Wednesday, April 8, 2015

Nintendo just invented fully buyable free-to-play games.

Pokémon Rumble 4 is out today, and from what I've heard it does two unusual things with the free-to-play model. One, it limits the amount of premium in-game currency you can buy ever to 3000, and two, once you do so you get a ton of additional perks that basically mean you never have to worry about running out of said currency ever again. So in a nutshell, it's less of a free-to-play game and more of a $30 game you can elect to spend less on if you're willing to put up with the scarcity of premium currency.

20 comments:

  1. They aren't the first, Killer instinct's model of this, is variably similar, you can get the whole character roster and everything for 30$ or you can do f2p and just buy only certain characters, kinda dumb for a fighting game considering you have to know every other characters strengths and weaknesses

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not in the know regarding the F2P industry, considering the whole notion is a major turn-off to me. Either way, the way you talk about it makes it sound like there's a finite amount of content to buy. In any game where you can buy in-game currency though, you'd expect that capability to be infinite, and to not get additional perks when you spend certain amounts other than better value for higher amounts of currency.

      Delete
  2. Well that's at least somewhat better than the standard model. $30 for a Rumble game, though? I'll pass.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Still cheaper than what Rumble 2 goes for now, amazingly enough.

      Delete
    2. I actually bought the first one on Wii and enjoyed it a decent amount, but it's repetitive, easy and too luck-based with what you get to use. I wouldn't pay more than $5 for another Rumble game, I think.

      Delete
    3. The other ones are a lot more expansive, though. You could get a used copy of Rumble 2 for pretty cheap, like $15.

      Delete
    4. I suppose I could give the new one a shot considering it's F2P and I have great impulse control when it comes to microtransactions.

      Delete
  3. The real crazy part of this story is that Pokemon Rumble 4 exists. For $30 no less!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are they trying to completely dilute their brand by releasing a shitty spin-off every month now? One more pay-to-win game, and I'll be certain Nintendo's possessed by the spirit of Electronic Arts. They may think they're too awesome to port at least their retro stuff to smartphones, but now they're starting to utilize exactly the same business models. Nintendo isn't in the weeds because they had too much AAA games compared to crappy social games with no replay value, let me tell you that much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So tell me, what's so different between paying $30 up front and paying $30 after buying the game? It's still the same price.

      Delete
    2. Okay, pet peeve time here. I don't have much experience with games that are either free-to-play or pay-to-win, but Pokemon Shuffle, at least, definitely doesn't make you feel forced to purchase anything. The only versus stuff Shuffle has are the competitions, which, as long as you have good Pokemon (and don't suck at the game), then you *still* don't need to use real life currency. So "pay-to-win" is really inaccurate, as you don't need to spend a penny to win. The game is literally free to play.

      As for Rumble World, it seems to be the same way, but I've barely played the game, so that could definitely change. Rumble World at least gives you unique benefits by buying a bunch of PokeDiamonds, whereas there are no unique benefits to buying a bunch of Jewels in Shuffle.

      Delete
    3. Having barely played the game is actually a huge difference maker. Until you hit level 5, balloons inflate almost instantly, but once you reach it, they'll take a lot longer - even the low-end ones take half an hour, and the last one takes 10 hours! Of course you can pay one to five diamonds depending on the balloon and the time left to have it inflated instantly. But you have to buy those balloons, right? Well, the cost goes from 20 for the Ruby and Sapphire ones to 200 for the Legend one. 200 diamonds takes, best case scenario, about two weeks to obtain, provided that you don't spend them on anything in the meantime (easier said than done). And that's just to access one stage!

      Then there's the whole issue of the roulette often sending you where you don't want to go, and later on you gain the ability to rig the roulette to your liking. In exchange for diamonds, of course. And guess what? You also have to pay diamonds for Pokémon storage! You start with only 30 slots, and you buy them 30 at a time for two diamonds. So as you can see, there's a LOT of diamond sinks and barely any income, so you will NEED to spend some money somewhere down the line. Some people are trying to see how much they can do without buying diamonds, and even they know they'll inevitably have to cave in at some point.

      So by design, the game is impossible to play for free. On the other hand, you are absolutely guaranteed you'll never need to spend more than $30. The overwhelming consensus is that it's a great trade-off, and most people seem to wish that such a model becomes the standard in F2P games. The huge problem with these, typically, is that you never know going in just how much you'll need to spend, and the worst cash grabs can easily send you into the hundreds, if not thousands. Here, on the other hand, $30 and you're done forever.

      The big problem with this game isn't the business model, it's that Rumble 2 exists. I haven't played Rumble 4, but from what I've read whether it's an upgrade or not is debatable, and you can get a used copy of Rumble 2, arguably a better game overall, for a lot less that $30. With that said, you can't argue Rumble 4 being F2P drew a lot of people in - a pretty large chunk of the players haven't played the first three. So it's both a clever marketing tactic and a great workaround to what most gamers would consider a slap to the face.

      Delete
    4. Actually, as you gain ranks, you can buy more than 30 of storage space at a time. I'm over Rank 15 and each upgrade increases by 60 now. Obviously, they require more Diamonds in exchange, though.

      Delete
    5. I see. Is there a cap on how much storage you can have?

      And for that matter, I've looked up some footage of Shuffle out of curiosity. So apparently if you have less than five hearts they regenerate at the rate of one every 30 minutes. But with five hearts you can only play for, like, 15-20 minutes. So how the heck are you supposed to play longer without burning those ridiculously rare jewels if you aim to not pay anything?

      Delete
    6. I really don't care how they require you to pay for their spin-offs. If you insist they're shifting to free-to-play from the kindness of their hearts, I'm sure that must be it.

      My point is that they're diluting the brand with scores of puzzle and fighting games, none of which have any connection to the turn-based strategy element that makes Pokemon great. They'd be much better off spending their time and resources working on the RPGs, and figuring out how to end their perpetual cycle of pushing out a prettier version of Pokemon RBY every few years.

      The main games need some major reforms in overworld gameplay, multiplayer and narrative (after twenty years of experience, they really shouldn't have released something as phony and one-dimensional as Lysandre) But that's going to take years of development and craftsmanship, which is the complete opposite of spamming mini games and stamping the Pokemon logo on it.

      Freemium is great for independent developers who don't have the resources to make full-fledged quality games. But something's definitely wrong when major established companies feel the need to go this route. Either the games are substandard and don't justify the price of a premium product, or they're miniature black holes for your wallet. That's just the reality of a for-profit organization imo.

      Delete
    7. List of Pokémon spin-offs made by Gamefreak:

      ...

      ...

      ...what do you mean, none?

      If you're going to complain, do your goddamn research first. Gamefreak LITERALLY does only the main games, as well as whatever non-Pokémon ventures they have. And even if they DID make the spin-offs, what makes them less valid than Mario's? If you bitch about Rumble and Ranger and Mystery Dungeon and whatnot, you have no choice but to complain about Mario Kart, Mario Party, etc.

      Delete
    8. Oh, and just for the record, if gen 6's narrative doesn't tickle your fancy, try gen 5. I have no idea why they took the step back they did either, but luckily I don't give much of a fuck about a game's story anyway.

      Still won't prevent me from wondering what could've been, because if you look up "wasted potential" in the dictionary you'll see Team Flare. Here you have what's essentially a non-religious cult that charges a fortune for the privilege of being part of the only group that'll survive the extinction of humanity, which is pretty damn fucked up. And what do they do with this "prohibitive entry fee" thing? They try (and fail) to play it up for laughs. Then there's Lysandre himself. Here you have a nihilistic type of character who truly believes humanity's extinction is for the best of the world, as opposed to someone like Kefka who does it purely for the lulz. Yet the same people who wrote Ghetsis to perfection in two games straight failed to give him any semblance of character, charisma and whatever. What happened there?

      Delete
  5. I didn't even mention the name Game Freak. The Pokemon Company (which is owned by Nintendo, whether you like it or not) is licensing freemium run-of-the-mill casual games under the Pokemon brand. Game Freak may be independent on paper, but I don't see them defying Nintendo's decrees on cross-platform, or making their own in-game alternative to the 3DS' heinous friend code system. They obviously suck Nintendo's dick at every whim.

    My opinions on Pokemon have anything whatsoever to do with Mario? Sorry no. As far as I know, those are generally critically acclaimed, full-featured games. Comparing Pokemon to racing games and swirling around with a motion detector is weird. Should I mention The Elder Scrolls too, every time I open my mouth, in case they also decide to cash in with a Yahtzee game or whatnot?

    And for the record, you have absolutely no right to tell me what to do before I voice my opinions about a game series I've been following since 1999. Judging by your cynical and rather honest Let's Plays, I thought this would actually be a place to voice criticism without condescending, dazed fanboys getting their panties in a twist.

    No more BW for me please, I've seen enough of the pixelated sprites and straightjacket-like linear world. Trying to rationalize Team Flare is useless, considering it's simply not meant to be taken seriously. It's just another excuse to fight the eight gym leaders, and endless underleveled trainers with their itemless Pokemon, in order to become the Pokemon masta. Just like it's always been, their target audience simply cannot comprehend more than that in their tiny minds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not fully educated on the process of making a game, but I'm pretty sure TPC's involvement in those spin-offs is rather limited. The real work comes from developers like Chunsoft, Ambrella, Genius Sonority and such.

      Also, real subtle way of telling me I'm not supposed to enjoy those spin-offs. I mean, I was very, VERY critical of MD3 for instance, but I know it still did a few things right despite largely ditching what made MD2 such a masterpiece. So if you (impersonal you, it goes without saying) want to like MD3 for what it has to offer, go right ahead. But being a full-fledged, full-featured game isn't a be-all, end-all requirement for having fun with it (and guess what, many Pokémon spin-offs, such as the Ranger and Mystery Dungeon series, have enough content to justify a full retail cost), as long as the price is right of course. Gamers that want to not be nickel-and-dimed to death with every game they buy are totally in the right. Entitled gamers that expect nothing less than fucking Xenoblade for $60, on the other hand, are a cancer.

      What I really don't like, and won't ever stand for, is dumping all games with microtransactions and F2P models in the same basket just because some companies get far too greedy and uneducated gamers fall for it hook, line and sinker. There are a LOT of different interpretations of the microtransaction business practice depending on the game, so saying there's no difference between Bravely Default and the subpar pay-to-win crap you find en masse on the app store (not saying YOU said this, but your tirade against microtransactions makes it clear some more extremist people would) is degrading to those games that try to apply that business model in a fair manner. Games like Rumble 4. You know what Rumble 4 reminds me of? Shareware. People who never played the first three games get to try it out, and if they like it they pay $30 for the full experience. And guess what? It works. Dedicated forums are buried under questions that should be obvious for anyone who's ever played a previous game in the series, so clearly they managed to reach out to a lot more people than if they just put it on the eShop and charged $30 for it up front like the first three games (1 and 3 were cheaper, mind you, but they weren't nearly as good either).

      But clearly we can't convince each other in any way, shape or form, so this is the last thing I'll say on the subject.

      Delete
    2. "without condescending, dazed fanboys getting their panties in a twist"
      So this is the kind of occasion the English idiom "The pot calling the kettle black" was made for...
      I haven't seen anybody getting mad here except you. Chill out, nobody is attacking you. Can't we just disagree in a civil and polite matter?

      Delete