I will agree I'm 31 and I have a son who is getting into games. I think the "instant gratification" society mindframe that we all live in nowadays has made it's way to gaming as well. If he(or others) can't get into a game in the first 5-10 minutes they will turn around and delete it. Or if God forbid a game challenges you and makes you figure out a way to beat something that could otherwise cost money, then they would rather spend the money instead of actually working at a solution. Like you said about Rupees, hey you want that awesome Magical Shield that costs 90 Rupees then you gotta grind for it. If anyone here has played Hero Emblems then you'll know (in my opinion) a premium game done right!!! It's a game with no IAP and yes you have to grind just a little to get the best loot but you know what it's what you're supposed to do if you wanna win. Nobody wants to take the time or effort anymore to complete something. Alot of companies prey on the impatience of people.
Your totally right!! I'm selling all my old Black Flag albums for Taylor Swift. She's sold more and she's waay more popular, so must be better music.
I'm going to keep spending my 30-50 bucks monthly on premium games and I'm sure many people will do the same.. The notion that a game is "better" because it generates more money is silly to me.. Wendy's makes more money than Ruth's Chris.. I don't see anybody taking some spicy chicken nuggets over a New York strip
Thank goodness I'm not the only one I know everyone can relate to going to the grocery store with mom to see the new edition of Nintendo power magazine to see what new games were coming out, or tips to beat king hippo in tysons punch out.
Well said. Problem with the original debate is that, as individuals, we all like what we like. Is there a freemium game like Monster Hunter or Dragon Quest VIII that I can play offline for as long as I want without constantly paying again and again? Nope. So, for me, I'd rather play those two games than any freemium game. Games that have similar content like the freemium Champ Man or Fantasy Manager and the premium Football Manager Handheld series are a good comparison. As an individual, do you enjoy collecting people, checking in every hour after your energy has refilled, and trying to earn enough currency to make your number higher than someone else's? Then the freemium titles are your thing. If you'd rather just have your club and manage them through games that you can sort of watch, then premium is the way to go. Sad thing is, for us premium game lovers, is that the "game" has strayed from "normal" gameplay to energy/currency management, endless number chasing, TapJoy surveys, and where to click to get rid of the next ad on screen. So, when my child grows up, they may accept all of those things as "Video Games" in his day and age. Where, if you ask me what a video game is, i would point you towards a premium title from Atari-iOS. You buy it, then you play it, and never think about needing to pay for anything else. So, these freemium games, I would venture to give them a new label before our precious "video games" label as we know it becomes extinct. Maybe we should now call "freemium games" just a form of "mobile entertainment." Because I've played a few that are no more a game than me tapping the remote control to change channels on my TV. And I would classify that as more a form of entertainment than a game. But, then again, that's just my individual opinion on the matter.
Hmmm let's see there's a choice. I can take out of my fridge this grain fed , no hormone, no antibiotic chicken breasts and make a healthy meal for my family which will take time and effort or I can go jump in the car and drive like a maniac just down the street to KFC and get some crunchy chicken that my family can gobble up pronto. Man the burden of choice��
What about beiber???? millions of idiot teenibopper girls cant be wrong? I like the idea of comparing Justin Beiber's career to F2P or IAPs.
Yup my son is the same way. he started out with iOS gaming, then I tried to transition him to SNES/Wii U/360 games. If he gets frustrated at all with a game he'll delete it. He hates games like mario or mega man (even though he LOVES megaman) because it takes time to learn them. He's asked me many times to buy IAP's for angry birds or other games instead of learning to get past a level. It starts in our schools like you said, instant gratification for everything they do no matter how small. They over praise for EVERYTHING instead of when its deserved.
Yeah. THIS is most worrisome. Another reason I don't update apps right away. Really bummed when devs do this to games, especially if gamers already paid for the premium app in the first place. Assassins Creed Pirates is a good example. Thank God we're still getting games like Star Wars KOTOR and Fahrenheit, Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy, and Fantasy Manager ported to iOS. We'll at least have something to play when all of our other favorite titles go freemium.
Best is entirely subjective and is not limited to just one thing. Best refers to the cumulative effect of experience, performance, quality, pricing, and the cumulative thoughts of all past and current players. One thing a lot of people seem to be saying that makes no sense to me, is that a game that offers a really good experience with high quality at a premium price is automatically a valid choice for the best game. In what world is that true? Sure, those 3 things appeal to some people tremendously, but to say that makes a game with those 3 quality one of the best is absurd. Best on a personal level is 100% valid to whoever makes the claim. The people saying the aforementioned f2p games are not the best make valid statements, statements that are only valid for themselves however. Best on a global level refers to the cumulative opinion of all gamers who have and/or currently play the game and are happy with it. Let's not confuse the scope. Best to you is only valid on a global scale if it's the best to a lot of other people as well, and not everyone enjoys a deep story or robust mechanics simply because that has no relation to being the best type of experience. Indie Game Awards are slightly flawed in determining the best game because they are only testing a certain aspect of the game and assume that best experience only includes a limited amount of factors. They don't consider price to be a factor when it is. Most Indie Game Award Winners are actually very boring to me. To me personally, incremental games are the best and I am glad that there is an entire reddit community who agrees with me. This does not mean however, that incremental games are the best types of games in the world. Social freemium games are the king of the ring so to speak. Can Social Freemium games be the "best" objectively? There is absolutely no rule saying they can't. The only people who try their best to deny this from being true are people who are extremely pro-premium. That's fine, but this is how you want the world to be, not how it actually works. No one has any authority to tell others how they should think or behave when it comes to subjective opinions.
Does it have to be one or the other? Is it necessary that one is a better experience than the other because of a choice in business model? Or rather, is a good game a good game regardless of said choice? Much like any subjective creative endeavour, there are good games and bad games (and even some so bad they are good) that cost money to purchase and some that are free. The choice in preferred business model may dictate some game mechanic choices, but ultimately, I suspect most game developers want to make the best game possible, regardless of their choice of revenue generation; paid vs free vs freemium.
I don't see how price really means anything when talking quality, unless you simply want to know "am I wasting my money on this game?" Since we're talking GTA so much, would it being free affect its fun factor? Of course not. It would just mean more people could enjoy it. What affects the fun factor is when things are added (or taken away) from a game for the sole reason of getting people to spend more money. I loved the game FRAMED. Would I have been happier to pay nothing (or a buck) for it so I could spend the $5 on something else I want? Sure. But I waited a long time for that game and paying for it didn't make it any less enjoyable. It just meant maybe sacrificing some other game I didn't really want as much. And I think that's part of the problem with mobile -- people think they have to play every single game, and at release, too. If you don't want a game badly enough to pay for it, then maybe the developer doesn't deserve your money and you don't deserve to play it (at least not at its current price point). Both developers and players need to realize that there's simply too much out there for every person to buy every single game that looks mildly interesting to them. (And that's why I still think free+ads with IAP to remove ads would work for most. Any devs care to shine light on why that's not more common? If the App Store had a way to filter through different kinds of IAPs, I would actively search out those games.)
I have no idea. I would love to know, though. To me, it seems like the best of both worlds, because developers get their money either way. Obviously, a game that's like 30 minutes long would have trouble convincing anyone to pay to get rid of the ads. But if it's a game you come back to? Why wouldn't that be a good model that would make everyone happy?
This is such a dumb argument but it drives traffic so who cares right. Look I'm posting something. Just because a game is ranked in a chart does not make it good. There are good free games and good premium games just like there are bad paid games and bad free games. It comes down to choice.
From my quick read-through I find this one of the best comments... I invite everybody to try this above mind state because that's the only way to get developers to make good/fun games in general, whether they're free to play or not... Remember, "good/fun games in general", what it all started with, right? Very good thread btw, will be checking back for sure. Also the soft launched 'dungeon boss' is a good example of a GREAT freemium game. For me this is truly the new holy grail of freemium. Check it out and tell me I'm wrong.. I dare you guys...
If a premium game can not be bompleted with a maximum of 15$ it's a cash grab. And depending on what kind of game it's maximum might be 5$ There are a few free to play that are quiet good, but not perfect. Contract. Killer zombies 2 Dungeon hunter 4 Brothers in arms 3 Spider-Man unlimited Injustice Asphalt 8 Dead effect And some really old flu games. Certain games that are design to take money out of your pocket. Any games that impose a Lottery system like Marvel champion. Eternity warriors 2 ( tried it for a year , and your chance of getting epic item is 1/1000) The way I look at it is Freemium are farm ( they will feed with promises, and will milk you until you died) Premium are investment ( risky, and take more efforts.) I knew a kid who payed 200$ of in app purchase in a week ( clash of clans) - this system make me wonder, whose the bad guy? Hackers? Or the developers?
