I find myself scratching my head over the continued bursts of angry criticism against the Free to Play business model.
Here is Michael Thomsen writing in Kill Screen, “Will Work for Fun“:
The original Super Mario Bros. defined the console blockbuster with more than 40 million copies sold worldwide. After going free-to-play, Angry Birds has been downloaded over 700 million times (though some versions are still sold for 99 cents). The scope and stakes of videogame commerce have irrevocably changed, and, in a way, the value of the medium has degraded as a result. Designers are no longer selling games to people who want to buy them, they are selling their audiences to advertisers. Worse yet, they are using them as an interactive form of muzak, creating a lively backdrop against which the small percentage of people willing to spend money on new quests or in-game trinkets will feel more likely to spend.
The value of the medium has degraded? Really? On a basic level, I still feel that this type of criticism is eerily similar to the kinds of criticisms that people tend to direct at video games in general: commercial, exploitative, devoid of artistic merit etc…
There seems to an underlying conservatism at play, where we intuitively believe that what we grew up with (games being sold in boxes at fixed price points) is a neutral good, and that everything else is ultimately a perversion. But all business models have a built-in skew: the boxed model skews towards pretty graphics and a well-designed first-15-minute experience, after which the game quickly becomes boring and repetitive.
On the other hand, when I say this (that all business models and incentive structures have a built-in skew), I can hear myself mimicking my undergraduate university teachers: “games are always already influenced by business models” (the “always already” part signals that you are part of the clique).
So that also feels like a cheap argument. I was entertaining the thought that it has to do with a basic conception of games (the magic circle if you will) as an egalitarian space where things like money are not supposed to make a difference, and the free to play and microtransactions seem offensive because they make the playing field skewed and unfair. (See the report linked below.)
Again, the default counter-argument would be that this is an illusion – because there never is any pure game space where money does not matter and so on. But this is again too easy: the fundamental fact is that our conventions of game-playing (and sportspersonship) involve trying to create a type of pure egalitarian space, regardless of the fact that this can never be achieved a 100% (and regardless of what researchers think).
Michael Thomsen discusses free to play and capitalism at length, but ultimately I think we need to acknowledge that money is just one of many different resources (and not the only one worth talking about). I recently heard an established game developer argue that microtransactions are fair because they level the playing field between him and the people with more time on their hands, and I have entertained the same thought myself. Microtransactions are really a type of “executive summary” for games.
And that is the bottom line for me: no business model is neutral, but it is also true that free to play can collide with some of our fundamental assumptions about what games should be. And yet … for some games, the more expensive executive summary just is the better deal. (And the task of Free to Play game designers is to make it so, of course.)
*
PS. Here is a study of player perceptions of free to play: “Cash Trade Within the Magic Circle”, by Holin Lin and Chuen-Tsai Sun.
Aaaahhh Killscreen magazine. A stylish take full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
You know, it strikes me that there have been very similar situations in other media through the years. E.g. radio killed musical performance, television killed theater. For certain, that has been the story of the internet: free text, free news, free photos –> killed the corresponding. Somehow, though, we still have concerts, plays, books, and even people paying for a few newspapers. So, like you said, it’s easy to overstate what’s happening with games today.
I am also always amazed at the amount of vitriol F2P receives. I understand why Zinga gets flamed for their hyper aggressive monetization but extending that criticism to F2P in general seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
Commenters should avoid these blanket statements and become much more precise in their attacks so that we could form a better idea of what crosses the line and why.
Brandon Sheffield wrote an article about \”generous\” and \”stingy\” games a while back ( http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/163407/Opinion_The_generous_and_the_stingy__a_growing_trend_in_game_direction.php ). It\’s an idea could very well be applied to F2P to distinguish between games that feel exploitative or not.
“I recently heard an established game developer argue that microtransactions are fair because they level the playing field between him and the people with more time on their hands, and I have entertained the same thought myself. Microtransactions are really a type of “executive summary” for games.”
Concerning the balancing between people with time/little time, I agree with you him. However, isn’t it rather unethical with how microtransactions are used? I mean with the “whales” being the ones providing a lot of the revenue. To me it feels like people with spending issues are paying for my game.
Mike O’Brien, of ArenaNet, discussed micro transactions with their forthcoming release Guild Wars 2 in those terms, going further to suggest their store will go a long way to defeating gold sellers. There’s some discussion revolving around the GW2 community regarding disposable income and disposable time both achieving much the same result in game, and a sense of community interest in supporting the game developers with direct rewards. I’m a supporter of the system, myself, having first encountered it with the original Guild Wars – but neither game is truly ‘free to play’ – just subscription free. Especially curious for an MMO business model.
For reference, Mike O’Brien’s article: http://www.arena.net/blog/mike-obrien-on-microtransactions-in-guild-wars-2
The system is still in development, but there appears to be a concerted effort to maintain balance between the haves and the have-nots that I’m particularly interested in following – successful or otherwise.
@Lastowka Yeah, it’s probably not ALL coming to and end …
@Olivier But isn’t it still weird that a $60 box is somehow non-stingy? And Sheffield mentions bullet points as if it’s some great thing that is sorely missed?
@Mikaela For it to be unethical, you would have to demonstrate that there is some criteria by which Free to Play “whales” are more exploited and less aware of what they are doing … than are someone who buys most new consoles and high-profile titles. How would you make that argument?
The more interesting point for me is to take f2p as a teachable moment to reflect back on previous constellations of video games and ask how their conditions of possibility were shaped by their business models, i.e. coin-op arcade (they *had* to be hard, with short rounds, immediately jumping into gameplay requiring no deep/lengthy introduction, etc.) because they were built around eating quarters. AAA games had a business model much more like Hollywood movies – so you get sequels and audience testing, all of which are risk mitigation strategies given the necessary huge up-front investments.
There is a more nuanced point, though, in comparison to AAA games: There, the monetary transaction happened just ONCE and AT THE BORDER of gameplay itself: I had to convince you to buy my game, and you had to be convinced to buy it. But once that monetary transaction was out of the way, the gameplay itself was a “pure” disinterested, skill-only space. Likewise, once you as a designer could convince investors/publishers that your game “will sell”, the actual minutiae of design decisions within that space are up to your creative freedom and sensitivity “what makes a good game”, and not bound to considerations of “can we squeeze an extra micro transaction out of this?” The historical conditions of the AAA business model created a relative bounded space of freedom from economic considerations for designers and players, and that’s the boundary (and historic precedence and mental model and social norm) that f2p messes with.
@Sebastian I completely agree that f2p points to how earlier business models also had built-in preferences and skews.
As for the second point – I also agree that there is a feeling that in the boxed model, because you are done with the purchasing, you can feel free once you are in the game.
But I think the argument cuts both ways:
1) Once you have bought the game, nobody is going to bother you by asking for money.
But:
2) It is also the case that once you have bought the game, nobody is going to care if your experience is terrible.
Hi Jesper,
to your point: Yes, of course! That’s also why, in the AAA case, we have had a big video game review industry, and trailers, and demos, and playable first levels, and the like. They are all risk mitigation strategies as well – only on the demand, not the supply side. It’s a classic economical Arrow information paradox: You don’t know the value of the information before you know the information.
What you can deduce from that: Because economic conditions shift, the value-add that video game journalism delivers shifts from risk reduction (Is this new “Diablo” game really worth shelling out XX bucks?) to filtering (Which of these XX “Cut the Rope” clones is really worth playing?)