[ThatCrazyGuy]

Going be interesting when this is tried on a purely SP game on console.

Remember when episodic content was going to be the future?

Maybe like in a SP game, it's a bounty hunter game. You have access to the mainline important story missions, but you can pay to have access to like a "broker" guy who has access to side missions from private parties, so you can earn money for new equipment and whatever.

idk, we shall see.

[Fenderputty]

But this invites chopping up games to little bites. As has already been pointed out, think of how this can affect single player games. I don't want to be prompted to buy via microtransaction for quests, gear, etc. and end up having to pay more than what I normally would get for $60.00. I just want to buy a full game. But yeah, you are right in how bad it currently is with DLC. Which just goes to show how much more greedy they would be with this model. Why do you think they are so anxious to do it to begin with?

$$$$ of course. Get someone addicted ... get them playing. They're just trying to get more people addicted up front. It's like selling crack. Get someone addicted and keep em coming back.

I'm not totally sure this will end up costing us more in the long run. I have several games I've only played once and probably wouldn't have paid to play to the end ... so it oculd work out in some instances too.

My main issue with this is that games will continue down the trend of being built for the masses and not for the "hardcore"

[ironcreed]

$$$$ of course. Get someone addicted ... get them playing. They're just trying to get more people addicted up front. It's like selling crack. Get someone addicted and keep em coming back.

Exactly, which is why I am far more comfortable just buying a game for $60.00. I don't want to be prompted to 'buy this' and 'buy that' as I am trying to enjoy a game. Fuck that noise. But they know full well that people will get hooked and will just keep on pressing that buy button. Before they know it, they will end up paying more than they normally would. It's a scheme, nothing more.

[AngryMoth]

One of the reasons f2p is so scary is because people talk about it turns of all video games, which doesn't really make sense because at this point there are 2 separate mediums with some ground in-between. There are games which are actually games, stuff that can be seen as an evolution of arcade or board games. Then there are games which are an interactive vehicle for some kind of story or experience, more analogous to a movie.

While I am still not a fan of f2p as it mostly exists to today because it usually has a negative impact on game design (trying to squeeze money out of you), for the former category I can foresee a future where it is not so intrusive and is a viable longterm business model which hasn't ruined gaming forever, as amongst other things you can monetize cosmetic items.

For the latter category I think it is completely unfeasible without seriously compromising the artistic integrity of the product and making it a far less enjoyable experience. The worst part of a game or movie is the part where you hand over your money, thankfully you can get that out of the way early so you can focus on the experience. I do not want to be having to be constantly evaluating purchasing decisions which effects my immersion and enjoyment. The one think I can think of would be for games with branching paths if you could pay to go back and make a different decision, but even that is pretty nefarious. Fortunately I think there is little indication that this is the direction this part of the industry is going, I just hope it doesn't get dragged along with the rest of it. Games which fall into both categories are also a worry.

[ToxicAdam]

Hey, I love the idea of deciding how much to pay as well. I just don't relish the thought of being prompted to buy small bits of the game at a time as I play. Especially for single player experiences like role playing games. I just want to buy a content packed game for $60.00. On paper F2P sounds wonderful, it's the practice that bothers me. These guys are out to make money and they are not so anxious to do this because they want to give us a break.

Yea, I don't want to paint it as all rainbows and puppy dogs. There is still a lot of negatives with F2P gaming. Especially if the dev makes poor choices in how they price things or how they get you to buy into the game. It could potentially turn a great game into a broken one.

Here's an example. Imagine a great F2P RPG. Combat is great, story is great the art is fantastic .. but the pace in which you level is 5 times what it is in a normal RPG. You have to fight 5 more battles to get the same amount of exp you would get for one. But of course, you can buy a lifetime bauble for 29.99 that drastically increases the amount of exp you get and quickens the pace of the game.

That's when F2P gets shitty and could potentially make gaming worse.

[Dreams-Visions]

Someone help me understand the thread title.

I'm a hardcore gamer and I've enjoyed the F2P experiences I've had. Why wouldn't I want to hear this? Are most F2P implementations shit?

My experience with F2P has been Team Fortress 2 and Dota2. In both everything is free, though not always immediately available. You can trade what you have for what you want, and the more you play, the more free stuff that drops (that you can trade for more stuff you want). For the most part, you don't have to buy anything, but if you want to expedite the process of acquiring what you want, you can. All the core stuff is free and there at the start.

[ironcreed]

Yea, I don't want to paint it as all rainbows and puppy dogs. There is still a lot of negatives with F2P gaming. Especially if the dev makes poor choices in how they price things or how they get you to buy into the game. It could potentially turn a great game into a broken one. Here's an example. Imagine a great F2P RPG. Combat is great, story is great the art is fantastic .. but the pace in which you level is 5 times what it is in a normal RPG. You have to fight 5 more battles to get the same amount of exp you would get for one. But of course, you can buy a lifetime bauble for 29.99 that drastically increases the amount of exp you get and quickens the pace of the game. That's when F2P gets shitty and could potentially make gaming worse.

Indeed, my friend. On top of that, imagine being immersed into a story and world, only to have that immersion completely broken by a pop-up sales pitch for the next section, for a 'special weapon that only true warriors are worthy to wield,' etc. Just no way.

[LumpOfCole]

League of Legends is, financially, the WoW of Free-To-Play. It took off harder than anyone expected - I don't even think Riot expected the explosion in profits from that one. By the way, having seen the amazing Riot offices in Santa Monica, it's the place I want to work at more than anywhere in the world. Place and people there are phenomenal. LoL is a lightning-in-a-bottle example of mega success that companies and publishers will try to aspire to for quite a while, just like MMO developers aspired to have the next WoW.

EA, though, has shown a constant misunderstanding of what it takes to make a great Free-To-Play game. The real secret to good Free-To-Play is making the base game incredibly fun, long-lasting, and as fair as possible without the need to spend any cash, while offering boosts and cosmetics in the cash store that are appealing to buy but not essential. Hitting all these points in itself is not only difficult but is a constant balancing act.

Free-To-Play is also gaming as a service instead of gaming as a product, just like MMOs. And just like MMOs, gamers aren't going to invest in a lot of Free-To-Play products at once unless the prices for boosts and cosmetics are exceptionally cheap, but that isn't the trend that is happening.

For Free-To-Play to succeed, it cannot just be marketing-blitzed and sell a bajillion copies in the first week/month. It has to catch fire among the playerbase, it then has to spread attention to other newcomers naturally, and it also has to have longevity as a service that players want to keep re-investing in. It's a goddamned tall order to be able to pull this off once, much less consistently.

[mclem]

EA are categorically wrong.

I don't mind hearing it at all.

[Vinci]

People's aversion to F2P confuses me. You will either pay more or save money, but the unique aspect is that you'll do so only on things that you genuinely value. It sucks to buy a game and end up finding that you don't like it and that you've lost at least some amount of your investment there. On the other hand, micro-transactions allow you to determine precisely what you like and what you don't. If you really like something, enough to spend hundreds of dollars on a game over a year, then there's little reason to be bothered by this.

[Curufinwe]

Just play pyro like I did. No need to be precise or very good.

Or a heavy.

[Wildesy]

Someone help me understand the thread title.

I don't think the thread title really accurately represents what was said. I think the 'hardcore gamers aren't going to like this' comment was in reference to the expansion out to gaming systems deemed to be casual.

Prefacing his claims with the warning that "hardcore gamers won't like to hear this", he explained that companies are increasingly taking notice of platforms other than the consoles. "Consoles are still going to be a very important part of what we do. But so are browsers. So are iOS devices. So are Android mobile phones. So are PCs, which are feeling a renaissance. It's all coming together in this potpourri..."

[Ferrio]

EA won't like to hear this but... gamers decide where the industry goes. Not the other way around.

Well then I got bad news for you...

[Giant Panda]

F2P has yet to be proven to be viable for the whole industry.

[Vinci]

F2P has yet to be proven to be viable for the whole industry.

Well, the current model has had issues with that metric also, so...

[Hari Seldon]

Yeah put out more shitty games like Battlefield Heroes and see how much you make EA.

[Chacranajxy]

I should just get into heroin as a hobby.

[jman2050]

Like everything else F2P will assume its particular niche and won't overrun everything else. I hope anyway, many companies are downright stupid nowadays trying to chase the latest fads as if there's a ton of money just waiting to be spent that isn't already tied up on the stuff that's already popular.

[EatinOlives]

I don't mind F2P at all. Tribes: Ascend is quickly becoming my go-to multiplayer game.

Though I wouldn't touch anything F2P that EA does with a ten-foot pole. They can't go five seconds with their $60 games without them trying to monetize every single tiny thing, what do you expect them to do with games that are DESIGNED to make money solely through said monetizations? Shit's gonna be worse than the Zynga crap.

[ihearthawthats]

Someone help me understand the thread title. I'm a hardcore gamer and I've enjoyed the F2P experiences I've had. Why wouldn't I want to hear this? Are most F2P implementations shit? My experience with F2P has been Team Fortress 2 and Dota2. In both everything is free, though not always immediately available. You can trade what you have for what you want, and the more you play, the more free stuff that drops (that you can trade for more stuff you want). For the most part, you don't have to buy anything, but if you want to expedite the process of acquiring what you want, you can. All the core stuff is free and there at the start.

there's your problem. f2p can be great, but theres a lot of crap out there as well to the point i'd call it the majority. not that i mind though, since you can always just ignore the bad ones.

[Giant Panda]

Well, the current model has had issues with that metric also, so...

I'm just saying I don't think the industry is going to shift completely to F2P. I think just a subsection will, non-AAA games. There is no one business model that seems to work perfectly.

[Haziq]

Hardcore gamers won't like to hear this?

WTF?

I'm totally okay with the F2P model. Why would it bother me?

[J-Rzez]

I'm fine with F2P. Just so the quality of the assets, effects, and game overall are up to par.

[BlazingDarkness]

Only your shitty games, EA.
I'm quite happy to pay for good games.

[ThatCrazyGuy]

All the current F2P success have been multiplayer so far though.

Still waiting for the SP breakthrough I guess.

F2P MP is fine and dandy to me.

[Mammoth Jones]

When you're publicly announcing that you're looking into F2P about half a year after launch it's probably a failure.

Companies look into things all the time in an effort to maximize revenue. Doesn't mean the project is a failure. It means they're looking to increase profits.

If looking into the possibility to increase profits is the criteria for failure then every company that exists is a failure because they're all always trying to brainstorm new ways to bring in more revenue.

I'll say it again: A million subs for an MMO is no failure. No MMO is going to hit WoW's numbers for a very very long time. WoW was an absolute perfect storm.

[staticneuron]

The GAP analogy... Actually makes sense. And, yeah. People will have to deal with it.

No one has a problem with it.

I don't see anyone complaining about F2P games as long as they are quality. GW and GW2 is F2P, PSO 2 is supposedly F2P, no one is really complaining. The fear was always about quality, but if we know quality is there, it doesn't really matter how they get it to us.

And why would the hardcore gamers take issue with the second part? We already call those people gamers...... casual gamers. It is fine if they find a new niche in that market but if they are saying that they will stop catering to the hardcore, it wont matter. That simply means they won't get our money and other companies will fill that void.

[Neo C.]

People's aversion to F2P confuses me.

To me, it's because I'm admittedly old school in this regard and want games as a good rather than as a service.

[Psi]

the people who do pay money—the whales as they are affectionately referred to—to use a Las Vegas term, love it because to be number one of a game that like 55 million people playing is a big deal

This guy only talks about multiplayer and social stuff. I don't really see how they can pull off a F2P single player game and not make it feel like a total ripoff.

I sort of imagine Mass Effect 2 but going through the whole game with only Miranda and Jacob and the default armor and weapons with no sidequests and no way to get a good ending. Also in-game npcs trying to sell you things like that guy in your camp in DAO. It will be such a hollow experience.

[Eusis]

Unless the ones that feel like scams can be avoided, I REALLY don't want to see this future for that reason, not because of the type of content or whatever.

Although I can't deny that as it is the $60 game is doomed. I do suspect however even in a worst case scenario where it just collapses we'll still see smaller budget, likely more niche stuff come out, maybe almost like a restart for the industry.

[Jibbajabbawockky]

Hey, I love the idea of deciding how much to pay as well. I just don't relish the thought of being prompted to buy small bits of the game at a time as I play. Especially for single player experiences like role playing games. I just want to buy a content packed game for $60.00. On paper F2P sounds wonderful, it's the practice that bothers me. These guys are out to make money and they are not so anxious to do this because they want to give us a break.

Its sort of interesting how something like Kickstarters like Wasteland 2 are effectively the opposite of FTP, in that you could pay as much as you want to get a copy of the game. So if you wanted to give $1000, you could go ahead and do it. Its totally frontloaded. Whereas FTP is totally backloaded in paying as much as you want after you've played.

I agree with the sentiment that I'd much prefer to pay all up front and not have to deal with pesky interruptions in game begging for real world money. And in EA's case, I don't trust them not to be that blunt when it comes to microtransactions.

Here's an example. Imagine a great F2P RPG. Combat is great, story is great the art is fantastic .. but the pace in which you level is 5 times what it is in a normal RPG. You have to fight 5 more battles to get the same amount of exp you would get for one. But of course, you can buy a lifetime bauble for 29.99 that drastically increases the amount of exp you get and quickens the pace of the game. That's when F2P gets shitty and could potentially make gaming worse.

That's precisely my fear. That you have designers having to design their games around the microtransactions and thus add bloat to the game in order to facilitate the viability of the FTP model. You already see that in MMOs needlessly lengthening or making certain processes more elaborate or drawn out than need be to keep you playing longer. Or just look at the dreadful Dragon Age Legends facebook game EA had for a while in how they handled progression.

FTP can be done right for certain games, but I think it's horribly myopic for any company to think its going to work for every game.

[Hari Seldon]

That's precisely my fear. That you have designers having to design their games around the microtransactions and thus add bloat to the game in order to facilitate the viability of the FTP model. You already see that in MMOs needlessly lengthening or making certain processes more elaborate or drawn out than need be to keep you playing longer. Or just look at the dreadful Dragon Age Legends facebook game EA had for a while in how they handled progression. FTP can be done right for certain games, but I think it's horribly myopic for any company to think its going to work for every game.

You saw it in Age of Empires online, which is probably one of the worst games I have ever played since it was completely covered in needless bloat.

[Goldmund]

People's aversion to F2P confuses me. You will either pay more or save money, but the unique aspect is that you'll do so only on things that you genuinely value. It sucks to buy a game and end up finding that you don't like it and that you've lost at least some amount of your investment there. On the other hand, micro-transactions allow you to determine precisely what you like and what you don't. If you really like something, enough to spend hundreds of dollars on a game over a year, then there's little reason to be bothered by this.

Some people want their games to aspire to something more than providing a satisfying and tailored service at a brothel. I want to be subjected to an artistic vision, not to what's left of it after my and everyone else's idiosyncratic desires have been taken into account by breaking the original experiences into pieces that can be freely combined and have no meaningful connection other than my flights of fancy.

[Circle of Willis]

I'm fine with F2P. I'm not fine with F2P as implemented by any of the big pubs like EA, Activision and Ubisoft.

[Monocle]

Among the countless reasons this model sucks is that devs will be able to make us pay a lot more than $60 in microtransactions for the equivalent of a $60 game in content.

Imagine how much a title like Halo 3 would have cost if the modes and multiplayer features had been sold separately. Want to change your Spartan's color? That'll be 80 MP. Theater mode? For use in campaign and matchmaking? At 1600 MP it's a steal. Forge? Come on guys, that's practically a whole new game. 2400 MP isn't unreasonable.

Whee.

[CosmicQueso]

I don't want Tapas, I want dinner.

Dammit, I want to play a game and lose myself in a world, a full complete world, not one where every 5 minutes I have to "buy this gun! only 25 credits!"

It's up to consumers whether or not this will work. I hope we don't let it work.

[childplease]

Yup, with every new EA news story they validate my decision to never ever purchase another EA published game.

[NullPointer]

Well at least they're warning us this time.

[Tellaerin]

Yes, it's inevitable that these companies will try to squeeze more money out of consumers. Publishers have dollar signs in their eyes right now thanks to some of the F2P 'success stories' out there, so I count on them attempting to shoehorn this shitty model into anything they can get their hands on. Games and genres they can't somehow monetize this way, no matter how poorly, will fall by the wayside.

Thankfully, a lot can happen in 5 to 10 years. Another cataclysmic industry crash, for instance. Or someone else coming out of left field with a business model that's profitable for publishers while being a better deal for consumers than this shit is. Maybe indie games will rise to greater prominence, and fill the gap for people who still want to pay a single fixed price and get a complete product in return. Even if none of that comes to pass, there are still decades worth of games out there that I've never played. Gaming history will become my backlog. I can live with that.

[Game2Death]

I'm going to play all of those games and never buy anything. Just to be a dick.

Wouldn't that be funny if that eventually happened..eventually no one bought the in game items and just played the game

[ElectricBlue187]

I can't wait for the eating of the crow when this model falls on its face just like the subscription model did.

[Game2Death]

$$$$ of course. Get someone addicted ... get them playing. They're just trying to get more people addicted up front. It's like selling crack. Get someone addicted and keep em coming back. I'm not totally sure this will end up costing us more in the long run. I have several games I've only played once and probably wouldn't have paid to play to the end ... so it oculd work out in some instances too. My main issue with this is that games will continue down the trend of being built for the masses and not for the "hardcore"

Well they already are getting $110 for one game from a lot of people..I have doubts that they could get people to pay over $100 in micro transactions..but I'm probably wrong

[KingJ2002]

i can see games like COD doing that...

but that F2P model only works for some genre's... not all.

the good thing about the F2P model is that i would expect longer contracts for developers seeing how the lifespan of a title will last longer than it's initial 6 month window.

[drkOne]

Among the countless reasons this model sucks is that devs will be able to make us pay a lot more than $60 in microtransactions for the equivalent of a $60 game in content. Imagine how much a title like Halo 3 would have cost if the modes and multiplayer features had been sold separately. Want to change your Spartan's color? That'll be 80 MP. Theater mode? For use in campaign and matchmaking? At 1600 MP it's a steal. Forge? Come on guys, that's practically a whole new game. 2400 MP isn't unreasonable. Whee.

Yet you only pay for what you think is worth the price.

I spent $0 and got 500~ hours out of League of Legends.
I purchased TF2 back then, but I never bought anything from the store until today and got 250 hours out of TF2.
I spent $10 and got 160h out of Dota 2.

Only DLC I ever bought until now was the first CoD4 map pack. I also bought Alan Wake on PC to get the DLC. And I'm planning on buying Arkham City DLC.

If Halo 4 was released with a $120 pricetag would you buy it? Then what's the difference to paying for each piece of content and the total coming to $120?

You don't have to buy games that you don't feel are worth the price. EA is saying that F2P is inevitable, yet that's up to the consumer, not them.

EA already has their F2P games. Look at Battlefield Heroes and NFS World... F2P isn't the problem, it's how you do it.

[Dog Problems]

There's going to be a lot of bitter, angry gamers in the future once things have gone into the inevitable direction that they're heading. Games being entirely digital downloads, F2P, social games, touch screens, motion controls, 3D.

Glad I can adapt easily. :-P

[soulassssns]

EA wont like this.....but me not buying their games is an inevitability

exactly

[sillymonkey321]

EA: "Hardcore gamers won't like to hear this...Bioware is making a KOTOR MMO instead of KOTOR 3"

[soulassssns]

How many people actually make purchases in Battlefield Free2Play?

[Reuenthal]

I can't wait to have more and more free to pay model from a company that respects so much its customers. Yes certainly this is the kind of games I will confidently buy from EA!

But seriously, other than mostly Valve's games (and even there I bought Team Fortress 2) I am not a big fan of free to play games and have been mostly avoiding them as I usually prefer single player experiences which usually don't come in free to play.

[Odrion]

Going be interesting when this is tried on a purely SP game on console. Remember when episodic content was going to be the future? Maybe like in a SP game, it's a bounty hunter game. You have access to the mainline important story missions, but you can pay to have access to like a "broker" guy who has access to side missions from private parties, so you can earn money for new equipment and whatever. idk, we shall see.

Go play any iOS game, that'll give you a good impression of what F2P might be like in a singleplayer game.

As in, it'll be a terrible thing that ruins things such as balance and pacing.