Search
Freemium is the future, says EA
July 30, 2012 10:06AM PDT
EA Interactive boss says "humans like free stuff," not sure about free-to-play on consoles; BBC Worldwide digital specialist says free-to-play model can lead to greater quality.
The freemium business model is going to be the market-leader, according to digital authorities speaking to UK trade site MCV. The model–whereby a games' basic experience is free to play with purchase options also available–can be lucrative, claimed EA Interactive senior vice president and general manager Nick Earl.
Free-to-play games are not only here to stay, but will take over, claims EA.
“The future is not about one-time payments, the future is about freemium,” Earl said. “A decent number of people convert to paying and they may not pay a lot, but most of them actually pay more than you’d think."
Earl wasn't sure about the freemium business model working on consoles, but said "humans like free stuff," and gamers are likely to pay for something that they've tried and enjoyed.
Another EA executive, COO Peter Moore, said last month that microtransactions will be in every game. He said this change is "inevitable" and will happen in the next five-to-ten years.
"It is no different than…it's free to me to walk into The Gap in my local shopping mall. They don't charge me to walk in there," he said at the time. "I can walk into The Gap, enjoy the music, look at the jeans and what have you, but if I want to buy something I have to pay for it."
BBC Worldwide's executive vice president of digital entertainment and games Robert Nashak also chimed in on freemium, saying it's an optimal business model, and can even lead to greater quality.
“It turns out free is the price point people want to pay for games," he said. "What’s beautiful about it is the freemium model really favors quality games because everyone gets to try before they buy and I think it’s going to lead overall to better quality, because if you’re not hooking people in you can’t monetize. I think freemium changes the landscape and raises the quality bar in a good way.”
Eddie Makuch (Mack-ooh) is a News Editor at GameSpot. He lives in Connecticut, works out of the company's New York City office, and loves extra chunky peanut butter.
239 comments 52 people listening
Post comment as
+ Follow conversation
Post to 
You know, with all this talk of Freemium and pay-to-win, I'm reminded of an arcade game that was made back in 1990 (bonus points if you can guess the name.) It was part of a highly successful series at the time. The first two games were pretty straightforward. Tight controls, reasonable difficulty (for an arcade game), and just plain fun overall. The third game, however, was a huge step down, and one of the biggest reasons for this was the inclusion of an in-game shop. This shop sold all of the neccessary items for the game: extra lives, weapons, even the very skills your character can use (everything the previous games offered you for FREE.) The catch… to buy something, anything, you had to put in a quarter. That's right, you had to spend REAL MONEY to buy something in the game. This idea was ridiculous back then, and it is just as ridiculous now.
When that day comes, I will retire gaming for good.
43 minutes ago ReplyLike 
1 more
EA just will not stop until they ruin the whole game industry. I hate F2P because it is very deceiving. Nothing is free and were made to believe, "there might just be a chance". Rich people get everything and the average person gets a tinkle. I want to pay my base price for a game and get the full package, although with DLC nowadays that's not really true but at least be get the base game and don't have micro-transactions everywhere. Well I just hope EA dies and that the studios under then don't go under too.
Someone should tell Peter Moore that the stupid GAP analogy makes no sense at. Every time I hear him say that, like a broken record, it's like nails on a chalkboard. And then this other guy says:
"humans like free stuff, and gamers are likely to pay for something that they've tried and enjoyed."
Yeah… it's called demos buddy. We've had them since 2005 on consoles. Of course I would expect EA to love the "freemium" business model, cause it's a way to rob consumers even more than they already do now. EA will charge for every weapon, character skin…. hell… I wouldn't even be surprised if they charged by the bullet.
F2P isn't the best model for making money. If it was, the majority of companies would be using it. The only reason that it is doing well right now is because it is a relatively new idea, and since not everybody is doing it yet especially not the core developers, it is making some money. As with any other business profits boom until more producers are introduced to the market to drive business down. Which is most likely what we will be seeing over the next couple years. Also F2P really only works well with multi-player games that can keep somebody engaged for a long time; I really doubt that it would translate well to a single player experience. Nice try EA, but you don't seem to know your customers as well as you think you do. Micro-transactions, however, are something that I think will be here to stay even in single-player games. I don't mind that, as long as it's mostly cosmetic and doesn't detract from the playing experience if you don't pay for it.
Didn't I already read this crap somewhere months ago? Anyways, the day games turn "freemium" and try to nickel and dime me is the day I quit playing games.
FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK FUCK U EA (Egotistical A-holes)
Seems like the freemium model rakes in more of the money than standard boxed games. The main issue here is the quality almost inevitably takes a straight nose dive. Comments like this don't surprise me in the least bit when they come from 2 bit fucks like EA. It's become blatantly obvious that they care for nothing but money.
………EA…just die please….we dont need you anymore…
MAN I HATE EA!!
I don't understand who is the target audience for these comments. Some gamers swear by F2P; others won't touch it with a ten-foot clown pole. Few of them will be swayed by these comments. Others are ambivalent, but I think it's just good habit to try something before you judge. I don't see how claims about the future helps EA's case. Is this about investors who are skeptical about EA's future direction? I hope GS's editors chime in on this. What is EA up to with these recent comments?
Anyway, some MMO games really benefit from F2P. I didn't realize this until Planetside 2. If you want a single map to be consistently populated by thousands of players, relying on game buyers alone probably won't be enough. You have to open it up to many more people; the trick is, of course, to keep your paying customers as, well, paying customers while not to make non-paying customers feel like fodder. Done right, I concede F2P is the way to go for certain types of games.
It's certainly unproductive to categorically reject all F2P games. But most of us know that already. I am thinking about my original question again? Why do some people keep publicly asserting that F2P is the only way to the future? Is it because they can't or won't compete in the traditional game market, so they hope everyone else give it up? Is that a similar sentiment to "since I cannot find happiness, I want the whole world to burn"?
Am I the only one who read the title as ''premium''? Or it's just me having poor sight….
Just you and nobody else. Poor you. matok1
really, it depends on what kind of free-to-play model your talking about, give me the game for free and make me buy optional things for like $1 each and it's always mine….sure I don't think many people would have a problem with that. But if I'm playing something like Call of Duty and I have to purchase each item I want every time I spawn for 25 cent each time, then a lot of people will say screw gaming.
The guy doesn't get it at all.
It's not that people love free-to-play games.
It's that the quality and length of games has decreased by such a great degree over the years that it's no longer worth it to buy most games released.
That's the only reason free-to-play games are attractive to people. Because you don't get the value that you used to out of most $60 games these days.
sircyrus Oh god, tell me about it. I am so sick and tired of 5-hour campaigns, the only way I'd get my dollar's worth is to engage myself in the multiplayer, which is something I often have zero interest in.
And don't get me started with games that don't have multiplayer at all, but are short to begin with. I'm looking at you, Force Unleashed II… D:<
sircyrus
Pretty much, people need to stop making games that last for six hours. for Sixty bucks with no replay value. Beyonetta is a good example singleplayer game but you can definelty get 60 hours from it.
Free to play but Pay to win
saikang QFT
free to play is "free" in the same way that universal healthcare is. This is going to give them too much power. Does anyone really think they won't abuse this system? You'll basically get a demo, and if you want anything good you'll have to pay out the ass for it
DeFiLeDTitan
Look bellow. There is no one thinking they won?t.
The more you tighten your grip, Moore, the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
malec_1
I don't know how apt your comment is as a response to his comment, but yours is way more awesome.
Unfallen_Satan It's analogous to big publishers squeezing every last dime they can from their customers. F2P is their Deathstar. They think it will allow them to control our gaming, but instead it will be their downfall.
EA is all talk. They keep talking about this stuff but they don't have the guts to make their sport franchises 'freemium' or any of their other AAA titles. I would like to see EA convert all their franchises to freemium and see how well they do then.
This is absolutely sickening. When will these corporate nutjobs realize that it is these kind of schemes that are killing the industry, not used game sales. Game development used to be about creativity, and giving the player the most fun and unique experience possible. Now, however, it's all about maximum profit with minimum effort, all at the expense of integrity. Maybe this is what the 2012 cataclysm is about. Not the end of the world, but the end of video games as we know them.
5 hours ago ReplyLike <img alt="beuneus12" src="http://livefyre-avatar.s3.