#1 Posted by Bobby1234 (4 posts) -
#2 Edited by whyareyoucrouchingspock (975 posts) -

15 million people have been playing League Of Legends. Lord Of The Rings: Online took in more money going free2play than it did with a subscription. Team Fortress 2 has had an extended it's life for roughly 5 years still taking in lots of money thanks to going to a free2play model. Entire Asain markets operate on it. She has fame for being, a girl. Otherwise no one would give a shit.

#3 Posted by DJJoeJoe (1316 posts) -

free to play is not right for all games, it seems to only work right now for some MMOs. TF2 seems to do well but I think that's an oddity, make any other good game like that in the same genre f2p and I doubt you'd see such high adoption of new players, it's mostly it's exposure on Steam and that Valve is the team behind it.

#4 Posted by Paulus (173 posts) -

@DJJoeJoe: But considering the current online market for shooters, where basicly 90% of fps players are playing call of duty free 2 play seems like the only way to get a consistent community going. With the current domination of one game most games that come out that have multiplayer don't have a multiplayer community for a long time which is especially threatening for multiplayer only games. When you go free2play you can atleast kinda guarantee a community because the cost of entry is literally zero.

#5 Posted by CheapPoison (716 posts) -

don't disagree.

Now it works fine but it won't be long before we see games where the price is being pushed to as far as they can get it. To me personally the new tribes game come to mind, around 7-8 bucks for a gun. And for just one gun that is way too much. I can get some great full games for that price on steam and with 15 my options are almost limitless.

It will continue to do well i think but i think if there are more and more it will become less and less effective. I think it won't be long before people realise that in the end the free to play option is more expensive if you really go deep into it.

@Paulus said:

@DJJoeJoe: But considering the current online market for shooters, where basicly 90% of fps players are playing call of duty free 2 play seems like the only way to get a consistent community going. With the current domination of one game most games that come out that have multiplayer don't have a multiplayer community for a long time which is especially threatening for multiplayer only games. When you go free2play you can atleast kinda guarantee a community because the cost of entry is literally zero.

I agree with this sentiment, but they need to be very careful about it. If you just go with skins there won't be too much to gain money from. But once you start asking people to play cash for classes and better weapons i think (and by god i hope) tha people willl lose interest quickly and drop it like a brick.

#6 Posted by jozzy (2041 posts) -

Yes, most mmo's that go free to play make more money after that move, but keep in mind most of those mmo's were pretty much dead in the water, and had the choice of either closing up shop or going free to play. Don't think they actually make a ton of money, but when you make very little the percentages can go up realy quickly. We used to make $25,000 a month on subscribers, and now we make 50,000, 100% increase yay...

#7 Posted by yoshisaur (2609 posts) -

Free to play is a great model as long as the developers westernize it properly. If they follow the path of the Asian market with micro-transactions that change the state of the game substantially, then we will see a problem. Follow models like LOTRO, TF2, Tribes: Ascend, and maybe even Planetside 2; You'll have a gem in your hand.

#8 Edited by louiedog (2333 posts) -

How about you buy ad space if you want to send Giant Bomb traffic to your site? Every single post you have here is a link to strategy informer.

#9 Posted by Grixxel (762 posts) -

Sounds like somebody has no fucking clue what they are talking about.

#10 Posted by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -

I totally agree with Raymond. F2P games are more expensive than regular titles, yet deliver lower quality service and support.

#11 Posted by lockwoodx (2479 posts) -

You guys need to go check out age of empires online. 145$ to unlock what is basically a typical 50$ PC game.

#12 Posted by Paulus (173 posts) -

@rebgav said:

@CheapPoison said:

Now it works fine but it won't be long before we see games where the price is being pushed to as far as they can get it. To me personally the new tribes game come to mind, around 7-8 bucks for a gun. And for just one gun that is way too much.

I haven't seen a weapon priced at above $5 and they can be unlocked with in-game XP. I think that this is one of the valid ways to handle micro-transactions, if the paid content isn't superfluous aesthetic gear then it should be simple shortcuts to unlocks because people will buy that and it won't break or unbalance the game for other players.

Not too sure of that though, cause unlocking "better" weapons still feels like selling power. Granted if you can get those weapons without paying it feels less like you're screwing over the non paying members, but so far the best way to go seems the tf2 route and go for sidegrades instead of blatant upgrades. Though that does make it a harder thing to develop and not every game can pull it off so easy, tf2's cartoony nature kinda lends itself to potentially weird sidegrades. Also I think the community interactivity and frequent sales are what allows tf2 to be so successful at it. The sales make people feel less ripped off when they eventually do buy something and the idea that anyone can potentially get an item in the store and profit from it makes it seem less greedy.

#13 Edited by CheapPoison (716 posts) -

@Paulus said:

@rebgav said:

@CheapPoison said:

Now it works fine but it won't be long before we see games where the price is being pushed to as far as they can get it. To me personally the new tribes game come to mind, around 7-8 bucks for a gun. And for just one gun that is way too much.

I haven't seen a weapon priced at above $5 and they can be unlocked with in-game XP. I think that this is one of the valid ways to handle micro-transactions, if the paid content isn't superfluous aesthetic gear then it should be simple shortcuts to unlocks because people will buy that and it won't break or unbalance the game for other players.

Not too sure of that though, cause unlocking "better" weapons still feels like selling power. Granted if you can get those weapons without paying it feels less like you're screwing over the non paying members, but so far the best way to go seems the tf2 route and go for sidegrades instead of blatant upgrades. Though that does make it a harder thing to develop and not every game can pull it off so easy, tf2's cartoony nature kinda lends itself to potentially weird sidegrades. Also I think the community interactivity and frequent sales are what allows tf2 to be so successful at it. The sales make people feel less ripped off when they eventually do buy something and the idea that anyone can potentially get an item in the store and profit from it makes it seem less greedy.

i think TF2 is the only one that has gotten F2P shooters right. Just for those reasons There isn't much power difference in weapons and if you don't have a lot of weapons you get a lot of random weapons by playing. I always felt that making weapons or classes part of the thing you need to pay for kinda licks you out of content.

It needs at least a free rotation like in League of legends of like i think it will have in super monday night combat. So that you don't unlock stuff to only realize you don't like the way it plays or you need to unlock more to actually preform with it. And for this i will once again take an example from Tribes, Rooting out enemies in the generator room is impossible with a submachine gun against a guy with an aoe weapon that does more damage., so you need to buy or unlock that thumper to kinda function optimally in your role to defend the base. The imfiltrator also needs to unlock another primary weapon to be really scary or flexible, or get and upgrade the perk that gives you max melee damage so you can stealth kill light armor classes (which i hate that they can do that).

@rebgav said:

@CheapPoison said:

Now it works fine but it won't be long before we see games where the price is being pushed to as far as they can get it. To me personally the new tribes game come to mind, around 7-8 bucks for a gun. And for just one gun that is way too much.

I haven't seen a weapon priced at above $5 and they can be unlocked with in-game XP. I think that this is one of the valid ways to handle micro-transactions, if the paid content isn't superfluous aesthetic gear then it should be simple shortcuts to unlocks because people will buy that and it won't break or unbalance the game for other players.

There is definitely stuff that is that much. Like the engineers second primary weapon, which also is 100.000 exp which i think is overly much. I would be oke with it if it wasn't such a huge upgrade from the sub-machine gun you start with. Also I have seen some complaints cause it also seems to one of the highest damaging weapons in the game, which feels very much like selling power. And there with all the armor upgrades, all of em are minor but the general experience feels really like pay to win.

Like it is now i feel you really need to just main one class if you want a chance to upgrade that class to it's max potential. And in there games that focus around objectives it is really detrimental if you can't be flexible. I might have my engineer maxed but if i am in a team with 4 engineers i am better of playing something else but what if I can't.

The same issue exists in the moba games. the face there is you need to unlock heroes but if you unlock em you have him at his full potential right away normally (not considering league of legend runes) In Tribes you need to unlock the class and then invest a lot more to get it up in power. Admittingly some upgrades are very very minor but some are huge and are priced accordingly like the thumper for engineers (and prolly others).

I do realize that most of these problems stem from the difference of games. In a shooter it's harder to come up with a new class every 2 weeks(in contrast to a new hero) to keep revenue going so you kinda need to have something different. I just wonder if TF2 can get away with it cause it just has a bigger player base or the other one try to cash in harder.

@lockwoodx said:

You guys need to go check out age of empires online. 145$ to unlock what is basically a typical 50$ PC game.

I am going to agree that this is stupid, but in a way it takes way more money to unlock everything in league of legends or heroes of newerth then in age of empires. And i feel i could make the argument for age of empires that you will get one race and keep with that one. In a strategy game it is best, (and i feel i play and most other people play) pick one favorite army and stick with that so you will rarely spend that much even if you play it heavily. In moba games on the other hand where the game kinda revolves around picking and countering the enemy team/their strategy. So in these you do need the flexibility and need to have a good selection of heroes to be flexible enough to react to them. And the fact that they balance constantly (lol and hon normally get a patch every 2 weeks with balance changes and a new hero) so that means balance can and will switch fast. One hero that the buffed now might be 'useless' in few weeks.

#14 Posted by Azteck (7450 posts) -

Riot just hosted a tournament with 50,000$ first price, and a bunch of other stuff for the 2nd and 3rd place. Clearly they can't be making any sort of profit.

#15 Posted by CheapPoison (716 posts) -

@rebgav said:

By putting in the time required to become adequate at playing the game you earn more than enough XP to max a couple of classes. Realistically, the only people who would really need to pay to unlock gear are people who don't put in the time or effort required to take advantage of the classes and weapons that they're paying for. Unlike most traditional shooters, having all of the unlocks is never going to make someone who is bad at the game suddenly good because nothing in the game, weapon or perk, is an advantage unto itself. Granted, if you were deeply, deeply concerned about people getting a lot of spammy kills in a pub game of CTF then you might get annoyed at the unlock system... but who cares about that noise, really?

Well it is not like it is unplayable. And it feels very good in my book. It is just borderline what you can get away with I feel. You can do most things with what is given to you at the start. I just can't help but feel a bit unfair that I can't do anything to some guys. But my complaints mostly stem from trying to play an engineer cause I like to keep the base in order, but he really is only good for repairs without unlocks, cause you need support to kill attackers or root them out of the generator room.

But i guess I can also just say that in some way i think the balance is off for some starter weapons, some weapons don't feel to be ideal for some classes or their supposed role.

#16 Posted by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@DJJoeJoe said:

free to play is not right for all games, it seems to only work right now for some MMOs. TF2 seems to do well but I think that's an oddity, make any other good game like that in the same genre f2p and I doubt you'd see such high adoption of new players, it's mostly it's exposure on Steam and that Valve is the team behind it.

Before you comment further you should know that are a few companies who built their fortunes on the F2P model and two of them make a lot of action games including FPSes.  TF2 is not a statistical outlier by any means.
#17 Posted by CheapPoison (716 posts) -

@rebgav said:

A single engineer can't keep the base in order, that's probably going to be quite frustrating for you. That's not so much a balance issue as a teamwork issue. Unless you have a defense which is working together and relying on the generator for turrets, mines and shields then you're kind of wasting your time. It can be a good idea for a tech class to spec for piloting vehicles or chasing, at least then you can still contribute and earn xp even if the base is perfectly fine or a total lost cause.

Ye, it is kinda the teamwork thing. Can't be helped i guess.

And all in all i think free to play is a cool thing as long as they keep a tight eye on the balance and on people willingness. I just invested 20 or 30€ into league of legends and from then i had enough to enjoy myself so i could earn most of it from there. Athough you can't earn everything that is just not possible. I guess from there on it is just my obsession to try everything and be flexible and all that stuff.

#18 Posted by Freshbandito (642 posts) -

@Azteck said:

Riot just hosted a tournament with 50,000$ first price, and a bunch of other stuff for the 2nd and 3rd place. Clearly they can't be making any sort of profit.

first prize was $100,000 along with about another $50,000 for the other places and it wasn't riot funding it, Intel and it's partners were, that's why the event is called the "Intel extreme masters" it was an event for league, starcraft, counterstrike etc.

#19 Posted by Mikemcn (6937 posts) -

There's just too many free to play games out there right now.

#20 Posted by ArbitraryWater (11423 posts) -

The continued success of League of Legends and TF2 seems to say differently. I know I have personally spent far too much money on LoL just so I could unlock some of the newer champions.

#21 Posted by tourgen (4426 posts) -

I heard someone make the distinction between Free to Play and Pay to Win. I think it was a good point. Right now we call them all the same thing but they are really two different types of games.

Anyway annualized $60 disks is Ubisoft's style. Free to Play doesn't fit in all that well.

#22 Posted by Brodehouse (9521 posts) -

I think the most obvious choice for F2P is fighting games. They could run it like League of Legends, with a rotating roster of playable characters every week, and then you can buy the dudes you want for X amount of dollars.