# Freemium hate thread



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 17, 2013)

Name, shame and moan about games/publishers who over-use/abuse this pricing model.

I'll start us off with three games I'm currently or recently been playing which have been semi ruined by this fucking annoying trend.

1, candy crush saga - as I understand it, this game has really pushed home the money making potential of freemium to the industry; it currently generates $600,000 a day, by selling "extra moves" and "extra lives" for 69p a time. Over £100 million a year, for a what is essentially a browser game. Admittedly, a slick, well designed, fiendishly addictive browser game, but a browser game none-the-less. For those that haven't played it, it's a bit like bejewelled, with puzzles/targets. It starts incredibly easy, hooks you, then notches the difficulty up as you progress. And I do mean right up. I got to level 207 and realised that I wasn't enjoying it any more, that I was just playing because I'd set decided it was fun and hadn't noticed that it had just started to annoy me.

2. Real Racing 3. This ones not too bad, at least in the early stages. You can play about half the game and get some good solid entertainment, without spending a penny.  However, as you progress to the later stages, buying high end cars becomes a chore of repeating races you've already raced (and won) in order to build up the obscene amounts of in-game currency required to buy them. The other option is to pay. A moderate high end car might cost £15 or so. The very fastest cost £35 or more. And whilst this is obscene, I could live win it were it not for the fact that once you buy a car you then have to spend a similar amount again (probably more) to buy "upgrades" so hat it actually stands a chance of winning a race. 

3. Plants vs Zombies 2 - just out in the last few days, and EA have done it under a free to play model. You can spend £13 on just buying plants (ones which were in the original game - useful ones, but nothing "exciting" for your money). You can pay to open new levels, or you can spend ages re-doing levels you've already done to earn "stars" to bypass the level pay-wall. Pretty much everything seems to cost £2, which seems steep per item, considering I paid that for the entire original game. I was quite looking forward to pvz2, and whilst its a very good game, it's completely tainted by the freemium angle. Looked up the reviews on the app-store, and every single one I read gave it a 1 or a 2, due to the pricing model.

So, as I mentioned, this stuff is big business so I don't suppose it's going anywhere. But do post any examples of games you think have been spoiled by greedy, greasy pricing tactics.


----------



## Minnie_the_Minx (Aug 17, 2013)

I've never heard of Freemium, but Subway Surfer gives you the option of buying coins to buy the surfboards and characters, otherwise you have to play it incessantly to get enough coins to get a decent skateboard.  The characters are a waste of time and don't do anything special that I'm aware of.


----------



## bmd (Aug 17, 2013)

I think they should gift you the entire game for getting to level 207 on CCS. That must have taken some proper dedication. 

I only play freemium games if I can unlock the entire game by playing it. I like Jetpack Joyride.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 17, 2013)

It's not a game I've played, but I have seen other games where there are "in-app purchases" available, but they're not essential to completing or enjoying the game.  Angry Birds Star Wars springs to mind, as an example - you can buy power-ups, but you get given a reasonable amount of them for free, and I think I've only had to use them twice, to complete difficult levels.   

AB SW did do freemium, to an extent, in that you could download the game for free, and had to pay a 1-off price to access the final levels.  It's games where you will probably not be able to progress unless you repeatedly fork out small, or not so small, sums of dosh if your hoping to complete the thing, that really piss me off.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2013)

Fuck freemium. Under all circumstances.

It's not a new thing but hasn't got any better and never will.


----------



## bmd (Aug 17, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Fuck freemium. Under all circumstances.
> 
> It's not a new thing but hasn't got any better and never will.



$600,000 a day. If you could think of the game wouldn't you be tempted to make it?


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 17, 2013)

bmd said:


> I think they should gift you the entire game for getting to level 207 on CCS. That must have taken some proper dedication.
> 
> I only play freemium games if I can unlock the entire game by playing it. I like Jetpack Joyride.


 

I ended up paying 69p for extra moves a few levels before 207, then got stuck, and realised that the temptation to pay out again (and again, and again...) might be too strong if I carried on, so I just abandoned the whole thing.  Took about 2 or 3 months to get to 207, mainly on bus journeys.

I'm certainly going to think long and hard before getting any more freemium games.  This article really hit it home to me.  http://business.financialpost.com/2...why-you-play-and-why-you-pay/?__lsa=cbda-f8f1 - worth a read if you've got a spare 10 mins.  Explains some of the cynical tactics they use with freemium. 

PVZ2 was a must though. Loved the first one.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2013)

bmd said:


> $600,000 a day. If you could think of the game wouldn't you be tempted to make it?


Dude, I know how the model works. Really. I don't go for jobs in that area because they are evil.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2013)

Zynga have been shedding jobs on a serious basis recently anyway.


----------



## tommers (Aug 17, 2013)

Freemium is wank because it corrupts a game's design by its very nature.  They have to include grind or extreme difficulty in order to encourage people to pay for advancement.  Fuck them and fuck everything they stand for. 

What's worse is that the games that traditionally use it are aimed at casual users who might come away thinking that this is what games are like.

It marks out the infestation of the Gaming "industry" by the same cunts you get everywhere else in life.  Bastards who take something beautiful and coldly analyse how to make the most money they can from it - to everybody else's detriment.

That said, I am on level 161 on candy crush.  But fuck off if you think I'm paying anything.


----------



## beesonthewhatnow (Aug 17, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Fuck freemium. Under all circumstances.


 
This


----------



## twentythreedom (Aug 17, 2013)

I hate the person who invented "freemium"


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 17, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Fuck freemium. Under all circumstances.
> 
> It's not a new thing but hasn't got any better and never will.


 

From what I've read about it, its getting worse.  Obviously CCS is a phenomena that other companies will look to replicate.  I don't know how much of this is true, and how much is speculation, but I've read of freemium developers a, employing psychologists to help design the game so that it taps into our "inner lab rat" quickly and effectively b, consulting with casinos and slot machine developers to see what tactics work from those industries and can be applied to the games, and c, marking down people who are have previously paid for IAPs and increasing the difficulty of the game for them to make them more likely to pay again.

And it may not be new, but I never noticed it before a couple of years ago, and its expanded rapidly in that time.  I can only see it becoming bigger...


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> From what I've read about it, its getting worse.  Obviously CCS is a phenomena that other companies will look to replicate.  I don't know how much of this is true, and how much is speculation, but I've read of freemium developers a, employing psychologists to help design the game so that it taps into our "inner lab rat" quickly and effectively b, consulting with casinos and slot machine developers to see what tactics work from those industries and can be applied to the games, and c, marking down people who are have previously paid for IAPs and increasing the difficulty of the game for them to make them more likely to pay again.
> 
> And it may not be new, but I never noticed it before a couple of years ago, and its expanded rapidly in that time.  I can only see it becoming bigger...


The "psychology" thing is mostly BS IMO - that came out of those blog entries about it which implied the whole thing was a carefully-planned conspiracy. There aren't any huge secrets to getting people to pay incrementally. It's something that's continually under review - I was dealing with people doing micropayments in SL years ago.

But the model is evil. Micropayments are fine, but a model which exists solely to encourage you to pay more and more is evil.


----------



## bmd (Aug 17, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> Dude, I know how the model works. Really. I don't go for jobs in that area because they are evil.


 
Evil? Hmm, I believe more that people make their own choices. In the article jon links to the journalist poses the question of whether it's simply a case of people paying for the chance of more entertainment. 

Imo this whole thing became popular when Behesda/Oblivion brought in DLC. That opened the door to companies seeing that people would pay for a game and then for more content. I thought it was shit then and still do but who really is to blame? If no one bought it, it wouldn't happen. See the end of the EA online pass for an example.


----------



## bmd (Aug 17, 2013)

tommers said:


> Freemium is wank because it corrupts a game's design by its very nature.  They have to include grind or extreme difficulty in order to encourage people to pay for advancement.  Fuck them and fuck everything they stand for.
> 
> What's worse is that the games that traditionally use it are aimed at casual users who might come away thinking that this is what games are like.
> 
> ...



Games are big business. Therefore they want to optimise revenue. I don't pay for stuff I don't like. I have an opinion on what I do like based on my experiences. Everyone does that. Why are companies who try to optimise revenue by making these sorts of games seen as creating a generation of ignorant gamers who, if only they knew, would actually be playing something worthy? They're casual gamers, they like games like this. So what if they buy their way through the game? 

Playing devil's advocate here really. But I do kind of agree with myself. Or something.


----------



## FridgeMagnet (Aug 17, 2013)

It's sort of like I have so many things I could say here that I can't concentrate on one at this time of night.

Well, it's exactly like that.


----------



## bmd (Aug 17, 2013)

FridgeMagnet said:


> It's sort of like I have so many things I could say here that I can't concentrate on one at this time of night.
> 
> Well, it's exactly like that.



OK, well I'd be interested in your pov at some point. I just wonder why games are different from anything else that we love from the pov that everything gets fucked over by money making. There's still games that we love out there. I could argue that gaming is better than it has ever been.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 17, 2013)

bmd said:


> Games are big business. Therefore they want to optimise revenue. I don't pay for stuff I don't like. I have an opinion on what I do like based on my experiences. Everyone does that. Why are companies who try to optimise revenue by making these sorts of games seen as creating a generation of ignorant gamers who, if only they knew, would actually be playing something worthy? They're casual gamers, they like games like this. So what if they buy their way through the game?
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here really. But I do kind of agree with myself. Or something.



I'm a casual gamer. I like games like this. I just hate the pricing model. 

There's something to what you say, re them looking to make as much money as they can. Of course there will be companies that do this. I'd struggle to maintain fridges integrity, if someone was waving multi millions in front of me. Luckily, I have no 1337 programming skillz, so it's not a dilemma I have to confront. 



How thy run their business is their business, though.  But from a casual players perspective, the trend is rubbish. It drags up the cost of games, it impacts the design, as tommers described, and who knows how it could impact the more traditional "hardcore" games market over the coming years. Who's to say GTA6 won't require players to buy in game currency in order to progress? Far fetched, I admit, but what if the developers of AAA titles try something like this and find its a money spinner? Already, you have dlc, subscription services, so it's not like they're above doing this sort of thing. 

The most annoying thing is that there is little we as consumers can do to influence the trend.


----------



## bmd (Aug 17, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> I'm a casual gamer. I like games like this. I just hate the pricing model.
> 
> The most annoying thing is that there is little we as consumers can do to influence the trend.



But you can. You don't pay for dlc or iap. You could ask how does one person influence an industry but you could argue that about any decision like this.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Aug 18, 2013)

bmd said:


> But you can. You don't pay for dlc or iap. You could ask how does one person influence an industry but you could argue that about any decision like this.



To a certain extent you're right. But most freemium games have a sizeable player base who never pay a penny, as is. These people are presumably factored into the overall pricing strategy, and the players that do pay make up for them. One article I read said the companies have their "whales", like casinos; players who spend hundreds or even thousands on IAPs. A few of these can cancel out hundreds of downloads which don't result in a cash exchange. 

And of course, non-paying players are very much factored into the marketing strategy of the game. Candy crush saga allows you to give lives via Facebook, and ask for help getting past level pay walls (if three people give you this help, you don't have to pay...). The reason they do this is obvious - a little alert on fb, giving you a life or whatever, serves as a superb advertisement for the game. You might have given up in annoyance, vowing never to return to the game again, just last week. But, oh, you're stuck on a train journey and they've just given you an extra life - this will kill half an hour. Then your hooked again.

So they rely as much on the people who don't pay, as the ones who do. 

If I'm correct about the above, then the only way to truly influence the emergence of the freemium market is to entirely boycott any game with IAPs. And as discussed, this would already limit your games choices quite a bit, and might in future restrict almost all notable games.

Anyway, will have to pick this up in the morning, if peeps are still interested.


----------



## bmd (Aug 18, 2013)

Yeah same here. Brain is fried right now, I've vaped about 2ml of fluid in the last hour sucking thoughtfully on my cig. Fucking ersatz Sherlock.


----------



## DotCommunist (Aug 18, 2013)

tommers said:


> Freemium is wank because it corrupts a game's design by its very nature. They have to include grind or extreme difficulty in order to encourage people to pay for advancement. Fuck them and fuck everything they stand for.
> 
> What's worse is that the games that traditionally use it are aimed at casual users who might come away thinking that this is what games are like.
> 
> ...


 

I would pay extra mony just to hear that voice going 'sweet' and 'awesome' when I done good sequences


----------



## tommers (Aug 18, 2013)

bmd said:


> Games are big business. Therefore they want to optimise revenue. I don't pay for stuff I don't like. I have an opinion on what I do like based on my experiences. Everyone does that. Why are companies who try to optimise revenue by making these sorts of games seen as creating a generation of ignorant gamers who, if only they knew, would actually be playing something worthy? They're casual gamers, they like games like this. So what if they buy their way through the game?
> 
> Playing devil's advocate here really. But I do kind of agree with myself. Or something.



Hey yeah, absolutely it's a big industry.  It has been for ages but these kinds of practices have become bigger and bigger.

And I don't mean "casual" as an insult.  Maybe that's not what you mean either and it's not about worthy - just some people don't see themselves as playing games but they play CCS every lunchtime.  My mum taunted me on Facebook today cos she beat a score.

Anyway, got to run I'll be back tonight.  Running a market stall innit.


----------



## RubyToogood (Aug 18, 2013)

It's my impression that this is what was done to Draw Something. There was always the option to pay for extra colours or more coins so you could get ahead faster/get better words, but you could also get them in a reasonable amount of time just by playing. Now you can't. And the words are always shit. It just put me off and I gradually stopped playing. I've already paid for the app, I'm not paying for anything else. That and the fact it now takes half an hour to load.


----------



## bmd (Aug 18, 2013)

tommers said:


> Hey yeah, absolutely it's a big industry. It has been for ages but these kinds of practices have become bigger and bigger.
> 
> And I don't mean "casual" as an insult. Maybe that's not what you mean either and it's not about worthy - just some people don't see themselves as playing games but they play CCS every lunchtime. My mum taunted me on Facebook today cos she beat a score.
> 
> Anyway, got to run I'll be back tonight. Running a market stall innit.


 
I think the point I was trying to make, badly by the looks of that post, was that some people enjoy games like this. And that bears out in the sales, doesn't it? Or are the sales down to the makers hitting on some kind of genius money marking formula that's simply a cash point in a casual game's clothing; the gamer simply being led back to their wallet over and over with minimal enjoyment?



RubyToogood said:


> It's my impression that this is what was done to Draw Something. There was always the option to pay for extra colours or more coins so you could get ahead faster/get better words, but you could also get them in a reasonable amount of time just by playing. Now you can't. And the words are always shit. It just put me off and I gradually stopped playing. I've already paid for the app, I'm not paying for anything else. That and the fact it now takes half an hour to load.


 
This is kind of what I meant when I said vote with your wallet. But then it does sound like your stopping playing was also due to the shit words. I wonder if the words got progressively better and better would you have eventually paid? Would there be anything wrong with that if you did?


----------



## RubyToogood (Aug 18, 2013)

bmd said:


> This is kind of what I meant when I said vote with your wallet. But then it does sound like your stopping playing was also due to the shit words. I wonder if the words got progressively better and better would you have eventually paid? Would there be anything wrong with that if you did?


 
I think the words got progressively more shit, either because they were trying to lure you into buying coins so you could get more choices, or because they'd stopped caring about it being a good game and were just trying to extract the maximum cash from it.


----------



## Chz (Aug 18, 2013)

There's various degrees of freemium.

To my mind, it's dishonest at best and an utter fucking scam at worst to put out a game that can't be completed or played usefully without purchasing something and call it "free".

But something to ease the grind? A new hat or costume? A special car that earn more credits or whatever? Sure. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## bmd (Aug 18, 2013)

But you _don't have to_ keep playing it. Candy Crush Saga is basically the same screen over and over again with little twists added. Play Bejewelled, it's the same game without the freemium bullshit.


----------



## bi0boy (Aug 18, 2013)

Chz said:


> There's various degrees of freemium.
> 
> To my mind, it's dishonest at best and an utter fucking scam at worst to put out a game that can't be completed or played usefully without purchasing something and call it "free".
> 
> But something to ease the grind? A new hat or costume? A special car that earn more credits or whatever? Sure. Nothing wrong with that.


 
This really. I spent £9.99 on gems to buy extra builders in Clash of Clans because that's what I thought the game was worth if I'd paid to download it.


----------



## Silva (Aug 18, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> 2. Real Racing 3. This ones not too bad, at least in the early stages. You can play about half the game and get some good solid entertainment, without spending a penny. However, as you progress to the later stages, buying high end cars becomes a chore of repeating races you've already raced (and won) in order to build up the obscene amounts of in-game currency required to buy them. The other option is to pay. A moderate high end car might cost £15 or so. The very fastest cost £35 or more. And whilst this is obscene, I could live win it were it not for the fact that once you buy a car you then have to spend a similar amount again (probably more) to buy "upgrades" so hat it actually stands a chance of winning a race.


 
The thing is that I've seen plenty of commercial racing games that force a huge grind to purchase cars and then upgrades, all RR3 does is provide a shortcut away from the grind. I have a few racing games, some quite good (Gran Turismo 3), that had to set aside because having to win races again and again to buy better gears or a new car is a fucking bore.


----------



## Sunray (Aug 18, 2013)

Its simple, do what I do.

if its free don't download it and play it till you realise have to pay or grind it to death, then delete it.

Get hacks for them.


----------



## bmd (Sep 10, 2013)

70% of people who reach the last level of Candy Crush Saga have paid nothing.



> "70% of the people on the last level haven't paid anything. It's designed so you can complete the game," says Tommy Palm, whose official job title is "Games Guru" at King, although his role is more akin to a head of global studios for the social and mobile games publisher.
> 
> "We focus internally a lot on the player experience, making sure it's really fun to play. And we do not differentiate between people who pay and people who don't: we just see them as players, and optimise in making sure the game is really fun. So far, that's been a great strategy for us."


----------



## tommers (Sep 10, 2013)

I've started playing dungeon hunter 4 or something.  It's the tescos to candy crush's corner shop.  The crack to candy crush's redseal.  I feel dirty just looking at it.


----------



## Corax (Sep 10, 2013)

Has that Simpsons game gone on the list yet?  Really like the idea of a decent Simpsons game on mobile, so was quite pissed off when I figured how horribly freemiumy it is.  I guess the series wouldn't break even otherwise though.  

Uninstalled, obvs.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 10, 2013)

bmd said:


> 70% of people who reach the last level of Candy Crush Saga have paid nothing.



Seems perfectly likely to me. My friends on ccs who are up to level 300+ would be unlikely to pay hem a penny. They'd see it as cheating, and would take pride in the fact that they've got so much enjoyment for free - as though they were taking something from the developers for nothing, ha we got the last laugh. One of them pre-empted my departure from ccs when Facebook confirmed I'd beat level 193 in my news feed. "Level 193 is for pussies" he commented. I retorted that he'd probably only got as far as he had by paying loads of 69ps. "Nah" was the reply "pure skillz"

But some levels have nothing to do with skill. Maybe a basic understanding of what blocks do what, and an ability to plan a couple of moves in advance to get the right special candies, but beyond that there's no way to play tactically, as the blocks are randomly generated, and every 3 or so moves the board is effectively re-set.  Some levels are so much about luck, it's unreal. I played one level 10-20 times a day for over a fortnight before I beat it. I'm not great at games, but I'm not an idiot either - the player just has to get an incredibly fortunate series of bonus power up special candies in order to succeed, and there's only a limited amount you can do as a player to improve your chance of success.

In this context, a game about grind and patience and perseverance and just keeping playing because eventually you'll get lucky and win and get that tiny endorphin hit that made the game so fun at first, the people who persevere with little or no money are exactly like the "whales"; forever chasing that next hit, with whatever resources they can muster. The difference between a "low bottom addict" and a high functioning well off alcoholic - not a lot, pathologically.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 10, 2013)

tommers said:


> I've started playing dungeon hunter 4 or something.  It's the tescos to candy crush's corner shop.  The crack to candy crush's redseal.  I feel dirty just looking at it.



By contrast, PvZ2 is, for a freemium game, very easy to complete without paying a penny.  There's a few side quest bits that I've yet to unlock, but I will succeed.  Doesnt seem to be taking the "highest grossing" app chart by storm though, unlike other freemium games, which routinely outnumber pay-up front games by many factors, but the relative lack of greed was s a pleasant surprise.  

And yet I do still feel the games a poor sequel.  It just doesnt have the captivating fun the original gave me for a month or two.  I'm not sure if this is because they've tried so hard to build freemium into the game in a way that is unobtrusive yet tempting to the few, subtlely sabotaging the winning formula, or if its just because PvZ was a game of limited depth originally, and the new one does little to enhance the mechanics (a few new zombies and towers, but pretty much exaxctly the same gameplay).  Possibly a combo of the two.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 11, 2013)

Jon-of-arc said:


> 2. Real Racing 3. This ones not too bad, at least in the early stages. You can play about half the game and get some good solid entertainment, without spending a penny.  However, as you progress to the later stages, buying high end cars becomes a chore of repeating races you've already raced (and won) in order to build up the obscene amounts of in-game currency required to buy them. The other option is to pay. A moderate high end car might cost £15 or so. The very fastest cost £35 or more. And whilst this is obscene, I could live win it were it not for the fact that once you buy a car you then have to spend a similar amount again (probably more) to buy "upgrades" so hat it actually stands a chance of winning a race.


This started out as an excellent freemium game, IMO. Upgrades were genuinely optional. The game dynamics were complex, interesting & varied. I (gladly) spent £10ish over a period of days / weeks buying cars I genuinely wanted to try so that I could access tracks I was genuinely interested in racing on. 

As time has gone by, they've implemented an increasingly hostile & bizarre system. Winnings have been slashed - I'd have to race for 5 consecutive days in order to get "100%" of a given race's winnings, and would only earn 20% (of a sum that's already about half of what it originally was!) for any races on day one. A rigid tier system has been introduced, meaning I can *no longer buy the cars I want* but have to grind through a series of shit and expensive cars, each of which is only really viable for about 5 races (and which cost 100% of 20 races' winnings to begin with), in order to be allowed to spend real money on a car I'd actually want to drive. 

And, finally, they recently fucked the game's one remaining stand out feature - complex, in-game damage that actually impaired your car's stats in real time, thereby inflicting penalties for shit / careless driving. Replaced with a one-dimensional system that basically means after every 3 races (or so) you have to wait an hour before driving again. Or pay £££. 

It's a fucktastrophe - a real exemplar of what could've been an industry standard in stunning, high quality freemium, turned into a warm heap of festering shit in which any game mechanic whatsoever will be shafted hard & repeatedly up the arse in the vague hope that doing so will antagonise 3 in 500 gamers into being 17% more likely to make a £1.49 IAP. 

I deleted it at the latest update, bc it was either that or clear 3gb of space so's I could see just how additionally / inventively they'd managed to fuck it up this time. 

I also re-DLed RR2, and was reminded of just how fucking awesome it is to play a good game that isn't constantly trying to screw you for cash. 

For similar reasons, I rarely bother to DL free games. There've been a few crackers (mostly with full game unlock IAPs - which I don't mind, as a model), but 99% of the time they're far more fucking expensive to get anywhere with than anything with an honest price tag.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Sep 11, 2013)

mrs quoad said:


> This started out as an excellent freemium game, IMO. Upgrades were genuinely optional. The game dynamics were complex, interesting & varied. I (gladly) spent £10ish over a period of days / weeks buying cars I genuinely wanted to try so that I could access tracks I was genuinely interested in racing on.
> 
> As time has gone by, they've implemented an increasingly hostile & bizarre system. Winnings have been slashed - I'd have to race for 5 consecutive days in order to get "100%" of a given race's winnings, and would only earn 20% (of a sum that's already about half of what it originally was!) for any races on day one. A rigid tier system has been introduced, meaning I can *no longer buy the cars I want* but have to grind through a series of shit and expensive cars, each of which is only really viable for about 5 races (and which cost 100% of 20 races' winnings to begin with), in order to be allowed to spend real money on a car I'd actually want to drive.
> 
> ...



Agree 100%. Deleted rr3 and bought rr2, around the time I started this thread.

Welcome back by the way.


----------



## mrs quoad (Sep 11, 2013)

Oh, zombiewood. There's an example of a freemium game I genuinely enjoyed. No idea what's happened to it now, but there was a time when it was certainly 95% completable before the grinding went batshit...


----------



## tommers (Sep 25, 2013)

I wrote down something about Dungeon Hunter 4 and freemium stuff.

http://thebaneofqueequeg.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/dungeon-hunter-4-and-death-of-innocence.html


----------



## tommers (Sep 26, 2013)

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24272010

Ombudsman gets involved.


----------



## Ranbay (Nov 3, 2013)

bi0boy said:


> This really. I spent £9.99 on gems to buy extra builders in Clash of Clans because that's what I thought the game was worth if I'd paid to download it.



Love COC im level 102 now. spend about £2.99 a month on gems.


----------



## Maurice Picarda (Nov 3, 2013)

tommers said:


> http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-24272010
> 
> Ombudsman gets involved.





> instances where the title made the player feel bad by telling them a virtual animal was "ill" but could be made better if the gamer made a purchase



That's _brilliant_.


----------



## tommers (Nov 3, 2013)

Silas Loom said:


> That's _brilliant_.



Taking tips for the mill?

PC Gamer have done an article about this too...  not sure I agree with it all but it's pretty thorough...

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/11/03/microtransactions-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 18, 2014)

Rovio release Angry Birds Go! on a freemium model, because FUCK YOU

http://m.uk.ign.com/articles/2013/12/17/angry-birds-go-review

Games shit anyway. Half an hour or so of play before they started asking me for money. Cars that cost up to £70, according to reviews. Sub-mario kart levels of enjoyment. Minimal skill for early levels, near on impossible later levels. Great graphics for a phone game, but don't let that convince you. Gameplay is poor, repetitive, with unresponsive controls.  It would have been shit anyway, even if released on a more standard payment model.

Skankdinavian cunts. Alright, I know they're finnish, so technically not real Norse gods, but the word plays too good to pass up. 

Avoid, delete, ignore.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jan 18, 2014)

How are people finding gtaV online, BTW? I never bothered downloading, and haven't looked in on the main thread recently.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 20, 2014)

GTAV online is fucking dire. I cannot understand the populairty. I managed to get it working when it launched; one of the lucky few. I might as well not have bothered, there is nothing remotely interesting to do. The missions are utterly bland and the pvp is beyond tedious. It has nothing to offer, no depth at all. Whether they can improve it, who knows. I gave up after a week and sold the game when I completed it. Ver overrated overall (IMO). But the online was terrible. Largely because the game's mechanics are just horrible; straight pvp is diabolical and everyon uses aim assist (you have to). Avoid.

it's not really fremium though.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Jan 20, 2014)

If you don't like the single player game mechanics, then I'd have thought it'd be pretty obvious you wouldn't like the multiplayer...

I quite enjoy GTA:O for a bash, some racing, or even a bit of mental run and gun fun, especially now they're sorting out the hackers. It's too grindy to be of any great interest long term, but it's exactly what I expected.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 20, 2014)

stupid dogbot said:


> If you don't like the single player game mechanics, then I'd have thought it'd be pretty obvious you wouldn't like the multiplayer...
> 
> I quite enjoy GTA:O for a bash, some racing, or even a bit of mental run and gun fun, especially now they're sorting out the hackers. It's too grindy to be of any great interest long term, but it's exactly what I expected.


GTA offline works because it's more than the sum of its parts. It has never done any single thing exceptionally well.

Since the MP came free with the game it cost me nothing to see what it was like. Unfortunately they made it worse by releasing a bland featureless version. Heists and game modes were held back, as was basic functionality for most people it seemed.

With a bit more thought it could have been so much better. Perhaps they should have saved it for either PC or next gen.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Jan 21, 2014)

I don't see how it would have been improved by either. It is what it is, which is essentially GTA with the storyline ripped out. It was always going to be full of griefers and people who just wanted to blow everything up.

Go here, shoot this, go there. Lather, rinse, repeat. Ad nauseam. Which is essentially the single player experience for me, too. I didn't really expect anything else of GTA:O and it didn't deliver it.

There are plenty of free aim lobbies, too.

For me, what it showed more than anything is how hopelessly unprepared Rockstar were to take on an MMO.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 21, 2014)

I agree, the only fun I had was throwing grenades at the cars of the twats you join missions with. Players who for no reason invariably fuck up everyone's efforts.

it was a griefers paradise, but they didn't even bother to make the inevitable griefing fun.


----------



## tommers (Jan 22, 2014)

King, makers of candy crush have trademarked the word "candy" and are opposing the banner saga's use of the word "saga".

Another reason not to play their stupid games.


----------



## stupid dogbot (Jan 22, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I agree, the only fun I had was throwing grenades at the cars of the twats you join missions with. Players who for no reason invariably fuck up everyone's efforts.
> 
> it was a griefers paradise, but they didn't even bother to make the inevitable griefing fun.



Indeed.

It's possible that my experience was aided somewhat by playing in a crew, rather than with randoms. Either way, you're right. It's a long way from brilliant. Adequate, perhaps? Or not even that for some...


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 22, 2014)

Parachuting was the only thing I really enjoyed.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Jan 27, 2014)

I tried that simpsons game. Boring as hell. Not quite the same as Pharoah, from back in the day. 

Are there any decent android games that aren't pay to win or gimmicky crap?


----------



## tommers (Jan 27, 2014)

There was a thread here a while ago.

Edit: here http://www.urban75.net/forums/index.php?threads/276348/


----------



## mrs quoad (Feb 4, 2014)

iOS IAP gouging 101.

1. Gain rights to a franchise with a great reputation. Say, for example, real racing. Or dungeon keeper.

2. Release total toerag of a freemium game. The poorer the quality, the better.

3. Wait 7-14 days, until you have built up an overwhelming torrent of one-star "holy shit I can't believe these arseholes have completely fucked this franchise, what a raw nightmare of IAP-gouging shite, instantly deleted" reviews.

4. Release a trivial update which requires little or no apparent alteration to gameplay. This might involve providing "bug fixes," "minor improvements," or "friends integration" to your app.

5. Et voila. The initial rush of fans boosted your app to a top-ten position in the charts. Your rapid update wiped out every single negative review from people who had franchise loyalty but were staggered by how shit it was. They will no longer review it, because they have deleted it (whilst those who updated will be harangued in perpetuity until they provide a review). From hereon in, you will only be reviewed by an ever-increasing population of enthusiasts who stay with it bc they're billionaire / compulsive grinding teenagers, and an ever-decreasing population of new recruits.

Anyone viewing your app afresh will only see reviews for the most recent version, unless they actively seek them out. 

The more you update, the less shit your reviews become.


----------



## tommers (Feb 5, 2014)

The metro review of it is quite something. 

EA are cunts. Pure and simple.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Feb 6, 2014)

Dungeon Keeper you say?

Those were the days...greetings evil keeper!


----------



## tommers (Feb 7, 2014)

if you try to give Dungeon Keeper less than 5 stars in the in-game review thing it makes you open a support ticket. 

It only takes you to the review page if you say you're going to give it 5 stars.


----------



## 8ball (Feb 7, 2014)

If freemium was clearly labelled it would be one thing, but there's a blurring of the boundaries now with paid games where you basically get half a game and then have cough up for DLC.


----------



## Silva (Feb 7, 2014)

tommers said:


> if you try to give Dungeon Keeper less than 5 stars in the in-game review thing it makes you open a support ticket.
> 
> It only takes you to the review page if you say you're going to give it 5 stars.


To be honest, I wish the ratings system in Android worked a bit like that. At least in the Portuguese version there are a lot of 1-star reviews because people can't run the apps in their ancient mobiles or are too dumb to read the instructions.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Feb 10, 2014)

Silva said:


> To be honest, I wish the ratings system in Android worked a bit like that. At least in the Portuguese version there are a lot of 1-star reviews because people can't run the apps in their ancient mobiles or are too dumb to read the instructions.


The fact you can tell such people aside from genuine reviews makes it not a problem, surely?

I can't believe they fucked up Dungeon Keeper! It's a classic ffs. Wankers.


----------



## Silva (Feb 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> The fact you can tell such people aside from genuine reviews makes it not a problem, surely?
> 
> I can't believe they fucked up Dungeon Keeper! It's a classic ffs. Wankers.


The problem is finding "genuine reviews" when there's also a lot of astroturfing around, not to mention mandatory (or that give gameplay incentives) five star reviews. Online short reviews are close to useless, and Play is one of the worst.


----------



## Awesome Wells (Feb 10, 2014)

Silva said:


> The problem is finding "genuine reviews" when there's also a lot of astroturfing around, not to mention mandatory (or that give gameplay incentives) five star reviews. Online short reviews are close to useless, and Play is one of the worst.


I checked out some reviews of DK on youtube. They were...not flattering.

This game really seems to have pissed a lot of people off, which is sad. EA could have charged a flat fee and revived a beloved franchise. Instead they've subscribed to this arsetastic fremium shite.


----------



## Libertad (Feb 10, 2014)

New Star Soccer Android app has been wrecked by in game purchases. 
There's a lot of people complaining that they'd already bought the game and are now having to make in game purchases to progress.


----------



## Silva (Feb 10, 2014)

Awesome Wells said:


> I checked out some reviews of DK on youtube. They were...not flattering.
> 
> This game really seems to have pissed a lot of people off, which is sad. EA could have charged a flat fee and revived a beloved franchise. Instead they've subscribed to this arsetastic fremium shite.


And I don't think this is the same case as Syndicate, an incredibly polished shooter (although very short) but pretty much doomed to failure because it wasn't Syndicate Wars 2 (and, well, you can finish it in one day). They've really fucked DK for all I've seen so far.


----------



## Jon-of-arc (Jun 6, 2015)

mrs quoad said:


> This started out as an excellent freemium game, IMO. Upgrades were genuinely optional. The game dynamics were complex, interesting & varied. I (gladly) spent £10ish over a period of days / weeks buying cars I genuinely wanted to try so that I could access tracks I was genuinely interested in racing on.
> 
> As time has gone by, they've implemented an increasingly hostile & bizarre system. Winnings have been slashed - I'd have to race for 5 consecutive days in order to get "100%" of a given race's winnings, and would only earn 20% (of a sum that's already about half of what it originally was!) for any races on day one. A rigid tier system has been introduced, meaning I can *no longer buy the cars I want* but have to grind through a series of shit and expensive cars, each of which is only really viable for about 5 races (and which cost 100% of 20 races' winnings to begin with), in order to be allowed to spend real money on a car I'd actually want to drive.
> 
> ...



Good points.


----------



## bi0boy (Jun 6, 2015)

Awesome Wells said:


> I checked out some reviews of DK on youtube. They were...not flattering.
> 
> This game really seems to have pissed a lot of people off, which is sad. EA could have charged a flat fee and revived a beloved franchise. Instead they've subscribed to this arsetastic fremium shite.



EA even fucked up monopoly by having it give you less fortunate "dice rolls" and chance cads when you're ahead.


----------



## Tony_LeaS (Jun 9, 2015)

bi0boy said:


> EA even fucked up monopoly by having it give you less fortunate "dice rolls" and chance cads when you're ahead.



EA are notorious for this, they were caught out doing this for their massive sports games like FIFA, Madden, NHL, NBA etc, scripting it when you are at a stronger advantage. It's defined as cuntism.


----------



## Chilli.s (Jun 9, 2015)

I sense a change in online gaming, as the freemium type model and paid for DLC gets outdated/excepted. Rockstar giving millions of in game credit away with remastered GTAV on newer consoles, its the way the industry is going. Gaming is such a big fat cow its working out how to cut a bit more off every time.


----------

