No, I'm not saying that. But that wouldn't stop you, right?
Stop me from having an opinion about luck and balance? Nope
Exactly. Although we probably disagree about the length of that time-frame. I have seen very very few games where I'd consider it reasonable. And that's not a coincidence. The devs/publishers want to make as much money as possible.
I don't know why you would think that turning off players and making them quit their games is what devs and publishers want.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm very aware of the popular myth and paranoia about F2P games being a bunch of scams.
The truth, of course, is a little more complicated than that. As with all things, it depends on how you implement it - and it depends on whether you understand your audience or not.
It's very true that, in the beginning of F2P, it was not uncommon for publishers or suits to "misstep" in terms of the cash shops and how to go about making money in this new area.
However, I would like to claim that most of the people behind the established games using this kind of monetization scheme are much wiser today. When they're not - they're punished for it.
Just like what happened with EA and Battlefront 2. Not that I actually know if it was possible to earn that loot through normal play, as I didn't care for the first game and so I never really bothered playing the second one.
But suits are here to make a buck, and if they don't do it through one scheme - they will find another scheme. DLC is another very popular way of making money through minimal effort - and the principle is identical. Either the DLC is worth it - or it's not worth it. Either the full game is worth it - or it's not worth it.
As consumers, we can simply play the games that we find enjoyable and that's what I do.
Now, obviously, if I couldn't find a game to enjoy because of these schemes, then I might buy into it being a big problem. However, since I've played and greatly enjoyed countless games with and without microtransactions - as well as countless games with and without DLC - I'm kinda thinking something doesn't add up if they're all a bunch of scams.
I don't need to exaggerate or paint everything in the colors of black and white. That serves no purpose except to make me miss out on the great games that have found a reasonable balance when it comes to microtransactions.
Also, I think it's key to separate the suits from the artists. I can only recommend thinking about this a little beyond the paranoia-stage and the worst-case-scenario stage.
Usually, if a game is of high quality and it's entertaining - it's because the developers making the game actually cared about it - and despite what many are likely to think, they're not entirely powerless when it comes to the suits or the people holding the money.
It's a balancing act, always.
It may still affect PvE games with an player-to-player economy.
Certainly, but not in a way that matters to me at all. Again, not if I can earn whatever it is I want through normal and entertaining gameplay - which is all that matters to me.
Whether people "play the market" because they were lucky with drops - or because they paid actual money for something - is of exactly zero importance to me.
Again, if some people are rich in a PvE environment - it does nothing to me. Nothing at all.
I've never had the slightest problem making money in this kind of game - though it's rarely a big goal for me.
Also, I'm pretty sure I'm a prime candidate around here for having the most experience with games using this kind of model.
And it may affect a PvE game's design. As I said above, the devs will be tempted to increase the grind.
I think you mean suits are tempted to increase the grind
I think I've already explained that I don't play games with an unreasonable amount of grind.
I don't know why anyone would, to be honest.
All that matters to me is that I'm having fun. If I'm secretly being exploited in some way that I can't detect - I'm going to have to say I don't mind in the least.
In that latter case, buying a shorter game would be fixing the experience, not ruining it. And that does not seem to be very desirable to me.
I'm not sure I understand what you mean here.