EA Boss: "All Games Will Be Free To Play In Five To Ten Years"



+ Add a Comment


This guy looks like a friggin creeper. F2Play must be the model he uses to attract young boys! *budump ching!*



Don't think all games will become free-to-play. It seems, at least right now, alot of F2p games are getting a bad rep as inferior to titles you would actually pay for. From what I am seeing, this is generally correct. If this be the case, this could send the wrong signals to potential customers who believe in that logic (that F2p games are garbage).

Personally, I don't think it will happen anyway as nothing good in this world is free (or very few things anyway). I don't mind alot of the F2p games I already tried.

"So to "rent" swimsuit underwear for 30 days - 4600 NX or $4.60!
Almost 5 bucks just for underwear I haven't even started looking at hairstyles, never mind a sweet sword or armor set."

And that has also annoyed me. I'd rather not continuously paying to "rent" something. If I wanted to do that I would go sign up for a Gamefly account where I have to pay such amount of money every month.



It makes me glad to know that there is a massive backlash and outright ousting of anything EA in the professional game design communities right now.

There isnt one single independent game developer in the world who has any respect for these shit weasels at EA.



tried Vindictus this weekend.... What surprised me and angered me a little about the online store was that the items you could buy were only temporary, for 30 days then you had to buy it again.

So to "rent" swimsuit underwear for 30 days - 4600 NX or $4.60!
Almost 5 bucks just for underwear I haven't even started looking at hairstyles, never mind a sweet sword or armor set.

It's comical really that people will pay that. Can't people do simple math anymore? 4.6 * 12 = 55.2 or full box price of a regular game just for the underwear portion of this stinker!

in conclusion FTP is a fad right now that will disappear once people (ie the masses) figure out the scam.



"I think, ultimately, those microtransactions will be in every game, but the game itself or the access to the game will be free,"

Translation: "You won't own your software, and won't have any legal rights to it. Buggy game? STFU, it's free. By the way, want a user license for a SCAR-H? That'll be $5. Want to unlock destruction spells? $5. New clothes for your character? $5. Access to the map everyone is playing? $25. Keys to the next city in your adventure? $15. Climactic part of the singleplayer storyline? $20. Multiplayer? $20/ month."

EA isn't a charity house of non-profit love. They're interested in adopting the business model of a crack dealer: make it free at first, get people hooked on the experience, and then nickel-and-dime them later. Games will become glorified demos. They'll suffocate primary development time, release a broken, buggy product (that we don't have a legal right to complain about since we never paid for a user license - but, hey, don't worry "they'll fix it with patches") and develop content well after people have actually started playing the game. Not only will the games be crap at initial release, but it is conceivable that the price will never have a limit. They'll give everyone a basic game design and engine, like an empty house, and a subscription service that will act as a money pit to furnish it. The new gaming model that their CEO is suggesting will further degrade the quality of games at release, make reliance on failure-excusing patches even stronger, and swing the door wide open for first day DLCs and other money-grubbing "microtransactons". I don’t have any problem paying money for the entire scope of a group of artist’s work, and owning a user license for that work outright. But EA doesn’t see games that way. They’re not in this business to create brilliant, classic experiences. I don’t think they even realize they are, in part, engaged in a storytelling medium. I hope that some buffoon executive at EA makes a fatally greedy business error, and runs them straight into the ground before they get a chance to take the industry down with them.



Say goodbye to innovation, AAA quality physics and graphics, single player and large maps. Of course, F2P games in the future will all advertise as AAA quality, but we know they won't be.



I wouldn't mind EA games being free to play. I've spent enough on their P.O.S. games which I can't invest a whole lot of time in (compared to others) because of their lack of replayability (or just plain playability). I wouldn't pay a dime for their P.O.S. games now.



I certainly hope that the majority of games do not become free to play, F2P games suck and when it comes to competitve gameplay or MP it's pay to win all the time.

Being a Hardcore PC gamer I'm fed up with publishers (I mean U Activision and EA!) dumbing down games to appeal to the masses. Actually I don't mind a slight increase in AAA titles prices, like 60/70$, if it helps the devs deliver better products.

In that case I rather see shitty to average F2P games for the masses, and then paying games meant for us real gamers, be it on console or PC. Games are real work, artistic, storytelling & competitive experiences. It's normal for them to have a price tag when it costs millions do produce them. When a big Hollywood movie goes out, do we see it for free at the cinema? Nope. If I want to play most ball sports competitively in a proper field, with a proper team, I join a club and pay it to gain access.

On the plus side, there is no other leisure activity as cheap as gaming, I mean for 50 to 60$ u get access to a game that u can play for hundred of hours. I have clocked 350 hours in Civ V and over 1000 hours in DoW 2 (counting all the expansions) Games have such an incredible value for their price. F2P will milk us to death, it's a fool's trap, at the end we will pay well over 60$ on a game.

Free games will simply bog down the industry, and enrage all hardcore & dedicated gamers.



This is all nonsense. The F2P model may work for some games, or as an incentive to bring back players to an MMO, but there's aspects that really ruin the gaming experience. When DDO went F2P I went back for a while. Just to have access to the same dungeons and to say competitive with other subscription based gamers, I ended up spending more than $15 the first month or so. I eventually went back to paying the subscription price so I wasn't being nickled and dimed to death. The F2P model also attracts a lot of casual and noob gamers which really wrecks it for the more skilled people when trying to form groups. I can't tell you how many times we got to a dungeon and some guy had to drop out because he didn't realize he wasn't allowed to zone in unless he paid for it.



Thanks pirates! You are 100% responsible for this!



Really? They're responsible for game publishing companies' insatiable greed? This whole concept stinks of supply-side economics.


h e x e n

You know, I wouldn't give two shits if EA went belly up and just died. I would love to see them tank when they endorse this model, and I would really love it if all the developers they gobbled up went back to making their own games under their own banner.

People aren't going to support EA free2play trash after their current track record, I sure as hell wont. They have continuously proven to be the biggest idiot on the playground, time and time again. They seemed to be getting better right around the time Bad Company 2 hit the PC, but their draconian empire of suck can't be extinguished forever.

Free2play may or may not be the future, but a future without EA would be extremely welcome in my opinion.


Gaming companies WANT to treat videogames and digital entertainment like ISP's treat their product. A constant, monthly stream of revenue is a much safer investment than charging one lump sum for a game people may or may not like.

Personally, I'd rather take a $60 hit to my wallet once every so often, than be hooked to a financial IV drip on a month to month basis, paying for services and games I may not even use or play. I already do that for every other flippin service under the sun.



As usual I see ignorant comments and poor comparisons when it comes to F2P games. The article should have stated that companies are ripping off Riot Games extremely successful F2P model. Cryptic has been inspired by F2P as well as SOE as CEO Smeldey has stated. World of Tanks is a pay to grind and APB is pay to win. F2P games are the future because micro transactions are extremely profitable and it satisfies impulse buyers and casual gamers with careers and the typical grinding path in F2Ps satisfies the chincy and the unemployed. Everyone is happy with the mass amount of players F2P games bring. If you guys enjoy dead servers that require $15 a month until the company pulls the plug and you are left crying for an emulator or a petition by all means keep supporting subscription based games.



What I don't get is the $14.95 model? Why not $9.99 a month or even $5 a month. It's still a revenue stream and can offset the cost of monthly payment games.

I don't foresee Warcraft going to free to play model anytime soon. I think this fall we will see a real cash AH in Warcraft to net them even more money.

EA is trying to lessen the blow of the fail SWTOR and the loss of so many players (I'm one of them). I really don't think it was the monthly cost so much as a boring grind in a vast space walking from one quest to another. No end game content, no lfg, no way to even find your friends. Granted Warcraft started out that way but they have found ways of changing that grind to something a little more fun.

I'd rather pay Steam $14.95/month to access their entire library instead of buying each game. That pay model would work very well to most of us who PC game for life.



PhilGrocholl has it right.

There are some services where this model makes perfect sense to me.
My parents shell out $80 a month for 300+ cable channels, 10 of which they watch, and 40+ of which are en espanol!

Does EA really think most of us won't notice that a game that was $60 before, including nearly all of the game's content, now costs $100+ or worse (looking at you, Sims)?

Another example: Microsoft Flight:
Big Island of Hawaii and one plane- Free
4 WW2-era fighters (no cockpit)- $7 each.
Rest of Hawaii and one more plane- $20
One more plane- $15
Grand total:
Hawaii + 6 planes (4 without cockpit)- $63

Flight Simulator X came with access to the ENTIRE FREAKING WORLD. You got 23-24 fully rendered (with 3-D cockpit) planes right off the bat, some of them jets- $60.



The gaming industry is going to ruin gaming with their pay as you use plan. By following the same idea as what the cell phone industry does in USA, that is sell the cell phone at 1/3rd the price or for free and over charge you on the monthly plan.



EA it's in the game......IF EA went on a tangent and started projects with more creative freedom I would believe anything this guy says.



"Also, Moore is an idiot. That is all."

Enough said.



I hear that netbooks are going to push laptops and desktops right out of the market.



There is a rumor that the tablets are going to push the laptops and desktops out of the market.

Seriously, what the heck do these guys think? (talking about the market analysts and people like that) suddenly someone comes up with a good idea well implemented and all of a sudden it's the end of whatever they where using before.



Johnny Mnemonic implants will take over tablets, desktops, laptops, and palm pilots. Sorry but this build will not let you disable GPS tracking feature that everyone wants, maybe in build 4.2 they will enable a disable?



I think this model will work to degrade games where the main focus is on profit instead of quality and creativity. The fact stands that if you develop a game that is quality creative and unique, than you will more than likely have purchases for years to come, from word of mouth and such. Nothing like a game to make you buy gear or items that make you not stand a chance against someone who has, to kill the whole mood of the game. you than end of with a bunch of fly by gamers that try it only because its free but don't stick with it. take diablo 3 for instance i bet most of the people will have moved on in the next 6 months, i know i have already.



Is it possible that the number of casual gamers increases with more F2P, those casual gamers become hard-core gamers, they find that they want more from their gaming, and end up moving on to better games that cost?



Zynga is one of the biggest supporters of it on Facebook. I don't care for it myself, though I have played their games and paid the prices. I would MUCH rather pay one price up front, and be done with it, even if that means more upfront. The constant nickel and dime game is hard to even keep up with.

A perfect example is The Sims 3. They have expansion packs, stuff packs, AND online content. And patches and patches to fix patches, and so on. By the time you layout $50 for the game itself, and then another $30- $40 for each stuff pack, and expansion pack, you have hundreds of dollars wrapped up in one game!

Then factor in all the online content, and it's no wonder they favor this method of milking the cash cow, it's HIGHLY lucrative! Especially when you consider the fact that the online content is just virtual goods, no physical disks or fancy packaging needs to be shipped. That saves them tons of money, and they can offer new products constantly.

But, consider me an idiot, cause I buy into it, though it is reaching the point, of enough is enough already.



Zynga is ruining gaming with their games. I can't understand how you can call Farmville a game and not a useless addiction compared games like Assassins Creed series or Mass effect series or Homeworld series.



sounds familiar, now where have I heard this before?...

I'm pretty sure Valve was ready to mortgage the ranch on "episodic" gaming. We all know how that one turned out.

Why can't the mob ever learn? Putting everything in one basket is not the solution. Episodic, FTP, MMO, casual and any other gaming template can be good in certain applications but none are the one-size-fits-all solution.

Do we come back here in 3 years with the "EA is rethinking FTP model" headlines and mourn how Ubisoft is stating that all games will be DRM-controlled and online only?

...oh wait...



It's the flavor of the month, nothing more.

While I do believe that games will evolve and morph into different formats and economizing strategies any one betting the farm on one model becoming the only dominate one is an idiot.
It's the same as all the idiots saying PC gaming is dead and it'll be only consoles moving forward.
People vote with their wallets, and I for one (and many other gamers I know) hate FTP games. The experience is often neutered and not very satisfying even when/if you do shell out for the "extras". The game becomes constrained by it's FTP nature which ends up dictating weird design choices that often detract from the game rather then add to it.



EA will do whatever they think will bring them the most short term profit. Plus this is a bit of damage control after DeMartini stuck his foot in his mouth about Steam. Sadly they will probably go overboard on micro transactions and almost everything will be a micro-transaction or in game add.



That guy doesn't look creepy at all. Nope.



"Free To Play In Five To Ten Years" is pretty effin nebulous.

Nothing is free...ain't happenin...



Its free to play for the first 5 missions and pay for every mission after that that you want to play or download as dlcs. The entire game can be bought in installments.



yeah it's a Fad. I mean it's not going away but it's not going to be as big as some people are predicting.



I'd like to see him put his money where his mouth is, and put all of EA's past and present lineup up for free on origin.



I've always stood behind games as an art form -- a creative medium where developers can tell a story, introduce you to some novel gameplay idea or challenge your mind to solve a puzzle. When you start turning games into little more than a virtual storefront or micro-transaction delivery system, it cheapens that medium greatly.

Now that's not to say that such games won't succeed. It's just to say that those games are largely for, well, simpletons. As arrogant as it may sound to say that, it's true. We as a society are more and more throwing our art and creativity into the gutter in the name of maximizing profits and cutting spending. And Idiocracy is what we will get...



I agree completely. I can't think of a better way to wrench myself out of a compelling story then being asked to charge my credit card. I pay for my content and then work hard for my achievements. I don't want to access my content for free, then pay for the good content, and then pay for the good gear/items. Lame



Meh, I'm not worried about this. There will always be a market for games that require a purchase up front but doesn't barrage you with hundreds of micro purchases later. As more and more developers and publishers get their servers hacked and customer's credit cards are stolen less people will be willing to support this model.

Besides, there will always be Indy developers and companies like GoG or Steam to restore a sense of sanity to the PC gaming market.



Casual gamers are going to expect more F2P. Facebook and mobile games have taken off for this reason. That market is going to keep growing at a fast rate. By contrast the current PC/console gamer market will likely remain similar in size as it is today. This makes us a smaller percentage of game sales as the market moves forward.

Eventually though most games will likely be delivered digitally and probably via a combination of up front, subscription and in-game transactions.



Carried away with a fad, though I blame the idiocy of the masses for starting that fad in the first place at least as much as I blame the big name devs.

Also, Moore is an idiot. That is all.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.