F2P Summit ends with a heated debate
Post a comment - Please log in to leave a comment
Show: Latest | Oldest
Simon Moller | 19:38 - 12 October 2013
That guy must be a total retard. Where to begin with the counterarguments?
F2P is just a business model. Like cinemas sell upfront tickets + popcorn for incredibly high profits.
Or TV stations sell advertising space during saturday morning kids tv.
Or Blizzard sells World of Warcraft subscriptions.
Or telcoms sell text messages.
Or AAA game companies bloat their games with features to make sure ppl can persuade themselves to spend 60$ on a product they haven't even tried yet.
Tim Wicksteed | 17:27 - 11 October 2013
Ha ha, great write-up. You missed my favourite quote though, when Paul admitted having to uninstall Candy Crush multiple times from his phone because it was simply too addictive!
The reason the debate descended into a f2p mud slinging match was because broadly everyone in the room was in agreement. Obviously manipulative f2p tactics aimed at minors should be condemned but the fact of the matter is it's very difficult to censor this stuff effectively on a case by case basis. I agree with Neil in that some relatively simple measures by platform holders could solve a lot of the issues. E.g. a tick box when you enter a credit card info enabling "child mode" which requires a password on every purchase.
Mitch (Dave Mitchell) | 16:53 - 11 October 2013
"I have to question why someone that displayed a total lack of awareness of the underlying economics of F2P was on the stage of a F2P event."
For exactly this kind of coverage? ;-)
I think we're going round in circles with regards to F2P debates. Common sense prevails and there is no one size fits all solution. Premium and F2P both work and both can produce great and shit poor games.
Kevin Corti | 15:39 - 11 October 2013
I was at the F2P Summit and have to say I found Andrew Lim's comments to be utterly ridiculous.
It is perfectly fine to have a preference for premium-priced apps, especially for games targeted specifically at children but his analogies were plainly awful and had me, pardon the pun, spitting feathers.
To compare the quality of F2P games to "£2 chickens" is, frankly absurd. His inference is that either the process of creating a product is unsafe/unethical and/or the product creator is being shafted during the production process. That may be true of ultra-budget poultry production but it shows a complete lack of understanding of digital distribution.
The 'production' of a new instance of an existing game for a new customer costs £zero to the developer. It is a digital product distributed over a digital network where your ISP and Apple/Google incur the only (exceedingly trivial) costs. F2P games are not free because the production process is unsafe or the supply chain is being squeezed. They are free because it does not cost anything for the developer to give it to the consumer for free.
Equally, if, through optional in-app purchasing, a small number of users elect to pay for extra (optional!!!) aspects/features then the developer makes revenue. That won't happen for a bad game that fails to interest and engage its users, hence a F2P game HAS TO BE GOOD to be a commercial success.
I have to question why someone that displayed a total lack of awareness of the underlying economics of F2P was on the stage of a F2P event.
Sponsored feature: Speeding up the Android emulator on Intel architectureLATEST FEATURES
Want to keep Korean gamers engaged? Plan 50 content updates per yearLATEST COMMENTS
Stateside: It's time for the testosterone-fuelled games industry to grow up 1