No, again, you just wanted a specific response (me to essentially say "yea, I guess MTs ARE needed!"), and instead I offered that if supply were curbed, new and existing titles would all receive larger shares of players, which translates into larger shares of revenue, independent of monetization scheme.
The alternative is the status quo, which is an evolution towards more and more predatory monetization schemes.
No, lets get something clear, you are passing off that I wanted some specific replay, to justify your weak sauce response.
That is not the case, see, When I asked for a solution, I was asking for an answer, if you had something solid, I wanted to hear it. To use a few examples, of people that take the time to think about solutions, Black Gold, uses a very unique system, CoE also had plans for a very unique system. Those people are looking for solutions, and looking for viable alternatives.
That is not what you are doing.
Your suggestion is expect players to go back and paying a sub to play games that are dated, they most likely have burned out on or were simply did not fun the first time through.
Words fail me at how moronic that suggestion is.
No, you're implying something I never said.
I said that the market needs to contract, not that everything needed to go back to subs only. You projected that because it was an easier position to counter. Don't worry; common mistake, rookie.
EDIT- by the way, when you get an agree/awesome from the friendly neighborhood troll @Gdemami, you know your headed in the wrong direction. Pro tip!
So you're idea is limit the number of MMO's so players have less choices, while keeping the Micro Transaction, system in place so that companies can gouge their players more making the current situation worse then it is already.
My god.. your ideas get worse the more you talk.
Wrong again! He's on a hot streak in all the wrong directions, Cotton!
Less supply, more consumer base share, less need to aggressively monetize to make up for the strained market. Unless, of course, publishers AREN'T utilizing these increasingly predatory schemes just to float.
when the hell.. ever.. in history.. has less supply worked for the consumer.. are you really this clueless?
Quit being willfully obtuse. Predatory monetization arrived as a result of market saturation preventing these games from ever achieving revenue on box sales or subs alone to float.
Many consumers are currently asking: why pay anything for an MMORPG when I can get multiple comparable experience completely free? Take away the free games, demand increases relative to supply, creating an opportunity for pubs to back off the aggressive monetization because it's not needed to turn a profit. Of course, this assumes your premise that such monetization is the response to a need, not merely publishers taking the opportunity to skim more out of their consumers. Look to the mobile market, the origination of F2P, and why it became the predominant method there. When you release 10 different "Jungle Run" games with merely different skins, it's hard to get folks to buy the game itself if any of the others offer their title for free.
What's priceless has been your campaign to monopolize my LOL's ever since I called you out for making useless comments. Like this one I'm quoting now. Or the post before.
@Ungood If you have Discord, send me a PM. 1AD7#7153 -- There are some pretty important considerations that I would like to go over. This model has never been used in any game that I am aware of but if you think it has, I would like to get some clarity on a few things. One important thing to consider is that if you have to do a quest to unlock a Mohawk, that haircut would NOT be available for purchase in the store. The only haircut options would be those that are default at the point of character creation. The store isn't meant to provide exclusive access to anything beyond a "Keeping Terminus Clean" themed house item. Players wouldn't be able to trade the alternate currency for gold/plat or trade it to other players.
Might as well address the OP finally, I think VR should use the ESO model as their template for monetization.
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
That neglects the fact that the vast majority of gamers aren't participating in the cash shop regularly.
2014 article showed that less than 1% of players made up 50% of F2P revenue. When faced with the option of giving devs no support or participating in the cash shop, over half of players will not fork over any cash.
With box sales and subs, ARPU is a constant. That enables you to directly related revenue to popularity. With a cash shop, it isn't a constant, and the data says that games can lose large swathes of players without it being reflected accurately in revenue, so long as the whales are kept happy.
Well my reply wasn't based on F2P, rather I was offering my interpretation of ESOs monetization model and I believe they have a fair number of subscribers as well as those who partake of cash shop items of various types.
It seems to me they and BDO do a good job of letting people pay the way they wish, based on their interest in the game at the moment.
Just my 2 cents which I'm sure Brad and team have considered some variant of it.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Might as well address the OP finally, I think VR should use the ESO model as their template for monetization.
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
That neglects the fact that the vast majority of gamers aren't participating in the cash shop regularly.
2014 article showed that less than 1% of players made up 50% of F2P revenue. When faced with the option of giving devs no support or participating in the cash shop, over half of players will not fork over any cash.
With box sales and subs, ARPU is a constant. That enables you to directly related revenue to popularity. With a cash shop, it isn't a constant, and the data says that games can lose large swathes of players without it being reflected accurately in revenue, so long as the whales are kept happy.
Well my reply wasn't based on F2P, rather I was offering my interpretation of ESOs monetization model and I believe they have a fair number of subscribers as well as those who partake of cash shop items of various types.
It seems to me they and BDO do a good job of letting people pay the way they wish, based on their interest in the game at the moment.
Just my 2 cents which I'm sure Brad and team have considered some variant of it.
I would imagine (hope?) Brad and the gang considered app possible alternatives but weren't able to settle on something without soliciting community feedback to ensure they aren't cutting their noses off to spite their own faces.
the problem with buy to play and subs are that kids in school wont be able to play parents see mmorpgs as just games and wont spend or give much cash to spend on them free to play is good i deal as long as its done right kids then can play the games then spend there allowance in the cash shop same as adults with a tight wallet but most mmorpgs that are free to play go overboard on the greed factor ive not seen many done right but there are a few out there we need a few more free to play mmorpgs that might try to do it the right way so that the rest can feel ashamed of themselves
If box prices and subs kept kids out of online games. I would only buy those types of games. But as anyone who has played an mmo before. That just isn't true at all.
I started playing DAoC with my mother's CC when I was like 14. So yea lol.
She paid for it because it taught me a lot about hardware and software (I basically took my mom's HP, I think, and started adding gaming parts). She saw the writing on the wall with electronics and society in general. Love that woman.
My parents were the same. Except for Chemistry instead of computers. At least at first. Now computers are my hobby and Chemistry is my chosen field I studied in University.
No, again, you just wanted a specific response (me to essentially say "yea, I guess MTs ARE needed!"), and instead I offered that if supply were curbed, new and existing titles would all receive larger shares of players, which translates into larger shares of revenue, independent of monetization scheme.
The alternative is the status quo, which is an evolution towards more and more predatory monetization schemes.
No, lets get something clear, you are passing off that I wanted some specific replay, to justify your weak sauce response.
That is not the case, see, When I asked for a solution, I was asking for an answer, if you had something solid, I wanted to hear it. To use a few examples, of people that take the time to think about solutions, Black Gold, uses a very unique system, CoE also had plans for a very unique system. Those people are looking for solutions, and looking for viable alternatives.
That is not what you are doing.
Your suggestion is expect players to go back and paying a sub to play games that are dated, they most likely have burned out on or were simply did not fun the first time through.
Words fail me at how moronic that suggestion is.
No, you're implying something I never said.
I said that the market needs to contract, not that everything needed to go back to subs only. You projected that because it was an easier position to counter. Don't worry; common mistake, rookie.
EDIT- by the way, when you get an agree/awesome from the friendly neighborhood troll @Gdemami, you know your headed in the wrong direction. Pro tip!
So you're idea is limit the number of MMO's so players have less choices, while keeping the Micro Transaction, system in place so that companies can gouge their players more making the current situation worse then it is already.
My god.. your ideas get worse the more you talk.
Wrong again! He's on a hot streak in all the wrong directions, Cotton!
Less supply, more consumer base share, less need to aggressively monetize to make up for the strained market. Unless, of course, publishers AREN'T utilizing these increasingly predatory schemes just to float.
when the hell.. ever.. in history.. has less supply worked for the consumer.. are you really this clueless?
Quit being willfully obtuse. Predatory monetization arrived as a result of market saturation preventing these games from ever achieving revenue on box sales or subs alone to float.
Many consumers are currently asking: why pay anything for an MMORPG when I can get multiple comparable experience completely free? Take away the free games, demand increases relative to supply, creating an opportunity for pubs to back off the aggressive monetization because it's not needed to turn a profit. Of course, this assumes your premise that such monetization is the response to a need, not merely publishers taking the opportunity to skim more out of their consumers. Look to the mobile market, the origination of F2P, and why it became the predominant method there. When you release 10 different "Jungle Run" games with merely different skins, it's hard to get folks to buy the game itself if any of the others offer their title for free.
No seriously, this idea gets worse and worse the more you try to talk about it..
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
According to "Bartle taxonomy of player types," there are four type of MMO gamers: Killers, Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers. The so called cosmetic items are typically bought by Socializers exclusively. This gives a free ride to Killers, Explorers, and Achievers. Especially since most gamers are of the Killer type, that only buy P2W items.
I'm an explorer - socializer I guess. I like collecting things throughout the world. I liked collecting shinies, L&L, and Heritage items in EQ2. I like collecting pets, mounts, and cosmetics in WoW and other games. It's not that I mind cash shops, but I've found that they've evolved to mostly sell the stuff I like and not anything for other play styles. The stuff I like to do gets sidelined for the cash shop because it's easy. The competitive people don't pay for anything in the cash shop.
That's why I don't go for the "no P2W" argument not because I think buying your progression is great game design, but I know it means I'll be the only one who pays while the tryhards get a free freaking ride, always. Because no P2W means collectors get bent over.
It is disappointing, but the alternative is to introduce gameplay-altering items, which is a slippery slope. Say what you like, design tenets become very different once a cash shop with progression or power items becomes attached.
Again, that's why this monetization method is so incredibly far from consumer-friendly it's hilarious, save for the folks who literally refuse to pay anything for their video games. This idea that folks should be subsidizing other's entertainment like this is silly not only in practice, but in principle, and it always ends by fucking one group hard while the others get a pass.
It's only gameplay-altering if they don't buy it. What the Play4Free ( P4F ) crowd have to get through their thick heads is they aren't suppose to P4F, they are suppose to use the cash shop and spend money. They don't buy cosmetic, the don't buy P2W, they don't buy ANYTHING. So they get what they paid for, and that is nothing. They don't get to win, or complaining about it. Until they buy something, every month.
The next time some reviewer writes, you can play this game and not spend any money. Ask them if it's OK with them, if we come over and take everything they have for free? Items, money, food from their kids mouth? House, car, computer, TV, life savings?
Will say it again that FTP is a gaming welfare system. A few players give the companies money then the company offers the game for free to everyone with the reasons "you never have to pay/everything can be earned in the game" which is a lie cause if no one ever paid the games would shut down immediately. They accept your financial support and provide a overall lower quality gaming experience because of FTP players and all the problems they bring while all along building up a rabid FTP fanboy army that will defend their free entertainment against any and all criticisms/threats.
The P4F are no army defending any game, they are a virus that has sickened an industry and fellow gamers. They wont stop until every and every game is worthless and a pile of excrement for them to wallow in.
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
No, again, you just wanted a specific response (me to essentially say "yea, I guess MTs ARE needed!"), and instead I offered that if supply were curbed, new and existing titles would all receive larger shares of players, which translates into larger shares of revenue, independent of monetization scheme.
The alternative is the status quo, which is an evolution towards more and more predatory monetization schemes.
No, lets get something clear, you are passing off that I wanted some specific replay, to justify your weak sauce response.
That is not the case, see, When I asked for a solution, I was asking for an answer, if you had something solid, I wanted to hear it. To use a few examples, of people that take the time to think about solutions, Black Gold, uses a very unique system, CoE also had plans for a very unique system. Those people are looking for solutions, and looking for viable alternatives.
That is not what you are doing.
Your suggestion is expect players to go back and paying a sub to play games that are dated, they most likely have burned out on or were simply did not fun the first time through.
Words fail me at how moronic that suggestion is.
No, you're implying something I never said.
I said that the market needs to contract, not that everything needed to go back to subs only. You projected that because it was an easier position to counter. Don't worry; common mistake, rookie.
EDIT- by the way, when you get an agree/awesome from the friendly neighborhood troll @Gdemami, you know your headed in the wrong direction. Pro tip!
So you're idea is limit the number of MMO's so players have less choices, while keeping the Micro Transaction, system in place so that companies can gouge their players more making the current situation worse then it is already.
My god.. your ideas get worse the more you talk.
Wrong again! He's on a hot streak in all the wrong directions, Cotton!
Less supply, more consumer base share, less need to aggressively monetize to make up for the strained market. Unless, of course, publishers AREN'T utilizing these increasingly predatory schemes just to float.
when the hell.. ever.. in history.. has less supply worked for the consumer.. are you really this clueless?
Quit being willfully obtuse. Predatory monetization arrived as a result of market saturation preventing these games from ever achieving revenue on box sales or subs alone to float.
Many consumers are currently asking: why pay anything for an MMORPG when I can get multiple comparable experience completely free? Take away the free games, demand increases relative to supply, creating an opportunity for pubs to back off the aggressive monetization because it's not needed to turn a profit. Of course, this assumes your premise that such monetization is the response to a need, not merely publishers taking the opportunity to skim more out of their consumers. Look to the mobile market, the origination of F2P, and why it became the predominant method there. When you release 10 different "Jungle Run" games with merely different skins, it's hard to get folks to buy the game itself if any of the others offer their title for free.
No seriously, this idea gets worse and worse the more you try to talk about it..
Don't take my word for it:
"Theproblem of market saturation has also caused many companies to change their revenue models, especially when product sales begin to slow. IBM, for example, smartly changed its business modeltoward providing recurring services once it saw saturation in the large computer server market.
Either strategy requires competitive pricing against competitors that choose the same pricing structure; however, companies that operate in a saturated market usually end up waging "price wars" with each other, continuously undercutting prices to attract customers."
"Stepping away from a singular title to gaze at the MMORPG landscape reveals a crammed valley struggling to breathe. And every game is cawwing for attention, while new titles release and add to the cacophony. Tree of Savior, Blade & Soul, and Black Desert Online will be releasing in early 2016, while older titles suffocate and are forced to close down. The huge number of games makes it easy to outright dismiss any one for not being the arbitrarly envisioned Übermensch."
As far back as 2009 this was noted by the industry employees:
"Reality Gap, whose free-play offerings include the MMO Monato Esprit (above), also faces competition in ports coming over from the more developed Asian free-play market. Korea's, especially, is "super-saturated. He seems to decry the "schlock" that arises when rampant me-tooism meets an already crowded space. But he adds they're also competing with some Asian market winners that turn into duds in the U.S."
What I want you to do, is read your links again, especially that part about "price wars". Then go back and think about what you said about Predatory monetization,
Take the time to realize that you can't price gouge players in a saturated market, so your solution, is limit choices.. so.. companies can use whatever model they want, and charge as much as they want, with no competition.
Fucking Brilliant.. I mean.. I sucks big fat hairy balls for the players.. but shit.. I bet EA would love the hell out of this idea.
Barring that.. given Indie games can generate millions in funds because players are looking for something new and different.. the idea of shrinking the market is absurd.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Charge a healthy price to buy the game and a monthly subscription, everyone pays they make money and it's an even playing field. I keep seeing buy cosmetic items only(it would be kind of nice to have the same opportunity to look good as everyone else, but that doesn't really matter to me...if you need to make more money I'm ok with that). Free to play means.....pay to do well to me. I don't play those...............
Comments
Many consumers are currently asking: why pay anything for an MMORPG when I can get multiple comparable experience completely free? Take away the free games, demand increases relative to supply, creating an opportunity for pubs to back off the aggressive monetization because it's not needed to turn a profit. Of course, this assumes your premise that such monetization is the response to a need, not merely publishers taking the opportunity to skim more out of their consumers. Look to the mobile market, the origination of F2P, and why it became the predominant method there. When you release 10 different "Jungle Run" games with merely different skins, it's hard to get folks to buy the game itself if any of the others offer their title for free.
It seems to me they and BDO do a good job of letting people pay the way they wish, based on their interest in the game at the moment.
Just my 2 cents which I'm sure Brad and team have considered some variant of it.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
B2P is a different beast, agreed!
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
"Theproblem of market saturation has also caused many companies to change their revenue models, especially when product sales begin to slow. IBM, for example, smartly changed its business modeltoward providing recurring services once it saw saturation in the large computer server market.
Either strategy requires competitive pricing against competitors that choose the same pricing structure; however, companies that operate in a saturated market usually end up waging "price wars" with each other, continuously undercutting prices to attract customers."
Read more: Market Saturation https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marketsaturation.asp#ixzz58kMzJVua
Follow us: Investopedia on Facebook
"Stepping away from a singular title to gaze at the MMORPG landscape reveals a crammed valley struggling to breathe. And every game is cawwing for attention, while new titles release and add to the cacophony. Tree of Savior, Blade & Soul, and Black Desert Online will be releasing in early 2016, while older titles suffocate and are forced to close down. The huge number of games makes it easy to outright dismiss any one for not being the arbitrarly envisioned Übermensch."
https://mmos.com/editorials/the-mmorpg-formula-a-brief-genre-analysis
As far back as 2009 this was noted by the industry employees:
"Reality Gap, whose free-play offerings include the MMO Monato Esprit (above), also faces competition in ports coming over from the more developed Asian free-play market. Korea's, especially, is "super-saturated. He seems to decry the "schlock" that arises when rampant me-tooism meets an already crowded space. But he adds they're also competing with some Asian market winners that turn into duds in the U.S."
https://www.google.com/amp/s/kotaku.com/5357765/mmo-maker-big-names-drive-small-fish-to-free-play-market/amp
What I want you to do, is read your links again, especially that part about "price wars". Then go back and think about what you said about Predatory monetization,
Take the time to realize that you can't price gouge players in a saturated market, so your solution, is limit choices.. so.. companies can use whatever model they want, and charge as much as they want, with no competition.
Fucking Brilliant.. I mean.. I sucks big fat hairy balls for the players.. but shit.. I bet EA would love the hell out of this idea.
Barring that.. given Indie games can generate millions in funds because players are looking for something new and different.. the idea of shrinking the market is absurd.