Most free to play games have completely different mechanics to traditional games. Typically you get to a certain level, after which you are hooked, then you are faced with a choice: Pay or keep grinding. There's no real end, so even if you choose to pay now, you will face the same decision again. I assume a lot of users will abandon the game at this point, because most games purposely don't make the grinding fun to encourage you to pay.

Compare this to a traditional game like Cities: Skylines. You pay once for the base game, then there are various DLC expansions that work as you suggest. You don't need them to complete the game, they just add new features and can only be purchased once.

Edit: 'Pay to win' is a better description for most games in this category (and Clicker Heroes 1 looks to follow that), although there are some free to play games like Dota 2, which have DLC that just provides cosmetic changes and isn't needed to win.

There are games like EU4 or other paradox games that kind of straddle the barrier. You don't need the DLC, but your game is updated and the AI and all other players you play with has it so your game will get worse over time unless you pony up.

You can all keep playing the updated base game, and they even allow you to pin a specific version if you don't like the updates.

And for multiplayer just 1 player (I think the host) has to have the DLCs, everyone else gets them for free.

And BTW, Cities: Skylines is distributed by Paradox :)

Not quite though; every DLC comes with a patch that everyone gets, with general improvements to the game but you don't get the additional DLC features unless you buy it.

You could but the profitability of free2play games are whales. I don't remember where I read it, but the vast majority of people playing free2play mobile or Facebook games never spend a single dollar.

This means that if you set a limit on it, you'd be limiting your profit by an extreme amount.

I'm all for it by the way, I think games that sell game affecting content for thousands of dollars are targeted scams portraying as games to get away with it.

Especially because games like league of legends and path of exile had shown how you can do free2play while only selling cosmetic items, if you make a good game.

Minor nitpick: League of legends requires you to purchase heroes as they come out, and this gives the player incentive to spend ~5$ every month or so. DOTA would be a better example as you are not required to purchase heroes.

It's possible to never pay a dollar in League, and wind up owning all champions. The problem is how long it takes to unlock them all with the free in-game currency (previously IP, now Blue Essence). It takes 3-4 years of near-daily play. Once you own all to-date champions, there is no monthly real-money requirement - you earn enough free currency to instantly buy new champion releases.

Some people, like me, spent a ton of real money to unlock all champions faster. According to Riot, it's not "necessary" to have all champions unlocked. However if you don't own a champion, you cannot pick that champion early in the team drafting phase for someone else to play (swap/trade) - even in ranked. It is a disadvantage, though admittedly minor - a 5 man team that owns all champions has more flexibility in drafting than an enemy team that has holes in what they own.

Not true. You also get points for playing a game. With enough points you can buy any heroes.

With enough play times, you'll have more than enough to buy all the heroes without paying real money and then there's nothing else you can use it for.

Real money is only required if you want to buy skins.

Also, with hundreds of available champion to play you are not really required to play the most recently released champion. Just play from pools of all existing champions until you get enough point to buy new champion.

You’re absolutely right, I forgot because I haven’t played it for a lot of years. Back when I played unlocking the heroes was relatively easy, but I can imagine how it isn’t like that anymore considering how many heroes they must have added by now.

Let’s not also forget that they make a hero a little OP at launch and then it gets tuned.

Exactly why I quit playing league of legends. The meta is much more stable in DOTA as a result of the champions being free (and properly balanced).

Train Simulator 2018 does that. All the DLC comes to $7800.

This is something that comes up often as an example, usually mentioned by someone who doesn't actually play the game.

Simulators are different. You do not gain competitive advantage by buying DLC. You get some more content, and usually they're high quality, historically accurate and come with nice documentation (checklists, etc).

No-one would have the time to play with all the DLC in train simulator. There is hours worth of playing in each. Heck, it took me an hour just to figure out how to get a steam locomotive out of the rail yard.

Flight simulators and racing sims (iRacing) are similar. You can expect to spend hours of time with a new aircraft or race car. In racing, you race against others with the same or similar car, so you gain no advantage.

I can warmly recommend trying out Train Simulator or Trainz. It's fun and relaxing gameplay.

That's different. That game is more like a real life train set. People buy the types of trains that they are interested in playing with.

The sad thing is that Pay2Win is coming to triple A games like Need for Speed Payday, Forza 7, Star Wars B2. These completely wrong trend deserves all the outcry that happens right now. If EA and MS try to destroy video games, it's just stupid, their greed will scare the real players away.

Exactly. I have no real problem with a company charging for cosmetic stuff (unless it's limited-time-only, which hurts addicts) but pay2win makes the games pointless.

One issue with that is that it cheapens the other route you can take.

If you need 100 hours to unlock all the characters (playing through lots of times was common for fighting games I recall) but you advertise you can buy them for $60, it puts a price on your time and takes the achievement of spending those hours getting better and puts it as "worth $60".

There are more to the life than the destination.

That's why some people make their own furniture, while other can buy it for $100.

The furniture you make yourself is a) unique and b) not artificially scarce.

App stores could easily enforce a rule like this. The maximum price could also appear next to the download link for the app so you know what you're getting into.

The Play Store already does that.

From what I can tell, the Play Store only shows a price range per individual in-app-purchase item, not a maximum overall spending limit.

It is in the 'read more' button allowing you to read the whole app description.

Maybe it is A/B tested ? I doubt it though, I think it is an old feature.