Sign in to follow this  
baconian

Is free to play inherently evil?

Recommended Posts

I started working for Zynga last year, so naturally I started to consider the remote possibility that free-to-play games are not inherently evil. 

 

Jon Blow made the point that the limitation of free-to-play mechanics on games was akin to the limitations imposed on 80's sitcoms, it's a great talk you should see;

http://the-witness.net/news/2013/11/a-speech-about-free-to-play-game-design/

But it started me thinking that actually as a kid, I did really enjoy the A-team, and is the A-team evil???

 

Maybe it's only free-to-play games that can never be art - and the sort of cynical consumerist attitude of the games industry as a whole can sort of migrate to that space and let the more traditional pay-to-play games develop and flourish as an art form.

 

Anyone here have any mad opinions on this that will get me re-thinking my life?

That's always welcome.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if there's no cap on what you can spend, it's inherently evil. There's always going to be someone who feels they can do it right, but I haven't seen it. Everything is about following the law of diminishing returns and most free to plays without caps equal unknowledgeable players spending a significant amount of money over the cost of a brand new $60 AAA title and generally they are spending this on shoddy bad designed and programmed games.

 

It could be just me, but I worked for a company that solely did free to play everything for two years, despite everyone below the head honchos begging to stop doing that shit. For the guys in charge, it somehow meant unlimited money and there was always a rush to overprice useless shit and keep churning it out. Only one of the four games I worked on made a profit there, the rest being absolute failures and money pits. Nothing was designed for fun and instead made to have blockades and ways to trick players in to losing track of their money spent. Art direction was solely based around what would sell foremost, so there were lots of tits and "bad ass" needed. I'm guessing even with Zynga eventually, this free to play shit didn't work out as planned.

 

That said, I'm pretty desperate and I'd take a job at Zynga right now, if only to get back on my feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been playing Puzzles and Dragons ravenously for about six months now (I know this because I got a "you logged in every day for 180 days" message recently") and I'm definitely not of the opinion that free to play games are inherently evil. Any disruption of traditional pay-to-play price structure is of course subject to some criticism, probably because the amount of game you get for $60 is almost always what we consider to be sufficient. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be that same balance with F2P - it seems that most people with these traditional structures in mind finds one or more of the following to be true about almost any given F2P game:

  1. the amount of game you get for free is insufficient
  2. the amount of game you're withheld from due to the F2P model is too much
  3. the amount of game you get per dollar paid over free is insufficient

Many of these lead to a feeling of a loss of respect for the player. So, in the case of a handful of F2P games I can think of, none of these things feels violated. P&D definitely doesn't fall in any of these categories - the puzzle gameplay is quite enjoyable on its own, so the "base level" of play is quite fulfilling. What you get for your money is not something you're suffering for not having, but rather things that tend to contribute toward the very late endgame (like, think 50+ hours played then the paid things feel truly valuable). And then finally, the game provides plenty of ways to get the in-game currency - so if you're determined or luck is on your side, you don't really have to ever worry about paying. Not only that, but they're actively adding new ways to get the in-game currency, so it feels like the developers have the players' enjoyment in mind in their further development.

 

Anyways, I could probably say a lot more about this but my fingers hurt from typing (I just played an hour of Spelunky on Vita and my baby hands were already sore). Hope that gives you something to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I worked at a free-to-play mobile company for almost a year and can say with 100% certainty that it's not inherently evil, but most people who employ it as a characteristic of game design are.

 

The things that company would do to make money made me sick. Not really sick but whatever. It was gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the issue is the free to play model so much as many of the things that are emblematic of it and present elsewhere in the industry as well. I would argue that many of the things that EA has been doing in the retail space are just as bad, if not worse. (Given that they're asking for 60 upfront too.)

The core of my issue with all of this stuff is that when you play a game, you put a little faith in the developer. You believe that they're on your side, that they want you to have a good time with their game. I think microtransaction models kind of fundamentally betray this implicit trust, you no longer know why that steep difficulty curve is there, it might just be there to psychologically wear you down so you feed a little extra cash back into the game to get over the hump. (Or get a competitive edge in a multiplayer game, perhaps.)

(Also, fuck that "like us for a trinket" thing, that's asking people to sell their voices. I think that's really gross.)

Dota 2's adherence to purely cosmetic microtransactions in a fiercely competitive game has been fairly remarkable to observe, and it's about as inoffensive as i could possibly imagine a free to play game being, but i have a suspicion that it only works because Dota was already massively popular, in addition to Dota 2 serving as an important gateway into a product ecosystem also controlled by Valve.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evil is a strong word so I wouldn't use it to describe free-to-play. It's also a model that can encompass a wide variety of different designs and business models, so although it's a model that is always going to raise flags for me, it isn't easy to generalize either.

 

That being said, I believe it's also true that it is a business model that corrupts any game design, and makes the game design worse than what it could be otherwise. I cannot think of a single game that has a free-to-play model where you can unequivocally say, this is a better game because of this business model. Even a game like Card Hunter that is very generous to its players, great fun, and what most people would consider a good value proposition, still fails this test in my mind. I think anyone passionate about game design should avoid letting a business decision determine your game design.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Blow's argument is not that free-to-play games are inherently evil but that the business model does have an effect on the form of the game. It's hard to have a free-to-play narrative driven game because any attempts to monetize would impact the player's perception of the narrative. It would be hard to make such a game that isn't also a meta-commentary on the free-to-play model.

 

Although there are some design practices associated with free-to-play that are manipulative and evil, but I think that comes more from slot machine style behavioral conditioning than just offering some small electronic goods for sale. Blow's done several talks on this, here's a recent one at a neuroethics panel: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=apFE6AR9214#t=2697

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not make it a secret that I am not a fan of F2P. When researching it for a game I worked on at my old job my boss had to expressly tell me to install Candy Crush so I could see how they monetize their game, I would never have done it of my own volition. Terms like "fun pain" make my skin crawl. But that doesn't mean F2P is inherently evil. I just think everybody out there right now is using it in a shit way.

 

The only F2P game I ever loved, and in my opinion the only one where the business model was a boon to the game, was Triple Town. It's a simple game and it was a hard sell for me at first, but I love it. They let you play one level for as long as you have moves left, and then you can put it away for a while. They don't have microtransactions if I recall, only one fee to unlock everything. I was fine not paying that for months, but one day I decided to go for it since I enjoyed it so much, and in some ways it lessened my enjoyment of the game somewhat. Because the amount of moves they gave you in the free version was exactly enough to spend a sizeable amount of time on a game, but provide a timely break when you ran out of moves. With that restriction gone, I could go for more than an hour, sometimes get into a second match for a bit because it was so tempting. But I always felt fatigued afterwards. The limit was no longer the game, the limit was now me.

 

They're not the sort of games I want to make, but I suppose it's as valid a business avenue as anything else. Like you say, I've seen worse crimes against game design committed for a $60 price tag. If you feel comfortable working in that space, more power to you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That being said, I believe it's also true that it is a business model that corrupts any game design, and makes the game design worse than what it could be otherwise. I cannot think of a single game that has a free-to-play model where you can unequivocally say, this is a better game because of this business model. Even a game like Card Hunter that is very generous to its players, great fun, and what most people would consider a good value proposition, still fails this test in my mind. I think anyone passionate about game design should avoid letting a business decision determine your game design.

I agree with this fully. I guess evil is the wrong word, but I don't feel like anything good comes of jamming free to play in to a game. They are always some existing game genre with a bunch of gates added in to get as many transactions as possible. The sad thing about the free to play set up is I've heard they are almost completely funded by the "whatles" (as they call them). These people have no self control and will sink in hours of dollars in to a game, much like a drug addict. The morality of that sucks, there's no way to cut that off, and I doubt any free to play company is against such a thing. I think I once heard a statistic bandied about the office that 90-95% of players never spend and that will never change. With that in mind, I can't think of it as anything but a system for preying on people.

 

Also my favorite part of the company I worked at was when the design director at the time proudly described everyone as meth dealers and not weed dealers. Dealers that smoke weed also consume their product, whereas meth dealers I guess never consume their product. Amazing. Simply fucking amazing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As "that guy" who only read the title and the OP. No, F2P is not inherantly evil. There are some fantastic F2P games out there, like Tribes and DOTA2. It's just when it's taken too far by certain companies that the model is just gross.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people most in favour of F2P always seem to be those making, or trying to make, money from it. When Ridiculous Fishing launched, the biggest F2P advocates I follow on Twitter were calling Vlambeer idiots because they were "leaving so much money on the table". Way to misunderstand Vlambeer's stance and the point they were making. (edit) None of those people calling them idiots seemed to be conscious of or reflect on the significance of using F2P aesthetics in a non-F2P game.

I too, have never played a game that was definitely improved by the model. I'd love for it to exist. I hope it does. It's hard to make something fun that then also sells stuff on the basis that buying it will make it more fun (See: Punch Quest failing for so long). It's easier to use the dark pattern of inflicting pain, boredom or discomfort on the player then offering purchases to alleviate it.

 

I think that with so much exploitative prior art (fnar), it has an aesthetic problem though: The first time that pop up or energy timer enters into it, I just exhale and uninstall the game. I feel too weary of the bad stuff to attempt finding something good in the morass.

 

Edit: Making something "fun, but not too much fun" is also, I think, a dark pattern that conflicts with the overall goal of designing a fun game. It reminds me of the design in Lifeboat, where you're secretly in love with one of the other player characters, and the points/winning structure mean you want them to do well, but not too well. That's conflict used for gallows humour and game balance, and it's fine because it exists within the magic circle of the game. I don't think similar conflict is a productive design goal or condition to inflict on game designers, and easily puts designers and players in adversarial positions outside the confines of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of people that F2P can definitely corrupt a design, though I do think that it is possible to make a game that works with F2P. The biggest issue is, as Nachimir puts it, that you're encouraged to make something "fun, but not too much fun". To make a F2P work, you really need the game's initial design and concept to come from the F2P system.

 

Ideally, F2P is a great way to allow true patronage of games: a developer provides a game, and players pay what they actually think it's worth. For some players, this is nothing, while for others it's a lot. Players are recognised for contributing, but not in a way that affects the game's core purpose. Unfortunately, microtransactions are really not well designed to do this: you need to have a good indicator of what a player has paid so far (so that the player knows how much value they've placed on the game), to signpost that a payment for value is what they're actually doing, and allow players to pay more in a lump sum (rather than these small payments designed to slowly suck a player dry). And players are trained to undervalue the games themselves, meaning that the whole idea of them paying for the value they've gotten becomes kind of meaningless.

 

So yes, to make a F2P truly work well with the craft of gaming seems pretty damned hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think F2P mechanics run a much higher risk of corrupting the gameplay of single player games than multiplayer. In singleplayer experiences, they seem to always involve artificially gating progress or limiting player abilities in ways that are very noticeable and extremely frustrating. In multiplayer, you can have cosmetic upgrades a la DOTA2 or even those dumb xp doublers that some FPS's have, that shouldn't really inhibit anyone from playing the game and having fun (assuming they're well integrated of course...obviously something like being able to pay to overpower yourself would be bad)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think it's evil; not at all.

 

However, it is very difficult, perhaps responsibly it should have a cap, but also that's a bit like limiting the time you can play per day -  including a tool to help manage kids could be responsible, but at the end of the day the onus for that has to fall onto the end user.

 

The biggest disappointment/danger for me is to see people expecting for something nothing, devs pushing each other closer to 0, whilst games become not free to play, but pay to win.

 

However, I think consumers may tend to learn around this - sure they'll fall into the same trap many times - but I do believe that as this matures (and its starting to do so I think) you'll see diversification, and choice of payments/free to plays/subscriptions/demos that best suit not only distinct target markets but also distinct games (actual individual titles, not just genres), instead of these one size fits all or nothing stakes [which tends to occur around fashions/trends - with big swells and troughs - before it evens out].

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is probably going to be a bit controversial, but I think that at least some of Plants vs. Zombies 2 was made better because of F2P concepts.  I know many people were upset that some plants and upgrades were locked behind the pay wall, but I felt this actually made the game more interesting.  None of those plants or upgrades are necessary.  They make the game a bit easier, which is the part of F2P I'm ok with, but it's entirely possible to beat the game without touching them.  By removing some of the plants, the strategy changes and in my opinion became more fun because I couldn't rely on the same tactics from the first PvZ.  There was some bullshit F2P stuff like needing to farm for keys but that got removed in a later update. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

None of those plants or upgrades are necessary. 

I only half agree with this. While technically not necessary, some levels I found incredibly difficult without the power-ups. The difficulty was what made me want to keep playing, but I also found it frustrating that I had to grind (which isn't easily achieved) or pay (which I refuse to do) to be able to succeed without the gaming being really stressful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only half agree with this. While technically not necessary, some levels I found incredibly difficult without the power-ups. The difficulty was what made me want to keep playing, but I also found it frustrating that I had to grind (which isn't easily achieved) or pay (which I refuse to do) to be able to succeed without the gaming being really stressful.

 

That's a fair assessment.  There is definitely some grinding required if you don't want to pay actual money, but I liked the challenge of getting through the game with the free resources.  I personally didn't find it significantly more frustrating than the first game and in a few ways I thought it was better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The game Loadout has implemented F2P fairly well, it cordons off cosmetic items to the realm of paid transactions but it gives you enough of the starting real money currency that you can wet your whistle on hats.

Most of the other things that show a free to play origin like player experience levels (and a second type of currency that you earn) feel like they're tied into the regular style of xp based progression that's a feature of many existing pay up front games.

 

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's a shoot em up battle arena that sells you hats like TF2 without being Valve. I guess the jury is out on whether its successful. But I feel like as it is, it's been rather good.

 

I don't think F2P is inherently evil But it does seem like you have to work harder if you don't want to create a bloated grotesque game that kills players via a thousand tiny cuts.

 

Edit: well If we're using moral descriptors I'd at least rate that shitty game style as malevolent. Also I've probably been eating the thesaurus too much. Anyway I think the tiny cuts are all in all conducive to whaling, though I swear I should be adding "Don't shoot imma newb" to every game des. thread I'm in.

 

Anyway TychoCelchuuu I do have an actual question and that is whether there are 'evil' games that aren't shitty and evil. Are the 'evil' whaling games you can identify redeemable with a different f2p philosophy or would those games end up being completely unalike?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I hear "evil," I don't think "a bloated grotesque game that kills players via a thousand tiny cuts." That sounds like a shitty game but it's not evil. When I hear "evil," I think about what syntheticgerbil brought up: free to play games with business models that rely on lots of income from "whales," people who are psychologically inclined to spend way more money than is reasonable on these sorts of games. That's what makes a free to play game evil in the same way casinos are evil and yeah, I think they're pretty evil. If your business model relies on exploiting vulnerable people then you're doing a bad thing. I don't care if your game is shitty or not - that's not an issue of good or evil. So I agree with Latrine that the Blow article isn't really about good or evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm assuming that by F2P you're talking about the dominant mobile business model that makes use of what are essentially content pay-gates via microtransactions. This excludes some fairly pedestrian examples of F2P which are basically a free-demo/unlock model.

 

Fundamentally, what these microtransactions do, from a user perspective, is to eliminate consumer surplus, which is essentially the amount of enjoyment you enjoy above what you paid. With a typical single purchase game, you can trick yourself into thinking you got more than your money's worth out it (this also uses a number of other psychological tricks, like sunk costs). This isn't really possible with microtransactions, which charge you for each incremental piece of content you experience. Note that the entire business model is built on this: Whales are people who occupy the verrrry top end of the demand curve. The shape of the demand curve helps explain why these games can be so much more profitable than standard single purchases.There's a lot of excess consumer surplus to capture at the top-end that usually would go un-earned. There is a similar issue with episodic games, incidentally, which is one of the reasons I suspect they never took off the way they were supposed to.

 

The consumer surplus discussion is somewhat orthogonal to the question of the exploitative mechanics used to draw out the big spenders, but only somewhat, as although I suspect it does shift the shape of demand curve somewhat, i think it's mostly just a means of revealing true preferences.

 

The evil-ness of game design is definitely a matter of degree though. Almost all designs can be argued to be unethical to a certain extent. Micro-transaction based free to play is on the evil-er end of it though:

- It masks the true cost of the product

- It relies on subconscious cues that buyers are not accustomed to recognizing or capable of controlling

- It has a greater potential to be harmful to the player

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the things in free to play that I don't like:

1) FTP mechanics in games that I actually paid for

2) Energy type mechanics that stop me from being able to play unless I pay 

3) Random boxes (STO style) that contain a couple of good items but mostly crap that you have to pay to open

 

Here's the things I do like

1) FTP items that are mostly cosmetic like DOTA costumes (which slightly cancels out #3 above in that case)

2) Additional maps (thus ensuring that anyone playing on those maps has still all paid the same amount to get there) asuming that there's some real effort put in there and they're not just crapping computer generated maps

3) XP/Gold Boosts, provided that the actual game is not ballanced so badly as to require these things to make playing it tolerable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No video game design choice is inherently evil or even inherently harmful. Rather, it is the exploitation of ignorant customers or children that is evil. If a game preys on our psychology for the sake of greed, I would say it is pretty damn evil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This excludes some fairly pedestrian examples of F2P which are basically a free-demo/unlock model.

 

That model is not what is known free to play. What games are you talking about exactly and how does paying to unlock the full version of a game resemble F2P and not the shareware floppies from the days of yore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Card Hunter, Path of Exile, Dota2 and League of Legends show that no, it's not evil.

 

Yeah, the ones that do it well seem to only sell aesthetic items. I wonder how big a userbase you need to profit from that though?

 

F2P design basically requires a real money dividing line to be plonked down somewhere, and putting it through the art assets creates no tension between designers and players.

 

Rather than art or game design, I'd love to see one that puts the line through the codebase. i.e. the game is buggy as fuck until you pay to enable various chunks of code. Wait this would be a horrible yet probably worthwhile-in-some-grotesque-way experiment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this