The F2P, Online & Multiplayer only future in games

Members see less ads - sign up now for free and join the community!

  • This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

Dollow

PSICOM Soldier
Sep 26, 2013
88
24
dollowrlance.blogspot.com
#1
I have notice that there have been more and more games with F2P (Free to Play) models that have been put into games, it started with MMOs, but now it has been creeping into single player games, such as Deep Down from Capcom and a lot of MMOs on consoles now showing up.

On top of that we are getting many other games that are "Online Only" & "Multiplayer Only" games that are hitting us, such as Deep Down, The Division, Titanfall, & Plants VS Zombies Garden Warfare. Game that have no off online mode and have no single player campaigns and can only be enjoyed online.

I am wondering about everyone's feelings about this, is this the future we have to look forward to in games?

What does everyone think will happen as time goes on?
 

Caius

Yevonite
Sep 29, 2013
35
21
#2
I don't want it to be everything. I do appreciate the occasional game I can play with my friends, but due to my temperament and competitive nature (added to the fact I'm not very good at video games), I'm much better off playing most of my games by myself.
 

Azuardo

Keyblade Master
Moderator
Sep 26, 2013
755
279
#3
Like Caius says, so long as it's not everything, and so long as it's not too much, I'm fine with it.

Online-only games and F2P is just another variant of video games, which, as a medium, there are many different genres and ways to play them. I welcome new ideas like these that offer something different, and I'm absolutely all for online-only games which provide completely new ways to enjoy games. If single-player games can prove that there is a benefit to online-only in what they're trying to do with that specific video game, then it is by all means welcome. I do think that there are things that just online-only can provide, and for that, we should give them a chance.

I'm happy to see F2P being applied to certain genres, too, such as Dead or Alive fighting games, because it grants people access to play almost the full retail game and let them play with/against owners of the actual retail game. By making characters purchasable, it lets you download a full game, yet you only need to pay for the character(s) you want to use. If you're like me, and only have one main in most fighters, that means I only need to pay a few quid for practically the whole game (in DOA's case, though, Kasumi is free anyway!). It benefits both new and older players. Some companies take different approaches in how they implement F2P (Namco with Tekken), but Tecmo (with DOA) has the right idea.

I understand, however, that with something like Deep Down, where people were really interested in the look of it, that people may have been put off when it was revealed to be F2P. They shouldn't have kept that a secret for so long. But it is something we will have to get used to for many cool-looking games now - this approach will be used for other genres as devs test how it can work for them. It's a big money-maker, so it's inevitable that it will be used more often.

But yes, so long as we still get many full retail games alongside F2P, and many offline games (mostly for RPGs), too, (which we will!), it will be fine.
 

Chaos

PSICOM Soldier
Sep 27, 2013
69
47
41
Oregon
chaos1950.tumblr.com
#4
I'm afraid I'll probably sound like a cranky old man, but here are my thoughts on the subject or various subjects.

F2P I'm actually fine with as long as it actually is F2P. However when a game says it's F2P and I start playing it, but find that I'm always going to be at a huge disadvantage unless I pay for extra weapons, or pay an extra fee in order to stay competitive and do all the content that crap makes me rage. F2P games are fine, but when it becomes Nickel & Dime Pay-To-Win games I avoid them like the plague. If a game offers extra stuff to be purchased but gives no advantage in the game, that's fine, but losing to some guy because he went crazy with the wife's credit card? I'm interested to see how it works with fighting games, but if one character is broken and everyone just buys him/her that will kill it for me.

As far as always online games go I'm split on this. As I've made in a few other posts I am playing Final Fantasy XIV, and every once in awhile I do play Black Ops 2 online, however I only play online when I want to play online. While I don't hate playing online, I'm not a fan of the idea of having to always be online to play a game even if I'm not playing it with anyone. This is something that really turned me off of Diablo 3 (that and it's auction house, which felt to me like Pay 2 Win). Whenever I play a single player game these days like the ones I'm currently working through (Mass Effect 3, Dragon Age Origins, Dishonored) I keep myself signed out of PSN. While I could tell people "hey, I'm going to be gaming so please don't disturb me" I'd rather just stay offline. When I game like that I want to be just me and the game, sort of like when someone reads a book.

I'm just not really into this whole "Social Gaming 100% of the time" thing and I'm really hoping that it doesn't continue down the path, that we won't have to be always connected when all I want to do is sit quietly and play a game by myself. However it's going to be like that sooner or later. That will be the day when I'll let people know they need to get off my lawn while shaking my cane at them.
 
Likes: Azuardo

Tsukiyomi

AVALANCHE Warrior
Sep 26, 2013
270
122
30
The basement
#5
DCUO did a good job with the F2P system in my opinion. You could stay a free user without spending a cent and have access to the core missions/duos/alerts/raids, and have no trouble getting the post game equipment. Though with the introduction of socketing and mods, a Free player will have lower stats then a premium and legendary, but the extra stats aren't exactly game breaking so you cant even tell.
 

Light

Balamb Garden Freshman
Oct 5, 2013
24
7
#7
Excellent questions to bring up. I'm no industry analyst, so I can't say with any amount of confidence what will happen and what won't. However, we are due for some changes. Even multi-millionaire, transnational companies should stop chasing after the COD dollar (which, I admit, is now very difficult to do) and revamp their console game development cycles to include mid-tier products. Rising HD development costs are also challenges that need to be addressed. The attitudes of the consumers will be much more difficult to change - how can we make the persuasion that not all games with brilliant graphics and exciting explosions are good? That not all games need those things to be brilliant and exciting?
 
Likes: Azuardo

Azuardo

Keyblade Master
Moderator
Sep 26, 2013
755
279
#8
Excellent questions to bring up. I'm no industry analyst, so I can't say with any amount of confidence what will happen and what won't. However, we are due for some changes. Even multi-millionaire, transnational companies should stop chasing after the COD dollar (which, I admit, is now very difficult to do) and revamp their console game development cycles to include mid-tier products. Rising HD development costs are also challenges that need to be addressed. The attitudes of the consumers will be much more difficult to change - how can we make the persuasion that not all games with brilliant graphics and exciting explosions are good? That not all games need those things to be brilliant and exciting?
That's a good point, actually. We've seen so many companies fold over the generation, and it's becoming so hard for developers to compete against the likes of COD. Alternative ways to make money are necessary, and if it means developers will be able to stay afloat by using a F2P or online-only model for one or more games, then it could in turn mean that they will then still be able to continue providing traditional games that the majority of us prefer. Sort of like how so many are now investing into the mobile market - there is money to be made there, but I am not against it so long as it means they can survive and continue to give us retail console games.
 

Dollow

PSICOM Soldier
Sep 26, 2013
88
24
dollowrlance.blogspot.com
#9
I have been looking this post for awhile.

I remember Mark Cerny mentioning that he feels that pure single player games will be gone by 2014, (He made this prediction in 2011)

Single-player games "gone in 3 years"
Mark Cerny said:
"I believe the traditional single-player game experience will be gone in three years...

"Right now you sit in your living room and you're playing a game by yourself – we call it the sp mission or the single-player campaign. In a world with Facebook I just don't think that's going to last....

"We're already seeing the wall starting to crumble a bit," he said. "Demon's Souls, even though on one level it's a single-player game, as you're walking through the world you're seeing the ghosts of everybody who died in that world via the internet. You can leave messages for them. They can leave messages for you. There's actually a boss you fight in that game which is controlled by another player.

"We're talking five, 10 years out. I believe three years from now, if you aren't doing that, you are being criticised in your reviews for your lack of innovation."
While I am little wary of losing single player, the example that he gave might not be so bad, Demon's Souls with its small "Co-Op" system where you feel like are playing by yourself, but in reality you are online playing with others. I think that would not be so bad as something like Titanfall where you need to rely on a person and work together to get to the goal, I think the same thing is happening with Watch Dogs too where you play the game like you would, but others can jump into your game if you are online and try to take you down.

If we go down that path, would you guys be okay with that?
 
Last edited:

Chaos

PSICOM Soldier
Sep 27, 2013
69
47
41
Oregon
chaos1950.tumblr.com
#10
I have been looking this post for awhile.

I remember Mark Cerny mentioning that he feels that pure single player games will be gone by 2014, (He made this prediction in 2011)

Single-player games "gone in 3 years"


While I am little wary of losing single player, the example that he gave might not be so bad, Demon's Souls with its small "Co-Op" system where you feel like are playing by yourself, but in reality you are online playing with others. I think that would not be so bad as something like Titanfall where you need to rely on a person and work together to get to the goal, I think the same thing is happening with Watch Dogs too where you play the game like you would, but others can jump into your game if you are online and try to take you down.

If we go down that path, would you guys be okay with that?
Again maybe it's my age or just overall preference, but I really hope it's not gone in three years. I get the idea that we're in this social media movement, and features of games like Demon's Souls and Watch Dogs involve online play in that manner that people can jump into your game if you're online. I'd just hope that during this entire shift to the "future" They don't remove the online/offline switch, just instead start the default game in the online mode and allow me, the player, to switch it back off if I so choose.
 

AuroraXIII

PSICOM Soldier
Sep 26, 2013
69
32
30
New Zealand
#11
I will never support game services. They all have limited life spans, and are doomed to eventually get discontinued. I will only support traditional game products that give full control of content to the user. The only reason I'm playing FFXIV is just to get the Platinum Trophy.