Why I'm Not Playing Plants vs. Zombies 2

Popcap's implementation of free-to-play mechanics in Plants vs. Zombies 2 may not be "that bad" compared to its rivals, but that doesn't mean we should defend it, says Pete.

Article by Pete Davison, .

I'll say one thing up front before we get started on this: Plants vs. Zombies 2 is a reasonably decent game, particularly if you liked the first one. This is largely thanks to it being mechanically almost identical, but we can't criticize it too much for that -- it's pretty much what fans wanted. I do not, however, like it. At all.

You may recall that, shortly after Plants vs. Zombies 2 was announced as a free-to-play title, I made the argument Freemium Makes Good Games Suffer. I've seen too many games utterly ruin their balance and overall "fun factor" -- there's a term that takes me back to the '90s publishing industry -- by following the fashionable free-to-play model. And Plants vs. Zombies' publisher EA is one of the companies leading the charge in this direction, particularly on mobile.

I felt I may have been being a bit unfair to Plants vs. Zombies 2, though, particularly once reviews started emerging praising it as a solid sequel. At the same time, though, I noticed a curiously apologetic tone present in almost every review, blog post and tweet regarding the game -- a sense of "Well, it's good, but..."

Something didn't sit right with me about all this, so I downloaded the game and actually gave it a shot once it became available worldwide. Perhaps my worries were unfounded; perhaps PopCap had indeed found that magic sweet spot for the free-to-play model; perhaps this would be the game to finally convince me that free-to-play is actually as good for consumers as it is for publishers.

Shyeah, right.

See the "machine gun" pea-shooter there? Pay enough money and you can make all of them do that. If you want to.

I will say that the apologetic but positive reviews for Plants vs. Zombies do have a point. The game's monetization is neither overbearing nor obnoxious, and it is indeed possible to play through the entire campaign without having to pay a single cent. The game itself is reasonably solid for the most part, and doesn't rely on the more obnoxious tricks other free-to-play developers have in their arsenal -- things like wait timers, slowly refilling energy bars and artificial difficulty spikes -- and consequently feels reasonably well balanced.

So why don't I like it?

It's those little plus signs. One by your coin readout; one by your plant food indicator. Tap the former and you can spend real money to purchase coins, which can also be acquired through play. Tap the latter and you can immediately use said coins to purchase a "charge" for the game's one brand-new mechanic: the ability to "power up" a plant for a few seconds, usually tipping the scales back in your favor.

These plus signs aren't present in the game's tutorial, nor in the first couple of levels, lulling you into a false sense of security. By the time you're well into the game proper, though, there they are, just staring at you; waiting for you to tap them and enjoy their bounty in exchange for a few of your hard-earned dollars.

It could be worse, of course; it could be like a social game and regularly pop up messages inviting you to pay now for "special offers" and, to PopCap's credit, never once are you "nagged" to pull out your credit card. But those plus signs are, in effect, a form of passive nagging; the option to, essentially, pay to cheat is always there. And that bugs me. A lot.

More than anything, it's the message it sends that bugs me: I read it as PopCap having a lack of confidence in its own game. Why provide players with tools that, essentially, allow them to completely break the balance of the game? Struggling to complete a level? No problem! Don't worry about actually improving your skills, just whip out your credit card, buy some coins and invest in some more plant food and powerups! Don't mind us, we just designed the game this way; you go ahead and break it… just make sure you pay for the privilege.

Apologists for the game have noted that there's no need to pay real money for the coins if you go back and replay earlier levels to grind for coins. This is, of course, true, but… really? I don't know about you, dear reader -- you could be a huge PvZ fan for all I know, and if so, more power to you -- but wouldn't you rather play a continuous string of new levels rather than repeating the same ones over and over again? Plants vs. Zombies has never been interesting enough to me to justify playing through it more than once; this may just be me, however, as I will note at this juncture that my girlfriend has played through the original game several times on PC, iPhone and iPad, and I'm sure she's not alone in that.

The trouble with the rise of free-to-play is that it encourages publishers to drop consumable microtransactions into paid titles, such as Ryse (pictured).

Bennett Foddy, creator of the notoriously difficult-to-control games QWOP and GIRP, had a few choice words about this model on Twitter this morning. He was speaking with reference to the recent news that Xbox One launch title Ryse would feature microtransactions to boost players' progress through multiplayer, but it applies just as much to Plants vs. Zombies 2's situation.

"'Micro-monetization [allows you to] trade a couple of bucks for a couple of hours,'" said Foddy, quoting Ryse's multiplayer producer. "Note: not to trade a couple of bucks to get to play a couple of hours. To trade a couple of bucks to avoid playing a couple of hours." [emphasis mine]

This is, I think, the crux of the matter when it comes to a lot of freemium (or freemium-style -- Ryse is a $60+ game) monetization models: they're essentially asking you to pay not to play the game, and pushing you in that direction by making the option of, you know, actually playing the game incredibly tedious and unappealing. This is bad game design, but good business sense; the two are often at odds with one another. It's not something we, as players, should be defending, though; as players, we have no responsibility to publishers' bottom lines, and as such we shouldn't be apologizing for games that have deliberately made themselves dull and boring in an attempt to coerce you into paying real money.

"I can think of a cheaper way to avoid playing a couple of hours of Ryse," continued Foddy, to which one of his followers replied "I can earn a couple of bucks in a couple of hours, probably more."

"This is probably a good reason not to play games that deliberately waste your time as a money-making strategy," retorted Foddy. "This idea: 'we have time-rich players and money-rich players' is nonsense. Nobody has to play your game! What is the value proposition here?" [emphasis mine]

I'm with Foddy here: why should I suffer through a game that's been deliberately designed to waste either my time or money when my backlog would probably already reach the ceiling of my apartment if I were to stack all the disc cases on top of each other? I see absolutely no reason to defend an experience such as that which Plants vs. Zombies 2 offers, and I'm yet to hear a convincing consumer-friendly argument from anyone as to why the game adopted the free-to-play model. And no, "publishers are businesses and need to make money" doesn't count.

Freemium made Plants vs. Zombies 2 suffer. How many more games like this must we suffer through before publishers like EA realize that free-to-play isn't a one-size-fits-all solution?

This article may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and buy the product we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.

Comments 16

  • Avatar for MojoBox #1 MojoBox 4 years ago
    I swore off freemium games after spending some time with Candy Crush (because many of my friends were playing it at the time). I quickly saw how the business model completely impinged on the game design. Yes it was theoretically possible to play the whole game and never spend a cent. In practice though? Absolutely not. It's bad enough to deal with the slowly recharging lives mechanic, but what is absolutely unforgivable is the way the game was clearly intentionally poorly balanced in order to coerce you into paying for extra lives. Some times it's just absolutely impossible to clear a level no matter what. So much of the game is left up to absolute pure chance, many times you are screwed from the word go in a particular puzzle. As a long time fan of puzzle games it quickly became evident to me that my skill was hardly a factor, and I'm fairly certain that many of the boards are intentionally designed to be massive time-sink roadblocks. Everyone who's played that game has the experience of being stuck on a particular board for WEEKS until one day, randomly, boom! You pass it. Did you get better? Were you playing at the peak of your skill? Nope, just pure dumb luck. The freemium model definitely encourages this kind of half-assed, ill conceived game design. Thanks, and no.Edited August 2013 by MojoBox
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Terpiscorei #2 Terpiscorei 4 years ago
    Part of the problem, at least with Ryse, is that these crappy leveling mechanics have been shoehorned into almost every AAA multiplayer game now. It's a design intended to keep people playing, even if they're not enjoying themselves, until they finally unlock whatever it is they think will make the game fun. This kind of disrespect for player time has been around for a long time; early western MMOs and many eastern MMOs have been some particularly egregious offenders. With that in mind, it's basically a no-brainer for a developer to try to make some money by allowing players to bypass some of it.

    What bothers me is that there's been little to no resistance to this design until the introduction of microtransactions to ameliorate it -- instead, it's being cast as a problem unique to F2P games. If Ryse weren't letting you pay to get past some of the grind, would there be any criticism of its multiplayer model at all?Edited August 2013 by Terpiscorei
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for adamcoate93 #3 adamcoate93 4 years ago
    Great write-up. Everyone loves Plants vs. Zombies so much that they're afraid to say anything bad about the sequel. The article brings up a good point: is there any game design that actually benefits by having a freemium business model? I would have to say no. The best thing the freemium model can do to a game design is not affect it at all. And it seems the only way this works is with the hats model in something like Team Fortress 2. But I actually read an article not too long ago about even that model exploiting a player...
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Daikaiju #4 Daikaiju 4 years ago
    Day 4 Egypt and you have all that? How much have you spent?
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for RandomTerrain #5 RandomTerrain 4 years ago
    It's a shame that there isn't an option to just buy the game for customers who so desire, but of course that wouldn't work because it's been designed with micro transactions at the centre of it. It's a real shame as I really enjoyed the first game but this model is just plain bad for gaming and in the long run it's really going to take away from the experience. I'll stick with buying my games, thanks EA, but no thanks.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for salparadise #6 salparadise 4 years ago
    Well, here's to hoping that there will eventually be a Vita/console port that will allow for one set purchase.

    I'll be skipping this on android, despite playing the first one on almost every system it came out on. While it looks every bit as good as the first one, people have to start standing up to this freemium BS just like they did the "online pass".
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for bigdsweetz #7 bigdsweetz 4 years ago
    I guess it pays to be good at games? I don't see a problem here. I'm actually happy that some of the games that come out are as hard as they were back in the 80's. I usually destroy most of the games that come out on hard with almost no problems so the fact that they are leveling up the difficulty meter isn't a bad thing for me. I know it's not for everyone, and if this game is too hard for you, do exactly as Pete said. Start going through your back log. I usually don't defend EA on anything it does, but if if I can beat the game without having to pay for it and it requires some extra time on my end, then it's not a bad game. It's just a HARD game. Contra anyone?
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for Feanor #8 Feanor 4 years ago
    "my girlfriend has played through the original game several times on PC, iPhone and iPad, and I'm sure she's not alone in that."

    My wife played it on the 360, DS and PC, and then she bought the t-shirt. But she has no interest in playing the micro-transaction riddled sequel. I just hope when they port it to PC and consoles that they sell it for $15 and 20.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for reza666 #9 reza666 4 years ago
    "These plus signs aren't present in the game's tutorial, nor in the first couple of levels, lulling you into a false sense of security. By the time you're well into the game proper, though, there they are, just staring at you; waiting for you to tap them and enjoy their bounty in exchange for a few of your hard-earned dollars."

    Exactly why i hate Free to play model. It tricks you into false security as you say and bam its there and tempt you to buy. I like to pay upfront and know what i get. The micro transaction is really bad and can cost you much much more if your not careful.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for bettycooper01 #10 bettycooper01 3 years ago
    I am in love with mobile games as long as there are zombies involved. LOL That's why I really love Plants vs. Zombies and Tapslayer: Alice in Zombieland!! I get to kill lots and lots of zombies using different weapons and characters. Awesome!
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for christiangray60 #11 christiangray60 3 years ago
    If you don't like PVZ, then you should try playing Tapslayer: Alice in Zombieland! has cool weapons that you could upgrade. Really awesome game! :)
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for cauãdacruz60 #12 cauãdacruz60 2 years ago
    How about this?:instead of a title that u buy and have a constant and smooth difficulty curve, this freemiun shape gives u some sharp dificulty curve at some points, giving u the choice of paying what you would already have paid to buy at first, to compensate the curve with powerups, or to spend time redoing some lvls for this same purpose. I think this is more democratic than a game u have to buy before starting. Some young ppl have nasty parents that wouldnt buy anything from online shops, and u have only 15 min to try a game before asking for refound if u dont like it.

    I see this same situation with Hearthstone now. If you want to play competitive multiplayer, either u play it for half a year lotting for cards with the few coins from daily missions, or pay for acquiring them instantly.

    I like to see this as a Half full glass. A payed game that also gives u the chance of progress with time and patience if u dont want to spend any money.

    Pvz and hearthstone are, imo, good formats for this modern freemium or microtransaction mobile (or not) generation. Not at all like the flood of wallet wars social bullshits like Clash of Clans and etc.
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for razendrakc40 #13 razendrakc40 2 years ago
    Playing the same regular gameplay is always boring. Sometimes you want to play different like matching the symbols of those camel zombies or protecting the endangered species. But you don't know exactly which level contains the gameplay that you want. So I have made a list of description of different days of pvz2 in my blog! You can check it here. www.pvz0.blogspot.comEdited February 2016 by razendrakc40
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for zoplayclone13 #14 zoplayclone13 A year ago
    Deleted July 2016 by zoplayclone13
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for filmistreaming #15 filmistreaming A year ago
    I am in love with mobile games as long as there are zombies involved. LOL That's why I really love Plants vs. Zombies and Tapslayer: Alice in Zombieland!! I get to kill lots and lots of zombies using different weapons and characters. Awesome! January 2017 by filmistreaming
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for shardashivare15 #16 shardashivare15 A year ago
    Really i want come here more and more time, because i love to read your post. Thanks for sharing.
    pnr status
    irctc pnr status
    Sign in to Reply
  • Avatar for scanguard #17 scanguard 9 months ago
    If you are after a great software tool then I recommend yo use PC Health advisor. It is exactly the tool you are looking for. A full review is available from the Fast PC Life website, which you can visit by clicking the link here:
    Sign in to Reply