Announcements
Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.
It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
It doesn't have to be the only way, or even a necessary way ... but it is a FAMILIAR way that has the benefit of being Tried And True simply because it's been done before, tested before, and shown to work before. Additionally, degradation of gear is something that can be "tweaked" in numerous small ways so as to fine tune "HOW" gear degrades (all at once or bit by bit), what "CAUSES" gear to degrade (Death Penalty, simple Wear & Tear from taking damage, hours played, all of the above), to what the "COST" of counteracting that degradation will be (replacement, combination with existing, buy from a vendor, bid on the market, crafting, etc.).
So let me give you an example of how this could potentially work.
The [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/29594#comment-29594]Enhancement System I Proposed[/url] (because I'm just crazy that way) would functionally contain all of 11 Enhancement types ... 10 of which can be slotted:
So ... with a City of Heroes styled "slot your Enhancements" system for "gear" in the game ... what do you have that can be "degraded" on such "gear" in order to enforce the necessary depreciation? Two things.
[list][*]Enhancement Destruction
[*]Enhancement Demotion[/list]
Enhancement Destruction would be exactly what it sounds like ... POOF it's gone, go get another one to replace it entirely.
Enhancement Demotion, however, [i]in a City of Heroes context[/i] wouldn't mean reducing from SO to DO to TO. Instead it would mean [i]dropping the Level on the Enhancement[/i] by -1. So a Level 50 Enhancement would get Demoted down to being a Level 49 Enhancement. Let this kind of thing go on too long without action/response and your Enhancements will demote themselves into turning red and no longer offering any effect(s) at all.
So ... how would Enhancement Demotion be countered? Simple ... by [url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Enhancements#Combining_Enhancements]Combining Enhancements[/url] to raise the Level on the Enhancements back up by +1. I know that once Inventions came along and effectively "obsoleted" the Enhancement Combination System in City of Heroes because people stopped using TO/DO/SO/HO Enhancements, but the functionality remained in the game all the way to the end, even if hardly anyone ever used it.
In my Enhancement System Design, there's only 10 types of Enhancements that can be slotted, and to combine Enhancements you just need two of the same kinds of Enhancements (Damage + Damage, for example) or you use the Universal Enhancement for one of them to stand in as a wildcard. Combinations only "happen" in a Slot that already has an Enhancement in it (so it doesn't happen inside the Inventory Tray, for example). Point being that with a 10+1 array of Enhancement Types (instead of the 26 that City of Heroes had!) being able to get a drop that you can combine with SOMETHING in your build would be a relatively simple proposition [i]when using common loot drop enhancements[/i], such that being able to counteract Enhancement Demotion would be a fairly simple and routine task.
The point of such a system however would be that rather than being a "pure" currency sink, instead what you'd have is a "gear" sink system that continues to operate even at the Level Cap, so that the Loot Drops of Enhancements has somewhere to "go" besides getting dumped on NPC Vendors for INF that then winds up sloshing around through the rest of the in-game economy, generating inflationary pressures. It also "ensures" that once a Player gets a character to "the top of their game" (ie. the Level Cap) that simply "being there" isn't a static and unchanging experience in which you've "beaten the game" and there's never going to be a need to "maintain" your power levels ever again once you've finalized your build. In other words, Life At The Level Cap isn't just a "free ride" on eternal gear that never suffers damage in any way and never needs replacing or "maintenance" because you've simply run out of "UP" on earning more Levels.
Remember, we need to have Sinks not just for Currencies but also for Looted Items!
When the only sink you've got for looted items is NPC Vendors, you just turn a surplus of one commodity into a surplus of a different currency, creating inflationary pressures. These pressures get compounded at the Level Cap when you've got loot dropping that no one needs (or makes use of) other than as Vendor Bait.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Because then heroes will be all "Well, let the villains destroy the city, see how much that costs them."
What? Join a government force? Be told what to do by someone who outranks us, and be happy with it? Though the base rent seems good. Though to make it worthwhile, you'd just have people complaining.
True, I hadn't considered the need for an item sink.
Any way you go you'll have somebody complaining about something. And yes I know not everybody is going to be strictly Black and White where heroes will feel responsible for the city and all the damage that is done to it and want to compensate for it. I know you'll have your Wolverines and Rorschachs that don't give a crap and will say the hell with it or buck authority because screw you. I'm not saying those things should be implemented in stone, I was just making alternative suggestions to try to think outside of the normal MMO box of money sinks being degrading gear that needs to be repaired or replaced all of the time.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Well, to be fair, I don't think Rorschach and Wolverine cause that much property damage. :p
But with the moral alignment, I already figure there will be the gauntlet of heroes and villains.
Perhaps some degree of 'intentional' degredation? Like some sort of power-up that boosts damage for a few minutes, but if you do it too many times your enhancements effectively drop a level? Perhaps if they drop by two levels the boost can no longer be used..
[color=#ff0000]Composition Team[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
What will make a subscription worth buying...AN AWESOME CHAIN POWERSET!
Don't do this, all it will encourage is the transferring of inf to other characters or second accounts and drive people away from the game if that doesn't work. People play to avoid real life and taxes like this sound too much like RL for me.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
No, no, not taxes. Certainly not "wealth taxes" that are directly "you have X currency, so we'll debit it from your character faster than if you had X/2 currency for no reason other than you have it." Though AH trades might have cuts taken out based on percentages, that's the limit of that.
What I mean is, have high-end sinks that are expensive to even acquire, then expensive to maintain. As an example, have bases have geometric or even exponential costs - rents - as they get bigger. Keep the small-to-medium end affordable even to relative newbies, gauged based primarily on expected wealth-by-level curves through the first "few" levels (as a ballpark, I'd say at least through level 10). As bases get bigger, the costs to buy and maintain more space, power, etc. for them to make them have more room and more ability to support "stuff" would grow super-linearly (as I said, geometrically or exponentially). So there is no upper limit to base size, but getting it bigger becomes harder and harder, and naturally drains more and more currency out of the economy.
Now, the converse of this is still the "what happens when you can't afford it anymore?" problem, which is especially concerning regarding supergroups and a snowball effect of shrinkage. That will take some thought to make as palatable as possible. But I fear that there's really no way to have our cake and eat it, too, here: we can't have meaningful currency sinks and never let those who stop affording them feel the pinch. Supergroup bases, as opposed to individual ones, may require special considerations on several levels, anyway, though.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I think he was referring to costs being linked to "earning power".
Examples:
Fully Purpled IOd Level 50 character would pay more than the frankenslotted IO'd character who would pay more than the generic IO slotted character who would pay more than the SO'd character.
Auction house prices scale not just on the price of what you are putting up, but also have modifiers for item rarity and type of item put up (so that two items that are on the AH for the same price might not necessarily have the same deposit prices. The more "common" item, would have a lower base deposit price associated as well).
Bases: Base rent is based on usable items that you have put into it (so the more teleporters, rez stations, storage vaults etc etc). The more you have, the higher the rent is.
Appearance changes: This price would scale up not just on what you needed changing, but also your character level.
Travel costs: Costs to the "higher level" zones would be higher than a trip to a low level zone, even if both trips take the same amount of time.
Also potentially neat ideas. Ones that need thorough examination, but not bad TO examine!
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Although I would be shot for saying this... most of those come from WoW. The bases one was what I thought it was like in CoX (I don't know, I was never head of an SG, so base rent was not my cup of tea, nor did I really find a reason to use bases).
That's the funny thing about in-game economies ... [b][i]it's all connected[/i][/b].
There's basically two ways to deal with that sort of approach, which are not exclusionary of each other:
1. Area of Effect attacks are more "expensive" to use, since they inflict wider collateral damage to the environment.
2. Character Alignments enforce/negate such "costs" in a continuum along their scales.
So just to give the polar opposite cases for illustration purposes of point 2 ... imagine a super "Hero" type (maximum Law, maximum Integrity, minimal Violence) and a crazy mad bomber "Villain" type (minimum Law, minimum Integrity, maximal Violence). The "Hero" would be "paying" for all the damages caused [i]by themselves and by the Foes they defeat[/i] because that's their shtick. The "Villain" meanwhile wouldn't be "paying" out squat for all the damages they causes [i]because massive property damage is the entire point of what they do[/i]!
Okay, I hear you saying, so the Hero gets penalized while the Villain gets off scot free ... how is that fair? To which the answer is ... ah, but what are the rewards for doing what the Hero and the Villain *do*? If the Hero's rewards are higher (thus helping recoup the losses incurred while "doing their job") and the Villain's rewards are lower (because they aren't being "billed" for the mayhem they cause) ... then it's possible to "balance" the high cost/high rewards with the low cost/low rewards such that the profit margins for actions and activities in either direction become relatively comparable (if not exactly "equal" or even, just close enough).
Then throw in the wrinkle that indiscriminate use of Area of Effect attacks can "cost you more" as a Hero than use of Single Target attacks might, and you start getting a peculiar economic incentive going on in which use of (only) the most powerful attacks at your disposal [i]isn't necessarily the most "economical" choice you can make[/i] and you start seeing a dynamic that can only be described as effectively "punishing the use of EXCESSIVE force" in apprehending Foes. Best example [b]EVER[/b] illustrating this principle has to be ... [b][i][url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R03Dtu1r6nk]THIS CLIP[/url][/i][/b].
Point being that it could be [i]theoretically possible[/i] to balance the game in such a way as to create this sort of push/pull dynamic in *HOW* people play the game (ie. with "restraint" or without it). Actually *achieving* that balance however would be unbelievably hard to DO and to maintain as the game grows and evolves (insert curse of min/maxing here). The iterations of playtesting alone in order to "game out" the outcomes and balance the multipliers would be ... long and arduous. So although it theoretically COULD be done this way, I'm not at all convinced that it would necessarily be [b]*WISE*[/b] to do things this way (which is a whole other question).
Beamrider, you're looking at reasons for WHY such gear degradation would be enforced and HOW that might manifest. I'm first looking at the question of whether gear degradation [b]should be happening AT ALL (Y/N)[/b], because there are plenty of people even here in this thread (and others) who will reflexively answer that question with a resounding "NO" followed by assertions that gear degradation is "UNFUN" and that they're going to quit the game if it gets implemented somehow/someway.
Once it has been decided whether gear degradation ought to be happening at all ... THEN you can move on towards having a discussion about HOW and WHY and HOW MUCH and all the other questions that flow from a decision to incorporate gear degradation into the underlying structure of how the game "works" and what effects that decision will have on the in-game economy.
My argument is that you can't afford to NOT have gear degradation on the basis of what it does to the in-game economy through the interactions of supply and demand as well as the inflationary effects in game currency of having "tons" of loot dropping with no sink to absorb it other than as Vendor Bait. That's because I maintain that every item/reward that gets dropped or awarded as cash or inventory NEEDS to have some sort of "sink" that consumes and "destroys" all of the stuff that gets "generated" within the game (at least by [i]category[/i], if not necessarily by [i]quantity[/i]). Inadequate sinking of all too easy generation of reward(s) is the root cause of runaway inflation pressures inside in-game economies.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
A game that is how mature? These are not entry level for a game that hasn't been made yet and for which currency hasn't even been generated.
If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev
Ok whilst I don't want item degradation at all, we don't even have a game yet.
We don't have any metrics to base any kind of inflation on.
The tons of loot drops can be controlled by the devs removing this as an issue.
On the subject of item degradation, CoX did not have this. There will be no buy-in from CoX players for this.
But don't take my word for it, we should surveymonkey the subscriber base and ask them outright what they think about individual ideas.
If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev
Most of those were in at *LAUNCH* for WoW.... the travel costs, the "Rarity of gear you are wearing affecting repair costs", the "AH deposit change according to what you put up"
Those were in at launch.
The appearance change, that came later (when they introduced that into the game). The whole Bases thing *isnt* in WoW (yet).
It was however in CoX.
The rest of the large list that I put up, have had those charges associated with them when they were introduced into the game... or were already taken into account when the game was generated.
*edit* In response to your 2nd post, it would be foolhardy to NOT at least consider something like it though. Even if it is at the "high level" end.
However, the thing is if you DON'T consider it, and then once the game is launched it has to be jerry rigged in, there is then the balancing act of trying to get it to work properly.
And remember how much us players hate it when developers change stuff after the fact of it being launched....
Base rent was cheap. To cheap to be a money sink in CoH.
No I agree they should be considered.
We've considered it.. move along.
If we want inf sinks, we first need to have too much inf.
Controlling inf gain can be done by limiting mission payouts, by vendors paying peanuts for your trash drops, by vendors selling gear for higher amounts.
Standard fodder.
What happens is that you run out of things you want. You run more missions than the devs planned for and you end up with a pile of cash.
Not in and of itself a bad thing.
Before the AH who cared how much money you had?
Bunches of people burned it in inf-prestige conversion for bragging rights or bigger bases with more stuff.
But if we put all this stuff in at the beginning we're all going to end up with negative money after the first mission which wont be a problem because.....
you can buy inf with stars.
That's one of those slopes covered in slippery stuff.
If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev
[url=http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/279/2/9/soviet_facepalm_by_metalling-d4bzrzf.png]/em facepalm[/url]
[img]http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/279/2/9/soviet_facepalm_by_metalling-d4bzrzf.png[/img]
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
The property of inflation will happen no matter how much money comes from playing the game. As long as there is more money in the market and people in that same perpetual market, the amount of money over time for the user will increase.
Inflation WILL happen unless there is a finite amount of $ each character is allowed (which already sounds like is not going to happen due to us talking about the Auction market and such)
Crowd Control Enthusiast
One of the things I've proposed is having base rent start relatively cheap, but get progressively more expensive per unit of expansion as you get continually bigger. Rather than a linear growth of price-to-space/power/whatever, it is geometric or exponential.
As an example, if the number of units of space you have in your base is squared to determine the cost in currency per month for rent, a 1-unit base would be 1 currency/month, while a 10-unit base would be 100 currency/month, and a 50-unit base would be 2500 currency/month. It gets more expensive FASTER than it gets bigger. A 100-unit base would be 10,000 currency/month.
Note, this is an example; if that's still too cheap to make a difference, we could make it even steeper. (If it's too pricey for too little, too, we can make it cheaper or start it slower, maybe going for (x/10)^2 instead of x^2.)
So there are ways to make it not so cheap that it is negligible to the big spenders without making it prohibitive to the newbie.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
This post is correct in its core premise: inflation will happen as long as players can generate currency faster than they can spend it. "They" being "all of the players as a whole," in this case. And "spend" being "sink," rather than "on the AH."
If we provide enough attractive currency sinks with ongoing costs, however, I think we might be able to establish a much slower rate of inflation. If we manage to establish some sinks that are available or of variable cost that are still attractive enough, we might even be able to flush it a bit when we see inflation creeping up however we deem "too high." The trick is to make it purely voluntary when that happens, though. It'd have to be sinks in the form of major one-off toys people could buy, which go away after they've served their purpose.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Which is why WoW has the expensive mounts that you can buy in game (and associated skills as well). Its also a downside for expansion content being released once every 2 years.... that is a LONG time for players to accrue money in.... and it has to be spent somehow.
I still want the 100,000 Gold "mammoth vendor" mount (if i remember correctly).
I acknowledge the concerns others have voiced, but there's a part of me that likes this idea. It would address one of the concerns I've had throughout this money sink discussion. The reason inflation is bad is because it makes items too expensive to buy, correct? But if we take too much money away via sinks, that can leave a character with too little money to buy even an averagely-priced item -- same result. I don't know how one implements this to keep it fair and prevent sink-avoidance practices, but if you can pull it off it seems like a good idea to me.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Segev,
I like the idea of exponentially increasing base cost linked to size, complexity etc, nice!
Another game sink I actually wished for was slot-able temporary powers. I always wanted a little extra accuracy, recharge, reduced endurance etc on some of the temp powers maybe 3-4 slots. Great for that "money" burning a hole your pocket. And maybe consider no endurance for devices/weapons with charges.
Concerning "inflation" The game could also just compute the influence gained at higher levels to lower amounts. Still some inflation is natural in any market. And partially mentioned before, buying at the C-store, merits, recipe drops, self-crafting with AE components, and other sources like trading provided other options for obtaining high level enchantments/IOs.
Now that I think about it self-crafting was almost a game onto itself (loads of fun once you knew what you wanted). The same could probably be said about the auction house (once you figured it out).
Yeah, inflation tends to be a problem because it makes markets inaccessible to newbies. That's the biggest thing. The "oh, inflation has pumped up the numbers" aspect is fodder for a few chuckles, but doesn't really hurt anything in an MMO. The problems are that it makes vendor stuff no longer really part of the gameplay for anybody but newbies, and it makes the market inaccessible to newbies who are just interested in doing a little trading.
The first problem is obvious in cause: when anybody who's played for any length of time (long enough to get that first "rare drop" that sells moderately well on the market), they have enough wealth to just buy anything they want from vendors. Vendors aren't mini-games of resource-management any longer. The second problem is equally obvious: inflation doesn't actually increase the rate with which currency enters the game in the hands of new players; it arises from currency entering the game in experienced people's hands and staying there, so new players are getting rewards that are the equivalent of fifty cents every hour or so while the prices in the market are in the equivalent of hundreds of millions of dollars. Worse, newbies are more likely to be getting item-drops that are sold by vendors, so they can't even sell them on the market for more than the vendor sells them, which is, as mentioned before, chump change to non-newbies.
Both of these problems also make the actual in-game drops of currency less and less of a reward and more and more of either an ignorable nothing or, worse, a slight slap in the face reminding them just how far they are from buying anything they really want.
Unfortunately, the "obvious" simple solutions are often things that just make the problem worse: raise vendor prices to sink currency, and now newbies are excluded from vendors, too. Cut the rate at which currency enters the game by cutting rewards, and newbies are the most hurt.
Even high-end currency sinks are not entirely effective, because one of the inflationary forces is the willingness of certain kinds of players (some of whom, but not all of whom, are RMTs/gold sellers) to grind for currency as hard as they can. They only have more incentive to do so the more high-end currency sinks there are, because if the currency sinks are effective, people WANT to pay for them, which means that they either grind it up themselves or they patronize the RMT. In the system I'm proposing, the grinding to sell currency to players who spend money to buy it won't be prevented, either...it just will hopefully keep the trading in-game and away from third parties (as players will be able to sell to each other, trading Stars for in-game currency).
Minotaur's raised a valid concern that the [i]behavior[/i] of gold-farmers in-game is something to be stamped out, as they have toxic behaviors on top of their inflationary effects. This is probably a subject for another thread, particularly with emphasis on how we expect behavior of legitimate but determined gold farmers (the kind selling currency for Stars) to differ from that of the dreaded RMT, and what problematic behaviors to watch for from each. (I doubt, for example, that non-RMTs would do the chat-spam thing. They won't have a web site to advertise, for one thing.)
But, ongoing temptations to spend your currency - Dinma's idea of vendor-sold temp powers would count - and ways to make the high-wealth players who've accumulated massive amounts of in-game currency still feel that they're operating at the edge of their budget (exponentially-increasing rents for linearly-growing bases, as an example) will be more effective, I think, at fighting inflation. The constant destruction of currency as people spend it, and the increasing rate of currency-destruction at the high end, will put breaks on the inflationary forces. And it makes the high-end marketeers help with the sinking of currency, as they're the ones who accumulate the "big bucks" and thus would have the means and desire to spend on the heaviest currency sinks...and so they hoover up the money from the market and help us sink it faster.
Oh, one more thought on exponential costs for growing bases and the "lose income/members, be sad as the base starts shrinking" problem: The logarithmic curve in base size relative to wealth/membership works both ways. That is, if you get your SG base to Really Big and are having to add 12 new members before you can even get another room added on, you're to a point where [i]losing[/i] 10 members won't deplete your actual base size by all that much. Likewise, if you've got a base you're spending a billion currency per month on, and you wind up with only half a billion to spend next month, you lose way, way less of your overall base than if you had one you were spending 100 currency a month on and suddenly only had 50 currency to spend on it.
So the depletion at the high end is slower, as well. You grow fast in the beginning of your upswing from "poor" to "rich" or "small" to "big," and if you suffer a hiccup, you shrink more slowly at the beginning of your "fall" (which also gives you more time to turn things around and PREVENT that fall before any snowball effects kick in).
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
That's what I thought when I was trying to level the Mastermind I'd been neglecting. Players kept agitating for the Hero and Villain markets to be merged. Since he was replacing SOs and occasionally buying recipes on the Black Market, my Mastermind didn't have much money, so the last thing I would want to see was the outrageous hero-side market pricing him out of IOs.
As it actually turned out, he was able to get fairly wealthy selling junk on the BM once the markets merged, and I didn't have to mail any money to him to slot at least a few rares and ultra-rares when he finally hit 50.
Currency in City of Heroes may have been intended as a nuisance and a chore, but the fact that there was an adequate supply of it meant that it succeeded at not being something so stupid. Instead it became a sort of metaphorical oil bath, lubricating the exchange of goods like recipes and inspirations that the players actually had a use for.
If we must have anti-inflationary measures, I hope they're not effective enough to make leveling a new character (especially for a new player) frustrating. When I was leveling that MM and fearing inflation, I was too clueless to notice that the reason he was poor was that the Rogue Isles were in a recession. I guess I'm worried now that characters in CoT will be kept so poor that leveling a new character will become a grind, since they would be getting hit by at least some of the burdensome expenses that keep experienced characters from becoming sources of wealth, and there are no sugar daddies or venture capitalists.
If we must have anti-inflationary measures, I don't want to see the item sinks, base rent, and enhancement rent that have been suggested, at all. I can only see two possibilities: Either they are effective at preventing any characters from becoming rich, or they aren't.
If there are rich characters, then we have (hand-waving) whatever mysterious problems arise from modeling an inflationary post-apocalyptic pseudo-economy instead of a recessive PAPE. Aside: if we must have an economic simulator, I'd rather it simulate an industrial civilization than Dark Age fantasy, but I don't have any skill to work out how that would be implemented in a fun way. I'm thinking that it couldn't be done, except in City of Railroad Tycoon or something.
If automatically recurring expenses are enough to keep characters from becoming rich, then I have two choices: Keep playing that purpled-out warshade (with his downtown skyscraper base) that I worked for years and years to build, until I'm so sick of the treadmill that I flood the market with all his money and gear and cancel my account, or strip him now to finance my alts, flooding the market sooner. Shelving a character isn't an option, because if anyone could afford to retire or take a long vacation, they could afford to do whatever it is that wealthy characters are meant to be prevented from doing.
You raise a good point about the ongoing costs and "taking a vacation." While most of your concerns, I hope, will be mitigated by keeping the currency sinking effects as simply always having more and more expensive things on which one can spend currency (thus making the rich PCs always have something to spend it on without making it so that the "cheap" stuff is inaccessible to the non-wealthy), the concern that you raise about your "purpled-out Warshade" being unable to save his money without losing everything he has is valid.
Tying recurring costs to time-spent-playing would be closer to ideal, as it would mean your rich PC with expensive-to-maintain toys isn't forcing you to play him RIGHT NOW rather than your new alt about whom your excited. It would be a little risky in that it would contribute to the idea that "just logging on to RP" might be a bad idea, however, since that would be time you're not "earning" your upkeep. So it's a problem to examine for solutions, and I appreciate you bringing it up.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I should add: it's not about keeping players from becoming rich. It's about preventing there from being inflation that makes "rich" an artificial term which separates from the "poor" primarily by the fact that the things the rich people spend money on don't actually reduce the money flowing around the "rich" people's collective coffers, while the "poor" can't even afford the price of entry. A healthy industrial economy has a continuum of people at all eschelons and is characterized by mobility (both up and down, but on the whole up). The "poor" have reasonable expectation of getting to "less poor" and then "middle class" at the very least, just by playing the game, and have a continuum of things on which they can spend their earnings at all levels.
The problem arises when inflation causes "only marketeers" to be able to afford things on the market, and simultaneously causes vendors to be a non-issue once you pass a certain point. True wealth is not measured in how much currency you have; it's measured in your buying power. When inflation causes the buying power of the "rich" to stay the same but diminishes the buying power of the "poor," that's where the problems arise. (It happens because the "rich" keep accumulating the increasingly inflated currency and look ever-richer, but really just keep being able to afford the same stuff they could before without feeling a pinch; the poor, on the other hand, find their currency draining faster compared to how it is coming in because they don't have the tools to engage in hoovering it up through alternate means. So they can buy less and less with their small income.)
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I am in the mindset of "costs are linked to what you do over time" is a better way to do it. It also works with item degradation, because RP is generally "non combat", you can RP to your hearts content.
However, you draw your weapon/prep for combat. then it could be worthwhile to remember that you might well have to pay something (ie RP is free, because you typically *cannot* earn anything just by RP), whilst "time spent in combat" which can earn you cash is the one that can have associated "upkeep costs" with.
Another thing to watch, I had a SG on Victory with about 50 members. 40+ of them were toons on my main account (which had all 48 slots on Victory in use), a few were on my second account and 2 or 3 belonged to other people. You might want to consider the number of accounts involved rather than the number of toons, as a SG with 50 chars on 50 different accounts has a much higher earning potential.
Having fallen victim to the base rent problem before they were reduced in CoH where we just couldn't maintain a usable base when most people gave up the game, I really don't want to see that happen again. Once you've bought the stuff (particularly if it uses stuff that's hard to get), it should not be expensive to maintain. As an option, rather than paying rent, you could pay for electricity, so your base is functional, and you can power some of the stuff up for a day/week/month as needed if you can't afford to power up the whole base.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
That is why I *personally* think that "base rent" should be based on size/contents on the base, rather than "number of players in the SG".
You *can* use the "number of accounts" as an additional modifier, however I feel that this would lead to people being forced to stick to one SG, and (slight knee jerk reaction), also potentially ham string the idea of allowing characters to be members of several SG groups at the same time (just so long as that idea is still being considered that is).
This to me is even more incentive to have SG rent on a per character basis. It encourages SG loyalty, which in turn creates user retention.
Its my belief that when players are invested in one character rather than many alts the bonds are deeper and the author has more emotional investment. That investment yields returns.. specifically returning players.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
This was not the spirit of CoH, CoH was more than any other game I've played an alting game, I had 250+ alts, 85ish of them level 50s, quite a few well incarnated up and I never left. I'd have left long before if alting was discouraged.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Oh I think alts should be encouraged, more alts means more $. I'm saying for SGs specifically it makes for there to be a character tax, including alts. You can either invest time or resources.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I think it varies from person to person.
For me, I tend to just play one or two characters "Heavily" and whilst I *might* have a couple of other alts, they are normally characters that I started, but I found that I didn't like the play style that came with that character.
Agreed. I had scores of characters across multiple servers and SGs and I'd never have played nearly so long if the policy being pushed was 'play fewer characters so you'll be more emotionally invested'.
Your belief may be true for you, JayBezz, but don't make the mistake of thinking that makes it true for everyone. I had over a dozen 'main' alts, and which characters were in that group shifted over time.
It is a real shame that the MWM developers don't have access to the statistics of the CoX playerbase.
Because it would be interesting to see the breakdown of "1-10 characters", "11-20 characters", "21-30 characters" per account etc. How many at level cap etc etc.
There is the [url=http://www.loveinfographics.com/wp-content/uploads/entertainment/2011/12/city-of-heroes-entertainment-infographic.jpg]Infographic[/url] that was released for the 7th Anniversary, so you can take that as a bench mark.
42million characters created since 2004 (until 2011). However, whilst that number is good (it tells you how many were created) it doesn't however tell you as to how were deleted over time (to be replaced by remade characters/concepts/due to lack of space etc etc). I think as to why people had a reason to alt for a long time was because it "was the end game" for most of the games life.
Side note: 42 million characters = 164,000 accounts each with 256 characters on it.
Until incarnates came out, you could IO out any character by shipping inf/IO's over to him from any single character. You were not actually penalised for playing a lot of different characters (just like in other MMO's if you want to be "totally" self sufficient for crafting, you typically need 3 or 4 alts to pull it off).
56Billion inf held by players... However, I would believe that is just "inf on the character" and not including "inf held by the Black Market/Wentworths". The reason why I think this... because just in my group of friends, the 10 of us probably had around 15 Billion INF available at any one point in time.
Also, alts were very handy to get around the AH/currency limits as well.
Hell, if we go by what I have seen of some people in the various CoX Facebook groups, having multiple accounts was almost a way of life for the player base (I have seen someone claim that they had 16 paid accounts at one point... took it down to 8 accounts after Freedom hit). I know of a few people who had multiple accounts, but the vast majority of my friends were single accounts, and rarely bought new character slots (they tended to delete old idea's/concepts that didn't work rather than get more slots).
But is that really normal? Or is it like most other MMO's where having multiple accounts was still a minority of the player base (cue common complaint that everyone has multiple accounts in Eve Online... whereas the average was last time i read it still below 2 per person on average)
/derail
Segev,
Disregard if this was already mentioned, but one way developers can deal with inflation is to make “all” components, recipes and enchantments available at in game stores for reasonable level based prices. Or, target those that you are concerned about say levels 1-30 to support new players. Then it won’t matter what happens at the auction house or other black markets, because folks will always have reasonable access.
Case in point: With the advent of the incarnate stores and being able to get virtually any component from the AE store. The auction house was no longer overly relevant to my IO building.
The trick: What is the cost, what is the currency and who (subscriber/F2P) can use these stores without making it too easy (or seem like pay-to-win)?
While it would keep things "reasonable" to a certain degree, that doesn't fight inflation; it just makes it all the worse on the few other items and makes currency a non-reward past a certain point of play. It would either lead those items that still require playing the market to get them at all (unless you're winning them as drops) to be even more inflated in price due to having even less on which to spend excessive amounts of currency, or it would kill the market (because nobody buys on it; they can get it cheaper from the vendor and selling it for vendor prices just wouldn't be worth it to the seller).
Price caps merely distort markets. In this case, they wouldn't cause shortages since we have infinite supply, but they still would be distorting, rather than lowering, the rate of inflation.
What we need, I think, are things that, no matter how ludicrous your wealth, there is always something right in your price range that you want AND something just beyond your price range you would desire. The former keeps you feeling rewarded for having achieved your wealth; the latter keeps you feeling that accumulating more is something worth doing. And both keep the top-end wealth-players assisting in destroying large sums of currency and thus helping keep prices on other things within reach of newbies.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Level based pricing doesn't work unless you restrict trading stuff, and that's an issue in that it shouldn't really matter which character buys something, they can always mail it to another. The frustration of accidentally buying something on a lvl 48 that you can't then send to your 50 when you realise you don't need it would be a necessity to prevent you sending money to your level 2 to buy stuff cheap for your 50.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Don't put price caps on the Auction House. If someone wants to sell their item for a ridiculous amount of credits, they should be able to. The one thing new players can do to help them, when they join an MMO that's been around awhile, is join a SG and/or make friends with players.
I know I was always giving influence and high priced IOs away to SG members, at least when it came to their more steady characters :p
Not sure if I introduced confusion or not, so I'm saying this to clarify. If it was already clear, my apologies: When I said "price caps" in my last post, I was referring specifically to the [i]effective[/i] price cap on the market which having the NPC vendors selling things at a fixed price introduces.
Let's say the Dashing Unicorn Hood Ornament - a boost to whatever vehicle you slot it on's speed - is sold by the Crimson Coward (an NPC vendor) for 10,000 currency. It also drops as a rare reward for the Haggared King's mission to investigate the theft of his Ivory Lady statue. A very rare reward, such that most people wind up getting 10,000 currency long before they successfully get it as a drop for completing that mission. If the NPC vendor were not present, it might sell for 20, 30, even 100 thousand currency, but since anybody can go buy it from the Crimson Coward for 10k, the few that make it on the market sell for 9-10k, as they're just the rare few who managed to get it but didn't want it ditching it for slightly more than the 75% value the Crimson Coward will buy them for.
The reason this is a problem is that it means that this item, which normally would be an incentive to view earning currency up to 10x the Crimson Coward's price for it, is drastically under-valued. It contributes to inflation because the ones who would normally be competing to afford it are instead tossing what is to them chump change at it to create new ones. They have tons more currency and nothing to spend it on.
(Obviously, this is a highly simplified example, and "nothing" to spend it on depends on everything else being equally artificially cheap at vendors.) Now, of course, the converse side of this is that, at least when they spend 10k at a vendor, that's 10k flushed from the game. 10k "destroyed," sunk. Whereas it's still floating around when traded on the market (minus any listing fees and/or "cuts" of the sale taken by the market itself).
One thing I've periodically thought about would be having a genuine "auction house" run by NPCs. The devs come up with a list of items that semi-randomly go up for sale on a weekly basis, in limited supply, for which the players may literally bid. So instead of a fixed 10k price, or the player-to-player AH's prices determined by drop rarity, these items' scarcity would be determined by how many were created for this auction, and players could come and bid on them. If they have counterparts on the AH, the prices likely would wind up similar, but you never know. Either way, these purchases would sink the currency out of the economy rather than just passing it around. Keep this to a limited number (at least compared to how many players are in the game) of items each week, and I think it would be an interesting side thing for the "wealthy" to play. Put a little of that AH spirit to work on helping sink currency, and if we ever see something that is truly seeming distorted in value, we can put that on the list of things to create for this NPC-run AH for that week. See what people bid in the open for it. Give a little ding to its scarcity, too, perhaps.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Segev,
That is an awesome idea. Its win-win: Market forces can still work, it introduces some control (maybe limited number of "account" bids per item type to limit speculation) and it adds a currency sink component to the AH.
There are several key topics in this thread and many suggestions to boot. Some will make for good decision point polling on requirements for the tech team to analyze.
WoW does something *similar* to this with their "Black market Auction House" which is where you can bid on stuff that would normally be from raids/stuff that NPC's don't normally sell.
The reason why this works is because those items are typically "Bind on Pickup", so transferring them to someone else is impossible.
Not meaning to distract Segev from the ongoing discussion, but I've been giving SG Bases some SERIOUS consideration over the past few weeks and just need to find the time to write up some [b]WALL OF TEXT CRITS YOU!!!™[/b] posts (because, I'm just crazy that way).
One of the foundational building blocks that I'm working on would be that negative space (ie. open usable space) in a SG Base would be priced at a one-time cost of 1 INF per cubic foot. A 32x32x48 ft "room block" in the City of Heroes styled Base Editor would thus cost 49,152 INF to buy (think "Doorway" block if it helps). An 8x8 Great Room (ie. Decorative Room) of such blocks in 2 dimensions on the Base Plot would thus cost 3,145,728 INF (not Prestige, INF) just to buy the usable SPACE. So basically you'd be "buying volume" on a 1-to-1 basis, but such purchases would be a one-time cost.
Any items you put into an SG Base would be positive space in a SG Base and would be priced the same way as the negative space, at 1 INF per cubic foot of item. Thus, a 1x4x4 Small Bookshelf would cost 16 INF to buy (not 100 per).
You can then put multipliers on the costs of Spaces and Items depending on whether they are Functional or Decorative, with the Decoratives having a multiplier of x1 and the Fuctionals having a multiplier greater than x1 (probably starting at x2 and working up from there with increasing value). That way, stuff that is big is "expensive" simply because it is big. In other words, make it all run according to formula that's easy for computers to calculate.
Now, that handles the Editing side of things, where it's all Pay Upfront (and if you delete stuff you get your INF back, although it might be that you'd only get reimbursed at a x1 multiplier rate). There's more bits of fiddly and circumstantials and options and details EVERYWHERE that makes this a lot more involved than I'm laying out here ... but that's the *short* synopsis foundation of the idea.
Where the plan I've got in mind diverges from City of Heroes is the entire RENT concept. Let me just state for the record ... [b]I HATED BASE RENT[/b] as a game mechanic in City of Heroes from beginning to end. It was just lousy.
What ought to be happening instead is that [i]use of functional Base Items[/i] ought to have an INF Cost associated with actually, you know ... using them. Think of it as a transaction fee, paid in INF (not Prestige). Want to use a Base Transport Pad? Pay a nominal fee in INF every time you do. Want to use a storage Item to put/pull some Item(s)? Pay a nominal fee in INF every time you do so. Want to make a Temp Power? Pay a nominal fee in INF for the right to do so. That sort of thing.
And when I say "nominal" I really do mean "not much at all" as far as pricing is concerned. I'm thinking in terms of like 1-100 INF per transaction, which would be really cheap. Things like taking/putting Enhancements into a storage item could cost 1 INF per Level of the Enhancement(s) being taken/put ... which for a game that would be launching with a 1-30 Level of gameplay (with 1-50 a long term goal), we'd be literally talking about pennies (if that) per character. However, these sorts of transactions would effectively "add up" across the entire span of the game to be a significant (although not overwhelming) currency sink, in which characters (and their Players) are essentially paying for convenience (ie. do it in your Base instead of doing it out in the broader game world where you might have to run around more between services).
Cost of using a SG Base Telepad? 1 INF per Character Level.
Cost of using a Temp Power Station? 1 INF per minute of duration for the Temp Power (pick 1-60 minutes) times multiplier for what the Temp Power "does" when used.
So on and so forth. Basically a very small Use Of Functionality pricing system that debits the character's INF account when SG Base Items that serve functional purposes get used. The more you use them, the more you wind up "spending" to use them.
The basic idea is that rather than having a "Rent" system that must be paid periodically or the entire base goes DARK (or otherwise cannot be entered/accessed) ... instead you have a Pay As You Use system that acts as a *mild* currency sink that operates in a way similar to a Progressive Taxation scheme.
Take that same notion of Progressive Taxation to how the fee system works for the in-game auction houses and you might just start being able to get a handle on meeting the goal of being able to create stronger sinks on the wealthy while maintaining weaker sinks on the poor ... in effect "herding" wealth towards the game's Middle Class (if you manage to balance everything right).
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Minotaur,
Sorry about the vagueness. The level based enchantments would be a continuation of what COH already offered. A level 50 enchantment would cost more than a level 10 enchantment. But it could be progressively (not proportionally) higher like our tax system to create a greater sink in currency without impacting the "Poor".
As an example, tiers could have levels 1-20 at base cost (x1), levels 20-35 at double cost (x2) and levels 35-50 at Quadruple cost (x4). Or, whatever works for game balance. So, if a level 10 training accuracy enchantment normally cost 1000 and a level 50 would cost 5000 influence. In the aforementioned progressive scheme the level 50 would cost 20000.
While this is an enchantment example, it could also be applied to other level based store purchases.
I think we should probably start a new thread for base discussions. I will state this: I don't mind having the "negative space" being a one-off purchase, but perhaps that would be a good spot, too, for the "exponential" growth in price, so that expanding the negative space is just that much more expensive the bigger the base is getting. The other thing that strikes me is that, if I am putting something [i]in my base[/i], I feel a bit cheated if I have to pay currency each time I use it. If I want to pay fee-for-use, I go to a store or a restaurant or whatever. I don't put a vending machine in my pantry. So I think an ongoing rent-per-item, perhaps paid for as "power cost" or something, would be better. Fee-for-use on the "public" accessible versions of these things, with a recurring cost to keep them functional when they're in your base.
But again, this probably best goes in its own thread.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Please do. May I recommend the [url=http://cityoftitans.com/forums/bases]Bases Forum[/url] as an optimal venue for such disucssions?
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
It's time for me to weigh in on the subject. I was a LONG time CoH player, in fact...met my best friend of 8 years now, while playing CoH. My main was THE crafter of the group. I would craft, sell on the broker house, take that money to buy more supplies to craft even more...and I wish there would have been more crafting options (I will start a post later about crafting and what this game should have). I did this all when CoH was purely sub based. As soon as it went F2P, there were THOUSANDS of freebie players begging for money to buy gear off the broker house.
When CoH was sub based, 95% of the toons in the game were original creations...original names & costumes and back stories. As soon as it went F2P, you could go to any area of the game and see a dozen Hulks running amuck. Not to mention the Spider-Man, Wolverine, and Batman knock-offs. It may just be my thing...but it bugs me to see players in an MMO with no orignality...and by that EVERY toon they have is a DC or Marvel rip-off.
The good thing that happened was that they made a server strictly for subscribers. If the game goes F2P, this should be an option. A server with no F2P access, subs only. And if someone has a friend or little sibling who wants to play but can't pay....grant the subscriber a renewable pass to give to a F2P player to come over to the sub only server, and ONLY if they are on a friend's list. If that player is removed from friends, the pass is invalid.
Now, I also played CO for some time...the few good things about that system is subs had the costume sets that F2P had to purchase in thier C-Store. DLC was also given to subs, F2P would have to purchase.
With that being said, here are what I think the benefits of being a sub vs F2P should be (if any of this has been previously covered, I do apologize):
1) More options for costume sets. You pay, you get 100-200 more options than if you were F2P. And then have "premium sets" in a C-Store for purchase only, but discounted to subs. This worked for CO. And while subbed and did get some sets for free, I DID also buy off the C-Store for those unquie pieces that would make my concept be exactly how I imagined.
2) More options for archetypes & power sets. F2P should be limited. Let's say there are a total of 12 archetypes, F2P would have access to 6-8 of them, and the others reserved for subs only. To go even further on this, and to base off the CO model...if you sub, you can mix & match your power set from any of the archetypes. If you're F2P, pick an archetype and select from the powers in that type's tree ONLY. So, if you sub...your toon can have BOTH fire and ice power, but F2P is one or the other. And any new archetypes released with expansions/DLC, would only be obtainable through subscriptions, or purchasing the DLC.
3) Limits on cash & broker house. In the DCUO model, unless you sub, the amount of cash you can accumulate is limited. As well as broker house slots. For a F2P, there should be a cap of 5-10K on the amount of cash your toon can have. This also solves the broker house issues...if you put an item for sale in the house, it's going to have a fee. If the fee is more than the cash your toon has, then you'll have to sell for a lower cost. One of the things that I liked the most about CoH, as I stated, was the crafting & selling. And I didn't charge outrages prices
...and I bought from the house as much as I sold, so I kept the money flowing in game. F2P should also have a limited number of broker house slots in which to sell items.
4) Expansions/DLC...ALL content assoicated with updates and expansions (powers, archetypes, costumes, new crafting options, base items) would be given to subs, and placed in the C-Store for purchase by F2P.
5) Supergroups/Guilds free to create by subs, unlimited number of memebers. Tokens can be bought by F2P to form SGs with a limit on members...with increase in SG memebers available through the purchase of more tokens.
6) Bases...every player, whether F2P or sub needs to have a place to retreat. So bases (personal or SG) should be given to all with these limitations: Subs get the option to design their bases...room placement & size, more theme options, wider selection of textures,and more options for color scheme. F2P would get to choose from a stock set of bases that cannot be altered except for basic colors, textures and themes. As for base items...both F2P and subs would have the same stock items, but subs would get more variations of the items, as well as
additonal items not available for F2P.
7) Custom emblems/costumes made through crafting. Subs get in-game editors & tools to design. F2P, craft items with pre-set margins & options and a smaller catalouge for crafting blueprints.
8) If CoT goes with the "secret identity" option...then have more "day job" options available for subs.
9) If CoT includes the "create your own adventure" option, this should be a sub only perk. Anyone can play user-created content, but only subs can create said content.
10) PLENTY of solo content. Which is what DCUO lacks...after level 30, the majority of content is for DUOs orRAIDS. I mostly play solo, unless I find a unique and good SG to join.
11) DEDICATED SERVER FOR SUBS ONLY.
I think that about covers it, for now at least. I'm sure I'll get a little backlash and some grief from this, but the truth is...if something is free, you WILL have limited options, i.e. Beggars can't be choosers.
********
As for what Jaybeezer (or whatever his name is) was saying earlier in the thread...I have two things to say to you: ONE....educated doesn't equal common sense. "THIS is what I DO...and what I do is what I KNOW. It HAS to be this way." You couldn't be MORE WRONG. I mean, not everyone who is great at art & drawing should pick up a tattoo gun and open shop. And vice versa...the best tattoo artists in the world may never be commissioned to paint a chapel ceiling, or sell art on canvas. Don't try to impose your will on others through book-smart bullying.
You, sir, remind me of all those who consistently whine about what you don't have because you go F2P, and what others do have who pony up the dough. That's the breaks, kid. Welcome to the real world. Do you think because your neighbor bought a 60" television, that you should just have one handed to you? LOL. You are the prime example of someone who is "just a player" compared to someone who is a fan.
TWO....take a look at EVE Online, still a sub model, has been around for MANY years, 95% of the game content and items created by players. Heck, a player can even earn credit IN-GAME to pay for a real world subscription.
********
If anyone is of interest...I currently play DCUO on PS4.
Thanks for your time.
1) I have never said there is one path to success. I simply said that if the path they choose is VC funding then they need to position themselves to succeed down that path.
2) You don't know me. You may attack my positions all you like, but I have little interest in "what I remind you of" as it is not an attack on my argument as laid in front of you but instead an attempt to discredit the person who put the idea forward. Not conducive to any brainstorm because even "dumb people" have smart ideas.
- -
I really don't understand people's attacks as though I'm asking for F2P because I DON'T want to spend more money. I'm asking for F2P because it DOES spend more money (than subscriptions). Preferences aside, the data is pretty conclusive on that point.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Again....take a look at EVE, and then make that statement. I'm not a player of EVE but co-workers are...over a decade old, subscritption model...and hasn't been shut down.
Do you know what makes even MORE money? People who have a subs AND purchase from the C-Store. Which I, as well as many others, have done. You may have your F2P...but we should have our sub option, with major perks for doing so. If others, like you, want those perks...buy them. You are pro full F2P because you wouldn't get as much as subs get....that can be gathered from some of your past posts. I repeat...the difference between a player, and a fan.
The equation is P = (m/u)/ (t * t+O)
Production equals money per user over time plus the overhead needed for maintenence. Once the threshold of the overhead has been achieved (the constant) then you have only development over time.
For games with large (over 1.2M) user bases the amount of money needed per user to keep up with Production can be rather low so the subscriptions are a form of constant profit.
Example: for $50,000,000 of production to be shared released for a profit with 1 Million users each user need only give $50. Lets say they want to release this in 5 months so each user needs to pony up $10 per month to keep up with that production's cost. Any aditional monies (maybe an additional $5 of a $15 subscription) is profit (after overhaed) to be put forward.
If you game has a small (100,000) user base trying to keep with that same $50,000,000 production schedule then all the sudden each player needs to contribute $500 in 5 months .. so each user needs to pony up $100 per month. If you're a game that expects to have smaller user bases and wants to compete with the production schedule of larger games then you need to get as close to that $100 per month to stay competitive. It is my belief that MWM will be one of these smaller companies.
The market has shown that players are not willing to pay $100 per month for a subscription. They will however consistently overextend their "budget" of $15 when said budget is not offered to them. Some will spend less than the $15 budget but overall the gains are far greater than the losses. ALSO the resale model allows you to re-sell the content you've already made to new players instead of giving it to them for "free" with the subscription; this means the more players come the more money comes and there's NO barrier from them to keep coming. Just because a player is playing for free for month one or 2 does NOT mean that they are intended to STAY that way. The marketing of the game has to attract players surely but once they get inside the doors their job is to SELL their product.
- -
I have no problem with the subscription model. But if Missing Worlds Media (a new and unproven game) were to go to a Venture Capital funder with the intention of getting an investor's money they either have to prove their probability of making a competitive Production Schedule. Which means proof of subscription numbers large enough to satisfy the threshold where Subs are viable or proove they have a model that is proven to OUTSELL subscriptions. This could be advertising revenue, micro-subscription revenue, investment revenue, or any other value they can assert.
I do not know what path the devs plan to use to fund the game, but I am skeptical that they will have the budget they need from crowdfunding and sales of their Android/iOS product alone. So if the time comes to ask for VC help then I'm letting them know how to position themselves to be successful in that way.
- -
Hulu proved they could turn profit with a free to use model that only sold advertising space.
LogMeIn proved they could turn profit with a free to use model selling the "advanced" features (like microtransactions).
Both used VC funding, made alot of money and have turned to a subscription model because they were guided down the path to success where the benefits of the subscription model were beyond their threshold of users that were needed to turn a profit. Yes they lost a few users turning pay to use products but overall they can sustain their business now in-spite of those who were "free-loading" because the vast majority LIKED and WANTED the product.
I'm not saying "Jay is right" I'm saying "Market Research is right".
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Consultant,
Great Forum Topic! I think you have helped the community really think about what we all want in a subscription. The discussion also captured some inventive subscription models, currency sinks, and lessons learned from other MMOs to help make COT a better product. Good stuff!!!
Market Research is right, for RIGHT NOW. Not two years down the road. It's not always the best idea to follow "trends" either. Sometimes that has a way of blowing up in your face. Right now there is starting to become a lot of backlash for F2P games. People are starting to realize how many thousands of dollars they are pumping into a game to play and are quickly becoming unhappy about it. Something is going to change, and soon. Look at how many F2P games have come and gone. Much like the dot com business, there was a time and place for it. I strongly believe that games are going to start swinging around into a direction of Pay to Play with a hybrid of Subs and/or Micro-Transactions. With the Subs and/or Micro-Transactions being at a lower cost than they are now. That's a model I can support. The person paying the money then will not feel like they are being ripped off quite as much.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
What the hell market was that? There has NEVER been a game where the sub was $100 per month, not that I've heard of at least. That's like saying "research has shown that travelers are not willing to stay in a hotel thriving with cockroaches and bed bugs."
I actually read through these forums...and I've gathered it's going to be a hybrid model. So...those like you who want F2P will have it, more than likely with just the basics, AND those of us who want the sub will get it, along with the perks.
In case you didn't know...the majority of services such as Hulu or Netflix have an initial trial, be it 14 days or 30. That's the purpose of a trial...so a consumer can decide if it's something they WANT TO PAY TO USE. So your point there, really doesn't prove anything...it's general common knowledge.
So, by YOUR logic....CoT should give a short trial period and after that trial, if the user enjoys it, they can sub to keep it. Thank you for proving the point.
The thing about "market" research is....it can be easily altered or tainted or skewed to get the results one is looking to obtain. I could do market research about the number of people who prefer rice over corn...and if I do that research in say, Asia....I'll get the results to show people prefer rice. If I go to the Midwest, it will be corn.
I'm not a fan of WOW at all...but they are ONLY subscription. Just how long have they been going? The reason why they continue to last...they change up the game, with each expansion things get different. So, guess that throws your "the only way to survive is with micro-transactions" theory out the window.
I'm not saying " Mystik is right", I'm saying "common sense is right".
Thank you...and I agree 100%. When this game takes off, I think I'll have to SG with the likes of you.
Add flaming skulls to the costume sets...and I'll FINALLY be able to see 25 Ghost Riders running around, instead of Hulk. YES!
LOL
I can't speak for everyone...but that is one thing about CoH that started to turn me away...rent for bases. I had no issues with having to generate the cash needed to purchase upgrades/extra room. But once I have it, I shouldn't have to put out more money for it.
The way I had my main in CoH was that he was basically the Tony Stark of the SG. Had some super abilities....had the cash...was an inventor (crafter). He supplies the other SG memebers with money, gear, consumables, etc. For those of us who get into the "inventor" side of things...as long as we put in the work, we should be able to reap from the items produced. Put a cap on the broker house...a limit as to what can sell at what price. Money can flow easily if you have a system with a good crafting options. Others would sell materials that they gained from questing...materials I would buy to make items...and then put those items on the market.
I'm speaking just for the players that have a solo base...or SGs with fewer than 20 members. If there is an SG that has over 20, then it may be reasonable to have a rental costs. I don't know why I brought that up, it just came to me...I'll figure out the logistics in a day or two.
My counter arguments to your rebuttals:
MH: There was no market research on what the maximum pricepoint consumers will pay.
Market research was one of the main factors of MMO gaming models long before there was even the first subscription MMO available. If you think pricepoints are not based on market research you are being obtuse.
MH: The devs will fund the game from a hybrid digital sales model.
The devs have a requirement by law to pay their developers and workers for the initial development of the game. Not to mention the actual cost of servers and overhead that will be required to launch an actual MMORPG. The initial start-up costs of the game are not fully covered (as far as I know) and they WILL need more capital to actually release the game.. long before the hybrid model is purchasable. They have not released their plain to raise that capital. I am working under the assumption that they will be selling their mobile app for revenue but it stands to be seen how much capital that will raise. There are other revenue streams they may look into (selling advertisment, venture capital, crowdfunding etc) but we do not have privy to that information.
MH: The products you site as free to use were not free to use.
Hulu did start as a completely free service (selling digital advertising). Also LogMeIn up to a few weeks ago was completely free to use (selling advanced service products based on the original design). The factor to whether or not CoT uses a subscription or not is based on the number of users. I will repeat this for emphasis, the factor to whether or not CoT would be successful as a subscription or not is based on the number of users and the amount of capital they can expect to receive from those users.
Trust me, if/when I'm ready to make a concession to the facts of my arguments to support my claims I'll be sure to make it unmistakably clear as it is rare. If your purpose is to assert that subscriptions make more money than Free to Play you are simply wrong.
MH: Scientific research can be manipulated.
No it can not. Thats why there is peer review and an actual MARKET that has to prove the economic principles expressed in the research.
MH: Wow works as a subscription game.
Correct and it also has a user base that is large enough to capitalize on the subscription model without micro-transactions.
MH: I'm not saying " Mystik is right", I'm saying "common sense is right".
I could cite countless reason but you seem unwilling to listen to reason because of your faith in "common sense".
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Already an option in CO and we don't see it. :p
Well, of course not. Anybody who looks upon them has their sight burned away by unholy fire.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I fully admit that I have not yet managed to read through the entirety of this thread and thus may have missed a similar suggestion having already been made. Additionally, my suggestions are based on the above-quoted variant of the payment model and thus may no longer be valid. That said:
Concerning a Micro-subscription for Active Characters I'd advocate a log curve for the micro-subscription levels. For example: (note, this is a thought experiment/exercise so all figures and numbers are theoretical)
As a non-paying player, say I can create up to 6 Characters (via initially unlocked "Character Slots". However, only 2 of those Characters can be "Active" at any one time, meaning that I can actively use two different characters from the 6 maximum I can create. Each Month I may select which two "Character Slots" become "Active Character Slots" for that month. (This can be controlled via single use "Active Character Slot Reassignment Tokens" of which I receive 2 every calendar month and could purchase additional if necessary for $0.10 worth of Stars)
Being something of a fanatic when it comes to the generation of alternate character play-styles, this limitation feels stifling and I decide that it would be worthwhile for me to invest in additional "Active Character Slots". Looking at the C-Store I see 5 "Active Character Utility" Micro-subscriptions from which I may chose:
Level 1: $1 in Stars
+4 (for a total of 6) "Active Character Slots" &
+2 "Active Character Slot Reassignment Tokens"
Level 2: $2 in Stars
+8 (for a total of 10) "Active Character Slots" &
+4 "Active Character Slot Reassignment Tokens" &
+4 Unlocked Permanent "Character Slots" (for first time purchase only) (does not stack with "Character Slot" Unlocks from other "Active Character Utility" purchases)
Level 3: $3 in Stars
+16 (for a total of 18) "Active Character Slots" &
+6 "Active Character Slot Reassignment Tokens" &
+8 Unlocked Permanent "Character Slots" (for first time purchase only) (does not stack with "Character Slot" Unlocks from other "Active Character Utility" purchases)
Level 4: $4 in Stars
+32 (for a total of 34) "Active Character Slots" &
+8 "Active Character Slot Reassignment Tokens" &
+12 Unlocked Permanent "Character Slots" (for first time purchase only) (does not stack with "Character Slot" Unlocks from other "Active Character Utility" purchases)
Level 5: $5 in Stars
+"Total Character Slot Activation" &
+10 "Active Character Slot Reassignment Tokens" &
+14 Unlocked Permanent "Character Slots" (for first time purchase only) (does not stack with "Character Slot" Unlocks from other "Active Character Utility purchases)
I could purchase the Level 1: $1 Micro-Subscription and be able to use all 6 of my Character Slots (in addition to building up a supply of "Active Character Slot Reassignment Tokens" in case I later decide to stop the Micro-Subscription).
However, I like more than just 6 Characters so I'll go for the Level 3: $3 Micro-subscription. This allows me to use 18 slots, which is much better than the initial 6. However, this purchase only unlocks up to 14 permanent slots so even though I can use 18, I only have 14 unlocked. Feeling like it is worth the cost to feed my alt-ism I purchase 4 additional permanent Character Slot Unlocks off of the C-Store to fill out how many Active Character Slots I can have. (we'll assume for this exercise they are around the value of $0.50 cents each.)
Sadly, Three months later I lose my job and have to tighten my belt severely in order to feed myself while I work on the job search. I cancel my Micro-subscription, losing access to all by 2 "Active Character Slots" but keeping the Unlocked "Character Slots" and having 2 (initial) + 8 (standard 2 + 6 from Micro-Subscription) + 8 + 8 = 26 "Active Character Slot Reassignment Tokens" saved up. All 18 Character Slots remain Unlocked and filled with whatever characters I created there but I can only access two of them at any time.
Job Searching sucks, so I play CoT to escape and the saved up Reassignment Tokens get used up to give me at least some playability of my alts. But this dries up pretty quick as each token is a 1 use and only moves the "active slot" under someone else, deactivating one of the two previous holders.
I manage to get a new job but am a little low on savings so I have to budget very carefully, leading me to only be able to pay the Level 2: $2 in Stars micro subscription, Activating 10 of my 18 Characters at any one time and giving me 4 more Reassignment Tokens per month. I've already unlocked the 8 Character Slots from the Level 3: $3 in Stars micro-subscription so I don't gain any more slots.
/End Exercise
The above works on an implicit assumption (mine) that $5 out of the standard $15 subscription fee figures accounts for the ability to maintain as many active characters as you have unlocked character slots.
Also, the free unlocks of character slots have a dual purpose:
1) to make players more interested in grabbing a 1-month micro-subscription just for the additional permanent slots and
2) to give players a taste of higher "Active Character Slot" game play; potentially enticing them into making it a long term arrangement for the convenience.
"Anyone who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything must be ruined among so many who do not. It is essential therefore to have learnt how to be other than good and to use, or not use, goodness as necessity requires." - Machiavelli
As the imposition of a Death Penalty in in-game currency (referred to here as INF for ease of communication) appears to range from Unpopular to Boycott-Worthy I thought I'd suggest a compromise that would fit several needs. I'll use CoX terms for the nonce as I have access to no official terminology; please excuse the gap.
Cost 0: the Free-Rez or Emergency Room
Players who die may chose to be rezzed at the local Hospital or First Aid Tent for free; usually some distance away and ordinarily outside of any instance. "Free-Rez" Players start with 1 HP and 0 Energy, suffer a 15 second stunned effect, and suffer penalties to their Regeneration and Recovery equating to 100% penalty, and dropping by 25% for every 15 seconds afterward until Regeneration and Recovery return to full after 1 minute. This limits how quickly Players can bounce back up after the "Free-Rez" but does not directly cost them anything: everyone gets emergency-room service regardless of the ability to pay.
Cost X INF: The Hospital Stay
Players who die may chose to be rezzed at the local Hospital or First Aid Tent and pay INF via a floating offer that disappears after ~15 seconds. Paying Players immediately regain Full Health and Energy and break out of the Stun but still suffer half the Regeneration and Recovery penalties.
Cost X INF: The Private Ward
Players who die may chose to be rezzed at their Guild/Private Base Healing platform for free; after having previously invested in the Base structure to start players at higher than 1 Health and mitigating the Stun or Regeneration and Recovery Penalties; paying those costs via base development instead of the cost per death instance.
Cost X Stars: "Medical Insurance"
Players who pick up this monthly micro-subscription element (included and possibly discounted in most Bundled Subscription Packages) are rezzed at 100% Heath, are not stunned, and suffer 0 Regeneration or Recovery Penalties.
Additional Services:
Cost X INF: Inspirations
Obvious really, following in CoX's footsteps.
Cost X INF: Ambulance/Medivac Ride
Pay a cost in INF to travel from the Hospital, First Aid Tent, or Base directly back to the Instance (if you died in a mission), Area (if you died on the streets somewhere), or Zone (if you died inside a Zone that didn't contain a dedicated Hospital or First Aid Tent)
Depending on speed of play the length of Regeneration and Recovery penalties (and potentially even Recharge or Movement Speed Penalties) could be modified to fit the need; character K.O isn't something that even the greatest Heroes just shrug off without assistance.
"Anyone who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything must be ruined among so many who do not. It is essential therefore to have learnt how to be other than good and to use, or not use, goodness as necessity requires." - Machiavelli
Technically, as a science hero, Bruce Banner spent approximately half of his life excelling in school to gain a Doctoral Degree which permitted him access to research materials and methods that permitted him (albeit not his original intention) to craft a "Infinite Rage Inspiration" that then went off and gave his Everyday Human "Brawl" strength powerset 1000 times the damage potential.
Black Widow, as a natural hero, spent significant time in active warzones and trained in assassination techniques. But her build is focused on stealth, perception, and speed.
A Stalker doesn't face down a Tank, they backstab them. I bet Black Widow would have been just as overpowered as Hulk was if the combat was "Poisoning the others' food"
"Anyone who would act up to a perfect standard of goodness in everything must be ruined among so many who do not. It is essential therefore to have learnt how to be other than good and to use, or not use, goodness as necessity requires." - Machiavelli
That's just it. She couldn't poison his food :p He's to resistant. He's in a whole different power level than Black Widow. This isn't a bad thing. It works in comics.
It can work in MMOs in the sense that IOs are better than SOs. As it should be. And no, if you're not willing to work to build the better IO build, and are perfectly fine playing the easy SO build setup, then you shouldn't be in the same powerlevel.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I thought Banner spent years in school to become a Doctor so he could then discover a way to make the body heal faster and overcome diseases and disabilities. To cure the weak and sick. Unfortunately his experiment glitched and had an unforeseen side effect in that it caused tremendous amounts of Rage along with Super Regenerative capabilities and Super Strength.
Also when Banner turns into Hulk he didn't keep all that knowledge he gained while going to school. He became a dumb, hulking brute. Hence, "Hulk, SMASH!" not, "Methinks thou dost protest too much, so therefore I shall pummel you with my fists into the earthen ground below your feet good sir."
And if Black Widow were to try to poison Hulk, it wouldn't work. As I said, he has superior Regenerative abilities that would combat the poison killing it before it killed him. I'm sorry, but if Black Widow did have to fight Hulk, there is no way she would win. Unless of course the writer, a.k.a. God, wrote it to be so.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Depends on which version of the hulk we are talking about... some versions are intelligent :)
Just to throw in my 2p I think that this should 100% be subscription model.....
1) CoH was sub-based and it worked well...Initially!
2) I have seen sub-based games turn to F2P and the player base it gains could be labelled...Undesirable!
3) I read an idea about paying $15 and gaining $5 or so for the in-game cash shop or along those lines....I think it's a great idea!
Just a few of my thoughts a reasoning behind it!
~ If your going through hell...Keep going!!! #Winston Churchill
I have some Ideas for the micro-subscription model. I'd split them into four categories: convienience, vanity, trading and crafting and finally mission architect.
Convienience would be mainly for people with less time, who might want to spent some money to be able to concentrate on the beating up baddies/ do gooders parts of the game, or altaholics. It could contain:
- Remote access to trainers, shops, storage, etc.
- Expierience boost (maybe stronger for low level chars and slowly loosing effectiveness at higher levels)
- Privileged GM- support (as mentioned above)
- Basic enhancements: The Idea is that (as long as you subscribe), all your empty enhancement slots are treated as if you had slotted a weak (TO) enhancement on your level. The thought behind this is that you would not have to interrupt gameflow, especially when playing with a team, to go to the shop and buy new enhancements when you get new powers and slots or some (or even all) of your enhancements went red. This could be seen as counterproductive to the currency drain issue, but if you consider that the enhancements would likely be predefined and very weak, every player will want to optimize his/ her build eventually, especially in higher levels, where the currency drain is most needed.
Vanity would naturally be for everyone who wants a special look for his/ her character.
- Enhanced costumes: When I read about the issue of what to do when people stop subscribing I thought that this might happen even more often with micro-subscriptions. They are flexible by design and this flexibility is likely to get used. So what if we leave additional costume pieces to the c-store and use this kind of subscription to add more options to existing things. For example: If someone buys a costume piece at the c-store he owns it and can use it normally. But if he subscribes for enhanced costumes, he can add additional effects, like glowing runes or a force field effect. So if he stops subscribing the costume pieces would not have to be taken away, only the glowing runes (or whatever) would disappear.
- Auras
- Enhances Pets: Same thing as enhanced costumes, the player would get options to further custumize owned minipets, like glowing eyes or maybe even a added cape or something. Again if the subscription ends, the pet would stay but be reverted to it's normal appearance.
- Customizable personal bases. It may even be possible to give personal bases only to players who pay for them.
- Alternative power animations: Again I think a powerset is something that is hard to take away and therefore should be bought permanently at the c-store. But you can subscribe to get more choices for animations.
Trading and crafting
- more slots at the auctionhouse
- crafting itself might be for those who subscribe for it only
- more storage for crafting materials, crafted items and so on
Mission architect
- several tiers of micro-subscriptions based on how many stories one might want to submit
And finally something to keep subscribers: Someone already mentioned veteran rewards, but you could also give subscribers little thank-you- gifts. Every few month or so (depending on the amount they are subscribing for) they could receive a little present with a random minor item from the c-store. A booster, a common minipet or something. Maybe respec and tailor tokens too.
((Edit: fixed some typos))
Ok, my suggestions for money sinks (although not really well thought out at the moment) could also include Selling In-game Costumes at an Icon. Nothing Super Super fancy, but Fancy enough that people will want to buy them. Or even selling some vanity pets in-game. Nothing super fancy, again, but good enough to sell in-game.
For people like me, I like to collect things like that when I can afford it. Often times putting me in the hole financially. Take for example in the game I'm playing right now, I spent a good 100,000 credits on 500 credit Lures, just to get 2 mounts, took me days to get everything I needed, had to even break from it, to run around and get some more money.
both are f2p and sub friendly,
now a rant.
And quite frankly, their costs have NOTHING, NOTHING to do with you. If you donated to the Kickstarter, Great, wonderful, congratulations. Does that entitle you to inside knowledge? Not F*****g remotely. It's none of your business at this point in time. For all ANYONE knows, This game is the WoW-killer or the Mediocre Game we have longed for.
By you're words, you're saying CoT should be free at the start and then go Pure Subscription because Hulu and other started started out free and went subscription...I like that idea. We can weed out the "undesireables" mentioned by another user.
So, Jaybezz is Right, Everyone is Wrong. you're words, not everyone elses.
Sure it can. Every major company alters data to be in their favor. Whetherillegally as some cases may be or simply by omitting some data..
CoH started out with considerably less of a user base, began AS A SUBSCRIPTION ONLY model, and THRIVED FOR YEARS. So what's with all the nay-saying that CoT will, by your very own assumptions, FAIL MISERABLY because Free to Play happens to be Trendy thing to do, all it is, is The Flavor of the Month. So many Free to Play games have failed, because they didn't have a Steady stream of Income that Subscriptions will provide. Steady income relates to Products put into the market. Trading it for a Fluctuating market, and you will fail, whether the game is the best game in all of the whole wide Universe or the worst.
Instead of being a Negative force for CoT, why don't you try being a positive force for them. All we keep hearing from you is "You don't have the money to succeed. You're gonna fail because you're a poor unknown company."
Not everyone wants to sell their Games Soul to a VC company. CoT and MWM will do just perfectly fine without them when they have the kinds of Fans who will back them with donations, Positive Feedback, Constructive Criticism, etc. instead of the Doomsayers constantly bringing them down.
The Silent Majority, will be the ones Playing the Game, Subscribed or not, while the Vocal minority, will be on the forums bitching and moaning about "Oh, you should go Free to Play because it's Hip, it's Now, it's Wow. Oh, and because I'm a cheap bastard, who won't even consider a subscription model, probably because I'm only gonna play for a couple weeks and leave." Loyalty Brah. Show them your Loyalty by giving them the 15 dollars a month. For someone as well edumacateded and with a high paying job, a mere pittance...barely a drop in the bucket.
Even when I'm out of a job, I FIND 15 bucks to pay for the game I play. I don't care if I have to call my electric company and tell them "I'm short, can you tack it onto next months bill?" JUST to pay for a game.
You, I suspect have no loyalty to anything but how much money you can hoard.
Right back at ya Brah.
(consider this signature a part of most of my comments)
If your position is to say that "There is no threshold between where Free to Play is more viable and Subscriptions are more viable" (which is the statement I use to support my position) I simply disagree.
For low population games F2P makes more money than subscriptions.
For high population games Subs have shown to be effective at making money (no conclusive evidence to which is better at making money until a large playerbase game is F2P)
I hold to this. I do not understand your position and thusly do not have a "rebuttal" for your assertions, so I have instead opted to restate my position.
- -
After re-reading your assertions that I am "Negative" to COT and the like I disagree and invite you to avoid personal attacks on my character.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Before I reply Jay, I would like to apologize for the lower portion of "my" previous post (on behalf of the one who actually typed it, and this person got an earful for it, and I've taken steps to prevent that person from accessing the website under my login again). While I agree with some of what was typed, not all of it is agreed upon by me, quite specifically the tone that was implied with some very choice words above.
I'm in agreement and disagreement with this, Personally though I think a subscription model, at first, is probably more viable. It provides a steady stream of money for development. Unlike with a straight up F2P Micro-transaction set-up, which will wildly fluctuate from release to release. With a Subscription model, the business guys who take care of the financials can say "Ok, we can count on at least this much money coming in this month, what can you do with that for content development?" by using a number, let's say 2/3 of the total subscribers, as an example. And the development team can go from there, if they go slightly over that stated income, it (probably) won't put them in the red. I'm far from a business minded person, so I'm going with an assumption on this.
Couple that with the fact that it'll give them opportunity and time to work on larger content pieces, such as more story, better/improved upon zone development, more costume pieces, emotes etc. etc.. without having to worry over "What can we put out quickly enough to appease the masses in the market?" Which I'm hopeful you'll agree, takes time away from the larger (and more important) content we would inevitably be asking for...then begging for...then demanding, because it hasn't come out in a timely manner.
While I can see where you're coming from, let me ask you this: Do you honestly, and I mean honestly, believe City of Titans will be a LOW population game? and I want your PERSONAL opinon, not your Venture Capitalist opinion, (right now, for the sake of this argument, it is something that's neither here nor there.) I don't think it will. Nor do I think it'll be a High Pop game...My belief is that it's going to fall squarely in between and be that medium population server that will be able to Thrive with or Without a Free 2 Play Model. Whether you believe it or not, This is a Niche Game. It does not appeal to everyone. The vast majority of mmo players tend to gravitate to fantasy games, because it's what they know. It's Familiar and comfortable. For us, Superhero. We truly (for us older folks anyhow) grew up on Super Heroes. From Comics to TV to Movies we followed our favorite hero.
Anyhow, back to the main argument.
Why? Why would it be a Medium Population server? (my opinion) is because of people not being happy with what is currently available to them. Off the top of my head, DCUO, CO, Marvel Online, all of which...don't appeal to me as a whole, especially the last. (If I wanted to play a Pre-generated Signature hero, I would go out and purchase one of the many marvel games available, on a console.) I'm a fanatic (to use a word on the extreme side, for arguments sake) for a customizable Hero/Heroine or Villain/Villainess. It's a fantastic Lure for people to come and play games of this type. Quite honestly, it will draw a steady crowd from all over. yes, for a time.
Which brings me to my own contradiction to my own argument. And bear in Mind, I do that a lot.
Earlier in this post, I said I both agreed and disagreed with your F2P vs Sub viability. This is where I'm going to agree with you, at this point, when Subs seem to decline...somewhat steadily, more loss than gain. At this point, switch to the F2P Hybrid model. As it's been pointed out, many times already, the Hybrid model allows for players to play for free, it allows players to Subscribe. Now, what I was getting from you, and I may have been misreading, it happens, but you wanted straight up free to play, no subscription model.
For the sake of this argument I'll go on under the assumption that that is what you meant. If, Not, then the next is...well, just don't even worry about responding to it other than letting me know that it was a bad assumption. ;)
With the Straight up Free To Play Model, their income is 75% (argument sake, could be less, could be more) dependent upon the Market made available to the player base and especially upon the items within that marketplace. What happens when they put items up that sell very poorly? MWM is at a loss, nothing gained. Then it happens again during the next item release phase, then a third time. What do you think the developers are going to do? They've made a substantial loss, with very little gain. Doors close if you can't make even a small profit, right? (that was a real question)
At least with the hybrid model, the developers can count on the money from the subscribers, whether the market does horrible or not. Now, I'm not a huge fan of the Micro-transaction "fad", but I'm not a hater either, lord knows I've dumped hundreds of dollars into them...and gladly, mind you, as I do know it goes to bringing more content and paying the employees for their hard and often times tedious work. (hybrid model specifically)
And I have played my fair share of straight up Free To Play games, and donated a good deal to their often times Lacking Marketplace for what looks cool/useful to me.
Now, about this, I do agree with (in part) that you came off as quite the "Negative Nancy" when you were talking about how MWM needs to get outside investments. You came off as if you were hoping MWM would fail. I'm not saying that was your intent, it was the impression that I and the moron got from your previous posts. Quite frankly, I do believe you want this game to Succeed with or without the Venture Capitalist backing or whatever it is they do. As well as with or without the Hybrid or Subscription model. But like I said, I'm not a business minded person. I don't understand the numbers required or the rules to running a business.
Ok, i -think- I covered everything...
And as always, Correct me if I am wrong, I am more than happy to stand corrected. (It makes me smarter after all.)
Eh...I'm making that my signature so I don't have to type it all the time.
And once again, I would like to apologize Jay for the bad behavior expressed in the previous post under my login. The tone and some of the words was completely unacceptable. Pissed me off, to be frank. And like I said, steps have been taken to ensure he doesn't use my account for BS like that.
(consider this signature a part of most of my comments)
I welcome informed dissidence when debated on the merits of the topic being debated.
I simply want you to present a position that is either consistent or defendable before I go about refuting or supporting the assertion of said position. I have no desire to argue against you as a poster but if your position is contrary to mine I hope to put the facts supporting my position for the purpose of adding intelligent discourse to the conversation.
- -
Yes I am working from the identity of the game as a low-medium population game. Not due to the quality of the game but entirely, based on the marketing budget and the existing market of the MMORPG industry.
I do not understand your assessment that the costs of the game development have nothing to do with me. If the "volunteer" labor is found to be in violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act of the United States of America, then the company will be assessed fines that are severe enough to halt the sale of their entire project, whether or not I have been a donor to the kickstarter (which I have been). If the game is halted by hook or by crook it affects me as a prospective player.
Players who believe business has no place in commerce of artistic enterprise need only look at history. If you (or anyone) do not believe in research or facts because "they are manipulated" then I simply welcome you to do a more informed inquisition into what actual peer review and market research are. Real research is not "manipulated" and I reject categorically the idea that "science is faked".
- -
I am neither "for free to play" nor "for subscription only" models of payment. I simply want CoT to make the most informed decision. IF (yes IF) the studio foresees a future where a venture capital investor is an option they'd like to pursue, I've given my opinion on what will be most appealing to Venture Capital Investors.
I have not seen from MWM their plans to finance the launch nor upkeep of the game. My experience in the industry tells me that the cost is more than "volunteer" labor and the cost of software (which is what the Kickstarter has raised). If you think my view of "realism" is farfetched then I invite the conversation of why the game will not require money to "go live" with an active player base. But I THINK the studio needs more money before it has a product available for sale (again, based on my experience).
If you wish to call my experience under question, I welcome it.
If you wish to call the costs of launch under question, I welcome it.
If you wish to call the announcements by MWM under question, I welcome it.
If you wish to call me "un-loyal", "cheap", "nihilistic" or otherwise "a bad influence", I welcome it.. but fear a moderator will not welcome my retort. To avoid the conflation of your point and my ego I hope we can argue the issues and not against the ethos of the persons posting their opinion.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I feel MWM has a lot going for it, that you're forgetting.
It started on KS, if it manages to get a decent size game going and ready to sell to the masses, it will get lots of free publicity/word of mouth as the MMO created by fans for fans.
Now, whether or not it can keep those people is another question, and yes, would prefer more development time spent on real content and not what can be put on the market quickly content, which always seems to be the problem with f2p MMOs. It becomes less about expanding the game and more about new little trinkets.
The years 2004-2008 had very few free to play models. Did subscriptions work then.. up for debate. Will subscriptions work now.. the market research I cited tend toward "no". There is an entire marketplace that the game has to compete against. I understand that may not apply to those in this forum who already invest their time and emotions and perhaps even money into City of Titans. But the game must reach that same level of commitment from people NOT on this forum in order to be successful.
There is stigma attached to F2P as "failure". This is likely from subscriptions not being able to pull in the $ they need from dwindling populations and studios needing to take steps to make more money from fewer people. It's simple economics and I understand people don't like that.. but if there's one thing America is good at in the past 15 years its selling financial packaging. We come up with derivatives and insurance products that are just new ways to sell old products at higher prices.. If the gaming industry seeks to succeed with that trend of American economics, they too much find new ways to sell the same old products at higher prices or else their rate of growth is considered too slow.
Games that were once "Sub only" go Free to Play because their populations dwindle. Then they later close down.. because the population goes too low. For some reason people blame going Free to Play for the decline instead of blaming the actual reasons that the populations dwindled in the first place (usually from a game not being kept up to date or just being a bad game in comparison to the other games on the market).
There is no real answer to the stigma problem of Free to Play but I think the "micro-subscription" model may be a good solution to the re-packaging of goods dilemma.
- -
I want this game to make money so I then have the standing to demand constant content from the developers; a stance much less defensible for a game making no profit. I will continue to advocate that the studio treat business as business. I've seen the dangers of treating business as charity. None of this should take away from the creativity and joy of the work they do nor the joy they sell to their fans.
I am no longer asking for a Free to Play model only because the devs have all but ruled that out. I still think it's a stronger position and have seen a game go from "soft launch" with few players to a "major MMO" with the Free to Play revenue model and still have constant content releases and expansions (Neverwinter). It happens to be from a company I no longer do business with (PWE/Cryptic) but the money doesn't lie. Free to Play is a very viable and attractive revenue model, ESPECIALLY for small-medium user bases.
Not because it makes LESS money than subscriptions but because it makes MORE money than subscriptions.
What I am advocating is that the devs find a way to leverage their content in a way that they do not lose the resale value of what they developed (if you come to the game in year three you have 3 years of buying to do) and that they have separate metrics to find what the main interest of their playerbase is (separate costume revenue from content revenue from gear revenue from powers customization revenue etc). This is why I am in support of the micro-subscription model as proposed by myself earlier in the thread.
- -
IF the game does so well they have reached the threshold where a subscription is more valuable than the independent sales model then at that point they should consider switching to subscription only models. This has been done many times successfully and I've cited the companies that have done so in previous posts.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Now, this is from my own personal experience, regarding what's in Bold above, after going free to play. The stigma that it's been branded with, is well deserved. it brings in the crowd that thinks they should get everything for free, right now, because the game says Free in Free to Play. granted, not everyone who plays for free is like that. But the Majority is. Unlike with most other games where there is the silent Majority, in free to play you get a vocal majority, and most of them are just (acting like) childish teenagers and young adults, and there is a limit to what the original community, who have put countless hours and emotion into the game can endure before they snap and click that cancel subscription button because the devs/gms are unable to do anything other than worry about whats going to appease THEM instead of the subscribers.
Often times, that original Preferential Treatment a sub got, gets pushed to the side to put out little marketplace items instead of putting out content to keep those who have been with the game for the long haul to run. Lets face it, without more High Level content, we get bored and make alts. That's a good thing, mind you, but then free to play comes along, and all of a sudden our high level content comes out slower and slower because more and more marketplace items come out.
I forgot who mentioned it before, and it was a really good idea, for Hybrid models, let the subs get first crack at EVERYTHING for a set amount of time, I think they said 1-3 months depending on what it was. Then, leak it to the premium (former subs) either via market or free content, whatever. For a short amount of time, and so on.
Now, Like I said before, I'm not a hater on the Marketplace, I do see it's benefits, but it shouldn't be the focus of the game, just because it switched to/started free. And if the free to play players don't like slow and steady over "give it to me now", tough. And yes, that's my opinion. I'm a BIG advocate for Quality over Quantity. I would rather have one nice Figurine over 15 smaller uglier ones of the same thing.
(this example, can be skipped over...I just feel too lazy to delete it.)
For example, I have about 15 little CoX Heroclix figures...and a Figure that I find to be rather ugly from DCUO, yeah. Batman. I actually hold one of the Heroclix items in higher regard than the Batman from DCUO...honestly, now that I think about it I don't know why. Ghost Widow hc, is 3 times (or more) smaller than batman, made of inferior product...Oh but wait...Ghost Widow was Awesome to me in CoV...That's Why. Quality of Experience trumps Quantity. If anyone wants a Statesman, Manticore or Positron Heroclix...I have some for sale! :D just kidding.
Can you give me an example? Outside of Final Fantasy 14. Because the way I see that game is as two seperate games, since it was completely remodeled from ground up.
I only ask, because none come to mind that started out free and went subscription based.
And with that, I'm just gonna stop, before I make a further fool out of myself. And Jay, did you get the private message I sent to you?
edited: fixed my bold issue.
(consider this signature a part of most of my comments)
The trouble with NW's model (I play a lot) is that I know that having spent some real money on it, I will never spend any more. The flagrant money grabs have worn me down. They are not building a game to last, they have built a game to take as much money as they can for maybe 4 years, then they'll close it down leaving a really bad taste behind as the only people left will be playing free. This is not a model that in my personal view we can aspire to and honestly claim to be a spiritual successor to CoH.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
You don't have to tell me. I think Neverwinter gets alot wrong and their entire model is built around the 5 year gameplan. That is their design. I am not at all saying use Neverwinter's, or any of PWE/Cryptic's, business practices. But that being said the economic model they use is not the problem but rather how the profits are used.
That being said I read that the game is getting a major expansion this Spring. New PvE and PvP content. This is an expansion that has been in the works for a while and devs have been working on it for quite some time.. meaning they have had a budgeted stream of income. The idea that "money stops coming in" is just not the reality of free to play models. You get money for the content you release. You stop releasing content you stop getting money. As a consumer it's a model it puts the power to buy what I want and as a developer it gives the incentive to make what people will buy (including story content releases).
- -
User retention is flatly better in Free to Play across the board. The second a population shrinks (shrinks in any way) the entire system gains jeopardy. Start small and gain ground. Be the underdog. It's working GREAT for Marvel Heroes and yes even Neverwinter.. their playerbases GROW and keep GROWING. And the best part of this is the new players.. they still have things to buy from game launch instead of being spoon-fed content at year 3 that every other player had to pay for.
Start with a model that discourages player retention (aka losing your character and other things you paid for when you stop paying the game) and any growth is truncated by loss numbers.
- -
The idea that getting more money faster is bad baffles me. The conversation of how you spend said money is one I welcome.
- -
For some reason people think online stores are supposed to stop buying inventory (smaller pieces of development like costumes and aesthetic changes) because they want the store to grow. Well that's simply not how it works. Your sales are what pays for the growth. Your primary goal then is to keep the customer happy. I don't get mad at Macy's because they have new clothes this season. If I want to buy current clothes I go buy them from the store or I shop at another store instead. MWM needs to keep it's customers happy (and that customer is not us here supporting the product still in-development).
To me I hear people asking for Costco. Costco can offer low priced inventory and subscriptions because of their huge number and surplus. Do I want City of Titans to have this kind of digital store.. sure. But have the huge numbers and surplus to back it up.
- -
Because Free to Play is out then I hope the devs strive for the things that are GOOD about Free to Play in whatever hybrid model they choose:
1) Monetize all your development for all your players. High resale value of digital goods is just smart.
2) High player retention (seemingly due to keeping what you've "earned" even after you don't pay your "dues")
3) Have sales metrics for what players are actually willing to pay for: If costumes are not selling well at all this quarter compared to previously you can ask why instead of simply saying "subscriptions are down" and being dumbfounded.
If your hybrid model can do these things I consider your economic principle to be sound.
OR you could just go and get 1.2+ million subscribers and the infrastructure to house them right off the bat without having "Launch day fail" and losing your reputation as developers. You show me a predictable path to this 1.2+ million subscriber base and infrastructure and I'll be the biggest cheerleader of the "traditional" subscription model.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I did not get a personal message.
The companies I cited above were LogMeIn and Hulu. There are many others (specifically successful in the digital marketplace). Games are really just starting to play catch-up to the greater economic trend.. surprising as they've often been cited as "addictive".. why wouldn't they offer the first taste for free. People don't give you your first taste and expect that you'll just enjoy something for free forever; they expact that that becomes apart of your lifestyle. So much so you can't imagine living without it.. then once you're hooked (whether it takes an hour or a month) you'll spend your resources to keep from changing your newfound habit
The economic principle is universal. I am willing to bet money that the true "WoW killer" will be something that takes advantage of this principle.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Personal unofficial opinions
Of course it's getting new content now, it's still relatively new and shiny
This I flatly disagree with in that it's an exercise in semantics. Somebody who logs in once in a blue moon and spends nothing is a retained customer in a F2P context.
Absolutely agree
There is a problem with it, if you get 400K in the first year, 200K in the second and 50K in the 3rd vs 200K each year, which model is more likely to keep the makers supporting the game ?
Don't see the relevance of any of that section. My beefs with NW are not directly to do with the store, more things like the changes to improving enchantments to try to force you to use the store more and the blatant manipulation of the Zen/AD exchange rate.
Nobody knows what's going to happen, but this is not a traditional subscription model anyway. Be interesting to see how ESO does with subscription only (Wildstar as well ?).
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
The responsibility to make a sale is on the business. If your product cannot produce sales then you're doing it wrong. (Universal "you" not directed at you personally Minotaur)
To your point that F2P numbers are not active player numbers there are studies of ACTIVE players in F2P only models (specifically Neverwinter and Marvel Heroes that I cited) showing the active players on steady incline. Granting you that I'm only logging into Marvel heroes every few weeks (mostly due to no Mac client yet). Are you telling me CoT does not want the "dip your toes in" players? Eventually you'll get something for them to get excited about. After Marvel Heroes nerfed all debuffs and killed Cyclops into a DPS machine I haven't been excited to play anyone else so I'm waiting for the game to release someone I AM excited about. The game is amazing they just don't have what I'm looking for yet. City of Titans wont have every animation/FX/costume or framework players want yet.. and I submit that you should want to keep them on the hook until you DO.
As for treating digital stores like a In Real Life store.. I don't really know what your gripes in Neverwinter are (the price points seem above par to me but I haven't touched the game). I am simply saying that paying for small releases of content CAN finance large content releases when you have someone fiscally responsible at the helm. If people think i'm claiming F2P is the only way I simply mean to inform them my ACTUAL position is that F2P is the best choice for this particular game and studio fiscally due to its budget, market-share, and predicted launch population.
Not all of that post is in response to your post. I always separate my assertions with a line break so that they don't get conflated with other arguments i'm making.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I still do not believe that F2P is the BEST choice for MMO's. For Mobile Platform and Social Media games, absolutely. For MMORPG's, not so sure. Look at how many MMORPG's are F2P and have come and gone, or are running on bare bones servers with no upkeep or new content. I think this is where you are blurring the line. For Mobile Apps and Social Media games F2P is where the money is at. People will literally spend thousands of dollars on these games. Also I believe that most of that monetary spendature is from parents paying to keep their kids quiet. Being a parent, there is nothing more annoying than your 14 year old begging incessantly for money to "Go do something!".
That's another thing you have to consider when it comes to spendature on a game, age. There is a huge difference in the mind of a teenager blowing money on a game than there is in a 30+ adult choosing wisely to spend money while still trying to pay bills and buy food for the week. Parents are quickly realizing just how much money is being spent on all these Free to Play games and realizing quickly that they are not so "Free" as they say they are. I strongly believe that there is a push for regulations on Free to Play games and how much money can be spent on them. I believe I even read an article somewhere stating that Europe has started enforcing regulations and restrictions on Free to Play games limiting the amount of money that can be spent on them in a month/year?
Trending NOW is the Free to Play market, but will it be trending in the next couple of years? Or will something else be trending in its place? I believe that a more Hybrid model will be the trend. People obviously do not want Pay to Win, yet still want to be able to have everything in the game as well. A subscription based model with a cash store to purchase quality of life products that are not necessarily needed, but nice to have and help in a uniquely small way is the way to go. You still have a steady based income that provides your developers with monetary income to further make new and exciting content and improve the game, and when you feel you need more money in a quick way you can release something into the cash store that people will be willing to pay for and make extra money.
Now how the subscription is handled is up to the developers. Whether you want to go for some flat fee that gives people access to everything in the game and you never have to spend another dime ever again, or give options to have some limited access to "MOST" things in the game and then purchase optional things that they deem valuable to them. This seems to be the pattern I see developing more. Look at internet t.v. You pick and choose the types of programs or movies you want to watch and then pay a certain fee for that access. Cable t.v. will be shortly implementing something much the same as they are quickly losing viewers to internet t.v. as people deem this more valuable to them. Money is tight for a lot of people right now. Spending unnecessary money is not an option. The crux of the situation is finding that sweet spot that will make people say, "Well, it's only X amount of dollars. I can handle that."
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
I can agree with this. For the most part.
I'm unlcear just a bit, as to what you mean by quality of life products?
I'm going to draw from swtor on this a bit, Free players are limited to how much access they get to things like Flashpoints (instances), Operations (task Forces) and certain area access. And I think it's a weekly basis, (I'm a sub, so I didn't pay too much attention to the restrictions).
Now, do you refer to purchasebale items that allow additional access to the above content (once it's been exhausted)...or something else entirely, like cosmetic items, as an example? Or possibly both?
I'm not familiar with LogMeIn, Hulu however, doesn't quite fit. Hulu is more similar to a Hybrid model than a F2P alone or Subscription alone. They offer BOTH a Free and Paid version to their service.
A Fair(?) comparison of the difference is something like this: hulu (f2p, limited access) versus Hulu+ (sub with 14 day trial period(?), unlimited access for the duration of the trial/Subscription) At which time, if you don't pay, you lose access.
Granted, I'm not sure if you can "purchase" access to certain portions of the Paid Version, so it's a bit more cut and dry in the video market, compared to the video game market.
But Yes, I can get behind a model that offers a trial-period for unrestricted access to subscriber level content. Naturally, it would have to stated in no uncertain terms, at the end of that trial period, they will lose access to all the subscriber level content. From Powers to Cosmetics to Currency to character slots etc.. Unless they subscribe or purchase that content from the in-game store.
(consider this signature a part of most of my comments)
The principle I'm demonstrating is that digital products that were once free to use went to a subscription model after they got the number of users to sustain a subscription model.
(I was unaware there was still a free Hulu as I thought they discontinued it).
Crowd Control Enthusiast
See, I could get behind an idea like that. If it's done right, as in a smooth transition where there won't be a lot of hate from those who can't do a subscription. Granted, It'll make me extremely happy to go with a subscription...I'll still feel bad for the free to play players who are my friends and aquaintences.
As for hulu. Their free service is extremely limited on content access. With a quick check, free hulu was only able to post 8 episodes of Family Guy where Hulu+ I saw listed with 199.
going to bed now...this late night posting is...bad for everyones comprehension, I think,
Edit: removed some useless comments that had no bearing here or there, I think.
(consider this signature a part of most of my comments)
The problem with that, is there's a big difference between games and Hulu.
Agreed, and disagree. It's entertainment. Would you rather pay nothing and only watch very old free movies, $0.99 per movie, or $8.00 per month with unlimited movie watching? Can be compared to gaming. Play free and have access to only the basic powers, costumes, and story line; pay per power, costume, and added content; or flat fee per month to access everything in the game?
Money wise the person providing the service would ultimately like the middle option as it makes them more money, the person purchasing the service, however, will look for the best value to their wallet. Which is why I said the crux is finding that sweet spot that will make a consumer basically say, "Eh, it's only X dollars per month. I can afford that.". This way the provider is still making money vs. hit or miss on making money if people don't deem it worth while to spend money on.
Another comparison I could make is America Online. Back in the glory days of AOL you paid $2.99 per hour to use the service. They usually gave you an allotment of X amount of free hours to use per month and once you used those up you paid the hourly fee. This led to some people paying literally thousands of dollars per month depending on how addicted to AOL they were. Then another service comes along and offers the same service only you pay a flat monthly fee for unlimited access. Suddenly everybody was flocking to that provider because it was more cost efficient. Before too long AOL had to restructure their service to provide much in the same way.
People will always be drawn to something that gives them the most bang for their buck. I think a lot of people in the beginning of Free to Play were drawn to that "Free" illusion. Yes you could start a character and play the game for free and have fun in the early levels, but then once you reached the upper levels you quickly started realizing that all the "Free" stuff doesn't get you very far. So you now have to go buy stuff, making the game no longer "Free" to play. Before you realize it, you are hooked and have to buy more and more stuff. Without even knowing, you just blitzed through hundreds of dollars just trying to keep up with what is needed to do all the upper level tier things in the game. Then you start a new character and have to do it all over again!
We are becoming ever more wise to this ploy and are becoming increasingly disgruntled with it. Most of the people I know will start a Free to Play game and play it until they reach the maximum level their character can get, then start realizing that all the end content material needs items, gear, or powers that you cannot obtain through casual free play and have to purchase or grind out for months on end and ultimately end up quitting. NW was the latest of these.
I still stand by my assessment that a Hybrid subscription model with a cash store will be the best way to go for any MMORPG that wants to have a life expectancy of longer than a few months to a few years. If you are looking for a quick money grab and then on to the next MMO, then Free to Play Micro-transactions is your best bet.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
I highlight this in order to separate the actual cases being presented here.
How a company spends the revenue earned from ANY revenue model (going in to the next MMORPG development) is not relevant to the argument of which makes more revenue. (That is a Cryptic/PWE business strategy and I agree that it's a problem but there's zero evidence that that problem is shared with CoT. If they'd taken the revenue they gained from going F2P and re-invested in their current games instead of trying to use that revenue to release a new game their superhero IP would be much better- though they wouldn't have the revenue from Neverwinter)
This conversation is not on how the revenue should be spent, but how it should be generated.
- -
Also in response, the conversation about how effective the company is at "selling" you on their product is secondary to the main conversation. If the company releases content that is not desired by its consumer-base and-or cannot convert a non-payer into a payer this is a separate, but related issue.
My argument is that micro-transactions have been shown to be an easier sell than subscriptions.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I assume you're saying:
A player, should be able to do end game and high level content -with- the available powers at character creation. If they aren't, then that is a pay to win game, regardless of the players financial method of playing.
And I can see it, to a degree with items. But I'm assuming you refer specifically to buying Uber Weapons and Gear over the more normal obtainable weapons/gear?
That's why I'd personally, not like to see gear and weapons (as in with individual stats of their own) be implemented. it would be all too easy to turn it into a pay to win game. Keep it cosmetic, and "simple" but fancy, enticing to the eye, easy on the wallet, and you have Win all around...almost. I'm sure there are flaws in my logic.
And later, toss in purchaseable Power Sets for everyone. Subs and free alike, to keep it as fair as possible.
Ok, if I'm understanding Static right, he's using companies like Aeria Games as an example (first to come to my mind). Their games are free with cash shops, they keep the games running, while using most of what they generate to fund their next project (rather poor execution too, from my last experience).
Last I played, Aeria Games had around 12 free to play games. Today, they have almost twice that listed under their PC Games heading. However, each one is low on content, except for the ones that have actually managed to survive the years, and they can do that, because the money generated from all of those games pays mainly for the servers. Which leads into my next bit here.
Not to mention several of them are imported games (thus aquired rather cheaply), poorly translated, often times completely jumbled dialogue boxes. But most of those, do fall into the pay to win category, at least, they used to.
But if I was misinterpreting Static, then my point is pretty much moot.
(consider this signature a part of most of my comments)
Pages