Free To Play - This Topic Is Not Post To Win

[Badfinger]

I was inspired to start a new thread, because the "Random Thought" discussion started becoming very narrow, and I was a contributing factor to that.

 

What is Free To Play? What do you think of when you hear the words? Do you like F2P? Do you like the model enough to spend money? What are good F2P practices? What are bad F2P practices? Are there points in size, scope, ambition, or dollars where things cross over from one to another?

 

This thought exercise is mostly aimed towards how we perceive and would like to interact with it as game players, but if people want to jump in with business realities and economics I'm all for it.

[Bjorn]

I win.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry.

 

 

Not Sorry.

 

[Professor Video Games]

What if I pay $20, can I win the topic then?

[Bjorn]

In seriousness (which I feel kinda obligated to post something now that I shit on the post with my first reply) I have pretty limited experience with F2P games.  I've messed around with a few mobile games, and ended up deleting every single one, while paid games have stuck around.  The grind vs mechanical enjoyment of many F2P mobile games are a complete mismatch for me.

 

Now compare that to the 2 more traditional games I'm familiar with with F2P economies (Mass Effect 3 Multiplayer and Warframe), and in both those cases even though they clearly have a grind that can reach into the hundreds and hundreds of hours to reach late game content, the actual mechanics are so fun that I don't mind.  And in both cases, the quality of the games convinced me to go ahead and spend money, something no F2P mobile game has ever done.

 

TLDR - A good game is a good game whether it's F2P or not. 

[Gormongous]

As I said in the "Random Thoughts" thread, I feel like my preferred "free to play" experience is for the player's decision to spend money not to impact anyone else's play experience but their own. I dislike pay-only guns/vehicles/equipment as well as real-money boosts that affect a player's performance in a multiplayer space (beyond a money or experience boost, which I don't begrudge). I don't mind real-money currencies, but I dislike when a game tries to makes the alternative to buying into them be playing a large amount of suboptimal/boring/secondary content.

 

Every time I've ever spent money on an F2P game, it's been because the game was surprisingly pleasant and not annoying about its business model, so I gave it money as a function of my enjoyment. The attempts of many F2P games to force me to pay money by boring me, by making me feel inferior to other players, or by locking off main-path content have invariably just made me quit the game instead.

[jennegatron]

I like free to play games when there is a one time charge to get rid of something annoying (a la Draw Something allowing you to pay $2 for an ad-free experience)
I do not like when free to play games put their transactions behind currency. I'm okay if a way to earn that secondary money currency is "watch a 10 second ad"

[Badfinger]

The jumping off point for this thread was the comparison of LOMAs DOTA 2 and League of Legends. They're two of the biggest non-mobile games in the world, and they both cost no money at all to play as long as you'd like in perpetuity. The way they go about this is different business models, brought on by the circumstances of their development. They're also, for the purposes of this thread, exactly the same in the way that Call of Duty and Halo are the same.

 

DOTA 2 unlocks all the essential mechanical content from the moment you install the game. Any purchases you make are changing the game in ways that do not affect game play. You can buy skins and voice packs and UI skins and, and, and. There is a player-driven economic component where players can also be creators. DOTA 2 was built off the back of DOTA, a mod from Warcraft 3. It's aim was to be a modern, exact replica of that original game until all the content was released (except for all the differences).

 

League does not have all the mechanical content unlocked. In fact, until you make decisions about currency (either dollars, or persistent earned sweat equity), there are no permanent unlocks in the game. They have a lot of spinning plates here - You, the player, have a persistent level. You gain access to skill point and rune slots (mechanical customization options) as you play the game and earn account level experience up to a maximum level. You also earn an account level currency that can be spent on permanent unlocks in the form of new Lords and runes. You can then spend real dollars to either instantly have permanent unlock of characters, or buy various skins and visual modifications for in-game characters and items. They initiate you into content by having a rotating pool of 10 champions always available for use, and specific rules for when champions go on free rotation that are new, popular, or "good" for learning the basics. Fun fact: League of Legends was originally a $30 boxed game with a fixed amount of content, which is why there are so many weird nooks and crannies in the system. It wasn't designed F2P from the ground up.

 

Both of these games are so incredibly overwhelming that people who know one intimately will claim the other is too much of a tax on their time to learn or play both.

 

How do you curate content when everything is available so people don't become so overwhelmed with details they quit before they find something worth that's worth throwing money towards? If you are purposefully limiting content in a tutorial-like fashion, how do you make sure people feel like enough of the game is available to them that they have the option to spend money on something they like rather than be put off from feeling the necessity to spend money? Are both of these options good? Are they both bad? Is HOTS actually kicking both their butts in the F2P model and I just have no idea?

[Jutranjo]

 I'm gonna repost my response because I'm grinding axes.

 

I also know you have some kind of crazy axe to grind with League of Legends.

 

Nah, that's me.

 

What a great fucking company, paying tournament organizers to not have a HoN/DOTA tournament because they're having a LoL tourny. Almost getting esports orgs to drop their dota/hon teams if they wanted a LoL team in official tournaments.

 

I get the need to have a business model where you sell heroes/lords for the company. I don't get why people say it's so good for new players since they aren't overwhelmed. Ok, you aren't overwhelmed the first few times you play the game solo. What if you don't like any of the free heroes on offer or the one the guide/guides recommend you buy? What if a patch fucks over your 5 unlocked heroes? Ok, patches obviously won't fuck over the starter/cheaper heroes so now your balance changes don't dare touch those too much.

 

I don't see why they want to present LOL as a game that's initially attractive to people who would not enjoy the endless complexity that the gameplay entails when they later always turn into that? Why sell the game on a false premise. 

[Badfinger]

 I'm gonna repost my response because I'm grinding axes.

 

Nah, that's me.

 

What a great fucking company, paying tournament organizers to not have a HoN/DOTA tournament because they're having a LoL tourny. Almost getting esports orgs to drop their dota/hon teams if they wanted a LoL team in official tournaments.

 

I get the need to have a business model where you sell heroes/lords for the company. I don't get why people say it's so good for new players since they aren't overwhelmed. Ok, you aren't overwhelmed the first few times you play the game solo. What if you don't like any of the free heroes on offer or the one the guide/guides recommend you buy? What if a patch fucks over your 5 unlocked heroes? Ok, patches obviously won't fuck over the starter/cheaper heroes so now your balance changes don't dare touch those too much.

 

I don't see why they want to present LOL as a game that's initially attractive to people who would not enjoy the endless complexity that the gameplay entails when they later always turn into that? Why sell the game on a false premise. 

 

I'm not equipped to answer on Riot's behalf and I'm trying to figure out the answer myself, hence this thread. Maybe LoL is a horrible pay model, but they caught lightning in a bottle in spite of their pay and play mechanics rather than because of it! If I had to create an argument for their case though, my counter would be - they're not attempting to create a false premise. They're presenting the opportunity to come to grips with the basic gameplay so you can see if you actually like something about it without having to fight through the complexity to find out (tutorials, bot games, basic matchmaking), and then layering it back in with the leveling, rune and ranked systems.

[Jov]

I respect F2P games which exclusively offer cosmetic upgrades (pimp your avatar) and minor convenience options (login queue priority, etc). Examples of games like this would be Elder Scrolls Online (technically Buy To Play), and from what I've heard Rift (never tried it though).

 

Some games like Mortal Online and Wurm Online give "unlimited trials" capping all skills at a lower level. This gives paying players a distinct advantage, and I'm not really sure how I feel about that.

 

Games like Planetside 2 and Heros and Generals allow you to buy things that you'd otherwise have to unlock through a very VERY long grind. Many players think this style is acceptable, but it depends on the length of the grind needed to unlock things, and how much of an advantage the unlocked gear provides. Personally, I feel that in both of these games the unlock times are too long, and I do feel like paying players have a distinct advantage. See this video: 

On the other hand, non-paying players are still fully capable of making kills. Also, I've enjoyed playing both of these games very much, and haven't paid a single penny - and that doesn't seem right, either. I usually tell myself that after playing for a certain amount of time, that I'll throw some money towards the developers but sometimes that just never gets around to happening.

 

Anyway, just some tangential thoughts. I've gotta run.

[Ninety-Three]

Maybe LoL is a horrible pay model, but they caught lightning in a bottle in spite of their pay and play mechanics rather than because of it!

 

I think there's some clarification that needs to be done about what we mean by "horrible". Farmville has an evil/shitty pay model, but it is very good at getting people to pay. Being evil doesn't necessarily push people away.

 

I think at least some elements of LOL's model are evil. For instance, they sell boosts that increase the rate at which you gain account XP, which is used to unlock new in-game abilities and more slots for in-game passive boosts. "Hey kids, grind for hours so you can level up and unlock Ignite! Or... you could buy an XP boost." Any time you design a system that's meant to separate players from their money at the expense of fun (usually by inflicting grinding on them), I'm inclined to call it evil.

[Patrick R]

I think the only hypothetical instance where F2P would add to my experience instead of detract from it would be a free version of Rock Band (game, you'd still have to pay for instruments) that just charges a buck a song. Or something along those lines.

 

Actually, I guess Pinball Arcade is a good version of this. Download the game for free. Here is a single classic pinball table you can play as much as you'd like, so you can get a feel for our pinball simulation. You can play any other table we have available on a strict time limit. Pay to unlock them. That is it.

 

There are plenty of F2P games I like (Crossy Road, Team Fortress 2) but I think they'd all be improved by removing that element.

[Ninety-Three]

I just remembered, Dungeons & Dragons Online handled F2P in an interesting way I liked. You could either have a standard $15/month MMO subscription, in which case you had access to absolutely everything (for as long as you subscribed), or you could play F2P and pay one-time fees to unlock things. Pay a few dollars to permanently unlock this pay-only dungeon, extra bank slots, extra character classes, etc. It was great, because it let people like me play the game off-and-on without feeling like I was wasting subscription money by rarely playing.

 

 

There are plenty of F2P games I like (Crossy Road, Team Fortress 2) but I think they'd all be improved by removing that element.

 

What would you do with Crossy Road once the F2P was removed? Speed up the rate of unlocking to compensate, unlock all characters at the start?

[Gormongous]

I just remembered, Dungeons & Dragons Online handled F2P in an interesting way I liked. You could either have a standard $15/month MMO subscription, in which case you had access to absolutely everything (for as long as you subscribed), or you could play F2P and pay one-time fees to unlock things. Pay a few dollars to permanently unlock this pay-only dungeon, extra bank slots, extra character classes, etc. It was great, because it let people like me play the game off-and-on without feeling like I was wasting subscription money by rarely playing.

 

That is a really great idea. I don't really play MMOs anymore because the FOMO of my weird schedule is too great, and the ones that do go F2P tend to have been tuned for the binge-style experience anyway.

[Badfinger]

I respect F2P games which exclusively offer cosmetic upgrades (pimp your avatar) and minor convenience options (login queue priority, etc). Examples of games like this would be Elder Scrolls Online (technically Buy To Play), and from what I've heard Rift (never tried it though).

When I played Rift, I was happy to fork over my $30ish dollars for the expansion content, but that was content that was locked. The vast majority of the game was free, though. Unlike Star Wars: The Old Republic, which was desperate to nickel and dime you on launch of their F2P system. Even with the built in advantage of being in the tier of people who had originally spent money on the game, it constantly reminded you there were more things to spend money on. From what I understand they have improved the way you interact with that system, but it was awful.

 

I THINK Rift had the Eve-style purchasable subscription time with enough in-game currency. That's a very interesting system, because it cuts out 3rd party currency sale sites to at least some degree, and also means sweat equity has a tangible reward.

 

I think there's some clarification that needs to be done about what we mean by "horrible". Farmville has an evil/shitty pay model, but it is very good at getting people to pay. Being evil doesn't necessarily push people away.

 

I think at least some elements of LOL's model are evil. For instance, they sell boosts that increase the rate at which you gain account XP, which is used to unlock new in-game abilities and more slots for in-game passive boosts. "Hey kids, grind for hours so you can level up and unlock Ignite! Or... you could buy an XP boost." Any time you design a system that's meant to separate players from their money at the expense of fun (usually by inflicting grinding on them), I'm inclined to call it evil.

 

It's actually both more and less evil than you think. If you are a brand new player and you buy an XP boost, you are actually hurting yourself because the climb to 30 accounts for a LOT of IP (sweat equity currency) for buying runes and lords. So if you think the goal is to get to 30, if you get there and feel like you're at a disadvantage because you don't have X, Y, or Z unlocked that you want, you might pay more money to make up for your previous mistake of misjudging what the game responds to as valuable to the unlock experience.

 

It's less evil if you are an experienced player leveling a second account. You probably have specific goals or objectives in mind, so paying $10 as a returning customer to shortcut some of the grind is the exact same argument to be made for other time vs money gaming conundrums.

[Patrick R]

What would you do with Crossy Road once the F2P was removed? Speed up the rate of unlocking to compensate, unlock all characters at the start?

Or just have one character and have the game be the game. I like the game! The unlocking character stuff is just a distraction and gets in the way of me starting the game over again,

[osmosisch]

For what it's worth, I never would have played LoL for as long as I did if it didn't have the currency/unlock model, because I like taking my time to unlock functional stuff like that.

I popped in to play at least a bot match every day for about half a year, and it was always a very nice tension when the currency was starting to build up to the point that I could go 'shopping' for a new Lord to unlock. It definitely adds something to the experience. HotS and Hearthstone with their daily quest system are improving on this model even further I think.

I've got a gigantic aversion to paying for stuff in F2P games in general, because their exploitative nature tends to put me off. But games that are good enough under the hood I have no trouble paying for some content occasionally, I've spend approx. $50 on LoL, and have bought the two most recent adventures in Hearthstone with cash. That's also about it as far as fun enough F2P games I've tried though.

[Dinosaursssssss]

This is something I've been thinking about as I deal with my Marvel Puzzle Quest addiction. MPQs model is that you build a team of Marvel characters by collecting comic book covers for that character; there are 5 rarity tiers of characters, and to max out a character you need 13 covers for that character (each cover is tied to a specific ability, and abilities max out at level 5).

 

The core issue is largely the same as LoL: in order to keep growing and making money, they need to continually add new characters to the game. The difference is that in League you could save up currency to buy the character you want, whereas in MPQ you just have to hope that the covers you need drop, and as the number of characters grows the odds of getting what you need decrease.

 

Where this gets really weird to me is thinking about what keeps me playing. I got an intense endorphin rush when I put $50 into the game and got a bunch of covers I needed, and I get a lil' taste of that excitement when a cover I need drops. Although I do think the match 3 portion is fun and has some neat strategy you can employ, to me, that sensation is the main positive experience in the game, which feels to me like it tips over into exploitative/unethical territory.

[Deadpan]

Some of the buyables in League definitely feel a bit weird. I hear those chroma packs they've been doing are considered massively overpriced for something that is essentially a hue shift on a character, something modders have also been doing for free apparently? Also having to buy extra runes and mastery pages always felt a bit like twisting players arms a bit by making you have very generic setups unless you get enough of these to have specific builds for all the characters you like.

 

On the whole though, unlocking things in the game always seemed kind of trivial to me opposite the kind of obsessive relationship players have with these kinds of games anyway? If you spend enough time with it to become proficient with multiple lords, you'll probably also have the grind currency to unlock them. If you're starting out, then in my experience at least you'll probably want to look around to find one you like and then stick with that for a while until you get bored again, and by that time all the training that you kind of need to put in anyway probably means you got enough grind currency to go for a new one.

 

I've never played it in any serious way, but I still got to level 30 after a while almost despite myself. Also I generally prefer playing ARAM, a mode where both teams get random lords and duke it out in a single lane, and owning fewer lords almost works out in my favor there cause I'm not going to be assigned one I've never seen before ever.

[BigJKO]

Or just have one character and have the game be the game. I like the game! The unlocking character stuff is just a distraction and gets in the way of me starting the game over again,

 

Despite loving Crossy Road I totally agree with this. The different characters are fun, but the amount of buttons and shit you can press besides just the play again button is overwhelming and distracting. This is even worse in their 256 Pac Man game or whatever it's called. My 3yo son can't play those two games because getting through the menus is too hard. The core game is simple enough that he can have fun with it, but once he dies he has trouble identifying which button actually gets him back into the game. It's a bummer..

[sucks2Bme]

I think at least some elements of LOL's model are evil. For instance, they sell boosts that increase the rate at which you gain account XP, which is used to unlock new in-game abilities and more slots for in-game passive boosts. "Hey kids, grind for hours so you can level up and unlock Ignite! Or... you could buy an XP boost." Any time you design a system that's meant to separate players from their money at the expense of fun (usually by inflicting grinding on them), I'm inclined to call it evil.

 

I don't find any of LoL's model evil. Annoying maybe, but not evil. If you are buying XP boosts to get ingnite... chances are very low you will be playing against other characters that do not have access to it. As long as there are players at the same level but because LoL is so big, I find that unlikely (unless you are queing with higher level accounts) Therefore it is no advantage to reach "ignite" faster. 

[Ninety-Three]

I don't find any of LoL's model evil. Annoying maybe, but not evil. If you are buying XP boosts to get ingnite... chances are very low you will be playing against other characters that do not have access to it. As long as there are players at the same level but because LoL is so big, I find that unlikely (unless you are queing with higher level accounts) Therefore it is no advantage to reach "ignite" faster. 

 

Does the matchmaking account for level? I thought it went purely on match win-loss history.

[Badfinger]

Oh yeah, absolutely. It tries its best to get you with people of similar level, and similar skill level. The algorithm isn't just win loss, it's weighted ala elo as well.

[Dosed]

In the vein of F2P does anyone know of any F2P multiplayer iphone games? I was wanting to play some with some friends from home as my internet is too shite to keep up with COD:BLOPS 8. If there's any you can play on the same screen that would be just lovely too.

[twmac]

It is not 'proper' Multiplayer game and it isn't an FPS - but Gems of War is pretty good - for what it is. It is made by the guys who made puzzle quest and it has versus in the form of bots, it has a guild feature and there is something quite moreish about it.

 

I actually feel really bad that I have now got all the way to level 50 without spending a penny.