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.
Anyone know where to find figures on how many people play GW2? Or how long it was after it launched that it started making a profit? And whether "making a profit" was defined as "operating in the black for a given time period" or "made enough money to pay off the initial investment"? Or what that initial investment was?
I would agree that if there was enough other revenue coming in, content should be the first thing to be made free, to attract more players. But all I really know about GW2 is that copies of their game were given away [url=http://cityoftitans.com/forum/advertising-gimmick]about a year ago[/url]. (Sorry, one of the links that link leads to leads to a different, nearly as old, giveaway now.) And that according to [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guild_Wars_2]Wikipedia[/url] they've sold millions of boxes.
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
Thanks, Scott, for your detailed reply. That helps me understand a bit. I have to apologise to all those who had already mentioned the ways in which monetising content can interfere with teaming. I blame my tendency to solo for making me not value that reason enough. I can see Segev takes that issue seriously, so hopefully his ideas can mitigate that problem, which in turn would minimise the magnitude of 3. Although the model you mention in 2 has been suggested, it sounds to me like purchaseable content with extra rewards is not something MWM is considering at the moment -- seems like we're just talking normal content at the moment, though I could be wrong.
If MWM can sort out the teaming impact, I have to say I really like the Netflix model idea. I see a lot of folks saying that content is the core of the game, and personally I agree with that -- which is why I'm willing to pay for it. If the Netflix model allows MWM to pump out enough quality content for us to buy on a regular basis, then CoT will have an awesome amount of stuff to do. That is worth real money to me and is worth paying for on a regular basis -- far more than an occasional funny hat or pickle. (Loved your burger analogy, Jay!) The only thing that does still concern me is one several others have raised: the idea of making content eventually free. I'm not sure whether I think a "free this week only" model (as opposed to an eventually permanently free model) solves all those problems.
Like Foradain, I'd like to see actual data on GW2 if we're going to use it as a comparative example. I don't presume my buying habits necessarily represent the whole, so it would be interesting to me to see how GW2 is doing in hard numbers, though I suspect such data is difficult if not impossible to obtain.
Spurn all ye kindle.
I disagree that it is "only the most hardcore" of players who would pay for content-on-demand. Everybody has missions and story arcs they like to replay over and over again. They would likely be the ones who spend money on buying the missions for their personal collections. Those who spend a lot more time playing than others may have a more driving need for larger variety in their currently-available content. I would expect them to be the ones to subscribe to "channels" of content to expand what is available in their current rotation. And there ARE always those who are early adopters, and those who want to devour new material as soon as possible. They will love our "new releases" channel.
Given that one of the things I have seen commonly suggested as a "subscriber perk" is early access, I cannot help but think that it must be considered worth paying for.
Yes, there will be players who only ever play the free content. If they are so frustrated waiting for specific content they want that they leave the game, that's sad, but I suspect that they'll reach a threshold of "you know what, I'll just buy that mission" before then.
Remember that even free players will have avenues to earn Stars with which to buy Starmart items, such as these missions. If you find yourself frustrated that you can't play Mission Exciting!, you will have the ability to go and get stuff to sell on the player-to-player market for Stars, and save those up to buy it.
You [i]also[/i] have the option of putting out an LFG flag to hopefully get recruited into somebody's team who is doing that mission, because they bought it.
This model is inspired by the fact that one of the most common complaints I've seen about "freemium" games is that they are (at least perceived to be) more focused on generating "fluff" content they can sell in their c-stores than they are on actually increasing the playable portions of the game. If it's hats, mounts, cape logos, and power animations that are making the money, the development of those obviously has a priority. They need to be in ever-increasing quantities and varieties so that repeat customers have something to buy and so that more customers might find something they "just have to have." Whether accurate or not, this creates the perception that content - that is, missions and the like - development takes a back seat.
It certainly makes it true that, from a very real perspective, writing new missions and the like is "overhead" costs. You can't attribute any of the direct profits (beyond, perhaps, expansion box sales) to that development work.
What I hope to achieve with this sort of model is several things:
[list][*]Create directly measurable revenues relating to the development of more content. In so doing, I hope to justify larger and larger development teams for it, and maybe churn out quality content at a higher rate than our competitors due to the size and budget of the responsible department(s).
[*]Provide a narrower field of currently-available missions in order to make those missions highlighted not just as "hey, focus on these," but as something that far more of the player population are going to be doing. This will, I think, facilitate teaming and keep people interested in roughly the same areas of the game. Additionally, while it might make "ghost zones" out of areas whose missions are not free, this will change as missions rotate, rather than having entire sections of the city be permanently ghost zones due to most players having done the content and moved on.
[*]Make even old missions "special" when they come up. That is, because you can't do it "any time," the time that it's available both brings it to your attention and makes it something to do NOW while you can. I know that I, at least, have a tendency to get caught up by a movie that happens to be on TV even if I wouldn't have bothered to put it on out of my selection of DVDs, simply because it is brought to my attention and is not competing with an option overload of other offerings right next to it on the shelf.
[*]And, related to the first point, have potentially far more real content and new content coming out at a higher rate than our competitors because we have revenue streams directly attributable to it. If selling a new mission is a profit item, that revenue stream encourages more new content development.[/list]
I'm not convinced that people won't buy on-demand or expanded channels of content, just because whatever they want will [i]eventually[/i] be free for a while. League of Legends sells its champions fairly robustly, despite having a rotation of 10 champions that are free in any given week.
But, for this model to work, we will need to have a higher rate of content development than other MMOs, and will as a consequence need to have eventually a larger amount of content for a game that's been out for comparable time. I think, if we can pull that off, we'll be serving our customers very well.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I find it very unfortunate to hear this. I was very excited about this game when I heard about it and have been, up until this point, hopeful. Now, however, I do not believe that I will be playing this game. Which is sad, as I was going to be a subscriber once it came out. I wish you the best of luck on your endeavors.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
I want to reassure everyone that we've made no concrete determinations as to what we *will* be doing in regards to subscriptions. What Segev is stating is only one possibility among many, and as part of the conversation, should not be taken as explicit fact.
It is only when we stand up, with all our failings and sufferings, and try to support others rather than withdraw into ourselves, that we can fully live the life of community.
[color=#ff0000]Business Director[/color]
As I've noted repeatedly, yes, we're still working on what we are going to monetize and how. Nothing is truly etched in stone.
I do have to question, though: if you're planning to subscribe anyway, why does what those who do not subscribe not get impact your decision? In particular when there's no "pay to win" structure involved in the subscription, and you have the ability to play anything to which you're subscribed with anybody you want to? I'm not understanding your objection in light of your stated intentions.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I'm not going to get into all the details of this discussion. I have been following this thread from the start with a kind of horrified fascination and have finally decided to chip in (for what it's worth).
This whole subject makes me uneasy for three reasons. Firstly this would be a divisive move, quite possibly leading to a 'them and us' feeling that was never apparent to me in CoH.
Secondly the whole monetisation (hope i'm using this term correctly - i intend it to mean the method of gaining money from running the game) issue. I have played a few games and really prefer a simple, unambiguous flat rate where everything is obvious and i don't feel that i'm being exploited.
Lastly, these games are complex. Sometimes this can be a good thing - i found the complexity of enhancements very enjoyable - but i feel that few people enjoy a complex system of 'who can do what'. Having pay walls in place like this would be off-putting to many.
We should all remember that the City of Titans project is here to try to replace City of Heroes for all of us who miss the game. It seems best to me to follow the example and avoid measures which could be seen as complex, unnecessary and unfair.
Hey, guys. This is Warcabbit checking in as Project Lead here.
I'm reading through this, and I'm seeing some stuff I agree with, and some stuff I disagree with, from pretty much everyone involved.
I want to take a moment to talk about what I want to see as a real goal in this thread.
Don't take what I say as an official statement, this is literally what we're talking about right now, today, in our business channels. I'm opening up our development process to _you_.
Right now, everyone knows the systems that work. Standard sub, standard microtransactions, etc, etc. You guys know systems that worked in other games? Describe 'em. Note the game you're talking about and exactly how it worked and didn't.
We are exploring the whole concept of paying for the game to see what works besides the standard methods. Nothing we say here is final until we're done. We're trying very hard to... well, okay, get your money into our pockets, but we're also trying very hard to find things that are not restrictive, are fun, and enable the most people possible.
For example, we don't want lockboxes. Not a fan of those at all, people hate them. But then we started tossing the concept around, and said, 'well, what's good about them? Okay, and what's like that?' and we've developed a fun system that's sort of like McDonald's Monopoly game. No paid for keys, no taking up more than one square of inventory, but fun unlocks of nifty things once you collect all the parts.
We're still not sure if it's a good idea, it needs more work, but it's got potential, and it isn't a lockbox, even though it comes from working on the concept of a lockbox.
So hey, feel free to explore the concept of siphoning cash from you guys into the game. We want this one to last.
I will tell you that right now, I'm inclined towards saying that subscribers get things first and fastest. And sometimes free.
First: Beta server access, early access to power sets.
Fastest: GMs. Star Citizen has concierge service for the people who spent over a grand. What if (seriously, thought of this, this morning.) we made a second GM queue for subscribers? It'd be shorter than the normal one.
Free: A few extra Stars a month, maybe a voucher for a costume set or animation set or something. If we can spare the talent/afford it, maybe a free magazine/comic. (digital only, sorry, folks, print's not cheap.)
Oh, on the subject of Pay To Raid? Here's my thinking right now.
#1: Raiding? No. The only locking on raids is 'can you access the zone'. Raids require lots of people. You paylock a raid, you kill it, unless you have #wownum bodies.
#2: Long team-mandatory mission arcs, one per zone: Complicated. Maybe yes, maybe no. Really need a good name for these tasks you need a whole strike force of people for.
#3: Are we going to sell short mission arcs? Yes. I intend to get comic book writers to do some freelancing for us. And I intend to sell the missions they write, and pay them a royalty off what you guys pay for it. You want the best? I'll get you the best. (And not just comic book writers. RPG writers, computer game writers. People we all love. (A surprising amount of them loved the old game.) )
The rule, as I say it, is Team Leader Wins. If you're in a team, and the leader is eligible for a mission, you can do the mission. He drops midway, well, you've already got the mission, you can complete it and turn it in. (for some strike force thing, you could do the whole thing.)
Sure, this wouldn't get every dollar out of you guys, but you'd see the best quality stuff we have to offer - and I'm hoping next time you'll buy the NEXT mission because you liked THIS one so much.
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
One thing gaming economics have shown us in 2014 is that even great games with straight subscription models do not work in this economy. If you are unwilling to pay directly for story content, then where are you willing to indirectly pay for story content? Do you want them to raise that money selling hats, shoes, and colors on powers? Because many of the same people complaining that they don't like paying for content are also saying they hate being nickel-and-dimed in micro-transaction models.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I should also say, I suppose, that a lot of things will vary depending on how much money we actually need. If we get five trillion people playing CoT, we could probably just give everyone subscriber status for free and live just on hat sales.
We are striving to keep the game alive: salaries, hardware, improvement, maybe an office with a batpole.
We aren't looking for a big payday, we're in this for the long haul.
As such, we know things will change. What is true now may not be true forever, but we will always strive to do the good and right thing.
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
Cabbit... remember the rules about the batpole?
First rule, we don't talk about the batpole!
Second rule, we don't talk about the batpole!
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
I feel that there needs to be some clarification provided here as well.
What is being talked about here as far as possible paid-for-content is something that would be in addition to what comes with purchase of the game. This idea isn't a thing where if you purchase the game and decide not to pay a sub fee that all task forces / raids and such are locked out. It is something more along the lines of something like CoH's Signature Story Arcs, with a broader scope in mind.
These, let's call them, mission packs (its just name for the sake of this conversation) are not necessary for regular game play. I'm fairly certain that there will be free updates that deliver additional content to all players as well. Rewards for these mission packs are not decided upon. I would say if there were any cosmetic rewards tied to these mission packs that can be earned from playing that there may be ways to obtain just those things at some point in time (like say there are enough cosmetic pieces from mission packs and from other parts of development to make a suitable cosmetic pack to sell in the Starmart).
While I can't say with certainty if there would be no character affecting rewards tied specifically to these mission packs, I can say what my preference would be - that is there may be temp powers earned or given as part of the story involved - Use the magic cane of "_" to save the people...type of stuff. Other than that I would prefer that if there are any additional rewards they be something tied to providing a way to earn more advanced rewards specifically that are part of the rest of the game. Like earning a special token which can be saved up to obtain a specific piece of gear - or a reward roll on a special drop table. This isn't pay to win as the mission packs would need to be played to earn the reward. Pay to win would be if we simply gave out statistical boosts for real cash.
It is with these mission packs that the idea is anyone with the paid access can bring along non-paying friends to play with them. Any special rewards like mentioned above would still be available only to those with paid access of course.
As far as purchase of these mission packs, what's being suggested here is that they may come with a micro-sub - that is pay a small monthly fee and get unlimited access to the mission packs as they are rolled out.
There is also the possibilty of purchasing a one time, or say a week long access to try out the mission pack if signing up for a monthly micro-sub isn't something that would be feasible to some people.
Now here is my personal preference: that these types of in-addition-to-the-game mission packs be available to anyone when they are rolled out so that there isn't a requirement of waiting on a paid person to invite non-purchasers access to them. But, those special rewards, or method of obtaining higher game rewards (that everyone can get normally) would only be available to those who purchase.
Take this a step further and bring up Expansions. Normally its, buy the expansion and get access to all the new content. Don't buy the expansion and you can't join in on the fun.
The base idea proposed could be applied here: the person who paid for the expansion can bring along team members who haven't. But there may be special rewards provided via the expansion that aren't part of the non-expanded game. The person who paid for the expansion can earn those rewards. Let's set aside trading and selling earned stuff at this point and let's say its something like: the expansion comes with special level-cap advancoment options like Incarnate trials. - This is not an indication of anything planned at this point! -
Player who purchase the expansion can play and earn all the special goodies that let's them earn new powers. Player who hasn't paid could still play, but would only earn rewards corresponding to their level of access - like any special rewards tied to the base game's raids since the player who didn't purchase the expansion has access to the base game. If raids from the base game provide say a different drop table for loot - like weighted results toward rarirty of drop, or drop tables specific to raid-type play - those would be applicable to the player who didn't purchase the expansion but could still play along with everyone else, they simply wouldn't have the full experience the expansion offers. This could include of anything additional is provided with an expansion like new character slots or new power sets.
Now let's back up quite a ways and talk about subscriptions. Let's say that purchase of the game comes with free subscription time. Subscriptions should come with certain perks over not subcribing. If all it took was to buy the game and get everything that the game has to offer forever, there would be no need to keep a sub. Things like extra characer slots can be incentive, extra storage for game currency, dropped item storage, crafting tiers, and so on are certainly common subscription worthy perks. What I've mention previously in this thread and just up a few paragraphs - I feel (so this is just my opinion) - can be applicable to subscriptions and non-subscriptions.
Pay the sub, get the advanced crafting stuff. Don't pay the sub, don't get the advanced crafting stuff. Just want to get the advance crafting stuff but don't want more charcter slots? - pay a micro sub for crafting.
Pay a sub and get access to advanced reward tables on harder than normal content like task forces / raids.Don't pay the sub, get the normal drop tables but still get the experience of playing the same content. Don't want to pay the entire sub but want in on the advanced reward tables for task forces / raids - pay a micro sub.
Agan, these last bits are just my personal opinion. I'm not anyone who is part of making decisions on the business side the things for the game and nothing with regards to monetization is set at this time.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Here's what has been set in stone on monetization at this time;
We will have it.
The market is changing around us all, what was established as hard-set rules even a few years ago now is unheard of. To determine today what monetization model will work next year is just asking for trouble.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
...does this mean I should stop preparing the Midas Chamber for turning dissenters into gold?
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Static, Slowwwww Downnnn! ;)
Segev writes allot of his replies in a Business Managerial Language. ;D
So its hard for my developery mind sometimes to understand.
Tell me what is erking you about that reply exactly and what would you have liked it to have been, or close to. :)
Whaaaaaat doooooooooooooooooooes a yellllllllllllloooooooooow liiiiiiiiiiiiiight meaaaaaaan?
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
ROTFL! Jim Ignatowski, from the TV show Taxi, the episode where he takes the driving test. CLASSIC.
...and yeah, I'm back. All the redname traffic sucked me back into this thread. I definitely approve of what Segev and the rest of the devs have said, and like many I have no understanding of oOStaticOo's logic, if we can call it that.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
I dont like mission/tf/arc/etc... pay walls. Any of those that offer a badge, achievement, or any sort of doodaa needed later to Craft, Achieve, or Bake... in order to receive my +5 HP. :)
But, what you're proposing, sounds like its Not offering those Doo Hickies, in those Standalone 3rd Part Issues. It sounds like these Standalone Issues are just there for Entertainment sake. That sounds cool. Well, new Costume Piece(s) as rewards and anything that wont stop me from getting my +5 HP is ok. ;)
By +5 HP, as you might have guessed, is an analogy for any kind of Permanent Bonus to a players stats. I dont really mind Temporary stats that last a few days though. ;)
With Perma Bonuses, you have to tread lightly, or players mentalities could sourer. :P
It's a bit of a gamble. I'm hoping that "Get the latest mission by Isaac Asimov's Ghost" will be as attractive to people as "Get the mission where you might get a purple drop!"
(People I want to hire that will almost certainly do insane things with the concept of a mission: Harlan Ellison. Alan Moore. I'm not sure they'd produce anything USABLE.. but I want to see what they'd do. I also want to hire Jim Steranko to design a mission map. Think about it. Your mind will detonate. )
(Not that I have any great hope of actually hiring these people, and we certainly have to get the game going first... but there is seriously untapped potential for insanity there.)
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
Sweeeeeet.
Honestly though... Id buy it even if I read that one of those Standalone Arcs was done by a former Paragon Studios member. ;D
Well, maybe not if it was the Copy Boy. :P
Heh, maybe i'll make my own Standalone Arc using my Fish Tale story. Oh wait, its primarily fish characters and its mostly an Atlantian underwater city. Hmmm... that MIGHT pose a problem. PG rating. :{ I always wanted to capture that wonderment that [url=http://youtu.be/GAefvexZ7v0?t=6m]Ecco The Dolphin[/url] had for the Sega Dreamcast. But more Atlantian. So Ecco the Dolphin + Little Mermaid. ;)
I wish, once again, to emphasize that no matter what 'pay walls' exist, we are doing our darndest to make sure that even free players can access it via selling things (or trading currency) for Stars on the player-to-player market.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Of course not! I just finished developing the gravitic capacitor so that we can aim it at any convenient NEO. You want billions of tons of gold, yes?
It is only when we stand up, with all our failings and sufferings, and try to support others rather than withdraw into ourselves, that we can fully live the life of community.
[color=#ff0000]Business Director[/color]
Er, again, personal statement, and does not reflect the agreed-to model as presented.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
Excuse us for a moment. There will be brief but heartfelt disagreement till we figure _that_ part out.
Tyche, Segev, you know the rules. Grab a bat. It's THUNDERDOME TIME.
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
Pictures!! ;D
Alright, Wayne, you're with me.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
Pay Wall? Hmm, that's not really a Pay Wall.
..sounds more like a Pay Gate, that Revolves. ;D
Revolving Pay Gates:
[img]http://i.imgur.com/9rtNUwb.png[/img]
Eyes empty rack of rubber baseball bats.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Giggles maniacally as he inserts steel rods into the rubber basball bats....
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Thanks to War Cabbit for bringing us in on this kind of development discussion. I only ask that you not just take our vote on this subject. I've seen too much utter crap come out of design by democracy. Use your best judgement and may the cards fall where they may.
You seem to have some very good thoughts regarding what should and should not be monetized.
This is something I'm really ambivalent towards.
I like the idea in that it brings in talent and allows you guys to pay people for creating content without risking going into the red. It will probably bring in content that wouldn't normally be available.
On the other hand, this will be very sensitive in how its delivered to the customers. If you just say "X stars to buy a one time pass to Y Task Force!" I can see it easily see it enraging people that feel like they got robbed. Likewise, if Pay-walled content has any sort of unique statistical advantage award, you'll be (rightfully) decried as Pay 2 Win.
From this analysis, I'm devising some rules in my head for how to fund more content than we would have otherwise have had without poisoning the well.
1) Any pay-walled content ought to clearly state that it was created contingent on royalties, and paying for this content enables writers to provide more.
2) Pay-walled content needs to be its own reward, not something special and shiny at the end. (Possible exception is a badge that provides bragging rights and advertisement for the content.) No mechanical advantage ought to be available that is not normally so. If people are buying the content for any reason other than they enjoy the content or just want to throw money at the devs (I might, depending on my situation at the time), something is probably wrong.
3) Pay-walled content cannot be pay-per-view. You bought it? Lifetime access whenever you want.
4) Single point access to any pay-walled content. Leader owns it? Everyone is welcome. (This has already been brought up by the devs explicitly, but I think it bares repeating)
5) Any pay-walled content must be able to be completed solo.
6) Pay-walled content must be independent from any other content excepting explicit sequels to that content or related stories from the same author/studio/whatever.
Several of these play into each other. I'd like to note that 2, 3, and 4 are closely related in their interactions. If pay-walled content is good, people will want to be able to run through it repeatedly, so they will be more willing to purchase it on their own even after seeing it once with the team-leader.
Still, I think rule 1 is still the most important from a business standpoint. People cannot feel like they're being extorted, so they need to know that anything they pay extra for is NOT a core part of the game, but something that is from outside the main development team. You absolutely cannot rely on people to do their homework in this regard. Hell, this is even a selling point in that this game's RMS supports the original artists and writers.
In my experience, people don't mind paying for a quality product if they don't believe (rightly or wrongly) that they're just being milked for cash.
These are just my thoughts. Monitization is always a tricky subject on something like this.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
No purchase should be a one-time element unless it is of a consumable. 48-hour Double XP bonus token, consumable. Mission arc, not a consumable.
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
This makes sense, and I honestly figured you guys were smarter than that.
I just try never to underestimate human stupidity, especially in groups. :)
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Well, I've been tossing the idea of having live events in the game around. Like, live rock concerts and suchlike. You'd be able to replay and watch (and beat up the bad guys when they try to steal the shrinking pianist) but you only get to see it done live once.
But that's a different category of thing.
... I wonder if we could get the Aqua-Bats.
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
@Segev:
Reading what you have written saddens me greatly. I was hoping this would be the game I finally get my CoH fix from but obviously this will not be the case at all.
It appears to me you are very new to economic principals and marketing. Do you even have a degree in either field?
You think these freemium games such as GW2 prioritize new costumes and such over content? You;re dreadfully wrong. How many people does it take to knockout a few costumes every other month? Maybe 2, 3 tops. That is a drop in the bucket compared to the team you need for actual new content.
The content is the bait. You have out the content, you make people play and enjoy the game, love the game. Then you dangle the customization premium items in front of them.
You are working under the same false conclusions radiac has, that people won't buy the cool costumes/auras/emblems/pets/mounts and instead just play the game. And yes, some people will. But not all of them. Actually, the people who would pay a sub fee are the same people who will likely buy these cool little additions more often than not and likely they will spend 2-3 times the sub fee per month on these additions.
The market research is online for these things if you only bothered to look.
https://www.google.com/search?btnG=1&pws=0&q=guild+wars+2+financial+data&gws_rd=ssl
http://venturebeat.com/2014/01/20/10-online-pc-games-that-made-more-than-100m-in-microtransaction-sales-last-year/
Most of these games are cosmetic sales.
Google is your friend, I suggest you use it
Selling heroes in LoL is not even comparable to selling access to playable in game content. It amazes me you even attempt to use this as a connection. It is not the same thing. If LoL were selling access to game modes and maps then you would have a comparison.
After reading that all faith is lost.
I have a little more hope after reading this, but not much.
Us vs. Them feelings in a games community does not work.
Subbers will have benefits that make them more powerful than non subbers. While I would, as static would, be a subber I would still not want anything to do with it. I played champions online for a bit which is exactly what you are suggesting to use as a model for this games revenue. As a non subber in that game you are the weak link. You either play with other subbers or you will always be the weak link. That is NOT an enjoyable way to play and only causes resentment.
As a subber you don't want to play with non subbers at all because they are weaker, universally. Again, this is resentment.
If you can't see why that is bad........ yeah.....
You really are nothing but a troll.
So, what do you think about what I've said, Phoulmouth?
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
Random related thoughts:
You guys are selling a theme park, or, more specifically, you're selling tickets to a theme park. Yes, I know theme parks are pretty much dead any more, but that's more likely due to entertainment competition that's rendered them obsolete. Their general business model was successful for almost a century.
CoT is, in essence a collection of rides and shows that you are using to attract customers. Theme parks frequently charge general admission, but very rarely will they charge a customer to ride any particular roller coaster. After all, they don't make their money off the roller coasters, they make their money off of the concessions. The roller coasters are just [i]attractions[/i] to get people to be around long enough that they're near the concession stands when they get hungry/thirsty/annoyed with sobriety.
The idea of selling access content is like charging people to go on particular rides. This will, necessarily, cause them to pick and choose which rides they want to go on. This means they get bored faster. This means they leave before the get the wild idea to buy the Killer Appliance set and run around as a machine-gun toting Washer/dryer of Freedom(TM) or a demonically possessed toaster.
We want people buying the Killer Appliance set. We want them to laugh themselves to tears over the self-polymorph ability that changes the burly biker into a hedgehog. That's the kind of thing that will keep people coming back with new friends that are wondering WTF they're laughing about. We don't want them thinking about going back to work in the morning so they can afford the Rikti Warzone.
That is why I think it is a terrible idea, in general, to pay-gate content.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
So, according to http://global.ncsoft.com/global/ir/quarterly.aspx#none GW2 made 19,686 "KRW in MN", which if that means millions of South Korean Won comes out to about (http://www.x-rates.com/table/?from=KRW&amount=1) about 17.7 million dollars U.S. This is admittedly impressive. But how big is the player base that's generating those sales? In some of the links from the Google search I found a figure of 400,000 online at the same time. This implies many more, since I doubt most of their players play close enough to 24/7 to make that figure an accurate representation of total players. OTOH, this was on a forum, and I couldn't find that forumite's source...
Foradain, Mage of Phoenix Rising.
[url=https://cityoftitans.com/forum/foradains-character-conclave]Foradain's Character Conclave[/url]
.
Avatar courtesy of [s]Satellite9[/s] [url=https://www.instagram.com/irezoomie/]Irezoomie[/url]
So to clarify, and I want to be sure I am hearing you correctly, you affirm:
"Micro transactions should be the main source of monetization in the game?"
Crowd Control Enthusiast
> I will tell you that right now, I'm inclined towards saying that subscribers get things first and fastest. And sometimes free.
This is implying subbers and non subbers which leads to the same resentment issues that exist in champions online. I understand the reasoning behind this idea and the "idea" is good in theory but terrible in practice. You should want your entire community to be on an even playing field. The 2 most successful MMOs out right now are exactly this, WoW and GW2. All players are dead even, no one has a payed for advantage on another, and both games use 2 different revenue sources.
You seem like a smart guy so I won't go into specific of both options. It seems like you think neither option will work so let me see if I can guess your thinking behind it.
"Subs won't work because you won't get enough subs to pay for upkeep and expansion of the game."
This is a perfectly fine line of thinking and you are 100% right, as it stands now you won't. Why? Because no one knows about this game. I mean, sure, a few hundred thousand know, but I only just found out a few weeks ago and I am an MMO fanatic. Even if everyone who is in the know subs you're SOL. You have a marketing director, use him/her and get the game out there. Advertise the hell out of it. If the hype train works subs will run this game.
"Cosmetic and character service sales only won't work because not enough people will buy stuff"
A fair worry, and to a point I agree for the above reasons. Not enough people know about this game. Beyond that though you will also need to sell the right things for the right prices.
First and foremost this is a super hero MMORPG. People will want to be flashy. People will want to emulate heroes from other intellectual properties. People will wan't to look awe inspiring. You can sell this to your hearts content and I think you are VASTLY under estimating how much you can sell it for. But here is the trick to selling this. Don;t sell complete costume, sell parts. You can sell a complete (head/shirt/belt/pants/gloves/feet/back) 7 piece costume for 14 dollars. Sure. But you can sell the individual pieces for 2 bucks a pop as well and make the same money. But why would you do this? Psychology!!!!!!! People will be more inclined to drop 2 bucks repeatedly than 14 bucks once. Better yet, people will love the customization of it as well. "Oh hey, I just bought this ghost rider look alike costume that came with a chain belt, but I can get this bone belt for 2 bucks and I think that would look amazing." $$ for you.
Character services can be sold like mad. How many different classes will there be on release? You give each person one character slot per class, then you sell more slots. I know, sounds nuts, but if you're following CoH class style at all each class can be played so many different ways it is pretty ridiculous. People will want more. Hell, I had 5 different blaster.
Remember the respec TF, I hates that, I'd have dropped 5 bucks to respec NO PROBLEM!
Ever not like your costume? You could go the CoH way or you could sell a identity kit to change the costume.
Will there be bag slots and banks with slots? Sell more slots(but be sure to not be stingy on the base slots).
Auction house? Say the base number of items you can sell at one time is 10, sell exandable slots.
Holiday only costume specials! These items can be slightly pricier than normal and still sell like hotcakes because "limited time".
http://wiki.guildwars2.com/wiki/Gem_Store
Look through that figuring 100 gems is roughly one dollar US. These item sales are all the revenue GW2 needs to run.
But sure, this may not work either. Either option is a gamble right? So you're thinking of going route 3 and selling everything. Have subbers and non subbers. Paygate playable content for non subbers and sell cosmetics and character services. Of course IMO this is the most dangerous option as you will put a rift directly between subbers and non subbers. This will cause 2 things IMO(from experience). 1 some non subbers will sub. 2 the rest of the non subbers will eventually quit. But ultimately non subbers will be less inclined to pay money for ANYTHING because they will always be made to feel like second class citizens; and subbers will buy less because "i already pay you monthly what more do you want".
If you want a compromise why not try this. Typical game subs on MMOs are 15 bucks a month, and less per month with longer sub purchases. I think wow is like 12.50 a month if you buy a 6 month sub. Why not do a 7-5 dollar a month sub so you have some guaranteed income and then sell cosmetics and character services. This way everyone is equally powerful and have equal access to all content thus no community rift. And since the sub is only 5 bucks a month people won't feel like "they already paid you" to the point of ignoring the in game store.
With this 7-5 model you also give out a free buck of stars per month. Why? because... PSYCHOLOGY! "OMG, I already have a dollar of stars, if I wait 3 more months I could get this cool looking back piece....... oh fuck it, it's just 3 dollars!". Of course once they get past that hurdle then the next hurdle will be easier and easier and easier. Psychology rocks!
But, I will NEVER agree to paygating playable content and powersets UNLESS: 1: the powerset is a clone of one already in game with the exception of the visual effects. Lets be honest, unless the play effect of the power sets are cloned you cannot guarantee you aren't creating a pay to win situation. 2: completing the paygated playable content awards you NOTHING you can't already get via playing the game. And I don't mean get by trading or buying from another player, I mean get via playing.
And what exactl is making you think that is at all accurate? WoW is still the most popular MMO on the market and runs off subs. GW2 is the second most popular MMO on the market and runs off cosmetics.
Are you going off the thinking that SWTOR and RIFT went free to play? That had nothing to do with the economy and everything to do with they stunk. Not many people (even if they can afford it) will pay more than one 15 dollar a month sub. Since a lot of people never gave up on WoW for either of those 2 games they didn't really have a choice but to go F2P like they did.
I'm a little frustrated. I had an article about SWTOR turning more of a profit now that it is F2P than when it had subs but I can't seem to find it again. I will keep looking.
Assuming the game is properly marketed and advertised, yes.
Note the specific examples I gave. "Access to beta." "Powersets a month early." "A seperate GM queue." (Note: both GM queues would get answered ASAP, it's just that after the first couple months, I'm expecting, say, 10 in the standard queue and 3 in the Sub Queue. I stole the idea from Star Citizen's Concierge service.)
Quality of life improvements, no huge thing. What would you suggest?
I like subs. I want to find nice, unbalancing things to give to subs. 10% discount when buying more Stars? (more discounts the longer you've been subscribed) A free magazine? (which will promptly be posted on reddit for everyone to download, I know how it works.)
What would you guys suggest?
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
I would like to note that I have not, amongst the dev staff, heard anybody say they doubt that cosmetic stuff would sell and sell well.
I would also state that we are not looking to sell in-game mechanical perks, as a general rule, in our Starmart. Not even hidden inside pay-only-access missions and such.
Honestly, we need more information about how much it will cost to produce missions in terms of man-hours and development equipment (computers, mostly). When we know that, we can set goals for how much new stuff-to-do content we want as our goal per time period, and determine if attempting to charge for it would increase our revenue stream sufficiently to expand the number we can create sufficiently to make it worthwhile.
Even if we do go with something like the "Netflix" model I've proposed, people will be able to access every mission in the game for free...eventually. And, as Cabbit and Nate have noted, that's an "if." We're not yet sure how we're doing this. (My comments in this thread are based on the topic of the thread, and how we might approach the idea.) I do tend to come off a little strong, as I want to ruthlessly examine issues and problems and try to solve them. It's my nature. I like puzzles.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
@Warcabbit
I made a few suggestions earlier. I'll make them again and possibly add to it.
Non Subs
5 character slots at the beginning of the game. Expandable to 15 with Starmart purchases.
Access to original basic ATs from the beginning of the game. Purchasable ATs from the Starmart.
50 slots for inventory. Expandable to 100 with Starmart Purchases.
Access to original powersets from the beginning of the game. Purchasable powersets from the Starmart.
Access to original basic costumes from the beginning of the game. Purchasable costumes from the Starmart.
10 slots for Boosts. Expandable to 20 with Starmart purchases.
Limited access to the Auction House. Purchasable full access to the Auction House from the Starmart on a monthly basis.
No Stars stipend.
Subs
15 Character slots. Expandable to 25 through purchases from the Starmart.
Access to all ATs.
100 slots for Inventory. Expandable to 150 through purchases from the Starmart.
Access to all powersets.
Access to basic costumes from the beginning of the game. Purchasable costumes from the Starmart.
20 slots for Boosts. Expandable to 30 through purchases from the Starmart.
Full access to the Auction House.
Monthly stipend of Stars.
There may be other things that could be added to this, but this way it will entice people to go Sub if they can afford to do so. If not, it won't kill the F2P people either. They can still get close to Sub with making purchases in the store. This will also still entice the Sub to still buy things from the store as well.
Things you can put in the store to drive sales.
Respecs.
Character slots.
Inventory slots.
Auction House tickets.
Emotes.
Animations.
Costumes.
Mounts or Vehicles.
Auction House slots.
Boosts.
Enhanced Boosts.
Enhancements.
Enhanced Enhancements.
Base Materials.
Crafting Materials.
Enhancement Unslotters.
Double XP Boosters.
Double Money Boosters.
And I'm sure there are more things that I haven't thought of either.
edit
*I still say no pay walling content. Period. There are better ways to get money from your players than doing that.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
You should know.. I'm not disagreeing with you. Microtransactions make more money.. I've argued as such.
What makes me say that subscriptions don't work? Wildstar, TERA, Lineage II, SWTOR... the current market if full of competition from games that are F2P and take players from subscription games.. no matter how quality they are. In my personal opinion, Wildstar is an amazing awesome game amazing and I'd gladly pay for a sub.. but know what.. all the players I liked playing with are gone so that makes a sub not nearly as valuable.
What I do advocate for is a "Speak with your wallet" economy. If people truly want constant dev created story content, their purchases should reflect that.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Well, I mean, in year 3 or something, we might sell a box set. CoV was paywalled content if you didn't own CoV.
I'm designing _now_ so I don't have to patch later.
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
I appreciate asking for suggestions, but honestly it seems like you're stuck on having both subs and non subs. I simply won't play if that is the case. I want a cohesive community, not one separated by a paywall.
Good luck.
Expansions are different. A bi-yearly expansion is completely understandable as a sale item and I think the majority expect this.
We made a commitment to having subs in the Kickstarter. Therefore, we have to have at least (it's midnight, I can't remember) five or seven or eight months of subs.
I will not break my commitments, even if they turn out to be suboptimal. I do, however, attempt to make them as pleasant as possible.
That being said, I refuse to break a community with a paywall. So I'm interested in hearing what you think is specifically wrong and how we can work with it.
[color=#ff0000]Project Lead[/color]
@Warcabbit
I mentioned being okay with releasing content for sale in a box form much like CoV and Going Rogue, I'm not a huge fan of the idea but I understand it. As long as it is an expansion of some kind that involves other things with it, such as new ATs and Powers. If you can model your monetization much like CoX did minus the SSAs and Incarnate Content, I would be ecstatic. I never did like that only people who were VIP could run that content while others could not. It left a lot of the people I played with out and unable to join me in the fun of running those missions.
As I've mentioned before, Content is the best thing you can give the players to encourage them to keep playing and to bring more people in to play the game. The more people you have, the more they will spend in the cash store further funding your endeavors. You've already stipulated that there is an up front box purchase to play the game, understandable and I completely agree. Next you give them the option of subscribing or going F2P. That's fine. Some will subscribe, others will not. Next you place in a cash store to bring in more revenue from both the Subscribers and the Non Subscribers. That's great too, I'm all for that. There comes a point when enough is enough and after a while it starts to look like you are too greedy. Charging for content, imo, crosses that line. Some are fine with charging for content. A lot of posters on here though have said they are not.
Some people will say that the people that are arguing against paying for content will be the ones that don't buy stuff from the store. I call BS on that. If you have the right items in the cash store for people to want to buy, people will buy it. Some don't care for costumes. That's fine. A lot of other people do. Some don't care for Emotes. Again, others do. Just about everybody on here would buy Double XP or Double Money boosters for the right price. Some people want Vehicles or Mounts. Others don't. Respecs would be bought, I can guarantee. Enhancement Unslotters, I'm sure would see some love from time to time.
Segev wanted to know what my problem was if I was a subscriber, that it wouldn't affect me because I was subscribing to have pay walled content. It will. How? I will be the sole provider amongst a group of my friends to be able to allow them to play certain content. That means I'd be under pressure to be on at certain times so that they can all play the content they want to play, because only I can allow them to play it. It would put pressure on me to make sure that I did not Disconnect in the middle of the paid content, did not have "Real Life Issues" come up that would take me away from the game during the middle of the content, that I would have to "choose" which friends I took with me to play the paid content, and that some of my friends might never get to play the content that I paid for because they couldn't afford it and I'm not on at times in which they can play.
You want to try to soften the blow by allowing them to still be able to purchase the content through Stars they can receive through the Auction House by trading and buying. Okay. But how long will that take for them to be able to do that? Days? Weeks? Months? You want to rotate it so that eventually it will become free for a limited amount of time, so people can experience it for a week. "Here kid, take this free sample of crack.", "Now you have to pay me for more!" You want people to spend money in a "Fun" way, not feel like they are obligated or extorted to do so. I do not like the idea of rotating content. I do not like the idea of pay walling content. IF that is the way it goes, I won't be playing. I'm sorry, but I won't. It's not a threat, and I'm sure you could care less about losing my 15 bucks a month plus whatever monetary contributions I add through the cash shop from time to time. But there it is plain and simple for me. You charge for content and I'm out.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Can't the Dev Team make it so that the Art / Lore /etc.. departments can create indoor content using the Mission / Base Builder?
I fully appreciate that position and quite frankly respect you for it.
I think there is a way around it you haven't guessed at though. Your star points or w/e they are called gives you an easy out that nobody is going to say no to. You promised X kick starters Y months of free sub. Well what is the monetary value of those months worth of subs? Give them that monetary value in star points, problem solved.
I like how this guy thinks!
Since you are in the development stage and you plan to eventually have a mission creator anyways maybe you can build up a really robust version to use in house to make new content quickly and easily?
I try to find easy ways.. most of the time. ;)
Quoted for truth! I am a costume junky. I like to look different and I am one of those people that will pay for cool little aura's and shit. Actually a lot of people will pay more than a normal monthly sub for customization items. But if you paywall playable content that is revenue you lose.
can i haz a tshirt? :D
[img]http://i.imgur.com/3uH4BGk.png[/img]
I feel I have to re-ask the question I asked earlier: what's the (obviously very strong) objection some folks have to paying for content? Scott Jackson kindly laid out several reasons way up in this thread, the primary one of which was difficulties it can cause in teaming. Seems to me MWM is well aware of this and has offered suggestions to avoid that problem, so what is the continued objection? Do people believe MWM's solution to the teaming problem won't work? If so, it might be helpful to explain why.
I may be misunderstanding, but I seem to be hearing a good deal of "I'll be upset if content is monetised because monetising content upsets people." That's at best a non-informative statement and at worst circular logic. If it's not an issue of teaming difficulty, what exactly is the objection? I'm not trying to discount anyone's opinion, just trying to understand.
Personally, I love mission content. It's my favourite thing in the game, and therefore I'm willing to pay for it. Followed closely by power sets. Costumes and QoL perqs don't interest me enough to spend money on them. I understand a number of people out there would spend a lot of money on these things, but there is also a number of people who feel the way I do. How many? We don't know. I'm wondering how MWM can be expected to know without monetising it all and seeing what sells.
Spurn all ye kindle.
This is, in part why I described my suggestion with the highway analogy, everyone on the same freeway some pay for a special access lane. Instead of only those who pay can play certain types of content, everyone can play the extras, those who sub or pay the micro-sub related to it, can earn advanced reward options. I would not make those options give outt unique statistical items, only w way to earn some of the better items from the game in a more direct way, either by earning getting a skewed loot table that is rolled, or by giving a "token" that can be saved for purchase of specific items. Of those two options I would prefer a former. This way subs and non subs still earn the same things the game provides.
It's also why I suggested grouping the micro-subs into packages of related portions of the game, not down to the single piece of the game. Combining micro-subs if I were to assign monetary value, would give a discount until all forum micro-subs I had suggested were equal in value to the straight up macro-sub.
Then in addition to the micro/macro sub there would still be things that are purchasable that provide things like more character slots, more bank slots, more character inventory slots, and so on.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Sorry for the double post -- so much to respond to in one thread:
I love the idea of getting established names to contribute to mission design/writing and giving them royalties.
Re: subs -- What about vet rewards for continued subbing? (assuming long-term subbing would be of value to MWM)
Not sure I'm comfortable with the idea of better rewards for playing the same content. Maybe it could work, but it sounds a bit too much like pay to win to me at the moment.
Spurn all ye kindle.
i agree Tannim222
whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich
[img]http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm106/hinata1032/Kitsune.jpg[/img]
I am absolutely behind Tannim's idea 100%. As long as the rewards are not something that is unavailable to the F2P and are not something that will give the Subscriber a large advantage over a F2P. I'm not looking for a Subscribe to Win.
@Cinnder
Have you read my posts? I have listed several times what I feel to be reasons why it is not a good idea to gate content behind a pay wall.
I will list them again.
It will separate the community into haves and have nots.
It will force people to make sure that at least one of their friends or SG mates has purchased said content and be the sole provider for it.
It will fall upon the shoulders of the person who has this content to make sure that they do not disconnect from the game, are reliable to be online at specific times for everybody to play the content, do not have real life issues distract them from the game, and choose which people they will take with them on the content.
It will make people who do not have as much disposable income spend their limited funds on the new content vs. spending it on other things that they may want instead, making them feel extorted.
Think of it like an amusement park. You pay a gate fee to get into the park and you see all this fun stuff to do, so you start running around and the first few things you see are free, you stand in line, you ride the ride, you have fun, then you go a little further into the park, you see this really cool roller coaster ride, you stand in line for it, get to the front of the line, and now you have to pay me $5.00 to ride it. WHAAAT!! Didn't I just pay a fee at the gate to ride the rides? Yes, but those were only for the rides at the entrance. Anything beyond a certain point and you now have to pay for each ride you ride. But all the rides at the entrance were fun and all, but these rides back here look so much cooler! Yes, we know. Now pay us more money to ride them, or go back to the front of the park.
The amusement park doesn't make money on the rides. They make money on the entrance fee to the park, concessions, gift shop items, photos, and all the mini-games people play for a cheap prize to try to impress their friends and loved ones. Will some people pay extra for some of the rides? Sure. Those that have that kind of disposable income and don't mind throwing it away.
Now think of a State Fair. You get charged to park your car. You get charged an entrance fee to get into the fair. You get charged for every ride you ride. You get charged for concessions. You get charged for mini-games. How much are you going to be able to do? Now you have to pick and choose wisely as you have a limited budget to deal with.
I will even give you monetary examples to this.
Frontier City costs about $44.00 to get into the park and ride all the rides you want for free.
Tulsa State Fair costs about $20.00 to get into the fair. All the rides cost anywhere from 3 to 5 tickets to ride. 1 ticket is worth $1.00. That means you can ride 5 to 8 rides before you have spent about the same money as you did to go to an amusement park to ride all the rides for free.
Now imagine the State Fair scenario, only with the ability to take friends along with you on the rides. Somebody is going to have to be the designated money spender on the rides. Is it fair to have 7 other people all insist that you buy tickets to ride rides so that everybody in your group can ride rides?
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
It has long been in our plans - though as ever, it could change before they come to fruition - that the base builder would be based on the tool we use to build missions. So yes, we hope that will greatly increase our ability to develop content quickly. But I'm sure you've all done some amount of base-building; how long does it take to get a "level" just right? Add in considerations of narrative flow and balance (especially as the terrain can influence how hazardous certain enemies are based on initial positioning and how you have to get to them), writing the actual plot, and translating that into presentation to the player...
Set piece missions are going to cost time and therefore money to produce. How much needs to be determined. We just don't know, yet.
As for how long it will take people to trade for Stars on the market to get XYZ from the Starmart (whether content or something else), I have no idea. The beauty and peril of the AH is that it won't be directly controlled by us as developers. It will be supply and demand. The most developers could do would be to increase or decrease supply.
Personally, I do not want to put character slots on any sort of (micro)subscription. I don't like the idea that we have to put a lock and chain around your character if you stop paying us. I also see no reason to have a cap on how many character slots you can buy. If people are spending real money on character slots, and this leads us to having storage issues, then we probably have sold enough character slots that we can afford to expand our hardware to accommodate them! (I imagine character slots are something of a diminishing return in terms of utility to the player, as well. Eventually, I'm sure all players will reach a point where whatever it is we're charging for a new character slot just doesn't seem worth it when they can scrap a character they've forgotten about by now to make a new one. But what that threshold is will vary from person to person, and I'm all for allowing people the freedom to determine that point for themselves.) I similarly dislike selling "rented" access to powers and costume elements for much the same reason. Therefore, I prefer powers and costume pieces be purchased rather than subscription benefits.
The kinds of things I see being good for subscriptions are content channels (if we do them; it will again depend on how much it really costs to produce new content and whether this could be used to hire a larger staff to do that development), extra account-wide inventory slots (which "go away" if you stop paying for them, in that you can't put anything IN them anymore, but you could still retrieve items already stored...just not put them back), improved chat client access and usage (because it reduces the amount of front-end monitoring we have to do when the threat of "lose your access" means you have to shell out more money...on a new account...to get it back), maybe certain "concierge" services (preferential access to game masters and technical support, perhaps). "Inventory" can be broken up into any number of sub-categories: boost slots, AH slots, one-shot item slots, currency caps... not sure any or all of those would be on the list, but they're theoretically options.
Generally, I feel that subscription items should be things which, if you lose access to them, don't shut down a character. Generally, these are QoL items and "memberships" to things.
First and priority access, things which make it easier to play the game in a leisurly way (e.g. fewer trips to deal with inventory being full), etc. NOT things which are intrinsic to a character, like his costume or his power set.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I make suggestions and you take them as something set in stone. I give you a BASE to start with, you can't come up with a better way to handle it. You want people to have unlimited character slots, fine. I am not saying you can't. I was giving you an example of how to make it so that a Subscriber has some benefits over the Non Subscriber. I never said once that if you bought something from the cash store you couldn't have access to it if you decided to cancel your subscription. All those costumes you bought, yours. All those powers you bought, yours. All those ATs you bought, yours. I was making a suggestion that if a person subscribed then they had automatic access to all of that stuff without having to purchase them. If they decided to go back to F2P well then they would have to purchase each one individually.
You want to not charge for ATs and Powers to make life easier for the players, but then turn around and charge for the content instead, which doesn't make life easier for the players. I do not understand your thinking. Making people pay for content shuts down their ability to play the game. You say no, but you are wrong. Yes they can still play all the content that they didn't pay for, but they can't play the content they didn't pay for. All their friends that did pay for it, get to play it. Teaming will be limited, I'm going to safely assume, so if you have more than say 7 friends that all want to play and you are the only person that paid you now have to choose which ones get to play and which ones don't!
This argument was given based off of the CoV and Going Rogue expansions. People who had CoV could play all the Villain content, those that didn't couldn't. This upset a lot of people. How can you not remember this? This is why I'm a huge advocate of non pay walled content. I lost several friends that played City of Heroes because they did not want to buy the expansions. Because they did not want to buy VIP membership to do Incarnate Trials. You will be shooting yourself in the foot!
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Apologies, I should have been more clear. I have seen these points but I don't understand the reasons why they are a problem. I'll address each one and maybe you can help me understand the problem with each.
That's true for anything one can buy in a game: costume pieces, power sets, enhancements, etc. I'm trying to understand what makes mission content different. Why is it ok for only some people to have the Dr Tyche beard but not for only some people to have the Dr Tyche mission?
Aye, just like if you wanted to play a board game or Wii game: one person would have to buy it so everyone could play. I'm having trouble seeing why this is a bad thing.
Didn't MWM already cover that above when they said if the owner is DCed everyone can continue playing the mission, or even the whole arc?
If they would rather spend their money on other things, what's stopping them? Extortion would involve forcing someone to buy the content, but I don't see why they would feel that way. Do people feel extorted when a costume piece is put up for sale in the store? Or are you saying that there's something about content where people feel they have to have all of it, and that doesn't apply to other stuff that can be bought in a game? (If so, can you explain why folks might feel that way?)
I see what you're saying with the amusement park analogy, but I'm not sure it applies here because you don't pay once to be able to enter an amusement park for the rest of its operating life. I'm sure if we had to buy the "box" again every new day that we wanted to play CoT MWM would make everything we could get inside the game absolutely free. :-)
Spurn all ye kindle.
Having a costume piece over having content is completely different. Costume pieces are shineys. Content is the core of the game that will be played. Content is more desirable than having Dr. Tyche's beard.
My problem with having one person the content holder for a group of friends is that it reduces the profits from MWM. If it takes x dollars to create content and they need y people to purchase it to make a profit then that profit is cut for each z person that is allowed access to the content from the y holder.
Yes, people will still be able to finish the mission they are on if the mission holder gets disconnected from the game or has to leave. They can not continue on the Arc however. If a raid has multiple missions in it then what happens after the paid mission holder has to leave? Do they get to finish the entire Raid, or do they only get to finish the one mission they were already on and then can't continue any further?
The idea that people will feel extorted once again comes back to, how I choose to spend my money. If I feel that I HAVE to spend my money on content otherwise I'm missing out on content then I am feeling extorted. I don't feel that way if I see a cool costume, I don't HAVE to go buy that costume. Is it cool? Sure. Do I need to have it? No. But if I see content that I can't play, well I have to go buy that content. Content IS the game. Costumes and other shineys are not the game.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
I understand. I was replying to you by way of attempting to converse on what my take on it is. I'm not saying "your ideas are terrible; shut up." I'm saying, "Here's the philosophy from which I am trying to work." I appreciate the suggestions; I'm responding to them and hoping to guide refinement thereof.
I know you weren't. I was saying that I don't think restricting ability to spend more money on more slots to subscribers really helps. I was also trying to emphasize that things like that are not what I would like to see on subscription side of things, because they're kind of like holding characters hostage at that point.
Which is appreciated. I was trying to discuss it with you.
Nor did I think you were doing so.
I did understand you, then. I was just saying that I don't care for that because it means that people who have built while subscribing may lose access to characters if they stop subscribing.
One way to implement that would be to have a "if you stop subscribing, you can press this button to buy all you need to keep this character unlocked" button on each character. I'm still leery of it because I suspect it will come off as extortive. I've heard some complicated rent-to-own schemes which do things like let you pick a costume piece a month or something that becomes "yours" while you're subscribed, but I think that conflates too much with the stipend, and just that it's cleaner to avoid the problem by simply selling the costume pieces in the Starmart and not having any subscriber benefit to "rent" them.
Again, I appreciate you expressing these ideas; I am trying to respect them by explaining what I do and do not care for in them. And why.
I never said that. I said I don't want to make them subscription items. I would prefer they be one-time purchases, is all, because I don't want character locked because the player LOSES access to those powers or classifications.
It really depends on how much content is in the free rotation at any given point in time. And remember, this isn't something even set in wet clay, yet. It's just on the chalkboard for coming up with ideas and seeing what and how they work.
But let's say there are 1000 missions in the game, total. If the free rotation contains, say, 50 of them at a time, that's hardly leaving players with nothing to do.
You've equated the free rotation to "a free hit of crack." If I'm understanding your analogy correctly, it seems to me that you're saying that, having played that mission once, twice, or a dozen times in the duration it was free, the player will want to play that mission over and over again and will be frothing to get more. The implication is that now charging them for it is extortive.
You then turn around and say that even the ability to earn Stars by trading on the AH is not sufficient, because the time it might take to earn that many Stars won't be worth the mission you've bought with it. The implication I infer from this - and please correct me if I'm misreading you - is that the player will not get as much time and enjoyment out of owning the mission as he had to expend to get the Stars to buy it. This would seem to imply a lack of replay value.
These two objections seem to contradict each other: on the one hand, getting it free means you HAVE to have it over and over, but on the other, it's not got enough replay value to make working to get the Stars to buy it worth the effort and time.
My expectation is more that most players will do the free missions one or more times while they're in the free rotation, and will get their fill of those particular missions in that time. They'll move on to the next set of missions to rotate in. If a particular mission is somebody's favorite and they just have to do it over and over again, they can buy access to it, either with cash (used to buy Stars directly) or by working to earn it as a goal through gameplay. If they like it that much, surely it will prove worth the effort.
Am I missing something in your concerns? Am I misparsing your objections?
I'm again sensing an underlying assumption that somehow your friends with whom you do not team will never get to play this mission. This is not the case; the mission WILL come into the free rotation. That you've paid for it means you want to be able to do it on-demand, rather than waiting. This is fine! But if you like it so much that you want to do it on-demand, why do you object to re-doing it with different groups of friends?
Alternatively, what prompted you to buy that mission?
I suppose this becomes an issue mainly with subscription to "channels," as that gives you a larger list of "current rotation" missions. Even then, though, if your friends who don't team with you while it's in one of your subscribed channels don't get to play it this period of time, they still might some later period of time, when it comes into the rotation for a channel (including the free one) to which they ARE subscribed.
Your friends are not [i]denied[/i] access to the content. They just aren't playing it with you [i]this time[/i].
Let's say you have one more friend than you can team with. You have access to this one mission that none of your friends do. You play it with all but one of them. (You were going to have to exclude one from a given team anyway, whether content is gated or not.) He wasn't likely to get to play that content with you in the next day or so anyway, unless you were willing to re-run it. The only difference, if it's not paywalled in some way, is that he could choose to solo that particular mission.
But what is it about that particular mission that says he must solo it NOW? Why can't he wait until it's in the free rotation, or until you're up for running it again?
I'm legitimately trying to understand your objection. What am I missing?
Actually, the other primary objector to this "Netflix model" has been advocating "big expansions" to gate content. His desire is for "a bunch of new stuff" to come with it, as well. So apparently some people have no problem with that model while still disliking what I've been discussing. They're definitely not the same.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Again, though, if we don't charge for content at all, then it reduces profits still further. And makes the area that is not seen as "overhead" be just the "shinies."
Raids are...tricky beasts. We're still examining how we want to approach them on a number of levels; the financial one is way down the list right now. Suffice it to say they're not quite the same as "normal missions," and thus have a number of different considerations to, well, consider.
That's entirely subjective, though. To somebody else, if they see a costume they can't have, they feel "extorted" into buying that costume. Or "forced" into earning that badge.
Unlike those costume pieces, that mission you really want to play will eventually become free, under the netflix model. In fact, if it's a NEW mission, it will enter the free rotation in a week to a month or so (depending on how long we see our development cycle taking). So everybody will definitely get to have a chance at it within a period or few of it hitting the New Releases channel. (Again, this is theoretical; it is not guaranteed we're using this model.)
There will always be content everybody can play, and (at least, if I have my druthers) every bit of content will at some point be something everybody can play for free. It will rotate into the free list guaranteed a certain time after it was introduced, and then will become available periodically as things rotate in and out of being free. You will never be in a situation where "I cannot ever do this mission if I do not pay for it."
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I give up! I don't either know how to explain it any further, or explain it in a way you'll understand. I'm done. Maybe somebody else will be able to do a better job than I did, but I'm done. I'll watch and see how this all plays out, but I'm not holding my breath.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
Being upset because people don't share your views is not based in our understanding of your position. I understand what you are saying and I do not agree. Story content is not the same as costume content in that it is more expensive to create, but both are game content that require development.
No one is denying the "Upsell" economics of MMO gaming. Are there some hazards behind putting content behind a paywall for direct payment? Yes. Should that content be developed at the cost of the studio? No. The question of how to fund that development. Many people prefer to fund it directly. Others want to fund it indirectly. But the people who want to fund it indirectly need to understand what that model looks like.
I am "okay" with many models of monetization. I find it sad that people are already using threats to get their opinions heard. It's not like people are not listening (clearly by how many Rednames are in this thread), but listening does not mean agreeing.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
As I see the world, the issue is this:
If you cannot monetise new content either by sub or one off payment, the only content that will get made is repeatable missions (this is happening in NW) what you don't get is new sub max level zones like those that appeared in CoH (Striga/Croatoa etc) with a proper storyline and one off arcs.
So how do people propose we do the monetisation ?
My personal non dev view is that everything should be free to subscribers (except possibly some guest authored stuff with royalties involved). If you stop subscribing, there should be a loyalty scheme (based on how long you subbed for) which governs what you keep with microsubs for "must keeps".
I'd actually like to see a variant on a lifetime sub where you pony up a fee upfront and get lifetime half price subs afterwards, meaning it's cheaper than a traditional lifetime sub, pays for itself in a year or two, but the game still gets something out of you if you choose to stay subbed.
NW is one of the games where the monetisation is pretty fierce, but if you have patience, everything can be obtained playing free (I dropped a fair amount of money in the early days, but have played free since). It's not P2W, but it's "P2get stuff done quicker" and no content is pay gated.
I have no objection to paid for expansions like CoV.
I think the "monetisation atmosphere" is important, if everybody thinks you're trying to screw every last dime out of them, they will put up with much less. I rarely agree with Golden Girl, but when somebody said another game was getting its largest content update since the start and she said "What ? 2 new lockboxes ?" I lold hard.
We need people to feel that whatever they're buying is value for money whether it's content, increased inventory space, character slots or whatever. I know in NW, if storage was less expensive, they'd have had a lot more of my money overall, $12 for a 24 slot bag for one character is too much, if I could pay $25 for a 24 slot bag on all my characters, they're have had it in a flash for example.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Oh, Warcabbit, can't we just get beyond Thunderdome?
(parenthetically, I'm glad we didn't get burned too badly in that whole "thunderdome" fiasco a while back...)
edit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEI_udV88i4
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Hm. A "level range" channel (still toying with how the netflix model might work) - or rather, set of channels - could be a good one. Missions in it are selected for the specific level range in the channel's name, allowing a player to subscribe to get more content in his preferred level range. In addition to the customizing of his menu of currently-available missions, this would give us as developers a window into just what level ranges have the most popularity. And we could focus development where it seems most wanted by our players.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I think it's clear that different people have different likes,dislikes, wants, needs, and priorities, so you'll never please all of the people all of the time. I can't propose to tell you what everyone wants, I can really only speak to you of my own behavior. I personally wouldn't balk at the idea of monetizing virtually everything in some way (what way to be determined by the devs per what they think is appropriate for what, some things get purchased and consumed one at a time, some are locked/unlocked for a time, etc).
In a world where sub and non-sub access exist, there will be people in both camps trying to save money. I think that in order to have people like me willing to play a sub, that sub needs to give me what I would want either as the only way of getting it (like CoX had with Incarnate) or as the most efficient way of getting it (again, like CoX had with crafting licenses and auction house access). If the sub is not a clear money-saver as compared to the non-sub who just pays as they go for that, then the sub will not work, IMO.
I really feel like the game needs to have some kind of thing you need to pay for on an ongoing basis in order to generate revenue and make a sub viable and a good buy for the customer. What did that in CoX that was Incarnate, and I would do something like that, but let non-subs pay a la carte for the occasional Lambda or BAF or whatever if and when they felt they wanted to, like buying a ticket at the box office on their way into the show, just to allow them to participate while keeping the sub a viable product. If those people are going to have that handed to them for free, then why am I paying a sub? If the sub pays for crafting and auction house access that I can use to enhance my toon, then how is THAT not "pay to win"? People can put bad-sounding labels on stuff like "pay wall" and "pay to win" and talk about "dividing the player base" all they want, the facts are: 1) the game company is in business to make money, and that means they want MY money and YOUR money and THEIR money to be paid to them, for the game. If it offends you that the game company want's your money, grow up. The company needs that money to continue to make a good game. 2) not all players are the same, some like to solo, some like to team up, some are hardcore PVPers, some hate PVP, some are min/maxers, some are more RPGers, etc. So the player base is not a homogeneous body to begin with and is already a house divided in more ways than one. weep not for the poor non-subbers who can't afford to pay for a trial or TF. This is a game afterall, not food or shelter or clothing.
If all I make money on is costume sets, and new powers, consumables, and other cosmetic stuff, then I have no reason to make any new content. It's not what's making me money, so I'd make more of what IS making me money. That's just good business. So the idea of "let's take the money from the new costume set we just sold to make some new missions and stuff for people to play" doesn't work. The sales revenues from costumes mean that the company needs to make more costumes to sell to people. What sells drives future production.
Content that got me something I wanted in CoX was compelling content that I wanted to play. If you're going to charge money for any mission/TFs/raids, etc, I feel the only good reason why I'd pay for that content is because it might get me an Incarnate Power or Synthetic HamiO or something, and I would pay for that. I don't like the idea of MWM selling those HamiOs and things outright in the store, but earning them by completing paid-for missions/Tfs/raids, etc is fine by me.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
"If you build it, they will come."
I anticipate that piecemeal content will have little appeal to me. Sure, if it goes into the game I'd play that mission or story arc. I might even go out of my way to see what it's all about. It's new, after all. Pay for it? Not likely.
That would be like building first base and expecting me to get excited. What am I supposed to do with that?
Build an entire baseball field and then you'll have my attention.[color=red]*[/color]
Simply put, I am quite willing to pay for an (proper[color=red]**[/color]) expansion but am unlikely to pay for individual missions or story arcs.
[br]
[color=red]*[/color] For my fellow Europeans: equate it to having a centre circle drawn on a lawn, versus being provided a full football field. Also, not a particular fan of watching baseball. Still better than basketball. Then again, in a Zugzwang situation I would rather watch golf than basketball.
[color=red]**[/color] One new zone, minimum, although I would consider that rather "weaksauce" as expansions go.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
I can state this with absolute certainty: Whatever model we go with, there will be a complete game to play without having to buy anything beyond the box. It may have fewer conveniences or shiny toys, and may have a pace set differently than your personal preferences, but it will all be there. (Personalizing the pace and increasing convenience are amongst 'QoL' things.)
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I just hope we get a Queue System for those Looking to Group, and not just Setting a Flag. :)
So Leader creates a [b]New Entry[/b] in the [b]LFG Queue[/b], and picks from a list of existing TF's, Arcs, or from his/her own list of Missions... including Cape Missions, Aura, etc... with a Details section letting you fill out text that goes further into the details for the TF...
...like: "We will be doing a Masters Of... So you need a build thats IO'ed Out!" or even: "Bring whatever you want. We will be taking it nice and slow." or just "Speed Run!" ;)
Of course, the LFG Queue system wont eliminate people Still wanting to ask more stuff in the LFG Chat channel. :(
The LFG Queue might be in a regular listview format... with a number of columns for things like Free Slots left, Level ranges, Start Time / Starting In, etc...
Maybe later, have it work for SG's also.
Not sure any sort of resentment will come about from SG members that fail to join the SG Queue. Maybe the SG Queue works just a little different?? ... and place the excess players that wanted to join that team.. into a 2nd Team? :/
I guess the SG Queue would also be ported later for people wanting to do open world Raids, too. ;)
Some game recently did try just-subscriptions, notably SWTOR. But as Phoulmouth pointed out, they were forced into changing their business model due to the game being crap. Now SWTOR ignores fixing game problems and focuses on putting out new stuff and a massive push on selling addons. That's not an example to follow nor to give for saying subscriptions don't work.
So most games have a combined model, limited free-to-play as an introduction, an upgraded status for non-subscribers who've paid real money for stuff, and subscribers (or their equivalent, like paying for premium in World of Tanks or Warthunder). Sometimes there's extra items, usually cosmetic, that everyone pays for. But rarely is content paywalled. And when it is, it's in large chunks, like in DCUO. And subscribers get access to most content, including those chunks, except sometimes major upgrades, like CIty of VIllains / Going Rogue.
While I can see the benefit of some special content with a price (like War Cabbit alluded to), which will likely only get added with that sort of financing, I'm alarmed at this as a general trend in game content. And I don't think have a rotating schedule of making content free is going to do anything except add yet another metagame to the game.
All MMO games, whether more battle arena or RPG world, make their money by attracting punters who like the game and thus are willing to spend money on it. That's the experience that matters. Stumbling across paywalls as you play detract from that experience. People don't like being nickled-and-dimed.
Remember the example of Radiac's friend. He'll pay the subscription to play the game. If the game was free, he'd not want to pay out that money just for special content.
This many-paywalls-for-content design seems to be the goal for City of Titans now. I don't like this at all. I will have to reconsider my support for this game. I know of others that have already given up on City of Titans and more joining them.
Jackie, while I'm not parT of tHe business side of our company, I just wanted to let you know that I appreciate your concerns.
And just so it is clear, nothing so far as monetization has been set in stone, other than there was a commitment made that there will be a subscription fee of some sort for the game and that there will be a cash store that provides...stuff. It has been publically stated that "stuff" will not include pay to win schemes other than perhaps QoL like xp boosters. No dollar amounts have been attached to anything.
Now what's been brought up in this thread is a desire to provde a non-sub access to the game after purchase of the game itself and then the possibility of providing micro-subs for certain aspects of the game that would be covered under a full sub. Other than that, all else is up in the air, no direction has been set.
It is good you have voiced your opinion and concerns so that those who are making decisions can take them into consideration.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
Several points, as I've been away for a few days and this topic has grown considerably.
To the best of my knowledge, Pay-for-Content is the only monetization method currently up for debate that has the potential to confuse such a wide swath of CoT's most devoted potential players and diminish teaming. Thus if it's to be implemented, it must be done with extraordinary caution, with solid solutions to its issues.
After reading more of this topic, I am no longer convinced that the "Leader's access counts for team" model is, by itself, an adequate solution to general objection # 1, Negative Impacts on Gameplay / Teaming. I would now recommend that three additional pieces are necessary for fairness and minimized impact to teaming.
1. Absolutely no detectably-different/improved rewards or drop rates are designed into the paid content or a "subscribed experience" of that content, thus making it optional and "cosmetic".
2. All paid content is permanently unlockable with Stars which are available through in-game trade with other players, one-time purchase from MWM, or as part of a subscription purchase from MWM.
3. Paid content is limited to Special Author Stories and "Zone Expansion Boxes" (like CoV) that eventually are merged into the Basic Game Box except where royalty deals prevent it, and which fund development that simply couldn't happen without this revenue. It reduces potential confusion by applying only to very specific portions of the game; paid content is and feels optional but very worthwhile to Lore-driven players, and is thus more easily justified and explained to new buyers/players who can view it as another way to customize their experience.
4. "Leader access counts for team" - its limits should be well understood and documented in-game. Cycling of paid content to be temporarily free is a nice idea and could be done, but is not necessary under this 4-piece model to ensure fairness.
****************
Two conditions are necessary if CoT is to meet or exceed the CoH standard in its monetization method; it must both be fair and feel fair. The first requires business and marketing wisdom (to generate more revenue than expenses) and an enduring studio commitment to never charge for anything that gives a noticeable direct or indirect gameplay advantage over a basic box purchaser, unless obtainable through a longer but reasonable-to-most-players game path. The second (and more difficult) is the atmosphere referenced by Minotaur in post 252. It requires seeking to understand and empathize with the full range of players' situations, one example being in Static's post 232, who would prefer not to become an unwilling part of a content-sharing minigame.
Does MWM want to bring the overwhelming majority of the playerbase to the forums, cheering in support of reasonable prices, fun gameplay with diverse options and replayability, excellent customer service, low persistent bug count, quality story content, and highly-acclaimed customization and QoL items? Do you want players to beg harder for this game (and cry harder if it ever disappeared) than any other in the history of gaming? Then build the innovative game that's being described to us in the updates, have the internal studio fortitude to prioritize quality over quantity & profit as the years go by, and monetize it to a level of fairness that exceeds CoH and the other games we've played since.
I understand and share the desire to link revenue to content development, and see the benefit of this force as it keeps the studio focused more toward content delivery than trivial cash shop items. I believe that the best form for doing so is an occasional, massive "zone expansion" in the form of a Paid Expansion Box/Download which does not alter gameplay, and which - after an initial exclusivity period - eventually becomes part of the Basic Game Box/Download.
The alternative...frequent releases of MWM-developed, individually-purchasable story arcs (with or without special rewards)...would also ensure a more content = more revenue studio emphasis, but the risk is higher: a more widespread and frequent potential for confusing teaming effects such as leader drops just before starting or how to handle invites to refill a mid-arc team after leader DC's; hard feelings and stratification from each perceived reward difference between Basic Box content and the many paid content arcs; an atmosphere of feeling nickel-and-dimed just to keep playing alongside friends as new paid content is deployed each week/month/issue.
By now it's probably clear that I'm describing a slight tweak of CoH's content deployment model plus the studio's ability, as player-developers, to demonstrate improved "finger on the pulse of fairness" (and lack of a publisher breathing down MWM's neck to demand industry-leading hat/lockbox revenue). It should serve us well as players. I'd like to think it will make the development and business team proud with a successful launch, many years of growth, and a minimum of forum heat.
I apologize for the lengthy post, but didn't see any other way to give it justice. The amount of MWM involvement here is commendable.
I've read all of Alexandre Dumas's books and don't consider this that long a post. It's well organized and broken into paragraphs for easy reading.
Be Well!
Fireheart
As has been said a lot, but bears repeating when I post since I have the whole "Business Manager" thing in my signature, nothing is set in stone.
Regarding Scott Jackson's 4 points, most of them are included in the so-called "netflix model." Points 3 and 4 are replaced by the idea of rotating free content, however. Part of the reason for rotating it all into "free" in such a way that all content is free for roughly the same amount of time is to avoid any possibility that there is a hidden "pay to win" in the quality of some content.
I suppose the problem I THINK I'm seeing is that a lot of people keep conflating "paid-for content" with "content nobody can access if they don't pay or know somebody who paid." This seems inherent to the admonitions against making "paid-for content" have "better" rewards than free content.
To make this a really, really simple example, let's say that there is one mission available "for free" each day. (Yes, I know that that would be unplayably few; this is an example using minimal numbers for ease of consideration.) CoT releases with 7 missions, one for each day of the week. Each day, one of those missions is randomly chosen with uniform probability as the free one. Over time, this will cause the average number of times a given mission has been available to be equal to the number of weeks.
Players may purchase each and any mission they like for Stars. If they have purchased a mission, they may play it any day they like, whether it is free or not that day.
Under this highly simplistic model, I hope it is obvious that there is no way for the "paid-for content" to have better drops than the free content. They're the same content.
In order to discuss the idea of the "new releases" channel, I have to complicate and alter this a little. Let's say that there are 12 missions when CoT comes out, and that each week, 3 of them are randomly chosen with uniform probability to be the ones that are free. A new mission for CoT is created every month. For the month in which it is released, the players subscribed to the "new releases" channel will have access to that new mission PLUS whatever three missions are free this week. When a new mission is released, it replaces the last month's mission in the "new releases" channel, and for the first week of the new month, one of the three free missions will be last month's "new release."
Thus, each new mission becomes free for one week the month after it was released to subscribed players. The increased number of missions reduces the odds of any given mission being one of the free ones for a week, but all missions are eventually free at some point. So, again, there's no uniquely pay-walled content; you're paying for early access or for convenience to do a favorite mission on demand.
Obviously, with nothing set in stone and the above being as simplistic an example implementation as I could come up with, the above isn't the exact way this would work if we even implemented that model. But I hope it gives an idea as to why I push back so strongly against admonitions against "pay to win" paywalled missions. There can't be such a thing when all missions are treated the same, and all missions have as much chance of being free at any given point in time as any other mission.
And that's still just if we went with the netflix model.
[color=#ff0000]Business Manager[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I think that there exist at least two different types of gamers we can consider.
1. Former CoX players and "hardcore fans" like me who will want a full sub because we intend to be really into this game and want to help it succeed.
2. The casual players who will tend to come and go, won't have a terribly high level of emotional investment in the game, and will basically be on once in a while to do whatever.
Group 1 pretty clearly prefers a full-sub as the only option and forget the nickel and dimeing, and I can see that point. That said, forcing a group 2 person to either pay a full sub or stop playing the game after 3 months is losing the company money, as I see it. The group 1 people are the hungry person who goes to an all-you-can-eat buffet to save money and get full. The group 2 person is a person who only want's a cup of coffee. You want to make everyone pay $15 a month for a single cup of coffee (or whatever that equates to in game play terms)?
Anyone who claims they'd be a subscriber then rages against the idea of charging the non-sub people a la carte for stuff they might want here and there is missing that point, I feel. I mean, do you people go into the convenient store and b!tch at the clerk that they're charging $1.89 for a bottle of coke when the Wal-Mart down the road sells cases of the stuff for less money per bottle? Do you demand that they sell coke for free then only charge for optional extras like straws and ice?
And the idea that ALL content ought to be free just doesn't fly with me. If new content is to be made, new content must make the company money, in and of itself, or else development of it will become very "back burner". It's been said that new content can't be made by devs as fast as players will get bored of it in the first place, I don't like the idea of slowing that down even more by demanding that it be free for everyone. I think there ought to be a lot of free content in the game when it rolls out, enough to get me to level cap, but I will pay for new content too over time as that gets made, if its stuff I want to do, which would pretty much require it to be like a STF or incarnate trial or something, i.e. content that can get me cool stuff. It wouldn't matter to me if you made the SSAs in CoX free, because I paid a full sub and still never did them for that reason.
If the "buy the box, get 3 months sub with it" thing happens, you might have SOME of the group 2 people not buy it at all because they don't want to pay the up-front cost, but I think it's been said before that this practice minimizes the amount of free account trolls who only want to advertize on chat channels or just generally grief people, and I hope it does, so I'm for it.
Now, given the "three months sub with purchase of game" idea, the first three months that CoT is out it may as well be sub-only, because everyone who's playing at that time will in fact have a sub, because they got it with the game purchase. So the sub-only option basically already exists, at least for the first three months. Frankly, I''m not sure you'd have anything in those early days to separate the sub from the non-sub if you wanted to. How much new content and so forth can you roll out in month 4 when the first non-sub people start to drop into non-sub status? Can we reasonably expect the game to have meaningful differences between what the subs get and what the non-subs get by then? I don't know. So maybe the "sub or don't play at all" option is the best fit in the beginning anyway, maybe the first year or so. That could be it. But I feel sorry for the people who don't have 20 hours a week to play CoT and just want to mess around on it for a few hours a month, and what's worse I feel like MWM could be selling them something that they're not selling because people on full subs complained that it was too "greedy", even though they weren't the demographic being served by it and it didn't directly affect their wallets anyway.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
@ScottJackson
I am writing a response to your entire post and am not trying to nitpick your ideas in any way. I think you eloquently described your ideal system and reasoning for it. Thank you for this. That being said I disagree (hopefully respectfully) with some points for the following reasons
Firstly, I don't think its a desire. To me it is simply math. Even as a AAA quality game we likely will not have a AAA studio marketing budget to bring in players.. yes even people who played CoX.
The revenue model has to be prepared to treat itself as an indie studio with a Small to Growth business model. This means removing spending caps from players and not devaluing content over time (especially by letting it become free to people who come to the game later). IF/When they game and studio have the user base to think about larger quantity revenue models then many more people will be happy.
Your monetization ideals, as a theorhetical-academic study, are based on desires I agree with, both from the view of consumer and of supplier. But the debate of what THIS game does for money, especially at its infancy is not a strictly academic debate. There are some real limits that form the discussion, and what
It is better to start with the assumption of a smaller user base. Even if we will start with (and keep at the 3 month mark) a large base. Wildstar had some record sales at pre-Launch and Launch but at the 3 months mark everyone players did not come back.. their monetization model would have been better served if they assumed smaller user numbers out of the gate (and they are a HUGE company with MILLIONS of marketing dollars spent). Better to take steps forward (being able to devalue our content based on user numbers) than to need to take post launch steps backward (trying to add value for less content).
- -
To a second point of your post (and others), when citing the desire to recreate the CoH model you really must be specific to which expansion and time period you speak of.. When many of the CoX expansions came out the game was still a subscription only game.
Why is this important? Offering unlimited content rental over a period of time is something that caps player spending. In business in general, capping spending without the ability to up-sell is a very inflexible model with a very limited growth potential. I have stated before that offering unlimited content access rental for a monthly fee is dangerous for an indie company to lock itself into because it drives the need for marketing expenses for growth (AKA the only way to grow is by getting new players). And more important than any of those still, the market has shown that subscription only gaming is failing, period. The only exception is the monopoly of the market which is not an exception we can afford.
- -
Next, I agree with you that leader only metagame is troubling to me. I don't want to be spammed with invite requests just because someone knows I have access to a mission, and I don't want to start seeing certain players defined as "leechers". Most important to me is that it greatly devalues the purchase of the content (fewer buyers).
- -
Finally it seems CoT is dedicated to a model that does not "take away" content that you've rented as a subscriber.. so the "rental-subscriber" model is already somewhat not viable in traditional terms. Locking characters behind the subscription wall is something I can get behind. I tend to see it as incentive but there are surely other incentive models that can work, and that is the direction CoT devs have expressed. This to me also lends its way to the "weekly trial" of content to not be viable because again it takes content (story or otherwise) away from players who once had it.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I am prepared to accept a model where the content is NOT devalued over time (content not made free) because I understand that the games' latecomers will need to pay too in in order for the game to grow.
I am prepared to pay directly for content and accept that this represents my desires as a consumer. Story content sales paying for story content development; costume content sales paying for more costume content.
I am willing to listen to payment models for indirect sales but this cannot include gambling, nor a payment capped solution.
I am willing to accept that "subscriptions" have many possible definitions and that this does not always mean unlimited access to content.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I kind of followed those last two posts from JayBezz, especially this:
Sort of right, JayBezz. But no one is saying subscription-only. What we are saying is don't shoot yourself in the foot with complex paywalls and systems that just confuse and piss off the players. And all those fancy business terms indicates to me you don't understand the human side of the equation. As in success is always governed by a having a great game, letting players know about it, allowing them to take it in stages of expense that are simple and clear. And you don't confuse or piss off the player base.
Which is already happening. City of Titans is no where near going to supporter-access alpha and it's already losing support.
I will only disagree with this statement. People threatening to not support the game before they see it are either bluffing or were never supporters of the game in the first place.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Wow. I guess all that money we contributed to the kickstarter counts for nothing.
A game is always being judged. As are those who run it. It's a tough job partly because of that.
This isn't a threat. This is feedback. It's saying what we've seen and read so far is eroding any hope and benefit of the doubt we had. And we're the people who supported the kickstarter.
It's just like any relationship. Take it for granted and it starts slipping away from you. Start causing alarm and it slips away faster.
You obviously have a lot of hope for this game, JayBezz. I hope you won't end up disappointed. I fear you will.
And I think this is an incorrect, and slightly insulting attitude to have. I don't blame the devs for your attitude, but still. Right now, "support" for the game is based on faith and hope. That's it. Many of us have expressed our faith and hope by literally throwing some money at the devs, myself included. We are, literally, supporters of this game and the project. To claim we aren't supporters because we recognize aspects of the project that would be deal-killers for spending [i]more[/i] money on this project is absurd.
Honestly the devs have not done anything that has particularly alienated me, yet, but I can see how others can be disturbed by the direction the business side is going, and they're warning the developers than there is at least a non-0 portion of the customer base that feels that way.
There are things that could be decided in the business model that will cause me to abandon an otherwise good game. It happened with the progression system in Ghost Recon: Phantoms, recently. The raw disparity between the levels of equipment in the game were so drastic, along with a few tricky ways to sink earned currency completely alienated me from what is otherwise a very enjoyable shooter.
It's foolish to hand-wave people upset about a potential business model.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Segev - thank you for the additional information about the Netflix new releases microsub channel(s) + rotating free missions model. Perhaps it is the best feasible model. However, I am lacking some peripheral info to figure that out, so I'll try to seek it as part of the ***example, below.
I think I know why this topic has produced so many pleas to avoid pay-to-win... it contains ideas posted by a couple of players / MWM team members which *do* propose what others call either blatant or hidden pay-to-win elements. Without a "baseline / official" proposal to use as a starting point for discussion and improvement, and since we've shifted the discussion mid-thread, it is difficult for me (and others?) to see whether any such model is already guaranteed to be fair in the rewards department, or propose adjustments to polish it to reasonable perfection from a player POV, or highlight a perceived weakness in its revenue-generating ability to make it strong enough to not require the enticement of extra rewards to drive purchases. With so many proposals on the field, anti-pay-to-win statements are uncertainty-based generic responses in each discussion of paid content... whether the specific model, such as yours, deserves the admonishment or not.
The (excessive?) caution also stems from knowledge that what starts as good intentions and a clean system, (e.g. rotations into a list of free content) doesn't always stay clean or isn't quite enough, by itself, to prevent reward differences from stratifying the playerbase. Taking the rotations idea... If basic content awards 10 merits/hr, paid content "P" awards 20/hr and paid content "Q" awards 50/hr, then yes, during the week that Q is free, everyone has equal reward-earning opportunity (50/hr). Once Q moves off the free list and is replaced by P, box-only players earn 20/hr and subs can earn 50/hr...since they can always access the highest-rewarding content. To prevent this, the studio would need to commit to either making basic and paid content all reward about equally, or at least make P and Q award the same so that there is never a noticeably-higher-rewarding mission available off the free list. That commitment may have been made already, and just not clearly heard by everyone.
***Example overall revenue model, including a possible Netflix and rotating free content idea:
Since I have trouble seeing the effects without lining up content alongside everything else, the example is more exhaustive than some. Sorry, but I hope it adds rather than detracts from the process.
In the examples you provided, I didn't see a mention of a large block of "always free" content, but I'm guessing it is there. Working with your 2nd example, it could look something like...
Basic Game Box (at launch) $45:
200 Story Arc missions, 3 Task Forces, free roaming of the City and 2 "hazard zones", and unlimited proc-generated "clue/radio" missions.
-Allows all players to reach max level, team freely, and acquire all rewards & powerups without added microtransactions or subs (micro or full).
-Includes 3 months of full sub.
-A "rotating highlighted activity" system may be used to make bonus rewards available to all players (like CoH's weekly TFs). This could highlight any content which is free at the time.
-Possible limits on the number of characters (alts) per account, but additional payments could unlock essentially unlimited slots.
-May not include all possible class/spec combinations.
-May not include all powersets/themes within those class/specs which are included with box purchase.
-Does not include all possible costume options / cosmetic items, but provides a solid basic supply for customization.
-Includes at least basic access to all "core game systems" available at launch, such as chat channels, PvP, and auction house. Some QoL features may not be included (more transaction slots, extra build slots) and are thus optional paid items.
Optional Paid Content (at launch):
12 Story Arc missions available, from MWM writers.
-These can be individually unlocked permanently at the account level. *A
-Channel Microsubs (monthly increments?) offer temporary access to either the new releases @$3/mo, all content @$5/mo, or content with a certain theme (e.g. Mystery Channel, if there's enough content to justify this category and cost) @$1/mo each. Ending a channel microsub means loss of access, except to *A.
-"Everything/Full" Sub includes the "all content" microsub. Ending a full sub means loss of access, except to *A.
-MWM does not create any intended reward difference between Box-only/Sub players such as "bonus merits for subscribers who play this paid mission" or "Exclusive purple boost from Haunted House Story Arc, buy now!".
-MWM has made reasonable effort to avoid any anomalies in rewards/time/risk ratios, and listens to the players who point out such oddities and attempt to bring into line with the basic box content, so that paid story content is not widely perceived to be the way to gain rewards faster.
-Team leader's paid access counts for team, and is somewhat generous to cover cases of mid-arc disconnects. **but you mentioned that the rotating free mission system would cover my points 3 & 4 from post # 261, so not sure if you meant that it removes this feature or supplements it.
-Rotation schedule into and out of a short list of free missions, as described in post # 263.
Optional Paid Items
-QoL features that improve convenience but have no significant effect on combat or the character's max perceived power. Account level unlocks offered where possible.
-additional costume parts and cosmetic items.
-More character slots and character/account services (paid respecs, renames, etc).
-Unlocks of the most difficult-to-produce class/spec combos and powersets.
-Card pack style gambles, if done carefully; no exclusive items unless strong streakbreakers are in place and those items are cosmetic.
-Many good ideas from others have been put forward, use the ones that do not trigger questions of fairness.
...a few years later...
Basic Game Box (as of Issue Y) $45:
400 missions and 10 task forces and 5 raids, free roaming, etc...similar structure as at launch, but more of it.
-Part of this increase is due to free additions with every issue, including zone revamps and zone expansions that are considered part of the core game which do not require special revenue to develop.
-Some could be previously-paid content being moved to this category.
-Automatic, free access to newly-developed systems that are considered part of the core game experience, such as new PVP game modes or the UGC (user-generated content) editor with 3 mission slots.
Optional Paid Content (as of Issue Y):
52 Story Arc missions available, from MWM writers and/or Special Authors (Warcabbit's post).
-Similar limitations and purchase options as at launch, though prices might be adjusted (down for older content, up for royalty-driven content).
-More channels available and therefore more total revenue generated, though this is probably not a major factor. The strongest growth potential is from more players...who are attracted to a game based on hearing of its high quality content, or who choose to sub long-term after experiencing it via the box's 3 months of full access.
-Price of the new releases channel could be increased to reflect any increase in content delivery rate; same with the all-content channel. However, it may be better to pursue revenue to cover content development costs entirely through sales volume (more players) instead.
-Access to play UGC (or would this be in the game box section?)
-Expansion boxes, if needed to provide funding for new zones or a content-heavy system update (e.g. a story-driven expansion of the crafting system to add a bunch of alien tech).
Optional Paid Items
-Similar to launch, but with more options added in every category.
-New QoL features appear here as systems are added (e.g. more mission slots for UGC creators)
-Prices periodically adjusted to better reflect the actual cost for MWM to provide them, optimizing revenue while creating an atmosphere where potential buyers feel that they can get good value for their money.
Of course, my numbers are wrong and which core game systems are ready for launch are merely examples, but what parts (if any) of this overall structure do not match with the Netflix new releases + rotating content model as you envision it? If I've portrayed your idea correctly, and adequately woven it into a bigger picture, then I do see its potential to be the best option for special content delivery and revenue to supply more content. So far it's just been unclear to me how each of this topic's ideas fit into a consistent revenue structure, stay simple enough to prevent confusion / regretted purchases, and maintain a feeling of fairness.
Pages