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

[J T]

In theory, I should love F2P games. They provide well produced games with a low barrier to entry. I do love free games, even ones that aren't as graphically polished. I just feel weird about the F2P world of games though. I'm always waiting to figure out "what's the catch" and I don't want to get invested in a game only to find out I'll need to pay for later. I feel like their business models require that they restrict content in order to encourage spending, but those restrictions discourage entertaining gameplay. Admittedly though, I haven't given many F2P games a chance, so if you have something you think I should try, feel free to recommend it. I just find that I'm always second guessing the game's intentions because I don't trust the developers and then I'm not having much fun.

[sabrage]

I played LoL's carrot-on-a-stick for about a year, but I just got sick of it. If I want to grind, I at least want to know there'll be an end to it.

[god]

I didn't know what 'grinding' meant so I wiki'd it. And I don't like it.

[GSZX1337]

I didn't know what 'grinding' meant so I wiki'd it. And I don't like it.

[Pulsar_t]

Points for not 'googling' it

[Zing]

There is some interesting reading over at Soren Johnson's blog (http://www.designer-notes.com). He is best known for writing the AI in Civilization IV and is currently working on the free-to-play game Dragon Age Legends. He has quite a few posts related the to F2P model. Here is a paragraph from the latest one:

In single-purchase games, designers would rarely build a game mechanic that intentionally tests the player’s patience; in fact, that is a hallmark of bad game design. Thus, free-to-play games upend many of the assumptions that designers bring to the table from traditional single-purchase design. Indeed, this break is creating a great deal of anxiety within the game design community as many developers feel that their original motive for making games – to bring players as much fun as possible – is now in danger.

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

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

[MrPopo]

I played LoL's carrot-on-a-stick for about a year, but I just got sick of it. If I want to grind, I at least want to know there'll be an end to it.

I'm not sure what the carrot or the stick is in LoL. You just get to play, and if you want to play specific champions then you either pay real money or grind the IP. You certainly don't need all the champions, or even the majority of them.

JT, I'd recommend LoL (League of Legends). It's a DotA clone that cleans up a lot of the obtuse mechanics and is overall quite accessable. The way its F2P model works is that every week there are 10 champions who are available to play that week. If you want to play another champion you either have to shell out money or use the in-game currency you earn from playing. They release a new champion roughly every 2 weeks, though all champions fit into predefined roles, such as tank, support, mage, etc. Champions have alternate skins which can only be purchased with money. In addition to your champion selection, you can customize your play through the in-game skill tree and rune pages. The skill tree is a series of minor buffs that are focused on increasing offense, defense, or utility. The rune page lets you pick very specific buffs (one per rune) so you can either enhance your strengths or shore up your weaknesses. Runes can only be purchased using the in-game currency (the devs have stated they don't want to sell power).

[AmishSamurai]

I played LoL's carrot-on-a-stick for about a year, but I just got sick of it. If I want to grind, I at least want to know there'll be an end to it.

I'm not sure what the carrot or the stick is in LoL. You just get to play, and if you want to play specific champions then you either pay real money or grind the IP. You certainly don't need all the champions, or even the majority of them.

JT, I'd recommend LoL (League of Legends). It's a DotA clone that cleans up a lot of the obtuse mechanics and is overall quite accessable. The way its F2P model works is that every week there are 10 champions who are available to play that week. If you want to play another champion you either have to shell out money or use the in-game currency you earn from playing. They release a new champion roughly every 2 weeks, though all champions fit into predefined roles, such as tank, support, mage, etc. Champions have alternate skins which can only be purchased with money. In addition to your champion selection, you can customize your play through the in-game skill tree and rune pages. The skill tree is a series of minor buffs that are focused on increasing offense, defense, or utility. The rune page lets you pick very specific buffs (one per rune) so you can either enhance your strengths or shore up your weaknesses. Runes can only be purchased using the in-game currency (the devs have stated they don't want to sell power).

I'd second League for just the same reasons. The only thing you can only buy with real money are skins, which don't affect gameplay at all, and IP/XP boosts, which aren't mandatory at all. You get in-game points by winning or losing (You get more for winning faster or for holding out longer if you lose), and can buy runes or permanently unlock champions. I don't see any carrot-and-stick going on, unless sabrage is the kind who keeps dropping RP every time a new champion comes out.

[emwearz]

Free 2 Play too often feels like Pay 2 Win, with items doing more damage, higher levels for characters, better guns, etc going to people who pay.

[J T]

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.