Eric Musco please enlight me

[curtkram]

You are grasping for a meme to support a position. This is not the appropriate meme.

 

But.. since you brought it up.....

 

As for the actual topic of TANSTAAFL.....The essence of which.. in general society and commerce.....is as I stated 20+ some pages back (or maybe it was in the other thread... I don't know anymore): opportunity cost is the core issue people are grasping with..... And of course was attacked for it.

 

And.. I'll quote directly from your linked source so as not to be accused of "spinning".

 

 

In practical terms, for an MMO player...as is true for society..... opportunity cost boils down to having finite resources and having to make choices that match your personal needs/desires. [it has nothing to do with buy this and I'll include this for free mechanics in consumer economies]. The more consumable content a player is presented with, while continuing to receive a fixed set of resources (coins, issued gratis)... the more opportunity cost scenarios the player is presented. TL;DR the player must simply make choices for themselves.

 

Some would argue that Bioware doing this through an ever expanding set of consumable content on the CCM is sinister and entices players to purchase coins because they have impulses to "have it all". On that point, I generally agree that they are doing it... but it is no more sinister then any of hundred of thousands of other merchants selling other products to consumers using similar marketing and sales approaches. In other words, it's the commecial norm in our free market today. At the end of the day, impulse control and Caveat Emtor rests with the consumer.

'meme' i not the correct verbiage for economic theories dating back nearly 100 years.

 

so what you're saying is essentially this:

1. we get everything for subscription

2. things fall apart, f2p is released, we get everything for subscription

3. new "content A" is released. we get the old stuff for subscription, plus we get "content A" for free with our free cartel coins

4. new "content B" is released. we get some perks for subscription, plus we get to choose between "content A" or "content B" for the cost of our subscription

5. new "content C" is released. same old stuff, but now we choose between "content A," or "content B," or "content C."

 

seems from your understanding of opportunity costs, the continued investment of a subscription isn't really giving access to more stuff. it's just giving us more stuff to choose from. have your friends at bioware confirmed this is their intent, or you can't say yet because of the NDA?

[LordArtemis]

Uh -- if you aren't willing to spend $15/mo on a subscription -- why the heck would anyone think you'd pay money for CCs?

 

Seriously. Subs are the ones pumping money into the market. F2P/Preffered people aren't even going to spend $15/mo on a subscription with 600 coins included -- so why would they spend any money on the CM?

 

And -- he has a good point. If you really don't think subscription is worth it -- you have the option to go Preferred. You can buy a bunch of unlocks on the CM before you swap over. I don't see anything hostile about that. . . .

 

This is a common misconception, but in fairness could be true with this game since we do not have the data.

 

Historically, when F2P games that have a sub model combination have reported income and profit margins in almost every instance F2P income has FAR EXCEEDED the income derived from subscription players, even with additional market purchases. It seems sub paying players are more resistant to paying additional money for market items. Free players, however, tend to pay out MORE than subs overall.

 

It is logical to assume that that historical model is in place here. It is possible it is different for this game, but not likely.

[Kilora]

This is a common misconception, but in fairness could be true with this game since we do not have the data.

 

Historically, when F2P games that have a sub model combination have reported income and profit margins in almost every instance F2P income has FAR EXCEEDED the income derived from subscription players, even with additional market purchases. It seems sub paying players are more resistant to paying additional money for market items. Free players, however, tend to pay out MORE than subs overall.

 

It is logical to assume that that historical model is in place here. It is possible it is different for this game, but not likely.

 

Hmm -- not being hostile or combative -- but do you have any proof of this? I've never seen any numbers released from any of the F2P games. Would be really interesting to take a look at it, even just for personal enlightenment.

 

I'd just go over to google, but I have absolutely no idea what games have been F2P/Sub like SWTOR -- and I know SWTOR hasn't put out any actual information on any of it.

[Lent_San]

Yep, just like color crystals were the first step to this horrendous P2W game we have now. .

 

Yeah, basically this.

[translucentwolf]

 

The 600 cartel coins that you mention I already get now and can spend them on packs or other features already. This means that I have more things to choose from and again can afford a smaller portion of the features.

 

 

Sometimes, new things come out. Like a new headlamp or window tinting, wider rims, fuzzy dice, or any xyz option for a car, let's say. And you *already paid* for your car. It's a fancy, top end ride that you're still leasing. But, omg... you don't get the 'great new thing'.

 

You have to pick, and choose what to spend whatever money you've bugeted for 'transportation' on.

 

The problem isn't the game. Or Cartel Coins. The problem is, you want *every new cosmetic luxury item* that Bioware ever comes up with, and you don't want to pay more than the 'budget' price.

 

Speaking as someone wearing top of the line cartel market scoundrel wear.... It costs money to look this good kid.

Edited May 7, 2013 by translucentwolf

[CosmicKat]

Hmm -- not being hostile or combative -- but do you have any proof of this? I've never seen any numbers released from any of the F2P games. Would be really interesting to take a look at it, even just for personal enlightenment.

 

I'd just go over to google, but I have absolutely no idea what games have been F2P/Sub like SWTOR -- and I know SWTOR hasn't put out any actual information on any of it.

 

Actually, I don't think any game has had the model of TOR's F2P plan.

 

This is the only one I've seen that is designed specifically to also charge subscribers extra, every other one I've experienced is designed as an optional payment method primarily and not as a supplementary income source.

[Alavastre]

Uh -- if you aren't willing to spend $15/mo on a subscription -- why the heck would anyone think you'd pay money for CCs?

 

Seriously. Subs are the ones pumping money into the market. F2P/Preffered people aren't even going to spend $15/mo on a subscription with 600 coins included -- so why would they spend any money on the CM?

 

And -- he has a good point. If you really don't think subscription is worth it -- you have the option to go Preferred. You can buy a bunch of unlocks on the CM before you swap over. I don't see anything hostile about that. . . .

 

Apparently you've never been on the opposite side of the F2P stuff? I was bored and grabbed Champions Online for a while. Enjoyed it. Ended up spending 50 bucks in about 2 months. Much more than I would have spent for a subscription. What did I buy? Just different costumes, unlocks and player housing.

 

Though subs are buying a lot of stuff, I wouldn't discount how many F2P people buy. In which case it's not per person, it's simply bulk of little orders.

[translucentwolf]

I love you lemmings.

 

You all say same thing. You guys most get a lot bigger monthly allotment then the rest of us to afford everything that its supposedly suppose to cover. Just keep blindly defending them.

 

We don't waste coins on packs. We save our coins for things that are actually useful. Like Rocket Boost, Racial Unlocks, etc.

[Kilora]

Apparently you've never been on the opposite side of the F2P stuff? I was bored and grabbed Champions Online for a while. Enjoyed it. Ended up spending 50 bucks in about 2 months. Much more than I would have spent for a subscription. What did I buy? Just different costumes, unlocks and player housing.

 

Though subs are buying a lot of stuff, I wouldn't discount how many F2P people buy. In which case it's not per person, it's simply bulk of little orders.

 

Nope, I have been. Came back to this game after it went F2P (Left pre-1.3, back right arount 1.7) and immediatle re-subbed after less than an hour of Preferred.

 

Played Scarlet Blade (which is all naked women NPCs, btw, but pretty combat and interesting back story) and stopped playing because of the ridiculous money grabs. In order to use /shout, you have to purchase megaphones with RL$.

 

Started playing LotRO and stopped when I hit the first point I "needed" to spend RL$. I mean, it could certainly be me as the outlier -- I haven't seen enough information to make a claim either way. But when I see something advertised as "free" -- I run in the other direction the second I see a pricetag on something I "need" in-game. SWTOR seems to be the exception to my fears though. No idea why.

[Kilora]

We don't waste coins on packs. We save our coins for things that are actually useful. Like Rocket Boost, Racial Unlocks, etc.

 

Speak for yourself! I always end up buying a pack the day I get my stipend.

 

And then regretting it the next day. But -- I don't blame anyone else for my lack of impulse control. :-D

[branmakmuffin]

I'd just go over to google, but I have absolutely no idea what games have been F2P/Sub like SWTOR -- and I know SWTOR hasn't put out any actual information on any of it.

LotRO and DDO work very similarly to the way TOR works. EQ2, possibly, as well (but it's been a long time since I played EQ2 and its F2P model may have changed).

 

And of course my point (which you agreed with) is valid whether F2Pers spend more or subscribers spend more: if someone thinks subscribing is a bad deal, what's to stop them from going Preferred? What many of them really want, though, is to be able to stay subscribed for the same price and get more for their money. Who wouldn't want more for their money, whatever the product or service is? If all else about the game could remain the same, in some hypothetical "free MMO utopia," anyone would happily pay nothing for TOR. But companies don't give more value for the same money just because some customers ask for it.

Edited May 7, 2013 by branmakmuffin

[Kilora]

LotRO and DDO work very similarly to the way TOR works. EQ2, possibly, as well (but it's been a long time since I played EQ2 and its F2P model may have changed).

 

And of course my point (which you agreed with) is valid whether F2Pers spend more or subscribers spend more: if someone thinks subscribing is a bad deal, what's to stop them from going Preferred? What many of them really want, though, is to be able to stay subscribed for the same price and get more for their money. Who wouldn't want more for their money, whatever the product or service is? If all else about the game could remain the same, in some hypothetical "free MMO utopia," anyone would happily pay nothing for TOR. But companies don't give more value for the same money just because some customers ask for it.

 

 

I agree completely. I wish the market hadn't started to transition -- because, as a "semi-seasoned" MMO player (EQ, FFXI, WoW, FFXIV, CoH) I would gladly pay $30/mo for this game, without a single micro-transaction.

 

For me, it's less about $ than it is about convenience. If the game was decent, I'd pay the sub fee. Otherwise, I most likely won't play it. Either way -- I'd rather pay a set amount and get everything there is to offer, like it used to be.

 

(Paid services aside -- I never had an issue with charging for server transfers or faction changes).

[branmakmuffin]

I agree completely. I wish the market hadn't started to transition -- because, as a "semi-seasoned" MMO player (EQ, FFXI, WoW, FFXIV, CoH) I would gladly pay $30/mo for this game, without a single micro-transaction.

 

For me, it's less about $ than it is about convenience. If the game was decent, I'd pay the sub fee. Otherwise, I most likely won't play it. Either way -- I'd rather pay a set amount and get everything there is to offer, like it used to be.

 

(Paid services aside -- I never had an issue with charging for server transfers or faction changes).

We can only guess that they don't offer a "super premium" subscription plan because they think they'd make less money that way. Plus even with such a plan, CM items like armor and CM packs would still have to cost CC. Otherwise a "super premium" subscriber would just "buy" unlimited amounts of stuff (for free) and sell it on the GTN.

[Kilora]

We can only guess that they don't offer a "super premium" subscription plan because they think they'd make less money that way. Plus even with such a plan, CM items like armor and CM packs would still have to cost CC. Otherwise a "super premium" subscriber would just "buy" unlimited amounts of stuff (for free) and sell it on the GTN.

 

Maybe they should do "super premium" -- but auto-bind all of the CM stuff to me.

I'm perfectly ok with that! :-D

 

But, you're right. They'd probably make less money >.<

[LordArtemis]

Hmm -- not being hostile or combative -- but do you have any proof of this? I've never seen any numbers released from any of the F2P games. Would be really interesting to take a look at it, even just for personal enlightenment.

 

I'd just go over to google, but I have absolutely no idea what games have been F2P/Sub like SWTOR -- and I know SWTOR hasn't put out any actual information on any of it.

 

Kate Paiz, LotRO executive producer has spoken about this very matter twice, specifically the increase in revenue, source of revenue and current effect on the game. She spoke to the revenue and new player effects in Episode 30 of Top Ten Hammer live as well as the panel at GDC Online 2010 where she spelled out the specific revenue model and its effects at that time. I can look up specific verbiage if you wish.

 

Jim Crowley, CEO of Turbine reported that DDO had an increase of one million new players, a doubling of the sub base, a 500 percent increase in the franchises revenue, players engaging in transactions in the store at three times the industry average with the bulk of transactions coming from new F2P players with the Eberron expansion. He did not provide actual revenue numbers however.

 

To be fair Kate Paiz was at Turbine at the time and moved on to LotRO later.

 

Will Lutton wrote an extensive book on the model, called Free-to-Play: Making Money From Games You Give Away which speaks to the model directly, its effects on the playerbase, F2P performance and percentages historically with references and income expectations from the model. He also touches on the perceived evil of the model and it's effect on a subscription base when introduced to a current game on the market.

 

There are others I have in my research paper, I can grab it and post some of the other snippets.

[Kilora]

Kate Paiz, LotRO executive producer has spoken about this very matter twice, specifically the increase in revenue, source of revenue and current effect on the game. She spoke to the revenue and new player effects in Episode 30 of Top Ten Hammer live as well as the panel at GDC Online 2010 where she spelled out the specific revenue model and its effects at that time. I can look up specific verbiage if you wish.

 

Jim Crowley, CEO of Turbine reported that DDO had an increase of one million new players, a doubling of the sub base, a 500 percent increase in the franchises revenue, players engaging in transactions in the store at three times the industry average with the bulk of transactions coming from new F2P players with the Eberron expansion. He did not provide actual revenue numbers however.

 

To be fair Kate Paiz was at Turbine at the time and moved on to LotRO later.

 

Will Lutton wrote an extensive book on the model, called Free-to-Play: Making Money From Games You Give Away which speaks to the model directly, its effects on the playerbase, F2P performance and percentages historically with references and income expectations from the model. He also touches on the perceived evil of the model and it's effect on a subscription base when introduced to a current game on the market.

 

There are others I have in my research paper, I can grab it and post some of the other snippets.

 

I certainly won't say no to a PM with snippets -- but thank you!! This gives me a place to start :-D

 

I'll look em up. The entire model is really interesting to me -- and, it would be great knowledge to have for the future.

 

I'll be the one making the next game y'all sink thousands into ^.^

[Alavastre]

Nope, I have been. Came back to this game after it went F2P (Left pre-1.3, back right arount 1.7) and immediatle re-subbed after less than an hour of Preferred.

 

Played Scarlet Blade (which is all naked women NPCs, btw, but pretty combat and interesting back story) and stopped playing because of the ridiculous money grabs. In order to use /shout, you have to purchase megaphones with RL$.

 

Started playing LotRO and stopped when I hit the first point I "needed" to spend RL$. I mean, it could certainly be me as the outlier -- I haven't seen enough information to make a claim either way. But when I see something advertised as "free" -- I run in the other direction the second I see a pricetag on something I "need" in-game. SWTOR seems to be the exception to my fears though. No idea why.

 

That is you, and I'm the opposite. I will pay for things I like even if it's "F2P". Why? Because nothing is free. Some one is paying for it some where. If you like something, you should support it. I did have a guild mate that bought the flash point unlock for a week. If anything the CM is expanding options. But yes, things cost money.

 

And if you don't pay, then you're just there to populate a game so the people who do pay enjoy it more. Either way some one is paying. I guess the point to this is that you cannot just use a blanket statement in regards to everyone, because I know that there are plenty of F2P people that are dropping cash on this game. More so once 2.1 hits.

[CosmicKat]

 

For me, it's less about $ than it is about convenience. If the game was decent, I'd pay the sub fee. Otherwise, I most likely won't play it. Either way -- I'd rather pay a set amount and get everything there is to offer, like it used to be.

 

(Paid services aside -- I never had an issue with charging for server transfers or faction changes).

 

^This.

[curtkram]

That is you, and I'm the opposite. I will pay for things I like even if it's "F2P". Why? Because nothing is free. Some one is paying for it some where. If you like something, you should support it. I did have a guild mate that bought the flash point unlock for a week. If anything the CM is expanding options. But yes, things cost money.

 

And if you don't pay, then youat there are ple're just there to populate a game so the people who do pay enjoy it more. Either way some one is paying. I guess the point to this is that you cannot just use a blanket statement in regards to everyone, because I know thnty of F2P people that are dropping cash on this game. More so once 2.1 hits.

 

with the f2p model, it is the developer's goal to get you to buy stuff from their market. that's how they put food on their table. There was a quote from the former CEO of EA about selling bullets at high stress time in battlefield. once they get you over the initial concern of whether you're going to pay just a little bit into the market, i doubt it's that hard for them to develop a system where you impulse buy just a little at a time until you've spent more than you would have as a subscriber. if they keep the prices low you might not realize how quick it adds up. i'm sure this is especially true with the current system, where there really is a minimum amount you have to spend as f2p to get into warzones, or flashpoints, or use artifact items, priority access when servers are full (of f2p kids on the starter planets) or whatever. you don't need all of that, but there really is a minimum to spend to make the game fun.

 

with the subscription only model the developers are focused on keeping you subscribed. all they have to do is make the game fun. in my opinion that model is much simpler and still better. granted the CM does expand options, but having a subscription and access to everything, instead of having to pick which bit you want, sounds a lot easier to me.

 

i suppose subscription + cash shop means the developers are focused on subscribers switching to f2p, since as mentioned earlier it can be more profitable and it gets you over the initial hump of impulse buying. once you start spending on unlocks, there is a fair chance you'll keep spending.

[branmakmuffin]

Maybe they should do "super premium" -- but auto-bind all of the CM stuff to me.

I'm perfectly ok with that! :-D

Yeah, that seems like it would work (all items "bought" off the CM are BTL for this hypothetical "super premium" account).

 

That is you, and I'm the opposite. I will pay for things I like even if it's "F2P". Why? Because nothing is free. Some one is paying for it some where. If you like something, you should support it. I did have a guild mate that bought the flash point unlock for a week. If anything the CM is expanding options. But yes, things cost money.

When you say "If you like something, you should support it," what do you mean, exactly? Do you mean what some people say they're gonna do, buy the Cathar unlock even though they don't really like Cathar? That to me smacks of blind loyalty. Or do you mean "If you see an item on the CM you like, why not buy it? You're getting something you like and the game gets more of the support it needs to stay viable?"

 

My opinion is that doing former potentially rewards mediocrity.

Edited May 7, 2013 by branmakmuffin