Are most gamers freemium type?

[Tilarta]

Apologies if I got the term wrong, so I'll define Freemium as what I think it is:
Freemium is a player who refuses to pay any money for a game they enjoy, instead preferring to spend hours, days or months grinding ingame resources to get the items that could be easily obtained with a $10-20 purchase.

This topic was motivated by a rather objectionable Star Trek Online player who keeps insisting Cryptic should not get any money from it's players in the form of lifetime subscription purchases.

But it got me thinking, are there players who find paying money so offensive that they get angry or refuse to play games that include ingame purchases?
I've heard that a lot, that many players have avoided games because there is an ingame item store and don't think to consider any other factor.

There is a fairly recent and tragic example of just how badly that way of thinking can go.
Disney Infinity was a game that requires online servers and purchase of separate content (playable characters, expansion packs, level customization items/combat bonus items).
And the only thing those who refused to purchase it (even though they liked the game) had to say was "it costs too much".

For context, Disney Infinity was just closed down (including the online servers) because 60% of projected revenue wasn't enough to justify keeping the game active.
They even had a new expansion and playable characters in planning when the cancellation was issued.
As well as some deluxe figures that would be released later.
I'm thinking because all those gamers were too stingy to pay for this game, they caused it to be closed down.

[Gatefan1976]

Ohh, I've played and owned several of these.

Apologies if I got the term wrong, so I'll define Freemium as what I think it is:
Freemium is a player who refuses to pay any money for a game they enjoy, instead preferring to spend hours, days or months grinding ingame resources to get the items that could be easily obtained with a $10-20 purchase.

If you are meaning "grinding" such as W.O.W. or K.O.T.O.R. for stuff, I actually never minded doing that and I would -never- have considered spending real money on getting such stuff. I paid my subscription fee's and KOTOR was good enough to provide credits to spend in the online store as a reward for subscribers. I just saved my creds and bought big things that were generally not available any other way such as skins and weapon designs.

This topic was motivated by a rather objectionable Star Trek Online player who keeps insisting Cryptic should not get any money from it's players in the form of lifetime subscription purchases.

No problem with subscriptions for me, I just limited myself to one subscription game at a time.

But it got me thinking, are there players who find paying money so offensive that they get angry or refuse to play games that include ingame purchases?
I've heard that a lot, that many players have avoided games because there is an ingame item store and don't think to consider any other factor.

I think if you drill down into that a bit, you will find a lot of different reasons why people find them objectionable. I find them somewhat objectionable because they lead to the "Mr Suitcase" style of play where -unless- you buy things, skill becomes less of a determining factor than wallet size, and it can suck the fun out of a game.

There is a fairly recent and tragic example of just how badly that way of thinking can go.
Disney Infinity was a game that requires online servers and purchase of separate content (playable characters, expansion packs, level customization items/combat bonus items).
And the only thing those who refused to purchase it (even though they liked the game) had to say was "it costs too much".

I dread to think how much money worth of figures I have for either Skylanders or Infinity, but I would comfortably say I have over 300 figures combined. So, for 5-6 games that would cost me 4-500 bucks -for the game- I have spent in excess of 3 thousand on figures. I can see how people might not want to do that.

For context, Disney Infinity was just closed down (including the online servers) because 60% of projected revenue wasn't enough to justify keeping the game active.
They even had a new expansion and playable characters in planning when the cancellation was issued.
As well as some deluxe figures that would be released later.
I'm thinking because all those gamers were too stingy to pay for this game, they caused it to be closed down.

I wouldn't place the blame soley on gamers there. Too many other factors such as their budget to consider. I get what you are saying, just not sure I would put it -just- on them.

[DigiFluid]

To be fair, STO is seven and a half years old and they're still asking $300 US for a lifetime subscription. That's a bit steep.

But on the whole (putting aside outliers like STO lifetime that), yeah, I do think a lot of people are cheap. The old adage is usually used in a different context but it still applies well here: "why buy the cow if you can get the milk for free?"

What a lot of people don't seem to appreciate is that games are the same as any other business or industry. They don't survive without support, and taking (playing) without giving anything back (payment) is a quick way to make sure the product fails.

[StargateMillennium]

I'll openly say I don't know anything about Disney Infinity.

But, what you're asking is whether people actually use money to buy ingame content rather than grind through it, it all depends. Though calling the ppl who don't pay 'stingy' makes it sound worse than it is.


I can say in game microtransactions are becoming more and more common place because you are guaranteed a number of people will buy. However, reactions to in game transactions will vary depending on how it is implemented. Many people don't use the system or don't buy the game that has a system like that to protest and show their disapproval since customers can only speak with their wallets.

Overall, it is seen as a cheap and dirty underhanded trick to get people to sucker people into paying more than they have to. This is usually done for multiplayer games. For example, from what I hear at one point of time, you could purchase cloaking in The Division's multiplayer but only for money. This gave players a massive advantage over people who didn't. So it was 'pay me for cloaking or have your fun ruined by the people who have it'. It's unfortunately becoming an increasingly used tactic. Items are with withheld and can only be purchased with money. Players began to realize that this system meant they were paying full price for a fraction of what they were promised. So the game publishers made it so that you can still have access to the stuff...what it takes to get to the point of unlocking it is just tedious and painful so the players are still being urged to spend more money. This was done so they could argue that you got the full game when it was actually implemented so people will pay more money for something they already paid for.

We paid hard earned cash for this game, we want our money's worth. If it's a pain or impossible to unlock it, then it's a poor design. If it's been intentionally created to be a pain or impossible to get people to pay more money, it's just a dirty trick.



Now, it is forgiven if the system is used as an alternative or a leveling system rather than a means to con players into paying more. Rainbow 6 Siege uses its microtransactions as a leveling system. You can have access to everything. The microtransactions are for people who only want a specific thing or don't have time to grind so they have a way around it and for a cheap cost. Season pass holders get everything one week in advance. But it doesn't require tedious amounts of grinding so it feels more like an option for people who don't have a ton of spare times on their hands. And from all reports, R6S is thriving on this system. Overwatch has a similar thing. You can purchase everything through grinding but you don't have to grind much, the prices are low, and it isn't in-your-face about it. So it feels like buying something is done for the sake of convenience rather than being conned into it. For Honor is trying to go that direction. It's certainly improved and now that a player can get much more steel per game, it now feels like it's not conning people into buying elite loot just to get ahead. Injustice 2 has the same thing. Unlock gear with only a minimal amount of grinding or buy it if you are impatient or only want a certain item.

The previously mentioned games (with the exception of For Honor since Ubisoft tried to take the cheap way out by using shoddy P2P connections) have been doing extremely well (R6S needed a year of fixes but now it's loved). Grinding to get an item is minimal and prices are cheap and players will happily dish out the extra $$ because they feel like they got what they paid for and want to continue to support the product.

[Tilarta]

I don't know much about other games, but with STO, buying an ingame item isn't going to improve gameplay.
Getting it won't suddenly turn an unskilled player into a pro, it just gives the player the ability to do something different.

To be fair, STO is seven and a half years old and they're still asking $300 US for a lifetime subscription. That's a bit steep.

What a lot of people don't seem to appreciate is that games are the same as any other business or industry. They don't survive without support, and taking (playing) without giving anything back (payment) is a quick way to make sure the product fails.

There is a sale that appears at regular intervals that drops the price down to around $200 USD.
I waited for one such rotation when I made my purchase.

The second point you made is why I doubt the objectivity of the person who keeps insisting we are not allowed to purchase the lifetime subscription.
That they want the product to fail and they think the best way to do that is to stop everyone making purchases in STO.


As regards Disney Infinity, there was actually more going on there then just a simple lack of profits.
It was confirmed from multiple sources that Disney Infinity was cancelled because Disney Corporation had 2 unprofitable divisions and the decision was made that the money DI earned would be better spent on keeping those divisions active.
To be honest, if those divisions failed to turn a sustainable profit, then they deserved to end.
Taking all the money from a slightly successful product to keep the less successful ones afloat isn't logical to me.
They won't be able to repeat that tactic again, because there is no DI to generate more funds.

I did observe another related factor though, at about the same time, Disney Interactive was shutting down all story based games.
Including some based on the Marvel properties they acquired.
They're only making plotless mobile games now, the ones that just look like sophisticated versions of Connect-4.
And prior to that, they'd ceased to make all movie tie-in games.

Disney Infinity was based on fun, nothing that was acquired could provide a significant advantage over another player, it was just for gameplay customization.
Ironically, the largest gameplay disappointment was going to be removed in version 4.0, the limiting of characters to franchise specific playsets.
If someone wants to have Spiderman or Elsa in a Star Wars playset, they'd have been able to do it!

But there was an external factor that contributed to the end of DI.
It was the existence of Skylanders and Lego Dimensions as competing Toys2Life games.
If they didn't exist, those who were playing those games would have been spending their money on DI instead.

Now for cost comparison, Lego Dimensions costs twice as DI did.
A DI figure/playset goes for $20 dollars, a LD figure/playset is $50.
The DI game costs $90, LD costs $180.

I have no data on Skylanders, as I don't play that game.
The impression I always got is there is no personal investment in Skylanders, there's too many figures.
From my perspective, it's just a game all about generic monsters with no distinctiveness.

[DarkenLycht]

In my opinion freemium is like you pay 50 bucks for a game and then you pay even more money to help yourself progress faster which shortens your play time

I mean everyone must know how they like to play their games but this is nothing I will do. I do not mind grinding or dying a lot, if I reach the end of the game that hard way I at least know for myself I really got the most out of the money I used to buy the game

[Gatefan1976]

I don't know much about other games, but with STO, buying an ingame item isn't going to improve gameplay.
Getting it won't suddenly turn an unskilled player into a pro, it just gives the player the ability to do something different.

That is dependant on what the item allows you to do. I don't mean "pro" as in really good, I mean that the background mathematics of the item will allow a poor player to out-perform a good player. Outside of MMOLRPG'S this is less of a problem, but in that environment, it's a huge one.

There is a sale that appears at regular intervals that drops the price down to around $200 USD.
I waited for one such rotation when I made my purchase.

I'd call that (your decision) smart, I'd also call people choosing not to do it if the game did not offer what they wanted smart as well. I -would- call the model pretty bad though. I would say subscribe for 1 year in a continuous block and get lifetime access, It's a far better marketing ploy as it gets the company more money, has conditions and stops a huge upfront cost deterrent.

The second point you made is why I doubt the objectivity of the person who keeps insisting we are not allowed to purchase the lifetime subscription.
That they want the product to fail and they think the best way to do that is to stop everyone making purchases in STO.

You have reached a conclusion without proof, I doubt your objectivity.

As regards Disney Infinity, there was actually more going on there then just a simple lack of profits.
It was confirmed from multiple sources that Disney Infinity was cancelled because Disney Corporation had 2 unprofitable divisions and the decision was made that the money DI earned would be better spent on keeping those divisions active.
To be honest, if those divisions failed to turn a sustainable profit, then they deserved to end.
Taking all the money from a slightly successful product to keep the less successful ones afloat isn't logical to me.
They won't be able to repeat that tactic again, because there is no DI to generate more funds.

Infinity was met with lacklustre reviews since 1.0. Sure the figures were nice, and it was fun but the -in game- content was hardly up to snuff and you could play the entire story-mode of each offering in under a day, often within a few hours. Don't get me wrong, I had fun with Infinity, but the content just was not there for the casual gamer. IF you wanted to world build however, it was great.

I did observe another related factor though, at about the same time, Disney Interactive was shutting down all story based games.
Including some based on the Marvel properties they acquired.
They're only making plotless mobile games now, the ones that just look like sophisticated versions of Connect-4.
And prior to that, they'd ceased to make all movie tie-in games.

I would think they are more likely to farm them out, then buy the company that does the best work, that's been Disney's MO for quite some time now.

Disney Infinity was based on fun, nothing that was acquired could provide a significant advantage over another player, it was just for gameplay customization.

Not if you play Online multiplayer arena battles. Several of the power discs were -busted- in terms of advantage given.

Ironically, the largest gameplay disappointment was going to be removed in version 4.0, the limiting of characters to franchise specific playsets.
If someone wants to have Spiderman or Elsa in a Star Wars playset, they'd have been able to do it!

See, when you get up to 4.0 to realise you have made a -massive- marketing error by not allowing the cross-over in stand alone content, I think you deserve to fail. People have wanted that feature since 1.0 and my Monster's Inc guys have been gathering dust since 1.0 because of it. My 1.0 skylanders -still- get played in he 6th incarnation of skylanders.

But there was an external factor that contributed to the end of DI.
It was the existence of Skylanders and Lego Dimensions as competing Toys2Life games.

Err, Skylanders was the original one, DI was introduced later. Dimensions (which I somehow forgot about despite having tons of Dimensions stuff) is far, far superior to DI because it allowed the in world crossover right from the word go. In a market of 3 games, DI is simply inferior in terms of length of game, complexity and value for money. It objectively sucked in that regard.

If they didn't exist, those who were playing those games would have been spending their money on DI instead.

If Skylanders did not exist, there would be no DI

Now for cost comparison, Lego Dimensions costs twice as DI did.
A DI figure/playset goes for $20 dollars, a LD figure/playset is $50.
The DI game costs $90, LD costs $180.

If you are using Australian prices, this is not accurate.
Infinity on launch was around 90 bucks
Dimensions was 120.
DI -playsets- were around 30 bucks, DM were around 35. Individual characters were around the same 15 dollar mark for both.

I have no data on Skylanders, as I don't play that game.
The impression I always got is there is no personal investment in Skylanders, there's too many figures.
From my perspective, it's just a game all about generic monsters with no distinctiveness.

They are very distinctive and I certainly have my favorites from each of the 5 sets, as does my wife, and my kids. the 6th set (imaginators) was all about custom building.

[Tilarta]

With STO, most of the ingame store items can only be purchased when you get near or to the level cap.
So you still have to play the game until those items can be used.
It's based on character level, the best items can't be used until level 50, the very best items at level 60.
And even then, the game isn't complete, at level 50, all the endgame tasks are unlocked, so time has to be taken to progress them as well.

In STO, it's all about player skill and build mechanics.
If a new player thinks getting a T6 store ship will allow them to out perform an experienced player, they're about to be handed a reality check.....

STO currently has two subscription plans, Lifetime and Gold.
Lifetime is a once off payment.
Gold is a monthly recurring payment.
Free2play is the third option.
In my opinion, if a player intends to play long term using a sub, Lifetime is more cost effective.
I did the math once, 18 months of Gold Sub=Lifetime sub.


How is standalone content defined in Disney Infinity?
The world building maps and the race car playset were open character, no restrictions other then 4 players at a time.
Well, it's restricted now, because the online servers were required to have those 4 players!
But it never got to that point, DI only made it up to version 3.0, so whatever 4.0 might have been will never be experienced.

From my perspective, it's all about personal investment.
I'd like Pixar, some Disney franchises and Marvel supers, so Disney Infinity gave me value for money.
Basically, I could pick up any DI figure, even ones I didn't want and immediately know the franchise.

Lego Dimensions I tried because I enjoyed the Lego movie.
But my interest diminished when they started releasing too many franchises that were unimportant to me.
Currently, I have the Lego Movie figures, Portal Pack, Knight Rider pack.

You have reached a conclusion without proof, I doubt your objectivity.

Oh, I have all the proof I need, you're just going to have to trust me on that.
Every post made by the objectionable individual is about saying how bad they think Star Trek Online is.
This is always done in response to someone having a positive or constructive comment to make.
It's definitely a one person war conducted for no other reason then they want the game to end.

[Annoyed]

I used to play Everquest, quit about 10 years ago. Reading this thread makes me glad I lost interest in these games back then. I would not have wanted to be involved where you could buy progress in the game with real money.

[P-90_177]

Speaking personally it's all about price for me. I love STO but I can't afford to spend money on the subscription, nor can I afford to buy premium ships. If my wage was higher I probably would buy them. Alternatively if ships were cheaper. say in the £5 - £15 range I may be tempted, if only every once in a while.

It's the same thing with other mmo's I play. I love World of Warships and War Thunder but I can't possibly justify purchasing the ships and planes to my bank account.

[Gatefan1976]

Speaking personally it's all about price for me. I love STO but I can't afford to spend money on the subscription, nor can I afford to buy premium ships. If my wage was higher I probably would buy them. Alternatively if ships were cheaper. say in the £5 - £15 range I may be tempted, if only every once in a while.

It's the same thing with other mmo's I play. I love World of Warships and War Thunder but I can't possibly justify purchasing the ships and planes to my bank account.

Can you explain the premium ships P-90?
Are they just skins or are they superior?

[P-90_177]

Can you explain the premium ships P-90?
Are they just skins or are they superior?

In STO premium ships do have a bit of a jump in stats. But this can be overcome by the free ships with the correct modules and weapons. If a person knows what they can doing they can make a free ship just as powerful as most premium ships. HOWEVER a lot of the premium ships do have advantages that just makes life a bit easier for the player. For example you can get the Prometheus with its Multi-Vector Assault mode as a premium or the Refitted Galaxy Class from All Good Things with its forward firing phaser cannon which is certainly powerful.

All that being said, other premium buys are just cosmetic.

It's not quite 'pay to win' (partially because the PVP in STO is team based and far more dependent on working with a well balanced fleet that can effectively help each other out) but it is certainly 'pay and you may last an extra minute or two.' Plus there are just some ships that look cool in Premium, and as a player who values the RP aspect of the game I feel my level 60 Admiral should have a sweet looking ride.

[Gatefan1976]

In STO premium ships do have a bit of a jump in stats. But this can be overcome by the free ships with the correct modules and weapons. If a person knows what they can doing they can make a free ship just as powerful as most premium ships. HOWEVER a lot of the premium ships do have advantages that just makes life a bit easier for the player. For example you can get the Prometheus with its Multi-Vector Assault mode as a premium or the Refitted Galaxy Class from All Good Things with its forward firing phaser cannon which is certainly powerful.

All that being said, other premium buys are just cosmetic.

It's not quite 'pay to win' (partially because the PVP in STO is team based and far more dependent on working with a well balanced fleet that can effectively help each other out) but it is certainly 'pay and you may last an extra minute or two.' Plus there are just some ships that look cool in Premium, and as a player who values the RP aspect of the game I feel my level 60 Admiral should have a sweet looking ride.

Cheers man.
STO is one of the few games I have not gone near, despite being "a bit of a trekkie", I really should look into freeplay to see if it is any good sometime. ATMK though, Civ 6 is eating my free time like a bandit

[P-90_177]

Cheers man.
STO is one of the few games I have not gone near, despite being "a bit of a trekkie", I really should look into freeplay to see if it is any good sometime. ATMK though, Civ 6 is eating my free time like a bandit

I tend to find the story is the best part. There are a lot of dropped storylines from the shows that get picked up and expanded upon. Otherwise it's a good game. Not outstanding perhaps but still worth it if you're a Trek fan. Still doesn't hold a candle to the trek games from the 90's and early 00's though.

[Gatefan1976]

I tend to find the story is the best part. There are a lot of dropped storylines from the shows that get picked up and expanded upon. Otherwise it's a good game. Not outstanding perhaps but still worth it if you're a Trek fan. Still doesn't hold a candle to the trek games from the 90's and early 00's though.

I did like Star Trek: Starfleet academy. A final unity was a bit dodge, but my all time favourite was Birth of the federation, but I am biased as I love turn based strategy games.