Journalist PVP: “F2P Is Not The Future For AAA Titles” Rebuttal
When I wake up, there are a few online bases that I check: my email, my porn, and of course, the latest gaming news. Sometimes, instead of gaming news, these are actually just poorly written rants by the community writing team; volunteer writers obsessed with posts comparing everything to League of Legends and World of Warcraft… or “Blizznuts” as I like to call them (shush, I get to make up stupid names too). As evidence, there is “Why Free 2 Play Is Not The Future For AAA MMORPG’s!” by Zack Sharpes aka George Washington… which nobody sane actually calls him.
Now, don’t try too hard to read that. It’s poorly paragraphed and nigh unreadable. He does no research, does not stop to explain his leaps, and it’s not surprising that the two of us have butted heads before. I am going to loosely sum up his article with hopefully illuminating responses on what the actual landscape and future of gaming looks like. I think it will be enlightening for all of us, even Mr. “George Washington”, as a basis for further discussion on the state of the industry.
1.He defines Free to Play titles as having no cash shop or costs. Not only do these not exist (every free model game has alternate incomes, usually cash-shops), but he also argues that games that do have such models are in fact Freemium. Name Change aside, all he did in explaining this is claim that no Free MMO of AAA stature has started with a free subscription model. Well, there’s Planetside 2, with its amazing graphics, Sony backing, and snipers galore. Guild Wars 2 fits Zack’s “Freemium” definition as well, and proves still that its a pretty fun MMO with no added required costs besides the initial purchase.
The reason most titles don’t start F2P is because either A. It was crafted in cave man time when they thought the idea of server costs to be insurmountable without a gigantic budget or B. Not enough paying gamers to facilitate having such an expensive server structure. Why pay for a game when I can play a better game just like it for free? News is circulating that the big moneymaker MMO’s of times past are very quickly losing out on sales as more and more gamers divert to equivalent games that are just as fun if not more, for instance are you bored of killing Orcs and doing quests? Buy The Secret World and get straight to torching zombies and saving the world from the shadows. No added fee’s, no subscription, no fuss.
2. AAA publishers have much more money than other publishers. Not sure why this needed to be brought up, but its true. The free-to-play leap is one to gather more players, since so many gamers are poor and are drawn to the free titles much easier than a $60 yearly update of CoD. Shooting games and generic MMO’s are disgustingly easy to make, both genres have dedicated programs *designed* to allow anybody with enough patience to produce their own working FPS or online world to romp around in by the end of the day. The Source Engine, behind the powerhouses that are Counter Strike, TF2, and DOTA2 is fully moddable and with the know how you could remake Bioshock Infinite into a team death-match rpg if you really wanted to.
The idea that a video game REQUIRES a big budget to be of decent quality is a proven myth. It takes skill, dedication, and teamwork, something the people at Double-Fine, Valve, and many other developers have proven time and time again with great titles. So, having played much better games than the supposed “AAA” titles for much less, I fail to see why we should keep giving them money, when the future of game design is not the gigantic multimillion dollar sinkhole that is EA or Trion but laid on the efforts of Indie Developers and Privately Owned Dev Teams. The biggest reason for this is simple: The AAA Powerhouses design games to get more money, they design it to appeal to certain people, market it to certain people, and could care less what the end consumer really thinks since they got the money. On the flip side, everybody else wants to design an amazing game that everybody will like, they listen to the forums and figure out how to make their titles even better.
3.A Metaphor is utilized in the article of a combat between two players, and that DLC or Cash Shop purchases should not be necessary to compete. No Steam Game to my knowledge requires DLC to compete in multiplayer asides from All Points Bulletin where a cash-bought sniper rifle is mandatory to survive, and any game that does “boast” the requirement of buying certain in game items to compete in any form of the game is dishonest, and probably why the game is not going to stay around for too long. Yet… This is something that an AAA Publisher would do! Remember, They do not care about how much we enjoy the game or our experience playing it, they care about numbers. The proof is visible on Steam with games like Loadout on Early Access, which is a free game when released but for now you can pay either $20 for access or a few times that to get better and better in-game rewards in the form of in-game currency. Now, I like Early Access but using it as a method of squeezing more money from people for an unfinished product is morally wrong. In short, its a means not an end.
4. He once again claims Freemium and Free 2 Play are not the same thing (the difference to him is when you pay) and that Freemium, Not Free 2 Play, will be the future for MMO’s. Yes. Freemium, which he has explained in his article to be roughly the same thing, is the future for AAA titles. “Free 2 play is not the future, but it is, but it isn’t, but it is”. Well, which is it? And is it that simple? It’s a little shortsighted to think that future profit models for gaming won’t be as diverse as the games themselves, the players themselves or the systems on which we play them.
That being explained… I am at a loss. He nullifies most of his argument by double-talking himself, not citing any references to his claims, and saying the same thing with different words. He keeps talking about the business models of games like they ARE the game. Never mind the content, or the skill that went into them but simply talking about how much dirty money they have sitting in the bank to make more games. Who gives a fuck who makes it? Let’s think about the time and effort, and the great ideas that went into the game. As consumers, let’s talk about the final product and judge the titles on that merit alone. I’m going to take some flak for this but Starcraft 2, Graphically the game is absolutely gorgeous, reflecting the large budget behind it. The game’s story is fantastic and the characters are all entertaining to listen to. But is it a well designed strategy game? Having grown up with the original, I don’t think so. So yes, it looks fabulous but when it comes to a multiplayer experience I would much rather boot up the original.
Economically, players are much more willing to try a free game than a paid title. It’s just how it is. If a lot of time, effort, and skill has been put into the gameplay mechanics, the experience, and the joys of playing the game, you will keep the players, and they will spend money in your cash-shop because they enjoy your title. That’s how Free to Play is supposed to work. However, what harms this are the big AAA publishers that over-inflate their budgets and spread propaganda about how much it takes to make a title. People are “happy” that they have their generic shooter games. They are “happy” that they have their Korean WoW clones. And they are “delighted” that they don’t have the ability to play pure strategy titles or true RPG’s. Though that’s not entirely true, the public is getting smarter and more people are realizing that there is better entertainment out there in an rapidly expanding market.
Next time you are about to pick up the new Diablo DLC, this week’s Call of Duty, or anything Kalypso makes ever, look on Good ‘ol Games or the Steam Indie section and find yourself something original to enjoy. If anything, Free to Play, Freemium (no really, what’s the difference) and Free to Win titles aren’t the future of the entire industry yet stand as the forefront of the end of the big name companies as they no longer have a vice grip on the industry. Blanket statements like “Pay 2 Win” only reflect our own need to simplify an increasingly stratified medium that has always been informed by consumers who have been expanding what (and how) they want to play for years now as technology advances alongside them. Speaking of cheap development, design, and marketing I should remind everybody about the upcoming console Ouya, boasting a $99 price tag and the ability to try every game on it for free to make your choice even easier and when you get bored of the games on there you can design your own game and put it on there to sell for yourself.
Necroscourge 6/7/13
