F2P problem to be? - Page 3

**Malorn** · 2012-06-02, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Malorn, just curious about something. There was a leaked speech from one of EA's investor meetings and the guy basically said two things of extreme interest about microtransactions:
1. He said that HE paid a lot of money per year on them(he either said $1500 or $5000, can't remember which)
2. He made a comment about how when the player is in the middle of a firefight and needs to reload, they've got you(ie, charging for bullets).

One of my first thoughts was, you know, if you provide an MMO quality game(ie, a large scale persistent world) like PS2 is doing, I will be willing to pay around the equivalent of what a monthly sub would be, $200 per year or so. And I thought, we aren't all EA CEOs that can spend $5000 or even $1500 per year on bullets.

What do you think about that? Not necessarily that SOE is going to do this, but could that be something to fear elsewhere in the industry?

I think that guy is an idiot who doesn't understand his customers.

Like that CEO, I pay a lot of money for games because its my hobby and I have disposable income. But I didn't always have that. I used to be a poor college kid like most gamers. At one point I relied almost exclusively on my parents for gaming funds, and they didn't just hand over money on request. Today's restricted-income player is tomorrow's disposable income player. Treating everyone like disposable income players is a terrible practice and a failed business model.

In the video I posted above they explain that F2P and microtransactions offer you the flexibility to appeal to players of all spending habits. You'll get the fat cats that can throw down $500, and the guys who only want to spend $5. Today's younger players who don't have disposable income or credit cards will have those things at some point in the future. By trying to swindle players into paying more they're only going to lose would-be paying customers and cause their player base to shrink.

DDO was a subscription-based game that went F2P with a good mictotransaction model. Not only did they manage to have a much larger player base, but they also gained far more revenue than they did as a subscription model. This is all because of increased volume of players and the fact that people are willing to spend money. Some only spent $5, others spent a lot more.

Players are the content <- this should be etched into the entrance hallway of SOE so every employee never forgets it.

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-02, 04:07 PM

Im willing to spend a lot of money to get my max to look similar to this dude.

That one noob · 2012-06-03, 05:59 AM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Im willing to spend a lot of money to get my max to look similar to this dude.

Needs more dakka.

Logri · 2012-06-02, 04:10 PM

After hearing Higby talk about micro transactions, and the way he talked out it, I'm pretty confident they are on top of their game.

At present I'm not concerned at all.
(never know what could happen along the line though)

nomotog · 2012-06-02, 05:47 PM

There is a little worry about pay to win. It would be a really stupid move and that's why I don't think they will do it.

Now when it comes to funding the game with customization, Ya they totally can do that. PS2 even has a advantage in this department. The huge number of things you can customize means people will be buying things well after the first few months. Then when people have bought up all of the lightning's hood ornaments, you just release a new vehicle for people to pimp out.

Fanglord · 2012-06-02, 05:50 PM

Just gotta hope they dont 'Tribes' it.

nomotog · 2012-06-02, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Fanglord

Just gotta hope they dont 'Tribes' it.

What's wrong with tribes?

Sledgecrushr · 2012-06-02, 06:14 PM

Tribes has introduced several new weapons to the game. They are all overpriced and overpowered.

SpcFarlen · 2012-06-02, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Sledgecrushr

Tribes has introduced several new weapons to the game. They are all overpriced and overpowered.

Until the nerf. They did okay on the latest (thank god).

But ya people are more willing to spend 15 bucks a month to pimp their character out rather than pay to play... to then pimp their character out. Its the whole long term over short term gains thing. People want instant gratification. F2P with micro transactions does that.

Ive already set aside a fund for PS2, partially because if it is good, i want to be able to support them to make it even greater. And having some unique items along the way aint half bad.

I really like the F2P because it also expands the playerbase. A lot of times i had to stop paying for a game, say WoW back in the day, because i needed rent and food money that month. So it allows a much larger audience to play and enjoy.

Envenom · 2012-06-02, 09:52 PM

Well, someone posted a video in another thread (GDC Pt. 4... I believe) that showed off a few clips from the in-game store. From the footage shown the prices ranged from 250-550 in station cash. Station cash = 100 points = $1 USD.

So from that model most of the weapons shown in the video were roughly $2.50 -$5.50. That seems reasonable to me.

Aaramus · 2012-06-03, 05:40 AM

F2P seems to be where the market is heading towards at the moment from what I've seen. There more of an incentive to pay when you are actually going to get something back rather than just access to the game.

I think its safe to say that players would rather pay £10 a month to make their character look unique and get some cool looking skinsm than just pay for the access to the game itself and nothing else.

SKYeXile · 2012-06-03, 05:47 AM

You guys are free to p(l)ay whatever way you like.

Sabot · 2012-06-03, 05:49 AM

I'm not worried... I remember Higby saying that, regarding subscriptions "we don't do that anymore." Which would imply that they really have proof that F2P is more profitable... and the only way it can be more profitable, is they have fair and reasonable micro-trasactions.

Basically.. they look at what EA does, and do the exact opposite. :P

Antivide · 2012-06-04, 03:58 AM

If they make certs such a grind to get that you're better off paying money, I'm jumping ship.

Not saying they will, just threatening that I will.

F2P games have burned a lot of people, even those that spend money on them.

Fafnir · 2012-06-04, 04:17 AM

Originally Posted by Antivide

If they make certs such a grind to get that you're better off paying money, I'm jumping ship.

Not saying they will, just threatening that I will.

F2P games have burned a lot of people, even those that spend money on them.

The good sign is, that they are looking at League of Legends F2P model. That game really has good balance, when it comes to grinding IP (F2P cash). There were some issues with expensive rune pages and there are issues now with increased initial cost of champions, but no one who is actively playing has any good reason to complain. Hell, they even give refunds, if you don't like what you bought for real money (one time only though).