for myself, but I think there's a ton of grey area here.  

     

    They should be thinking of it as working with potential consumers, rather than working to stop theft.  The problem with most anti-piracy efforts is that they refuse to acknowledge the issues and reasons people pirate.  They just take an all or nothing adversarial stance, that ends up just driving even more people away from buying anything.

     

    The problem in here is how that articles writer thinks,he thinks that piracy is a huge problem but he cant see that after that kind of change we get all the problems that MMOs have now and he cant see that,which is bit weird.


    Theres lots of scamming and cheating etc on online gaming but somehow that writer ignores those and gives a picture that is close to perfection.

    Simply: Super Mario Bros 500,wts credits and epic horse (e-mail or whatever message)

    Let's internet

  • ReklawReklaw Am.Posts: 6,478Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by GwapoJosh
    This is the absolute worst idea I've seen in a long time.. No thanks.

    Glad I wasn't the only one LOL.

    OP: apart from the box price the game is Free To Play for life.......well atleast untill we have systems that can't run these games anymore.

    I am also geussing you don't spend allot of time on game forums to see the outcry's of gamers needing to be online to simply play a singleplayer game, you idea would put every singleplayer game to be online. Keep in mind that most likely every gamer has a internet connection, but not every gamer is alway's able to play at home due to numerous reasons.

    On a personal level the FTP MMO's don't work for me either, I do play some of them, but aslong anything as freemium/cashshop can be gotten pure by playing it I have no problems with it. But if a cashshop offers unreachable items ingame then I lose the desire to play.

    For me gaming is about the challenge, the experiance, the adventure's which all come together as being fun for me. But if a game is constant stopping me to keep playing because I need to buy X pack or content acces then I feel that games are no longer games.

    So I have absolute no idea why you (OP) came up with something like this? Honostly curious as to what made you make up this idea

     

  • FluxiiFluxii cocoa, FLPosts: 184Member

    A> "Would you like to pay $1.00 for xxx" quest? Thank you! "  emmersion breaker

    B> Letting my credit card be accessed constanly for every little quest opens up a world of potential for abuse which leads to my next point...

    C> Reading my CC statement: "Uh... $1, $2, $5, $3, $2... wait did I buy this, I don't remember doing that, did I talk to that guy... what does this mean on my statement...

    D> You think paying 50 or 60 bucks is steep now for a game... piecemeal it up and companies will have you paying 100 for the same content.

    E> Tons of potential other problems but there's a few things that jump out at me.

     

    Other than that, great idea! =p'

     

    In all honesty, I think it's an ok model in the MMO industry... I used to despise it, but I've learned to accept it.  I just can't see it at all in a singler player game.

  • superniceguysuperniceguy AnchorheadPosts: 2,278Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kb4blu

     

    Its bad enough with day one DLCs. If single player games do that crap then I will burn my PC and Xbox.

     

    I could never fully understand the fuss with the Day One DLC for Mass Effect 3 because that was available on the collectors edition at a higher cost.  You either buy the Collectors Edition with the content or buy the standard edition and buy the DLC. The only thing I can think of for being upset is if you bought the Collectors Edition and felt it a rip off others could get the DLC straight away, cheapening the Collectors Edition

    Games like Assassins Creed from Ubisoft had extra content with their Collectors/Limited editions then that extra content became available as DLC later. Although the DLC was not day one, it was avaialble on day one as was on the expensive collectors editions

    The only difference between the those two is that people will more likely buy the Collectors Editions from Ubisift so can get that extra content, in case it does not come as DLC later, so for EA to release the content for Mass Effect 3 straight away, means you did not have to buy the Collectors edition to get the content, making it less worthwile spending more money on the collectors editions.

    However if they had released DLC on Day One and not be avaialble in a collectors edition then it is bad, as should have been in the game, but this is not the case with ME3 though.

    It is getting annoying though, as they are making you spend more just to get an hour or so worth of extra content ie. Far Cry 3 with the 2 Lost Expeditions missions and "monkey business" DLC

    The other thing that bugs me is that if you do get the Collectors edition with extra content, that it comes with a code, and you can only use it the once. So if you are finished with the game and want to sell it on, then the extra DLC that came with the Collectors edition is unplayable, and you are left with a standard edition to sell on not the expensive collectors edition you bought.

  • GormogonGormogon Waukegan, ILPosts: 188Member Uncommon

    This is exactly where gaming under the big developers is heading IMO.  I believe that in my lifetime essentially all "AAA games" will basically start as single-player "lobbies" (like an inn, military base, mission selection screen, whatever, that must be accessed through an online account natch) and we'll be asked to pay to unlock every mission, every non-starter item, every special ability, every class, every race, every playable faction, every unit, every building type, every companion character, etc.  It started with selling DLC, and now Day One DLC has kicked the door open.  The direction is onward, not backward, just as it has been with other schemes that have millions of gamers shrugging and making the purchase anyway.  

     

    It absolutely does not matter whether I or a few hundred other "old timers" think it's a horribly player-unfriendly/insulting idea, complain on internet forums, vote with our wallets, whatever ... there's far too much money to be made.  The only reason it will take some time for this format to become standard is because collectively gamers don't like feeling they're being forced to accept big changes all at once.  Take baby steps and give them an opening to argue it actually makes their gaming experience better and nearly all of them will go along just as they always have.

«1
Sign In or Register to comment.