Tweet
The art and business of video games has always been a complicated marriage. In the medium's formative days Atari's arcade game designers were never shielded from the pressing economics of their art. They would have to tweak each game in such a way that the majority of its players would lose the game within 90 seconds without, crucially, also losing their desire to play again. Too easy, and the game would fail to earn its keep - too difficult, and players would walk away nonplussed. In both cases the arcade machine risked being turfed from the bar in which it squatted: the art had to make money, else find somewhere else to take up residence. The symbiotic relationship has, in recent times, encountered fresh difficulties, brought about by the changing ways in which people play games. Free-to-play has, according to its vociferous advocates, brought about a revolution in the way in which games are distributed and monetised. League of Legends, arguably the most popular video game on the planet, can be downloaded and played gratis. Its developer makes money by selling characters and costumes for those characters, but it's possible for someone to play the game without spending any money. Whether you view this as a victory for business or for art probably depends on how old you are, and whereabouts in the world you live.
The business model certainly has its sceptics. The EU is currently examining the phrase 'free-to-play', considering it to be a misnomer. Many veteran game players, disillusioned with the greed-fuelled designs of free-to-play (a term that's usually shortened to the mucky, dated initialism 'F2P') on the App store argue that the business model often corrupts a game's design, introducing artificial barriers and hurdles that can only be removed with money. Many younger players have no such qualms, while, in the Far East, free-to-play is now the standard model.
Read more…
More...