Pretty much but given its like "Gacha" it bypasses U.S Laws when it comes to gambling which is why some Japan and people from foreign countries bring it into games and their business over to America where its legal because it was made illegal over there.
Gacha is not even close to being a new thing.
At least in Europe, since the 1970s/1980s, we had these Panini sticker collections that you could stick into magazines. It was the exact same system available for different sorts of interests: Soccer team sticker collection (national/international), Cartoon sticker collections, and so on.
What you did was buying a magazine with a starter pack of stickers. The content of the pack was of course unknown. Then started the long run of trying to complete the magazine with all stickers. by buying new sticker packs or trading with friends. Of course, chances for certain stickers were super low.
What is illegal about Gacha systems is the so called "Kompu Gacha". It is a system that was excessively used by some major game companies in Japan. It introduced an extremely valuable grand prize for completing a gacha (collection). Since the underlying system is random and the chances were freely adjustable by the developer/publisher, some of the grand prizes were worth hundreds of dollars.
I suggest you check out Deltia's Gamings video about the gacha crates in ESO. He once opened crates for 100 USD and ended up with the rough guesstimate, that winning the most valuable item would need him to spend roundabout 200 USD.
The introduction of these crates was the reason for me to quit ESO.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I absolutely despise it and refuse to play any game, regardless of developer that has actual gear and such in loot crates/boxes/etc, or that allows you to buy money that can be used to purchase items on the in game market, etc.
There is an OK way to do it, and that's the way games like Dota 2 do it, where it's purely cosmetic items and THATS IT. I am totally ok with it as long as it doesn't actually affect in game stats, etc.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
Does it matter? Most gamers won't bother to pay. I doubt even you would dispute that. Whether it is just the whales, or the whales + the dolphins, is basically the same point.
Devs are happy. Free riders are happy. Since I am not a whale nor a dolphins, whether they are happy or not does not concern me much, particularly when everything is voluntary.
For profit games are for profit. If they don't earn it through subscriptions they will do it another way, and that virtually inevitably leads to unsavory game elements designed to compel people to pay in, one way or the other.
Quite frankly, the blame for the negative elements of revenue models of today falls squarely on the swarm of players that bought into the claimed "something for nothing" on offer. The warnings from those who saw the potential pitfalls of these models were ignored and downplayed, or the people themselves were outright attacked.
So many players bought into the "free to play" model that virtually all subscription games were either forced to shut down through lack of revenue or to switch over to offering their own version of a free to play option and begin to shift their focus to cash shop revenue.
Of course, the early warnings from those that were concerned about the shift from the subscription model came to pass, more and more with time. From cash shops, to negative game elements to inspire spending, to the pseudogambling of luck based boxes.
I have absolutely no sympathy.
The horde of early f2p adopting players was warned early on it was too good to be true, and trampled over the few that tried to speak of the dangers ahead.
The collective gaming community deserves every negative game element brought about by their so eager adoption of the non-subscription models... business models supported and rewarded by greed and temptation, rather than choosing to stay with subscription... a model supported and rewarded by the ongoing improvement and development of the game, so that player interest is naturally maintained by an ever better experience.
So, yes. Enjoy the current state of gaming revenue models.
How do you all feel about the way monetization has ended up in MMOs and online games these days?
I think freemium is solid, and the best monetization model for an MMO. People scream "Pay to Win!!!" but there is a difference between pay to win and a good freemium model.
IMO Pay to Win is more about how 15$ a month is not sufficient to be competitive. You pay your patron / VIP / Premium whatever they are calling it and still end up constantly dying to people who spend 200$ a month on golden bullets or whatever ridiculous cash shop item is made a necessity of competition. That's a model I hate.
Freemium is about you can try the game for free, no 2 week trial, play as long as you want. And when you realize free-to-play is really gated at a certain level of viability you pay your 15$ and get access to the rest of the game. Unlike traditional monthly sub models, freemium models are not sinking every game that touches them. Plus you will find it's easier to convince other people to try freemium games, which I find very beneficial even if I am paying my sub. I am 100% ok with the freemium model. More than 100%, I actually question an MMOs ability to survive without either it or a worse and more intrusive form of monetization. Even WoW and EVE freemium options these days and those were the last holdouts of monthly sub purists.
As far as RNG cash boxes go, I don't touch them. If I feel that I need to in order to be competitive in a game (Which is usually false, usually they contain crappy cosmetics I don't want anyway), I won't play that game. That's a level of pay to win I'm not willing to touch with a ten foot pole.
Opiate sales are really profitable as well, even legally sold, still doesn't change the fact they are largely a scourge on society.
What if I told you not allowing their sale hurts society even more? I'm just going to leave this here... you can PM me if you want to debate the drug war but otherwise we should probably leave them out of this topic.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
Does it matter? Most gamers won't bother to pay. I doubt even you would dispute that. Whether it is just the whales, or the whales + the dolphins, is basically the same point.
Devs are happy. Free riders are happy. Since I am not a whale nor a dolphins, whether they are happy or not does not concern me much, particularly when everything is voluntary.
true and from what I have heard the stats bare that out.
in short, I think 'whales' are likely only paying $15 a month but because there are so many more players then there would be in a subscription model the load is distributed among more players and more 'whales'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I basically ignore lootboxes. If I have keys, I mostly keep keys. Boxes are either deleted or sold (Lotro)...or hoarded in almost unused vault (GW2). Never bought or was thinking about buying keys/RNG boxes. How do I feel about that? World would be better without RNG and developers could earn more money by actual content or nice fluff (Rainbow Pony for just 5$ or Evil Pink Dragon for 3.99 euro...did we mention Flying Box for as low as 19.99$ ?).
I basically ignore lootboxes. If I have keys, I mostly keep keys. Boxes are either deleted or sold (Lotro)...or hoarded in almost unused vault (GW2). Never bought or was thinking about buying keys/RNG boxes. How do I feel about that? World would be better without RNG and developers could earn more money by actual content or nice fluff (Rainbow Pony for just 5$ or Evil Pink Dragon for 3.99 euro...did we mention Flying Box for as low as 19.99$ ?).
Some people have no self-control and want game developers to save them from themselves, instead of taking responsibility for how they spend money on games.
I suspect most of the haters are into these games for a significant amount of cash and think demonizing the practice somehow absolves them from their own stupidity.
I remember several years ago when the Free to Play conversions started happening, the "freemium" options were really where we saw a lot of companies going. Free games, cash shops, and subscriptions.
Now, it's all RNG boxes. Money spent on chances to get the items you want. Quite literally in a game I've been playing they have an RNG box where you can get a "Jackpot".
I don't think that when the western games began the Free 2 Play journey that any of us saw so many of these games adopting a pay to roll scenario.
So many people just say "well that's RNG, deal with it" and others say "I would never buy those RNG boxes".
How do you all feel about the way monetization has ended up in MMOs and online games these days?
They need to pass laws here stateside like they did in singapore, which made loxboxes a form of gambling hence illegal, its ruined games like STO and funcom is being stupid and put in secret world legends....
I remember several years ago when the Free to Play conversions started happening, the "freemium" options were really where we saw a lot of companies going. Free games, cash shops, and subscriptions.
Now, it's all RNG boxes. Money spent on chances to get the items you want. Quite literally in a game I've been playing they have an RNG box where you can get a "Jackpot".
I don't think that when the western games began the Free 2 Play journey that any of us saw so many of these games adopting a pay to roll scenario.
So many people just say "well that's RNG, deal with it" and others say "I would never buy those RNG boxes".
How do you all feel about the way monetization has ended up in MMOs and online games these days?
They need to pass laws here stateside like they did in singapore, which made loxboxes a form of gambling hence illegal, its ruined games like STO and funcom is being stupid and put in secret world legends....
I despise lockboxes.
Good idea. That'll solve the problem. Nothing worse could ever possibly take it's place.
Because if there is one thing I learned in the US Navy on a submarine is that it can never get worse. No wait, I mean it can always always get worse.
Fixing a boo boo is a bandaid solution that solves a symptom not the problem.
QFT!!
So at the dawn of MMORPGs we had subscriptions and everything was great. As competition began to grow, we saw the introduction of the F2P model. As a result, nobody is willing to pay for a subscription now, but insist that they would if there was something worthwhile, and until then they'll just play these crappy F2P games, lol. A few years back, we heard about V2P (View to Play). Is that the next logical progression? No cash shop, but with forced ads. I can only imagine how horrible that would be.
So, yes, it can get worse. All it will take to make these things worse is legislation which effectively makes the model that's working now, ineffective or non-feasible. Wonder why MMOs are dying in North America? Despite attempting to be great again, the NA market has always been second fiddle to the Asian market (which is double that of the NA market). Furthermore, that gap has only increased in the last couple years, and the Asian market is now over 5 times the size of the NA market. Very shortly, the NA market will render itself worthless and even stateside developers will start just making games for the Asian market, lol.
I remember several years ago when the Free to Play conversions started happening, the "freemium" options were really where we saw a lot of companies going. Free games, cash shops, and subscriptions.
Now, it's all RNG boxes. Money spent on chances to get the items you want. Quite literally in a game I've been playing they have an RNG box where you can get a "Jackpot".
I don't think that when the western games began the Free 2 Play journey that any of us saw so many of these games adopting a pay to roll scenario.
So many people just say "well that's RNG, deal with it" and others say "I would never buy those RNG boxes".
How do you all feel about the way monetization has ended up in MMOs and online games these days?
They need to pass laws here stateside like they did in singapore, which made loxboxes a form of gambling hence illegal, its ruined games like STO and funcom is being stupid and put in secret world legends....
I despise lockboxes.
Good idea. That'll solve the problem. Nothing worse could ever possibly take it's place.
Because if there is one thing I learned in the US Navy on a submarine is that it can never get worse. No wait, I mean it can always always get worse.
Fixing a boo boo is a bandaid solution that solves a symptom not the problem.
Yeah that makes total sense. Let's not have any laws or regulations because something worse will replace what the law is trying to regulate.
"Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”
― Umberto Eco
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” ― CD PROJEKT RED
I remember several years ago when the Free to Play conversions started happening, the "freemium" options were really where we saw a lot of companies going. Free games, cash shops, and subscriptions.
Now, it's all RNG boxes. Money spent on chances to get the items you want. Quite literally in a game I've been playing they have an RNG box where you can get a "Jackpot".
I don't think that when the western games began the Free 2 Play journey that any of us saw so many of these games adopting a pay to roll scenario.
So many people just say "well that's RNG, deal with it" and others say "I would never buy those RNG boxes".
How do you all feel about the way monetization has ended up in MMOs and online games these days?
They need to pass laws here stateside like they did in singapore, which made loxboxes a form of gambling hence illegal, its ruined games like STO and funcom is being stupid and put in secret world legends....
I despise lockboxes.
Good idea. That'll solve the problem. Nothing worse could ever possibly take it's place.
Because if there is one thing I learned in the US Navy on a submarine is that it can never get worse. No wait, I mean it can always always get worse.
Fixing a boo boo is a bandaid solution that solves a symptom not the problem.
Yeah that makes total sense. Let's not have any laws or regulations because something worse will replace what the law is trying to regulate.
It's actually pretty hilarious. Take from it what you will, but there are some things that are undeniable.
Furthermore, the cost to the taxpayers for people incarcerated on these weed-based offenses cost the American taxpayers $16 billion per year. Now, I'm not an advocate for legalization, but I think it's very easy to see that it's been worse under prohibition than when it was legal less than 100 years ago.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
It's really a matter of statistics when it comes to "whales" and "paying customers"
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
It's really a matter of statistics when it comes to "whales" and "paying customers"
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
Meh, if it was 5% of people actually paying for something, and 1% of those people actually being a whale, that works out to about 500 per 1,000,000 players. That's 1/20th of 1% of all players are whales, or 0.05% of people.
So, effectively, even in the most popular of games, there are like no more than 1000 people who are whales, whatever the whale definition is, since it would depend on how much money that particular game generated.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
It's really a matter of statistics when it comes to "whales" and "paying customers"
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
again..
I am just saying if you compare the population of a subscription game to that of a F2P game its likely your 'whales' are not paying much more then they would if they were in subscription but because there is far more of them then that would not otherwise be in a subscription model they end up actually paying about the same.
I have said the same thing now 3 times and I dont think anyone has yet to uderstand me.
lets do this: What is the average per monthly payment of a whale per month? I bet you its around $15
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
It's really a matter of statistics when it comes to "whales" and "paying customers"
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
again..
I am just saying if you compare the population of a subscription game to that of a F2P game its likely your 'whales' are not paying much more then they would if they were in subscription but because there is far more of them then that would not otherwise be in a subscription model they end up actually paying about the same.
I have said the same thing now 3 times and I dont think anyone has yet to uderstand me.
lets do this: What is the average per monthly payment of a whale per month? I bet you its around $15
No... we're talking in the hundreds. It will depend on the games, but, my experiences with MHO and MPQ have shown me that whales are much more willing to spend great amounts than even I realized. On MHO alone I've spent about 100 a month average. I considered myself a whale in that game, until I saw others spending nearly three times what I did, getting all of the costumes, buying endless boosts.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
It's really a matter of statistics when it comes to "whales" and "paying customers"
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
Meh, if it was 5% of people actually paying for something, and 1% of those people actually being a whale, that works out to about 500 per 1,000,000 players. That's 1/20th of 1% of all players are whales, or 0.05% of people.
So, effectively, even in the most popular of games, there are like no more than 1000 people who are whales, whatever the whale definition is, since it would depend on how much money that particular game generated.
You're actually not too far off in those percentages and numbers. But you also have to consider that these numbers fluctuate with new players, and the amount each "whale" spends. It's purely dependent on the game too. If those 1000 players are spending between 200 - 500 a month, which could be a very real possibility, that could easily pay off, even with a relatively small playerbase.
No... we're talking in the hundreds. It will depend on the games, but, my experiences with MHO and MPQ have shown me that whales are much more willing to spend great amounts than even I realized. On MHO alone I've spent about 100 a month average. I considered myself a whale in that game, until I saw others spending nearly three times what I did, getting all of the costumes, buying endless boosts.
if you were my co-worker I would be willing to bet you lunch that the majority of the F2P income come from players who are paying no more than $20 a month for the reasons I have explained in detail 3 times
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
It's really a matter of statistics when it comes to "whales" and "paying customers"
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
again..
I am just saying if you compare the population of a subscription game to that of a F2P game its likely your 'whales' are not paying much more then they would if they were in subscription but because there is far more of them then that would not otherwise be in a subscription model they end up actually paying about the same.
I have said the same thing now 3 times and I dont think anyone has yet to uderstand me.
lets do this: What is the average per monthly payment of a whale per month? I bet you its around $15
No... we're talking in the hundreds. It will depend on the games, but, my experiences with MHO and MPQ have shown me that whales are much more willing to spend great amounts than even I realized. On MHO alone I've spent about 100 a month average. I considered myself a whale in that game, until I saw others spending nearly three times what I did, getting all of the costumes, buying endless boosts.
Coding the game's business model into the actual game was a terrible idea though...most people wouldnt pay a dime and would have no financial connection to the actual game, while others got carried away and ended up spending a fortune on a game they were destined to stop playing as the free players migrated to the next new free game making the game they played unfun and dead (full of bots)
"Terrible" for whom? Clearly the devs are making more money, or else they would not be doing it. So clearly it is not terrible for them.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
and I am not sure really the whole meme of whales holding everyone is completely accurate.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
It's really a matter of statistics when it comes to "whales" and "paying customers"
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
Meh, if it was 5% of people actually paying for something, and 1% of those people actually being a whale, that works out to about 500 per 1,000,000 players. That's 1/20th of 1% of all players are whales, or 0.05% of people.
So, effectively, even in the most popular of games, there are like no more than 1000 people who are whales, whatever the whale definition is, since it would depend on how much money that particular game generated.
You're actually not too far off in those percentages and numbers. But you also have to consider that these numbers fluctuate with new players, and the amount each "whale" spends. It's purely dependent on the game too. If those 1000 players are spending between 200 - 500 a month, which could be a very real possibility, that could easily pay off, even with a relatively small playerbase.
Yeah, I totally agree. However, the other consideration is what percentage of those players are profiting from the game? Like I played a mobile game where there were a couple YouTubers spending thousands per month, but it was supported by their channel (and possibly the dev). So if you've got, say, 10 people spending $10k per month then it drastically reduces the "contribution" of other whales.
Also, there are some EVE players even on here who spend $100 monthly or more, or have, which pre-dates the idea of loot boxes giving players an advantage. However, multiple accounts & multiboxing seems to have never raised the same amount of distaste, which I find interesting. There certainly was never the outcry for legislation, lol.
It's really a matter of statistics when it comes to "whales" and "paying customers"
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
Meh, if it was 5% of people actually paying for something, and 1% of those people actually being a whale, that works out to about 500 per 1,000,000 players. That's 1/20th of 1% of all players are whales, or 0.05% of people.
So, effectively, even in the most popular of games, there are like no more than 1000 people who are whales, whatever the whale definition is, since it would depend on how much money that particular game generated.
You're actually not too far off in those percentages and numbers. But you also have to consider that these numbers fluctuate with new players, and the amount each "whale" spends. It's purely dependent on the game too. If those 1000 players are spending between 200 - 500 a month, which could be a very real possibility, that could easily pay off, even with a relatively small playerbase.
Yeah, I totally agree. However, the other consideration is what percentage of those players are profiting from the game? Like I played a mobile game where there were a couple YouTubers spending thousands per month, but it was supported by their channel (and possibly the dev). So if you've got, say, 10 people spending $10k per month then it drastically reduces the "contribution" of other whales.
Also, there are some EVE players even on here who spend $100 monthly or more, or have, which pre-dates the idea of loot boxes giving players an advantage. However, multiple accounts & multiboxing seems to have never raised the same amount of distaste, which I find interesting. There certainly was never the outcry for legislation, lol.
I never really thought of it that way, so good points. I just feel like multiboxing is a different animal though. With loot boxes it can really turn into a variable of value. I've created several loot box videos for one of the games I played, and after I did, I would post what I received and the monetary value of those items. In almost every case the value in the boxes were less than what I paid.
I think you're right about those profiting from the game... my videos ended up making enough revenue to where I broke even, but it didn't make me feel like I should go off and spend thousands! With the relatively small amount of content creators for each game though (I don't consider streamers content creators, most of the time its just guys turning on the streaming function) I can't believe that the majority of whales are profiting from the game.
No... we're talking in the hundreds. It will depend on the games, but, my experiences with MHO and MPQ have shown me that whales are much more willing to spend great amounts than even I realized. On MHO alone I've spent about 100 a month average. I considered myself a whale in that game, until I saw others spending nearly three times what I did, getting all of the costumes, buying endless boosts.
if you were my co-worker I would be willing to bet you lunch that the majority of the F2P income come from players who are paying no more than $20 a month for the reasons I have explained in detail 3 times
That, is not what the study I linked earlier with the statistics stated. Just because you have a "hunch" that whales only spend 20 dollars, doesn't make it so, and seeing as how you already stated you don't play these kinds of games, I don't think you should be making such claims as your knowledge on the subject is severely limited.
No... we're talking in the hundreds. It will depend on the games, but, my experiences with MHO and MPQ have shown me that whales are much more willing to spend great amounts than even I realized. On MHO alone I've spent about 100 a month average. I considered myself a whale in that game, until I saw others spending nearly three times what I did, getting all of the costumes, buying endless boosts.
if you were my co-worker I would be willing to bet you lunch that the majority of the F2P income come from players who are paying no more than $20 a month for the reasons I have explained in detail 3 times
That, is not what the study I linked earlier with the statistics stated. Just because you have a "hunch" that whales only spend 20 dollars, doesn't make it so, and seeing as how you already stated you don't play these kinds of games, I don't think you should be making such claims as your knowledge on the subject is severely limited.
does the article you linked explicitly state what that figure is?
I bet not, why? because you haven't said what the number is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
I remember several years ago when the Free to Play conversions started happening, the "freemium" options were really where we saw a lot of companies going. Free games, cash shops, and subscriptions.
Now, it's all RNG boxes. Money spent on chances to get the items you want. Quite literally in a game I've been playing they have an RNG box where you can get a "Jackpot".
I don't think that when the western games began the Free 2 Play journey that any of us saw so many of these games adopting a pay to roll scenario.
So many people just say "well that's RNG, deal with it" and others say "I would never buy those RNG boxes".
How do you all feel about the way monetization has ended up in MMOs and online games these days?
They need to pass laws here stateside like they did in singapore, which made loxboxes a form of gambling hence illegal, its ruined games like STO and funcom is being stupid and put in secret world legends....
I despise lockboxes.
Good idea. That'll solve the problem. Nothing worse could ever possibly take it's place.
Because if there is one thing I learned in the US Navy on a submarine is that it can never get worse. No wait, I mean it can always always get worse.
Fixing a boo boo is a bandaid solution that solves a symptom not the problem.
Yeah that makes total sense. Let's not have any laws or regulations because something worse will replace what the law is trying to regulate.
It's actually pretty hilarious. Take from it what you will, but there are some things that are undeniable.
Furthermore, the cost to the taxpayers for people incarcerated on these weed-based offenses cost the American taxpayers $16 billion per year. Now, I'm not an advocate for legalization, but I think it's very easy to see that it's been worse under prohibition than when it was legal less than 100 years ago.
True, but this isn't narcotics we're talking about, and for every example you show of a regulation or law gone haywire, we could probably show 5 that were created to respond to a status quo that was found to be undesirable and ended up being an effective deterrent of that status quo.
Yes, things can get worse. Will they? Whether you like it or not, the answer to that lay directly on how far governments are willing to stick their hand into the jar to ensure whatever replaced lootboxes wouldn't be just as predatory. Many people don't like to think about it, but prior to the U.S. government getting involved, corporate America was much worse than it is today.
Comments
Gacha is not even close to being a new thing.
At least in Europe, since the 1970s/1980s, we had these Panini sticker collections that you could stick into magazines. It was the exact same system available for different sorts of interests: Soccer team sticker collection (national/international), Cartoon sticker collections, and so on.
What you did was buying a magazine with a starter pack of stickers. The content of the pack was of course unknown. Then started the long run of trying to complete the magazine with all stickers. by buying new sticker packs or trading with friends. Of course, chances for certain stickers were super low.
What is illegal about Gacha systems is the so called "Kompu Gacha". It is a system that was excessively used by some major game companies in Japan. It introduced an extremely valuable grand prize for completing a gacha (collection). Since the underlying system is random and the chances were freely adjustable by the developer/publisher, some of the grand prizes were worth hundreds of dollars.
I suggest you check out Deltia's Gamings video about the gacha crates in ESO. He once opened crates for 100 USD and ended up with the rough guesstimate, that winning the most valuable item would need him to spend roundabout 200 USD.
The introduction of these crates was the reason for me to quit ESO.
"most people wouldn't pay a dime" .. so why is it terrible for them? They got some free entertainment? In fact, I belong to this group. I say bring it on. The worse case is that the game is not fun, and i waste 10 min of my time. So what is so terrible?
And yes, it is probably terrible for the whales ... well .. i am not one of them.
I think there are also a lot of people who are paying who otherwise would not have existed if it was a subscription model. so there is that, which is more I dont know but just saying there is likely dollars coming in from people who would likely not pay a subscription
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
I absolutely despise it and refuse to play any game, regardless of developer that has actual gear and such in loot crates/boxes/etc, or that allows you to buy money that can be used to purchase items on the in game market, etc.
There is an OK way to do it, and that's the way games like Dota 2 do it, where it's purely cosmetic items and THATS IT. I am totally ok with it as long as it doesn't actually affect in game stats, etc.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
Does it matter? Most gamers won't bother to pay. I doubt even you would dispute that. Whether it is just the whales, or the whales + the dolphins, is basically the same point. Devs are happy. Free riders are happy. Since I am not a whale nor a dolphins, whether they are happy or not does not concern me much, particularly when everything is voluntary.
Quite frankly, the blame for the negative elements of revenue models of today falls squarely on the swarm of players that bought into the claimed "something for nothing" on offer. The warnings from those who saw the potential pitfalls of these models were ignored and downplayed, or the people themselves were outright attacked.
So many players bought into the "free to play" model that virtually all subscription games were either forced to shut down through lack of revenue or to switch over to offering their own version of a free to play option and begin to shift their focus to cash shop revenue.
Of course, the early warnings from those that were concerned about the shift from the subscription model came to pass, more and more with time. From cash shops, to negative game elements to inspire spending, to the pseudogambling of luck based boxes.
I have absolutely no sympathy.
The horde of early f2p adopting players was warned early on it was too good to be true, and trampled over the few that tried to speak of the dangers ahead.
The collective gaming community deserves every negative game element brought about by their so eager adoption of the non-subscription models... business models supported and rewarded by greed and temptation, rather than choosing to stay with subscription... a model supported and rewarded by the ongoing improvement and development of the game, so that player interest is naturally maintained by an ever better experience.
So, yes. Enjoy the current state of gaming revenue models.
The vast majority of you earned them.
IMO Pay to Win is more about how 15$ a month is not sufficient to be competitive. You pay your patron / VIP / Premium whatever they are calling it and still end up constantly dying to people who spend 200$ a month on golden bullets or whatever ridiculous cash shop item is made a necessity of competition. That's a model I hate.
Freemium is about you can try the game for free, no 2 week trial, play as long as you want. And when you realize free-to-play is really gated at a certain level of viability you pay your 15$ and get access to the rest of the game. Unlike traditional monthly sub models, freemium models are not sinking every game that touches them. Plus you will find it's easier to convince other people to try freemium games, which I find very beneficial even if I am paying my sub. I am 100% ok with the freemium model. More than 100%, I actually question an MMOs ability to survive without either it or a worse and more intrusive form of monetization. Even WoW and EVE freemium options these days and those were the last holdouts of monthly sub purists.
As far as RNG cash boxes go, I don't touch them. If I feel that I need to in order to be competitive in a game (Which is usually false, usually they contain crappy cosmetics I don't want anyway), I won't play that game. That's a level of pay to win I'm not willing to touch with a ten foot pole.
in short, I think 'whales' are likely only paying $15 a month but because there are so many more players then there would be in a subscription model the load is distributed among more players and more 'whales'
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Never bought or was thinking about buying keys/RNG boxes.
How do I feel about that? World would be better without RNG and developers could earn more money by actual content or nice fluff (Rainbow Pony for just 5$ or Evil Pink Dragon for 3.99 euro...did we mention Flying Box for as low as 19.99$ ?).
http://www.mmoblogg.wordpress.com
I suspect most of the haters are into these games for a significant amount of cash and think demonizing the practice somehow absolves them from their own stupidity.
~~ postlarval ~~
I despise lockboxes.
QFT!!
So at the dawn of MMORPGs we had subscriptions and everything was great. As competition began to grow, we saw the introduction of the F2P model. As a result, nobody is willing to pay for a subscription now, but insist that they would if there was something worthwhile, and until then they'll just play these crappy F2P games, lol. A few years back, we heard about V2P (View to Play). Is that the next logical progression? No cash shop, but with forced ads. I can only imagine how horrible that would be.
So, yes, it can get worse. All it will take to make these things worse is legislation which effectively makes the model that's working now, ineffective or non-feasible. Wonder why MMOs are dying in North America? Despite attempting to be great again, the NA market has always been second fiddle to the Asian market (which is double that of the NA market). Furthermore, that gap has only increased in the last couple years, and the Asian market is now over 5 times the size of the NA market. Very shortly, the NA market will render itself worthless and even stateside developers will start just making games for the Asian market, lol.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
“Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?”
― CD PROJEKT RED
True story! Hate to go back to the war on drugs, but http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-influence/real-reasons-marijuana-is-banned_b_9210248.html
It's actually pretty hilarious. Take from it what you will, but there are some things that are undeniable.
Furthermore, the cost to the taxpayers for people incarcerated on these weed-based offenses cost the American taxpayers $16 billion per year. Now, I'm not an advocate for legalization, but I think it's very easy to see that it's been worse under prohibition than when it was legal less than 100 years ago.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I linked an article before that laid out the low percentage of whales in comparison to paying players, we're talking a total of less than 5% pay anything at all in most games that are free to play, and the whales, which accounts for more than 50% of revenue are less than 1%.
But if you take into account that free games, at least popular free games, have several hundreds of thousands of people trying the game continuously, those small percentages could still be relatively large numbers.
Meh, if it was 5% of people actually paying for something, and 1% of those people actually being a whale, that works out to about 500 per 1,000,000 players. That's 1/20th of 1% of all players are whales, or 0.05% of people.
So, effectively, even in the most popular of games, there are like no more than 1000 people who are whales, whatever the whale definition is, since it would depend on how much money that particular game generated.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I am just saying if you compare the population of a subscription game to that of a F2P game its likely your 'whales' are not paying much more then they would if they were in subscription but because there is far more of them then that would not otherwise be in a subscription model they end up actually paying about the same.
I have said the same thing now 3 times and I dont think anyone has yet to uderstand me.
lets do this:
What is the average per monthly payment of a whale per month? I bet you its around $15
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
You're actually not too far off in those percentages and numbers. But you also have to consider that these numbers fluctuate with new players, and the amount each "whale" spends. It's purely dependent on the game too. If those 1000 players are spending between 200 - 500 a month, which could be a very real possibility, that could easily pay off, even with a relatively small playerbase.
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yeah, I totally agree. However, the other consideration is what percentage of those players are profiting from the game? Like I played a mobile game where there were a couple YouTubers spending thousands per month, but it was supported by their channel (and possibly the dev). So if you've got, say, 10 people spending $10k per month then it drastically reduces the "contribution" of other whales.
Also, there are some EVE players even on here who spend $100 monthly or more, or have, which pre-dates the idea of loot boxes giving players an advantage. However, multiple accounts & multiboxing seems to have never raised the same amount of distaste, which I find interesting. There certainly was never the outcry for legislation, lol.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
I think you're right about those profiting from the game... my videos ended up making enough revenue to where I broke even, but it didn't make me feel like I should go off and spend thousands! With the relatively small amount of content creators for each game though (I don't consider streamers content creators, most of the time its just guys turning on the streaming function) I can't believe that the majority of whales are profiting from the game.
I bet not, why? because you haven't said what the number is
Please do not respond to me, even if I ask you a question, its rhetorical.
Please do not respond to me
Yes, things can get worse. Will they? Whether you like it or not, the answer to that lay directly on how far governments are willing to stick their hand into the jar to ensure whatever replaced lootboxes wouldn't be just as predatory. Many people don't like to think about it, but prior to the U.S. government getting involved, corporate America was much worse than it is today.