Free for All: You know what they say about magnets...
Have you ever been trying to get to sleep, only to have a neighbor honk his horn or bang on the wall? At first, it's the startling volume or unusual nature of the sound that keeps you from sleeping. He quiets down, however, and you begin to doze off again. The next time the noise you hear is much, much quieter -- but he's still making noise. From then on, every noise you hear will keep you from getting to sleep, despite the fact that the volume of your fan or the crickets' chirping is much louder.
Claims of access to information set me off the same way. When I hear someone say that "free-to-play gamers spend more than the average subscription player," I am at first confused by the layers of non-information in the sentence, then angry that someone else might read that and take it as fact, then a little saddened as I realize that some people literally do take things they read on the internet as fact.
Anyway, this will make sense in the end, I hope. Want to read the rest? I won't tell you how -- it's the first conversational hurdle for you to jump over.
Let me be clear before I begin: These non-facts are said by people about different types of games and payment models. But this is a column centered on the world of the free-to-play payment model -- a strange concept for a column, but that's that. So if this article seems to be leaning on misinformation about free-to-play, forgive me.
Maybe an example will help explain the obsession I have had over the last few months.
"Most free-to-play games are of lower quality." There are many ways to look at this example, but pretty quickly you realize that there are, at least, two or three levels of wackiness going on here. First of all, let's look at the word "most." I don't have a dictionary handy, but "most" should mean "a majority." This would indicate that the person who said this would have experienced most free-to-play games. I have played probably more than anyone I know, maybe nearing 140, and I can tell you that 140 is not most. I know for a fact, since I have seen master lists of some of the titles that are currently running. There are hundreds. Not only has this person not played most (well, he may have), but he doesn't know the exact number of current, active titles. How would he know when he reached the 51 percent mark?
Next, we need to look at the "free-to-play" indicator. What does free-to-play mean, especially in today's market? I would argue it means that a player can download and play the game for absolutely nothing. Do the current crop of free-to-play attempts like EverQuest II Extended or Lord of the Rings Online count as free-to-play? If the argument is that free-to-play means that the entire game can be played for free, then would locking free players out of paid content truly count as free? Does this definition start to set up standards for what "true" content is? Is chatting content? Is exploration? Some might argue (like me) that even character creation is content -- it's a game in itself. What about velvet-rope or freemium titles like Wizard101? Despite official claims that many players experience the game without spending a dime, does playing minigames, socializing, or decorating a house count as "real" play?
Of course, the "lower quality" segment of the statement is my favorite, because it raises questions about why we believe what others tell us to believe. If I said, "LotRO is a higher-quality game than Flyff," what would you say? I know that some (I didn't type many -- I'm getting better!) would say, "Yes, LotRO is by far a higher-quality game," but then I would have to ask about the level of quality, what quality meant, and how different people can appreciate different things. I hate certain styles of art, for example, but many people find them irresistible.
Quality can only be strictly defined when we strictly define the qualifications. So, "This is a quality piece of wood" would need to be qualified by our defining what that means to the individual. The wood's hardness might be a qualifier; so might its weight. We all know of wood that is treasured for its color, but do all people enjoy the same qualities?
Watch this for a moment, all of it if you can:
It's easy to see how asking "why" can lead to several new layers of why. This is the same problem I have when someone tells me that he has information, solid information, such as "most players are dissatisfied." It's more than likely impossible that he would have such information, and even if he did, we would then have to begin analyzing what he meant in choosing those words. As a writer here at Massively, I get to witness firsthand the broad generalizations about gamers, games, and styles of gaming. I see it almost every day. Of course I am as guilty as anyone else, but like the noise at 3 a.m., it bothers me to the point that either I must never use such generalities again or I must be very careful when reading someone else's opinion. Or both, of course.
At this point you might be thinking, "Why isn't this pretentious guy just talking about Rose Online or something?"
Well, another thing I get to witness is the ability of others to believe anything they read online. Or at the least, to be influenced by some small thing they read online. Here's an example: Someone Tweeted the other day that "Fable III sucks. Why are they saying it's good?" Since I hadn't bought it yet, I started to wonder if I ever would. This one Tweet made me pause and wonder, "Gee, why are people saying it's really good?"
The comments section of these articles can serve the same purpose. My reviews, as well, can possibly sway someone's decisions. Still, I am the first to recommend that you avoid taking anything I say as gospel. If anything, enjoy my reviews and opinions as light reading, then go log into the game yourself.
Why do people state these "facts" then? I have a few theories:
For emotional release, similar to an art therapist's love for spattering paint
Out of a need to look like an expert, or as someone who has experienced more than he has
For a trollin' good time -- it turns out that infuriating writers is actually pretty fun
When I have mentioned this before, some responded with, "We let you test the games so we don't have to." While I understand that, I am usually not reviewing games that cost any money... the client is free, or the first month, or the trial. My opinions should be met with the same skepticism as any other. Understand that in the comment section there is no spell-check or fact-checker. If the game interests you, do not let me, or the readers, tell you otherwise. Download it and try it.
Remember that this goes for any opinion about any style or any payment model. The next time you read a doom-and-gloom post about "the end of an era" or "the death of a game," read it with a smile. These opinions are too often taken as fact and too often influence those who are new to gaming. After my wife and I impulsively bought a Kinect last weekend, I quickly read up on games we hadn't even owned yet. I wanted to see if any of the other titles were worth a darn. It turns out that, according to the articles I read, most were not.
Remember, though, that each of those games will cost me $60.
A free-to-play title costs you absolutely nothing. Even if some opinion-makers are correct and F2P games end up costing you "more than a subscription costs" (impossible, or we'd see a Nexon-owned Blizzard), you can still try them out. Investigate the opinion you just read. I truly believe that the one thing that will encourage innovation and creativity in the marketplace is an honest, and open, reception. We have to be able to tell developers what we feel without using such non-information as "low quality" or "most players feel."
There. Maybe now I can sleep.
Each week, Free for All brings you ideas, news, and reviews from the world of free-to-play, indie, and import games -- a world that is often overlooked by gamers. Leave it to Beau Hindman to talk about the games you didn't know you wanted! Have an idea for a subject or a killer new game that no one has heard of? Send it to beau@massively.com!
