What does Valve earn by making their old games free?

Originally posted by Kargor:

What does Valve earn by making their old games free?

Ask Valve why they made the Half life games free on their anniversary.

Even then the better question is, why would people buy multiplayer only games for no one to play them?

"Free to play" means a specific kind of monetization. How are they going to monetize Ricochet?

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

"Free to play" means a specific kind of monetization. How are they going to monetize Ricochet?

Not necessarily but that'd be for Valve to decide. They can always update gold source to add micro-transactions but I don't think anyone is in a rush to play Richochet, much less buy it these days. It's why I say it's kind of redundant for them to sell a multiplayer only game when their other multiplayer only games like TF2 and CS2 are free to play.

It will just get flooded with bots, so making it extremely cheap would be better

TF2 was absolutely destroyed

Originally posted by McFlurry Butts:

It will just get flooded with bots, so making it extremely cheap would be better

But nobody plays these games and they're already cheap.

If you wish it was free then they evidently have monetary value.
So Valve has no reason to give up that Monetary value..
They earn more money in a year from one person buying one of those games than a million people playing it for free.

Originally posted by Robofish:

Not necessarily but that'd be for Valve to decide. They can always update gold source to add micro-transactions

Okay, but what would those microtransactions be for?

I have first hand experience that giving people the option to donate $1 because they like the game you're giving them for free doesn't result in many donations. I'm pretty sure the engineer time at Valve needed to set that up would be worth more than the amount of money it would ever return, especially because Valve aren't volunteers in the first place.

What could Ricochet, a game with near-zero customizability, possibly sell?

Making a game free to play also changes player expectations. TF2, Dota 2, and CS2 all get frequent content updates (even though TF2 doesn't name theirs anymore). Just look at how many people are disappointed that Dota Underlords isn't being updated anymore.

Originally posted by Robofish:

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

"Free to play" means a specific kind of monetization. How are they going to monetize Ricochet?

Not necessarily but that'd be for Valve to decide.

They already have. Get out your wallet.

Originally posted by Robofish:

They can always update gold source to add micro-transactions but I don't think anyone is in a rush to play Richochet, much less buy it these days. It's why I say it's kind of redundant for them to sell a multiplayer only game when their other multiplayer only games like TF2 and CS2 are free to play.

So no one is going to rush to play those games, then what's the point of doing a lot of work of adding microtransactions that aren't going to make money?

Other games existing, or new versions of games using different business models isn't some argument that older games have to do it too.

This is literally a non-issue and your internal need for some kind of imagined consistency is wholly your own invention.

Originally posted by Start_Running:

They earn more money in a year from one person buying one of those games than a million people playing it for free.

And if no one buys it within the year, it's worth as much as it being free to play.

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

Okay, but what would those microtransactions be for?

Again, that's not up for me to decide because that'd just be hyperbole.

Originally posted by Ben Lubar:

What could Ricochet, a game with near-zero customizability, possibly sell?

What does Richochet sell... in general? I think you're getting the wrong idea. I'm not saying, change the game to appeal to people. I'm just saying, the game doesn't sell and will never sell and won't work if no one plays it so whats the point of selling it? Just make it free.

Originally posted by nullable:

Originally posted by Robofish:

Not necessarily but that'd be for Valve to decide.

They already have. Get out your wallet.

Originally posted by Robofish:

They can always update gold source to add micro-transactions but I don't think anyone is in a rush to play Richochet, much less buy it these days. It's why I say it's kind of redundant for them to sell a multiplayer only game when their other multiplayer only games like TF2 and CS2 are free to play.

So no one is going to rush to play those games, then what's the point of doing a lot of work of adding microtransactions that aren't going to make money?

Other games existing, or new versions of games using different business models isn't some argument that older games have to do it too.

This is literally a non-issue and your internal need for some kind of imagined consistency is wholly your own invention.

Reading comprehension really isn't your strong suit, is it champ?

Originally posted by Robofish:

Originally posted by Kargor:

What does Valve earn by making their old games free?

Ask Valve why they made the Half life games free on their anniversary.

Even then the better question is, why would people buy multiplayer only games for no one to play them?

If Valve ask you the same thing, what are they getting out of this?

Also making it F2P not going make it better how you're expecting it to be, proof look at thousands of other F2P games, and history to prove my point.

Lastly these games go dirt cheap on sale often, look up steamdb.info it shows you history of sale.

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

Originally posted by Robofish:

Ask Valve why they made the Half life games free on their anniversary.

Even then the better question is, why would people buy multiplayer only games for no one to play them?

If Valve ask you the same thing, what are they getting out of this?

Also making it F2P not going make it better how you're expecting it to be, proof look at thousands of other F2P games, and history to prove my point.

Lastly these games go dirt cheap on sale often, look up steamdb.info it shows you history of sale.

They get nothing out of it regardless if they sell it or make it free because no one plays them or are willing to buy them anymore. It doesn't matter how cheap they are, it's not showing sales data based on how much they're selling as of now.

Originally posted by Robofish:

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

If Valve ask you the same thing, what are they getting out of this?

Also making it F2P not going make it better how you're expecting it to be, proof look at thousands of other F2P games, and history to prove my point.

Lastly these games go dirt cheap on sale often, look up steamdb.info it shows you history of sale.

They get nothing out of it regardless if they sell it or make it free because no one plays them or are willing to buy them anymore. It doesn't matter how cheap they are, it's not showing sales data based on how much they selling as of now.

Then no reason for to make it free.

If money a problem, then none of the multiplier games that cost snything should have players right?

Originally posted by Dr.Shadowds 🐉:

Originally posted by Robofish:

They get nothing out of it regardless if they sell it or make it free because no one plays them or are willing to buy them anymore. It doesn't matter how cheap they are, it's not showing sales data based on how much they selling as of now.

Then no reason for to make it free.

If money a problem, then none of the multiplier games that cost snything should have players right?

There's no reason to sell them. The most making them free to play would be that some players would check the games out, not many but maybe a few hundred. It worked out for Half Life 1 and 2 when Valve made them free. They didn't have to make them free but they did. Who knows, maybe making the games free to play could spark some interest in a Richochet 2 or a Day of Defeat 2.