Howdy, Stranger!

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




Last Active
  • How does Ashes of creation and Choronicles of Elyria has more votes than Crowfall and Camelot?

    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. 
    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.
  • Whales and freeloader symbiotic relationship conquering gaming?

    AlBQuirky said:
    Ungood said:
    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?
    Well first off, someone would need to feel that "drive through" gaming was bad in some way, to even want to avoid it.
    You mean other than some players? :lol:
    To be blunt, Yup.

    I mean not being rude here, but, from a game Development standpoint, if they are profitable to the game itself, and also bolster their account numbers, why would any Developer care if some small section of the player base does not like them.

    Seems like the apex bad move to alienate paying players that make very little to no demands and don't take a lot of system resource.
  • Whales and freeloader symbiotic relationship conquering gaming?

    laserit said:
    Ungood said:
    laserit said:

    @Ungood Seems to me that you guys are like driftnet fishing and just aren't happy with the amount shit fish your nets are bringing in.
    I have no idea what you are trying to say with this.
    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.  
    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! 

    I am just looking at the numbers, seeing what is for what it is, and trying to discuss why it is as it is.

    Again.. I am not trying to change anything.

    If things ebb and flow one way or another, if new systems come up, or old systems die off entirely, it's not a concern of mine. I will embrace what is, and play it as it is, I will not mourn the passing or lament for their return of other means, no matter what system gets extinguished off or what it is replaced with.

    I see people say things that are just flat out wrong, they parrot things that are wrong, and they cling to some of the most ridiculous beliefs.. fore what? I have no idea.

    But I joined this discussion to set some myths straight, and what I learned is that there is a group of people on these forums that want to cling to their myths, they don't like the truth or talking about the reality of things when it disagrees with their illusions.

    I don't care what the profit line is, to me, it's just a number, I do not want it higher or lower, I am just taking it as it is, and looking at the reality of things.

    I don't cling to false hopes, I don't live in denial about what is going on.. and above all I am not trying to enact change.
  • Whales and freeloader symbiotic relationship conquering gaming?

    laxie said:
    Ungood said:
    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.
    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.

    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).
    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.

    The "Tier" idea has been used in many other games, in varying ways.

    For example, in Runescape, they had "Free Areas" and "Paid Areas" and while not a sub game, you needed to spend something like $20 total to get access to the paid areas, and have your account not be locked off as a "Free"loader.

    A few other games have done this as well, two MOBA's that have played directly that do something like this, are Fortnight, and Warhammer Eternal Crusade. Where, they limit your progress speed and rewards, until you become a "full" member.

    LOTRO and DDO also do this, where your account is flagged as a Free/Premium/Sub. In this case, by simply spending any money at all you get 2 character slots unlocked and something else, not sure what, and if you Sub, you get like 6 slots, all races/classes/and all Non-Expansion Exclusive content, and a few other perks.

    The largest thing to keep in mind, is that first a player needs to LIKE the game, before they will spend money on it, no matter what system you use.

    To use an example, Fortnight and Warhammer Eternal Crusade use around the same money system, but, I didn't like Fortnight, so limiting my progress and keeping daily rewards from me was meaningless. I enjoyed Warhammer, so I had paid the money by the end of the second day, after a solid trail and felt like I was enjoying the game. Depending on who you ask, it's rather ironic that WarhammerEC does not have a good Cash Shop, as it's just a few limited cosmetics, and nothing more, even the supply boxes (the EVIL Loot Boxes) are earned in game for no real money.

    The thing you need to also consider is why is anyone spending money on your game? 

    That question is why we have the systems we have, see a game developer and company often needs to give a player a reason to spend money, and if you look at these discussions, you will see two sides to this.

    You have Group A: Those that feel that Money Paid into the Game should offer no reward, and think that players will spend money on a game out of the kindness of their heart to allow people who can't/won't pay into the system something to enjoy, and on top of that, be fully fine with Free Players having better gear/items/in-game wealth then those that are fiscally supporting the game.

    and Group B: That want something for their Money.

    That should give you an idea of how and why these system move in the directions they move in.. 
  • Whales and freeloader symbiotic relationship conquering gaming?

    AlBQuirky said:
    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.

    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.

    So we bitch and moan on internet message boards ;)
    This is not true at at all.

    As I had shown with real numbers from a real game. That if a little as 20% of the population paid into the game the amount of a monthly fee, it would be more then what the Whales generate, and thus make the median spenders ($10 - $20 a month) become worth more then the Whales, as they would make up the bulk of the games income.

    Right now, because there are so few players that even pay into the game, game companies become dependent upon the people that spend big, as not only do these whales support the game, they also outstrip the income of all the other people that are spending money, simply because there are not enough of them to be profitable in their own right.

    Keep in mind a Vote with your Wallet requires you first open it, before anyone will notice when you close it.