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

31–40 of 51 posts

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

#31

Post by TeMPOraL »

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?

Addictively fun, yes. That is, the addiction is supposed to come from the fun you're having. Contrast that with the games criticized in the article - they have some fun aspects as a cover, but they're optimized for pure addictiveness through psychological trickery - which, as the article notes, often involves making them less fun.

The difference in the relationship between the two types of games and the player can be compared to a difference between wanting to be with someone because you love their personality and enjoy being together, vs. wanting to be with them because they're your heroin dealer.

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

#32

Post by de_watcher »

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.

They show their AoE area to the enemies, so more like pay to lose. But you use them anyway because the effects are shiny.

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

#33

Post by de_watcher »

Ntrails wrote: post #26
hoseja wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Also Wind Ranger, Spectre, Disruptor, Pugna, Elder Titan, Medusa, Nature's Prophet, IO...

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

#34

Post by tempestn »

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…

Comment acknowledging that I typo'ed a comma in place of a period above, and sadly can no longer fix it.

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

#35

Post by Insanity »

Fnoord wrote: post #25
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 c…

GW2 became F2P? They weren't F2P when I got it at release IIRC. Since GW1 the approach was to sell extra expansions which seems to have worked for them.

I should run GW1 again, wonder if someone is still on there :P

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

#36

Post by Fnoord »

Insanity wrote: post #35
Fnoord wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

GW2 became F2P? They weren't F2P when I got it at release IIRC. Since GW1 the approach was to sell extra expansions which seems to have worked for them. I should run GW1 again, wonder if someone is still on there :P

GW2 base is F2P. At release, it was paid. So they changed model. However, the latest expansion and the additional content (living story content; sortof like a DLC) costs money. If you look at it from that PoV then it remained the same as GW1 (as during release, the complete game was the latest content).

Which, I believe, is fair enough. I'd prefer they not have convenience items up for sale, but compared to a WoW sub (which also makes you feel guilty when you don't use it) it feels fair and less stressful.

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

#37

Post by Insanity »

Fnoord wrote: post #36
Insanity wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GW2 became F2P? They weren't F2P when I got it at release IIRC. Since GW1 the approach was to sell extra expansions which seems to have worked for them. I should run GW1 again, wonder if someone is still on there :P

GW2 base is F2P. At release, it was paid. So they changed model. However, the latest expansion and the additional content (living story content; sortof like a DLC) costs money. If you look at it from that PoV then it remained the same as GW1 (as during release, the complete game was the latest content). Which, I believe, is fair enough. I'd prefer they not have convenience items up for sale, but compared to a WoW sub…

Yeah I always disliked the WoW model. It's quite amazing that they still make money this way. I played WoW during a time of really casual playing, at some point I would only play during weekends. As you mentioned, you just start feeling guilty for paying something you hardly use. So I quit entirely and played a lot more GW1.

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

#38

Post by pingyong »

wizzairflyer wrote: post #24
wormslayer666 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The only problem I see is that usually if you buy a game for $70 it doesn't have (seemingly intentionally) all the gear designed in a way that looks extremely bland to get you to spend another $70+ in skins.

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

#39

Post by KaoruAoiShiho »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #31
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? Addictively fun , yes. That is, the addiction is supposed to come from the fun you're having. Contrast that with the games criticized in the article - they have some fun aspects as a cover, but they're optimized for pure addictiveness through psychological trickery - which, as the article notes, often involves making them less fun. The difference in the relationship…

It's hard to argue with the results. If it was less fun then fewer people would be playing them.

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

#40

Post by Konnstann »

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 survived with a $20 premium stash bundle for most of my over a thousand hours in the game, and there have been leagues where the first player to reach max level has done it with just the basic storage. I can agree that they've added a lot of stackable items, and the 4 tabs may not be enough for serious players, but at that point $20 gets you most, if not all, the way to being fine.
Post reply on HN