crowd funding and ps2

[wraithverge]

So I know this game will make money just on skins unlockables and xp boosters, however I could just as easily see a crowd funding within the game. IE: New continent, cost: $40,000 with a donate link in the buy stuff page. I'd chip in, does anyone else see this as a viable method of getting new content for the game if necessary?

[Stardouser]

Actually, good idea. What about features(of which I shall name no examples) where the only defense against having it in the game is "I wouldn't use it, so waste of developer time and resources"? Be cool if people could buy stuff in the cash shop in the name of such features to fund the hiring of additional personnel to work on that stuff.

[onwee]

I don't think it will be as effective because you don't get instant gratification, which is why the F2P model works so well.

Edit: Additionally you don't get to see the product before you invest in it. What happens when 40k is raised for new area and it sucks? Backlash.

[wraithverge]

Backlash can happen but that's the risk that every consumer sales product faces. I think the ps2 team knows the risks and have already learned the BFR lesson.

[onwee]

Backlash can happen but that's the risk that every consumer sales product faces. I think the ps2 team knows the risks and have already learned the BFR lesson.

Yeah, but the level of accepted risk is much lower with a cash shop than raising money to develop new content that every consumer is satisfied with. With a cash shop individuals can target small specific items that they know they like.

With the amount of people used in crowd funding there is a strong possibility that a small percentage will not be happy with the content no matter what. This percentage would become loud, demand money back, call the game crap...bad publicity.

It's just my opinion but I think doing something like this is a lose-lose.

[wraithverge]

With the amount of people used in crowd funding there is a strong possibility that a small percentage will not be happy with the content no matter what. This percentage would become loud, demand money back, call the game crap...bad publicity.

It's just my opinion but I think doing something like this is a lose-lose.

Valid point, I think that can be mitigated by the clear indication that this is a donation and you are not paying for anything; but you never can tell with large groups of people how it will roll out.

[Gandhi]

Could you imagine telling investors and shareholders that you're relying on donations to make your game profitable?

[Stardouser]

Could you imagine telling investors and shareholders that you're relying on donations to make your game profitable?

I think donate was a poor choice of words by the OP. This would be more like attaching your purchases to a choice of new content possibilities.

For example, if they were considering adding a continent, or a new (insert some other new thing), people could simply attach their cash shop purchases to a particular cause.

[capiqu]

Only if they are the original 10 + BI of planetside1 , lol. Yeah I'm a fan of the game so yeah I would be willing to spend on the
game

[wraithverge]

hey stakeholders in this project, we have a way to develop new content that can keep our game fresh while reducing the expense for development to almost nothing if not turning development of the game into a profitable branch in itself, and all we are asking of you is to sit back and make money.

I fail to see how this is a hard sell.

And no I don't mean attaching purchases, I mean donation. Optional, side projects that the team already wants to work on that are by no means necessary, ie new continents, new vehicles (NS only, or all three empires at once), nothing faction specific however as that's buying power.

This would allow the development team to stay large if not expand to handle further development at once and rapid pushes for new content etc. The only problem I see is balancing everything with new content coming out so fast.

Although this does bring up a valid idea of attaching each purchase to a RnD requests, but that's an entirely different thread.

[Shogun]

maybe with every purchase in the shop you get access to a poll!

the devs could ask in those polls which new feature they should work on first, or if the playerbase would like or dislike something and they would only recieve answers from paying customers.

and you could buy random stuff to donate and vote for your favorite feature.

[Immigrant]

I'd actually like to see some sort of WARBONDS in this game! It fits the theme imo very well.

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSNMtWR2Q8R86lqAwFUsVOVfpdMnQWGG aTtiCFKkU3KYJSwa2pG3F_-ElKsYw

It could work this way. You' would still have skin/customization cash shop, maybe some low-profile in-game advertising as well to back up the whole thing. However I'd ditch the XP boost and instead merge it with Warbonds. If you buy warbonds, you'd get xp boost for next month also people with Warbonds would get new "experimental" weapons and vehicles (from upcoming patches) in development a week or two earlier for tryout (in-game beta testing) than the gen-pop as a reward for supporting the war effort for their Empire. Similar model is working quite well for Tribes, however they should mind to keep these weapons tested and balanced unlike the Tribes where they deliberately release OP weapons to attract for buyers what is frankly quite terrible. Since the system should work retroactively (you buy WB prior to getting or knowing what weapons will be released in the next patch) with WBs this issue should be avoided.

edit: however I don't think the should make stuff like "only 34 560 $ until new continent releases, donate here!". It's only natural that if game is financially successful that new content will be created and released. no need to solicit for donations that way.

[Greeniegriz]

maybe with every purchase in the shop you get access to a poll!

the devs could ask in those polls which new feature they should work on first, or if the playerbase would like or dislike something and they would only recieve answers from paying customers.

and you could buy random stuff to donate and vote for your favorite feature.

Access to a poll is a good idea. They did polls in Everquest (didn't require purchase I think), though i'm not sure how effective they were.

Polls should still be done whether it requires a purchase or not IMO.

War bonds are a clever idea but I would hate for there to be a community backlash if the released content didn't meet outrageous expectations.

Cheers,

GG

[Immigrant]

War bonds are a clever idea but I would hate for there to be a community backlash if the released content didn't meet outrageous expectations.

Well the point is you don't buy WBs for the content itself so I don't see why would there be a backlash - you can't expect to get something specific in advance that should be clear. You buy WBs to support the game, also you get instant XP boost (maybe an extra offline resource income also) too so there would be no reason to complain.

Being able to test the new content before others should be icing on the cake not the sole reason why you buy WBs. Also since devs said they will take into account community voice when making and releasing new content (as they are doing now) I doubt there would really be major backlashes. Also if the content doesn't meet your expectation as a WB buyer you would have an opportunity to make it clear since you'd be the part of in-game beta testing for that patch (you'd get an poll at the end of the test so devs could know what needs to be fixed with new content).

[Greeniegriz]

Well the point is you don't buy WBs for the content itself so I don't see why would there be a backlash - you can't expect to get something specific in advance that should be clear. You buy WBs to support the game, also you get instant XP boost (maybe an extra offline resource income also) too so there would be no reason to complain.

Being able to test the new content before others should be icing on the cake not the sole reason why you buy WBs. Also since devs said they will take into account community voice when making and releasing new content (as they are doing now) I doubt there would really be major backlashes. Also if the content doesn't meet your expectation as a WB buyer you would have an opportunity to make it clear since you'd be the part of in-game beta testing for that patch (you'd get an poll at the end of the test so devs could know what needs to be fixed with new content).

I see your point.

Access to a the test server would definitely be a nice feature. I'd be against extra resource generation but an XP boost would be fine.

Cheers,

GG

[CuddlyChud]

I don't get it. What would you get in return for making such a purchase? If its a new continent would it be something you'd need to buy your way into? If we're talking donations via War bonds, what would you get in return? It just seems like crowd sourcing is more for getting start-up capital. I'm not sure how crowd sourcing works though, so I might be wrong.

[Immigrant]

Access to a the test server would definitely be a nice feature. I'd be against extra resource generation but an XP boost would be fine.

Test server? They should get access to experimental equipment in same server they usually play in (with the rest of the f2p players). Later that (in couple of weeks) equipment would be released to gen pop. That way devs could beta test new equipment on smaller sample and WB buyers would get a chance to use the weapons earlier than the gen pop - some weapons could potentially get balanced or even withdrawn if devs decide there is something wrong with them based on players feedback.

Extra offline res generation is already announced for membership/club buyers if I remember correctly - WB would actually serve as the same thing except they would get xp boost and access to experimental equipment too.

Actually the system with experimental equipment and WB could work this way:

Each time you buy WB package you get 1 month xp boost. Also you get a certain number of WB i.e. 100 (small package) 250 (medium) and 500 (large). That WBs you can later spend on unlocking the experimental stuff and participating in beta testing for that piece of equipment. I.e. unlocking the new rifle prototype could cost 100 WB while unlocking new tank or vehicle 500 WB. I believe this system would be good, since if you don't want to pay you can simply wait until that stuff becomes available to everyone in a week, two or three. However those who support the game more actively will get this privilege to be the among the first to try out and test new equipment in combat.

[Immigrant]

If we're talking donations via War bonds, what would you get in return?. Reading is hard, right? I elaborated clearly what would you get - xp boost and possibly increase offline resource gain/limit for a month and finally early access to experimental equipment (stuff in late testing phase to be released in next game patch to everyone) with automatic entry to ingame beta for exp piece equipment you got (see post before this one for more info). Of course this equipment shouldn't be deliberately OP like in Tribes what I find quite terrible.

So you see there would be personal gains from buying WB however it wouldn't be nothing too terrible.

[Greeniegriz]

Test server? They should get access to experimental equipment in same server they usually play in (with the rest of the f2p players). Later that (in couple of weeks) equipment would be released to gen pop. That way devs could beta test new equipment on smaller sample and WB buyers would get a chance to use the weapons earlier than the gen pop - some weapons could potentially get balanced or even withdrawn if devs decide there is something wrong with them based on players feedback.

Extra offline res generation is already announced for membership/club buyers if I remember correctly - WB would actually serve as the same thing except they would get xp boost and access to experimental equipment too.

Actually the system with experimental equipment and WB could work this way:

Each time you buy WB package you get 1 month xp boost. Also you get a certain number of WB i.e. 100 (small package) 250 (medium) and 500 (large). That WBs you can later spend on unlocking the experimental stuff and participating in beta testing for that piece of equipment. I.e. unlocking the new rifle prototype could cost 100 WB while unlocking new tank or vehicle 500 WB. I believe this system would be good, since if you don't want to pay you can simply wait until that stuff becomes available to everyone in a week, two or three. However those who support the game more actively will get this privilege to be the among the first to try out and test new equipment in combat.

Having experimental equipment and vehicles that can only be obtained through the cash shop could be seen as P2W, especially if they were better than current weapons and vehicles. Yes, I know you mentioned that they'd be available to everyone in 1-3 weeks but it would still cause a possible imbalance between those that pay and those that done. Those types of "experimental" items couldn't be obtained through regular playing (like all current items in game). To me this goes against what devs have been doing as far as the implementation of the cash shop.

Now if say those experimental items could alternatively be bought with Auraxis(sp) points, then its different.

Say a experimental weapon would cost 50 war bonds OR 2000 Auraxis points.

Then of course, why add another type of currency (war bonds) when you could just have that same experimental weapon be bought for the normal cash shop currency OR Auraxis?

Wouldn't the station cash that is used in the cash shop be going towards new development also?

EDIT: Missed a spot in your last post where you said, "Of course this equipment shouldn't be deliberately OP like in Tribes what I find quite terrible." As long as they aren't OP then that alleviates that issue.

Cheers,

GG

[Immigrant]

Having experimental equipment and vehicles that can only be obtained through the cash shop could be seen as P2W, especially if they were better than current weapons and vehicles.

People yell "it's p2w" too often, so it will happen in any case. However the thing is you could actually sometimes get experimental weapon that turns out to be weak/unusable/bad that could end up being removed from the game entirely. Yes sometimes it could also happen that the experimental piece of equipment will be stronger than it should be and it will need to get nerfed before the release to gen pop but as long this isn't the intention/regular occurrence there is no problem at all. Mostly however I believe new equipment would require only minor adjustments since I trust PS2 dev team will balance them out internally quite well before releasing them to actual game even as experimental weapons.


Now if say those experimental items could alternatively be bought with Auraxis(sp) points, then its different.

Say a experimental weapon would cost 50 war bonds OR 2000 Auraxis points.

No, this is simply against the point of WBs and that is to reward the player that support the game with real money.

You'd still have to spend Auraxis to get the weapons, WB purpose would be to unlock them earlier during their experimental beta stage. So you would have to spend both WB and Auraxis to get it during beta stage and later only with same amount of Auraxis.

Only purpose of having the WB as currency is to let people choose what equipment they want to test - i.e. if someone is driving a tank it would be stupid to force him to test airplane prototype released the month he bought his WBs, he could wait and spend his WB when a prototype of tank or something else interesting to him gets released.

[Soothsayer]

You're saying that poor ole Sony Online Entertainment, a subsidiary of one of an extremely large multinational corporation needs a little more to get things moving? I'm skeptical, very skeptical...

A poll would be one way to determine what the community wants. Or they could go the EVE Online approach and have people elected from the community to put forward proposals for devs to look at.

Really, I want this game to do well, but Sony doesn't need to have anything kickstarted, they're already well on their way.

I just reviewed this thread to make sure I wasn't missing the point and I caught the word "donation". I don't understand this reasoning.

[wraithverge]

the reason why they might need kick starting is if they need more money for development. I only say this as a ps1 player. Eventually the dev team shrunk down to nothing and new content for the game was... sparse is the best word I can think of. Just tossing out ideas in case they decide that the game is not generating enough revenue to warrant dynamically different content... such as oh say, naval or space battles that would require a LOT more resources then something along the lines of a new camo pattern.

[Greeniegriz]

No, this is simply against the point of WBs and that is to reward the player that support the game with real money.

But, if you spend real money for their cash shop currency (Station Cash most likely: $.10 per point) are you not already supporting the game with real money?

Why create a new currency that can only be used for one category of things?

Cheers,

GG

[Immigrant]

But, if you spend real money for their cash shop currency (Station Cash most likely: $.10 per point) are you not already supporting the game with real money?

Why create a new currency that can only be used for one category of things?

Good question. Well station cash primary use is buying stuff from cosmetic shop, as well as some non-power giving sidegrades as devs said. Right?

However there are peeps like me or some other guys who actually aren't that much attracted by the stuff from cosmetic shop yet would like to support the game if I find it enjoyable (and I believe that will be the case). So I doubt I'll be spending that much on cosmetics however I would buy War Bounds if there was a possibility. Basic motivation behind these two sorts of purchases are quite different - cosmetic buyers buy primarily to get certain camo/ornament while WB buyers would buy because they want to support the game.

The exact relationship between the two "currencies" would be that you could in example buy a package of 100 war bonds for 200 station cash. Just this time you don't actually buy something specific rather you invest in the game, and you get some rewards for it later on as well as immediate xp bonus for next month. War bonds buyers would be the same category that currently planned Membership buyers are, except having bought "War Bonds" sounds way cooler than having bought "Membership". Don't you agree? :cool: The reason why they would need to be set up as currency I explained in my previous post - simply to be able to use them on experimental stuff you want to test not on something you don't play normally.

[Sirisian]

I would enjoy being able to see their 3 year development plan as a chronological list and being able to change the order with station cash. Basically allowing paying players to dictate which features they want next. It would be fair for everyone that way. I'm not big into boosters or skin aesthetics really so having another way to support the game would definitely be nice.

That or use station cash as a way to vote on ideas. That would be interesting. Allowing people to sway the game's development with money. (Only allow upvotes so people have to vote on better things so they get developed first).

[Bluecewe]

What you are essentially suggesting is that we pay for an expansion to a Free2Play game. Clearly not everyone would pay, and thus would get "free" content, but it's fairly similar.

Also, we can't just add continents forever; physical improvements to gameplay mechanics is what matters.

[Greeniegriz]

The exact relationship between the two "currencies" would be that you could in example buy a package of 100 war bonds for 200 station cash. Just this time you don't actually buy something specific rather you invest in the game, and you get some rewards for it later on as well as immediate xp bonus for next month. War bonds buyers would be the same category that currently planned Membership buyers are, except having bought "War Bonds" sounds way cooler than having bought "Membership". Don't you agree? :cool: The reason why they would need to be set up as currency I explained in my previous post - simply to be able to use them on experimental stuff you want to test not on something you don't play normally.

Aye, I like that much better. :)

Thought: If you say buy 100 War bonds then you'd get a xp boost. After the XP boost is done you'd still have the war bonds to use on experimental/beta equipment, right? That'd be like getting two things for the price of one, which is always nice. However, I could see it implemented in a way that the war bonds get "eaten" by the xp boost. Example: the xp boost (say 50%) eats 1 war bond in X amount of time. Would make them more money as you'd have to buy more war bonds with station cash to get the boost and/or spend them on gear.

You might be able to even decide whether you want the xp boost or not. If you opted out then they would just sit there until you spend them on gear or turn on the xp boost.

What you are essentially suggesting is that we pay for an expansion to a Free2Play game. Clearly not everyone would pay, and thus would get "free" content, but it's fairly similar.

Also, we can't just add continents forever; physical improvements to gameplay mechanics is what matters.

As someone mentioned, buying your way onto a new continent would not be a good idea, as you'd alienate a portion of your player base (potentially).

Cheers,

GG

[Greeniegriz]

double post. my apologies...

[Immigrant]

Thought: If you say buy 100 War bonds then you'd get a xp boost. After the XP boost is done you'd still have the war bonds to use on experimental/beta equipment, right? That'd be like getting two things for the price of one, which is always nice. However, I could see it implemented in a way that the war bonds get "eaten" by the xp boost. Example: the xp boost (say 50%) eats 1 war bond in X amount of time. Would make them more money as you'd have to buy more war bonds with station cash to get the boost and/or spend them on gear.

You might be able to even decide whether you want the xp boost or not. If you opted out then they would just sit there until you spend them on gear or turn on the xp boost.

Well That monthly xp boost should be rather symbolic like 10-20%, not something really worth that amount of money, simply to have some immediate gain (so I don't see it as 2 for price of 1 thing). Yes you'd still have your WBs after that month or you could even spend them immediately. I.e. if experimental common pool turret for sunderer is available that months you bought your WBs you could spend them the same day if you want to test it out. However if you don't like or there isn't anything available yet you can buy something experimental later on when new experimental stuff are added - in example a month after that new TR colt pistol or new stealth chip is introduced. The main benefit beside getting to use certain equipment among the first is actually participating in the open in-game beta for that piece of equipment so your feedback during the experimental period could actually help devs determine how the final version of that piece of equipment will turn out to be.

Edit: these are just basic outlines how such a system could work.

[Envenom]

PS isn't some ghetto ass project that needs a kickstart program to push new content. This is SOE and it's their baby. It will be funded properly w/ micro transactions and a limited sub program to boot.