Why do people hate free 2 play??

[DEALWITHIT]

Free to play isn't the worst thing in the world. I've played a couple of cute little games on my phone that really only forced you to buy stuff if you didn't want to wait to play. The only real issue are the games that come off as pay to win that alienate people.

I still don't like the system overall though. I know it's a psychological thing, but I like having the feeling that I can just buy a game and I have everything available to me.
Though, I don't like the discussion that the micro-transactions equal a sixty dollar retail game. I rarely buy a game first-day because of how expensive they are, and they go down in price after awhile. Micro-transactions are usually cheap on their face so they never really go down in price, so the comparison between a F2P game and a retail game isn't always so apt.

 

[TrevHead]

I like to pay upfront and get a game that doesn't hassle me into opening my wallet, but alas the f2p model is just the reality of the market nowadays as games race to the bottom getting ever cheaper due to so many traditional games failing to sell. It wouldn't surprise me that in 10 years time devs will be paying me to play their games which they then make back in DLC.

I don't stick to playing any one game for any length of time, I'd rather get my enjoyment out of it and move on. So I'm not a lover of all these progression systems devs use to keep ppl playing the same content over and over.

TF2 is an OK F2P game I guess, but then I did buy the Orange Box back in the day so it should had been.

 

[ShinyCharizard]

I hate free-to-play because it almost always ends up costing much, much more for the same amount of content compared to just buying a normal game at retail.

The prices are always a fucking rip-off as well. 5 bucks for a gun, 10 bucks for a vehicle etc. It's fucking disgraceful.

 

[Syntax Error]

Because while it's actually Free To Play, it's really more Pay for Power. Don't want to pay up? Then prepare for an inordinate amount of GRINDING to "enjoy" the game.

 

[WendelI]

Free to play can be done right, It has been done poorly more often than not. Mostly because of poorly crafted games or games that are not popular enough for the subscription formula. League of legends is a good example of a game that is good with free to play, Rewards players that cant sit there and play all day with a "win of the day" bonus. Has a large character pool that can be purchased with little to no effort and are all quite strong (Tell me that fiora is better than master yi, come on. Im waiting...). The only real thing that you will have to grind for and that you really need are Rune pages, those things are fucking expensive and you need at least 5 of them to be competitive That is 3 more than what your start out with.

Now done wrong? hell ill tell you one, ace online. the armor you can purchase with real money is comparable and even better than some of the endgame armors that have a 1.82% drop rate from boss monsters. Have fun grinding, or pay the 30 dolars to buy the armor so you dont get one shotter by them overpowered as fuck B-Gears.

 

[Berny Marcus]

I think what my problem is with Free-to-Play games are, that they, even though there free, are bare bones in my view and we have to pay for the whole experience. I am a capitalist, people who work on games are doing it as a job to support themselves and family. And a game is a product, and the developers make these products to earn money and give us our entertainment. However the game must have a good enough content for my money's worth, and a free to play game, while free is bare bones and you still have to pay for the content in it.


That's my view.

 

[GladiatorUA]

F2P = P2W approach from users is beyond stupid. The unfair stigma damages good F2P games.
Sure, some F2P games are bad. Even beyond the monetization model. But there is more then enough good f2p games.
Most non-F2P games are bad and/or don't fit your taste. Is this a good reason to ignore all games?
And done confuse P2W with Pay 4 Time. Within reason xp/currency boosters are fine. Especially if users are divided by level/gear in game.

 

[Sinful]

I geuss the main reason people dislike free to play is because this usually includes some form of cash shop. Now a cash shop in essence isn't a bad thing, however allot of F2P games have turned into pay to win in the long run. It all starts with you being able to buy a 20% increased exp buff or something and it ends with you paying to level up outright.

I do like F2P games though, but only the ones that keep their cash shops fair. If all you can pay for is looks or simple convenience items then I see no issue.

However I have noticed that if a game is free to play, I don't nearly put as much effort into it as I would a buy to play or pay to play title. For one there's nothing really keeping you there wich is a good thing really. But something in the back of my head is always going "This game is F2P, it'll fail and whipe your progress in a few months." and I've never really gotten over that.

 

[Zipa]

Mostly because F2P is often publisher speak for nickel and dime the shit out of the customers and/or pay to win.

 

[ViridianV6]

And lastly but on a slightly less important point, being free to play invites some players in games you may not want.

This!

Sometimes, having barriers to entry, even small indie prices, really helps siphon out undesirables from the community. For instance, someone who hacks in a F2P doesn't have to worry about financial loss if they get banned, and they know that they can simply create more accounts or characters if they do.

Not saying that F2P communities are invariably worse than other games, but it definitely is a consideration.

 

[Username Redacted]

Well killer instinct if ready to be the shining example of failure. People are only going the buy the character's people tell them are cheap and op. Also whats going to happen if they try to balance the game. Something you bought and paid money for gets nerfed people will go up in arms.

I think Killer Instinct is just generally failing from what I've seen. Whereas from what I've seen, so far, Dead or Alive 5: Ultimate is approaching free-2-play in a more intelligent fashion. Firstly they've got a larger roster available for free. Secondly the paid content is (as best I can remember) ONLY additional characters and non-essential game modes. Lastly they're offering multiple ways to purchase the full game. Unlike what someone said earlier I actually think that fighting games are one of the better applications of free to play.

That said in direct response to the incredibly loaded question from the OP I don't think that people necessarily hate free-2-play games they just hate shitty games and most F2P games would certainly fall under that umbrella being little more than colorful skinner boxes designed to milk as much money out of the player while providing the bare minimum of experiences in return. To go back to my DoA5U example I'm still getting into the free version of the game and having played its predecessor am in the process of deciding whether or not I like the changes that they've made in 'Ultimate' and if it's worth dropping $39.99 for the full version of the game. In this case f2p is serving as a robust demo.

Well the f2p/robust demo worked. So far the game is looking pretty good even if it's looking like I'm going to need to pick up a new character (my "vanilla" DoA5 character got beaten into dust with the nerf bat). That said it's probably a good thing that this game offered full digital and disc released in addition to the f2p version as several of the games (so far) better characters are not part of the core experience so there could have been a flimsy argument for 'pay to win' to be had.

 

[prpshrt]

I only have issues with F2P being in MMOs because most tend to be VERY restrictive unless you become a premium member at which point it is not and when you start spending money, you might as well spend it on something that is better. A lot of them also tend to by buy to win. Then there's games like dota 2 that's completely free and is awesome. Most people dont seem to do it right.

 

[Blindswordmaster]

Im sorry I just dont get it. Would you rather spend $60 on a game outright hope and pray you like it then $15 on DLC.OR would you rather have the game free then only pay if you enjoying it or YOU think its worth it.

Im sorry but I have yet to see a F2P game that FORCES you to buy something to progress, You may have to wait hours or may have to grind but so what? the thing is free.

Jimquisition has said for a long time the $60 business model isnt working, so why are so many gamers intent on keeping it the way it is and sleep walking the industry into another crash? I really dont get it.

Sure free to play can get abused by despicable publishers *cough* Square *cough* but it is the future and we should embrace it! games are not worth $60. Period. No ifs no buts. Killer instinct and Blacklight show how its done. Pay a little bit see if you like and pay some more if you want to carry on or get new characters ITS GOOD BUSINESS why do so many gamers resist it? honestly it really annoys me. Imagine if you could buy the single player and multiplayer separately, how good would that be?

Free to play is good if done right and without it the industry will not have a future!

Can you can honestly say you are happy with the rip off $60 price model as it is now or would you rather a future where you have the choice what parts of the game you want?

I dislike the idea because it seems too easy to abuse, and frankly I don't trust most publishers not to do everything they can to wring out as much cash as possible. That said, I've been playing Plants vs. Zombies 2 and I've really enjoyed it and felt no pressure to spend any actual money, so I'm starting to rethink my views.

 

[Vykrel]

as a console gamer, i dislike it because if a game is announced as being free to play, it means i wont be able to play it at all... very few F2P games on consoles.

 

[Stephen St.]

Well, the thing is, very few of the games that are called free to play actually are free to play. Most of them are only free to own, but playing will cost you. It only makes sense to have you pay to avoid things that you wouldn't want to do, so you either work for playing the game or you pay for playing the game. Fundamentally, the game isn't free.

There are a couple of notable exceptions (Dota 2 seems on a good path), but mostly it's false advertising designed to lure you into paying.

 

[Thr33X]

On top of what has been said already, often times Free-To-Play translates to Pay-To-Win. Good examples of this are APB Reloaded and (sigh) DUST 514. Sure you can play the base game and grind your way up to a decent enough level, but most of the time you just wind up getting shredded by players with more experience and/or better equipment.

What's this? I can just buy better gear to put myself on a level playing field? YES!!!
Oh wait, it only lasts X amount of times, or can be used for XX amount of days?

Yep. Then the next thing you know you've already spent 10-20 dollars, and must choose to continue spending to actually...you know...WIN, or go back to whatever you've amassed which at this point in an existing game's state is probably nothing compared to majority of the game base.

There's that, and then there's also the lax attitude of devs for F2P games, who more often than not figure "hey it's not like their paying for the game, we'll make improvements when we feel like it".

That last one's not so much on APBR, but definitely DUST. That had so much potential, but just like MAG before it failed because of it's infrastructure and the lack of support devs gave to it's userbase. DUST isn't dead though, but it's on life support that's for sure.