[nottorp]

> Consider little indie studios, for example.

The little indie studios that I buy my games from are all pay once?

> Quite often, free to play can end up costing people less money. Case in point, I played CSGO for 10+ years and spent less than $5 on it. If I had bought the game when it came out it would have cost $20 or so.

Someone else paid $2000 for hats or whatever CSGO sells in the same period to cover the $20 you and other 98 players haven't paid.

And the game design and development effort went towards making those hats so the whales can buy them.

Any free to play game would have been completely different if it were designed as a pay once game.

[DEADMINCE]

> The little indie studios that I buy my games from are all pay once?

Why are you going out of your way to disingenuously interpret comments? It's strangely super-defensive, your comment history shows it isn't a rare occurrence.

No, maybe not the little indie studios you specifically buy your games from, but plenty of indie studios offer free to play games.

Go browse Steam or something before commenting more on this subject please.

> Someone else paid $2000 for hats or whatever CSGO sells in the same period to cover the $20 you and other 98 players haven't paid.

Because they probably had disposable income and wanted to. It doesn't mean they are being fleeced, anymore than Balanciaga is 'fleecing' people here.

I take 'fleecing' here to mean conning, and there is no con happening. It's an honest transaction that people can take if they want to.

> Any free to play game would have been completely different if it were designed as a pay once game.

No shit, business models evolve. That doesn't mean all free to play games are inherently predatory. That's honestly a very foolish assertion to try and make.

[nottorp]

> Go browse Steam or something before commenting more on this subject please.

I don't look at free games, I'm not that rich.

> No shit, business models evolve. That doesn't mean all free to play games are inherently predatory. That's honestly a very foolish assertion to try and make.

But they are. And not only for the whales that pay 2000 for the hats.

Do you realize that any "free" title is designed to waste your time to keep you playing? Why do you think they are all endless $ACTIVITY or competitive multiplayer? Is your time worth that little?

[DEADMINCE]

> I don't look at free games, I'm not that rich.

Jesus christ lol. So, you're just confirming here you had no clue what you were talking about. You get that, right?

You're making very bold claims based on assumptions and misunderstanding, for something you don't even browser or participate in. Your initials aren't DK by any chance, are they?

> And not only for the whales that pay 2000 for the hats.

Sure, anyone that can afford it and wants it will. Most people might just pay for a few $20 hats though, and get more enjoyment out of it than say 3 of their $8 cups of coffee.

> Do you realize that any "free" title is designed to waste your time to keep you playing?

I mean, that'ss true in some cases, and I'd say that's true of the biggest free to play games pushed by the buggest companies with a history of being shady, but again (and this is key): that doesn't describe all free to play games.

You're doing the equivilant of insisting all operating systems must be unstable and crash because Windows used to.

> Why do you think they are all endless $ACTIVITY or competitive multiplayer? Is your time worth that little?

I play free to play games to jump on and have a break. I'v played FPS games since I was a kid and find it a good way to destress. I see no problem in doing something I enjoy and would hardly call that a waste of time.