Should All Videogames Be Free To Play? | Game/Show | PBS Digital Studios
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 16 окт 2024
- Viewers like you help make PBS (Thank you 😃) . Support your local PBS Member Station here: to.pbs.org/Don...
Games are an EXPEN$IVE hobby. Besides the games themselves, there's the consoles, high def TV, plus handhelds, smartphones, and a variety of other potential equipment. A player can easily spend hundreds, even thousands of dollars, and that's just not an option for most people. Is gaming becoming an elitist hobby (akin to golf)? Are we stuck on a path where more and more people will be only able to experience a game through Let's Play videos? Or, like Candy Crush & League of Legends, should all games be FREE? Watch the episode to find out more!
ASSETS
1:18 • Why Is LET'S PLAY So H...
3:03www.vg247.com/2...
3:44 was-sg.wascdn.n...
3:49 www.gamespot.co...
4:04 www.genderanded...
4:46 www.nytimes.com...
5:10 • Jonathan Blow: Game de...
6:39 • Free to Play: The Movi...
7:03 www.kickstarte...
7:24 JIM STERLING LICKING A PS4 FOR 10 HOURSV
• Jim Sterling Licking a...
COMMENTS
Jack Fahey
• Are JRPGs Making a Com...
Max Euker
• Are JRPGs Making a Com...
Khaotic Gamer
• Are JRPGs Making a Com...
Jose Eusebio
• Are JRPGs Making a Com...
MandaloreT
• Are JRPGs Making a Com...
Jesse Dale
• Are JRPGs Making a Com...
Jay RPG
• Are JRPGs Making a Com...
Nazgul100
• Are JRPGs Making a Com...
-----------------------------------------
MUSIC:
"Oh Damn!" by CJVSO
/ cjvso-oh-damn
"Digital Sonar" by Brink
"Mindphuck" by Known To Be Lethal
• Video
"After Hours"
"Lakes" by Chooga
• Chooga - 3170 Lakes
"Beautiful Days" by Extan
/ beautiful-days
"Spectrum Subdiffusion Mix" by Foniqz
/ foniqz-spectrum-subdif...
"Good Way Song" by Electronic Rescue
"Alice y Bob" by Javier Rubio and Parsec
archive.org/de...
"Sleet" by Kubbi
/ kubbi-sleet
"Toaster" by Kubbi
/ toaster
"Patriotic Songs of America" by New York Military Band and the American Quartet
freemusicarchiv...
"Lets Go Back To The Rock" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Run" by Outsider
www.jamendo.co...
"Fame" by Statue of Diveo
www.jamendo.co...
"Freedom Weekends" by Statue of Diveo
www.jamendo.co...
-----------------------------------------
And thanks to Iain Andrews for the use of his photos in the background: / enwandrews
What do you think about the show? We're dying for feedback.
Tweet at us! @pbsgameshow
Follow us on Facebook / gameshowpbs
Email us! pbsgameshow [at] gmail [dot] com
Follow us on Reddit / pbsgameshow
Hosted by Jamin Warren (@jaminwar)
See more on games and culture on his site: www.killscreend...
Made by Kornhaber Brown (www.kornhaberbr...)
And regarding my glasses:
• Has League of Legends ...
I do not think games should be free to play, ever.
You can see a large difference between quality and mechanics between free to play and financed games that cost a flat rate.
But I do think MMO's should be free to Play like Diablo 3.
A better question is, should DLC for paid games be Free to Play.
The Dev's over at Goat Simulator seem to think so.
Diablo III is not an MMO.
ExgaGaming
Multiple people online, a Massive system, Massively Multiplayer Online, seems like an MMO to me. All arguments aside, sorry you feel that way.
ProtoMario By that logic, it means SimCity 2012 is an MMO too...
The high quality of some games like The Secret World (originally it was subscription) seems to prove that there is more incentive to update and improve a subscription model game than a free-to-play model game. I just think the quality tends to drop when the main method of income is in-game stores or a flat rate because you get what you pay for.
ProtoMario MMO is hundreds or thousands of people on the same server in the same game. If you consider the amount of people playing a game to determine if it's MMO then Call of Duty would be an MMO also, and it's far from it. MMO is meant to signify that the game has a large *social* element and that part of the experience is interacting and creating relationships with other players. Just having thousands of people playing the same game doesn't mean they are all playing *together*.
PC gaming isn't expensive. Even if you have a bad computer you can tweak the _hell_ out of it to make it run something. Not to mention, all the free indie games. It's only expensive if you want to play loads of AAA games.
"If you wanna experience all that games have to offer, you have to own an Xbox One, a PS4, a gaming PC, a couple different handhelds, and a smart phone."
WiiU: ....Wh....wh-what about me.....?
Lol i was thinking the same thing XD
No love for the Mariokart machine :(
Cause Nintendo has nothing good. It's Mario 120th or Zelda: Legends of Shadows Or Something.
idontlikeyouyo They have plenty of good, casuals like yourself only see Zelda and Mario.
Name some.
My local library has video games, even ps4 and xbone games. This is a very tradition approach of media consumption, an open minded librarian can allow for new requests too.
Probably not going to happen but a tech minded, well funded NEA might find solutions of dispersion of electronic media.
That would be amazing! Yeah, if libraries took the reigns, that would be a great way to get expensive titles out.
You forget though that the TV's and computers have additional uses which spread out the cost and makes them more worth the money.
The PS2 was many people's first DVD player and the PS3 was many people's first Blu-Ray player.
Yeah, I forgot about that, my PS2 was my first DVD player too. Wow, that was forever ago.
I like how this episode didn't just have a controversial point to make and just kept ignoring the obvious flaws in it (lookin' at you previous few episodes). It put forward an idea that many people would see as absurd and made some points for it, but actually addressed ALL of the issues, not just the ones that could be disproved. My favourite episode in a while!
Thanks! We're constantly evolving the show!
PBS Game/Show Here's some feedback: please be more careful with research. Over $2000 for a "decent PC" is just not true- thats the cost of a high end rig. I play games on my $300 laptop absolutely fine. A lot of people who go for PC as an alternative to console spend the $200-500 they would have on the console building the PC and that PC can easily outperform those consoles. If you're looking for something to play the latest games on ultra-high settings then $1000 should do just fine.
The myth that you have to spend thousands on a decent gaming rig is invented by people like Alienware who (surprise surprise) have an interest in people being willing to drop stupid amounts on a gaming machine.
It's like 30 seconds in and it just makes me thing you googled "Gaming PC" and slapped the first few image results on the video. If you make any point at all, even if it is tangential to the main point, you should be more careful to research it.
Jacky Adcock To be fair, he *did* say that you don't need *all* of the things he mentioned, I think the high end gaming rig was a bit of exaggeration for comedic effect. ;)
+Jacky Adcock I've owned a lot of computers in my life and I've played a lot of games, but I've never seen a $300 pc run a graphics intensive game. My $1,300 laptop had to run everything on low settings from mw3 all the way to wc3 in order to get 60 fps. I'm curious how you achieved this. Are you playing games like Skyrim and GTA5?
You guys should watch the Extra Credits episodes on Free to Play and microtransactions.
*Agree
NO! I'm sorry but for this to work, companies would have to not be greedy and corrupt. Because that won't happen, this is a HORRIBLE idea in this reality, REGARDLESS of how you spin it. F2P will NOT save gaming because it is actively destroying it as we speak!
Another thought on cost. With the PS4 now compared to the PS3, it's clear that the tech advances of this generation pale in comparison from the PS2 to the PS3. What if we could take 'smaller scale' games by having quality stuff produced but use the advanced tech to cut down the army of asset creators and tech types so smaller teams could work on games more equivalent to what we saw a generation ago.
That would be great. Smaller games with fine-tuned gameplay and well told stories would be perfect. I personally don't care about perfectly realistic lighting and shadows and other graphical features that drive the cost way up.
Zachary Dunn You'd think so! But good production makes a bigger difference than you think. After playing saints row 3 or 4 have you tried playing 2? I know I'm countering myself here, but it is a balance!
I like how the post-credits glasses disclaimer got SUPER passive-agressive
Video games really don't have it worse than movies, I can spend $25 to watch a two hour movie, or I can spend $60 on a 50 hour game.
I think in the coming years we're going to a more fleshed out subscription based model of play. Like the Playstation Plus method, pay a monthly fee and get access to games, but to a higher degree. I would totally pay a monthly fee to gain access to a developer's entire library of games, but that would bring the issue about individual service providers for each subscription, IE Origin for EA games, Steam for Valve games, Uplay for Ubisoft etc.
No free to play, i do not want pay to win, nor do free to play players. I just want to buy a game, own it and then just play it without a 4th wall.
Wait. The host doesn't have any lenses in those nerd-frames. A PERFECT METAPHOR FOR THIS CHANNEL.
The problem with this video is the assumption that a game experience is only valuable if it is an immediate experience. Take cars, for example: driving a car is not limited to only the rich who are able to buy a new car every year; millions of people drive cars because they buy older models that cheapened over time. For video games, I personally get to experience all the best ones, but do it more cheaply by waiting years for when they become dirt cheap. So is the general experience itself the most important aspect, or is the immediacy of the experience more important?
i got guild 2 for £2 :)
and Garrys mod for £1
TheJaredtheJaredlong exacly what i do, just wait till its old enough and pirate it!
I think we should bring back the arcades to help boost the popularity of games. I don't mean the penny arcades but a place where you can go for a couple hours or more (like at a movie theater) to just play any game the place might have on stock. Maybe you could purchase a little memory stick or something to save your save states for various games and you could just come back when you have the time to play. This way you don't need to buy any console, pc, or internet for that matter; you just show up, pay a small fee, and play for a few hours like a normal gamer. This could also stimulate some businesses surrounding the place since they might get hungry or something. There's actually places like this already, but I think we could use some more. Oh, and competitions could easily be set up here as well, which would be awesome.
I must disagree and say that gaming has actually become MORE affordable.
I started gaming with the SNES where I was only able to purchase 2 games, Super Mario World and Demons Crest but as gaming progressed my families income has actually gone down. Despite this we have actually been able to purchase more games than before I own 7 N64 games, then a lot of PS1 games, three times as many PS2 games, and now over a hundred 360 games and these aren't even the only consoles we've been able to purchase.
If I purchased Demons Crest for the same price it was when I originally bought it (but increased to todays standards do to inflation it would cost 124$ todays currency instead of the 60$ we pay today)
I also almost never pay full price to buy games as patience is the key to getting most of the games I want. (I don't own a "current gen" console due to this) Steam sales and bargain bin sales means you can get amazing games like Bioshock Infinite, or the last Gears of War for only 4-10$ in only a couple of months - a year.
Not to mention the shear increase in replayabilty in lots of modern games. In Super Mario World the only replayability came to down to getting a higher score which I only did because I didn't have access to other games, whilst modern games give you entire options to replay games entirely: games like Mass Effect give you a plethora of choices so you can replay the whole series to see the different outcomes, games like Gears of War 1-3 give you plenty of multiplayer modes and maps that ive spent 1000s of hours on, and finally you have games like Dark Souls where playing with a completely different build will change the entire way you play through the game. (playing as a fast rolling Dexterity build will play very differently than a strength/faith tank build).
No matter WHAT console you play the games on wait for a sale, or the Game of the Year editions. Gears of War 3s season pass was on sale before they even released all of the DLC that was on it.
I remember when I started Gaming in 1994, the only games you had, were those you bough or got "saftey copies" from friends, and games were expensive, the only cheap way was games compilations like "gold games".
There were times when we just had no games to play.
Therer were no free games to download online, at least not in terms of what we would call "real games" today.
Something like "path of exiles"would have been sold as a single player game back then for full price.
The kids these days don´t know how awesome the situation is for them, speaking gaming wise.
Oh boy... Thank all gods you were not born in my country. If your family started gaining less and all, in my country every game related stuff costs the triple than the U.S [because of taxes]. Than you wouldn't be able to buy games at all. (which many times was the case for me while growing up ;D)
For example, in my country PS3s and 360s are getting affordable just now. But many people are still buying PS2s. If you had a PS3/360 for a long time it means you're privileged; and well... a PS4 here costs 4 thousand moneys (I''m serious).
Rise Again Well... Since you asked. Yes I do.
I think the problem with this characterization is that all people playing games does not necessarily mean all people playing every _kind_ of game.
After all, everyone sees movies, but not everyone will watch Oscar bait or documentaries or hardcore science fiction. The same thing is true of books.
While income inequality is a huge problem when trying to expand access to games, I think it's more important to get people access to the games they want, as opposed to just access in general.
That may sound disappointing, but people just have different interests. I consider myself a games connoisseur, and even I'm not interested in a huge swath of genres and titles.
Worse, some games basically require you to exclude other games in order to play them at all. DOTA2, LoL, Starcraft 2 and many MMO's basically ask you to play that game more or less exclusively to have any chance at a competitive experience.
Connecting it back to last week, JRPG's had this problem big time. One of the more creative ones on the PS3, Resonance of Fate, has like 100 hours+ of gameplay. I'd basically have to give up on other games to ever finish that one.
Games such as GTA could easily implement real advertisements on billboards and update them daily. This sounds like a brilliant way of advertisement for it is not annoying like popup ads but it does ad to the game in a way.
That remove the designer's ability to put something on the billboard that makes sense (for example, GTA is full of social criticisms in their in-game advertisements, especially on the radio).
I wasactually thinking of that too when I mentioned ads in my comment, the problem I suppose is that, from the perspective of the company buying the ad, there's no real way to prove that anyone would see it and it wouldn't offer any link through to buying the product.
The traditional Freeto play model of stopping the game to force you to watch ads is shitty for the player but I can totally see why advertisers love it, it's making the player actively sit through unskippable ads then giving them a big "Buy it now" button as well. Even if the player ignores the ad and just waits for the skip button to activate, they're still seeing the ad.
Other media often have many options to choose from. To be a cinephile or even just someone for whom it's important to always be at the forefront of any discussion about movies, it'll cost them because they'll have to go to the movies on a regular basis and spend a lot of money and time on their hobby. However, if you can wait and don't need the premium package you can get it for a lot cheaper, if not "free" (aside from the technology needed, like a TV) because there's other, later, less spectacular, sometimes less convenient options like renting DVDs , subscription based services like Netflix or Free-TV, which makes watching movies as a whole highly accessible, while still being a luxury if you're impatient and want the best possible experience, too.
With music, it's the same thing. You can buy every new Album that comes out and listen to it on your super expensive speakers or headphones, become an expert when it comes to music with a huge library of different bands and genres at your disposal and go to countless concerts and events, which is super expensive as well, but if you simply wanna listen to music without making a huge deal out of it, you can just listen to the radio. For free. Which, again, makes music both a free, public good and an expensive luxury that needs commitment, both financially and in terms of how you use your free time.
With games, perhaps we should try to emulate what the movie industry is doing.
Having to pay for games in their untouched, "premium" state, so you can play the full version, no strings attached, on day one is completely okay with me but perhaps there should be more options than that offered. More rental options (also digital), subscription services like PS+ that give you a library of, perhaps a little older (like movies on Netflix) titles for an affordable monthly fee (though there shouldn't be too many different services for that, all with their own exclusives) AND other services that offer, probably even older (like Free TV) titles for free, but in turn aren't as convenient. Maybe they are missing certain extra features (DVD extra features aren't on Free TV, either), maybe they'll have commercials running, maybe they change their assortment of available titles on a regular basis, having you take what they give you when they give it to you or be forced to either purchase the game to own the full thing forever or wait for "reruns" to play it again. Which, in turn is actually also a great way to get new sales from older titles that have lost momentum, because people will be reminded of it and new audiences will now pay attention to it and possibly like it enough to end up wanting to own it.
That way we could, with options, broaden the demographic and lower the price of entry into this art form, without fucking it up for everybody else who just wants to pay and play like they used to.
Plus, the free platforms, just like Free-TV, can be a great way to introduce other things in a profitable way, that otherwise would possibly be too risky/expensive to publish. Like a TV show that would've never existed if cinema or home video were the only options.
I think that'd definitely apply to games too. Early access titles, even demos (you know, like a pilot on TV?), betas, traditional free2play games, etc. could find their audience and make first profit on those free platforms just to then be be distributed for a price as well, possibly in a more finished/polished/remastered state with a ton of extras added. For the fans or those who always strive for the best, most complete experience of everything they consume.
Simply making everything free2play day one with no paywalls at all ever probably just wouldn't end well for the consumer.
I think every game needs to have at least 2 hours of free to play time in it. I like to play demo's but they last anywhere from 15 minutes-1 hour(rarely). And in that time its very easy to get involved in a game and really like it, so you buy the game. But then you play for another hour and start realizing its repetitive and maybe wasn't worth buying. I felt like that with the Dragon Age series and I started by playing the second one. I really enjoyed the demo but all the dungeons are the same and even playing through on Hard was still pretty easy. I got bored quite fast and it took be a few weeks to finish because it was easy to walk away from. I want a game that will keep me wanting more. So free-to-play demo's for every game, and then pay after that.
Great comprehensive discussion on this, thank you. Remember when you say designers can incorporate free-to-play at a core level in a way that will be both financially and artistically fulfilling, that the design team aren't always the decision makers. There may be executive-level MBA folks above them vetoing avenues, adding constraints, or perpetuating established systems. Game designers don't have quite as much ownership in the corporate hierarchy as you imply.
When listing consoles required to play all games, iPhone was listed, but why wasn't Wii U listed??
I think having a variety of games (Free to play or play to play or whatever other payment methods are) is good for the industry. It allows people to play games within their range. Stating "All games should be free to play" would literally destroy the gaming industry.
Yes! Especially when they sell $25 horses in their shop -_-
Yes! if they sell $25 horses in their shop, charge a subscription fee and still expect you to pay $60 upfront before all other fees.
I think when people start trying to actively support the things they love (like games), then developers will be good to make games free, even things like Braid or story driven genres. I'm excited for that day.
I'd dispute the idea that gaming in inaccessible due to price. You probably already have a smartphone, PC, and Internet connection. Your PC might not be able to play every title at high detail, but there's still a vast library of older A-list titles that regularly sell for under $10 on Steam sales. If you really want a gaming PC, it's cheap to slap in a video card and even a dedicated gaming rig (which is still a general purpose PC) can be had for as little as $800.
Yeah I've got hundreds of games on Steam and I've only spent a thousand or so dollars. It's absolutely amazing how cheaply you can game.
I will likely never play every game I own, its a strange feeling.
Isles of Scion Steam sales are the true test if you can handle a buget.
"You probably already have a smartphone, PC, and Internet connection"
Not necessarily if you aren't in North America, Europe, Australia or other parts of the developed world. There are many places where none of those things are a given, or even accessible.
And what underdeveloped parts of the world are going to concern themselves too much with video games? Way to reach, dude.
Jesse Harris "These rockets that keep taking out my school are terrible! But what really bothers me is that I haven't played the latest GTA :(."
I think it's a fine idea, as long as those who pay have a significant advantage over those who don't, and the buying all content (besides things like alternate costumes and hats) is slightly less or around the same amount as buying a full game
No, that's called pay to win, and is how you KILL a free to play. Why would I stick aroundr, i as a "free" playeer, if I'm getting slaughtered all the time by people who arn't, but have spent more money on the game? Imagine cheats being available in normal games, but as a DLC. How fun would that be?
What? No way that would ever work.
I don't know if somebody already asked this, but if you have no lenses, then what's the point of the frames.
He has a normal pair with and without glasses exclusively for the show so the lenses don't reflect and distract.
Probably because he's either used to the weight of the frames from wearing the glasses outside the show, or because he considers them an integeral part of his attire like a watch that he'd feel uncomfortable NOT wearing, even without the actual benefit of wearing glasses.
That's so funny. Every 4-5 videos he has to explain it (as above).
He has a link to the answer at the bottom of the description of every video.
Slender Mann Thanks, I think you are the only one who actually answered my question,
My favorite example of a "free 2 play" game model is actually the old apogee model from way back in the day. A sizeable demo, and then offering to pay for more of it.
Free to play needs to have a solid universal model to start with. As it stands, the majority of free to play right now seems to be exploitative. Wanting games to be homogenized would only hurt the industry. Then you don't have different hardware manufacturers competing to produce innovative hardware and better games to forward things. Suddenly everyone is playing iphone games on the same basic hardware, and innovation loses, as if it weren't already in the toilet. The entire industry goes free to play with a model anything like what's currently out there, and I'm gone. I want to pay one price for a full experience. Maybe toss in some DLC for me to purchase if I choose to once I've grown tired of the game.
Might I add, DLC that is not completed before the actual game is.
I think the free to play model in certain platforms could function,but then we also have to consider in which will work and which womt, so we should do a little bit of experimentation to see what works. I recommend the extra credits video on the topic and i also recommend playing doctor who legacy to see a really good free to play game
We should focus on eliminating poverty and then this wouldn't be an issue. Games are only financially inaccessible if people have no money, so let's solve that issue and then this issue will take care of itself. In developed countries, we should push for a guaranteed minimum income for all residents, and we should push to address global inequalities so that we're not the only ones who end up benefiting
Or we could not do that. I'm fine with not doing that.
Christopher Rankin Are you fine with continuing to waste vast sums of money operating a bureaucracy to maintain people in poverty, with all the health care and policing costs associated with that, and all the lost economic/cultural participation? Why would you be okay with that? Is it just so you have someone to feel superior to or what?
Well, because I spent 8 years in college for a professional degree and I work extremely hard for my paycheck.
Christopher Rankin And no doubt you'd continue to do so, and continue to receive considerably more than those for whom working that hard in a high skilled position either isn't an option or isn't an option they choose. But your quality of life will be far better if they're not excluded from economic participation altogether. Having a large proportion of the population who can't afford to be anybody's customer doesn't exactly help businesses be profitable, and the wasted resources (policing, healthcare, welfare bureaucracy, etc) could be used to fund things which would actually benefit you, and/or saved. Wasting money on hurting people for not being as awesome as yourself is pretty dickish, don't you think?
Absolutely not. Life is not fair. The population of human beings is growing disproportionately to the death rate. It's a growth that is exponential. The fact is, people are not dying enough. As cynical and evil that sounds to say, it's true. Resources are limited. Also, it's very important to note that evolution did not prepare humans for complex societies. Suffering is absolutely inevitable. Do I hate the 1% making all the money? Absolutely. Do I hate trickle-down economics? Yes.
However, under your thought process, all opportunities to innovate will vanish. Nobody will be working on high-cost treatments for cancers, autoimmune diseases, mental health, etc. We would be a stagnant world and suffering would still continue.
This is why I love single player games. You get what you paid for(most of the time) and you don't have to go through financial hell just to enjoy a decent game. FTP works for online games such as MMOs, but for single player games, such an idea would be madness.
Why can't there be a producer that makes a cheap, satisfying console using old technology? Like Google making an alternative smart phone (Nexus) to the iPhone for $100 bucks? Like, what if they built a really modern looking console using the technology from five years ago, or from the first playstation!
Isn't the ouya kind of that? Or the people making games for the dreamcast? Not exactly what you're saying but I think it's in line with it.
I think there are already developments going into that direction. I read something about that on heise.de (a German IT-News site), but I can't exactly tell the names of the projects now.
xD HA! Nice cameo of Jim.
As Jim said, "Games are a luxury. That's why they should be cheaper."
Yeah, if games cost less it means that the companies selling them will make less on each sale, but they can sell to more people. With digital games getting bigger now, there is even more reason for there to be some more deals with game prices.
Not all games have to be free, or free to play. However, it would be nice if they made some more 20-40 dollar games along side the 5-10 and $60 games.
: ) Such seems to be happening a bit more.
Good show!
He's right though. Free play game's are the best.
SOME free to play games are the best. The rest are just imbalanced or time and money consuming.
Good.
Many mainstream devs don't care about gamers. I don't expect them to give us what we want like that anytime soon, they'd rather benefit far more than we do. They probably assume an ideal F2P model would make them far less money than paid games with paid dlc.
Competitive games already suffer from the free to play model, and I think would suffer even more if free to play were instituted as a universal model. Every year, we'd just get a newer more extreme version of "whoever pays the most wins". Players with more access to cash would be getting the faster cars, the better guns, the perks, the boosts, the bonuses, etc right away.
I think that would be an atrocious way for gaming as a genre to evolve.
I am personally a very frugal gamer. I got my PS3 last year and have been picking up all the games I've been wanting over the past few years used or at local discount bins.
I don't feel like I'm missing out that much on this vast cultural conversation. I'm just hopping on board later than most, and it is all by my own twisted design.
Games and consoles COULD be cheaper, but I guess the point is they WILL be... eventually!
Micro transactions dont nesesarily mean better guns, perks, boosts, ect. In fact, thats probably a good example of a BAD free to play game. Look at the MOBAs they sell skins access to the characters faster, ect. While character access is borderline pay to win, they are all (mostly) balanced, and only allows players to play with a character that better fits their play style. That is what free to play games would have to strive for, pay for characters or uniqueness, not pay to win.
I know everyone's very optimistic about what Free to Play COULD be, i'm more focused on what they ARE currently.
I think we should really be nailing down what it is that makes a Free to Play game "good" before we have the conversation about adopting it as a universal system.
which is why its stated in the video that it would have to change. it can be a great thing. but it would take some work and even now, free to play doesnt have (most of the time) pay to win stuff. and the things that do, are usually either 1 player or not commonly played games because its just a bad model
Basically GameShow's argument FOR F2P is the same principal as Wheeler's argument against Net Neutrality.
KnaveMurdok my experience with f2p is likely limited compared to most but for me The Old Republic is the perfect example of pay to win and Star Trek Online was Free to Play.....but if you want to pay we certainly will not stop you.
Excelent! I like to think about the different ways videogames will be played in a no so distant future. I would like to watch a video of you talking about Ingress, Google Glass and augmented reality games,
My good sir, there is quite a lot of irony from 6:38 - 6:44 in what you're saying and the clips used to 'exemplify' it.
You talked about how some genres would be less ideal for the Free to Play model than others. The problem is, I LOVE the games you mentioned that would be awful for free to play, but I have no interest in multiplayer games like Team Fortress 2 or League of Legends. The vast, vast majority of the games I play are single-player, because I like getting engaged in stories, and multiplayer doesn't scratch that same itch.
However, I will admit that the reason I don't play multiplayer much is because my friends don't have the same consoles and don't play the same games as me, so my only option would be to play online with strangers, and let's face it: playing online with strangers is a great way to find out what my mother has been up to.
games are already very cheap, assuming you're willing to wait a little bit. Take a look at all the Humble Bundles and Steam Sales recently. Granted, these are both PC exclusive deals, but that's primarily as a result of PC games being a)primarily digitally distributed and b)generally backwards compatible over all generations.
Console gaming is already pushing slowly towards a digital-only model, so the ideal situation for affordable gaming would really just be to encourage higher backwards-compatability for console manufacturers.
except that backwards compatibility is pretty hard for consoles.
really? I'm actually not super familiar with how all the hardware works. If you could explain it, I'd really appreciate that.
Nicholas Maddalena Well, in this generation the PS4 and the Xbox One use an x86 processor (the same as in a normal PC), but in the last generation the PS3 used a Cell processor (a very exotic architecture with cores that could only be used in specific way), and the Xbox 360 used a Power PC processor ( a RISC architecture, similar to the one you have in phones right now, or the one old macs used).
When you write the code for a game, it gets translated into a series of instructions the processor executes, but because the hardware is different, the instructions are different, therefore it is hard (if not impossible) to translate.
Think of it this way, to make the PS3 to run a game, you have to give it the instructions in english, but to make the PS4 run a game, you have to give it the instructions in japanese. Clearly you have to translate the instructions from english to japanese in order to make the PS3 game run on a PS4, but that might take too long to do in real time.
But you might be on to something, since both Sony and Microsoft moved to a classic PC architecture, there is a higher chance for backwards compatibility in future console generations (if we don't mve to cloud based gaming by then :) )
I think that it's dangerous to try to fit all games into one monetization model. One of the things that makes games interesting post-internet is that they can make their money in a variety of ways. Many multiplayer games could totally switch over to f2p, but some genres would die if all games we did the same. The important thing to me seems to be sinking prices and making games on a smaller scale if possible. A $15 game can be very profitable, and that's awesome.
1:04 I think you missed a console there pal.... >.>
mattwo7 WII U JUST WANTS A HOME... A person to care for it as it sits alone in the rain... Don't worry Wii U I will play you!
orangy57 Ill play you too wii u
For those not paying attention, everytime there's an effect / ransition screen in the video you hear a small bleep.
Cannot unheear :)
No. Definitely not. No more than all films, books, music or whatever else should be free. Cheaper, certainly, but not free
I like the subscription aspect to a certain extent though. Like netflix (or in the uk, amazone prime instant video), you pay a subscription and you have access to loads of games.
The only company I have seen this do well so far is OnLive, they has a very decent list of games included in their subscription BUT their technology is instant live streaming, it required HUGE bandwidth although funnily enough, you could play graphic intensive games on a tablet, phone or even netbook.
I hear they now allow partial download (or full) to a local computer so less bandwidth required.
Absolutely, that's a great idea. I'm honestly astonished Steam haven't done something like that yet. I mean, they kind of have with the Family Sharing system, but think of how much more money they could make, whilst keeping their users even happier, by allowing access to, I don't know, say ten games a month for fifteen dollar fee. Or fifteen for twenty, something like that.
The bit that really winds me up is the disgusting system that gives publishers all the power over an IP. The video game industry makes more money than film, that's a verifiable fact. Yet a film can cost hundreds of millions of dollars, sell a few hundred thousand DVDs, get a couple million views at a cinema and turn a profit. Whilst a game can cost a tenth the price, sell millions of units...and then devs get no money because the Publisher balances the books to say it didn't make any. Just...just urgh.
Worse still, despite the much higher sales, often with a lower cost, games cost four times as much, at least, as a DvD?
wtf man?!
yeah it's a good thing there isn't a way to get books for free, that would bring the publishing world to its knees.
And perish the thought we might have a way to watch films without having to buy them! The entire movie industry would collapse overnight
Madness!
Currently working on my second free to play game, and all I can say is I can see it defiantly makes more money as people who usually wouldn't be interested start playing, and whether the game is supported through ads or content someone who usually wouldn't buy your game is bound to earn you some money, if my second one goes well I may stick to this model for a while.
"or expensive PC" and shows a $2.7k monstrocity nobody in their right mind would buy. I built my computer for $1k, and it's all top of the line parts, you could easily spend $600 for a rig that can play anything currently out, I just went overboard to future proof a bit.
***** It's actually a lot cheaper than console gaming.
***** Read what I said again, I said that I went overboard on my PC and you can easily spend $600 or less on a good rig. My comp is top of the line in all areas, i7 processor, 16GB of RAM, and a new 770 GTX SC (which was $350 of the 1k spent). Compare to an Xbox One for $500 which can't even remotely hold a candle to what a decent PC can run.
Secondly, I'm so tired of the "you don't own anything" claims against Steam. First off, Steam's EULA has said, SINCE INCEPTION, should Steam go out of business it will release all games from any form of DRM they control (no promises toward stuff on platforms like uPlay). Secondly, sure, you can sell games back you own to Gamestop or whoever. Let's see, you bought it for $60, and can sell it back a week later for $20? That's still $40 you can't get back. Meanwhile in Steam sales I can buy a game I missed out on for $2. See, I can use hyperbolic examples too.
Oh, and you can borrow games on Steam, as illustrated by my friends and my nephew all being on my Steam Family Sharing program.
***** If you upgrade your PC every time a new generation of consoles come out, you'll be fine (and it will cost less than getting a next gen console). Also, Steam won't go offline any time soon and even when it does they said we will still have access to the games we have purchased. The initial cost of a PC may be $100 or so more than consoles but upgrading is cheaper than buying a new console all together and games for PC are A LOT cheaper (steam sales, humble bundle etc).
***** The console cycles are almost never 7 years long, this is the first time that has happened. And funny story, they are still grossly inferior to PCs and holding most PC games back in terms of performance. (Look at Dark Souls 2) We're now at the point that a 7 year old PC is STILL stronger than the 'next gen' consoles. The Xbox One has a GPU comparable to a 9800 GT or Radeon 5670, 6 year old GPUs that weren't even top of the line back then. They were the common usage ones.
And I'll use Gamestop as an example because it's still the number one place games are sold/traded back, not eBay, Amazon, or Craig's List.
"And will a 600 dollar computer be good in 7 years, probably not even 7 weeks"
What a load of crap. I'm using computer that's 6 years old and was fairly cheap when I bought it, and it'll run almost everything perfectly, with a few games I'll have to turn a few settings down. Everyone I know that has a console has spent WAY more than I have, while having WAY fewer games... and they're bored because they've played their tiny catalogue to death.
Could somebody link me to the "hand crafted puzzle game" he's talking about at 5:46? I couldn't understand the name.
it's still in development: miegakure.com/
I just subscribed to this channel & this premise is so fucking ridiculous, I almost unsubscribed. 90% of the shit you mentioned a gamer needs to game, they already own. People don't just use their TV or Internet for gaming, so those things already exist in the home. And FTP games are horrible. Not necessarily the games themselves, but the culture they create. People (especially kids) who keep those games afloat, do so by obsessively spending insane amounts of money on them -- far more than a $60 retail tag. So free games are only free for some. Terrible idea is terrible.
you realize most of what he said was opinionated. relax dude, you act like he was speaking propaganda against america or something.
You realize what I said was just my opinion, right? Relax, dude. You're acting like I was spreading anti-American propaganda or something...
touche. still you are a douche. thats just my opinion though :)
That's lots of people's opinion. I'm okay with that.
the only thing that's worse than ftp games with micro-transactions is retail games with dlc.
man, fuck dlc.
Keep in mind, video games are way way way cheaper than movies. Sure it's 4 time the price in certain cases. But you enjoy them for 50 times as long.
My dad's favorite hobby was fishing (salmon and tuna, mostly). Compared to that, videogames are basically free already - the setup cost is on the order of hundreds of times greater, and unlike games every excursion is going to cost you hundreds of dollars just in gasoline. It's something I always kept in mind when he criticized my spending of my allowance on Magic: the Gathering cards :)
In general, I have a hard time even coming up with more than a couple hobbies cheaper than videogames, whereas I can list dozens of more expensive ones. I think there can be a monetary problem for some people with experiencing videogames, but in general it pales in comparison to other hobbies.
That was some crazy old League of Legends footage...
Jupp. If I remember correctly, it's from the early days of the beta, or sometime during the closed beta.
My god, it was so scary
I Like Extra Credits model of paying a rent fee instead of paying the full price up front, but the rent fee also being decucted from the purchase price everytime you pay it, until eventually the purchase price is the same as the rent fee.
To be honest if we're going with a free to play model, we need to go with ones executed by games such as TF2 and LoL, where the game isn't you playing and having things shoved into your face that you feel like you HAVE to buy to enjoy the game, but instead the game is more of a
play the game and have fun no matter what, but have options that make you WANT to spend money.
Which seems difficult to do, to be honest.
But league is actually the game I've spend the most money on out of any (around $200-250) and i dont even regret it! The way they use the system makes me want to buy things and when i buy them i get enjoyment out of them.
With the free to play system commonly used in MMO's, such as the one in Runescape, give you the feel that you NEED to play to have fun.
The "members/vip" system makes the whole thing feel like you're playing the demo, and have to keep buying things to complete it.
And this is unlike the DLC system, (which i find to be perfectly fine, and along the same line as the LOL/TF2 system is) as long as the game itself is a good, large game (Like Skyrim)
It's the first time that I see someone who works with games actually recognize publicly that videogames are an elitist hobby, and that things should be more accessible. You should be proud of doing so.
I have a really good question I was wondering about. I have not researched this, but I hope it could make for a good video.
When is pixel art to big (or small) to still be pixel art?
I just got done with a relivant book not too long ago. "Free: How Today's Smartest Businesses Profit by Giving Something for Nothing" (obviously) discusses this business model and how profitable it's becoming to offer things for free. What's more, the book even discusses the money people make offering illegal content for free. So Free to Play isn't a particularly unique model in our current economy.
So it's not so much that there should be more Free to Play games, but rather that there are going to be many, many more Free to Play models.
Former editor of WIRED magazine Chris Anderson covered this topic in his book "Free: The Future of a Radical Price". (The audiobook of which is free to download off audible and iTunes.) in that book he outlines several different economic models whereby businesses can make money by giving their products and services away for free. His argument is that with the growth of digital technology the price of memory, bandwidth, and processing power halves every year. All products and services based on electronic bits are getting cheaper by the day, reaching near zero-marginal cost. Therefor in order to remain competitive companies will need to undercut the competition by giving things away for free.
This is a topic I have very relevant to me since I only bought my first PS3 last month, which is also my first Blu-Ray player. Since graduating college 7 years ago I have not had the money to keep up with the latest generation of game consoles. It is only now that I am catching up on all the great games that I have missed out on for the past generation, from Batman: Arkham Asylumn, to L.A. Noire, to Bioshock Infinite. And with the Playstation online store I have been able to buy many of the games that I not only wanted to play from the PS2 era but from the PSone era. And I get all of these games for a remarkably cheap price.
True, without a large budget you can't get the latest and "greatest" games and systems, but for very little money you can still pick up the older stuff. My house is the favorite hangout spot in my group of friends, all my games are old, but because I buy old games, I have 10x more then any of my other friends.
my problem with free to play is that people don't lose anything for being banned, so they can be asshats with nothing to lose.
My problem with free to play is that it so often compromises the game itself. Let's change this feature so that we can monetize it. It feels less like a "pure" game experience as a result.
Why do you only have half 100000 subscribers it's a crime you deserve more
I love the idea of Free-to-Play, as long as developers don`t make it so that those who pay money get OP weapons which upset the balance of the game (cough Happy Wars cough)
Hawken is the perfect example that it can work out. The only things that you can get only with money are skins or robot parts that don't affect the gameplay.
First I was thinking that this would never work. People would never pay, only to have a more beautiful robot. But after playing it more and more, I liked it so much, that even I started to buy things to make my bot more beautiful and to show my gratitude to the devs.
You could have selected another clip for LoL, doesn't really how the game looks :p But amazing video as always !
I always forget about the bit about the glasses at the end. It cracks me up that people even really care enough to warrant it.
Gaming is actually getting less expensive, even without counting inflation. It's not keeping more and more people out, as a matter of fact the low cost is drawing more and more people in. The gap between the haves and have nots is actually historically quite low. "For games to succeed as a culture, it must cast a wide net" Not only disagree, but without even coming close to a definition of a success of culture that was a pointless statement.I feel like a few core issues that you deal with are quite poorly researched.
The idea is pretty good. However, Im a gamer that can't afford a PS4 or Xbox One and the $60 games required for the console. Good thing I love retro games anyway. I happily play my Nintendo Wii, which is also filled to the brim with NES, SNES, N64, and Sega Genesis games, my PS2, iPhone, and Nintendo 3DS (which was a christmas gift). These games and consoles are no where near as pricy as the new generation games, but I love them so it works out well.
I feel like games that have in game shops would only succeed at this. Tbh I wouldnt mind if a game like trials was f2p with the option to pay for better upgrades. It would give a lot more people the chance to experience the game and the option to pay if they would like to succeed even further
At first you terrified me with the idea. As you went on to explain I slowly grew on the idea. Although I would have to see it implemented very well before I am completely sold. (sold.... ha ha I'm so funny).
Ah, but you forget that free to play almost always mean pay to win.
Gaming is one of the most budget hobbies you can have. You can play a 50$ game for over 100 hours. A 5$ comic/manga read in 30 min.
With the current free to play model, I'd pay more to play that way than I do now. I know because the few free to play games I have I made myself quit once I was even tempted to spend too much money on them. But crowd funding would be cool for a lot of games. And free to play is just fine for games like tf2. Personally, I just wish games were cheeper, but I don't really think they need to be free.......... that said, cheeper would be hard, too.
Anyone remember when local videogame shops had bargain bins? I got Space Colony for 99p about a decade ago. I think AAA titles have always been expensive and, with the increase in the cost of making them, they're only getting more so but they're also balanced by cheaper, indie games. Gaming on a budget five-to-ten years ago meant getting the more middle-ground games which just don't really seem to exist any more. Now it means paying a little extra for the pc that you need anyway, acknowledging the fact that it will probably stop being able in support new releases in six months, and then picking up the occasional game in a steam sale, being careful to check the system specs as you go and lowering your expectations of the graphics being advertised.
However, I will admit that it's been a good few years since I've had to buy decent parts for a computer and looking at the prices now has been... surprising. Especially with graphics cards. They seem to have doubled in price. Maybe it was just that last time I was looking, I wasn't trying to support any games more graphically intense than The Sims, since it took me three months to save up for a Sims title and that was about as often as they were released, making them the only new games I played.
I think maybe this is why mobile gaming is so popular, or the lower-spec indie games on Steam, since most people own a computer or a smart-phone so the install base is already there. People who don't have these things or access to the internet do exist but they're also being socially excluded on a much wider scale since most of modern life revolves around these technologies.
I know that, especially when I was a kid, I was confused as to who games seemed to be marketed at. I felt as if they were being marketed at teenagers, but the price meant that parents would have to buy the titles for them which, given how a lot of older people seem to view videogames, seemed like a bad tactic. Lately I've come to realise that the generation who first grew up on games are now adults with enough disposable income for these products. Game companies don't have to aim at kids' pocket money since it's now the parents who are just as likely to be playing. I do wonder where that leaves the kids with non-gamer parents, though. I think, working on my old budget, I would have been able to afford one new AAA game every six months, assuming my pc could run it without me having to buy a new graphics card. Plus, non-gamer parents are less likely to be able to help a kid set up a Steam account (I'm talking about kids without bank accounts, who would need to use their parents' or buy the Steam wallet cards), especially since they might out-right ban or heavily regulate their internet use, and they're less likely to buy consoles for birthdays or Christmas.
If all video games had the same F2P model as DOTA 2, that would be AMAZING. But not a lot of devs do it. :(
I think flash games show that games can have a larger audience than those who can afford gaming pcs/consoles. Before I had a PS2 I would constantly search and discover many well crafted flash games and play them while waiting to get a game console. A game that doesn't require much hardware wise that could work well with the f2p model could be very successful. I think many free mobile games achieve this well due to the only requirement for most of them being a connection for the download and the smart phone. Angry Birds has a free version (on Android atleast since I don't use IOS) that makes its money off of ad revenue and some newly introduced micro-transactions that can be avoided the whole time. The key to successful games in the f2p market would have to be minimal entry requirements and a f2p model that makes players want to spend money rather than being obligated too (basically no "pay to win").
Another solution to maybe end the financial entry fee could be to make certain games subscription based similar to some mmos, but different. An example would be Call of Duty becomes multiplayer only and has a free month long trial before you have to pay a $5 for a subscription fee monthly and in exchange for constantly paying a fee, things like dlc become updates that add to the experience enticing more people to pay a monthly fee for what feels like constant service and content. (FYI my profile pic isn't Black Ops 2, look closer; I'm not a CoD lover nor hater and have gotten misconceptions from the profile pic before)
As you may have already seen, in the video you hit the nail on the head - indirectly - with how Free2Play works: Multiplayer. They are harder in single player, but most games would work better in multiplayer online games.
When I was just a poor high school student living on a $5 a week allowance (which I realize is still a lot more than a lot of kids from lower income households can expect from their parents), my route to video games came from the purchase of used or older games and second generation consoles. The question of game resale is an entire topic in and of itself (see Extra Credits' video on Used Games and Digital Resale for more on this), but one of the major advantages that video game resale provides is the solution to the very problem this video presents.
I've been a satisfied gamefly customer for about 4.5 years now. $25 a month since september of 2009. That's 56 months and $1,400 spent. In that time I've played 165 games. 1400/165 gives you an average cost of $8.50 a game, usually between 3 and 5 per month depending on how good or bad my choices were. In order for gamefly to be a bad deal you would have to hold onto a $60 game for 3 months straight (1 game out is $18/mo.) to equal the value if you'd just bought it new. And seriously, when's the last time you played a game for three months straight?
It doesn't negate the cost of the console though. I've used gamefly for PS2, PS3, 360, 3DS and Wii games, which is probably another $1400.
So if you look at the history of film, when film was originally coming out, it was entirely proprietary, every studio had their own system that theaters had to comply with in order to show their films. The thing that made films more affordable for everyone, was the advent of platform agnosticism.
The thing that's going to make video games more popular is platform agnosticism, more than it is free to play. The reason that Flappy Bird, Angry Birds, Clash of Clans or Candy Crush are so popular isn't necessarily a result of their free to play models, although that certainly helps, it's that they're platform agnostic.
If you have a mobile device, be it a phone or a tablet, you can play any of those games, there are games from PC that are now also available on these formats, such as Baldur's Gate or X-Com: Enemy Unknown, that are doing fantastically well. Platform Agnosticism is going to be the thing that makes more video games accessible to more people. Even though On Live and Gaikai haven't been hugely successful, the concept of Playstation Now excites me because it's the first step towards Platform Agnosticism for video games and if it plays like Vita Remote play does, it's going to work incredibly well. Maybe the Netflix model isn't best for video games but it's certainly a start.
For developers thinking "oh, this sounds good, I want to do this!" I suggest watching the Extra Credits video on this topic. Free-to-play could potentially ruin a game if done incorrectly.
I think that the free to play model would save gaming, but only in certain game types. The only issues i have with free to play games are when it becomes pay to win. It's hard to balance free and profitable. If you can buy your way to success people will do it. If you can pay to get advantages, it breaks the free experience. League is an example of great balance. You don't need to pay a cent to Riot to get the champion you want to play as. Simply playing, you gain points to get them. If you want extras for league you have the option to pay to buys skins. You don't need to invest a cent in riot to play and have fun. Games that have multilayer could easily have a free to play model for their game. Follow what Riot has set out, Allow people to play it free and give them the option to buy skins for their characters.
The costs of gaming are quite high but a person who gets a game they enjoy will actually notice that, their investments become cheaper as time goes on. For instance you went to see a movie, you enjoyed it but wont watch it again, that cost you 15$ for 2-3 hours. Or 5-7.5 $/hour. With most games they might have higher costs, 20$ if you've waited a couple year - 70$ if you bought it new first day, yet if you played the game for 15-20 hours the cost per hour of enjoyment would be about 1-3 $/hour. So buying games that you enjoy, playing them as you enjoy them work out to being cheaper then a lot of other activities. You also get longer periods of enjoyment out of them as well. Even if you look at the cost of everything together you still would have cheaper costs then most other things. ("~" symbolizes proximately) Game console (~600$) extra controller for friend/sibling (~80$) a couple games (~140$) paying to be able to play online (~70$), all together thats nearly 1000$, if you play 10 hours a week(520 hours a year), you are spending ~2$ per hour of entertainment. They do have higher costs in the immediate momment, yet in the long run the costs are lower then other things
Last point, I remember when growing up, i'd pay a subscription to magazines just to get the demo dist that came with it each month. Whatever happened to those? you should do a video on that topic. You'd get to sample a game, free, and, if you enjoyed it, you could purchase it when it came out. No need to worry if the game will be good or bad blindly while dropping lots of money for a game.
More libraries caring games and encouraging patrons to check them out and interact with them would be a better way to close the gap in my opinion. Free to play is a thing that should evolve, but I don't see it bringing any sort of equality because of the nature of free to play games at the moment...but maybe someone can make a game that is free to play and still artful and demanding,
Tell the people we need to support libraries!
Right because books companies are falling apart because people go to the library.
I think one problem we have in the gaming-community is how games are produced. Games that are very visually pleasing like the MW series or COD owe most of their expenses to the dev-team that made the visuals and animations. Having a budget that big means that titles need to have assured sales (they have to be popular genres) or the game won't be developed. This limits how many different types of games are produced.
Therefore I believe a solution to the accessibility-problem is making less process-heavy games, which will reduce hardware- and game-costs and give a greater variety within games. This would work well along with F2P (sometimes, like mentioned in the video).
Hmm... I would have a couple of points. Firstly, I disagree that gaming is a necessarily expensive hobby. It is expensive to be on the cutting edge of gaming, or even relatively modern, but if you wanted to get into the deep culture of gaming, you could do a lot worse than buying a second hand PS2 and a handful of games off ebay for the price of three or four movie tickets.
Secondly, I cannot in any sense agree that free to play should be the majority never mind entirety of the game market. For reference, I have played a LOT of free to play games, and Ive never spent a penny on any of them. However, I have enjoyed some of them, one or two EXTENSIVELY. Especially the poster child of F2P, Team Fortress 2. However... I firmly believe that FTP as a business model is the catalyst for the worst kind of mass production, for several reasons that I'll not go into in great detail here. Suffice it to say that the focus of content production and the method thereof have, in my opinion, suffered massively due to the rise in the free to play model.
Finally... I would say that this episode needs to be compared to the Extra Credits 'Free to play/Bad Monetization' episode for the sake of balance, and a glimpse into the possibilities of everything that could go wrong if F2P was a majority model, and for a more development oriented point of view than this show's player oriented point of view.
I understand that everybody needs to access games, but I strongly disagree with the idea that every game should be Free to Play, or that every game should follow any specific business model. It's important to have these options for the reasons that you said in the video, but just because a low barrier to entry benefits some people, it hurts others. Why can't Free to Play games and the traditional $60 games exist at the same time?
I think the issue if ALL games were free to play is that there would be a level of disparity between those who play free only, and those who can afford to buy more of the content get a fuller experience than those who don't buy anything.
In multiplayer games, a class-war like scenario could (and probably would) playout where those who cannot afford all the content would become discouraged of playing in the first place, and those who have all the content, and start to show dominance within the game.
Or, in the case of single player games, there would be players who get a full story and narrative, and those who don't.
I think for gaming to survive as an art form, there will need to be more indie games, and more focus on experience instead of technology from the major publishers. I've spend more time playing Papers Please, GameDev Tycoon and Atom Zombie Smasher this year than most other games (League of Legends excluded).
My family was damn poor when I was a kid, but I still had a Nintendo. I didn't get games all the time, but I still had a fair collection. I'm in college now, so of course I'm still poor, but I can set aside a little money here and there to get a game.
With that said, sure, there are some games that work well with the F2P model, such as League of Legends and the like. But there is a really big trend for F2P to make a drastic drop in the quality of the game experience. With MMOs for example, a subscription game has to make a game that is compelling and constantly evolving in order to maintain the player base. A free MMO is built from the ground up with monetization in mind. This often means deliberately making an unpleasant experience that can then be remedied for a fee. The few MMO games that have avoided this problem started out with the subscription model and switched to F2P later, so the foundation of a good game was already in place.
So, no, not ALL games should be free to play. The best experiences will be worth paying for.
I think that there should be a law about the price of entertainment.
Basically, they would have you slide your card, and then a machine would see how much money you had in you account, and then give a fitting price for the object of choice, unless that price is over the already given price. So for a family like mine, one that barely has any money to use for entertainment, a $500 product could have the price go down to a "mere" $100. For my family, this is still a lot, but a good comparison to most people's experience with the costs of entertainment devices.
I think there's a difference between having gaming as a hobby and "experiencing everything gaming has to offer". In the movie analogy, of course going to see every single movie that comes out is going to be more expensive than picking and choosing the ones you want to see.
There is also the situation that there are just way more games than there used to be. I used to be quite content as a kid playing one new game every month or two, but now there are just way too many to play. I don't have the time; money isn't even the issue.
There are tons of bundles for sale all the time. Of course, these are mostly for either indie games or older games, but I don't find that I miss out on much of "gamer culture" (as if that's something to be missed) by playing the awesome games a year or two after they come out and just hearing about the new innovations as they come out.
The problem with all games being free to play is that, no matter how good the game is, for a free to play game to exist, it has to deliberately abuse the player.
Without the player spending extra cash on upgrades and currency, the game company doesn't make any money so the experience is naturally geared towards finding ways to make gamers buy more stuff. This leads to things like free to wait and pay to win which are both horrible experiences for the player, but necessary for the genre...
The only way I can see around it would be for the companies to get rid of in app purchasing and focus solely on revenue through ads. This brings up another problem however when the ads become invasive and, yet again, offer a negative experience for the player.
But if you define the possible solution to the problem with the current solution to the problem, then yes, we should give up. But I believe that if the desire is there to explore new option to introduce more players into the ecosystem, there are potential options available. "Abuse the player" is not the only solution.
I could see it working if developers could find a non-intrusive way to include ads, someone else mentioned having billboards for real products in-game that change everyday or something like that, it's the only way I could see myself being happy with an all Free-to-play model (within the current parameters of the industry at least). If they could work out a system like that where the free game is geniunley free for the player then good.
I'm uncomfortable with micro-transactions and stuff like that in general though, it may just be to do with the kind of games I prefer. I'm into single player, story driven content and, as you said yourself, traditional free to play mechanics probably wouldn't work with those types of games. I'm well aware that gamers more into other genres, MMORPG's for example, are probably more used to, and more comfortable with paying for additional items and in game currency.
Personally I don't mind free to play games with ads attached, this is actually one of my favorite models actually. I also don't mind where you can pay to buy something that otherwise might have taken time to unlock. Imagine if in borderlands 2 you could pay for legendaries, or if in payday 2 you could buy mods for your weapons.
I however hate the model of
" hey, wanna play the game for more than 5 min at a time? Gimme 5$!"
I thought of an idea for a story-based game that is like SaGa in how there are different characters and like Chrono Trigger with all it's story choices, but you pay for 2/4 of the story choices in a situation and the other 2 are free so it will be replayable but not totally replayable without paying. But even with half of the game for free people would complain. The motto could be "Half-Full, Not Half-Empty"
The thing about free-to-play games (if you've read any meme's about it) is that non-paying and paying players are vastly different. Paying players were viewed as lvl 100 soldiers but non-paying as lvl 1 peasants.
No. That's an easy question to answer. Just release demo's once in a while that'd be good enough for me. I'd rather free-2-play games didn't even exist. Because they're not free, you have to pay in order to access the majority of the content. I'd rather pay one fixed price and have everything a game can offer than constantly pay a small amount of money to be able to keep playing. Although games that are just free in general, that's cool.
One thing I noticed was that out of the expensive items you showed, the lowest price was the game itself. Inaccessibility due to price is not really due to the price of the games, but more so the price of all the other things you mentioned. Basically, if you can afford a fancy new Xbox One, you can probably afford a few games to go with it.
I agree that widening the field of video gaming to more players is a good idea. Especially those who may not have the capital for high end gaming systems. I also agree that free to play has great qualities that enable those who could not otherwise afford it to play. I do not agree that all games should be free to play. Free to play is only a single model for game profitability. I think that to expand the availability of video games to larger audiences is to expand the models by which games are profitable.
this episode made me realize how expensive everything is just to play games as of now i just pay for the systems, games, and accessories since i live with parents and go to school with a part time job
Can you do a video about Kerbal Space Program and science in video games?