• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

IGN: EA COO says free 2 play inevitable

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

StrangerGuy

Diamond Member
May 9, 2004
8,443
124
106
Oh I'm sure EA meant you can load and login for free but otherwise unplayable because 90% of the game is pay 2 win.

Just see Diablo 3. Tons of shitty mechanics that throws any sort of legitimate player skill out of the window so you can only power it through gear alone and that means $$$ for Blizz.
 

darkewaffle

Diamond Member
Oct 7, 2005
8,152
1
81
Oh I'm sure EA meant you can load and login for free but otherwise unplayable because 90% of the game is pay 2 win.

Just see Diablo 3. Tons of shitty mechanics that throws any sort of legitimate player skill out of the window so you can only power it through gear alone and that means $$$ for Blizz.
Diablo 3 is the first time a Diablo game has ever required any smidgen of player skill.
 

crownjules

Diamond Member
Jul 7, 2005
4,858
0
76
I can't help but laugh at the frothing rage some people have over D3 and how it pops up in the strangest of ways in non-related threads.
 
Aug 11, 2008
10,451
641
126
I would think for single player you could charge to progress in the game, get better armor, weapons, etc. Mass Effect for example, the basic version is really nothing more than a demo. Pay a little bit to unlock a planet or system, which progresses the story. You hire your AI companions with real money, and pay for equipment. There has to be that fine line though, as the unlocks have to be cheap enough that you don't think about, yet actually worth the money so you continue to buy.
Yea, pay 50 bucks for an ending that doesnt suck.

Seriously, I only play single player, and I fear that the social gaming and online/microtransactions are going to basically kill true single player games.

As far as EA is concerned, maybe if they didnt cheapen and dumb down every franchise/publisher they acquire, people would be willing to pay 60.00 for a game.

For instance, I paid full price for Skyrim, and felt it was way more than worth it. I paid full price for ME3 against my better judgement, and sorely regret it.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
101,420
5,486
126
lotro's f2p model is well done. the transaction model is using points. you can buy the points (which often go on sale for under .75 cents a point), you can grind the points (this takes a long time so even a minimum wage job is a better use of time, generally), you can subscribe and get access to all non-expansion content without using points (and you get 500 points a month). there are some things that are only available in the point store, but only one of those could be considered pay to win (relic removal scrolls for legendary items, not completely necessary because it's fairly easy to get relics, though there are old relics that you can no longer get that are worthwhile, so you want to remove those). though i'd appreciate the ads being disabled if i'm VIP (monthly) or have purchased the expansion.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Seems to be 2 different discussions. F2Pmmo, and F2P everything else.

F2Pmmo I can see, in part due to the market saturation I've discussed before.

F2P for everything else doesn't seem like it will float to me. May be a fine thing for an Indies or new low budget developer, but people are already appropriately bitching about some of the DLC schemes being tried and a F2P take would only scale those to even more absurd levels.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY