So I think Microsoft was right about one thing. Digital is the future and the current console retail system probably isn’t sustainable as PC gaming gets more and more accessible. They simply went about it the wrong way about it by trying to force the issue with a closed platform that enforces digital rights rather than creating an open platform that supports multiple business models and letting customers decide when the transition will happen through normal market forces, which is the route Sony took. It also appears that Microsoft has corrected course, and their platform will be more open going forward.

Right now, the console exclusives I’m most excited about are all Free To Play (F2P) games that were released on PC last year and that are coming to PS4. If these are successful, I anticipate future F2P releases will be same-day releases on either console or both along with PC. I don't know if F2P is the future, but if nothing else, I think it's a business model that's worth having a discussion about.

I know some folks aren’t crazy about the F2P business model, but I like the idea of an online game that I can play for nothing and then really invest if I like it. I also like that it gives developers incentive to keep adding to and improving the game and also that it cuts out retail. It creates a mutually beneficial ongoing symbiosis between the people who make the game and the people who play it, and provided my total investment never exceeds the price of a retail game, I don’t see the problem. Sony, in particular, really seems to have embraced the FTP model with these three exclusive games that don’t seem to be on most gamers’ radars but, in my opinion, should be.

Warframe is a 3rd person co-op shooter with some interesting hack and slash elements that I hadn’t really picked up on until today. The gameplay looks a little bit like Gears of War with less annoying dude-bro cover shooting and more space ninja, and I’ll definitely be downloading it. At the beginning of this generation with L4D and Gears, it really seemed like co-op was going to be a big trend, but it seems to me like it was really underdone other than a few token horde modes, so I’m really looking forward to this. Also, levels are apparently procedurally generated, so it should have some lasting appeal.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/O_sO8h2NKes" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Blacklight: Retribution is simply a solid FPS with a solid mechanics, great graphics and tons of customization. It’s certainly something I’ll check out for free, and it’s probably the surest bet of the three I’m listing. Why would I pay $40-60 for the next shooter when I can buy $15 worth of guns (or spend no money at all) and be just as happy?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/Dcl_v2jGhNg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Planetside 2 is a persistent “Battlefield” in space with three factions and endless epic chaos. This is easily the game I’m most excited to play. If I had to pick one thing that makes a game truly feel “next gen” right now, it wouldn't be shinier graphics but rather “persistence”. I actually thought the most interesting game I saw from E3 was The Division, which was interesting mostly because of its persistent drop in/drop out nature. Anyway, witness Planetside 2:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6rwGPQHBbb0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Basically, I've never been an advocate of microtransactions in full retail games, but I have no problem at all with microtransactions in a free game. I'm not sure if that's a double standard, but I do think this is the kind of innovative business model that will push the industry in a more digital direction.

And I think we're gonna need bigger hard drives.

My main concern is the potential for abuse if this model really takes off. I hear about things like Final Fantasy: All the Bravest and cringe at where nefarious publishers could go with this.

Oh, I agree. Some publishers will do this wrong and will use it simply to milk consumers. My hope is simply that some will get it right.

The balance between the currency you get in the game and the items you need to stay reasonably competitive is critical...especially given that the difference between the two is measured in real dollars.

Does anybody here do any F2P on PC? I'm curious about real world experience and how it compares to my speculation about supporting a few "cool looking" games.

I prefer regular games with no microtransactions at all. Even for free, I'm reluctant to start a game with no idea if I can actually play it in any meaningful way without sinking a lot of money into it first.
I'm so wary to even pick up the free iPad apps because I never know which are just waiting to get me to spend $20-$50 once I start. I hate getting tricked and getting my gaming time wasted (as I never actually will buy any in-app purchases).
Then again, I already get my ass handed to me in any and all online competitive games, maybe FTP isn't such a bad idea.
I should check out Dust 514, just never got around to it yet.

I'm exactly the same way on iOS. My first question on any free iOS game is whether it's playable without in-app purchases. Then again, I fairly or unfairly look at iOS games differently than I do a full retail console/PC release. I'd say that I'm substantially more price sensitive on iOS, particularly when there are free games virtually every day. I also have never purchased an in-app purchase.

Conversely, I can think of several times that I've purchased or almost purchased items on PSN just to support games that I felt needed support. I bought the Warhawk animated theme at some point even though I don't care about my theme, and I almost bought some silly Battlefield Bad Company 2 skins just to send a message that there were people who prefered it to Battlefield 3. I get that both of those end up as small numbers on a big meaningless spreadsheet, but it made me feel better. [edit: just remembered that I purchased Bastion on iOS for $1 even though I don't have a device that will play it ]

So yeah, if a game gives me the kind of enjoyment that those two games have, I will spend money just on principle...but not very much.

I didn't even know Dust existed until today...another reason F2P is on my mind. Dust looks a little bit shaky compared to the others listed above, but there's no risk at all in checking it out, and maybe it turns out to hit a nerve with you and spending $20 on gear becomes less of a big deal.

Free to play is fine until it becomes pay to win.

A really succinct way of saying what I think.

These look like they're are all mostly multi-player games - I don't care for multi-player games.

Gears of War without duck and cover? That's like Super Mario without platforming or Resident Evil without survival horror.

Granted, but a lot of people do. Do you like co-op, because Warframe looks like a good time?

I'm not really sure how you do F2P in the single-player space unless you do something episodic and give away the first episode, but that's not really the full game anyway and is more of a demo. Otherwise, you're looking at the kind of "buy coins or gems" shit you see on iOS.

As a sidenote for folks who want to continue to play multiplayer for free, publishers also have the option whether or not to require PS Plus for FTP games, and none of the above games require it:

http://www.polygon.com/2013/6/13/442...s-not-required

Fair enough.

I just meant that it's a third person shooter with co-op and space uglies.

Also, Resident Evil without survival horror was awesome.

The FTP is not unlike everything else out there....you get a "basic" and if you want good, better or best you'll have to pay more. No different than going into a restaurant...free to walk in but if you want a salad it'll cost you and if you want a T-Bone Steak it'll cost you even more.

It kills me though when some complain at it that you'll have to pay down the road but have no problem dishing out $60.00 for a game and another $25.00 for a season pass and later on more $$$ for some new maps or skins. But God forbid they might have to dish out $10, $20 or $30 later on a "Free Game". There is a thing called...choice

In the case of some of these FTP games maybe the solution is a low "Entry Fee" like $10-$20. Yea..it won't be called Free-To-Play but would you rather have the choice of $10-$20 or $60 plus a Season Pass? In the case of say Planetside 2 even at $20 to sign up would be a steal. Or just keep them free and have a tier system in place like Silver, Gold and Platinum. Again it's all choice for those playing. Besides...it takes some work to put this stuff and I for one have no problem throwing some money in to help keep a "Free Game" going.


By the way...thanks for posting the video of Warframe...heard of this but this is the first real video I've seen. I'll add this along with Planetside 2 (which I'm really high on) as must haves when the PS4 arrives.

I don't think that works. The only games I've ever bought cheap and then got a bunch of DLC were Burnout Paradise and Warhawk, and that's only because they were out for more than a year when I got them. If you have a low price of entry and then nickel and dime people, they resent it. Just look at iOS for proof of that.

For the games above, the price of entry is absolutely free. You don't even need PS Plus to play them. If you love the basic game, you'll probably buy some stuff for it, which creates incentive for the devs to keep it fun to play, which means they can't overpower paying players too much. Reports from Planetside are that most of the weapons are lateral moves and most are obtainable with in-game currency.

I also disagree with the restaurant analogy unless you know of a restaurant that will give you a free meal and then charge for options. If you know of one, please let me know soonest.

This reminds me of the best F2P game ever... netWAR from the late 90's lol

I also played gunbound in college. It looks like it's still around. Basically an online version of Worms where each player has their own guy.

As far as I know ALL of the weapons are obtainable with in-game currency (certification points in PS2), I haven't seen anything in the game that you can't get without paying, it will just take you longer to get it since you would have to use your cert points that you built up for the gun instead of using them to upgrade other stuff. So basically if you want a different gun you can either pay for it or grind for it. Although I hate to even use the term grind because it's not like an MMORPG where you are doing boring shit over and over for your xp, there is nothing boring about non-stop pvp war. It's definitely not a pay to win game that's for sure.

The problem with the restaurant analogy is that in most FTP games, there's competition involved. In some, the higher you rank on events, the better your rewards, which helps you the next time out, and the only way to get to the top is to spend money. The good games let you scrape by, but you'll never really be competitive with the spenders. And I think these are the games that rake in the money, because if it's truly FTP and you can get everything in-game, just over time, people will play for free.

The other type of game that rakes in money is something like Candy Crush, which is mainly luck-based, but will let you buy power ups (which sound great at first, but slowly but surely get marginalized as you progress). And there's the whole social aspect to hook your friends into it.

maybe I should've used a "Shopping Mall" instead...free to come in, look around all you want without spending a dime. But if you want spend money it's up to you.


And I agree with the part it's a lot to do with competition. No different from paid games like BF and COD where the more you play the better stuff you get. If that's the case it's not going to matter for some if it's a paid or free game when it comes to being at a slight disadvantage...like those who play BF or COD. The real question is will FTP games have a better level playing field for the majority than paid games like the COD's and BF series?

As far as competition goes, I rarely play multiplayer, so I guess that's why I ended up taking different approaches to two iOS games.

The Simpsons: Tapped Out: Plenty to do for free, but to get better stuff you need to buy donuts. I've mostly resisted but have made a few purchases. I can visit other players and help them out, but them or me having better stuff doesn't matter for how we interact with each other's towns. Envy and "keeping up with the Joneses" is really the only reason I would see someone else's town and want to upgrade mine.

Kingdoms of Camelot: Plenty to do for free, but a limit to how big you can grow, and I've hit my limit. The problem is that anyone can randomly invade my kingdom and take my stuff, and I'm willing to bet that a lot of people who are invading are paying for bigger armies, better equipment, etc. I refuse to do that. Maybe I would if I were invading people, but as it is I just build up my free defending armies as much as I can in order to keep from being an easy ATM. If people want to invade me, they can, but I want to be sure that they expend resources and suffer damage in the process.

Yeah, I misspoke. What I meant is that it takes a really long time to build up certification points, and you really have to be picky about what you buy if you don't want to spend cash.

Really, the grinding vs not grinding ratio will be the deal maker for me. If I'm having fun regardless and just get rewarded every now and then, then I'm in. If I feel like I'm just playing for a usable gun, that will be a problem.

Have you been playing Planetside 2 on PC? I also will be interested in how it looks and plays when it's optimised for the PS4.

Yeah, I am playing it on PC.
I honestly don't think you will have any issue with the grinding vs not grinding ratio.
And the game does have a VR room you can use to try any of the guns before you buy them which comes in handy because I didn't realize until after I bought my first new gun that it was basically the same as the starter gun I got just with a different sight that I didn't like as much.

iOS is kind of a different animal. Granted, there are some competitive games that look more or less like console games, but for the most part, the competitive games are high score chases and such. The money grab there is usually in you buying in game money to buy advantages, which is why I don't ever compare scores (or in your case, towns) online.

The other money grabs on iOS are for more cars/skins/levels/whatever or to remove ads. I wouldn't necessarily mind any of that, but iOS is a different market, where every game has a doppelganger that's completely free or ad supported. iOS is definitely part of the F2P discussion, but it's being done in different more subversive ways there.

I mean, it's absurd. They actually have people buying virtual donuts.

Thanks.

It's good to hear a perspective from somebody who's actually playing one of these.

It's also good to hear that you can test drive the guns before you buy them.

I'm imagining a Words with Friends universe in which people pay for a bigger selection of letters and kick their friend's asses.

I still don't think you're looking at this right because those are two very different experiences. I honestly can't think of a single analogy that quite works.

Maybe something like free over the air TV vs. satellite. You might have 500 channels that you pay for, and I might have 10, but as long as I enjoy those 10 channels, I'm watching TV and am just as entertained as you are. That's the best I've got, but I really don't think there's an analogy that quite works.

In my experience with BF and my limited experience with CoD, the starter guns are very usable, and I don't mind being at a slight disadvantage as long as I'm not overwhelmed.

I don't expect guns in a F2P to unlock anywhere near as quickly as they do in retail games either, but that goes back to your original point. Even if I spend $100 on guns in a F2P game that I really enjoy, how is that any worse than paying $40-60 on a retail game that in most cases I never really got to try out and for which I'll have to buy 3-5 map packs at $15 each to keep up with the community?

I didn't think to mention World of Tanks for the Xbox One folks.

It's exclusive to the X1 and they thought enough of it to put it on stage at E3, which was probably smart. I actually think Sony dropped the ball not showcasing Blacklight, Warframe and especially Planetside 2 and getting them in their exclusive games column.

Mod note: spoilered auto-play video:


After poking around a bit, a couple of others I'd like to see ported over to PS4 or both consoles:

Hawken (still in beta, but damn...pretty)

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/YOW89sskyQM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Tribes: Ascend

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/bcrwluiLGgY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There are also all varieties of MMO if you're into that kind of thing. Of those, Star Wars: The Old Republic looks the most interesting to me.