Free to Play isn't to blame, it's the consumer

One of my least favorite things about a restaurant is having to interact with waitstaff. It's probably why my favorite restaurants don't have them. Personally, I recognize it as a hard job that I couldn't do well. And, if they do a good job, I love to give good tips. So much so, that it hurts my wallet if I eat out too much. And then I feel kind of sad and empty because I've spent so much on good service, but more often than not, the food wasn't worth the money. And in this comparison, free-to-play games are sometimes my favorite foods cooked terribly. It looks like something I love, but it just doesn't leave a good taste in my mouth, even after I've spent a lot on tipping.

 

I've said this to several of my fine artist and performer friends: Art is worth what people are willing to pay for it. In the game industry (and the performing arts, for that matter), that value is effectively zero in 2015. Expecting to make a living off of game development, especially mobile, is a bad business decision for individuals or groups hoping to start studios. I've watched too many of my friends' game studio starups fold over the last two years.

I'm not pointing the finger at anyone, but by the same token no one should be surprised if the only games you see anyone willing to make any more are F2P skinner boxes, because any right-thinking creators will have fled the carnage.

 

It is always the customers' fault, according to the businesses that implement or support these pay schemes. Should any of us be surprised?

 

Because you hold up one example of a success to prove that indie game development is still a viable business, and ignore the actual trends that show the real picture. For instance, polygon just posted this today from one of the co-founders of Mode 7 (Frozen Synapse):

http://www.polygon.com/2015/8/6/9110459/signifying-nothing-making-indie-games-in-2015

Please read it.

And yes, the examples I pointed out are from premium games that still contain bottomless IAP money sinks that come directly from F2P. So not only did you pay up front, but to be competitive you're often still handcuffed to a gatcha mechanic. But for some reason, that's acceptable to you? Pure hypocrisy.

 

It actually does make sense if you think about it… But first I'm sorry for my remark towards you - that was low on my part and my only defence is the subject of the thread grinds people because all we want is a good game in the end, not some buggy piece of crap or a f2p game that gauges your wallet.

It makes sense because if a publisher or developer released something like Mario Kart 8 with all the polish that Nintendo would do and sell for $20… And we are talking about a full game experience with hours of fun and play that has been tested by a QA department so there are no bugs. Something like this will have a high end budget… so from your above quote this fictional developer does not deserve respect and of course your money? This is why no publisher or a developer with real money invests in real development and a real console type game because of this attitude.

I don't blame you because 99% of games on the App Store are crap… people expect this because most games are shallow, full of bugs and in my eyes not real games.

My argument still stands, though, because one day a real console game experience will arrive on the store and if most people bitch about the high price then it will kill those games dead in the water.

 

My view on this whole thing is there's very little point blaming the consumers for anything.

After all, most of us are just as guilty of this once we're outside the industry we care about (games).

Consumer desires and expectations are usually fairly rational and reasonable. They look at their own wants and needs, compare available products, see which products balance price and functionality based on their own expectations and then purchase (or don't purchase) a product, games or not.

So think about how we approach other consumer markets that we don't feel so passionately about. When it comes to many other products - like the clothes we wear, the food we eat, the furniture in our homes and so on - we don't consider who made it or bemoan that the quality of the goods is low because other people are not spending the money we wish they would. You only care about the products you care about personally. In many cases, we're part of the problem.

For example, when I need a new bookcase, I go to Ikea and spend $40. Somewhere in the world, a carpenter is cursing me for not spending $400 on a solid wood, hand crafted bookcase that's causing the decline of the wood furniture industry. It may very well be that you can't make a good bookcase for $40 and that the indie carpenter can't be expected to do it at that price but it won't affect me enough to alter my spending habits. I don't care enough about bookcases for me to spend money that exceeds my needs by that amount of money. It's not that I don't recognize the presence of superior products or that we should purchase it at full price (or buy it at all) to support the craftsmen who create the superior products.

Same thing happens when I buy $10 T Shirts at the mall, when I buy a cheap cereal at the supermarket, when I buy whatever else that isn't a high end product.

Even in games, when's the last time any of us felt guilty when we bought a game we didn't think was 'worth it' at $60 when we randomly found it in a bargain bin?

The same thing is true of expectations. Yes, we think it's ridiculous that a $0.99 game should have endless updates but that's the expectation that several competing products have set. It's just kind of the way competition works. To the consumer, the process of creation and the company creating it is (rightfully) transparent. They don't care about anything outside of the product itself in nearly every case. It's the company's job to create the product that fits the consumers' needs and expectations, not the other way around (for the consumer to change their needs and expectations to fit whatever is needed).

The fact this model - F2P and cheap premium titles - works is a sign that this is roughly where the bulk of the customer's expectations are. To go against it is fine... as long as there's a market that exists for it. If there isn't then it's not like we can somehow make it exist.

Not all consumers are going to care about games the way we do... and that's totally OK. Any business must figure out the business realities of appealing to consumers. Just because the product is great doesn't always mean there's a market for it. Unfortunately, the reason that it would improve the market (based on the desires of a small enthusiast niche) is not really a justification you can sell anyone. There ARE games that sell premium games to a mass market crowd... it just takes an exceptional product with extraordinarily wide appeal for it to currently happen.

 

I understand thst there is a reason to be defensive. IOS gaming has been crapped on since day one inspite of some great early IOS games. There are different ways of handling other people's # though. I feel u guys often antagonize and put things in ways that are defensive or even go on offense for no reason. I used Nintendo and being called kiddie for a reason. Nintendo fans could handle thst as I saw many fans and professional writers do and rage and make it an issue brought up in numerous articles, forums and reviews......or you can shrug snd let the quality of the games speak for themselves. U guys have an option to take the low road and fight about it and get frustrated with the rest of the industry, or u can take the high road and let the quality of the games and your reviews speak for themselves.

As for reviews.....I am sorry but to me this is probably the reason then that I enjoy reading your reviews and your content, but I do not trust review scores anymore. While you say it is unrealistic to spend a dozen hours in all these freemium games I still say u can not tell the quality of a freemium game in thst time. These games by their nature are designed to be manipulative, get a hook in a mouth, THEN you pay. In less than a dozen hours u can not tell with many games if it's pricing is manipulative or not. Clearly if you look around many of us want to know pretty much above all else is this game a rip off or not.

it's disappointing to hear u take the attitude that it's insane to spend quality time with a review because businesses demands u cover as many games as possible. It honestly just seems to be the prevailing attitude in the industry(and the business world in general)that it's better to get content out rather than quality. The ammount of content you cover is impressive and part of why I have the app installed. But no ammount of content coverage is worth sacrificing quality. If u won't spend a dozen hours in a genre that's known for manipulative business practices then I say the quality is not there(and as I said I don't trust your freemium reviews anymkre). I can't imagine how tough it must be to make a buck at iOS reviews so I respect WHERE u are coming from. But I have the blessing of being a reader, my only job is to expect quality and try and be respectful In how I express criticism. Hopefully I was respectful in my critics.

One last important thing if u are stil reading this. I said earlier we can take the high road when people say IOS games suck and let the games and reviews stand for themselves. When u guys spend so little time with games and then send people out to play freemium games with pay walls u reviewed way too high, u are reinforcing the view thst IOS games are not as good.

 

I've been thinking about this and I agree with your points. This is a complex issue and it's easy to point fingers. My stance has always been that the consumers are hardly without fault in this. At the same time, two wrongs do not make a right and certainly does not absolve the gaming industry from participating in the most cynical of market strategies.

So, keeping in mind I agree with everything you said (and for those joining late, you really should go back in this thread and read what negitoro wrote without me needlessly quoting all of it for those that already did) I do think we have a responsibility as consumers to make wise choices and voting with our wallet is ALWAYS the clearest indicator of what we want. A company that everyone complains about but is wildly successful is not going to change in a way that is meaningful.

Even as the market seems to go to F2P and cynical and exploitative IAP practices flourish, I continue to spend my dollars on where I see quality and refuse to participate in the hamster wheels of the very practices I say I hate. In time, I think enough consumers will tire of it that they'll join me. I have walked away from games I actually enjoyed because I don't think allowing companies to treat me like a walking wallet is ok and even going as a "free player" wasn't enough because I don't want to encourage them by being part of their userbase.

 

So I wanted to post this hours ago but got busy. I did read through most of the thread and though it may repeat what's said, here are my thoughts.

I agree and am willing to say that I was one of the millions that waited for sales or freebies. Fitting that this is over angry birds. They did a great job giving quality and value to the customer with their first game. 99¢ and constant updates. They kinda set a standard as to what to expect, cheap and more. Was easy for them to to so because they were making tons of money. The markets changed and is saturated with games that there is no way to play them at all. Add to this that since the near beginning there was freeappoday, freemyapp, openfeint, and even a price drop and freebie section here on touch arcade. What a dev uses to get noticed and a bump on the charts is now what consumers expect and wait for. Some devs used to, and still do, give games away (donut, big fish, G5). Starbucks gives codes away for great games too.
There are so many options that, for me, it causes an ADD towards gaming. From the consumers side, there seems to be quality games that are cheap or free at any given time.
The problem now lies in the expectation that any and every game should fall into the cheap or free category, which unfortunately most do at some point. There is something very wrong with thinking that every game SHOULD go free or 99¢. Or have constant free updates that adds 50 new levels every month. No one else works like that. Why should game makers? (Though they should fix bugs that ruin the game those updates are expected, and only for the devices first made for). But that has been the standard set by the market and particularly Angry Birds.
So here we are full circle with a game that set the bar, starting free. I've played through over 60 levels and not paid a dime. And won't. I've won a couple arena challenges. But so what. They set it up to play more casually and sporadically then before.
Now the opposite side is that a game like Radiation Island (paid full price happily) is a great value (at full price) and should have stayed there. It was cheap enough as it was. Lowering the price only perpetuates the mentality of waiting for free or 99¢.
You can blame the consumer, but...can you really blame the consumer

 

Contrary to popular opinion, it is ridiculously difficult to make a top grossing freemium game, even harder to make one that stays there for years. First you need a gigantic free player base and give them enough progression to stay, then you need to offer something whales still want after they clear contents at 10x the speed of free players for years. The balancing is as challenging as any in big data analysis.

Even dominant franchises like Angry Bird 2, one week 20 million downloads later, is stuck at #50 grossing. They will most likely fall out of top 100, like the current Angry Bird games. Where a game like Fallout Shelter did manage to hit top 5 first three days of release, only to fall to #70's a month later. It is not easy to get to the top of the ladder, even harder to sustain enough interest to stay there after you blew your initial marketing buzz!

Games like Clash of Clans, Candy Crush, Puzzles and Dragons, games that hold onto top 5 spots two years after their release, it is something out of this world altogether. You are talking about games that rake in nine figures, even breaking into billion dollar category. It is a hyper competitive market, companies with antiquated models just doesn't have the budget to compete. You can not blame the customers, companies at top of the ladder created the most desirable contents people are willing to shell out money for, year after year. It is pure art and they will go down as some of the greatest games ever made on any platform period.

PC is seeing the same thing. LOL/DOTA 2 is having million dollar tournaments on ESPN, higher skill ceiling, bigger player base and more hardcore fans than any paid game, e-sports at its finest, pure freemium experience. Hundreds of million dollars a year in revenue too. The paid model is dying for all but a handful franchises that can afford to take 3-5 years to make a game, even they can not compete against top freemium games when you look at the overall revenue/cost over 2-3 years. I expect GTA, Call of Duty's to be the last of their breed.

Taste changes, when you are used to quick pick up and play, instant gratification style, it is just impossible to sit down for hours at a time in marathon sessions. Is there any wonder World of Warcraft is dying and Hearthstone is surging? Once hearthstone was released for mobile phones, it is over for World of Warcraft. Blizzard fans playing Hearthstone competitively is not going to have time for WOW. It really is a zero sum game.

The future of gaming for the masses is simply not going to be PC or console. Playstation 4 sold what, 20 million or so almost two years after launch? Apple alone sells twice as many iOS devices a quarter! It is just not a pretty picture.

Even Touch Arcade itself is struggling. I forecasted this many months ago, the indie games you guys cover, the mass just don't care about, you guys are in the extreme minority with very antiquated tastes. All you need to do is look at your reviews on front page.

I understand you are in a tough spot, people who play Hearthstone are going to be on Hearthpwn, your half-baked, watered down articles won't do much for you in the long haul. You really need to focus on games that can crack 5 million downloads and invest in contents, toss up sub-forums for them and get the traffic before fan forums come up. It is the only way to save the site: indie contents must go.

Look at your counterpart in China like 18183.com, top 4000 Alexa score world wide, doing extremely well. Covers hottest games, ignores indie crap, gets big money from freemium companies with gigantic marketing budgets, that is how you run a site, who needs donations? Please take a look at them with Google translate. An English equivalent on top US/EU games will dominate.

Wake up TA, you are in the hottest sector in all of gaming, you have no real English competitor, you have no one except yourself to blame if you die a slow death. Your content is as antiquated as the games you cover.

 

Simple solution is for devs to make a free version or a gated version like Magic the Gathering planeswalkers have been. People don't want to risk money on trash. Using your Oatmeal comic as an example how many ppl spend 7 bucks on a drink they never tasted before. They know what they are buying.

 

Thanks, iAjent. We try. As you probably read, I explained in the Ire: Blood Memory thread (shameless self-bump) why we went F2P. In any case, it was a very, very difficult decision to make. Nearly 3 months in, less than 1% are paying users. The majority of our players have almost fully enjoyed our game without any price of admission--sans time, effort, data plan. We already knew that that would be the case going in. We are still experimenting with business models and merchandising. This update we inserted a vanity item (cloaks). I don't think there is one clear and definitive answer on what business model is the right one. For us--because we are a small independent studio that are totally bonkers--immediate monetisation wasn't the first thing on our biz/corp. dev checklist. We felt that we needed to prove ourselves as gamedevs first. This decision was made in the face of the real possibility of shutting down the studio because we didn't have any capital. But, we went ahead and pushed back the price wall--way, way back. We are content with what we did. The initial exposure was great, the encouragement just awesome. With that we are polishing and adding onto Ire, because we can. At least I think we can.

F2P isn't always about trying to squeeze the cash out of gamers. That is probably true for small indies and studios like us. F2P was the way to gain exposure, and the best way for Tenbirds to get Ire into gamers' hands. Blame F2P, blame the consumer, blame the SPs, but I don't think that will make much of a difference. Developers, publishers, distributors, consumers, business models are here to stay. What I do think will make a difference is how each individual chooses to define their roles, responsibilities, choices and consequences, as a developer/publisher/distributor/consumer/adult. Do you call paying users idiots? But, paying users are doing their part. The other 98-99% are also doing their part and helping to create a user base and a foundation for growing a game (Thank you paying users, you are the reason why we can pay the bills, and why people without the means to afford games can enjoy super duper cool games. And thank you--all gamers--because without you our game would be soulless. We'll do our part and try to make a game worthy of your time--those guys and gals that like games like the one we are making. Hugs and kisses mmmwah.). We are interconnected. I think that's the thing. Also, we can't forget about the state of market places. The architecture, design, reach, perception, and the activities going on in a market place also drive how products are perceived, how products are valued, and how consumers react. Publishers, developers, consumers, and market place have a lot to talk about and figure out. Until then, I am just going to try and focus on making a good game that I like that I think others may appreciate as well, because that's all I've got to go on.

 

Disagree. As long as there is a market the products will be there. Look at how hyped everyone is for Fallout 4.

The less compelling markets will die out as they are competing with endless skinner boxes or F2P models that keep adding content versus a static game. F2P is ridiculously expensive to produce but so are games like Call of Duty. The super expensive one shot games with little in the way of content are going to be in trouble. COD is stale. I see the current market trend killing off franchises that are already in the decline and, frankly, need a bullet to the head.

However, while I think you are right that F2P will continue to propogate it will not completely replace a pay up front model. This kind of competition will make it harder for the me-tos, also rans, and try hards that just really don't have much to offer but throw their derivative game out there because there was a time they could make money anyway. That's going away. Game consoles don't dominate like they once did. There is no single platform, really, that is a surefire thing. It's not like the days where as long as you released on the PS2 you were probably going to be ok.

Unfortunately, in the short-term I see the migration of indie developers back to PC as an ongoing trend for now. The Android and iOS markets are too saturated and you're competing with F2P AND Premium games so it's not as though F2P is the only factor hurting them. It's trying to rise above the noise.

 

I feel like my biggest draw to f2p ios games these days is the safety of not liking the game. If i spend money on dining out, and the food is terrible, I can generally get something for free, or get some of my meal recouped. The same goes for almost any service I buy. Even with console games, it I buy something terrible, I can generally trade it in and get back 2/3's of what i spent. But I'm stuck with mobile games.

When apple launched it's no-iap section of the app store, I promptly bought monster hunter, xcom and hero emblem. All highly reviewed games on TA.

I found the controls too cumbersome on Monster Hunter, the hud and UI too cluttered on xcom, and Hero Emblem too grindy. But, tough on me, I'm out $25 on games I never want to see again. I'm way more inclined to check out a free to play game because there's no loss it I don't like it.

Maybe apple could adopt Steam's return policy. I know I'd be way more inclined to try more premium games if I could return it if it didn't pan out for my tastes. It's the same reason I still buy physical copies of games, given the choice. I can get rid of it at some point for some value.

 

I agree and I feel the same way about a couple premiums I picked up in the past for my device. Some of them I just didn't care for, like I thought I would, and some I've uninstalled because my storage is low. I just did not play certain premiums often enough to justify keeping them on my 16gb device (I regret not spending the extra money for a step up in storage) even though I felt that the games were good.

If Apple could implement a try before you buy system that would be fantastic. Plenty of casual portals on the PC offer that type of system, usually a timed amount of free play, and it's a nice safety net to have. Trying out a game before purchase I feel would benefit developers who decide to release premium games far more than hinder them since if you have nothing to lose you might find something that just "clicks" with you and won't mind spending your money on a sure thing.

 

Why does big-studio f2p have to eliminate small studio premium? Many users here want the "premium experience", something with a beginning and an end, that you can beat. I think I read that TA has 2 million readers. Let's say you can convince 5% of those to buy your game. That's 100k sales. Charge $5, Apple takes, what, $2? That's $300k. There will be regional differences, but I estimate the cost of 1 man year at $50k (salary, retirement plan, facilities, insurance etc.). Unless I totally underestimate something, that is 4 man years and $100k for advertisement and other expenses. Won't make you a millionaire, but it doesn't seem like it would be impossible to run that business? Or am I underestimating the man years required, or advertising costs?

 

You better really love game development because for me to hire an entry level developer is going to be at least $40,000 annual and realistically will be $45k to 50k, and that is right out of college with ZERO experience. Depending on what part of the country you are in, entry level will pay between $40k to $65k and I have heard of salaries even higher for recent college grads.

Senior Software Engineers can easily earn high 80's and routinely cross over into low six-figures. Software Architects at poor companies will make mid 90's if they are shiny and new but I have known over a dozen making $150,000 a year.

Software developers are expensive.

Now, as to your question, I don't believe it's a binary choice. F2P doesn't have to wipe out the premium market but it also doesn't have to vanish for premium to be viable. The issue today is the market is too crowded, thus the migration of indie developers back to the PC. Which doesn't mean mobile gets abandoned but it makes sense to me to release on the PC first, gauge interest, and then look at other venues. Console marketplaces have places for digital only games and if the game is appropriate for mobile it can be ported.

However, companies will follow the money. If F2P makes money, that is what they will do. If premium makes money, they'll pursue that. Sometimes in order to make the game you want, that decision is not always easy.

 

I chose the wrong career . Nevertheless, at those figures still it seems viable. As you also say.

Most businesses follow the money, but not all products tolerate the same monetization. I figure some people just want to make a certain kind of game that just doesn't work well with micro transactions. I'm happy that's still viable.... I'm enjoying those kind of games!

 

It's funny how my stance shifted after getting into my 30's and working as a creative professional. I'm more inclined to buy a premium game to try it than I am to download a f2p game. For me, I really dislike many f2p mechanics, so I'm more incline to watch gameplay of a premium game on YouTube or here and then take the plunge if it interests me. I really like supporting developers who make things I like. It just happens to be that I like paying for my fun upfront, whether or not I play it much after initially getting it. But I'm probably in a small percentage of gamers.