Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

F2P games are EXPENSIVE!

1457910

Comments

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    On number 2 that's generaly NOT true for OPERATING costs.

    Well, it is true in this case as we are not discussing operational costs but costs in general and those do not scale linear.

    Also you are way off is you think operational costs and ie. costs for customer support scales linear. You simply do not use same solution for 100 users as you use for 10k users. The price per user of each solution is way different.

  • mrw0lfmrw0lf Member Posts: 2,269
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    Gdemami, the equation is actualy a bit more complicated then that.

     

    I was never pretending it isn't. I just illustrated strategy behind the model.


    As long as your "points" go:

    1) We talked about average revenue per user, that includes non-paying customers as well. So no "variables".

    2) The costs do not scaling linear. What might be 3 USD per user at 100k player base can be 1.2 USD per user at 300k player base.

    What I don't think you're factoring in is that, that isn't the model. The model is to spread as wide a net as possible to catch as many players because the more players you get in the higher proportion of those will be people who will buy nearly everything in the shop and pay for the game time of everyone else. I say game time, but ofc we are also talking about production costs here, f2p games are just that, whereas subbed games invariably involve a box price to help recoup the massive production costs of the game. To even break even I shudder to think how much cash that minority of players who actually buy items has to spend on a consistent basis.

    -----
    “The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species.”

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by saluk

    Bleh. I don't like f2p because I am broke, I like f2p because I don't feel like I am tied to a specific game. I can mix and match and try a lot of games out, and don't have to quit one to play another.

    Further evidence that the F2P model creates a transient non-investing fickle player base.

    It really is bad for MMORPGs on so many levels.

    Creates it? If the devs are the greedy evil corporate suits that they are portrayed as, then wouldn't it make more sense that the playerbase not only was pre-existing but large enough that the business model was changed to fit how they choose to pay/play?

    No, a payment model can obviously change player culture. Anyone watching the industry (REALLY watching) can tell you this.

    With nothing invested, either finanicially or emotionally, means a game is easy to jump in and then leave just as quickly.

    The payment model doesn't change culture when it comes to leisure and entertainment - culture changes the payment model. For example, with internet access, consumers didn't switch from hourly payments to monthly fees because the ISPs dictated it. The ISPs switched to monthly because consumers were already showing a preference for monthly fees in other entertainment and luxury channels such as cable TV and cellphones.

    The issue you present in the second sentence is an interesting one. Most of today's MMOs are not designed or managed to foster or maintain communities. There is no way for people to create their own groups or social units. Other than a chat channel, there is no way for like-minded players to find each other, congregate, and interact. This could be entirely because it's not what today's players want, so devoting resources to it would be a waste. It could also be because devs believe in some 'One Big Happy Family' mentality where everyone suddenly shows complete patience, tolerance, and love for people of all ages, creeds, religions, colors and degrees of obnoxious.

    Either way, having invested 15 or 150 dollars into a game doesn't change any of that. The money invested doesn't create the ties, it's what you've accumulated in the game world, which can be just as much social bonds as it is epics, probably moreso.

    Actualy it's BOTH. There are times where consumer desires tend to drive business/payment models....other times where industries are trying to proactively PUSH consumer trends in a particular way. It's a pretty complicated give and take....Also trends can be largely dependant upon OTHER factors.

    In the example you used, one of the big factors that led ISP's to switch from hourly charges to monthly was due to thier COSTS to carry bandwidth going down dramaticaly due to advances in technology and other factors. They COULD have offered monthly based fee's early on...but it would have been so prohibitively expensive that most customers would have been priced out of the market. Offering hourly rates was what allowed them to offer services within the price range that was affordable to people. Once thier costs went down dramaticaly, it started allowing them to offer monthly based plans that were in price ranges that most consumers could actualy afford. Without that, consumers could have wished for cheap, unlimited monthly internet all they wanted....would have been as effective as wishing for cheap tourist travel to the moon.

    That it was done when it was technologically and financially feasible is a given. You just agreed that the change make for a more palatable price for the consumer, so I'm not seeing how that's an example of the ISPs trying to push them into a plan they otherwise weren't already predisposed to finding palatable. In your example, the business model was changed to fit the consumer desire, not the other way around.

    It's not, it's an example of a change in technology (i.e. "other factors") creating a change in the pattern for consumer desire/preferences.

    If you are looking for an example where an industry is trying to PUSH consumer preferences rather then the reverse. You can probably look at some of the recent changes in airline fee structuring ( price per bag, window as opposed to aisle seat, snacks/meals, etc). Generaly these changes haven't been particulary well recieved by consumers....certainly there wasn't anyone clamouring to be forced to py extra for thier bag of peanuts, etc..... however the Airlines have been under pressure from risings costs and falling demands, so they are desperate to try to find ways to increase thier revenue per flight/passanger. Thus they are trying to compensate by tacking on, all these additional fee's while still "appearing" to offer a low ticket price for the flight....and hoping consumers will tolerate it.

    In a way it's not that different then the dynamic with some of the RMT going on in games. The "sparkley pony" that would have been included for free as part of your $15 sub previously, now costs $5 extra. That's NOT because consumers really prefer to pay $20 for the exact same thing that they used to pay $15. It's because Publishers are trying to push the envelope to see exactly what consumers will tolerate in terms of additional fee's. They "sell it" because it's "optional" and because they SPIN it that it allows them the "resources to build more content".... in reality it's just them trying to find ways to get people to pay more for the exact same product/service... and hoping the consumer won't notice it because of the way they are packaging it.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    @gdemani. Any conclusion must bejustified by presenting data. Thisisnot a phenomenon exclusive to neuroscience . Actually I would say it happensmuchless than in other disciplines due to the actual hard dataavailable inevidence collection.

    Also there are huge diferences between psychology and neuroscience. Huge. They are actually only minimally related. Neuroscience us about thechemistry,structure andfunction of mostly the cns, not into really into their psych.
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Member EpicPosts: 6,601
    Anyone who claims neurobiology / neuroscience is a pseudoscience does not really understand the term
    Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Member Posts: 1,832
    Originally posted by Gdemami

     


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    On number 2 that's generaly NOT true for OPERATING costs.


     

    Well, it is true in this case as we are not discussing operational costs but costs in general and those do not scale linear.

    Also you are way off is you think operational costs and ie. costs for customer support scales linear. You simply do not use same solution for 100 users as you use for 10k users. The price per user of each solution is way different.

    We aren't talking 100 users vs 100K. If that was the case your example would be valid.....we're talking 100K vs 300K, etc. As I ALREADY POSTED, beyond a certain pretty minimal threshold those costs scale linearly.

    Yes, we are talking overall costs....but it's important to remember that those costs are made up of a number of different factors. The reason why I brought up Operating Costs specificaly is because it was a critical factor which wasn't reflected under the model you presented. The model you presented works just fine for Development costs...there was no need for me to even mention them.... however Operating Costs are an entirely different animal....you need to factor them into your equation to understand some of the critical differences.

    I mentioned this specificaly because it is the number one reason why many tech startups that are looking to capitalize on a F2P or high user volume style business model fail. You see this alot in "social networking" style ventures, but it also exists elsewhere. They get all excited thinking about the millions of users they will attract....what they fail to appreciate is that each of those users is actualy a COST to them....it's only once they are able to sufficiently montize the user does that translate to proffit. ALOT of tech startups contemplating that model go under specificaly because they fail to anticpate how difficult it can be to monetize those users, how long it can take to do so....and how much COST you have to carry in order to support that user base before you start seeing some returns. Many of them that try to go big right out of the gate end up blowing through thier cash reserve in the course of a few months....because they don't realize it can actualy take quite a bit of time, trial and error and finesse to figure out how to effectively monetize a particular service offering of that style.....and if you've got a ton of users, mostly using your service for free while you are trying to figure that out.....you are bleeding cash VERY quickly.

  • dave6660dave6660 Member UncommonPosts: 2,699
    Originally posted by Xthos

    If no one payed, these games would be out of business, someone is spending....

     

    I myself prefer sub games, with no cash shop...I like knowing what I am spending, and I do not like the lure/chances of a f2p cash shop becoming a p2w...

    It does make you wonder when you read the majority of the comments here from people claiming they don't spend a dime.  Somebody is lying.

    “There are certain queer times and occasions in this strange mixed affair we call life when a man takes this whole universe for a vast practical joke, though the wit thereof he but dimly discerns, and more than suspects that the joke is at nobody's expense but his own.”
    -- Herman Melville

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
    We aren't talking 100 users vs 100K. If that was the case your example would be valid.....we're talking 100K vs 300K, etc. As I ALREADY POSTED, beyond a certain pretty minimal threshold those costs scale linearly.

    Eh, you are really stuck in a loop you have created for yourself...

    Once you realize that any sane business person will do their best to do exactly the opposite of what you say because it simply makes little business sense, you will understand.

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    It's not, it's an example of a change in technology (i.e. "other factors") creating a change in the pattern for consumer desire/preferences.

    If you are looking for an example where an industry is trying to PUSH consumer preferences rather then the reverse. You can probably look at some of the recent changes in airline fee structuring ( price per bag, window as opposed to aisle seat, snacks/meals, etc). Generaly these changes haven't been particulary well recieved by consumers....certainly there wasn't anyone clamouring to be forced to py extra for thier bag of peanuts, etc..... however the Airlines have been under pressure from risings costs and falling demands, so they are desperate to try to find ways to increase thier revenue per flight/passanger. Thus they are trying to compensate by tacking on, all these additional fee's while still "appearing" to offer a low ticket price for the flight....and hoping consumers will tolerate it.

    So I just googled "airline fees consumers" and not only are consumers not adopting it, but they aren't tolerating it. This is a great example of how not only did the change in business model not change culture, but when it didn't fit how people want to pay, they unanimously rejected it and took action against it. 

    • Google  "airline fees consumers" (without quotes)
    • Now do a Google News search for "airline fees consumers" (without quotes)

     

    • In the first search see a history of airlines changing over to these fees, consumers rejecting them, agencies investigating them
    • and when you do the current news search, it's all agencies and consumers kicking the pricing to the curb.
     
    Not sure where you were going with this, so I'll leave you to your opinions here and return to the main topic. 

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • LoktofeitLoktofeit Member RarePosts: 14,247
    Originally posted by Adoni

    I've been playing Lord Of The Rings Online on and off for sometime. I must have spent no more then 20$ at the most over x amount of years. I do buy the exp packs. I like the way it's done in this game.

    LOTRO's seems to be one of the most acceptable approaches among gamers that seem either neutral or otherwise against F2P. 

    There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
    "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre

  • MedsiMedsi Member UncommonPosts: 23

    F2P should be 'time sink' vs 'money sink'. The problem arises when they (being game devs) end up doing money blocks - being, you can't advance without paying money. That is where the concept of F2P truly gets skewed (IMO).

    F2P is the way of the future though - more and more games will start to emerge with a F2P model from the get go.  10 years ago there wasn't a lot of competition, and people were willing to pick a game, stick with it and fork over a monthly fee. Now with so many options, no one want to commit to a long term engagement - and even though some people will spend more F2P models (I think I am one of them!), the majority don't.  I think if you were to poll a community, you'd find only a small percentage really spend much, and most companies don't expect a lot out of each person. But when you look at the bigger picture, a few dimes or dollars per person that does subscribe to the model, can quickly equate to a smaller pool of players with a regular subscription.

    All of that said - F2P make it a lot easier for people to play multiple games, and hop from game to game instead of limiting to one or two at a time.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon Member EpicPosts: 27,775
    Originally posted by dave6660
    Originally posted by Xthos

    If no one payed, these games would be out of business, someone is spending....

     

    I myself prefer sub games, with no cash shop...I like knowing what I am spending, and I do not like the lure/chances of a f2p cash shop becoming a p2w...

    It does make you wonder when you read the majority of the comments here from people claiming they don't spend a dime.  Somebody is lying.

    Why? It is a documented FACT that MOST F2P MMO players do NOT pay. I have posted a link of that research.

    It is pretty obvious that a small minority is paying a lot to subsidize the majority. As long as I am not one of the "whales", i am more than happy to let them subsidize my game.

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Member EpicPosts: 7,432


    Originally posted by Gdemami
    Originally posted by VesaviusOK, fine, you know it all. I have no need to educate you in Marketing 101. Believe what you will.Do yourself a favour though and Google 'Marketing creating demand' and have a read.

    Ah, famous "google it" argument...or rather lack of...



    Was there a demand for a Pet Rock back in the 70's? Did the person responsible for that meet a demand from customers?

    Were there people clammering for a Hoola Hoop when Whamo introduced it in the 50's?

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR


  • Cephus404Cephus404 Member CommonPosts: 3,675
    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Why? It is a documented FACT that MOST F2P MMO players do NOT pay. I have posted a link of that research.

    It is pretty obvious that a small minority is paying a lot to subsidize the majority. As long as I am not one of the "whales", i am more than happy to let them subsidize my game.

    You have to remember that the people who are whining are the ones who want to compete with the whales without actually being a whale themselves.

    It's a whole lot of penis envy.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • WarmakerWarmaker Member UncommonPosts: 2,246
    Originally posted by Quizzical

    There are a huge number of different business models that call themselves "free to play", and they shouldn't all be lumped in together.

    No they shouldn't, but there are some terrible F2P schemes out there, and I'm not fond of the Pay 2 Win aspects either.

    I've gone into long rants before about F2P titles, but I'm not going to make a huge page on this, and spare us all.

    Anyways, the "bad" F2P schemes are all still under the F2P umbrella.  And most, IMO, won't realize it until knee deep.  They're quite gradual in their exposure, and will eventually be very in-your-face about nudging you towards paying more and more.

    And to keep things fair, I despise P2P with Cash Shops also.  And yes, just because WoW did it, IMO, it still doesn't make it right.  It's a dirty practice and takes the worst aspects of both F2P and P2P, all bundled into one terrible package.

    "I have only two out of my company and 20 out of some other company. We need support, but it is almost suicide to try to get it here as we are swept by machine gun fire and a constant barrage is on us. I have no one on my left and only a few on my right. I will hold." (First Lieutenant Clifton B. Cates, US Marine Corps, Soissons, 19 July 1918)

  • merv808merv808 Member UncommonPosts: 511
    Originally posted by Hurvart

    If I play a F2P game I will actually spend a fortune. I will want everything that can boost my character or help me progress faster. And I will use everything all the time. This is why I dont play F2P games. Because I know I will spend way to much if I get hooked and cant stop playing a game like that. And if I dont buy and use evrything I will not have fun. I guess it is my powergamer attitude. If there are advantages I can have I must get them and use them. And I cant stop thinking about them when I play. And very soon I will go to the CS and spend spend spend...People that can play a F2P game and never spend anything are not like me at all. I am a different sort of gamer. Probably the type of player that F2P companies hope will play the games.Thats why I dont like the F2P games. Because I know they are designed to make people like me spend a fortune. And that a game like that will become a very sad and expensive habit.

     

    Even p2p games have cash shops. There's no hope for you.

    how does someone like you resist gold sellers and the like? Sounds like you're spending a ton regardless... Impulse control my friend
  • LegereLegere Member UncommonPosts: 123
    Originally posted by Ocenica

    If something is free your either going to wind up paying too much for it, or it's not worth anything.  

     

    I have been reading quite a lot about how F2P could replace traditional subs and I'm going to let you guys in on a little secret.  You really don't want that to happen.   It sounds like your going to get to play a game for free, never fork over any cash and just love every second of it.  Sorry, that is NOT going to happen.

    These companies can sometimes employ up to hundreds of people that have familes to support.  They don't work for free the same as you wouldn't work for free.  Someone has to pay up and eventually, if you do get hooked, that will be you.  Oh, and saying you won't get hooked doesn't work either.  If your reading something on MMORPG your probably already familiar with being hooked on some mmo at some point so don't even try that silly argument. You know it can happen.

    So lets say you do get hooked.  Well then instead of a measly $15 a month (if your cheap and only pay 1 month at a time / who does that?!) Your going to get nickle and dimed to death.  I'll give you an example. 

    My best friend Steve (that's his real name too!) stoped playing WoW because he said it cost to much.  Blah blah blah $15 a month for those Aholes who are already rich Blah Blah Blah.  He went off to play some F2P game .  Well, after much nudging he came back after about a year, but he said the reason he came back was because when he figured up all the $2-$5 purchases he made, he was spending an average of $50 a month!!

    Don't buy into the F2P.  Avoid it, beat it off with a stick, it's a zombie irl.  Pony up $15 for a month and give it a shot.  If you love it, then great, the entertainment is cheap.  If you hate it, $15 for 30 days is still sooooo cheap.  You can't buy that kind of entertainment anywhere.  Not at a strip club, not at a movie theater.  Not driving around town because your bored since you don't have anything to do because you didn't want to spend a couple of bucks and enjoy your free time.

    STOP BEING SO DAMN CHEAP!  Your huring yourself.

     

    FYI, no i don't work for any game companies.

     

    if its done right, f2p is kick ass. look at AION.. almost no restrictions.  if you look at SOE's f2p model yeah i agree, best stick with a sub.. but thats why soe is going down fast!

     

     

  • ScarlyngScarlyng Member UncommonPosts: 159

    I prefer B2P, and don't mind if there's a cash shop.

     

    P2P games encourage devs to produce content that must be endlessly repeated.  F2P games are usually very content, and their cash shops are based on the quote, "There's a sucker born every minute."

    The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw

  • 3-4thElf3-4thElf Member Posts: 489

    For as little as 10 cents a day you can help a gamer play a WoW-clone.

    Give why don't you.

    [insert underfed gamer being pimped out by some fat 80s star]

    But seriously... MMOs ala carte isn't that expensive if you have sense.

    a yo ho ho

  • HurvartHurvart Member Posts: 565
    Originally posted by merv808
    Originally posted by Hurvart

    If I play a F2P game I will actually spend a fortune. I will want everything that can boost my character or help me progress faster. And I will use everything all the time. This is why I dont play F2P games. Because I know I will spend way to much if I get hooked and cant stop playing a game like that. And if I dont buy and use evrything I will not have fun. I guess it is my powergamer attitude. If there are advantages I can have I must get them and use them. And I cant stop thinking about them when I play. And very soon I will go to the CS and spend spend spend...

    People that can play a F2P game and never spend anything are not like me at all. I am a different sort of gamer. Probably the type of player that F2P companies hope will play the games.

    Thats why I dont like the F2P games. Because I know they are designed to make people like me spend a fortune. And that a game like that will become a very sad and expensive habit.

     

    Even p2p games have cash shops. There's no hope for you. how does someone like you resist gold sellers and the like? Sounds like you're spending a ton regardless... Impulse control my friend


    I only buy from cash shops if they sell advantage items. Anything that can help me progress faster or boosts that in some way can make my character more powerful. I buy things like xp-potions, skill up potions, faster faction gain potions, run speed potions, regen potions, resist potions, resurection potions, travel scrolls/ potions. All items that can boost or permanently increase stats. All items/scrolls/potions that can in any way enhance or improve my gear. If they sell gear directly that is better or as good as the best gear in game I will buy the best they can offer for every slot. And also store exclusive mana or healing potions. All crafting recepies that makes it possible to craft powerful items and everything that can boost crafting skills. Maunts that are faster or better compared to what I can get in game. Or if they are the same and it saves a lot of time to buy them.  And all boosts that lasts like 1 hour I will feel I need to use all the time(or as often as the game allows me to use them).

    When I play I always feel I want to progress as fast as possible. And I want my character to be as good as possible. And if I know there are things that can help in the CS I will think about that all the time and cant stop myself from buying everything. And I am afraid that type of behaviour and buying habits can get very expensive in some cash shop games. But it is my power gamer attitude combined with the fact that things get out of control and I cant stop myself from buying more and more...

    But I dont buy things that are only cosmetic. And I would not buy from gold sellers or farmers. Because I dont trust them. So I can still play some P2P games.

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by Vesavius
    Originally posted by saluk

    Bleh. I don't like f2p because I am broke, I like f2p because I don't feel like I am tied to a specific game. I can mix and match and try a lot of games out, and don't have to quit one to play another.

    Further evidence that the F2P model creates a transient non-investing fickle player base.

    It really is bad for MMORPGs on so many levels.

    Creates it? If the devs are the greedy evil corporate suits that they are portrayed as, then wouldn't it make more sense that the playerbase not only was pre-existing but large enough that the business model was changed to fit how they choose to pay/play?

    No, a payment model can obviously change player culture. Anyone watching the industry (REALLY watching) can tell you this.

    With nothing invested, either finanicially or emotionally, means a game is easy to jump in and then leave just as quickly.

    The payment model doesn't change culture when it comes to leisure and entertainment - culture changes the payment model.

    Well, we obviously fundamentally disgaree here, that's obvious.

    I find your statement so black and white and, because of that, fundamentally so plain wrong that I am not sure it even bears debating that much. Of course how people are charged for access and asked to financially commit to a leisure service changes how they use it. It changes their perception of it, their willingness to adapt to it, and most of the time their overall investment in it.

    You give something to someone for free and it usually becomes disposable right from the very start.

    I edited your link for clarity, mainly because I don't think much of it in so far as it going to support any kind of point you were making anyhow. The two cases do not have much to do with each other. I do not disagree that the supplier CAN respond to culture, what I say is that, in this case, the change in mass culture (as in moving F2P into the mainstream of Western gaming and the change in general attitudes we have seen towards it) was created largely by active 'creative marketing' (opinion forming). Once you hit a critical mass in acceptence of an idea, a point where it becomes the fashionable thought, then sheer inertia will carry it foward. 

    Marketing CAN create demand in people that did not want it before. It CAN change perception and culture. Anyone with a very basic knowledge of how it works will tell you this. It's basically social engineering, something that the internet makes depressingly easy. This applies to the promotion of a revenue model as much as the sale of a physical product.

    The issue you present in the second sentence is an interesting one. Most of today's MMOs are not designed or managed to foster or maintain communities. There is no way for people to create their own groups or social units. Other than a chat channel, there is no way for like-minded players to find each other, congregate, and interact. This could be entirely because it's not what today's players want, so devoting resources to it would be a waste.

    I wouldn't disgree with anything you say here.

    Which is why I only ever said that the F2P model is helping create a transient non invested short culture in MMORPGs.

    It is one factor amongst many.

     

  • VesaviusVesavius Member RarePosts: 7,908
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Originally posted by Gdemami

    Originally posted by Vesavius

     

    OK, fine, you know it all. I have no need to educate you in Marketing 101. Believe what you will.

    Do yourself a favour though and Google 'Marketing creating demand' and have a read.


    Ah, famous "google it" argument...or rather lack of...


    Was there a demand for a Pet Rock back in the 70's? Did the person responsible for that meet a demand from customers?

     

    Were there people clammering for a Hoola Hoop when Whamo introduced it in the 50's?

     

    ;)

     

  • Pratt2112Pratt2112 Member UncommonPosts: 1,636
    Originally posted by KingGator
    Originally posted by Sameer1979
    Originally posted by Nebless

    Guess what ... It only cost's money if you want it to.

    I play LotRO and use the ingame TP I earn to pay for everything.  I've played DDO for a couple of years now and put a wopping $20.00 into it (just in case you don't want to do the math that comes out to .83cents a month).  Haven't put any money into AoC, PotBS or STO and I've had loads of fun in all those games.

    Would I still play if they were P2p?  Some of them yes, others no.

    Bottom line, if you just have to have that brand new shiney that just came out to make your game play enjoyable .... go for it.  Me?  No thanks.

    Not all F2P MMOS work on same basis as LOTRO and DDO but even then best deal is to stick to monthly sub for F2P titles. F2P is just a gimmick and ends up hurting your pocket even more.

     

    Exactly this, I've been screaming this for some time. I think f2p is popular because most gamers, and I don't mean this insultingly but its going to come off that way, are broke arse college students or young people and they have visions of playing for free. What generation occupy doesn't understand is that nothing is free. f2p will cost you more than a sub and actually puts you at a disadvantage vs old men like me who could spend 1oo bucks a month on this crap and not even blink.(I won't do it on principal, but I could pay 2 win quite easily)

     

    Moreover these games ae my escape, my fantasy world, the minute you bring real world economic considerations into the game you bring the real world into the game and make them far less interesting to me.

     

    I don't think sub games are dead. WoW is a sub game and is by far the most popular game in the world. The reason sub games have failed of late isn't the frekaing payment model it is quite simply that bad game was bad.

     Very well put.

    There's a major issue I have with them as well, and it speaks to your "escaping the real world" bit. The bit that bothers me is that even if they're not forcing you to spend money, and they're not. You can play the game forever without spending a dime - you'll be doing a lot of grinding and such in its place to even have a chance of "breaking even" with what the buyers are able to do, but you could do it. Someone playing a F2P MMO but not ever spending a dime is playing completely against the intentions of the developer. They want you in the game for free. They don't want you playing it for free. There's a difference.

    It's like a club or bar not charging a door fee. It's not because they like you and really want you to come hang out. It's because if you're in the bar or club, there's a far greater chance of you coughing up the cash on drinks... and you'll likely spend far more on drinks than you would have on the door fee (not a difficult task, considering the price of drinks at a club). The more bodies they can get into the bar/club, the more people they'll have to potentially buy drinks, the more money they stand to make. The same exact principle at work with F2P/Cash Shop games. The "Free" part gets you in the door, and one major step closer to the cash shop.

    The thing that ruins it for me - even without going into all the underhanded crap that goes into the Cash Shop, the pricing schemes, etc - is that I'm always aware that at every moment I'm playing one of these games, they are trying to get me to spend money. The arbitrary little annoyances that they just happen to sell an item for in the cash shop. The obvious tweaking of things like xp-rates, HP and MP consumption and such, all to make buying those potions and charms from the cash shop all the more appealing. It's all the things in the design that, at least to me, are very much done on purpose to get me to the cash shop as often as possible. That's what bothers me. Playing a F2P MMO is like enduring a never-ending sales-pitch that starts from the moment you log in 'til the moment you log out. And let's not even talk about the ever-present "Cash Shop!" button that you can't get rid of on-screen in some. Or the ads that pop up on-screen every 10 minutes in others. Or the items you can pick up or receive as quest rewards... but can't actually use unless you spend money in the cash shop first.

    All of that  crap ruins the experience for me. When I log into a game, I want to just dig in and play at my own pace, doing what I want to do, without the constant reminders that "Hey! You could always spend more money in the cash shop!".

    This is why, when I find a MMO I enjoy and whose developers do a good job of maintaining it (to me), I'm more than happy to - and actually prefer to - pay them a monthly subscription fee. To me, $15 a month for the amount of entertainment I can get from one of those games is an incredible bargain. There's little else I could do that would cost me as little per hour of entertainment as a sub-based MMO would.

    I personally don't believe the whole "Oh, $15 is too much. It's not worth it" argument. With how much people will happily spend on other forms of entertainment that cost as much, if not more, for far less entertainment time, they're going to scoff at spending as little as 50 cents an hour over the course of a month, possibly even less if they play more? I don't buy it. I'd bet money that if you could get inside these people's brains to see what they really think, what you'd really find is that they simply want something for nothing. Of course aren't just going to come out and say that, 'cause that makes them look unreasonable and entitled (deservedly so).

    In fact, I've seen first-hand evidence of this with Final Fantasy XIV.  Many of you are probably aware that SE halted all subscription fees for up to a year on FFXIV while they worked to improve the game and turn it around. During that time, there are many people who played the hell out of it. All their classes are level 50, they've done all the content. They've run all the dungeons and gotten all the best drops, and they continued to play it even after doing all that. When SE announced they would be reinstating subscriptions, many of these people absolutely lost it. "The moment SE reinstates subscriptions, I'm canceling!" they would say. "There's not enough in this game to warrant a subscription! It isn't worth the money! It should remain F2P!", "If SE activates subscriptions, they're losing a customer because I will not tolerate it!".. and on and on.

    Here's the best part, though. After SE activated subscriptions, many of those same people were still there. Still logged into the forums, still posting, still complaining. An active subscription, with at least one active character is required to post on the forums. So, all their stomping, and pouting and threats to SE were just hot-air. When the time came to pay up or leave, they paid up. Why? Becaus the game definitely is worth the sub fee for them... they just wanted to continue getting it all for free and thought if they put up enough of a show, they might get their way.

    Then there's another of my favorites. The people who will go on and on with all the problems a game has that make it unplayable and so they cancel. Then they blame the game's failure on its subscription fee. As though without one, all those issues making it unplayable would just suddenly disappear. I mean.. really? Could these people be any more transparent?

    I believe many of the people who say "$15 a month isn't worth it" fall into exactly the same category. It's not that they feel it's not worth it. It's that they'd rather get something for nothing.

     

  • SouldrainerSouldrainer Member Posts: 1,857

    Just some of my random thoughts on the topic....

     

    The problem people seem to have with F2P is that some games are definitely more expensive using that model.  Age of Conan is an example.  To get the same content you got in the P2P version, you will shell out something in the hundreds.

    ,,, but F2P can be done right.  Prior to the DDO expansion overprice of 2012, that game seemed to have a ton of positive feedback regarding their a la carte system.

    The problem I see with both models is that certain games are not giving the gamer a value for their dollars.  SWTOR is an example.  SWTOR has charged some people nearly $100 in sub fees so far in exchange for 3 ill-received updates.  If I pay you every month, you need to deliver good content every month, period.

    I honestly think that if you are looking for a new industry standard, the $99 Xbox 360 is worth a look.  The combination of reduced box cost and small sub fees resonates with consumers.  Ever hear of a smartphone?  Yeah, they use this marketing tactic all the time, and that is why they are everywhere.   Games and MMOs should do that.  If SWTOR was a $20 game with a $5 sub fee, it would have done a lot better.

    So, at the end of the day, is F2P more expensive?  It depends on the game.  Personally, I like the idea of paying for content a ala carte, but I don't think most games price it reasonably.  Paying to unlock new content and special events?  Awesome!  Paying to unlock basic features?  No thanks.  My biggest fear is that the industry will switch to this model before it understands some of the better approaches to the concept, which means that the MMO bubble will bust, and the genre will collapse.

    Error: 37. Signature not found. Please connect to my server for signature access.

  • GdemamiGdemami Member EpicPosts: 12,342


    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

    Did the person responsible for that meet a demand from customers?

    Considering 1.5M units sold, apparently he did.

    Are you making any point asking questions with blatantly obvious answers?

Sign In or Register to comment.