test content
Logo
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc
Options
The Founder's Packs Anxiety Thread
drwarpeffect
Member, NW M9 Playtest Posts: 71 Arc User
Some would claim this is just a matter of opinion, but I argue otherwise below.
Before I list the argument please know that I have been a D&D fan for a very long time. I have also been a computer gaming fan since the beginning and have spent very large amounts of money on computer gaming including MMOs. Last, I can afford to pay the $200 many times over just out of my computer gaming budget.
The argument:
1. The old subscription model that was very successful for games like EQ and WoW has in more recent years failed for games like Secret World, SWTOR, and LOTRO.
2. The newer model has been F2P, although there has been considerable flux as to how to best balance income with having a sufficient number of players overall.
3. A major problem has been to avoid making paying to play essential for having a sufficiently positive play experience as those unwilling or unable to pay have left the game without a sufficiently large enough player base. I.E., the game should be F2P not free to be overly gimped. This aspect is magnified many times over if the game allows PvP.
4. Item 3. implies that the game experience that does not cost anything cannot very overly much from the paid experience. This is why most agree that what can be purchased must be limited, with disagreement in what those limitations should be. Purely aesthetic options are usually uncontroversial at one end of the spectrum with over-powered pay-only equipment, or pay-only content, considered as most problematic at the other.
5. This brings us to the $200 founder's pack. There are two possibilities as concerns value for this pack. Either one indicates trouble.
(A) The pack is worth $200, or even the $549 advertised as its true value. This means that those with the pack will be experiencing the game at a level over $500 better than those who are doing strictly play for free. Most players would not find such a gimped experience worthwhile for any sort of long-term play experience.
(B) The pack is not worth even $200 (let alone over $500). The play experience then between those with and without the pack would then be of sufficiently similar nature so as not to pose a problem as in 5A. The trouble is the company is selling something claimed to be worth over $500 that is not even worth $200. This kind of over-grasping for money has already led several other F2P games to failure.
6. To see a current example of this kind of problem as seen in item 5. (although the jury is still out on eventual success or failure) is mechwarrior online's implementation of Founders' Packs. A main benefit of those packs in the two more expensive options was to get mechs that earned credits 25% faster (ala World of Tanks). Yet, as soon as open beta started they began selling "hero" mechs that gave a 30% boost. Something original purchasers of the Founders' packs were not told would be available later.
For those that want to argue it is ok to sell something at whatever price the market will bear, that is only half true. Buyers are certainly free to pay whatever they want. Sellers have to be more careful. There is an implicit claim in making a sale that you are providing adequate value for what you are selling. For online game companies trying the F2P model, the danger is even more pronounced. Make the pay to play component of your game too superior to the free play then you run a very real risk of alienating too many players. This means that there is a very real limit on how much you can sell that improves gameplay in line with high pricing as the free and pay to play experiences can only be so different before it threatens the ability of the game to be a success.
I was really looking forward to this game and had not had any significant concerns until I saw the $200 Founder's pack offer. I am now concerned about whether the balance between F2P and pay to play will be viable for this game.
Before I list the argument please know that I have been a D&D fan for a very long time. I have also been a computer gaming fan since the beginning and have spent very large amounts of money on computer gaming including MMOs. Last, I can afford to pay the $200 many times over just out of my computer gaming budget.
The argument:
1. The old subscription model that was very successful for games like EQ and WoW has in more recent years failed for games like Secret World, SWTOR, and LOTRO.
2. The newer model has been F2P, although there has been considerable flux as to how to best balance income with having a sufficient number of players overall.
3. A major problem has been to avoid making paying to play essential for having a sufficiently positive play experience as those unwilling or unable to pay have left the game without a sufficiently large enough player base. I.E., the game should be F2P not free to be overly gimped. This aspect is magnified many times over if the game allows PvP.
4. Item 3. implies that the game experience that does not cost anything cannot very overly much from the paid experience. This is why most agree that what can be purchased must be limited, with disagreement in what those limitations should be. Purely aesthetic options are usually uncontroversial at one end of the spectrum with over-powered pay-only equipment, or pay-only content, considered as most problematic at the other.
5. This brings us to the $200 founder's pack. There are two possibilities as concerns value for this pack. Either one indicates trouble.
(A) The pack is worth $200, or even the $549 advertised as its true value. This means that those with the pack will be experiencing the game at a level over $500 better than those who are doing strictly play for free. Most players would not find such a gimped experience worthwhile for any sort of long-term play experience.
(B) The pack is not worth even $200 (let alone over $500). The play experience then between those with and without the pack would then be of sufficiently similar nature so as not to pose a problem as in 5A. The trouble is the company is selling something claimed to be worth over $500 that is not even worth $200. This kind of over-grasping for money has already led several other F2P games to failure.
6. To see a current example of this kind of problem as seen in item 5. (although the jury is still out on eventual success or failure) is mechwarrior online's implementation of Founders' Packs. A main benefit of those packs in the two more expensive options was to get mechs that earned credits 25% faster (ala World of Tanks). Yet, as soon as open beta started they began selling "hero" mechs that gave a 30% boost. Something original purchasers of the Founders' packs were not told would be available later.
For those that want to argue it is ok to sell something at whatever price the market will bear, that is only half true. Buyers are certainly free to pay whatever they want. Sellers have to be more careful. There is an implicit claim in making a sale that you are providing adequate value for what you are selling. For online game companies trying the F2P model, the danger is even more pronounced. Make the pay to play component of your game too superior to the free play then you run a very real risk of alienating too many players. This means that there is a very real limit on how much you can sell that improves gameplay in line with high pricing as the free and pay to play experiences can only be so different before it threatens the ability of the game to be a success.
I was really looking forward to this game and had not had any significant concerns until I saw the $200 Founder's pack offer. I am now concerned about whether the balance between F2P and pay to play will be viable for this game.
Post edited by drwarpeffect on
0
Comments
It's not a sign F2P is failing; it's a sign it's here to stay.
I. (Current Neverwinter approach) 1% pay for $200 packages and their like and have a $549 better experience (+ future purchases) than the 75% that do not pay anything. The other 24% pay some lesser amount to play. Total max player base 400,000, game dies after 2 years.
II. (Smaller max founders purchase price) 8% pay for $99 packages and their like and have a modestly better experience than the 62% that do not pay anything (since prices are lower, more are willing to pay something). The other 30% pay some lesser amount to play. Total max player base 2,000,000, game dies after 6 years.
Which scenario represents the most profit? Clearly the second. Now how pricing affects total play depends on a great many variables, but my point is that historical data would indicate that the high delta between what a $200 (value $549) package provides and free to play will most likely not be sustainable. That is what my post is about, not whether F2P in general is a failing model. World of Tanks illustrates F2P can succeed.
I'm not sure if you actually played MWO, or you just listened to forum rants. The founder's program was very successful - getting them a net gain of 5.4 million (if those reports are to be believed).
However, the benefits you listed are slightly off:
a) Founder's Mechs also gave a 25% XP boost on top of the 25% Cbill boost. Hero mechs only gave 30% Cbill boost.
b) The Founder's pack true value (premium time, credits, mechbays and cost of mechs) was close to $300 if you bought "normal" versions of the mechs. For $120. It would cost you $280-300 if you purchased enough credits right now, and got weight-class appropriate hero mechs instead of founder's mechs.
Don't get me wrong; I am not playing the game currently and feel it needs a LOT more to be fun to play. However, value was there and still is there. Whether you like the game or not is a personal matter.
Anyone still searching for guilds you can check out HCG Hardcore Christian Gamers.
NW FAQ | HCG NW Host Site
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
fruit- yes in other venues it is working although it has also failed. I am simply claiming the pricing of the $200 pack is more likely to indicate an overpriced implementation that will fail.
syber- not forgetting that at all. My point is that you will more likely make MORE money by having less of a price/performance delta among your players. I would rather average $7 from 2 million players for 6 years than average $11 from 400,000 for 2 years.
PWE's last quarter's revenue loss has been cited commonly with no context. They are building out using unprecedented revenues from micros. They are forsaking short term profits for long term market penetration. Think Amazon.
I guess to rephrase it: when a company rolls out quarter after quarter of confident new content... they are ahead of the game. They are expanding. Their individual developers are able to make incremental improvements without worry from their managers. This has defined STO for the last year at least.
A defensive company tries to create new subs. It focuses on "cutting costs", e.g. a death spiral.
Grossed, correct. I'm pretty sure they still managed a pretty penny - 1.4 million in refunds still leaves 4 million.
- A Large Health Stone
- 10,000 XP booster
- 5 Scroll of Raise Dead
- 5 Portable Altars
- 10 Identify Scrolls
- 25 pack of skill consumables
These are not cosmetic. Also, my original argument is that either the pack is worth at least $200 (or the claimed $549) or its not. The important perception here is whether the people that DID NOT buy it feel it provides a large advantage or not. Those that did buy it are likely to feel it was worth it, at least initially, since they did, after all, buy it. But if the mount, companion, and xp boosts etc. are viewed as the lion's share of value then free to players may feel the game is simply free to be gimped. Are purely cosmetic changes worth $549 as PWE claimed for the top pack? Most people would think not. Would a good number of people pay $200 to have a significant, non-cosmetic, advantage over other players, i think the evidence from other games is that they clearly would. I would say all the blue titles on here reflect that more than anything else.
This game will have no subscription fees, at all. So they can't really offer a Lifetime Subscription.
Instead we get a robe of useless items... why the hell would anyone want to spawn junk on the ground? You guys need to beef up the guardian, because at the moment it's not a real big sell.
Anyone still searching for guilds you can check out HCG Hardcore Christian Gamers.
NW FAQ | HCG NW Host Site
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
The amulet of Protection is only +1 AC and you only get one period per account.
I think the Mastercraft Item and access to the beta weekends is a bit better. Not to mention a third character slot.
I am also very interested in find out what we will be able to get with the 125k in Astral diamonds.
Didn't see the convenience items when I first looked at the options. Eh, if it's perceived to give an unfair advantage then that's an issue. I got similar rewards from P2P MMOs for being a veteran subscriber or getting a collectors pack. LOTRO gives a similar "starter" pack and those goes a step further and let's people buy stat upgrades which I hope is not present here. It's a fine line to ride between an advantage and a benefit. I think you might be confused on where the listed value is coming from though. It's not the convenience items that you'll be able to purchase from the store, it's the exclusivity of the cosmetic items that boosts the "estimated" value. A mount, clothes, a race background, and a companion aren't worth more than $30-$40 to most people, but exclusive cosmetics or an exclusive beta is worth much more. Is it wrong for developers to exploit that virtual scarcity? I don't know.
What would you put in a F2P "founder" pack instead?
I wont probably get an answer because of NAD ... just wondering....
I was planning on getting the guardian pack but then they removed the access to the vip section of the tavern from it and so I now feel it is not worth the price without that account unlock.
Neverwinter Thieves Guild
Things like this can only benefit a game in my opinion by offering some of the more lazy among us to spend small amounts of money on instant solutions to problems that the more frugal of us have the option of spending in game time on such items instead. I believe that this free to play system will be nowhere near as bad as some of the other companies that have taken their failed pay to play games and tried to convert them into free to play or freemium as some like to call them. Sony and Turbine come to mind immediately. Everyone should really just calm down and wait to see before freaking out.
From what I understand, the Greycloak's Legacy is the replacement for the +1 amulet. It will have that on it.