5 reasons why freemium games "suck"

Designer Bennett Foddy, known for his QWOP and GIRP games, spoke at the last GDC with a report that listed 5 reasons why the free to play model does not work very well in the current incarnation, he suggests that with a creative approach to microtransactions, designers could do their job better. The main excerpts from the report were published on Gamasutra.

• 1. These games are about “pay,” not “play.” Foddy believes that many freemium games give the player a choice between the board and the grind - “it is assumed that you can pay money to reduce the amount of time you spend spending the game,” he notes. “Not playing a game is a“ luxury option ”... [and] ultimately it reduces the value that players see in the game.”
• 2. All are in unequal conditions. If some players play with some rules, and the rest with others, you cannot meaningfully compare their impressions. “If someone buys progress or benefits in a store inside the app, then they just cheat,” says Foddy. "It's all the same, what to sell players steroids, cheat."
• 3. It spoils the impression. Charging real money from players during a game can break the dive, Foddy believes. “In my opinion, a really good game has a special relationship with a player,” he says. "In the freemium game, it treats you more as a supplier or trafficker."
• 4. This is an irreconcilable conflict. The development of the game, for real money transactions, is balanced from scratch between two incompatible goals: to make the game fun and complete for non-paying players, and to make it full-fledged for those who pay. “You fell between the hammer and the anvil,” he says.
• 5. You miss opportunities for creativity. “If you sell hats, it’s true that you don’t ruin the game for everyone, but even in this case, you still miss the opportunity to invent a way to charge people money ... so that it increases the value and value of the game for everyone.”

Some ideas that do not completely “suck up”
')
People often defend free-to-play games by comparing them to arcade machines, but only a few people actually develop games like arcade games where players pay for each life or game session. “If you do that, then you make them pay more, not less, and you also leave everyone on equal footing,” Foddy suggests.

At a tournament, you pay for the opportunity to record the official result - this is another method that can work. And you can offer players rewards for playing with skill, for example, if you make a full-featured demo that will always remain free as long as you play well, although he recognizes that this kind of approach may not be suitable for mobile applications.

“You could take money for the constant changes in the game that would apply to everyone,” he says. What if everyone pays $ 2 to open an extra level of difficulty? Although, some of these ideas cannot be resolved in accordance with Apple’s terms, the goal, to remain creative inside the free-to-play business model is still applicable.
“You are not limited to selling digital consumables for young children and idiots,” he explains, “you can create your own things.”