Free-to-play ames communicate more where the gravy train stops than the idea it's even rolling.But I don't think, deep down, that these two things are what really bother hardcore gamers about free-to-play conversions. The following is not an original thought; it was said to me by the head of EA Sports, who said he heard it at a talk given by Russell Simmons, the founder of the Def Jam hip-hop label. And Simmons probably heard it from somewhere else. But in answering how to keep customers happy, he said human beings have an inherent need to steal. Deep down, customer satisfaction is rooted in the sense you are either getting something for nothing, something extra, or at least you're getting the better end of a bargain. It depends on a zero-sum system: I'm gaining or taking something, someone else is losing or giving it up. When a game goes free-to-play, even if there's a premium tier with extra features, the owner is declaring there is now nothing that can be stolen. And even if something is being offered for free, everyone can have it, making it less desirable. This truth of human nature is why people joke about leaving junked furniture on the curb with a sign on it saying "$20" to con someone into taking it away. What free-to-play systems do, I think—and this is why they're scorned or mistrusted—is invert the original value proposition. In a paid MMO, everyone puts down their money and their subscription for the entire experience, which developers are reasonably obligated to refresh with extras that are "free" or at least feel that way. New raids, new classes, new powers and abilities, raised level caps, whatever. Free-to-play, in which there's a tightly defined basic, free experience, and everything after that costs money, communicates more where the gravy train stops than the idea it's even rolling. There are other reasons a free-to-play shift invites skepticism, even outright scorn, especially when a monolithic force like Electronic Arts chooses to do it. It suggests that the game will make money by selling parts of its experience instead of the entire thing, and if a publisher is willing to gimp its product in that way, what might it hold back from the paying installation base? It also implies paying customers, and their investments of money and time (both of which materially improve an online game) matter less to the game's makers than someone dragged in off the street to create a growth figure the beancounters prize so much. Video gamers, for all of their futurecasting and forward thinking, still show some previous-generation attitudes when judging a title's legitimacy and success, starting with the idea that anything worth playing has a price tag attached to it. (Otherwise, come on, who the hell is going to pirate a free game?) If you play any game principally built on a multiplayer population, you should just accept the idea that at some point, the initial experience you're paying money for on launch day is going to be given away later—and factor that into your purchase decision. If Team Fortress 2 or Super Monday Night Combat can go free-to-play, it means anything with a very large multiplayer component could end up that way some day, from Call of Duty to Madden. A clubhouse culture of exclusion in hardcore video gaming isn't going to stop it. Free-to-play will soon be a dominant format in PC video gaming, like it or not.
Nah, more like F2P games feel watered down. Even if games go F2P with premium services though, if it's good I'll dip some bucks out of my wallet. But for the moment, there aren't too many genres I'm into playing that could benefit off this system. I can see it happen to maybe FPS games, MMOs and stuff though.
Yeah BF did it quite well imo, the only F2P game that made be spend real money was Kart Rider (Best F2P game ever, but facebook version is lame) and that other game where you shoot projectiles at each other, cant remember what its called but I'm 90% sure you have played it. True.. maybe. They should just leave the pay side for costumes or special looking stuff imo.
