Close Continue. Another thing that is not mentioned in the F2P model is that there are several ways to get around the restrictions without having to spend real money yourself, similar to they that you don't have to spend cash to unlock new champions in League of Legends, but not as straight forward, because you actually have to buy the Cartel Items from other players.
Quote: Nathan Emmott: Allowing players to trade items they buy from the Market, to give gifts, and to sell them on the Galactic Trade Network is core to our plans for the Cartel Market and an experience we only want to improve! When they mentioned that Cartel Items were going to be tradable I imagined that they only refered to the cosmetic items, when In fact everyone from the cartel market is tradable, The quickbars, the authorization to access section X, the authorization to use artifact or event gear, and not to mention all the cosmetic items, pets, emotes, etc.
This is good for everyone but specially for returning players because if you happen to have some credits saved up you can use them to buy Cartel Items, and Bioware keeps getting the money because someone had to buy that Item directly from the Cartel Market previously. TLRD: So in short, I think the F2P Chart is pretty bad and needs to be reworked, it shows their new model to be too restrictive when in fact is much more flexible than it seems, Bioware is doing a poor job at advertising their product and this new model, people shouldn't have to go investigating the Dev Tracker to find out more about F2P, it's up to Bioware to bring the information to all their potential customers and let them know all the positives aspects and flexibilities of their new model, not just the restrictions.
Quote: Originally Posted by Kleryk What gives them the right to demand more? You didn't read the OP, did you.
He's right, aside from the restrictions the F2P conversion has terrible advertising. I had to point out that the empty symbol when moused over indicated he'd be able to do it at level There are examples like that all over. For something that's supposed to save the game they're doing a really bad job of marketing it and being clear about what's restricted and what isn't.
Did you know F2P players can't get credit boxes from mission rewards? It's not a big deal - BW probably does it to keep away credit farmers with free accounts and Slicing. That's reasonable. But a F2P player doesn't know that until they get into the game and see it, generally at level 4 or 5. One that's seen all the F2P restrictions already sees one more ostensibly nonsensical restriction added onto that.
I'm pretty sure you didn't actually read the OP, so I'll let you go back and do that now. He's quite right; I work at a college, next to the Helpdesk--an area filled with dozens of students at any given moment of the day discussing video games. Folks saying that there's all these horrible restrictions, therefore they decided not to even try the game.
Which was the OP's point. Which I am corroborating with real-world witnessing. He's not saying "lift the restrictions. Many f2p games have high acquisition rates, not bad retention but terrible monetisation - people are playing but not paying. This is not because the model doesn't work, very often it's due to either an inability to read the analytics and respond on a day to day basis or poor monetisation mechanics in the game design.
The amount of investment pouring into f2p games from respected and intelligent successful ex-developers who should know what they're doing should also prove the model. Last edit by Nick Parker on 27th February am. I think Apple's historical leaning towards featuring premium games not a recent development says more about their confidence in picking winners than it represents a reaction to consumer dissatisfaction.
Anthony Gowland Director, Ant Workshop 6 years ago. Featuring a bad premium game will make them a chunk of almost guaranteed revenue The amount of money Apple makes from any app even the big hitters is pretty insignificant compared to the money they make from hardware. Stephen Richards Game Deisgner 6 years ago. The problem here Rob, is that there's little evidence to suggest that F2P games that nurture their players and become profitable by providing fun and engaging experiences will, in general, do better than addiction driven skinner boxes tied up in appealing graphics.
That could change in the future, but it's far from inevitable. Whether F2P has grown the industry is also debatable, when you consider how many thousands of indie devs could be supported on just the revenues from Clash of Clans alone. You can't ask consumers to stop hating F2P. Consumers got burned and they aren't going to suddenly stop hating on F2P until developers give them a reason not to.
It's a chicken and egg problem and the developers laid that first egg and now consumers are playing chicken with developers income. On a second read, the entire article seems built on the idea that Apple's customers as a whole don't like f2p, based on them adding a "pay once" feature. I would say the continuing total dominance of free titles in download volume, and f2p titles still regularly being featured as Editor's Choice, puts that argument on very shaky ground.
I mean, to say "customers hate f2p" - have you got any evidence at all that this is true for anything but a vocal minority of Apple's customer-base?
Barry Meade , Fireproof Studios Ltd. Great article but sheesh! Is this really abdication of a model? The guys justified all decisions on grounds of playability - they would be making a worse game if they included monetisation willy nilly so thought carefully about it at each point of decision. This is linguistic somersaults? This just pays in to the notion, again, that F2P is monolithic, we must either love or hate it marmite style, accept or reject in toto.
Apparently we must all choose a camp otherwise things are too confusing. And the reason that might happen to those games is because they didn't think about monetisation vs. Sorry to rant on a small point, otherwise this was a fine read on a great topic.
The problem with F2P as a design philosophy is that it's exceptionally hard to avoid turning a game from "Free to play" into "Pay to win. We can see this problem even in games that have microtransactions. It also implemented micro-transactions for materials and weapons that Isaac could purchase. These purchases were not required and it was absolutely possible to build powerful weapons and still beat the game without them.
Players can refrain from using these mechanics, but the game is still designed around the idea that those mechanics will be presented and used. I tried dipping my toe into Star Wars: The Old Republic after it went F2P, but the constant, relentless nagging left a bad taste in my mouth.
It felt like Star Wars: Ferengi Edition. I realize that neither of these are mobile titles, but I think they hit on elements that still impact mobile development. If you're building a game with an eye towards F2P, it means you're identifying monetization opportunities in-game and trying to make them just annoying enough to encourage customer purchases without tipping over into "Screw it, I quit" territory. The more time you spend balancing that aspect of the game, the less time you have to experiment with innovative UI, or story, or gameplay mechanics.
Tom Hunt Game Developer, neocade 6 years ago. Last edit by Tom Hunt on 27th February pm. Pete Thompson Editor 6 years ago. Timing would suggest that this article came about because of Lionheads decision to release Fable Legends as F2P and also because of the recent announcement that World of Tanks is releasing on Xbox One?.
We'll see how Fable Legends, a game I've been looking forward to and had pre-ordered since announcement does as a free to play title.. Last edit by Pete Thompson on 27th February pm. Johnny Hsu Employee, EA 6 years ago.
I'm surprised that South Park didn't make fun of Roger Dickey's boasting about using "fun pain" as the crux of monetization in Zynga's free to play games. He's been giving speeches for years describing the use of pain and stressors as catalysts to receive payment. I think he was recently on NPR bragging about how creating a fun and free game that stimulates adrenaline and dopamine is important to achieve engagement whereby the subsequent implementation of pain can result in the monetization of consumers who are susceptible to the tactic.
Video games aren't the first industry to leverage stress and pain as a profiteering tactic. There is arguably no single phenomenon that more exemplifies the lopsided and abusive relationship between Good Guy Valve and its customers than the Steam Sale.
We love the Steam Sales and the discounts they bring. But perhaps even more than we love the low, low prices, we love The Sale Event itself. We love the pre-sale videos that we carefully cut together to hype each other up for the imminent spending spree. We love the in-jokes and the memes , the constant banter about the bleeding wallets and the screaming, tortured credit cards that just can't take any more.
But in the world of Good Guy Valve we give that marketing away, for free , to a billion-dollar corporation every year sometimes twice a year, if he asks nicely , doing our bit to help that corporation make more money during a sale event. This is the terrifying power of Good Guy Valve.
We do our part with the memes, the articles and the social media posts, and our good friend Valve does the rest. The rest meaning taking our money. And then, after all that, we don't even play the games. Back in , Good Guy Valve tore up the playbook again, showing us once and for all that they weren't an uncaring corporation — in fact they wanted nothing more than to open up their Steam Workshop and let us play around in their magical worlds of Dota 2 , Team Fortress 2 and, later, Counter-Strike GO.
And you can earn real money from it, they told us! Buy these items, and the 3D artists who made them will get 25 percent of the profits. We're all in this together! Talented 3D artists surged out of the woodwork, and the airwaves were saturated with feel-good stories of creators making very decent, livable wages off the sales of Demoman swords, machine gun skins and wacky couriers. As far as Valve is concerned, it's a fantastic arrangement: You do all the hard work for free, knowing that you might never be paid, but hoping you will at some point.
Valve sells your work to other people, and they take the overwhelming majority of the money from each transaction. Everyone's a winner Valve has lost nothing other than the sunk cost of the employee time spent maintaining the store, while gaining a lot of revenue.
The agreement itself states that you have no specific right to any payment, outside of the ability to upload the item. The specific Workshop agreement also forces you to keep the sales data itself confidential. Want to tell someone how well your items are selling?
Too bad. Valve has just recently slashed royalties for Dota 2 creators to almost nothing , right on the eve of the next massive International tournament. This artist has made tens of thousands of dollars from Steam Workshop item sales, and is still in love with the idea of content creation and modding, even if they're not overly optimistic about the future of the Steam Workshop. Or, to look at things in a more cynical light: Valve is eager to provide the tools that enable you to work for free It feels like many of Valve's decisions, really: short term profit for them, but it screws over the long term viability of everyone else.
Dota 2 continues to grow — not least of all because the prize money for the International tournaments is literally donated by us, the players, who purchase interactive Compendiums and Battle Passes to raise prize money for the competitors from which Valve takes 75 percent. Most players use F2P as a generic term now, for anyone new or Premium who is lacking in ability or loves the Gibus.
It still maintains some of its original meaning, but is more often used as a general insult like noob, and remember, even Premiums can get called bad. Showing 1 - 15 of 71 comments. I personally think that the majority of F2P's are little kids or at least, the majority of noticeable ones.
Most parents don't have much of a financial security problem buying a video game from a brick-and-mortar store. This is why there are so many year-olds in Call of Duty on consoles. The same can not be said about giving their credit card info to a website called "Steam" because their precious baby wants to play "Team Fortress 2".
When TF2 went F2P, that restriction was lifted. Therefore, more year-olds on mics. But if I hear that being skilled on TF2 costs 49 cents one more time I don't think F2P players are bad, the only thing I don't like about some, is that they beg for items a lot.
It gets very annoying but I try to deal with it. I also try to explain to them that hats aren't that cool. I remeber when I was F2P I also had a craving for hats, so it's understandable. Originally posted by InvisibleWater :. Wowie View Profile View Posts. The only reason threads like these never die is because nobody lets them. Can we let these threads die already? A Google search brought up an image which I believe is relevant.
The only thing is
0コメント