If there is one phrase that gets a great deal of hate in the pc gaming world, it's f2p. Some of it isn't justified. But some of it is. Free 2 play normally means game with the good stuff locked behind microtransactions to most gamers. Another thing free 2 play means to some is "of lesser quality". But do you give some of the f2p games a chance before you make your conclusions?
Actually, I really love free to play games. I often try to find a free to play game before shoving my money into something I might end up disliking later. At the very least, with a free to play, I've wasted only money rather than both my money and my time.
You're a rare one then. Which is a good thing. At least you actually take the time to give the game a chance instead of just seeing "f2p" and cursing to the high heavens like most gamers. Plus f2p games have been getting higher in quality the past two years if you've noticed.
Actually, if you bother to look, a lot of the orignilly f2p games that are really good eventually come out with a sequel or other paid game that ends up doing really well. I think some f2p games are just ways for game makers to test their metal and see if it can live up to it's target audiences expectations.
Well I'd have to disagree with the whole Free to Play being a bad label, I mean look at League of Legends it's the biggest online game ever it friggin exploded to say the least, I was playing league when you could actually talk to tryndamere and phreak on the forums and get responses from them with no problem, within a year that was long gone. But my point is that there are Goliath Free 2 play games out there and there are sure to be more with the way that gaming is evolving on the PC
I used to, yeah. But I used to spend a lot of money in LoL, and I still occassionally spend a couple of bucks, but in the future I will be reticent concerning these f2p games simply because they leech your money worse than p2p games.
Whenever I see a game that's F2P and looks alright, first thing I'll do is run a small Google search to see what other people think. If the ratings are postive then I'll start playing it. That's how I got in a lot of games like TrackMania, League of Legends and more.
These kind of games always have benefits that make you better in game when you buy something, so yes I always write it off. I am not going to play a game where people have spent loads of money to become good at it and just win straight away all the time.
I agree with tibz I have made f2p a priority. And if you google or bing some reviews, you usually won't be disappointed.
I love F2P because the only barrier to me trying it out is either a download or a simple sign-up in the case of a browser game. There are a lot of bad F2P systems out there, definitely, but I've learned over the years which companies tend to use them and which don't. I like it a lot more than the old days of limited trials where your character could only go to level 10 or 20 or something, and you could only play for a couple weeks. Of course, I'm more than willing to subscribe to a game. I'm going to pick up FFXIV soon once my gaming buddy's in the mood for it, and that's strictly sub-only. I also sub to Everquest and Rift whenever I play them for the benefits it provides. Basically a game just has to make me want to spend money and I'll at least throw a few dollars at it. One non-MMO example is the mobile game Doctor Who Legacy. It's totally free with the usual premium real-money currency but any purchase of more than... I think it's five units of the premium currency unlocks a special area with exclusive levels and bonuses and stuff. It was a great incentive for me so I bought currency to unlock it without even thinking too much of it.
Most of my games are free-to-play, so I don't really have an answer to your question, but if I was a free-to-play hater, I'd probably give the games a try for a few hours and see if they're worth my time.
It makes me extremely wary, because a lot of free-to-play games are really "pay-to-win" because of the ridiculous microtransactions. Sure, there's games that still manage to do it right, but a lot of the time it's done badly. A game being F2P is a red flag to me, but I won't write off the game entirely.
If it is something that grabs my interest, I will always at least give it a shot. Don't knock it until you try it, right? Obviously, when you are paying for something, there is a better chance that there are a ton of graphic designers and story writers that are behind it, so the chance of higher quality goes way up. I try not to discount F2Ps because as I have found, a lot of the ones I liked better were F2P, if only for the reason that I didn't have to worry about wasting a bunch of money if I stopped playing, or didn't like it.
It depends on how serious I want to be at the game, and related to this, how much of an advantage is there for spending money ( how hardcore do I need to be for it to be pay2win). For instance, there is a game called Stronghold Kingdons that is f2p... it is a competitive pvp game. If you play the game casually, you can have a lot of fun for the first few weeks. But after that, the pay2win aspect makes competing impossible without spending a lot of money. The role of f2p people are to be sheep for the players who pay money. Hearthstone is the opposite example. I enjoy playing HS, but I do not take it too seriously. I know there is a small advantage to spending money, but because I play it so casually, I can still have a lot of fun without feeling forced to spend money. The same is true of Dungeons and Dragons Online. I love the game, I have a ton of alts and play through the questing and stuff.. probably have a few hundred hours in the game and never once felt the need to spend money. But I do know that if I wanted to raid, or do the cutting edge content, I would have to spend money.
Sometimes I will play some F2P games, but most of the good stuff is locked unless you spend money on it to unlock it so I end up not playing the game anymore.
