P2W again? Its like 3rd topic about $$$$ this week!
plz, buyz and gurlz, let the IMCGames release game, then start talk about it that much.
I read your post and looked at the funny pictures but honestly, I’m not sure what your problem is. I can only assume that you either think that
A - Designers, Programmers, Musicians and Artists magically get money from a magical money fairy that rains cash down on their heads while they work day by day.
So any method to monetize on a mmorpg is evil, because, the developers already have enough money for themself and their families anyway.
or B - that only Pay 2 Play is the one true way of playing an mmorpg - it will only allow the wealthy people to play and have them throw their money out of the window basically, but who cares.
and yes, that’s my take on B because I grew up in a time where when you paied for a game, you actually had a hard copy of it, with booklet and case and you didn’t need to ask a server if you may play, you could play whenever you want.
As much as I like mmorpgs, they are technically a big bowl full of “nothingness” to the consumer. A throwback to times when people had to go to the cinema to watch a movie, istead of buying tapes / DVDs / Blu Rays. In cinema, you pay for an expeience for a limited time, go home and have nothing. If you actually BUY a DVD, you take it home with you and can watch it whenever you want.
Similar with micro payment shop. If you buy something via micro payment, you can keep it forever. Not physical, but at least in the free game.
Summary.
Badong = Bad base game > money/time > Better base/end game.
Gnodab = Basic base game > money/time > Better end game.
Well, detailed explanations are appreciated, but there’s more ways to do it, be it F2P, B2P or P2P.
Case 1 : GUILD WARS 2.
Expenditure of real cash from a player only exists to buy Ascended Gear, Boosters, cosmetics and a special mode stat (Agony Resist).
Ascended Gear is easy to farm, even to a casual.
Boosting to 80? Even casuals don’t need that.
Most of the cosmetics in the game aren’t cash-only and the ones that are just mean you need to put in time to earn them without paying out of your pocket.
Agony Resist is a stat specifically used to do a dungeon to get materials for more cosmetic stuff, optional Ascended accessories that can be gotten by other methods, completely irrelevant to gear stats, PvP or other forms of PvE. (least, far as I’m aware)
They basically made a good base game for a low (and sometimes 50% off) entry price.
Then they proceeded to limit the upper cap for stat/gear power to the point where practically everyone has reached ‘endgame’ where most games would consider it mid-game.
I am aware many complain about this limitation, but it is a form of MMO business that manages to reward both low-paying and high-paying players.
To put it different, the ‘wall’ is placed elsewhere. This is actually a tactical gain for GW2, emphasizing on social aspects of the game while maintaining the joy of play through cosmetics, mechanics, story and worthwhile in-game events.
Edit : It should be mentioned that GW2 is an unusual case in that it is an astoundingly high-finishing game.
Not many games ever matched the level of finishing GW2 possesses, be it in the game’s economy, social system, combat, gear, progression or whatever else.
I’m convinced y’all know the other examples.
(those listed here are listed for their alternative* variety of successful business models)
i.e. PoE, Warframe(though I loathe their business practices), Tera (despite what anyone might say, this counts), PSO2.
*may include the one(s) mentioned by OP.
A-There are a lot of fair ways to monetize content, there is no part in this post where I assume the Wall is the only type of content monetization.
There are a few problems, I think, with the premise of the OP relative to the following assertion:
First and foremost, I am not an authority when it comes to the field of game design or the normative academic pursuits implied therein, but I’ve never heard anyone who’s interested in game design assert that psychology courses of any kind comprise a major part of their curriculum, or any part of it at all, for that matter.
When you go on to say THIS:
You are (possibly unintentionally) describing a scenario of constrained optimization based on resource scarcity - a fundamental principle of microeconomics. Herein we come to the main problem I have with your theory.
The “Wall” phenomenon you’re describing is not, as you say:
What is it, then? Simple: it is the means by which the company that designed, developed, and provides the good in question (a video game, in this case) aims to make a profit.
To reiterate, for clarity’s sake: the “game designers” (and their superiors) are part of a corporation - a business - whose ultimate goal is to make profit. In your post you say:
So it almost seems like you understand this, but almost immediately afterward, you contradict yourself and say:
First of all, they are not “manipulating the game to get a little profit”; rest assured they are doing everything in their power to maximize their profits at all time - any corporation that isn’t doing so is run by someone who doesn’t know what they’re doing, and will most likely end up out of business sooner rather than later.
Based on the aforementioned point, we can attain the following as a logical corollary (albeit a very simplified one):
As a business (a “producer”) their goal is:
1.) To offer (“produce”) a good or service that people (consumers) desire
2.) To set a price for that good or service such that people are willing to pay for it
3.) To make that good or service readily available to the people willing to pay for it
4.) To prolong (1), (2), and (3); that is, achieve and retain equilibrium
Selling things like EXP Boosts isn’t an “evil” practice or anything of the sort. It’s just business. To make a profit, they have to charge you for something. Instead of charging you to play the game, you’re being offered a good - an item that decreases the amount of time that you spend grinding.
It’s a trade-off. Ultimately, you decide which is more valuable to you: the extra hours spent grinding, or the $5 (or however much) it costs to buy the EXP boost?
This may all seem like rudimentary economic theory, and that’s because it is. The problem with your reasoning arises when you make statements like this:
Which basically says “if you don’t agree with how I think X company should do business, you’re just an idiot playing right into their evil money-grubbing hands”
This is foolish enough in itself, but then comes THIS:
“Fair”? We’re getting into fairness now? What has that got to do with their profits? And “fair” according to whose standards, exactly? Should they consider your definition of “fairness” to be the rubric by which they design their financial models? If so, why? Can your model theoretically make them more money than theirs? Can you prove this?
Consider: if there we as many “fair” ways to monetize content (whilst maximizing profit) as you claim, do you really think they would need to offer what you consider to be “unfair” methods?
Furthermore, this has already been pointed out in this thread, but the premise of your entire theory, the idea that a video game designer would intentionally create a “bad experience” purely for the purpose of juxtaposing it against a superior experience is absurd.
No one is going to persist in playing a game that they consider to be bad, and “freebies” will neither change that nor entice people into spending money on your game regularly. What’s actually going to happen is people are going to drop the game as soon as they decide it’s bad, irrespective of that free 7-day EXP boost or free mount you gave them.
2 Likes
I really don’t understand how there are folks out there who expect to play a game and experience it to its fullest extent, without paying a dime.
Its the equivalent of downloading games off torrents instead of purchasing them.
Yes, mmos/game producers will do what they have to in order to make money, because it is after all a business aimed at making money, you are the customer purchasing entertainment, they are the ones selling it to you.
How they go on about putting a strategy together in order to pull in customers to pay for their hard work and all the money invested in making the game (and to provide you with a better service) is by no means in any way “Evil” or “Disgusting”
If they have gone as far as giving you an option to play a game, COMPLETELY for free, but provide a better experience/service to those who actually support them with money, then they are actually going out of their way to let people try the game before they decide to spend money on it.
They absolutely have no obligation whatsoever to do that, and in the case that this game does not turn out to be successful(which i doubt) then they would probably have made a lot more money by making this game purchase to play since you’ve got a huge hype and probably a large amount of RO fans who believe blindly in this game.
I’d rather support a company who goes out of its way to provide me with a free service with an option to pay rather than demonize its strategy of making money in order to survive and/or make profit and call it “Evil” and “Disgusting”
Heck, I’m being given a chance to see what the game would be like after I pay for it, before I actually pay anything, and I have an option to walk away without paying a dime, after I’ve experienced the game, whether I had an xp boost/payer benefits or not.
3 Likes
Have some integrity.
Have some integrity.