Sony & Microsoft Going Heavily on F2P Model

Sony and Microsoft are telling developers they're "going heavily" on free-to-play and in-app purchasing models with their next-gen consoles, according to Epic Games VP Mark Rein. Speaking in a roundtable discussion at the UK's Game Horizon conference, Rein said both companies will take on the kinds of financial models seen on mobile devices.

"The next-gen consoles are going to be fully embracing the free-to-play and these IAP-type business models," Rein told the audience, "So in case you don't know that I'm putting that out there. Sony and Microsoft are both going heavily in that area."

Roundtable chair Matt Martin of GamesIndustry International said that's what both platform holders are saying, but that "we still need to see some kind of evidence."

Rein replied, "Well, I'm telling you. I'm telling you what they're telling developers."

In-App purchasing isn't a bad model, when the software/idea is great. However, it'll be interesting to see the result of what happens down the line.

Joystiq.

I prefer games where I pay some set amount and get the full game to play with. And expansion packs, expansion packs are great! ~8 months later release a big chunk to play through, maybe adding even more to a newgame+ type system. Or an entire faction or two, or a whole new set of tracks and cars, whatever.

I've sunk like $100 into Dragon's Dogma and I don't even feel bad about it.

It's the psychological difference of just making 1 or 2 big purchases up front and getting to play vs. a bigass STORE button on the start screen, BUY NOW buttons all over the in-game GUIs, that bullshit always in your face. Fucking double XP weekends and palette swaps that used to be rewards for in-game achievements or top-rank play. Fuck all of that bullshit I don't want it I won't buy it, count me out if that's the future of console gaming.

How is this going to affect single player narrative games? If they're focusing on F2P models, then they're likely focusing on multiplayer games or single player games that sort of go on forever.

Unfortunate and unsurprising.

got to be honest not sure how well F2p cgameplay translates to controllers. Maybe it's just because I've never played a good one that uses one.

I've got no problem with this. Plenty of games out there would probably translate pretty well in a direct port... Warframe, for example. And I'm not sure that even the big-name mobas are totally out of the question.

I'm not necessarily opposed to this shift, but it depends on the depth of the games that comes out. If players are going to get some water downed game like SimCity social or a free to play SC5 for that matter, then hell no. But if Sony or MS create the next Dota 2, then they will be offering really deep, interesting experience that I would happily pay a series of small fees to play.

That's a shame. I hate games that nickel and dime with microtransactions. They always feel like a huge rip off and that the best parts of the game are being held behind a repulsively high pay wall. Oh well. Less games for me to pay attention to means I can spend more time digging into my huge backlog of games.

Yeah, it's really going to depend on the game and how it's handled, but there's been more cases of doing it wrong than doing it right so far...

Makes sense since Valve and Riot Games and about every other surviving MMO are rolling around in money from Free-To-Play with an easy to access store to compliment. If Sony and Microsoft want to get in on that action they need to provide a platform that gives them what they need to support that game: Freely available client, freely available, frequent patching, and an easy to access store. Neither PSN or XBLM does that today.

@haziqonfire: I also don't think a rise in F2P means there will no longer be full retail games. F2P will always be more of a multiplayer and coop thing. That doesn't mean that we won't get strong single player experiences as retail games. There maybe fewer of these type of AAA games but people like Ken Levine still need to make games, right? My many point of concern are games like GoW: Judgement, a full retail game with microtransactions, yuck! Or something like Borderlands 2 where they sell a season pass, but then release two character classes within a calender year that are not included because it wasn't included in the "season".

My preference would be to pay for any game upfront and not worry about it, but I have to draw the line somewhere. If Microsoft asks me to pay $15 for Xbox live, as well as $60+ for the game, and $25+ for a season pass, it becomes too much. Even though there is a place for a few of these types of games a year, the idea that this will be any type of norm makes my stomach churn.

Is "Going heavily on F2P" grammatically sound?

Anyway I'm surprised how long it's taking people to get over the whole F2P model. You can get a hell of a lot of games for free now with no incentive to buy anything and people still think it's a scam (granted in some cases it is.)

That's definitely problematic. A $60 video game essentially becomes a $100+ game depending on how willing you are to invest. It can get annoying, though at this point of time I've never been enticed to drop $25+ for a season's pass for any title.

That's cool for people who are into that model and maybe don't have a whole lot of money for whatever next gen retail games will cost.

I'm concerned about what it means for the future of games as a complete experience. Right now, it can be tough to find a game that you can consider complete, as there are always hooks to sell DLC. The problem I have with F2P is that the very design has to be first and foremost about monetizing gameplay rather than balance, art, or any other concern. If "most" games go this route in the next generation, I can't see myself continuing to be a hardcore gamer.

There is also a serious perception problem with F2P/microtransactions. Imagine if a game like Dark Souls, which has been praised for it's difficult design, "accessibility" be damned, offered "soul packs" for a couple bucks each. Regardless of the designer's intention, it would seem that the game was intentionally designed to be difficult to sell those microtransactions.

I don't necessarily think single player games are going to get the short end of the stick. I wouldn't be surprised if they took a backseat. However, I really doubt that Activision still spends money on single player campaigns in CoD games if they thought people didn't play them. I don't think that Metro Last Light or Bioshock Infinite would have seen the light of day if someone, somewhere didn't think they could sell. Skyrim wouldn't have been the massive success that it was if nobody cared for single player games. Tomb Raider sold pretty well, from what I recall. Nobody remembers Dead Space for its multiplayer. Sleeping Dogs didn't even have multiplayer. Watch Dogs, Infamous Second Sun, The Last of Us, and Remember Me all seem to be pretty focused on single player. All of these go to show that yes, single player games are still popular enough for major publishers to pay attention to, and I doubt that they will stop existing or that they'll have a huge drop in quality. I don't think that Sony and MS - or Sony, at least - are losing interest in getting single player games on consoles. I just think they're looking for even more sources of income, which is what businesses do.

it sounds bad for gameplay wise. with how DLC is i can see kind of like half the game going to having to pay for that.