Free to play model - your opinions

FROST1 · 2012-11-26 15:06:25 UTC

That would be very interesting indeed. Especially, because we then could take this in consideration, whilst we play the alpha.

tokamak · 2012-11-26 15:15:51 UTC

Well they won’t for now because they want unadulterated feedback. That’s okay but they need to keep in mind that any comments on a F2P model will now be based on a very incomplete image of the game and thus need to be treated as such. If you let people try to monetise the current build then you’re going to get very, very stunted ideas.

Frankly feedback regarding any F2P models need much more back and forth between the testers and the developers before our input is of any value.

zenstar · 2012-11-26 15:41:11 UTC

Agree with you wholeheartedly here. Currently we’re providing “gut feedback”. Hopefully we’ll get more insight later and can provide more relevant feedback then.

SockDog · 2012-11-26 18:14:13 UTC

Most definitely THIS.

That’s some leap there. By all means talk about considerate use but please don’t link that to needing to pay. What a delusional justification.

Weapon configuration I’ll leave for another thread.

Don’t you rent weapons in Blacklight? Honestly don’t want to invest my time in a game if it’s going to continually ask for coin. Plenty of other choices out there which don’t ask me to commit time to learning and being good at and then use that as justification to ask for money.

[QUOTE=zenstar;410089]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.[/QUOTE]

Characters will have custom clothes, there was some being worn yesterday.

stealth6 · 2012-11-26 19:38:55 UTC

[QUOTE=tokamak;410093]Well they won’t for now because they want unadulterated feedback. That’s okay but they need to keep in mind that any comments on a F2P model will now be based on a very incomplete image of the game and thus need to be treated as such. If you let people try to monetise the current build then you’re going to get very, very stunted ideas.

Frankly feedback regarding any F2P models need much more back and forth between the testers and the developers before our input is of any value.[/QUOTE]

Add to this the fact that most of our feedback is positive or countered by a positive remark since we all like SD (We stuck around for a reason)

As to your building a class remark. Don’t really like it. Simple classes worked before and I still enjoy them the most (for instance I really like BFBC2, which was quite a simple game, no weird moving mechanics, simple 4 classes with limited choices,etc.)

Maybe it’s better for the F2P model with those jedi mind tricks, but I prefer if the game is just good and doesn’t need ways to trick you into thinking otherwise. Of course “Good” is subjective and there are always going to be people who don’t like the game.

FROST1 · 2012-11-26 19:46:23 UTC

[QUOTE=SockDog;410130]

Characters will have custom clothes, there was some being worn yesterday.[/QUOTE]

Oooo…kay??? Even though I can’t really see how that will pay for the development costs of the game it’s fine for me. I’ll buy one outfit and go with that. They can hardly charge me with more than 15€ for that. Stuck with basically two outfits in Brink for the last 1 1/2 years when they were for free. I don’t know, but that doesn’t seem like a very good F2P model to me, or em I really underestimating the need for people to have a extensive wardrobe for their chars? Though I won’t complain about that since after all they are paying that game for me.

tokamak · 2012-11-26 19:48:40 UTC

[QUOTE=stealth6;410156]As to your building a class remark. Don’t really like it. Simple classes worked before and I still enjoy them the most (for instance I really like BFBC2, which was quite a simple game, no weird moving mechanics, simple 4 classes with limited choices,etc.)

Maybe it’s better for the F2P model with those jedi mind tricks, but I prefer if the game is just good and doesn’t need ways to trick you into thinking otherwise. Of course “Good” is subjective and there are always going to be people who don’t like the game.[/QUOTE]

Well that’s exactly what I mean. Focussing on making one isolated match balanced is admirable but you lose the bigger picture that way. ET was addictive because there was a campaign and you always had an idea you were going somewhere as a player. You were just always building something and you couldn’t let go of the game until the campaign finished. The gradual progression caused all of that.

Oh and BC2 is a horrible game. I hate it.

Thundermuffin · 2012-11-26 21:13:35 UTC

I went ahead and did some Googling for some figures and references about how successful selling these hats and cosmetic items are, so you can see that this is a better idea than selling anything related to weapons or maps.

In TF2’s Mann-conomy, item creators get a percentage of the cut (IGN says it is 25% and that number seems correct to me so I’ll base my math off of that). Some of these creators were able to make up to 47,000 dollars according to Kotaku (IGN lists that one developer also made 39,000 alone in addition to the guy that made 47,000). VALVe keeps the other 75%, of course, so on some of these items they were making up to $141,000 (if my math is correct on the whole 47000/.25 in order to get the total amount earned of 188000, then subtract the 47000 that the creator receives; been a long day, so maybe I’m off :)). Also note that this was in two weeks --not two months, years, or decades. In mere weeks they earned more from selling cosmetic items than some indie games will ever earn. I can’t imagine what they have made over the time since the game went F2P with the addition of crates and unusuals.

VALVe have also came out to say that sending their game free to play not only made their player count increase “by a factor of five” according to Newell, but their revenue increased by a factor of twelve. That’s a pretty big jump for a game that’s been one of the most played PC games for years and used to always be located near the top of the “best sellers” list on Steam. It’s standalone copy was sold for $20, by the way, so that’s an impressive spike in revenue.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/10/24/team-fortress-2-free-to-play-shift-increased-player-base-by-a-factor-of-five-says-newell/

Some good reading in those articles if you want to just look into it. There’s tons of other articles on the internet about the success that cosmetic items have in relation to a AAA game; however, I felt like these made my point & weren’t too awfully long.

Edit to add: I realize that TF2 does allow for people to buy weapons and that some of the articles’ figures reference weapons; however, hats (and the crates + keys to unlock unusual hats) are where VALVe make the majority of their money now. There are (were? Maybe VALVe banned selling hats via auctions since I switched to CS) eBay auctions that sold unusual hats for hundreds to a couple selling for maybe a 1,000+ (if the buyer actually coughed up the money that is; there was an article about it on Kotaku or Joystiq, but I never followed it since I was just amazed someone would even think of paying that much!).

FROST1 · 2012-11-26 21:43:15 UTC

Loooool. We are really talking about hats here:eek: What the… I was thinking as hats in a more proverbial sense as a synonym for everything cosmetic. Real(well virtual) hats… for hundreds of bucks!!! Humanity I lost all hope. If a guy that has hundreds to his disposal spent them all on virtual hats, then I think it’s time to dig a hole, crawl into it and wait till its over, because Judgement day is nigh. And I thought all those storys of the Golden Calf were made up…dumb atheist I am. Time to get baptised I’d say.

tokamak · 2012-11-26 21:51:50 UTC

Cosmetic items are increasing in value to the customer with the playerbase. It’s fun to show off your items to large groups of players. Cosmetic items in a game that’s barely played are just downright pointless.

So all in all I believe the cosmetic part of a game is just an afterthought, something to implement later on when it’s catching on.

SockDog · 2012-11-26 21:59:17 UTC

Frost you confuse me. One minute you’re saying cosmetic items are for fools and the next that you’ll buy a couple. Then you’re talking about how you’ll happily drop €80 on a game but praise limited weapons hidden behind a pay wall.

Pytox · 2012-11-26 22:04:36 UTC

If t-shirts were to be sold as main income for the game then I gotta catch’em all

FROST1 · 2012-11-26 22:18:32 UTC

When did I say I’d buy cosmetic items? I meant maybe one basic set, nothing fancy. It’s a difference when you buy a DooM outfit, or a Fallout outfit, or anything like that for 10-15 bucks and be happy with it; opposed to pay infinite money for ridiculous hats and other cosmetic items. Comon, those are two very different things.

Didn’t say I’d pay happily for weapons, but that would make the most sense for me. Would I sell a fps game via the F2P system I’d do it that way. And yeah, 80 bucks over a couple years make sense. And I’ve said 80 with mappacks and extra content. Stuff that makes actual sense like regular retail add ons.

And I didn’t say anything about limited weapons either. Everyone would have access to the same weapons, but you could mod them to your convenience. That wouldn’t overpower you, but it would increase all the weapon stats a bit. But even when you upgrade your wepon it would came with disadvantages. Like a longer barrel would result in more accuracy, but also in more weight and therefore you’d be slower(not too much, but a bit) and so on and so forth. Bigger mag = takes longer to switch between weapons. Like SD allready did it in Brink. Just with more options and youd have to pay for them.

INF3RN0 · 2012-11-26 22:36:14 UTC

I’ve been involved in the F2P scene for the last few years now, and I can tell you for a fact that tons of people are willing to drop big $ for cosmetics. Things like weapon skins/models, player models, clothing, hats, etc sell all the time. Even though a lot of the bigger sales go to pay2win weapons/items, there is also just as big of a market for making yourself look pretty in game.

tokamak · 2012-11-26 23:00:39 UTC

In World of Tanks new camouflage prints cost money. And it actually costs a fair bit of money, painting all your tanks would be very expensive.

However, if you’ve worked months, nay, years on that one particular tank even if it’s not the top tier and you’ve grown so attached to it, then you want it to stand out. So you shell out cash for the most ostentatious colourful paint job you can find and ride proudly around with it.

SockDog · 2012-11-26 23:02:38 UTC

You said multiple times that it’s foolish and then followed up immediately by saying you’d buy some, you did it right in your response above. How is paying for one cosmetic items any different from paying for another other than a matter of taste? All you’re saying is that if SD produced €100 worth of Doom cosmetic items you’d buy them without issue.

Didn’t say I’d pay happily for weapons, but that would make the most sense for me. Would I sell a fps game via the F2P system I’d do it that way. And yeah, 80 bucks over a couple years make sense. And I’ve said 80 with mappacks and extra content. Stuff that makes actual sense like regular retail add ons.

You said it was good you had to pay for weapons…

[INDENT][QUOTE=.FROST.;410081]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
[/INDENT]

I seriously doubt many games sell for $60 and then get a 1:1 on $20 worth of DLC. SD is also looking to take a lot more money from this than they would is a publisher was hanging off their necks. It’s reasonable to assume then that they’d have a low per unit expectation. Pricing an option that maybe left cosmetic items available for purchase but bypassed the whole rigmarole of unlocking stuff could prove very profitable and appeal to a lot of gamers.

And I didn’t say anything about limited weapons either. Everyone would have access to the same weapons, but you could mod them to your convenience. That wouldn’t overpower you, but it would increase all the weapon stats a bit. But even when you upgrade your wepon it would came with disadvantages. Like a longer barrel would result in more accuracy, but also in more weight and therefore you’d be slower(not too much, but a bit) and so on and so forth. Bigger mag = takes longer to switch between weapons. Like SD allready did it in Brink. Just with more options and youd have to pay for them.

Again for another topic as it has nothing directly to do with F2P other than being more stuff to buy or grind.

FROST1 · 2012-11-26 23:15:37 UTC

Come on Sock I was refering to the Brink Fallout and Doom preorder editions you could order then. Those were later sold on steam for small money. And I was actually considering to buy them(though I decided not to), but not more. I would never ever pay 100€/$ for cosmetics please understand that now or it will get annoying. I understand that you want to make a point here, that I’m once saying this and than I’m saying the complete opposite. I got that, but I hope you understand that there is a difference between a basic setup for small money and a guy that spents serious money just on virtual goods wich not even affect the gameplay.

And with good I meant if I had to choose for what I have to pay than it would be weapon stuff, cause that makes sense(still my opinion even though I’d rather pay for a boxed game upfront and nothing afterwards) and good is not happily, or is it? Since DB will definitelly be F2P it is only a question, for what we’ll have to pay and not IF.

I didn’t say 60$ I’ve said 40-45 how can you get that all wrong, do you hate me personally or what? I’ve said exactly;

"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*

Only the add ons for the MSFS X took me more than 120-140€"

[QUOTE=SockDog;410217]
Again for another topic as it has nothing directly to do with F2P other than being more stuff to buy or grind.[/QUOTE]

Guess you are the Dungeon Master now. Buying and grinding is directly linked to F2P and therefore part of this topic here.

SockDog · 2012-11-26 23:39:17 UTC

As the saying goes. We’ve established you’re a prostitute we’re just haggling on the price.

And with good I meant if I had to choose for what I have to pay than it would be weapon stuff, cause that makes sense(still my opinion even though I’d rather pay for a boxed game upfront and nothing afterwards) and good is not happily, or is it? Since DB will definitelly be F2P it is only a question, for what we’ll have to pay and not IF.

It’s clear we’ll have to pay, I’ll be happy to. What’s rubbing me up the wrong way here is that you’re resigned that the only way to pay in a F2P game is through buying items whereas others, myself included, are trying to discuss an alternative that would allow both models to exist.

I didn’t say 60$ I’ve said 40-45 how can you get that all wrong, do you hate me personally or what? I’ve said exactly;

"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*

Only the add ons for the MSFS X took me more than 120-140€"

I fixed your quote for you so you can read the bit I was referring to. Please excuse my use of $ instead of €. The point being that they don’t need to make €80 per unit to turn a profit and by offering multiple methods to the player base they may see an increase in revenue per unit rather than a decrease.

I’d rather pay £30 and have all weapon unlocks and grind rewards made available with exception of cosmetic items. Than deal with all that crap. Not sure what they’d price all the weapon unlock revenue at for a F2P customer but I’m not sure they’d be able to milk it over £30 for a lot of users.

This would still leave Pro/Clan options or subscriptions. Servers etc.

On the subject of maps, it’s a terrible TERRIBLE idea to put these behind a paywall and split your playerbase.

FROST1 · 2012-11-26 23:44:58 UTC

You are still missing the small print. Unit price I’ve said 40-45. Together with add ons (map packs, new weapons, etc) 80€

“Together with”, those are words you have to read. Really, they make all the difference.

SockDog · 2012-11-26 23:52:15 UTC

[QUOTE=.FROST.;410227]You are still missing the small print. Unit price I’ve said 40-45. Together with add ons (map packs, new weapons, etc) 80€

“Together with”, those are words you have to read. Really, they make all the difference.[/QUOTE]

Maybe stop taking things so personally and you’ll stop acting like everything is a personal attack against you.

You said they expected to make €80 per customer. I said I doubted this number, it being very high for even a AAA title and given they are self funding so able to turn a profit with less overheads.