The best pricing model for the consumer: B2P with content cash-shop

Creslin321

I've given pricing models in games a bit of thought, and I've basically come to the conclusion that the B2P model with a cash shop that only sells CONTENT (dungeons, new lands, etc.) is probably the best for the consumer.  Before I go into why i feel this is so though, I would like to cover why I feel the other two popular pricing models are bad.  My arguments stem from the basic truism that:

PRICING INFLUENCES DESIGN

 

Why P2P is bad

P2P, as you know, means that the players have to (typically) buy the box and then pay a subscription fee each month in order to play the game.  This may sound all well and good, after all, they want you to keep playing right?  You would think they would make a game that is so fun and awesome that you just keep coming back, right?  Well...as it turns out, this is very hard to do. 

So what developers usually fall back on is just trying to "addict" the player to the game by using the techniques of behavioralist BF Skinner.  They essentially design the game so that the player receives rewards for playing the game in a semi-random fashion.  After a while, the player ceases to enjoy playing the game, but keeps playing just to get the reward.  And this is where the grind starts.

Some players can spend months, or even years, just repeating the same content over and over again to try to get the reward they want.  In this way, the developer succeeds at their goal of keeping the player subbed for a long time, but the player often ceases to enjoy the game and often feels bitter and disillusioned when they finally quit.

 

Why F2P is bad

F2P is a VERY broad category of pricing structures, the only thing a game needs to be considered F2P is not to charge you anything to start playing it.  So when I talk about F2P here, I am specifically talking about an F2P model where you can buy something that is not actual content for money.  This includes things like:  exp potions, gear, instant ressurection (ala Vindictus), etc.

The problem with this model is that the RMT items will almost inevitably impact the design of the game in some way.  If the cash shop sells exp potions or gear, then the developers will make the game very grindy so that players will want to skip the exp/gear grind.  They could also make it so that the RMT gear has a big advantage over non-RMT gear.  If you can pay for instant ressurection like Vindictus, the developers will want to tune the game so that you die often enough to make you pay a lot.

There's also a "bait and switch" tactic that is used with some F2P games.  Since the games are literally free to try, some developers will make the beginning of the game really fun and non-grindy, and then spring a major grind on the players once they are invested in their characters, with the goal of selling exp potions or gear.

Once again...pricing influences design.

 

Why B2P with content cash-shop is good

In a B2P game, you buy the box for the prevailing price in your region, and then that's it.  You get everything that comes with the game at release for the price of the box...done.  This is great because all the developer wants is for you to buy their game, one price, no strings attached, no hidden addiction-generating techniques or cash-generating gameplay.  And you, the consumer can make the decision of whether the game is worth your money or not.

But you're probably saying that's not fair to the developer, because they would be making much less than a P2P game, and you're right.  That's why they need a cash-shop.  But this cash-shop should ONLY sell content that the developer has to put work into to create.  No virtual goods that are just invented on the spot, no exp potions, no instant ressurection.

This content would be things like new dungeons, new zones, new classes...basically everything an expansion comes with, just broken up into chunks.  You, the consumer, can decide whether the developer's content is worth your money or not, and you can pick and choose what you want.

I really think this is the best model for the consumer, because the developer's only goal here is to make you want to buy their product.  And really, from the consumer's standpoint...that's the best goal there is.

Axehilt

In B2P you sell the promise of fun.  Fun itself isn't actually required.   What this means is developers who put a ton of money into marketing will be highly rewarded because they'll seem to have the biggest promise of fun.

In F2P if your game isn't fun you make no money.  Players have total transparency into whether your game is fun or not, and if it isn't they're not going to pay.

Do you want a payment model which encourages the developers to spend money on marketing, or to spend money making an awesome game that you get to try before paying?

fenistil

Yea agreed B2P with content cash shop would be best.

 

Well but tbh I will take any business model over f2p / freemium.

Kyleran

But...we haven't really proven that B2P as you've described is profitable enough to sustain a full featured MMORPG. ArenaNet promises to deliver such a title with GW2, but hasn't pulled it off yet.

I suspect if they do it has the potential to change the face of the gaming payment landscape, and might be the title's most innovative feature in the end.

Edit: I don't consider the former P2P titles that have converted to more of a B2P/Content model as good proof of it's viability.

Creslin321

Originally posted by Axehilt

In B2P you sell the promise of fun.  Fun itself isn't actually required.   What this means is developers who put a ton of money into marketing will be highly rewarded because they'll seem to have the biggest promise of fun.

In F2P if your game isn't fun you make no money.  Players have total transparency into whether your game is fun or not, and if it isn't they're not going to pay.

Do you want a payment model which encourages the developers to spend money on marketing, or to spend money making an awesome game that you get to try before paying?

 I don't think the "no transparency" argument flies in the modern era.  With the internet, there is an EXTREMELY high level of transparency with games.  You can read reviews, talk to other users on forums, watch YouTube videos of gameplay.  I typically know exactly what I'm getting into when I buy a game nowadays.

And why would F2P games not need marketing as well?  A consumer has to be aware of the game to try it, F2P or not.

Creslin321

Originally posted by Kyleran

But...we haven't really proven that B2P as you've described is profitable enough to sustain a full featured MMORPG. ArenaNet promises to deliver such a title with GW2, but hasn't pulled it off yet.

I suspect if they do it has the potential to change the face of the gaming payment landscape, and might be the title's most innovative feature in the end.

 

 Well ANet isn't quite going to use that model with GW2.  Their cash shop will have virtual goods like clothing and such...but that's really not that big of a deal .

Anyway, I'm not sure it would be profitable enough for the developer...it probably would be, but not sure.  I'm just saying that it would be best for the consumer.  In reality, we would probably have to meet the developer somewhere in the middle.  Maybe a B2P game with content RMT and some "harmless" non-content goods like clothing, character transfers, new features etc. would be where we wind up.

Sovrath

Originally posted by Kyleran

But...we haven't really proven that B2P as you've described is profitable enough to sustain a full featured MMORPG. ArenaNet promises to deliver such a title with GW2, but hasn't pulled it off yet.

I suspect if they do it has the potential to change the face of the gaming payment landscape, and might be the title's most innovative feature in the end.

Edit: I don't consider the former P2P titles that have converted to more of a B2P/Content model as good proof of it's viability.

pretty much this.

It all sounds great and might actually happen but it hasn't happened yet.

People are buying into this idea because they want more bang for their buck (and espcially gamers who come across as very cheap at times) and who doesn't in the long run?

If it does happen then "yes" it will change quite a bit. But I say let's see what they do. I strongly suspect that there are going to be a lot of players "calling shenanigans" when they start selling DLC, skill packs, essentially implementing their cash shop.

thekid1

Isn't Guild Wars (1) B2P?

I mean you probably get some stuff free but you have to pay for the expansion.

 

Which still isn't really fair for the developers since WOW also makes you pay for the expansions.

Purutzil

Cosmetic items, such a good way to make money without giving any advantages. People are willing to pay a decent amount for these things as well.

VengeSunsoar

"So what developers usually fall back on is just trying to "addict" the player to the game by using the techniques of behavioralist BF Skinner. They essentially design the game so that the player receives rewards for playing the game in a semi-random fashion. After a while, the player ceases to enjoy playing the game, but keeps playing just to get the reward. And this is where the grind starts."

Why do you think that this approach would not be used in a B2P with buying content.  It seems to me it would be the same thing.  Get the player "addicted" to the game use the same techniques.  Design the game so the player receives rewards for playing the game in a semi-random fashion.After a while, the player ceases to enjoy playing the game, but keeps playing just to get the reward. And this is where the grind starts.  But in order to get the rewards they need to buy more content versus buying another month

I see the exact same "tricks" being applied.

Venge

 

Creslin321

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

"So what developers usually fall back on is just trying to "addict" the player to the game by using the techniques of behavioralist BF Skinner. They essentially design the game so that the player receives rewards for playing the game in a semi-random fashion. After a while, the player ceases to enjoy playing the game, but keeps playing just to get the reward. And this is where the grind starts."

Why do you think that this approach would not be used in a B2P with buying content.  It seems to me it would be the same thing.  Get the player "addicted" to the game use the same techniques.  Design the game so the player receives rewards for playing the game in a semi-random fashion.After a while, the player ceases to enjoy playing the game, but keeps playing just to get the reward. And this is where the grind starts.  But in order to get the rewards they need to buy more content versus buying another month

I see the exact same "tricks" being applied.

Venge

 

 They could be, and I'm sure they will be.  Heck, even Diablo did this with the randomized rewards.

I think the difference is just in the degree of how much they will be used.  P2P wants to keep you hooked for as long as possible, so I feel like they have a major incentive to really use these tricks.  B2P on the other hand really just wants you to buy and enjoy their content, then they could care less about if you play or not until they release more content.

VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

"So what developers usually fall back on is just trying to "addict" the player to the game by using the techniques of behavioralist BF Skinner. They essentially design the game so that the player receives rewards for playing the game in a semi-random fashion. After a while, the player ceases to enjoy playing the game, but keeps playing just to get the reward. And this is where the grind starts."

Why do you think that this approach would not be used in a B2P with buying content.  It seems to me it would be the same thing.  Get the player "addicted" to the game use the same techniques.  Design the game so the player receives rewards for playing the game in a semi-random fashion.After a while, the player ceases to enjoy playing the game, but keeps playing just to get the reward. And this is where the grind starts.  But in order to get the rewards they need to buy more content versus buying another month

I see the exact same "tricks" being applied.

Venge

 

 They could be, and I'm sure they will be.  Heck, even Diablo did this with the randomized rewards.

I think the difference is just in the degree of how much they will be used.  P2P wants to keep you hooked for as long as possible, so I feel like they have a major incentive to really use these tricks.  B2P on the other hand really just wants you to buy and enjoy their content, then they could care less about if you play or not until they release more content.

Or (warning pessimistic view here)  because they don't care if you play or not till they release more content, they just want you to buy.  It seems to me that B2P depends more on initial marketing then whether or not the game is actually any fun than even P2P does.

Venge

ShakyMo

I'd like a pay for time played model, i.e. not a monthly sub, I pay an amount and get X hours in game time

Castillle

Originally posted by ShakyMo

I'd like a pay for time played model, i.e. not a monthly sub, I pay an amount and get X hours in game time

APB had something like this.   It wasnt very good because you might as well could get a months gametime for the price of 30ish hours of action time.

Creslin321

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

...

.

Or (warning pessimistic view here)  because they don't care if you play or not till they release more content, they just want you to buy.  It seems to me that B2P depends more on initial marketing then whether or not the game is actually any fun than even P2P does.

Venge

 I'm sure that happens sometimes, but look at the market for any non-MMORPG game.  These are pretty much all B2P.  And I think that quality definitely is a big determinator of success.  Oblivion for example sold much better than Two Worlds.  I really think that the pre-MMORPG video game market proves that quality sells.

There's only so much marketing "smoke and mirrors" that you can pull in the modern era.  Even if you go so far as to buy off reviewers, there will be tons of user opinions out there on the web and on YouTube.  People are going to find out about your game.  So I don't think you can just release a piece of crap and turn it into gold with clever marketing.

Creslin321

Originally posted by Castillle

Originally posted by ShakyMo

I'd like a pay for time played model, i.e. not a monthly sub, I pay an amount and get X hours in game time

APB had something like this.   It wasnt very good because you might as well could get a months gametime for the price of 30ish hours of action time.

 Yeah...I don't like the "pay by hour" idea because it encourages even more "get the shiny" type gameplay.  And it usually winds up being a rip-off.

nariusseldon

There is no reason why it needs to be B2P with content cash shop. A F2P with content cash-shop will work as well. In fact, the F2P part will help to hook new players.

Creslin321

Originally posted by nariusseldon

There is no reason why it needs to be B2P with content cash shop. A F2P with content cash-shop will work as well. In fact, the F2P part will help to hook new players.

 It would, and I wouldn't mind this at all if you had an option to just "buy" all of the release content at once for like 50 bucks.  I don't like getting nickel and dimed and paying $150 for a $50 game though.  And that tends to be what happens .

Z3R01

I would rather pay for a client and then purchase the content packs i want individually. 

THis paying 60 bucks then losing the entire game if you dont want to keep up with a 14.99 sub fee is for the birds.

Omali

It won't be adopted universally, and I'll show you why. Look at where Guild Wars is in comparison to NCSoft's other titles.

Z3R01

GW1 hasen't been supported with new content (Campaigns) in a very long time. It would be different if A-net didn't abandon GW1 for gw2.

Robsolf

Very good points throughout, though I'd have to say it really depends on how a game is set up.  B2P seems like one of the best options because the game is designed with that model in mind.  many F2P games, especially the hybrid conversions are usually not, though I still think DCUO may be an exception.

One other thing I'd add regarding P2P.  This model is, like you said, often utilizing Skinner tactics to keep you playing.  But also, there's another psychological phenomenon which occurs in most people's psyche's, which is the cause of "throwing good money in after bad".  When we dedicate that large initial cost, we feel a sort of commitment to getting our money's worth out of it.  This works at an immediate level, as well as a later point, which is often even worse. 

"I've been playing this game for 2 years!  I may not be enjoying it anymore, but do I just quit and let this progress go to waste?  Why start new with a new game, or worse, give up playing altogether?"

Whereas with a F2P or B2P model, the initial commitment doesn't snare you in so much.  And in leaving 2 years down the line, you don't tend to consider your wallet in that decision at all(though maybe with B2P you do, if you keep up with Xpacs).

That's where the best thing to do is to use a perspective based on a "cost sink analysis".  Where you ask yourself, "if I had all the money I spent subbing to this game, and had the option to spend it to get the progress made in the game, would I do it?  Would I spend the money to buy this game and put me here with all my chars and loot and stuff?

If the answer is no, it's time to move on. 

Got a little off tangent there at the end... sorry.

 

 

Creslin321

Originally posted by Robsolf

Very good points throughout, though I'd have to say it really depends on how a game is set up.  B2P seems like one of the best options because the game is designed with that model in mind.  many F2P games, especially the hybrid conversions are usually not, though I still think DCUO may be an exception.

One other thing I'd add regarding P2P.  This model is, like you said, often utilizing Skinner tactics to keep you playing.  But also, there's another psychological phenomenon which occurs in most people's psyche's, which is the cause of "throwing good money in after bad".  When we dedicate that large initial cost, we feel a sort of commitment to getting our money's worth out of it.  This works at an immediate level, as well as a later point, which is often even worse. 

"I've been playing this game for 2 years!  I may not be enjoying it anymore, but do I just quit and let this progress go to waste?  Why start new with a new game, or worse, give up playing altogether?"

Whereas with a F2P or B2P model, the initial commitment doesn't snare you in so much.  And in leaving 2 years down the line, you don't tend to consider your wallet in that decision at all(though maybe with B2P you do, if you keep up with Xpacs).

That's where the best thing to do is to use a perspective based on a "cost sink analysis".  Where you ask yourself, "if I had all the money I spent subbing to this game, and had the option to spend it to get the progress made in the game, would I do it?  Would I spend the money to buy this game and put me here with all my chars and loot and stuff?

If the answer is no, it's time to move on. 

Got a little off tangent there at the end... sorry.

 

 

 Your point about escalation of commitment (putting good money after bad) is a great point, didn't consider that one before!

nariusseldon

Originally posted by Creslin321

Originally posted by nariusseldon

There is no reason why it needs to be B2P with content cash shop. A F2P with content cash-shop will work as well. In fact, the F2P part will help to hook new players.

 It would, and I wouldn't mind this at all if you had an option to just "buy" all of the release content at once for like 50 bucks.  I don't like getting nickel and dimed and paying $150 for a $50 game though.  And that tends to be what happens .

 

I think DDO works mostly like this. That is why i probably go back to take a look at it.

Creslin321

Originally posted by Omali

It won't be adopted universally, and I'll show you why. Look at where Guild Wars is in comparison to NCSoft's other titles.

 Well...a few things here.

First, the VAST majority of NCSoft's revenue comes from Korea.  Lineage I and II, and Aion are both primarily asian market games.  They didn't do nearly as well in the states.  When considering the western markets only, GW1 did exceptionally well for NCSoft.  In fact, it's probably their most profitable game in that market.

Second, you can't attribute a game's success or failure solely to its pricing structure .

JoeyMMO

While I find the B2P model very interesting, I'm unsure as to why you think they should be selling content more than anything else.

Downside P2P: timesinks to keep you p(l)aying. Pay or you're done playing.

Downside F2P: P2W cash shop looms on the horizon, always. Pay for xp scrolls or be bored to death grinding. Pay for that or be owned by mobs. The list goes on.

B2P selling content, not sure really. Why not just a non P2W cash shop? Selling content smells of Freemium like Lotro. Buy the next quest pack or be bored to pieces. I don't like this concept either and I don't see it matching into a B2P model. Extra character slots, cosmetic items, extra bagspace (unless it's almost required to get around). Some DLC could be acceptable, but I'd prefer not to see this as the most important part of the CS.