Payment model isn't about what people prefer but what makes the most money. You want to know what people prefer? Look at the market.
I'm not looking to "make the most money". There's a whole other side to the business in which people get rich, and that's fine. Yay, I will personally be rich, but this isn't about that.
If I had my way, the game would be 100% free forever. Unfortunately, I do have to pay company bills and salaries to keep it running and growing. For that, I need to monetize the game in some way.
What I'm looking for is the method that players feel they are getting the "most bang for their buck". The method in which they don't feel they're being taken advantage of, harassed or "duped".
Payment model isn't about what people prefer but what makes the most money. You want to know what people prefer? Look at the market.
I'm not looking to "make the most money". There's a whole other side to the business in which people get rich, and that's fine. Yay, I will personally be rich, but this isn't about that.
If I had my way, the game would be 100% free forever. Unfortunately, I do have to pay company bills and salaries to keep it running and growing. For that, I need to monetize the game in some way.
What I'm looking for is the method that players feel they are getting the "most bang for their buck". The method in which they don't feel they're being taken advantage of, harassed or "duped".
If your monetization needs are very minimal (which it sounds like they are from how you are expressing this) you can also just try a 'donation' button.
I don't care which method you use. If the game is fun for me, I will play and pay. In a shop based game I will spend about a sub's worth every month anyway.
In any case, I hope you succeed. I like your attitude towards money and hope this attitude will help to create something unique instead of only going for the usual profit oriented safe bets in decisions.
I like B2P or F2P games. A lot of businesses are gearing towards subscription models. So not only are Sub MMO's competing against MMO's for my budget, they're competing against every monthly service I'm paying for.
Cash shops I have no problem with unless they become mandatory to use to get to content. I think B2P with a cash shop works well.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
My suggestion: Make a good game, monetize it according to your business needs. I don't really see where the customers need to have input in that decision.
Ahh, the customers pay the bills. Big businesses constantly survey their target audiences and pay good money for the stats. Also, customers give input at one time or another, let them give input after the game roles out and you're scrambling to balance the game or dealing with empty servers.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Is a hard market for a pure sub game. Buy to play best option with a sub fee in the game to grind things faster for people don't have tons of time on hand and a cash shop thats not selling any type of gear other then a scaling gear if they are levels in the game if a game all about end game in the first place. As it makes a good option for people to come back when they get bored or what ever reason not push to pay a sub fee just to see how the game is doing to get back in or not.
Check out Warframe. You can get everything without paying but you can take a shortcut getting it with money. They also allow trading with a virtual currency and create artificial rarity by removing items or creating exclusives that create a market and an incentive for people to buy that virtual currency.
1. They don't slow you down, you can still progress at your own pace. 2. They don't force you to buy items (optional) 3. They offer time for currency, you grind and sell to players to get currency which you can use to buy items (optional) 4. Cost transparency. Be upfront with your pay options. People hate hidden costs.
It's hard to balance this but they are doing it right. I played the game for the last couple of months and there is really no need to pay for anything if you are smart.
Game has PvP but i never bothered. No idea on the balance there.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling." - Michael Bitton Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about." - SEANMCAD
I like P2P. If you can make a game that is deserving of a sub there are millions of players out there that don't mind paying one. If you have full confidence in your team and the game offer a 14 day free trial, if people like it they will stay and pay a sub.
Let the game speak for itself, unless you just want to make a game where you peddle dress up gear, mounts and useless pets for pocket change from tweens.
What I'm looking for is the method that players feel they are getting the "most bang for their buck". The method in which they don't feel they're being taken advantage of, harassed or "duped".
Bang for the buck?
$5 monthly sub, free limited trial access, free month codes for friends*, pay to go faster + cosmetics item shop.
* Each month you subscribe you get a code that you can give to someone else to play free for that same month. Even if 100% utilized (not likely) the payers to non-payers ratio is still 1:1, which is way better than any F2P monetization that I've heard of.
Ken Fisher - Semi retired old fart Network Administrator, now working in Network Security. I don't Forum PVP. If you feel I've attacked you, it was probably by accident. When I don't understand, I ask. Such is not intended as criticism.
I'd want a subscription, but I'd also like to have the ability to hire concierge services from your staff...things like giving me access to a grizzled veteran that'll not only roleplay the part, but take me out fighting with him. Or perhaps a roleplay girlfriend I can take out on dates or who can 'damsel herself out' so my pals and I can save her. Or maybe a guru, who will teach me about meditation and the gods on some spiritual quest.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
B2p and cash shop with cosmetics and potions etc with the option to sub Is a proven model that gives the player a lot of flexibility. Most big aaa have gone down this route now, giving customers choice is win, I myself sub to eso, and play gw2 and wildstar and sub to thrm when I'm playing for extended periods.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
I like B2P best. For years on various forums I had listened to reasons why mmos had to have a sub+box price+cash shop, then GW2 came and basically everything changed.
I still don't understand how ArenaNet can produce and maintain a AAA mmo for a box price and totally optional cash shop (nothing p2w in it from my point of view), while some other mmos charge an arm and a leg and on top of that charge the price of a new game for expansions.
The reason I like B2P better than F2P is because f2p games seem to be made in a way that basically forces you to buy things for convenience (bag space, mount etc), while b2p games seem to just deliver the game without any need to structure it in slightly unpleasant, grindy ways.
In any event, if I like a f2p game I usually spend $60-100 on it and feel that I have "bought it", but they always seem to have a p2w bias, particularly at end game (another reason I prefer b2p).
The only time a monetisation model will prevent me playing a game is if it includes an overly aggressive cash shop... I would give examples, but the only example necessary is PWE... PWE "when greed is your only motivation"... I heard that this is their new tagline.
In your position, I would have two or three tiers of founder's packs at reasonable prices, F2P with an optional subscription and a cosmetic cash shop.
The payment model you choose will need to be matched up closely with how your game is actually structured and how it plays. The two shouldn't be thought of separately.
For example, if you are going to use a subscription business model, this will only work if the majority of the playerbase feels that your game is worth the money and that they feel their money is being spent developing the game for the future. Whilst this is probably your plan, what we've seen in reality is most MMOs take your subscriptions but very quickly stop producing content, leaving a sour feeling.
If your game is likely to have a great amount of features upon release, but you know that development is going to be slow afterwards, then you'd be best going for B2P + cash shop.
As for my personal preference, I would go for a hybrid subscription / DLC model, or perhaps just B2P + DLC (like ESO).
So, primary method is subscriptions. If a game is worth it, I'll pay a subscription. I'll also avoid any F2P game as I've yet to play a good F2P game, so even if yours was good, I wouldn't play it due to 100% negative past experiences.
However, recognising that not everyone can afford the monthly fee, the alternative I would go for would be DLC. So, players would buy the base game, giving them access to the game and free content for first 25%. Everything else after that you'd have to buy the DLC to unlock. The tricky bit with this is making sure the subscription is better value than buying the DLC.
Really though, the most important thing for me when considering business models is that, if I'm paying a subscription, then I shouldn't have to pay a single penny more for anything in the game, with the exception of major expansions. If you have a subscription based game and a cash shop that sells exclusives, I'll quit. If you sell boosters in a cash shop, I'll quit. The game is the game, you either pay and get it all, or you don't pay and don't get it.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
I'm putting together my presentation for investors and I am having a really hard time finding data that supports the subscription model. Nearly every company is going F2P and companies that began with subs are losing millions making the switch. Not very promising.
I'm putting together my presentation for investors and I am having a really hard time finding data that supports the subscription model. Nearly every company is going F2P and companies that began with subs are losing millions making the switch. Not very promising.
You are looking in the wrong place. Most large F2P games in the west have a substantial sub based revenue. This has been true for F2P for the past 15 years, and continues today. This is pretty well documented.
I'm putting together my presentation for investors and I am having a really hard time finding data that supports the subscription model. Nearly every company is going F2P and companies that began with subs are losing millions making the switch. Not very promising.
You are looking in the wrong place. Most large F2P games in the west have major a sub based revenue. This has been true for F2P for the past 15 years, and continues today. This is pretty well documented.
Agreed. SWTOR is one of the most recent examples of how F2P can improve a game's subscription numbers.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I'm putting together my presentation for investors and I am having a really hard time finding data that supports the subscription model. Nearly every company is going F2P and companies that began with subs are losing millions making the switch. Not very promising.
You are looking in the wrong place. Most large F2P games in the west have a substantial sub based revenue. This has been true for F2P for the past 15 years, and continues today. This is pretty well documented.
But the sub-ONLY model is dead in the west. A f2p/sub hybrid model is different. free is always just an option.
I paid for subs for years between 2000-2006.....Those days are over....I havent found a game worth apaying for a sub anymore.....B2P is OK if the game is really solid but I havent found many of those either....In general, I want some sort of free option before paying.....SO many of the post wow games are just garbage.....No way would I pay for 90% of the MMO lot.
Let's look at World of Warcraft vs League of Legends.
WoW generates $1B a year with a 5 million player a month population. P2P
LoL generates the same $1B a year with a nearly 70 million player a month population. F2P
Personally, I think Blizzard nailed it. Have a B2P plus sub model. Offer a cash shop for cosmetics. Give people a limited free trial. Offer your sub players R-A-F incentives. Cyberpunk sounds niche and there is nothing wrong with that. Sounds cool and I bet you can get a dedicated and loyal player base without whale hunting. Because it is niche, I wouldn't try the F2P model as you need to keep the lights on and pay people back once you launch.
Blizzard nailed it because they had a good enough game to do it and entered the market at a great time....Games in 2015 are up against tremendous competition and alot of it is free.
I'm putting together my presentation for investors and I am having a really hard time finding data that supports the subscription model. Nearly every company is going F2P and companies that began with subs are losing millions making the switch. Not very promising.
You are looking in the wrong place. Most large F2P games in the west have a substantial sub based revenue. This has been true for F2P for the past 15 years, and continues today. This is pretty well documented.
But the sub-ONLY model is dead in the west. A f2p/sub hybrid model is different. free is always just an option.
I do not know that the sub only model has ever worked, anywhere. This would be a game that does not have box sales, expansion sales, any type of direct sales (including cash shop/item mall), and only ever had a (required?) sub. What game has done this? And if they did do this, was it successful enough to be copied?
Double the normal sub price for the ability to pay for when I actually log into the game vs. paying for 30 days, half of which I may or may not use if I'm lucky or get bored of the game.
Comments
If I had my way, the game would be 100% free forever. Unfortunately, I do have to pay company bills and salaries to keep it running and growing. For that, I need to monetize the game in some way.
What I'm looking for is the method that players feel they are getting the "most bang for their buck". The method in which they don't feel they're being taken advantage of, harassed or "duped".
In a shop based game I will spend about a sub's worth every month anyway.
In any case, I hope you succeed. I like your attitude towards money and hope this attitude will help to create something unique instead of only going for the usual profit oriented safe bets in decisions.
Cash shops I have no problem with unless they become mandatory to use to get to content. I think B2P with a cash shop works well.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
1. They don't slow you down, you can still progress at your own pace.
2. They don't force you to buy items (optional)
3. They offer time for currency, you grind and sell to players to get currency which you can use to buy items (optional)
4. Cost transparency. Be upfront with your pay options. People hate hidden costs.
It's hard to balance this but they are doing it right. I played the game for the last couple of months and there is really no need to pay for anything if you are smart.
Game has PvP but i never bothered. No idea on the balance there.
"It's pretty simple, really. If your only intention in posting about a particular game or topic is to be negative, then yes, you should probably move on. Voicing a negative opinion is fine, continually doing so on the same game is basically just trolling."
- Michael Bitton
Community Manager, MMORPG.com
"As an online discussion about Star Citizen grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Derek Smart approaches 1" - MrSnuffles's law
"I am jumping in here a bit without knowing exactly what you all or talking about."
- SEANMCAD
▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬▬
Let the game speak for itself, unless you just want to make a game where you peddle dress up gear, mounts and useless pets for pocket change from tweens.
Bang for the buck?
$5 monthly sub, free limited trial access, free month codes for friends*, pay to go faster + cosmetics item shop.
* Each month you subscribe you get a code that you can give to someone else to play free for that same month. Even if 100% utilized (not likely) the payers to non-payers ratio is still 1:1, which is way better than any F2P monetization that I've heard of.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
I still don't understand how ArenaNet can produce and maintain a AAA mmo for a box price and totally optional cash shop (nothing p2w in it from my point of view), while some other mmos charge an arm and a leg and on top of that charge the price of a new game for expansions.
The reason I like B2P better than F2P is because f2p games seem to be made in a way that basically forces you to buy things for convenience (bag space, mount etc), while b2p games seem to just deliver the game without any need to structure it in slightly unpleasant, grindy ways.
In any event, if I like a f2p game I usually spend $60-100 on it and feel that I have "bought it", but they always seem to have a p2w bias, particularly at end game (another reason I prefer b2p).
In your position, I would have two or three tiers of founder's packs at reasonable prices, F2P with an optional subscription and a cosmetic cash shop.
For example, if you are going to use a subscription business model, this will only work if the majority of the playerbase feels that your game is worth the money and that they feel their money is being spent developing the game for the future. Whilst this is probably your plan, what we've seen in reality is most MMOs take your subscriptions but very quickly stop producing content, leaving a sour feeling.
If your game is likely to have a great amount of features upon release, but you know that development is going to be slow afterwards, then you'd be best going for B2P + cash shop.
As for my personal preference, I would go for a hybrid subscription / DLC model, or perhaps just B2P + DLC (like ESO).
So, primary method is subscriptions. If a game is worth it, I'll pay a subscription. I'll also avoid any F2P game as I've yet to play a good F2P game, so even if yours was good, I wouldn't play it due to 100% negative past experiences.
However, recognising that not everyone can afford the monthly fee, the alternative I would go for would be DLC. So, players would buy the base game, giving them access to the game and free content for first 25%. Everything else after that you'd have to buy the DLC to unlock. The tricky bit with this is making sure the subscription is better value than buying the DLC.
Really though, the most important thing for me when considering business models is that, if I'm paying a subscription, then I shouldn't have to pay a single penny more for anything in the game, with the exception of major expansions. If you have a subscription based game and a cash shop that sells exclusives, I'll quit. If you sell boosters in a cash shop, I'll quit. The game is the game, you either pay and get it all, or you don't pay and don't get it.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
So, for any shitty game, like Star Wars Battlefront or Destiny, I pay you hard working devs. ZERO money, and ofc I won't be playing your games.