Forums » Suggestions
In-App Purchases: Revised!
Hello there!
Inspired by the idea recently posted by Borg_Collective, I decided to open a new thread to present my idea, rather than spamming his thread with my thoughts. First of all I would like to ask for respectful responses, keep your silly rp aside, I posted this with the sole intention to benefit GS' wallet.
So In-App purchases have undoubtfully become a nice thing to make cash with and I'm fairly certain it has made many millionaires who wouldn't have expected the wealth when they coded their little app where you ran a farm/shot some stuff/let fruits or candy drop etc.
Now... How do we implement it into VO without bullying our good old Veteran playerbase who love this game because it is not pay to win? EXACTLY! We do not implement it for them! Rather than giving everybody the chance to win by paying all of daddy's money, we do it the smart way:
Free to Play and Light Subscription users get the chance to buy addons and ships they cannot buy (because their levels are low) for a low amount of cash via In-App purchases.
An example: Player A just joined VO, levelled up a little but would REALLY like to see how a Valkyrie handles and he just can't wait cause he's young and short temepered. He clicks the In-App function and can buy 3x Itani Valkyrie for 0,99 cents! Awesome! He then goes out, wrecks them in combat because he met the Pirate B. Awe. He goes back and buys 3 more Valkyries. Eventually he'll get tired of it and may even buy a full sub to level himself to the Levels he can always buy Valks at!
The summary facts:
- Newbies have the chance to buy higher Level ships in sets of 3 for 1$
- Newbies have the chance to buy higher Level weapons in sets of 8 for 1$
- Veteran Players are not at all affected by this. A full subscription still means you can buy everything your standings and levels allow you to
- This way we are not introducing a Pay-to-Win system that we all hate. It's a small way to fill Guild Software's pockets AND let the newbies have insight into further gameplay for a Little amount of money.
Constructive commentary and more ideas that might perfectonize this are welcome!
Inspired by the idea recently posted by Borg_Collective, I decided to open a new thread to present my idea, rather than spamming his thread with my thoughts. First of all I would like to ask for respectful responses, keep your silly rp aside, I posted this with the sole intention to benefit GS' wallet.
So In-App purchases have undoubtfully become a nice thing to make cash with and I'm fairly certain it has made many millionaires who wouldn't have expected the wealth when they coded their little app where you ran a farm/shot some stuff/let fruits or candy drop etc.
Now... How do we implement it into VO without bullying our good old Veteran playerbase who love this game because it is not pay to win? EXACTLY! We do not implement it for them! Rather than giving everybody the chance to win by paying all of daddy's money, we do it the smart way:
Free to Play and Light Subscription users get the chance to buy addons and ships they cannot buy (because their levels are low) for a low amount of cash via In-App purchases.
An example: Player A just joined VO, levelled up a little but would REALLY like to see how a Valkyrie handles and he just can't wait cause he's young and short temepered. He clicks the In-App function and can buy 3x Itani Valkyrie for 0,99 cents! Awesome! He then goes out, wrecks them in combat because he met the Pirate B. Awe. He goes back and buys 3 more Valkyries. Eventually he'll get tired of it and may even buy a full sub to level himself to the Levels he can always buy Valks at!
The summary facts:
- Newbies have the chance to buy higher Level ships in sets of 3 for 1$
- Newbies have the chance to buy higher Level weapons in sets of 8 for 1$
- Veteran Players are not at all affected by this. A full subscription still means you can buy everything your standings and levels allow you to
- This way we are not introducing a Pay-to-Win system that we all hate. It's a small way to fill Guild Software's pockets AND let the newbies have insight into further gameplay for a Little amount of money.
Constructive commentary and more ideas that might perfectonize this are welcome!
+1 Bravo to someone finally realizing that the mechanics of this game make it impossible to turn into pay to win! The grind for licenses is something we paid for...it's fun. Newer players, especially on mobile devices need to be offered this option, maybe only once they get to combat 4...
Not a bad idea. Only suggestion would be to make $$ purchase an intermediary currency (such as Crystal, or a new one altogether), and then THAT can be used to buy individual ships/items
Just as far as an IAP system goes, the more layers of abstraction the better. This is because it gives users the choice (or even just the illusion of choice) for what they will spend their money on. If it's 0.99 for some Valks, they have to consider very carefully if they want a valk, when/how they'll use them, etc. But if it's 0.99 for enough Crystal-currency to buy Valks or anything else, a user is more comfortable dropping the $1 cause they won't feel restricted or as conservative about using the things they buy.
On another more malicious level, it also quite simply plays on how a consumer's brain works. It's fairly easy for most people to decide if $1 for 3 valks is a fair value... but $1 for 500 Crystal is much harder to evaluate logically. (Even though it's just 1 more step to say '500 crystal buys 3 valks; therefore $1 buys 3 valks... you'd be surprised at how many people don't take this step). Basically, selling abstractions is much easier than selling concrete items.
Finally, would you rather spend $1 and get 3 things, or $1 and get 500 things? Again, logically most people can make the comparison... but it's a well known phenomena that our brains are not inherently logical. Even if most people know that you can't equate 3 valks to 500 crystal.... their brain still subconsciously says "take the 500!"
Just as far as an IAP system goes, the more layers of abstraction the better. This is because it gives users the choice (or even just the illusion of choice) for what they will spend their money on. If it's 0.99 for some Valks, they have to consider very carefully if they want a valk, when/how they'll use them, etc. But if it's 0.99 for enough Crystal-currency to buy Valks or anything else, a user is more comfortable dropping the $1 cause they won't feel restricted or as conservative about using the things they buy.
On another more malicious level, it also quite simply plays on how a consumer's brain works. It's fairly easy for most people to decide if $1 for 3 valks is a fair value... but $1 for 500 Crystal is much harder to evaluate logically. (Even though it's just 1 more step to say '500 crystal buys 3 valks; therefore $1 buys 3 valks... you'd be surprised at how many people don't take this step). Basically, selling abstractions is much easier than selling concrete items.
Finally, would you rather spend $1 and get 3 things, or $1 and get 500 things? Again, logically most people can make the comparison... but it's a well known phenomena that our brains are not inherently logical. Even if most people know that you can't equate 3 valks to 500 crystal.... their brain still subconsciously says "take the 500!"
I will agree up to a point. I still think that the top tier ships and weapons should be only available to those who sub. That being said, I think this would be good for all if the ftp/lite were able to purchase, in sets of 3, up to and including the basic Valk and Prom. The upper level Valks, Proms, XC,and UDV should be left off of this to give them incentive to sub.
As for weapons, I believe the same. As example they could purchase the "basic Swarms", but not the Chaos Swarms.
I believe the Power Cells should be left out of the InApp Purchase system, as at level 4 they should be able to purchase any Cell, except the Ultra.
The Crystal requirements for ships and weapons should be left in place as it is now so a player would need to spend some cash and crystals for the better ships and weapons. And when they run out of crystals, as they stop earning at level 4 (to the best of my knowledge), and will eventually run out and need to purchase them also.
I am afraid that, even with the 3 for a dollar cost, some of "daddy's wallets" are deep enough to get out of control and game goes to a pay to win type of game.
As for weapons, I believe the same. As example they could purchase the "basic Swarms", but not the Chaos Swarms.
I believe the Power Cells should be left out of the InApp Purchase system, as at level 4 they should be able to purchase any Cell, except the Ultra.
The Crystal requirements for ships and weapons should be left in place as it is now so a player would need to spend some cash and crystals for the better ships and weapons. And when they run out of crystals, as they stop earning at level 4 (to the best of my knowledge), and will eventually run out and need to purchase them also.
I am afraid that, even with the 3 for a dollar cost, some of "daddy's wallets" are deep enough to get out of control and game goes to a pay to win type of game.
+1. I would think the long term players would really rally behind this idea. The more cash VO brings in the faster the new content everyone has been looking forward to will become available. It does not hurt current gameplay in any way, but would rather make it better through more potential players, more developments and content, etc.. I think anyone who really enjoys VO would want those things. Also, this game seems to be blessed by having such a committed and passionate development team, that really loves their own game, anything that helps them financially helps you as a player. I'm personally happy that people are at least discussing the idea.
NC Crusader, how does some rook buying the top ships & equipment with "daddy's wallet" help them in any meaningful way?
I guess PvE will be easier, which is good because the user is happier & feels like they got their value
But in terms of PvP, license levels don't really mean shit. A good player using basic equipment can easily embarrass an unexperienced player with top-tier equipment.
If a noob is willing to subsidize the devs time and buy a few high level ships, it's not going to threaten me in any way. And they get a taste of what a subscription+time investment would earn them. Seems win-win-win
I guess PvE will be easier, which is good because the user is happier & feels like they got their value
But in terms of PvP, license levels don't really mean shit. A good player using basic equipment can easily embarrass an unexperienced player with top-tier equipment.
If a noob is willing to subsidize the devs time and buy a few high level ships, it's not going to threaten me in any way. And they get a taste of what a subscription+time investment would earn them. Seems win-win-win
Make the prices incremental..$1 for licence 5 say but $8 for a level 8 moth etc..giving somebody the ability to buy a valk or a prom is a bad idea as they are earned. People who are subbed and have worked for them will get pissed.
+1 Make the prices incremental..$1 for licence 5 say but $8 for a level 8 moth etc..giving somebody the ability to buy a valk or a prom is a bad idea as they are earned. People who are subbed and have worked for them will get pissed.
+1 A good idea.
Frankly, I have never liked the equipment limitations imposed by the license system. If I have the credits and the standing / accomplishment required, I should be able to buy and use what I want. The only thing imo that the license restrictions does is handicap new players that are already extremely vulnerable.
Not only does it handicap them, it also requires them to grind up their licenses in order to get to equipment that allows them to play the game. I'm not suggesting that everything should become available to any new player. I'd rather see limitations imposed through pricing. Credits are easy enough to get for a seasoned player. Adding some cost to the game would be a good thing- and make death meaningful if one has the choice of paying or losing one's cargo and a million credit XC. Or that prom load out costing 1.2 million cr
Higher tier equipment should be limited by higher prices or fewer units of the good.
Frankly, I have never liked the equipment limitations imposed by the license system. If I have the credits and the standing / accomplishment required, I should be able to buy and use what I want. The only thing imo that the license restrictions does is handicap new players that are already extremely vulnerable.
Not only does it handicap them, it also requires them to grind up their licenses in order to get to equipment that allows them to play the game. I'm not suggesting that everything should become available to any new player. I'd rather see limitations imposed through pricing. Credits are easy enough to get for a seasoned player. Adding some cost to the game would be a good thing- and make death meaningful if one has the choice of paying or losing one's cargo and a million credit XC. Or that prom load out costing 1.2 million cr
Higher tier equipment should be limited by higher prices or fewer units of the good.
There's a certain level of idiocy to be attributed to game developers who make in-app purchases that undermine the purpose of the game so that it just becomes about who can buy the most in-app purchases.
The subscription model is moronic, but equally are the in-app purchase models that exist in other games. They're not moronic from a business perspective; they're moronic from a game-play efficacy perspective.
The answer isn't adding layers on top of existing mechanics, it's finding a way to have a subscription model without actually having a subscription model. A model that has a variable billing frequency based on the level of activity and commitment a player has to the game without impacting direct game mechanics and while having the illusion of a free-market. Star Citizens answer is the 'ship insurance policy' where you pay access to play the game using a certain ship and your ship is replaced on death for free for the lifetime of the policy.
VO's answer could be similar or it could be very different, but either way it requires at least a small shift in the basic underlying mechanics of the game. Until those change I think any more attempts to 'micro-monetize' will be fairly mediocre. And if they do change it could mean the game is very different to play than the VO I knew. It's already changed for the worst though, so I'd like to see some radical underlying positive changes.
The subscription model is moronic, but equally are the in-app purchase models that exist in other games. They're not moronic from a business perspective; they're moronic from a game-play efficacy perspective.
The answer isn't adding layers on top of existing mechanics, it's finding a way to have a subscription model without actually having a subscription model. A model that has a variable billing frequency based on the level of activity and commitment a player has to the game without impacting direct game mechanics and while having the illusion of a free-market. Star Citizens answer is the 'ship insurance policy' where you pay access to play the game using a certain ship and your ship is replaced on death for free for the lifetime of the policy.
VO's answer could be similar or it could be very different, but either way it requires at least a small shift in the basic underlying mechanics of the game. Until those change I think any more attempts to 'micro-monetize' will be fairly mediocre. And if they do change it could mean the game is very different to play than the VO I knew. It's already changed for the worst though, so I'd like to see some radical underlying positive changes.
Where's Ecka's quote on how TRS is always wrong?
Developers are idiotic for implementing something that people will spend STUPID amounts of money on? Get real. You can argue that the players who drop $1-100+ on...skipping gameplay... are stupid, but to criticize how anyone else spends their money is generally an immature thing to do.
It turns out that a lot of people are willing to pay to reach the end of a game faster. It doesn't take a business whiz to figure out how developers should address that demand.
Developers are idiotic for implementing something that people will spend STUPID amounts of money on? Get real. You can argue that the players who drop $1-100+ on...skipping gameplay... are stupid, but to criticize how anyone else spends their money is generally an immature thing to do.
It turns out that a lot of people are willing to pay to reach the end of a game faster. It doesn't take a business whiz to figure out how developers should address that demand.
+1. I like the idea.
Actually ecka's quote is about how successful I am.
I specifically said it wasn't idiotic from a business perspective. If you think the value of a game is how much annual net profit its developers make its not surprising you support the proposition of endless micro-transactions. But I don't think it's an enriching experience, which is what I actually meant.
The VO devs can support such an approach, but they'll lose the intelligent people in their community and end up with the mindless drones. Maybe they don't care about that anymore?
I specifically said it wasn't idiotic from a business perspective. If you think the value of a game is how much annual net profit its developers make its not surprising you support the proposition of endless micro-transactions. But I don't think it's an enriching experience, which is what I actually meant.
The VO devs can support such an approach, but they'll lose the intelligent people in their community and end up with the mindless drones. Maybe they don't care about that anymore?
Nobody but you said the value of a game is based on revenue earned. But in an MMO with continued development, more profit means more content. Do you really need that explained to you? Especially in the case of a tiny indie team that can't even experiment with their main payment model lest they close their doors... I'd say any extra revenue would go a LONG way towards "enriching the experience" for the rest of us
"There's a certain level of idiocy to be attributed to game developers who make in-app purchases that undermine the purpose of the game so that it just becomes about who can buy the most in-app purchases."
You basically said "this business strategy isn't moronic, but it takes a certain level of idiocy to use it"
Which is kinda moronic in itself, as far as comments go. Heh, oxymoronic infact! And the "certain level of idiocy" bit is also just plain wrong.
Some people would not play this (or any) game if they had to actually put in time to grind. This doesn't make them the 'mindless drones' you seem to think encompass all IAP spenders.
...Unless you're suggesting that hordes of people who play Farmville-style Freemium games will suddenly migrate en masse to VO as soon as they see a payment form they recognize? Which also seems like a pretty dumb notion.
Although I doubt I'd be the only vet to welcome hordes of credit-card waving chum. They could feed the devs, and my Posis! Mmmm. Especially if this horde were to drive out the... ahhh "intelligent" and sophisticated players like you. +1000 to this idea!
"There's a certain level of idiocy to be attributed to game developers who make in-app purchases that undermine the purpose of the game so that it just becomes about who can buy the most in-app purchases."
You basically said "this business strategy isn't moronic, but it takes a certain level of idiocy to use it"
Which is kinda moronic in itself, as far as comments go. Heh, oxymoronic infact! And the "certain level of idiocy" bit is also just plain wrong.
Some people would not play this (or any) game if they had to actually put in time to grind. This doesn't make them the 'mindless drones' you seem to think encompass all IAP spenders.
...Unless you're suggesting that hordes of people who play Farmville-style Freemium games will suddenly migrate en masse to VO as soon as they see a payment form they recognize? Which also seems like a pretty dumb notion.
Although I doubt I'd be the only vet to welcome hordes of credit-card waving chum. They could feed the devs, and my Posis! Mmmm. Especially if this horde were to drive out the... ahhh "intelligent" and sophisticated players like you. +1000 to this idea!
This is completely on topic, but did you really start a serco guild after our last little thread war?
Good to see that there is mainly positive attitude towards this idea!
I fear this may be ruined pretty soon by an irrelevant argument, which basically breaks lose in every third suggestion. I'd like to kindly ask you guys to stop.
Especially your latest remark is sorta irrelevant, TheRedSpy... Anyhow:
My idea was to find a fair system which is quickly implemental and doesn't require much work. You know as well as I do that the devs will not have time to oberthrow their system and do even the most minor "shift in the Basic underlying mechanics". They've ever since seemed very wary with changes to the paying System if it had to do with replacing old habits. And additional IAP system wouldn't replace anything old and it would not hurt anyone in any way.
I fear this may be ruined pretty soon by an irrelevant argument, which basically breaks lose in every third suggestion. I'd like to kindly ask you guys to stop.
Especially your latest remark is sorta irrelevant, TheRedSpy... Anyhow:
My idea was to find a fair system which is quickly implemental and doesn't require much work. You know as well as I do that the devs will not have time to oberthrow their system and do even the most minor "shift in the Basic underlying mechanics". They've ever since seemed very wary with changes to the paying System if it had to do with replacing old habits. And additional IAP system wouldn't replace anything old and it would not hurt anyone in any way.
You're assuming the current system hasn't completely ruined everything that made VO, VO. Success on the mobile platform has brought a horrible quality to the game, underlying change is critical.
My last post was also extremely topical. Last time I went 10 rounds with smittens he did exactly what I told him to despite his protests, so I'm considering giving him a challenge this time as soon as I think of one.
My last post was also extremely topical. Last time I went 10 rounds with smittens he did exactly what I told him to despite his protests, so I'm considering giving him a challenge this time as soon as I think of one.
I'd be curious how many players are willing to risk a further influx of these "game ruining" types. As long as they give the devs money, and add activity & color to the universe, I'm fairly sure most of us would be happy. Plus it's not like they'll be any more annoying than the...established obnoxious players.
There have always been, and always will be, annoying new players in an MMO. Anyone who has watched the forums of this game can attest to this.
And I'm sorry TRS but I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I know you've posted a lot of wrong things, and I've corrected some of them, but I'm afraid I don't keep a detailed enough history of the VO forums to know what "thread war" or "10 rounds" you're talking about.
In any case, please address my question that is actually relevant to the thread or else please delete your tangential, self-defeating posts.
There have always been, and always will be, annoying new players in an MMO. Anyone who has watched the forums of this game can attest to this.
And I'm sorry TRS but I'm not really sure what you're talking about. I know you've posted a lot of wrong things, and I've corrected some of them, but I'm afraid I don't keep a detailed enough history of the VO forums to know what "thread war" or "10 rounds" you're talking about.
In any case, please address my question that is actually relevant to the thread or else please delete your tangential, self-defeating posts.
Thank you, smittens. And if he replies unrelatedly, please just don't react to it. This is an idea I'd like to have atleast seeming serious. And we can't use a lot of trash talk in such threads that are supposed to receive dev attention is a serious way...
Finally... On Topic:
I think with the exception of TheRedSpy seeing problems I don't see existing right now, since VO after all is running good and receiving more players than it ever did, I think there is mostly agreement to this idea. (Feel free to comment further and if you see serious issue with this idea, share your view.)
I've first considered a purachse limitation (like you can only spend 3 bucks a day, thus only get 9 ships per day), but I've thought it won't hurt the devs pockets if rich kids blow their money away. If they use the ships in combat they'll lose them fairly soon anyhow.
Finally... On Topic:
I think with the exception of TheRedSpy seeing problems I don't see existing right now, since VO after all is running good and receiving more players than it ever did, I think there is mostly agreement to this idea. (Feel free to comment further and if you see serious issue with this idea, share your view.)
I've first considered a purachse limitation (like you can only spend 3 bucks a day, thus only get 9 ships per day), but I've thought it won't hurt the devs pockets if rich kids blow their money away. If they use the ships in combat they'll lose them fairly soon anyhow.