I see a ton of articles left and right saying this will be the new model. The problem: I will never ever purchase an item in game, neither will my friends or my brothers. And I really mean never. Lets say that free to play at some point does fail but a majority of games try it out. It would be hard to go from free, back up to 60 dollars and I think psychologically it would ruin people from buying games.

For years we have been trying to target piracy, the act of getting a product for free by stealing it. Now we are teaching people that those things we were supposed to get a slap on the wrist for, was actually ok. How confusing.

Campaign and Story games will not work. I don't see any profit in giving someone Uncharted for free. The idea that someone will buy so many in game items to offset the people who pay nothing, is absolutely absurd. That might work for MMO's or such where people are freaks about the game and play it so much that it is worthwhile. For story based singleplayer games, there should be no need to buy an extra gun or item. And again I know a lot of people that just want to play the campaign, so you start with a loss.

I haven't bought a game in a couple years. I rent them because 60 bucks is too much (especially when u build a collection and your 360 dies). I think a lot of people feel this way and if they are going to buy items in game, they might end up capping at 20 bucks. Not to mention parents buy games for kids. Usually happens around the holidays. I can't see a kid asking their parents once a week for a credit card to purchase in game items. Parents will catch on quick and wonder how they are spending all that money.

The unfair advantage. I recently played Blacklight Retribution. The game is mediocre. I am a person that wants to play games a few hours a week or spend a day beating a campaign. In order for me to get kills in Blacklight, I have to either play the game for 20 hours to level up, or buy stuff. One case is you can get incendiary sniper ammo, so if you hit someone non-headshot with a sniper rifle it does 1/2 damage and then burns you till you die. Without it, you just do 1/2 damage. So you have already made the game unfair and what I feel a bad design issue, and I'm supposed to either give them money, or play the game for 20 unjoyable hours until I can enjoy the game? Reminds me of the South Park WoW episode where they play for a month and then finally say "now we can play the game."

In the end nobody really knows what they are talking about, and will be a game by game basis. I just hate that these big names get to have articles and we are to assume that it will just work because their title is CEO. It seems to early to tell and I think my points are all valid and have yet to be tested. You can't sell a game F2P and priced at the same time to really compare at the end of the day and say you made more money because of this or that. I'm very interested to see Crytek's Warface game and see how well it does. They are the most outspoken about F2P and have said all their games will be that way.

Free to play is not new. Nor is it suddenly going to be the only thing out there. Just as cheap indie games didn't destroy the market, neither will this. Rest assured that companies have ran the numbers and feel more confident about them than you do. I don't plan on buying anything either but many people do.

Also know that the concept of making nothing or little at first is also not new. The idea of consoles was that companies would lose money on them at first and would only later make a profit once some games sold. Companies also make money off of DLCs and expansions, where the investment is less as the engine and much of the content is already done.

So rest assured the gaming market will continue to flourish.

I never thought of it before. Make games that are free to play and redistribute and instead opt to make money by selling digital merchandise. Software piracy becomes less relevant as players need to complete a financial transaction in order to play the game effectively.

If I were to start up an online combat sort of game that I got for free and then I was confronted by a message indicating that I then had to purchase my weapon and ammunition with real money to continue, that wouldn't be that much different than say what you experience when you go some place to play paintball. And if the amount that I spend in game for the equipment that I need to survive the game is equal or less than the amount I would've paid to purchase the software initially anyways, then my bottom line is the same and I just have to get over my hangups of buying digital merchandise.

I don't see any reason why companies wouldn't be on board with that line of thinking.

I don't think people get confused about F2P and piracy.

F2P is a model that is getting more popular as companies, with great study and preparation, are investing because there is LOTS of people out there that like buying accessories for game.

When I mean LOTS it is LOTS. Games from AeriaGames, or Nexon's Maple Story make more money than WoW ... believe me.
MapleStory for instance sells items just because they are pretty or different (no stats are added to the player), and those items expire in 30 days. People keep buying them indefinetely ... it is insane I know.

Watch this interesting video from GDC where Valve's empolyee explain how they managed to make TF2 Free to Play.

I think that there are several games though that are not persistant. Some people get on the same game every day for a year. Those games probably make people want to buy stuff. But I think for most people, they play a handful maybe 1-10 games a year and they just move from game to game. There are a lot of different types of gamers and I think that MMO/Online only games are the only ones with those people that will dish out tons of money. I bet for those it will fail too at some point because it is hard to get funding. "We project 1 million copies sold, you should fund us to make this game" "so how much money will you make with 1 million units sold?" "no idea"

The thing you're missing is that this isn't a strategy they're hoping will be successful, or thinking might be successful -- it's a strategy they're already using than demonstrably IS successful.

Of course it won't work for all games, and of course there are issues to be dealt with, but this isn't some gamble that will put most companies out of business -- this is a well tested model that has been getting good results, and will continue to be used -- and hopefully refined -- where appropriate.

"We project 1 million copies sold, you should fund us to make this game" "so how much money will you make with 1 million units sold?" "no idea"

That isn't how it would go down. There would be a projected number of users, a projected percentage of those users that would purchase, and all sorts of wonderful graphs and statistics for ARPU (Average Revenue Per User) and ARPPU (Average Revenue Per Paying User), etc., all of which would be backed up by a solid business plan and studies of how similar games have performed. Efforts are often also made to earn a smaller amount of money from non-paying users via advertising or other methods, so whilst they are less valuable than paying users they aren't purely a loss either.

Remember, with traditional "for sale" games, there's still no guarantee you'll definitely be able to sell the projected number of copies, so F2P is no more or less of a certain result.

I agree with you on the point that freemium is only suitable for MMOs. If people and their friends are hooked together on an MMO platform, they are likely to stay and purchase power-ups.

The recent rise of freemium games seemed to have lots to do with the success of Farmville. In the old days, there simply weren't that many similar games. People didn't move from game to game because they didn't know there were others. But it's a different story now. Take iOS for example, you'll see its free game chart constantly moving. It's a very high competition area.

I tried purchasing coins in games like Jetpack Joyride, Chasing Yello, Rushing Alice. What I discovered is that these coins are pretty much wasted, and have no major effect on gameplay. They only makes you look better or luckier. If you look closely, the majority of purchasable items on iOS free games are consumables. Unlike MMOs, where you typically purchase for a permanent item, such as a weapon. And because in such small games, mechanics are too simple to be altered by coins. It leaves you the exact same feeling when playing with purchased items.

In a game like Jetpack Joyride, purchasable items seemed to be a part of the game design from ground up. But for most others, it's like a last minute job. They didn't think of why the player needs purchasing.

In the end, it's very difficult to keep the player hooked with a free version, and make him wanting more at the same time. There are a lot of well designed free games, which made moving from one to another an easy action. And to be successful, it's not about designing a good game. You'll have a better chance if you can reach the people who have the habit to purchase a lot of items even though they are useless.

I don't understand why there still isn't a competitive online FPS game (ala Counter-Strike) which is free to play, but you have to buy your weapons/bullets/gear with real money. Suddenly buying a really overpriced gun that's only marginally better than a cheap AK-47 becomes something only the rich can afford, and not something everyone always buys.

Can anyone explain why a game has to be $60 or free to play with no middle ground.

I think indie and casual (sometimes made by big companies like EA) games are probably your middle ground.