Honestly, I'm not a fan of F2P, but that's just the old geezer coming out of me. I want my box, my midnight release, my player's manual... I'm a collector just as much as I am a player. F2P doesn't feel like "gaming" to me; it's more social funsies than anything.

But what I don't understand is why every company feels its game is worth $60. I hate that that's the accepted price point (Nintendo aside) and few, if any, ever stray from it. Some games just aren't worth $60, and it shows. No one can possibly convince me that Resident Evil: Operation Raccoon City got the same budget as Resident Evil 5, yet the former was priced the same as the latter WITH half the game reserved for paid DLC (RE5's batch of DLC, save Versus, came out a whole year after RE5's release; RE:ORC's DLC all came out within 2 months of release). I feel like people wouldn't be nearly as harsh on the game if the cost of entry were simply lowered to the actual value of the experience, rather than depending upon blind fanboy consumers coughing up $60-80 on launch day then dropping the retail price a couple months later.

One of my favorite games this generation, Enslaved: Odyssey to the West, wasn't worth $60. It was too short with not enough replay value to justify $60. I sure as hell enjoyed it— but I bought it for $15. Had the initial price been $30-40 brand new day one, I would've been much more likely to give it a chance, but instead I bought the game LONG after a sale was really relevant to the developer or publisher or the fate of the IP.

I guess all I'm saying is that F2P doesn't have to be the way; just vary your price points and budgets accordingly. Not everything is a AAA title; publishers need to stop kidding themselves with some of these.