Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Ethical F2P Design (and why it matters)
TheLizardbones
Member CommonPosts: 10,910
Ha! You thought I had my own thoughts on this! Don't be silly.
Gamasutra has an article written by Greg Costikyan that seems relevant to the interests of people on these forums.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/207779/ethical_freetoplay_game_design_.php
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Comments
I have always been curious:
If we don't have ethical marketing...
If we don't have ethical sales (P2P)
Why would we expect ethical services (F2P)?
Why would there be a change? Why would the same industry that has been stealing children's money for years suddenly change, just because they have something new to sell. This is not about what is being offered, or even how it is being offered... but rather by whom it is being offered from.
I kinda skimmed over that article but it seemed he was focused a lot on games like World of Tanks and League of Legends which are not MMO's. Same with the browser and mobile crowd.
Not too pertinent to the games I am playing.
I really didn't get much from his arguments either, except that those type of games just might be out to make a quick buck. Not exactly earth shattering news to me, or many others, I assume.
A good F2P system should make the player want to pay for the game. It is as simple as that I think. If you have to pay for the game, it is not good.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Hmm....
Ethical F2P design....
Now there's a conundrum.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
ethical = allow people the oppurtunity to choose to play or purchase something and to know that what they purchased is exactly what was agreed upon.
other than that...there is nothing else.
Must be, I plan to spend at least that much on playing EVE next year, but hey, still a heck of lot cheaper than the country club membership, or my old bowling league.
$350 is a pittance....
Probably should comment on the OP, very well written article and as I don't play many F2P titles I never really thought through a lot of the points raised.
While I appreciate the idea of programming in a "are you sure you wish to spend more money" pop-up, I'd be very surprised to see any company turn down a willing buyer, else we'd not have things such as lock-boxes and the like in some games.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Problem with that is, people read "Patrons can own land" to mean "All Patrons will have land."
There is no agreement because one party never bothers to read the fine print... they merely assume.
The TL;DR; version of the article comes down to money. The market for F2P games is currently expanding rapidly, but it won't expand rapidly forever. This includes games on PCs as well as mobile devices. The tablet market has already hit a slow growth/no growth point.
Once the market is no longer rapidly expanding, the focus must shift to keeping customers rather than extracting as much money as possible from customers. This will only be done by F2P systems that are seen as "ethical" by customers.
I'm not sure about the other two things.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
I think F2P provides a different experience for different types of gamers. If you are heavily into "winning" MMO's then most F2P games will seem like P2W. If you are more casual and less concerned with the "win" aspect then most F2P models are simply pay according to your playstyle.
To me it is obvious which is the larger demographic, and also the demographic most likely to stick with a F2P game longer. Probably a good reason why the F2P model has been so successful to date.
FFA Nonconsentual Full Loot PvP ...You know you want it!!
Is there any reason why someone should not value his virtual gaming stuff at $350 a year a good deal?
I won't pay it. I won't pay a sub. But that does not mean that your friend is wrong. It just means that everyone value these things differently.
I love to go to michelin fancy restaurant with my wife, and i know people who think dropping close to a thousand dollars on one meal is insane .. but hey .. that is my valuation, and I don't see why I should not spend my money as I see fit.
How is P2P unethical? you are paying them to play their game, as long as they let you play it for the agreed price it seems pretty ethical. Just because you don't like paying for something doesn't mean there's anything dishonest about it.
F2P on the other hand tries to make people feel "smart" like you're getting something for free but often if you really break it down to get the same experience in a F2P game you will often pay more than the subscription player will. It's F2P that often uses "unethical marketing" not P2P.
Ethics discussion article on Gamasutra
Heh.
Most of the growth for F2P has already happened. F2P is no longer rapidly growing in a way that outpaces the industry. It is now just a major portion, and growing as the industry grows.
There are many ways that P2P can be unethical. The simplest, most classic is bait and switch. Promise one thing, deliver another. Because the money is taken upfront, before the product can be seen, it is easy to scam people. Companies have been ripping off customers with P2P forever.
"often" implies most players pay .. but the truth is the majority of players do not.
http://www.superdataresearch.com/blog/global-mmo-games-spending-exceeds-12bn/
"Of all 50 million MMO gamers in the US, 23 million spend money on free-to-play or subscription MMOs."
Now tell me, how is paying nothing "more than the subscription player will"?
You should really show the whole section on the US DATA:
US MMO MARKET
Of all 50 million MMO gamers in the US, 23 million spend money on free-to-play or subscription MMOs. This is 3% higher than last year. On average, they will spend $127 for the full year, 11% more than in 2011. Overall, the US market is expected to grow to $2.9bn this year. When zooming in on transaction data for a single month, the ARPPU for individual titles in May 2012 was $17 compared to $27 in October 2011. This apparent contradiction can be explained by an increase in purchase frequency, a lower average transaction size and spending on a number of different games.
So, under 50% paid anything. Those that did pay, paid an average of $127 per year (or 10.58 per month). It sure seems like with F2P the customer will often pay less.
If you don't pay way in advance you get exactly the game you're currently playing for the sub price. If you pay yearly or get a lifetime sub there can be some issue with what you're talking about but the risk is why those options are always cheaper. Besides I don't know why anyone would pay way in advance for a game they didn't know well and like [I'm sure some people do but it's stupid.]
You're misquoting me, I said that they will often pay more if they want the same experience a paying player would get. You do understand that most F2P games work by making the game less fun if you don't pay? The fact that many people are willing to play with these restrictions in return for saving a bit of money doesn't mean they aren't getting an objectively worse game than a sub paying player would get.
Pay more than what? This comparison is illogically constructed.
If you are compared to sub games, since they are different games, you cannot say you have to pay more (or even pay) to have the same amount of fun, particularly when "fun" is subjective.
Case in point. WoW is a sub-game. It is no longer fun for me. Marvel Heroes is a f2p game, and at the no money level of fun, to me, already exceed WoW which costs $15 a month. And wanting the "same experience" is a misnomer since you cannot have the same experience in another game.
Now if you are talking about within the same game, then obviously if you want to have the same fun as the whales, you pay like the whales. But why is that relevant? I don't need the "maximum level of fun" in a f2p game ... i just need it to be "more fun than the competing sub-game" to choose it over sub-games.
I was comparing within the same game or with games that used to be a sub-based game so you can judge what the sub gets/ got you. I'm not saying people shouldn't enjoy and have fun with F2P games. I'm saying that it's a myth that F2P (mostly) is a lot cheaper than subscription. It just gives you an option on the bottom end to pay nothing but they want you to pay and will always be trying to get you to pay by offering more fun things to the people who pay.
Sub is them making the best game they can and charging everyone the same for it F2P is breaking the game up into chunks and selling it to you a bit at a time (and giving you the option to play a really bad version which is actually free) . I know which model I generally prefer but I guess it just comes down to personal choice. Still the idea that F2P is cheap or a bargain is deceptive marketing.
Although note when I talk of sub games I'm referring to the variety that do not also have a cash shop which sells power which unfortunately is rare now. Those sub games which double dip with a cash shop are more unethical than even the worst F2P games IMO. I'm very willing to pay a sub just not to have a cash shop in the game at all. I wish more new games would offer that.
Well, "bad" is subjective. I would consider the free version of Marvel Heroes and STO fun and worth playing.
Other than that, i don't disagree. And yes, it is a personal choice, and i would MUCH prefer to get a big free chunk up front, and if they want to sell me small chunks at a time, they can try.
I am opposed to charging a regular price so I have to pay for stuff that i want, and those that i don't want.
The idea that F2P is cheap ... is absolute right on ... for me. If I can enjoy a game with paying nothing ... tell me ... isn't that the definition of "cheap"? Not everyone need to pay for the "whale" price to enjoy a game.
This whole topic reminds me of this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKGeHuln08A
What are your other Hobbies?
Gaming is Dirt Cheap compared to this...
-I wasn't saying the games themselves are bad but don't you think playing with one hero unlocked is worse than having a huge amount to choose from? The free version of the game is comparatively bad which is really fair enough because they want you to pay.
-Fair enough on your second point. I should have said F2P games don't necessarily provide better value. They're only great value if you're really happy with playing the free version (which seems like its actually true for you in some games.)