My competitive spirit makes me despise pay to win. I don't think that counts as resentment. I play games to actually play them. I juat don't see the fun in hitting a wall where I have an insane grind or pay.
A freeloader is the player who plays the game without paying anything. They truly play the game for free. They reap the benefits of the developers hard work and let "other players" pay for their entertainment.
Freeloaders exist because the game allows it. So they ought not have to feel too guilty over accepting the offer that was made to them.
They also have plenty of value to the company. Their presence adds to the total number of registered players - a number companies use to secure financing, etc. They are present as a target market for offers that they may one day accept to buy something. They keep the servers active by showing up to play (so paying folk have more people to play with). They are free word of mouth advertising when they tell their friends (who may join them and buy something) that they like the game.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
A freeloader is the player who plays the game without paying anything. They truly play the game for free. They reap the benefits of the developers hard work and let "other players" pay for their entertainment.
Freeloaders exist because the game allows it. So they ought not have to feel too guilty over accepting the offer that was made to them.
They also have plenty of value to the company. Their presence adds to the total number of registered players - a number companies use to secure financing, etc. They are present as a target market for offers that they may one day accept to buy something. They keep the servers active by showing up to play (so paying folk have more people to play with). They are free word of mouth advertising when they tell their friends (who may join them and buy something) that they like the game.
Sure they provide value for the company.
Just the average player's wishes are under represented. Even if we boycott the freeloaders and whales will still rule the day. We just don't matter as much. That's why you can have outrage ignored for the most part.
"I think there’s a small sliver of the consumer base that basically wants everything for free, we can’t really help those people." CEO of Take-Two after outrage from NBA2K18's expensive microtransactions in a full priced annually recycled game. If that is the general consensus among gaming suits things aren't going to change for the better.
He isn't correct? I think he is.
"there is a 'small sliver' of the consumer base that basically wants everything for free ... "
That's true.
The issue is not game companies admitting that "they can't help them there ... " but whether or not they make games financially unviable to the average player who is willing to pay for their entertainment.
He may be right when he says that some people want everything for free. However, he doesn't make a free to play game. Nobody who plays NBA2K18 is a freeloader because every single person has to purchase the game.
Take Two's CEO is trying to make people think that buying a game and playing for free is the same thing. That is a very poor way to justify and defend microtransactions.
In that case context is everything as I had to look up Take-Two to see what they made (studio names fall out of my head).
you are correct, if he has no "free to play games" and he's making people out to be freeloaders because they "just" purchased his product then it is a poor way to defend micro-transactions.
That's just some of the franchises they own. None of them F2P. I personally don't like how their CEO talks about business models. He always makes it sound like you are a freeloader if you are not constantly spending on microtrasactions, even if you purchase the games and all DLC.
Micro transactions are ALWAYS total bullshit,they add up to way more than the game deserves. Developers have become more and more crooked and deceptive and consumers seemed to be a lot dumber.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
Not that I have anything against whales or freeloaders. I just want to pay for a game and that is that. No gameplay altered or left out to make me spend extra money.
This 100% B2P is all i want from a game. So sick and tired of game companies trying to milk me for more money all the time. Paying extra for basic things like bag slots and hotbars or content turns me away fast from any game and its company. The problem is gamer's that are whales have no problem with this. Its getting to the point of me not wanting to play mmo's anyore and non of my gaming friend play them anymore. Used to have close to 15 other friends that i played mmo's with. Non of them play anymore. They are into single player games or board games now.
A freeloader is the player who plays the game without paying anything. They truly play the game for free. They reap the benefits of the developers hard work and let "other players" pay for their entertainment.
Freeloaders exist because the game allows it. So they ought not have to feel too guilty over accepting the offer that was made to them.
They also have plenty of value to the company. Their presence adds to the total number of registered players - a number companies use to secure financing, etc. They are present as a target market for offers that they may one day accept to buy something. They keep the servers active by showing up to play (so paying folk have more people to play with). They are free word of mouth advertising when they tell their friends (who may join them and buy something) that they like the game.
Sure they provide value for the company.
Just the average player's wishes are under represented. Even if we boycott the freeloaders and whales will still rule the day. We just don't matter as much. That's why you can have outrage ignored for the most part.
I think people put too much emphasis on whales and freeloaders, truth is, the bulk of a game's income is from moderate spenders.
To use some numbers.
GW2. is noted to have 1.5 million Players, and has an average income of around 18 Billion Won per quarter, or put another way, 15 million USD. What does that mean.. that means on average.. a GW2 player is spending 10 USD over the course of 3 months, a little over 3 USD per month.
Ok.. now. process that. Their Average player is spending 3 dollars a month on their game. Now we can speculate if this is caused by a huge number of Freeloaders, a lower income by Whales or an overall lower percent of whales that their are simply not enough of them to bolster the void of funds left by the freeloaders, or perhaps an overall lack of Moderate spenders filling the bulk of their ranks.
In any case, when anyone who runs a company is looking at an average of 3 dollars per player as an income, it tells them something is wrong, and no matter how they would slice it, it all boils down to they have too many Freeloaders.
Now getting rid of the freeloaders won't in any way increase their income, it will simply decrease their population, so what they need to do is find a way to get the otherwise Freeloading players to spend money.
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.
Not sure if Vermillion has been in hibernation, but the whale, fish and cheapskates (fish who don't want to be part of the ecosystem) took over MMOs nearly a decade ago.
Yeah, but its seems to be taking over the gaming industry. You use to be able to escape it by buying a solid game. Buying a game seems to be not enough these days.
I agree it has expanded, when multiplayer games started to take on cash shop revenue methods, they were going to become more like MMOs regardless of what sort of game they were. That's the power of a revenue system, it decides how fair the playing field is, how much the game is focused on cosmetics, how P2W it is. That is in one way more important than if its a shooter or a MMO.
Seems exploitive cash shops, day one dlc are being thrown into b2p more and more. F2P is getting bigger. Moving into more genre.
"I think there’s a small sliver of the consumer base that basically wants everything for free, we can’t really help those people." CEO of Take-Two after outrage from NBA2K18's expensive microtransactions in a full priced annually recycled game. If that is the general consensus among gaming suits things aren't going to change for the better.
What can players who aren't whales and aren't freeloaders when minority(??) of gamers seemingly control the destiny of the rest of players? Can't boycott what you don't always pay for nor dissuade freeloaders.
Not that I have anything against whales or freeloaders. I just want to pay for a game and that is that. No gameplay altered or left out to make me spend extra money.
This statement from Take Two feels hysterical to say the least when we are talking about a full priced game with season pass on top of it and microtransactions.
Hypocrisy never gets old from their part it seems but i digress.
Its really as simply as it can get, lets take something like Goodgame Empire for instance: in that game, freeloaders basically serve as almost playground fishes for sharks aka the whales. Without free players, sharks would get bored playing among themselves.
Personally any microtransactions outside of purely cosmetics in a B2P game, im not exactly okay with it. In F2P: sure, because those relies on that to fund their game, but i cant stand this trio/quadruple dipping some of those companies are trying to pull off.
"I think there’s a small sliver of the consumer base that basically wants everything for free, we can’t really help those people." CEO of Take-Two after outrage from NBA2K18's expensive microtransactions in a full priced annually recycled game. If that is the general consensus among gaming suits things aren't going to change for the better.
He isn't correct? I think he is.
"there is a 'small sliver' of the consumer base that basically wants everything for free ... "
That's true.
The issue is not game companies admitting that "they can't help them there ... " but whether or not they make games financially unviable to the average player who is willing to pay for their entertainment.
He may be right when he says that some people want everything for free. However, he doesn't make a free to play game. Nobody who plays NBA2K18 is a freeloader because every single person has to purchase the game.
Take Two's CEO is trying to make people think that buying a game and playing for free is the same thing. That is a very poor way to justify and defend microtransactions.
In that case context is everything as I had to look up Take-Two to see what they made (studio names fall out of my head).
you are correct, if he has no "free to play games" and he's making people out to be freeloaders because they "just" purchased his product then it is a poor way to defend micro-transactions.
its basically nothing more than cheap corporate talk, trying to dismisss criticism against obvious exploitative business model that benefits nobody else but their bottom lines.
Immersion is a big deal to me and nothing kills immersion for me quicker than a cash shop.
yep, companies realised that making people nickle and dime is more profitable than making a fun game, seemingly disregarding the people they turn away from their games.
Its all bout this, right? *rubs 2 fingers together*
"I think there’s a small sliver of the consumer base that basically wants everything for free, we can’t really help those people." CEO of Take-Two after outrage from NBA2K18's expensive microtransactions in a full priced annually recycled game. If that is the general consensus among gaming suits things aren't going to change for the better.
He isn't correct? I think he is.
"there is a 'small sliver' of the consumer base that basically wants everything for free ... "
That's true.
The issue is not game companies admitting that "they can't help them there ... " but whether or not they make games financially unviable to the average player who is willing to pay for their entertainment.
well, considering that in many of those f2p games, APPARENTLY less than 3 percent of the playerbase actually contributes for more than 75% percent of their total revenue aka people who spend ungodly amounts on certain titles, the whales.
F2P games was proclaimed as a business model which games people the choice if they want to spend money on a product or not, this works out for some and doesnt work out for others.
Nobody forces whales to spend money on a game or as a matter of fact nor is anybody else forced to.
A freeloader is the player who plays the game without paying anything. They truly play the game for free. They reap the benefits of the developers hard work and let "other players" pay for their entertainment.
Freeloaders exist because the game allows it. So they ought not have to feel too guilty over accepting the offer that was made to them.
They also have plenty of value to the company. Their presence adds to the total number of registered players - a number companies use to secure financing, etc. They are present as a target market for offers that they may one day accept to buy something. They keep the servers active by showing up to play (so paying folk have more people to play with). They are free word of mouth advertising when they tell their friends (who may join them and buy something) that they like the game.
Sure they provide value for the company.
Just the average player's wishes are under represented. Even if we boycott the freeloaders and whales will still rule the day. We just don't matter as much. That's why you can have outrage ignored for the most part.
I think people put too much emphasis on whales and freeloaders, truth is, the bulk of a game's income is from moderate spenders.
To use some numbers.
GW2. is noted to have 1.5 million Players, and has an average income of around 18 Billion Won per quarter, or put another way, 15 million USD. What does that mean.. that means on average.. a GW2 player is spending 10 USD over the course of 3 months, a little over 3 USD per month.
Ok.. now. process that. Their Average player is spending 3 dollars a month on their game. Now we can speculate if this is caused by a huge number of Freeloaders, a lower income by Whales or an overall lower percent of whales that their are simply not enough of them to bolster the void of funds left by the freeloaders, or perhaps an overall lack of Moderate spenders filling the bulk of their ranks.
In any case, when anyone who runs a company is looking at an average of 3 dollars per player as an income, it tells them something is wrong, and no matter how they would slice it, it all boils down to they have too many Freeloaders.
Now getting rid of the freeloaders won't in any way increase their income, it will simply decrease their population, so what they need to do is find a way to get the otherwise Freeloading players to spend money.
How does using "the total number of players" and "total income" equal "Not so many whales and freeloaders"? I want to know how many players regularly spend over $100 every month and how many spend $0 every month, not an average of all players. Have those numbers?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
And to think this is "acceptable" because, "It's just cosmetics..."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
You should stop looking at whales like they're idiots that will swim in anything. One of the first things they look at are player numbers, followed by reviews, company reliability, update rates, and similar.
Free players are biomass that determines where whales are willing to hunt. While you can abuse that biomass quite a bit, there is a point where there won't be enough there to be a good hunting ground for a whale (though current large publishers seem to be aiming for the Airline route where everyone is horrible, with only a few like EA jumping the gun of steady progress).
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
Thing is there are a lot of people who are willing to pay a certain amount per month, mostly to play the game "as intended" and to have protection from whales. FTP games simply aren't providing the latter at all and tend to set the "as intended" figure at three figures.
What is funny is one looks toward older FTPs where it was often a sub at $30 (twice the cost of an actual sub game) for the lion's share and indeed the goal post has moved a lot from there.
Personally I would like it if games that had channels had a couple of protected channels for people who paid some money but were not whales. Somehow I don't think whales would want their own channel, but sure they can do that as well.
Channel 1-16 public. Channel 17 $10-$200 per month channel 18 $30-$100 per month channel 19 $200+ per month channel 20 $1000+ per month.
People who want a sub game would live on channel 18 and/or channel 17.
You should stop looking at whales like they're idiots that will swim in anything. One of the first things they look at are player numbers, followed by reviews, company reliability, update rates, and similar.
Free players are biomass that determines where whales are willing to hunt. While you can abuse that biomass quite a bit, there is a point where there won't be enough there to be a good hunting ground for a whale (though current large publishers seem to be aiming for the Airline route where everyone is horrible, with only a few like EA jumping the gun of steady progress).
It's not that "whales" are terrible people, or "freeloaders" are terrible people, it's the causation of 97% free to play MMOs that release, instead of full-fledged, complete games. It's like a pack of wolves that all see the same bunny rabbit (aka whales) and we all watch the wolves' heads follow every move it makes.
For me, if FTP was an option, instead the norm, I'd have less to complaint about. But it isn't. THIS is how whales and freeloaders effect my gaming. I truly could not care any less what other players spend their money on. It's that their spending habits have ruined this once fun and unique gaming experience for others, or at least for me.
I really can't blame the publishers/developers, as it is great business sense to make as much as players are willing to spend, back to the open-ended business model.
The crux of the matter for me the is lack of choice and the butchering of basic games down to "What can we sell players that they used to get with the game?" There should be FTP games for whales and freeloaders to have fun in. There should also be complete games for others. But there isn't. It is a total reversal of the old "subscription only" way to play MMOs (also a lack of choice)
PS: Don't tell me about the crap (my opinion) "subscription option" that many MMOs have. You STILL have to visit their cash shops (to spend your "bonus" monthly cash allotment) for items that should be in the game in the first place. They make sure you have to look in their cash shop and hope you'll spend more than they allotted. Again, chopping up the games piecemeal so they can "charge extra" for what used to be in the basic game.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Free to Play as we have it today is a result of a few factors:
1. Low cost of maintaining a player. The cost per individual player on a server is basically 0. At one time there was a tangible cost, but as it dropped, it allowed games to have huge (active) player bases at a reasonable cost.
2. High cost of customer acquisition. Free to play is all about customer acquisition. As marketing costs have risen in a competitive market, the most cost effective way to get a paying customer, is to have them using your product for free.
3. Disproportional Spending. As the amount of people using free products has increased, companies abilities to provide tiered spending options has increased as well. There are now options to spend as little a 0, or as much as the customer is willing to pay. There is no longer a floor or ceiling on spending, which allows for companies to make as much per paying customer as possible.
4. Players as content. There has been a great increase in the tools that allow developers and publishers to use players as content. Look at the battle royal genre. It is all about using 99 other players to provide content for 1 other player per game. This has allowed games to be less about developer generated content (which is slow and expensive), and more about player generated content (more players = more content).
Gaming monetization is not about meeting the needs of the customers. It is about meeting the needs of the company, in a way that the customers will tolerate. This is the difference between a business and a charity. One depends on an exchange of value for money, the other depends on an exchange of goodwill for money.
Whales/Freeloaders on opposite sides of the spectrum IRL have a negative effect on the majority of people in the middle, and I'm sure it causes the same problems in every industry, so why should our industry be any different.
Either compensations have to be made by the rest of us to make up for the one group, or control has to be wrested away from the other as they try to tilt the payoffs in their favor.
I just know our economy didn't really explode hundreds of years ago until we got away from having just whales/freeloaders class system. The highest volume of money/players should always come from the middle as that would cater to the most amount of people in any situation. "Needs of the few are outweighed by the many," type of deal. Gaming should be built around that premise.
Keeping the middle happy would lead to making the most money, and spread the risks out for devs over more people. If they design a system where most of their money is coming from the whales then they are beholden to keep them happy, as losing just a few could close a game. Whereas, making changes to a game may piss off a handful of middle players making them leave, it could also attract a handful of new players, but it would average out more over time.
Business is always trying to come up with new and interesting ways to make money, but it should still be a system of supply/demand. I would rather keep it as a Games as an Entertainment vs. GAAS. I don't want services in place of gameplay. Gameplay is and always should be king in videoGAMES. P2W seems to piss off too many people, but there's def a market for it, or it wouldn't keep trying to creep into other games.
If we all put in a vote and are heard, then Devs would have to do what's best for the majority of us right? Maybe sometimes 'talking with our money' isn't enough. 'If you don't like it, don't buy into it,' doesn't really let the Dev's know our true specific dislike for something, as there could be a million reasons for a Dev to guess why someone didn't buy a game. If we in the middle tell them, and it turns out the majority of their market didn't like 2 or 3 specific things, that's something they could definitely work to fix.
Idk...am I even posting in the right damn thread at this point? I'm tired now.
Gaming monetization is not about meeting the needs of the customers. It is about meeting the needs of the company, in a way that the customers will tolerate. This is the difference between a business and a charity. One depends on an exchange of value for money, the other depends on an exchange of goodwill for money.
Needs meets Greeds
People really need to stop their mindless impulse spending and parents need to teach their children the value of a dollar.
A freeloader is the player who plays the game without paying anything. They truly play the game for free. They reap the benefits of the developers hard work and let "other players" pay for their entertainment.
Freeloaders exist because the game allows it. So they ought not have to feel too guilty over accepting the offer that was made to them.
They also have plenty of value to the company. Their presence adds to the total number of registered players - a number companies use to secure financing, etc. They are present as a target market for offers that they may one day accept to buy something. They keep the servers active by showing up to play (so paying folk have more people to play with). They are free word of mouth advertising when they tell their friends (who may join them and buy something) that they like the game.
Sure they provide value for the company.
Just the average player's wishes are under represented. Even if we boycott the freeloaders and whales will still rule the day. We just don't matter as much. That's why you can have outrage ignored for the most part.
I think people put too much emphasis on whales and freeloaders, truth is, the bulk of a game's income is from moderate spenders.
To use some numbers.
GW2. is noted to have 1.5 million Players, and has an average income of around 18 Billion Won per quarter, or put another way, 15 million USD. What does that mean.. that means on average.. a GW2 player is spending 10 USD over the course of 3 months, a little over 3 USD per month.
Ok.. now. process that. Their Average player is spending 3 dollars a month on their game. Now we can speculate if this is caused by a huge number of Freeloaders, a lower income by Whales or an overall lower percent of whales that their are simply not enough of them to bolster the void of funds left by the freeloaders, or perhaps an overall lack of Moderate spenders filling the bulk of their ranks.
In any case, when anyone who runs a company is looking at an average of 3 dollars per player as an income, it tells them something is wrong, and no matter how they would slice it, it all boils down to they have too many Freeloaders.
Now getting rid of the freeloaders won't in any way increase their income, it will simply decrease their population, so what they need to do is find a way to get the otherwise Freeloading players to spend money.
All evidence related to microtransactions spending that I've seen supports the notion that whales provide the majority of revenue in microtransaction-heavy games. Many times, the vast majority. Additionally, the expansion content for GW2 is all B2P, only the base game is free. That's vastly different from a game developed and released with F2P or microtransaction-heavy monetization in mind, such as how Battlefront 2 released.
All evidence related to microtransactions spending that I've seen supports the notion that whales provide the majority of revenue in microtransaction-heavy games. Many times, the vast majority. Additionally, the expansion content for GW2 is all B2P, only the base game is free. That's vastly different from a game developed and released with F2P or microtransaction-heavy monetization in mind, such as how Battlefront 2 released.
Take LoL, what you can buy to get advantage in combat? Heroes - it is matter of time to get them for free. But you can take the fast lane if you want and play.
Anyway to have a particular hero does not give you any real advantage.
L2 private servers have amazing diversity of F2P systems. From sell and buy everything to literally free gameplay. BDO also has a good F2P system.
It has 2 major elements - account and price. The game has to push you to have account with card and has to cover the whole price range,
Unfortunately, the virus of F2P inflict far greater exploitation on the public. It's also spreading and having more games offer online services to exploit microtransactions.
A freeloader is the player who plays the game without paying anything. They truly play the game for free. They reap the benefits of the developers hard work and let "other players" pay for their entertainment.
Freeloaders exist because the game allows it. So they ought not have to feel too guilty over accepting the offer that was made to them.
They also have plenty of value to the company. Their presence adds to the total number of registered players - a number companies use to secure financing, etc. They are present as a target market for offers that they may one day accept to buy something. They keep the servers active by showing up to play (so paying folk have more people to play with). They are free word of mouth advertising when they tell their friends (who may join them and buy something) that they like the game.
Sure they provide value for the company.
Just the average player's wishes are under represented. Even if we boycott the freeloaders and whales will still rule the day. We just don't matter as much. That's why you can have outrage ignored for the most part.
I think people put too much emphasis on whales and freeloaders, truth is, the bulk of a game's income is from moderate spenders.
To use some numbers.
GW2. is noted to have 1.5 million Players, and has an average income of around 18 Billion Won per quarter, or put another way, 15 million USD. What does that mean.. that means on average.. a GW2 player is spending 10 USD over the course of 3 months, a little over 3 USD per month.
Ok.. now. process that. Their Average player is spending 3 dollars a month on their game. Now we can speculate if this is caused by a huge number of Freeloaders, a lower income by Whales or an overall lower percent of whales that their are simply not enough of them to bolster the void of funds left by the freeloaders, or perhaps an overall lack of Moderate spenders filling the bulk of their ranks.
In any case, when anyone who runs a company is looking at an average of 3 dollars per player as an income, it tells them something is wrong, and no matter how they would slice it, it all boils down to they have too many Freeloaders.
Now getting rid of the freeloaders won't in any way increase their income, it will simply decrease their population, so what they need to do is find a way to get the otherwise Freeloading players to spend money.
All evidence related to microtransactions spending that I've seen supports the notion that whales provide the majority of revenue in microtransaction-heavy games. Many times, the vast majority. Additionally, the expansion content for GW2 is all B2P, only the base game is free. That's vastly different from a game developed and released with F2P or microtransaction-heavy monetization in mind, such as how Battlefront 2 released.
I've read this as well.
And.. I mean think about it.
Using GW2. Lets say, a Whale is anyone that is spending 1,000+ a month (Which is not uncommon for a whale to spend all things said and done.
So, $15 million per Quarter, becomes $5 million a Month, divided by $1,000 means a max total of 5,000 players could be whales.
Using 1.5 million as a population, that would mean no more then 0.3% of the population of the game could be a Whale, and that the game could survive on that 0.3%.. even if NO ONE else spent any money.
Makes the value of a While come to light, when the entire game can be supported by less then 1% of the population.
So, makes it seem even more silly that someone who just bought the box set feels entitled to having so much control of the outcome of the game, when in reality they have so very little impact on the games survival.
Think of it this way, for GW2.
They need those 5,000 Whales, above and beyond everyone else in the game. They could lose a million players and it would not fiscally hurt them as much as losing 10% of their (500 players) whales.
Kinda scary how insignificant a non-whale it, isn't 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.
No, because part of the reason we play games is to take our minds off of harsh realities like income inequality for a little while. Bludgeoning your customers over their heads with it is generally a poor practice, one made viable here only because of the way it aims at small portions of the overall crowd for the largest portion of its revenue.
We've all seen how the mobile industry has exploded since microtransactions took off. That's great for those standing to profit, but if that boom is built, in a large part, due to knockoff clones that use casino-style cash gambles for insanely cheap to make assets as their primary revenue source; not so great for consumers. It happened in the mobile market, and we've started to see similarly questionable moves here (reboots via renamed formerly failed titles galore, for one). Profit strategies aren't equally beneficial to all parties in the transaction.
No, because part of the reason we play games is to take our minds off of harsh realities like income inequality for a little while. Bludgeoning your customers over their heads with it is generally a poor practice, one made viable here only because of the way it aims at small portions of the overall crowd for the largest portion of its revenue.
We've all seen how the mobile industry has exploded since microtransactions took off. That's great for those standing to profit, but if that boom is built, in a large part, due to knockoff clones that use casino-style cash gambles for insanely cheap to make assets as their primary revenue source; not so great for consumers. It happened in the mobile market, and we've started to see similarly questionable moves here (reboots via renamed formerly failed titles galore, for one). Profit strategies aren't equally beneficial to all parties in the transaction.
Think of this way..
For every Whale they opt to not cater to.. they need at least 300 players to spend at least $15 a month.
So they need to either cater to the whales or find a way motivate the vast majority of their population to spend at least 15 a month.
Now use GW2 again.
They have 1.5 million players, and are making $15 Million a quarter with a cash shop. Which amounts to $5 Million a Month, or an average of $3 per month per player.
No doubt, with those kinds of numbers, the reality is they are living off whales and a very small percent of their game spending real money.
But.. imagine if they managed somehow to put in a sub-like system, and lets say 30% of their population quits over this. That would still have 1 million players left., but would make $15 per player, or put another way, they would make $15 million per month, $45 million per quarter, for a 300% increase in overall profits, and having now zero dependency up[on whales.
So why don't they?
Well, a better question becomes, why don't more people just pay 15 a month?
I mean, right now, it's painfully obvious that the vastness of the gamer population is not spending money which forces companies to depend on whales.
As such, hearing anyone complain that they will spend less often cited as voting with their wallet, unless they are a whale, is a joke. That is why game companies laugh at these kinds of threats, and have zero issues letting them go.
But if more people spent as little as 15 a month, they could cause a whole paradigmatic shift in the whole system, where companies depended upon them as opposed to whales. And lets be real 15 a month is not much.
So.. you tell me.. why don't they?
Why do they allow themselves to be disposable?
I mean think about it. in GW2, if 3% of the population paid into the game, to make what they are making now, a "Whale" would only have to spend as little as 100 a month to be at the top of the food chain.
Now, to get a real feel for this, It would take as little as 20% of their population to spend money, to make $15 a month matter.
So really.. this is all the fault of people not spending any money when it takes a measly 20% of gamers a paltry $15 a month to make your entire spending demographic matter.
Let that process. It ain't the whales fault for spending their money on a hobby they like.. if's the fault of everyone else not willing to spend ANY money on a hobby they play.
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.
You make too many assumptions without supporting it with data. No, the industry wasn't having a problem with gamers spending money- the gaming industry has experienced strong growth in revenue for like the past two friggin' decades straight.
This is not merely motivated out of attempting to avoid shutting doors. It's motivated out of how easily you can make more for doing less.
Comments
They also have plenty of value to the company. Their presence adds to the total number of registered players - a number companies use to secure financing, etc. They are present as a target market for offers that they may one day accept to buy something. They keep the servers active by showing up to play (so paying folk have more people to play with). They are free word of mouth advertising when they tell their friends (who may join them and buy something) that they like the game.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Just the average player's wishes are under represented. Even if we boycott the freeloaders and whales will still rule the day. We just don't matter as much. That's why you can have outrage ignored for the most part.
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Developers have become more and more crooked and deceptive and consumers seemed to be a lot dumber.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
To use some numbers.
GW2. is noted to have 1.5 million Players, and has an average income of around 18 Billion Won per quarter, or put another way, 15 million USD. What does that mean.. that means on average.. a GW2 player is spending 10 USD over the course of 3 months, a little over 3 USD per month.
Ok.. now. process that. Their Average player is spending 3 dollars a month on their game. Now we can speculate if this is caused by a huge number of Freeloaders, a lower income by Whales or an overall lower percent of whales that their are simply not enough of them to bolster the void of funds left by the freeloaders, or perhaps an overall lack of Moderate spenders filling the bulk of their ranks.
In any case, when anyone who runs a company is looking at an average of 3 dollars per player as an income, it tells them something is wrong, and no matter how they would slice it, it all boils down to they have too many Freeloaders.
Now getting rid of the freeloaders won't in any way increase their income, it will simply decrease their population, so what they need to do is find a way to get the otherwise Freeloading players to spend money.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Free players are biomass that determines where whales are willing to hunt. While you can abuse that biomass quite a bit, there is a point where there won't be enough there to be a good hunting ground for a whale (though current large publishers seem to be aiming for the Airline route where everyone is horrible, with only a few like EA jumping the gun of steady progress).
Practice doesn't make perfect, practice makes permanent.
"At one point technology meant making tech that could get to the moon, now it means making tech that could get you a taxi."
What is funny is one looks toward older FTPs where it was often a sub at $30 (twice the cost of an actual sub game) for the lion's share and indeed the goal post has moved a lot from there.
Personally I would like it if games that had channels had a couple of protected channels for people who paid some money but were not whales. Somehow I don't think whales would want their own channel, but sure they can do that as well.
Channel 1-16 public. Channel 17 $10-$200 per month channel 18 $30-$100 per month channel 19 $200+ per month channel 20 $1000+ per month.
People who want a sub game would live on channel 18 and/or channel 17.
For me, if FTP was an option, instead the norm, I'd have less to complaint about. But it isn't. THIS is how whales and freeloaders effect my gaming. I truly could not care any less what other players spend their money on. It's that their spending habits have ruined this once fun and unique gaming experience for others, or at least for me.
I really can't blame the publishers/developers, as it is great business sense to make as much as players are willing to spend, back to the open-ended business model.
The crux of the matter for me the is lack of choice and the butchering of basic games down to "What can we sell players that they used to get with the game?" There should be FTP games for whales and freeloaders to have fun in. There should also be complete games for others. But there isn't. It is a total reversal of the old "subscription only" way to play MMOs (also a lack of choice)
PS: Don't tell me about the crap (my opinion) "subscription option" that many MMOs have. You STILL have to visit their cash shops (to spend your "bonus" monthly cash allotment) for items that should be in the game in the first place. They make sure you have to look in their cash shop and hope you'll spend more than they allotted. Again, chopping up the games piecemeal so they can "charge extra" for what used to be in the basic game.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
1. Low cost of maintaining a player. The cost per individual player on a server is basically 0. At one time there was a tangible cost, but as it dropped, it allowed games to have huge (active) player bases at a reasonable cost.
2. High cost of customer acquisition. Free to play is all about customer acquisition. As marketing costs have risen in a competitive market, the most cost effective way to get a paying customer, is to have them using your product for free.
3. Disproportional Spending. As the amount of people using free products has increased, companies abilities to provide tiered spending options has increased as well. There are now options to spend as little a 0, or as much as the customer is willing to pay. There is no longer a floor or ceiling on spending, which allows for companies to make as much per paying customer as possible.
4. Players as content. There has been a great increase in the tools that allow developers and publishers to use players as content. Look at the battle royal genre. It is all about using 99 other players to provide content for 1 other player per game. This has allowed games to be less about developer generated content (which is slow and expensive), and more about player generated content (more players = more content).
Gaming monetization is not about meeting the needs of the customers. It is about meeting the needs of the company, in a way that the customers will tolerate. This is the difference between a business and a charity. One depends on an exchange of value for money, the other depends on an exchange of goodwill for money.
Either compensations have to be made by the rest of us to make up for the one group, or control has to be wrested away from the other as they try to tilt the payoffs in their favor.
I just know our economy didn't really explode hundreds of years ago until we got away from having just whales/freeloaders class system. The highest volume of money/players should always come from the middle as that would cater to the most amount of people in any situation. "Needs of the few are outweighed by the many," type of deal. Gaming should be built around that premise.
Keeping the middle happy would lead to making the most money, and spread the risks out for devs over more people. If they design a system where most of their money is coming from the whales then they are beholden to keep them happy, as losing just a few could close a game. Whereas, making changes to a game may piss off a handful of middle players making them leave, it could also attract a handful of new players, but it would average out more over time.
Business is always trying to come up with new and interesting ways to make money, but it should still be a system of supply/demand. I would rather keep it as a Games as an Entertainment vs. GAAS. I don't want services in place of gameplay. Gameplay is and always should be king in videoGAMES. P2W seems to piss off too many people, but there's def a market for it, or it wouldn't keep trying to creep into other games.
If we all put in a vote and are heard, then Devs would have to do what's best for the majority of us right? Maybe sometimes 'talking with our money' isn't enough. 'If you don't like it, don't buy into it,' doesn't really let the Dev's know our true specific dislike for something, as there could be a million reasons for a Dev to guess why someone didn't buy a game. If we in the middle tell them, and it turns out the majority of their market didn't like 2 or 3 specific things, that's something they could definitely work to fix.
Idk...am I even posting in the right damn thread at this point? I'm tired now.
Back to Monday #3 of this week.
Gut Out!
What, me worry?
People really need to stop their mindless impulse spending and parents need to teach their children the value of a dollar.
Sometimes I believe that we have life too easy.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
And.. I mean think about it.
Using GW2. Lets say, a Whale is anyone that is spending 1,000+ a month (Which is not uncommon for a whale to spend all things said and done.
So, $15 million per Quarter, becomes $5 million a Month, divided by $1,000 means a max total of 5,000 players could be whales.
Using 1.5 million as a population, that would mean no more then 0.3% of the population of the game could be a Whale, and that the game could survive on that 0.3%.. even if NO ONE else spent any money.
Makes the value of a While come to light, when the entire game can be supported by less then 1% of the population.
So, makes it seem even more silly that someone who just bought the box set feels entitled to having so much control of the outcome of the game, when in reality they have so very little impact on the games survival.
Think of it this way, for GW2.
They need those 5,000 Whales, above and beyond everyone else in the game. They could lose a million players and it would not fiscally hurt them as much as losing 10% of their (500 players) whales.
Kinda scary how insignificant a non-whale it, isn't it?
We've all seen how the mobile industry has exploded since microtransactions took off. That's great for those standing to profit, but if that boom is built, in a large part, due to knockoff clones that use casino-style cash gambles for insanely cheap to make assets as their primary revenue source; not so great for consumers. It happened in the mobile market, and we've started to see similarly questionable moves here (reboots via renamed formerly failed titles galore, for one). Profit strategies aren't equally beneficial to all parties in the transaction.
For every Whale they opt to not cater to.. they need at least 300 players to spend at least $15 a month.
So they need to either cater to the whales or find a way motivate the vast majority of their population to spend at least 15 a month.
Now use GW2 again.
They have 1.5 million players, and are making $15 Million a quarter with a cash shop. Which amounts to $5 Million a Month, or an average of $3 per month per player.
No doubt, with those kinds of numbers, the reality is they are living off whales and a very small percent of their game spending real money.
But.. imagine if they managed somehow to put in a sub-like system, and lets say 30% of their population quits over this. That would still have 1 million players left., but would make $15 per player, or put another way, they would make $15 million per month, $45 million per quarter, for a 300% increase in overall profits, and having now zero dependency up[on whales.
So why don't they?
Well, a better question becomes, why don't more people just pay 15 a month?
I mean, right now, it's painfully obvious that the vastness of the gamer population is not spending money which forces companies to depend on whales.
As such, hearing anyone complain that they will spend less often cited as voting with their wallet, unless they are a whale, is a joke. That is why game companies laugh at these kinds of threats, and have zero issues letting them go.
But if more people spent as little as 15 a month, they could cause a whole paradigmatic shift in the whole system, where companies depended upon them as opposed to whales. And lets be real 15 a month is not much.
So.. you tell me.. why don't they?
Why do they allow themselves to be disposable?
I mean think about it. in GW2, if 3% of the population paid into the game, to make what they are making now, a "Whale" would only have to spend as little as 100 a month to be at the top of the food chain.
Now, to get a real feel for this, It would take as little as 20% of their population to spend money, to make $15 a month matter.
So really.. this is all the fault of people not spending any money when it takes a measly 20% of gamers a paltry $15 a month to make your entire spending demographic matter.
Let that process. It ain't the whales fault for spending their money on a hobby they like.. if's the fault of everyone else not willing to spend ANY money on a hobby they play.
This is not merely motivated out of attempting to avoid shutting doors. It's motivated out of how easily you can make more for doing less.