next »

[fascinator]

Hey Folks,

Like the post title says, is there a 'best' way or is it always evil?

Scenarios I see with some comments on the market (a bit of tongue in cheek):

1. Free game with in game ads and in-app purchases, anywhere from .99 cents to 49.99.
[These prices that range up to console game prices seem crazy, but if folk buy it that's ok right?]

2. Free game with in game ads and in-app purchases, mostly based on buying coins/diamonds, items to speed up build times or times to do things in general, prices can range just like #1.
[These type of games seem wrong to me. Although a *ton* of people play them, so are they wrong? My reasoning is, your are not respecting the player nor their time.]

This is out of the free-to-play spectrum, but we've all seen this:

3. A game that is .99 cents up to 4.99 that also has in-app purchases and ads.
[Are we paying for the privilege to buy more stuff in your game? Is this right to run ads in a game I paid for?]

I wrestle with these questions and I want to know your thoughts on this. Some of me thinks that it's up to the user and I have no right to say a thing about it. If a user pays money into one of those developer's games, then so be it. Who am I to say otherwise? Does this now say to me that I've seen that players will cop to this easily, so should I do the same thing?

I do want to make money from my games, a lot would be great BUT, "Is it fun?" is my very first question when designing and making a game. Not how does this make money from F2P then trying to make it fun within that construct. I believe it's very much like Field of Dreams, if you build it "fun", they will come.

[RudyTheDev]

Best is subjective. Best for whom -- the developer, the player, the industry, the market, the genre niche, the demographic? Best for casual player, hard-core player, rich player, competitive player? There is no best, there is only compromise. Search the board, there are so many threads on balancing the "morals" of f2p and such.

[Sik]

There's also the Achaea system where you can buy the premium currency directly with real money, but you can also buy it from other players using the standard (free) currency, so if you don't have money you can still get the premium currency by having good social skills. The game has been going on since 1997, so I guess that model does indeed work.

[Siilk]

I think the best(as in the most fair) way to deal with F2P is either limiting it to in-game ads with an option to pay upfront for an ad-free version or balancing in-game purchases in a way that playing game for free is still enjoyable while paying players having quicker access to powerups, sped up progression and access to cosmetics unavailable for free players.

I have to emphasize: paying for convenience is ok if done right but if free player's way to progress is overly lengthy even for minor tasks and/or is tedious and "grindy", players will feel forced to pay. And you should *never* limit non-cosmetic features(items, levels, game modes etc) to be available for real money if you want your game to be considered fair.

[Chris Koźmik]

Free to play is *NOT* evil. Making people to pay for games (standard downloadable games like on Steam) is

That's the first thing you need to understand (change your perspecive) if you want to go into F2P
There are TONS (actually the majority, above 95%) of players who will not pay for the game no matter what for various reasons. F2P is the only alternative to pirating games to them. That's your target audience.

Of course among them there is a minority of whales who still like f2p even though they could afford any "sold" game. They will pay for the rest of them. But you can almost ignore them, you are making a game for people who will never pay you anything. If you do it right the paying ones will come as a side effect.



Note: while I make a living on f2p for years I'm not too rich at all, so maybe you should ignore what I said

[Müsta Klaki]

There are TONS (actually the majority, above 95%) of players who will not pay for the game no matter what for various reasons.

Err... what? If your game is completely terrible like some copy-paste mobile game, then sure, they won't buy it.

But you made the Steam connection, so I don't really get what you're saying. Something's wrong with actually paying money for something these days...?

South Park had a pretty good take on Freemium games last week. 

[Rarykos]

Best is subjective. Best for whom -- the developer, the player, the industry, the market, the genre niche, the demographic? Best for casual player, hard-core player, rich player, competitive player? There is no best, there is only compromise. Search the board, there are so many threads on balancing the "morals" of f2p and such.

This all the way.

If you want your game to make money you choose #2. It's free entertainment, players understand it has its downsides. It's not like they bought a complete product. Most players play for a while and then uninstall, some peopple like it and want to continue so they pay to get the most out of it.

And you have to think about monetization when you're designing. It has to fit in there. Even ads take away from the players' experience.

If you don't want any of that monetization bullshit in your game then make a desktop game where players pay upfront and the game is the best it can be.

[Chris Koźmik]

There are TONS (actually the majority, above 95%) of players who will not pay for the game no matter what for various reasons.

Err... what? If your game is completely terrible like some copy-paste mobile game, then sure, they won't buy it.

In F2P around 95% players play for free and the 5% is paying (actually it's more like 3-4%), that's the average in the industry.
Conicidentally, I have been reading indies complaing about 95% getting their game for free (piracy).
So... My conclusion is that around 95% will get your game for free no matter what (which might be a wrong conclusion, but I doubt).

It's not about quality, just about the piracy ratio and free players to paid ones ratio.

But you made the Steam connection, so I don't really get what you're saying. Something's wrong with actually paying money for something these days...?

Mindset It's about the mindset Unless you get into the "paying money upfront for a game is evil" you will not understand this audience.

What is really evil is irrelevant here As long as you understand and accept that F2P players perceive evil other way than you (don't make F2P as if you were making a game for Steam players).

[Darkmill]

There are TONS (actually the majority, above 95%) of players who will not pay for the game no matter what for various reasons.

Err... what? If your game is completely terrible like some copy-paste mobile game, then sure, they won't buy it.

But you made the Steam connection, so I don't really get what you're saying. Something's wrong with actually paying money for something these days...?

South Park had a pretty good take on Freemium games last week. 

It's true. That's how F2P games work. Most of the players don't pay for anything, while the remaining few spend hundreds and thousands of dollars each month on the game.

[Zanenga]

Yes, most F2P games today do tend to the evil side, but I don't think it must always be this way. Take Dota 2 for example. The game is free. You don't get any kind of advantages on matches by buying stuff. Everything is visual only. Either that or bonus XP (your level does not affect your character).

I believe F2P is at it's best when the paid aspect is like getting a tatoo, poster or action figure. It's a statement. You like the game. You want something cool from that universe. You want to have it and show it to others that share the same love. I see nothing evil in that.

[Müsta Klaki]

Yes, most F2P games today do tend to the evil side, but I don't think it must always be this way. Take Dota 2 for example. The game is free. You don't get any kind of advantages on matches by buying stuff. Everything is visual only. Either that or bonus XP (your level does not affect your character).

The difference is Dota 2 can survive on that payment type because it's heavily supported by Valve and already has a massive fanbase from the first game. This is an indie forum, any free-to-play games made here are going to be generic mobile games that have been seen a hundred times already. Because of a lack of popularity, you need more devious methods to actually make money. Dawngate is a recent MOBA with the same microtransactions (actually more fair, only skins and announcers were purchasable), and it was recently shut down by EA for not making enough money. It still had 40k+ active users, but that wasn't enough to support that kind of payment system.

It's true. That's how F2P games work. Most of the players don't pay for anything, while the remaining few spend hundreds and thousands of dollars each month on the game.

I knew a person who spent like 800 dollars on League of Legends. I don't know why, he barely ever played it, he just sat in the game's client all day. Like a new skin/Champion came out and he HAD to buy it for some reason. Too much money, too little sense, and a pinch of addiction.

[Zanenga]

The difference is Dota 2 can survive on that payment type because it's heavily supported by Valve and already has a massive fanbase from the first game. This is an indie forum, any free-to-play games made here are going to be generic mobile games that have been seen a hundred times already. Because of a lack of popularity, you need more devious methods to actually make money. Dawngate is a recent MOBA with the same microtransactions (actually more fair, only skins and announcers were purchasable), and it was recently shut down by EA for not making enough money. It still had 40k+ active users, but that wasn't enough to support that kind of payment system.

All true. I'm not saying it's easy to do or replicate. Very few companies could actually make it work, let alone indie devs. I'm just talking about the kind of F2P that I consider not evil at all.

[Müsta Klaki]

All true. I'm not saying it's easy to do or replicate. Very few companies could actually make it work, let alone indie devs. I'm just talking about the kind of F2P that I consider not evil at all.

Ah, well I agree then. I've played 100s of Free to Play games over the years (mostly MMOs). I usually quit because the games just aren't that good, not because of Free to Play schemes... mostly...

[Catghost]

F2P, while my experience with it has been limited to my own game, has shown the greatest promise when you let the players build an economy and dictate value. Even if you have items that can only be bought for real cash, these same items they purchase can be turned around and sold or traded within the game's economy, allowing non-paying players the ability to purchase the same content as those who do pay. But on top of this, those same non-paying players are creating a demand for content that has to be purchased, where those who can pay are supplying the items to those who can't. Players who would normally only buy enough for their own needs will instead purchase a surplus, selling off what they don't in the economy.

But why would they sell these items off in the economy though? What do they gain that they can't buy themselves? This is why you distribute value randomly, giving non-paying players extremely rare items that can't be easily bought or earned, or even currency that can only be won by actually playing the game.

and highlighted its importance. You need to properly distribute value, so that those who pay have a reason to do so beyond benefiting themselves. They want those rare items that are hard to get, and don't want to invest the time to get them - so instead they buy items to trade.

This doesn't apply to all types of games, but it's definitely one of the most successful f2p models I've seen so far.

[Sik]

Huh, that's literally the Achaea system I mentioned before (and indeed it's successful given the game has been around since 17 years ago). But that's a very good break down of what makes it work. Nice.

[invicticide]

The target audience for typical F2P games consists of two types of people: those with too much money on their hands, and those who lack impulse control.

Targeting the former group isn't evil. It is kind of exploitative, but no more so than selling them exotic sports cars or expensive jewelry. But targeting the latter group is, in my opinion, completely morally bankrupt.

I do believe F2P can be done without targeting those groups, but I don't think we've seen very many successful examples of that yet. I hope we will, but the mobile F2P gold-rush mentality probably needs to end first.

[gunswordfist]

it is always evil. seriously.

[Müsta Klaki]

it is always evil. seriously.

Mostly.

To add to the topic again, I recently started playing Tera because whythefucknotitsfree.

Something I noticed quickly: the Elin races' only purpose in the game is to pander to pedophiles. Seriously, I didn't play Tera when it first came out but I remember them being sort of an out-of-place and "joke" race. Now since the game is F2P they've become the center of everything, you'll notice in older screenshots it was about monsters and the other races, but now the Elin is like the poster-child (literally) of Tera. You can buy fetishist costumes to dress them up in (such as naughty nurse outfits, BDSM outfits, schoolgirl outfits etc.), and from my experience so-far is that most Elin players are creepy as fuck as people, who talk openly about how they get erections from their characters and stuff like that. The developers keep on creating content for the Elin race (new costumes and such), and even came out with an awesome Elin-only class to get more people playing that race...

Also there's an item (I forget what it's called) that you can get every day as a log-in reward which allows you to see your characters as if they're in just their underwear while all other players see you as if you still have your armor on and it lasts 24 hours... you can pretty much guess what that item's purpose is.

Game goes from being fine albeit fairly perverted (Eastern MMO what do you expect?) to being supported by the money from creepy kid-touchers... so yeah, that's one more thing for me to throw into the millions of reasons F2P is evil.

Aside from that I also play Planetside 2 which seems to get F2P somewhat correct, although it is slightly pay2win early on.

[Sik]

I do believe F2P can be done without targeting those groups, but I don't think we've seen very many successful examples of that yet. I hope we will, but the mobile F2P gold-rush mentality probably needs to end first.

I think the problem is that the people who aren't in either of those groups have realized that if they were to spend money, it'd be probably better for them to just pay upfront for a game, and if they play F2P it'll be without paying for anything.