What is your opinion on the Free-To-Play Model?

I think that there are games that have done it the right way and some have done it way wrong.

F2P games that make you pay for stuff that should already be in the game or that affects gameplay like; this user can't play with this person because he doesn't have this or that. I think that is the wrong approach.

What do you guys think? What would you like to see changed with this F2P model?

As long as the store items are purley cosmetic I have no objection, the SWTOR model looks great.

It's improving, that's for sure. Years ago it woud've been P2W, but now it really is transfering to F2P. I wouldn't mind in-game advertising in exchange for cheaper prices though. It seems like some store items would quickly add up to 50-60 bucks, what the game could've cost and all that could've been free.

that is going to ruin gaming now that companies like EA found that they can squeeze more their userbase with it

very, VERY few companies do it right.

I dislike F2P personally...
I find F2P generally splits communities and the pricing on items is unreal.

LoL - $5 to $20 for a skin
Age of Empires Online - $20 for a single civilization (I think it went down however)
Generic Shooter - $5 + for a single gun
Etc. Etc.

Subscription games feel like another expense to pay and I'd much rather pay my cell phone bill then give it away for a video game.

Having said that I play LoL religiously and have never spent money on it, a quality game will get me to play it over it being free to try.

very, VERY few companies do it right.

Krelian-co

More times it done horribly done and its nothing more than pay for power/win.

TF2, LOL, Tribes do it fairly well. Weapons should be bought with in game cash, skins, costumes w/e can be done how every they want as it doesn't effect the game.

I dislike F2P personally...
I find F2P generally splits communities and the pricing on items is unreal.

LoL - $5 to $20 for a skin
Age of Empires Online - $20 for a single civilization (I think it went down however)
Generic Shooter - $5 + for a single gun
Etc. Etc.

Subscription games feel like another expense to pay and I'd much rather pay my cell phone bill then give it away for a video game.

Having said that I play LoL religiously and have never spent money on it, a quality game will get me to play it over it being free to try.

timma25

Aoe online is 10 dollars a civ, and since each campaign last 20+ hrs its quite a good deal

[QUOTE="timma25"]

I dislike F2P personally...
I find F2P generally splits communities and the pricing on items is unreal.

LoL - $5 to $20 for a skin
Age of Empires Online - $20 for a single civilization (I think it went down however)
Generic Shooter - $5 + for a single gun
Etc. Etc.

Subscription games feel like another expense to pay and I'd much rather pay my cell phone bill then give it away for a video game.

Having said that I play LoL religiously and have never spent money on it, a quality game will get me to play it over it being free to try.

James161324

Aoe online is 10 dollars a civ, and since each campaign last 20+ hrs its quite a good deal

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

very, VERY few companies do it right.

FelipeInside

actually i disagree, have you looked at the SWTOR f2p model? how is blocking so much cointent the "right way" to make a f2p? and we all know what "limited access" means to EA. Basically you still have to pay unless you want a heavily gimped experience.

As long as its not pay to win, I'm happy. Team Fortress 2 is stuffed with free content and the best stuff can be found, unlocked or crafted, so its more for cosmetic purposes but still lets you get stuff earlier without causing a massive imbalance or destroying the progression system or whatever a bad F2P game tends to do.

Tribes Ascend is about the only game I think they did a decent job with the model. So in my view most F2P games are a failure in terms of monetization and game design. They are improving mostly because the market is flooded with the model. I don't think the model will sustain itself, it's doing well mostly now because not a lot are free to playnutcrackr

[QUOTE="nutcrackr"]Tribes Ascend is about the only game I think they did a decent job with the model. So in my view most F2P games are a failure in terms of monetization and game design. They are improving mostly because the market is flooded with the model. I don't think the model will sustain itself, it's doing well mostly now because not a lot are free to playC_Rule

name a f2p game that is good.

o wait you can't because there aren't any.

f2p mmo = failed to profit.

f2p game = not a good game so they attach a premium service to try to make money.

[QUOTE="C_Rule"][QUOTE="nutcrackr"]Tribes Ascend is about the only game I think they did a decent job with the model. So in my view most F2P games are a failure in terms of monetization and game design. They are improving mostly because the market is flooded with the model. I don't think the model will sustain itself, it's doing well mostly now because not a lot are free to playJigglyWiggly_

Thay may be somewhat true but no weapon so cost more then a few dollars

name a f2p game that is good.

o wait you can't because there aren't any.

f2p mmo = failed to profit.

f2p game = not a good game so they attach a premium service to try to make money.

jakes456

TF2, League of Leagues, AOE Online, Tribes, are all great games

name a f2p game that is good.

o wait you can't because there aren't any.

f2p mmo = failed to profit.

f2p game = not a good game so they attach a premium service to try to make money.

jakes456

Name a post of yours that is good.

Oh wait you can't because there aren't any.

Anyway:

LOTRO says hi...

LOL says hi...

TF2 says hi...

Tribes says hi...

AOE says hi...

and the list goes on...

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

very, VERY few companies do it right.

Krelian-co

actually i disagree, have you looked at the SWTOR f2p model? how is blocking so much cointent the "right way" to make a f2p? and we all know what "limited access" means to EA. Basically you still have to pay unless you want a heavily gimped experience.

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

very, VERY few companies do it right.

Krelian-co

actually i disagree, have you looked at the SWTOR f2p model? how is blocking so much cointent the "right way" to make a f2p? and we all know what "limited access" means to EA. Basically you still have to pay unless you want a heavily gimped experience.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"] I agree with this. The F2P model isn't the Devil, if done right it's actually pretty cool. Take for example LOTRO or the new upcoming SWTOR Models. You play as much as you want for FREE, with heaps of content. When you want to go further, you pay for expansions, new areas/dungeons etc. As long as it's not PAY2WIN, the F2P model is fine. I used to hate it, but now with these newer models I am liking it more because it does 2 things: 1) allows me to play more than one MMO (I can't afford 2 x Subs) 2) doesn't make me feel like I NEED to play the MMO to justify the priceBrunoBRS

actually i disagree, have you looked at the SWTOR f2p model? how is blocking so much cointent the "right way" to make a f2p? and we all know what "limited access" means to EA. Basically you still have to pay unless you want a heavily gimped experience.

pretty much what i was saying, some f2p like SWTOR just let you "go in" but if you actually want to play the game you still have to pay, at least i wouldn't play a game with this model unless i was paying, and with EA in charge is a matter of months before microtransactions go out of hand, just look at the model they are going to use in Ultima online, total pay 2 win where they sell almost everything.

EA = the cancer of gaming

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

actually i disagree, have you looked at the SWTOR f2p model? how is blocking so much cointent the "right way" to make a f2p? and we all know what "limited access" means to EA. Basically you still have to pay unless you want a heavily gimped experience.

Krelian-co

pretty much what i was saying, some f2p like SWTOR just let you "go in" but if you actually want to play the game you still have to pay, at least i wouldn't play a game with this model unless i was paying, and with EA in charge is a matter of months before microtransactions go out of hand, just look at the model they are going to use in Ultima online, total pay 2 win where they sell almost everything.

EA = the cancer of gaming

I love it. The more games that do it, the more will do it right. Eventually there will be some really good standards that F2P games follow.

However, the traditional retail model will always exist. I just can't wait to see the prices for retail games drop because of the F2P alternative.

[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

[QUOTE="BrunoBRS"] this is what i meant when i said some F2P games are glorified demos.FelipeInside

pretty much what i was saying, some f2p like SWTOR just let you "go in" but if you actually want to play the game you still have to pay, at least i wouldn't play a game with this model unless i was paying, and with EA in charge is a matter of months before microtransactions go out of hand, just look at the model they are going to use in Ultima online, total pay 2 win where they sell almost everything.

EA = the cancer of gaming

[QUOTE="FelipeInside"][QUOTE="Krelian-co"]

pretty much what i was saying, some f2p like SWTOR just let you "go in" but if you actually want to play the game you still have to pay, at least i wouldn't play a game with this model unless i was paying, and with EA in charge is a matter of months before microtransactions go out of hand, just look at the model they are going to use in Ultima online, total pay 2 win where they sell almost everything.

EA = the cancer of gaming

BrunoBRS

It's getting better. Team Fortress 2 and Tribes Ascend haven't converted themselves into P2W games, and I'd argue that even MMORPGs like Vindictus have adapted well to the model. With that said, the majority of games that subscribe to this model are not like the aforementioned titles and are certainly not like other subscription-based games-turned-f2p: they feature shops that sell more than just cosmetic items. And this is the main reason why many players are turned off by the f2p model.

I don't think f2p-pay-to-win games are bad, nor do I think their developers are greedy or wrong. If you're approaching f2p games with the mindset that you deserve the best service and quality, you're in for a stressful crisis. You'll be looking left and right for the perfect f2p game, and that seldom ever succeeds. Just learn from the experience and move on.

I love it. The more games that do it, the more will do it right. Eventually there will be some really good standards that F2P games follow.

However, the traditional retail model will always exist. I just can't wait to see the prices for retail games drop because of the F2P alternative.

Wasdie

I agree with this. The only way to refine the current f2p standards and to actually solidify them is to wait for more f2p games that hold themselves to high standards.

In general, I don't like free-to-play. It can be done right, but it is too easy for game companies to exploit gamers for money, and mess up the competitive balance between players.

In general, I don't like free-to-play. It can be done right, but it is too easy for game companies to exploit gamers for money, and mess up the competitive balance between players.

Falconoffury

I don't like free to play games. I like to pay once for a game, and then spend the rest of my time playing it without anybody asking me for money for anything else at any point after I made the initial purchase. I guess I'm old school like that.