The Evils and Merits of Free to Play Discussion

11-20-2013, 11:23 AM
#1
The Evils and Merits of Free to Play Discussion

Quote:
Originally Posted by steviebwoy View Post
It's just a ridiculous circle, and one which I would've thought PikPok would've seen the dangers of introducing.
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.
11-20-2013, 11:31 AM
#2
Joined: Feb 2011
Location: Cornwall, UK
Posts: 725
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.

11-20-2013, 11:34 AM
#3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli View Post
But we're at the point where you likely have over a hundred games on your iPhone/iPad/iPod touch right now. When I hit a timer in a game I like, and still have time to play iOS games, I just play another game I like for a while instead and come back.

In fact, I'd bet that there are enough good free to play games out there that you could do an entire 24 hour play session, hopping between games, and never need to stop playing video games once.
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.
11-20-2013, 11:36 AM
#4
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

Last edited by Filing Cabinet; 11-20-2013 at 11:40 AM.
11-20-2013, 11:40 AM
#5
Quote:
Originally Posted by steviebwoy View Post
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.
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.
11-20-2013, 11:51 AM
#6
Quote:
Originally Posted by heringer View Post
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.
But that "justification" was merely their opinion that timers didn't bother them that much. It's only "terrible" to you because you disagree.
11-20-2013, 11:55 AM
#7
Quote:
Originally Posted by Filing Cabinet View Post
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
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
11-20-2013, 11:59 AM
#8
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGreed View Post
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
Who are "most people" to you? Because "most people" encompassing everyone downloading free to play games is very, very incorrect.
11-20-2013, 12:05 PM
#9
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eli View Post
Who are "most people" to you? Because "most people" encompassing everyone downloading free to play games is very, very incorrect.
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
11-20-2013, 12:09 PM
#10
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrGreed View Post
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
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.