Forums » Suggestions
This post is a recap of ideas that have been floating around and a suggestion of how to proceed.
Background
The marketing efforts of the kickstarter and the like have been REALLY visible in-game, but it's also highlighted some of the opportunities because we've had so much kickstarter/greenlight/forum/blog comment/reddit feedback.
I have read bucketloads of it over the course of the kickstarter campaign.
The no.1 piece of feedback is the business model and peoples judgment, negative perceptions and unwillingness to invest in a subscription model game.It's at the point where I think you need to debase the basic myth that you're not a progressive product and that you're a 'dying breed of MMO'. None of this is especially new.
Market as F2P, but remain largely the same
I think there is real value in announcing the change of business model ' Vendetta has gone f2p', even if we decide to structure it on Incarnate's tier based idea with no actual change to the value of the existing subscription model. But you want to market it as an absolute transformation of business model because of its appeal to the market segment. The existing grassroots community just needs to understand that to compete the game must be marketed as F2P, they need to understand that marketing on the merits of a subscription model has fundamentally failed.
Tiered Restrictions
I suggest then putting your development/thinking time into sensible restrictions for those who 'play for free' and then add micro-transactional unlocks for weapons/license cap increases/ships and other measures of character progression - calculate a fixed figure that a person could hypothetically pay to unlock the equivalent of a subscription account with micro-transactions. Perhaps this would be the value of four to five years of regular subscriptions. You're getting the money up front if someone buys it all out and this gives you more than ample time to follow up with new content to continue the revenue stream.
This idea may invoke strong feelings of 'pay to win' in some players - but pay to win at what? this is a sandbox game - you define what 'winning' means. If Star Citizen can sell a player 'lifetime insurance' to a constellation and still say 'no pay to win', we have ample license to do this. Also, you can easily learn to beat many players in combat with basic ships and weapons - so the high skill involvement helps to debase the 'pay-to-win' thing.
Mitigating abuse without technical faceslammery
The next part is mitigating the danger of abuse of f2p accounts (clogging sectors and such) with means that are not technically intrusive (to an extent).
Add a micro-transactional add-on (available to subscribers as well as f2pers) that allows people to unlock time-limited NPC spotter bots, mining minions, IRC relays, guild advertising/recruitment bots, Xith ctc bots and other functions that would typically require a second account.
It's technically a 'pay to win' style gameplay advantage, but one that you can already pay to achieve. There's value in having it handled by the server as well because you dont need to run a computer all day or a VPS so in a sense its even more egalitarian than the existing framework.
Conclusion
This is just how I envision what Incarnate has said previously and what should probably happen to push forwards business-model wise.
Intelligent discussion is welcome belowwww.
P.S. Phaserlight has agreed to delete anybody's post who writes that they will 'quit if VO goes F2P' so don't even try it. You couldn't possibly have read the post properly if you're writing that.
Background
The marketing efforts of the kickstarter and the like have been REALLY visible in-game, but it's also highlighted some of the opportunities because we've had so much kickstarter/greenlight/forum/blog comment/reddit feedback.
I have read bucketloads of it over the course of the kickstarter campaign.
The no.1 piece of feedback is the business model and peoples judgment, negative perceptions and unwillingness to invest in a subscription model game.It's at the point where I think you need to debase the basic myth that you're not a progressive product and that you're a 'dying breed of MMO'. None of this is especially new.
Market as F2P, but remain largely the same
I think there is real value in announcing the change of business model ' Vendetta has gone f2p', even if we decide to structure it on Incarnate's tier based idea with no actual change to the value of the existing subscription model. But you want to market it as an absolute transformation of business model because of its appeal to the market segment. The existing grassroots community just needs to understand that to compete the game must be marketed as F2P, they need to understand that marketing on the merits of a subscription model has fundamentally failed.
Tiered Restrictions
I suggest then putting your development/thinking time into sensible restrictions for those who 'play for free' and then add micro-transactional unlocks for weapons/license cap increases/ships and other measures of character progression - calculate a fixed figure that a person could hypothetically pay to unlock the equivalent of a subscription account with micro-transactions. Perhaps this would be the value of four to five years of regular subscriptions. You're getting the money up front if someone buys it all out and this gives you more than ample time to follow up with new content to continue the revenue stream.
This idea may invoke strong feelings of 'pay to win' in some players - but pay to win at what? this is a sandbox game - you define what 'winning' means. If Star Citizen can sell a player 'lifetime insurance' to a constellation and still say 'no pay to win', we have ample license to do this. Also, you can easily learn to beat many players in combat with basic ships and weapons - so the high skill involvement helps to debase the 'pay-to-win' thing.
Mitigating abuse without technical faceslammery
The next part is mitigating the danger of abuse of f2p accounts (clogging sectors and such) with means that are not technically intrusive (to an extent).
Add a micro-transactional add-on (available to subscribers as well as f2pers) that allows people to unlock time-limited NPC spotter bots, mining minions, IRC relays, guild advertising/recruitment bots, Xith ctc bots and other functions that would typically require a second account.
It's technically a 'pay to win' style gameplay advantage, but one that you can already pay to achieve. There's value in having it handled by the server as well because you dont need to run a computer all day or a VPS so in a sense its even more egalitarian than the existing framework.
Conclusion
This is just how I envision what Incarnate has said previously and what should probably happen to push forwards business-model wise.
Intelligent discussion is welcome belowwww.
P.S. Phaserlight has agreed to delete anybody's post who writes that they will 'quit if VO goes F2P' so don't even try it. You couldn't possibly have read the post properly if you're writing that.
pretty good there TRS,
1) How would F2P even with micro-transactions equal more money for GS?
2) Inc said it would take development time to program Micro-transactions, so what if this idea doesn't work? then all of their time/money went for naught.
3) I don't think, anyone should be allowed to do a micro-transaction till the reach 3/3/3/3/3, then I feel they have a real "investment" in the game.
4) I agree with you that there is no winning / losing ingame, its a judgmental notion, nothing more.
5) A lot of comments were directed to Inc also about the graphics (fine the way they are, to me)
but to fix the graphics they need money, to get more players they need to become F2P, so you see my thought process here? cash to fix / update graphics or F2P more players?
6) very good write up TRS. I for one hope the comments are also well thought and written to either support or rebuttal.
1) How would F2P even with micro-transactions equal more money for GS?
2) Inc said it would take development time to program Micro-transactions, so what if this idea doesn't work? then all of their time/money went for naught.
3) I don't think, anyone should be allowed to do a micro-transaction till the reach 3/3/3/3/3, then I feel they have a real "investment" in the game.
4) I agree with you that there is no winning / losing ingame, its a judgmental notion, nothing more.
5) A lot of comments were directed to Inc also about the graphics (fine the way they are, to me)
but to fix the graphics they need money, to get more players they need to become F2P, so you see my thought process here? cash to fix / update graphics or F2P more players?
6) very good write up TRS. I for one hope the comments are also well thought and written to either support or rebuttal.
In response to (1) and (2), the basic premise behind the F2P model is to lower the barrier of entry into the game and make sales easier because the player already feels invested when they're considering putting money into the game. It equals more money because you attract a lot more potential customers who are easier to sell to from inside the game per se, rather than looking in from the outside. It also enhances the product because as we know, the more players VO has, the more fun it gets.
I agree with (3), but i'm cautious of making people do things they dont want to like mining for instance, i spose you could sell it as mandatory certification, perhaps at least three level 3 stats?
I'm glad you raised the graphics issue in (5), I think the players who dismiss the game based on graphics are a distinctly separate demographic from those who dismiss based on business model. However, it's obviously much easier to get someone who doesn't like the graphics to try the game if they don't have to pay for it up-front.
I agree with (3), but i'm cautious of making people do things they dont want to like mining for instance, i spose you could sell it as mandatory certification, perhaps at least three level 3 stats?
I'm glad you raised the graphics issue in (5), I think the players who dismiss the game based on graphics are a distinctly separate demographic from those who dismiss based on business model. However, it's obviously much easier to get someone who doesn't like the graphics to try the game if they don't have to pay for it up-front.
Is it not too cynical to openly stake claims on inheritances from an idea and project that is still alive?
In response to only part of your post:
Pay-to-win is disempowering, breaks immersion, and nurtures the notion that you are playing to beat (and hurt) others, not playing to have fun and compete. For all that could be done keep things moving forward I would not want to see the idea that player skill/agency is paramount ("get good, get even") being jeopardized. Why are you putting that on the table? And how is squelching dissension by deleting posts remotely acceptable? ... We used to have pretty superlative forum moderation around here ...
In response to only part of your post:
Pay-to-win is disempowering, breaks immersion, and nurtures the notion that you are playing to beat (and hurt) others, not playing to have fun and compete. For all that could be done keep things moving forward I would not want to see the idea that player skill/agency is paramount ("get good, get even") being jeopardized. Why are you putting that on the table? And how is squelching dissension by deleting posts remotely acceptable? ... We used to have pretty superlative forum moderation around here ...
P.S. Phaserlight has agreed to delete anybody's post who writes that they will 'quit if VO goes F2P' so don't even try it.
This is news to me.
This is news to me.
;_;
I seriously think I'm going to kill myself today.
I seriously think I'm going to kill myself today.
so it seems my post in asking some questions and TRS answering them or providing more thoughtful aspects on it was the only response to what most likely took him (sorry if this is wrong, but I do think of you as a guy) a decent amount of time to think about it, put it on paper and then make it in a way that even most cretins could read it and understand what he is saying and giving thought to.
Saying that you will quit if something happens is not dissent, it's just petty tantrum throwing, if you don't think its a good idea write why it's not a good idea, thats dissent.
I may or may not have made the phaserlight thing up
I may or may not have made the phaserlight thing up
Lets all take a moment to note some great quotes and paraphrasings from this thread:
"Saying that you will quit if something happens is not dissent, it's just petty tantrum throwing"
-Espionage/TRS
"You can only post responses to this forum that I approve of."
-Espionage/TRS
"I will only listen to you and validate you if you agree with me."
-Espionage/TRS
"Saying that you will quit if something happens is not dissent, it's just petty tantrum throwing"
-Espionage/TRS
"You can only post responses to this forum that I approve of."
-Espionage/TRS
"I will only listen to you and validate you if you agree with me."
-Espionage/TRS
better a tantrum spiral than a loyalty cascade?
"Pay-to-win is disempowering, breaks immersion, and nurtures the notion that you are playing to beat (and hurt) others, not playing to have fun and compete. For all that could be done keep things moving forward I would not want to see the idea that player skill/agency is paramount ("get good, get even") being jeopardized."
Don't a fair amount of people play to beat/hurt others already? I'd wager they'd be happy to do so regardless of the means, whether by skill or by monies.
Also, I think what drives most people AWAY from VO is not the subscription, but rather then boring-ass grind. This game DOES NOT get fun until you've leveled yourself up quite a bit. Leveling up needs to be enjoyable to attract more people. Otherwise VO will continue to be as it is. Offering VO as an F2P game (with the microtransactions and subscribption option) might generate a little more income for GS, but I'd argue that it wouldn't be enough to make any difference.
That said, it kinda feels like VO/GS is running out of options. So if the bottom line is that devs really need capital to make the improvements that we all know VO needs to attract more people, then I think on a practical level it makes sense to try ANYTHING -- and F2P fits into that category.
I wonder if there is hesitation implementing F2P because GS doesn't have enough gear to handle an "unlimited" amount of players?
Don't a fair amount of people play to beat/hurt others already? I'd wager they'd be happy to do so regardless of the means, whether by skill or by monies.
Also, I think what drives most people AWAY from VO is not the subscription, but rather then boring-ass grind. This game DOES NOT get fun until you've leveled yourself up quite a bit. Leveling up needs to be enjoyable to attract more people. Otherwise VO will continue to be as it is. Offering VO as an F2P game (with the microtransactions and subscribption option) might generate a little more income for GS, but I'd argue that it wouldn't be enough to make any difference.
That said, it kinda feels like VO/GS is running out of options. So if the bottom line is that devs really need capital to make the improvements that we all know VO needs to attract more people, then I think on a practical level it makes sense to try ANYTHING -- and F2P fits into that category.
I wonder if there is hesitation implementing F2P because GS doesn't have enough gear to handle an "unlimited" amount of players?
I think IF Inc does do or thinks about F2P, then maybe a lite sub for the PC also with micro-transactions for the lite subs to say level 5 everything, that way they still cant be of the same level as paid subs?
I don't know just an idea to think about for more players/money?
I don't know just an idea to think about for more players/money?
Wow greenwall you managed to follow an incredibly stupid post with a reasonably intelligent one.
Saying you are going to quit if F2P happens is not agreeing or disagreeing with the post its 100% tangental. Your second and third quotes are just plain wrong and the first is taken out of context.
I do suspect there is some hesitation or has been in the past over server load issues, It would be interesting to know the answer.
Pointsman I do not understand why you think adopting the aforementioned model would have any impact on the skill factor of the game. I also don't think it breaks immersion when players can still opt to subscribe as they always have.
Saying you are going to quit if F2P happens is not agreeing or disagreeing with the post its 100% tangental. Your second and third quotes are just plain wrong and the first is taken out of context.
I do suspect there is some hesitation or has been in the past over server load issues, It would be interesting to know the answer.
Pointsman I do not understand why you think adopting the aforementioned model would have any impact on the skill factor of the game. I also don't think it breaks immersion when players can still opt to subscribe as they always have.
On the other hand, my opinion was always inopportune and/or irrelevant so unless you are morbidly curious maybe we can just pretend that I didn't post anything.
Yeah well you're not really making much sense anyway
In 2 years I have never agreed with TRS, but I do in this thread. Hmmm will call up doctors for a appointment I think just to be safe. :)
I do not really play f2p online games. They are rarely ever "free". You have to put up with so much harassment to buy something that I just won't even go there. Perhaps I am jaded. I don't really even try f2p games. Perhaps I don't really know what I am talking about because I don't try many f2p games. But to me, labeling a game "f2p" is a insult to both the game, and the player base, meaning that no one would pay to play it, unless tricked into it hook and crook.
We already get a lot of complaints "I thought this game was free", to which I respond "It is! You can play as long as you want in the training sector!". And in a way, I kinda feel that we are already precariously close to that f2p hook and crook intersection.
Now, I would like to see a bit more extensive training sector, but really, what are you planning on offering f2p players beyond what is in the training sector?
The one dollar sub is already at or bordering on what I consider a minimum standard, and only then because I can see ways around being limited to an atlas2. What can you offer f2p that isn't going to encroach on the $1 sub?
I have in another thread presented a f2p model of unlimited number of 8 hour life characters. That thread was not well received. What, specifically, are you going to offer f2p players?
And more importantly, what are f2p players going to offer us? If micro transactions where really all that, then all games would be f2p. Subscription models are still the norm. Subscriptions with micro-transactions are common. The devs are not really properly servicing their existing customer base, and you want them to radically alter their business model.
I suggest that all micro-transaction based f2p ideas be completely shelved until VO has micro-transactions. Micro-transactions by itself might increase subscription rate, increase revenues, increase customer satisfaction of existing customers, and is prerequisite to just about every f2p idea I have seen suggested.
We already get a lot of complaints "I thought this game was free", to which I respond "It is! You can play as long as you want in the training sector!". And in a way, I kinda feel that we are already precariously close to that f2p hook and crook intersection.
Now, I would like to see a bit more extensive training sector, but really, what are you planning on offering f2p players beyond what is in the training sector?
The one dollar sub is already at or bordering on what I consider a minimum standard, and only then because I can see ways around being limited to an atlas2. What can you offer f2p that isn't going to encroach on the $1 sub?
I have in another thread presented a f2p model of unlimited number of 8 hour life characters. That thread was not well received. What, specifically, are you going to offer f2p players?
And more importantly, what are f2p players going to offer us? If micro transactions where really all that, then all games would be f2p. Subscription models are still the norm. Subscriptions with micro-transactions are common. The devs are not really properly servicing their existing customer base, and you want them to radically alter their business model.
I suggest that all micro-transaction based f2p ideas be completely shelved until VO has micro-transactions. Micro-transactions by itself might increase subscription rate, increase revenues, increase customer satisfaction of existing customers, and is prerequisite to just about every f2p idea I have seen suggested.
Sometimes I think that everyone tends to forget that Guild SW is a business that has as its primary goal making money, however that is accomplished. I'm completely ambivalent on the Free-to-Play thing.
Will it bring in new players? ABSOLUTELY.
Will it make more money for Guild? Probably not.
They'll spend so much time on helping ungrateful 13-year-olds sign into their accounts that I seriously think they'll lose all inertia towards "making the game better," and get stuck in a mire of tech support to non-paying clientele. Then you'll get the obligatory posting by the disgruntled teens:
BiEbErFan2002: OMG This game sucks! I had to wait a whole 13 minutes for someone to help me figure out how to login! Srsly I GTG play PopTropica...
I'm sure the gang over at Guild knows what they're doing, but as someone who wants terribly to see them succeed, I worry for them and their capacity to handle a huge influx of opinion-swaying preteens with high expectations, short attention spans, and more importantly, no MONEY.
The Steam launch of their Linux games division will definitely help, especially with Vendetta. I'd devote a LOT of effort to Greenlight if I was Mr. Bergman. One happy, paying, vocal Steam subscriber is worth 100 F2P players on Android.
Will it bring in new players? ABSOLUTELY.
Will it make more money for Guild? Probably not.
They'll spend so much time on helping ungrateful 13-year-olds sign into their accounts that I seriously think they'll lose all inertia towards "making the game better," and get stuck in a mire of tech support to non-paying clientele. Then you'll get the obligatory posting by the disgruntled teens:
BiEbErFan2002: OMG This game sucks! I had to wait a whole 13 minutes for someone to help me figure out how to login! Srsly I GTG play PopTropica...
I'm sure the gang over at Guild knows what they're doing, but as someone who wants terribly to see them succeed, I worry for them and their capacity to handle a huge influx of opinion-swaying preteens with high expectations, short attention spans, and more importantly, no MONEY.
The Steam launch of their Linux games division will definitely help, especially with Vendetta. I'd devote a LOT of effort to Greenlight if I was Mr. Bergman. One happy, paying, vocal Steam subscriber is worth 100 F2P players on Android.
F2P games are most certainly more the norm than subscription models are. There have been countless articles about the shift from one to the other... here's just one:
http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/8/1/3188505/guild-wars-2-and-the-death-rattle-of-the-subscription-gaming
Introducing microtransactions on top of what VO already consists of is a good idea, but once the current player-base has all the "stuff" they wanted to buy, I suspect the initial boost of resulting cash will settle back to a whimper as my previous point is still king (re: why i think our game doesn't attract many new players).
And really, it seems the devs really aren't in a position to provide all the things they are talking about (or any new "things" that you can buy with microtransactions) in a reasonable time-frame unless they have the cash up front. So even if they did decided to implement microtransactions, it might be forever or Soon(TM) until that actually happened. By then, Star Citizen will have come out and we'll all be playing that instead.
http://www.polygon.com/gaming/2012/8/1/3188505/guild-wars-2-and-the-death-rattle-of-the-subscription-gaming
Introducing microtransactions on top of what VO already consists of is a good idea, but once the current player-base has all the "stuff" they wanted to buy, I suspect the initial boost of resulting cash will settle back to a whimper as my previous point is still king (re: why i think our game doesn't attract many new players).
And really, it seems the devs really aren't in a position to provide all the things they are talking about (or any new "things" that you can buy with microtransactions) in a reasonable time-frame unless they have the cash up front. So even if they did decided to implement microtransactions, it might be forever or Soon(TM) until that actually happened. By then, Star Citizen will have come out and we'll all be playing that instead.
^ this guy wants to be Itan Co
--Vote CrazySpence
--Vote CrazySpence