The best freemium mobile games are simply better than best paid mobile games

Heh, funny idea for a thread, I found myself getting somewhat shunned in the main forum's recent darling, Hero Gems, because I dared to point out that while it was good, freemium Match-3s do it better because in my experience they do.

While it is all very nice to point out that fiscal success does not necessarily equal a better product, that being true only dismantles part of the original proposition, and then only partially, because, objectively, we aren't talking about McDonalds vs. Outback as the one recent example, no, we are talking about thousands of games vs. thousands of other games, and if you see a trend that one type consistently outperforms another in the market to the degree that we do see, it is harder to claim the hypothetical, "A does not necessarily imply B!", is actually the case.

I mean, sure, you can keep saying it as absolutely as some in this thread are, but it is itself no more a true rebuttal than the initial claim and comes off more as some sort of religious catechism to shore up a belief system you for some reason don't want to have challenged. Obviously *more* people are voting with their wallet for one style of gameplay, so all the claiming they're stupid, they're sheep, they're idiots, etc. to explain it away is an even more flawed argument since it's context and data free. Unless you can point to the study that shows that, on average, Clash of Clans and Candy Crush players are dumber than Super Crate Box and Wayward Souls players, it's just treating the other audience as "other" to avoid asking yourself if maybe you're not that different at all and it turns out that your refined tastes maybe aren't all that refined after all, just more narrow and niche than most of your fellow man's.

Anecdotally, I am a hybrid. Grew up playing Atari 2600, Colecovision, NES, moved onto Playstation & PC games, etc.. Also spent many thousands of hours playing PnP role playing and tactical tabletop games. I am not the stereotypical casual gamer yet my most played, most paid iOS title by a landslide is a freemium title, Battle Camp.

The publishers of BC are not "good people", and they sure aren't indie. They're cut throat libertarians with a game economy that models the realities of trickle down economics to a fault. Even as a "non"-spender for most of the game's history, you would still need to spend a fair chunk of change for the necessities of storage (I put in about $200 between the game launch in Sept 2013 and Sept 2014, haven't put any more money into it since then having reached the point of self reliance for my level of competitiveness).

That said, they make a damn fine multiplayer game that no matter what you want to put down on paper as a negative (and I could make a LONG list of flaws with the game mostly coming from their hyper intense monetization), it is still a far superior experience than most any other game I've played on iOS. It has kept me playing throughout my day for nearly 18 months because the one thing you can't deny is that constant cash flow = constant development.

Meanwhile the cream of the crop premium games I've played are mostly long abandoned (where art thou Solomon's Keep 2?), or games that are wonderful distractions for a month or two, but then get stale and you move on (Foursaken's best titles fall into this category).

But a single player experience that can rival coordinating with 24 other people around the globe to the degree that BC requires? Can't be done. And laughable to think the game could be done with a single up front price that would be acceptable to the majority of mobile games and justify the amount of development that continues on the game given the world we live in.

I don't think there is a right or wrong answer to which is inherently better, but it is undoubtedly true that, whether the typical TA forum denizen wants to admit it, many freemium publishers are crafting more engaging experiences than the premium ones are.

If what you want is a finite, defined experience, premium all the way if the developer has a good vision and the knowhow to execute it within the budget their *one time* influx of money is going to cover.

But if you want something that is going to amuse you for months to years, something that is going to let you build a community perhaps, that is next to impossible do for a one time payment of a few dollars. The biggest irony is how the first thing people want to know about before parting with their $2.99 is if the game has replay value, if an endless mode is going to be added (for free), and if there will be more content (for free) - quite often the typical "premium gamer" wants all the benefits that come from freemium published games, they just want it in perpetuity for a fraction of an hour's pay

 

I can't say I agree with your logic about "nothing to show for it". Since when was value determined by physical objects? You could get into the entire topic of Materialism but I'll just point out that Netflix has people paying regularly, yet customers don't get anything physical back; they get a movie, a service they can enjoy and share with others sometimes.

Clash of Clans is about the experience dude, and (most of) those that put some money into it will probably never regret it, because they had a good or even better time enjoying the game.

I feel like a lot of people on this thread just are set against free-to-play, and are trying to devalue the experiences that they bring. Just because they're different doesn't mean they're any less of a game.

You know what makes more money than a steak-house? Starbucks! So is Starbucks better than steak? Of course not, they're not comparable, but I'd say they're equally enjoyable food experiences. Steak is something you'd sit down to enjoy, but coffee is something you can carry around with you at work or home, enjoying in sips. (hell yeah, food analogies)

 

All analogies aside, I don't care play what you want, and so will I.

Final thought is, profit doesn't make it better quality

(gotta get last word in)

 

Should rename this the TL;DR thread.

 

How much did the battle camp devs pay you to say this lol jk

 

I like F2P or (free) games, or at least the option. I've learned that an lap to upgrade a sword/stat/ability will make me happy for about an hour (at most) before asking for more of the same, so why do it. I don't play many multi-player games, so I cant speak to that much, but it a fight is close to being fair I just love beating someone who I know has put much money into it. I have enough games I like that I can switch between timers, and honestly I feel timers sometimes actually pace some games I would sit and play all day, or would finish too quickly. the fact that there are solid arguments for which quality is better should only prove that the quality for both types is all over the place, and only really quantifiable on an individual basis. I firmly believe in supporting developers and have bought many upgrades, sequels, and new games (I read reviews thoroughly and by ones I KNOW I'll like). really the best case scenario is that each developer implement the pay model which works best for them (the real problem is stupid people paying into stupid models, the uniformed and naive mainly). face it folks, all models will stay for a while, ranting will do little, voting with your wallet will do a bit more, but I'm afraid only time will tell. (pretty sure they're all here to stay though!!)

 

Just checking

Seems like my posts are not making it to the forums. I'm wondering if I have been banned for some reason.

 

Maybe you caught the glitch, I've had that before, you might have to change some settings on your profile.

 

LOL, I wish, but, no, the only thing they are interested from me is me paying them more than I already have. The phrase I always think of is "the worst game you'll love"

 

This thread is an example of what happens when someone who's obviously wrong refuses to be wrong. Now it's steered way off from the original topic, should be closed or something. That is, unless someone is getting the kicks out of reading the little tiny arguments in between the main one.

 

Freemium games are finiancially better? No shit. But whether the actual a game is better is just a matter of opinion. That argument cant be "won"

I play Clash but I say that Geometry Dash is a better game. See? Opinion

But wait I think that Hearthstone is better than both of those. I love me some strategy. So freemium is better right?

But wait I play True Skate much more than any of those and enjoy it more. Does that mean that premium games are better? Nope. So freemium games are better? Nope.

It means I like True Skate more than the other games. I like the design of the game more than others.

If youre judging a game simply by how much it is earning, then theres a problem.

 

The argument isn't won if you can find Premuim games everywhere, let's say the argument is won within the people who don't care, it seems you just don't care about Premuim games. Infinity Blade Dungeons wasn't cancelled because of freemuim last time I checked.

Don't jump to conclusions saying "the idea is already won" like a little child who's stubborn about their wrong answer.

I mean where's the common sense in this thread? He literally just said "Premuim gamers" want the "freemuim experience" even though "video games" started out Premuim in the first place. Are they funded by EA to try and change our opinions on Pay to play/win? This is ridiculous!

HE CALLED EA TIER 1! Since when did Capcom and EA establish that they are going fully freemuim?

Do they not understand that freemuim games are just a source of money, they shouldn't even be considered games. We call it "money grabs," or a game simply made to make money. By what source are you saying they are simply better than the Premuim games?


Let's translate what he actually means:

My opinion is fact so freemuim games are better than Premuim.
I swear he's like Aristotle with Democritus.

 

You shouldn't say mean things about Japanese companies. They might shut down the company behind your precious Clash Of Clans.

That they bought.

With the money they made off of Puzzle and Dragons.

 

What's Capcom got in the F2P charts? I must be missing something. They honestly don't strike me as being interested in mobile these days beyond leveraging it for ports. The port of MonHan 2ndG brought in more money than any of their F2P attempts did, and that was an ancient PSP game.

Similarly, although Square seems very interested in trying to grab some F2P cheddar, none of their several attempts have stuck at all, beyond DQ Monsters, which is only ever going to be released in Japan. I'm dead certain they'll keep trying, and I certainly don't see them making too many more original premium games unless Chaos Rings 3 does unexpectedly well, but they too seem to be pulling most of their money off of ports. They have the back catalogue to keep milking that plan for a while.

The biggest successes with Square's name attached in the F2P side of things seem to be the licensed stuff they did with DeNA, and I'm sure DeNA's benefiting primarily from those.

EA, I'll grant. They're doing quite well with F2P and seem completely uninterested in anything else. Others you didn't mention but also fit include Konami and Namco.

On the premium port side, 2K and to a lesser extent Ubisoft seem to be doing alright. Neither seem interested in original stuff, though.

 

Is that what you're hoping for/ looking forward to? When Smurfs Freemium games or CoC are our only choices? This thread has gone from your claims of profitability (and how that somehow equates to best/most fun) to simply gloating that those of us who like our premium games don't have as many choices as we'd like. Is that why you created the thread in the first place? To rub that in our faces? Because I'm pretty sure most of us are already aware of that and that's why our hearts sink every time we see a promising game come out and it's Freemium.