Yes I fully agree games should have options to allow those with jobs and busy lives to skip progression (outside of any competitive sphere) but they shouldn’t have to pay for it?!
I totally agree with that. If the game is not free, this should be considered an accessibility feature.
If the game is free, developers need to find ways to get money from the game. People with income are good targets, both on the economical and ethical standpoint :)
I respect your argumentation, but I believe you slightly twisted mine. By “people with income”, I wanted to say “people with enough income to spend some on recreational activities”.
Concerning the “insane potential for returns”, I’m sorry to say that the company that I worked for and for which I developed a f2p game was a small company of 5 employees that never took off all that much. It is a business model. It is not a miraculous business model.
by your assessment its fine to exploit people for profit if they have an income
That’s the basic concept of a salary. I would agree that there are unfair salaries, sure. That’s when we can start talking about exploitation. I’m ok with salaries. I’m not ok with exploitation.
I don’t get the downvotes on this message. I can understand why the other posts might be NOK for some people, but this one? Please explain it to me.
Artists need an income. Are we all in an agreement on this?
You would not ask for a musician to play a full concert every night for free, right?
Why would it be fair to ask a developer to develop a game for free? Do they not deserve a salary? And where would the money come from if not from people having money to spend on games?
I didn’t downvote, but the main point for me isn’t that “pay to skip” is necessarily worse than a non-free-to-play game, it’s that these massive companies try to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible, especially when they include gambling (e.g. loot boxes – don’t know if this particular game does, but I know it’s in several other Blizzard games). Unless they’ve changed their policy since I last played it, Path of Exile (another Diablo-like game) has an example of a much less exploitative system.
Diablo Immor(t)al is a pretty terrible case when it comes to trying to squeeze as much money as possible from people. We, players, are harassed by the notifications for paying features. And it is not just a “pay to skip”/“pay to fast” system: it is also a pay to win game for the competitive scene. That’s bad.
On the other hand, it has at least 120 hours of free content…
My arguments are not in defense of Diablo Immor(t)al, though. They are in defense of Free to play in general, with reserves.
Of course, free-to-play models have both pros and cons. Especially for mobile games and games by large companies, there tends to be active encouragement for micro-transactions (often gambling) and they’re often targeted at children; on the other hand, if it’s a single-player game, the people who manage to disregard the pay-to-skip elements can play it for free without a significantly diminished experience.
Maybe I am biased. I worked in the gaming industry and developed a F2P game 18 years ago… And of course we added features that encourage habit forming behavior and manipulative marketing. F2P are free but developers have to earn money at some point. I am all for OSS gaming but let’s face it: they cannot rival with games developed by for-profit gaming companies… not because they have no talent but because developing a game is a huge investment and requires a lot of people that deserve a salary.
Now the honest question is: is the world worse because there are F2P games?
Sure, some people will have problems, but at the same time, many people will be happy to play the game for free.
To phrase it as a utilitarian question: does the overall happiness increase or decrease because of these games?
My opinion is that overall happiness increases. YMMV :)
The world is objectively worse because of free to play video games.
That was not my argument. I did not say it was all pink and that nobody suffered from f2p. I talked about the overall happiness. The same utilitarian approach can be used when talking about vaccines. Some people die because they took a vaccine shot. However the overall population is better because of the vaccine.
I’m not saying that f2p games are comparable to vaccine. I’m just trying to make clear that my argument is utilitarian, and that I’m not disregarding people having issues because of f2p games.
Again, very good argumentation. Thank you. Your comments are much appreciated.
Some people may say “having access to candy crush has made me happier” but what’s actually increased there happiness isn’t access to a video game but distraction from the world around them as an example. That can be accomplished through several means and none of them require exposing oneself to potential manipulation for profit by a company.
That particular argument gives me much to think about. 👍
deleted by creator
I totally agree with that. If the game is not free, this should be considered an accessibility feature.
If the game is free, developers need to find ways to get money from the game. People with income are good targets, both on the economical and ethical standpoint :)
deleted by creator
I respect your argumentation, but I believe you slightly twisted mine. By “people with income”, I wanted to say “people with enough income to spend some on recreational activities”.
Concerning the “insane potential for returns”, I’m sorry to say that the company that I worked for and for which I developed a f2p game was a small company of 5 employees that never took off all that much. It is a business model. It is not a miraculous business model.
That’s the basic concept of a salary. I would agree that there are unfair salaries, sure. That’s when we can start talking about exploitation. I’m ok with salaries. I’m not ok with exploitation.
deleted by creator
Those are good arguments. I need to take some time and think on them. Thank you.
deleted by creator
I don’t get the downvotes on this message. I can understand why the other posts might be NOK for some people, but this one? Please explain it to me.
Artists need an income. Are we all in an agreement on this? You would not ask for a musician to play a full concert every night for free, right? Why would it be fair to ask a developer to develop a game for free? Do they not deserve a salary? And where would the money come from if not from people having money to spend on games?
I didn’t downvote, but the main point for me isn’t that “pay to skip” is necessarily worse than a non-free-to-play game, it’s that these massive companies try to squeeze as much money out of consumers as possible, especially when they include gambling (e.g. loot boxes – don’t know if this particular game does, but I know it’s in several other Blizzard games). Unless they’ve changed their policy since I last played it, Path of Exile (another Diablo-like game) has an example of a much less exploitative system.
Thank you for your answer.
Diablo Immor(t)al is a pretty terrible case when it comes to trying to squeeze as much money as possible from people. We, players, are harassed by the notifications for paying features. And it is not just a “pay to skip”/“pay to fast” system: it is also a pay to win game for the competitive scene. That’s bad.
On the other hand, it has at least 120 hours of free content…
My arguments are not in defense of Diablo Immor(t)al, though. They are in defense of Free to play in general, with reserves.
Of course, free-to-play models have both pros and cons. Especially for mobile games and games by large companies, there tends to be active encouragement for micro-transactions (often gambling) and they’re often targeted at children; on the other hand, if it’s a single-player game, the people who manage to disregard the pay-to-skip elements can play it for free without a significantly diminished experience.
Maybe I am biased. I worked in the gaming industry and developed a F2P game 18 years ago… And of course we added features that encourage habit forming behavior and manipulative marketing. F2P are free but developers have to earn money at some point. I am all for OSS gaming but let’s face it: they cannot rival with games developed by for-profit gaming companies… not because they have no talent but because developing a game is a huge investment and requires a lot of people that deserve a salary.
Now the honest question is: is the world worse because there are F2P games? Sure, some people will have problems, but at the same time, many people will be happy to play the game for free.
To phrase it as a utilitarian question: does the overall happiness increase or decrease because of these games? My opinion is that overall happiness increases. YMMV :)
deleted by creator
That was not my argument. I did not say it was all pink and that nobody suffered from f2p. I talked about the overall happiness. The same utilitarian approach can be used when talking about vaccines. Some people die because they took a vaccine shot. However the overall population is better because of the vaccine.
I’m not saying that f2p games are comparable to vaccine. I’m just trying to make clear that my argument is utilitarian, and that I’m not disregarding people having issues because of f2p games.
deleted by creator
Again, very good argumentation. Thank you. Your comments are much appreciated.
That particular argument gives me much to think about. 👍
deleted by creator