rydehard Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 An interesting read on why the F2P model is so successful. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php?page=4
ninjonxb Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 An interesting read on why the F2P model is so successful. http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php?page=4 As far as this game goes. How successful the transition was is up for debate. The first. EA and Bioware have confirmed (at least as of a couple months ago) most of the money from the CM is from subscribers. Not F2P or Preferred. Which kinda makes sense, if you are not willing/able to put $15 a month into a game, how much are you really going to spend on the CM? Something that we don't know however, how many F2P/Preferred convert to Sub and where the numbers fall before the transition. If the Sub numbers are about the same they were before the transition (about half a million). Than an argument (for this game) may be able to be made that it is a bad thing. Bioware has to spend the server resources on f2p/preferred even though bioware may not even be breaking even on them. This has alot of assumptions and I am talking about this for this game. Not every game. But from what we have heard from EA and Bioware. It sometimes seems like a better solution would have been to introduce a better trial, a CM, and keep it Sub only.
ImpactHound Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 Look at the SW action figures market. The Star Wars IP fans were looking for an outlet to spend more than $15 a month, and now they have it.
kidatwood Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 When I started playing dcuo I started off f2p after about a week I subscribed because the limit to everything. I think the fp model helps pull in subscribers as it gives people the option of the two. Some games are just not worth the subscription.
Hambunctious Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 The style sets, unlocks, perks, and weapon models are okay, I guess, but the random items for real money should be outlawed. It's going to take a lawsuit to make them stop, and I hope it comes soon. This model take advantage of people, and subscribers are the real losers in this. They have to pay real money on top of their subscription to get the stuff. On top of that, most of the desirable styles are from the market, and then they are mostly in the random garbage packs. It amazes me to see people who are willing to spend $200 for stuff in a video game, and then claim paying for a subscription is too costly. They have zero common sense, and those people are ruining the genre for the rest of us.
LordArtemis Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 (edited) It's a interesting article. I would say that it is the state of the market. F2P works. Casuals seem to love it, and traditional hardcore players are fleeing the market for games like Battlefield and CoD. Edited August 13, 2013 by LordArtemis
Basreia Posted August 13, 2013 Posted August 13, 2013 It's more flexible and you get to decide what to spend your money on while the core of the game is free
SkunkWerks Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 It's more flexible and you get to decide what to spend your money on while the core of the game is free You also get to try before you buy- truly try before you buy. If anyone recalls, before this became a market standard, free subscription offers were generally one-to-three months- of time. If you're a casual considering playing, this is rarely enough time to sample even a small fraction of the product. And if you're considering buying a luxury product in a tanked economy, well, you consider such purchases much more carefully.
Amera Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) The style sets, unlocks, perks, and weapon models are okay, I guess, but the random items for real money should be outlawed. It's going to take a lawsuit to make them stop, and I hope it comes soon. Boxes are legalized gambling, but the law hasn't caught up to it yet. Same psychology, same predatory techniques. Separate the stupid and the foolish from their money to fuel your product. E: this is a commentary purely on the boxes, not on F2P in general. Edited August 14, 2013 by Amera
SkunkWerks Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 Boxes are legalized gambling, but the law hasn't caught up to it yet. Same psychology, same predatory techniques. Separate the stupid and the foolish from their money to fuel your product. You can say the same of pretty much any RNG mechanic in games. Assuredly Unrelated Pop Quiz: About what percentage of MMOs are made up of RNG-based mechanics? Sleep tight, you addict you.
Amera Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) Those mechanics don't directly take someone's money like keys. Pretty significant difference. E: If you want to see this in action, Perfect World games are an amazing (horrendous) example. Edited August 14, 2013 by Amera
ninjonxb Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 The style sets, unlocks, perks, and weapon models are okay, I guess, but the random items for real money should be outlawed. It's going to take a lawsuit to make them stop, and I hope it comes soon. . What? I get issues with the CM but to think they will actually get a lawsuit, or if so it will do a damn thing? Nothing they are doing is illegal. They are clear about what you get in each patch and you are not forced to play it.
SkunkWerks Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 Those mechanics don't directly take someone's money like keys. Pretty significant difference. Yet you compared the boxes to gambling. The word "significant" is up for grabs here, clearly. Interestingly enough, if asked about my feelings on gambling, I would say I am a believer in the Roadside Lottery- which is to say I feel I am as likely to find a million dollars lying on the roadside as I am to win it. I have two casinos within spitting distance of me, yet I won't step foot in them. I won't even buy lottery tickets on a I-happen-to-be-passing-through-a-gas-station-whim. I don't believe in it. Yet I buy boxes on occasion. Either I'm an enormous hypocrite, or I see a "pretty significant" difference between those things. That would be a matter of perspective, I think.
Amera Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 Either I'm an enormous hypocrite, or I see a "pretty significant" difference between those things. That would be a matter of perspective, I think. The fact that you fall into one trap but not another doesn't mean anything. People do that all the time. I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. The same psychological mechanisms are in play whether you are gambling for pixels or gambling for virtual items. Though depending on the specific odds and money amount involved, you might be able to make a reasonable argument that gambling at a dice table is actually more rational because at least you have a chance of winning something tangible.
Prototypemind Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 Definitely worked for me. Never touched WoW because of the limited F2P content. TOR pulled me in and got me hooked, and definitely pushed the value of subscribing.
SkunkWerks Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) I'm not even sure what point you're trying to make. That significant differences are a matter of perspective, nothing more. You say some things are the same. I say they are different. This isn't a matter of right and wrong, really. The same psychological mechanisms are in play whether you are gambling for pixels or gambling for virtual items. Operational conditioning. I'm intimately familiar with it. If not because I studied psych extensively in college, then because I spent most of my high school years (as well as a couple of my middle-school years) inside a Skinner Box- not literally, mind you, no, but the private school I attended used a Behavioral Conditioning approach in all disciplinary dealings. I've seen first hand how well it works over long periods of time and under different circumstances. What did I learn? While I'm sure 'ol B.F. would disagree with me, I'd have to say it was: Environment does not trump Will (where there is enough Will present to make any difference, anyway). Operant conditioning is surefire on dogs, and even young children to some extent. It does not work very reliably on adult human beings. The ability to choose tips the scales rather handily in every case. Skinner would of course insist that my choices were only illusions and that my environment was always the big mover and shaker in what I "chose" every time- I just wasn't consciously aware of it. Maybe. But I think that's as much bad science as the empirical proof that exists in favor of a bearded sky-man's will being the prime mover and shaker in everything that possibly can happen in the universe- even if I don't know it. By which of course I mean that empirical proof doesn't exist. It sounds awfully pretty, though. Well, that and B.F. Skinner put his own daughter in a LITERAL Skinner Box and ran experiments on her. If that isn't enough to call his primacy of knowledge on the human psyche into some degree of fallibility, I don't know what would. Practical upshot? Whether the same mechanics are in play in both instances doesn't really much matter. Those same mechanics are present just about any place where one human being is attempting to influence the actions of another- because they have a significantly high rate of success- if not an entirely perfect one. In short the rate of success is high enough to make ignoring it as a strategy a mistake. It works about as reliably every time. I wouldn't much worry about it. Though depending on the specific odds and money amount involved, you might be able to make a reasonable argument that gambling at a dice table is actually more rational because at least you have a chance of winning something tangible. And more chance that the House will win it back the longer I stay. Again, "significant differences". Edited August 14, 2013 by SkunkWerks
Glumish Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 The first. EA and Bioware have confirmed (at least as of a couple months ago) most of the money from the CM is from subscribers. Not F2P or Preferred. Makes sense. There was a survey done on GW2 players and around half of them never bought anything from the cash shop. People want a free to play game because they don't want to pay money, or sometimes even too young to be allowed to. They don't want a game to be F2P because it's successful, they want ti F2P because they can't stand paying any money for something that delivers far more than it costs. I could go out and buy a game for 60 dollars right now and finish it in 8 hours and feel no desire for its lack of replayability. Now do /played and see how much this game is worth compared to that.
CosmicKat Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 F2P MMO's are not successful. If they were successful, they wouldn't have gone F2P. They go F2P for several reasons... 1-5) They are losing money anyway, so might as well grab what you can without investing more. 6) There are some people who will spend enormous amounts of money on anything. 7) An MMO needs bodies to lure other bodies. When they drop below a critical point, the game will collapse on itself. 8) A "full" MMO creates the illusion of popularity. This creates illusionary demand, which creates illusionary value for those who do subscribe.
SkunkWerks Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 F2P MMO's are not successful. If they were successful, they wouldn't have gone F2P. Insightful. QED?
-Damask- Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) One thing is for sure... If they keep giving f2p players everything subs get (mounts, gear, pets, ability to use super rare items, etc...), and f2p players are able to play normally by buying all the weekly unlocks for credits instead of cartel coins only, more people are going to either un-sub out of frustration, or just stop paying and switch to preferred. Edited August 14, 2013 by -Damask-
SkunkWerks Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 One thing is for sure... If they keep giving f2p players everything subs get Unless you haven't been paying attention at all since this went into effect. I'm not sure how you could not know this isn't remotely the case.
LordArtemis Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 I would be careful with the idea that subs pay the most...remember, this model is a bit draconian compared to other F2P models...not the worst, but still pushing you to sub. It is possible that folks that would normally be F2P subbed to save some cash. The idea that subs spent the most may change shortly depending on what those players do when the 30 day cycle runs out.
-Damask- Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) I guess you don't listen to all the f2p people bragging in genchat about how they can play normally and not spend a single dollar... By making all these unlocks able to be sold on the gtn for credits, you have people who can grind their credits in game, then buy the unlocks in game, and apply said unlocks, and they can do everything from PvP to ops to equipping purple gear, to riding tauntauns, and they never have to spend a $ of real money. And please tell me which items that i listed are exclusive to subs only? Edited August 14, 2013 by -Damask-
Andryah Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) I guess you don't listen to all the f2p people bragging in genchat about how they can play normally and not spend a single dollar... By making all these unlocks able to be sold on the gtn for credits, you have people who can grind their credits in game, then buy the unlocks in game, and apply said unlocks, and they can do everything from PvP to ops to equipping purple gear, to riding tauntauns, and they never have to spend a $ of real money. Which is an exceedingly tedious and time consuming way to play the game. But.. it's there if they can manage it. Of course credits ARE a problem for them with the caps in place. They would have to spend real money to buy their way out of the caps on credit.. and these are not unlocks.. they are consumables. So really.. if you buy in to that F2P braggers in /general.. you are sillier then they are IMO. They are spewing spin and you are lapping it up. But hey.. if what you say is true... why are you subscribing? Please answer. Interestingly enough.. I see a good amount of bragging in general from players who were playing for free but subbed because they wanted unrestricted access that subscribers receive. Edited August 14, 2013 by Andryah
SkunkWerks Posted August 14, 2013 Posted August 14, 2013 (edited) I guess you don't listen to all the f2p people bragging in genchat about how they can play normally and not spend a single dollar I could. I'm not certain it would matter. Either they're expressing the feeling that they don't feel they need the benefits carried in a subscription- which is rather the whole point of the F2P option- or they're just as mistaken as you are. Either way, why would I preoccupy myself with others' fantasies? I do, after all, have my own fun to pursue. Ah yes. That's right. The lulz. Edited August 14, 2013 by SkunkWerks
Recommended Posts