It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Trying to use logic and reason with Slapshot is a futile effort.. as you can clearly see, and make no mistake, no matter what you say, he will never get it, or ever view himself as the problem.Angreeegamer said:As for thinking AoC people should come hang out in this forum, why don't you people stop attacking them for being fans with low post counts first? This place has not exactly been welcoming or at all interesting in terms of discussion.
To be blunt, Yup.AlBQuirky said:You mean other than some players?Well first off, someone would need to feel that "drive through" gaming was bad in some way, to even want to avoid it.laxie said:Do you think that 'drivethrough gaming' is avoidable by good game design? Or is it just an aspect of the market that everyone has to adapt to?
This is the thing. I am not trying to change anything, that is the playground of all the people hemming and hawing about boycotts and crying about the good ol' days of subs. They seem to believe they can enact change. Good Luck!laserit said:Drift nets are huge nets that stretch for tens of miles and capture a vast quantity of fish. Only a small number of the fish are desirable and the rest are lifelessly discarded back into the sea.
Seems to me that from what your saying in this thread is that you want to improve the catch.
WoW and FFX!V already do something like this where the rise of the "Unlimited Free Trail" came to be, where in the past "Free Trails" were time based. IE: Try it Free for 30 days. Now, both WoW and FFXIV are sub games, they are not "Optional Sub" they are pure sub based games with a unlimited trial.laxie said:Ah right. That sounds interesting. It reminds me of the second half of the subscription era (around 2010-2014), where companies started doing trials. There, you had players with heavy restrictions and a strong incentive to purchase a subscription to unlock stuff.Well, if I understand what @FrodoFragins is trying to put out, is that there would be End Game content that would NOT be sold in the store and you would need a Sub to Access it.
ESO, (Like LOTRO, DDO, and every other "Optional Sub" game I know of) allows players to access their content in either via a Sub or a Cash Shop purchase.
So now I am wondering, a game with their proposed payment model exists where content is directly locked behind a Sub only, and how well it's doing.
Everquest 2 was a good example of this (not sure if they still have this model):
You had a "free" tier, which was locked out of high quality equipment, high level skills and some high level content - impossible to play efficiently at this tier, but in theory possible to join a friend in most non-endgame content.
Making any micro-transaction would move you up to the silver tier, which removed most of the annoying barriers (like guilds, trading, or access to better equipment). It still locked away content and the highest quality equipment and skills.
Maintaining an active sub would grant you a gold tier, which would unlock full functionality (no gear/skill locks). The one exception was latest content, which required a separate purchase.
What you are suggesting is a variation of this.
In a vertical progression game (like WoW), this would essentially be an extended trial. You are getting players in, letting them play through the low level content and hoping they turn to subscribers at end-game. From a business perspective, this sounds insane - let's say there are a few months of content, and perhaps 2 weeks before you reach endgame. Casual players usually take much longer than that. That's weeks where the player has to stay engaged to be monetised at all - in other words, a huge risk. What you actually want, as a business, is monetise the player as soon as possible. That's why you see the shitty mobile games where you literally kill 2 monsters and it offers you a pop-up special offer at $1.99, to get a shiny new sword.
If the player wants to join their friends at endgame (therefore not in risk of leaving during the free period), they will probably monetise anyway and the trial isn't needed.
When I had a Minecraft server, I was planning to monetise using a model you are describing. I am now working on a stand alone sandbox game and am inclined for the model too. Players would be part of a community, contributing (and competing) towards common goals. A free player would be able to access all of the content, start to finish. You would then have options to subscribe, mainly unlocking options that benefit the local community, like the option to construct a specialised community library, whereas a free player would only be able to construct a general library. In a sense, this model would lock extended end-game behind a paywall, but would still allow any player enjoy the whole vertical slice.
It was my hope that this would connect monetisation to community involvement. Where long-term players would be genuinely happy to monetise, giving back to the community. And the model would have more stability, not relying on a huge turnover of players (as people monetising would be the ones at the core of the playerbase).
This is not true at at all.AlBQuirky said:That's the frustrating part. In almost every other part of life, we can make our voices heard. In this specific business model, we have no voice. Our "wallet voting" means nothing. It matters not one iota if we play a f2p game or not. It matters not if we pay in a f2p game. The main factors are controlled by a few whales who spend enough to cover for everyone else, playing, paying, or not.Kyleran said:One thing that seems clear, many people hate the thought they might be wasting money, even if its a small amount like a monthly sub.
I personally don't mind, at times playing for 3 or 4 subs to a game and eventually realizing I haven't logged in for a few monrhs, so probably time to cancel the subs.
Whereas these same people have no problem paying hundreds of dollars for items if they are playing a game while I just won't do that unless its via a sub that gets me most everything in a game.
In my most extreme sub example I was paying CCP about $800 for six annual subs for a few years. Sounds like a lot but it broke down to about $62.50 a month, which is a pittance in terms of my budget.
We all have items we are willing to pay for but others won't, and vice versa.
Unfortunately for us sub fans, the F2P / whale model works or devs wouldn't use it so often.
As Ungood said the only "defense" is to make sure to support any game which offers a sub, even if its combined with a cash shop and while you are at it, pay for a couple or buy a long term sub like 6 months or a year.
The only thing you accomplish by not paying anything is to fall off the radar as a potential customer which Devs will then never cater to you.
Well of course, you can play for free on games with that model, devs need the fodder for their paying customers.
Think of yourself as a "player controlled" NPC, mostly there for the entertainment of other paying clients and as the Devs don't have to do much extra coding for it they welcome you.
So we bitch and moan on internet message boards