While free to play can be a good move, I'm not sure going that way exclusively is the smartest move.
I am confused, are these MMO's? Or are they giving just free games?
[QUOTE=Jedi_Rayne;36247830]While free to play can be a good move, I'm not sure going that way exclusively is the smartest move.[/QUOTE]
Perfect World International was considering making an offer to buy EA
It can make loads of money
[QUOTE=ThePinkPanzer;36247840]I am confused, are these MMO's? Or are they giving just free games?[/QUOTE]
Lobby based FPS.
Given EA's definition of Free to Play I'm frightened
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;36247931]Given EA's definition of Free to Play I'm frightened[/QUOTE]
Free to play, pay to move your character.
Valve's got a fantastic model in TF2 IMO, you can play the game just as well as anyone else without paying a single cent
plus, if you pay the absolute minimum of $5, you can get every single obtainable cosmetic item through in-game means
I would rather pay for the game once initially than have to shell out every time there is an update
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;36247931]Given EA's definition of Free to Play I'm frightened[/QUOTE]
All of EA's attempts at F2P so far have been pretty horrible, and yet they're still making loadsa dosh from it. Expect the worst.
[quote]"I think this is a new breed of games that has to happen to change the landscape, and be the most user-friendly business model,"[/quote]
well gee it's probably more "user friendly" because the game itself serves as a demo and you won't have to bitch about your game being pirated for not having one
Do we seriously need another lobby based f2p shooter on the market?
The majority of them are seriously mediocre.
This can either work really well or completely bomb out.
They'll have to work on optimization and down the graphics a bit, most people who play F2P games don't have top of the line computers.
I would assume most f2p players are 13 year olds running on a "gaming rig" bought from their local electronics store :v:
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;36247931]Given EA's definition of Free to Play I'm frightened[/QUOTE]
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR6-u8OIJTE&feature=youtu.be[/media]
too bad, Crytek had potential
[QUOTE=The golden;36248843]Not while they keep going to EA to publish their games.[/QUOTE]
EA is one of the few publishers who have the resources to fund and support such extravagently developed games like the ones Crytek prefer to make. They could probably get similar results from Activision but people bitch about them just as much.
[QUOTE=RichyZ;36248907]crytek is publishing warface on their own so[/QUOTE]
Then I'll be impressed if it manages to do well financially.
What game is that pictured in the article?
[QUOTE=MightyMax;36250351]What game is that pictured in the article?[/QUOTE]
I believe it is Warface.
Ohh wow, released in nov 30 1999? Dammn, Best graphic game in the 90's ever..
NO!
F2P is very profitable if you can pull it off. If there's so many F2P games, there must be a demand for them right?
F2P is good for business because:
1) Since the game is free you will have more players, thus getting even more. No one wants to buy a game with no players to play with.
2) People like to feel powerful, giving virtual power for money is a very profitable technique. There are people who pay for cheats, so what's better than selling legal cheats?
3) Because of the point above, making sellable items is easy. Just make an item that boosts something, people like boosts.
4) F2P games usually live longer with more content updates and stuff.
F2P or DLC ridden, what's the difference. At least for an f2p game I don't have to pay. If you still haven't noticed, micro transactions/dlc are becoming awfully popular. Probably because they're very profitable and easy to make. And most importantly, there's a damn lot of people who buy them.
And it does eliminate the problem of piracy.
[QUOTE=AceOfDivine;36251405]F2P is very profitable if you can pull it off. If there's so many F2P games, there must be a demand for them right?
F2P is good for business because:
1) Since the game is free you will have more players, thus getting even more. No one wants to buy a game with no players to play with.
2) People like to feel powerful, [b]giving virtual power for money is a very profitable technique. There are people who pay for cheats, so what's better than selling legal cheats?[/b]
3) Because of the point above, making sellable items is easy. Just make an item that boosts something, people like boosts.
4) F2P games usually live longer with more content updates and stuff.
F2P or DLC ridden, what's the difference. At least for an f2p game I don't have to pay. If you still haven't noticed, micro transactions/dlc are becoming awfully popular. Probably because they're very profitable and easy to make. And most importantly, there's a damn lot of people who buy them.
And it does eliminate the problem of piracy.[/QUOTE]
At first when I saw your post I thought you would make some good points
Oh well
[QUOTE=C0linSSX;36247987]Valve's got a fantastic model in TF2 IMO, you can play the game just as well as anyone else without paying a single cent
plus, if you pay the absolute minimum of $5, you can get every single obtainable cosmetic item through in-game means[/QUOTE]
Valve has by far the best F2P model. It's the only F2P model I like.
I even hate League of Legends' because of the limitation of rune pages and champs that are necessary in a competitive game like LoL unless you spend shitload of money.
I think it's good that someone tries it out. I don't think it will bode well for them, but you never know. Good to see someone having the balls to try it out.
It is so dumb for a company to make a blind leap of faith, without any backup plans. What's so wrong with just developing an experimental F2P and see if it actually is a viable business strategy before throwing the rest out of the window?
crytek went immediately downhill after crysis 2
RIP Crytek :(
there are tons of good F2P games
TF2
Dota 2
SMNC
just cause allot suck doesn't mean F2P isn't the superior model
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
