It's not stupid to pay money for a game. It is stupid to pay someone to execute a single database query to give you some in-game item.
Comparably stupid by the same reasoning is paying someone money to transfer you some bits that you could have gotten transferred to you for free somewhere else.
You might argue that you don't do this because it's against the law, but given that the law is stupid and you're not especially likely to be caught for it, so what?
It's not a charity. I pay for a thing if I want that thing, and that thing is worth money. If I like your game, and you gave me that for $0, I'm going to take it for $0.
The multimedia industry in its current form is a combination of a service industry and a charity cause; it just hasn't realised it yet. The primary reason to pay money for most multimedia products is none other than charity - i.e. to support the developers.
Sure, some developers may be uncomfortable with this, but they need to deal with it because it's the reality of the situation.
The model of modern media distribution is that you have to be better and more convenient than free. Steam, for example, works in large part because it is honestly more convenient than pirating things.
One of the ways you can be better than free is to provide your services in such a fashion that people pay you in order to vote with their money. "Yes, this is good, more please." This can be a achieved through a combination of awesome customer support, a quality product, and good PR.
Free to play is OK as long as it is truly free to play. As in you never have to pay money for anything, and there is no way to pay money for anything. You know, like Dwarf Fortress.
Then you would just, what, donate to the developers separately if you felt like it?
You have recently mentioned "play to win," but can you discusss "pay to win," and how ridiculous it seems?
At the risk of sounding like an old man, I hate the free-to-play model and want it to go away as quickly as possible. The only tolerable implementations of if I've found aren't really free-to-play - These are the ones where you're allowed a few "free plays" and then you have to pay for subsequent games (e.g., Triple Town, You Don't Know Jack for Facebook). I don't really agree that this is F2P; it's just a weird implementation of a demo. Still, I'd rather just pay for the game and be done.
Pay to win is obviously dumb. I'm not sure how much more discussion there can be about it? "Which guy is the richest and/or is most willing to spend money on this silly game?" isn't a particularly interesting mechanic.
I don't know why you want it to go away. It's a thing that you don't have to participate in. I could understand if you said "There's noxious gas in my neighborhood. I want it gone!" That makes total sense.
There's way more free to play (really, really free) gaming out there than just Facebook games, which are mostly games filled with annoying barriers attempting to get you to pay for virtual items.
I'm playing Marvel Avengers Alliance, and I can get a lot out of that, and I haven't paid a thing. Their PvP is basically pay to win, but, you know, if you have to pay hundreds of dollars just to overpower another player, are you really a winner?
Pay to win is obviously dumb. I'm not sure how much more discussion there can be about it? "Which guy is the richest and/or is most willing to spend money on this silly game?" isn't a particularly interesting mechanic.
Tribes Ascend is F2P, and you can unlock other classes & guns by either leveling up (takes forever) or paying. Those who don't pay up (or don't level up) are at a tactical disadvantage over those who do, and even if you do pay, having teammates who haven't paid up also puts your team at a disadvantage.
It amazes me when I find people that havn't considered how pay/grind to win hurts the game (as a game, perhaps not as a product). I guess it's just an extension of people's self-centered personalities or something.
Tribes Ascend is F2P, and you can unlock other classes & guns by either leveling up (takes forever) or paying. Those who don't pay up (or don't level up) are at a tactical disadvantage over those who do, and even if you do pay, having teammates who haven't paid up also puts your team at a disadvantage.
That's play to win. F2P is not always P2W.
I don't think companies that develop games that are P2W care that it's unfair.
Tribes Ascend is F2P, and you can unlock other classes & guns by either leveling up (takes forever) or paying. Those who don't pay up (or don't level up) are at a tactical disadvantage over those who do, and even if you do pay, having teammates who haven't paid up also puts your team at a disadvantage.
That's play to win. F2P is not always P2W.
I don't think companies that develop games that are P2W care that it's unfair.
Tribes Ascend is F2P, and you can unlock other classes & guns by either leveling up (takes forever) or paying. Those who don't pay up (or don't level up) are at a tactical disadvantage over those who do, and even if you do pay, having teammates who haven't paid up also puts your team at a disadvantage.
That's play to win. F2P is not always P2W.
I don't think companies that develop games that are P2W care that it's unfair.
I want to be clear that we're arguing about the quality of the game, not the quality of the product. Obviously, what they're doing is working for them right now, because enough people are throwing money at it, but that doesn't make it a good game, just a good product. The "what games are good products?" discussion basically comes down to "one sec, let me open a sales chart."
Grind-to-win is equally annoying. The F2P model often comes hand in hand with G2W, which is the case with Tribes:Ascend as well as other games like Gotham City Impostors.
Ummm, how about australian BBQ culture after PAX Australia?
Also, Id like a show on the design of game rulebooks. And why most of them are making a pretty appalling job of actually laying out the rules in a comprehensible and easy access manner.
Ummm, how about australian BBQ culture after PAX Australia?
Also, Id like a show on the design of game rulebooks. And why most of them are making a pretty appalling job of actually laying out the rules in a comprehensible and easy access manner.
thats 2 go go!
Don't know how many barbecues you'll be seeing in the middle of winter in Melbourne. Could always just ask, there are people here who can tell you.
Ummm, how about australian BBQ culture after PAX Australia?
Also, Id like a show on the design of game rulebooks. And why most of them are making a pretty appalling job of actually laying out the rules in a comprehensible and easy access manner.
thats 2 go go!
Don't know how many barbecues you'll be seeing in the middle of winter in Melbourne. Could always just ask, there are people here who can tell you.
It is summer in melbourne now, as it is in the southern hemisphere.
It's okay - Most people around here already know, so it's not like I say so very often. You might pick up on it, if you pick up on the pattern of writing, and the occasional references to Australia as "here" or "down here" and the US as "there", but they're not hard to miss.
Comments
You might argue that you don't do this because it's against the law, but given that the law is stupid and you're not especially likely to be caught for it, so what?The multimedia industry in its current form is a combination of a service industry and a charity cause; it just hasn't realised it yet. The primary reason to pay money for most multimedia products is none other than charity - i.e. to support the developers.
Sure, some developers may be uncomfortable with this, but they need to deal with it because it's the reality of the situation.
One of the ways you can be better than free is to provide your services in such a fashion that people pay you in order to vote with their money. "Yes, this is good, more please." This can be a achieved through a combination of awesome customer support, a quality product, and good PR.
There's way more free to play (really, really free) gaming out there than just Facebook games, which are mostly games filled with annoying barriers attempting to get you to pay for virtual items.
I'm playing Marvel Avengers Alliance, and I can get a lot out of that, and I haven't paid a thing. Their PvP is basically pay to win, but, you know, if you have to pay hundreds of dollars just to overpower another player, are you really a winner?
I don't recall if Tribes was free, but I'm guessing not?
I don't think companies that develop games that are P2W care that it's unfair.
Grind-to-win is equally annoying. The F2P model often comes hand in hand with G2W, which is the case with Tribes:Ascend as well as other games like Gotham City Impostors.
also
Also, Id like a show on the design of game rulebooks. And why most of them are making a pretty appalling job of actually laying out the rules in a comprehensible and easy access manner.
thats 2 go go!