Free-to-Play Skyrim: The Future of Buffet-Style Gaming

CommanderFrank

CommanderFrank

Cat Can't Scratch It
Joined
May 9, 2000
Messages
75,399
In the near future, paying for video games up front will be a thing of the past according to Ngmoco’s Ben Cousins. Cousins sees games taking on a buffet-style payment plan that has no set limits on what you choose to spend. Of course, the more you spend, the more enjoyable the game becomes and that is the trap that is being set.
 
scojer said:
Fuck. No.
Click to expand...

I agree, because I am imagining the end result, and I think it's going to suck. The developers are going to give you hardly anything to do in the basic, free version. You will have to pay money to you can gain chunks of content, like $10 for 20 hours of content. And I bet that at the end, it's going to be more expensive than if you bought a $60 game. For example, Skyrim, a $60 game, would probably cost >=$100 if they broke it up into little pieces.

Bottom line: games will be more expensive for the same amount of content.
 
There are a number of reasons Skyrim is so popular, and one of them is it does not have any of this crap, in addition to encouraging gamer created content.....

It's not just no, it's indeed Fuck no.. and I don't curse often...
 
He is preaching for his own religion since most of NGMOCO games are ''free'' to play with in games purchase. The kind of game i always try to avoid.
 
I agree it will suck but I can see this happening, look at Tribes. Brand new game, super fun to play but almost everyone has put money into it even though they didnt have to.

One advantage I can see though is that games with amazing stories (such as skyrim) will be made to keep making more content so there will be more of those games available for DLC, just a thought.
 
Somehow I doubt that more than .01% of [H]ardforum participants will actually put their money where their mouth is and refuse to play pay-to-enjoy-more games when they become dominant in AAA titles. I only play games when I have nothing better to do that is enjoyable, and if it comes to this, I will just find something else to do. Over the years I have constantly read complaints about pre-order schemes, DLC schemes, DRM schemes, pay-to-win schemes, consolization schemes, MMOG grinding schemes, money-grab low-quality schemes, and more... Yet somehow the vast majority of people still talk about how they are actively buying/playing all of the games implementing these schemes...turn around and complain about it...then buy the next game (often even pre-ordering it at full price and/or its collector's edition at a greater price) that is even worse than the last.
 
Sadly I think what we see with ME3 is what we will see in the future, publishers will still expect you to pay $60 for their games but they will strip more and more from them only to charge for it as DLC.

For example a future version of Skyrim might require you to buy things like an enchanting or alchemy skill. Or sure your not required to buy them to play the game, only if you want to enchant something or make potions.

I hope I'm just jaded as this would really suck, but I suspect I'm not.
 
Morphes said:
I agree it will suck but I can see this happening, look at Tribes. Brand new game, super fun to play but almost everyone has put money into it even though they didnt have to.

One advantage I can see though is that games with amazing stories (such as skyrim) will be made to keep making more content so there will be more of those games available for DLC, just a thought.
Click to expand...

The reason people PAY for games like Skryim, is NOT so they can PAY for DLC's, but rather MOD the game, and PLAY mods, to keep the game going. The ONLY reason that anyone should pay more money for Skyrim is for EXPANSION packs, NOT DLC. I'd happily pay $30+ for 5 or more hours of story-line play for Skyrim. NOT $5 per mission of Skyrim.
 
ackbar.jpg
 
If you don't stick to this hard though, they will win. Everyone has to refuse to buy the extra content or this will eventually happen. It has already started happening and it's working. TF2 is a prime example of such a model.
 
Can you say -

HALF-LIFE 2........ Episodic gaming.. you know the one.. SUPPOSE to be updated it every 6 months... that one... and how well is that going now?

How many people are still hanging around for episode 3....

I can see it now- free to get - pay 20 for this - and 20 for that, 20 for the horse..... and never actually complete the game cause the devs never finish it.....

NO THANKS!!!
 
Just one more person overreacting to market shifts. It is true that gaming is becoming more service-based like many things in the current economy. What is not true is that paying for games up front will cease to exist. Also, the guy probably just wants a sensationalist headline on par with:

Linux is dead...

Desktop PC is dead...

etc...
 
arr4ws said:
He is preaching for his own religion since most of NGMOCO games are ''free'' to play with in games purchase. The kind of game i always try to avoid.
Click to expand...

Exactly, he is just pimping his own market model with sensationalist claims. The guy is a fucking idiot and pretty much irrelevant to the gaming market. F2P works for some types of games, but definitely not most.
 
pantsburgh said:
Just one more person overreacting to market shifts. It is true that gaming is becoming more service-based like many things in the current economy. What is not true is that paying for games up front will cease to exist. Also, the guy probably just wants a sensationalist headline on par with:

Linux is dead...

Desktop PC is dead...

etc...
Click to expand...

Indeed. Agreed. There will be some games that are F2Play but established titles will generally require money up front. F2Play works best for bringing in new people and monetizing them.
 
This will be annoying. I want to pay for the game and just be able to play it from start to finish.

It was soooooo annoying in Dragon Age that this guy at the campfire was advertising for a quest that I would have to buy. Really took away from the immersion of the game. If they start doing this with the main questlines and such I would imagine I won't be playing very many of these games.
 
HATS!

nccc8.jpg


This can work well in a limited number of games (like TF2 for instance), but overall its a severely negative trend.
 
HardwareSearcher said:
Somehow I doubt that more than .01% of [H]ardforum participants will actually put their money where their mouth is and refuse to play pay-to-enjoy-more games when they become dominant in AAA titles. I only play games when I have nothing better to do that is enjoyable, and if it comes to this, I will just find something else to do. Over the years I have constantly read complaints about pre-order schemes, DLC schemes, DRM schemes, pay-to-win schemes, consolization schemes, MMOG grinding schemes, money-grab low-quality schemes, and more... Yet somehow the vast majority of people still talk about how they are actively buying/playing all of the games implementing these schemes...turn around and complain about it...then buy the next game (often even pre-ordering it at full price and/or its collector's edition at a greater price) that is even worse than the last.
Click to expand...

Each is responsible for their actions, count me out anyway, I've been boycotting I never touch a game with aosp drm, never touch a game until every dlc has been released and a goty version is sold for a decent price.

I never pay full price for digital delivery and stay miles away from pay 2 win games.

Do I make a difference all by myself, no, but I know I'm not the only one. Will be able to make a difference, prolly not, people are too numb and retarded, specially kids nowadays when all they know as gaming is a travesty like ME3's cash grubbing schemes.
 
In general, I am OK with DLC stuff provided that:

1.) People who pay don't get an advantage over people who don't in multiplayer games

2.) Buying a whole game in parts isn't any more expensive than the traditional method of buying the whole game up front.

3.) Play time is always unlimited, and it is not a subscription model.

If any of the three items above are violated, then I'm out.
 
Ooo! ooo! I can predict, too! Check this one:

I predict that if games turn into some sort of a la carte BS, then I will stop buying or playing new games. It's a conditional statement that I guarantee is 100% accurate.
 
Free-To-Play is becoming more and more Pay-to-Win every day.

It is unavoidable, and its actually quite shameful as they take advantage of people with addictive personalities or that have to win at any cost, and end up dropping thousands of dollars on the game.

In fact, there is a thread on a F2P game called World of Tanks, where several have admitted to throwing down over $1000.
 
This is a really dumb analysis. Micro-transactions F2P games do work for certain types of games, but it's not going to replace anything. It's just an emerging market.
 
I've never once bought DLC, and I don't ever intend to. Lately, I've even gone as far as not buying games with obvious DLC grabs (aka Mass Effect 3) even though it pains me a little - because I so did like the first two.

But unfortunately, I think I'm in the minority. And because of that - I do believe the industry will undergo this exact shift. Nickel and dime the player for content ultimately making them spend more money than they would have otherwise. It's a sad trend that we as gamers are causing by purchasing this nonsense...

Exert some self control people! :D
 
I don't see the big deal with this kind of shift. Sure, it's different from current scheme but what is fundamentally wrong with it? If a game is really good and people enjoy playing it, then developers will keep releasing new content for that game. In stead of having mass effect 1, 2, 3, etc... you just have mass effect. Why does each game have to have an end boss? Most story games have sequels anyways. If people are getting ripped off, <b>which is what everyone else in the thread is going on about</b>, then the vast majority of consumers will not buy from that developer. The beginning might be turbulent, but developers will learn their place before too long.

I have very little money for gaming these days. I imagine that I'd play more games if I could get a real taste of them (no crappy demos) free for a short time.
 
F2P = Free 2 Pirate

Fxck all this a-la-carte, DLC, and other BS...
Id gladly buy every game on release day for 20-30$.. but half a game at 60$, DLC, and "unlock by fee" crap will never get a dollar from me..
 
Sure, I'll pay for all that content...as long as that cost doesn't add up to more than $50 for a AAA title.

More than that? Shove it up your ass.
 
While I hate DLC, it is true that game developers need to find a new way to increase revenues.

Game prices have pretty much been stagnant since the late 80's / early 90s.

I recently saw a scan of the fall 1991 Electronics Boutique catalog. I remember that Sid Meier's Civilization (the original) cost $45 when it was launched, and it was pretty typical for a new game.

If we adjust for inflation, that's $75 in today's money according to the Consumer price index (CPI-U, December 1991 to February 2012).

The most expensive game in that catalog was a tie between Wing Commander II and F117A Stealth Fighter 2.0, both at $59.99. That's $100 in today's money.

Add to that, that games have become vastly more complex and involved to program, write and create artwork for, some having a production budget of as much as $100 million. Games back then were made on a shoestring budget.

Granted, the market probably allows for more sales than it used to, but this can only go so far.

It is not surprising to me that game developers are looking for new ways to supplement income.

That being said, I completely feel that the Free to Play DLC model is harmful and detrimental to games, and I hope it goes away.

I would MUCH rather pay 1991 prices adjusted for inflation of $75 to $100 for a game than ever play a Free to Play / DLC turd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top