A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it. D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
This is an impressively succinct way of saying what I've been saying in this thread. Well put!
The trouble, though, is the assumption that no research goes in before buying any game. For me, I will neither play NOR pay for a "bad game." Where is this choice in the "succinct" argument?
People research products, buy them, and are unhappy with them every day. Why would games be any different?
There is a reason why marketing is effective in making sales...
Yet you neglected to acknowledge "research" in any way in your supposed "dilemma." I'll grant that game players are worse than most consumers. We pre-order like it is a privilege. We "consume" everything within reach.
My point is that there is another scenario which you totally neglected, choosing instead to paint P2P advocates as imbecilic morons. I took issue with that. And Axehilt jumped right on that bandwagon.
A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it. D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
This is an impressively succinct way of saying what I've been saying in this thread. Well put!
The trouble, though, is the assumption that no research goes in before buying any game. For me, I will neither play NOR pay for a "bad game." Where is this choice in the "succinct" argument?
People research products, buy them, and are unhappy with them every day. Why would games be any different?
There is a reason why marketing is effective in making sales...
Yet you neglected to acknowledge "research" in any way in your supposed "dilemma." I'll grant that game players are worse than most consumers. We pre-order like it is a privilege. We "consume" everything within reach.
My point is that there is another scenario which you totally neglected, choosing instead to paint P2P advocates as imbecilic morons. I took issue with that. And Axehilt jumped right on that bandwagon.
Research is not a variable in this scenario. I listed 4 options (which are all valid), none of which change based on research.
You could make the argument that the outcomes are not equally balanced (i.e. with 4 games you do not have 4 different outcomes). However, it does not change the fact that the only scenario where you pay for a bad game is one where you have to pay first.
This is why P2P is marketing driven. The ability to make sales, regardless/despite the product is a huge advantage if your product does not sell itself.
F2P uses the product itself as the marketing tool. This means that the product has to sell itself, and that marketing has little effect.
If a game wants to be P2P in this day of MMOs then the price has to be lower. People no longer see value in $15 a month for an MMO when there are hundreds of F2P out there a long with some good B2P games.
Lets look at ESO. It recently went to B2P and has a schedule of releasing DLC every few months at prices of $25 ( $25 gets you 3000 crowns which is enough for 2500 or 3000 crown DLC ). Lets say they get a release out every 4 months which brings us to just over $6 a month averaged out ( around $8 if they pull off every 3 months ). If profit can be made with DLC releases in that fashion then surely profit can be had with a lower subscription fee.
So my idea is to lower the price of P2P MMOs down to $7.50 per month.
However the best way to probably go about it is to be a hybrid of F2P and P2P with a lower monthly subscription.
I remember paying $9.99 a month way back when for Gamestorm that offered a huge collection of online games. And then the big MMOs were $9.99 a month. The value is no longer there at $15 a month.
A. Game is Free. Game is Good. Pay for it B. Game is Free. Game is Bad. Dont Pay for it C. Game is not Free. Game is Good. Pay for it. D. Game is not Free. Game is Bad. Pay for it.
The only scenario where you pay for a bad game, is if the game is not free. So, they should have said:
For me the money isn't an issue. I will pay for a bad game, but will not play a bad game for free.
This is an impressively succinct way of saying what I've been saying in this thread. Well put!
The trouble, though, is the assumption that no research goes in before buying any game. For me, I will neither play NOR pay for a "bad game." Where is this choice in the "succinct" argument?
People research products, buy them, and are unhappy with them every day. Why would games be any different?
There is a reason why marketing is effective in making sales...
Yet you neglected to acknowledge "research" in any way in your supposed "dilemma." I'll grant that game players are worse than most consumers. We pre-order like it is a privilege. We "consume" everything within reach.
My point is that there is another scenario which you totally neglected, choosing instead to paint P2P advocates as imbecilic morons. I took issue with that. And Axehilt jumped right on that bandwagon.
It isn't that it's not being acknowledged, it's that it is a constant between the two so there is no need to bring it up. Both types can be researched. However, one has to be purchased before actually trying it for yourself. The other lets you play first and decide if you want to pay (and even what parts you wish to buy or not) after experiencing the game first hand.
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
Research is not a variable in this scenario. I listed 4 options (which are all valid), none of which change based on research.
Forgive my ignorance, but why would a player research a free game? Download, install, play. If you like it, keep playing. If not, uninstall. no cost. Very little effort. Less effort than reading reviews, watching videos, and weeding through other information about the game? I thought the whole "pull" of F2P was ease of access and use. I'm not saying that F2P players can not research a game, but I bet these may be a little more than P2P pre-order players.
Again, I am not a F2P player, so I apologogize for my ignorance.
PS: Marketing is used for F2P games. The catchy little ads and videos draw players in, just like P2P games. True, the game needs to enitce players to keep playing, just like a P2P game. The way you posed your "scenario" was very slanted. I am not a numbskull that blindly buys game left and right, as you inferred. Nor are many other P2P players.
I don't get this Pay 2 Win concept that we've somehow labelled it. In a game, I am me and I care not for what gear or level others are. If there was no cash shop, I'd meet people higher level, lower level, better gear, less gear than me. With a cash shop, guess what, it's the same. How people choose to play their game and enhance their experience does not, one bit, affect my enjoyment. If it means that more of the others are wearing better gear, then that inspires me to want achieve what they have, playing the game - I get no fun out of buying gear as that isn't an achievement in itself and anything that I come by too easily is no thrill because no challenge.
If people are allowed to buy stuff in a shop and it means I can have more content, better content and more fun, let them, because I don't care what their relative difference is to me. Skill always beats gear.
Research is not a variable in this scenario. I listed 4 options (which are all valid), none of which change based on research.
Forgive my ignorance, but why would a player research a free game? Download, install, play. If you like it, keep playing. If not, uninstall. no cost. Very little effort. Less effort than reading reviews, watching videos, and weeding through other information about the game? I thought the whole "pull" of F2P was ease of access and use. I'm not saying that F2P players can not research a game, but I bet these may be a little more than P2P pre-order players.
Again, I am not a F2P player, so I apologogize for my ignorance.
PS: Marketing is used for F2P games. The catchy little ads and videos draw players in, just like P2P games. True, the game needs to enitce players to keep playing, just like a P2P game. The way you posed your "scenario" was very slanted. I am not a numbskull that blindly buys game left and right, as you inferred. Nor are many other P2P players.
Why would a player research a P2P game? Pay, download, install, play. If you like it, keep playing. If not, uninstall.
The same arbitrary logic works for both F2P and P2P. The assumption that choosing a game is random/baseless will work regardless of the model. However, it does not represent how people actually choose games. Finding a game you like is not not just a long string of blind trial/error. Most people choose a game because they feel it might not interest them (and not play random games until they find one that does).
This means that people do some research on a game before they play it, and often the same amount of research, regardless of the business model (as this is often one of the points researched). The fact that F2P games allow for personal experience as part of this research (before spending) if often why players are more confident in their decision to spend/not spend on a F2P game.
Your experience in the game will always be better when you pay, we should really get over that. Unless of course the game is totally free, but that's a rare occassion.
I agree with the OP that free players should be seen as potential customers.
What free to play titles should seriously get through their thick heads, is how to offer value to customers without new potential customers feeling forced or cheated.
That means: no RNG lottery crap, no blatant P2W, no obnoxious amounts of money asked for cosmetic fluff or small improvements.
Many devs seem to forget that a lot of small transactions top out a handful of big transactions. That's the philosophy that microtransactions are based on, yet many games start asking what amounts to almost the retail price of full games for fluff.
Another thing that's often forgotten is that studios should support their game as well. I feel like this is often overlooked. Designers just make a game and then expect it to run a profit on its own for years with just a skeleton crew for updates / support and additions to the cash shop, while the rest moves on to new projects.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I don't think the payment model really matters (imho). The thing that gets me to play a game and stick with it is quality and quantity of content. The problem I find with just about every single F2P or B2P MMO is that they quality and/or quantity of content just doesn't compare to a P2P MMO. I can remember back when it took you a minimum, MINIMUM, of 6 months to do everything in a MMO. In today's games, you can complete everything in about 10 hours, if that long.
Almost all recent MMOs, especially the F2P/B2P ones, have all about creating or using an IP that is intriguing enough to get enough people to buy it. Then taking said IP and flush it down the toilet and getting people to buy $5 fluffy bunny ears for their character, instead of making $20 for some content. It's because even though you only make $5 of some fluffy bunny ears, it takes about 5 minutes for an artist to make the item and put it in the shop. The $20 content (if it's good) takes at least a few months, maybe even a year. This is where cash shops ruin MMOs.
Developers put most of their resources into making these fluffy bunny ears and items that really give no longevity to the game, but they have very high profit margins. Players go into a F2P/B2P game and spend a lot of money on these fluffy bunny ears, but when they tire of the content they leave. The company no longer has to pay for bandwidth for that player, and the comopany already has gotten their money from that player for the fluffy bunny ears. From a business standpoint it is a great business model. Little risk, very low cost, and high reward.
If a company made a game and put their resources towards content there is much greater cost and a lot higher risk, with about as much reward (if not less) from a business stand point. However, from a gamer stand point all these games have no content. This is why you have players that hop and jump around from game to game every few months. The days of sticking with an MMO for 5+ years are over. It's the time of the impulsive, F2P/B2P, cash grab, switch every 3 months, make millions MMO era.
I don't think the payment model really matters (imho). The thing that gets me to play a game and stick with it is quality and quantity of content. The problem I find with just about every single F2P or B2P MMO is that they quality and/or quantity of content just doesn't compare to a P2P MMO. I can remember back when it took you a minimum, MINIMUM, of 6 months to do everything in a MMO. In today's games, you can complete everything in about 10 hours, if that long.
Almost all recent MMOs, especially the F2P/B2P ones, have all about creating or using an IP that is intriguing enough to get enough people to buy it. Then taking said IP and flush it down the toilet and getting people to buy $5 fluffy bunny ears for their character, instead of making $20 for some content. It's because even though you only make $5 of some fluffy bunny ears, it takes about 5 minutes for an artist to make the item and put it in the shop. The $20 content (if it's good) takes at least a few months, maybe even a year. This is where cash shops ruin MMOs.
Developers put most of their resources into making these fluffy bunny ears and items that really give no longevity to the game, but they have very high profit margins. Players go into a F2P/B2P game and spend a lot of money on these fluffy bunny ears, but when they tire of the content they leave. The company no longer has to pay for bandwidth for that player, and the comopany already has gotten their money from that player for the fluffy bunny ears. From a business standpoint it is a great business model. Little risk, very low cost, and high reward.
If a company made a game and put their resources towards content there is much greater cost and a lot higher risk, with about as much reward (if not less) from a business stand point. However, from a gamer stand point all these games have no content. This is why you have players that hop and jump around from game to game every few months. The days of sticking with an MMO for 5+ years are over. It's the time of the impulsive, F2P/B2P, cash grab, switch every 3 months, make millions MMO era.
F2P/P2P are all about marketing (this is why it is called F2P and not SAAS). They are competing for your attention via different methods. P2P has to use traditional marketing to convince you to spend money before you can play the game. F2P uses less traditional marketing, but also uses the gameplay to convince you to spend. What they are both competing for is your attention/time, once they have that, how well they perform their task determines if they get your money.
@OP You make paid better than free. It's not rocket science.
Yes, but how?
I have suggested the following:
Small games, where more players is NOT better. Premium games, where exclusivity is the goal.
What is your not rocket science suggestion?
I did find my own post too short and pretentious, so I edited it.
The key word in my opinion is value. There are some F2P games out there that do it well, most fail utterly however.
You need stuff in your cash shop which makes the player feel like they got their money's worth, but they weren't cheated into it. Cool costumes at affordable prices, nice boosts that make in-game life a little bit easier, advantages and things to show off. Plus the necessary commitment and personnel to keep the goodies flowing, real life shops need to invest in that as well.
Honestly, the best example for me would be Planetside 2. A skill based game that allows you to unlock a bunch of things early if you spend some money. Even though I still think they ask for far too much. They'd get a lot more people actually spending if they kept their prices in check.
Exclusivity though? It's something that a lot of F2P games are going for with ridiculously high rates to be competitive. But it's an absurd way of thinking. You're putting all your bets on including as many players as possible by making your game free to download, only to then scare off as many of those potential customers as possible by asking huge sums of money? What. The. Fuck.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Many devs seem to forget that a lot of small transactions top out a handful of big transactions. That's the philosophy that microtransactions are based on, yet many games start asking what amounts to almost the retail price of full games for fluff.
Another thing that's often forgotten is that studios should support their game as well. I feel like this is often overlooked. Designers just make a game and then expect it to run a profit on its own for years with just a skeleton crew for updates / support and additions to the cash shop, while the rest moves on to new projects.
Please, people, whem making up ridiculous nonsense, add something like "In my strange world..." or "If things were insane and not like reality..." because otherwise it looks like you tried shoveling out some crazy opinion as if it was fact, and that's just plain silly.
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
Many devs seem to forget that a lot of small transactions top out a handful of big transactions. That's the philosophy that microtransactions are based on, yet many games start asking what amounts to almost the retail price of full games for fluff.
Another thing that's often forgotten is that studios should support their game as well. I feel like this is often overlooked. Designers just make a game and then expect it to run a profit on its own for years with just a skeleton crew for updates / support and additions to the cash shop, while the rest moves on to new projects.
Please, people, whem making up ridiculous nonsense, add something like "In my strange world..." or "If things were insane and not like reality..." because otherwise it looks like you tried shoveling out some crazy opinion as if it was fact, and that's just plain silly.
Making it up huh?
Look at how many full games worth dozens of hours I can get on Steam or any other digital retailer out there which I can get for ~20 euros these days. I've downloaded and played four or five in the last few months alone.
Now tell me there are no fluffy unicorn mounts, sexy outfits, helmets and other fluff for sale for that amount in various F2P games out there. I double dare you.
Inform yourself before ridiculing other's opinions.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Many devs seem to forget that a lot of small transactions top out a handful of big transactions. That's the philosophy that microtransactions are based on, yet many games start asking what amounts to almost the retail price of full games for fluff.
You seems to forget that it does not automatically become true if you say so.
Whales are what is holding the f2p games up, and certainly few big transactions seem to work pretty well for the devs.
Many devs seem to forget that a lot of small transactions top out a handful of big transactions. That's the philosophy that microtransactions are based on, yet many games start asking what amounts to almost the retail price of full games for fluff.
Another thing that's often forgotten is that studios should support their game as well. I feel like this is often overlooked. Designers just make a game and then expect it to run a profit on its own for years with just a skeleton crew for updates / support and additions to the cash shop, while the rest moves on to new projects.
Please, people, when making up ridiculous nonsense, add something like "In my strange world..." or "If things were insane and not like reality..." because otherwise it looks like you tried shoveling out some crazy opinion as if it was fact, and that's just plain silly.
Making it up huh?
Look at how many full games worth dozens of hours I can get on Steam or any other digital retailer out there which I can get for ~20 euros these days. I've downloaded and played four or five in the last few months alone.
Now tell me there are no fluffy unicorn mounts, sexy outfits, helmets and other fluff for sale for that amount in various F2P games out there. I double dare you.
Inform yourself before ridiculing other's opinions.
I'm sorry that sexy outfits and unicorn mounts are out of your price range. I also apologize that the lack of ownership of such things is blocking your progression in the very, very bizarre MMO you are playing.
EDIT: Please take a moment to realize that your argument so far is that because someone somewhere is selling a game for $20, it is unfair or wrong that someone else should sell an optional add on to a completely unrelated - and probably FREE - game for more than that.
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
Many devs seem to forget that a lot of small transactions top out a handful of big transactions. That's the philosophy that microtransactions are based on, yet many games start asking what amounts to almost the retail price of full games for fluff.
You seems to forget that it does not automatically become true if you say so.
Whales are what is holding the f2p games up, and certainly few big transactions seem to work pretty well for the devs.
Whales are what is holding up the online gaming industry (regardless of choice of business model).
A reliable product can compete with free to play any day. The problem is, which game is going to offer what gamers want, considering that's a very broad list. There are too many problems in the current mmo markett. There's dozens of games catering to a crowd at any given time. I would say, Offering better services, ground breaking hosting technology, quality customer support and all the things which we use to have but have gone away in recent years can make the subscription model more desirable.
Ofcourse, when gaming companies don't have to worry about any of this with free to play... why would they go back?
It doesn't matter that the content in games is recycled and nothing fresh, they can just keep coming up with inferior products and gamers are going to try it out. Players keep moving from game to game spending money on the cash grab shops enough to keep all this games having deformed babies. It's pretty disappointing.
Many devs seem to forget that a lot of small transactions top out a handful of big transactions. That's the philosophy that microtransactions are based on, yet many games start asking what amounts to almost the retail price of full games for fluff.
You seems to forget that it does not automatically become true if you say so.
Whales are what is holding the f2p games up, and certainly few big transactions seem to work pretty well for the devs.
Whales are what is holding up the online gaming industry (regardless of choice of business model).
sure .. which actually reinforces my point ... few big transactions seem to work pretty well for both f2p and p2p devs.
Research is not a variable in this scenario. I listed 4 options (which are all valid), none of which change based on research.
Forgive my ignorance, but why would a player research a free game? Download, install, play. If you like it, keep playing. If not, uninstall. no cost. Very little effort. Less effort than reading reviews, watching videos, and weeding through other information about the game? I thought the whole "pull" of F2P was ease of access and use. I'm not saying that F2P players can not research a game, but I bet these may be a little more than P2P pre-order players.
Again, I am not a F2P player, so I apologogize for my ignorance.
PS: Marketing is used for F2P games. The catchy little ads and videos draw players in, just like P2P games. True, the game needs to enitce players to keep playing, just like a P2P game. The way you posed your "scenario" was very slanted. I am not a numbskull that blindly buys game left and right, as you inferred. Nor are many other P2P players.
Why would a player research a P2P game? Pay, download, install, play. If you like it, keep playing. If not, uninstall.
The same arbitrary logic works for both F2P and P2P. The assumption that choosing a game is random/baseless will work
regardless of the model. However, it does not represent how people
actually choose games. Finding a game you like is not not just a long
string of blind trial/error. Most people choose a game because they feel
it might not interest them (and not play random games until they find
one that does).
This means that people do some research on a game
before they play it, and often the same amount of research, regardless
of the business model (as this is often one of the points researched).
The fact that F2P games allow for personal experience as part of this
research (before spending) if often why players are more confident in
their decision to spend/not spend on a F2P game.
No, it does not. Unless, of course, you fork over $60 to download a F2P game? I guess not, sionce that would not be F2P. Did you really just ask this and try to compare the upfront output of money to no output and say "no difference"? If so, no further discussion needs ot take place. You way out past right field.
You fail to see the HUGE diffrence between P2P and F2P: The upfront cost. Can F2P players research a game before downloading? Of course. My question is why? It longer to research the millions of opinion pieces on any given game then it usually does to download, install, and play. No money has left that player's hands. P2P is an investment, in that a player pays out money FIRST, then gets the game. Research here makes a LOT of sense.
Still think research applies "equally" to each payment method? If your answer is "yes", you win. I can not explain it any easier than this and further discussion is pointless.
Still think research applies "equally" to each payment method? If your answer is "yes", you win. I can not explain it any easier than this and further discussion is pointless.
Yes. People value their time/entertainment and do not seek to play a game of Russian roulette with random games to find one that they like. They do not want to invest a lot of time/effort into a game, only to find that it was all wasted.
I do agree that there needs to be a higher level of CONFIDENCE before players spend money.... but this is why P2P uses marketing, to instill that confidence.
I'm sorry that sexy outfits and unicorn mounts are out of your price range. I also apologize that the lack of ownership of such things is blocking your progression in the very, very bizarre MMO you are playing.
EDIT: Please take a moment to realize that your argument so far is that because someone somewhere is selling a game for $20, it is unfair or wrong that someone else should sell an optional add on to a completely unrelated - and probably FREE - game for more than that.
You know what they say about people who assume?
Those things are not at all out of my price range. Instead of attacking me personally, I suggest you read that post again, never did I argue that it was unfair to sell such a thing or that it did hamper progress.
I make the point that it is very poor value for your money to buy an ingame hat or some fluff for €20 while nowadays you can get full retail games at that price point.
My point is that I think that F2P games could be both hugely more successful if they set realistic prices for game store items and create a lot more happy, paying customers that way. Instead of only a few.
You seems to forget that it does not automatically become true if you say so.
Whales are what is holding the f2p games up, and certainly few big transactions seem to work pretty well for the devs.
This is an internet forum, these are opinions. It's also kind of funny that you make a statement that isn't backed up by anything just after complaining that I did so.
A lot is being said about whales, but what F2P games exactly have tried to do things radically different? How can we even draw conclusions when this style of game is so young?
I work for a company that sells various sport's equipment.
Do you think they make more money off 1) super high-end race bicycles and advanced diving jackets costing €500-€3000 a piece, 2) ridiculously cheap basic t-shirts, thermal underwear and swimming goggles which are priced at like €5-15€?
It's 2), because they sell thousands of times more than the first option. Because people don't need to think twice about buying something like that when they feel like they need it.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
My point is that I think that F2P games could be both hugely more successful if they set realistic prices for game store items and create a lot more happy, paying customers that way. Instead of only a few.
You seems to forget that it does not automatically become true if you say so.
Whales are what is holding the f2p games up, and certainly few big transactions seem to work pretty well for the devs.
This is an internet forum, these are opinions. It's also kind of funny that you make a statement that isn't backed up by anything just after complaining that I did so.
A lot is being said about whales, but what F2P games exactly have tried to do things radically different? How can we even draw conclusions when this style of game is so young?
It is not an opinion that f2p games are going after whales (read the gamasutra article, for example). It is not an opinion that f2p games are making more than p2p games and taking over.
I did not say there is no better way ... i said "current method works for them" .. which certainly does ... otherwise they would have changed their business models.
And no f2p have not tried to do things radically different. Why should they? They don't need to risk a different method when the current one works. You know, if it is not broken ...
Comments
My point is that there is another scenario which you totally neglected, choosing instead to paint P2P advocates as imbecilic morons. I took issue with that. And Axehilt jumped right on that bandwagon.
VG
You could make the argument that the outcomes are not equally balanced (i.e. with 4 games you do not have 4 different outcomes). However, it does not change the fact that the only scenario where you pay for a bad game is one where you have to pay first.
This is why P2P is marketing driven. The ability to make sales, regardless/despite the product is a huge advantage if your product does not sell itself.
F2P uses the product itself as the marketing tool. This means that the product has to sell itself, and that marketing has little effect.
Lets look at ESO. It recently went to B2P and has a schedule of releasing DLC every few months at prices of $25 ( $25 gets you 3000 crowns which is enough for 2500 or 3000 crown DLC ). Lets say they get a release out every 4 months which brings us to just over $6 a month averaged out ( around $8 if they pull off every 3 months ). If profit can be made with DLC releases in that fashion then surely profit can be had with a lower subscription fee.
So my idea is to lower the price of P2P MMOs down to $7.50 per month.
However the best way to probably go about it is to be a hybrid of F2P and P2P with a lower monthly subscription.
I remember paying $9.99 a month way back when for Gamestorm that offered a huge collection of online games. And then the big MMOs were $9.99 a month. The value is no longer there at $15 a month.
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
Again, I am not a F2P player, so I apologogize for my ignorance.
PS: Marketing is used for F2P games. The catchy little ads and videos draw players in, just like P2P games. True, the game needs to enitce players to keep playing, just like a P2P game. The way you posed your "scenario" was very slanted. I am not a numbskull that blindly buys game left and right, as you inferred. Nor are many other P2P players.
VG
If people are allowed to buy stuff in a shop and it means I can have more content, better content and more fun, let them, because I don't care what their relative difference is to me. Skill always beats gear.
The same arbitrary logic works for both F2P and P2P. The assumption that choosing a game is random/baseless will work regardless of the model. However, it does not represent how people actually choose games. Finding a game you like is not not just a long string of blind trial/error. Most people choose a game because they feel it might not interest them (and not play random games until they find one that does).
This means that people do some research on a game before they play it, and often the same amount of research, regardless of the business model (as this is often one of the points researched). The fact that F2P games allow for personal experience as part of this research (before spending) if often why players are more confident in their decision to spend/not spend on a F2P game.
I agree with the OP that free players should be seen as potential customers.
What free to play titles should seriously get through their thick heads, is how to offer value to customers without new potential customers feeling forced or cheated.
That means: no RNG lottery crap, no blatant P2W, no obnoxious amounts of money asked for cosmetic fluff or small improvements.
Many devs seem to forget that a lot of small transactions top out a handful of big transactions. That's the philosophy that microtransactions are based on, yet many games start asking what amounts to almost the retail price of full games for fluff.
Another thing that's often forgotten is that studios should support their game as well. I feel like this is often overlooked. Designers just make a game and then expect it to run a profit on its own for years with just a skeleton crew for updates / support and additions to the cash shop, while the rest moves on to new projects.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
I have suggested the following:
Small games, where more players is NOT better.
Premium games, where exclusivity is the goal.
What is your not rocket science suggestion?
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Oddly enough, I have only really seen those in F2P in the past decade.
Almost all recent MMOs, especially the F2P/B2P ones, have all about creating or using an IP that is intriguing enough to get enough people to buy it. Then taking said IP and flush it down the toilet and getting people to buy $5 fluffy bunny ears for their character, instead of making $20 for some content. It's because even though you only make $5 of some fluffy bunny ears, it takes about 5 minutes for an artist to make the item and put it in the shop. The $20 content (if it's good) takes at least a few months, maybe even a year. This is where cash shops ruin MMOs.
Developers put most of their resources into making these fluffy bunny ears and items that really give no longevity to the game, but they have very high profit margins. Players go into a F2P/B2P game and spend a lot of money on these fluffy bunny ears, but when they tire of the content they leave. The company no longer has to pay for bandwidth for that player, and the comopany already has gotten their money from that player for the fluffy bunny ears. From a business standpoint it is a great business model. Little risk, very low cost, and high reward.
If a company made a game and put their resources towards content there is much greater cost and a lot higher risk, with about as much reward (if not less) from a business stand point. However, from a gamer stand point all these games have no content. This is why you have players that hop and jump around from game to game every few months. The days of sticking with an MMO for 5+ years are over. It's the time of the impulsive, F2P/B2P, cash grab, switch every 3 months, make millions MMO era.
The key word in my opinion is value. There are some F2P games out there that do it well, most fail utterly however.
You need stuff in your cash shop which makes the player feel like they got their money's worth, but they weren't cheated into it. Cool costumes at affordable prices, nice boosts that make in-game life a little bit easier, advantages and things to show off. Plus the necessary commitment and personnel to keep the goodies flowing, real life shops need to invest in that as well.
Honestly, the best example for me would be Planetside 2. A skill based game that allows you to unlock a bunch of things early if you spend some money. Even though I still think they ask for far too much. They'd get a lot more people actually spending if they kept their prices in check.
Exclusivity though? It's something that a lot of F2P games are going for with ridiculously high rates to be competitive. But it's an absurd way of thinking.
You're putting all your bets on including as many players as possible by making your game free to download, only to then scare off as many of those potential customers as possible by asking huge sums of money? What. The. Fuck.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
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
Look at how many full games worth dozens of hours I can get on Steam or any other digital retailer out there which I can get for ~20 euros these days. I've downloaded and played four or five in the last few months alone.
Now tell me there are no fluffy unicorn mounts, sexy outfits, helmets and other fluff for sale for that amount in various F2P games out there. I double dare you.
Inform yourself before ridiculing other's opinions.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!
Whales are what is holding the f2p games up, and certainly few big transactions seem to work pretty well for the devs.
EDIT: Please take a moment to realize that your argument so far is that because someone somewhere is selling a game for $20, it is unfair or wrong that someone else should sell an optional add on to a completely unrelated - and probably FREE - game for more than that.
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
Ofcourse, when gaming companies don't have to worry about any of this with free to play... why would they go back?
It doesn't matter that the content in games is recycled and nothing fresh, they can just keep coming up with inferior products and gamers are going to try it out. Players keep moving from game to game spending money on the cash grab shops enough to keep all this games having deformed babies. It's pretty disappointing.
You fail to see the HUGE diffrence between P2P and F2P: The upfront cost. Can F2P players research a game before downloading? Of course. My question is why? It longer to research the millions of opinion pieces on any given game then it usually does to download, install, and play. No money has left that player's hands. P2P is an investment, in that a player pays out money FIRST, then gets the game. Research here makes a LOT of sense.
Still think research applies "equally" to each payment method? If your answer is "yes", you win. I can not explain it any easier than this and further discussion is pointless.
VG
I do agree that there needs to be a higher level of CONFIDENCE before players spend money.... but this is why P2P uses marketing, to instill that confidence.
Those things are not at all out of my price range. Instead of attacking me personally, I suggest you read that post again, never did I argue that it was unfair to sell such a thing or that it did hamper progress.
I make the point that it is very poor value for your money to buy an ingame hat or some fluff for €20 while nowadays you can get full retail games at that price point.
My point is that I think that F2P games could be both hugely more successful if they set realistic prices for game store items and create a lot more happy, paying customers that way. Instead of only a few.
This is an internet forum, these are opinions. It's also kind of funny that you make a statement that isn't backed up by anything just after complaining that I did so.
A lot is being said about whales, but what F2P games exactly have tried to do things radically different? How can we even draw conclusions when this style of game is so young?
I work for a company that sells various sport's equipment.
Do you think they make more money off
1) super high-end race bicycles and advanced diving jackets costing €500-€3000 a piece,
2) ridiculously cheap basic t-shirts, thermal underwear and swimming goggles which are priced at like €5-15€?
It's 2), because they sell thousands of times more than the first option. Because people don't need to think twice about buying something like that when they feel like they need it.
Feel free to use my referral link for SW:TOR if you want to test out the game. You'll get some special unlocks!