"There are lots of ways to implement free-to-play, and most of them are detrimental to the core game design."
- Rami Ismail, one half of Dutch indie studio Vlambeer, discusses why he still isn't a fan of the free-to-play space.
Ismail has spoken out before about "evil in-app purchase stuff," stating that these monetization techniques more often than not take away from a game's core design.
Talking to free-to-play consultant Will Luton, and as reported by PocketGamer.biz, Ismail reiterated his thoughts, noting that the most successful free-to-play titles are those that exploit players.
"The problem we see is that, the way to efficiently do free-to-play is to exploit people, or to exploit the psychology of people in a way that is often perpendicular or opposite to core game design," he says.
"That is something we worry about because we see potential in implementing free-to-play in a good way," he adds, "but every game we've seen that tries to do that has been a financial failure."
Ismail is keen to stress that in-app purchases in a game do not automatically lead to bad game design, but he says that "the solutions that are being implemented at this point show really clearly that the most efficient way to do in-app purchases is exploiting people as much as possible."
He concludes, "A lot of games currently in the App Store are not necessarily good games, and just happen to gross a lot because they get a lot of attention, they're free, people can play them, and they're built in such a way that they get people addicted and spending money."
I think the term Free-To-Play needs to be defined here. Free-to-Play can mean simply free to play with no added purchase.
The Free-To-Play style with In-App Purchase enabled can be exploitative, but that's what gamers want. Why else does a gamer pay $19 for an aimbot or create their own hack? They want an advantage over the competition. Purchases like double XP and other items that give an advantage allow players to get that without feeling like they are cheating at the game. They'll also keep paying for it. If they don't they'll struggle with it.
In games like Mafia Wars and other facebook favorites I don't think people realize the top 1% of players spends probably $10k a month on those games to be the top player. So exploitative yes, but it's what people want. Until people stop wanting to be #1, people will stop paying for items that give them that advantage.
The problem with Free-To-Play as a transaction model, is while, yes, your netting 10k on your top 1%, the vast majority of your potential base is turned off and away by percieved imbalances and lack of fairness in the game. So ultimately, sure, you have your 1% spending 10k while the rest of your player base abandons ship. After that, how long do you think it'll be before your 1% loses interest? I can tell you, it wont be long.
"That is something we worry about because we see potential in implementing free-to-play in a good way," he adds, "but every game we've seen that tries to do that has been a financial failure."
Nice guys finish last.
I think that Ismail's just expecting the non-exploitative F2P to perform just as well as the coercive model and is defining what success means in terms of the latter. I don't think that's the way to go, at least not now, though, as Ramin pointed out in his latest blog, people are starting to realize they're being exploited and things might change.
Yeah I do wonder how long people will keep drinking the kool aid. At some point, I expect people will realize how empty a lot of these games are and get over it.
Not expecting that at all - at Vlambeer we won't do F2P because not only would it impact our designs, but also because the non-expoitative model simply barely seems to sustain its own development at all.
At first blush, I want to point to League of Legends as an example of a game that is successful, free-to-play, and non-exploitative. If that's a good example, then it would seem to answer the headline question with a "Yes."
Perhaps non-exploitative but it does ruin the core game design. There must be a reason so many champions are cookie cutters and I'm not doubting Riot's design team capabilities. In a game about counters, you can't restrict heroes based on time played or money paid.
LoL's model is nice but it's not the saint everyone makes it out to be. Dota 2 on the other hand...
I've never played DOTA2 so I can't comment on it. Though when you mention it, I'm also reminded of Team Fortress 2, which mostly struck me as non-exploitative while I was playing it, with the exception of those random gift boxes.
Something I think the conversation could benefit from a better definition of "exploitative". Does this purely refer to "paying not to play" and varied kinds of lotteries? What else constitutes exploitative F2P/in-app purchasing practices?
That's so true! That's one of the reasons why i'll never regard LoL as a competitively viable game, and that's LoL's core game design. To be competitively viable, you need to have access to every rune and every hero and in LoL that costs a fortune or like a year of pure grinding. This means that no matter how good you are at the game, your competitive viability is still tied directly to your wallet. It's not like you can viably grind heroes you need for your lineup, because Riot keeps completely rebalancing heroes every two weeks, which prompts people to buy the newest OP hero, but doesn't give time for the competitive scene to adapt.
At the professional level, buying things might not be an issue, i'm sure professional teams get unlocked accounts for free, however, imagine that you and 4 of your friends are REALLY good, if you want to break into the scene, you have to pay big money. DOTA2 gives you everything you need from the start, everything you can purchase is just cosmetics. And it's never a recolor/remodel mess that only helps to confuse people like in LoL, because "hey, it looks cool", it's always gear that's tuned to the character's default visual appearance and you're never mistaken what hero you're looking at.
F2P in LoL does not exploit the average user, but, as Samuel said, it ruins the core game design, which is what Ismail was talking about.
I disagree completely. I don't want to derail this into a conversation about LoL, but if you think that having to unlock heroes somehow compromises their core design, then I submit that you don't understand their core design as well as you think you do.
In particular: While it is true that unlocking every hero would take either a prohibitive amount of time, (or a small fortune), it isn't actually necessary to unlock every hero in order to play competitively. LoL is a game of counters, but they are soft counters, and not hard counters. Player skill is often as much of a factor as character pick, and the game easily gives you enough soft currency to buy new champions nearly as fast as you can master them.
I don't know what you're disagreeing with. "I don't need more than these few heroes unlocked" is an average player mentality, and i already said, LoL's system is perfectly fine for average players. Competitive 5v5 play is a whole different thing.
F2P (w/Microtransactions) largely emerged out of the E. Hemisphere's Game Devs. It's all they could do to combat "Piracy". So while I won't say it's a panacea for the W. Hemisphere's Game Devs... you have to look at who's flush with cash now & who isn't? Who's buying who outright or buying ownership into the W. Hemisphere's Game Dev companies? When F2P (w/Microtransactions) is implemented well....it's by far the most lucrative business model. It's irrelevant whether or not we like it.
I'd caution Game Devs that 'exploit' their community who do implement F2P. I'm not sure why one would do that or risk pissing off your customers. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
"it's by far the most lucrative business model"... Its a dieing fad... At least here in the States it is. The reason F2P did so well in Asia is that the average person simply couldn’t afford to buy into a subscription model... so game companies opted to make it so the player could still be involved AND spend their limited resources on the game. The notion is a win win for those with little to no spending leeway. Stateside, its not as prevalent due to a number of reasons: Developers grabbed onto it as a get-rich-quick scheme because one company got successful at it... (one successful company does not a trend make...) as a result of the get-rich-quick scheme attitude, development got lazy... game quality plummeted. Free to play games became widely known as Free to Pay. The well deserved negative perception of F2P became an associative liability. End result is, F2P , today, still shuffles along clinging to life where it can, but is no where near where it started, and is a far cry away from being the most lucrative business model.
@Josh - you'll have to post justification for your comment "Its a dieing fad" as Free to Play does not at all appear to be on the decline "in the States", or anywhere for that matter. Also, F2P has and continues to do well in Asia NOT because the average person there couldn't afford to buy into a subscription model, but rather because it allows the game operator to roll out a charge-less beta experience seamlessly into the free to play commercial launch...if you suddenly turn on a subscription but your competitor doesn't have to, you lose your customers to that competitor.
I get discouraged sometimes, when Apple (et al) highlights title after title that are little more than skinner boxes designed to exploit humanity. /sigh.
I agree. I don't know how you get you're games up as Editors Picks etc., but so many are soul-sucking F2P games, with no substance.
Another studio in town (we have a lot of friends between ours and theirs) just came out with one that made me cringe... blatant nickel-and-diming, next to zero substance, also is a clone; not to mention its monetization scheme is broken, and the game itself is buggy beyond belief.
I can't think of many good examples, but I think it's entirely possible to be extremely profitable in mmos and the like without being exploitative or coercive. Probably the game I've spent the most money on is Lord of the Rings Online and I think it's a good example of what I mean, and yet I have a caveat.
When it first launched, with the typical subscription model, there was the option of a lifetime membership which I figured was a good purchase as I'm well aware of how often i game and for how long and it seemed an excellent way to avoid paying monthly for a game I might play for years. I have played if for years, but largely casually because I have nothing but time. When it transitioned successfully to free to play lifetime members were given automatic VIP status akin to subscribers and an allotment of the currency used for microtransactions. People who did not have lifetime memberships were encouraged to subscribe for unlimited content and quests and had restrictied inventories, possibly more but that's all I can think of. Now I had a girlfriend at the time start playing with me as a free to play entreant and I started a new character to level with her. She was limited from two advanced jobs and only had two character slots and two inventory bags but that seemed fine and she made a characer she enjoyed. She had access to all the intro quest areas but we figured out she'd have to eventually buy quest packs for later content that I had free access to. There were in game deeds and grinding though that rewarded you with the microtransaction currency though so we actually did enough playing together, putting the time in, to pick and choose quest packs for her and she didn't really have to spend any money if she didn't want to.
Often however as a game they make you want to. You can pick up conveniences like extra home point milestones to set more destinations around the large world. Can you get by with one? Yeah, but a few bucks for a second or third can be awfully tempting to get around easier. You can shorten the timer for reuse. You can buy the typical xp buffs or whatever, but here never seems to be any reason to as long as you aren't on your umpteenth character playthough and actually like doing the quests. There are several inventory expansions you can invest in from personal, to bank, to shared multi character bank, to outfits between characters. The customization of outfits probably sucks up a great many peoples cash as the can have multiple appearance slots, buy up to a dozen I think, and buy unique attire and clothing to wear outwardly while having a complete different set for stats no one sees outside of pvp. The wealth of appearance customizations you can find in game or in the in game store is probably only surpassed by the old City of Heroes game and whenyou add in different steeds or housing items people who are into that kinda thing probably can drop a few paychecks getting themselves, their ride, and their houses just the way they like them. To me that level of customization can be addicting to people and can be the true moneymaker of a game.
I've dropped a few hundred myself and never have to worry about a subscription which makes me think even having a potential subscription model is superflous. It might even be counter productive. I, personally, do not like being coerced. I'm probably less likely to spend any money in your game if you try. It kinda pisses me off when games try to force me into an obsolete subscription models, and here's one that I don't even notice that option in because I'm excused for it. Now to be fair there are ways around it, unlike most other games, but why have it at all? They excuse me from it as a former lifetime member and by doing so encourage me to spend far more than I ever would on a subscription. I doubt I'm alone in this.
It seems to me the best method would likely be to abandon subscriptions altogether. Let people pop in and out of your game. Stop trying to corral them with obligations. Enough with the limitations which I think inspire more frustration and moving onto your competition than interest in submitting to your controls and coersion to subscribe. Let people play and and get INVESTED in their characters and then give them options to allow them to customize themselves and their environment to their liking. Give them the sense of ownership within a personal environment and they are far more likely to remain and continue investing in your game. Pretty much the entire course of human development has been adapting our environment to suit our desires, it AMAZES me more games don't capitilize on this desire to create an abundant amount of visuals and customizations to allow people to desire and see themselves owning. A lot of people spend an hour getting their face just right for games that don't even have an online or multiplayer component. Letting people spend money to look the way they want to in your online game seems a no brainer as does giving them a wealth of potential options.
Looking at it as a participant the game that excuses me even a potential subscription or doesn't even have one like Guild Wars happen to be the ones I am most comfortable spending money in, and do so, even if I'm not playing. My ability to pop in and out, which I do, and know I will do because they are always there with full access for me both encourages me to do so as well as invest in them because I know I will be back at some point in the future. Limit me and my interest is limited. Why buy something for my character in a game I may not subscribe to again in the future, and if I do it will likely simply be for a month?
Bottom line when you see someone reaching for your wallet you tend to hold onto your wallet a little tighter. So don't reach for it. Make things available to them they simply hand you their wallet to possess.
The Free-To-Play style with In-App Purchase enabled can be exploitative, but that's what gamers want. Why else does a gamer pay $19 for an aimbot or create their own hack? They want an advantage over the competition. Purchases like double XP and other items that give an advantage allow players to get that without feeling like they are cheating at the game. They'll also keep paying for it. If they don't they'll struggle with it.
In games like Mafia Wars and other facebook favorites I don't think people realize the top 1% of players spends probably $10k a month on those games to be the top player. So exploitative yes, but it's what people want. Until people stop wanting to be #1, people will stop paying for items that give them that advantage.
Nice guys finish last.
I think that Ismail's just expecting the non-exploitative F2P to perform just as well as the coercive model and is defining what success means in terms of the latter. I don't think that's the way to go, at least not now, though, as Ramin pointed out in his latest blog, people are starting to realize they're being exploited and things might change.
LoL's model is nice but it's not the saint everyone makes it out to be. Dota 2 on the other hand...
Something I think the conversation could benefit from a better definition of "exploitative". Does this purely refer to "paying not to play" and varied kinds of lotteries? What else constitutes exploitative F2P/in-app purchasing practices?
That's so true! That's one of the reasons why i'll never regard LoL as a competitively viable game, and that's LoL's core game design. To be competitively viable, you need to have access to every rune and every hero and in LoL that costs a fortune or like a year of pure grinding. This means that no matter how good you are at the game, your competitive viability is still tied directly to your wallet. It's not like you can viably grind heroes you need for your lineup, because Riot keeps completely rebalancing heroes every two weeks, which prompts people to buy the newest OP hero, but doesn't give time for the competitive scene to adapt.
At the professional level, buying things might not be an issue, i'm sure professional teams get unlocked accounts for free, however, imagine that you and 4 of your friends are REALLY good, if you want to break into the scene, you have to pay big money. DOTA2 gives you everything you need from the start, everything you can purchase is just cosmetics. And it's never a recolor/remodel mess that only helps to confuse people like in LoL, because "hey, it looks cool", it's always gear that's tuned to the character's default visual appearance and you're never mistaken what hero you're looking at.
F2P in LoL does not exploit the average user, but, as Samuel said, it ruins the core game design, which is what Ismail was talking about.
I disagree completely. I don't want to derail this into a conversation about LoL, but if you think that having to unlock heroes somehow compromises their core design, then I submit that you don't understand their core design as well as you think you do.
In particular: While it is true that unlocking every hero would take either a prohibitive amount of time, (or a small fortune), it isn't actually necessary to unlock every hero in order to play competitively. LoL is a game of counters, but they are soft counters, and not hard counters. Player skill is often as much of a factor as character pick, and the game easily gives you enough soft currency to buy new champions nearly as fast as you can master them.
I'd caution Game Devs that 'exploit' their community who do implement F2P. I'm not sure why one would do that or risk pissing off your customers. That just doesn't make any sense to me.
Another studio in town (we have a lot of friends between ours and theirs) just came out with one that made me cringe... blatant nickel-and-diming, next to zero substance, also is a clone; not to mention its monetization scheme is broken, and the game itself is buggy beyond belief.
Yet, it's on the front page of the app store.
When it first launched, with the typical subscription model, there was the option of a lifetime membership which I figured was a good purchase as I'm well aware of how often i game and for how long and it seemed an excellent way to avoid paying monthly for a game I might play for years. I have played if for years, but largely casually because I have nothing but time. When it transitioned successfully to free to play lifetime members were given automatic VIP status akin to subscribers and an allotment of the currency used for microtransactions. People who did not have lifetime memberships were encouraged to subscribe for unlimited content and quests and had restrictied inventories, possibly more but that's all I can think of. Now I had a girlfriend at the time start playing with me as a free to play entreant and I started a new character to level with her. She was limited from two advanced jobs and only had two character slots and two inventory bags but that seemed fine and she made a characer she enjoyed. She had access to all the intro quest areas but we figured out she'd have to eventually buy quest packs for later content that I had free access to. There were in game deeds and grinding though that rewarded you with the microtransaction currency though so we actually did enough playing together, putting the time in, to pick and choose quest packs for her and she didn't really have to spend any money if she didn't want to.
Often however as a game they make you want to. You can pick up conveniences like extra home point milestones to set more destinations around the large world. Can you get by with one? Yeah, but a few bucks for a second or third can be awfully tempting to get around easier. You can shorten the timer for reuse. You can buy the typical xp buffs or whatever, but here never seems to be any reason to as long as you aren't on your umpteenth character playthough and actually like doing the quests. There are several inventory expansions you can invest in from personal, to bank, to shared multi character bank, to outfits between characters. The customization of outfits probably sucks up a great many peoples cash as the can have multiple appearance slots, buy up to a dozen I think, and buy unique attire and clothing to wear outwardly while having a complete different set for stats no one sees outside of pvp. The wealth of appearance customizations you can find in game or in the in game store is probably only surpassed by the old City of Heroes game and whenyou add in different steeds or housing items people who are into that kinda thing probably can drop a few paychecks getting themselves, their ride, and their houses just the way they like them. To me that level of customization can be addicting to people and can be the true moneymaker of a game.
I've dropped a few hundred myself and never have to worry about a subscription which makes me think even having a potential subscription model is superflous. It might even be counter productive. I, personally, do not like being coerced. I'm probably less likely to spend any money in your game if you try. It kinda pisses me off when games try to force me into an obsolete subscription models, and here's one that I don't even notice that option in because I'm excused for it. Now to be fair there are ways around it, unlike most other games, but why have it at all? They excuse me from it as a former lifetime member and by doing so encourage me to spend far more than I ever would on a subscription. I doubt I'm alone in this.
It seems to me the best method would likely be to abandon subscriptions altogether. Let people pop in and out of your game. Stop trying to corral them with obligations. Enough with the limitations which I think inspire more frustration and moving onto your competition than interest in submitting to your controls and coersion to subscribe. Let people play and and get INVESTED in their characters and then give them options to allow them to customize themselves and their environment to their liking. Give them the sense of ownership within a personal environment and they are far more likely to remain and continue investing in your game. Pretty much the entire course of human development has been adapting our environment to suit our desires, it AMAZES me more games don't capitilize on this desire to create an abundant amount of visuals and customizations to allow people to desire and see themselves owning. A lot of people spend an hour getting their face just right for games that don't even have an online or multiplayer component. Letting people spend money to look the way they want to in your online game seems a no brainer as does giving them a wealth of potential options.
Looking at it as a participant the game that excuses me even a potential subscription or doesn't even have one like Guild Wars happen to be the ones I am most comfortable spending money in, and do so, even if I'm not playing. My ability to pop in and out, which I do, and know I will do because they are always there with full access for me both encourages me to do so as well as invest in them because I know I will be back at some point in the future. Limit me and my interest is limited. Why buy something for my character in a game I may not subscribe to again in the future, and if I do it will likely simply be for a month?
Bottom line when you see someone reaching for your wallet you tend to hold onto your wallet a little tighter. So don't reach for it. Make things available to them they simply hand you their wallet to possess.