I have no problem with the F2P model, but only with games that require one to be online. I realize online gaming is where things are going, but being forced to have an Internet connection to play; i.e. Diablo 3; is against my principles. I'm an old school Personal Computer owner and gamer (TRS 80, 386, 486, and so on up the line). When I buy a new computer it must have a floppy drive. I like to have backup. When it comes to gaming, I don't mind buying online, digital only content, but I want a disk with all the stuff I've payed for and the codes that come with said stuff regardless (I've had accounts re-purposed by people I've never met. having the codes to prove ownership of my account has been valuable. Stardock/Impulse being one of the accounts tampered with, which is another problem with game/content being Internet only). If all of my content is on my online account, an option to have it put on disk and sent to me in the mail would not go amiss. I would have no problem paying for the game and little extra for this kind of option.
Relying on the Internet is a chair ready to be pulled out from under a person or, in my case particularly, a crutch that breaks about every thirty minutes to an hour. Some have argued, 'get better Internet'. The problem that most don't realize is that many areas, mine for instance, only have one to two providers and neither are very good. I could get satellite, but that is prohibitively expensive for a speed that does any good. The World Wide Web is far more fragile or limited than many want to believe. The infrastructure isn't what it's billed to be (Look at cell phone plans. The Verizon, AT&T, or which ever it was that finally said, 'We can't provide unlimited anymore, because it turns out that IT is limited.'). When Sky-net or zombies take over, I'm not the only one who's going to be upset when he can't sit in his bunker, start up the old backup generator, and play games.
I like not having to tote my game discs around with me when I travel. I use cracks so I don't have to carry around said disks (I own all of my games. Cracks for me are a tool of convenience, nothing more.). I like the option to buy more content for a game, which is why I don't have a major problem with DLC. I don't mind the requirement to be online if I want to keep track of my achievements, stats, play multi-player, register my game, or whatever. But I want the ability to play without an Internet connection being required (I'm looking down my nose at you again Diablo 3). Unless it's an MMO, but that goes without saying.
As far as F2P goes, I like it for the most part. I read an earlier comment about LOTRO, which I also play. I would agree that it is a viable and effective business model. I'm a lifetime subscriber to LOTRO and I get free points because of it, however, I still buy points because I never have enough. If they'd kept the old model, then I'd just buy the expansions like everyone else and be done with it. By making the game F2P they get a lot more money from someone who'd usually not be bothered. If WoW took the F2P model, which probably will never happen, I might go back to playing that. Another F2P model I like is Guild Wars. Buy the game and done, from the beginning. If you want more, buy the expansions. I also like how Guild Wars will let me out into the game world by myself or only my group. It cuts down on a lot of system resources and is, in my opinion, far more fun. I don't like having to camp for kills, listen to who knows what in chat, or put up with those who yell 'noob' at the slightest action that isn't in line with their younger, and therefore inferior, play style or ability, even if I prove that my way is better. Seriously, I've been playing games since before they were born, but I digress.
To sum up, F2P is an excellent business model, but only to certain genre's of game-play. If I'm forced to have an active Internet connection to play, I get turned off. If I don't have the option to get a physical, hard-copy, disk in my hands I get turned off. If you want to get my money on a game that requires Internet, then it had better be good and offer new content at a later date; either DLC, add-ons, expansions, and the option to obtain all of them on a disk. If you only offer a game in an online digital format, then it had better be cheaper than if I was going to buy it in the store (I remember going and buying PC games for 40 and 50$ so I expect it to be cheaper than even this. Good job on the pricing for the new Sins of a Solar Empire.). I also remember shareware. That did ID Software and Doom a good turn. Many demos don't give me a large enough scope to definitively say, "I want this game." I still usually wait for a friend to play and tell me how good it is. I don't read or care about big name critics either. Many of my favorite games get torn apart. Kind of like my favorite movies and their reviews. If it gets a bad review then it's probably good.
One final note. If a game sells big, for years, because of it's style of play; i.e. Command and Conquer; don't change the game-play on the final installment. The reason it sold for all those years was because it worked the way it was. It wasn't broken. If you come up with a new style of play that is fun, which CnC4 play was, make a completely new game using the new style. I don't want to hear, "We're advancing the genre". If you want to advance it, fine. But with an independent game. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. That goes for story too. I'm a soon to be published Sci-Fi writer and the last thing I want to hear is someone else on what they think, in their uninformed opinion of my story, is wrong with my work beyond grammar and spelling. Don't even get me started on the Mass Effect 3 ending.
Well, that's more than my 2 cents, for what it's worth.
