[dock]

Play something that does it right, TF2, LoL, Tribes Ascend, NA Aion

Multiplayer games with content sampling are definitely a positive way to resolve them. Having days of demoing paid content is a really smart move and should probably be present in other genres too. You have the massive benefit that other players exhibit your goods constantly, which reduces the nagging requirement and annoyance all round.

That said, the gradual XP boosts on the free version are usually pretty lame, way below that of a game designed without that payment wall.

The conceit of 'you can unlock, eventually, it without paying' is often disingenuous.

[PedroLumpy]

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

Yep.

This includes paying with time for gameplay items. Having to spend a bunch of hours to unlock that shit 'for free' is also not acceptable.

Unless they have some sort of "Pay X to unlock every gameplay affecting item for all time" option. Like a normal game I guess.

Props to DOTA 2!

David Jaffe had a bit to say on the E3 Bombcasts about this which I really appreciated. Not enough people in the industry call out the faults with how this business model is being implemented.

[Mistle]

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

This. I'm unhappy with quite a bit of PSO2's paying options. Apparently you can pay to level up faster? That's a big no-no to me... among other things like paying to be able to trade items and other basic features.

[pargonta]

It honestly has no place in complete artistic creations.

I mean, talk about undercutting your artistic integrity, cutting and gutting your game to nickel and dime the consumer, wonderful. doesnt really happen with books, movies, paintings, buying sculptures, going to plays... what have you. artistic creations should be from artist to audience through a medium as simply as possible. that's it.

to answer the OP, I am okay with F2P right now! As long as it's for those weird PC games and multiplayer shooters.
F2P seems to have a home already, no need for it to infect other genres.

I would have to see complete games like Journey, Bioshock, or Skyrim that still retain their genre and base identity. hearing from developers "This profit model did not affect our artistic process or how we designed the game" would be nice too.

so again, i am already okay with F2P in those multiplayer games and other misc niche genres. it just needs to stay there, because it infects the artistic process of the medium by default.

[Aru]

A game that I'm interested in, in the first place.
I wouldn't mind a F2P single player JRPG, but it's hard to see how it would work. Free main quest but charging for sub quests/equipment ?

[cooljeanius]

They'd have to be less focused on exploiting their playerbase and trying to squeeze every last drop of money out of them, and instead be more focused on actually making a quality game with mechanics that are intrinsically interesting, regardless of whether or not the player buys anything.

[flyinpiranha]

Already there. I think it's a fine model if not abused.

Valve F2P = Good
Activision's idea of F2P = I'm going with bad

[Enco]

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

.

Paying for guns, level ups, exp or anything that gives you an upper hand = auto fail

See TF2 for a good example.

[BlackJace]

I've accepted it for a while now. As long as it's done right, it turns out fine.

[revolverjgw]

I don't know. I have no experience with f2p, and zero interest in any of the prominent games or their business models.

I'd have to see what they have in mind for non-grindy single player games. Maybe I'm not being imaginative but I can't think of a way that this business model will make me happy. So somebody will have to surprise me... either that or I'll have to be forced into it by an industry sea-change.

[stuminus3]

I've "accepted" it for many, many years now. There's nothing wrong with the model when it's done right. My problem is with the mouthpieces in the industry harping on about how it's 100% of the future, just like they said about iOS or every other next big thing in the last 35 years. It's incredibly tiresome, if not narrow minded.

[PedroLumpy]

. Paying for guns, level ups, exp or anything that gives you an upper hand = auto fail See TF2 for a good example.

While I would consider TF2 better than almost everything, I'm hesitant to call it good as weapons are still held back, subject to the whims of a random drop system.

There are a ton of caveats, like how stock weapons are usually better. There are others but I'm on my phone. The point is that it's important to point out the problems even though it's better than almost every other f2p model.

[Roto13]

This. I'm unhappy with quite a bit of PSO2's paying options. Apparently you can pay to level up faster? That's a big no-no to me... among other things like paying to be able to trade items and other basic features.

Why does it matter if someone is level 20 because they spent hours and hours grinding or because they just paid to skip the fluff? Grinding is a big reason why I rarely play MMORPGs.

I've "accepted" it for many, many years now. There's nothing wrong with the model when it's done right. My problem is with the mouthpieces in the industry harping on about how it's 100% of the future, just like they said about iOS or every other next big thing in the last 35 years. It's incredibly tiresome, if not narrow minded.

Who actually says this? I keep seeing people panic over hearing it, but I don't know where they're hearing it.

[DarkKyo]

I'm already on board.

This. I don't know why so many people have a problem with free games.

[aliencowz7]

I doubt I will ever be on board with what is the current f2p model. PSO was one of my most played games of all time as well as one of my favorite games of all time and I had been highly anticipating PSO2 for a very long time until the day they announced the f2p model and it completely killed all my excitement for the game.

Even now I keep trying to play the game in each beta phase but its simply not fun between the way it is balanced with f2p in mind and knowing that you have to pay a monthly fee just to be able to trade and sell items to players. That is absurd to me and completely unacceptable in a pso game.

I dunno, if f2p can kill all my hype for one of my most looked forward to games of all time then I cant see myself ever being on board but to each there own and all.

[Snuggler]

I just checked out Path of Exile recently, it's my first experience with a F2P game. I've never been close-minded about F2P games, but they're mostly competitive multiplayer games and MMO's, which are totally not my thing. Ultimately, if the game itself appeals to be, the way it's distributed isn't going to be a deal breaker, unless it's supported by a particularly devious scheme. But in PoE's case, it definitely helped the developer is doing F2P right:

To fund the development and maintenance costs of the project, we plan to let players purchase aesthetic perks for their characters such as: Additional character animations (for example, taunts or PvP victory animations) Dyes and item skins Alternate spell effects Social pets We will also offer some optional paid services such as: Inter-realm/inter-account character transfers Character renaming You’ll notice nothing in the list above confers an actual gameplay advantage.

If I continue to pay PoE in the future, I'll gladly spend money on that crap, I'm a sucker for character customization. I'm not being exploited, and they could potentially receive more revenue from me then they would if I had bought it from a Steam sale. It's a win-win situation, and the kind of thing that makes me a bit more willing to embrace the F2P future.

[Frank]

I'm already in also.

And I'm quite ok with the system - because I do expect to pay something at some point. Out of convenience, out of boredom, out of wanting. The difference with the current system is that I can manage better how much I want to pay.

I usually set a budget of 30 euros for a F2P, and I spend those money gradually if I feel the game is worthy of my time and commitment. If not, not and that would be it. So far I've been able to respect that limit. And all in all, at the end of the day, I'm having a blast, and I paid less for the experience than I would've had paid one year ago.

There's a lot of people thinking about going into F2P who really want to have the cake, and also eat it. The best experience possible, completely free!

That's a cool dream, but never forget that a game, as a product, didn't just spawn out of nowhere but was created by a team of people over a period of time. Unwillingness to make at least a small step forward towards them and invest a bit is what will push these guys to either go more in the direction of pay-to-progress, pay-to-win, and less in the direction of pay-for-you-if-you-want; or just fold up at some point after release; or not support the game as strong as you'd like etc.

[Derrick01]

People in 2012 who don't accept F2P are idiots and missing out. with PC and mobile on this there are a tonne of amazing experiences. I'm playing DoTA 2 more than anything else. DoTA2, LoL, Team Fortress 2, Super MNC, Tribes Accession, Age of Empires. Microsoft Flight are all fantastic hardcore, polished experiences.

Besides me not liking F2P, I have no interest in any of those games to begin with.

[bengraven]

I'm already on board, though not officially.

I think when even more exciting properities start coming out F2P than people will get excited. I can see in the future people releasing two different games at the same time: one a big AAA game and another a F2P multiplayer mostly game with the same assets - maybe even release the F2P version early to get people excited.

[McBacon]

What about SimCity Social, FarmVille, Pocket Planes - these simulation games you get on Facebook and iPhone? Does GAF play those?

[sykoex]

A model where the ONLY things you pay for are cosmetic, no paying for any type of in-game currency, no paying for XP, no paying to be able to use a mount, no paying to be able to access a dungeon. It should only be stuff like unique mounts, pets, skins, etc.

[jamesgriggs]

I don't like 99.9% of what I'm seeing from F2P. I do like TF2, and I'm interested in what Jaffe's take on F2P is going to be, but mostly, I'm extremely wary.

[FyreWulff]

A model where the ONLY things you pay for are cosmetic, no paying for any type of in-game currency, no paying for XP, no paying to be able to use a mount, no paying to be able to access a dungeon. It should only be stuff like unique mounts, pets, skins, etc.

I don't have problems with bonus XP because I assume the developer has balanced the game around the boosted XP, and made the 'free'/'trial' xp progression a lower version of that.

That's how I'd balance it, anyway.

[Sojgat]

Shenmue 3.

[jamesgriggs]

Bonus XP (or any other resource) is one of the things I'm most cynical about in F2P models.

[DocSeuss]

My problems with F2P games:

1. I play video games because I like to be immersed in a world. When you live in chronic pain as frequently as I do, escapism is a wonderful thing. By turning a game into a commodity--to have constant, in-your-face advertisement (and that IS what it is, because these games do have to make a profit), some of the immersion of the game world is lost.

2. As a result of my desire to be immersed in a world, I tend to prefer single-player games. I've yet to encounter a F2P single-player game, much less one that can go toe-to-toe with games like Thief or STALKER.

3. I grew up with Microsoft Flight Simulator. I modded it a lot. This was a very fun thing to do, and if you go looking at Duncan Harris's shots of Microsoft Flight Simulator, you're going to see a LOT of modding present. Recently, Microsoft Flight came out. For roughly the price of a regular Microsoft Flight Simulator, you can get around half a dozen planes (most of which will not even have cockpits) and the Hawaiian islands.

You can't change anything. You can't improve anything. Ten years later, you can't come back and say "hey, I enjoyed Microsoft Flight back in the day; I'd like to make it playable on modern systems," unless, of course, Microsoft Flight still exists.

4. Speaking of not being able to play the game whenever--consider the fact that your money stops mattering after the game goes under. Nothing can take away my old, old copy of Oregon Trail or Microsoft Flight Simulator (yes, I wasn't allowed to play more interesting games as a child; what of it?). Nothing invalidates the money I spent on those games. F2P games, though? You spend money and when the game dies, your expenditure has been wasted. You can't replay those old games anymore, because they were tied to systems

It's like console multiplayer games, when they shut things down. Without the ability for people to create their own dedicated servers and do whatever they want with the game, its longevity diminishes greatly.

Overall, I feel like F2P is one of those things that's in odds with reality, like closed environments for computing so that everything will be in the cloud (streaming everything to everyone everywhere at reasonable speeds isn't currently possible in North America, and the price of internet would skyrocket, because yay bandwidth caps everywhere). It's a neat technological idea, but it's inherently limiting (if all software was on the cloud, it would become significantly harder to create open source efforts or personal programs for user benefit, data would be significantly easier to compromise, and the thought of non-connected computers specifically designed to black out distractions would be eliminiated). It's a neat idea, and I don't begrudge its existence, but I also don't believe it makes anything better.

When I look at an F2P game, what I see is a game I'm not going to be able to play on my terms. How am I supposed to feel that such an experience has any value?

In other words, it's not possible for me to accept F2P games because they are fundamentally at odds with the experience I wish to have while gaming.

[Darth Kupi]

Dota 2, which I'm currently playing) and Bloodlines Champions (which I tried out but can't get good pings on Euro servers from where I live) have turned my opinion around.

As long as Dota2 doesn't become TF2 (which seems unlikely, seems Valve have learned their lesson) I'm totally on board.

They day you can buy a cosmetic Dota 2 set with +5 HP regen and -2 armour, I'm out.


The rest of the pay-to-win shit can go to hell as far as I'm concerned.

[SquiddyCracker]

Only cosmetic items and shortcuts (personal banker, XP-boost, loot drop boost, teleports, etc) in the cash shop, and a method to get all these items without a massive grind.

The alternative is a buffet type of affair, but for game content. In that case, I'd like to be able to purchase all the game content at a reasonable price. Getting all the factions/units/heroes or whatever in AoE Online would apparently cost $100, whereas you can in Civ 5 get all the DLC at a reasonable price.

[tinfoilhatman]

Bring it on , I hate physical copies of shit laying around all over the place. just charge me less for the downloadable version.

[Carter]

League of Legends has brought me hours of entertainment and some of the best PvP I have experienced.

[spindoctor]

While I would consider TF2 better than almost everything, I'm hesitant to call it good as weapons are still held back, subject to the whims of a random drop system.

The trading system completely removes any element of luck. If you want a specific weapon, you can just trade something else that you got for it. And automated systems like the TF2 warehouse, while not being officially run by Valve, make this a completely trivial affair.

[Sixfortyfive]

Free to play is okay as long as I don't have to pay to win.

Pretty much the only games I've put considerable time into for the past 2 years are fighting games. So much so that I've gone completely off the deep end for it, traveling cross-country for tournaments and such. The moment something like a free base game + $5/character mainstream game comes along, I'm out. I can't imagine a more efficient way to kill off competition. I can find a new hobby.

[PedroLumpy]

The trading system completely removes any element of luck. If you want a specific weapon, you can just trade something else that you got for it. And automated systems like the TF2 warehouse, while not being officially run by Valve, make this a completely trivial affair.

You basically are agreeing with me. You don't defend the system, you provide a means of easily bypassing it. I feel similarly, I just think you shouldn't even need to do TF2Warehouse stuff to get the gameplay goodies.

[thetrin]

I'm already on board with F2P.

[Jarnet87]

I think its kind of silly for free to play MMOs to limit things like races/classes/ability to interact with other players etc. Limiting me to a bunch of classes I don't want to play and not being able to talk with players is the thing that will deter me the furthest from playing a game I want to test.

[Dreavus]

TF2 and DOTA 2 have pretty much perfected the formula as far as I'm concerned. It's either completely cosmetic, or relatively easy to obtain any gameplay-affecting weapons you might want. Crafting in TF2 doesn't take days, unless you're trying to craft a hat... which in most cases is completely cosmetic anyway! I do have a bit of a problem with those set hats though, but I think Valve learned their lesson with that one.

Then there's the Steam workshop, where people can submit new items to be put up into the shop, and it turns the system into some kind of self-sustaining content-generating monster. I bet it makes a pretty penny for Valve too.

EDIT:

My problems with F2P games: 1. I play video games because I like to be immersed in a world. When you live in chronic pain as frequently as I do, escapism is a wonderful thing. By turning a game into a commodity--to have constant, in-your-face advertisement (and that IS what it is, because these games do have to make a profit), some of the immersion of the game world is lost. 2. As a result of my desire to be immersed in a world, I tend to prefer single-player games. I've yet to encounter a F2P single-player game, much less one that can go toe-to-toe with games like Thief or STALKER. 3. I grew up with Microsoft Flight Simulator. I modded it a lot. This was a very fun thing to do, and if you go looking at Duncan Harris's shots of Microsoft Flight Simulator, you're going to see a LOT of modding present. Recently, Microsoft Flight came out. For roughly the price of a regular Microsoft Flight Simulator, you can get around half a dozen planes (most of which will not even have cockpits) and the Hawaiian islands. You can't change anything. You can't improve anything. Ten years later, you can't come back and say "hey, I enjoyed Microsoft Flight back in the day; I'd like to make it playable on modern systems," unless, of course, Microsoft Flight still exists. 4. Speaking of not being able to play the game whenever--consider the fact that your money stops mattering after the game goes under. Nothing can take away my old, old copy of Oregon Trail or Microsoft Flight Simulator (yes, I wasn't allowed to play more interesting games as a child; what of it?). Nothing invalidates the money I spent on those games. F2P games, though? You spend money and when the game dies, your expenditure has been wasted. You can't replay those old games anymore, because they were tied to systems It's like console multiplayer games, when they shut things down. Without the ability for people to create their own dedicated servers and do whatever they want with the game, its longevity diminishes greatly. Overall, I feel like F2P is one of those things that's in odds with reality, like closed environments for computing so that everything will be in the cloud (streaming everything to everyone everywhere at reasonable speeds isn't currently possible in North America, and the price of internet would skyrocket, because yay bandwidth caps everywhere). It's a neat technological idea, but it's inherently limiting (if all software was on the cloud, it would become significantly harder to create open source efforts or personal programs for user benefit, data would be significantly easier to compromise, and the thought of non-connected computers specifically designed to black out distractions would be eliminiated). It's a neat idea, and I don't begrudge its existence, but I also don't believe it makes anything better. When I look at an F2P game, what I see is a game I'm not going to be able to play on my terms. How am I supposed to feel that such an experience has any value? In other words, it's not possible for me to accept F2P games because they are fundamentally at odds with the experience I wish to have while gaming.

Points 1 and 2, I agree. Can't argue with the advertisements being in your face. I've subjected myself to Nexon's Dragon Nest for a while, and they've recently added a link to the cash shop IN MY INVENTORY telling me I can buy more space - that shit is getting shameful. And I can't think of a F2P single player game at all, now that I consider it, unless you count old old shareware stuff. Given that a lot of the times the cash shop stuff either is "cosmetic" (showing off to other players) or in the worst cases pay to win (pay to have an advantage over other players) this seems to make sense. I'm not familiar with the iOS stuff, so maybe there is 'free' single player stuff on there.

As for moddability... I don't know. If you look at what Valve is doing with the workshop there is lots of opportunity for the community to contribute to the game. Not on the level of some conversion mods, but the community has some input into what they see in the game.

Comment 4 about "lost money", I'm inclined to agree as well. The same could be said for subscription MMOs or any online focused game, not just F2P games. It's the nagging feeling that my money is "wasted" that primarily keeps me away from subscription MMOs, even though arguable the same thing happens whenever I stop playing a game I recently bought. I guess it has to do with the opportunity to revisit it, like you said, even if I never actually get around to revisiting it. For some reason the "lost money" thing doesn't bother me a whole lot for F2P games. I threw 10 bucks into Spiral knights, but no longer play. I threw 10 bucks into Dragon Nest, and I play infrequently at best. Doesn't seem to bother me a whole lot though *shrug*

[Vinci]

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.

I've said this before elsewhere, but...

The benefit of F2P with these sorts of companies is that abusing their audience will lead to their deaths. Why? Because their revenue is now linked to the repeated interaction between themselves and their audience. The longer their audience sticks around and the more micro-transactions result from their presence, the more revenue the company takes in.

If they treat their customers unfairly or inconvenience them in a significant manner, the less likely they are to make money on their earlier investment making the game. Thus, they will only survive if the people playing feel they are getting their money's worth - as opposed to how things work now, in which you may buy a game that ends up disappointing you. Period. You bought it. That money is gone.

I'd rather someone nickel and dime me well than bludgeon me in the face.

EDIT: A general rule of thumb for the future with this system in place: Companies that seriously cut the amount they invest in their games will likely be more predatory than those who stick their necks out.

[Cindres]

Tribes is what I play the most at the moment. So definitely.

[Raptomex]

I'm already on board.

This. I'll give it a shot if it's free.

[Ceebs]

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.

You know DOTA2 and LoL are some of the most complex and deep games ANYWHERE at the moment, and both are F2P.

[Vinci]

You know DOTA2 and LoL are some of the most complex and deep games ANYWHERE at the moment, and both are F2P.

Tribes Ascend also knocks his comment to the ground and kicks it hard in the groin repeatedly.

[Dictator93]

This

This of this. Simulacrum.

[Alex]

Already on board, it's a great model when implemented properly.

[zruben]

I just don't like the "pay to win" scheme when we are talking about multiplayer games... basically, the one who spends more money has more chance to win.

[DR3AM]

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

yes!

Also, I would not care if paying customers were allowed to have extra character slots, create/host private rooms, dlc in advance and so on as long as it doesn’t affect gameplay. ad support is also find with me.

[Orayn]

Already on board, it's a great model when implemented properly.

Yep. The future of F2P is a good one if more developers follow Valve's lead.

[soultron]

I want a few things:

• Substantial SP-only experiences. I like grand SP games and adventures. Not everything should have to be MP or competitive.
• Games that aren't Pay-2-Win. (think Renting a la Tribes as a better solution?)
• Established, fully-featured games that don't seem like a shitty attempt to merely cash-in on the still fledgling delivery method that is F2P. (See Battlefield F2P as an example versus BF3.)

[alstein]

I couldn't accept that a game that was designed as F2P, as the experience is designed by nature to be crippled, and I wouldn't subject myself to that if I can avoid it. If a game follows the TF2 model of being paid then free, that's a different story.

[Wthermans]

Personally I will rarely buy anything from F2P games and will stop playing the game and give negative reviews to any game that tries to lock core content away behind a pay wall.

[Orayn]

I couldn't accept that a game that was designed as F2P, as the experience is designed by nature to be crippled, and I wouldn't subject myself to that if I can avoid it. If a game follows the TF2 model of being paid then free, that's a different story.

I hate to keep dredging it up, but what about Dota 2? It's a carbon copy of a free mod for a paid game, with the addition of a cosmetic-only cash shop. Not a single aspect of the game's mechanics are affected by anything the player can or can't buy. FireFall is also F2P and will supposedly work the same way.