Assassin's Creed 4: Black Flag for PC to come after consoles
DTS Headphone:X brings 11.1 channel surround sound to headsets
Xbox One policy change means loss of family sharing, disc-free gaming
Steam beta code implies game-sharing plans
Crytek working on The Collectibles for iOS
Blizzard looking into free-to-play Starcraft
by Steve Watts, Sep 24, 2012 3:00pm PDTPC companies big and small are looking at free-to-play as a new way of generating revenue. Blizzard is no exception, and has reportedly been thinking about ways it could use the F2P model for StarCraft 2's multiplayer mode.
PC Games N reports that at an eSports panel, lead designer Dustin Browder said the company is "looking at free-to-play as an option for the multiplayer." Multiplayer remains one of the series' most popular features, especially for its ties to eSports competitions.
The problem, though, is that Blizzard hasn't figured out how to make any money off a free-to-play model, since the mode wasn't conceptualized that way. And more importantly, would a free-to-play Starcraft game even be fun? "We don't know how we would monetize it," Browder said. "While it might be good fun for me to play against someone with only half the units available to them, that's not going to be an enjoyable experience for them."
Comments
StarCraft 2 lead designer Dustin Browder says the company is looking into the possibility of F2P for the multiplayer, but doesn't know how to monetize the idea.
StarCraft 2 lead designer Dustin Browder says the company is looking into the possibility of F2P for the multiplayer, but doesn't know how to monetize the idea. : Shacknews
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 81 replies.
post hoc ergo propter hoc.
False Dichotomy via falsum in uno, falsum in omnibus.
You picked a couple of atypical outliers/exceptions to refute the general case by cherry picking. Furthermore, I am arguing against the F2P component/layer itself, not the underlying game which are separable parts. It is incorrect to indicate that only one component is tied to the success of the game. It is the gameplay that primarily makes a game. You cant sell a game on pure F2P, there needs to be some gameplay, regardless of how good it is.
Also, if you know what you were talking about, a lot of tribes (T1/T2) vets have skipped this one because they were immediately turned off by the F2P aspect. As a starsiege tribes player myself who participated in the beta, I was intially put off, but after giving it a second chance, I was so impressed that they more or less kept the tribes feel/movement, that for the first time I dropped cash (an ample amount also) on an F2P game, not because I wanted to unlock shit, but because I wanted to reward HiRez on doing such a good job. I still would of prefered a full/upfront game with no unlocking/levelling/grinding/RPG cos that shit doesnt belong in a competitive skill based game, BUT...
For a game like Tribes with a high skill ceiling, It needs to be F2P to maintain a constantly incoming stream of new players (read: mostly COD/BF cannon fodder that leaves after a while discouraged) so that the servers stay populated.
Tribes (and probably mech warrior) are more or less outliers, but a lot of F2P muddies the purity of the game, and even though they are relatively successful, its not necessarily because of the F2P.
This invalidates your post. Dont be so sure of yourself.
You must be logged in to post.