Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
F2P may reduces gaming to a "stroll to the mall"
XAleX360
Member UncommonPosts: 516
We've had the pleasure to host Armin Paperfuss, former Game Designer at Gameforge and Infernum, at Worlds Factory.
He chose the topic of his article: F2P and its inherent controversy. Let's just say he's not a fan, especially after having worked on them.
Here's a quote:
Now, however, a game is designed to lure and to trick players, picking their pockets while they’re distracted by some cheap spectacle.
[mod edit]
What do you think? Do you agree with him?
Executive Editor (Games) http://www.wccftech.com
Comments
I don't know that I agree with the sentiment, but there are a lot of people who would enjoy that.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I don't agree with him actually. He has a point on some things, but I think his closing statements are narrow and biased. Even though these games are F2P, they still have to put out a better product than the other developers sharing the same markets. SO making it sound like quality gaming will not happen because of the payment model seems a little dense.
As a player who has forked over sub money for years, I just see it as developers haven't put out a product better, or even as good as other games sharing the sub market. We all know the elephant in the room on that discussion and he even mentioned WoW. Love it or hate it, it took a large percentage of the player base and absorbed them and when people left to try other sub games, they were lacking in something or another. IMO, MMO's have been putting out crap for years and I don't think it has a lot to do with their payment models seeing as how the games shallowness became apparent to me long before they even had a chance to turn a profit. just my opinion though.
RIP Jimmy "The Rev" Sullivan and Paul Gray.
I think he just called you all morons. After all, we're talking about voluntary leisure activities, not utilities. Add to that, there is competition - hundreds of choices, actually. You pay to be entertained. If you don't see entertainment value in a particular service or item, would you pay for it?
I don't agree with him. I think most people are smarter than that. I think that people will play a game as long as it's entertaining and stop playing when it's not. I think people will pay for entertainment that they find value in and not pay for entertainment that they feel is not worth the price being asked.
It's entirely possible I'm wrong and he's right. Maybe you are a bunch of morons. I doubt it, though.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Thanks,
Mike
Working on Social Strategy MMORTS (now Launched!) http://www.worldalpha.com
Well I have not been immersed in any FtP game really. Most of them throw the cash shop at you left and right.
I would argue that yes FTP makes more money but I think it does change how the games are fundamentally designed.
Ultima Online (A P2P MMO) was a game designed by the passion of gamers for gamers. It was a great game when it came out.
Many FTP games are designed how can we create incentives to our players to pay money.
Now some do this by selling power, or by restricting zones or inventory slots. Or maybe the best art assets for cosmetics are only available for a fee. Some are less intrusive some are more, some are able to be played at a competitive level with no cash shop usage, many are not.
However I think we can all agree with the main point of the article that FTP does shift the way the games get designed.
I see that as a huge backwards step for games but many would argue otherwise.
I think
a) the tricks don't work on most players since most don't pay, and
b) certainly don't work on me .. since i have paid nothing so far, and
c) people avoid the more exploiting games, and competition will sort things out.
Hi everyone :-)
First of all: No, I didn't call anyone a "moron" or will. Really...that's a bit bold of a statement.
And yes the text is biassed. There are good F2P titles out there and it's an interesting way for smaller studios to get their games going.
But I think zekeofev points out the direction of the text quite well: "...FTP does shift the way the games get designed."
Instead of entering "the show" and being entertained wholesale, you're entering "the shop" and having buy-decisions all the time.
The approach towards games changes.
"The game quality itself went down to be just a hollow carrier for this one all-important thing: monetization. The “game” in game design became less and less important. It should be quick and cheap. More like an impressive facade or some glittering tricks of light to lure the players in and to make them spend money as much and as long as possible."
and
"Now, however, a game is designed to lure and to trick players, picking their pockets while they’re distracted by some cheap spectacle."
If not, then what are you saying in the above statements?
The article isn't just biased, it's a grossly misinformed rant (no revenue before release for boxed titles? really, Armin?), littered with generalizations.
"Game design is no longer about entertaining the players by giving them a good, polished game they enjoy."
Really, Armin?
No worries, man. The crowd here totally has your back. Many of the posters here feel the same way you do about today's developers and how game design is no longer about entertaining the players by giving them a good, polished game they enjoy.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
This is the reason I hate F2P models. I'd be so much happier with at least buy to play...but games were so much better when it cost a monthly fee. You didnt have nearly as many trolls playing because it cost them (their parents) money. If they didn't like it, they'd stop playing. Now I feel like general chat in most f2p mmos is just talking about wow and how shitty the current game is compared but theyre too bored to play anything else.
That's okay. We can always break open the bones & suck the marrow out.
You are no longer space commie Jesus ergo if any bones shall be broken it shall be by Vylka Fenryka.
Why should that be a misinformation? You are working on a product. So you have no sales yet. No sales means no revenue. You have still to pay the bills. Maybe the company has some existing products and those existing products generate enough revenue to pay the bills. But the upcoming product is not generating anything but costs. Once the upcoming product is finished and released it starts to generate some income. Eventually at some point you'll reach break even for this single product (income generated with a specific product surpass its cumulative costs).
Yeah Really Loktofeit :-) People that get "motivated" - if you like it better - to buy something are no "morons". At least not in my view. Else we are all morons when going shopping.
And using that same logic:
Why shouldn't it be possible? You go out on a blind date, find out she's Adriana Lima hot and smarter than you but somehow find you interesting. You get married, have kids and never divorce. Is this possible? Yes, is it even remotely probable? I will let you guess.
The article is based on many false preconceptions, that just indicate that the author was not fully aware of the material, or is just leaving out what does not fit their already determined end result. Lets start with some basics.
F2P has been used sucessfully in the west since the 90's. It was not the more predominant business model for mmo's but it has been here, and been used sucessfully in the beginning. The use of a refernce point for the mass exudus to F2P is valid, and I would agree that DDO was the first big name conversion. However, this conversion, like all others was not about publishing unfinished games (as the article states). It was about finding a bigger audience, and in doing so, becoming more profitable. So, perhaps we should be asking why P2P was failing....
P2P is about selling your product, without letting the customer see it first. It is driven by marketting, and hype. It is depenand on large day 1 sales, before there is any player feedback. This has had diminishing returns. Players have started getting smarter, and less willing to drop their money on an unknown. This has HELPED world of warcraft, as it was the one known good game, and people would just buy/play that, rather than risk a new game. There have also been many high profile examples where millions of players felt that they got burned/tricked by P2P.
This has all led to the mass change to F2P in the west. The customer was unhappy with the status quo, and went looking for something else. F2P has been in the market for years, but it has only become popular, because P2P crashed and burned. This also explains why the most common method to monetize in F2P is the monthly sub... which is very similar to P2P. Very little has changed, except the customer can now see/try the product first. This is turning out to be what is killing WoW.
Hmm, In one of your supposed points to argue for the model you point out one of F2P's greatest flaws. You say people are smart enough to know when to basically stop paying for something (their entertainment or fun) when it no longer becomes fun to play due to "something". I can be more specific and say that something is either "time" or "money". Because if the game sucked from a gameplay perspective you would quite early anyway.
My point is that the further you move into a F2P game meaning the more competitive you try to be with the end game or nearing end game players, the less value F2P games offer. So everyone who finds a F2P they really really love will find they have to shell out far more money then the fiscally sound would deem reasonable ( I will use 15 dollars a month as the base line for reasonable).
So if everyone was as logical as you are using in your argument, everyone would be abandoning most every single F2P at some point due to having to spend too much money or too much time doing something "un-fun" as a substitute to spending money.
So the publishers are asking developers to create games that fiscally sound people will eventually abandon for one of two reasons.
ONE: It now cost to much money to be competitive against players with no self control or simply have money to burn.
TWO: Once hitting your 15 cap per month in real money, it now becomes too time consuming to grind away for in game resources to convert to the games currency to make up the gap to stay competitive.
And what point is it to play a game that you cant compete in?
Which brings me to my final point. If your just a tire kicker of games with no interest in being competitive at end games F2P games are actually perfect for you. And based on all the pro F2P players my guess is that most of market is tire kickers, hopping from game to game never really completing anything because of the two reasons I provided and not looking for value because their is always another F2P coming out they can dabble in for a month.
But the F2P model is nothing more that a cancer for the rest of us who understand economics as they apply to the end game of MMO's. And more so for the min maxers during leveling.
One more point: Remember when the wealth of your end game character could easily manage the leveling cost of alts keeping them in the best gear up until end game? It was effortless. That doesn't happen in F2P micro transaction games, the cost can still be staggering for every character you have to maintain.
+1
The assumptions that F2P model = cash shop bait game is very much flawed. A company focusing the bulk of their design choices around milking their consumers can (and will) do so regardless of business model. It's the studio that ultimately decides whether or not their game completely revolves around the business model, or if the business model and the game are just there to support each other.
You are basing your view on the false assumption that people who spend money above some arbitrary amount do not want to, do not see it as having value to their experience, or are not having fun.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
You seem to live in a world where pre-orders, prepurchases, cross promotions, VIP access, Deluxe/Collectors boxes and founder packs for boxed product MMOs have not existed for the past decade or so. No worries, though. Armin doesn't know about them either.
Another thread reminded me of this gem: Lifetime Membership sold prior to release (ex: Cryptic, Turbine)
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Those some are either born with a compulsive condition or extremely young with parents who live credit cards laying about.
This^
I think by now everyone on the forum knows my Libertarian/Capitalist ways. They know that I say "Don't like it, don't play it.". Blah Blah.
But this, this statement above IS the real issue. Yet here we are as gamers thinking only about ourselves, and getting something for free, that we didn't even see our beloved pastime, become just another commodity.