RAGE!!: "free to play"

[Cpt_Harlock]

Ok guys, so IGN just posted this article about Valve boasting that F2P quadrupled their profit... AND HOLY SSSHHHH** I got mad. My first comment was rejected cause of my rage. So i had to post here in hopes that someone see's it the way i do. So here is my second, more docile, comment.

Well... My comment was too full of rage to be accepted by a mod...

"Free to play" doesn't exsist and shouldn't be a legal term for these games.

"Free to die" or "Pay to win" sounds more like it.

TF2 was PERFECT before they switched to this. It was balanced and skill was actually noticable. Now skill has been replaced by whoever wasted the most money on their items. It's ridiculous that this many people fall for it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing TF2, was once one of the greatest shooters. I'm bashing the greedy business men who are ruining the gaming industry. Gaming is literally my passion, I once yearned to get into this industry. Now it does nothing but anger me and discust me.It used to be about art and AMAZING ideas and passion. Now it's about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

F2P cost more than $60... I hope everyone realizes that.

Arrrrrgh!! I hate this new F2P fad sooo damn much. "But it's free to play harlock!" Yea? Well you just spend $398 on ONE of your characters. WHAT THE FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF?

Ok... I'm breathing now... sorry.

[Jake55778]

I disagree, at least in the case of TF2. TF2 going free to play hasn't affected the professional scene in the slightest, they simply use a whitelist of weapons and items deemed balanced, or stick entirely to the default loadouts. Skill is still noticeable even at lower levels of play. No matter what loadout you play using you'll still get stomped without proper teamwork. Besides the hats and weapon unlocks were a part of the game long before it became free to play.

There are definitely examples of games where buying power is the only way to be successful, but when handled correctly I don't feel that free to play is inherently a bad business model. It gives players the ability to dictate how much they invest in a game rather than shoehorning everybody into the same $60 price bracket, and as we've seen on multiple occasions it can be extremely profitable for the publisher/developer. Which is ultimately a good thing if it allows them to continue supporting the game/create a sequel.

"F2P cost more than $60... I hope everyone realizes that."
Free to play costs as much or as little as you decide the game is worth. It's entirely up to your own valuation of whether the perks on offer are worth more than the time it would take you to acquire them without paying. There are people who would rather pay a few dollars than grind several hours to get a particular item.

"Gaming is literally my passion, I once yearned to get into this industry. Now it does nothing but anger me and discust me.It used to be about art and AMAZING ideas and passion. Now it's about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$."
Large scale games development has always been about the money. There has never been a point in gaming where that wasn't the case. At least games these days aren't riddled with instant death traps designs to screw you over for one more quarter. I don't think that diminishes their artistic merit. If anything I think technology has allowed developers greater freedom in expanding gaming as an art form. But if you want artistic merit without the burdens of economics I suggest looking into mods and freeware. There are plenty of people who devote their time and expertise to such projects purely for the love of the medium, without any expectation of monetary gain.

[Lord_Mountbatten]

It used to be about art and AMAZING ideas and passion. Now it's about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.

Er, back in the day the ideas weren't really that amazing. I really can't be arsed with practically all of the 80s stuff and a decent chunk of the 90s stuff. Most of it is dull as hell. Nowadays I actually see a lot more of the "AMAZING ideas and passion", although the whole "games as art" argument is not something I want to get into.

It just so happens that the business is becoming properly established as a lucrative investment. You are going to see the types trying to get money out of the whole thing, just like you'll see with practically every other medium of entertainment out there. You are also going to see those who are passionate, have interesting ideas and produce fantastic pieces. Look at the variation and the popularity of the Indie scene for instance (not to mention the fact that you do find good stuff from the established giants, despite how evil they supposedly are).

At the same time, how can you be sure that there aren't passionate people who just so happen to have ideas and decisions that are incredibly unpopular?

[Cpt_Harlock]

I know there are incredibly unpopular games. But that's what bothers me. And what I mean Jake n Lord about it being all about money is that games used to be unique and new. People had great idea after great idea. Now it's clone after clone after clone after clone... it is LITERALLY for the sole purpose of money. Games used to be an effort to make money, yes. But at least it had original ideas and efforts to stand out amongst the other great games.

Maybe it's the honor and pride that is dyeing, not only in gaming, but in the world. This is where i voice it I guess, gaming has been the one thing I've loved my whole life. I miss beautiful games like ICO, skillfull online games like socom, SMART games like Monkey island... Now it's Free to play hack n slash that's another clone, free to play FPS that's another clone, F2P anything that makes you pay to unlock the full game or make your character look cooler.

And Jake, I understand that there is always going to be that group of players who is about skill like I am. They will band together and enjoy the game the way they like it. But we both know that is the minority now. The majority of players want to have the best gear and can't stand to lose. They don't want to practice to get better and build skill, they will thrown money at the problem to have a higher chance at winning. And these companies know this. And THAT's what bothers me.

[Cpt_Harlock]

I don't know, maybe I'm wierd to have a sense of honor and pride in something fake like a video game...

But when I used to play socom and used the weakest pistol in the game to take out an entire team of players using overpowered guns, it felt SOOOOO good. I just knew that there's no way any other player using a cheap gun could possibly feel the satisfaction I felt of pulling a round out of my ass and turning a definite loss into a win.

Like the heart beating our of your chest feeling, intense... Like someone won the damn wold cup in the final seconds sort of thing.

I haven't felt that in years. Maybe it's the fact that my "Golden Age" of gaming is long gone and it looks like it's all about fancy graphics and accessibility from here =\

edit: And I forgot to mention that online gaming is all about using the easiest and cheapest weapons available. And yes, I understand it's the new thing to piss everyone off as much as possible. But to be honest I feel it's just a tactic to cover up the lack of skill, or lack of effort necessary to build the skill, needed to be effective with the guns that don't give free kills.

TL;DR: I hate everything technology based that has to do with other people cause people suck. Besides EscapeCraft =) (most of the time) [jk] {maybe}

[Jake55778]

"They don't want to practice to get better and build skill, they will thrown money at the problem to have a higher chance at winning. And these companies know this. And THAT's what bothers me."
But in TF2 that doesn't work, that's what separates it from some of the truly awful free to play games out there. No matter how much money you throw at the game you don't gain any significant advantage over other players. Very few of the weapons are considered upgrades from the default, and those that are offer only a very minor advantage. The vast majority of purchasable items are purely cosmetic and have no impact on game balance (unless you count unusual hats as making you more noticeable to snipers).


"Maybe it's the honor and pride that is dyeing, not only in gaming, but in the world."
Again I'm going to have to disagree. This is something of a pet peeve of mine. I firmly believe that the world as a whole is a better place to live now that it has been at any other point in history, and in most areas the statistics will back me up on that claim. The difference is that people are better informed of the many horrible things that do still exist.
Nostalgia also plays a role, as does age. There's a point in particular when you first transition into being an adult. When you're young your parents shelter you from the world. They try to paint everything you experience in a positive light. When you first start to become independent you're exposed to a broader view of the world through the media; which often paints events in a negative light, simply because it's more dramatic. Jumping from one extreme to the other leads to teen angst and misanthropy, at least that's my theory.

"Now it's clone after clone after clone after clone... it is LITERALLY for the sole purpose of money. Games used to be an effort to make money, yes. But at least it had original ideas and efforts to stand out amongst the other great games."
The reason for the clones is simple: investors. Games are expensive to make, and getting more so as demand for longer games with better graphics increases. The way development cycles work means that the money to make the game all has to come in advance. Over the course of 1-5 years (or 12 in the case of Duke Nukem Forever) it needs to go towards hiring artists, programmers, 3D modelers, animators, voice actors, designers, marketers, and testers, all of whom take a lower wage and work longer hours than they could in other industries. In order to pay their staff and actually make a game studios need money, but they can't make any money without a game to sell... but they can't make a game to sell without paying their staff: dilemma.
Investors foot the bill for this initial cost. The problem is investors don't care what they're investing in, they just want a guaranteed return. The best way to do that in the games industry is to copy what already works. It's safer to make a clone and be sure of at least some sales, than to try out an original idea that could potentially tank.

[mydrox]

I really like the concept of Free to Play. It allows me to play a game, and if I like it, I can spend money on it.

Free to Play goes wrong to moment they start violating the Number One Rule: Never Sell Power
Because as soon as you violate that Rule you start forcing Players to buy your stuff.

[Milo_Windby]

Free to play can either suck the rhinos balls or work really well.

I'm going to give an example of a current F2P that I am playing that I think works really well.
Star Trek Online has just become F2P and it does it well, you have everything open to you and the stuff you can buy are for the most part just cosmetic or increases your character slots and such.
The games store currency is "Cryptic points". You can buy those with real money or you can do daily quests and earn "dilithium" and use the games exchange system to trade dilithium for points. I will admit that does take a bit longer then just using the credit card and buying the points... but the fact you have the option is really nice in my opinion.

http://startrekonline.com/f2p_features
Best way to really show what it has besides me blathering on like a school girl in love ._.

[SachielOne]

Harlock, I suggest you go to http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/microtransactions for an example on how to do F2P properly (This video was actually a big influence in how we do our donation system here). Anyone not following the rules laid out in that video is Doing It Wrong.
Companies need to make money in order to survive, and if you aren't WoW (or possibly The Old Republic), a subscription business model simply isn't viable in this day and age.

As for your comments about originality, OF COURSE games used to be more original. No one had done them before. In addition, as you grow older, you have a wider pool of things you have seen to compare new things to. As that pool gets larger, you are more likely to have seen something similar before. If you want to see some truly original games, look in to the indie scene. The comparatively low cost of development means that one has a greater freedom to experiment with new ideas.

Finally, outside of the aforementioned indie scene, gaming has never been entirely about art. While you can love what you do, love alone does not put food on the table. With the constantly increasing cost of development, the only people who can afford to finance the big-name titles you seem to be raging against are corporate monoliths. These companies want a guaranteed return on their investment. If that means another ten Call of Duty sequels, that's the direction they are going to go in.

To illustrate my last point: There's a great story in the Dead Rising 2 collector's edition art book about how the first Dead Rising game was make. The guy behind the game (Keiji Inafune, for the unaware) had to secretly put resources on that project when the executives weren't looking. When they finally did notice, so much money and time had been invested in the project that Capcom was forced to finish and release the game in order to get that money back. What we ended up with was probably one of the most interesting titles in the XBox 360 launch lineup.

Sorry if that was a bit rambling, but I am not known for my eloquent speeches.

[Cpt_Harlock]

Yea, I understand what everyone is saying. Still stand by my statement about there being no pride or honor in the gaming world. I'm past my teenage years already, I've put thousands and literally thousands of hours into hundreds (maybe thousands?) of games. Too much time to be honest. And I've noticed a huge change.

I get why, they are figuring out what makes more money. The companies know that if they make a game for a player like me then they won't sell much at all. If they make it accessible then they can make HUGE profits. And if they work on graphics more than they work on gameplay then more people will be mesmerized and buy their game.

Gaming in the late 90's and early 00's wasn't as (i hate using this word cause it will be taken the wrong way) mainstream as it is today. They were focussed on the group of people that were gamers, so they built games for their playerbase. Now a decade later, they've realized that making the games accessible draws in a LOT more buyers to their games. Look at the Wii, now grandmas and grandpas, children, fathers, and mothers are the core targets. I know it's smart.. they've probably doubled if not trippled their target audience.

I'm not denying how their business side works. I know all they want is money and they're getting smarter at it. But that doesn't mean it wont bother me and cause me to look down on what the games are becoming. Games aren't as fun to me as they were back then. Because now all I have to look forward to is amazing graphics and accessible gameplay. And I could care less about either of these things..... Which is why I'm on Minecraft and still play my Nintendo/sega/PS2 on a regular basis.

I've seen the numbers nowadays when they've made games for "hardcore" players. They're not even close to as high. Dark Souls 2 did this and compare it to any of the big accessible names in the gaming industry. I guess that's the part I hate more than anything, that it doesn't make sense to make a game for players like me. The broader audiance takes the lead. So I'm not arguing why they're doing it, it's just the reason I feel the games I love playing are long gone. actually, they're just slowly becoming more and more extinct.

I know once in a while a gem will come out like Minecraft. But I used to have to basically pull my hair out trying to decide what game to spend my money on next cause they're all awesome. Now I have to wait for months and months (years) for one game I think might finally be good and be disappointed by it cause it has no gameplay and just looks pretty.

[Cpt_Harlock]

"They don't want to practice to get better and build skill, they will thrown money at the problem to have a higher chance at winning. And these companies know this. And THAT's what bothers me."
But in TF2 that doesn't work, that's what separates it from some of the truly awful free to play games out there. No matter how much money you throw at the game you don't gain any significant advantage over other players. Very few of the weapons are considered upgrades from the default, and those that are offer only a very minor advantage. The vast majority of purchasable items are purely cosmetic and have no impact on game balance (unless you count unusual hats as making you more noticeable to snipers).

Maybe my experience was different. But I used to love playing scout and killing people with the pistol/bat. Now I shoot someone with more shots than it used to take and they turn around and one-hit me with a giant scimitar. I feel it threw the balance way off. Maybe it's cause I don't have any items... I just don't think I should need anything besides what was originally in the game to have any chance at doing great.

[Jake55778]

Well a demoman who has equipped all melee focused items, or a "demoknight" as it's been dubbed, is practically it's own class, complete with all the strengths and weaknesses of any of the others. The unlocks have shifted the balance, but I don't think they've broken it.

TF2 is a game of counters. I think that's the reason it can be so polarizing at times. People don't like the idea that as a scout they basically have no chance of winning against a camping engy. Or that as a spy there is nothing they can do to stop a spamming pyro. Individual match-ups are deliberately unbalanced because it forces teams to work together. If you're trying to play the game as a lone wolf (and you aren't a spy) you're doing it wrong.

"I just don't think I should need anything besides what was originally in the game to have any chance at doing great."
You don't. At all. Playing without unlocks is perfectly viable for every class. Most pros practice that way and in tournaments pretty much everything except the kritzkreig is banned. If you don't like the changes just find a server that has them disabled and favorite it.


None of this has any relation to the game being free to play however. The weapon unlocks were in the game for years before it went free to play. Everything is unlockable via achievements or random loot drops, and none of it is required in order to be successful. What they offer is gameplay variety, not power.

[Zehydra]

To be honest I like Notch's approach to the idea of "free to play". Rather than call it "Free to play", call it "Pay for what you want", and honestly I like this business model much better than the pay $60 for game release and then some for DLC.

At least in F2P you get the DLC for free (usually)

[SachielOne]

Well, no sooner had I made my post, when this article showed up. I think it illustrates one of my points even better than I could. The main thrust of the article is that one of the most influential and iconic games from the Golden Age of PC Gaming came very, very close to never seeing the light of day.

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/3/8 ... n-bethesda

[Sti_Jo_Lew]

I have nothing against free to play games. In most of the F2P games I've played, you only have to pay for cosmetic options, and unlocking items faster so you don't have to wait for them.

Take Tribes: Ascend for example, you can unlock every item in the game through gaining xp in matches, or you can skip the "time requirement" by using cash. It's a good way to do things if you don't want to be forced to use the assault rifle until you can unlock the spinfusor.

Also, when it comes to originality, most ideas in gaming have already been done before. Almost nothing is truly original, and most of the stuff that is isn't successful. There are some exceptions like Portal of course, but it makes more sense financially to go with something you already know will sell.