So far I'm not hearing arguments from anyone that counter my points about the model I'm suggesting incentivising devs to make more interesting and worthwhile experiences compared to what is incentivised by the current F2P model. If you have ideas to add to the discussion or valid reasons my system is worse than farmville then I'd love to hear but telling me not to discuss an idea is pretty stupid.
I think the argument that most people are making is that your system doesn't incentivise "more interesting" or "more worthwhile" experiences.
All it does is incentivise creating systems that cheat players to make more money.
You brought up Spelunky, so let's talk about Spelunky.
A large part of what makes Spelunky what it is is that it encourages exploratory risk-taking. You need to take risks to learn it. And you need to learn it because it's a really really fucking dense game. After you die, you don't jump back into a new game because you didn't see enough of the content yet (like many of the arcade games you're talking about). You jump back into a new game of Spelunky feeling like "I'm better equipped to handle this game than the last time I played it. Let's fucking do this!" You fail, you learn, and the reward you get better. It's a cycle that's built into the game, and the fact that it is a cycle is a very core part of what makes the reward become as satisfying as it is.
Adding a per-life cost to Spelunky totally changes the nature of what it is, because at a certain point, you're not rewarding the player for playing the game anymore. You're either punishing them by taking their money, or punishing them by outright refusing to let them play the game again.
You're also creating a false dichotomy between the current free to play market, and the arcade market of the 80s and 90s.
There are a few main things that you have to keep in mind:
- They existed in a time when it wasn't feasible to get comparable experiences anywhere else.
- They existed in a time when pretty much every video game consumer was an enthusiast.
- There were far, far less arcade games ever produced than there are free to play games now, by several orders of magnitude.
Yes, ten random Arcade games would probably be better than ten random F2P games. That shouldn't be surprising, because those Arcade games were designed for a far smaller audience, with much narrower taste, in a much less saturated market. Of course those Arcade games will be better, but it's absolutely not because the business model incentivised good design. People accepted that model because a better one didn't exist or wasn't feasible. The industry and the audience is just different now, and that's the most important thing: Those F2P games that you're talking about weren't made for anyone who's spending their time posting on Giant Bomb.
The model you came up with makes sense in your head because you think that Farmville and Spelunky are directly comparable, when they're not.
The F2P model didn't create games like Farmville. The massive influx of end users that came from explosive popularity of facebook and iPhones created Farmville.
Your argument doesn't fly because you're wrongfully blaming the F2P model for shitty games when the real culprit is a much broader and less discerning audience. Your model wouldn't be used for games targeted at gamers. It would be used for games targeted at the same audience as Farmville or Candy Crush, and developers would be just as exploitative with it as they are with the current popular F2P model that you're so vehemently against.
Log in to comment