Weekender: Future Free

Free-to-play used to be a dirty word. For some people it still is. It used to be synonymous with poor-quality, low-budget titles, that could only entice gamers with their non-existent price-tags.

How things change.

A look at the modern landscape shows an industry punctuated by increasingly capable, robust free-to-play games, games that are more and more frequently giving traditional Triple-A titles a serious run for their money.

Where did it start, and where are we heading? Those seem like the most pertinent questions to ask, but perhaps just as importantly, we need to ask ourselves why. Why are more and more studios experimenting with this unpredictable financial model?

Free-to-play gaming is a convergence of two different ideologies, each a world away from the other. The first games to experiment with this radical financial model were the MMOs.

MMOs used free-to-play to attract casual players to their servers. By offering gamers unsure of the genre a no-risk entry point, studios started getting attention for their games that they might not have otherwise received.

On the other side of the world, free-to-play also emerged in South Korea, born out of necessity as developers looked to extract money from a national industry crippled by piracy. Internet cafes sprung up in the wake of a massive telecommunications overhaul. A succession of inventive online titles (including Blizzard's Starcraft) brought gamers flocking to these 'PC bangs', and studios, national and international, seized upon the growing demand for micro-transaction orientated games in the country.

It wasn't long before the major publishers were taking note of the emergence of free-to-play. On one hand there were less popular, low-budget games attracting increasingly diverse audiences, and on the other were games that were proving massively popular, and entirely financed through micro-transactions, albeit in a very localised region.

EA's decision to release FIFA as free-to-play in South Korea ensured the game would end up in 1 out of 10 homes. Astonishing market penetration.

There are several ways in which free games monetise themselves, and with each passing year the methods used to extract money from our wallets/purses are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

At its most basic level the premise is simple. If you like a game, and want to experience it any depth, you're going to have to pay. Major MMOs World of Warcraft and Star Wars: The Old Republic are just two games that operate a free-to-play level ceiling. Advancing a character past a certain point will require a subscription, the idea being that if you've invested the 10/15 hours required to reach that level, you're probably going to want to continue playing.

Other games offer no such restriction on core content. You can play as long as you like, as often as you like, and it needn't cost you a thing. In Tribes: Ascend you can blast away ad infinitum with the three core classes, but if you want to specialise, and do anything beyond the generic then you're going to have to put your hand in your pocket.

Some games utilise in-game advertising. Blizzard's rumoured MMO, Titan, is reportedly set to do so, in fact the advertising itself points towards a particular, real-world setting. It's also a trick used by EA in several of their free-to-play offerings. However, it remains to be seen whether gamers would welcome widespread in-game advertising. I suspect they might not like it, but would ultimately acquiesce.

Then there are the micro-transactions made popular by gamers in Asia; a popular trend that is spreading like wildfire in the west. Initially made popular by titles like Second Life, it is now used in games from a variety of genres. Boosts, buffs, power items and vanity purchases make up the core offerings provided by studios, though there are two very different schools of thought when it comes to paying for in-game items.

Pay-to-win is a pretty self-explanatory label. They are premium items that when purchased offer gamers bonuses that elevate them beyond players relying on skill alone to succeed. It doesn't sound very fair, but that's because it isn't. The old adage "money equals power" comes into play, because if you've got the cash, certain games will allow you to gain a massive advantage over other gamers (unless they too stump up the readies).

The opposite of pay-to-win means purely superficial purchases, stuff to make you look cool. Weapon effects, costumes and the like; gear to make you stand out from the crowd. Most of these vanity items can be earned through in-game grind, but it takes a looooooong time. So long that eventually buying them, something you said you'd never do, becomes an attractive proposition.

Time is on the side of the developers. Just as you grind through their games, they grind through your ability to resist their charms. A relentless bombardment of new content, new buffs and costumes, all modeled by higher level players, keeps a never-ending shop window revolving in front of our eyes. Our will power is a finite resource, and game developers are becoming increasingly adept at circumventing our ability to say ‘no'.

There are several developers on the forefront of the movement toward free-to-play. A notable name that recently threw his hat in this particular ring is Crytek CEO Cevat Yerli. In a recent interview with CVG he said: "We see the future of consoles as free-to-play - ideally focussed on free-to-play. That's what I want to see in the future. But unfortunately not everybody shares this vision due to many other reasons."

Yerli predicts that unless console manufactures like Sony and Microsoft react now, tablets will soon be able to function in much the same capacity as your Xbox or Playstation. As soon as the processors are powerful enough, and we can stream direct from tablet to television, he predicts an industry defining shift.

"I believe firmly that the next-generation of tablets are going to be close to current-generation consoles. So if the next-generation consoles don't ship very soon, the tablets are just going to run over them. That's very clear. I've believed for about a year now that as soon as tablets can stream on to TVs, then there's no reason why you should buy a console anymore."

"We're still pushing the tablet game market ourselves, and you'll see both casual and hardcore titles from us."

This is important because tablet manufactures rely almost entirely on the proceedings generated by hardware sales and digital content, and much of that content is free-to-play via ‘lite' versions of popular games.

In Yerli's eyes, the biggest problem faced by console manufacturers is going to be dealing with a potentially difficult breakup with high street retail. How they handle this transition is, according to Crytek's CEO, going to define the future of gaming.

Of course he could be wrong. And leading the revolution puts Yerli and Crytek in a precarious position. It wasn't that long ago that the founder of EA, Trip Hawkins, left the company he had started to bet everything on the 3DO.

At the time it was considered by some as a means of putting the games makers, and not the console manufacturers, in pole position in the industry by creating a platform with technology that was accessible to all. It was to herald an era where the games came first, reducing the technology to play them on to nothing but mere household appliances, no more spectacular than a DVD player, or a satellite box.

It tuned out to be a false dawn, and the 3DO proved to be another nearly machine, an also-ran. It might have had potential, but for it succeed it required a seismic shift across the industry, and the industry wasn't ready. But companies like Crytek claim to foresee a future where free-to-play is the dominant force, and where game creators will no longer be dictated to by the power of the platform holders and retail. Sound familiar?

There are those rallying against the calls for reform. Many don't see the point of free-to-play, and quite rightly argue that the phrase is actually misleading. Whilst you can play for free in theory, to experience a game in any depth you have to open your wallet/purse. The initial ‘free' part is often restrictive, and not indicative of a ‘paid for' experience, much like a demo is now for a current Triple-A release, and there's nothing new about the demo.

There are plenty of gamers out there who, put simply, enjoy owning a console. They like the feel of a control pad, the familiar interface and social connectivity built up over years of gaming. They like going into town and picking up the latest game, paying up front and knowing what they're likely to get in exchange for their hard earned money.

Me, I'm skeptical. I think free-to-play has a place, and it's definitely not going away. But will we replace retail and consoles with a more radical financial model? I think there might be too many set to lose too much should the industry wholeheartedly embraces the new way set out by Cevat Yerli.

There's also the matter of scale. For every League of Legends success story, there's a dozen games that fall by the wayside, underplayed and unsupported. And whilst there may be a place at the top table for the very best that free-to-play has to offer, there are still dozens of free games that will struggle, and ultimately fail, because the demand just isn't there.

As with so much in life, the cream always rises to the top.

That said, I look forward to Planetside 2 and Warface, and if I play plenty, I'll probably pay up. But it wont stop me popping into my local specialist retailer and picking up the latest games for my console either. I'll do both.

Free-to-play is certainly part of the future. But for my money, and surely that's the point, there are going to be a variety of different ways to pay and play in the future, and this is just one of them.