The Rise and Abuse of Free-to-Play

One of the earliest examples of F2P games is Furcadia (1996) a social MMO aimed at somewhat of a more casual or potentially younger audience, whilst entry to the game required no fee the game featured a variety of optional mircotransactions that allowed players to engage in extra customization. Pretty basic stuff; fairly priced mircotransactions and players who paid nothing weren’t disadvantaged in any way. One of the next major examples of the F2P model is the massively popular Runescape (2001) where players could play for free with the choice of an optional subscription model that allowed players to upgrade their account to a premium “members” account. A member would gain access to the full game, making available new items, dungeons, quests and more, which would otherwise have been locked for those playing for free. Although the original game did not feature mircotransactions, they were eventually introduced in 2012, which allowed players to essentially gamble money with the chance of winning certain items. Naturally, the recent addition of mircotransactions has been somewhat controversial amongst the community, with some people welcoming the changes and others actively speaking out against it. A fine example of a well executed free-to-play strategy, players can play for free but obvious benefits to paying a subscription are advertised without making the non-premium player’s experience completely unenjoyable.

Although Runescape maybe have been one of the first games to actually launch using a F2P model, many MMOs have converted to a F2P model during times of declining revenue. One of the biggest examples of this is Bioware’s Star Wars: The Old Republic (2011), an ambitious project with a record breaking (at the time) budget of between $150 million and $200 million that boasted 1 million subscribers in 3 days, granting it the prestige of being “the fastest-growing MMO ever”. However, after just a few months the game began to suffer dull and stagnating “end-game” content, which led to a significant number of players unsubscribing and eventually rendering the game unprofitable via its current subscription model, and so in early 2012 the game adopted a new F2P hybrid model. Similar to Runescape, players are able to play for free but are severely handicapped in terms of both ability and content (free players can’t even sprint until level 15…) whilst those who continue to pay a subscription gain access to the entire game. Free-to-play MMOs are old news by now, and if an MMO is released you can usually count on it being F2P. Free-to-play has become a lucrative and attractive market, and that’s something that publishers are starting to notice as we see a rapid decline in subscription-based MMOs.

Although free-to-play models were once found solely in MMOs and competitive multiplayer, the rise of mobile gaming has created an entirely new wave of free-to-play games. There are plenty of great free games on mobile platforms that make prolific use of mircotransactions, however sometimes these mircotransactions ask too much for what they offer. PopCap’s Plants vs. Zombies 2: It’s About Time (2013) is one of the worst examples of “free-to-pay” games in recent times. A tower defense game released on iOS and Android and published by EA, PvZ 2 is a sequel to the original Plants vs. Zombies (2010) which was not free-to-play. Its successor, however, is the worst kind of free-to-play possible: one that is purely saturated with over-priced mircotransactions, also known as in-app purchases. New unit types; randomly dropping keys that unlock bonus stages; stars that unlock new areas; upgrades and bonuses, if you can name you’ll probably have to pay for it. Everything in this game can be bought with real money, and they certainly aren’t cheap with most purchases costing at least $5, or significantly more for bundles of items. One of the most rotten things about this game is that if you choose not to spend $5 to unlock the next area, then you’re made to tediously grind stars out of the previous ten levels you just beat; disgusting game design designed to encourage players to fork out $5 rather than play the actual game. 

Mircotransactions are pretty standard affair for F2P games these days and when priced appropriately they can work well, but the audacious nature and sheer overpricing of the mircotransactions in some games really shows how rotten the F2P model can become when it’s savagely exploited publishers. EA aren’t the only ones, however, mircotransactions are becoming increasingly prevalent amongst other popular franchises. Activision’s Call of Duty recently added them to its latest iteration of massively popular multiplayer, and no doubt we’ll begin to see it in the next instalment. Apparently, it seems games don’t even need to be free-to-play to include mircotransactions anymore.

Don’t get me wrong, I can really appreciate a free-to-play model when it’s done well. Blacklight Retribution (2012), for example, is a thoroughly enjoyable online shooter that uses a free-to-play model successfully. Players can still play the game for free (I haven’t paid a thing and still played a significant amount) without being put at too much of a disadvantage, and in-game purchases aren’t thrown at the player every five minutes. World of Tanks (2011) is another great example of a hugely popular and hugely successful game that uses a free-to-play model. A game that has been heavily criticised for having an unfair “pay to win” economy that would put players at a major disadvantage for not paying for items and services, the WoT devs at Wargaming.net have promised to "drop their pay to win microtransactions" with perhaps a replaced emphasis on cosmetic items like in TF2. Some of the best examples of the F2P model come from the esteemed Valve, the makers of such enormous hits as Dota 2 (2013) and Team Fortress 2 (2007). Both of these games feature items that offer cosmetic effects only and players get full access to the game for free. Now, obviously this isn’t a strategy that every game can pull of and only massively popular games like these have the dominance to succeed from these models.

It’s clear that a F2P model can be beneficial for both players and developers: it allows developers to create more accessible games with lower system requirements whilst offering players free access to their games. It has its place though: MMOs and strictly multiplayer experiences. Single-player games, in my opinion, simply should not use free-to-play models. EA, one of the biggest publishers in the industry, is a prime suspect for abusing the free-to-play model and heavily capitalising on mircotransactions. Dead Space 3 (2013) for example, was released for the full $60 retail price and yet featured a whole host of in-game mircotransactions that the player could purchase to make the newly introduced crafting system quicker, easier, and generally more convenient. I think what makes it feel so sleazy is that these gameplay elements are being designed to be extremely time-consuming and tedious in order to make remedying the problem with a bit of the green stuff seem like a favourable option. Mircotransactions hidden inside single-player games that aren’t free is a pretty sour practice but sadly it’s not a new problem, EA’s incredibly popular social simulator series The Sims also has a fruitful history of including plenty of in-game items that sit behind a big fat paywall as well.

During its relatively short life, free-to-play has taken on many forms: from fairly basic experiences and a couple of daring MMOs, to mobile gaming and the rise of “casual” games. Gaming is a still very much a young industry, especially when compared to the titans of television and radio, and there are still big budget publishers testing the waters a bit to see what they can and can’t get away with. Call me an optimist, but when things go rotten the gaming community can be really loud (just look at the sheer outcry that erupted when Microsoft unveiled the Xbox One’s anti-consumer practices, which people are still pissed off about even after they were reversed) and I just can’t see such horrid practices continuing for much longer. Although perhaps the inevitable fall of vile free-to-play mis-use isn’t so inevitable after all, I mean these unfairly designed free-to-play games are being aimed at an audience of casual mobile gamers. Perhaps, if the worst occurs, this new emerging market of the masses will be exactly the kind of people who don’t mind paying a couple of dollars to avoid these manufactured frustrations, and this free-to-play abuse will continue.

I have hope that the latter won’t happen, so let’s just remain positive for now though, shall we?