thranx said:
Slimebeast said:
Three huge poblems with F2P:
1. Bad game design. Rather than making a good game on its own merits the game will instead be designed so that the player will spend more money while playing it.
2. Pay to win is never good. It makes the low spending players feel unfairly treated and it makes the high spending players feel like they cheat. And neither will feel satisfied.
3. F2P increases the risk that people with disposition for addiction will become addicted and spend insane amounts of their hard earned money (called "whales" in the world of F2P).
Cevat Yerli you lier, F2P is not better for the gamer, it's only better for the publisher.
|
That is with current methods of F2P. There are other options. What if they did some sort of commercial break during games. Like every 20 min you get a commercial or at the end of each level. It may kill immersion some but its an alternative.Seems like this guy wants to think outside of the box so i wonder what he will come up with.
|
No, that's not what he wants. In an interview Cevat Yerli told that he got the idea when he went to Korea about 5 years ago and saw how passionate people were about gaming and how different the financial model around games was. He saw the benefits of micro-transactions.
F2P is so simple and genious at the same time (from the publisher's perspective).
You lure in an audience by being free, then you use all kinds of tricks to make them want to pay small but repeated sums and to stay in your game for as long as possible. It's also brilliant in that it allows differentiation - instead of everyone paying $60 you can take advantage of the guy who will only pay $10 (because he would never have bought that $60 game) as well as the whale who gets addicted and shells out thousands of Dollars on a single game, and everyone in between.
