racketboy.com • View topic - F2P, or "I can't love you if I don't trust you"

AmishSamurai · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 4:50 pm

J T wrote:

Zing wrote:

He then given concrete examples of how this fear is valid.

http://www.designer-notes.com/?p=372.

This was a great read. Thanks for the link Zing. I can't believe that Activision thinks that StarCraft II didn't provide enough payoff when compared to games with microtransactions/subscriptions. That's kind of scary for those of us that prefer to buy the complete game and not have to buy a bunch of pieces along the way.

Also, I'm going to download League of Legends now. I've seen enough positive comments about it from you guys and elsewhere that I feel I should at least give it a shot. I won't be buying anything though unless I really like it and feel like giving back to the game makers. If I feel like I'm buying back my own free-time from the game though, screw that. The game is already taking my free-time. I'm not going to pay a game to stop wasting my freetime when I could just stop playing it to have it stop wasting my free-time.

Here's some advice- do the tutorial match, especially if you're unfamiliar with MOBA type games. Yes, it's condescending at times, but it can be helpful. Also, free rotation changes every Tuesday, and they show who's available the day before. They usually cater the free rotation to new players, with a few more difficult champions. I'd start with either a ranged or tanky champion, to increase your survivability. There's a few champions who are listed as "recommended"- at least two or three are free every week. Overall League doesn't have a learning curve as much as a learning cliff, though it's not as hard to jump into as DotA.

My summoner ID is Soliasildo. I'll play a game with you later if you send an invite.

sabrage · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:04 pm

When certain champions are clearly overpowered (Tryndamere two months ago, for example) it is absolutely necessary to buy them, either to counter-pick or to actually play them. If you don't care about high-level play i guess you can play practice games, but then nobody else cares either.

I'd recommend you stay away from LoL due to the extremely high concentration of assholes, but that's a different matter entirely.

MrPopo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:42 pm

sabrage wrote:

When certain champions are clearly overpowered (Tryndamere two months ago, for example)

Lawl. Tryn hasn't been OP in over a year.

Quote:

it is absolutely necessary to buy them, either to counter-pick or to actually play them. If you don't care about high-level play i guess you can play practice games, but then nobody else cares either.

Or ban them, which means you don't need them.

Quote:

I'd recommend you stay away from online games due to the extremely high concentration of assholes, but that's a different matter entirely.

Fixed that for you.

sabrage · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:47 pm

MrPopo wrote:

sabrage wrote:

I'd recommend you stay away from online games due to the extremely high concentration of assholes, but that's a different matter entirely.

Fixed that for you.

Clearly you don't play Arma, Mount and Blade, Sword of the Stars, or any other game that doesn't have a 90% concentration of players under age 16.

I'm just ignoring the clearly untrue part of your post.

irixith · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:54 pm

J T wrote:

I can't believe that Activision thinks that StarCraft II didn't provide enough payoff when compared to games with microtransactions/subscriptions. That's kind of scary for those of us that prefer to buy the complete game and not have to buy a bunch of pieces along the way.

I can believe it, and the article lays it out very well. It's a one-time payoff, yet continuous development is being poured into it with no monetary return. (One might argue that that's a pretty poor business model..but on the flip side, the kind of gamer investing in StarCraft II expects constant balancing and whatnot.) With the F2P model, the income stream is continuous and warrants the ongoing development for as long as the game can pull in money.

Gaming is forever changing, whether we like it or not. There is increasingly no "complete experience", because not only is that not where the money is, it's not what makes sense any more in terms of expectation either. Our demands as the type of consumers we are don't really matter any more. People have bought into the F2P/microtransaction model. If people weren't tossing oodles of time and money into those experiences, they wouldn't be emerging as the market leader the way they are now.

MrPopo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 6:59 pm

sabrage wrote:

MrPopo wrote:

sabrage wrote:

I'd recommend you stay away from online games due to the extremely high concentration of assholes, but that's a different matter entirely.

Fixed that for you.

Clearly you don't play Arma, Mount and Blade, Sword of the Stars, or any other game that doesn't have a 90% concentration of players under age 16.

It's not a function of age. The internet brings out everyone's inner asshole. And every game is rife with it. If you don't see it then it probably means you're on the same level of asshole as them.

Quote:

I'm just ignoring the clearly untrue part of your post.

Which part? The part where I'm right because Tryn is only OP in low level play, or the part where banning exists and is a good way of dealing with people your team isn't picking?

J T · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:15 pm

irixith wrote:

I can believe it, and the article lays it out very well. It's a one-time payoff, yet continuous development is being poured into it with no monetary return. (One might argue that that's a pretty poor business model..but on the flip side, the kind of gamer investing in StarCraft II expects constant balancing and whatnot.) With the F2P model, the income stream is continuous and warrants the ongoing development for as long as the game can pull in money.

Gaming is forever changing, whether we like it or not. There is increasingly no "complete experience", because not only is that not where the money is, it's not what makes sense any more in terms of expectation either. Our demands as the type of consumers we are don't really matter any more. People have bought into the F2P/microtransaction model. If people weren't tossing oodles of time and money into those experiences, they wouldn't be emerging as the market leader the way they are now.

That may be, but this is StarCraft II! The game sold 1.5 million copies in the first 48 hours of its release. It is the fastest selling realtime strategy game of ALL TIME. Surely, by most metrics, StarCraft II is still a huge success. I get the business logic Activision is using, I just find it incredibly sad that one of the top selling (and well crafted) games of our time is not even considered a success under the new business model that finds that trickling out content through a pay-as-you-go system is so much better for making money.

It's also sad that while game designers may strive to become the next Will Wright, Shigeru Miaymoto, John Carmack, Hideo Kojima, or Warren Spector, all of those dreams won't matter much in the new market if they can't help their corporate leaders become the next Zynga.

sabrage · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:33 pm

MrPopo wrote:

Which part? The part where I'm right because Tryn is only OP in low level play

Funny, that's the first time you've ever said that. Tryndamere is easily countered, sure, but if he wasn't countered and he was played by anyone with basic motor function then he could easily steamroll teams. If that's not overpowered... Oh wait he got nerfed to shit, so clearly it was.

MrPopo · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:48 pm

sabrage wrote:

MrPopo wrote:

Which part? The part where I'm right because Tryn is only OP in low level play

Funny, that's the first time you've ever said that. Tryndamere is easily countered, sure, but if he wasn't countered and he was played by anyone with basic motor function then he could easily steamroll teams. If that's not overpowered... Oh wait he got nerfed to shit, so clearly it was.

Wait a second, so if you don't deal with someone they kill you? How completely unintuitive.

sabrage · **Posted:** Sun Feb 12, 2012 7:50 pm

There were 3-4 characters out of a roster of 70+ that could deal with him. The communities of ArmA, Paradox games et al. are far more accommodating and friendly than LoL. There's really no room for argument here, those are facts.

F2P, or "I can't love you if I don't trust you"

Who is online