I've decided never to bother with any freemium title ever again. Even if I like the look of the game, I would rather pay the normal games console price for a good game and just have a few good titles than endless crappy games that basically are just on-line cash machines. If they want people to try it for free then buy, just use a 1 time IAP to unlock the full game. If the freemium model continues to gain ground like it has been then I think I'll be going back to PC only or maybe get a Microsoft Surface for mobile gaming.
It's shame as freemium games are spoling mobile gaming. I used to play a lot games on iOS devices. However over the past 18 months most games seems to be freemium money pits. I've actually just purchased a high spec gaming laptop and started playing PC games again.
this is what I don't get...why aren't indie devs using kickstarter to help fund the games we want and not resort to freemium? I haven't purchased a game in over a year due to this. I love the App Store because it introduced me to games made by amazing indie devs. I'm probably going to get backlash for this, but we really should be supporting companies like Nintendo (yes they are not perfect, but they may be the last company to hold out when it comes to traditional gaming)
I'm not sure how we can look to Nintendo as the last hold-out. They've got F2P games as bad as any on mobile (Pokemon Shuffle/Rumble/Picross, Nintendo Badge Arcade), they've got games with DLC that adds up to higher than the cost of the initial game (Fire Emblem: Awakening, Smash Bros 3DS/Wii U), and they're neck-deep in that whole "buy a toy for additional content" mess that Skylanders started. Don't get me wrong, I love Nintendo, and their commitment to quality comes through even in their worst games, but let's not pretend that (a) their hands are clean right now and (b) said hands aren't going to get even dirtier as time goes on. I'm honestly hard-pressed to think of a single major console publisher that isn't at least experimenting with F2P games. And that makes sense, as most of them are public companies with a responsibility to their shareholders to make as much money as they can, and in 2016, that means having at least *some* F2P in your portfolio.
To be completely honest, I think that the F2P model for mobile games is the equivalent to The Boss' Will of the MGS franchise, in paper and in the right hands, it's the ideal monetization scheme for 90% of mobile games, however it's usually misunderstood and we get games with serious pay to win elements and LOTS of timers, and I personally don't think that it's a bad idea, as I said, it's the ideal monetization model, it's flexible enough to allow players to pay hundreds or nothing if they want and can handle to, but again it comes to the developers (or The Patriots and Big Boss in the case of MGS) missing the point and creating money sinks. Personally I think that the best and fairest F2P game I've played in a while is Warframe, I've played around 90 hours and have spent only 10 dollars on it (which were used to unlock slots and speed up stuff, not buying OP gear) and as far as I can see, you can't really buy power since all weapons and frames need a lot of practice to reach their full potential, not 20 dollars for a buff. And also, quoting a little bit madreviewer, we as consumers brought to life the freemium monetization with our tendencies to spend hundreds on Candy Crush and refusing to pay 3 dollars for a more straightforward experience. So yes, TL;DR F2P would be great for both devs and players, if done right, thing that rarely happens :/
You've pointed out excellent examples of Nintendo's F2P offerings and I agree with you as I stated they are not perfect, but you have to agree they will never abandon their premium offerings. My main point in this thread is why arent smaller developers using crowdfunding to bring us premium games and not worry about IAP or ads. Speaking of ads, i recently read Apple is shuttting down its iAd framework. Do app devs rely on iAd if they put ads in games or are there alternatives?
On the iAds thing, there are other networks, but it's definitely going to shake things up a little for some devs. As for why we don't see more crowdfunded projects for mobile (there are some, like Republique, Saturday Morning RPG, Warlock Of Firetop Mountain, Banner Saga, etc), I think it comes down to two things. First, Apple won't let publishers generate mass amounts of codes, so they are unable to offer the game as a backer reward for iOS users. Second, I suspect there isn't enough money in it. Kickstarting PC and console stuff works because there is a huge audience willing to pay up-front money for a game, going so far as to pre-order (basically giving a store an interest-free loan) months or years in advance. Only a small number of them are willing to kick towards a KS, but since the group is so large, it makes sense that grabbing a small percentage is enough to get a project off the ground. Mobile's ground is less fertile since the vast majority of the userbase treats games like bags of chips. They're not going to kick in on anything, and those of us who would are a small enough number that it's probably not feasible without also promising towards non-mobile platforms.
Thank you for providing that explanation. So I see Venture Kid doing very well on the charts priced at 99¢. Would it have been terrible to price it higher as I read the glowing reviews? A game like that on PSN/XBL/eShop would be priced at the very least $4.99 or higher. Is the dev expecting people to buy the IAP so that the game is profitable?
About Freemium, i think it really depends on the type of game. If you're looking for a MMO, freemium is rather ok (especially versus subscription). If you want a solo game, you'ld prefer a Premium game, with a real story. IMO
Yet Freemium at the end is pretty much like DLCs. I think it will become a standard in the whole gaming industry (maybe entertainment too?)
The interesting thing about all this is that before freemium games started to become so popular (So, the App Store of mid-2008 to mid-2010ish) the big concern was being "burnt" on buying a game and having it turn out to not be what you wanted, not as good as you thought, or something in between. People like to get mad about freemium stuff, but this problem has effectively been solved. You can choose to never spend money, but if you do, by the time you're even given an opportunity to buy something you know exactly what you're getting into. But, there's so much stuff on the App Store that if you decide you never want to play another freemium game in your entire life, there will always be stuff you can buy instead.
Nintendo has been around 127 years, 42 as an electronics game company. The notion that F2P is now necessary for industry survival is ludicrous. Developers would still be making and selling games if the App Store's pernicious model never came about. TA may have embraced F2P as the new normal, but many gamers have not. Get this through your thick noggins, consumers won't be forced to accept crap games because of what's good for Apple, Nintendo shareholders, or poor developers toiling in the harsh App Store mines.
What I never understand about people who get so worked up about this is how do you live in a world that's so black and white? No one is saying all games will be free to play, or all games will be paid. Instead, developers have new tools to sell games in ways that break outside of the traditional mold of going to Funco Land and spending $50 on a cartridge. If you don't want to play free to play games ever in your entire life, you can do that. There will always be buy once and play forever game experiences. No one is taking away any of your toys. It's weird to blame the App Store on all this, as the writing has been on the wall in the PC/console world for far longer than anyone who likes to blame mobile for all of the ills of the world are willing to admit. Remember, Apple was actually pretty late to the freemium party. When IAP was first introduced on the App Store, it was only available to games that were paid. As long as Real Gamers exists there will always be Real Games for them to play, it's just becoming a niche, which is the case for anything that doesn't trend with the wants of the mass market. ...and that's totally OK!
Fair enough. I think some of us get frustrated by the perceived inevitability of the model. As more and more developers turn their games into skinner boxes hoping to ride the rocket to riches, a lot of people are turned off by the whole deal. Yes, there will always be choices, but as the big industry players drive the industry into subscriptionland, people who want to play games without having the ring in their nose tugged will be marginalized.
But dont you this think a byproduct of all of this is that mobile game devs are forced to price their games dirt cheap to compete with freemium for profit? Back to my earlier post,a game like Venture Kid should have been priced higher, but I hope they make money on it.
...But that sort of thing isn't true for any industry. Look at the culinary world, it's ruled by chains owned by mega-corporations like Yum, Lettuce Entertain You, Darden, etc. Their restaurants by and large serve food that isn't very good for you, that often is "cooked" by simply reheating or deep frying things, and is incredibly expensive for what you're getting. They're incredibly successful because people like gimmicks like never-ending pasta bowls, endless appetizers, kids eating free, and other promotions that are advertised 24/7. Additionally, people who go out to eat at a place like Red Lobster likely just don't know and don't care that they can get better seafood elsewhere (often for less money). Even though these corporations (and similar outfits) represent the lion's share of money spent on eating out worldwide, there's still no shortage of pure high-end foodie experiences for people who do care about that sort of thing, and regardless of how much the mega-corps expand, there always will be foodie restaurants because people who are passionate about food care about creating those experiences even though they might not be wildly profitable and inevitably will likely fail like most restaurants. The same is true for game development. Maybe, maybe not. It all depends what your expectations are. Going back to my restaurant example, people who open restaurants usually aren't doing it with the express purpose of getting rich. Success is just a side effect that some get to enjoy. Game developers are pretty similar, and the ones who have their eyes on getting rich as hell are usually the ones who bomb the hardest.
I think there is 2 things that turn people off to F2P First, some games aren't much in the way of games. Look no further than Star Trek Timelines. There is nothing that the player really does to influence the outcome. Starship battles are very pretty but I once just let it play out without doing anything and the result was the exact same. Away missions are just a matter of having more powerful "cards", which the game encourages you to buy constantly. Yes, it can be "played" without spending money, but the entire point of the game is centered around collecting crew members to take on the ever increasing numbers that you have to meet. It could be Star Trek Spreadsheet and it would be a better name. Too many F2P games are like this where the "gameplay" is nothing more than the skinner box without even the trappings of player action. It's the most cynical definition of what we know as F2P. The second and more common theme is the whole skinner box / "gatcha" systems that so many have adopted. In traditional game design you might get Batman from the start and then as a bonus you may get to unlock lesser known characters like Dr. Fate or Zatanna. Maybe keeping with the Star Trek theme you'd have Kirk and Spock on your crew from the get-go and as a nifty fanservice bonus you can unlock Reginald Barclay. Well in the F2P world you get to pay for a CHANCE to draw Kirk (or Batman) but you start out with the C-team third stringers. Here's the thing, it's the lack of transparency that causes so much frustration and its why I don't think this will last forever. It already takes massive amounts of money to keep these games going, only a handful stay profitable so its an ongoing fight to stay on-top, and they are churning through consumers faster than they can keep replacing them. I get that game development is expensive. There are plenty of IAP's I would gladly pay $5 to $10 for IF YOU GIVE ME A CHOICE. I am not spending money for a chance to spin the wheel and hope I don't get something lame. I don't mind if there is a paywall, just be clear where that paywall is at. If the true cost of being able to play your game is $5, $10, $25 then let me know so that when I hit the paywall I can decide if I want to keep going. If your game is good then people will be invested enough to keep playing. Instead I feel like current game design is teaching people to be suspicious of F2P games. They are training us that we will NOT get value for our money. Seriously, people love to gamble but they'll only stand losing for so long. At least in Vegas you have a chance to win real money. If you "win" in a Gatcha system the only thing you realize is you just spent $100 to get a lot of crap and get one thing you actually wanted. A "thing" that only exists in a digital sense. Not all F2P games are bad but the overwhelming majority have gone this way. It's creating an ugly situation that is only going to get worse before it collapses in on itself.
You're confusing my acknowledgement of reality (that a public company is obliged to do what they can to maximize profits) for an endorsement of it. If I had my way, the game industry would be very different. If I had my way, there wouldn't be earthquakes or tornadoes and David Bowie and Freddie Mercury would be preparing to release their next collaboration over their morning Metamucil. But that's not reality, and I'm only so much of a believer in ignoring reality. The truth is, games cost a lot of money to make now. A lot more than they used to. And revenue isn't increasing in step. Nobody is making as much money as they used to. And in terms of the traditional space, it's trending downward. There are lots of reasons for that, some of which are very much the fault of the publishers, but a lot of it was always inevitable. 20 years ago we used to talk about the day when the average budget would exceed the average expected earnings of a game. Well, we're almost there. But even if that wasn't happening, even if the industry hadn't been desperately searching for new ways to make money, even if everything were sunny and rosy, I still wouldn't expect companies to ignore a new source of high revenues in their space. It goes against everything I know about how a company works. But no, I don't like it. I just accept that it's how it's going to be and keep looking for the games that fit my tastes. They're always out there somewhere. In spite of my "thick noggin", I learned a long time ago that fighting against businesses being businesses is nothing more than a waste of time and energy. Money is the only language they understand. I didn't win the arcade game fight, I didn't win the "FPS focusing on multiplayer" fight, I didn't win the DLC fight or the "moe anime infecting JRPGs" fight, and I can tell you as sure as the Earth continues to spin that you will not win the F2P fight. Does that mean you shouldn't fight? No, but there's a point where some people get tired of fighting for something that's meant to be an enjoyable hobby or an escape. Especially when I can still find some stuff that is the way I like it. I pick my battles now. I shake the cage for a TWEWY update or a Monster Hunter fix. But I'm done raging against the inevitable. I'll leave that for those who are younger or have more vigor. I'm tired and just want to enjoy my games, and I'm only a little sorry if that's not enough for you, Oscar.
I feel like anyone who thinks TouchArcade is filled with free to play apologists should just continue to re-read Shaun's post here until it sinks in.
