godfather_1's forum posts

#1 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -

[QUOTE="godfather_1"][QUOTE="experience_fade"]

Well, Happy Wars, Xbox Live's first F2P game, which received a 5.0 from GameSpot, has over 2 million downloads thus far.

Now, digital item revenue is almost never publically released for any game, but you can bet that if a bad game gets 2 million downloads, a good game will only increase that number. The more people that play your F2P game = the more money you make.

Think of the first CoD style F2P shooter. Woah NELLY.

experience_fade

I would have to disagree on the "number of downloads" argument, just because a game has 2 million people download it doesn't mean it has made money. What if users just downloaded it to try because it was free, didn't like it and deleted it in an hour?

You're misinterpeting my point.

I'm only suggesting the chance of making profit is higher with the more people that download an F2P.

If the majority of any F2P audience doesn't spend any money, then you'd want the maximum amount of people to play the game. 

Over 2 million people downloading a terribly reviewed Happy Wars gives it a higher chance of making money than if the game were only downloaded by 500,000 people.

If the majority of the audience doesn't want to buy the store items, then there is something wrong with the game. Hoping the maximum amount of people to play it won't change that. The publishers and developers will need to make sure that the conversion rate from people playing the game to people buy store items is high to make a profit which brings me back to my original point that it needs to be implemented within the game design to ensure people do buy micro-transaction items.
#2 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -

[QUOTE="godfather_1"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

Most single player games seem to have one year to be profitable and this includes any DLC. Free to play does not seem that it could cover the cost of singple player games since free to play back seem to work on a long term plan.

experience_fade

Not to mention that if the game does go F2P then there has to be certainty for publishers that gamers will buy items from the store. The game will need to be a sufficient quality to attract gamers, a F2P game that sucks will not be good for publishers/developers financially.

Well, Happy Wars, Xbox Live's first F2P game, which received a 5.0 from GameSpot, has over 2 million downloads thus far.

Now, digital item revenue is almost never publically released for any game, but you can bet that if a bad game gets 2 million downloads, a good game will only increase that number. The more people that play your F2P game = the more money you make.

Think of the first CoD style F2P shooter. Woah NELLY.

I would have to disagree on the "number of downloads" argument, just because a game has 2 million people download it doesn't mean it has made money. What if users just downloaded it to try because it was free, didn't like it and deleted it in an hour?
#3 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -

Most single player games seem to have one year to be profitable and this includes any DLC. Free to play does not seem that it could cover the cost of singple player games since free to play back seem to work on a long term plan.

wiouds
Not to mention that if the game does go F2P then there has to be certainty for publishers that gamers will buy items from the store. The game will need to be a sufficient quality to attract gamers, a F2P game that sucks will not be good for publishers/developers financially.
#4 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -
I agree with the Portal replies, it was a game that showed you can have puzzle-based mechanics with a story-element to it.
#5 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -
I'm losing interest in Watch Dogs simply because it seems like it is going to be as ever present and pimped out as Assassin's Creed without being too much different from AC.rragnaar
My main fear is that this game is going to be milked similar to Assassin's Creed by annual releases where I will get burnt-out.
#6 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -

I do not like the F2P model at all, on the plus side you get to play the game for free, however on the con side you will probably end up spending more on micro-transactions in the long-term than the full retail prices of the game.

I think ex-CEO of EA said it correctly that the F2P model is implemented part of the game design. Developers can alter the game's design to make it so that the player it obligated to buy micro-transaction items. Yes there are some publishers doing more consumer-friendly implementations of F2P by only doing cosmetic items on their store, but lets face it not all publishers are going to take this route.

These companies are businesses and are there to make as much money as they can for their stakeholders.

#7 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -
[QUOTE="Collarcat"]Please note that this is not a "XBOX One vs. Playstation 4" thread. Originally it was planned that the XBOX One had to be connected to the Internet once within 24 hours to function. You would not be able to play your games otherwise, not even your singleplayer based games. At first my reaction was the same as anyone else, "Omg I have to be connected to the Internet once every day to play my games? That is too much!". But then I realised it really is not a problem at all. I am connected to the Internet all the time, I am connected to the Internet way more than just once each day. I use it all the time. I do not really understand how it all of the sudden is a huge, problematic deal that you have to be connected to the internet once in a day. Like really, I was surprised how much whining was caused from that. Why was it such a huge problem?

What about all those other million gamer's in the world that might not have internet coverage, or maybe they do have internet but their connection is pretty crappy. You should never be obligated to connect to the internet for single-player games. For multiplayer games a requirement for an internet connection is basic logic, you will need a connection to play with other people.
#8 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -
Win over NeoGAF and you shall win your freedom - Gladiator
#9 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -
I have no issues with this, if they want to focus on multiplayer then fine, but make it the best possible MP that you can. I hate it when developers make a SP game that's awesome and tack on a MP just for the sake of it and sometimes affects the quality of the SP. The same can be said for MP-focused games with tacked on SP for the sake of following standard gaming conventions.
#10 Posted by godfather_1 (562 posts) -

I am decided for next-gen, if I should go PC only since I prefer to play on my PC monitor and since the next-gen consoles are not going to have component/composite out, I won't be able to connect my PC speakers.

What I want is some advice on whether I should upgrade my PC for next-gen or is what I have now fine: -

GPU: nVidia GTX 570 1GB

CPU: Intel Core i7-2600 3.40GHz

RAM: 8GB DDR3

OS: Windows 7 64bit Professional Edition

Monitor: LG 22" Full HD 1080p