Over at Gamasutra, David Paris looks at free-to-play games and concludes that one of the main problems with F2P is the inability of consumers to easily know exactly how much money is going to be required to play a “free” game.
Clear product marking that let’s the consumer know how much of the game is dependant on purchasing, and in what way. If games were required to clearly disclose this information, then I think all my F2P distaste would go away.
Paris contrasts League of Legends, which has a generally reasonable and up-front pay model, with Marvel Heroes’ absurd payment requirements (though that is only one of many problems with Marvel Heroes). The absolute worst–although I actually enjoy the game a lot–is something like Neverwinter where not only is it unclear how much you’d have to pay, but the game has a multitude of different intermediate currencies that are designed to make this calculation even harder for the player.
In the comments, game developer Ramin Shokrizade mentions one possible solution to this,
I think Mike Rose mentions that one solution would be for journalists to actually start listing the prices for the F2P games they review, and how much those prices affect the gameplay for payers and others.
Other commenters object to this given how different gameplay mechanics and the effect of purchases on those mechanics can be.
A good start for PC games would be to use the AAA game price point of $60 as a benchmark. Just how much of a given game can I unlock for $60?