Free To Play?....a total con!

Richard Dower

:rolleyes: if its really FTP then why all these micro transactions?, i think they've figured out they can make more money through all these bleedin upgrades and add-ons then say going into a shop and buying a disc based game.

It'll end up costing you far more in the longer term then paying 60 quid upfront. Not only that but there is a total unbalance, unless they've got rank or matchmaking built-in.

You could have guys spending hundreads on upgrades and be invincible while yer man who wont pay squat will get killed inside a minute :rolleyes:

The FTP trend worries me, gamers are getting screwed but how many know it?

Sarky

Sounds like you're playing the wrong F2P games. The ones I play are fun, balanced and continually being improved, and I think the developers deserve a few quid every now and then.

SherlockWatson

How can a game that's free be a con?

Nobodies forcing you to play it, and the micro transactions are there for the developers to make money if you want to pay them, nobody is making you spend any money.

cherryghost

The only F2P game that I found to be total shambles is Battlefield Heroes. You play F2P and its a pile of ****, with people who paid microtransactions way more powerful than you are.

Then, you look at the good ones:
LoL
Dota 2
TF 2
Mechwarrior Online
Hawken
Red Thunder
Ghost Recon Online
Need For Speed World
A HEAP of MMO's

etc

You can get away with paying nothing and have a massive game collection on PC.

Overheal

Compared to the pay to play model, where you can spend about $250 on your first year of World of Warcraft for instance.

Your average F2P game has a lot more replay value than your average $60 title purchase. Even $60 purchases like COD or BF have their own addons and subscription methods which extend the amount of money you pay into them but either way the end result is a title you play for hundreds and hundreds of hours.

The only one I currently view with mixed feelings is Planetside 2, and only from its current sense of instability from them constantly twerking the balance up while continuing to throw more shyte into their store thats designed to sidegrade-but-really-fix some of the problems introduced. The shining example this month will be the introduction of purchasable server transfers to fix glaring faction imbalances happening in just about every server, rather than find some more organic way of driving the factions to a near even split

wandatowell

[Dont like it dont play Richy]

ShadowHearth

In some cases I liked free to play games, but I just gave up on them due to huge thread mill. For some games I would not even mind paying full price for, but you can't. Instead they will charge you 25eu for a weapon, which will take you months to grind. I am looking at you ghost deacon online.
LoL is not better. It's 6300 do for one new hero, but you get about 150xp per match and those matches can last for 40min! Do the maths.
The most fair one I played so far is World of tanks. As free player you can progress quite steady in that game. Saying that, I am not even playing a month and already spent 30eu on it... For month of premium, few camo sets for tanks and xp transfer.
I guess my biggest problem with free to play is that you can't play many of them. You won't have enough time or money to be able to progress steady in these games. You pretty Mich have to stick to few and miss out on others. Soon there will be huge oversaturation in the market.

Dcully

I havent spent a thing on Tribes Ascend,Planetside2,World of Tanks and Path of Exile and enjoy them all immensely to name a few.

Tell me how that equates to being a total con.

uncle_sam_ie

My son plays TF2 and loads of other F2P's. He's happy out and all it has cost me is ten Euro. As a parent it's great, I'm not having to spend loads of money on console games for him. Also, it's good way to try games out. I never liked FPS's or PVP so, I would have never tried Planetside 2 if it wasn't free. But, I liked it and ended up buying a six month membership.

degrassinoel

i did the same with world of tanks for ages too, played free then stuck a few quid on premium for the xp boost it gives, and it was worth it.

i must've spent around 20 quid or so on WoT, that gave me around 400 hours or more of play. You just dont get that type of bang for buck with most other games. The only one that comes close is WoW, and that's a straight up pay and play subscription model, 15quid a month too, so yeah.

Is it a con to give you everything you need to play the game and hold back some nice bits for people willing to go the extra mile and pay? there are good and bad models of F2P, but in my experience most of them are genuinely good games and have reasonable rates with which to pay for the extra content/boosts/xp/items whatever.
And if you dont want to pay, you dont have to, and you can still play.

Grumpypants

Richard Dower wrote: »

:rolleyes: if its really FTP then why all these micro transactions?, i think they've figured out they can make more money through all these bleedin upgrades and add-ons then say going into a shop and buying a disc based game.

It'll end up costing you far more in the longer term then paying 60 quid upfront. Not only that but there is a total unbalance, unless they've got rank or matchmaking built-in.

You could have guys spending hundreads on upgrades and be invincible while yer man who wont pay squat will get killed inside a minute :rolleyes:

The FTP trend worries me, gamers are getting screwed but how many know it?

Yea if those pesky games developers didn't need to eat food and pay bills they could make true free games.

But unfortunately in the same way you won't work for free they need to get paid too and there are limited ways to make money from games unlike other media.

F2p and p2w are two different models one looks to get the player invested enough in the game that they don't mind spending money. The other goes after those who must win so will pay a fortune to have the biggest gun and best armor.

The biggest problem for f2p games is the incorrect opinion that free mean less quality. There are lots of great free games out there that don't have a pay to win model that are very solid.

MadYaker

Planetside 2 is feckin great, I've got hours out of it and haven't spent a cent.

Sarky

You could do worse than send a few quid towards the PS2 devs. None of the stuff you can buy is a game-winner, but it does generally open up interesting new playstyle options. Twin automatic shotties on your MAX, make it great for storming buildings, where a nice SMG makes the infiltrator as powerful in close quarters as he is with the standard sniper rifle.

I dropped a little money on Warframe last night, seeing as I'm enjoying it. New warframe, a couple of weapons and modules, fun times.

gizmo

Dcully wrote: »

I havent spent a thing on Tribes Ascend,Planetside2,World of Tanks and Path of Exile and enjoy them all immensely to name a few.

Tell me how that equates to being a total con.

I can imagine some folk at Hi-Rez, SoE, Wargaming and Grinding Gear being able to give you plenty of examples of why it's a con in that instance. :P

Big Knox

I play / have played a lot of F2P games over the past few years and like anything there are good and bad examples. If a game is F2P and I enjoy it I will always put something towards it even if I genuinely don't need to as I like supporting the devs.

Some honorable mentions, all fantastic games with good F2P models:

Path of Exile
Tribes Ascend
Smite
Heroes of Newerth
Vindictus
Neverwinter
Rift

All of the above I would have been happy to pay for and are completely playable without having to spend a penny.

deconduo

I think the Valve model of F2P as seen in TF2 and Dota 2 is by far the fairest, where you pay for cosmetics but don't get any actual competitive advantage by having more money than other players. Any game where you can pay to get an advantage is one that I'm not particularly interested in.

KilOit

I've spent over 100€ on Planetside 2
i feel it's worth it as i get a lot out of it. i was subbed to the original Planetside so was always planning on doing the same for this one.

Canis Lupus

Played world of tanks since beta. Was free for ages then went premium. There's no difference as its completely not pay to win. I even bought a premium tank. As far I'm concerned its me saying, you've made a great game and I'm happy to pay for it. Nothing worse than dropping 60 bucks on a pile of shyte.

Richard Dower

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Played world of tanks since beta. Was free for ages then went premium. There's no difference as its completely not pay to win. I even bought a premium tank. As far I'm concerned its me saying, you've made a great game and I'm happy to pay for it. Nothing worse than dropping 60 bucks on a pile of shyte.

45 quid for one tank = :eek:

Fnz

RopeDrink wrote: »

League Of Legends is probably the shining example of how F2P works...

Any truth the accusation that Riot Games release overpowered Champions (to incentivise sales) before balancing them at a later date?

degrassinoel

Richard Dower wrote: »

45 quid for one tank = :eek:

costs more than that for most AAA games though..

Taylor365

Fnz wrote: »

Any truth the accusation that Riot Games release overpowered Champions (to incentivise sales) before balancing them at a later date?

You can get the champions for free 0.o

...?

Nody

Richard Dower wrote: »

45 quid for one tank = :eek:

Last one I bought was 22 EUR for the Type 59 at the time and they have had sales on tanks many times before as well.

Canis Lupus

I bought a cheaper one, Super Pershing and the lulz I've had from it was worth every cent I paid. I am on the otherhand a bit pissed they're nerfing it (have nerfed it, I've been playing other games recently and haven't checked in for a while). Either way the number of hours I've put into the game is unreal and the price of a premium tank is pittance compared to what I have got in return from the game.

cherryghost

Fnz wrote: »

Any truth the accusation that Riot Games release overpowered Champions (to incentivise sales) before balancing them at a later date?

I highly doubt that. It's moreover the fact that people don't know how to deal with new champions and often get trumped by them until they have a winning strategy to overcome him.

SeantheMan

Fnz wrote: »

Any truth the accusation that Riot Games release overpowered Champions (to incentivise sales) before balancing them at a later date?

I heard that before from other players too.
Like the new character they released Aatrox is very strong,

SeantheMan

RopeDrink wrote: »

a) Aatrox isn't released yet.

b) No, it's completely false.

It's impossible to release a character 100% balanced and there is no real way to balance them efficiently without them being thrown out in the wild. There are over 70+ characters, various levels of play and four different maps, so good luck getting it right no matter how many beta-server tests and matches you try from.

There have been quite a lot of champions released that have been sub-par, but naturally they neeeever get thought of compared to the ones that are released and are stronger on their debut for obvious reasons.

If it was a marketing ploy of some sort, this simply wouldn't happen. They'd all just be OP, flat out - Besides, what sales incentive would they have? Anyone can save up IP and buy these champions on release day for free. If Joe Soap wants to throw a few quid in the hat to get that same champion and a skin for it, that's their decision. I feel sorry for those who did this thinking they'd get the latest & greatest champion only for said Champion to be decidedly average at best :P

Why can I buy Aatrox then ?

Zapp Brannigan

Everyone thought Aatrox was OP when he was released (2 weeks ago Rope!) but turns out he's just a poor Trynd and he's manageable.

Mister Man

I can see more games going for the F2P model in the future. When it's done right, people are happy to pay for stuff. LoL, Dota, TF2, Planetside 2 - All good F2P games. When it's done wrong, you'll get the odd few that pay to hammer everyone without trying, but in the end, the game will just fade out with lack of income.
If people are actually willing to pay just to get an advantage in a average/bad game, let them. You're better of uninstalling a game like that anyway.

n1ck

RopeDrink wrote: »

a) Aatrox isn't released yet.

b) No, it's completely false.

It's impossible to release a character 100% balanced and there is no real way to balance them efficiently without them being thrown out in the wild. There are over 70+ characters, various levels of play and four different maps, so good luck getting it right no matter how many beta-server tests and matches you try from.

There have been quite a lot of champions released that have been sub-par, but naturally they neeeever get thought of compared to the ones that are released and are stronger on their debut for obvious reasons.

If it was a marketing ploy of some sort, this simply wouldn't happen. They'd all just be OP, flat out - Besides, what sales incentive would they have? Anyone can save up IP and buy these champions on release day for free. If Joe Soap wants to throw a few quid in the hat to get that same champion and a skin for it, that's their decision. I feel sorry for those who did this thinking they'd get the latest & greatest champion only for said Champion to be decidedly average at best :P

Aatrox is out for about two weeks now and isn't overpowered at all, just like already stated, people do not know how to play against him.

Also they changed it a good while ago so you can no longer buy champions for the first 3 days with IP and then after that they are more expensive before they drop to 6300 IP.

VinLieger

Gotta love when Richard comes over here during the summer cus theres nothing doing in the TV forums to make massive sweeping statements about stuff he really hasnt got a clue about