[RedSwirl]

The reaction to F2P gaming I've seen from forum-dwelling gamers has been almost universally negative. Most of it has been to people who think all games will be F2P in the future but I see quite a bit of opposition to the business model in its entirety, the main reason being that most F2P games right now look cheap and exploitative.

So I ask: What kind of F2P game would get you to accept the model?

The only two outstanding examples I've seen people actively praise are DOTA2 and League of Legends. Team Fortress 2 (technically now), Path of Exile, Tribes Ascend, and Phantasy Star Online 2 also don't seem to get any hate for being F2P. Why is that? The only correlation I've seen is that almost all of them look like actual polished games from established developers.

Is that really all it takes? Just more F2P games that actually look like good games? If they made an F2P Street Fighter, or Gears horde mode, would you play it?

[Truth101]

Free to Play isn't some giant umbrella that suits every genre. Also I could name a few developers who would use it as a chance to nickle and dime you for all your worth.

[Htown]

I'm already on board.

[Catshade]

I'll be on board when the only thing I have to pay (if I want to) in that game is cosmetic/aesthetic things.

[Shawsie64]

Yep im on board

[Truth101]

I'll be on board when the only thing I have to pay (if I want to) in that game is cosmetic/aesthetic things.

Also this.

[alphaNoid]

I already do! I play several f2p fames but mostly world of tanks. I pay for content a la carte as well.

I support it and think it makes sense.

[CoffeeJanitor]

I'm already on board.

This

[Derrick01]

I'll use bad company 2 as an example because it's one of 2 multiplayer games I've ever liked. If I could play that as it is now for free, and have 0 reminders or notices of any kind to buy whatever, and the balance of play is totally unaffected at least in terms of people buying advantages (because let's face it, Dice always fucks balance up on their end), then I would consider it. I still think it's an incredibly dangerous path for this industry to rush down with these immature and irresponsible publishers. It opens the door for far more consumer raping than the current $60 + DLC model.

And quite frankly I've never played a F2P game yet that didn't feel cheap in some way, at least games that started off as F2P and weren't converted like TF2.

[Forkball]

Depends on how many hats the game has.

[Atomski]

Mechwarrior Online, Hawken, Tribes Ascend, TF2 and Path of Exile. Yeah I am on board..

[ZenaxPure]

Already on board, problem for me is no current F2P games really grab my attention. Not really into multiplayer games which is what like 90% of the top F2P games are right now.

[Grayman]

I have been onboard for awhile. If a game is crap I don't play it, that applies to free to play as much as full retail and everything else. I bought some classes in DDO and LOTRO and bought into Tribes for the early beta.

The blanket statements are sweeping generalizations just like AAA games are cinematic hallway crap, indie games sucks, motion controls are for babies, phone games are junk.

[BigTnaples]

I have already accepted it.

Mechwarrior Online

Tribes Ascend

Hawken

Lord of The Rings Online

Team Fortress 2

Planetside 2

Dust 514


All great examples of what can come from F2P.

[hamchan]

I accepted it a very long time ago. I love it.

Phantasy Star Online 2 is F2P?

Excellent.

[Hypron]

I almost exclusively play single player games so until someone makes a good free-to-play single player game (do these even exist?), it won't affect me in any way.

[Htown]

Mechwarrior Online, Hawken, Tribes Ascend, TF2 and Path of Exile. Yeah I am on board..

Is Path of Exile open yet or do you need a code?

[Mushroomer25]

Team Fortress 2 has kind of sold me on the concept. If the pay advantage is mostly decoarative, and (almost) all the items can be gained non-monetarily.

Though it helps that the game had years of hard polish on it before going F2P.

[EatinOlives]

After Team Fortress 2 and Tribes: Ascend, I too am on board.

[Pupi18]

Real free to play and not pay to win. Payable stuff optional and non intrusive.

[SouthernDragon]

I support any endeavour that lets me dress up my virtual dolls with suits I purchase with money

[Atomski]

Is Path of Exile open yet or do you need a code?

You need a code but they have had 2 open weekends so far and I imagine open beta isnt much longer off.

You can buy yourself in as well for like 10 dollars and it gives you in game money as well. :P

I almost exclusively play single player games so until someone makes a good free-to-play single player game (do these even exist?), it won't affect me in any way.

Path of Exile is fine as a single player game. If you like loot arpgs.

[Grakl]

Dota 2.

[lolmark]

It seems to work well for certain genres, such as DOTA styled games, MMOs and shooters.

However, in games that require you to have extensive knowledge of match ups, like in fighting games, I don't think it would work. DLC characters would have to have slight nuances from the starting cast (free characters) for it to remain competition viable.

[Eusis]

Allow me to play the game at a reasonable pace of progress, or at least if you're going to do that sort of "pay to make real progress" thing do it for, say, adding permanent boosts rather than a sack of in-game money. At worst the former feels like cheating in a way that changes the dynamic, whereas the latter just feels like plain old cheating. Also more substantial gameplay beyond "make stuff/do a chore to get more money to get more neat things" can help mitigate the problem of just buying sacks of money, it's why the likes of Theme Park and Tiny Tower ended up repulsing me, whereas I probably wouldn't mind as much in something like TF2 or Tribes so long as I stood a reasonable chance against other players still, and the same applies to ME3's multiplayer.

I also think the model Guild Wars 2 follows (buy the game like usual, but no monthly fees) could stand to be integrated into the F2P model. You can afford to give more to the player then, and at worst at least you have a guaranteed bit of money from each player, and they may feel more satisfied with their purchase.

[The Grim Heaper]

A good game and cosmetic-only microtransactions.

EDIT: But I already play F2P games.

[makingmusic476]

It would have to be free. I ain't paying for that shit.

[Jokey665]

I already play League of Legends and Path of Exile, so I'm down with it.

[Eusis]

Also: there's the inherent problem that what appeals to me most usually isn't what works best for F2P. Something like Demon's Souls and Dark Souls is best as complete products with only a few LARGE pieces of DLC, and this applies to a greater extreme to the likes of Metroid: applying the F2P model to that is possibly one of the worst things that could happen.

[Callibretto]

I keep thinking that the free to play model that people will like is the one that make them not paying at all.

Cosmetic dlc, I'll probably nver bother to buy these stuff and im sure im not the only one who yhinks that, so in the end, I get to play this game for free. Nice for me, but cpuld be bad for developer. I guess

[Eteric Rice]

I'll be on board when the only thing I have to pay (if I want to) in that game is cosmetic/aesthetic things.

Basically this.

[Derrick01]

I keep thinking that the free to play model that excite people will be the one where you ultimat

I'm dying of suspense here.

[SouthernDragon]

It seems to work well for certain genres, such as DOTA styled games, MMOs and shooters. However, in games that require you to have extensive knowledge of match ups, like in fighting games, I don't think it would work. DLC characters would have to have slight nuances from the starting cast (free characters) for it to remain competition viable.

What do you think DotA-style games are all about? You have to know the match up as well, and it's more complex because it's a 5v5.

[DeckardOfAstora]

I can't think of single player games working with this F2P model, but any match based multiplayer could work perfectly if done right

[GillianSeed79]

I'm not really against it per se, but I'm worried how it would be implemented in a traditional single player game. Take something like Skyrim. If some idiot wants to pay $1 per perk or level, or say $20 to unlock to Dragonbone armor at the start, fine. But if it's a case where I'm playing a game like Mass Effect or even Skyrim and every thing in the shops is monetized fuck that. I'm not paying a dollar for iron ore or $3 for a visor.

F2P is fine so long as it doesn't fuck up balance in mp games and is kept to the periphery in SP games. You want to pay $1 to reskin your character or buy a MLP mount all power to you, but if it impedes on the core experience then no.

[Gotchaye]

At minimum a f2p game has to do two things:

1) Provide a way of getting everything meaningful in the game without paying.
2) Make sure that a reasonably active player can have a reasonably full experience without paying.

These are distinct. If some heroes in League of Legends were RP (real money) only, I'd never have played it. If grinding the IP for one hero took two months, I'd never have played it.

There are games that are good about the first condition but which fail miserably at the second. Everything is technically unlockable with time, but the time investment required to be competitive with paying customers is ridiculous. League of Legends is actually a little problematic in this way for people who weren't playing in the beta; runes are very important and prohibitively expensive. But in general it does a good job because most of the IP cost is in enabling diverse builds, whereas it doesn't take much at all to have one or two that are pretty solid.

[Dragonzord]

PSO2 in English

[Santar]

Allow me to play the entire game offline.

[bhlaab]

A game that I actually want to play.

[ameratsu]

Out of that list, I've only played Tribes Ascend and AoE Online. TA feels like those who don't pay get to play an extended demo, unlocking some of the most substantial upgrades (such as new guns and packs) only after paying real money for in-game gold. I guess it is possible to spend 80-100k xp on individual unlocks, but that would take forever.

AoE Online on the other hand feels like it is pretty substantial for free players. Though I didn't really like the meta-game, and just wanted to play against a friend.

I guess the reason I haven't yet spent any money on F2P games is that purchases of in-game currency for unlocks feel unsubstantial. For Tribes in particular, paying money (say $30) to unlock some fraction of the game's total content feels nickel and dimey. It's probably why I am so reluctant to buy DLC as well.

[Paertan]

Already on board with several multiplayer games. Mostly MMO:s. As long as it is not pay to win I am fine with it.

[NBtoaster]

For single player games, how appealing are these models?

1: Imagine Skyrim, the Whiterun area comes free, with the other areas being paid content

2: Like Deus Ex HR, advertising on load screens and lots of other places in game + dlc content

3: Something like Minecraft, barebones mode provided free, paid mode with enhanced functionality

I can see all of these three being adopted more

[HP_Wuvcraft]

I'll be on board when the only thing I have to pay (if I want to) in that game is cosmetic/aesthetic things.

So, allow me to assume that you feel compelled to buy the optional content?

Because otherwise what the heck does it matter, really?

[Mephala]

I accepted it already, but I'd appreciate it more and be more supportive in generally when my internet stops being shitty.

[Atomski]

For single player games, how appealing are these models? 1: Imagine Skyrim, the Whiterun area comes free, with the other areas being paid content 2: Like Deus Ex HR, advertising on load screens and lots of other places in game + dlc content 3: Something like Minecraft, barebones mode provided free, paid mode with enhanced functionality I can see all of these three being adopted more

Didnt Fable 2 do a free to play thing. They gave out like the first episode on xbl and you had the choice to buy the rest after completing.

Thing is I dont think single player games need to go free to play.. they just need to stop tacking on shitty multiplayer and bring the price down a bit.

[PrinceOfApathy]

A game with actual competent mechanics and design. So far every single Free to Play game I have seen, is some cheap, rudimentary, insulting time sink. I can't think of a single free to play game that is as indepth as let me just pull game out my ass, as say Vanquish. They are all shallow time sinks, and an embarrassment on the industry. I would say they are a waste of talented people, but talented studios don't make free to play games.

[Gotchaye]

For single player games, how appealing are these models? 1: Imagine Skyrim, the Whiterun area comes free, with the other areas being paid content 2: Like Deus Ex HR, advertising on load screens and lots of other places in game + dlc content 3: Something like Minecraft, barebones mode provided free, paid mode with enhanced functionality I can see all of these three being adopted more

One problem with f2p is that it's almost certainly bad for the industry overall. A good f2p game may be able to bring in a lot of money, but it's almost certainly generating less revenue per player-hour, and consumers have a limited amount of time to spend on games.

For this reason, publishers who represent a significant share of the industry may be reluctant to allow their properties to go f2p - f2p titles may hurt sales of their other properties.

For single player games, I'm not sure what the advantage of f2p is over a demo. One of the biggest advantages of f2p multiplayer is that you get huge network effects from having a large number of players, and then players effectively advertise new content to each other. I can't see the advantage in allowing a player to complete a single player game without paying, and ads are almost certainly a terrible idea in games given the money that people will pay for a full game.

[lolmark]

What do you think DotA-style games are all about? You have to know the match up as well, and it's more complex because it's a 5v5.

I get what you're saying, but I think the two genres have different requirements for learning a match up. Lets say Street Fighter is a f2p and features Ryu as a free character and Ken as a DLC character. Players can't assume that they're playing a simple Ryu clone. The characters have the same special moves, but have enough changes to their normal attacks to make them super different.

[Metalic]

A lot of you guys talk about F2P as if it was a new thing, it has existed for more than a decade now with games like RuneScape.

[Eusis]

Didnt Fable 2 do a free to play thing. They gave out like the first episode on xbl and you had the choice to buy the rest after completing.

That was closer to the old Shareware model, except you could buy each episode individually rather than all at once like you would have with Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, or Quake.