With the development of the mobile games scene, it has become very common to create games which you can download and play for free, technically without limitations. However, after playing the game for some time you discover that by paying a small sum you can get some advantage over other players or just make your experience more enjoyable. Think of a simple example: say that you play a game, where you build a town. You decide to build a school and you discover that building that school will take one hour. Not only that, but while building the school you cannot take any other action in the game. So basically you should start the construction, close the game and come back after an hour. But, if you pay the small sum mentioned earlier, let's say 1 euro, the school will be built immediately. However next time you want to build a hospital and that will take 24 hours or, again, 1 euro. And so on, and so on. Obviously when you read an example like this, the game doesn’t seem appealing at all, but game producers work hard so that the game can “suck in” the person before it starts nagging for money.
This
type of games became very popular on smart phones and there is a
number of them. Most commonly they make you compete in some way with
other players to give you incentive to buy the virtual currency of
the game and gain some leverage. In the game Clash of Clans you
command a tribe that literally fights with other players by making
your village attack theirs and occupy higher ranks on the global
scoreboard. In games such as FarmVille 2 you don't technically
compete with other players but by connecting with Facebook the game
constantly reminds you that your friend has unlocked (by paying) a
feature, that you do not have and gently implies that this makes him
“better”.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi7x_HbMVmQ0xOQx2CLJGpHJY0la9v7B4LMmwDxcYx3dZ_EcoNTQ4UgM01nrw6AgobpB8fHiLN7Gr9wAJorzIBxnYJ75be2Hhymo5voNBpkAGNFK8JHVgx5A3X_KmMnnDy4v8lioLgujj8/s1600/clash+of+clans+gems.png
Such games are created for computers and consoles as well. An example that I’d like to present is a game called Warframe. The game is entirely free, anybody can download and play it by simply registering an account. My friend, who is very enthusiastic about the game, showed it to me and made me play with him for a while. And although you don't need to (again) technically pay for anything to unlock any part of the content, soon you discover that without doing so you will have to play this game for many, many hours before you can experience everything is has to offer. My friend, surprisingly, doesn’t have a bank account and hence does not own a credit card, although he works. He has asked me multiple times now to buy the game currency of Warframe to unlock some content that otherwise would take probably a week or more of non-stop playing. He would give me the money in cash and I would pay for the currency using my credit card. So far he has spent over 200 zł on this game and there is no certainty he won't buy any more of it. You may not know this, but with 200 zł you can buy virtually any of the newest “paid” games, which you pay for only once and enjoy all its content.
http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20130819223716/warframe/images/archive/a/ac/20140519013219!New_PlatStore.png
I am not saying that people are incapable of playing these free games without spending money on them. The problem is that usually these games become unplayable or uninteresting if you don't do it. So the question is: isn't it better to pay once and enjoy a good game? Obviously the advantage of a free game is that even if you end up quitting you don't lose anything. Or do you? You had to spend some time playing it. Nowadays video games often can offer a great experience, similarly to a movie or a book. Games can have a compelling story and talk about adult and/or difficult matters. They are a valid form of artistic expression and I believe should be treated as such. In my opinion many of the “free to play” games don't offer much apart from frustration, unless you decide to spend a fortune on them. Producers of these games might not feel the responsibility to make them well, since they offer them for free anyway, but still they can make a huge profit, because people are simply lazy and like to take the easy way to win.
Comments
Producing the game costs money. Buying servers costs money. Maintaining game and servers costs money. In my opinion there are 3 scenarios that game studios currently can pick:
sell game, maintain the game servers for 3-5 years, announce that it’s not longer profitable and close servers.
give game for free, make money from micro payments (the freemium model), develop it and maintain if it’s still popular
give game for monthly fee, give discounts for people paying for longer periods. number of people playing will directly reflect money earned
Advantage of the no. 1 is fair play game but it can cause many unhappy players not willing to change to newer version.
Disadvantages of the second choice: unfair play, some unsatisfied players but stable income.
Number 3: this can lead to fast bankruptcy, if not being able to build big-enough community.
Based on the finance model changes of some game loved in Poland in 2006 (Tibia) I can observe the shift in its finance model:
The started with the monthly fee and starting this year they allowed people to buy in-game equipment (like in the freemium model).
The conclusion is simple and rather sad: games aren’t made to entertain but to make money.
Basically, it is a perfect scenario for creators of the games because if you choose to play then they can make as many paid extras as they want. If you choose not to play then creators lose nothing because you probably would not pay for full version in the first place.
Personally, I have never spent any money for extra in any freemium game. I usually played it for about a week and then quitted. I was never a fan of "never ending" games like RPG in internet or something similar and this is usually type of games with freemium mode. I always preferred single mode games or FPS in multiplayer mode. I find these types of game more entertaining.
@Michal Kulesza: I completely agree with your statement that these days games industry is just about money. What do you think about other similar and upsetting topic which is DLC?
In my opinion creators nowadays just release unfinished version of the game and after couple of months they sell the rest as DLC just make more money.
I don't agree that games are made just for money, because there are plenty of people for whom games are entertainment, so it proves that games are also done for this purpose. Games are entertaining not only for the players but also for their creators. People need to be entertained by games to get inspired to create better games and this is what is happening now.
I like tha free2play model of the games that became popular recently. I can see 2 positive aspects of this model:
- people who dont spend money can still play that game
- games created according to this model need to be much more entertaining
Free2play games can make money only if they are entertaining enough. Games made according to this model have to be very entertainig to attract customers to pay for additional content. I think it is harder to make a game bringing profits from the in-app purchases because before playing it can be evaluated by the players and it's easier to decide whether to pay or not.
However, the whole concept is destroyed by big, greedy corporations like EA games. They make not only games impossible to play without payment, but also shocking prices for additional stuff. For example, in online game Star Wars The Old Republic they went even further - to fully enjoy game (which is of course free to play) you must acquire monthly subsription, which does not include additional equipment - sold seperately.
First, is that f2p came to be thanks to mobile games. And mobile games were targeted to the audience that don't play on consoles, pcs. And so those people must be always on the move, spending most time working, not having much of it to finish or enjoy every aspect of a game.
Second is longevity of a game. I will give as an example MMO game Star Wars The old republic. Game launched almost 2 or 3 years ago, it had monthly subscription model and was based of the most popular franchise ever. You would expect that it would be as popular as World of Warcraft in 2005, have 10 millions people playing it. Unfortunately, it didn't last even year. The only way to keep servers up and update game for them was to go F2P.
There is games of course that have game store for real money, but they don't sell anything that makes you "Overpowered" or make game much easier, most of them sell only cosmetics things. As for cosmetic i can't say that this is still good idea, as the whole thing for games is to give you challenge and reward after completing it. However i found myself many times buying cosmetics items, but to be honest, that is the way that publisher can profit most of it.
I do despise games that sells best items for real money in multiplayer.
So one of the better solutions was to make a game for free and make money on additives.
In the book "gamification in design" is written that the best earns the players who are in some way dependent on our product.
Link to this book:
http://shop.oreilly.com/product/0636920014614.do
The main difference between free2play and typical games are background of the game. BF4 or any other big game has big development facilities. Games are much more sophisticated, there is not probably such a game free with microtransaction.
As said in the main post experience are different, so mabe the is no sense to compare?
And why is that? Anet made a lot of promises, overadvertised the game, created an illusion of what the game will look like. And what happened? After few first months of playing the game players finally understood that it wasn't the game they paid for. Part of them stayed as game was still better than most available on the market. Then came the moment when people realised that anet doesn't care about it's players as those who already play the game have to be satisfied just so they won't badmouth it for the new potential buyers.
I understand that it's business, but its sad that most of pvp players quit the game simply because they only got a few bones to shut up, when pve players were getting a lot in the same time.
Right now when I face the choice of buying the game and playing it for free, or buying the game and paying for it every month, I choose the second option. Why is that? When people pay every month, company has to assure that there aren't any problems with the game and they have to care about their players more than they have to care about people who might buy the game. To this day I get emails from blizzard advertising new World of Warcraft content and giving some bonuses to those who come back.
And I have a similar opinion on freemium games - most of them aren't worth the time. They're rarely creative or original. Maybe because, as Sergio wrote, producers don't feel the need to put more effort into a game that's going to be offered for free.
Even if you pay you can't simply have fun. You have to: wait untile forced update will be installed, tune your car, hire virtual: mechanic, managers, ECU experts; buy fuel, service the car etc. Those games are not about fun anymore, they are designed to become addiction to the p#ayers.
Here's a really nice summary of the topic. The video is really nice so I highly recommend it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mhz9OXy86a0
Recently I've purchased on my phone a kind of strategy game - Forge of Empire. I was playing it every time when I had some free time - waiting for a train/ classes, waiting for a client, etc. After 10days i noticed that I hardly finished 2nd level out of (i dont remember how many levels there were, but lets say 20) 20. I reach a point where building a new construction or creating a unit (whitout additional fees) would take at least 8 hours. So... I stopped playing. But every single day the game reminded me "that my kingdom is waiting for my return..." by email:) So every time I was waiting for messages from my client / coworkers... snap! "your kingdom...". Don't U think it's very similar to gambling? You buy points/exp/etc than You play, You win, You loose... Buy more, play, loose... and over and over again...
http://i.imgur.com/0DnSCxs.png
It's easy to observe games published with graphic engines - usually game is on the market like other games, so you can buy it and buy DLCs for it and after a while makers publish information that the games is only demonstration of their graphics engine.
If you need something more - just buy it.
I play lot of games but never free2play ones in which paying gives you advantage. For me it's just ridiculous because it turns game into competition who will pay more money. This is how these games are often calls pay2win.
There are better ways to make people spend money in free game, like in Team Fortress 2 where you can buy hats, or in Counter Strike: Global Offensive(not free but cheap) where you can buy gun skins. It doesn't affect gameplay, it's just to show off.
https://www.stayathomeandmakemoney.me/make-money-selling-steam-games/