F2P and Paid in the same game?

(SockDog) #1

Okay this may be the dumbest question ever but I’m tired so I’ll throw it out there to the jackals.

Tok mentioned in another thread that F2P is not always a desirable model for a shooter. This got me thinking. Having played a little of World of Tanks I have to say the mindless grind and constant reminder that there are always bigger, badder and better tanks to reinforce it is a total pain in the arse.

So, what are the downsides of a F2P game just offering a paid version with everything unlocked (including future updates)?

Would F2P gamers abandon the game because it’s unfair that people buy in? I’m not totally sure. WoT allows people to buy up whatever they want and as I said people having better stuff than you works (I assume) to get people playing more.

With adequate matchmaking (such as proposed for Rad Soldiers) there need not be a distinct or wide advantage as you match like to like players or limit equipement/skills etc if you want to join a lesser level game.

My own opinion, if the game is good I’m happy to pay for it. What I don’t want is for a game to be held back in order to drive a revenue stream. That’s just a total turn off for me and a little insulting (read: I’ll drop the game like a hot poo).

So the point here is, would SD be happy if they had a F2P game with leveling to unlock stuff, the mechanism to buy credits to leapfrog and buy certain stuff and finally a lifetime unlock purchase to allow you to bypass the grind and just play the game? For the latter I’m talking say $30-50, not some cow poking subscription model.

Also Valve. Think long game, think quality, think open.

(Humate) #2

This is what Quake Live does:

Premium Subscription ($1.99 per month, billed annually)

An all new ‘Freeze Tag' game mode
Exclusive premium level awards
Create your own clan and join up to five separate clans
Custom QUAKE LIVE profile wallpaper
Match statistics stored for six months

Pro Subscription ($3.99 per month, billed annually)

Includes all Premium Subscription features
The ability to start your own game server, specify a server location, determine the game mode and invite who you want to join you
With the Pro Subscription, you can invite three friends with Standard level memberships to play with you in any Premium level map
Exclusive pro awards
Create your own clan and join up to ten separate clans
Match statistics stored for 12 months
(tangoliber) #3

I could be wrong, but I think the whole F2P model works by having the hardcore players spend a lot more than they would with a buy-to-play game. And it makes sense, because the hardcore players usually want the updates. They spend hundreds of hours in the game, so they want the game to be a service, rather than a single release.

To be a service, the developer probably needs a steady stream of income. If the total cost for each player maxes out at 50 or 60 dollars, then the service period won’t be able to last as long. It would be closer to the 6 months of support that a typical buy-to-play game gets. Unfortunately, not every company can be Valve.

Personally, I prefer to focus on a single game rather than play several different ones. So, I am willing to spend more on that game if it means years of updates…in the end, it is still a small cost in comparison to most hobbies. And games will never run out of things that need to be patched or polished. Tribes: Ascend just got FPV spectating, and is going to get demo recording in the future…it probably would never get those things as a buy-to-play game. Maps have gotten re-worked countless times…whereas buy-to-play games hardly ever touch their maps.
For the record, I’ve only spend 30 dollars in Tribes: Ascend so far, because I play enough that I don’t really need to spend more yet…But I could see myself spending another 30 over the next year, and more after that if it lasts that long.

If SD is making another ET/Brink style game, then I think their model could work like this:
Give each basic class for free. (Soldier, Medic, Operative, Engineer.)
Sell alternate versions of those classes which are sidegrades. For example: Poison Medic, Heavy Medic, etc. Each class could sell for about 7 or 8 dollars, and would have its own unique primary weapon, secondary weapon, skin, and unique abilities. (Tech Medic might have a field regen unit, while a poison medic might be more focused on buffs and debuffs.)

Or they could do it the Tribes: Ascend way and sell each weapon, ability, and skin separately and allow the player to customize…but I would personally prefer the “complete loadout” model because 1) the balance would be more interesting as you can combine weak weapons with strong abilities or vice versa, and 2) You could know someone’s entire loadout just from recognizing their skin.

(Runeforce) #4

Having no Iphone I have not played Rad soldiers, but from what I read, isn’t how this game works? (With the small difference that RAD is not a FPS.)

(Susefreak) #5

Maybe time to reconsider the F2P vs Paid model. Rather than providing an equipment upgrade, maybe look at something along the lines like removing ads, exclusive map previews for a month before being released to the F2P public or paid personalisation of the character. The general sentiment is that most F2P people in the public feel left out and cry out about inequality, while the paying part of the public generally do it to gain an edge/feel superior/

Why this route? Just to keep the gameplay experience enjoyable for everyone. For instance, in Warrock, the paid people gained an unfair edge over the other people who were playing for free. Sure it can be balanced, but the perception will always be there. Paying for purely aesthetic content removes that feeling of inequality. The exclusive preview “edge” will disappear within a few days.

It also works the other way. Going for paid content will still enable the public paying to show their superiority.

I completely agree with you on the subscription model. Just pay once and get the deal, rather than subscribe.

(Humate) #6

From a competitive standpoint, it works the same way as paid dlc - it doesnt get played competitively.
New maps, New abilities, New classes; all that stuff is thrown out for playing on equal terms.
And to take it a step further, anything that is deemed unfair in the actual vanilla game itself gets banned or modified.

(MoonOnAStick) #7

[QUOTE=Susefreak;402270]Maybe time to reconsider the F2P vs Paid model. Rather than providing an equipment upgrade, maybe look at something along the lines like removing ads, exclusive map previews for a month before being released to the F2P public[/QUOTE]I don’t have a lot of experience with different F2P models but this would be my preference too. On the other hand, it hasn’t worked for Quake Live has it? Maybe because it was an annual subscription?

Currently playing a lot of Tribes but I wouldn’t describe it as F2P. Perhaps Pay-Very-Little-To-Play (PVL2P isn’t so catchy) because the treadmill is simply too long without at least the 1.5x xp boost you get by paying something. Another problem for a class based game is that not everyone has unlocked enough stuff to fill the ‘right’ classes on public servers. Hi-Rez tried to address this by making it cheap to unlock the classes but you still need to spend much more gold/xp unlocking the right equipment.

Sure it can be balanced, but the perception will always be there.
That’s important. While people can purchase guns there will always be the perception that they are ‘better’ from people who don’t have access to them (even if they genuinely are sidegrades).

I think comparisons with Valve are a little unrealistic. They can afford to take risks with their IP in the knowledge that even if an idea fails it will still drive people to their retail channel (particularly with a game like TF2 that’s already made its money and had an existing player base).

(SockDog) #8

My point was more can you have both a single purchase retail version and F2P version coexist in the same game without adversely impacting either group? I would hope so because I find the F2P grind and Pay2Play grind skipping a big turn off.

Re: Valve
I’m not sure why people always write off Valve’s influence like they were born with a silver spoon in their mouths. They got where they are today through taking risks, being innovative and looking at the market as more than a herd of cows to be milked. Saying well they can afford to is plain wrong, Activison can also afford to but they don’t. I’m talking about adopting an attitude and vision that is longer term and seeing what works for Valve doesn’t mean you necessarily need Valves money to do it.

(Humate) #9

Sure you can have both, but at the cost of players rage quitting at the belief that players xy and z won the game due to their unlocks.

(tangoliber) #10

I feel like a one year content subscription is more reasonable, if they absolutely have to go this route. If they sell lifetime subscriptions, then that might restrict them in how much they expand the game. If most of their audience owns a lifetime subscription, then they have less motive to continue to put money into development for the game, because they have already earned most of their money.

Tribes does it fine, in my opinion…and same with the MOBAs, I guess. All that is important to me is that the game is as good as it can be.

They don’t need to offer 60 dollar lifetime subscriptions…all they need to do is be fair and reasonable in their business model. I don’t think Valve has lifetime subscriptions for TF2 or Dota2…they are just fair about their business practices. Don’t overprice stuff… don’t flood the players with low quality content just so that the OCD completionists spend hundreds of dollars for no reason. Don’t sell upgrades…only sidegrades, or situational downgrades.
Someone who plays regularly (1-2 hours a day) should be able to own everything with a combination of XP and 30-50 dollars a year of purchases. If the game is supported for 4 years, then they might have spent 120-200 dollars, which reasonable for a game which you play that much, and for the amount of quality content you would probably have after 4 years.

(tangoliber) #11

[QUOTE=Humate;402272]From a competitive standpoint, it works the same way as paid dlc - it doesnt get played competitively.
New maps, New abilities, New classes; all that stuff is thrown out for playing on equal terms.
And to take it a step further, anything that is deemed unfair in the actual vanilla game itself gets banned or modified.[/QUOTE]

They play with non-vanilla weapons in Tribes: Ascend competition (and ban some), and they play with non-vanilla characters in LoL. Competitive players will usually have had enough time in the game practicing that they will have unlocked everything they need.

(Humate) #12

Yeh and in SC2 they play everything as intended. Blizzard has complete control of the way tournaments are played.
Different games require different levels of control, but for the most part thats how competitive games work - particularly FPS. Battlefield for example always release DLC, most comps never touch those maps. I do believe there is an unlockall command that lets people access weapons they havent unlocked, but thats not much good in a free2play :wink:

(SockDog) #13

I’m not sure it restricts them. After a period of time the cost of development is covered, from there every sale is profit less the cost of additional content. Looking at the spike Brink had during sales and what Valve has always said about sales putting up frequent content updates and discounts on prices could be a very viable plan.

Of course it may not be THE most profitable plan but then, you need to decide if you want to be a Valve or an Activision.

There is no right answer here though. I’m just saying I find a game that institutes grind to drive unlocks and then offers a way round it with money should also consider an option to avoid it all with an upfront payment (ie allow someone to buy the full game). If all these methods can co-exist then even better as nobody loses out.

Tribes does it fine, in my opinion…and same with the MOBAs, I guess. All that is important to me is that the game is as good as it can be.

Well yes, the game needs to be good but I look at Tribes or World of Tanks and think they like good fun, I start playing and then I’m cock blocked here and there. Oh I need to play 50 games to get this weapon or class. That removes a lot of the fun for me, I’m left asking WTF the develop thinks it’s good to spoil my fun and frequently decide I’ll just play something else instead.