f2p means the game has a certain type of design that a lot of people don't like
Okay, I think we need to cut through the hyperbole here and remember that F2P =/= Shit. There are many advantages and many games have vastly improved by going that route. It not all doom and gloom, come on
If on average people don't end up spending more than $60 then it wouldn't be F2P in the first place, Capcom of all people aren't charity workers.
Not calling you out in particular since you're making a point others have made, but I find that this is an outdated view. I go into detail 2 pages back a bit more, but there is nothing to suggest that paying $60 will get you a full game or your money's worth. Value is perceived by the individual, but make no mistake that going forward it won't be a one-time purchase to get all the content a game has to offer and we've already seen recent examples of that.
I don't have a lot of faith in Capcom to release a fully functional f2p game where paying isn't necessary to access the bulk of the content though. This is my problem far more than the concept of f2p, I have been wording things wrong at times when going against f2p, it's moreso Capcom + f2p that is the problem. In truth it's the Japanese mobile market that brings about these fears.
Make it F2P with Real Money store. Gear otherwise drops from chests at a lower rate. Mission accomplished. Make it really hard, so people want to buy gear because they can't deal with the challenge. Since it is online/co-op, friends will want to buy gear to be on par with their friends. As long as everything is obtainable in game, I don't have complaints if they go this route. People with less (no) time can pay to get better gear. People that like a challenge or have more gear can grind/clear memories for gear at a slower rate.
This I can totally agree with. Duckroll brought to my attention that the studio behind this mostly dabbles in mobile gaming. The real scare comes from the popular of the F2P stamina model where you're essentially being sold game time, scarier than being able to buy a gamebreaking cudgel of xanthor.
This is the sort of brilliant hard-hitting insight I expect from sports talk radio callersExpect microtransactions!
This is just wrong, where is this nonsense coming from? Any one individual could play a F2P game without spending a single cent. The whole idea behind F2P is that a portion of the user base that buys various things does so frequently thus subsidizing the game for the others who don't. What you're suggesting is that they would need everyone to at least pitch in something and if they planned that from the get go they would've gone the retail route, but they didn't.
That's not what I'm suggesting, I'm saying if you average all money across all players it'll be more than $60.
That's not what I'm suggesting, I'm saying if you average all money across all players it'll be more than $60.
Ah fair enough, yeah and that'd probably suggest why they went this route. It allows them to continue to earn beyond the initial investment of $60.
On a separate note, I know we've been using $60 as the standard, but what price would sit comfortably for you all knowing that the game is online-only?
Only on neogaf can you find so many people opposed to geting a game for free.
Ah fair enough, yeah and that'd probably suggest why they went this route. It allows them to continue to earn beyond the initial investment of $60.
On a separate note, I know we've been using $60 as the standard, but what price would sit comfortably for you all knowing that the game is online-only?
Only on neogaf can you find so many people opposed to geting a game for free.
That's not what I'm suggesting, I'm saying if you average all money across all players it'll be more than $60.
They'd miss out on all that whale-money.We used to call this "shareware" back in the days.. although shareware games didn't have nag-buttons then.
I wish these so-called f2p games at least had one "buy everything for 60 dollars no more nagging"-button.
I wonder if all the people going "how can you complain about getting a game for free!" are missing the point on purpose or genuinely believe that.
In case of the latter, the issue, at least for me -- and many in this thread it seems -- isn't one of cost at all. It's about the game design constraints imposed on a title by the distribution model. It's possible to create F2P games with largely inoffensive monetization models, such as DOTA2 and PoE, but they clearly are the exception rather than the rule in the F2P marketplace. Combine this with the fact that Japanese mobile F2P games in particular are closely linked with one of the most annoying and detrimental F2P practices in the stamina/waiting periods mechanic, and you can see why some concern may be justified.
In fact, what some people describe as a wost case scenario -- paying to unlock new levels -- seems almost like a best case to me. At least on the surface, such an approach would appear to have the least impact on the core game design.
when was the last time Capcom did something right?
That's completely wrong.
The idea behind f2p is your revenue per user is much lower, but your total user base is much higher.
Let's say Game X cost 10$, and sold 50,000 copies. Now let's say you release the same game for free with micro transactions. With no cost of entry, a million people download it. With the new model, revenue per user is only 1$. In this example, they make much less per user but take in twice as much money because they have so many more users,
DD doesn't need rpu more than 60 to make f2p worthwhile.
Dragon's Dogma and the Dark Arisen expansion. Just give me a quality, packed experience like that with a substantial expansion down the road and I will gladly buy it. I don't want to be sold bits and pieces of a game as I go along. It totally takes you out of the experience seeing everything being sold for real money as you are trying to progress and stay immersed.
I wonder if all the people going "how can you complain about getting a game for free!" are missing the point on purpose or genuinely believe that.
In case of the latter, the issue, at least for me -- and many in this thread it seems -- isn't one of cost at all. It's about the game design constraints imposed on a title by the distribution model. It's possible to create F2P games with largely inoffensive monetization models, such as DOTA2 and PoE, but they clearly are the exception rather than the rule in the F2P marketplace. Combine this with the fact that Japanese mobile F2P games in particular are closely linked with one of the most annoying and detrimental F2P practices in the stamina/waiting periods mechanic, and you can see why some concern may be justified.
In fact, what some people describe as a wost case scenario -- paying to unlock new levels -- seems almost like a best case to me. At least on the surface, such an approach would appear to have the least impact on the core game design.
Exactly, I don't see why some people can't get this through their heads.
More often than not, F2P games are designed to maximize revenue from a single copy of the game (so either you pay to win, or you spend a significant amount of your free time just grinding it out).
I wonder if all the people going "how can you complain about getting a game for free!" are missing the point on purpose or genuinely believe that.
In case of the latter, the issue, at least for me -- and many in this thread it seems -- isn't one of cost at all. It's about the game design constraints imposed on a title by the distribution model. It's possible to create F2P games with largely inoffensive monetization models, such as DOTA2 and PoE, but they clearly are the exception rather than the rule in the F2P marketplace. Combine this with the fact that Japanese mobile F2P games in particular are closely linked with one of the most annoying and detrimental F2P practices in the stamina/waiting periods mechanic, and you can see why some concern may be justified.
In fact, what some people describe as a wost case scenario -- paying to unlock new levels -- seems almost like a best case to me. At least on the surface, such an approach would appear to have the least impact on the core game design.
I agree, and I'm not advocating that. I'm just trying to explain why some are concerned (and might in fact be happier with a traditionally distributed and designed title).I get this point but completely writing off the game before we know how it's handling payment is kind of nuts.
Well it depends on the amount of content really. What I would prefer is getting the game for even $60, with let's say 50 hours of content you can do with friends (before it starts to get too repetitive or easy). Then I would not mind say a $15-20 expansion every 6 months that each added another 8-10 hours of gameplay with new equipment sets and skills and such.
Something like that would be optimal to me.
Honestly even like the regular f2p model, but a $60 'year pass' that gets you all DLC and content for a year would be fine by me, assuming they release a good bit of stuff in that time, and leads to at least the 50+ hours I mentioned.
It's difficult to attach hours to an online game, since some people may spend 100 hours on a single dungeon with different groups of friends, but whenever I mention hours, I mean like I said, that many hours of mostly non-repetitive content, like different quests, or configurations of the dungeons that won't get tiresome.
when was the last time Capcom did something right?
Yes, the stamina model is a horrifying concept to me. If they had something in Deep Down like, real time fixing your armour at a blacksmith that takes say 6-12 real hours, or pay $2 for instant-fix item, that would be the worst possible way to do this.