| >> As a player, I'd rather pay a small sum once to avoid the virtual currency - and find other ways to create whales (e.g., as suggested, more like content creation, sponsoring and some vanity items). Except that I bet you wouldn't. Most players when asked say they would prefer a "fair price, pay once" model. Yet in aggregate they act very differently. If that weren't true we wouldn't now have a market where: 1) Seemingly most people complain about F2P 2) F2P is increasingly the most successful model I think the people annoyed by monetization efforts are a relatively tech savvy, vocal minority. >> it often seems that the rest of the players (the 99%, if you wish), have their experience hampered by constant dangling of offers in front of you. I don't think that's really the case. Again, vocal minority. But let's say it is. Speaking as a game developer now, we don't have to present the same experience to every player. A "cheap" player may be nearly a lost cause for direct monetization but valuable for word of mouth. If they're not buying we can actually scale back on the amount of ads presented and instead gently persuade them to, say, post their high scores on Twitter. If you're the type of player that likes to brag, then a prompt with a pre-filled Twitter post won't annoy you at all. It's not hard to figure out which player is which and it's not hard to adapt in-game marketing efforts to suit that player. |
Sure, there might be a few free to play games out there that break this mold, but I'm at a point in my life where money is expendable but time isn't. I'd much rather spend money up front to play a game that has a good chance at being designed for fun than waste time trying to find a diamond in the free to play rough.
I believe there will always be a place for paid games, but if the market shift towards free to play continues I'll have no problem giving up video games entirely. Will the 'AAA' free to play games like Hawken, Mech Warrior Online, or Planetside 2 be fun to play? Perhaps, but I'll never find out.