Yeah, generally with 'accessibility' I mean the time it takes to run it, setup time (larger party requirements increase this substantially), and any sort of gating in order to attempt it in the first place.
B2P or F2P will almost certainly make them more money long term and be a good shot in the arm for number of players. They could very easily see a lot of growth from the move: maybe it's just me, but I liked Housing and the basic gameplay (and the PvP in theory, the major balance and design issues aside) but just simply felt limited outside raiding. And as fun as the housing and PvP was/could be, it wasn't worth the 15 dollar a month/credd grind. But with the change, they'll can rope in a lot of people who had elements of the game they liked, but couldn't justify the money for the sub(or grinding for credd). I know I'll come back for a bit just to play with housing if they drop the sub.
I think something a lot of older/hardcore MMO players (seemingly) miss why subs are problematic and why B2P and F2P end up doing as well as they do is that when there's a recurring fee to play(the sub), players are force to evaluate if the game is worth the continued fee payment and resulting commitment(or feelings of commitment). This isn't a problem when the player is riding a high in the game, but if the player is feeling gloom or unhappy about various aspects about the game, they have to evaluate the game as a value proposition and that causes people to quit. Then coming back is a problem, as resubbing is an action a player needs to take before they can even play the game again, which causes people who would otherwise play again to have to make the same value proposition and ask if they want to commit to a game they're likely unsure if they want to go back to playing.
B2P and F2P dodge that by not forcing that value proposition and so it's much easier for people on the fence to stay in the game. People who are annoyed or upset with the game are more likely to keep playing since there's little downside to playing(time invested aside), and players who do quit are more likely to come back(no barriers blocking a desire to return on a whim). It does move revenue to other sources but it changes the question from "Is the game worth $15 every month?" to "Is this stupid flying cat mount worth $15?" and people are far more comfortable with the second question than they are the first. And the answer to the second question is frequently "Yes" which is why the whole "Buy the Box to get a random mount/thing!" is going to make them more money than subs have in the last 3 months, which is both hilarious and yet, sad and depressing at the time. For reference, the last earnings numbers we got had Wildstar at 6 million USD over 3 months. Treating that 6 million as pure sub fees, it'd take only 150,000 box sales at full price(40 USD) to match that. Given the items are per character, and there are 3 different items with an incentive to get all 3(a 4th item that is only possible to get by getting all 3 on the same character), it's very likely to hit or beat that number.
And those numbers should tell the whole story on why they're doing this.
+3
BeezelThere was no agreement little morsel..Registered Userregular
I wonder if they do go that route if they'd do something similar to how TERA handled going F2P. TERA's model is basically more or less the ideal for F2P. no content or basic features blocked off if you don't want to spend a dime. early adopters got swag perks and the bulk of the cash shop is vanity/mounts
B2P or F2P will almost certainly make them more money long term and be a good shot in the arm for number of players. They could very easily see a lot of growth from the move: maybe it's just me, but I liked Housing and the basic gameplay (and the PvP in theory, the major balance and design issues aside) but just simply felt limited outside raiding. And as fun as the housing and PvP was/could be, it wasn't worth the 15 dollar a month/credd grind. But with the change, they'll can rope in a lot of people who had elements of the game they liked, but couldn't justify the money for the sub(or grinding for credd). I know I'll come back for a bit just to play with housing if they drop the sub.
I think something a lot of older/hardcore MMO players (seemingly) miss why subs are problematic and why B2P and F2P end up doing as well as they do is that when there's a recurring fee to play(the sub), players are force to evaluate if the game is worth the continued fee payment and resulting commitment(or feelings of commitment). This isn't a problem when the player is riding a high in the game, but if the player is feeling gloom or unhappy about various aspects about the game, they have to evaluate the game as a value proposition and that causes people to quit. Then coming back is a problem, as resubbing is an action a player needs to take before they can even play the game again, which causes people who would otherwise play again to have to make the same value proposition and ask if they want to commit to a game they're likely unsure if they want to go back to playing.
B2P and F2P dodge that by not forcing that value proposition and so it's much easier for people on the fence to stay in the game. People who are annoyed or upset with the game are more likely to keep playing since there's little downside to playing(time invested aside), and players who do quit are more likely to come back(no barriers blocking a desire to return on a whim). It does move revenue to other sources but it changes the question from "Is the game worth $15 every month?" to "Is this stupid flying cat mount worth $15?" and people are far more comfortable with the second question than they are the first. And the answer to the second question is frequently "Yes" which is why the whole "Buy the Box to get a random mount/thing!" is going to make them more money than subs have in the last 3 months, which is both hilarious and yet, sad and depressing at the time. For reference, the last earnings numbers we got had Wildstar at 6 million USD over 3 months. Treating that 6 million as pure sub fees, it'd take only 150,000 box sales at full price(40 USD) to match that. Given the items are per character, and there are 3 different items with an incentive to get all 3(a 4th item that is only possible to get by getting all 3 on the same character), it's very likely to hit or beat that number.
And those numbers should tell the whole story on why they're doing this.
spoiler'd for super long
This is true, but you are ignoring the pressure that a sub game puts on the developers to make a game that IS worth the sub. Compared to B2P or F2P where the development focus is much less on retaining players through gameplay as it is on pushing cash shop incentives. While you are right in that the player needs to constantly evaluate whether it is worth their money in a sub game, in an F2P game there is not incentive for the player to stick around if the game slows down a bit for them.
This means that the revenue you get from week to week or month to month in a F2P game is volatile and you can't make long term development decisions with the same planning you can in a Sub game where the numbers are much more stable.
This drastically changes the focus and drive of the development team, in a Sub game the development team can plan out a very long time ahead and safely rely on a stream of revenue that won't shift drastically, their goal is to retain their current playerbase and slowly add to it as time goes on. In F2P the focus is on creating content that players want to buy in order to keep up their revenue stream from month to month.
Of course B2P is a sort of medium between the two, you have to focus enough development into the game to entice players to pay the initial barrier of entry, but you then need to focus your development on cash shop incentives to keep that revenue coming after you get your initial install base. It's a bit better than F2P but because of the split development you basically run into the same issues as F2P just with a bit less fluctuation (at least at first, once the initial launch numbers dwindle you end up right where F2P is)
The big benefit of F2P and B2P is in my opinion also it's biggest problem, It's much easier to just jump on board when you feel like it, but there is no incentive to stick around. You say it's easier for people on the fence to stick around in a B2P or F2P game, but I disagree. People on the fence in a sub game will typically ride it out for awhile because of the money they have already invested (at the very least until the sub lapses), then if things pick back up they're right back in it. however with B2P/F2P if their interest starts to wane, they'll often just drop it right then and there, there is no reason not to after all. The thought process typically goes "I can always pick it right back up later". However, once someone leaves an MMO it's typically much harder to get them to come back than it was to get them to check it out in the first place. F2P and B2P make this easier by lowering the barrier to come back, but gamers can often be distracted by the next shiny game and eventually they may not get around to checking out the F2P/B2P game again for many months down the road (if at all). Where as with Sub you feel like you need to get your monies worth out of the game so you may continue to keep playing it even though it may not be as fun as it was initially (note that this only works up to a certain threshold at which point if the game is truly not fun enough the Sub player will drop regardless). If a Sub player drops I feel it is MUCH harder to get that player to come back typically compared to F2P/B2P, which is why you see a lot of development effort put into making sure the player enjoys and wants to stay with the game in the first place.
In the end all three are very viable solutions, they all offer a variety of pros and cons with a different focus in the development structure based on the business model chosen. I feel that B2P and F2P are easier to set up and roll with but you run a riskier long game in player retention and the focus on cash shop elements. Comparatively Subscriptions are much harder to get started, you have to create an initial foundation of players to create that stable revenue flow, once you do it though it becomes much easier to keep going as the playerbase becomes more and more invested over time and less and less likely to stop, given the past monetary investment.
There is a reason MMOs often try to start with the Subscription model, as in the long run it's a better platform to build from, but if the game out the gate isn't strong enough to hold the attention of the player they have to shift to B2P/F2P instead. That doesn't mean the game can't continue on just fine as B2P/F2P, but the goal is typically to get that Subscription model solidified if at all possible so the development focus can be entirely on the game instead of splitting it into Cash Shop incentives as well.
tl;dr F2P/B2P is great to start with but shifts the development focus to Cash Shop incentives and has a volatile revenue stream making it more difficult to develop for, Sub is hard to get started but allows for long term planning because of a more stable revenue stream and has a focus on retention of players through gameplay elements compared to Cash shop incentives.
In the case of Wildstar, they wanted the Subscription model, they fought tooth and nail to get and keep it, but the game wasn't good enough to justify it, and so they have to default to a F2P/B2P model instead. The Sub model is the dream, it's what the developers typically want to achieve, but it's incredibly hard to do so. Once you DO get there though it's (in my opinion) the superior development platform for making interesting MMOs. The big problem is you typically need a perfect storm to get to that point, which is why so many fail to do so (especially given pressures from Investors/Production companies to push unfinished products out the gate far before they are ready)
Delphinidaes on
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
B2P or F2P will almost certainly make them more money long term and be a good shot in the arm for number of players. They could very easily see a lot of growth from the move: maybe it's just me, but I liked Housing and the basic gameplay (and the PvP in theory, the major balance and design issues aside) but just simply felt limited outside raiding. And as fun as the housing and PvP was/could be, it wasn't worth the 15 dollar a month/credd grind. But with the change, they'll can rope in a lot of people who had elements of the game they liked, but couldn't justify the money for the sub(or grinding for credd). I know I'll come back for a bit just to play with housing if they drop the sub.
I think something a lot of older/hardcore MMO players (seemingly) miss why subs are problematic and why B2P and F2P end up doing as well as they do is that when there's a recurring fee to play(the sub), players are force to evaluate if the game is worth the continued fee payment and resulting commitment(or feelings of commitment). This isn't a problem when the player is riding a high in the game, but if the player is feeling gloom or unhappy about various aspects about the game, they have to evaluate the game as a value proposition and that causes people to quit. Then coming back is a problem, as resubbing is an action a player needs to take before they can even play the game again, which causes people who would otherwise play again to have to make the same value proposition and ask if they want to commit to a game they're likely unsure if they want to go back to playing.
B2P and F2P dodge that by not forcing that value proposition and so it's much easier for people on the fence to stay in the game. People who are annoyed or upset with the game are more likely to keep playing since there's little downside to playing(time invested aside), and players who do quit are more likely to come back(no barriers blocking a desire to return on a whim). It does move revenue to other sources but it changes the question from "Is the game worth $15 every month?" to "Is this stupid flying cat mount worth $15?" and people are far more comfortable with the second question than they are the first. And the answer to the second question is frequently "Yes" which is why the whole "Buy the Box to get a random mount/thing!" is going to make them more money than subs have in the last 3 months, which is both hilarious and yet, sad and depressing at the time. For reference, the last earnings numbers we got had Wildstar at 6 million USD over 3 months. Treating that 6 million as pure sub fees, it'd take only 150,000 box sales at full price(40 USD) to match that. Given the items are per character, and there are 3 different items with an incentive to get all 3(a 4th item that is only possible to get by getting all 3 on the same character), it's very likely to hit or beat that number.
And those numbers should tell the whole story on why they're doing this.
spoiler'd for super long
This is true, but you are ignoring the pressure that a sub game puts on the developers to make a game that IS worth the sub. Compared to B2P or F2P where the development focus is much less on retaining players through gameplay as it is on pushing cash shop incentives. While you are right in that the player needs to constantly evaluate whether it is worth their money in a sub game, in an F2P game there is not incentive for the player to stick around if the game slows down a bit for them.
This means that the revenue you get from week to week or month to month in a F2P game is volatile and you can't make long term development decisions with the same planning you can in a Sub game where the numbers are much more stable.
This drastically changes the focus and drive of the development team, in a Sub game the development team can plan out a very long time ahead and safely rely on a stream of revenue that won't shift drastically, their goal is to retain their current playerbase and slowly add to it as time goes on. In F2P the focus is on creating content that players want to buy in order to keep up their revenue stream from month to month.
Of course B2P is a sort of medium between the two, you have to focus enough development into the game to entice players to pay the initial barrier of entry, but you then need to focus your development on cash shop incentives to keep that revenue coming after you get your initial install base. It's a bit better than F2P but because of the split development you basically run into the same issues as F2P just with a bit less fluctuation (at least at first, once the initial launch numbers dwindle you end up right where F2P is)
The big benefit of F2P and B2P is in my opinion also it's biggest problem, It's much easier to just jump on board when you feel like it, but there is no incentive to stick around. You say it's easier for people on the fence to stick around in a B2P or F2P game, but I disagree. People on the fence in a sub game will typically ride it out for awhile because of the money they have already invested (at the very least until the sub lapses), then if things pick back up they're right back in it. however with B2P/F2P if their interest starts to wane, they'll often just drop it right then and there, there is no reason not to after all. The thought process typically goes "I can always pick it right back up later". However, once someone leaves an MMO it's typically much harder to get them to come back than it was to get them to check it out in the first place. F2P and B2P make this easier by lowering the barrier to come back, but gamers can often be distracted by the next shiny game and eventually they may not get around to checking out the F2P/B2P game again for many months down the road (if at all). Where as with Sub you feel like you need to get your monies worth out of the game so you may continue to keep playing it even though it may not be as fun as it was initially (note that this only works up to a certain threshold at which point if the game is truly not fun enough the Sub player will drop regardless). If a Sub player drops I feel it is MUCH harder to get that player to come back typically compared to F2P/B2P, which is why you see a lot of development effort put into making sure the player enjoys and wants to stay with the game in the first place.
In the end all three are very viable solutions, they all offer a variety of pros and cons with a different focus in the development structure based on the business model chosen. I feel that B2P and F2P are easier to set up and roll with but you run a riskier long game in player retention and the focus on cash shop elements. Comparatively Subscriptions are much harder to get started, you have to create an initial foundation of players to create that stable revenue flow, once you do it though it becomes much easier to keep going as the playerbase becomes more and more invested over time and less and less likely to stop, given the past monetary investment.
There is a reason MMOs often try to start with the Subscription model, as in the long run it's a better platform to build from, but if the game out the gate isn't strong enough to hold the attention of the player they have to shift to B2P/F2P instead. That doesn't mean the game can't continue on just fine as B2P/F2P, but the goal is typically to get that Subscription model solidified if at all possible so the development focus can be entirely on the game instead of splitting it into Cash Shop incentives as well.
tl;dr F2P/B2P is great to start with but shifts the development focus to Cash Shop incentives and has a volatile revenue stream making it more difficult to develop for, Sub is hard to get started but allows for long term planning because of a more stable revenue stream and has a focus on retention of players through gameplay elements compared to Cash shop incentives.
In the case of Wildstar, they wanted the Subscription model, they fought tooth and nail to get and keep it, but the game wasn't good enough to justify it, and so they have to default to a F2P/B2P model instead. The Sub model is the dream, it's what the developers typically want to achieve, but it's incredibly hard to do so. Once you DO get there though it's (in my opinion) the superior development platform for making interesting MMOs. The big problem is you typically need a perfect storm to get to that point, which is why so many fail to do so (especially given pressures from Investors/Production companies to push unfinished products out the gate far before they are ready)
You post is the "conventional wisdom" but I'm not sure that it's actually the case. I keep seeing people saying that sub based games end up having more frequent, larger, regular content updates, but IME, that's not really true. Content in sub based games is metered and tightly controlled, meant to keep you playing just enough from unsubing. WoW had a very blatant case of this kind of content gating recently; The Blackrock Foundry raid was done(in game even, with the portal to it disabled) when the expansion was released, but it sat unused until Blizzard needed something to keep people playing. This is then compounded with hard focuses on time gated and grindy content, because that's an easy way to extract more money out of the subs without delivering more content. On every level, sub models aren't about giving more content, it's about giving as little as possible while extracting as much money out of the playerbase as possible.
There's this almost strange trend to pretend that sub based MMOs aren't as greedy as ones with Cash shops, when there's no reason to believe that at all. All companies that make MMOs are just that: companies that want to make as much profit as possible. Old arcade machine makers didn't make hard games because there was some noble belief and endeavor on their part that hard games were better; no, they made hard ass games because they charged the player a quarter every time the player died, and they wanted the player to die a lot because they got more quarters that way. Sub games aren't any different in that regard. They give out time gated and grindy content in small metered doses because they feel they can make more money that way.
Cynically, if sub fees payed for content, every 4 months at $15 dollars a month, that's $60, the price for a full game. If sub fees were paying for content, and players where paying for a full game worth of content($60), they'd release an expansions worth of content every 4 months. Since no MMO in history releases that much content that fast(even a good sub based MMO on content per dollar basis like FF14), then the theory that subs fees provide content is really kind of hollow. Add in every sub based game ends up charging for expansion packs, and it even more hallow looking.
All B2P and F2P cash shops do is be more upfront about the transactions between the player and the developer. A price of a fancy mount in a cash shop isn't any different than the cost of a fancy mount in a sub based game; the developer was expecting them to generate the same mount of revenue either way. Sub based games just hid it in the sub, cash shops just make it clear that the developer wanted the $10 bucks for it.
Once you leave that aside, the sub versus cash shop is a matter of player preference. Some people do like the idea of just paying a fee and not having to deal with being asked if they want to spend money on various kinds of things, but there's also players who rather not bother with sub fees and feel free to chose what they spend money on. Players/Consumers seem to prefer F2P/B2P based on marketshare and revenue(the only reliable numbers anyone has), and the market has been moving that way.
I wonder if they do go that route if they'd do something similar to how TERA handled going F2P. TERA's model is basically more or less the ideal for F2P. no content or basic features blocked off if you don't want to spend a dime. early adopters got swag perks and the bulk of the cash shop is vanity/mounts
TERA and other games like it have hit the sweetspot for F2P/Cash shop pricing I think. IIRC, TERA is the 4th or 5th biggest MMO by revenue because of that and the best of the F2P games. People are very comfortable about cosmetics being locked behind the cash shop, especially if there's currency exchanges that allow the player to grind and trade ingame gold for the cash shop currency to buy items without "spending" money(there's money still spent by person selling the currency however).
I think the model in the future is going to be a B2P+Cash Shop kind of model, where the game and major content patches/expansions are locked behind a "box price"($20-$60) and the cost of maintaining and supporting the game are supported by the Cash Shop selling cosmetic and other vanity goods plus optional sub fees for benefits(usually XP boosts and extra bag space and a small amount of cash currency).
B2P or F2P will almost certainly make them more money long term and be a good shot in the arm for number of players. They could very easily see a lot of growth from the move: maybe it's just me, but I liked Housing and the basic gameplay (and the PvP in theory, the major balance and design issues aside) but just simply felt limited outside raiding. And as fun as the housing and PvP was/could be, it wasn't worth the 15 dollar a month/credd grind. But with the change, they'll can rope in a lot of people who had elements of the game they liked, but couldn't justify the money for the sub(or grinding for credd). I know I'll come back for a bit just to play with housing if they drop the sub.
I think something a lot of older/hardcore MMO players (seemingly) miss why subs are problematic and why B2P and F2P end up doing as well as they do is that when there's a recurring fee to play(the sub), players are force to evaluate if the game is worth the continued fee payment and resulting commitment(or feelings of commitment). This isn't a problem when the player is riding a high in the game, but if the player is feeling gloom or unhappy about various aspects about the game, they have to evaluate the game as a value proposition and that causes people to quit. Then coming back is a problem, as resubbing is an action a player needs to take before they can even play the game again, which causes people who would otherwise play again to have to make the same value proposition and ask if they want to commit to a game they're likely unsure if they want to go back to playing.
B2P and F2P dodge that by not forcing that value proposition and so it's much easier for people on the fence to stay in the game. People who are annoyed or upset with the game are more likely to keep playing since there's little downside to playing(time invested aside), and players who do quit are more likely to come back(no barriers blocking a desire to return on a whim). It does move revenue to other sources but it changes the question from "Is the game worth $15 every month?" to "Is this stupid flying cat mount worth $15?" and people are far more comfortable with the second question than they are the first. And the answer to the second question is frequently "Yes" which is why the whole "Buy the Box to get a random mount/thing!" is going to make them more money than subs have in the last 3 months, which is both hilarious and yet, sad and depressing at the time. For reference, the last earnings numbers we got had Wildstar at 6 million USD over 3 months. Treating that 6 million as pure sub fees, it'd take only 150,000 box sales at full price(40 USD) to match that. Given the items are per character, and there are 3 different items with an incentive to get all 3(a 4th item that is only possible to get by getting all 3 on the same character), it's very likely to hit or beat that number.
And those numbers should tell the whole story on why they're doing this.
spoiler'd for super long
This is true, but you are ignoring the pressure that a sub game puts on the developers to make a game that IS worth the sub. Compared to B2P or F2P where the development focus is much less on retaining players through gameplay as it is on pushing cash shop incentives. While you are right in that the player needs to constantly evaluate whether it is worth their money in a sub game, in an F2P game there is not incentive for the player to stick around if the game slows down a bit for them.
This means that the revenue you get from week to week or month to month in a F2P game is volatile and you can't make long term development decisions with the same planning you can in a Sub game where the numbers are much more stable.
This drastically changes the focus and drive of the development team, in a Sub game the development team can plan out a very long time ahead and safely rely on a stream of revenue that won't shift drastically, their goal is to retain their current playerbase and slowly add to it as time goes on. In F2P the focus is on creating content that players want to buy in order to keep up their revenue stream from month to month.
Of course B2P is a sort of medium between the two, you have to focus enough development into the game to entice players to pay the initial barrier of entry, but you then need to focus your development on cash shop incentives to keep that revenue coming after you get your initial install base. It's a bit better than F2P but because of the split development you basically run into the same issues as F2P just with a bit less fluctuation (at least at first, once the initial launch numbers dwindle you end up right where F2P is)
The big benefit of F2P and B2P is in my opinion also it's biggest problem, It's much easier to just jump on board when you feel like it, but there is no incentive to stick around. You say it's easier for people on the fence to stick around in a B2P or F2P game, but I disagree. People on the fence in a sub game will typically ride it out for awhile because of the money they have already invested (at the very least until the sub lapses), then if things pick back up they're right back in it. however with B2P/F2P if their interest starts to wane, they'll often just drop it right then and there, there is no reason not to after all. The thought process typically goes "I can always pick it right back up later". However, once someone leaves an MMO it's typically much harder to get them to come back than it was to get them to check it out in the first place. F2P and B2P make this easier by lowering the barrier to come back, but gamers can often be distracted by the next shiny game and eventually they may not get around to checking out the F2P/B2P game again for many months down the road (if at all). Where as with Sub you feel like you need to get your monies worth out of the game so you may continue to keep playing it even though it may not be as fun as it was initially (note that this only works up to a certain threshold at which point if the game is truly not fun enough the Sub player will drop regardless). If a Sub player drops I feel it is MUCH harder to get that player to come back typically compared to F2P/B2P, which is why you see a lot of development effort put into making sure the player enjoys and wants to stay with the game in the first place.
In the end all three are very viable solutions, they all offer a variety of pros and cons with a different focus in the development structure based on the business model chosen. I feel that B2P and F2P are easier to set up and roll with but you run a riskier long game in player retention and the focus on cash shop elements. Comparatively Subscriptions are much harder to get started, you have to create an initial foundation of players to create that stable revenue flow, once you do it though it becomes much easier to keep going as the playerbase becomes more and more invested over time and less and less likely to stop, given the past monetary investment.
There is a reason MMOs often try to start with the Subscription model, as in the long run it's a better platform to build from, but if the game out the gate isn't strong enough to hold the attention of the player they have to shift to B2P/F2P instead. That doesn't mean the game can't continue on just fine as B2P/F2P, but the goal is typically to get that Subscription model solidified if at all possible so the development focus can be entirely on the game instead of splitting it into Cash Shop incentives as well.
tl;dr F2P/B2P is great to start with but shifts the development focus to Cash Shop incentives and has a volatile revenue stream making it more difficult to develop for, Sub is hard to get started but allows for long term planning because of a more stable revenue stream and has a focus on retention of players through gameplay elements compared to Cash shop incentives.
In the case of Wildstar, they wanted the Subscription model, they fought tooth and nail to get and keep it, but the game wasn't good enough to justify it, and so they have to default to a F2P/B2P model instead. The Sub model is the dream, it's what the developers typically want to achieve, but it's incredibly hard to do so. Once you DO get there though it's (in my opinion) the superior development platform for making interesting MMOs. The big problem is you typically need a perfect storm to get to that point, which is why so many fail to do so (especially given pressures from Investors/Production companies to push unfinished products out the gate far before they are ready)
You post is the "conventional wisdom" but I'm not sure that it's actually the case. I keep seeing people saying that sub based games end up having more frequent, larger, regular content updates, but IME, that's not really true. Content in sub based games is metered and tightly controlled, meant to keep you playing just enough from unsubing. WoW had a very blatant case of this kind of content gating recently; The Blackrock Foundry raid was done(in game even, with the portal to it disabled) when the expansion was released, but it sat unused until Blizzard needed something to keep people playing. This is then compounded with hard focuses on time gated and grindy content, because that's an easy way to extract more money out of the subs without delivering more content. On every level, sub models aren't about giving more content, it's about giving as little as possible while extracting as much money out of the playerbase as possible.
There's this almost strange trend to pretend that sub based MMOs aren't as greedy as ones with Cash shops, when there's no reason to believe that at all. All companies that make MMOs are just that: companies that want to make as much profit as possible. Old arcade machine makers didn't make hard games because there was some noble belief and endeavor on their part that hard games were better; no, they made hard ass games because they charged the player a quarter every time the player died, and they wanted the player to die a lot because they got more quarters that way. Sub games aren't any different in that regard. They give out time gated and grindy content in small metered doses because they feel they can make more money that way.
Cynically, if sub fees payed for content, every 4 months at $15 dollars a month, that's $60, the price for a full game. If sub fees were paying for content, and players where paying for a full game worth of content($60), they'd release an expansions worth of content every 4 months. Since no MMO in history releases that much content that fast(even a good sub based MMO on content per dollar basis like FF14), then the theory that subs fees provide content is really kind of hollow. Add in every sub based game ends up charging for expansion packs, and it even more hallow looking.
All B2P and F2P cash shops do is be more upfront about the transactions between the player and the developer. A price of a fancy mount in a cash shop isn't any different than the cost of a fancy mount in a sub based game; the developer was expecting them to generate the same mount of revenue either way. Sub based games just hid it in the sub, cash shops just make it clear that the developer wanted the $10 bucks for it.
Once you leave that aside, the sub versus cash shop is a matter of player preference. Some people do like the idea of just paying a fee and not having to deal with being asked if they want to spend money on various kinds of things, but there's also players who rather not bother with sub fees and feel free to chose what they spend money on. Players/Consumers seem to prefer F2P/B2P based on marketshare and revenue(the only reliable numbers anyone has), and the market has been moving that way.
Spoiler'd because wall of text.
That is certainly a point of view, but you are arguing against things I never said so I'm not sure why you included my text.
I never said Sub based games have more frequent, larger, or regular content updates. Nor did I say that sub based games aren't as greedy as Cash shop games. Nor was any of my point about what the player prefers at all, it was from the perspective of the developer and what they are trying to accomplish.
That being said to address your new argument:
To sum it up it's about the quality of content and where the focus on development is. With any studio you have a finite amount of resources to spend on development of a game. With a Sub based game these resources can be focused on game enhancing elements; new quests, raids, challenges, casual content, pvp levels, etc, etc.
With a Cash shop game you have to split a portion of your development on cash shop items, and you have to regularly add those to keep people coming back. This means those resources are NOT being spent on the aforementioned aspects.
Now obviously this is a comparative example and no game fall squarely on one extreme or the other, but you'll see a larger focus on cash shop elements in cash shop games where they get the majority of their revenue from it. It's a necessary aspect of that business model for it to succeed. You are very correct in stating it's a very lucrative model though, players love to spend disposable income on superfluous items in MMOs or F2P games in general. There are varying degrees of insidiousness that the developer can utilize with this and that speaks largely towards (in my opinion) the level of quality on the game itself. Some go whole hog into the Cash Shop, making the game pay to win, or use RNG elements on purchased "chests" for rare items, etc. That creates a certain type of game, one that millions will play most assuredly, but many will also avoid.
There is also the more benign cosmetic Cash Shop, where it focuses mostly on vanity items. These are your armor skins, special effects, animations, mounts, pets, weapon skins, etc. These tend to require (in my opinion) more attention than the former Cash shop options because once you buy them you don't need to buy them again, so you need to keep generating that content to keep players coming back. This requires a significant portion of development resources.
So when you compare that to a Sub based game you see where the type of content that is being made (which is the "focus" I was referring to in my previous post) creates two very different styles of game.
Now of course I'm not saying F2P and B2P don't also generate content like sub based games, that's just silly, of course they do. But they do have to dedicate a sizeable portion of their resources to developing content for the Cash shop.
To address your other point on monetary investment. You are absolutely right that in a 4 month period a Sub based game will typically cost $60, which is about the cost of a new game. I don't know if I really agree with your assessment that in that time it should have generated an expansion worth of content though as often an expansion is being worked on concurrently with regular content updates. I'll use FFXIV as an example since it's the most recent Sub game I've played, but I do want to note that it's a shining example and not, in my experience, typical of a Sub based MMO (which is largely why the model is so hard to succeed with). More the "ideal" that should be striven for.
In a 3-4 month period typically you've got an additional 4 dungeons, about 5-10 hours of story content, a Raid, some sort of "casual" content, a new "Primal" fight, and a slew of side quests along with a myriad of other smaller things. All told you're looking at dozens of hours of content ranging from casual to hardcore. Granted a lot of it can be considered "grindy" but in terms of hours played it's about on par with a decent $60 game for most. For me personally I'd say I play roughly 15-20 hours a week, so that works out to about 240-320 hours every 4 months. For the more casual player though it's still typically a good chunk of content to digest.
Now you bring up WoW and their business practice of generating and then withholding content until player interest wanes enough that they need a boost. I don't know how accurate that is, but I also don't know if it's something I would say is typical of the genre. Sure there is always going to be content that is held back for any number of reasons as the development cycle typically has to fight to stay out in front of the consumption of content so it is going to be released at a pace similar to consumption, but I don't think there are many MMOs that can afford to just sit on large chunks of content (WoW may be one of the only ones if this is true).
I did want to address your point about the cost of a fancy mount in a cash shop vs a sub game though. I think it's a bit of a disingenuous comparison to make, but only because HOW you obtain an item in games like this carries a certain element to it as well. A mount that can be bought in a store is awesome, it's typically very fancy, has neat bells and whistles, and keeps the player entertained for a time. A mount that is obtained through some arduous task however has a very different feel. In terms of development time the Cash shop mount may take far less time, after all all you need design is the mount itself. However if the mount in the Sub version is obtained as part of some quest chain, or some other long task, well that needs to be developed and added into the game as well.
The end result of both methods is a nifty mount, but the journey to obtain that mount creates two entirely different experiences.
You are absolutely correct in that it does come down to player preference, but the reason it comes down to player preference, is because it creates two very different types of games. One that appeals to one sort of player, and one that appeals to a different sort of player.
Which is ultimately why the Sub model isn't going anywhere, even in spite of how difficult it is to get it right. This is why Developers strive so hard to make their game work on that model first so often, and then when it doesn't, they default to the F2P/B2P models.
In the end though it is the rare game that falls squarely on one side or the other. Plenty of F2P/B2P games have elements of sub games in them, and plenty of Sub games have adopted cash shops as well for supplemental revenue. Both models are very lucrative and make money for the Publishers, which is ultimately what they really care about.
As an aside though I would love to see the data you have on players preferring the F2P/B2P model though as it should be an interesting read.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
So explain to me again why B2P and F2P games aren't worried about retaining customers? I would venture to guess that if you asked any game developer (Sub, F2P, B2P or whatever), retaining customers sure as shit is one of their top priorities.
So explain to me again why B2P and F2P games aren't worried about retaining customers? I would venture to guess that if you asked any game developer (Sub, F2P, B2P or whatever), retaining customers sure as shit is one of their top priorities.
All of them are worried about retention to varying degrees. Depending on how the Cash shops are set up once a player buys up various vanity items it's not as beneficial for F2P or B2P to focus on them until the next round of such items. So in that sense it's fine for that player to not play the game until such a time as there is more stuff for them to buy. Because of the low barrier to entry it is easier for players like that to come back (and also just as easy for them to leave).
Now compared to Subs it's much more vital to retain the players as the subscription is the main source of revenue. For the Sub model to work a lot more focus needs to be put in retaining the players. It's also much harder to get players back once they leave a sub game comparatively because they would need to buy in again to come back.
So basically you are absolutely correct, all three models most certainly want to retain players, it's just less detrimental on F2P/B2P to do so compared to Sub, which changes the focus of development and ultimately the resulting game.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
So explain to me again why B2P and F2P games aren't worried about retaining customers? I would venture to guess that if you asked any game developer (Sub, F2P, B2P or whatever), retaining customers sure as shit is one of their top priorities.
All of them are worried about retention to varying degrees. Depending on how the Cash shops are set up once a player buys up various vanity items it's not as beneficial for F2P or B2P to focus on them until the next round of such items. So in that sense it's fine for that player to not play the game until such a time as there is more stuff for them to buy. Because of the low barrier to entry it is easier for players like that to come back (and also just as easy for them to leave).
Now compared to Subs it's much more vital to retain the players as the subscription is the main source of revenue. For the Sub model to work a lot more focus needs to be put in retaining the players. It's also much harder to get players back once they leave a sub game comparatively because they would need to buy in again to come back.
So basically you are absolutely correct, all three models most certainly want to retain players, it's just less detrimental on F2P/B2P to do so compared to Sub, which changes the focus of development and ultimately the resulting game.
Your understanding of the revenue models is wrong. Don't know what else to say. F2p models want to retain their spenders because the statistics show that the few who open their wallets once open them over and over. The biggest difference is that subscription games have a plodding, time wasting model because they can't have you burning through content. F2p models are more comfortable with you only playing an hour a day.
I know you think your ideas are right, but they don't bear out with the actual data on spending habits.
F2p models want to retain their spenders because the statistics show that the few who open their wallets once open them over and over.
Yeah, stats for F2P/freemium games almost always show that just a few percent of the playerbase spends money... but the ones that do almost always spend lots of it.
There was a LoL thread on Reddit a while back - I can't remember the details, but it was something like Riot making two dollars per month per player... and 2% of the players did almost all the money-spending while the rest spent nothing at all.
The biggest difference is that subscription games have a plodding, time wasting model because they can't have you burning through content. F2p models are more comfortable with you only playing an hour a day.
I'd say that F2P models have a vested interest in wasting player's time because some of the standard money pullers are the various 'booster' items to increase the rate of money/exp/drop chance. Or increase the chance that an item augmentation is successful as a failure can result in lost items which ultimately means time lost. Either way, having the player weigh up the value of time compared to money is most certainly something F2P games bank on.
Even if the design caters for a quick 5 minutes every 2 hours, you're still dragging out 'content' while dangling the really really classic hook of scarcity. No, you can't do everything you want to do right now, so you follow the carrot a little bit longer because you feel like you're making progress towards a goal. That's a common game design, F2P, Sub, B2P; it doesn't matter because they all feature that hook.
F2p models want to retain their spenders because the statistics show that the few who open their wallets once open them over and over.
Yeah, stats for F2P/freemium games almost always show that just a few percent of the playerbase spends money... but the ones that do almost always spend lots of it.
There was a LoL thread on Reddit a while back - I can't remember the details, but it was something like Riot making two dollars per month per player... and 2% of the players did almost all the money-spending while the rest spent nothing at all.
Having worked at Zynga for a while a few years back, their stats were similar for their FB and mobile games. 2-3% of users were doing the bulk of the spending. But it was enough.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
So explain to me again why B2P and F2P games aren't worried about retaining customers? I would venture to guess that if you asked any game developer (Sub, F2P, B2P or whatever), retaining customers sure as shit is one of their top priorities.
All of them are worried about retention to varying degrees. Depending on how the Cash shops are set up once a player buys up various vanity items it's not as beneficial for F2P or B2P to focus on them until the next round of such items. So in that sense it's fine for that player to not play the game until such a time as there is more stuff for them to buy. Because of the low barrier to entry it is easier for players like that to come back (and also just as easy for them to leave).
Now compared to Subs it's much more vital to retain the players as the subscription is the main source of revenue. For the Sub model to work a lot more focus needs to be put in retaining the players. It's also much harder to get players back once they leave a sub game comparatively because they would need to buy in again to come back.
So basically you are absolutely correct, all three models most certainly want to retain players, it's just less detrimental on F2P/B2P to do so compared to Sub, which changes the focus of development and ultimately the resulting game.
Your understanding of the revenue models is wrong. Don't know what else to say. F2p models want to retain their spenders because the statistics show that the few who open their wallets once open them over and over. The biggest difference is that subscription games have a plodding, time wasting model because they can't have you burning through content. F2p models are more comfortable with you only playing an hour a day.
I know you think your ideas are right, but they don't bear out with the actual data on spending habits.
This doesn't really run contrary to what I said though. I was generalizing the playerbase overall. There are three major types of players in a F2P/B2P scenario. Those who won't spend a dime, those who will buy the occasional thing now and then, and those who break the bank and buy everything. As others mentioned though that latter element is a VERY small portion of their playerbase, which means there is little incentive for the other 95% or so to stick around, they'll let the game lapse regularly and only come back when new stuff entices them to do so. You are correct in the the developers want to keep the big spenders around, which is why so much development goes into the Cash shops items and incentives for them do to so. Even with the Big Spenders though they'll lapse and come back regularly as new content is put into the cash shop, the low barrier to reentry allows this.
This is fine mind you, it's a solid model and very lucrative, but it creates a different style of game.
As you mentioned, the Sub game focuses more on time wasting elements to keep the players occupied while content is developed, but the F2P/B2P model doesn't need to do that so much, so long as they keep churning out cash shop incentives for the big spenders. There is less of a drive to generate content that will keep the large portion of the playerbase around and playing. I don't subscribe (ha!) to the idea that a grind is by default a negative thing. It can be designed well where it is still fun and engaging, and the reward at the end typically feels much more rewarding than when you obtain it in a very short amount of time.
Again though these are extreme examples, in reality no game really falls squarely on either extreme. F2P/B2P games still generate content for the 95% to play and enjoy, and Sub game still utilize Cash shops to bring in supplemental revenue. However the games do lean towards one side or the other which ends up with the games playing very differently.
As you said a F2P/B2P game is designed around being played for very short bouts of time, however that doesn't mean that a Sub game doesn't do the same. That comes down more to how the game itself is designed than anything, so long as the content is split up into small chunks either model will allow for consumption in just couple hours a day. The difference is that in the Sub model that couple hours a day needs to be played over a greater number of days than the F2P/B2P model typically.
My whole point in this is discussion is that because of the different focus in development the end resulting game design between a F2P and a Sub game is typically quite different. This attracts very different players types (although there is certainly overlap) and is one reason why you won't really see the "end" of sub games in the near future. This is why you see developers strive to create a Subscription model first, it's typically the type of game they would prefer to make, and only when that doesn't pan out do they switch to F2P/B2P. Not all of them mind you, there are of course some that go rinto F2P/B2P right out the gate.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
This doesn't really run contrary to what I said though. I was generalizing the playerbase overall. There are three major types of players in a F2P/B2P scenario. Those who won't spend a dime, those who will buy the occasional thing now and then, and those who break the bank and buy everything. As others mentioned though that latter element is a VERY small portion of their playerbase, which means there is little incentive for the other 95% or so to stick around, they'll let the game lapse regularly and only come back when new stuff entices them to do so. You are correct in the the developers want to keep the big spenders around, which is why so much development goes into the Cash shops items and incentives for them do to so. Even with the Big Spenders though they'll lapse and come back regularly as new content is put into the cash shop, the low barrier to reentry allows this.
One thing your argument fails to address is that you can't keep the big spenders around without keeping the non spenders and occasional spenders around. If the game looks dead, the big spenders will find a new game.
Every player is important. The big spenders make you money, and everyone else ensures the big spenders keep having fun. If you lose either, you lose everything.
This doesn't really run contrary to what I said though. I was generalizing the playerbase overall. There are three major types of players in a F2P/B2P scenario. Those who won't spend a dime, those who will buy the occasional thing now and then, and those who break the bank and buy everything. As others mentioned though that latter element is a VERY small portion of their playerbase, which means there is little incentive for the other 95% or so to stick around, they'll let the game lapse regularly and only come back when new stuff entices them to do so. You are correct in the the developers want to keep the big spenders around, which is why so much development goes into the Cash shops items and incentives for them do to so. Even with the Big Spenders though they'll lapse and come back regularly as new content is put into the cash shop, the low barrier to reentry allows this.
One thing your argument fails to address is that you can't keep the big spenders around without keeping the non spenders and occasional spenders around. If the game looks dead, the big spenders will find a new game.
Every player is important. The big spenders make you money, and everyone else ensures the big spenders keep having fun. If you lose either, you lose everything.
Again that's an extreme example, in reality (as I mentioned) F2P games also still provide content for the 95% to play and enjoy, very much so for the reason you mention.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
This doesn't really run contrary to what I said though. I was generalizing the playerbase overall. There are three major types of players in a F2P/B2P scenario. Those who won't spend a dime, those who will buy the occasional thing now and then, and those who break the bank and buy everything. As others mentioned though that latter element is a VERY small portion of their playerbase, which means there is little incentive for the other 95% or so to stick around, they'll let the game lapse regularly and only come back when new stuff entices them to do so. You are correct in the the developers want to keep the big spenders around, which is why so much development goes into the Cash shops items and incentives for them do to so. Even with the Big Spenders though they'll lapse and come back regularly as new content is put into the cash shop, the low barrier to reentry allows this.
One thing your argument fails to address is that you can't keep the big spenders around without keeping the non spenders and occasional spenders around. If the game looks dead, the big spenders will find a new game.
Every player is important. The big spenders make you money, and everyone else ensures the big spenders keep having fun. If you lose either, you lose everything.
Again that's an extreme example, in reality (as I mentioned) F2P games also still provide content for the 95% to play and enjoy, very much so for the reason you mention.
Well, but the argument I'm making is that F2P just as much as any other game type wants to retain all players. I don't think there's an appreciable difference in desire for player retention between different payment models.
Rend on
+2
Kai_SanCommonly known as Klineshrike!Registered Userregular
No because while there is no real target for them, f2p doesn't care about those guys who won't spend money. Sub games care about every single player because they always generate money.
And yeah, they would rather find ways to entice cheap but paying players to make the game look populated. So if the non paying players have complaints about something unfair vs paying players they might tend to ignore it unless it affects the paying ones.
This doesn't really run contrary to what I said though. I was generalizing the playerbase overall. There are three major types of players in a F2P/B2P scenario. Those who won't spend a dime, those who will buy the occasional thing now and then, and those who break the bank and buy everything. As others mentioned though that latter element is a VERY small portion of their playerbase, which means there is little incentive for the other 95% or so to stick around, they'll let the game lapse regularly and only come back when new stuff entices them to do so. You are correct in the the developers want to keep the big spenders around, which is why so much development goes into the Cash shops items and incentives for them do to so. Even with the Big Spenders though they'll lapse and come back regularly as new content is put into the cash shop, the low barrier to reentry allows this.
One thing your argument fails to address is that you can't keep the big spenders around without keeping the non spenders and occasional spenders around. If the game looks dead, the big spenders will find a new game.
Every player is important. The big spenders make you money, and everyone else ensures the big spenders keep having fun. If you lose either, you lose everything.
Again that's an extreme example, in reality (as I mentioned) F2P games also still provide content for the 95% to play and enjoy, very much so for the reason you mention.
Well, but the argument I'm making is that F2P just as much as any other game type wants to retain all players. I don't think there's an appreciable difference in desire for player retention between different payment models.
Possibly to a degree, I would still argue that the focus is on the big spenders though, if only because of how critical they are to the model. But yeah ideally you would want to retain all players if possible (as this will eventually bring in more big spenders). I think it's far more detrimental in a sub model to lose players than in a F2P model though, and as such that affects how they develop the game. In F2P it's much easier to get players to check the game out and so as long as the game is still fun on a base level you'll have a stream of players cycling in and out. With Sub though you need to provide a game worth the initial cost of admission, and one that is worth the sub fee as well. This makes two very different types of games that attracts different types of players.
NNID: delphinidaes Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
0
DaimarA Million Feet Tall of AwesomeRegistered Userregular
No because while there is no real target for them, f2p doesn't care about those guys who won't spend money. Sub games care about every single player because they always generate money.
And yeah, they would rather find ways to entice cheap but paying players to make the game look populated. So if the non paying players have complaints about something unfair vs paying players they might tend to ignore it unless it affects the paying ones.
If you're allowed to play for free, you are the product. F2P developers absolutely care about the people who don't spend money since they create content for the people who pay money. They farm up materials, fill out raids, add targets for the paying clients to shoot, etc. If that 95% of the player base disappeared, even though they contribute no money to the developer, the game would die since there would be nothing left for the paying customers to do.
I own all LoL champions and regularly buy skins for them. I plan on buying the next lol champion on day 1, maybe with a skin pack, if any of them are cool enough.
Or at least, I would. But the friend I duo with (who doesn't and hasn't paid for anything) doesn't really play league anymore. Since I no longer have a duo partner, I don't really play league anymore. By losing out on my nonpaying friend, they've lost out on me as well.
Retention and recruitment are different issues, though linked of course. But, either way, all game types rely on player retention, because even if a non-paying player leaves, there is a significant chance that one or more paying players will leave with them.
If you're making a F2P game and you're actually competent at running it, you care about all players, not just the ones who play. You don't care about nonpaying players if and only if you're running a F2P game and plan on riding it full throttle until you crash it in a matter of months.
+2
drunkenpandarenSlapping all the goblin hamIn the top laneRegistered Userregular
The only League champ I have is Rumble and the only skins I have are for Rumble. I mean, are there really other champs besides Rumble?
Anyways, bought the game at Best Buy for 20 fight money. I wish I bought this game earlier because I really really like my Engineer and the play style of the game, it pretty much distills the, "don't stand in the fire" mentality of MMOs. I just think the ding is a bit out of control, but I like blowing things up for science. Any good builds for leveling an Engi?
Even with all the game has been going through, it's still pretty fun. That being said, is there any chance we can change the thread title? Snarfelynx is life or something.
The Drop 5 release candidate was published on the Test server yesterday. If anyone was thinking of using the 10 day trial to come back and look around, it's looking like early May will be a good time. Contracts, pets and proper pvp gear scaling are the highlights. There's also a new daily zone and a new adventure.
One of the common misconception is that the "whales" (people who drop large amounts of cash on the games they play) want pay-to-win. More often they are quite happy with having a much nicer looking horse that very few people have even if every horse in the game goes the same speed.
But the caveat here is that if there is a horse somewhere in the game that goes 5% faster than everything else, your whales will expect their $$$$horse$$$$ to match that speed, even if they didn't run The Dungeon of Penile Necrosis 5,000 times to "earn" it.
Like swtor, 99% if not all of the stuff just looks different, outfits and funny looking adaptive mounts. But all you have to do is browse the gtn to see how well it sells.
And the easy solution to the horsey problem there is to just have the cosmetic mounts scale to the best speed you have available. (like the swtor adaptive mounts)
That way, your store mount can go just as fast, but you still have to earn it.
I can't remember, is mount speed still tied to the individual mount in Wildstar? Basically every other MMO just uses your characters "mount speed" nowadays and the mount itself is just cosmetic. It just seems like a "duh" thing to do now.
One of the common misconception is that the "whales" (people who drop large amounts of cash on the games they play) want pay-to-win. More often they are quite happy with having a much nicer looking horse that very few people have even if every horse in the game goes the same speed.
But the caveat here is that if there is a horse somewhere in the game that goes 5% faster than everything else, your whales will expect their $$$$horse$$$$ to match that speed, even if they didn't run The Dungeon of Penile Necrosis 5,000 times to "earn" it.
Whales are on the extreme end of things, but generally it comes down to people willing to spend money to save time. Which is not necessarily bad. It's more applicable to mobile/Facebook stuff, of course.
But if running that dungeon takes an hour or two, on a good night with a good group, and I have disposable income, then I may very well be interested in flat out purchasing it for $5 or something, instead of running it for 3 months.
The problems come along when bad designers actually build in roadblocks to content to incentive people to make that purchase. Which is just crass, and unfortunately all too common.
There's no plan, there's no race to be run
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
I can't remember, is mount speed still tied to the individual mount in Wildstar? Basically every other MMO just uses your characters "mount speed" nowadays and the mount itself is just cosmetic. It just seems like a "duh" thing to do now.
Unfortunately this isn't the case in Tera.
I still ride my slow black panther sometimes, but it is slow and I have faster mounts (though none more lovely).
BeezelThere was no agreement little morsel..Registered Userregular
edited May 2015
Upcoming changes:
They're gonna be wiping arena/bg ratings at the end of this season and instituting rating floors so you can't intentionally tank your ratings past certain thresholds.
They're also adding a bounty/contract system for pvp and pve that functions similar to the way that Destiny does theirs. Only reward and difficulty divided by which tier it's on.
Drop 5 is hitting tonight. They're basically doing this 1.5 pvp season to see if they've gotten rid of the worst ways to game the rating system. Even the best rewards don't prevent trolls.
0
BeezelThere was no agreement little morsel..Registered Userregular
The good news is that they're taking some cues from elsewhere and normalizing gear stats for pvp. That's the biggest thing I'm taking away from what I've read about it
PSN: Waybackkidd
"...only mights and maybes."
0
Kai_SanCommonly known as Klineshrike!Registered Userregular
Oh yeah I remember that from awhile ago. They laid it out in such a way that it sounds like the stat gap between no pvp gear and best pvp gear is no where near significant enough for tanking rating to be as lucritive as before.
Still, having messed around in WoW now you almost never run into rating tanking and if you do its fairly unnoticeable because there are plenty of correctly ranked people.
Again though, that last part is an issue only solved by having lots of people PVPing. Which the lack of is the original nail in the coffin for me leaving WS. Having absolutely no one to play with didn't help either.
0
BeezelThere was no agreement little morsel..Registered Userregular
In hindsight, I wonder if NCsoft is kinda kicking themselves now for choosing to go assholes and elbows into Wildstar over localizing Blade and Soul: Thighs and Vaseline.
PSN: Waybackkidd
"...only mights and maybes."
+2
Kai_SanCommonly known as Klineshrike!Registered Userregular
I didn't know they never brought that over. It looked like a fun game, outside of the megaanime.
Posts
I think something a lot of older/hardcore MMO players (seemingly) miss why subs are problematic and why B2P and F2P end up doing as well as they do is that when there's a recurring fee to play(the sub), players are force to evaluate if the game is worth the continued fee payment and resulting commitment(or feelings of commitment). This isn't a problem when the player is riding a high in the game, but if the player is feeling gloom or unhappy about various aspects about the game, they have to evaluate the game as a value proposition and that causes people to quit. Then coming back is a problem, as resubbing is an action a player needs to take before they can even play the game again, which causes people who would otherwise play again to have to make the same value proposition and ask if they want to commit to a game they're likely unsure if they want to go back to playing.
B2P and F2P dodge that by not forcing that value proposition and so it's much easier for people on the fence to stay in the game. People who are annoyed or upset with the game are more likely to keep playing since there's little downside to playing(time invested aside), and players who do quit are more likely to come back(no barriers blocking a desire to return on a whim). It does move revenue to other sources but it changes the question from "Is the game worth $15 every month?" to "Is this stupid flying cat mount worth $15?" and people are far more comfortable with the second question than they are the first. And the answer to the second question is frequently "Yes" which is why the whole "Buy the Box to get a random mount/thing!" is going to make them more money than subs have in the last 3 months, which is both hilarious and yet, sad and depressing at the time. For reference, the last earnings numbers we got had Wildstar at 6 million USD over 3 months. Treating that 6 million as pure sub fees, it'd take only 150,000 box sales at full price(40 USD) to match that. Given the items are per character, and there are 3 different items with an incentive to get all 3(a 4th item that is only possible to get by getting all 3 on the same character), it's very likely to hit or beat that number.
And those numbers should tell the whole story on why they're doing this.
"...only mights and maybes."
spoiler'd for super long
This means that the revenue you get from week to week or month to month in a F2P game is volatile and you can't make long term development decisions with the same planning you can in a Sub game where the numbers are much more stable.
This drastically changes the focus and drive of the development team, in a Sub game the development team can plan out a very long time ahead and safely rely on a stream of revenue that won't shift drastically, their goal is to retain their current playerbase and slowly add to it as time goes on. In F2P the focus is on creating content that players want to buy in order to keep up their revenue stream from month to month.
Of course B2P is a sort of medium between the two, you have to focus enough development into the game to entice players to pay the initial barrier of entry, but you then need to focus your development on cash shop incentives to keep that revenue coming after you get your initial install base. It's a bit better than F2P but because of the split development you basically run into the same issues as F2P just with a bit less fluctuation (at least at first, once the initial launch numbers dwindle you end up right where F2P is)
The big benefit of F2P and B2P is in my opinion also it's biggest problem, It's much easier to just jump on board when you feel like it, but there is no incentive to stick around. You say it's easier for people on the fence to stick around in a B2P or F2P game, but I disagree. People on the fence in a sub game will typically ride it out for awhile because of the money they have already invested (at the very least until the sub lapses), then if things pick back up they're right back in it. however with B2P/F2P if their interest starts to wane, they'll often just drop it right then and there, there is no reason not to after all. The thought process typically goes "I can always pick it right back up later". However, once someone leaves an MMO it's typically much harder to get them to come back than it was to get them to check it out in the first place. F2P and B2P make this easier by lowering the barrier to come back, but gamers can often be distracted by the next shiny game and eventually they may not get around to checking out the F2P/B2P game again for many months down the road (if at all). Where as with Sub you feel like you need to get your monies worth out of the game so you may continue to keep playing it even though it may not be as fun as it was initially (note that this only works up to a certain threshold at which point if the game is truly not fun enough the Sub player will drop regardless). If a Sub player drops I feel it is MUCH harder to get that player to come back typically compared to F2P/B2P, which is why you see a lot of development effort put into making sure the player enjoys and wants to stay with the game in the first place.
In the end all three are very viable solutions, they all offer a variety of pros and cons with a different focus in the development structure based on the business model chosen. I feel that B2P and F2P are easier to set up and roll with but you run a riskier long game in player retention and the focus on cash shop elements. Comparatively Subscriptions are much harder to get started, you have to create an initial foundation of players to create that stable revenue flow, once you do it though it becomes much easier to keep going as the playerbase becomes more and more invested over time and less and less likely to stop, given the past monetary investment.
There is a reason MMOs often try to start with the Subscription model, as in the long run it's a better platform to build from, but if the game out the gate isn't strong enough to hold the attention of the player they have to shift to B2P/F2P instead. That doesn't mean the game can't continue on just fine as B2P/F2P, but the goal is typically to get that Subscription model solidified if at all possible so the development focus can be entirely on the game instead of splitting it into Cash Shop incentives as well.
tl;dr F2P/B2P is great to start with but shifts the development focus to Cash Shop incentives and has a volatile revenue stream making it more difficult to develop for, Sub is hard to get started but allows for long term planning because of a more stable revenue stream and has a focus on retention of players through gameplay elements compared to Cash shop incentives.
In the case of Wildstar, they wanted the Subscription model, they fought tooth and nail to get and keep it, but the game wasn't good enough to justify it, and so they have to default to a F2P/B2P model instead. The Sub model is the dream, it's what the developers typically want to achieve, but it's incredibly hard to do so. Once you DO get there though it's (in my opinion) the superior development platform for making interesting MMOs. The big problem is you typically need a perfect storm to get to that point, which is why so many fail to do so (especially given pressures from Investors/Production companies to push unfinished products out the gate far before they are ready)
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
You post is the "conventional wisdom" but I'm not sure that it's actually the case. I keep seeing people saying that sub based games end up having more frequent, larger, regular content updates, but IME, that's not really true. Content in sub based games is metered and tightly controlled, meant to keep you playing just enough from unsubing. WoW had a very blatant case of this kind of content gating recently; The Blackrock Foundry raid was done(in game even, with the portal to it disabled) when the expansion was released, but it sat unused until Blizzard needed something to keep people playing. This is then compounded with hard focuses on time gated and grindy content, because that's an easy way to extract more money out of the subs without delivering more content. On every level, sub models aren't about giving more content, it's about giving as little as possible while extracting as much money out of the playerbase as possible.
There's this almost strange trend to pretend that sub based MMOs aren't as greedy as ones with Cash shops, when there's no reason to believe that at all. All companies that make MMOs are just that: companies that want to make as much profit as possible. Old arcade machine makers didn't make hard games because there was some noble belief and endeavor on their part that hard games were better; no, they made hard ass games because they charged the player a quarter every time the player died, and they wanted the player to die a lot because they got more quarters that way. Sub games aren't any different in that regard. They give out time gated and grindy content in small metered doses because they feel they can make more money that way.
Cynically, if sub fees payed for content, every 4 months at $15 dollars a month, that's $60, the price for a full game. If sub fees were paying for content, and players where paying for a full game worth of content($60), they'd release an expansions worth of content every 4 months. Since no MMO in history releases that much content that fast(even a good sub based MMO on content per dollar basis like FF14), then the theory that subs fees provide content is really kind of hollow. Add in every sub based game ends up charging for expansion packs, and it even more hallow looking.
All B2P and F2P cash shops do is be more upfront about the transactions between the player and the developer. A price of a fancy mount in a cash shop isn't any different than the cost of a fancy mount in a sub based game; the developer was expecting them to generate the same mount of revenue either way. Sub based games just hid it in the sub, cash shops just make it clear that the developer wanted the $10 bucks for it.
Once you leave that aside, the sub versus cash shop is a matter of player preference. Some people do like the idea of just paying a fee and not having to deal with being asked if they want to spend money on various kinds of things, but there's also players who rather not bother with sub fees and feel free to chose what they spend money on. Players/Consumers seem to prefer F2P/B2P based on marketshare and revenue(the only reliable numbers anyone has), and the market has been moving that way.
TERA and other games like it have hit the sweetspot for F2P/Cash shop pricing I think. IIRC, TERA is the 4th or 5th biggest MMO by revenue because of that and the best of the F2P games. People are very comfortable about cosmetics being locked behind the cash shop, especially if there's currency exchanges that allow the player to grind and trade ingame gold for the cash shop currency to buy items without "spending" money(there's money still spent by person selling the currency however).
I think the model in the future is going to be a B2P+Cash Shop kind of model, where the game and major content patches/expansions are locked behind a "box price"($20-$60) and the cost of maintaining and supporting the game are supported by the Cash Shop selling cosmetic and other vanity goods plus optional sub fees for benefits(usually XP boosts and extra bag space and a small amount of cash currency).
Spoiler'd because wall of text.
I never said Sub based games have more frequent, larger, or regular content updates. Nor did I say that sub based games aren't as greedy as Cash shop games. Nor was any of my point about what the player prefers at all, it was from the perspective of the developer and what they are trying to accomplish.
That being said to address your new argument:
To sum it up it's about the quality of content and where the focus on development is. With any studio you have a finite amount of resources to spend on development of a game. With a Sub based game these resources can be focused on game enhancing elements; new quests, raids, challenges, casual content, pvp levels, etc, etc.
With a Cash shop game you have to split a portion of your development on cash shop items, and you have to regularly add those to keep people coming back. This means those resources are NOT being spent on the aforementioned aspects.
Now obviously this is a comparative example and no game fall squarely on one extreme or the other, but you'll see a larger focus on cash shop elements in cash shop games where they get the majority of their revenue from it. It's a necessary aspect of that business model for it to succeed. You are very correct in stating it's a very lucrative model though, players love to spend disposable income on superfluous items in MMOs or F2P games in general. There are varying degrees of insidiousness that the developer can utilize with this and that speaks largely towards (in my opinion) the level of quality on the game itself. Some go whole hog into the Cash Shop, making the game pay to win, or use RNG elements on purchased "chests" for rare items, etc. That creates a certain type of game, one that millions will play most assuredly, but many will also avoid.
There is also the more benign cosmetic Cash Shop, where it focuses mostly on vanity items. These are your armor skins, special effects, animations, mounts, pets, weapon skins, etc. These tend to require (in my opinion) more attention than the former Cash shop options because once you buy them you don't need to buy them again, so you need to keep generating that content to keep players coming back. This requires a significant portion of development resources.
So when you compare that to a Sub based game you see where the type of content that is being made (which is the "focus" I was referring to in my previous post) creates two very different styles of game.
Now of course I'm not saying F2P and B2P don't also generate content like sub based games, that's just silly, of course they do. But they do have to dedicate a sizeable portion of their resources to developing content for the Cash shop.
To address your other point on monetary investment. You are absolutely right that in a 4 month period a Sub based game will typically cost $60, which is about the cost of a new game. I don't know if I really agree with your assessment that in that time it should have generated an expansion worth of content though as often an expansion is being worked on concurrently with regular content updates. I'll use FFXIV as an example since it's the most recent Sub game I've played, but I do want to note that it's a shining example and not, in my experience, typical of a Sub based MMO (which is largely why the model is so hard to succeed with). More the "ideal" that should be striven for.
In a 3-4 month period typically you've got an additional 4 dungeons, about 5-10 hours of story content, a Raid, some sort of "casual" content, a new "Primal" fight, and a slew of side quests along with a myriad of other smaller things. All told you're looking at dozens of hours of content ranging from casual to hardcore. Granted a lot of it can be considered "grindy" but in terms of hours played it's about on par with a decent $60 game for most. For me personally I'd say I play roughly 15-20 hours a week, so that works out to about 240-320 hours every 4 months. For the more casual player though it's still typically a good chunk of content to digest.
Now you bring up WoW and their business practice of generating and then withholding content until player interest wanes enough that they need a boost. I don't know how accurate that is, but I also don't know if it's something I would say is typical of the genre. Sure there is always going to be content that is held back for any number of reasons as the development cycle typically has to fight to stay out in front of the consumption of content so it is going to be released at a pace similar to consumption, but I don't think there are many MMOs that can afford to just sit on large chunks of content (WoW may be one of the only ones if this is true).
I did want to address your point about the cost of a fancy mount in a cash shop vs a sub game though. I think it's a bit of a disingenuous comparison to make, but only because HOW you obtain an item in games like this carries a certain element to it as well. A mount that can be bought in a store is awesome, it's typically very fancy, has neat bells and whistles, and keeps the player entertained for a time. A mount that is obtained through some arduous task however has a very different feel. In terms of development time the Cash shop mount may take far less time, after all all you need design is the mount itself. However if the mount in the Sub version is obtained as part of some quest chain, or some other long task, well that needs to be developed and added into the game as well.
The end result of both methods is a nifty mount, but the journey to obtain that mount creates two entirely different experiences.
You are absolutely correct in that it does come down to player preference, but the reason it comes down to player preference, is because it creates two very different types of games. One that appeals to one sort of player, and one that appeals to a different sort of player.
Which is ultimately why the Sub model isn't going anywhere, even in spite of how difficult it is to get it right. This is why Developers strive so hard to make their game work on that model first so often, and then when it doesn't, they default to the F2P/B2P models.
In the end though it is the rare game that falls squarely on one side or the other. Plenty of F2P/B2P games have elements of sub games in them, and plenty of Sub games have adopted cash shops as well for supplemental revenue. Both models are very lucrative and make money for the Publishers, which is ultimately what they really care about.
As an aside though I would love to see the data you have on players preferring the F2P/B2P model though as it should be an interesting read.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
All of them are worried about retention to varying degrees. Depending on how the Cash shops are set up once a player buys up various vanity items it's not as beneficial for F2P or B2P to focus on them until the next round of such items. So in that sense it's fine for that player to not play the game until such a time as there is more stuff for them to buy. Because of the low barrier to entry it is easier for players like that to come back (and also just as easy for them to leave).
Now compared to Subs it's much more vital to retain the players as the subscription is the main source of revenue. For the Sub model to work a lot more focus needs to be put in retaining the players. It's also much harder to get players back once they leave a sub game comparatively because they would need to buy in again to come back.
So basically you are absolutely correct, all three models most certainly want to retain players, it's just less detrimental on F2P/B2P to do so compared to Sub, which changes the focus of development and ultimately the resulting game.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Your understanding of the revenue models is wrong. Don't know what else to say. F2p models want to retain their spenders because the statistics show that the few who open their wallets once open them over and over. The biggest difference is that subscription games have a plodding, time wasting model because they can't have you burning through content. F2p models are more comfortable with you only playing an hour a day.
I know you think your ideas are right, but they don't bear out with the actual data on spending habits.
Yeah, stats for F2P/freemium games almost always show that just a few percent of the playerbase spends money... but the ones that do almost always spend lots of it.
There was a LoL thread on Reddit a while back - I can't remember the details, but it was something like Riot making two dollars per month per player... and 2% of the players did almost all the money-spending while the rest spent nothing at all.
I'd say that F2P models have a vested interest in wasting player's time because some of the standard money pullers are the various 'booster' items to increase the rate of money/exp/drop chance. Or increase the chance that an item augmentation is successful as a failure can result in lost items which ultimately means time lost. Either way, having the player weigh up the value of time compared to money is most certainly something F2P games bank on.
Even if the design caters for a quick 5 minutes every 2 hours, you're still dragging out 'content' while dangling the really really classic hook of scarcity. No, you can't do everything you want to do right now, so you follow the carrot a little bit longer because you feel like you're making progress towards a goal. That's a common game design, F2P, Sub, B2P; it doesn't matter because they all feature that hook.
Having worked at Zynga for a while a few years back, their stats were similar for their FB and mobile games. 2-3% of users were doing the bulk of the spending. But it was enough.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
This doesn't really run contrary to what I said though. I was generalizing the playerbase overall. There are three major types of players in a F2P/B2P scenario. Those who won't spend a dime, those who will buy the occasional thing now and then, and those who break the bank and buy everything. As others mentioned though that latter element is a VERY small portion of their playerbase, which means there is little incentive for the other 95% or so to stick around, they'll let the game lapse regularly and only come back when new stuff entices them to do so. You are correct in the the developers want to keep the big spenders around, which is why so much development goes into the Cash shops items and incentives for them do to so. Even with the Big Spenders though they'll lapse and come back regularly as new content is put into the cash shop, the low barrier to reentry allows this.
This is fine mind you, it's a solid model and very lucrative, but it creates a different style of game.
As you mentioned, the Sub game focuses more on time wasting elements to keep the players occupied while content is developed, but the F2P/B2P model doesn't need to do that so much, so long as they keep churning out cash shop incentives for the big spenders. There is less of a drive to generate content that will keep the large portion of the playerbase around and playing. I don't subscribe (ha!) to the idea that a grind is by default a negative thing. It can be designed well where it is still fun and engaging, and the reward at the end typically feels much more rewarding than when you obtain it in a very short amount of time.
Again though these are extreme examples, in reality no game really falls squarely on either extreme. F2P/B2P games still generate content for the 95% to play and enjoy, and Sub game still utilize Cash shops to bring in supplemental revenue. However the games do lean towards one side or the other which ends up with the games playing very differently.
As you said a F2P/B2P game is designed around being played for very short bouts of time, however that doesn't mean that a Sub game doesn't do the same. That comes down more to how the game itself is designed than anything, so long as the content is split up into small chunks either model will allow for consumption in just couple hours a day. The difference is that in the Sub model that couple hours a day needs to be played over a greater number of days than the F2P/B2P model typically.
My whole point in this is discussion is that because of the different focus in development the end resulting game design between a F2P and a Sub game is typically quite different. This attracts very different players types (although there is certainly overlap) and is one reason why you won't really see the "end" of sub games in the near future. This is why you see developers strive to create a Subscription model first, it's typically the type of game they would prefer to make, and only when that doesn't pan out do they switch to F2P/B2P. Not all of them mind you, there are of course some that go rinto F2P/B2P right out the gate.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
One thing your argument fails to address is that you can't keep the big spenders around without keeping the non spenders and occasional spenders around. If the game looks dead, the big spenders will find a new game.
Every player is important. The big spenders make you money, and everyone else ensures the big spenders keep having fun. If you lose either, you lose everything.
Again that's an extreme example, in reality (as I mentioned) F2P games also still provide content for the 95% to play and enjoy, very much so for the reason you mention.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
Well, but the argument I'm making is that F2P just as much as any other game type wants to retain all players. I don't think there's an appreciable difference in desire for player retention between different payment models.
And yeah, they would rather find ways to entice cheap but paying players to make the game look populated. So if the non paying players have complaints about something unfair vs paying players they might tend to ignore it unless it affects the paying ones.
Possibly to a degree, I would still argue that the focus is on the big spenders though, if only because of how critical they are to the model. But yeah ideally you would want to retain all players if possible (as this will eventually bring in more big spenders). I think it's far more detrimental in a sub model to lose players than in a F2P model though, and as such that affects how they develop the game. In F2P it's much easier to get players to check the game out and so as long as the game is still fun on a base level you'll have a stream of players cycling in and out. With Sub though you need to provide a game worth the initial cost of admission, and one that is worth the sub fee as well. This makes two very different types of games that attracts different types of players.
Official PA Forums FFXIV:ARR Free Company <GHOST> gitl.enjin.com Join us on Sargatanas!
If you're allowed to play for free, you are the product. F2P developers absolutely care about the people who don't spend money since they create content for the people who pay money. They farm up materials, fill out raids, add targets for the paying clients to shoot, etc. If that 95% of the player base disappeared, even though they contribute no money to the developer, the game would die since there would be nothing left for the paying customers to do.
Or at least, I would. But the friend I duo with (who doesn't and hasn't paid for anything) doesn't really play league anymore. Since I no longer have a duo partner, I don't really play league anymore. By losing out on my nonpaying friend, they've lost out on me as well.
Retention and recruitment are different issues, though linked of course. But, either way, all game types rely on player retention, because even if a non-paying player leaves, there is a significant chance that one or more paying players will leave with them.
If you're making a F2P game and you're actually competent at running it, you care about all players, not just the ones who play. You don't care about nonpaying players if and only if you're running a F2P game and plan on riding it full throttle until you crash it in a matter of months.
Anyways, bought the game at Best Buy for 20 fight money. I wish I bought this game earlier because I really really like my Engineer and the play style of the game, it pretty much distills the, "don't stand in the fire" mentality of MMOs. I just think the ding is a bit out of control, but I like blowing things up for science. Any good builds for leveling an Engi?
And I got a Glitter Kitty board.
Steam: pandas_gota_gun
But the caveat here is that if there is a horse somewhere in the game that goes 5% faster than everything else, your whales will expect their $$$$horse$$$$ to match that speed, even if they didn't run The Dungeon of Penile Necrosis 5,000 times to "earn" it.
Like swtor, 99% if not all of the stuff just looks different, outfits and funny looking adaptive mounts. But all you have to do is browse the gtn to see how well it sells.
And the easy solution to the horsey problem there is to just have the cosmetic mounts scale to the best speed you have available. (like the swtor adaptive mounts)
That way, your store mount can go just as fast, but you still have to earn it.
Whales are on the extreme end of things, but generally it comes down to people willing to spend money to save time. Which is not necessarily bad. It's more applicable to mobile/Facebook stuff, of course.
But if running that dungeon takes an hour or two, on a good night with a good group, and I have disposable income, then I may very well be interested in flat out purchasing it for $5 or something, instead of running it for 3 months.
The problems come along when bad designers actually build in roadblocks to content to incentive people to make that purchase. Which is just crass, and unfortunately all too common.
The harder the rain, honey, the sweeter the sun.
Unfortunately this isn't the case in Tera.
I still ride my slow black panther sometimes, but it is slow and I have faster mounts (though none more lovely).
They're gonna be wiping arena/bg ratings at the end of this season and instituting rating floors so you can't intentionally tank your ratings past certain thresholds.
They're also adding a bounty/contract system for pvp and pve that functions similar to the way that Destiny does theirs. Only reward and difficulty divided by which tier it's on.
http://wildstar-core.com/2015/05/03/seeking-adventure-a-guide-to-contracts/
http://www.wildstar-online.com/en/news/2015-05-01-goodbye-season-1-hello-season-15/
"...only mights and maybes."
Have a significant reward for a high rating. Make it hard to attain a high rating.
That usually does the trick.
"...only mights and maybes."
Still, having messed around in WoW now you almost never run into rating tanking and if you do its fairly unnoticeable because there are plenty of correctly ranked people.
Again though, that last part is an issue only solved by having lots of people PVPing. Which the lack of is the original nail in the coffin for me leaving WS. Having absolutely no one to play with didn't help either.
"...only mights and maybes."
COME FORTH, AMATERASU! - Switch Friend Code SW-5465-2458-5696 - Twitch