It certainly seems a better option than trying to appease two different groups in a single game (we know how that ends up!).
And these things don’t even need to be a different mode just a modifier. Select WET mode and get modified jumping/strafing and weapon handling.
I don’t think we could expect drastic speed increases or anything that would impact the map layouts but these small tweaks could be incorporated into submodes.
[QUOTE=shirosae;409911]The answer (I propose), is this: The people who might be willing to give you money are split largely into two camps.
The first camp are the people who really want an ET game on a smooth engine. They’re willing to accept new stuff, but they’re frustrated by removals which happen for the sake of people who aren’t familiar with ET. They want to support SD, they want a game they’ll be playing for years, and they want to support SD without spending money on token items that don’t interest them.
The second camp is everyone else, the people who aren’t familiar with ET, maybe who can’t track so well or just aren’t used to it, and would find QCJ and tracking and dancing difficult or frustrating. It appears that a successful business model for F2P is selling hats and cosmetic stuff and DLC.
Here’s a radical idea: It is possible to offer a product which is attractive to both camps. This ‘ET mode’ BD and the arcade F2P BD are almost identical. Both groups get what they want. Both groups can play both game modes. The popularity of both games modes benefits the other game mode. Casuals playing arcade mode can graduate to ET mode if they want, or play arcade mode with custom maps, or whatever they want.[/QUOTE]
If they have mod tools, then this will probably happen anyway. For instance in W:ET ETpro vs jaymod players.
I actually think it’s a good idea. Maybe not to the extreme of stripping down the entire game and giving the “casual” players a small piece of the real game. But you could definitely create two mods, a promod and a normal one. The players will then sort themselves into the category they feel they belong to imo.
You’re referring to Brink and other than Radho’s Q&A session it never really made an attempt to even appear competitive.
[QUOTE=SockDog;409914]It certainly seems a better option than trying to appease two different groups in a single game (we know how that ends up!). And these things don’t even need to be a different mode just a modifier. Select WET mode and get modified jumping/strafing and weapon handling.
I don’t think we could expect drastic speed increases or anything that would impact the map layouts but these small tweaks could be incorporated into submodes.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I mean UT came with so many mutators out of the box.
[QUOTE=stealth6;409916]If they have mod tools, then this will probably happen anyway. For instance in W:ET ETpro vs jaymod players.
I actually think it’s a good idea. Maybe not to the extreme of stripping down the entire game and giving the “casual” players a small piece of the real game. But you could definitely create two mods, a promod and a normal one. The players will then sort themselves into the category they feel they belong to imo.[/QUOTE]
I don’t think stripping anything down is the answer; I think the game BD are planning on launching should be the arcade mode, exactly as they plan it. I’d rather add on to that an ET gameplay mod and community tools to get back the old modding/mapping/clan stuff as a bonus in exchange for a subscription. It’s just an addon in exchange for money to do it, nothing more.
The thing is that the population balance between ‘comp’ and everyone else is always used as an excuse to appeal to the masses. I understand why that makes sense financially. If it costs too much to make a whole new game to suit us, it probably doesn’t cost too much to make a mod to an existing game to suit us. Let me give you money for it. If you can attract a different userbase to your existing product with such a relatively small investment of resources, and if you can retain that market by supporting that product, it makes sense to do it.
I have to admit, currently I know too little about the direction this game is going. Fixed specialisations are nice and easily to keep building on but it completely foregoes the gradual progression that is present in ET. For a F2P model the latter would be much more suitable. Collecting small bits and gradually building something that is unique and personal suits F2P much better than just a large array of collectible class alternatives.
I’m having difficulty picturing in which two halves the permanent configurations would split the community.
I’m not talking specifically competitive. I’m saying Brink tried to be many things to many people. Is it wise for SD to put DB as a happy medium of multiple groups or do they focus on a specific group? The alternative of course is to cater to both through separate modes/mutations.
Anyway this is getting WAY off topic. I’d suggest someone write a new thread if we’re going to discuss the merits or detriments to such scenarios.
I dont like free to play freemium games, nor do i like pay to play games (WoW). I dont like them A LOT. I like dumping $50-70 on a game only once.
I will play as much as i can for free, possibly purchase a couple of upgrades (read: probably 1, maybe - if its for a Tapir 3000 tapir shooting bfg gun… for the entire proceeds going to save tapirs) then continue to not pay for extras… i REALLY strongly dislike freemium 
chalk it all up to really not wanting to take the effort to charge and pay on my credit card, ever.
[QUOTE=retsy;409952]I dont like free to play freemium games, nor do i like pay to play games (WoW). I dont like them A LOT. I like dumping $50-70 on a game only once.
I will play as much as i can for free, possibly purchase a couple of upgrades (read: probably 1, maybe - if its for a Tapir 3000 tapir shooting bfg gun… for the entire proceeds going to save tapirs) then continue to not pay for extras… i REALLY strongly dislike freemium
chalk it all up to really not wanting to take the effort to charge and pay on my credit card, ever.[/QUOTE]
Im like you ^^
anyways this F2P thing will have to be think very serioustly as it can do all the difference in the selling and the critics
I believe that Warchest has a focus on free-to-play, so I think the real issue is making the paying portions palatable to the unwashed cheapo masses…
yes i think i will dump a great deal into an account once, depending on content and cost of content of course, then it will feel like i paid 60.00 for the game once -.-
ultimately my goal is to ensure these guys make some money on this game…i worry they wont make as much as they should…especially off of the poeople who fall in the sister category of “the lazy lazy masses”
i am super curious about why f2p was picked as the best model. what about releasing a cheaper game, 20-30.00 with free content and some paid-for bonus items? is there something that shows what is the better idea? or free + paid premiums compared to a full priced game
Low barrier of entry via low customer risk. I’m generally suspicious of F2P games as pay2win hacker and griefer filled places but there are a lot of low price ($10-30) shooters which fly under the radar and die under the radar, even with interesting new ideas. It seems to be far more risky and more difficult to gain traction. I could be misjudging how hard it is for F2P games to gain traction, however.
As a lover of bulletpoints, here’s a less than comprehensive list of things I don’t think are pay-to-win in free-to-play games:
[ul]
[li]Character vanity items (within some color restrictions and defaulting to enemy color scheme on opponents)
[/li][li]Weapon flair
[/li][li]Weapon tracer colors
[/li][li]Character taunt animations
[/li][li]Character vsay voice packs or additional vsays
[/li][li]Name/clan tag colors
[/li][li]Crosshair and HUD colors
[/li][li]Custom hitsounds
[/li][li]Clan creation
[/li][li]Additional loadout profiles or character profiles (see Super Monday Night Combat)
[/li][li]Access to custom/non-vanilla settings servers (but this might kill them like ranked/nonranked)
[/li][/ul]
Things which aren’t outright power purchases although they go hand in hand with somewhat distasteful progression which generally involves a mechanical power imbalance:
[ul]
[li]Progression system currency
[/li][li]Progression system currency gain rate boosters
[/li][li]Progression system unlocks
[/li][/ul]
Since DB will not be shipped in a box it will have a copy value of around 40€-45€max., IF it meets the AAA standards. Wich means they need a F2P model that will lead players to pay at least that amount of money over the life span of this game. And since nowadays no “serious” game comes out without additional content and map packs in mind there will be some extra costs for those too. As a result, it wouldn’t be unrealistic if they’d calculate with a per customer income of around 80€. And that would be totally reasonable. I payed that much and more for games and their subsequent add ons*. As long as they are delivering high quality, there is no reason to get all hung up by the literal meaning of the term “Free To Play”. It’s a common term in the industry and everybody knows what it actually means. It’s not like anybody is cheating on us. And SD owes us nothing, since they are allready granting us this very interesting insight in their upcoming product.
If they get rid of the head bobbing, or at least give us the option to conveniently switch it off, then I can totally see me spending 50-100€(or more) on this game over the next couple years; granted, that it will have fresh content every couple months that is actually worth paying for it and of course manages to keep a solid player-base.
But there is no way I’d pay for costumes, custom sounds, stats and unnecessary stuff in general. I’d pay for maps, extra content and weapon mods. And I’m NOT talking about map packs or content packs as part of the F2P model. It should be seen as additional content like we know it from retail games. Weapon mods on the other hand should be a part of the F2P model, because, be honest guys, that’s the only way to get us people to actually pay enough to keep DB alive. And I don’t mean overkilling supaaah bazoookaaas as part of the weapon modding, but of really reasonable weapon modding, that will let you personalize your handy little death dealer, but won’t make you a dual wielding superman with impenetrable armor. A skilled player should still be able to rip out the knickers from a pay to win noob and his monster rifle.
* Only the add ons for the MSFS X took me more than 120-140€
I remember seing a article in one of the two danish labour IT unions newsletter, refering to a study showing that a freemium game generates better income then its paid for counterpart (this was in 2010/11. I don’t have any references to back it up though.) So from that business perspective it makes no sense to allow consumers to buy all the content up front.
The negative side about the model (for the developer) is the time and effort that needs to be put into the project, before any revenue will be generated. So it’s considered more risky (but with a potential better payoff.)
BTW. I’m also not a great fan of the F2P scheme. But as long as paid content only includes vanity- and clan management features, I’m not bothered by it. (I might even end up laying down a few euros for those features myself.) Where as I AM bothered by the “Buy a better gun, only €19.95” extortion scheme (or classes, “slots”, maps, abilities, sdk, “points”, “coins”, “boosters” etc.!) In fact, the only model I despise as much* as F2P (or “Freemium”) is the subscription** model. Combine those two and you have the worst of both worlds! (But I can see how it would make sense for SD to make clan management features subscription based.)
And I have to admit: DB is the BEST PLAYING (and looking and sounding) F2P game I have encountered. (I don’t own an I-spy, so I have no clue about RAD Soldiers.)
** But I actually would pay a monthly supscription for DB, if it included a continuous stream of quality developer made maps (and no advertisement,) which of course should be free for non-paying players. Paraphrasing G. B. Jr. in reverse: “Some call you the lazy-lazy leach cheapskate loosers…I call you my base!” 
DLC stuff is only annoying when it feels like it should’ve been included in the base game allready. For example, if it includes essential parts of the main storyline or if the base game has not enough maps and therefore forces you, more or less, to buy map packs.
And even though Borderlands may not the best game on the planet I pretty much enjoyed it and nobody can accuse them(2K) of being greedy because they’ve released 4DLCs. It was just more of what you’ve liked(or didn’t), but the base game wouldn’t be incomplete without them. It just doesn’t make sense to get upset over such kind of DLC. Why would I complain about more of the stuff that I like? That’s totally beyond me.
Cheap price games are often seen as cheap quality games. I know it’s not (always) true but it is in the consumer conciousness. Part of the reason why AAA titles cost what they cost is because you’re not a AAA title if you cost less (I know, but brains are stupid).
F2P games kinda circumvent this because the player assumes that the game is making money through all the microtransactions (even if they themselves don’t buy anything).
For that reason alone I’d say either go full f2p or full retail but don’t hamstring yourself somewhere inbetween.
TF2 has a good f2p model but it’s mostly based on hats and silly weapons (plus it’s more of a testbed for innovation that pays for itself) so I doubt you could follow that model.
If there’s going to be XP then maybe the pay willll be around XP boosting or limiting access to weapons and/or classes or maps or game modes?
offtopic: DLC is fine. It’s basically expansion packs but in a downloadable format. Noone complained about Xpacks back in the day before you could download add-ons (in fact people looked forward to them). The real issue is the quality of the DLC that gets churned out. Like .Frost. says: something like Borderlands has great, high quality DLC. Something like Bethesda’s horse armour: not so high quality.
Small bits of extra content (or large chunks of extra content) should all be judged on price & quality. A broad statement like “DLC BAAAAAD!” (james hetfield vs napster voice) is a bit naive. A statement like “The concept of DLC can be good but is overused by publishers to churn out low quality addons that take advantage of a player’s current infatuation with their latest marketed item” is far more realistic (and, arguably, not that reflective of the truth).
At the end of the day if you don’t agree with it (or think it’s not worth it) don’t buy it. The only problem here is splitting a community with map packs. That is something I dislike and has real knock-on effect to the playerbase.
[QUOTE=.FROST.;410020]Since DB will not be shipped in a box it will have a copy value of around 40€-45€max., IF it meets the AAA standards. Wich means they need a F2P model that will lead players to pay at least that amount of money over the life span of this game.[/QUOTE]Price per customer and number of customers are both variables. I’d assume this game does not have a large publisher’s flagship budget. I’d also assume Splash Damage have done some homework on the business model and aren’t just jumping in, blindly.
[QUOTE=.FROST.;410020]As long as they are delivering high quality, there is no reason to get all hung up by the literal meaning of the term “Free To Play”. It’s a common term in the industry and everybody knows what it actually means. It’s not like anybody is cheating on us. And SD owes us nothing, since they are allready granting us this very interesting insight in their upcoming product.[/QUOTE] Well I’m here to provide my feedback into their product, particularly as it relates to gameplay. There are many different implementations of the “Free-to-Play” model and, iirc, Splash Damage has previously said they don’t want it to be pay-to-win. Their follow-through will be absolutely crucial to a lot of us because, regardless of quality, the game can be crippled by the business model.
It may sound stupid, but somehow it’s a good thing to pay for weapon attachements and special ammo and such. As a result it will be my/your own unique weapon*. But the best weapon set up is(should be) crap if you don’t know how to use it, or if it doesn’t suit your play-style. Being able to build the weapon that fits you the most is much more important, than being able to mod a weapon with a build in “press MB1 kill everything in sight” trigger. Weapons should be very specific, instead of very powerful. I think Brink did it quite well, but it was a bit limited(though for free). Blacklight does it in a way that also fits the F2P model. Though I can allready say, the world of DB is much more appealing to me.
*Kinda like this(no, I’m not crazy, but this creed is just too over the top to not like it)
This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life.
My rifle, without me, is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than my enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will...
My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, or the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...
My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weaknesses, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...
Before God, I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life.
So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but peace!Yeah I agree. That’s the appeal of MMO’s and of other F2P games. There’s tons of combinations and anyone can get those combinations but it takes effort and time to construct them. That means that there’s a huge opportunity cost here. It means that for someone to imitate my unique configuration, he would need to put in effort and time to get from where he is to where I am.
Opportunity cost is the key-word for F2P models. You pay for the flexibility and the ability to change faster than a free player would. That means you don’t pay for power and you don’t pay for exclusive stuff, you pay to get that combination you specifically want.
Having a unique loadout is unbelievably satisfying. It really gives a means for you to express your ideas, concepts and personality into a game. And that’s a huge value in multiplayer. I never really understood the appeal of configuring a Skyrim character and strutting around in your well-thought out character in front of a bunch of NPC’s. Oh well, I suppose that’s why they’re making it an MMO now.
But this leads me to the problem I have with commenting on any F2P for DB now. I don’t see what configurations are possible. If it were up to me then the configurations would have the depth of the talent classes in WoW. Maybe a bit simpler but that’s the scale of detail needed to fully express your style without getting bogged down in trivial parameters.
DB doesn’t have that. As far as the testing goes, DB has fixed configurations. And I get that, it keeps the game simple and it means silhouettes can be recognised and their behaviour predicted accordingly. It really suits the basic gameplay. However, this does mean that the game is too simple for me to find the F2P model appealing. I only want to invest if that means I can express myself through it. For me, selecting a premade specialisation is not expression. That choice is too limited.
In WoW there are millions of different talent combinations but there maybe only 5 optimal builds for each class. Still, you can’t just take the short cut and say ‘Okay that’s 5 pre-made specialisations then’. Players need to have the means to arrive at those things themselves, make mistakes (hugely important in F2P, making mistakes costs time which can be corrected with money) and retry. The trial and error aspect of building a character is eventually what prompts players to pay more for the process.
If that trial and error isn’t present then they will try a fixed class, find out they actually wanted something else and then blame Splash Damage for making a class they didn’t like and resent the game for that. If they created that same specialisation through a process of going through a talent tree then they only have themselves to blame. That dissonance that comes from that self-blame is enough for them to grab their wallet and pay some money to undo their choices and try something else.
That’s the psychology behind F2P and Character development. Players feel good about making the choices they’re happy with (because their anticipation saved them time and thus actual money) and players feel bad about making wrong choices prompting them to pay for alleviating that self-blame.
I’m afraid DB is going to miss this important aspect if SD sticks to fixed classes. However great the reasons are gameplay-wise.
Perhaps someone in power can give us insight into what sort of options there may be?
I agree that character models need to stay pretty much as they are to retain recognisability and that removes a lot of the customization stuff that usually sells in f2p… there’s nothing to trade or craft like in tf2… will we be buying characters and maps? I don’t see that being popular.