Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
A Moderator can Close this Thread... Thank you.
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
To do business , you need to get rip of your rival (gold farmer) first . Don't try to use them because they will bite you later .
When doing F2P business , you need to have 100% control in your hand , or else thing will become chaos.
You can sell gold to player , sell item to them , allow them to spend as much as they want , but never let them take control of your business. Of course , you can let them "gift" thing that they buy from you to other , but never let them resell it.
If you going to be greed (F2P) , then being greed .
You don't need limit the P2W advantages , but you need to control it , feed the fish in order to grow the whales .
You need to have control in how much food the fish need to live , but not let them growing to whales too fast.
That's how you do F2P business , it's an art.
Too greedy and let your fishes die , the whales will leave your pool
But feed the fishes too much then you will stay poor .
Even a cosmetic only cash shop contributes to the P2W advantages, as soon as those items are tradeable. Thus, the necessity to limit the P2W advantage, as there would be major issues if the cash shop items are not tradeable.
Actually, WoW is possibly the worst example of how much you can profit from a sub only type of game, particularly with respect to mmorpgs. I forget where I had seen it, but when you consider WoW population to any other mmorpg, the numbers look the same as populations among cities within the United States. The highest population city always has more than double every other city, with the second highest population having more than double the third. The numbers stair-step downward from there to a mostly flat graph among populations. Thus, it would be very bad to assume any mmorpg presented would be able to take the first or second place in population, from a business perspective.
These days, you can possibly assume 200-500 thousand as being successful at best. If an mmorpg happens to strike a cord among the playerbase and thus grows beyond that, then and only then would you consider how to make adjustments, and possibly even attempt to become a sub only mmorpg. In doing so however, be prepared to see at least half of your playerbase leave, while needing to maintain operations until a sub only wanting playerbase slowly fills in some of that gap.
Unfortunately, I have plenty of friends that once did play subscription mmorpgs, spending plenty of days straight at a time doing things together in the days of old. Those same friends, although they most definitely preferred the subscription model integrity of the game, today they prefer the free to play model due to the ability to not play a month or two and not worry about it, to try a game out before they put any money in, and simply not always having the money each and every month when they live check to check. Some weeks and months are worse than others. And then there are occasions where they can spend friday night till sunday evening in groups, just like we used to do in the old days.
It is based on this, whereas I am the minority as to wants and needs with respect to F2P vs Sub (whereas I would actually prefer the Sub model), that I recognize F2P is the route a new IP, a new title, a new company must take by necessity. The only mmorpgs that can take a Sub approach off the bat, are those IP's, titles and-or companies that already have some sort of following.
This all misses the point however, that P2W is as despised as it is, on the basis and only on the basis of how mmorpgs have used and abused it thus far. Each and every player advantage stems from a player's real life advantages. Again, consider skill as an advantage, or time as an advantage, but even those have limitations. P2W also stems from a player's real life advantages, but companies allow P2W without limitations, and thus the real issue. By placing limitations on the P2W advantage through various systems in-game, it allows an additional player advantaged group of players to exist, but on par with other such advantages. Thus, it would guarantee the integrity of the game among the playerbase.
Ah, you have not read everything. They would need to pay to be on the forums to begin with... the game would be free to play. Be it through the optional subscription (I would guess at $14.99 per month) or through enough cash shop purchases (I would guess a total of $29.99 for the past 30 days, which could be done in increments until 30 passes and $29.99 is not the total anymore and needs to have that additional amount added), they would not be able to participate on the forums otherwise.
Also, this does not take into consideration the fact that there would a game plan spanning over a decade, as to expansions, etc, with no intention to give in to nonsense. Player feedback would be read, but only acted on in the case of legitimately good ideas. The integrity of the game as a work of art and as to how it is experienced by players, will be the only motivation for any changes, and only to my own vision for the game. That vision is based on pen & paper/ table rpgs and the subscription model mmorpgs experience. It can be accomplished.
Agreed, to a point. Given magic is present in a game, there are ways of having "skateboards" placed into an mmorpg without killing immersion. That involves the mechanical aspects of how that "skateboard" works, as well as visual design, to make sure not to become unbelievable or an eyesore. Most companies are too lazy or too lacking in creativity, to think about such things. They are not genuinely appreciative of the genre.
Gold farmers, Hack programs, Black market activities will all be stomped to death, as they are viewed as parasites that need to die. I have no intention of using them, and they will be the reason for maintaining 2 teams... one for expansions, one for black market. I already know that the programming needs to be done with advanced calculus in order to knock off 99% of the hackers to begin with, a custom engine must be created and server-side heavy (as opposed to client side, aka ArcheAge), that any and all illegal programs that can be bought and reverse engineered must be, and even the engine itself will need to be altered in order to break those hack programs. Within the game, all that is needed is a report button for players, so that staff can focus investigations along with utilize the data of transactions (including picking up entities, dropping, trading, mailing, receiving, looting, in-game letters written, chats) as well as time logged per account and actions utilized and not utilized. Permanent bans of accounts and IPs, will be the reward for even dealing with black market (while still needing to be careful not to punish those players that legitimately and legally interacted in-game, but just happened to be an interaction with a black market worker).
Ah, the bullet points did not go into those details, but gifts will only be available through the bound cash shop currency. And no, if items from the cash shop are bought with unbound cash shop currency, they can be traded, and thus resold. The majority of items in-game will also be tradeable, and thus sold. The P2W Reduction Methods are designed to deal with controlling and maintaining a proper mmorpg world.
F2P =/= being greedy, unless of course you are speaking of what has been done with the F2P model thus far. The primary focus would be the game as an art, as delivering an mmorpg experience with integrity. For which case, it is by necessity that P2W advantages will be limited, and thus the reason behind this thread... To compile further methods to limit P2W. Whales would be expected to stay, only if they like the challenge of being able to throw as much money as they want at the game, and still not break the system or achieve any sort of god mode.
Then it is two completely different arts that our appreciation is focused on.
No else caught the "slippery slope" as actually being a straw man?
And yes, I agree with business controlling game play as an abomination to the mmorpg genre. You can show as many videos as you like however, but not a single one has attempted P2W Reduction Methods in order to limit P2W (save EVE online without anyone allowing that to be mentioned), and bring it down to within mortal status. Whereas business must be a part of the equation, it is the experience delivered as a collective masterpiece of artists that should control the gameplay.
That seems to be the general consensus from the peanut gallery, yes. However...
When one considers a subscription only model and the amount of revenue that it brings in (let us call this amount X), and then one considers that on average the F2P cash shop model brings in 2.5X, then it can be recognized that there is plenty of wiggle room between X and 2.5X.
From this you consider that a subscription model will bring in less players due to the paywall, but should maintain however many players (let us just assume it is successful and that black market is dealt with properly). Now, if that same game were to go F2P with a Cash Shop by the implementations of the business model as we have seen again and again, we can expect that 2.5X. That is, we have officially lost the majority of our playerbase because they do not spend enough (and by "enough" you can replace that with "$1000s" from what I have experienced). That is just outright disgusting.
In comes the P2W reduction methods in order to limit the P2W advantage...
The integrity of the gameplay (which includes competitive gameplay) is maintained, as well as is the experience of the majority of the playerbase at no actual cost. The population will maintain itself at far higher numbers than what currently is accomplished among so-called F2P mmo's, and thus, will further act as a hinge or leash on the paying members. It is legitimately possible, that this business model would maintain higher playerbases than most F2P, while bringing in more $ per account than Subscription only. Further still, it would deliver the same experience as we had seen through subscription only mmorpgs back in the day.
It is only lack of understanding of the whole picture from both the developers (too comfortable of current business models and too afraid to change what has worked financially for them) and the playerbase (too screwed over too many times to remove the horse blinders and think) that even makes this any sort of debatable topic.
Thanks, but those are all covered in the bulleted points in the original post.
Experience potions would be considered progression items (not available through the cash shop), which would only be available from in-game play (via kill loot, etc), but would be tradeable between players. A cash shopper could thus, exchange cash shop currency for one of the in-game currencies on one of the regional exchanges (which will have independent prices from region to region). With that in-game currency, the cash shopper would then be able to purchase the experience potion, IF other players whom acquired them from in-game play are selling them.
This places power into the hands of the typical player, and dismantles the direct and greedy, company to cash shopper exchanges.
I see two problems here:
1. You have assumed that there is a way to stop player spending. This is basically illogical, and practically impossible.
2. You have assumed that limiting P2W is a good thing.
I see a lot of this. People try to find ways to STOP others from doing something (which never works) but dont put any real effort into finding ways to get what would make them happy. In effect, they are trying to make others as unhappy as themselves, rather than try to make themselves happy.
The goal of any business model is to bring in money. This does not matter if the model is F2P or P2P.
Subscriptions are a common form of revenue for F2P games, and they do not limit spending, or prevent P2W advantages.
Cash shots are a common form of revenue for P2P games, and they do long limit spending, or prevent P2W advantages.
The only way to limit spending, is to limit interactions that could be monetized. This means that the gameplay itself must be limited, in order to limit anything that could be monetized. This is generally not good for gameplay.
The only way to limit P2W advantages is to limit interactions that can give an advantage. This means that any interaction with other players must be limited , in order to limit anything that could provide an advantage. This is generally not good for social interaction..
1. There is no assumption of a way to stop player spending at all.
The reality is actually that it is assumed a player can spend as much as they want, but limiting the P2W advantage to a point that balances it with other player advantages. The reality is actually that no matter how much a player spends for their P2W advantage, the advantages of skill, time, etc, all maintain as also being advantages. That is the point of limiting the P2W advantage, to maintain the integrity of the game itself, for all players to experience an mmorpg world as it ought to be intended to be delivered to experience. Neither illogical nor impossible at all.
2. It is not just a matter of assumption, it is a matter of personal experiences and communicating with other players during those experiences, and finding solutions to a legitimate issue. That issue is that the P2W advantage is allowed to present within mmorpgs unchecked, and thus allowing high end spenders to achieve godmode, and thus allowing the experiences of the typical playerbase to be less than enjoyable.
It does not come down to trying to stop anything. It does come down to tabletop / pen & paper rpg and subscription only mmorpg experiences, versus free to play cash shop experiences that allow limitless P2W. There are major differences.
Originally posted by Superman0X
The goal of any business model is to bring in money. This does not matter if the model is F2P or P2P.
Subscriptions are a common form of revenue for F2P games, and they do not limit spending, or prevent P2W advantages.
Cash shots are a common form of revenue for P2P games, and they do long limit spending, or prevent P2W advantages.
The only way to limit spending, is to limit interactions that could be monetized. This means that the gameplay itself must be limited, in order to limit anything that could be monetized. This is generally not good for gameplay.
The only way to limit P2W advantages is to limit interactions that can give an advantage. This means that any interaction with other players must be limited , in order to limit anything that could provide an advantage. This is generally not good for social interaction..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, the goal of any business is to bring in money, however (and I will repeat it yet again, even though it has been stated multiple times in this thread)...
If a company as a genuine interest in their work (IE - the mmorpg virtual world and experience players will have in it), then it is the integrity of that experience of their audience that is their primary focus and concern. The concern of bringing in that money is only to the extent of maintaining that experience. That is the perspective from a true artist type.
There is no need to limit gameplay or interactions, only to understand and manipulate the systems which feed the P2W advantage. This would create the same type of experience and gameplay as having a subscription only business model, if done correctly of course.
There is no need to limit the social interaction either, again, it comes down to understanding the systems involved and manipulating them. The P2W Reduction Methods, which are briefly outlined in the original post (although those outlined points are brief, they go into much deeper details point by point, which have not been displayed in the OP), deliver such methods of manipulation based on understanding the systems involved.
B. could work for all kind of games. f.e. armor add-ons (skull on a shoulder, horns on a helmet...) or different colors(patterns) which yould also work for spaceships and such things. To make it viable longterm add new cosmetics every other month/week. Look at Fallen Earth and their model. True the game might not be as popular but imho the model seems ok just the game might be lacking.
C. can be made possible for all games. see Fallen Earth example (yes, I really like their system ^^ )
Servers...
You have servers that are 100% open where you can spend anything you want.
You have servers where you MUST spend a minimum of $5 per month but are limited to $100 per month.
You have servers where you MUST spend a minimum of $15 per month but are limited to $35 per month.
Now the whales get to truly stomp on people on the open servers. You can avoid the whales by paying $5 per month. You can play a pretty much subscription based type gameplay on the $15 to $35 servers, and if you are a dolphin, you can spend $100 per month and be a bigish fish on the middle servers.
If you can not stop player spending (as we both agree is not possible), then you can not stop those who spend more, from having more. The problem with this, is that with unlimited spending (or even an extreme gap in spending) there is a clear benefit possible. Without the ability to cap the spending, there is no ability to cap the benefits.
As Henry Ford once said, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses. This is because there is often a very clear disconnect between what people say that want, and what they actually desire. A more relevant example in this instance would be US Prohibition. People were very clear that they wanted to stop people from drinking alcohol (as they felt it was bad). However, making it illegal caused a huge spike in the demand, and in fact increased consumption tremendously).
As I stated, the goal should not be to STOP anything, but rather to ADD the things that would make the game better for you. i.e. what can YOU get that would make the game more enjoyalbe.
IMHO, if a developer is looking to build their game along the current trend, then I have to agree that a cash shop that is tethered and does not get out of hand would be ideal. However, if a developer is looking to build a world for players to explore, then there is no place for microtransactions.
You can greatly limit the P2W advantage if done properly. The list of bullet points (when looked at in depth) would do exactly that.
The P2W Reduction Methods does not make the P2W advantage illegal, but rather accepts it as an actual and additional player advantage, while also bringing it into balance with other recognized player advantages.
The P2W Reduction Methods would allow every player to have an enjoyable experience within an mmorpg virtual world, comparable to that of tabletop / pen & paper rpg and subscription only mmorpg experiences.It is not just a matter of building along the current trend, it is a matter of having a perspective of both, the company and the playerbase... with respect to the artistic and integrital aspects of the mmorpg genre.
Your statements are too black and white, and thus untrue, as they fail to acknowledge the entire picture.
Also, the P2W Reduction Methods are not just about tethering the cash shop. Limiting the P2W advantage involves systems outside the cash shop as well, systems that intertwine throughout the game world.
This certainly has it's merits, but not what I am intending when the time comes.
When the time comes, all servers will be the same as to the business model and what is available, including having both PvE and PvP on each server. The PvE and PvP can easily be separated into separate regions of an mmorpg world. This will allow players to begin in a PvE area, while being able to quickly enter the PvP areas if they want to do so, and avoid PvP entirely if that is instead what they want. In this manner, updates will lead to far less issues, on the basis of what I have seen attempted in past mmorpgs. I am under the assumption, that business models could also become affected by updates, in the same manner as I have seen with the PvE-PvP server updates.
Bro, you've done raids before right? Usually there is a weekly lock out for it. Let's say you are running in a 20 man progression raid and you need gear because you just started and for the sake of arguing you are dps class. First boss down, plate gear drops, healer trinket, two-hand sword (RNG). You wear leather, dual-wield, bow is in your ranged slot, dex is main stat. Next boss down, cloth gear, str bow drops (warrior roll), dex ring. You and three other dex stat users roll (RNG) effing warrior rolled too and ninja looted your dex ring. Kicked warrior out of raid and found a replacement 45 minutes later because he was off-tank. Next boss Mage and cleric gear (RNG). Last boss dex dagger drops roll against dex users (RNG). Boss drops are RNG, class rolls are RNG, every once in a while you get ninja looters who screw up the rotation.
Progression for me is - I went through the raid and completed it, I got my achievement now I want to go do other things and not feel like I HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS RAID because my gear is a direct reflection of my progression. I'm sick to my stomach waiting for raid group to come together. I'm sick of guys jetting out early because they drew girlfriend aggro. I'm sick of underperforming raiders. I'm sick of standing around for the next weekly reset because all the raid gear I've acquired has made me ridiculously OP that I get no challenge from anything anymore.
After months of running the same damn raid week after week there is a point where you have to ask yourself, WTF? It was fun the first couple of times, after that it's like painting with numbers. Stack on heart, LOS on this mechanic, run out of group if you get a blue bubble, blah, blah, blah, blah....
You are why F2P games need to die because players like you who will spend $1000 a year on an MMO. And no P2W does not stem from Real Life Advantages. You Either have no family and no life, or you have someone giving you money hand over fits because you are not earning enough money for that. I can tell you that for a FACT because I make more money now with my family than I did when I was single and guess what I had a lot of money I could spend on my hobbies. Yet having a family I make way more now and have no way to afford $1000 MMOs. I can easily afford Box Plus Sub for a year no problem plus 2 cars, 2 houses, and other things. Its because People like you that MMOs will die because an MMO cannot be stained on P2W models people with a brain will quit playing. Hell I do not even let my teenage daughter play F2P games on her phone. If she wants a game she Buys a PS3 game and owns it.
It is possible to increase the cost of any advantage, but with (effectively) unlimited spending, it is not possible to limit the ultimate scale possible.
The belief that you can limit the advantage, by limiting the spending options is a belief in a prohibition type mentality. It the attempt to limit the actions of one player, rather than enhance the actions of another that is the problem. You have assumed that something is bad, and should be prohibitted, rather than accepting it, and instead looking after the welfare of those not participating.
Dude thats because you raided too dam hard. Not saying that we need LFR raiding, however too much EPEEN raiding will kill you. I know I lead 40 man raids, and hardcore raids. After a while it burns you out. Now If I wanted to ever go at something that hard again I might get my ass back in shape and play roller and floor hockey again then travel with a team to do tournaments.
Now I LOVE raiding. However I LOVE to raid with friends and my wife. If we dont down shit week 1 I am good with that as long as we are progressing. I also raid on a casual schedule and sometimes we take a week or two off around holidays. We also do not just raid we do other things as a group of friends. I can tell you that is a 100 times better experience than hardcore raiding.
Whereas I understand the RNG and ninjalooter issues, both will be issues faced within an mmorpg. But there are ways to deal with the ninjalooters, and from the company end.
RNG is a must at any stage of an mmorpg, it is a matter of where, to what extent and how it is implemented. This is based initially on the tabletop / pen & paper randomness through dice rolls. Without this, believe it or not, even great games would become stale quickly. Loot drops are included in this randomness. Raids can be designed to not only be challenging, but fun as well, to an extent of coming back being enjoyable.
As far as the ninjalooting thing goes however, this is where community becomes important. The limitless P2W player advantage actually multiplies this sort of ninjalooting behavior (not to mention lists of other asshattery). Even in an entirely PvE game which has P2W, there is a feeling of "money on the line" based on what one has put into the game in $s. So even if you are not able to lose what you have bought, not being able to gain further in-game, will also drive people to extremes that they would not likely do otherwise. When money is involved, even family turns on each other, what do people think strangers will do to each other in a virtual world?
The designs of an mmorpg world can push toward community (things people say they hate, IE - harsher death penalties, more challenging content or group oriented content, interdependence between group members, etc), of which will not entirely eliminate the asshattery, but certainly works toward reducing it. It is in these game designs along side of a non-P2W advantage environment, that community allows for less of this ninjalooting and the like.
Whereas ninjalooting can be greatly reduced by design, unfortunately the RNG thing is there to stay.
Perhaps you have alternative ideas in mind to at least reduce what you dislike about RNG?
You are not seeing the full picture. Limiting spending is barely part of the methods used to reduce the P2W advantage. Granted, even the 50-50% Bound-Unbound Cash Shop Currency will greatly reduce the so-called "merchants" (IE- they actually cash shop items and sell them to amass in-game currency for their P2W advantage) by approximately 70%, if not more.
The P2W Reduction Methods already listed not only reduces the benefits of P2W as an advantage (not completely eliminating them, but limiting them), but also delivers a proper experience to the majority of the playerbase (IE- the truly F2P players as well as those spending the equivalent of a subscription which should be able to enjoy their experiences).
If you have not noticed, we are technically on the same page (if everything you stated was true). You just have not read and thought about what is being presented in this thread. It is against P2W as a player advantage being unlimited. It is about finding ways to limit P2W as a player advantage. It is about recgnizing that P2W as an advantage stems from real life, like each and every other player advantage you can think of. Name 1 player advantage that does not stem from real life. Just 1. You can not. Once you can understand that much, maybe you will start to see the point of this thread.
And btw, you do realize whales, spend well over $100,000 in the same amount of time or less? Hell, I definitely know of one instance where a player spent $30,000 in a single month. I was far from being the problem.
Your P2W Reduction methods (as listed in the first post) do not reduce the benefits of P2W. They only work to increase the cost. They also do not noticably change the experience of the majority of the playerbase.
P.S. I am not currently active in MMO monetization and am currently working on Fantasy Sports monetization. Here is an example of how P2W is dealt with in this field: http://fantasysportscombine.com/