Wait... this game is free?

[TY]

How do you feel about F2P games? What are your favorite ones and what are your least favorite ones?
Why do you like them so much or why dont you like them?
Does your game have some sort of hidden things you need to pay for with real money?

For me, i really like LoL and SC2 as F2P games, though one can question if SC2 is F2P since you need to buy the game for the campaign. But the multiplayer and the Arcade is free for everyone cause of the Starter Edition. Also LoL is pretty fun to play (ironic since im a SC2 fan and they have a hatred against LoL :S) though it annoys me that most champs i like arent selected to be F2P yet xD.

So what are yours?

 

[T!M]

To be perfectly honest I hate F2P. I would rather P2P a F2P game like Runescape because you get the whole package. I've never enjoyed playing half of a possible full-game. Just bugs me.

I mean, if I had to pick one, it was probably League of Legends. But even then, you have to save crap-tons of IP to get a decent champion.

 

[Songbird]

In my opinion, Guild Wars has the perfect monetization system. Pay once to get the game, no subscription costs, and pretty much all of the cash shop items are cosmetic and show that you want to support the devs more, rather than get an advantage in-game.

I'm not a fan of F2P with "micro"transactions, because the devs will almost always do everything in their power to push you towards paying up, without explicitly blocking things off.

Take Warframe, for example. It's a F2P game that's incredibly fun as a shooter, and it's even available for both PC and PS4. However, while you can get almost every item without paying a cent, it's virtually impossible without wasting hours upon hours for grinding.

 

[BeefTaco]

I don't like Free to Play games that much either. A month ago I downloaded Tekken Revolution which is a F2P game but the experience with it was horrible. For one it worked on a token system where you need a certain amount of tokens to play and the tokens refill when a certain amount of time passed, a la Mobile game. That alone made me quit playing the game because I felt restricted.

The only F2P I liked, DC Universe Online, is actually a pretty good F2P game even if its only a decent game overall. The reason of this is because you don't have to pay to win, it all comes down to using the proper builds and skill because items and gear don't affect as much as other MMOs. The things that you have to buy are either for aestethic reasons, DLC and to tweak your character with things like power resets. The thing I have to knock them for its there overpriced Subscriptions (which are optional), I don't know if this is the same for all MMO's but a 100$ a year seems to much for me.

 

[machomuu]

In my opinion, Guild Wars has the perfect monetization system. Pay once to get the game, no subscription costs, and pretty much all of the cash shop items are cosmetic and show that you want to support the devs more, rather than get an advantage in-game.

I'm not a fan of F2P with "micro"transactions, because the devs will almost always do everything in their power to push you towards paying up, without explicitly blocking things off.

Take Warframe, for example. It's a F2P game that's incredibly fun as a shooter, and it's even available for both PC and PS4. However, while you can get almost every item without paying a cent, it's virtually impossible without wasting hours upon hours for grinding.

I agree, though there are some games that do a good job of making the pay options just that, one such game is RaiderZ (which I don't play anymore). It did a good job of making it so that you would never really feel compelled to buy any of their items, is was very much a thing of choice that felt justified. Most games aren't like this, though, and I really wish that more games would adopt the B2P (Buy 2 Play) philosophy that Guild Wars did.

I mean, I understand it. There are some high quality F2Ps that would take a hit if they didn't have microtransactions, but sometimes they are far too compulsory and can actually push players away from the game, especially if they opt for the P2W (Pay 2 Win) method.

Then, of course, there are services like Osu! which stay afloat thanks to donations and minor merchandise. I think those are respectable, and though I've never really thought about it before, I guess it's being free is a large reason why I love it so much.

This isn't to say that I don't like F2Ps, but the way many of them (or even most of them) go about gaining revenue can deal breaking are unattractive.

 

[T!M]

I did the math, Beef. I pay about 8 bucks for a month of Runescape Subscriptitude, after a year I pay about... 3,000 dollars. And that's if I decided to renew every month. That said, paying 100 dollars at one time, I don't think it's worth it, especially if you're just getting DLC and new super hero clothes. They should implement a monthly payment and not a lump sum yearly payment. But I mean... It's up to you.

 

[«Chuckles»]

An MMO that I have played for quiet some time is F2P but membership is not all that great only a few extra features that you can live without unlike some where you need membership to add people to your friends list.
With mobile f2p you get what you pay for. ALso every game is free to play just you gotta no where to start looking *nudge* *nudge*

 

[machomuu]

ALso every game is free to play just you gotta no where to start looking *nudge* *nudge*

Well, barring paid MMOs...but that's a whole other discussion altogether.

 

[Legobricks]

DotA 2: Competitive (so sometimes I'd rather not play) and ultimately deep game considering the simplicity of the victory condition in each match. Purge put it better than me, really: something about how something different and new always happens each time one plays. I just wish MOBAs regularly had multiple maps like the RTSs they sprung from.

Tribes Ascend: Oldschool FPS in a modern era, basically. That alone merits interest, but the skiing mechanic is the true point of distinguishment that the Tribes series claims to.

In my opinion, Guild Wars has the perfect monetization system. Pay once to get the game, no subscription costs, and pretty much all of the cash shop items are cosmetic and show that you want to support the devs more, rather than get an advantage in-game.

This is called 'pay to play', but if it's valid for this thread, I agree.

 

[LilyAnn]

I hate F2p games. Most of the time they end up being p2w. Because of this fact. I decided to leave the mmo scene. I like paying for the game once and having everything in the game and not having to pay for an advantage.

 

[Satoshi Ookami]

Free to Play only to pay more than the game is worth.
If I play F2P games on my Vita, I only choose those that do not require DLCs to complete.

 

[Beyond Infinity]

I love free to play games. You can try them for free, play for free if you like it or just stop.

Remember, Team Fortress 2 is now free to play and funds itself through microtransactions which don't affect the gameplay.

MapleStory did it really well too, you can pay for aesthetic items such as a shirt which appears instead of your normal top, but keeps the stats of the normal top. Plus double XP/drops/coins etc.

WarThunder is the same. You CAN pay to get certain planes or to improve your squad, but the game puts you into an online match with people around your skill level so it's rarely unbalanced.

I used to play AssaultCube which was a free to play online FPS, which was loads of fun. No paying for anything either, just raw killing.

I think the problem is when people hear F2P, they only think P2W. There are plenty of games you can play and enjoy for free without having to pay at all.

(Plus, if the game isn't free to play then by definition isn't it pay to win anyway?)

 

[LoudSilence]

There was this one game, Dungeon Fighter Online that I was really into. The only advantages money could buy were things you could earn/trade for in-game anyway, and people did that frequently. I played the game for years and never spent a cent. It was beautiful, man ;_;

They shut down because Nexon is stupid and doesn't know how to handle anything other than MapleStory, their primary cash cow.

 

[Palkia]

Free to Play games are engineered for the maximum profit out of consumers. They lure people in with 'free ' gameplay and force them into pay walls. The whole microtransaction cult that has popped up in the past few years is killing the video game industry.

 

[Dragon]

Hm, Free games. I haven't played my fair share of free games, but you know, whenever I see some video game that's free, I just think, well I can at least try it out, but then, there has to be a catch, no? Either the video game is pretty terrible, or, its a ployfor people to let you try it out first so you can buy a full version of it later.

 

[TY]

Hm, Free games. I haven't played my fair share of free games, but you know, whenever I see some video game that's free, I just think, well I can at least try it out, but then, there has to be a catch, no? Either the video game is pretty terrible, or, its a ployfor people to let you try it out first so you can buy a full version of it later.

Exactly. Every game has that that i can think of.
Starcraft - F2P, but you need to buy it to play the campaign.
LoL - F2P but there is also stuff you need to buy with money
Demo's - F2P but limited access and even worse, with a expire date.
Need for speed World - F2P but all the col stuff costs money.

It stays F2P, but all the cool features and items cost money.

 

[Razer302]

I have played several MMO games, COrum online, Knight online, Hero online,

Currently playing Perfect world, I am i big MMO player, takes so much time, most F2P MMO games have heavy cash shop needs though which can end up costing more. If I added up how much I spent on cash shops it would easily be well over me playing 10 years or more of WoW or FF online... and thats in 2/3 years >.>

 

[Tlachtli]

As far as F2P MMOs go, both Spiral Knights and Rift have the right idea for good F2P systems. In both cases the entirety of the game is available to free players (with the exceptions of SK's "Operation Crimson Hammer" DLC and Rift's Storm Legion soul unlocks, neither of which are required for progression or endgame raiding). They make their money selling A) cosmetic items and B) faster progression.

In Spiral Knights, gear progression is done by a series of upgrades requiring Crystal Energy. CE can be bought for real money in the cash shop and then traded to other players; P2P players can purchase energy to upgrade eligible equipment as they need it, while F2P players rely on a combination of purchasing CE from P2P for in-game currency and using the daily regenerating Mist Energy (serves the same function as CE, but you only get a limited allotment per day).

In Rift, their subscription model gives their P2P a set of daily regenerating items that grant temporary boosts to things like XP gain, notoriety with NPC groups, and non-tradable currencies (P2P does not get any boosts to tradable currencies though, so F2P and P2P earn gold at the same rate). F2P have full access to the game's content, but earn XP and non-tradable currencies at a relatively slower rate. P2P in Rift just gives faster progression, in most cases about 40% faster. Worth noting is that there are one-off consumables that can temporarily give these bonuses to F2P players, but they are rare and usually earned through special world events.

 

[Incinermyn]

I stopped liking F2P games when Facebook started pressuring me to pay real money to buy items in their "free" RPGs like Monster Galaxy. To be honest, if I'm going to pay anything for a game, I'm going to make sure its a title I legitly like and not something I'm going to stop playing after a few short weeks. This is why I mostly stick to console and handheld gaming devices, and why I haven't been sucked into the world of PC/tablet games and apps.

 

[Beyond Infinity]

It's interesting.

If a game were sold for £30, I think more people would buy it than if it were free but cost £20 or so to complete/get the main story.