ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited November 2012
They are different and they are different by the definitions stated. They are similar but different in one major regard:
"Free-to-play games are similar to freemium, a more general term and a business model in which a product is offered free of charge while a micropayment is charged for users to access premium features and virtual goods."
"Freemium is a business model by which a product or service (typically a digital offering such as software, media, games or web services) is provided free of charge, but a premium is charged for advanced features, functionality, or virtual goods. The word "freemium" is a portmanteau combining the two aspects of the business model: "free" and "premium." "
A Free to Play Game is a free game which uses micro-transactions to unlock additional content.
A Freemium Game is a premium game with what could, in most regards, be considered a demo version.
DDO for instance is a Freemium Game. League of Legends is a Free to Play Game. Their marketing techniques are completely different.
I hope this clears any confusion.
iamtruthseeker: I agree man about your wiki comment but I wasn't the first person to go there.... that was my response to comments and a example originally used by ambisinister in a different post...somewhere a few pages back....in which he presented Wikipedia as a reference...
some links of interest: http://youtu.be/APfnrGSfVNs
Mr. Rice talks about DIFFERENT versions of the "Freemium model" several times... at several points in this short video he mentions "buying the cow or extra tractor" in freemium games... he also talks about the different types of freemiums.. Great video....yeah I'd say Bob Rice is a bit more credible than Wikipedia...although Wikipedia essentially says the same damn thing..............
===========
If you know who Chris Anderson is...well yeah I'd call him a pretty credible source.
At the Revenue Bootcamp Conference in Mountain View, Calif., Chris Anderson, author of "Free: The Future of a Radical Price," discusses how different companies use the free-to-premium, or freemium model, to not only make money, but often keep customers at a higher rate than fully-paid services. There are many economies--ones of status, time, information and more--and the trick is to get people to trade their money for one of them. http://youtu.be/ZOKcedfE_nM
=========
If anything.... again.... it would be fair... well, correct to say... any F2P game that incorporates micro-transactions would also fall under the umbrella of being a "freemium." There really is nothing to debate on the matter....
Yeah well....I'm finished with this topic believe what you like. If you don't understand after these video clips... *shrug*
Anyway, whether we agree or not...lets leave it now...and get on to waiting for the game.
Anyway, whether we agree or not...lets leave it now...and get on to waiting for the game.
:rolleyes:Very well, let me attempt to summarize without paying any heed to the defined terms as used before, since they have been used in different connotations. Technical terms don't generally help me to find my position as a consumer.
- Customers may want to know about the pricing model before they get engaged in a lengthy campaign. When the game has the word "free" in its description, we often expect to not pay anything at all. Why do many games start asking for contribution at any point during your stay ? Because of greed.
- If the desire to invite a growing community of free players inevitably leads to the necessity of charging open-end fees for optional content, we have a situation that is not greed, but legitimate income strategy. In this case, usage of the word "free" still seems to be inadequate.
- There is the crowd who expect to pay in the long run, and who actually enjoy the gambling aspect. Ant then there are the kids who don't really want to spend at all. All of the games that cater to these opposing factions or something in between might be referred to as "hybrids" and will have all the issues of both models and some.
- This is expressively to point out that users will simply put a pricetag on each product that states the number of RL gold they used while playing, wether they did so in advance or during the microtransactions, and then compare this number to the amount of enjoyance they had in return.
VALUE = GOLD/FUN
- One may then come to the argument of whether or not cashflow has got to be a part of the gameplay or not, since it has been established that all online games require some form of funding to exist. Ignoring all potential risk by hacking or abuse, is it desirable especially in DND to use a form of ingame currency to apply VALUE ? Is there not an intrinsic value in the game that exists in itself and does not this value forbid the use of any other medium ?
- How many cunsumers worldwide will eventually decide that cash games suck.
What you are saying is worth a response hippyo. Honestly I am too tired to decipher then respond atm. The future of F2P games will be very bright if quality games utilize micro-transactions properly.... easier said than done? Yep...look at all the failures on the market. This is the type of topic books are written on and classrooms were made for hehe... The secret is to get people to want to keep playing the game and keep buying things from shops because they want to... not because they are required to.
Just too big of a topic bro... better to chomp off little bits at a time....not as simple of a discussion as it seems really.
I think what people are really beginning to despise are pay-to-win games and companies are starting to realize that...which is a good thing for everyone at the table imo... Another thing some in the industry are struggling to come to grips with is that people who will never spend a dime may be more important than people willing to spend $200 a month....why? If they love the game... they bring friends...friends bring more friends...if they all enjoy the game they gain loyalty from their player base...and those friends the non-payer brings odds are at least some will spend money...if they spend money and you, the non-payer, may feel better about spending a little too...just the way it works. In the end for success under this model; value to the player has to come before they even think about spending a dime. How fast can that value be delivered? I don't know... that's one of those topics for study imo.... we can see how it has gone wrong in other games though....making people feel they must pay for value is always short lived....at least from what I have seen. Make a player feel like he or she is getting a fair shake....simple as that. Could go on and on....never meant to get this far into it...lol
Really watch the video I posted above by Chris Anderson...an excellent video on this matter...funny thing is he has been saying it for quite some time...
^^ i just put my thoughts together somehow ... and i always seem to end up in morals
totally agree. the reason behind ftp seems to be that it worked well in asia ... i can't really understand why and i doubt that the success will last (fascination with new medium etc). Anyway all the people i know (here europe) will be disgusted and apalled. I think this may well be an important indicator and i thought i might state the case for the general benefit.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited November 2012
The link to Freemium exists somewhere but it wasn't used to be factual but rather a quick summary of the issue.
You're free to use them interchangeably if you'd like but the common consensus trends to try to make a distinction between the two. It's similar to the difference between a puppy or a dog except there's varying opinions on which is which, though generally Freemium is accepted as Free with Subscriptions.
Beyond the quality of sources it's also important to remember the nature of the sources.
Chris Anderson has visibly more knowledge on the topic than Bob Rice. You can clearly tell Bob Rice knows how it works on paper but has never touched anything other than some social media Freemium Models which are really more akin to Freemium Video Games which have premium subscriptions rather than microtransaction payments. When he discusses games it's blatantly obvious he hasn't experienced anything and is merely a secondary source citing what he has read on paper from the marketing techniques.
Chris Anderson has excellent arguments however I would suggest you listen to his discussion again. He never directly states the difference between Free to Play and Freemium but he uses the two different terms when discussing two different marketing strategies. Everytime he discusses games he stresses the convenience microtransactions and only once hints at the premium subscriptions. While he's still clearly more comprehensive than Bob Rice he also didn't discuss the nuances of the systems beyond the microtransactions.
"You're not like ding - times up! Pay! But more sort of Oooh, shiny! You can have that."
"Why will people pay for it, well they'll pay to save time."
-That is the Free to Play Model.
Most of the economists in the world are, frankly, unfamiliar with the video game industry. They can look over a piece of paper and get an idea but they don't have a true understanding of the nature of these models. Bob Rice screams complete lack of comprehension of anything other than the numbers on the page. As great of an economist as he may be he's a fish out of water in this department.
So, since this thread is a discussion on the Free to Play model and what is to be expected of Neverwinter it does it a complete injustice to throw it into the same category as WoW, DDO, SWOR or any other premium games which also have a free trial.
Those games can hardly be called free and are very much 'ding - times up.' They don't have an actual time limit so on paper they are free to play and that's why economists generally don't comprehend the distinction. However players absolutely have a limited amount of gameplay before players either have to pay or end up in a situation which heavily pushes players to pay by limiting advancement or content.
Players can tell you the two systems are different even if the economists can't. Example OneTwoThreeFour
Neverwinter will be Free to Play. Completely.
Players will be charged for convenience items as in Maplestory and/or Cosmetics as in League of Legends. There will be no subscription fee or excessive limited content as you'll find in Freemium Games. There'll be no 'ding - times up.'
Sadly the Video Game Industry is left behind by the economics of the real world. While some of them may look in on the systems most of them have no experience with gaming and honestly are the last people who should be considered experts on the topics. By the definition of Free to Play as presented by those two sources WoW is a Free to Play game and nobody in the world would consider that game in any way free to play.
As for people being disgusted in Europe, if the Neverwinter Team does as they described there should be little reason to be appalled. I'll be appalled too if they follow in the footsteps of other Freemium Models instead of the true Free to Play Games but they have been very firm every step of the way that the game will be Free to Play, not Freemium.
But all of that is a fine line which is easy to cross depending on how concerned with revenue the investors get.
^^ i just put my thoughts together somehow ... and i always seem to end up in morals
totally agree. the reason behind ftp seems to be that it worked well in asia ... i can't really understand why and i doubt that the success will last (fascination with new medium etc). Anyway all the people i know (here europe) will be disgusted and apalled. I think this may well be an important indicator and i thought i might state the case for the general benefit.
Yeah personally I would rather pay a subscription and be done with it... just think those days are coming to an end my friend Anyway off to bed... 5:30 a.m. here and a bit tired. Have a good day.
Bob confuses, i think "drop offs" with "drop boxes". He is right in a way, because both do not yield any immediate cash income to the provider. It's just what you do with the said item, and the game does not tell you what to do with it. So you are free. If it is as simple as that, we can all go to the phone booth and log in to pwe. Then we can watch the sails figures rise on our cellphone screens because of high interest rates (lol).
:rolleyes:sweet dreams
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited November 2012
And that is exactly why he's a bad source and why I, nor much of the gaming industry/players, care how economists label content.
I knew what he meant by drop offs but they are not called that in any game. He understands the concepts but he's about as qualified to discuss video game markets as I am qualified to discuss electrical engineering. I could say that current is either AC or DC and explain the simple concepts of how electrical signals travel but that hardly make me a reliable source.
Drop/Lock Boxes are a whole other discussion I'm not getting into though. However it's also important to take in the consideration the difference between Free to Pay and Pay to Play.
That's a distinction only people familiar with video games understand and even we disagree on it. People looking in from a third party perspective look at all of these games as if you don't have to pay for anything and truly don't understand how important some of the paid content can be. Actual game players know that most of these 'Free to Play' better described as freemium games force player's hands into buying content.
And that's something Cryptic doesn't plan on doing. At least not by dictating a waning content or level curb for high level players.
we are completely on accord on most these topics ... i just do not believe (am pessimistic about) cash concepts working without some degree of economic thinking.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
And therein lies the rub.
Most people think the electronic gaming business is run like a traditional model, but video games are actually run more like the movie model with Skinner-based psychology and impulse/repeat customers from converted, with fewer points distributed and less BS actually tolerated in development than the before movie reference (but the hype levels are about the same.)
I grew up watching this movie business seeing the stars sure, but also the people behind the cameras, watched the contracts, watched the importance of the deals like when Lucas got the toys revenue and how that was a goldmine, etc.
Video games in the MMO market also share one Annoying concept too with the movie business:
Thy can't ever do anything original copying the last success until the viewers/players turn away and somebody does something risky and succeeds, then THEY become copied like just described.
Both industries are run by fear of losing money by the juggernauts who sink many many millions on production and distribution. Oh look, a successful film using 3-D! Now EVERYBODY uses 3-D. Oh look, a successful game using Lens Flare! Now EVERYBODY uses lens flare! Oh look, nostalgia worked with the Brady Bunch reboot! Now EVERYBODY recycles an old concept into a movie. Oh look, WoW shows if we charge them a monthly fee, they'll keep paying to play this game! So now EVERYBODY charged a monthly to play games. Oh look, if we don't charge them a monthly subscription, but charge them a certain product or faster to continue point, they'll spend more!
I think you get the point.
The industry by far is a lot like the movie or even scientific theory: they will generally only accept the dominant theory all but ostracizing others until disproved and something else succeeds then that is flocked over and becomes the ruling method lauding over other concepts.
People have to let go of "economic modeling" from old school thinking and understand the new economic modeling works with as much impulse and comfort as well as proven track records on the free to start and micro-transactions make MORE MONEY THAN SUBSCRIPTION MODELS. Let me write that again: micro-transactions make MORE MONEY THAN SUBSCRIPTION MODELS. I already did the legwork.
As a matter of fact, this link is still relevant to everything discussed here and several active threads elsewhere.
And when it comes down to it, people will insist the ONLY option will be this must be a free model (like the ONLY option was subscription before that,) and everybody will drag along like the afraid/unthinking they are. Others being afraid of change will still insist subscription (both player and developer) and we will get the blowback of SW:TOR and now the regular and niche swap places as all sea-change moments cause at the beginning.
So what will be the new economy of free?
You will have two likely dominant camps in the "Free" group of players: Those who support independent micro-transactions in a free product otherwise or "purist" Free players and those who accept "tiered pricing" options for potentially greater "all access groups" or "hybrid" players. The third subscription only group (WoW excepted at the moment,) will likely phase into the listed two groups in the MMO world. It's too early to say if this is confirmed or even if so if one group will claim dominance like actual technology does (think VHS vs Betamax) or the market is adaptive enough for both groups to have their own market share in the long run (or even if one on the development side will greedily conform to the other willingly.)
But saying it won't work and it can't be supported is like sayig because cars don't eat food it's not going to support the farming industry like horses: that line of thought at the moment is dead. If the new way fails to make money like it is now, then something else will become the "only" way (even if old becomes new again.) But until the seachange changes this trend of one dominates all, this is the new and subscriptions are the old and the public is buying it so developers are making it.
In conclusion, it doesn't matter anyway if it's subscription or tiered or independent micro-transactions or a whole mix of stuff. If the product is <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, consumers won't support it. That's the thing for decades the entertainment industry with movies and games keep missing. It's not the new FEATURE that made the release so successful, it was the NEW feature that broke away from the pack.
You think a crappy movie or game will sell if it has 3D or Lens Flare? Short of you being the literal first couple or few people that make a passable product doing that, you will fail to copy what succeeded (or succeeded at the level you think happened before.) When every idiot established or not copies that formula trying to make the "next big thing" and only does that, they only add to the glut that speeds up their own demise of the so-called novelty. Free models included.
Only those who take the time to actually make a QUALITY product and not hop onto the latest bandwagon...whoops, make that trending to the latest interest...will succeed. And alas, like the history of MMO's, that likely will be many unmemorable to utter <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> games, and a few shining successes.
Now Cryptic has seen both sides of success and failure (and had time to learn from them, both Sub and Free,) only the future will tell if the product they will release will succeed as a "paradigm of the market" or fail as the "same old tired <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> done before."
Please don't get upset ... it's not going to fail. All i said was it isn't going to work like that ... they may have to sell Lockboxes
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
Oh it won't fail.
But I bet the profit lure will make lockboxes included here too unless enough people literally quit over it...which I bet they won't to affect the decision. But I'm a cynic and know a "company's easy button" as well.
vindiconMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
edited November 2012
People keep talking about luckboxes like they're some sort of demonspwn bringers of the apocalypse...
Luck boxes are not inherently bad. There are good ways to implement them and there are bad ways to do so.
Generally, putting something that plays major role in the gameplay, like a top tier ship in a game like STO or a powerful pet/item as a rare lockbox prize only is just a moneygrab, sure, especially when the lower rewards (which you'll be getting 99% of the time) are useless.
But you could instead put a fancy costume or a fancy reskin of a regular mount/pet as the big prize, then have the small rewards be a moderate amount of gold coins or upgrade materials, that at least give you the satisfaction of having gotten some value out of the whole thing. This hurts nobody (unless you somehow feel compelled to spend a ton on lockboxes just for a chance to have "swag") while still generating moderate revenue for the company. That's how they do lockboxes in, say, FW, and let me tell you the sell like crazy.
That just seems strange. I would never spend money on something that returns duds most of the time. It would probably sell even better if every LB contained usable gear (better than the usual drop). Buying that would actually give players a performance edge. I would even support this if only it made it possible to scrap all the other commercial scam. Just lb scam for me thank you.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ranncoreMember, Moderators, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 2,508
edited November 2012
About lock boxes - they didn't go over so well in RaiderZ when they were implemented. Parlty because that was the only change from Open Beta to Live, and a lot of players were expecting... I don't know... bug fixes? But also because you could obtain items from lockboxes that COULD NOT be purchased any other way. Which was a terrible idea. They lost a lot of players over it (including me).
That just seems strange. I would never spend money on something that returns duds most of the time. It would probably sell even better if every LB contained usable gear (better than the usual drop). Buying that would actually give players a performance edge. I would even support this if only it made it possible to scrap all the other commercial scam. Just lb scam for me thank you.
That reminds me of another similar concept that people put millions of dollars into buying: lottery tickets.
Most of the time they're duds, but WHAT IF you actually hit it big once? That's what people hope for, no matter how absurd it is.
If you spent $2000 on lottery tickets, then finally got one with the winning numbers for $400,000,000, you probably wouldn't cry over the previous $1999 that didn't win.
disclaimer: I do not condone lock boxes, nor do I have any experience dealing with them....
That reminds me of another similar concept that people put millions of dollars into buying: lottery tickets.
Most of the time they're duds, but WHAT IF you actually hit it big once? That's what people hope for, no matter how absurd it is.
If you spent $2000 on lottery tickets, then finally got one with the winning numbers for $400,000,000, you probably wouldn't cry over the previous $1999 that didn't win.
disclaimer: I do not condone lock boxes, nor do I have any experience dealing with them....
Lottery tickets are a tax on stupidity. I guess lockboxes are too?
It would probably sell even better if every LB contained usable gear (better than the usual drop). Buying that would actually give players a performance edge.
I would never, ever play a game that sold better gear via a lottery system than was obtainable by usual drop.
If that's part of NWO, count me out.
0
ambisinisterrMember, Neverwinter ModeratorPosts: 10,462Community Moderator
edited November 2012
I've heard the argument of comparing random loot to lock boxes/lottery before and really they're completely incomparable.
I can play a card game and not be gambling. It's when I have something to lose for not winning that there's a problem.
I can kill a boss monster and not be upset about it. But when the boss monster costs money for each attempt there'd be a problem.
Randomness/luck is a great aspect of any game. Something as simple as knowing there's a chance, based on luck, a plan will fall to pieces is priceless for any game whether it's a card game or a video game. But there's a difference between luck as a challenge and monetizing on it.
In any case this is all getting off topic now.
The free to play model can be flawed through greed, I can name a host of games which have been free but pushed to monetize too aggressively and shot themselves in the foot. However as long as there is a strong company in charge which considers just how aggressive they market to the players the Free to Play Model has the opportunity to far outdo Freemium any day. Like I said, if companies don't urge the players to play I swear they will want to pay the companies.
Whether Cryptic will do this is up in the air still but everything they have said has given me great hopes. Even if there are lockboxes my distaste for them would depend on how they are implemented and how much they are pushed. I'd be lieing to say I wasn't afraid of the marketing plans but at this point in time I'm trying to remain hopeful that Cryptic will stay true to their earlier proclamations and refrain from following in the stead of even their own games like STO.
There's a great chance for NW to succeed and from what Cryptic Reps have claimed on their plans it will, and that's what I cling to.
I would never, ever play a game that sold better gear via a lottery system than was obtainable by usual drop.
What if they let you buy just keys, the LB to which they fit would be boss drops and very rare indeed ? Everyone who wanted to max items had to buy a number of keys/month, while the regular free player just had access to the regular drops. That way, the motivation to buy or trade keys would be greater, and funding would be guaranteed. Every box would need to drop an item or items that fits your build. To exclude the lottery aspect. Each player had to decide on their own, how much they wanted to spend.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
iamtruthseekerMember, Moonstars, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
That reminds me of another similar concept that people put millions of dollars into buying: lottery tickets.
Most of the time they're duds, but WHAT IF you actually hit it big once? That's what people hope for, no matter how absurd it is.
If you spent $2000 on lottery tickets, then finally got one with the winning numbers for $400,000,000, you probably wouldn't cry over the previous $1999 that didn't win.
disclaimer: I do not condone lock boxes, nor do I have any experience dealing with them....
And this is common sense and understood to be gamblng so it's treated as such.
Lockboxes are treated by the company as "vanity," and as shown, offer items not found anywhere else. The problem is it may not seem like a habitual issue and can be a dangerous monetization.
But the players' reaction of the last game live launch speaks the final word, not me.
Unless they want a similar backlash to the RaiderZ one, optional methods of getting the items then deemed "exclusive" need to be done, including possibly having some non-purchasable option for keys either super-rarely dropping or being earned through some non-purchase exchange (I include the ZEN exchange as purchasable since somebody must initially pay for the ZEN that ends up exchanged.)
Again, the easy profit way is not only the best way, even if the player loss is "acceptable."
Again, the easy profit way is not only the best way, even if the player loss is "acceptable."
As the situation is right now, we have a plethora of mediocre monetization techniques that almost obscure the game itself. Some of these techniques are highly questionable and might even fall under the gambling prohibition or the protection of minors censoring. And i am sure that many players will simply quit playing <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> in the long run, just becuause of the constant commercial scam. So if the Cryptic will find they have to insert more revenue into the fp model, they better do so without telling us about it (think hard) beforehand.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
0
ranncoreMember, Moderators, Neverwinter Beta Users, Neverwinter Knight of the Feywild UsersPosts: 2,508
What if they let you buy just keys, the LB to which they fit would be boss drops and very rare indeed ? Everyone who wanted to max items had to buy a number of keys/month, while the regular free player just had access to the regular drops. That way, the motivation to buy or trade keys would be greater, and funding would be guaranteed. Every box would need to drop an item or items that fits your build. To exclude the lottery aspect. Each player had to decide on their own, how much they wanted to spend.
No... absolutely not. that's paying money for gear. **** no.
This is why I usually just play subscription games: so I don't have to deal with shmarmy store tactics that give players with more money an edge over other players.
I'd rather just play a subscription game that puts all it's players on the same field.
If NWO has any of this pay2win ********, I'll just be playing something else.
0
vindiconMember, Neverwinter Beta UsersPosts: 0Arc User
What if they let you buy just keys, the LB to which they fit would be boss drops and very rare indeed ? Everyone who wanted to max items had to buy a number of keys/month, while the regular free player just had access to the regular drops. That way, the motivation to buy or trade keys would be greater, and funding would be guaranteed. Every box would need to drop an item or items that fits your build. To exclude the lottery aspect. Each player had to decide on their own, how much they wanted to spend.
What you describe is not free to play. That is freemium of the worst kind, one that practically shoves the whole "pay or you get to eat ****" up the players' face.
Paying for items in a free to play game should be encouraged, not demanded. If you really want all players to pay that badly, then you might as well make the game p2p/b2p, which would at least allow you to avoid any "p2w" discussions.
Comments
"Free-to-play games are similar to freemium, a more general term and a business model in which a product is offered free of charge while a micropayment is charged for users to access premium features and virtual goods."
"Freemium is a business model by which a product or service (typically a digital offering such as software, media, games or web services) is provided free of charge, but a premium is charged for advanced features, functionality, or virtual goods. The word "freemium" is a portmanteau combining the two aspects of the business model: "free" and "premium." "
A Free to Play Game is a free game which uses micro-transactions to unlock additional content.
A Freemium Game is a premium game with what could, in most regards, be considered a demo version.
DDO for instance is a Freemium Game. League of Legends is a Free to Play Game. Their marketing techniques are completely different.
I hope this clears any confusion.
iamtruthseeker: I agree man about your wiki comment but I wasn't the first person to go there.... that was my response to comments and a example originally used by ambisinister in a different post...somewhere a few pages back....in which he presented Wikipedia as a reference...
some links of interest:
http://youtu.be/APfnrGSfVNs
Mr. Rice talks about DIFFERENT versions of the "Freemium model" several times... at several points in this short video he mentions "buying the cow or extra tractor" in freemium games... he also talks about the different types of freemiums.. Great video....yeah I'd say Bob Rice is a bit more credible than Wikipedia...although Wikipedia essentially says the same damn thing..............
===========
If you know who Chris Anderson is...well yeah I'd call him a pretty credible source.
At the Revenue Bootcamp Conference in Mountain View, Calif., Chris Anderson, author of "Free: The Future of a Radical Price," discusses how different companies use the free-to-premium, or freemium model, to not only make money, but often keep customers at a higher rate than fully-paid services. There are many economies--ones of status, time, information and more--and the trick is to get people to trade their money for one of them.
http://youtu.be/ZOKcedfE_nM
=========
If anything.... again.... it would be fair... well, correct to say... any F2P game that incorporates micro-transactions would also fall under the umbrella of being a "freemium." There really is nothing to debate on the matter....
Yeah well....I'm finished with this topic believe what you like. If you don't understand after these video clips... *shrug*
Anyway, whether we agree or not...lets leave it now...and get on to waiting for the game.
- Customers may want to know about the pricing model before they get engaged in a lengthy campaign. When the game has the word "free" in its description, we often expect to not pay anything at all. Why do many games start asking for contribution at any point during your stay ? Because of greed.
- If the desire to invite a growing community of free players inevitably leads to the necessity of charging open-end fees for optional content, we have a situation that is not greed, but legitimate income strategy. In this case, usage of the word "free" still seems to be inadequate.
- There is the crowd who expect to pay in the long run, and who actually enjoy the gambling aspect. Ant then there are the kids who don't really want to spend at all. All of the games that cater to these opposing factions or something in between might be referred to as "hybrids" and will have all the issues of both models and some.
- This is expressively to point out that users will simply put a pricetag on each product that states the number of RL gold they used while playing, wether they did so in advance or during the microtransactions, and then compare this number to the amount of enjoyance they had in return. - One may then come to the argument of whether or not cashflow has got to be a part of the gameplay or not, since it has been established that all online games require some form of funding to exist. Ignoring all potential risk by hacking or abuse, is it desirable especially in DND to use a form of ingame currency to apply VALUE ? Is there not an intrinsic value in the game that exists in itself and does not this value forbid the use of any other medium ?
- How many cunsumers worldwide will eventually decide that cash games suck.
What you are saying is worth a response hippyo. Honestly I am too tired to decipher then respond atm. The future of F2P games will be very bright if quality games utilize micro-transactions properly.... easier said than done? Yep...look at all the failures on the market. This is the type of topic books are written on and classrooms were made for hehe... The secret is to get people to want to keep playing the game and keep buying things from shops because they want to... not because they are required to.
Just too big of a topic bro... better to chomp off little bits at a time....not as simple of a discussion as it seems really.
I think what people are really beginning to despise are pay-to-win games and companies are starting to realize that...which is a good thing for everyone at the table imo... Another thing some in the industry are struggling to come to grips with is that people who will never spend a dime may be more important than people willing to spend $200 a month....why? If they love the game... they bring friends...friends bring more friends...if they all enjoy the game they gain loyalty from their player base...and those friends the non-payer brings odds are at least some will spend money...if they spend money and you, the non-payer, may feel better about spending a little too...just the way it works. In the end for success under this model; value to the player has to come before they even think about spending a dime. How fast can that value be delivered? I don't know... that's one of those topics for study imo.... we can see how it has gone wrong in other games though....making people feel they must pay for value is always short lived....at least from what I have seen. Make a player feel like he or she is getting a fair shake....simple as that. Could go on and on....never meant to get this far into it...lol
Really watch the video I posted above by Chris Anderson...an excellent video on this matter...funny thing is he has been saying it for quite some time...
totally agree. the reason behind ftp seems to be that it worked well in asia ... i can't really understand why and i doubt that the success will last (fascination with new medium etc). Anyway all the people i know (here europe) will be disgusted and apalled. I think this may well be an important indicator and i thought i might state the case for the general benefit.
You're free to use them interchangeably if you'd like but the common consensus trends to try to make a distinction between the two. It's similar to the difference between a puppy or a dog except there's varying opinions on which is which, though generally Freemium is accepted as Free with Subscriptions.
Beyond the quality of sources it's also important to remember the nature of the sources.
Chris Anderson has visibly more knowledge on the topic than Bob Rice. You can clearly tell Bob Rice knows how it works on paper but has never touched anything other than some social media Freemium Models which are really more akin to Freemium Video Games which have premium subscriptions rather than microtransaction payments. When he discusses games it's blatantly obvious he hasn't experienced anything and is merely a secondary source citing what he has read on paper from the marketing techniques.
Chris Anderson has excellent arguments however I would suggest you listen to his discussion again. He never directly states the difference between Free to Play and Freemium but he uses the two different terms when discussing two different marketing strategies. Everytime he discusses games he stresses the convenience microtransactions and only once hints at the premium subscriptions. While he's still clearly more comprehensive than Bob Rice he also didn't discuss the nuances of the systems beyond the microtransactions.
"You're not like ding - times up! Pay! But more sort of Oooh, shiny! You can have that."
"Why will people pay for it, well they'll pay to save time."
-That is the Free to Play Model.
Most of the economists in the world are, frankly, unfamiliar with the video game industry. They can look over a piece of paper and get an idea but they don't have a true understanding of the nature of these models. Bob Rice screams complete lack of comprehension of anything other than the numbers on the page. As great of an economist as he may be he's a fish out of water in this department.
So, since this thread is a discussion on the Free to Play model and what is to be expected of Neverwinter it does it a complete injustice to throw it into the same category as WoW, DDO, SWOR or any other premium games which also have a free trial.
Those games can hardly be called free and are very much 'ding - times up.' They don't have an actual time limit so on paper they are free to play and that's why economists generally don't comprehend the distinction. However players absolutely have a limited amount of gameplay before players either have to pay or end up in a situation which heavily pushes players to pay by limiting advancement or content.
Players can tell you the two systems are different even if the economists can't. Example One Two Three Four
Neverwinter will be Free to Play. Completely.
Players will be charged for convenience items as in Maplestory and/or Cosmetics as in League of Legends. There will be no subscription fee or excessive limited content as you'll find in Freemium Games. There'll be no 'ding - times up.'
Sadly the Video Game Industry is left behind by the economics of the real world. While some of them may look in on the systems most of them have no experience with gaming and honestly are the last people who should be considered experts on the topics. By the definition of Free to Play as presented by those two sources WoW is a Free to Play game and nobody in the world would consider that game in any way free to play.
As for people being disgusted in Europe, if the Neverwinter Team does as they described there should be little reason to be appalled. I'll be appalled too if they follow in the footsteps of other Freemium Models instead of the true Free to Play Games but they have been very firm every step of the way that the game will be Free to Play, not Freemium.
But all of that is a fine line which is easy to cross depending on how concerned with revenue the investors get.
Yeah personally I would rather pay a subscription and be done with it... just think those days are coming to an end my friend
:rolleyes:sweet dreams
I knew what he meant by drop offs but they are not called that in any game. He understands the concepts but he's about as qualified to discuss video game markets as I am qualified to discuss electrical engineering. I could say that current is either AC or DC and explain the simple concepts of how electrical signals travel but that hardly make me a reliable source.
Drop/Lock Boxes are a whole other discussion I'm not getting into though. However it's also important to take in the consideration the difference between Free to Pay and Pay to Play.
That's a distinction only people familiar with video games understand and even we disagree on it. People looking in from a third party perspective look at all of these games as if you don't have to pay for anything and truly don't understand how important some of the paid content can be. Actual game players know that most of these 'Free to Play' better described as freemium games force player's hands into buying content.
And that's something Cryptic doesn't plan on doing. At least not by dictating a waning content or level curb for high level players.
Most people think the electronic gaming business is run like a traditional model, but video games are actually run more like the movie model with Skinner-based psychology and impulse/repeat customers from converted, with fewer points distributed and less BS actually tolerated in development than the before movie reference (but the hype levels are about the same.)
I grew up watching this movie business seeing the stars sure, but also the people behind the cameras, watched the contracts, watched the importance of the deals like when Lucas got the toys revenue and how that was a goldmine, etc.
Video games in the MMO market also share one Annoying concept too with the movie business:
Thy can't ever do anything original copying the last success until the viewers/players turn away and somebody does something risky and succeeds, then THEY become copied like just described.
Both industries are run by fear of losing money by the juggernauts who sink many many millions on production and distribution. Oh look, a successful film using 3-D! Now EVERYBODY uses 3-D. Oh look, a successful game using Lens Flare! Now EVERYBODY uses lens flare! Oh look, nostalgia worked with the Brady Bunch reboot! Now EVERYBODY recycles an old concept into a movie. Oh look, WoW shows if we charge them a monthly fee, they'll keep paying to play this game! So now EVERYBODY charged a monthly to play games. Oh look, if we don't charge them a monthly subscription, but charge them a certain product or faster to continue point, they'll spend more!
I think you get the point.
The industry by far is a lot like the movie or even scientific theory: they will generally only accept the dominant theory all but ostracizing others until disproved and something else succeeds then that is flocked over and becomes the ruling method lauding over other concepts.
People have to let go of "economic modeling" from old school thinking and understand the new economic modeling works with as much impulse and comfort as well as proven track records on the free to start and micro-transactions make MORE MONEY THAN SUBSCRIPTION MODELS. Let me write that again: micro-transactions make MORE MONEY THAN SUBSCRIPTION MODELS. I already did the legwork.
As a matter of fact, this link is still relevant to everything discussed here and several active threads elsewhere.
And when it comes down to it, people will insist the ONLY option will be this must be a free model (like the ONLY option was subscription before that,) and everybody will drag along like the afraid/unthinking they are. Others being afraid of change will still insist subscription (both player and developer) and we will get the blowback of SW:TOR and now the regular and niche swap places as all sea-change moments cause at the beginning.
So what will be the new economy of free?
You will have two likely dominant camps in the "Free" group of players: Those who support independent micro-transactions in a free product otherwise or "purist" Free players and those who accept "tiered pricing" options for potentially greater "all access groups" or "hybrid" players. The third subscription only group (WoW excepted at the moment,) will likely phase into the listed two groups in the MMO world. It's too early to say if this is confirmed or even if so if one group will claim dominance like actual technology does (think VHS vs Betamax) or the market is adaptive enough for both groups to have their own market share in the long run (or even if one on the development side will greedily conform to the other willingly.)
But saying it won't work and it can't be supported is like sayig because cars don't eat food it's not going to support the farming industry like horses: that line of thought at the moment is dead. If the new way fails to make money like it is now, then something else will become the "only" way (even if old becomes new again.) But until the seachange changes this trend of one dominates all, this is the new and subscriptions are the old and the public is buying it so developers are making it.
In conclusion, it doesn't matter anyway if it's subscription or tiered or independent micro-transactions or a whole mix of stuff. If the product is <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font>, consumers won't support it. That's the thing for decades the entertainment industry with movies and games keep missing. It's not the new FEATURE that made the release so successful, it was the NEW feature that broke away from the pack.
You think a crappy movie or game will sell if it has 3D or Lens Flare? Short of you being the literal first couple or few people that make a passable product doing that, you will fail to copy what succeeded (or succeeded at the level you think happened before.) When every idiot established or not copies that formula trying to make the "next big thing" and only does that, they only add to the glut that speeds up their own demise of the so-called novelty. Free models included.
Only those who take the time to actually make a QUALITY product and not hop onto the latest bandwagon...whoops, make that trending to the latest interest...will succeed. And alas, like the history of MMO's, that likely will be many unmemorable to utter <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> games, and a few shining successes.
Now Cryptic has seen both sides of success and failure (and had time to learn from them, both Sub and Free,) only the future will tell if the product they will release will succeed as a "paradigm of the market" or fail as the "same old tired <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> done before."
But I bet the profit lure will make lockboxes included here too unless enough people literally quit over it...which I bet they won't to affect the decision. But I'm a cynic and know a "company's easy button" as well.
The one that catapults everything out into space
Luck boxes are not inherently bad. There are good ways to implement them and there are bad ways to do so.
Generally, putting something that plays major role in the gameplay, like a top tier ship in a game like STO or a powerful pet/item as a rare lockbox prize only is just a moneygrab, sure, especially when the lower rewards (which you'll be getting 99% of the time) are useless.
But you could instead put a fancy costume or a fancy reskin of a regular mount/pet as the big prize, then have the small rewards be a moderate amount of gold coins or upgrade materials, that at least give you the satisfaction of having gotten some value out of the whole thing. This hurts nobody (unless you somehow feel compelled to spend a ton on lockboxes just for a chance to have "swag") while still generating moderate revenue for the company. That's how they do lockboxes in, say, FW, and let me tell you the sell like crazy.
That reminds me of another similar concept that people put millions of dollars into buying: lottery tickets.
Most of the time they're duds, but WHAT IF you actually hit it big once? That's what people hope for, no matter how absurd it is.
If you spent $2000 on lottery tickets, then finally got one with the winning numbers for $400,000,000, you probably wouldn't cry over the previous $1999 that didn't win.
disclaimer: I do not condone lock boxes, nor do I have any experience dealing with them....
Yet here we are playing games based around chance and rolling dice and superstitious luck. But at least we're not paying for it (yet) ^^
I would never, ever play a game that sold better gear via a lottery system than was obtainable by usual drop.
If that's part of NWO, count me out.
I can play a card game and not be gambling. It's when I have something to lose for not winning that there's a problem.
I can kill a boss monster and not be upset about it. But when the boss monster costs money for each attempt there'd be a problem.
Randomness/luck is a great aspect of any game. Something as simple as knowing there's a chance, based on luck, a plan will fall to pieces is priceless for any game whether it's a card game or a video game. But there's a difference between luck as a challenge and monetizing on it.
In any case this is all getting off topic now.
The free to play model can be flawed through greed, I can name a host of games which have been free but pushed to monetize too aggressively and shot themselves in the foot. However as long as there is a strong company in charge which considers just how aggressive they market to the players the Free to Play Model has the opportunity to far outdo Freemium any day. Like I said, if companies don't urge the players to play I swear they will want to pay the companies.
Whether Cryptic will do this is up in the air still but everything they have said has given me great hopes. Even if there are lockboxes my distaste for them would depend on how they are implemented and how much they are pushed. I'd be lieing to say I wasn't afraid of the marketing plans but at this point in time I'm trying to remain hopeful that Cryptic will stay true to their earlier proclamations and refrain from following in the stead of even their own games like STO.
There's a great chance for NW to succeed and from what Cryptic Reps have claimed on their plans it will, and that's what I cling to.
What if they let you buy just keys, the LB to which they fit would be boss drops and very rare indeed ? Everyone who wanted to max items had to buy a number of keys/month, while the regular free player just had access to the regular drops. That way, the motivation to buy or trade keys would be greater, and funding would be guaranteed. Every box would need to drop an item or items that fits your build. To exclude the lottery aspect. Each player had to decide on their own, how much they wanted to spend.
And this is common sense and understood to be gamblng so it's treated as such.
Lockboxes are treated by the company as "vanity," and as shown, offer items not found anywhere else. The problem is it may not seem like a habitual issue and can be a dangerous monetization.
But the players' reaction of the last game live launch speaks the final word, not me.
Unless they want a similar backlash to the RaiderZ one, optional methods of getting the items then deemed "exclusive" need to be done, including possibly having some non-purchasable option for keys either super-rarely dropping or being earned through some non-purchase exchange (I include the ZEN exchange as purchasable since somebody must initially pay for the ZEN that ends up exchanged.)
Again, the easy profit way is not only the best way, even if the player loss is "acceptable."
As the situation is right now, we have a plethora of mediocre monetization techniques that almost obscure the game itself. Some of these techniques are highly questionable and might even fall under the gambling prohibition or the protection of minors censoring. And i am sure that many players will simply quit playing <font color="orange">HAMSTER</font> in the long run, just becuause of the constant commercial scam. So if the Cryptic will find they have to insert more revenue into the fp model, they better do so without telling us about it (think hard) beforehand.
No... absolutely not. that's paying money for gear. **** no.
This is why I usually just play subscription games: so I don't have to deal with shmarmy store tactics that give players with more money an edge over other players.
I'd rather just play a subscription game that puts all it's players on the same field.
If NWO has any of this pay2win ********, I'll just be playing something else.
What you describe is not free to play. That is freemium of the worst kind, one that practically shoves the whole "pay or you get to eat ****" up the players' face.
Paying for items in a free to play game should be encouraged, not demanded. If you really want all players to pay that badly, then you might as well make the game p2p/b2p, which would at least allow you to avoid any "p2w" discussions.