Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

thezvi.wordpress.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 51 posts

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#21

Post by xurias »

xbkingx wrote: post #18
Konnstann wrote: post #4

Path of Exile, which is mentioned in the article, stands out as one of the only, and from my viewpoint the best way to do free-to-play. The only things that affect gameplay are specific stash tabs which offer additional storage, with the rest of the microtransactions being cosmetics. Even the lootboxes are time-exclusive, with all of the items moving to the store individually a few months after the box comes out. Peo…

I have ~80 hours in PoE and started because it looked fun and the microtransaction system seemed reasonable. I stopped because it's pretty clear that what their system lacks in straight gambling mechanics, it more than makes up for in sly psychological tricks. PoE's "micro"transaction system is much closer to a paid mod or DLC model. Yes, they're mostly cosmetic and QoL items for sale, but they certainly don't feel o…

> store bought armor at level 2 looks infinitely better than anything you can actually earn through skill or play time

You touch on the two things that make me hate free to play games. It seeps into the design philosophy in a way that makes the experience worse for everybody because they need to incentivize buying stuff. A lot of people like playing dress-up, but there's no way to do that in PoE without paying crazy amounts of money.

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#22

Post by xurias »

pochamago wrote: post #12

I'm not wholly convinced that it's actually a problem. Collectible card games pretty consistently beat out living card games in popularity. Needing to grind, collect, and sometimes pay more for the things you want increases your investment in the game. I hear a lot of criticism about how these things exploit our natural desires, but isn't that sort of the point of games in general? Isn't creating an addictively fun g…

> Isn't creating an addictively fun game the goal?

If you're making a GaaS, sure. I played Edith Finch twice and had infinitely more joy and fulfillment from those two playthroughs than I did playing any f2p game. I don't see how trying to make the game addictive would've made it any more enjoyable.

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#23

Post by hoseja »

pmtpmt wrote: post #20
Svenskunganka wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How about Dota 2? There's nothing you can buy that can affect gameplay. Steam Workshop is used by community artists to submit their cosmetics, which gets voted into the game by the players. Steam Marketplace where players can buy, sell and trade their cosmetics. 25% of all Battle Pass[0] spending goes directly towards the prize pool of the yearly The International[1] esports tournament, with this year's tournament bo…

if anything its basicallay pay to lose as some of the purchaseable interactive items are distracting to the user like those balloons and treasures

I'd counter that some cosmetics that modify skill graphics effects to precisely show their AoE are a little pay to win.

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#24

Post by wizzairflyer »

wormslayer666 wrote: post #15
Konnstann wrote: post #4

Path of Exile, which is mentioned in the article, stands out as one of the only, and from my viewpoint the best way to do free-to-play. The only things that affect gameplay are specific stash tabs which offer additional storage, with the rest of the microtransactions being cosmetics. Even the lootboxes are time-exclusive, with all of the items moving to the store individually a few months after the box comes out. Peo…

If you approach it as a casual single-player game, it is certainly a wholesome free-to-play model. For everyone else, microtransaction tabs are 100% mandatory to progress without spending inordinate amounts of time managing scarce inventory space. Since 2.4, many of the 3-month content updates (which are always either good content or at least good-faith mistakes) have introduced mechanics which effectively require mo…

I see your point but I don't really see this as a problem.

If you're going to play this game for a significant amount of time, I think it is only fair that you pay it. The question is then if it's worth $70, which I would guess it is.

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#25

Post by Fnoord »

Konnstann wrote: post #4

Path of Exile, which is mentioned in the article, stands out as one of the only, and from my viewpoint the best way to do free-to-play. The only things that affect gameplay are specific stash tabs which offer additional storage, with the rest of the microtransactions being cosmetics. Even the lootboxes are time-exclusive, with all of the items moving to the store individually a few months after the box comes out. Peo…

There is no good way to do F2P. Developers need to be paid, and it makes sense for someone to buy a game. F2P is trying to get people hooked, and then extract money from them somehow. Because the developers need to be paid.

What can be fair is a shop where you can buy cosmetic items. For me, Guild Wars 2 seems like a fair way to do it. The latest content costs money. Cosmetic items do nothing, but cost money. A few convenience items here and there, but no P2W.

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#26

Post by Ntrails »

hoseja wrote: post #23
pmtpmt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if anything its basicallay pay to lose as some of the purchaseable interactive items are distracting to the user like those balloons and treasures

I'd counter that some cosmetics that modify skill graphics effects to precisely show their AoE are a little pay to win.

That Mirana arrow is definitely pay to lose xD

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#27

Post by Darkstack »

hoseja wrote: post #23
pmtpmt wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

if anything its basicallay pay to lose as some of the purchaseable interactive items are distracting to the user like those balloons and treasures

I'd counter that some cosmetics that modify skill graphics effects to precisely show their AoE are a little pay to win.

Are you talking about the cosmetic for the Lina second spell ? Doesn't the cursor show the Stun range when you're about to cast it ? (the only broken cosmetic is the one that make Nyx Assassin look like Sand King)

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#28

Post by baud147258 »

cavanasm wrote: post #5
Konnstann wrote: post #4

Path of Exile, which is mentioned in the article, stands out as one of the only, and from my viewpoint the best way to do free-to-play. The only things that affect gameplay are specific stash tabs which offer additional storage, with the rest of the microtransactions being cosmetics. Even the lootboxes are time-exclusive, with all of the items moving to the store individually a few months after the box comes out. Peo…

I'd similarly call out Warframe for this. No required buy ins, but their premium currency can be used for inventory expansion, crafting instant completion (although you can simultaneously craft as much as you want), or trading with other players. Meanwhile they continually improve the game. The trading component also means people with time but not money can still get premium currency just by trading valued loot.

> although you can simultaneously craft as much as you want

Weird, I played ~70 hours earlier this year and I couldn't craft more than one item at once.

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#29

Post by TeMPOraL »

tempestn wrote: post #13

This is a good article, and I very much agree that the second trade-off is the really dangerous one. I play Clash Royale, and I enjoy the game, but it does strongly exhibit these qualities, I definitely notice that ladder play is consistently irritating, because (being a decent player) I'm always stacked up against players with higher level cards at the same ladder level as me. So, most of the games I lose are agains…

Back in my high school days myself and a few of my classmates used to play OGame - a poor man's 4X space MMO in a browser, or more accurately, a glorified rock-paper-scissors with a ton of timers (previously we also played AstroWars, which was the same, but simpler - the HN vs Reddit UX way of simpler).

Since construction, research and fleet navigation were all "click, wait 30 minutes to couple hours for completion", every break we'd rush down to the computer room to log in and manage our space empires. We were also playing during computer lessons, and of course at home. The game was extremely addictive but also grindy; it was fun primarily because we could talk about it together and compete against each other.

Now to my point. That was all before the iPhone, and it was already significantly affecting our school and after-school life[0]. I can imagine how much worse it would have been if we had Internet-connected smartphones with OGame on it, and if the game would send us push notifications about finished timers. This is, however, the reality today's high schoolers find themselves in. I wonder how disruptive timer-based games are to their education.

--

[0] - At that time, we though it cool that our friend from one class up had once stayed up to 02:00 AM just to log in to AstroWars and send his fleet somewhere. Subsequently, many of our nights were disrupted by very late or very early actions in AW/OG.

Re: Free-to-Play Games: Three Key Trade-Offs

#30

Post by TeMPOraL »

musicale wrote: post #7

I'm trying to figure out what the (presumably bad/unpleasant) f2p game trade-offs described in the article actually are; I think they are: 1. Fun vs. money (you can pay less money, but then the game is less fun) 2. Game success vs. wasted real life focus/time and constant worry/interruptions (if you don't constantly babysit the game and grind daily tasks then the game punishes you harshly) 3. Spending time/money on o…

I think 3 really boils down to the same thing as 1 - it's a fun vs. money trade-off. Going the wrong path due to inexperience and having to grind your way back is just not fun.

2 is what worries me most, primarily because constant interruptions and distractions are disastrous to player's mental faculties, which are usually needed elsewhere (school, job, relationships, etc.).

Post reply on HN