Please support Game Informer. Print magazine subscriptions are less than $2 per issue
LFTE: Is It Out Of Control? (May 11)
There is a video game circle of life, and that circle begins with developers and publishers making money. Sure, there are starving developers and failing publishers driven by their love of games, but ultimately video games is a business, and businesses need to make money.
I would never argue against their right to make money. I enjoy playing games, and I don't mind paying for the privilege of playing fantastic games (that's the consumer's role in the circle of life, by -the -way).
But there is a beast on the prowl, and that beast is the rapidly developing "free-to-play" space.
The free-to-play model is conceptually great, as it allows consumers to experience a game before they decide to throw down their hard earned cash. But at this point in their evolution it feels like publishers are going to great lengths to "trick" people into spending significantly more money than anyone with a conscience should condone. I find this fleecing to be scary.
The Smurfs' Village, which has been in the top grossing iPad apps list for weeks at the time of this writing, offers a pay option for just about every action you can make in the game. The core mechanics are well designed and entertaining, but the game constantly bombards you with opportunities to pay cash to advance and severely limits the gameplay options unless you're willing to open your wallet. So is the game really "free-to-play"?
Given its continual ranking as one of the highest grossing iPad apps, it's obvious the game is successful and people are willing to throw down cash to perform all kinds of actions in games. Ultimately, I can't blame the companies for in essence "giving the consumer what they want."
But I foresee a nightmare scenario where I'm playing Street Fighter online, and every match requires a quarter. Even worse, imagine that in order to advance to the next section of Dead Space 3, you have to either wait for 108 hours for your "Action Points" to reset, or you can pay $5 for the next unseen portion of the game, which leaves you wondering how much you're really getting for your five bucks and asking how much further down the rabbit hole you have to go (or rather, how deep the publisher will reach into your pocket) before you reach the game's climax.
I understand that the people who have invested and created these products deserve an opportunity to make money, be it through advertising or selling items in game. I support that, but at what point does the obvious extortion pass the point -of -acceptability?
I’d like to ask you to support Game Informer’s continued coverage of games with a subscription. For less than two dollars per issue, we mail you a full year of 10 print magazines, each with cover stories and preview features filled with exclusive details about the most exciting upcoming games. We profile and interview game creators. We look back on the rich history of gaming, and we celebrate what’s next.
Here on the website, we offer much of our content for free, including game reviews, daily news, videos, event coverage, and more – all with minimal ads.
We do so with a small editorial team, alongside contributing paid writers from around the world – over 65 individuals from 9 countries around the world, just in the last couple of years.
It’s not possible without support.
In a time when game makers and games coverage have faced hard struggles and layoffs, the future of this 30+ year magazine and community is at risk. Our new standalone magazine subscription is the number one way you can keep us alive – and we believe you’ll get a pretty fantastic gaming magazine in your mailbox every few weeks for your trouble.
Thank you.
