Free to play business models

[IseeThings]

(Mod edit: discussion split from Don★Paccin thread)

Petition for an English version?

I would, but I have a feeling it might happen even without any petition, seeing how succesful it has been in japan..

It's been downloaded a fair bit, but the measure with these FTP games (which I'm assuming this is?) is the conversion rate, how many people are actually paying for the features..

If the game is too good without paying, nobody pays, and the game is a failure. If you just play the game and don't pay for any features you may as well be a pirate as far as the developers are concerned (and I've heard at least one state that)

of course one of the real benefits is it raises the profile of the company / game / series even if only 10% of people pay in the end, but Cave never seemed to recognize that with emulation which isn't much different (play the arcade versions for free, pay for the ports, get bonus content, exclusive modes.. hd etc.)

[Dave_K.]

If you just play the game and don't pay for any features you may as well be a pirate as far as the developers are concerned (and I've heard at least one state that)

This is as absurd as saying if you don't pay for shareware, then you are a pirate.

Now I'm not a fan of the FTP business model, and I'm sure a lot of other devs are in the same boat, but hating on it with comments like this is absurd.

[IseeThings]

well, just saying, that's the general views of the companies offering this stuff..

if nobody actually buys it (low conversion rate) it is a failure, even if millions of people downloaded it. they'll feel they offered too much of the game for free / too little incentive to pay, or that people are manipulating their 'good will' by waiting out the charge periods repeatedly rather than buying it.. they basically hate you, you've given then nothing and at the end of the day it's your money they want.

[Dave_K.]

I'm not in disagreement over how FTP models fail. But calling out "good will" or "too much of a good thing" as reasons for failure IMHO illustrates their lack of understanding on how to instrument, convert, and monetize.

[trap15]

I think you're saying the same thing. It's never the players' fault, it's the development's fault for not making more money.

[Pteriforever]

It's not my favourite business model, but I guess if it works there's no problem.

Most games I'm interested in tend to avoid them anyway.

[Xyga]

FTP = best thing since AIDS

First; I've always hated the idea of receiving only a part of anything no matter if it's free or not.
"Here sir. Enjoy your half meal/movie/game/present/bj..."

Second; let's be honest FTP is a means to have people spend much more money in the end than they would have simply buying a complete game at the store.

Third; who the f* dared use the word 'FREE'. At least this should have been 'FREE TO PAY... a hell lot of money'.
Do all companies think customers are just a huge mass of spam-clicking-level idiots ?

This even further irritates me about the concept and when I see people spend hundreds on Candy Crush or even just one buck on Gran Turismo for a f* car, I feel the urge to kill.

No seriously this 'business model' has always been that of porn and scam websites, now is this meant to be the future of video games ?
I have never and will never ever spend a dime on such crap, I'd rather pay my games 100 or 150 right off for a full, complete, finished and physical product.

[Kaiser]

Sounds like we've got a heated F2P model hater that could be misunderstood for a troll. Sure there are LOTS of "bad" F2P games but then there's ones that bloody play fine without paying and you can reach endgame content with no payment barriers, look up Path of Exile or Team Fortress 2 or EVEN something as random as Star Trek Online

[Xyga]

No troll I'm a genuine reactionary hater.
A few years back just mentioning DLC was enough to make me burst into rage.
FTP is going much too far, the whole idea goes against the core beliefs of my personal gaming religion.

[trap15]

that bloody play fine without paying and you can reach endgame content with no payment barriers

Then they've failed. If they make no money from you playing it, then they have failed at some point during the production process.

[Kaiser]

that bloody play fine without paying and you can reach endgame content with no payment barriers

Then they've failed. If they make no money from you playing it, then they have failed at some point during the production process.

Or that the game's SO LOW budget they can succeed with only 2% of players donating by buying microtransactions.

But not gonna argue, it is a fail for anything with a moderate and above budget when nobody pays. And it's showing signs already in early life.

[Rozyrg]

I only rage against DLC when it's obvious that stuff got cut specifically to be sold back to you later. In a lot of cases, though, it's very hard to find a 'smoking gun' - especially huge modern games that might use separate or overlapping budgets for producing chunks of content. Then again, it all comes down to whether you trust the dev in question enough to willingly accept their (likely PR-laced) justifications. The potential fishiness of it all is very a good reason for devs to be totally transparent on the issue and many haven't been, obviously.

Similarly with F2P and piecemeal/shareware style setups, I think you should be very, very clear and honest about what exactly your model is and when you're going to be shaking that IAP begging cup in the player's face. Personally, I always steer clear of anything that doesn't let you buy a game as a whole or at least clearly defines how each piece you buy will add up to that whole.

That said, the recent behavior of companies like Rovio does make me wonder if the mobile F2P model (at least for the big fishes in that market) isn't headed straight off a cliff....riding a disgustingly overpriced, pastel colored, polygonal go-kart.

[BryanM]

Then they've failed. If they make no money from you playing it, then they have failed at some point during the production process.

This isn't really true. It's an inversion of the subscription model; where there masses pay for the welfare of hardcore raiders, instead the cost of the game is carried by the wealthy and hardcore. It's very communist.

In a talk at a Korean conference years ago, a company talked about lessons learned and the biggest mistake possible is segregation of the playerbase, stuff like charging for a zone; which I found hilarious since it's so obvious and beloved Hellgate:London went all-in with that kind of "back of the bus" segregation.