-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
F2P - Whales, Addicts and Dirty Secrets
- Thread starter Tripon
- Start date
SwiftDeath
Member
Sounds about right to me
Always been wary of FTP games
Only really ok with paying for cosmetic items etc.
Always been wary of FTP games
Only really ok with paying for cosmetic items etc.
Impeccable
Member
I'm a "minnow" who occasionally enjoys F2P games, I see nothing wrong with them. If they want to get some "whale" to fork out the cash so I can keep enjoying a game for free then I'm not fussed.
The article should have given examples of games that "effectively" "force" you to pay and thus rendering a free game "not free". I'm sure there are some obscure ones but it doesn't lend to a great article without showing the good and bad examples of F2P.
The article should have given examples of games that "effectively" "force" you to pay and thus rendering a free game "not free". I'm sure there are some obscure ones but it doesn't lend to a great article without showing the good and bad examples of F2P.
fabricated backlash
Member
Tougher regulations will help companies that actually want to provide a fair product, and they actually should push for such, as it should be in their very own interest.
Otherwise you're just shifting blame while still capitalizing on the lack of regulation.
Otherwise you're just shifting blame while still capitalizing on the lack of regulation.
AlphaTwo00
Member
Personally, having done my fair share of interviews for places at F2P companies after getting kicked to the curb from core games, I'm not surprised. Most weren't interested in Game Design from me, but rather analytics and monetization. Most don't and will never have a "game designer", but place all decision and weights on how to maximize monetization.
I can tell you I don't hold out much hope of this changing unless a crash happens and kicks EVERYONE out of this F2P stalemate.
I can tell you I don't hold out much hope of this changing unless a crash happens and kicks EVERYONE out of this F2P stalemate.
I suspect the worry may be that they also take out a lot of games that do it sensibly or at an extreme severely compromise any ability to sell beyond the initial product.
Though honestly it's getting offputting enough I kind of want that to happen anyway. Nevermind that personally I'd be happiest a few steps away from the extreme of "no DLC/IAP ever" that focuses on meaty content over coins/stamina type garbage.
ebullientprism
Member
Fine by me, let it burn to the ground.
If you guys find this interesting there's a year old Wired article about the same subject.
The Article, which is almost a year old.
Which in itself is based on this 2012 GDC talk
The Article, which is almost a year old.
Which in itself is based on this 2012 GDC talk
fabricated backlash
Member
That's why companies who want to use the model in a sensible and fair manner need to get active now, before the scams get too much to fight.
AlphaTwo00
Member
There's a very fine and blurry line on what is sensible, especially on the phone, where most of us have realized that unless you're twisting the player's arm in paying for something, they probably won't do it.
hydrophilic attack
Member
I have avoided FTP games so far. They feel dodgy to me.
F2P is just a horrible system for serious games. It really needs this massive backlash and collapse that forces massive change in how it's implemented. As it is now it changes how games are made because of that play on addiction and the whole gambling aspect.
I also don't like how it's starting to infect "normal" games. People rave about ME3's multiplayer but it was one big sleazy F2P scheme. You had to dump hours and hours of play to afford a good pack of random items and even then you run the chance of not getting anything good, because it's random. So it strongly encourages people to say fuck it and just buy a couple quick packs with real money.
GTA Online is another strongly mishandled online game because they designed it with $ signs in their eyes instead of trying to make it fun. You practically need a fucking mortgage for every item in that game. I mean it costs $18-$20k just to get a different colored parachute! And it takes hours to get that kind of money by yourself because the jobs pay $1k-$5k on average for most of the first 20 levels and every time you die you're taxed a good $2k or so. But don't worry you can go on to psn/xbl and buy a ton of money with real cash!
Can't wait for this shit to die.
I also don't like how it's starting to infect "normal" games. People rave about ME3's multiplayer but it was one big sleazy F2P scheme. You had to dump hours and hours of play to afford a good pack of random items and even then you run the chance of not getting anything good, because it's random. So it strongly encourages people to say fuck it and just buy a couple quick packs with real money.
GTA Online is another strongly mishandled online game because they designed it with $ signs in their eyes instead of trying to make it fun. You practically need a fucking mortgage for every item in that game. I mean it costs $18-$20k just to get a different colored parachute! And it takes hours to get that kind of money by yourself because the jobs pay $1k-$5k on average for most of the first 20 levels and every time you die you're taxed a good $2k or so. But don't worry you can go on to psn/xbl and buy a ton of money with real cash!
Can't wait for this shit to die.
I agree. It desperately needs regulation, it's the wild west out there just now.
Yep.
It's easy to avoid the trash from the app store and whatnot, but it is slowly permeating the games I play regularly on consoles and PC. Heck, no matter how many times people will scream that "you don't really need to pay, it's optional, etc." I've skipped a few games here and there recently, even sequels to games I absolutely loved and poured hundreds of hours into.
ThreePiMatt
Member
It should be pointed out that this article is primarily pointed at the F2P games on mobile devices. The major F2P games on PC are all very playable and enjoyable without spending a dime.
meltingparappa
Member
As someone with enough money to actively support my hobby who doesn't need to think too hard about plunking down $60 for a hyped game, the thing that bothers me about F2P games is that of course I could spend like... $30 up front to buy every microtransaction available, but the game is still structured in a way to be annoying if you haven't fronted the cash, or way too easy if you foolishly did.
I do have a legitimate fear of this becoming the future, at least for mid-tier developers who are one or two mega bombs away from dying due to the full price retail market.
I do have a legitimate fear of this becoming the future, at least for mid-tier developers who are one or two mega bombs away from dying due to the full price retail market.
For me, the well has already been poisoned. I have yet to pay in a F2P game, and I don't see myself ever doing it, even for a great game because I would feel like I lost to all of these attempts to trick me into giving them money.
I'm not saying that as a badge of honor or anything. I've played a couple and had enough fun that they probably did deserve some payment, but I can't seem to get past this feeling that I've somehow lost if I give them anything.
I'm not saying that as a badge of honor or anything. I've played a couple and had enough fun that they probably did deserve some payment, but I can't seem to get past this feeling that I've somehow lost if I give them anything.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Yeah, if you thought Dead Space 3 or Mass Effect 3 was bad, try going to the App Store. Every 'free' game has some kind of timegate/pay2win/unlock with money hook.
What's really sad is that good games that used to sell for a few dollars (Phoenix HD was a great bullet hell shooter), have implemented the same techniques, absolutely ruining the gameplay. I was proud of my high score until they made it so you could buy second chances, start-of-level boosts, and additional firepower.
F2P isn't an inherently bad model, it's the developers/publishers that are abusing it. Platform controllers should be doing more to combat gross abuse but they make money from it too so that won't happen any time soon.
Dota 2 & Path of Exile are games that were designed around being F2P, are completely fair and friendly to the consumer and are "serious" games so I don't see the point in attacking the model when it isn't at fault. Abuse of the model needs to die, not the model.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Why do you think EA and crytek have praised it so much...
Legal one armed bandits that don't actually have a payout.
I think anyone who has ever played an f2p game for more than a few hours knows this.
Gamblers know it too, but they do it anyhow.
That's why there's laws to protect people in much of the world against physical gambling.
Just need laws to curb this skinnerbox gambling mechanic crap in the virtual world too.
Legal one armed bandits that don't actually have a payout.
I think anyone who has ever played an f2p game for more than a few hours knows this.
Gamblers know it too, but they do it anyhow.
That's why there's laws to protect people in much of the world against physical gambling.
Just need laws to curb this skinnerbox gambling mechanic crap in the virtual world too.
zenosparadox
Member
F2P is typically more of a business venture than a game in the traditional sense. Could there ever be a game of the calibur of Super Mario 64, Chrono Trigger or Panzer Dragoon Saga when designed around F2P mechanics?
Not saying it cannot be done right, but F2P (as described in this article--not games such as Path of Exile), on a philosophical level by design, implies a drop in quality.
Not saying it cannot be done right, but F2P (as described in this article--not games such as Path of Exile), on a philosophical level by design, implies a drop in quality.
Boombloxer
Member
There are a lot more examples of games that get it right.
I see a lot of companies flat out get it wrong--you are not supposed to abuse the players, nor use monetization as a pain point. The best examples have it as the complete opposite, which is something that the article doesn't go into details about for whatever reason (didn't know?).
The players pay because they are having fun, not to have it.
The article seemed to be more about trying to do something about the bad apples, that even though there are "good ones", there are enough bad ones to risk turning people off to the whole group, or causing the government to come down hard on the industry with the regulatory hammer.
AlphaTwo00
Member
It's not that hard, just put each 2 of the 6 stars behind a paywall, and everytime you clear a world, you have to redo all the previous ones!
PvZ2 why are you hot garbage?
You don't see a problem with your play being completely subsidized by a relatively select few amount of people who are too easily susceptible to constant psychological manipulation meant to wring out as much of their money as possible for nothing tangible in return using techniques that would make many Casinos raise an eyebrow?
I mean if you don't that's fine, and one could argue advertising in general is a similar form of psychological manipulation but my goodness there has to be a line somewhere.
Boombloxer
Member
Doubtful, but he mentioned he only had about a year of experience for mobile, and there are some serious flaws in his logic, more personal feeling than actual data/insight.
Or you know, they just value what they are paying for. Everything isn't quite that cut and dry.
Pinko Marx
Banned
Why should anyone feel bad for how others choose to legally spend their money?
captmorgan
Banned
I don`t have a problem with that, but I also don`t believe people need to be protected from this big bad world either.
If people want to spend their own money why is it anybody elses business on what they spend it on.
If I spend $30,000 to mod my amateur drag racer and beat someone who only spends $5,000. It's accepted.
If I buy a $10,000 bicycle, pay for a $3,000 trainer and enter a bike race. And you buy a $1,000 bike and no trainer. It's accepted.
If the NY Yankees have a higher payroll than the Minnesota Twins, they get better players. That means a higher likelihood they will win games. It's accepted.
Gambling is regulated (as are contests with prizes) because they offer real cash rewards which can be easily manipulated to screw people. Thus regulation is (and should be) required
F2P games do not offer this. F2P games are much more in line with hobbies than gambling.
Most whales spend because they have abundance of cash, but because of this little time. So they see value in spending money.
People value things in which they invest their time into. I would never pay $10,000 for a graphite bicycle. But I don't value bicycle racing. To me it's silly. To someone else it's perfectly logical.
I agree some games are geared toward grossly simplistic pay mechanics. But they simply are not good games.
I get the outrage, I just think it's overblown because it's new.
If I buy a $10,000 bicycle, pay for a $3,000 trainer and enter a bike race. And you buy a $1,000 bike and no trainer. It's accepted.
If the NY Yankees have a higher payroll than the Minnesota Twins, they get better players. That means a higher likelihood they will win games. It's accepted.
Gambling is regulated (as are contests with prizes) because they offer real cash rewards which can be easily manipulated to screw people. Thus regulation is (and should be) required
F2P games do not offer this. F2P games are much more in line with hobbies than gambling.
Most whales spend because they have abundance of cash, but because of this little time. So they see value in spending money.
People value things in which they invest their time into. I would never pay $10,000 for a graphite bicycle. But I don't value bicycle racing. To me it's silly. To someone else it's perfectly logical.
I agree some games are geared toward grossly simplistic pay mechanics. But they simply are not good games.
I get the outrage, I just think it's overblown because it's new.
SatelliteOfLove
Member
I see the bad similes are out in force to make playing dumb in the face of mounted presented evidence easier.
And it's an easy way out. Good F2P games take you know, actual game design skill to make. That skill is necessary to make games is evident value that encourage the good will in customers to buy the non-free tchotchkes. In these the article (and MANY OTHERS) point to have games that encourage no good will, only escaping pain and salvaging endangered gains. It's pump and dump with no value associated or attached.
Don't even get me started on B2P with paid doodads; |OT|s here are littered with posts of people lamenting their moment of weakness or gormlessly proclaiming how bad with money they are they spent a weeks worth of lunches on pixels yet again.
It's funny, the gamer bribery and incompatibility to fail or wait in gamers that encouraged enables this behavior so much. It's almost inevitable.
And it's an easy way out. Good F2P games take you know, actual game design skill to make. That skill is necessary to make games is evident value that encourage the good will in customers to buy the non-free tchotchkes. In these the article (and MANY OTHERS) point to have games that encourage no good will, only escaping pain and salvaging endangered gains. It's pump and dump with no value associated or attached.
Don't even get me started on B2P with paid doodads; |OT|s here are littered with posts of people lamenting their moment of weakness or gormlessly proclaiming how bad with money they are they spent a weeks worth of lunches on pixels yet again.
It's funny, the gamer bribery and incompatibility to fail or wait in gamers that encouraged enables this behavior so much. It's almost inevitable.
Not really, ME3 unlocked things at the same pace as any other shooter with BS levels and unlockables, the only reason the cash payment is tempting is because its right in your face. Also they gave players every single map pack for free. ME3 MP's single foul is the random unlocking system but cash doesn't save anyone from the roulette, so its not even that enticing.
Anyways on F2P games, it's the ridiculous phone games that are shitting in the pool. There are several F2Ps on PC that rely mostly on cosmetics, but yeah, long grinds are absolutely a factor. I also have no qualms with the labels either. It's the "whales" that keep games afloat for the many "minnows" to play more casually. These whales buy cosmetic upgrades willingly, not because they're neglected 8 year olds on their parent's iPhone.
SHADES
Member
I think I much prefer the traditional way to play games, if that means I get burned by a shit game I don't mind but after reading an article on how f2p dev's primarily look for the whale & that one dev openly seeked out one "whale" who after spending $ 30000 quit the game the dev tried to entice the "whale" back into the game, I dunno? It left a sour taste in my mouth.
Someone in that situation 30k in & in dire straights yet the dev wants more, kinda fucked me off. Don't get me wrong I've played F2P but will not sink a penny in them if the game is set up to milk, if they want my money or the game dictates my money I'll quit, I just find the whole set up shady.
So I'll give blacklight retribution & planetside a whirl but if gameplay mechanics dictate payment I'm out, if it's cosmetic et I'm May stop in, even spend the amount a AAA title commands but that's my limit, I'm not a fan of the whole whale scenario as it can actively destroy lives of those of us who are for want of a better word "weak".
TL;DR I'll try them but not get roped in.
Someone in that situation 30k in & in dire straights yet the dev wants more, kinda fucked me off. Don't get me wrong I've played F2P but will not sink a penny in them if the game is set up to milk, if they want my money or the game dictates my money I'll quit, I just find the whole set up shady.
So I'll give blacklight retribution & planetside a whirl but if gameplay mechanics dictate payment I'm out, if it's cosmetic et I'm May stop in, even spend the amount a AAA title commands but that's my limit, I'm not a fan of the whole whale scenario as it can actively destroy lives of those of us who are for want of a better word "weak".
TL;DR I'll try them but not get roped in.
That's sort of the point though. None of this is new, it's just a fresh coat of paint on age-old predatory tactics. Except arguably worse because, unlike your examples at the start, there is no payout.
Also I love the implication you make that the "whales" are able to afford their overspending so it's okay.
At the hobbyist level there's no worthwhile payout in my examples either. Sure the NY Yankees have a payout. But the drag racer? The cyclist? At the amateur level the payout is to win or place. To be a bad ass, just like in F2P games. That $1,000 purse isn't worth the $30,000 price to win it. It's prestige. Bragging rights. Being the best.
OK or not is a matter of personal opinion. I'm just stating facts of what a whale is. A whale is someone who has lots of expendable cash to blow on entertainment.
A casino doesn't wine and dine and comp rooms to some poor guy who is mortgaging his house to gamble more. They are comping someone who flies in to spend a quarter of a million over a weekend, because that's what they enjoy.
rohlfinator
Member
This rationalization has never made sense to me. Why not make a game that values the player's time in the first place, instead of making something where they'd rather pay than have to suffer through parts of it?
I understand that players have different playstyles (and different tolerances for grinding), but this is pretty much the only case where players are monetarily punished for preferring one playstyle over another. We don't see Activision charging $5 to unlock the easy difficulty in Call of Duty, for example.
F2P isn't inherently bad, it is a suited model for sports-esque game like MOBA (Dota 2, LoL), and F2P whale problem is much akin to gambling or alcohol addiction (I'm approve neither of these things), so I don't think this model would be out of business. Maybe some regulations would diwndle the number but I doubt it.
I think the negavity of some gamers on F2P model stem from the worryness that some of their favorite series, developers, or games jumped into F2P bandwagon. Some people have different expectation for their gaming experience. Some want have it to the fullest complete with story packed in one price.They feared if this model become too successful, they might not have those kind of experience again since we know that video gaming is more of industry than a creative mediums.
I think the negavity of some gamers on F2P model stem from the worryness that some of their favorite series, developers, or games jumped into F2P bandwagon. Some people have different expectation for their gaming experience. Some want have it to the fullest complete with story packed in one price.They feared if this model become too successful, they might not have those kind of experience again since we know that video gaming is more of industry than a creative mediums.
thelatestmodel
Junior, please.
Free to play feels dirty. I don't touch it.
With the exception of DOTA2 and PoE, those games are truly free to play.
We're talking about different lifestyles, not only playstyles. Some of these people dropping $1K+ on single F2P games actually of have that kind of disposable cash and actually spend far more while hanging out with friends in a single night.
Of All Trades
Member
The hobbyist tends to maintain pride of ownership over whatever they sunk money into and some retention of the value of the material objects; most sane hobbyists will also cap out at a certain point in their investment into the hobby, and people who uncontrollably spend are ideally more easily identified by people near them and receive intervention. Further, there tend to be known caps to hobbyists that discourage spending past that certain point (for a lot of hobbies you'd need to jump to the point of going pro).
Blowing $100 to make it to level 200 in Candy Crush Saga doesn't carry the same tangible value, and unlike most hobbies where a person would blow a lot on a single high-value purchase, a lot of the F2P games are built on the player not realizing how much they've spent... just like casinos. There can be pride in ownership in game items, like paying for a fancy skin or mount or whatever, but I find that concept basically nonexistant in mobile games. In the mobile space when I think "that's a good F2P game" I'm thinking of a game that's earning staggering amounts of money because it's merged an addictive gameplay concept that compels people to play and added a spending function to keep people dumping money into it for seemingly nothing. I'm constantly shocked by the amount of money people blow on Puzzles & Dragons; GungHo has money extraction down to a science there.
You may as well get used to it although in the traditional gaming space it's really taking on elements of the classic shareware model. Tribes Ascend, Age of Empires Online, and Guild Wars 2 (slight difference with B2P) all offered what could be viewed as "demo mode" and had some sort of Starter Packs which, for ~$10-$20, allowed the player to kinda get everything needed to experience the majority of the game without feeling left out.
Tribes Ascend is kinda dead now, but it and Smite both go one step further and offer a complete package that unlocks all the substantive content, past present and future, for a price comparable to a normal retail game.
AoE Online had a kind of confused model where each civilization had to be bought individually to be used in certain game modes. In theory it was supposed to total up to the price of a normal game, but things got weird and it probably contributed to the game's poor performance.
GW2 is hard to compare to either of those, since its cash shop just sells cosmetics and minor convenience stuff. There's no meaty game content (races, classes, skills, world/story content) to buy there, it's all covered by your $50 (was $60) initial purchase.