to your point: Yes, of course! That’s also why, in the AAA case, we have had a big video game review industry, and trailers, and demos, and playable first levels, and the like. They are all risk mitigation strategies as well – only on the demand, not the supply side. It’s a classic economical Arrow information paradox: You don’t know the value of the information before you know the information.

What you can deduce from that: Because economic conditions shift, the value-add that video game journalism delivers shifts from risk reduction (Is this new “Diablo” game really worth shelling out XX bucks?) to filtering (Which of these XX “Cut the Rope” clones is really worth playing?)

As for the second point – I also agree that there is a feeling that in the boxed model, because you are done with the purchasing, you can feel free once you are in the game.

But I think the argument cuts both ways:
1) Once you have bought the game, nobody is going to bother you by asking for money.

But:

2) It is also the case that once you have bought the game, nobody is going to care if your experience is terrible.

There is a more nuanced point, though, in comparison to AAA games: There, the monetary transaction happened just ONCE and AT THE BORDER of gameplay itself: I had to convince you to buy my game, and you had to be convinced to buy it. But once that monetary transaction was out of the way, the gameplay itself was a “pure” disinterested, skill-only space. Likewise, once you as a designer could convince investors/publishers that your game “will sell”, the actual minutiae of design decisions within that space are up to your creative freedom and sensitivity “what makes a good game”, and not bound to considerations of “can we squeeze an extra micro transaction out of this?” The historical conditions of the AAA business model created a relative bounded space of freedom from economic considerations for designers and players, and that’s the boundary (and historic precedence and mental model and social norm) that f2p messes with.

@Olivier But isn’t it still weird that a $60 box is somehow non-stingy? And Sheffield mentions bullet points as if it’s some great thing that is sorely missed?

@Mikaela For it to be unethical, you would have to demonstrate that there is some criteria by which Free to Play “whales” are more exploited and less aware of what they are doing … than are someone who buys most new consoles and high-profile titles. How would you make that argument?

For reference, Mike O’Brien’s article: http://www.arena.net/blog/mike-obrien-on-microtransactions-in-guild-wars-2

The system is still in development, but there appears to be a concerted effort to maintain balance between the haves and the have-nots that I’m particularly interested in following – successful or otherwise.

Concerning the balancing between people with time/little time, I agree with you him. However, isn’t it rather unethical with how microtransactions are used? I mean with the “whales” being the ones providing a lot of the revenue. To me it feels like people with spending issues are paying for my game.

Commenters should avoid these blanket statements and become much more precise in their attacks so that we could form a better idea of what crosses the line and why.
Brandon Sheffield wrote an article about \”generous\” and \”stingy\” games a while back ( http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/163407/Opinion_The_generous_and_the_stingy__a_growing_trend_in_game_direction.php ). It\’s an idea could very well be applied to F2P to distinguish between games that feel exploitative or not.