Poll on paying for games

[Craig234]

Free as in free.

How do you plan for the developers to be paid for making the game?

 

[norseamd]

How do you plan for the developers to be paid for making the game?

http://sourceforge.net/

 

[TheSlamma]

http://sourceforge.net/

lol, yes plan on some sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet games with that model

 

[Craig234]

http://sourceforge.net/

Remake of Caesar III:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/opencaesar3/?source=frontpage&position=7

Nothing wrong with that, but it's not exactly going to make a lot of good games.

There's a lot of nice free software, but it doesn't work for much gaming.

 

[Wardawg1001]

The poll is currently running 35/3/1 yet I find it ironic that we have a WOT thread in which numerous users have stated that they have spent hundreds of dollars on transactions over time to advance their tanks.

Well, first of all, just because someone has spent hundreds of dollars on a F2P game doesnt mean they prefer that type of model. Its just a testament to the effectiveness of the F2P scam.

Second, I think most people tend to get burned bad by a F2P game at least once. You get caught up in the game, and spend a little here, a little there, then a little more over there, and 6 months later you look back at your bank statements and realize you spent $500 on a supposedly free game. Many of the users you referred to are probably people who just went through that.

 

[mmntech]

I prefer the traditional up-front way of paying for games, and I don't see me changing my mind anytime soon.

Microtransactions came about due to how inherently unstable the entertainment industry is. Most of a game's money is going to be made in the first few weeks on store shelves. After that, you're in for a dry spell until the next big title ships. Which doesn't ring well with investors who expect consistent growth every quarter. Microtransactions are a clever alternative to subscriptions, since they are technically optional. It can be a good way for companies to make money between releases.

Problem is they don't work well when combined with the traditional model. People rage about day-one DLC for the same reason people get so upset for being charged a baggage fee at the airport. We expect everything to be included in the ticket price. It may work in the short term, but it gives consumers the impression that their initial purchase has less value, or is of poor value. Which means the gravy train will eventually stop. Capcom for example is notorious for this practice, and has lost a lot of goodwill with gamers as a result.

Entre free-to-pay. You get the game for free with the option to pay for added content later on. Unfortunately, a lot of these games work on a similar mechanic to slot machines and other casino games. You get a taste until your hooked (just like slots let you win sometimes), then the game nickle and dimes you to progress. Candy Crush is a pretty infamous example. A lot of these games make their money off a very small number of addicts. As time wears on, developers learn to make games that appeal to the addicts while alienating everyone else. That's the wrong way to do things.

One of the few F2P games I've seen that does microtransactions right is Hearthstone. Mainly because it builds on the success of the collectible card game model. By selling booster packs, it adds meaningful content. It doesn't try to bilk addicted players out of cash, nor does it throw up artificial barriers to keep people paying. Basically, it does microtransactions without being cheap or greedy. It's been enormously successful as a result.

Unfortunately, Blizzard is in the minority.

 

[tential]

The poll is currently running 35/3/1 yet I find it ironic that we have a WOT thread in which numerous users have stated that they have spent hundreds of dollars on transactions over time to advance their tanks.

It's like I said in my extremely wordy post.

People claim to not want to pay for games, but in the end I see TONS of users on the same forums post about how much they spend on micro transactions.

I prefer the traditional up-front way of paying for games, and I don't see me changing my mind anytime soon.

Microtransactions came about due to how inherently unstable the entertainment industry is. Most of a game's money is going to be made in the first few weeks on store shelves. After that, you're in for a dry spell until the next big title ships. Which doesn't ring well with investors who expect consistent growth every quarter. Microtransactions are a clever alternative to subscriptions, since they are technically optional. It can be a good way for companies to make money between releases.

Problem is they don't work well when combined with the traditional model. People rage about day-one DLC for the same reason people get so upset for being charged a baggage fee at the airport. We expect everything to be included in the ticket price. It may work in the short term, but it gives consumers the impression that their initial purchase has less value, or is of poor value. Which means the gravy train will eventually stop. Capcom for example is notorious for this practice, and has lost a lot of goodwill with gamers as a result.

Entre free-to-pay. You get the game for free with the option to pay for added content later on. Unfortunately, a lot of these games work on a similar mechanic to slot machines and other casino games. You get a taste until your hooked (just like slots let you win sometimes), then the game nickle and dimes you to progress. Candy Crush is a pretty infamous example. A lot of these games make their money off a very small number of addicts. As time wears on, developers learn to make games that appeal to the addicts while alienating everyone else. That's the wrong way to do things.

One of the few F2P games I've seen that does microtransactions right is Hearthstone. Mainly because it builds on the success of the collectible card game model. By selling booster packs, it adds meaningful content. It doesn't try to bilk addicted players out of cash, nor does it throw up artificial barriers to keep people paying. Basically, it does microtransactions without being cheap or greedy. It's been enormously successful as a result.

Unfortunately, Blizzard is in the minority.

I think part of the rise of F2P was piracy as well.
Having played private servers of Lineage 2 when the server hosting code was leaked, private servers were competing with retail servers for players. What I think game creators started to realize was that there were a core group of players who would continually spend cash on a game to compensate for those who wouldn't (There were players on servers I played where users were spending $3k+ in one go in order to have full geared characters with custom gear to make themselves stronger). Private Servers of Lineage 2 not only were able to sustain and pay for themselves through "Donations", the owners were able to get quite a good amount of money (More than enough to live on), through hosting a server. Hosting servers was profitable.

Around the time when Private Servers of major MMOs became rampant, the F2P model came along with micro transactions to purchase/upgrade your character. This had the side effect(maybe even a main intent) of killing off private servers. Now you could play for free on an official server without bugs/downtime and if you wanted, pay for upgrades.
-----------------

Either way, Micro-Transactions are here to stay, and will be a staple hood in the majority of games. It WORKS, and it works WELL. So don't expect it to go away. Like I said, I've seen gamers complain when games don't have DLCs/Skins/Etc. to purchase.

Edit: To expand on my Lineage 2 example, the clan I played with started on retail, stopped retail because it was boring, full of bots, and people were crying that they were "ruining the server" by controlling every farm spot/guild war.
Went to Private Servers where there were more actual players/competition.
Left Private Servers when Lineage 2 became free to play and many players returned to the game allowing there to be more competition (and less bots as botting had become harder to do).

 

[Craig234]

I think the shift came from that in the earlier games, the idea was like a book or movie, make a product, sell a product.

But a few things happened. One is that they liked to release additional content; expansions could be free. Players said thanks.

Then they noticed, why not charge for that expansion? Players would pay for it.

They also noticed people would spend a thousand hours in a game, and not pay anywhere near what that was 'worth'. People usually don't do that with a book or movie.

They tried the 'pay for the time you use' model with services like CompuServe, and people spent a fortune - what was it, like $3.50 an hour to play a game?

Once they started charging for expansions, well, how about smaller items and content?

And eventually the game could be designed around increasing income over time.

And they noticed players would not pay $250 for any game, even if the played it two thousand hours, but they would spend smaller amounts again and again.

The market spoke.

And the developers adapted.

I wrote a long post for a thread I didn't post about the business model of World of Tanks - how much more effective their business model is than if they just released it as 'you can play all the tanks right away, just buy the game once and then play whatever you like and have fun'. I don't think the game would have nearly the players or revenue if they did that, even if players would say they prefer that a lot.

Sadly one of the things all this competition does, while giving a lot of great games, is to reward a few like WoT a lot but some great games sell for very little to few people.

It's a little like 'fan fiction' or mods for games- they can be great quality and take a lot of time to do, but how much are they going to sell for?

Imagine if DLC caught on for movies or books - that nude scene DLC, that cliffhanger resolution, that chapter about the story you didn't get to read yet, just pay $2.

I do think it gets pretty obnoxious, though, trying to pay games with too much cripple built in to pressure for payments.

 

[GaiaHunter]

I think the shift came from that in the earlier games, the idea was like a book or movie, make a product, sell a product.

(...)

Imagine if DLC caught on for movies or books - that nude scene DLC, that cliffhanger resolution, that chapter about the story you didn't get to read yet, just pay $2.

I do think it gets pretty obnoxious, though, trying to pay games with too much cripple built in to pressure for payments.

But books and movies also have sequels and prequels and they are also paid, just like game expansions/sequels.

And books turn into movies and audio books.

Movies go from cinemas to dvds and TV and these days streaming services as well.

Charging for DLC's and expansions isn't inherently evil.

Also the subscription model (which these days most also charge for expansions and/or have microtransactions) is also a way of solving that very few players will pay $250 for any game but they would spend smaller amounts again and again.

 

[Craig234]

But books and movies also have sequels and prequels and they are also paid, just like game expansions/sequels.

That's different.

Charging for DLC's and expansions isn't inherently evil.

No one said it is.

 

[cmdrdredd]

It depends on the game. Some of the indie shovelware out there isn't worth my $15. Give it to me free. Games like Dragon Age, Far Cry, and GTA? I'll pay $60 no problem

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

Speaking to MMORPGs, I don't care about the payment model itself. What I care about is that in the free2play system, everything is casualized so that the lowest common denominator will play. Complex features are eliminated or scaled back, progression is made easier and faster, and so on. And some MMOs coming out in the future are making the decision to co-develop for consoles. Thus the control scheme is designed around 8 or so maximum abilities, and so on.

 

[Piroko]

There is a point to be made for really good DLC. Some of the Skyrim DLCs you can spend 30+ hours in and I got them for 3€ each. Payday 2 DLCs I got for ~1€ each and one person buying the DLC means anyone can join your game and play the whole heist with you - which in turn means that the community isn't split between DLC buyers and the rest. (they also pumped out quite a lot of free DLCs, kudos to them)

At the same time the way Borderlands 2 and Tomb Raider did it completely backfired with me. Not planning to buy the Pre-Sequel based on better judgement.

Now, f2p is sort of okay with me. I did have a few hours of LOL and WoT, but I won't spend money in them. My largest problem so far has been that as soon as creating a new account doesn't cost any money, everyone will behave like complete idiots. The communities are atrocious which is what made me stop playing these games.

P2p so far has really given me the best experience. The community tends to be nicer, the support tends to be better and so far a majority of these games are still on the market despite being 5 years old or older. It does prove a point that it's still a sustainable business model.

 

[Craig234]

I did have a few hours of LOL and WoT, but I won't spend money in them. My largest problem so far has been that as soon as creating a new account doesn't cost any money, everyone will behave like complete idiots. The communities are atrocious which is what made me stop playing these games.

The account creation issue doesn't seem that much of an issue, because it takes a long time for people to play to get higher level tanks. But the community has mixed people.

 

[Blue_Max]

Expect more micro-transactions though... Candy Crush has earned $billions that way.

 

[Morbus]

I like good games. How they finance themselves and how I pay isn't really the matter to me. As long as they don't rip me off.

Take Sims 3 for example. At the end of the day, it's still the same old scheme of charging money for each expansion, and I'm totally ok with that. That sims store they have going on though, it's totally irrelevant and useless, and even though you could spend thousands of dollars in there, I never spend a cent.

Sims 3 did it right, I think.

Diablo 3 didn't. Diablo 3 had a real money auction house for in game items. I made like 40€ on some items, but never spent anything. That's my strategy. But Diablo 3 suffered HUGELY because of the auction house. Because the game had to be made actually WORSE in order to support it (if you played the game before and after, you'll know what I'm talking about). So in that case, I'm against the auction house.

And then there's the free to play games. I have never, no once, spent a cent in anything in a free to play game, and I see absolutely no reason why anyone would, ever, in any of the free to play games I have ever played. Why? Because they're all crap! The f2f game I have most enjoyed was World of Tanks, and even there I didn't spend anything, simply because I got bored with all the grinding, and the gameplay wasn't really as good as other MOBA games like Team Fortress 2 or Counter Strike.

TF2 is f2f as well, but I paid money for it, when it wasn't. Haven't ever bought any extra items though, base game is fine with me.

Expect more micro-transactions though... Candy Crush has earned $billions that way.

And it's one of the most mindless, nonsensical basic games I have ever played. I'd much rather play Pyramid Bloxx and Tower Bloxx all day long than play Candy Crush. If they want to make games for people that like Candy Crush, have at 'hem! Be my guest!

 

[tential]

Speaking to MMORPGs, I don't care about the payment model itself. What I care about is that in the free2play system, everything is casualized so that the lowest common denominator will play. Complex features are eliminated or scaled back, progression is made easier and faster, and so on. And some MMOs coming out in the future are making the decision to co-develop for consoles. Thus the control scheme is designed around 8 or so maximum abilities, and so on.

So far, every complex MMO built around PVP has been dominated by a small group of players. I've dominated private/retail servers with a group of 40-50 players causing many people to quit/leave server as they were unable to gain resources for themselves because they were unable to organize efficiently.

The thing is, the MMO market has realized that complex games, especially complex MMO's built with PVP in mind, don't work. Most of the market is casual, and they want to farm with friends, defeat cool looking bosses that are "hard" but not too hard, and then repeat and gain cooler gear and repeat. MMO's are boring now, I loved games like Lineage 2. Most MMOs will be built around the casuals because the more people that play, the more people that will spend. F2P MMOs are just freemium games, hidden behind a slightly harder system.

 

[maniacalpha1-1]

So far, every complex MMO built around PVP has been dominated by a small group of players. I've dominated private/retail servers with a group of 40-50 players causing many people to quit/leave server as they were unable to gain resources for themselves because they were unable to organize efficiently.

The thing is, the MMO market has realized that complex games, especially complex MMO's built with PVP in mind, don't work. Most of the market is casual, and they want to farm with friends, defeat cool looking bosses that are "hard" but not too hard, and then repeat and gain cooler gear and repeat. MMO's are boring now, I loved games like Lineage 2. Most MMOs will be built around the casuals because the more people that play, the more people that will spend. F2P MMOs are just freemium games, hidden behind a slightly harder system.

I was talking in general actually. Take PvE; now of course that's got to be somewhat more casual than PvP but the trend nowadays is to reach maximum level quicker, no endgame raiding because OMG god forbid other players be able to accomplish something through organization and dedication that 1 hour/night solo players can't. Edit: The no endgame raiding thing comes from Everquest NExt - we're afraid SOE will curtail a true endgame...I mean I hate the term "endgame" as that applies to beating the boss of the expansion, I just mean we fear there won't be anything for organized guilds to do that sets them apart from casuals.

What PvP MMOs are you talking about? The only true pvp MMO I've played is Planetside 2. I haven't played any MMORPGs that didn't tack on PvP as an afterthought (I am kind of limited to EQ, SW TOR, and brief trials of Rift here).

 

[tential]

I was talking in general actually. Take PvE; now of course that's got to be somewhat more casual than PvP but the trend nowadays is to reach maximum level quicker, no endgame raiding because OMG god forbid other players be able to accomplish something through organization and dedication that 1 hour/night solo players can't. Edit: The no endgame raiding thing comes from Everquest NExt - we're afraid SOE will curtail a true endgame...I mean I hate the term "endgame" as that applies to beating the boss of the expansion, I just mean we fear there won't be anything for organized guilds to do that sets them apart from casuals.

What PvP MMOs are you talking about? The only true pvp MMO I've played is Planetside 2. I haven't played any MMORPGs that didn't tack on PvP as an afterthought (I am kind of limited to EQ, SW TOR, and brief trials of Rift here).

"defeat cool looking bosses that are "hard" but not too hard, and then repeat and gain cooler gear and repeat", what you said it kind of what I meant when I said this but you said it better.

Lineage 2 did PVP quite well I felt because there were no safe areas. Every Raid Boss, Farming Area, etc. was up for grabs to the strongest players. So if you were doing a boss, you could easily be snuck up on and killed if you didn't have a PVP squad guarding you (For most bosses although towards the end there were bosses behind "Quest" walls so as to avoid this but that was ok considering you still had to camp the quest and you set up PVP squads to prevent people from completing the quest). Lineage 2 was my favorite MMO for PVP as you really couldn't complete much on your own, you HAD to work together. PVP happened because you needed to group up to get anything done efficiently PvE, and when you grouped up to do something PvE, there were limited areas you needed to be in usually to get the materials needed, and so you'd end up fighting over those areas.

Retail was ok, but private servers did it even better by further limiting the useful spots to farm at as to ensure that you were fighting for the best spots.

 

[Midwayman]

One of the few F2P games I've seen that does microtransactions right is Hearthstone. Mainly because it builds on the success of the collectible card game model. By selling booster packs, it adds meaningful content. It doesn't try to bilk addicted players out of cash, nor does it throw up artificial barriers to keep people paying. Basically, it does microtransactions without being cheap or greedy. It's been enormously successful as a result.

Unfortunately, Blizzard is in the minority.

I think hearthstone is terrible from a payment model personally. Its a full on P2W model just like all CCGs are. Something like Ascension is much preferable. The base set is a game in itself. The Add-ins are expansions that can be mixed with the base, but you won't be play versus people with a better deck simply because they have a ton of money for boosters. LoL is still my favorite model. Not once did I feel like I had to pay for an edge.

 

[Lonyo]

I like good games. How they finance themselves and how I pay isn't really the matter to me. As long as they don't rip me off.

Diablo 3 didn't. Diablo 3 had a real money auction house for in game items. I made like 40€ on some items, but never spent anything. That's my strategy. But Diablo 3 suffered HUGELY because of the auction house. Because the game had to be made actually WORSE in order to support it (if you played the game before and after, you'll know what I'm talking about). So in that case, I'm against the auction house.

With Diablo 3, Blizzard's heart was in the right place, it just was something that they couldn't implement effectively, and then they (correctly and without requiring further payment) fixed the problem.

The idea was that since people used to trade stuff in Diablo 2 using outside-the-game sites, they would make it easier and safer by incorporating it into the game. It just ended up causing different problems instead and messing with the economy of items/drops in the game. It wasn't a microtransaction thing, it was trying to improve on Diablo 2 where the situation already existed, and they wanted to both make it better for players, and also get some money from it for themselves. It didn't work, they got rid of it.

If anything, Diablo 3 did gaming right. They tried to solve a problem, failed/caused a different problem, and then went back to what would have been there if they hadn't tried to fix the problem when they realised they had screwed up (although it took a bit of time).

 

[Rebel_L]

I prefer subscriptions or one time payments. They fit better for having a good picture of your actual expenses, which of course is what the game companies have found to hurt their bottom lines. When they can get people to stop thinking about the money they are spending they come out further ahead.

Being a player who still remembers the days I played 40+ hours a week to now playing 0-5 hours a week I do have a bit more appreciation for shortcut features. While I still don't spend extra because I find it not worth it I do sometimes think it would be nice to be able to have shortcuts available for earning some in game rewards (not really gear so much, but more things like storage space/cosmetics that are enjoyable but have too much of a time requirement).

Ive played Lotro and Swtor with the sub/cash store model with subs getting free cash store currency as part of the sub and have found that be fairly nicely done. I prefer the Swtor implementation though as for the most part you can use the cash store currency to supplement features you can buy with in game currency as well, but save time trying to save up in game funds.

 

[Morbus]

With Diablo 3, Blizzard's heart was in the right place

I really doubt it was. As good as Diablo 2 is, it's not rocket science. Experienced game designers CAN easily replicate its design core concepts in a new game if they want to. I think that they either did NOT want to or Blizzard's big chairs didn't want them to.

That isn't to say they Diablo 3 is worse than Diablo 2. It's just not the same game at all. And by that I mean it's not a worthy sequel. Titan Quest was more Diablo 2-ish than Diablo 3. It's like the new Call of Duty all of a sudden being a hardcore permadeath first-person combat simulator. Not a worthy successor. Or Grand Theft Auto IV become something like Burnout Paradise. Not a worthy successor.

You get my point, I believe.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Pay up front full amount. For MMO, or multiplayer hosting, I am perfectly OK with a monthly subscription.

I hate advertising/marketing/commercialization in games, so any of that micro transaction stuff will lead me into reviling the game, the company that made it, and everything that they stand for.

 

[asteldian]

Buy and subscribe for MMOs, buy for single player games.
F2P is a toxic plage on gaming and really wish the scheme would die a gruesome death.
Once an MMO goes F2P I get ready to go. F2P means a bare minimum dev team and too much time spent making crap to sell and make money rather than actual content. In addition it attracts the dregs of society into the game. No, that doesn't mean every F2P fan must be an **REMOVED** , but when a game is literally open for all, you get all kinds showing up..



No cursing in PCG.

Anandtech Administrator
KeithTalent