The Evils and Merits of Free to Play Discussion

Discussion in 'General Game Discussion and Questions' started by Eli, Nov 20, 2013.

  1. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    I think the "danger" they're more concerned about is not being able to pay their employees when a paid version of the game flops like most paid games these days.
     
  2. steviebwoy

    steviebwoy Well-Known Member

    Feb 17, 2011
    735
    0
    16
    e-Systems Analyst
    Cornwall, UK
    I'm not being funny Eli, but how many "Energy Refills" have you bought? Or indeed, how many people here have bought them?

    Compare that to the number of people who would've bought this at a £1.99 price point, and we can talk about the danger of not being able to pay employees - especially when you consider that you guys are so keen to point out that you can just play another game and avoid paying to recharge the energy bar.

    Just saying.
     
  3. heringer

    heringer Well-Known Member

    Oct 2, 2011
    807
    0
    0
    This is such a terrible justification. Just because I have other things to do or play doesn't mean it's not frustrating to have your 360 controller taken out of your hand when you were having fun and wanted to play more of THAT game. The only way this situation wouldn't be frustrating is if the game isn't all that fun or engaging, but rather just another way to kill time. If that's the case, the discussion is moot anyway.
     
  4. Filing Cabinet

    Filing Cabinet Well-Known Member

    Aug 20, 2011
    997
    0
    16
    #4 Filing Cabinet, Nov 20, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2013
    Just wondering, is it difficult and/or not worth it to introduce a premium version of freemium games (even priced at $3+) from the devs perspective. Not saying that sdevelopers are obliged to provide a premium version, but it seems like there would be takers for it.

    Edit:

    Honestly it's so tiring to hear the constant justifications for different Aspects of freemium games.

    Ads - deal with it the game is free. Heavy in-app promotion - too bad game is free. Timers - go do something else in the meantime don't you have 200 games.

    Look I just want to enjoy a game without all this crap
     
  5. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    Zero, because I'm not the in game store's target customer. They don't need me to spend money, because the role people like us serve in the free to play economy is playing these games, telling our friends they're cool, which eventually will lead to someone buying something. Typical free to play conversion ratios for games that monetize well are 2-3%. Only two people out of a hundred need to buy anything for games like this to work because of the scale of downloads free to play games see.

    A game like this will see a million downloads easily inside of its first week. At a average 2.5% conversion rate, with those people only buying the minimum IAP which many, many analytical studies have shown that people gravitate towards the more expensive items because of perceived value differences, that's $25,000. That's a rock bottom estimate for a bad free to play launch. Comparatively, if a paid game clears $25,000 in its first week, that's an incredible success.

    I hope this makes it easier to understand.
     
  6. MrMojoRisin

    MrMojoRisin Well-Known Member

    Jul 27, 2012
    1,183
    0
    0
    But that "justification" was merely their opinion that timers didn't bother them that much. It's only "terrible" to you because you disagree.
     
  7. MrGreed

    MrGreed Well-Known Member

    Feb 2, 2012
    189
    0
    0
    Most people would even pay $5 to get rid of ads n timers. Not alot to ask and really infuriates me and I hope the devs see this as its very idiotic on their parts
     
  8. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    Who are "most people" to you? Because "most people" encompassing everyone downloading free to play games is very, very incorrect.
     
  9. MrGreed

    MrGreed Well-Known Member

    Feb 2, 2012
    189
    0
    0
    People that are willing to spend $2 to play a few extra games more likely than not will pay the extra $3 with value of spending factoring in purchase

    There is no harm in offering the option to anyone willing to pay $5 or whatever the developer deems it needs to provide a full game unlock

    Hope the devs see this discussion
     
  10. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    There is though, because that's not how free to play works. In order for games like this to exist, they need to have an unlimited spending potential. The "whales" dropping hundreds of dollars on games like Clash of Clans is how Supercell can offer a game like that for free. They're subsidizing the game for the rest of the player base. Free to play can't scale the way it needs to for developers to turn a profit if the maximum interested players can spend is $5.

    What you're talking about is the shareware model, which numerous developers have tried and failed. Look into the disastrous launch of Gasketball for more information, as that game did exactly what you're describing, was an amazing game, and it resulted in the developers literally going homeless.
     
  11. MrGreed

    MrGreed Well-Known Member

    Feb 2, 2012
    189
    0
    0
    Devs could set the price higher or at least offer the option of removing ads for a fee
     
  12. Eli

    Eli ᕕ┌◕ᗜ◕┐ᕗ
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    All a higher price would accomplish is the complaints in this thread switching from being mad about free to play to being mad about it being too expensive.
     
  13. ste86uk

    ste86uk Well-Known Member

    May 9, 2012
    6,552
    885
    113
    I understand exactly why they do games this way and I know people that spend stupid amounts of money on games like Clash of Clans.

    I personally don't buy anything to speed timers or generally anything in a freemium game. Sometimes if it is a really good game I'm enjoying and keep playing I'll make a one off purchase to support the game. At the moment the only one I'd consider it on is Boom Beach but as it's a Canadian account I can't, although you seem to pick up a fairly generous amount of IAP currency in that game anyway.

    Basically if you like the game you'll play it if not you won't, all that's being said is the dev has a better chance to make money with this pay model than if they charged for the game which is sad but that's the way things are these days.

    I like free games as I get to try games I normally wouldn't buy and sometimes am suprised and enjoy it! Other times I open it and play a few minutes then close and delete with nothing lost instead of thinking wow I just spent £2.99 and it's rubbish!
     
  14. p2w

    p2w Member

    Nov 7, 2013
    9
    0
    0
    Developers with good monetize system have much better revenue like game with Premium price. Almost all games in top grossing is free, why? :) Because they can take more like one IAP from your daily playing. And with f2p game you can be much longer in top charts(except angry birds etc.. :) ) because it is free.

    But this game is extreme with ADs :-D Banner in gameplay/shop, pop-up in half time with AD etc.. :-D
     
  15. andsoitgoes

    andsoitgoes Well-Known Member

    #15 andsoitgoes, Nov 20, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2013
    The spoiler tags help nothing, so I've just removed them.

    So this is my first warning, I guess. I ramble more than usual, and am also more redundant than usual, which I can blame on needing to up my pain meds due to a misguided Xmas shopping trip for my kids yesterday.


    Wait timers are inexcusable, sorry. If you can only play for 15 minutes before you either have to wait for double that time or pay money, the game is designed with whales in mind.

    Just because this is a model that can be a success for developers doesn't make it okay. It goes against everything gaming was designed to be. Adapting to making money in an ecosystem that's filled with cheap and skeptical buyers is very difficult, so developers turn to cheap tactics like timers, or the slew of garbage in a Puzzles and dragons sort of way.

    If the ONLY way for developers to make money is through questionable tactics that prey on flaws in younger people and those with weaker minds, then it's a developer that many of us would lose respect for.

    Are there games that utilize timers in semi reasonable ways? Sure, pocket trains is a good example of this, and a game that flips the freemium model on its head. The early game is a bit slow, running out of fuel fairly quickly and being limited by the number of routes, but further in the game when you're regularly finding higher end trains, you can play almost non stop. As we all know, it's usually the reverse.

    But to be limited to playing for 15 - 30 minutes? What is this, a toy RC car?

    I understand it's necessary to try and ensure there's a steady influx of money coming in with freemium apps, it goes without saying, but there are other ways to do it that might be more risky, that might be less successful but are done with loyal customers in mind.

    The argument of "we have hundreds of games we could be playing" is seriously flawed. Of course there are, but when you find a gem of a game, it's easy to get hooked on it. Ridiculous Fishing, Dungeon Raid, Paint it Black, Pocket God, Limbo, Knightmare Tower, Tiny wings - these games are all pretty much epic. I believe one of the reasons is because you never have to stop playing them. I've recommended all of those games like they were going out of style, because I have played them more times than I can even put into words.

    I've had my hands cramped for days after that "just one more try!" drive. I think I played Ridiculous fishing for 4 hours straight when it launched. Hell, I'll even throw angry birds into that mix. That "addiction" and non stop playing is what gets people to say "what's that you're playing?"

    You talk about the games because of your love for them, you want to share your joy with the world. You can recommend them unconditionally, because there are no restrictions. If they have IAP (like angry birds) it is available but unnecessary. Not buying the IAP wouldn't change your ability to play the game in any way. Even games like Candy crush, which has massive IAP issues, allows you to get back in the game by asking your friends. Assuming you have friends who play the game (hah, as if anyone hasn't! ;)) you can be back up and going immediately. Because you can target your facebook posts, you can direct it only towards your fellow CC players. It advertises the game, reminds people to play and allows you to keep going in the game. Hell, if you're good enough it's very possible you won't ever have to stop playing.

    I highly respect pikpok and I do hope that this model can be worked out. I'd come to accept the need for IAP and most freemium models, but this recent explosion of "timers" limiting your gameplay is going down a path that, simply put, sucks. I understand the need for freemium, consumable IAP, "tips" to devs (ala Junk Jack), extra characters, DLC, and so on as long as the core game allows the player freedom. But timers are taking it too far and into a dangerous territory that could really make it's nefarious way into "full" games like Oceanhorn, Badland, Warhammer, King Cashing and then into Console gaming.

    Can you imagine playing Mass effect and because you landed a bit too hard, you have to wait for the workers to finish the repairs before you can play again... Unless you pay $1.99 to expedite the process. Or if you fail the first time trying to defeat Raam in Gears, you have to wait to recover from your injuries, unless you pay for the high quality surgical procedure that costs $2.99, but it's a deal because you get 3 in a pack, versus buying them one at a time for $1.99 each...

    It's already starting to pop up in innocuous ways, such as buying the "kits" in the ME3 multiplayer (I know it's not timer IAP, but it's consumable IAP in a console title). Again, things like avatar items, shirts, etc are all reasonable, as they're simply cosmetic. They don't impact performance in a game in any manner.


    Sorry, this wasn't planned to be an incoherent rant, but I don't think it's fair to not mention and bring up our feelings on this particular method of IAP. PikPok, ad removal would be nice, but we also know that the game is free and ads are a pretty consistent way of ensuring you can generate income. The energy/timer system is where I think most people will find the frustration. Simply put, we should be able to play a game as long as we want without restrictions, it's the heart and soul of home gaming. Not having to constantly feed quarters to arcade games was a huge selling feature to home consoles, yet models like this are almost dragging us back there.

    That's my 625 cents[/SPOILER]
     
  16. Boardumb

    Boardumb Administrator
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    Apr 14, 2009
    8,766
    799
    113
    THE BOSS
    Sacramento, CA
    Inexcusable to you. I don't like them either, but a very large majority of people who download iOS games do not care. They appreciate having a free game, and 15 minutes might be the most they spend gaming in an entire day anyway.

    It's going to, it's already begun. Your best bet is to avoid these kinds of games if they bother you so much.


    PS: I don't think your spoiler tags made your giant post any easier to read, in fact I'm pretty sure it damaged my eyeballs :p
     
  17. Amenbrother

    Amenbrother Well-Known Member

    Jun 24, 2011
    6,659
    7
    38
    I kind of agree with Eli I mean my views of timers have kind of changed. I work 5 days a week and I get 2 15 min breaks and an hour lunch so I dont have much game time anyway. Then when I get home from work I have a wife and 2 kids under 3 so there isnt much game time there either lol So plenty to do in between some timers is all I am saying, like Eli said this is all with alot of other games I can play if need be.
     
  18. andsoitgoes

    andsoitgoes Well-Known Member

    #18 andsoitgoes, Nov 21, 2013
    Last edited: Nov 21, 2013
    Do you have numbers/surveys to back that statement up? I can't imagine if you were to poll people that it would match that statement, at least not outside of somewhere like TA, where much of the "vocal minority" exists.

    I would also gather that it's highly unlikely those people that have "only 15 minutes to game in an entire day" would spend that time on this game. But even if we assume that argument is true, those people really don't count in this entire discussion. Those are people who earn virtually nothing for the developers. The only revenue they get from them would be from showing ads, a factor which doesn't earn a ton for developers.

    So you are left with people who might spend money on the game, that may want to sit and play a game for an hour or two steady, but instead of paying IAP to unlock ads, unlock a special character or whatever, they have to either stop playing or pay to keep playing. Many players will simply delete the game and move on, but for some this will be what hooks into their brain and gets them to spend and spend and spend.

    Hell, I've had that issue before, as I have always struggled with delayed gratification. I've got better control than many, but I know I've dumped money into some games because I wanted something now, and I've heard stories of people spending thousands on games like Puzzles and Dragons and ESPECIALLY clash of clans.



    Or we should stand up against it and try to stress to the developers that, while it may make them loads of money, it's also anti-gamer. This isn't real life basketball where people get hurt and need to sit out due to injury, forcing timer limitations in hopes of roping impatient people into spending money to keep it going.

    The developers take no responsibility for this, even though the methods used and how they target people in the same way that gambling does. Here, however, there's no winning, there's no getting money back and it can create a deep, dark hole for the player where the money just pours out.

    The fact that these IAP systems target our brains in the same way drugs, alcohol and gambling do is had enough, but there is no regulation in place for IAP.

    After all is said and done, the final responsibility is on the player, but there are sick people out there who have a very difficult time controlling that addiction.

    Yeah I noticed that and just removed them... Shame there's not a way to tuck walls of text behind a cover so to speak.

    One addendum, in comparing timer based systems, this is more akin to those "card" games where you spend energy foraging then spend more to fight, then wait, then spend more to build up skill x, then spend more to fight but this adds a sports theme and then adds an interactive physics element. It's an interesting, and tempting, concept. It might succeed financially, but it'll have done so by sacrificing the gaming experience for many players.

    It really is taking us backwards to pouring endless quarters into arcade machines, except without the experience and atmosphere of an arcade.

    We are slowly, painfully slogging toward the "Fifteen Million Merits" episode of Black mirror with unskippable ads and having to constantly pay to do each and every minute thing.
     
  19. andsoitgoes

    andsoitgoes Well-Known Member

    That's fine, but it also means you're not in a demographic that is earning the developers money. You're not seeing many ads, you aren't paying to be able to play for longer periods of time and you don't end up getting engaged deeply in the game.

    For some people, that's not necessary to keep coming back to the game, but for a lot of humans, it's that deep engagement that keeps them coming back regularly.
     
  20. Boardumb

    Boardumb Administrator
    Staff Member Patreon Silver Patreon Gold

    Apr 14, 2009
    8,766
    799
    113
    THE BOSS
    Sacramento, CA
    Sure, just look at the top grossing charts. Those games don't get there by accident, they get there and stay there because people like playing them.

    That's just entirely your own conjecture. I don't see why this game should somehow not appeal to non-full time gamers, or people with disposable income who don't mind spending money on them when called for.

    Sure you have those people, and then you also have people who want to sit down and play a game for a couple hours and won't bat an eye at buying a pack of "energy refills" or whatever in order to do so. That is the point of this pay model, actually.

    Let's say you download this game and love it. You drop 20 bucks on IAP to buy energy refill doo-dads. Those allow you to refill the energy bar each time you run into it and continue playing on for weeks without interruption. Why is that worse than just paying 20 dollars for the game up front?

    You have to decide if you're mad at this pay model just in principle, or on how it's actually implemented. I'm not saying this game is like I describe, just making an example, and of course freemium pay models can be implemented in horrible ways that ruin a game. But it sounds like most people who rage against them are just mad at their existence period, without having any clue as to how they are actually implemented.

    I think you are going a bit overboard, no? Comparing an in-game timer in a soccer game to drug addiction? I'm not saying that psychological tricks like that aren't used in games, but I don't see how that applies to this game here.

    ---

    But don't get me wrong: absolutely voice your opinion about it, and absolutely don't play games that you don't enjoy if the f2p elements ruin it for you. If enough people stop playing then maybe things will change. It's just that all signs point to the exact opposite: f2p is what makes money on the App Store. A lot of people like getting a free game that they only spend whatever amount they feel is necessary on. It's just the way it is.

    People accuse us of "defending" free-to-play developers all the time, but that's not exactly right. We just understand why they are doing what they are doing. I've seen enough great games completely fail, and I've seen enough developers lose their asses because the iOS market is so nuts. You would have to be absolutely insane to try and make a paid-only game that sells for a few measly dollars and expect any sort of significant return on it.

    I applaud those that try, and especially those that succeed, but they are in the extreme minority. We are already seeing a lot of developers abandoning iOS because of their poor experiences trying to sell video games for peanuts.

    Sorry this is getting wicked off topic, I'll stop now. Excited for this to hit the US.
     

Share This Page