Free to play model - your opinions

(.FROST.) #81

[QUOTE=SockDog;410231]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.[/QUOTE]

Oh Sock you are priceless. Bit in a trolling mood? You made that all personal yourself, I’m only defending myself.

I said with addons wich won’t, most certainly, be released on day1. What I meant was they need(of course only my thinking) to get 40-45€ for every “F2P copy(or how you like to call it” and theeeeeeen ~30€* for subsequent add ons. But all that over the life span of the game and not at a certain point in time.

*wich will accumulate to something around 80€.

(BioSnark) #82

Just going to note that 30$ isn’t a statistic based on anything but speculation. Cost determines necessary revenue. Projected cost is not known. $ per customer and # of customers are also not known. Please recognize that the product of both of these is the profits. Speculating on one without knowing the other is meaningless. Hope this makes sense.

This is why using actual figures doesn’t make sense. There are at least 3 unknown variables and 0 known.

(SockDog) #83

[QUOTE=BioSnark;410244]Just going to note that 30$ isn’t a statistic based on anything but speculation. Cost determines necessary revenue. Projected cost is not known. $ per customer and # of customers are also not known. Please recognize that the product of both of these is the profits. Speculating on one without knowing the other is meaningless. Hope this makes sense.

This is why using actual figures doesn’t make sense. There are at least 3 unknown variables and 0 known.[/QUOTE]

Agreed, yet there are some assumptions we can make based on other games and experience. You can really ask for much more in a speculative thread.

(tokamak) #84

No it doesn’t. Digital products have a marginal production cost per unit, so the only cost is the development. This means that it’s not cost that determine the necessary revenue but the rather the optimal profit (price x units sold) determines the price. You can basically ignore the development costs when you want to determine the right price for a F2P product. This is basically a general rule for any product but for digital media it’s even more so.

The only time the development cost matters is when you decide whether or not to actually start the whole enterprise. Development cost makes it a yes or no question rather than something that determines the price of the product.

What makes F2P interesting is that it opens the way for different price brackets. Free, cheap, dedicated, and then there’s the ridiculous amounts of money a few individuals are willing to pour into a game.

F2P also has the weird characteristic that the more popular it gets, the more willing people are to invest money into it. Then there’s also the psychology of if you get them to pay a small amount, at least make one transaction once, then they’re more likely to repeat that. Simply paying online for a game is already an obstacle in and of itself no matter how good the deal is. This for example, keeps me from paying for Tribes and for Planetside, I like the games, I have the money for it, but I can’t commit to either one of them enough to justify me grabbing my online payment tools and paying some for it. World of Tanks did get me to pay for it because I played that enough that the amount of time I would win with the boosts easily justified the money I paid for it.

Then there’s Battle.net with their new online market. Their Dota is going to be the flagship and is intended to get people to make at least one payment on Battle.net. Just to break the ice.

But yeah again, I would know a perfect system to monetise a game like Quake Wars as a F2P game. Dirty Bomb however, appears to be fundamentally different as far as character building goes so I simply wouldn’t know where the value to the customer lies. Yet.

EDIT: Oh there’s another thing. F2P games (and MMO’s) seem to benefit hugely from very long betas. Not to increase the quality of the product but rather to start building a playerbase. You can only truly launch a F2P game once and a beta is the way out.

What this does is that it gets all the nerds committed to play the game strenuously and competitive, they want to figure everything out so they get a running start once the game actually resets. Once you launch the game then you got a whole horde of bristling fans that want to start on day one with a large supply of in-game currency to get the best chance in their race to the top.

Games like Tribes and WoT understood this well and even promised the beta tester a unique limited-edition reward for beta-testing that also gave an advantage well into the rest of the game. I think the lesson to take away from this is that the longer the beta, the more profitable the launch will be.

(.FROST.) #85

[QUOTE=tokamak;410292]
F2P also has the weird characteristic that the more popular it gets, the more willing people are to invest money into it. Then there’s also the psychology of if you get them to pay a small amount, at least make one transaction once, then they’re more likely to repeat that. Simply paying online for a game is already an obstacle in and of itself no matter how good the deal is. This for example, keeps me from paying for Tribes and for Planetside, I like the games, I have the money for it, but I can’t commit to either one of them enough to justify me grabbing my online payment tools and paying some for it. World of Tanks did get me to pay for it because I played that enough that the amount of time I would win with the boosts easily justified the money I paid for it. [/QUOTE]

Very true, the “breaking the ice” thing is really one of the biggest issues F2P has. Solve it and you’ll easily get much more paying customers. Steam has direct banking, and since I have no credit card(and I don’t want one either) that’s the only option for me. If it wasn’t for direct banking I wouldn’t have NS2 and the The Walking Dead game. The “Bioware points” system is also a very good way for young customers or people with no credit card. You can buy those points on Amazon. The best way for F2P would be a “One Click” option on Amazon. They should really open a marktplace for independent F2P games(their items of course). And you could even read and write reviews about the virtues or dissadvantages of different items(granted that they are of any practical use)

(tokamak) #86

Paypal and for Dutch people, iDeal are absolutely crucial. Again, look at the possiblities to pay in WoT. This bar needs to be laying on the floor.

(zenstar) #87

Are those like Microsoft points? Someone is actually arguing that that’s a good thing? That is a refreshing change.
I have no issue with buying points and spending points but so many people hate the way it obfuscates actual prices (£8.00 is not 800 MS points)
If Games for Windows Live wasn’t so sucky I’d suggest checking them out as they may use MS points (which you can buy on amazon / in game stores) but GFWL is not awesome. I stick to spending points on Xbox and using my debit card on Steam on PC.

(tokamak) #88

World of Tanks also has a retail version, which is a VERY good deal by itself and also comes with unique bonuses (a limited edition tank). It’s an excellent gateway drug as well as a product for the real fans to go after.

(zenstar) #89

Shadowrun Online is looking at something similar for their payment model.
2 versions: f2p where you have to purchase (via microtransactions or earning ingame currency) everything you want, or a boxed purchase where you get access to everything (or easier access) but have to buy expansions (whereas f2p will have to unlock expansions by getting ahold of ingame items either through microtransactions or farming up ingame monies)

I do like the idea of having a bought version and a free version… but again: it depends on what is for sale. It’s difficult imagining possibilities for payment models without being able to think of what will be sold.

They could always just have a time limit and you can pay for more time. Some sort of geiger counter that resets every 24 hours -> too many rads, no more play today unless you buy some anti-rad pills (ie: more gametime). I hope they don’t go this route because it is the suckiest of routes imo.

(tokamak) #90

Time based products in a F2P only really make sense if the xp matters, and xp matters only when you get to build on a configuration. Where you get to add tiny bits and pieces to what you have. The chunks of acquisition in DB seem too big for that.

(.FROST.) #91

[QUOTE=zenstar;410306]Are those like Microsoft points? Someone is actually arguing that that’s a good thing? That is a refreshing change.
I have no issue with buying points and spending points but so many people hate the way it obfuscates actual prices (£8.00 is not 800 MS points)
If Games for Windows Live wasn’t so sucky I’d suggest checking them out as they may use MS points (which you can buy on amazon / in game stores) but GFWL is not awesome. I stick to spending points on Xbox and using my debit card on Steam on PC.[/QUOTE]

I forgot to mention, that I’ve never used them, but considered it at least as a good idea. I don’t know if the Bioware point system is fair, but when I have the time and passion to play the Mass Effect 2 DLCs it’s the only way for me to pay for them.

(stealth6) #92

[QUOTE=tokamak;410292]
EDIT: Oh there’s another thing. F2P games (and MMO’s) seem to benefit hugely from very long betas. Not to increase the quality of the product but rather to start building a playerbase. You can only truly launch a F2P game once and a beta is the way out.

What this does is that it gets all the nerds committed to play the game strenuously and competitive, they want to figure everything out so they get a running start once the game actually resets. Once you launch the game then you got a whole horde of bristling fans that want to start on day one with a large supply of in-game currency to get the best chance in their race to the top.

Games like Tribes and WoT understood this well and even promised the beta tester a unique limited-edition reward for beta-testing that also gave an advantage well into the rest of the game. I think the lesson to take away from this is that the longer the beta, the more profitable the launch will be.[/QUOTE]

Although I agree beta is just a marketing tool these days.Couldn’t the plan backfire? If people don’t like the game they can spread slander online before it even comes out. Also even though the beta is “fake” people will still report issues or things they want to see changed. When they subsequently aren’t changed wouldn’t that put the devs in a bad light?

I also don’t like the idea of beta testers getting an advantage when the game starts, or anybody for that matter. The only advantage for starting first should be to top the leaderboards (if there are any) for most kills or stuff that doesn’t really matter.

(tokamak) #93

This is mainly a problem for retail games. They rely on word of mouth reputation before people buy their game.

You need to turn things upside down when talking about F2P. Nobody blindly invests in a F2P game. They only start paying for things when they already have put time and effort in and want things to speed up.

The beta to official launch is a hard reset and another incentive to put money in to get a head start on the rest.

(Breo) #94

I saw Toomic with a pink weapon everyone want it I’m I right? :tongue:

(tokamak) #95

Anything that allows you to make the statement ‘Yeah! That’s ME!’ is something people are willing to pay for.

(Pytox) #96

wow never saw that yet would like to see pics of that :smiley:

(rookie1) #97

I’m a retail box or Digital full game type guy .But I was reading an article in the latest (Jan 2013) PC Gamer Magazine
“…The $60 you’d spend on Assasin’s Creed 111 will go a long way in existing free-to-play games like World of Tanks.
If the latest wave of free releases can maintain that level of value,it will become increasing difficult to justify laying big bucks for big release.”
Just tought interesting to mention.
and buy PC Gamer magazine for full article and more :wink:

(Humate) #98

He had a red and yellow outfit in the tdm we just played.
Bit hard to hit… on 320 ping.

(tangoliber) #99

My idea for the model is to sell packaged characters (class variants) like a MOBA… Each class variant has its own skin, weapons, and abilities.

Then you have a discount mechanic that makes the characters cheaper as you buy more of them. So, it might start at 8 USD a character, and then give you a discount of 50 cents for every character you buy. The 2nd one you buy would be 7.50, then 7, and so on.
So, if they produced 20 characters over the course of one year (4 variants for each class), then once you buy 16, the rest are free. You would have spent 68 dollars total for everything.

(tokamak) #100

[QUOTE=rookie1;410420]I’m a retail box or Digital full game type guy .But I was reading an article in the latest (Jan 2013) PC Gamer Magazine
“…The $60 you’d spend on Assasin’s Creed 111 will go a long way in existing free-to-play games like World of Tanks.
If the latest wave of free releases can maintain that level of value,it will become increasing difficult to justify laying big bucks for big release.”
Just tought interesting to mention.
and buy PC Gamer magazine for full article and more ;)[/QUOTE]

I think that I eventually spent more than 60 on WoT, yet somehow it’s more difficult to justify spending it on stuff that is obtainable for free if you commit time to it. That’s when you start putting that time against your hourly wage and only if it greatly exceeds (after all, the game itself is fun enough not to be called ‘work’) that time then you budge and buy that time short-cut.

It’s also important to take into account the value of holidays. WoT is incredibly flexible in this. You buy gold and then you can buy a booster for the next 24 hours, for the next week or the next month. So sometimes you buy 24h to have a nice marathon in a weekend. Sometimes you have a holiday and you buy for a week. And well, I never got to buying entire months. I suppose that’s something for the ‘whales’, people with a busy job that can only play a few sessions in a week.

All in all WoT gave me some very fulfilling game experiences. Also some very frustrating ones but all in all I don’t regret a minute in that game.

I only spent 50 (or 40?) on Quake Wars back then and if I put that against the time I spent playing that game then I got incredibly fulfilling high quality entertainment for a few cents per hour. That was such a huge bargain that I would buy the next game no matter what. Buying Brink was spending 100 euros on Quake Wars for all I care.