Every single F2P game with microtransaction would be better as a single-purchase game. The systems and progression used for monetization always detracts from the final result.
I say that as someone who plays Genshin Impact (much in the same way someone might have a drinking or smoking habit). The general concept of the gameplay, the aesthetics, worldbuilding and music are interesting, but it is made worse by the microtransactions. It makes the game duller that you need to grind specific missions endlessly, for retention, for levelling up and stats-boosting artifacts rather than just by general gameplay, exploring, beating monsters and doing quests. The game is balanced worse to incentive people to keep buying lootboxes to get better weapons, unlock stronger characters and unlock skills for them. There is no avoiding that because the game is structured so that it gets in your way.
I’m not against the expansion type of DLCs, and even new character if it’s priced fairly, and for a game like this to pay once, reasonably for new regions and characters would have made a vastly more fun, less tiresome game to play. It would have made it a game I would proudly recommend. But they would rather fleece thousands of dollars out of gambling addicts, so there is always a gross feeling that it is ultimately twisted and I’m a fool for getting back to it.
The systems and progression used for monetization always detracts from the final result
This, this, this! When is a company ever going to sell something and not encourage people to buy it? "Oh hey, if you wanna skip the grind you can just gimme $5 ;) " yeah sure, that grind is an important part of the game (being sarcastic here) that I’m skipping by bribing the company in charge of it.
wanders off mumbling instead of spouting more sarcasm at other forms
I have to mention the single game I know of that doesn’t follow the model. Path of Exile is completely F2P, all microtransactions are purely cosmetic. Some argue you need to purchase more stash tabs than the base four the game comes with, but I think if you’re playing enough to need more tabs, it may be worth it to buy.
For me, I wanted to supports the devs, so I have a ridiculous amount of skins, pets, and portals from supporter packs, which have no bearing on your character’s power or progress.
And there is a new league/expansion every three months for free. That’s why it’s been kicking Diablos arse for quality for years.
StarCraft is also F2P cosmetic only, as far as I remember. I haven’t played in about ten years though, before they went F2P so I could be wrong.
Mech Arena is F2P with some items behind a paywall, but it’s so few that you don’t really have to worry about it. It’s honestly a very simple and fun game without any need to pay. MAYBE I’ll run into a problem a few years from now when I’m so leveled up that I’m competing against people who put hundreds of dollars into the game, but it’s pretty clear that if that becomes a problem it’s a long way off.
The F2P model can be done wrong, and it can be done right.
I keep hearing good things about Path of Exile, though its a bit too complex for me. That might be one of the rare acceptable ones.
Focusing on cosmetics is generally the least offensive way to go about it although even that has its uglier side, such as Valve’s games relying on lootboxes and profiting from the trade of rare items at exorbitant prices. Whenever random chance and lootboxes are brought up, that is still targeting players with compulsive tendencies. All digital scarcity and rarity is artificial, after all. There is no reason why they couldn’t straight up sell an unlimited amount of sparkly hats and fancy gun skins. We could dismiss this as unimportant if it doesn’t affect the core gameplay but it’s still morally dubious if a game is being funded through the exploitation of a fraction of the audience.
There is another important caveat that cosmetics are not an issue as long as that is not a significant aspect of the game. Selling cosmetics in a Diablo-like is no big deal. Including cosmetic lootboxes in, say, Animal Crossing Pocket Camp, an All Ages game largely about decoration, is absolutely egregious, because in such a game there is no separating cosmetics from gameplay.
While I agree lootboxes are shite, and was dismayed when they brought them in, you can have them turned off in PoE if you have a compulsive/gambling issue (email support and they disable the purchase). Also, anything in a lootbox goes to the shop after the league ends, so you can just purchase the item. They also give a crap tonne of skins as challenge rewards for leagues, so you always be stylin’.
As for difficulty-- it has a steep learning curve! But once you get your sea legs (and later, Path of Building; free, community run) it’s impossible to go back to something like Diablo, imo. The intricacy and constant new leagues are the only reasons I’m still playing it seven years later :)
This is just demonstrably false. Half of the most played games might not even exist (anymore) if they were pay to play. Especially for multiplayer games, the barrier to entry means less people playing, which can mean the death of a game. The funding also means longer lasting updates, and the business model means the developers actually have a good reason to keep the game alive.
The prime example of a f2p game is Dota 2. No characters to buy, just cosmetics. Cosmetics you can get randomly by just playing, AND you can buy and sell on the second hand market for super cheap. That money has meant that the game kept getting updates and changes, all of which cost a fuckton of money.
Now, are many f2p concepts predatory? Sure, but so are trading card games marketed towards children, and nobody cared. And again, most games simply wouldn’t exist without F2P, DLC and/or microtransactions. People pretend like games “back in the day” lived forever without any DLC. That’s just not true.
You want to call it false at the same time you admit that these systems are predatory? You can’t do both at once. What you are really saying is that you believe the exploitation is worth the longevity.
If anything the cosmetics second hand market is proof that something is wrong, when people resell a skin for over a thousand dollars. No in-game item is worth that much, and people only convince themselves it is because their scarcity is controlled for financial gain.
Mind you, I said it myself DLC is fine when done properly so you are not even acknowledging the options that I’m mentioning. Games can be maintained without microtransaction. Your response isn’t even directed at me, but the vague sentiment that you get from the thread in general.
And even on their case, there is something to be said in favor of games you can host yourself indefinitely, rather than relying on company servers that are locked down to sell microtransactions. What good is a game that is updated for a few years and then is gone forever? Even the ones who supported it intently are left with nothing. That’s the fate of the majority of freemium games.
Every single F2P game with microtransaction would be better as a single-purchase game. The systems and progression used for monetization always detracts from the final result.
I say that as someone who plays Genshin Impact (much in the same way someone might have a drinking or smoking habit). The general concept of the gameplay, the aesthetics, worldbuilding and music are interesting, but it is made worse by the microtransactions. It makes the game duller that you need to grind specific missions endlessly, for retention, for levelling up and stats-boosting artifacts rather than just by general gameplay, exploring, beating monsters and doing quests. The game is balanced worse to incentive people to keep buying lootboxes to get better weapons, unlock stronger characters and unlock skills for them. There is no avoiding that because the game is structured so that it gets in your way.
I’m not against the expansion type of DLCs, and even new character if it’s priced fairly, and for a game like this to pay once, reasonably for new regions and characters would have made a vastly more fun, less tiresome game to play. It would have made it a game I would proudly recommend. But they would rather fleece thousands of dollars out of gambling addicts, so there is always a gross feeling that it is ultimately twisted and I’m a fool for getting back to it.
This, this, this! When is a company ever going to sell something and not encourage people to buy it? "Oh hey, if you wanna skip the grind you can just gimme $5 ;) " yeah sure, that grind is an important part of the game (being sarcastic here) that I’m skipping by bribing the company in charge of it.
wanders off mumbling instead of spouting more sarcasm at other forms
I have to mention the single game I know of that doesn’t follow the model. Path of Exile is completely F2P, all microtransactions are purely cosmetic. Some argue you need to purchase more stash tabs than the base four the game comes with, but I think if you’re playing enough to need more tabs, it may be worth it to buy.
For me, I wanted to supports the devs, so I have a ridiculous amount of skins, pets, and portals from supporter packs, which have no bearing on your character’s power or progress.
And there is a new league/expansion every three months for free. That’s why it’s been kicking Diablos arse for quality for years.
Ah, yes. The ““purely cosmetic”” stash tabs that are required to participate in selling items in any meaningful capacity.
I’d rather buy PoE and have the full game as intended than be nickel-and-dimed to be able to trade for gear.
StarCraft is also F2P cosmetic only, as far as I remember. I haven’t played in about ten years though, before they went F2P so I could be wrong.
Mech Arena is F2P with some items behind a paywall, but it’s so few that you don’t really have to worry about it. It’s honestly a very simple and fun game without any need to pay. MAYBE I’ll run into a problem a few years from now when I’m so leveled up that I’m competing against people who put hundreds of dollars into the game, but it’s pretty clear that if that becomes a problem it’s a long way off.
The F2P model can be done wrong, and it can be done right.
I keep hearing good things about Path of Exile, though its a bit too complex for me. That might be one of the rare acceptable ones.
Focusing on cosmetics is generally the least offensive way to go about it although even that has its uglier side, such as Valve’s games relying on lootboxes and profiting from the trade of rare items at exorbitant prices. Whenever random chance and lootboxes are brought up, that is still targeting players with compulsive tendencies. All digital scarcity and rarity is artificial, after all. There is no reason why they couldn’t straight up sell an unlimited amount of sparkly hats and fancy gun skins. We could dismiss this as unimportant if it doesn’t affect the core gameplay but it’s still morally dubious if a game is being funded through the exploitation of a fraction of the audience.
There is another important caveat that cosmetics are not an issue as long as that is not a significant aspect of the game. Selling cosmetics in a Diablo-like is no big deal. Including cosmetic lootboxes in, say, Animal Crossing Pocket Camp, an All Ages game largely about decoration, is absolutely egregious, because in such a game there is no separating cosmetics from gameplay.
While I agree lootboxes are shite, and was dismayed when they brought them in, you can have them turned off in PoE if you have a compulsive/gambling issue (email support and they disable the purchase). Also, anything in a lootbox goes to the shop after the league ends, so you can just purchase the item. They also give a crap tonne of skins as challenge rewards for leagues, so you always be stylin’.
As for difficulty-- it has a steep learning curve! But once you get your sea legs (and later, Path of Building; free, community run) it’s impossible to go back to something like Diablo, imo. The intricacy and constant new leagues are the only reasons I’m still playing it seven years later :)
This is just demonstrably false. Half of the most played games might not even exist (anymore) if they were pay to play. Especially for multiplayer games, the barrier to entry means less people playing, which can mean the death of a game. The funding also means longer lasting updates, and the business model means the developers actually have a good reason to keep the game alive.
The prime example of a f2p game is Dota 2. No characters to buy, just cosmetics. Cosmetics you can get randomly by just playing, AND you can buy and sell on the second hand market for super cheap. That money has meant that the game kept getting updates and changes, all of which cost a fuckton of money.
Now, are many f2p concepts predatory? Sure, but so are trading card games marketed towards children, and nobody cared. And again, most games simply wouldn’t exist without F2P, DLC and/or microtransactions. People pretend like games “back in the day” lived forever without any DLC. That’s just not true.
You want to call it false at the same time you admit that these systems are predatory? You can’t do both at once. What you are really saying is that you believe the exploitation is worth the longevity.
If anything the cosmetics second hand market is proof that something is wrong, when people resell a skin for over a thousand dollars. No in-game item is worth that much, and people only convince themselves it is because their scarcity is controlled for financial gain.
Mind you, I said it myself DLC is fine when done properly so you are not even acknowledging the options that I’m mentioning. Games can be maintained without microtransaction. Your response isn’t even directed at me, but the vague sentiment that you get from the thread in general.
And even on their case, there is something to be said in favor of games you can host yourself indefinitely, rather than relying on company servers that are locked down to sell microtransactions. What good is a game that is updated for a few years and then is gone forever? Even the ones who supported it intently are left with nothing. That’s the fate of the majority of freemium games.
deleted by creator
I might be missing something but a cursory search shows CSGO went F2P 1.5 years before Valorants release.