#1 Edited by Flavbot (90 posts) -

From what I understand their reasoning behind not reviewing F2P games is that since the game is free the "customer" can just try it out without risking any money.

I've found out that as I become older what I really want to know is not how I spend my money, but how I spend the little time I have avaiable for games. So I think a review for a F2P game is totally warranted. Is this F2P game worth investing my time in?

Especially when it comes to games like Dota 2 where, in my opinion,you really need to dedicate yourself to learning the game in order to truly enjoy it in the end. A review in this case whould be great, to have a better sense if the game is worth investing time in or not.

#2 Edited by Fearbeard (831 posts) -

I think there is value in it. Sure, it doesn't cost money to get into the game, but it does cost time.

Though, Giant Bomb is a pretty small crew so I'm not sure how much time they could devote to free games in the first place.

#3 Posted by TechHits (1378 posts) -

Quick look, yes. written thoughts on a free game, sure. A full on scored review, I'm not so sure.

#4 Edited by theodacourt (536 posts) -

The problem with reviewing F2P games is that they are so prone to change over time. Someone might stumble upon a review a few months after release and the review won't actually apply much to the game anymore. It's the same reason they don't review MMO's and things like Sims expansion packs. The only reason F2P games stop changing is because people don't play them anymore, and then there wouldn't be a need for a review anyway. I think the quick look or bombcast opinions are good enough for you to know whether to make a gamble on it. If they've already said they think something is quite good, I don't mind spending 2 hours on it to see if I agree or not, as it hasn't cost me anything. I can always not play the game after that!

DOTA 2 is a unique outlier in this. Even other MOBA's don't take so much time and even you Brad might tell you how awesome it is at the end of 200 hours played, it's still pretty awesome after 5-10 hours. Also you could try a simpler MOBA first.

EDIT: And also, do you think you might know what Brad might say in a review for DOTA 2? I reckon he might says "it's damned awesome and you should give it a try. It's free after all." There we go, no need for a review anymore!

#5 Posted by MildMolasses (3221 posts) -

Nope. GB is not a review focused site, and it would be a colossal waste of their time to dedicate themselves to reviewing a game that has no monetary barrier to entry. If it looks interesting to you, then it's on you to figure out if you want to put your time into it. If they want to cover it because its interesting to them, then great. I don't think they should force themselves to be playing these games for the sake of coverage.

#6 Posted by CheapPoison (733 posts) -

I guess i can see your point. But i would say look at gamespot for a full review.
Just considering the amount of time Brad put into it, daily dota and all that, I bet the score would be pretty good. There is so much information out there about starting to play a moba, i am not sure if they could do a better job then that and that is a reason why they don't. Beside I feel with something like Dota 2, peole will know if they are interested and those people have been into it for quite a while now.

For other free to play games.. Depends on the quality, i still consider too much throw away to warrant playtime/review.

#7 Posted by MEATBALL (3244 posts) -

If you're interested it's relatively easy to try it out and if it's a game that they might review, chances are you're hearing enough about it and what they think through other features. If Brad wanted to review DOTA 2, then I don't think they should treat it as a hard and fast rule that prevents him from doing so.

#8 Posted by Xymox (2088 posts) -

The "the game is free, so why not try it out?" argument works today but I'm not so sure it will in the future.

I mean, sure, if it doesn't look like it's worth your time after seeing screenshots/video and knowing that what they offer is free, then it's probably safe to say it isn't worth your time. But as more and more developers offer what they offer for free, it becomes a processes in which you need some way to filter the games that may not be worth your time as opposed to not worth your money.

I would for example argue that if an MMO asks you to spend time killing the same monster 100 times to get a new level so that you can kill a new monster/palate swap 100 times to get a level, that game may not be worth your time as there are other and better alternatives out there - that is to say, better ways to spend your time.

That said, I think it's fine to just do a quicklook of the more interesting titles in the free to play market. I don't think a full review is necessary.

#9 Posted by Dimi3je (323 posts) -

QL-s seem to me like a excellent way to present free to play games. A review would be too much, this way we get a whimsical commentary and a opportunity to discuss these games. Everybody wins!

#10 Posted by Darji (5294 posts) -

who seriously comes here for reviews?^^

Quicklooks sure but reviews? NO.

#11 Posted by Clonedzero (4200 posts) -

If they feel like it. I don't care about reviews in general.

They still have to review stuff to be taken seriously by the publishers, so sure why not?

#12 Posted by MormonWarrior (2593 posts) -

It's also because they totally hate most of the free to play stuff out there and don't want to waste time with it. That's sort of how they approach all reviews.

#13 Posted by believer258 (11914 posts) -

They don't really focus on reviews, though. Games like Tribes Ascend and Team Fortress 2 already have tons of content on the site. And most free to play stuff is terrible anyway.

Besides, the GB crew does their own thing. As far as I know, no one pops in and says "Hey, you need to cover this game today". Sometimes that's a bit unfortunate - they don't seem to often go out of their shooter/action game/occasional Western RPG comfort zone - but part of the reason I like this site is the freedom that the people who run it have.

Still kinda want that SMT4 Quick Look or something, though.

#14 Posted by TheMasterDS (2066 posts) -

No. Reviews are not the way of things anymore. They should Quick Look or Unprofessional them though.

#15 Posted by steelerzfan101 (271 posts) -

No. Reviews are not the way of things anymore. They should Quick Look or Unprofessional them though.

Yeah, including them or mentioning them in a live show like Unprofessional Fridays would probably be the best venue for those types of games. Reviewing them would be a little too hard for their team I believe.