I also support B2P 
Yeah! I really enjoyed them, thanks for posting them. ^^
And, definitely, yes. EnMasse does a pretty okay job of it by offering boost items that last for days at a time. But most companies would see that as losing potential income and get greedy, unfortunatelyâŚ
Shrug
For me - in the long run - the greedy companys will be left in the dust, once the consumers as a whole become resistant against such methods. It has always been so in the past, we overcome our primal hunters, then our oppressing kings, and one day we will lose our greedy companys. How long will it take? Or will i ever see the fruits? I donât know. But i know for certain that im resistant, and that is enough for me.
Thatâs a good mentality, but I also donât want to see ToS fail so Iâm a bit more anxious. Hahaha.
1 Like
PERSONAL WARNING: While it is nice that Extra Credits explains the basics of gaming business models so people can grasp it easier, I find their opinions quite situational and biased. Take their suggestions with a grain of salt.
I do agree that P2P is the better model. However, like some pointed out, I donât think ToS has the content or design model to support this. Some people already noticed, but the game seems quite linear and P2P doesnât fare well with repetitive games from the start, since people wonât want to pay monthly to do repetitive stuff. This means the community getting smaller over time and then the infamous move to F2P in a desperate attemp - that generally doesnât work - to keep the game running.
The way P2P really works, is that your community is your most valuable asset: theyâll constantly bring new players by convincing their friends the game is worth the montly fee, and this is a snowball effect, as your community grows, it tends to keep growing even larger, untilâŚ
Your players gets tired/out of content to explore. Now, the thing is that from the start your game needs to be designed to be fully enjoyed when playing in groups, this is whatâs gonna make your players busy and trying to bring their friends so they can enjoy it together. If your game canât provide this, then you probably canât support P2P.
Now, about B2P, some people seems to love it, but I find their basic argument to be a incredible fallacy. They say B2P model is better because you just pay upfront and thatâs it. But, considering some recent B2P games at launch were $60, youâre actually paying about 4 monthly fees to get on board. Even if the game was $30, if you wanted to test a P2P game, you would just pay $15 on the first month and if you outright didnât like it, you could just drop out.
And then, on itâs merits: it does keep cheaters out, moreso than P2P, actually. That is really nice. But, on the other hand, it canât live without a cash shop, which is the biggest problem F2P has.
And then, F2P. It brings the most people, but only 10% of those gives profit to the company, the so-called whales. It generally struggles to keep cheaters out, and is completely reliant on itâs cash shop.
On the cash shop itself, there is a handful of issues players and devs have with it:
-
First and foremost, the idea of cosmetic-only cash shop is nice, but it isnât what brings the most money. Items that DO impact the game, oh boy, those are the hot stuff. Publishers analyze how much they need to keep the servers running, and if they canât profit only with cosmetic-only items, theyâll surely put P2W items on market. On this matter, developers rarely have a say, itâs the publisher who decides what to do. Look up what happened to Black Desert, it was a pretty promising game which just got ruined itâs publisherâs monetizing model.
-
Cash shop actually hurts gameplay and immersion even if done âcorrectlyâ, because each headgear or cool outfit youâre buying couldâve been implemented in the game as a obscure quest reward. Remember how in Ragnarok we spent so much time farming items so we could complete that quest which would give us a really cool headgear? Now, tell me, which game that has a cash shop does this? Even Ragnarok, shortly after starting itâs cash shop, almost entirely stopped putting new headgear quests in the game, everything now goes directly to cash shop or is a event item. Obviously, said âobscure questsâ actually strenght almost every aspect of the game: exploration, hunting, quest and lore involement, competitivenessâŚ
-
This also means that developers need to spend more time making stuff to be sold on cash shop than making meaningful content, sometimes even needing to jump on marketing trends or making things up because itâs short on sales. This further deprives a game that is F2P because it canât compete in content with other P2P games in the first place. Resuming, going F2P has an extra development overhead opposed to P2P, where you only need to pay maintence costs and finance meaningful content.
Regarding model success, for F2P we have LoL, Dota2 and TF2. The thing is, those games actually donât require you to put time on them to make your character powerful or to get the best gear, you play on your pacing - you can play 1~2 matches per day or just play 10 hours straight, your characters will just stay the same, itâs you whoâre improving as a player. Not only that, but in each match you basically start anew, on this scenario P2W doesnât even make much sense, and since the match is faster, the impact wouldâve been bigger. Imagine a item to gain exp faster in a MOBA. This basically means balance and competitive play ruined.
Now, for P2P we have WoW, FFXIV and EVE Online - which a lot of people forget, but is alive and kicking for almost 13 â â â â â â â years. Meanwhile, for B2P, we have GW2. Iâve already discussed what I think about B2P, but thereâs another weakness in this model: Not only it has cash shops, but it also suffers from the same player retention problems a P2P game suffers. The reason thereâs no other successful B2P game out there is precisely that they canât keep players engaged. For examples, see The Secret World, that actually had a very big PR campaign, attracted quite a bit of attention, but then died even before hitting their release date. The game is still there, but like a zombie. Plus, in my analysis, I think GW2 wouldâve been even more successful if it actually were P2P.
To sum things up, the idea that you need to play because youâve paid a monthly fee is almost paranoid. If youâre having problems to play the game, simply cancel your subscription, give more attention to your life, and get back when you can.
PS.: Before I forget, graphics have nothing to do with this. While there are people who cares about it, the majority actually donât. Look at LoL and tell me if good graphics would make a difference for that game. Note that they were âbadâ even back in 2008.
3 Likes
Everything begins and ends. But im certain that ToS wonât fail for simple reasons. To much love has been put into it, and im certain it will live a happy and long life.
2 Likes
So to undermine your argument at: âI donât think ToS has the content or design model to support this. Some people already noticed, but the game seems quite linear(âŚ)â
It will be out job as Testers to be sure that the game is better and less linear, because it can be changed just look at the different and dynamic design they opted for, it was made to be a non-linear experience.
Obviously we can point it out, but them changing it depends on their publisherâs wishes, their budget and basically themselves, not on us at all.
Also, what I just did wasnât exactly to point it out? (;
Wrong attitude - you shouldnât say âIf you canât or wonât afford this, we donât want you here in the first place.â
Neither should you look down on people that arenât as free with their money as other people are.
That kind of attitude is sure to lose you potential customers.
The right way to go about it is like League of Legend does it - make the gameplay so addicting and fun that people feel spending (insert disposable income here) to make it more enjoyable is a fair trade.
Pay 2 Play isnât the right business model for everything, but it IS the right business model for almost all MMOs I can think of. Above videos, statistics and research all agree on this: The more people you get into the game, the more people will eventually buy.
Take me as an example: I play all of my games together with friends or family, but not all of them agree that spending ANY money is justified for a game. That means that the only game I and 5 to 7 other people will consider playing together are those that are free. I might decide to play a P2P game on the side, but the chances are slim as long as my friends are playing something else.
By putting up a pay barrier at the very start, you lose out on those people. And before you go shouting âGood, we donât want freeloaders anyways!â - 4 of those 7 people started playing league of legends with me because it was free, and all 4 spent a hundred ⏠or more during their game time in champion bundles or skins. 3 of them are still playing and occasionately buying skins.
LoL didnât âlose outâ by letting them in, they won money because those 4 wouldnât have even TRIED the game if it had asked for money up front - even if that amount would have unlocked everything and would have been less than what they ended up paying.
I can see no way this game would earn more as a P2P title than as a F2P title - if there is an argument for this, feel free to hit me up.
3 Likes
No argument on that. In fact, I support your idea.
P2P will limit the amount of players in the first place, making the game âexclusiveâ for those who can afford to pay. I donât think this is what Hakkyu wanted in the first place. He wants everyone to try, play, and enjoy the game, not the other way around.
4 Likes
Another thing to consider is from which country the core audience is, call it stupid but here in Brazil subscritption is no regarded by players well, and we know that Brazil is one of the biggest audiences for this game.
Oh look another self-entitled disciple of money. Surely just because you have access to a money source makes you a superior (self-proclaimed) âsmart guyâ.
Couldnât care less about poor people? Wow I guess you donât care much about 90% of the world population as well. You are lucky to have people that still care about you, because they are surely hard to find (1 in 10 in the best case).
Not sure about you, but I donât think most would want this game to be a rich manâs club for âsmart guysâ only.
3 Likes
Itâs a game⌠thus a luxury. You donât need games to survive. A company has every right to say âYou need to pay money to play thisâ. Itâs not some oligarchical conspiracy against poor people - and @Azebu95 is just stating that in a rather brusque yet honest way.
Also, the only reason F2P works is because of âwhalesâ (those who spend a lot of money), who basically pay for the server slots for themselves and a handful of âleechersâ (those who pay nothing and play). Itâs basically an analogy to real life where 1% of the world owns 99% of the wealth, yadda yadda. P2P just means everyone pays for their own server spot. So basically, yeah, the ârich guyâ is what makes F2P more financially viable. Thanks rich guy.
4 Likes
I actually feel this changed in the last years, particularly due to Steam. Now, brazilians arenât afraid anymore of buying their games, and we see people saying theyâll buy games on launch, even if itâs $100 or a whooping $250, like Fallout 4. Sure, not everyone can afford that - especially since our economy is stagnated, but I really canât see the monthly fee for ToS costing us more than $30. Still, thatâs not the main point of why ToS wouldnât be successful as P2P here in Brazil or anywhere else - it wouldnât because it wonât have sufficient appeal to do so, unless some structural changes are made, and to do this would cost way too much. Not to mention this might not be what the devs want at all.
Also people, please, wonât we start discussing social justice here, will we? Thatâs not the time nor place to discuss it. Even if you all think itâs relevant to the topic, it only serves to identify a consumer base better, after all weâre just discussing monetization models, not what we can do to help the poor or how entitled rich people are.
Most âpoor peopleâ also spend much more than $10 or $15 on other forms of entertainment a month, though. Mostly alcohol. So being poor isnât really an excuse. Thereâs a knee-jerk reaction to things having a subscription service, but when you really think about it you could probably come up with the money by spending less on a few other things. Learning to cook helps save a LOT of money. Eating out or buying prepared meals is at least twice as expensive as preparing the same meal yourself. Being so poor that you canât find an extra $15 a month means you probably shouldnât be wasting your time on the computer. Youâre only going to suffer later on for it. Whether by not having savings or not acquiring skills that will help you live a better life in the future.
1 Like
It is not a question of being poor, I work with entreaupenuring and busissnes, there is a really good saying for this:
âThe demand of something that is free is several times higher than something that costs one cent or more.â
1 Like
This argument is fundamentally wrong, Booze is a consumable product that doesnât need anything for you to get itâs full value. For you to get a gameâs full value you need a Computer or a console.
Is that true with F2P MMOâs though? They still technically cost money, that monetary cost is just distributed unevenly amongst players. Without people paying, the service would stop.
Also, @Naemhain 's argument depends on where you live in the world. In the UK and the Nordic countries (places I can speak for from experience), a computer is as much a right of life as food or water, so a PC game could be conflated with alcohol.
EDIT: I meant Internet access rather than a computer, as the Internet is now considered a utility in those places.
Itâs true for every service, google.com uses a free busisness model, League of legends is the most lucrative game today.
Itâs not the fact that it is an MMO, it is the ingenuity of the devs to create content to monetize.
Thatâs why the barrack system seems so cool, itâs cusomizable and expandable so they can sell a lot of cool swag for actual money, disturbing none of the gameplay experience.
Yeah, youâre right there. As long as the monetary costs donât affect a userâs access to the âserviceâ then itâs all good.
However iâd rival that Candy Crush or Angry Birds is probably more lucrative than League, but iâd hardly call the prior ones gamesâŚ