Gaming Forums => Nintendo Gaming => Topic started by: tendoboy1984 on April 17, 2013, 09:48:53 AM
Title: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 17, 2013, 09:48:53 AM
By which I mean with optional DLC purchases.
Sony is pushing for more "free to play" games on the PS3 and PS4, and this business model is very popular on iOS and Android. Nintendo could easily garner more interest in their consoles by going this route, since it lowers the barrier of entry for people who can't afford full-priced games.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: ShyGuy on April 17, 2013, 11:41:10 AM
Only if it fits. Animal Crossing MMO would fit the bill, I think.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: shingi_70 on April 17, 2013, 11:44:00 AM
I wouldn't mind it. Sony and Microsoft has started to look into this realm and I guess its been pretty successful. (Happy wars has around 1 million players.)
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: lolmonade on April 17, 2013, 11:49:11 AM
I like this question.
I think there are certain franchises that could benefit from it (Animal Crossing, Brain Age).
I just wouldn't want it to bleed into ones like Mario or Zelda where it could water down the gameplay.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: ejamer on April 17, 2013, 12:21:44 PM
What do you mean, "embrace" free to play models? That Nintendo should (as a platform holder) make it easier for developers and publishers to put out free to play games, or that they should start breaking up complete game experiences into bite-sized pay to play experiences to better milk their customers?
Frankly, I don't like the pay to play model and am not keen on seeing them embrace it in either way. I seem to be the minority here though.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 17, 2013, 12:24:27 PM
I don't mind free-to-play games, but the few that exist on consoles are almost all bad. I think Nintendo could make a good one though.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: tendoboy1984 on April 17, 2013, 12:37:50 PM
What do you mean, "embrace" free to play models? That Nintendo should (as a platform holder) make it easier for developers and publishers to put out free to play games, or that they should start breaking up complete game experiences into bite-sized pay to play experiences to better milk their customers?
Frankly, I don't like the pay to play model and am not keen on seeing them embrace it in either way. I seem to be the minority here though.
Nintendo should keep their options open and allow developers to make "free-to-play" games on their platforms. And the games are FREE because the DLC is optional.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: Ian Sane on April 17, 2013, 03:58:39 PM
I don't think the types of games I like would work in a free to play model. There is a reason they're all half-baked smartphone games. The scope of something like Zelda or Metroid would probably be compromised. Hell, I don't like Nintendo focusing on casuals pretty much at all and that is the market for free-to-play.
They should probably have it open to third parties though, but I don't want Nintendo themselves to bother. The whole concept is a scam to nickel-and-dime you on stuff that normally would come all in one package.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: ShyGuy on April 17, 2013, 04:42:02 PM
I don't think Free to Play works for single player, Unless you go all the way back to the shareware model.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: Kytim89 on April 17, 2013, 05:06:18 PM
If Capcom wanted to go back and develop new levels in the form of DLC for Resident Evil 6 that center around Leon fighting zombies on his own, and Capcom fixed some of the mistakes of the actual game then I would be fine paying for these levels.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: Fjurbanski on April 17, 2013, 05:22:41 PM
There's nothing wrong with a free-to-play game here or there, but I'd rather not see the eshop overrun with them. Generally a game is free to play because it's not good enough for me to want to pay money upfront, and most likely aren't worth my time at all because I could be playing a better game. A few here and there are worth it, so if devs start doing that on the eshop that's how I'd like to see it. A few here and there.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: ShyGuy on April 17, 2013, 07:01:17 PM
So is Zen Pinball 2 free to play?
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: S-U-P-E-R on April 17, 2013, 07:08:44 PM
When I think of free to play, I think of TF2 and Happy Wars. Those are pretty fun!
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: NWR_insanolord on April 17, 2013, 07:14:25 PM
Free to play works in single-player when you have a free base game and then sell extra level packs on top of that. It's definitely better suited to multiplayer, thouh.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: Mop it up on April 17, 2013, 07:16:11 PM
Maybe in some smaller eShop games, but not for anything major.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: Kairon on April 17, 2013, 08:03:32 PM
I think Nintendo should allow F2P, but I don't think I know of any game designs or IPs from them that would survive the transition to that business model. In my opinion games designed to be free to play are radically different because the changed business model results in changed game design.
No, the free download is a "trial" mode, none of the tables can be played for real (more than 2 minutes is it? And don't record scores?) unless you pay. It's not so much free to play as it is a free trial version where you have to pay to unlock any actual meaningful gameplay.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: ShyGuy on April 17, 2013, 08:53:34 PM
I remember when free 2 play was called "shareware" and DLC was called "expansion packs"
But seriously, shareware was awesome, You got like the first 25% or so of the game, usually self-contained to some extent, and it was often longer than your average game today.
It wasn't B-grade software either. Wolfenstein 3D was shareware and it was probably the most technically advanced game of its time.
Now your average demo is like 3 gigs and lasts 10 minutes, not 10 hours.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: MagicCow64 on April 17, 2013, 10:14:39 PM
I remember when free 2 play was called "shareware" and DLC was called "expansion packs"
But seriously, shareware was awesome, You got like the first 25% or so of the game, usually self-contained to some extent, and it was often longer than your average game today.
It wasn't B-grade software either. Wolfenstein 3D was shareware and it was probably the most technically advanced game of its time.
Now your average demo is like 3 gigs and lasts 10 minutes, not 10 hours.
I wonder how many people actually played through the original Doom, versus the amount of people who finished the shareware version and thought it was over.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: rlse9 on April 17, 2013, 11:23:52 PM
It can't hurt to let it be an option for 3rd party developers if they want to go that route, but to me free to play doesn't fit well on consoles. It's fine for games on a smart phone or tablet where it's something to kill a little time but if I'm going to sit down to play a game on a console, I'd rather put that time towards a game that's a great experience that I have to pay for.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: alegoicoe on April 17, 2013, 11:29:39 PM
I would say this only one time: HELL F*CK NO!!!, I would abandon ship the day that Nintendo embraces that model, which is fundamentally flawed due shady methods. DLC I can deal with, but have a free Mario game where you have to purchase power-ups, unthinkable.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: ShyGuy on April 18, 2013, 01:24:43 AM
What about episodic games, first chapter is free?
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: azeke on April 18, 2013, 01:41:25 AM
TF2-style F2P works great, BUT that only works for multiplayer-only games.
Episodic "first dose is free" content is okay, BUT that only works for story-heavy games.
Both are not Nintendo's forte.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: Ian Sane on April 18, 2013, 01:20:34 PM
I remember when free 2 play was called "shareware" and DLC was called "expansion packs"
But seriously, shareware was awesome, You got like the first 25% or so of the game, usually self-contained to some extent, and it was often longer than your average game today.
It wasn't B-grade software either. Wolfenstein 3D was shareware and it was probably the most technically advanced game of its time.
Now your average demo is like 3 gigs and lasts 10 minutes, not 10 hours.
Shareware was awesome. To us kids, it might as well have been a full game. At the time there were console games that could be completed within an hour (assuming you were good enough of course) so the first episodes of Wolfenstein 3D and Commander Keen seemed like completely full sized games to me. Even if I didn't get it shared to me by a friend, a lot of stores would sell them for like five bucks so for about the price of a rental I could buy a game. They were also cheap enough to get my parents to buy them, as they were used to console games being like $80 a pop.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: ThePerm on April 19, 2013, 05:56:13 AM
If Nintendo is going to have a free to play game it should be something they've already released, that was critically acclaimed but sold poorly even on virtual console.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: BlkPaladin on April 24, 2013, 10:50:14 AM
Well Nintendo has left "free-to-play" open for developers to take advantage of. It was covered before the launch of the system. Though none of the games so far has taken advantage of it. Though I prefer the free-DLC approach some of the games are taking.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: azeke on April 24, 2013, 11:14:37 AM
Though none of the games so far has taken advantage of it.
Tank, Tank, Tank! is F2P. Zen pinball 2 is kinda sorta F2P too.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: TJ Spyke on April 24, 2013, 12:57:09 PM
Zen Pinball 2 is not even close, you can't actually play any of the game for free. You need to pay to get any of the pinball tables. Saying its f2p is like saying every single Xbox Live Arcade game is f2p because they have demos.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: ThePerm on April 24, 2013, 03:44:30 PM
in my club nintendo survey I gave zen pinball a low review.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: Kairon on April 26, 2013, 04:10:08 PM
Though none of the games so far has taken advantage of it.
Tank, Tank, Tank! is F2P.
God I wish Tank! Tank! Tank! went F2P or at least had a demo in the US so I could try it out and see if it warranted a purchase on some level. I simply don't think I'm interested enough to take the full price plunge without more temptation.
Title: Re: Should Nintendo embrace "free to play"?
Post by: RedBlue on April 27, 2013, 01:45:54 PM
Though none of the games so far has taken advantage of it.
Tank, Tank, Tank! is F2P.
God I wish Tank! Tank! Tank! went F2P or at least had a demo in the US so I could try it out and see if it warranted a purchase on some level. I simply don't think I'm interested enough to take the full price plunge without more temptation.
It just happened in NA! Now to see what all the fuss is about!
