If people think F2P hampers the game they should be allowed to say it. Please don't come up with strawman arguments like "feed their family". There are plenty of other people out there that do worse things to feed their family so please don't bring in defending people who live in a (safe)first world country. Also, if F2P developers really feel this place is hostile too them then I wish them as much luck as possible because I can guarantee them any other gaming forum would do worse then this place. Majority of gaming forums don't look kindly on mobile gaming already.
"It'd be rad if people could stop being so hostile and chasing developers away." "They should shut up and be happy they live in a first world country." I've officially seen it all.
So I'm in this thread....I have no clue what this thread was before though...Was this the "triple A thread"? I just remember thinking how funny it would be for TA to have a pop up or something asking for IAP on April Fool's Day...just to make people lose their mind.
What is this. I can't even. Huh? "Majority" of gaming forums...Can you provide any statistical value/proof to this statement? Saying the "majority" of any forum feeling a certain way is quite bold.
Hopefully I'm not just adding fuel to the fire here, but I still need to ask. I get the benefits of a premium game. Some devs do it great, which makes it really cool for the consumer (Rayark is a good example). And I LOVE a solid premium that I don't need to spend any more cash on. BUT I cannot expect a developer to support the game for years to come based on my $2.99 purchase. Now Blizzard, I've spend WAY to much cash on Hearthstone, you better support the game until 2075. But, in all seriousness, why do so many people HATE F2P games. I understand some of them (riddled with ads or just terrible quality overall). But I don't understand why someone would REFUSE to play a game that they themselves stated "looked great until I saw it was free"? What kind of comment is that? That's like me saying...Me: "wow that Ferrari looks amazing." Dealer: "yeah man, it's free" Me: "oh, nvm them. i'm out" Dealer: "no no, it's not that. But I would like if you at least paid me for the fuel that you use, I'll give you a few tanks of gas free per day though". Me: "nope, i'm done." Sure, that analogy may seem over the top, but seriously...Why refuse to even TRY a game that looks appealing to you? If it's not your type of game, sure pass on it. But other than that, why not?
Wanna know why?Imagine that there is a golden,shining,diamond-encrusted sword lying in front of you and you really want to equip it and slay monsters with it,yet it is cursed,it brings you sadness and unhappiness,it makes you slay innocent people with it instead of monsters,all you get is regrets and sorrow and not challenge,fun and honor from these deaths. That's why we'd rather ignore these swords because even if we equip them and try to persuade the "magical Gods" to uncurse it,bless it,they will not do that,because most of these Gods are Ares',they want innocent to die so that they can get more power cause there is not enough monsters in this world and most of the sword wielders are too scared of trying to slay monsters yet most of them are not even that strong. And it makes us sad,I'd rather ignore this sword than to realize once again that the creator of this sword is yet another Ares who is not turning into friendly and kind Zeus.
I can answer this question from my point of view, regarding the game this thread was originally about, that is Dark Swords. The game looks good, and seems to be the type of game I'd enjoy. However, I feel like my time is best spent playing games that don't force you to watch ads in order to keep playing. I don't understand how this concept can be so alien to some, but when I'm playing a game, I'm immersed in an universe, and I don't want to have that immersion spoiled by ads or stamina systems. So, I just avoid those, and devote my gaming time to games that allow me to play for as long as I want. Usually, games like that require you to pay for them, like most creative content we consume.
I can see your point. For me personally, that's what my PC is for. Full game immersion to me isn't ideal on my iPhone. I love good immersive games, sure, but I don't expect to get the same feeling while on mobile. Again, just my personal taste. Best example I can give: Playing KOTOR on my PC = amazing. Playing KOTOR on my iPhone = amazing, only small. At the same time, I would never play a game like Candy Crush on my PC. But while in the restroom or while at work on downtime, sure why not.
Absolutely, that's why I do it on an iPad, and usually with a controller. I get the same PC experience, with the added mobility, which is a win/win for me.
That makes us two, minus the controller, that's why I prefer games that you can play nicely on touch. By the way, KOTOR is great on an Ipad. Touch suits the game.
But my entire point to this, why try to compare? People are always saying "console experience on mobile" but why not "mobile experience on console?" Because most will not want to play Candy Crush on their Xbox (at least not to my knowledge). I truly think there is a great place for F2P games on mobile, just like I also think there is a perfect place for AAA titles. I don't think we can only have 1 option. I'm not sure why people seem to think we can only have premium AAA titles. Wouldn't Real Racing 3, Asphalt 8, Injustice, Modern Combat 5, etc be considered AAA titles? Or are people actually wanting Skyrim on their mobile devices for $10?
No offense to any of the guys here, but I think I'll just stop adding to the thread. I can't seem to understand some of the points and I don't want to add negativity to the site by continuing the thread, even if it's me trying to prove that F2P isn't all that bad. This site is why I fell in love with iOS gaming to begin with and falling into these HATE ALL F2P threads is depressing lol
Fear not, microtransations already started on console and might be a big thing sometime down the road. lol But, seriously, I agree with you. There are games for all kind of tastes. The sad truth is that people don't want to pay more than a couple of bucks for their games on mobile, that's why "premium" games with high production value is not economical viable. I don't minding playing (and paying) for free to play games if I think they are fair. However, the trend (there are exceptions) is that devs have to resort to dirty tricks to make people feel the need to spend some cash. It's not all big corporation evil thing plot to suck us dry, but they have to do some of that, because people don't feel like paying anything and even so they seem to expect playing high quality games for free or something close to that. There's no such thing as a free meal. For me, the real dealbreaker on iOS is updates breaking many and many more games.
You just need to sort of look at digital purchases as disposable, and that really isn't exclusive to mobile at all. Does anyone, for instance, think Destiny will be playable in a few years? That's a super-expensive blown out AAA title too. If you don't own a physical product that can exist entirely offline using hardware you have, it's universally temporary. iOS is a terrible platform to hoard games on. You only should be buying what you're going to play through immediately.
I'm not trying to compare anything. You asked a question, and I answered it, from my point of view. I understand this market is brutal, especially against indie developers. I understand most of them go free to play because they'll have more chances of success. And I mostly ignore any game with those kind of mechanics, and am happier for it. I never said I hate free to play, or that such games shouldn't exist at all, I have one or two on my device right now, but I've paid for their no-ads iaps. And that's exactly what people were asking for in this thread, another way to pay for the game. It doesn't seem to me to be a weird request at all.
I get that, but you're asking a dev to basically allow certain folks (let's say us here on the TA forums) to pay once and prevent the need to pay again. That's fine, but why should they do that when they can still market folks that are fine with being microtransacted to death? I keep using Candy Crush for the sake of this convo, but why would King have an option to pay $10 for unlimited lives when people will easily spend more than that a month refilling lives? It's simple business, unless I'm missing something? I don't fall into the trap of buying lives, but so many people do. Actually, it's not a trap, it's the consumers choice. If I run out of lives, I move on the the next game, or forums, or Reddit, etc.
