F2P problem to be? - Page 2

CutterJohn · 2012-06-02, 01:37 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

It is the perception of unfairness and being deceived that players find most revolting. Nobody likes being lied to, taken advantage of, or swindled, regardless of how insignificant it might be.

I would accept that argument if it were ever presented.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-02, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Malorn, just curious about something. There was a leaked speech from one of EA's investor meetings and the guy basically said two things of extreme interest about microtransactions:
1. He said that HE paid a lot of money per year on them(he either said $1500 or $5000, can't remember which)
2. He made a comment about how when the player is in the middle of a firefight and needs to reload, they've got you(ie, charging for bullets).

One of my first thoughts was, you know, if you provide an MMO quality game(ie, a large scale persistent world) like PS2 is doing, I will be willing to pay around the equivalent of what a monthly sub would be, $200 per year or so. And I thought, we aren't all EA CEOs that can spend $5000 or even $1500 per year on bullets.

What do you think about that? Not necessarily that SOE is going to do this, but could that be something to fear elsewhere in the industry?

I think that guy is an idiot who doesn't understand his customers.

Like that CEO, I pay a lot of money for games because its my hobby and I have disposable income. But I didn't always have that. I used to be a poor college kid like most gamers. At one point I relied almost exclusively on my parents for gaming funds, and they didn't just hand over money on request. Today's restricted-income player is tomorrow's disposable income player. Treating everyone like disposable income players is a terrible practice and a failed business model.

In the video I posted above they explain that F2P and microtransactions offer you the flexibility to appeal to players of all spending habits. You'll get the fat cats that can throw down $500, and the guys who only want to spend $5. Today's younger players who don't have disposable income or credit cards will have those things at some point in the future. By trying to swindle players into paying more they're only going to lose would-be paying customers and cause their player base to shrink.

DDO was a subscription-based game that went F2P with a good mictotransaction model. Not only did they manage to have a much larger player base, but they also gained far more revenue than they did as a subscription model. This is all because of increased volume of players and the fact that people are willing to spend money. Some only spent $5, others spent a lot more.

Players are the content <- this should be etched into the entrance hallway of SOE so every employee never forgets it.

Dartan · 2012-06-02, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

For more insight into their business model, watch this video.
Extra Credits: Microtransactions (The Escapist) - YouTube

Great video, everyone involved should watch it.

Fanglord · 2012-06-02, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Even if they add pay to win, so what? Its functionally identical to having a subscription, with the exception that you are still able to play if you choose not to pay, even if disadvantaged, instead of being unable to play at all.

The worry about 'pay to win' reaches completely irrational levels.

Whilst entirely true, its a bit deceitful; like the saying goes, you can attract more flys with honey than vinegar. More people are likely to spend more money over a a period of time if they are small 1/2 dollar transactions, as opposed to being practically forced into buying larger priced items to have any competitive edge.

I know personally I actually like supporting games if I believe they are trying to be fair.

KTNApollo · 2012-06-02, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Even if they add pay to win, so what? Its functionally identical to having a subscription, with the exception that you are still able to play if you choose not to pay, even if disadvantaged, instead of being unable to play at all.

The worry about 'pay to win' reaches completely irrational levels.

No. The worry about P2W games is very real, and it's a very big deal. P2W kills free to play games. Ever played APB? One of the worst offenders of P2W. The game was amazing, I loved it, but then I got stomped all day by people that spent real money to unlock stronger weapons and rocket launchers, while I had to grind for hours or even days to unlock the weapons for only 30 days. Completely ridiculous, and it killed the game for me. (Especially since the permanent gun unlocks were sometimes $50).

lolroflroflcake · 2012-06-02, 03:15 PM

F2P is actually more profitable in the long run then a subscription service because people tend to spend more when they actually spend money on the game where as the the subscription is just a fixed price each month.

maradine · 2012-06-02, 03:49 PM

Two words. Farm Cash.

Sony's gonna do just fine.

Hyiero · 2012-06-02, 04:59 PM

I have no doubt they thought long and hard about how they want to implement micro-transactions and Matt has said many times LoL has been a huge influence on how they want to do their system. League doesn't sell power and everything you can get with money you can get with time except skins/boosts, and this is the way I see planetside 2 going. And there is no denying that league has been very successful in terms of making money

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-02, 05:07 PM

Im willing to spend a lot of money to get my max to look similar to this dude.

Logri · 2012-06-02, 05:10 PM

After hearing Higby talk about micro transactions, and the way he talked out it, I'm pretty confident they are on top of their game.

At present I'm not concerned at all.
(never know what could happen along the line though)

nomotog · 2012-06-02, 06:47 PM

There is a little worry about pay to win. It would be a really stupid move and that's why I don't think they will do it.

Now when it comes to funding the game with customization, Ya they totally can do that. PS2 even has a advantage in this department. The huge number of things you can customize means people will be buying things well after the first few months. Then when people have bought up all of the lightning's hood ornaments, you just release a new vehicle for people to pimp out.

Fanglord · 2012-06-02, 06:50 PM

Just gotta hope they dont 'Tribes' it.

nomotog · 2012-06-02, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Fanglord

Just gotta hope they dont 'Tribes' it.

What's wrong with tribes?

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-02, 07:14 PM

Tribes has introduced several new weapons to the game. They are all overpriced and overpowered.

SpcFarlen · 2012-06-02, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Tribes has introduced several new weapons to the game. They are all overpriced and overpowered.

Until the nerf. They did okay on the latest (thank god).

But ya people are more willing to spend 15 bucks a month to pimp their character out rather than pay to play... to then pimp their character out. Its the whole long term over short term gains thing. People want instant gratification. F2P with micro transactions does that.

Ive already set aside a fund for PS2, partially because if it is good, i want to be able to support them to make it even greater. And having some unique items along the way aint half bad.

I really like the F2P because it also expands the playerbase. A lot of times i had to stop paying for a game, say WoW back in the day, because i needed rent and food money that month. So it allows a much larger audience to play and enjoy.