DOTA 2 to be free to play, What do you prefer?

Something like this, I'd prefer it to be FTP. Personally, I'd rather buy it straight up like you Wes. But I've been in too many situations that any price tag, even ten bucks, is enough to keep people from playing. You know I host a lot of little LANs, when you have ten to fifteen people you have just enough people there that someone is isolated if they don't own a game. It is really difficult finding games that everyone owns and is interested in. The FTP model removes that barrier.

It may create another, as far as purchasing upgrades goes (better weapons in Tribes, for example), but I'd rather someone be complaining that they got shut down than not being able to play at all. As long as the model separates paid items from experience (you can't buy runes in LoL with real money, for example), the player has the opportunity to change that by playing more.

I Think that LOL has pretty much dominated the F2P market for this style of game. I think Dota 2 has to be F2P just to keep people playing. Although, i do wish they'd provide an option to "buy" the game, giving access to all champs, for $40 or whatever they'd normally charge. I know i'd play HON more if i had all the champs like i did during the beta. I didn't know they were going to change it to F2P. If i had known i would've bought it because they had alot more people playing when it went that direction, but i'm only good (well not-terrible) with a few champs...

I like how LOL forces you to play for certian items and that everything in the game can be gotten through game play. but if you really want a champ or a limited edition skin, paying money is always there to help you out!

And as far as the survey goes, i think a genre of game needs to be tetermined. I think paying for items ruined TF2, so in that instance, i think you should only be allowed to pay for the game up front. Also could you imagine how crappy it would be in BF3 or the latest COD for someone to be able to buy a better noob tube that totally wrecked everyone!?!?!? Some games should require playing to get better, not just having the most expendable income...

Twodavez wrote: I think paying for items ruined TF2

Please expound upon your position.

garfi3ld wrote:

Dreyvas wrote:

Twodavez wrote: I think paying for items ruined TF2

Please expound upon your position.

For me, what I liked the most about TF2 was that everything had a counter. For example, even with all of the big updates. If someone had back burner for example you could just avoid letting them get behind you. Now there are so many different weapons there is no way to know them all.

That's true, but 95% of them just seem to be some small % of stat advantage/drawback, so meh.

garfi3ld wrote: Its funny adam because the first thing that comes to mind for me is how much you have spent on LoL. being F2P I feel like you have paid for (a lot of)other people to play the game.

Indeed, which is why:

Lersar wrote: Personally, I'd rather buy it straight up like you Wes.

But I enjoy the benefits of being able to say 'play this, its free' instead of someone not being able to play at all. That being said, most of the money I have spent on LoL has been on vanity; skins and such. When I first started, I was able to unlock a champion that I wanted permanently within a handful of AI matches. I didn't spend a penny on it, and started developing my skills with a character I enjoyed.

There is still a lot in the air about Dota 2, like if they are going to release new characters. If not, then it makes sense what they are doing, which by the way, from what I've read Valve IS giving you access to all characters for free, its just going to be vanity. Either way, with something like League of Legends, I can't blame them; they are constantly releasing new champions. To say pay this much and get all that content for free even indefinitely into the future is quite generous. And by the time you're to the point of being skilled enough to want to play every champion, you're likely to have amounted enough IP to buy quite a majority of them.

True about being able to eventually buy all the characters, but remember you still have to buy runes with those IP points, and if you're hard core, you're going to need different rune books for each character type, maybe even each individual character...

It's like playing an MMO...you need to grind to get your gear. I admit I've spent alot of money on LoL but I only did after I decided that I really liked the game and that I was gonna play it for a loooong time. I want a game to be free so I can try it and see if I like it. If I like it I'll spend money on it.

garfi3ld wrote: But couldn't you do the same with a playable demo?

Meh, to me demo's seem to just show you the best part about the game and not the negatives. Which it should do don't get me wrong, but it's hard to decide if it's worth buying with just a demo.

garfi3ld wrote: A Demo could be the free to play portion of the games though, then you just pay to get the rest of the features.

Well that's true haha never thought of it that way

garfi3ld wrote: A Demo could be the free to play portion of the games though, then you just pay to get the rest of the features.

You just described WoW's current model exactly.

garfi3ld wrote: A Demo could be the free to play portion of the games though, then you just pay to get the rest of the features.

I'd be a little worried about quality at that point. So we have all these players who paid X amount of dollars and expect new characters to be released and included in that purchase.



When you have to pay to unlock a character, through money or earned in-game credit, the developer has the incentive to make it so you want to. Again, will this even be an issue with Dota 2?

Worth mentioning too, I like how Riot has avoided the 'you make the crappy stuff free and the good stuff cost money' argument that exists with F2P models with rotation. Also gives a nice chance to 'demo' champions.

But it is another reason why I'd lean more towards the micro transaction model for most instances. To be honest, I'm thinking strictly in terms of the MOBA genre at the moment.

So we played some Dota2 the other night, I noticed that you can buy beta access for $39.99.

So I kinda wondered to myself, is this any different than when a company brings out a game that is not free to play then transitions to that model?

not sure how i missed the playable Demo conversation, but let me put in my $.02

The playable demo i don't think would work on a game like this. Wow is scaled to become harder as you hit higher levels, there is soo much more to do. But in a game like Dota 2 or any others in this genre, you start and end each game in that match. There isn't along of building up of items at the lower levels, so you really can't figure out the game to the extent you should to be playing with people based off a demo. you need to be able to have all options/characters/runes whatever available to be able to remain competitive... Plus since the game style from LOL, to HON, to now Dota 2 is different (even slighty) it's going to take some commitment to get good and undersand those differences to use them to your advantage.

Playable Demo? good idea in a FPS, but i'm not sure it would work for a game like Dota 2.

if they really wanted, just make it free but put a $50 package to unlock everything out today. Then after 6 months, take that away, and just allow poeple to buy little by little... It's the best of both worlds. I know i'd play more HON if i would've bought it prior to it going Free to play. I just do'nt have the energy to grind the characters i want...

Well i guess that was more $.50 worth, so sorry

garfi3ld wrote: I thought that was interesting actually. You are actually buying yourself 40 bucks in skins and whatnot, but you get a beta key for a friend when you do it.

Is that what it is? That would make a little more sense. I thought you could actually straight up buy a beta key by itself.

Edit: Here's a screenshot. It does come with a lot of perks, too.




I thought the phrasing was interesting that they point out its only available on PC. I wonder if this has to do with them working with the PS3 on past projects or foreshadows something...

For DOTA2, everything is unlocked, the only transactions are for decorative items.
This isn't a bad idea, but it kinda works against the game at the same time: There is already a lot of items available for Dota2, yet not many heroes have items yet. Eventually, the shop will be more flooded than TF2, and item 'drop rates' will be even worse. Those that want to buy decorative items will have a hard time navigating the store unless it is heavily overhauled, and players are likely to buy just a few things and be done with it.

The unlocking system gives a bit more purpose to playing for early players, as it allows stronger rewards and choices, rather than the infrequent random drops for idling in TF2.

In my opinion, Dota2 will have to add new content aside from this to keep things going, and as new characters are doubtful, I would say new modes, maps, and options are needed. LoL has been lucky to provide decent options without segregating the player base, and Dota2 has to keep up and even surpass this with a great deal of polish.

Some may believe that the game will stay popular without ever changing. Diablo 2 is a case of lacking expansion packs and remaining popular, but it's the constant random item rewards that creates the strong community. With Dota2 lacking any tangible improvement factors for player commitment (aside from improving your own gameplay and learning the tricks), I think it will have occasional playerbase issues.
Maybe this will be good, as huge playerbases tend to bring in bad behavior, and maybe people will be nicer in Dota2. But I can tell from personal experience, I only bother to play Dota2 rarely, and with friends. It's a good game, just very rough to get into and not as fun and rewarding to me.