First there were free-to-play games, but are "view-to-play" games next?
GamesBeat: Gaming goes well beyond the consoles. For 2014, you can expect to see innovations in cloud gaming, virtual reality, and mobile devices. To help sort it out, we caught up with four industry leaders at the 2014 International CES tech trade show in Las Vegas for a panel on five trends that are driving gaming.
Started reading and almost immediately stopped. It looks like a great material and bookmarked it for later reading with the due time.
Despite a rabid interest from fans and a spotlight reveal at EA's press event, SimCity Social was nowhere to be seen on the show floor. It took a little detective work around the booth, but Player Attack finally tracked down Jami Laes, Vice President of Global Studios for Playfish, who is working closely with Maxis to bring SimCity to this all-new platform. While details on the game are being kept tightly under wraps (the team is understandably protective of its IP), there was still plenty to chat about.
"We believe in F2P and ads--both done right can be great, you will see," the company said. "We want to develop fast and have fun launching multiple games per year and not work multiple years per game."
Zero Creativity...
Mobile gaming is a plague that should be removed of this world.
"Free"-to-play
This is news? Plenty of games already force you to watch ads.
I'll get disagrees, but I encourage the lot of you to think about this for a moment. View-to-play is an inconvenience, sure. But let's not get carried away in denying its utility. I know the cost varies by country, but at least here in North America, the cost is the same from last generation ($60USD). There's the common DLC argument, but DLC sales are only good if (a) people are buying your DLC which, to even be a possibility, they would have to (b) have an internet connected console. It isn't guaranteed revenue from games you managed to sell. Consider also that developers don't make $60 per game because that's retail pricing, not wholesale; even then a portion goes to publishers and platform holders (which are sometimes one-in-the-same). Generating revenue from in-game ads doesn't seem like such a bad idea because you can pull in money from other industries to subsidize the costs.
If it saves jobs/adds jobs and keeps the cost of buying a game down, I would struggle to find much fault with that. If you're insistent that you will never benefit from whatever is being advertised, treat the ads as you would the old Bloodborne loading screens. Nothing to read, nothing to watch. Check your phones. Call your mums. Turn off the stove. Whatever it might be.
EDIT: Presumably, developers are making back some money with digital sales (hence the incentives they offer to buy digital on the storefronts) since the prices are still retail in most instances, The Witcher III: Wild Hunt being a bit of an exception. Developers could get greedy and maximize profits by still selling digital for $60 USD...or they just might pass along some savings with in-game ads if you go digital.
I don't have a big problem with ads, it's just that I fear there will be far too many ads during the game that will cause me annoyance. If that's the case, I will not be into this at all.