@lavamelon said:
I see it as hypocrisy on gamers' part. If you choose a F2P game over a game that requires a purchase, then you should expect to see some micro-transactions floating around. Gamers always call F2P game developers "greedy" for asking for money, they seem to forget that game developers are a business, not a charity. Those gamers would do the exact same thing if they were in charge of the company. I guess its the old "its only evil if the other person does it" situation.
Here's the harsh truth: If you do not give a game developer any money, then they have no legal or moral obligation to serve you. No money = no obligations.
I am quite happy to pay for a game, just don't make me pay for a game or play a game where all my actions are basically meaningless. Because you want me to pay even more...
@vaidream45 said:
Yeahcmy two big issues with mobile gaming is the pay to win crap and the lack of controller of course. This is why i love the nintendo switch but i wish i could play mobile games on my switch as well. If only they could come together in a deal somehow with google play.
Good point, Nintendo and Switch gamers would benefit a lot from mobile ports, where all the shit is taken out of the game and instead of touchscreen we can game with the joycons/ controllers.
@KungfuKitten said:
1. Free to play is an amazing financial success on mobile. And a lot of these problems are inherent to free to play models that companies (have to?) use to earn money. Except for Nintendo with their 'free to start'.
It's a financial succes because:
99% don't spend a dime on a F2P game
0,9% spend some money on a F2P game
0,1% are the ones getting milked, spending over 100 (sometimes up to a 1.000) in a F2P game
Log in to comment