Why Free To Play is the Future

Ever played Puzzles & Dragons on your smartphone? I'll bet you have.

Fun little match-3 puzzle game, with Pokemon/role playing twists.

http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/GungHo+Online+news/news.asp?c=52683

Just in case you don't click links because you're weird, here are the highlights:

"Puzzle & Dragons developer GungHo Online pulled it $763 million in sales in the first half of 2013, representing a colossal year on year rise of more than945 percent.

As a result, the company has posted an operating profit of $460 million up more than 4,331 percent and net income of $287 million, up 2,609 percent.

However, while the half yearly figures are eye watering enough on their own, when you break down the numbers to the April to June quarter, it's revealed the company is bringing in a daily revenue rate of$4.9 million."ARTICLE

I apply bold like a champion.

Think about those numbers for a second. SWALLOW THEM.

Do you know how much those numbers obliterate every franchise's sales on consoles? This friggen free to play, simplistic smartphone game will cross the 1 billion sales threshold in under one year. WHAT?

There's one thing that's stopping the free to play market from blowing up on consoles: hardware adoption rate.

Meaning, when the PS4/X1 have a combined total consumer base of around 50 million+, watch out; triple-A games are in trouble. Anything that isn't indie, in fact, is in trouble.

It's a revolution. Do I love it? No. Is it inevitable? YES. THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU.

The fixed price model for video games was not sustainable in the first place. The video game market is way too varied for the industry to arbitrarily pick a price, $60, and set it to every new release. T

Free to play games allow developers to receive the maximum amount of money that the player is willing to give them. If the player wants to spend $300 on a mobile game, well, he can. If he doesn't want to pay a dime, he can too. Economically speaking, it may very well be the optimal pricing system for video games, like it or not.

I think it can be done well. Airmech (PC indie game) is a very good example of free to play done well. If you don't want to pay, you don't have to and you're still very much going to enjoy the game. Every gameplay-related upgrade can be unlocked by simply playing the game, and only cosmetic stuff require real money. 

It is a horrid model and I hope it dies quickly...

The trouble with using one company's performance as an indication of an industry-wide trend is that you can of course just use a different company with different performance to predict that whole genre will die out tomorrow.

The only free-to-play game I've spent any meaningful amount of time with was the XBLA/PSN Spartacus: Legends and I can honestly attest that the free model effectively rendered what could have been a fun little arcade game into unplayable shit.

I'm all for episodic content and substantial DLC but the FTP model does nothing for me and if it is the future consider me a retro-gamer for life.

Free to play is a just a selling term. What it is is a pay to gain instead of the normal pay to play. It does work for some games but there are other games that it does not work with.

The only free-to-play game I've spent any meaningful amount of time with was the XBLA/PSN Spartacus: Legends and I can honestly attest that the free model effectively rendered what could have been a fun little arcade game into unplayable shit.

I'm all for episodic content and substantial DLC but the FTP model does nothing for me and if it is the future consider me a retro-gamer for life.

Grammaton-Cleric

The free-to-play model is still evolving and different companies are trying out different approaches. There is no validity in saying that the model itself is great or shit, it's the approach that makes it good or not. There's a lot of junk out there, but there are also fantastic games that do it right such as Team Fortress 2, Dota 2, Plants vs. Zombies 2, PlanetSide 2, Tribes: Ascend, Hawken, League of Legends etc.

Ever played Puzzles & Dragons on your smartphone? I'll bet you have.

Fun little match-3 puzzle game, with Pokemon/role playing twists.

http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/GungHo+Online+news/news.asp?c=52683

Just in case you don't click links because you're weird, here are the highlights:

[QUOTE="ARTICLE"]"Puzzle & Dragons developer GungHo Online pulled it $763 million in sales in the first half of 2013, representing a colossal year on year rise of more than945 percent.

As a result, the company has posted an operating profit of $460 million up more than 4,331 percent and net income of $287 million, up 2,609 percent.

However, while the half yearly figures are eye watering enough on their own, when you break down the numbers to the April to June quarter, it's revealed the company is bringing in a daily revenue rate of$4.9 million."experience_fade

I apply bold like a champion.

Think about those numbers for a second. SWALLOW THEM.

Do you know how much those numbers obliterate every franchise's sales on consoles? This friggen free to play, simplistic smartphone game will cross the 1 billion sales threshold in under one year. WHAT?

There's one thing that's stopping the free to play market from blowing up on consoles: hardware adoption rate.

Meaning, when the PS4/X1 have a combined total consumer base of around 50 million+, watch out; triple-A games are in trouble. Anything that isn't indie, in fact, is in trouble.

It's a revolution. Do I love it? No. Is it inevitable? YES. THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU.

Ever played Puzzles & Dragons on your smartphone? I'll bet you have.

Fun little match-3 puzzle game, with Pokemon/role playing twists.

http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/GungHo+Online+news/news.asp?c=52683

Just in case you don't click links because you're weird, here are the highlights:

[QUOTE="ARTICLE"]"Puzzle & Dragons developer GungHo Online pulled it $763 million in sales in the first half of 2013, representing a colossal year on year rise of more than945 percent.

As a result, the company has posted an operating profit of $460 million up more than 4,331 percent and net income of $287 million, up 2,609 percent.

However, while the half yearly figures are eye watering enough on their own, when you break down the numbers to the April to June quarter, it's revealed the company is bringing in a daily revenue rate of$4.9 million."experience_fade

I apply bold like a champion.

Think about those numbers for a second. SWALLOW THEM.

Do you know how much those numbers obliterate every franchise's sales on consoles? This friggen free to play, simplistic smartphone game will cross the 1 billion sales threshold in under one year. WHAT?

There's one thing that's stopping the free to play market from blowing up on consoles: hardware adoption rate.

Meaning, when the PS4/X1 have a combined total consumer base of around 50 million+, watch out; triple-A games are in trouble. Anything that isn't indie, in fact, is in trouble.

It's a revolution. Do I love it? No. Is it inevitable? YES. THEY'RE COMING FOR YOU.

The trouble with using one company's performance as an indication of an industry-wide trend is that you can of course just use a different company with different performance to predict that whole genre will die out tomorrow.

Jackc8

I do not like the F2P model at all, on the plus side you get to play the game for free, however on the con side you will probably end up spending more on micro-transactions in the long-term than the full retail prices of the game.

I think ex-CEO of EA said it correctly that the F2P model is implemented part of the game design. Developers can alter the game's design to make it so that the player it obligated to buy micro-transaction items. Yes there are some publishers doing more consumer-friendly implementations of F2P by only doing cosmetic items on their store, but lets face it not all publishers are going to take this route.

These companies are businesses and are there to make as much money as they can for their stakeholders.

[QUOTE="Jackc8"]

The trouble with using one company's performance as an indication of an industry-wide trend is that you can of course just use a different company with different performance to predict that whole genre will die out tomorrow.

experience_fade

I do not like the F2P model at all, on the plus side you get to play the game for free, however on the con side you will probably end up spending more on micro-transactions in the long-term than the full retail prices of the game.

I think ex-CEO of EA said it correctly that the F2P model is implemented part of the game design. Developers can alter the game's design to make it so that the player it obligated to buy micro-transaction items. Yes there are some publishers doing more consumer-friendly implementations of F2P by only doing cosmetic items on their store, but lets face it not all publishers are going to take this route.

These companies are businesses and are there to make as much money as they can for their stakeholders.

godfather_1

That's what worries me as well. I don't inherently have a problem with F2P gaming, it's just that I know (eventually) it will become intrinsic to the game creation process.

That spells bad news for great gameplay franchises.

Most single player games seem to have one year to be profitable and this includes any DLC. Free to play does not seem that it could cover the cost of singple player games since free to play back seem to work on a long term plan.

Most single player games seem to have one year to be profitable and this includes any DLC. Free to play does not seem that it could cover the cost of singple player games since free to play back seem to work on a long term plan.

wiouds

[QUOTE="wiouds"]

Most single player games seem to have one year to be profitable and this includes any DLC. Free to play does not seem that it could cover the cost of singple player games since free to play back seem to work on a long term plan.

godfather_1

Well, Happy Wars, Xbox Live's first F2P game, which received a 5.0 from GameSpot, has over 2 million downloads thus far.

Now, digital item revenue is almost never publically released for any game, but you can bet that if a bad game gets 2 million downloads, a good game will only increase that number. The more people that play your F2P game = the more money you make.

Think of the first CoD style F2P shooter. Woah NELLY.

[QUOTE="godfather_1"][QUOTE="wiouds"]

Most single player games seem to have one year to be profitable and this includes any DLC. Free to play does not seem that it could cover the cost of singple player games since free to play back seem to work on a long term plan.

experience_fade

Well, Happy Wars, Xbox Live's first F2P game, which received a 5.0 from GameSpot, has over 2 million downloads thus far.

Now, digital item revenue is almost never publically released for any game, but you can bet that if a bad game gets 2 million downloads, a good game will only increase that number. The more people that play your F2P game = the more money you make.

Think of the first CoD style F2P shooter. Woah NELLY.

[QUOTE="experience_fade"]

[QUOTE="godfather_1"] Not to mention that if the game does go F2P then there has to be certainty for publishers that gamers will buy items from the store. The game will need to be a sufficient quality to attract gamers, a F2P game that sucks will not be good for publishers/developers financially.godfather_1

Well, Happy Wars, Xbox Live's first F2P game, which received a 5.0 from GameSpot, has over 2 million downloads thus far.

Now, digital item revenue is almost never publically released for any game, but you can bet that if a bad game gets 2 million downloads, a good game will only increase that number. The more people that play your F2P game = the more money you make.

Think of the first CoD style F2P shooter. Woah NELLY.

[QUOTE="experience_fade"]

[QUOTE="godfather_1"] Not to mention that if the game does go F2P then there has to be certainty for publishers that gamers will buy items from the store. The game will need to be a sufficient quality to attract gamers, a F2P game that sucks will not be good for publishers/developers financially.godfather_1

Well, Happy Wars, Xbox Live's first F2P game, which received a 5.0 from GameSpot, has over 2 million downloads thus far.

Now, digital item revenue is almost never publically released for any game, but you can bet that if a bad game gets 2 million downloads, a good game will only increase that number. The more people that play your F2P game = the more money you make.

Think of the first CoD style F2P shooter. Woah NELLY.

You're misinterpeting my point.

I'm only suggesting the chance of making profit is higher with the more people that download an F2P.

If the majority of any F2P audience doesn't spend any money, then you'd want the maximum amount of people to play the game. 

Over 2 million people downloading a terribly reviewed Happy Wars gives it a higher chance of making money than if the game were only downloaded by 500,000 people.

[QUOTE="godfather_1"][QUOTE="experience_fade"]

Well, Happy Wars, Xbox Live's first F2P game, which received a 5.0 from GameSpot, has over 2 million downloads thus far.

Now, digital item revenue is almost never publically released for any game, but you can bet that if a bad game gets 2 million downloads, a good game will only increase that number. The more people that play your F2P game = the more money you make.

Think of the first CoD style F2P shooter. Woah NELLY.

experience_fade

You're misinterpeting my point.

I'm only suggesting the chance of making profit is higher with the more people that download an F2P.

If the majority of any F2P audience doesn't spend any money, then you'd want the maximum amount of people to play the game. 

Over 2 million people downloading a terribly reviewed Happy Wars gives it a higher chance of making money than if the game were only downloaded by 500,000 people.

If the majority of the audience doesn't want to buy the store items, then there is something wrong with the game. Hoping the maximum amount of people to play it won't change that. The publishers and developers will need to make sure that the conversion rate from people playing the game to people buy store items is high to make a profit which brings me back to my original point that it needs to be implemented within the game design to ensure people do buy micro-transaction items.godfather_1

experience_fade is correct. That is how the free-to-play model works. Only 2-3% of people spend money while playing free-to-play games so the main objective of any developer is to have as many players as possible. More players creates more value for the game, many developers have stated that non-paying players are just as important as the paying players simply because they play the game and create value for everyone. The more players you have, the more money you make.

I hope F2P is NOT the future, as every design decision is made with the consideration on how to extort as much money from the player, and then bogging them down in relentless grinds to progress even the slightest bit if they fail to pay up.  Real Racing 3 is a prime example of why I despise F2P:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/report/article/real-racing-3-is-a-brilliant-game-crippled-by-eas-greed

Yea, some games may do it better, but I just dislike and inherently don't trust games whose specific mechanics and features are deliberately designed around the dollar.  It's a slippery slope.

yes,cause its easier to appeal to people's greed and competitiveness that their logic.they wont buy a 5 dollar game cause its "too expensive".you lure them in with a free game and then when they get hooked there is a chance they will spend way more than 5 dollars to proceed faster and be better

Free To Play is a great model.  

But it benefits some kinds of games more than others.  For a series thats well established, it's not necessary as people are already interested and will already pay.  For games that aren't as well known, free to play would be a great way to introduce players.

Also, free to play, works with arcade-style games and games that have a strong online multiplayer component.  They will probably never work for cinematic games with narratives for examples.

Yes, there are games that abuse it to the point of "pay-to-win", but that doesn't diminish free-to-play.  In the same way that charging $60 retail for Resident Evil 6 doesn't diminish initially fixed retail pricing.

The best free-to-play models only charge for cosmetics, accessories, or luxuries.  And have an option for those items to be earned by sheer gameplay time as well, with payment as just a way to receive unlockables more quickly.

There's no way to be sure, but F2P is certainly gaining momentum. I surely hope not, though

The fixed price model for video games was not sustainable in the first place. The video game market is way too varied for the industry to arbitrarily pick a price, $60, and set it to every new release.  

ReddestSkies

It better not be the future.Black_Knight_00

Indeed because I would take Tomb Raider, Dead Space or Assassin's Creed over Angry Birds, Star Wars The Old Republic and DC Universe Online anyday.