How Should We Pay For Our Games

[Eddieawsome]

Now the poll is pretty self explanatory but I will try and explain the options anyway.

 

Full Game At once:

By this I mean games like Skyrim, Dragon Age, Minecraft etc.... Games that you pay for once and then nothing more.No microtransactions, no VIP membership and no 500$ hats :rolleyes:

 

F2P with Ads in the game itself

By this I mean games like angry birds or stupid zombies, where you have to put up with ads while you play. Perfect if you love money and think privacy is overrated.

 

F2P with Microtransactions

By this i mean games Like Team Fortress 2, Farmville, CK:Zombies,Mass Effect 3 etc... Where you pay real money for digital items.

Pay for it bit by bit

While I don`t know of any games that have implemented this yet I have seen it discussed quite a bit.Lets say for example you hate Portal 2. But really want to experience the ending, So you only pay lets say 1$ for chapter 12 instead of 12$ for the whole game . Or lets say you like skyrim, But have no interest in the main story, so you pay only for the world and items in it. So you only pay 3/4 of what you normally would.

 

 

Edited May 23, 2012 by Eddieawsome

[Syco21]

Angry Birds isn't a problem in terms of ads. But these really aren't full games in the traditional sense and the platform is designed to not be horrendously obnoxious with the ads.

 

Games like Psi-Ops are a great example of what not to do with ad supported F2P.

 

Micro-transactions can kiss my ass.

 

Piecemeal is a double edged sword. In some instances, it can be a good thing. For example, you have a game that is more episodic. Maybe it even has seasons like a TV show. You spend a few bucks each week for a different 'episode.' This can be a good thing in some situations, but can very easily lead to price gouging. It's not dissimilar to DLC.

[marharth]

I think all of these could be valid forms of payment. Ill break down each one with the pros and cons.

 

Full game at once

This is pretty good idea, but 60 dollars can be a bit much. That and publishers then move on to sell DLC and expansions which will end up being closer to 80, if not 100 dollars.

 

F2P with Ads in the game

This might work for smaller budget games, but I doubt Ads would be able to fully fund a large budget game. I could be wrong, someone might have statistics for that.

 

F2P with Micro-transactions

This is probably the most hated model. It is okay if it does not require to you buy essential gameplay items. As in if it requires you to buy a gun to get it, your doing it wrong. Micro transactions should only be to speed things up, and for cosmetic items only. You should be able to get any item that effects gameplay through the game itself. With micro-transactions you can end up paying for a game that is better then a full priced game, for less then a full priced game. Content updates that would be DLC in some full priced games are released for free. For example in a game like CoD, they release map packs as DLC. In a game like TF2, map packs are released in patches.

 

Pay for it bit by bit

An example of this is the current Walking Dead game. Episodic gaming seems like it is fine. You end up paying the same amount if not less, just over a longer period of time. This allows you to fund the developer to make the other episodes, and it allows the developer to release small parts at a time so they don't have to worry about rushing out a full game.

[Ghogiel]

F2P microtransaction model can break the game experience. In the sense the game suffers by turning it into a pay to win scenario. A few games, like TF2 have managed to make very good profits from the microtransation model and none of what you can buy has any effect on giving players advantage over other players. Paying for advantage should be avoided at all costs imo. But it can work very well and is very sound solution for developers, their game and also players. Particularly indies or studios getting butt raped by publishers, or being abused as pawns in the M$/sony war.

 

It is mostly used for MMOs. It can work for shooters, sims, rts and rpgs, and keeps competition for a player base high. And also gives the subscription model something to worry about, which is something I have no interest in.

 

Also the game is free. Meaning if you don't like it you have lost nothing and you can move on to something else without feeling ripped off. the fact that it is free is also a a great way to get more people to play your game at release, MMOs rely on an active player base, meaning as soon as that number drops to a certain amount then a mass exodus usually happens.

 

The microtransation model works in that the developer can potentially get a constant stream of revenue, can easier self publish, and importantly to the players perspective the game will see continued development and new content after the initial release. As long as player base remains high, the game will be actively worked on. Trying to keep the player base high being such a priority to their potential profits means that the devs need to be on their toes, be making good games, make regular updates to keep interest up, and they must not to alienate the non paying player base, if they make it pay to win, then a mass exodus of the larger portion of their player base can happen, which would be bad all round. Non paying players in a MMO scenario are at the least AI game content. :biggrin:

 

I quite like it in theory. It certainly has been used badly in the past though. :rolleyes:

[Eddieawsome]

I personally feel that free 2 play is a scourge upon gaming, it forces devs to work on extra items and making the base game as hard as hell without microtransactions. I mean take Team Fort 2 for example: Look at its amazing and interesting characters, superb storyline and phenomenal voice acting.:rolleyes: It looked good in theory, but i don't think i would consider a game a AAA title if it employed that method

 

P.S. I think you people are misunderstanding what i meant with the bit by bit model: i meant having the full game still purchasable and there, but also having the option to buy only a part of it. Come to think of it that shouldn't really be a option, more a feature in upcoming titles.

[IndorilTheGreat]

There is another option; paying for games as if they were a monthly service (somewhat similar to Netflix). A prime example of this would be GameFly.

 

I personally prefer to pay for a game once and be done with it, as I usually prefer single-player games (and I like to keep track of my money; this way I can put away "X amount" for when I wish to buy it).

 

As far as F2P games with advertisements go, they can work, but they are usually things like low-budget MMO's, which I don't really have an interest in anyways. (Point of interest: I was playing Protoype the other day, and I kept spotting GameStop billboards all over the place. Product placement, much? :P ).

 

I absolutely abhor (most) games with Micro-transactions, since these games are usually completely unplayable unless you buy the "Staff of Cash Flow," or the "Armor of the Empty Wallet." Some games work with this method, where you can buy these items with in-game currency, but for the most part, I tend to stay away from these.

 

As for the "payment plan" method; it can work fairly well, but as Syco21 stated above, it can easily lead to price gouging, since people are far more comfortable with spending a little bit at a time (it all adds up rather quickly).

[JimboUK]

Full Game At once

 

This is my preferred option although I can see why some might prefer alternatives.

 

F2P with Ads in the game itself

 

A good option for mobile games if the ads don't take up a quarter of the screen.

 

F2P with Micro-transactions

 

If done right I don't have a problem with it, sadly it's rarely done right and is usually Free to Play, Pay to Win.

 

Pay for it bit by bit

 

Isn't this the way it's going with content being ripped from games and sold later as DLC? Yes EA and Take Two I'm looking at you. :verymad:

[dthumb]

Pay for it bit by bit

 

Isn't this the way it's going with content being ripped from games and sold later as DLC? Yes EA and Take Two I'm looking at you. :verymad:

 

Dont forget Capcom:

-DLC for the ending of Asura's Wrath

-pay for on disk locked content on their latest releases

[csgators]

I will by a good expansion but it better have a lot of content. Besides that I won't spend a dime after I bought a game. I BOUGHT the game already!!! Why should I have to keep spending. I don't buy a book a chapter at a time or buy an extra chapter that should have been there to begin with.

[HeyYou]

Would you buy the next book in a series though???