We have all heard the expression, "There's no such thing as a free lunch", but does this apply to so-called "Free-to-play" games? A new market has begun to emerge for games that lack the hefty upfront price tag that most gamers dread. The marketing strategy behind these games attempts to attract more people to try the game in the first place, seeing as today's gamer is weary of dropping large amounts of cash into a game they don't have experience with.
Once they have gamers roped into trying the game, they introduce options to improve the enjoyability through the spending of money. These add-ons can be character skins, experience boosts, new gear, or a variety of other things.
You may ask "How do the companies stay in the black if the game is free?" Good question intelligent reader! While a portion of the player base will simply play the game casually and choose not to pay at all, another significant number will feel that the enjoyment gained from buying add-ons is worth the cost, or they may simply consider it a donation to the company for making a good game.
Do Free-to-play games have a downside? While the profit model for these games often works well, some companies may decide that they need to make more money, so they start making the add-ons more attractive to customers. What is the number one thing that all gamers want? To win! And what could be easier than buying your way to victory? If you are able to pay a few dollars to get a better gun that gives you a distinct advantage over the competition, then you're a BAMF 1337 PWNZOR. Not really, but when you blow away all your opponents you might feel that way. This cycle method of being able to pay to gain a clear advantage over the competition is known as "Pay-to-win" games (Battlefield Heroes, Company of Heroes Online, etc).
Every F2P (free to play) game starts out with the noble ambition of making money from add-ons while still maintaining game balance and user happiness. In most cases however, this doesn't last long. Battlefield Heroes is a prime example of this, where in the beginning purchased guns had upsides and downsides, but then things changed and suddenly cash buys you a gun even Rambo would think is overpowered.
Gamers are not chumps though and they aren't made out of money either, so when game models turn sour, the community backlashes and leave the game behind. Games should not be bidding wars to see how much people are willing to pay in order to win. It is perfectly fine for money to buy you cool looking skins and such, but when add-ons start to effect the game balance, then the morality of the publisher is called into question. Obviously companies have to make money on their product, but forcing players to pay to stay competitive seems scrooge-like and bad for business, since unhappy players is bad for profits.
Another notable case is (or was) Company of Heroes: Online, where you could use cash to recharge your hero units (in other words, let you deploy them in battle). You could also use in game points to recharge your units, but the amounts were so astronomical that unless you only wanted to deploy your certain heroes once every 10 games, you wouldn't be able to afford the upkeep without spending money.
I would much rather pay an upfront or monthly cost for a game than be duped into spending money by a developer. People will be less likely to want to pay a company money when they feel that the greed of the developers takes priority over user satisfaction or game balance in general.
Here’s the bottom line: Free-to-play games are great in theory and sound appealing to today’s thrifty gamer, but they often fall short of their original design and can even betray its users. There are, however, a few good games out there that have maintained the Free-to-play aspect and are definitely worth the time to check out, most notably League of Legends, which has kept buy-ables to mainly awesome looking skins (stay tuned for my upcoming review of this game).
Once they have gamers roped into trying the game, they introduce options to improve the enjoyability through the spending of money. These add-ons can be character skins, experience boosts, new gear, or a variety of other things.
You may ask "How do the companies stay in the black if the game is free?" Good question intelligent reader! While a portion of the player base will simply play the game casually and choose not to pay at all, another significant number will feel that the enjoyment gained from buying add-ons is worth the cost, or they may simply consider it a donation to the company for making a good game.
Do Free-to-play games have a downside? While the profit model for these games often works well, some companies may decide that they need to make more money, so they start making the add-ons more attractive to customers. What is the number one thing that all gamers want? To win! And what could be easier than buying your way to victory? If you are able to pay a few dollars to get a better gun that gives you a distinct advantage over the competition, then you're a BAMF 1337 PWNZOR. Not really, but when you blow away all your opponents you might feel that way. This cycle method of being able to pay to gain a clear advantage over the competition is known as "Pay-to-win" games (Battlefield Heroes, Company of Heroes Online, etc).
Every F2P (free to play) game starts out with the noble ambition of making money from add-ons while still maintaining game balance and user happiness. In most cases however, this doesn't last long. Battlefield Heroes is a prime example of this, where in the beginning purchased guns had upsides and downsides, but then things changed and suddenly cash buys you a gun even Rambo would think is overpowered.
Gamers are not chumps though and they aren't made out of money either, so when game models turn sour, the community backlashes and leave the game behind. Games should not be bidding wars to see how much people are willing to pay in order to win. It is perfectly fine for money to buy you cool looking skins and such, but when add-ons start to effect the game balance, then the morality of the publisher is called into question. Obviously companies have to make money on their product, but forcing players to pay to stay competitive seems scrooge-like and bad for business, since unhappy players is bad for profits.
Another notable case is (or was) Company of Heroes: Online, where you could use cash to recharge your hero units (in other words, let you deploy them in battle). You could also use in game points to recharge your units, but the amounts were so astronomical that unless you only wanted to deploy your certain heroes once every 10 games, you wouldn't be able to afford the upkeep without spending money.
I would much rather pay an upfront or monthly cost for a game than be duped into spending money by a developer. People will be less likely to want to pay a company money when they feel that the greed of the developers takes priority over user satisfaction or game balance in general.
Here’s the bottom line: Free-to-play games are great in theory and sound appealing to today’s thrifty gamer, but they often fall short of their original design and can even betray its users. There are, however, a few good games out there that have maintained the Free-to-play aspect and are definitely worth the time to check out, most notably League of Legends, which has kept buy-ables to mainly awesome looking skins (stay tuned for my upcoming review of this game).
No comments:
Post a Comment