Free to play games vs. Pay to play games

[Rose_Ukki_Cute]

There's more or less great F2P coming out in the future. Not knowing what kind of monetization scheme those does have but still if just mainly cosmetic ones, it begins me to question: Why one should buy a full-price game which still has season pass and cosmetic purchases?

This concern rises from quality issues of three latest mainline Battlefield games deviating away from roots of Battlefield. Why support a game which eventually dissapoints you? Battlefield 2042 was first Battlefield title getting competitive pressure, mainly from smaller indie developers creating more classical games. This competition is going next level in these upcoming years, even on console market where new online FPS:es are coming too.

[sk1lld]

Generally, I would counter that FTP games are usually infested with cheaters but looking at Battlefield2042 I can't say this anymore. Still, I hope you find them fun to play.

GL

[RanzigeRidder2]

@Rose_Ukki_Cute Three latest mainline Battlefield games deviating away from roots? Battlefield 1 still had 4 DLC packs and a premium pass, so it’s only the latest 2 (BFV and BF2042).

[Rose_Ukki_Cute]

@RanzigeRidder2 

It deviated (IMO) by starting a focus shift on infantry gameplay over all-out warfare experience. Vehicle counts highly reduced and that design choice keeps going. DICE has failed to realise that anti-vehicle class should be at weaker end of infantry classes and thus creating potential for higher explosive power to counter vehicles. Vehicles should be powerful assets but not unstoppable. Vehicle recycling and availability would encourage newer inexperienced players to develop their skills.

@sk1lld 

I will eventually find my highly ideal Battlefield replacement somewhere if Battlefield keeps still deviating away. Gaming space has so much coming to us console players that eventually something will itch the right place in respective feeling. I wish best for the future of you most dedicated fans who keep playing Battlefield games for shake of them having it in its brand name. 

It used to signal me a game about epic, big, all out warfare battles with co-op soldier classes fighting over control points. Everything else was nice addition and development of features. Those you refer as Legacy features, growing fond of for series' long time fans.

[sk1lld]

Have you looked at.

Delta Force: Hawk Ops on Steam (steampowered.com)

[JennyB_010]

@sk1lld  I looked at Delta Force: Hawk Ops, and Gray Zone Warfare looked pretty promising too, but, they are PC games, and I'm on the PS5, so no use for me I'm afraid.

I was also excited about the prospect of Escape from Tarkov, but again PC only.

[MADMAC50K]

I don't think it matters what commercial model is used, it's more about the execution and content.  Both free-to-play and pay-to-play games can work, and be fantastic experiences if done right.  The Finals is a good example of a recent F2P game that can work and does things right.  OK the monetisation is more in your face and obvious - it's a great game, well supported, with responsive devs acting on it's community feedback.  XDefiant also has great potential, but cheating and they way they implemented the weapon unlocks grind needs work - but the important point is that again, the devs have acknowledged the issue quickly and are working to fixing it soon.

Helldivers 2 is a good example of a P2P game, where additional monetisation can also work.  Up until the last patch, there was a constant stream of new content, enemies, mission types, and just generally fun game mechanics backed by supportive and responsive devs very active in the game's community social platforms, admitting to problems, and laying out their plans to fix it.  OK the last patch and their recent re-focus on larger patches has meant the content has dried up a little, but the next patch promises to be huge with lots of new changes and content.

Basically the key is approachable and visible devs, that acknowledge when something isn't right, and fix it to make the game more fun.  Regardless of if you've paid for it or not.

Compare that to the number of requests to add a server browser to 2042 for example, which have been there since day 1....

[Rose_Ukki_Cute]

@MADMAC50K 

Indeed they can be both be successful models. I was too unclear about my 2nd point which was that if there's quality issues arising and game turns out dissapointment, you are out of luck with paid games AFAIK. They have got your money.

Also, F2P are budget friendly, especially for players of low income and depency on social security. You can decide how much support you want to give developers and when you want to do it (though timed purchases are problematic).

@sk1lld 

Delta Force looks overall promising. I am afraid if it has advanced movement and slide-jump hectic bullet avoiding without conventional penalties like well-done tactical shooters have, then I am not going to have excellent time. I'll wait and see.

[ragnarok013]

@Rose_Ukki_Cute It's my fixed opinion that if you pay for a game it shouldn't have F2P monetization schemes but here we are in 2024 with that very scenario throughout the entire industry. The only thing that we can do is refuse to buy the MTXs to send a message and leave the appropriate feedback at every possible time here on the forums, on Twitter, and on YouTube not to mention the Battlefield surveys.