I think he was talking about Race SIMs, but we are going OT
Free To Play Business model discussion
(20 posts, started )
#1
- vrajunar25
I think he was talking about Race SIMs, but we are going OT
youve paid more for dota than i have for all games ive ever owned
hell for the money you paid for dota stuff you could even afford a base model iphone 5c
It's still a free game with no restrictions on the game content. The fact that I've spent money willingly should be a testament to how excellent it is for a free game.
Other conversation is relevant to gaming in general, along with the success of free to play games and how demo racers keep asking for more content. Your post was just a classic shitpost.
And Daniel is correct. The drug money has gone to Flame's head.
S.E.T.H. is right to an extent though, this thread is not about discussion of DOTA 2, or Scirocco etc. This is about the progress made with the Westhill update.
Are you implying that LFS is a bad game or that you think skin rstriction and sorts / FTP model would be better for LFS? How is this relevant? FTP model for this type of game, is an absolut no-go.
I don't feel it's correct at all for LFS. I think that it works for certain game types, and I believe a lot of games exploit the model in a way that is bad for the consumer. DOTA I think gets it the most correct, by offering no in-game advantage to people who pay money.
League of Legends I feel does it incorrectly, by willingly handcuffing a player to play an extremely restrictive set of heroes unless they purchase other heroes, along with offering rune pages, which can be earned through playing time but the points used to purchase those can be boosted to extreme measures with money. This falls into the "pay money to accelerate growth" which I think is the biggest problem that free to play games have. People who have paid any money in League have a large advantage as they can simply play heroes that counter the free ones hard and just get ez wins without any skill.
Clash of Clans and other "pay money to accelerate growth" games are downright cancerous, and are extremely bad for gaming as a whole. They show that maximizing the payments while creating the most minimal amount of gameplay is the correct decision.
oh please tell me,
how "success of free to play games and how demo racers keep asking for more content" has anything to do with the "progress" "of" "westhill". nobody cares about what game you play or how much you pay for it or your unfunny little jokes. stop choosing popular threads to try to make people read this crap and get offended easily and start talking shitty. because when this thread is up i want to read posts talking about westhill.
Re-read the natural progression of the thread please. Rony brought up that LFS is an incredible value, even for the demo version. Discussing Free to play games is entirely within reasonable scope of the conversation.
Reading, that's like thinking isn't it......?
Probably not going to happen and your setting yourself up for disappointment by having unreasonable expectations.
Let's try this.
"Demo users; your getting this free, so STFU until you buy the game. Then, and only then, do you get to hassle the dev's for content.
And even then, don't expect anything."
There, that's the IT answer, yes I know updates are coming, yes, they'll be awesome, etc blah, blah, blah........
I know the threads about Westhill, I know that progress is being made, BUT what's happening with Rockingham ?
Pretty please with cupcakes with frosty icing, specialist beers and awesome NZ wine for an answer please
Someone that acts all Holier-than-thou would probably do well to learn the difference between you're and your.
The demo is more than sufficient, and making any kind of demand is ridiculous, but on the other hand they did change the demo content before, and asking if they might change it again is not exactly absurd.
The current situation with the number of cracked LFS downloads in use is far more damaging than an extra car for the honest demo users would be anyway.
The demo is more than sufficient, and making any kind of demand is ridiculous, but on the other hand they did change the demo content before, and asking if they might change it again is not exactly absurd.
The current situation with the number of cracked LFS downloads in use is far more damaging than an extra car for the honest demo users would be anyway.
Ja Mein Fuhrer.........
The cracked versions don't work with the master server so their not really an issue for online racing, and there will always be cracks for games. It's pointless expecting that not to happen.
But LFS is really about online racing, best NetCode et al, so if people get into it then they'll buy it. It's really an online game rather than single player.
The cracked versions don't work with the master server so their not really an issue for online racing, and there will always be cracks for games. It's pointless expecting that not to happen.
But LFS is really about online racing, best NetCode et al, so if people get into it then they'll buy it. It's really an online game rather than single player.
I'd imagine the cracked versions of games is more of an extended demo type of thing than a real alternative to anyone who really wants a game like lfs. It could be an interesting statistic if we knew the percentage of people who downloaded the demo and then bought the game vs percentage of people who downloaded cracked version and then bought the game. Or the other way around. How big percentage who downloaded the game did not buy it compared to the percentage of people who downloaded a cracked version and then bought the game. I'd bet all my monies that the percentage of people who bought the game is larger in the cracked version group compared to the demo people.
As for f2p. It is basically a version of the game that has monthly fee but if you do not want to pay the monthly fee then you can play the downgraded version of the game. As far as actual costs go the f2p games are always the most expensive ones simply because there is no natural upper limit to how much you can buy. And because the way the system is set up it is easier for the developr to put a price for everything in the game compared to monthly payment type of game where the player expects pretty much full access for his "entry fee".
F2p is a good concept but it can be easily misused and it is f*g annoying when that microtransaction shit is coming to normal boxed games.
As for f2p. It is basically a version of the game that has monthly fee but if you do not want to pay the monthly fee then you can play the downgraded version of the game. As far as actual costs go the f2p games are always the most expensive ones simply because there is no natural upper limit to how much you can buy. And because the way the system is set up it is easier for the developr to put a price for everything in the game compared to monthly payment type of game where the player expects pretty much full access for his "entry fee".
F2p is a good concept but it can be easily misused and it is f*g annoying when that microtransaction shit is coming to normal boxed games.
Just look at the latest Farcry.. You can pay ~$1 to get increased HP for a short period of time and a bunch of stuff.
That is a AAA game though. Those are on a total different level of money grabbing
Well, can you blame them? It's quite audacious what they try, but if the consumers buy into the hype, its hard to blame them for trying.
Talking about microstransaction coming to boxed games, did you know there are skins in CS:GO (I believe it was), that go around for $100, or soemthing like this?
Talking about microstransaction coming to boxed games, did you know there are skins in CS:GO (I believe it was), that go around for $100, or soemthing like this?
Except that's the marketplace, that's not actually priced by Valve. They're $100 because people value them that high, not because Valve is selling them for that expensive. In fact, you can't buy skins. They are only dropped from crates.
Nevermind that CS:GO can be bought most weeks for like $10 because it's consistently on sale.
It is no the expensive stuff that is a problem. It is the way the games are designed so that there is strong incentive to buy at least something. In the larger picture it is pretty clear why all the big companies are now pushing for their own online game stores. It not only allows them to sell their own games at higher profit but also allows them to crap their games full of microtransactions which can be fully enforced with that always online drm.
I don't mind at all if in cs:go a skin costs 100$. I don't even think that is unfair or unreasonable. But if a fully priced boxed game is designed so that in addition o the purchase price everyone has to buy 10$ tokens/whatevers to not get a gimped game then then any sensible person would not buy the game. But people are morons and are happy to pay many times more just to get worse games.
And anyone who has supported this by buying boxed games with microtransactions have no right to complain at all. Those people who buy those games are the reason why we are living in the biggest money grab era of gaming ever.
They want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to sell a $60 game while benefiting from micro transactions for core game functionality. I wouldn't be surprised to see within the next year or two a AAA game from Ubisoft or EA make a section of the same so impossibly hard that you actually cannot beat it without a microtransaction cheat.
I still wouldn't spend $100 on a CS:GO skin though. I've only spent about $5 on stickers for various guns. Now a nice $60 courier on the other hand...
I still wouldn't spend $100 on a CS:GO skin though. I've only spent about $5 on stickers for various guns. Now a nice $60 courier on the other hand...
Microtransactions are a thinly disguised scam. They're bad enough on iOs/Android apps but they are basicly scamming on paid for games.
Buy a game for (n)$, but wait, you need ($) to progress. DLC is bad enough, Paradox is a great example of this, but at least there you get an expansion. ($) just to let you speed up some designed limitation is just a scam.
Buy a game for (n)$, but wait, you need ($) to progress. DLC is bad enough, Paradox is a great example of this, but at least there you get an expansion. ($) just to let you speed up some designed limitation is just a scam.
Free To Play Business model discussion
(20 posts, started )
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG