That’s fine. But you can’t say that it is F2P, because it has the characteristics of a F2P then turn around and say it needs to be radically altered in order to be like other F2P games at the same time. It’s one or the other.
Your post is invalid in one thing: the rotation isn’t weekly, is irregular. They said monthly, but I was witness of a constant change: 3 weeks - 1 month - 5 weeks. For sure, it isn’t a week.
However, the correct terminology of f2p is this: A free to play game is a game where the player is allowed to get essential content in another way than spending money. Limits might be included and the efforts to get the useful stuff could be more or less longer. A game that grants useful content only by real money has the denomination of pay to win or, if you want to be elegant, impure free to play.
I post the exact terminology from the italian section of the Wikipedia, regarding the types of f2p aka pure, hybrid and impure. Guess in which category Killer Instinct might be included. If you want a strict translation, I can do it without worries.
[Quote]
I free-to-play sono genericamente suddivisi in “puri”, “ibridi” e “impuri” (questi ultimi detti anche pay-to-win).
I free-to-play “puri” sono i giochi rilasciati interamente gratuiti per il pubblico, e su cui, in genere, lo sviluppatore ha deciso di non investire più. Uno degli esempi migliori di questo genere di free-to-play può essere “Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory” della Splash Damage, spin-off del più noto “Return to Castle of Wolfenstein”, rilasciato nel 2003 come gioco gratuito giocabile esclusivamente in modalità multiplayer. I pregi dei free-to-play “puri”, sono, ovviamente, che si tratta di giochi in cui l’esperienza ludica non è limitata ed è uguale per tutti i giocatori, che così possono esprimere al meglio e in concreto le loro abilità e potenzialità. Inoltre accade spesso che subito, o pochi anni dopo l’uscita del gioco gratuito, la casa produttrice rilasci anche i codici di programmazione per il libero editing, così che i giocatori stessi possono creare nuove features, mappe, item o skin di gioco, di modo da aumentare il livello di agonismo globale. I difetti di questa categoria di free-to-play, però, non mancano: trattandosi di giochi abbandonati (funzionanti e completi, ma pur sempre progetti abbandonati dal produttore), soffrono di una obsolescenza relativamente rapida, poiché non beneficiano del rilascio di patch ufficiali aggiornate, né di migliorie tecniche o ludiche di qualche tipo, dal momento che lo sviluppatore ha inteso non investire più denaro. Anche i server su cui poggia l’aspetto multiplayer di questi giochi non è affatto garantito dalla casa produttrice, e spesso i giocatori devono ricorrere a server autofinanziati. Infine, oltre a spesso sortire problemi tecnici con l’avanzare della tecnologia e dei nuovi sistemi operativi-dato che non vengono rilasciati aggiornamenti di compatibilità-, questi giochi soffrono molto anche il ricambio generazionale dei giocatori, laddove quelli di vecchia data lasciano per motivi di età, e quelli più giovani vengono abituati subito ad altri tipi di gameplay e anche qualità grafica. V’è da aggiungere pure che, sempre per motivi economici, nessuno è disposto a investire su questa categoria di giochi per quanto concerne la creazione di veri e propri tornei di e-sports, così da frustrare l’agonismo del giocatore che, pur diventando bravo in quel gioco, non può vincere nulla di soddisfacente a parte la singola partita.
I free-to-play “ibridi” sono invece giochi rilasciati gratis per il pubblico, ma con alcuni piccoli contenuti a pagamento che però non rilevano né influiscono sull’esperienza ludica dei videogiocatori. Esempio ottimo ne è il gioco del 2013 “Dota 2”, della VALVE, spin-off della mappa amatoriale “DotA” di Warcraft 3. I contenuti acquistabili sono spesso di carattere puramente estetico, o riguardano partecipazioni a tornei ed eventi legati al gioco, ma comunque non si tratta mai di modificatori di esperienza o item aggiuntivi che rendono un giocatore più forte di un altro. Il meccanismo del “giocare per diventare bravo, senza scorciatoie” è, insieme, la forza e la debolezza dei free-to-play “ibridi”. Ne è la forza poiché rispetta il gameplay classico e i giocatori che spendono ore ad esercitarsi, ma anche la debolezza perché. nel mercato videoludico, è molto difficile vincere la concorrenza dei free-to-play “impuri” i quali, a fronte di piccoli pagamenti, concedono vantaggi anche eccessivi ai giocatori paganti, rispetto a quelli comuni dati ai non paganti.
Ecco dunque perché i free-to-play “impuri” sono chiamati, non senza disprezzo dai videogiocatori classici, “pay-to-win”. Di questa categoria esistono moltissimi esempi, specie da quando è stata introdotta nel mondo di videogiochi la categoria “indie”, cioè quella dei videogiochi creati e liberamente pubblicati dal pubblico. È chiaro che un programmatore basico, che non ha un’azienda alle spalle, crea un videogioco con l’intento di lucrare al più presto sullo stesso; e dunque il vendere contenuti, potenziamenti e item che rendono un giocatore più forte e senza sforzo è un’esca sempre funzionante nei confronti dei videogiocatori più giovani, che magari non sono passati affatto per la fase dei videogiochi in single player o i primi multiplayer negli anni '90, e 2000, dove spesso anche semplicemente reperire delle cheat per passare un livello impossibile, si rivelava cosa assai ardua.
Quantunque i free-to-play detti “pay-to-win”, sembrino essere una categoria più allettante dal punto di vista economico, almeno per gli sviluppatori, è materia a tutt’oggi molto dibattuta se essi avranno lunga esistenza o saranno scalzati infine dai free-to-play “ibridi”; molto dipende da quanto business si riuscirà a far girare attorno ai singoli giochi rilasciati (e quindi anche la necessaria bontà dei titoli stessi), e agli eventi di e-sports ad essi connessi.[/Quote]
EDIT: In the English version of Wikipedia there is less information, but there’s another term used for this kind of game: shareware. Instead of f2p, it can be tagged with this term if the plan is not to change anything at all in order to avoid misunderstandings.
Double post necessary to communicate a new important addition.
PRESTIGE FOR PROFILE LEVELLING UP ADDED AS BRAINSTORM IDEA. LINK REFERRAL IN THE FIRST POST.
No. Shareware means something else.
As mentioned above, f2p is most certainly not shareware even though they share many commonalities.
The price to get started is the same between both, free.
Both types of products either have time or feature limitations.
Types of purchases are however different. In the free to play model, it is far more piece-meal in design. In the case of KI, you can buy an additional character. Under the shareware model, it’d simply be a onetime payment to upgrade to a ‘full’ game. Sure, you can do that via buying a season, but the piecemeal approach solidly puts their business model in the f2p and not shareware category. Their seasons are simply a ‘bulk piecemeal’ approach.
An easy way to think it over is shareware was about spreading out demo copies to as many people as possible with the hopes of converting players into buyers. Once they bought the product, their job was done.
Free to play also encourages people to try the game for free. However, they do not bank on simply a one time purchase to full. Instead, they want you to stay hooked and continue to buy additional products. It may be additional time-sink removals or in the case of KI, more characters.
1 Like
Thanks for clarifying me the difference. In the Wikipedia they mentioned shareware as being just a title that have limited functions that will be unlocked with purchases, but I thought multiple purchases, not just a single one. I gave you a like.
Regarding to the topic, KI is using a F2P system that isn’t fitting with the demanding PC community, expecially when you see 9 games out of 10 using an hybrid F2P marketing choice, at least on PC (if you check the top 50 - 100 F2P PC games, they’re all using the hybrid system). The results may be catastrophical or irrivelant for an improvement in community.
There’s a long debate regarding this, even under a psychological profile. Moreover, there’s an enlighting example under our eyes of an impure F2P of the same genre created by a well known company that’s producing Tekken, one of the most reknown fighting games in the world: I’m talking about Rise of Incarnates. Despite now this game converted to an hybrid version, the result was a shower of negative criticism accompanied by a very very very low community presence. This was lead to the fact Namco never faced the exigences of PC gamers, hence doing a F2P for the Windows users.
So the real question is: what makes KI, a “new” title rose from the ashes of 15 years of waiting, to have a different fate than Rise of Incarnates, a game created by a good company that forged a evergreen franchise like Tekken? The answer might be the key…
1 Like
I think Wikipedia as a source might be the issue. I once derailed an article with a completely off topic note about Aliens and it stayed up for a few months, so it might be wise to site more than one source when looking for information. 
As far as the “true free to play” vs “hybrid free to play” argument, maybe we should look at KI’s system verus the Full Price model.
Before steam refunds, if you bought a game on the platform you were kinda stuck with it, regardless of the price. The reason why PC gamers have gravitated towards sales and FtP is mostly because there was a lot of money on the line.
Now that refunds are in place, people will likely be more willing to part with cash in risky purchases because they know that they can get their money back if they don’t like it.
Not to mention that high quality free to play games are the exception, not the rule. Most FTP games are free to play because it would be impossible to justify paying for them.
On the other hand, you can pick up a game for cash, even if it’s not a lot of cash, and generally you’ll be closer to a higher quality product. I could be a $60+ AAA title, or a game that’s a decade old for $10. I put a lot more faith in a low price game than a free to play game any day, and my steam library is evidence of this.
Plus, the pick your price model is a fairly consumer friendly middle ground. You could pay full price for all of the ultra editions (which come bundled with 2 extra games and a bunch of cosmetics), and if all you want to do is play the game, you get it at half price. And then, if you want to just play a single character as your main, you pay a measly price that would just get you a skin or two or maybe some early unlocks in most standard FTP games.
I think that if we just make it easier to try out new characters, the pricing model works just fine. As the game ages, prices will drop (the Complete Collection is around $60 right now) and more people will be keen on picking up the whole thing. I say before we start trying to “fix” KI, we need to let it release into the wild and see how it performs.
I read this only lately, because I was focused away and when I looked at the forum, I was busy in reading some absurdities of some people not wanting KI to be updated more than season 3. You might be right, however seen the previous experiences and overall how much limited this game is in fruition (you need Windows 10 on PC, hence a decent hardware), I think that prevention is better than healing. You can even experiment with a part of the product, not entirely. Even a graduate path to hybrid is accepted, at the pact the developers are showing the will of doing so and for this we need clear statements and a shine safe n’ sound future for this game.
I just saw some reviews regarding some games applying an impure F2P not only on Steam, but also elsewhere, around the net. The highest part of these are mostly negative, without looking at the quality of each product. A PC gamer = / = a console gamer also because, differently from them, we don’t pay a monthly subscription to play online plus we’re used to f2p games.
In conclusion: this system can be accepted only at the beginning, just as test, but there must be the will of changing it by the devs with concrete actions in case of a beginning of negative criticism.
You seem really hung up on the idea that the average PC gamer is the target audience for KI, and that therefore the game needs to be made to appeal to the typical mindset of the average PC gamer. I think you are missing out on the fact that this game is a niche genre and with that comes a smaller, but “built in” audience that isn’t expecting a LoL F2P model with the game.
1 Like
I’m not missing the point, don’t worry. I know it’s a niche genre, but if you want to increase people in a significant number, you have to move forward and to focus to other kinds of target. Dota 2 wasn’t focused only for the MOBA lovers, but Valve pointed to the average PC players and we know the results. I know, a MOBA isn’t a niche genre, but there were so many games of that genre the market would have been saturated. The key is how you present this product and for who.
If you stop yourself in focusing on “built in” audience, I feel sorry but this game would never fly higher because there are other titles that are doing it with more power and tools. You have to think out of the schemes, focus on the newcomers and average Joes too, to the ones who don’t know how to handle a fighting game and KI has a lot of potential about it. The tutorial is a great example: none of the fighting games of last generation is so detailed in giving information how to learn like KI.
This game is good for both casuals, because they learn easily how to move and might win in brief terms of time, and for professionals, because of the combo scheme of manuals and jugglers. When the devs are going to realize this great hidden potential KI might have, that would be the beginning of a significant increase.
Do you prefer a masterpiece or just a quite good product? Do you want to expand yourself in mid-long terms of time or are you looking to cow milking money in short terms? Do you want to make a lot of people closer to fighting games or you just focus on “stealing” the available market? These are the questions you have to answer. And from the answers, you have to actuate a different plan.
But perhaps it’s me I’m thinking too much in big and have a lot of imagination, don’t know at this point.
I think that for Season 1 and Season 2 characters,they should let you use every single character 10 times. If you want to keep on using a character,then you can select only 1 character and all other characters cannot be used. That one character is free. They choose. They can try all the characters first though. For Season 3,just make it a paid thing.
1 Like
This might be another cool idea. Because you create eterogeneity in the fighting pool of players. Plus, you attract even more people and will be more intended to pay for more afterwards.