At what point are you willing to spend money on a ftp game?
polycounter lvl 18
This could cover both pc/console games and mobile games. I've got a small set of mobile games I play, and have been playing for a while, which I've yet to put any actual money into. One of which I'm finding I'm really enjoying, and I'm debating whether I should put some money into it (and how much).
What usually makes you decide to (or not to) put money into a free to play game you've been playing, and how long before you make that decision?
This isn't a question of "should I support the developer?", though if that's a motivation for you to put the money in, that's fine as an answer. It's more of a "at what point does a ftp game warrant your cash in their pockets?" question.
What usually makes you decide to (or not to) put money into a free to play game you've been playing, and how long before you make that decision?
This isn't a question of "should I support the developer?", though if that's a motivation for you to put the money in, that's fine as an answer. It's more of a "at what point does a ftp game warrant your cash in their pockets?" question.
Replies
I've put a chunk of change into TF2 over the years, which sometimes makes me wince cause I play it in waves... probably haven't played TF2 in 6 months to a year.
Yeah, Spiral Knights and Tribes Ascension both got some of my money (during their betas no less), and I've yet to play the final releases of those games. I think the fact that it's a mobile game and high potential for turnover (like my selling off my iPad) makes me wonder about long-term reward for investment.
Probably the biggest one which is shared by MMOs and online games that do not allow third party servers. Since you never bought an actual full game, if the developer closes it down due to age, falling audiences, or changing hardware that would require an expensive base rebuild. All you have left are memories versus something you can choose to revisit.
I've never thought "I think I'm gonna get off this high-end PC and go play a mobile game."
Also, Flaagan, I think there is a Simpsons: Tapped Out game for Android. I downloaded it on my Nexus 7. Can't comment on how it plays though- I downloaded it for the plane ride to GDC, but never downloaded the actual content and the plane didn't have WiFi.
I easily spent about $60 on League of Legends, though. Once I fell in love with a character I would really enjoy unlocking skins for them to make me feel special.
LoL has a very good micro transaction structure. D3 has a god awful structure.
Bought ezreal, a skin for him and a leona skin.
Two Tf2 keys in the past too ;')
Otherwise, if Rock Band was F2P on XBLA/PSN/PC with a few songs but dlc gave me more songs/gameplay I would probably do that too.
almost every other circumstance I just can't justify spending my money on.
I think if micro transactions are kept to aesthetics, then the rest of the game design won't suffer.
(I thought this was about File Transfer Protocol for a second)...
It was also at this point that I've been put off free-to-play titles completely. It's unlikely I'll bother with another; I've seen how it doesn't work out.
Exactly. If I'm impressed with a game and the fact that they made it f2p, I'll throw coin their way. They were cool about it, and they got talent, and they entertained me, I'm gonna pay them. Whatever I get for paying out, I just view as free dlc.
Yep, even if I don't need whatever they sell in game to play, if I enjoy it I want to make sure they are rewarded for their hard work, I hope they keep putting out updates or future games ect...
It almost ruined Hawken for me.
simple fact is that alot use gameplay design to make spending extra money nessecary to avoid grinding....i deplore this and so make the choice to avoid them.
Yes and no, what you are describing are play to win games. There are titles out there that you can enjoy without ever feeling you need to pay extra to do so.
Well no, that's DLC and completely different. And I would also argue that that's something you really shouldn't be supporting unless you really really want it.
i'd never ever pay to be able to skip gameplay elements. that's like paying to not play the game.
[ame="
make me misstrust all of them, rightly or wrongly, my initial feeling is avoid.
EDIT - ive not had much time recently to play anything but iphone games on the bus ...so my veiwpoint is probably pretty skewed
so sorry for the long post, but I always see people dislike it, so wanted to give my opinion, as someone who does like them
You don't always have time to play a lot, sometimes you just have a hour or 2, or you just want to check out a new update.
You can just play, and when you have some more time you drop some money on it.
I probably spent over a 100 euro on World of tanks, and I don't even play it that much.
They do walk a fine line with their payment system (the grind with premium is still a bit much sometimes, garage slots, gold ammo, gold tanks), but it works.
Here it's basicly a matter off, if you want to play this regular you just have to spend some money on it (premium), but I don't mind since it's a good game, and I have gotten more hours out of it then any singleplayer game, so I really don't regret spending money on it.
Another similar game that I tried out recently is hawken, and I saw someone else mention it.
the payment system is actually really soft in that game with how fast you unlock things, the promo codes they give out and so on, and just the game mechanics, and how f2p is implemented, it's a really fair game in that regard.
So in this case I don't really feel the need to spend money on it, but I probably will.
In this case more of a "support the developers thing".
It is also not like these games don't change, most of the time these games have a whole team behind it bringing new content/updates.
The money to support that needs to come from somewhere.
So I don't see the difference in buying BF3 and all the DLC's, or buying a new Call of duty every couple of months or a mmo like WoW and dropping some money on a game like hawken/WoT/planetside/LoL/Dota/etc.
Opinions differ ofcourse, but I just don't see why you wouldn't play the latter ones just because of the "f2p" tag on it.
I actually prefer them just because, if you want to you can just try the game out, and then spend some money on it, instead of having to pay 50 dollars just to be able to even try it.
-This is purely for multiplayer games, and I don't have any experience with small mobile micro-transaction games, so can't speak about those.
As F2P games go it's still a pretty good game and the F2P components are pretty innocuous with hardly any Pay 2 Win problems at all.
yes
The unlock rate via XP was a bit on the slow side initially, but that's since been reworked.
It's been a while since I've played, but I think I threw down about $30 all up for gold to buy items that I wanted to try and an XP booster. For a game that I was enjoying so much and putting so much time into, it didn't seem like an unreasonable ask.
I think TF2 is the only other free to play I've put any money into. My steam wallet currently contains $45 for a grenade launcher with christmas lights stuck on it that I sold on the Steam Marketplace, the initial cost of which was a $2 crate key.
It's extremely frustating spending cash on a game only to realize in a few months you have to buy more because they've changed their monetization.
I know people complain about DLC but I like it all the same.
That's true, amd I would usually not buy something like that, but after 4 years. and so much invested time into ME, I just couldn't stop -sobs-
Unfortunately I'm just too orthodox to consider it worthwhile. I simply don't separate bits of the game that way. I don't want to have $x of stuff in the game, I want to pay $x for the game. I understand that developers want to create more content for you to buy after release and for me that is DLC and Expansions rather than individual objects. It may sound like splitting hairs but I just don't see how a virtual item can be weighed in real dollars, there's no exchange rate for it.
That and being reminded that finance is a component of gameplay just gives me the willies. When I see another player with something that you have to buy and can't earn I don't really mind; jealous? Maybe but it's their own business and I'm not interested in getting in their way. What does get me is that when I see them I will always sub-consciously be reminded that they have it because they bought it, a though that just breaks the enjoyment of being there in the game.
This is disregarding what you prefer your game delivery method to be. So if you like playing free stuff great, you might play it because it is free but does it critically make the game better?
Its a flawed system in my mind unless you can work out how to actually improve game-play with it. There's just too many concessions you have to make to make it work to do it well.
Because of that I'm not sure games like LOL would have even been made without the rise of F2P. So maybe it hasn't really improved the games but it's spawned games that might otherwise not exist without it.
But as we all know, not all F2P models are the same and some are shittier than others, if not downright detrimental to the game.
Umm.. Battlefield 3. I would like the data where you cite this from.
You're right, Battlefield 3 didn't have a single player campaign at all.
have spent 0$ on it.
Well that's exactly what i was saying, i have no qualms with agreeing that some of these games would not have existed.
But at what cost? it's eroding good game design.
Look at airmech, a while back it used to be fun when it had a limited unit set, now its a clown car full of skins and units just there for people to buy. How do you balance a roster of a hundred units that only paying people can get and make it fair for everyone. I can't help but feel that everyone treats f2p design as damage control, pr minimizing the effects of it.
I think the only thing i can think of where real money can improve a game would be online gambling, as it makes it more real, as it i s real. But then how much of a game is it anymore?
One thing i have been thinking about with a game i want to make is perhaps having the multi player element completely free to play, but also have a kick-arse story mode which is what you pay for. I see that as possibly a good compromise, as you get the benefit of the massive player base from free, and a fair and value giving way to support the devs and get more from the game.