Why do I believe that future is after F2P games?

'Everyone watch strippers dance and would like girls to be Free-to-Play'
A random quote from Game Developers after party

Hi all!

Basically Free-to-Play is game monetization system, which is based on microtransactions and provides possibility to download the game and play it for free.

And I do believe that future belongs to such type of games. This economical model will in the end provide benefits to both player and game developer. Each time I say this, people throw a bunch of questions and objections on me. I would like to answer and provide my opinion on the most frequent of them.

Why do Game Developers have to give their games away? They spent money on creating the game!
It's hard to argue with this statement. But it should be mentioned that F2P developers in fact may  in the end receive much more money for their product compared to the amount they would earn by selling the game even at price of $60.

Consumer understands that he will neither lose nor spend, if he downloads the game. Current internet connection speed allows to do that without investing a lot of time or spending any money on the game itself. Imagine that at supermarkets companies would give away full packed chocolate instead of it's pieces. There is no doubts that there would always be a queue to such place in the supermarket. This principle means that also a lot of people will at least download and check out the game. What is really good, bigger number of players, who downloaded the game means that more players will stay and play it, and more of them will by the end make an in-game purchase.

Players also benefit from this model. They can download the game and try it out for totally free. And stay playing for free, if they like the game. They even can make no payments at all. As example of the opposite, let's take a look on recent CoD: Ghosts release. You had to pay $60 per each copy of the game, thus providing developers with 1 billion dollars sales at the release day. But in the end game received following reviews from the players. Average 'metacritic' score is at 1.8! Players did not like the game, and it's a really polite way of describing the situation.

Why do I even need to spend money on the game, if it's free?
The key lies in human psychology. People watch movies, go to bars, amusement parks etc. with one common goal - receive pleasure form the process. Games are also part of entertainment industry. You buy them and you have fun while playing them.

F2P games use the same mechanism, but move their accent on satisfying a bit more sophisticated desires, since users should always have fun just playing the game. For example, they can satisfy their desire of result/achievement or desire to desire to stand out. Imagine the regular bar, where everyone sits in really strict black and white clerk suits. And with paying just $1 you can enter the bar in new blue last fashion jacket.

Someone will fall into temptation and do so at the end. Everyone will receive satisfaction from visiting the bar, but someone will also receive pleasure from standing out. In your opinion, how many people will put on the blue jacket tomorrow? And a week after? And if later some new designs with different colors will be offered? And if jacket will be on sale near the New Year and 3 jackets will be offered at price of one?

This is just a very rough example of  the 'hook' game developers use in order to make you invest some money into the game.

Additionally, there is always group of loyal fans who love the game and will always invest money just as a sign of appreciation. This is the way they support the game and help it growth and development.

Nobody will spend $60 on a free game!
Believe me, there are many who spend much more. And this is not a case of several odious personalities in the Internet, who want to feel big and important, while having quite enough money in their hands. It's probably about 10% of players. The secret lies in two factors: time and no competition on the internal game market.

Time. The microtransactions systems bases on the fact that player will spend small amounts of money over long period of time. This month he spends $3, next month he purchases in-game content with total value of $5 because it's his Birthday etc. This fact is actually represented in the revenue formula, around which the whole game is built:
(amount of players) x (life time value) = revenue
where life time value (or LTV, game developers are fond of acronyms -) ) is average amount of money, which can be received from a player during specific amount of time.

Moreover, it's much easier for a player to spend $6 over 10 months than make a single $60 payment. Probably he would not even spend such amount of money on the game ever.

No competition. Once person starts to play actively, he moves from an open market with big competition - Internet - to a closed in-game market with unique monopolist - Game Developer. Player would hardly buy a DLC for $50, because it's a price of separate game or two. But he will easily purchase, for example, rare two-humped brown horse in F2P project just because it has some unique features or design. In most cases it won't even give any in-game advantage at all. User has just decided how he will entertain himself, and there is no rare horses at lower prices. Buy, or play without it. Rare dragon costs $250. In comparison horse is rather cheap...

F2P products has always lower quality than commercial B2P projects. Additionally they are always designed to make players pay again and again.
I admit that such problem exists, but it's obvious that it's a temporary issues. The evil lies in lack of competition on F2P market. This allows game developer to relax. Why he has to make the game better, if it will be played anyway, because there are no other F2P options?

But situation is not that bad. Time goes and high quality projects are developed more and more frequently. For example, 'League of Legends', 'Planet Side 2', 'Rift', 'World of Tanks', 'DotA 2'. These are rather different games, which do not require any investments for playing, if user does not want it. Their quality is just slightly inferior and sometimes even on the same level compared to buy-2-play games with big budget.

Moreover, FTP projects set a new level in game service and support, because it's in game owners interests to make players continue playing. 'World of Tanks' Customer Service normally answers within 24 hours and resolves problem completely within next 2-3 days disregarding how difficult the issue is. In comparison, you won't receive any answer from Support Service of very popular game distribution platform - 'Steam' - for months (!). Of course, service is still has a long way to pass in order to reach banks service level, but for sure it's moving in the right direction.

The most important, F2P project has to constantly develop in order to retain players. Wise developers consider players interests and provide just what players want. That's why F2P products always release constant free game updates, some of which can even be considered an add-on. In fact this system is much more diplomatic to customer than usual DLC system. Some DLC's are created just to get more money from players. For example, Creative Assembly released Rome II: Total War. Yes, they fix bugs with free updates. But their DLC cost money. And they actually add nothing to the game, but just unlock the content that is already in the game itself!

Subscription is still better! This way game developers have no desire to take every single penny from a player. 
This statement is true not for F2P games, but for their parasitic subspecies - P2W - pay-to-win - games, in which in-game advantages over other players can be achieved only by investing real money. Though systems look the same, they differ from the basis - monetization concept. And they should not get mixed.

Subscription is bad, because it forces players to pay for the game. Subscribers have to pay each month for the same content in hope that developers will release 1-3 update a year and change their gaming experience. It's obvious that it's even worth and more expensive than B2P. People just do not feel it because payment is spread across rather long period of time.

Do you agree with me? If not, lets argue a bit. Additional questions, statements, support or negative comments on the topic are welcomed!