It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So I was just kinda poking around Steam today, and this kinda struck me funny
I was looking at a lot of the F2P games I have in my library on Steam, and my playtime on them (usually around 10-15 hours). I admit, when a F2P game is good and I'm having fun, I have no problem dropping a little bit of cash on it. And then I was looking at a lot of games I've picked up on sale and haven't even got around to playing at all yet, but hey, for a couple of dollars, why not, right?
So, the question isn't which would you rather play, or rather be inclined to pay for.
The setup is, you have 2 identical games that are set to be completed within the next 2 years: Game A costs $1 up front, with some free DLC content. Game B is Free, but the DLC costs $1 to unlock. The actual gameplay, graphics, DLC, everything between the two is identical, and we'll assume the game looks reasonably fun and interesting (whatever your taste is) and is getting reasonably good early press, only the revenue model is different.
The question is: Your an investor - you are looking to invest in Startup Developer A or B - you can only pick one - which would you be more willing to invest in and why?
I guess it's a round-about way of which do you think makes more money, once you take the "It depends on if the game sucks" question out of it. Does it really depend on the game (i.e. can you actually write a game to fit a financial model, or can you always backfit a financial model onto a game design effectively?) Is money up front a barrier to entry that prevents purchase, or is it guaranteed revenue?
You can go any way on the DLC you wish, I left it vague intentionally: cosmetic only if it makes you feel better, or maybe it's The Sword of a Thousand Truths and insta-kills everything, it may be part of the discussion, because that variable may matter to a lot of people.