The alternative is the status quo, which is an evolution towards more and more predatory monetization schemes.
Which is pretty much a cancer to good game design, often publisher injected without care for what the developers have to do to add it in.
Deus Ex was like that... a single player game that the publisher not only tacked on microtransactions (purchasable ammo, skill points, crafting components, weapons..ect), but forced a weird separate multiplayer mini game with the belief that it would keep people playing the game longer.
I really have no idea how some people are seeing this a "good thing". It is the natural byproduct of this mentality that openly accepts such business models. The publisher looks at their support and thinks that its a good idea to tack it into everything, single player included. At some point all games will turn into a service, rather than a product.
The F2P model is actually very conductive to good game design, as it forces MMO developers to make a game that is first and foremost, attractive to the player base to build retention, before they can get to the point of making money off them.
If the game is sub-par quality, it simply won't being in funds no matter what system it uses, equally so, in this landscape, players are less inclined to spend money on games that are not better or more engaging, no matter what system they use.
Likewise, if the game does not have staying power to keep players interest, they won't buy into the system.
So it continually drives the market for developers to first and foremost make a better game, a game players find worth spending money on, because players need to become attached to the game before they will buy into it.
So, yes, this model very much a breeding ground for competitive development where everyone is out to make a better game that players will pay into.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
According to "Bartle taxonomy of player types," there are four type of MMO gamers: Killers, Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers. The so called cosmetic items are typically bought by Socializers exclusively. This gives a free ride to Killers, Explorers, and Achievers. Especially since most gamers are of the Killer type, that only buy P2W items.
I'm an explorer - socializer I guess. I like collecting things throughout the world. I liked collecting shinies, L&L, and Heritage items in EQ2. I like collecting pets, mounts, and cosmetics in WoW and other games. It's not that I mind cash shops, but I've found that they've evolved to mostly sell the stuff I like and not anything for other play styles. The stuff I like to do gets sidelined for the cash shop because it's easy. The competitive people don't pay for anything in the cash shop.
That's why I don't go for the "no P2W" argument not because I think buying your progression is great game design, but I know it means I'll be the only one who pays while the tryhards get a free freaking ride, always. Because no P2W means collectors get bent over.
It is disappointing, but the alternative is to introduce gameplay-altering items, which is a slippery slope. Say what you like, design tenets become very different once a cash shop with progression or power items becomes attached.
Again, that's why this monetization method is so incredibly far from consumer-friendly it's hilarious, save for the folks who literally refuse to pay anything for their video games. This idea that folks should be subsidizing other's entertainment like this is silly not only in practice, but in principle, and it always ends by fucking one group hard while the others get a pass.
It's only gameplay-altering if they don't buy it. What the Play4Free ( P4F ) crowd have to get through their thick heads is they aren't suppose to P4F, they are suppose to use the cash shop and spend money. They don't buy cosmetic, the don't buy P2W, they don't buy ANYTHING. So they get what they paid for, and that is nothing. They don't get to win, or complaining about it. Until they buy something, every month.
The next time some reviewer writes, you can play this game and not spend any money. Ask them if it's OK with them, if we come over and take everything they have for free? Items, money, food from their kids mouth? House, car, computer, TV, life savings?
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
Agree last poster but i have ALWAYS had a problem with developers using the term FREE when it clearly is an outright LIE. There are two things that FREE implies,it implies FREE and unless it says otherwise with specifications,it should be FREE.A free to play game ,implies THE GAME,that does not imply a very small section of the game or part of the game because they NEVER say that,so again a lie.
How the law allows this BS nonsense is beyond me,i guess it is a matter of enough people filing complaints with the FTC to finally see some action taken,similar to loot boxes and gambling,nobody cares until some notable person cares.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
@Ungood & @MadFrenchie -- Please check the idea I shared on page 7 or PM me on Discord. ( 1AD7#7153 ) It seems like people are so caught up in arguing with one another that my post is literally being ignored. If you guys want to see a "solution" then check out the idea I shared. (Also posted in "General" on the MMORPG.com Discord.) This is my 4'th (and last) attempt to solicit feedback from anybody in this comment section. This idea was 100% tailored around the premise of this article ... take a few minutes to check it out and let me know what you think. Thank you.
According to "Bartle taxonomy of player types," there are four type of MMO gamers: Killers, Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers. The so called cosmetic items are typically bought by Socializers exclusively. This gives a free ride to Killers, Explorers, and Achievers. Especially since most gamers are of the Killer type, that only buy P2W items.
I'm an explorer - socializer I guess. I like collecting things throughout the world. I liked collecting shinies, L&L, and Heritage items in EQ2. I like collecting pets, mounts, and cosmetics in WoW and other games. It's not that I mind cash shops, but I've found that they've evolved to mostly sell the stuff I like and not anything for other play styles. The stuff I like to do gets sidelined for the cash shop because it's easy. The competitive people don't pay for anything in the cash shop.
That's why I don't go for the "no P2W" argument not because I think buying your progression is great game design, but I know it means I'll be the only one who pays while the tryhards get a free freaking ride, always. Because no P2W means collectors get bent over.
It is disappointing, but the alternative is to introduce gameplay-altering items, which is a slippery slope. Say what you like, design tenets become very different once a cash shop with progression or power items becomes attached.
Again, that's why this monetization method is so incredibly far from consumer-friendly it's hilarious, save for the folks who literally refuse to pay anything for their video games. This idea that folks should be subsidizing other's entertainment like this is silly not only in practice, but in principle, and it always ends by fucking one group hard while the others get a pass.
It's only gameplay-altering if they don't buy it. What the Play4Free ( P4F ) crowd have to get through their thick heads is they aren't suppose to P4F, they are suppose to use the cash shop and spend money. They don't buy cosmetic, the don't buy P2W, they don't buy ANYTHING. So they get what they paid for, and that is nothing. They don't get to win, or complaining about it. Until they buy something, every month.
The next time some reviewer writes, you can play this game and not spend any money. Ask them if it's OK with them, if we come over and take everything they have for free? Items, money, food from their kids mouth? House, car, computer, TV, life savings?
Will say it again that FTP is a gaming welfare system. A few players give the companies money then the company offers the game for free to everyone with the reasons "you never have to pay/everything can be earned in the game" which is a lie cause if no one ever paid the games would shut down immediately. They accept your financial support and provide a overall lower quality gaming experience because of FTP players and all the problems they bring while all along building up a rabid FTP fanboy army that will defend their free entertainment against any and all criticisms/threats.
No, again, you just wanted a specific response (me to essentially say "yea, I guess MTs ARE needed!"), and instead I offered that if supply were curbed, new and existing titles would all receive larger shares of players, which translates into larger shares of revenue, independent of monetization scheme.
The alternative is the status quo, which is an evolution towards more and more predatory monetization schemes.
No, lets get something clear, you are passing off that I wanted some specific replay, to justify your weak sauce response.
That is not the case, see, When I asked for a solution, I was asking for an answer, if you had something solid, I wanted to hear it. To use a few examples, of people that take the time to think about solutions, Black Gold, uses a very unique system, CoE also had plans for a very unique system. Those people are looking for solutions, and looking for viable alternatives.
That is not what you are doing.
Your suggestion is expect players to go back and paying a sub to play games that are dated, they most likely have burned out on or were simply did not fun the first time through.
Words fail me at how moronic that suggestion is.
No, you're implying something I never said.
I said that the market needs to contract, not that everything needed to go back to subs only. You projected that because it was an easier position to counter. Don't worry; common mistake, rookie.
EDIT- by the way, when you get an agree/awesome from the friendly neighborhood troll @Gdemami, you know your headed in the wrong direction. Pro tip!
According to "Bartle taxonomy of player types," there are four type of MMO gamers: Killers, Socializers, Explorers, and Achievers. The so called cosmetic items are typically bought by Socializers exclusively. This gives a free ride to Killers, Explorers, and Achievers. Especially since most gamers are of the Killer type, that only buy P2W items.
I'm an explorer - socializer I guess. I like collecting things throughout the world. I liked collecting shinies, L&L, and Heritage items in EQ2. I like collecting pets, mounts, and cosmetics in WoW and other games. It's not that I mind cash shops, but I've found that they've evolved to mostly sell the stuff I like and not anything for other play styles. The stuff I like to do gets sidelined for the cash shop because it's easy. The competitive people don't pay for anything in the cash shop.
That's why I don't go for the "no P2W" argument not because I think buying your progression is great game design, but I know it means I'll be the only one who pays while the tryhards get a free freaking ride, always. Because no P2W means collectors get bent over.
It is disappointing, but the alternative is to introduce gameplay-altering items, which is a slippery slope. Say what you like, design tenets become very different once a cash shop with progression or power items becomes attached.
Again, that's why this monetization method is so incredibly far from consumer-friendly it's hilarious, save for the folks who literally refuse to pay anything for their video games. This idea that folks should be subsidizing other's entertainment like this is silly not only in practice, but in principle, and it always ends by fucking one group hard while the others get a pass.
It's only gameplay-altering if they don't buy it. What the Play4Free ( P4F ) crowd have to get through their thick heads is they aren't suppose to P4F, they are suppose to use the cash shop and spend money. They don't buy cosmetic, the don't buy P2W, they don't buy ANYTHING. So they get what they paid for, and that is nothing. They don't get to win, or complaining about it. Until they buy something, every month.
The next time some reviewer writes, you can play this game and not spend any money. Ask them if it's OK with them, if we come over and take everything they have for free? Items, money, food from their kids mouth? House, car, computer, TV, life savings?
Will say it again that FTP is a gaming welfare system. A few players give the companies money then the company offers the game for free to everyone with the reasons "you never have to pay/everything can be earned in the game" which is a lie cause if no one ever paid the games would shut down immediately. They accept your financial support and provide a overall lower quality gaming experience because of FTP players and all the problems they bring while all along building up a rabid FTP fanboy army that will defend their free entertainment against any and all criticisms/threats.
It's hilarious how folks try to play F2P off as if it's some kind of better equity in supporting MMORPGs.
"I can try it, then decide if it's worth spending money on!" No, the reality is the vast majority of players will never spend anything substantial, no matter the quality of the game.
As a potential customer, I can say I would play the game if there is no possibility to purchase ingame assets for real cash.
Having said that, I would be willing to pay significantly higher subscription than the industry standard (15 EUR) if the game is good.
People keep saying this but not one game would stay afloat if they had say a $50 monthly for their game......At least with micros you get something for your money...All you get with a sub is the right to play.....Did that for 5 years and had 0 to show for it so I dont do that model ever again.
Didn't you get thousands of hours of fun game time? Or is that irrelevant to you?
To be fair, I played Dawn of War for years, bought every expansion, and invested hundreds if not thousands of hours into that game, and didn't have to pay a Sub fee every month to play it.
Dawn of War isn't an mmo so not sure why you even brought it up. If we are giving trivial facts. I played Warcraft 3 for thousands of hours and never paid a sub because they didn't offer one.
@Ungood & @MadFrenchie -- Please check the idea I shared on page 7 or PM me on Discord. ( 1AD7#7153 ) It seems like people are so caught up in arguing with one another that my post is literally being ignored. If you guys want to see a "solution" then check out the idea I shared. (Also posted in "General" on the MMORPG.com Discord.) This is my 4'th (and last) attempt to solicit feedback from anybody in this comment section. This idea was 100% tailored around the premise of this article ... take a few minutes to check it out and let me know what you think. Thank you.
I read the post, but it was kind of hard to make sense of on the format you laid out here on the site. It's 2AM currently, so I don't have the energy to follow the link tonight and start a new quote-train.
The F2P model is actually very conductive to good game design, as it forces MMO developers to make a game that is first and foremost, attractive to the player base to build retention, before they can get to the point of making money off them.
If the game is sub-par quality, it simply won't being in funds no matter what system it uses, equally so, in this landscape, players are less inclined to spend money on games that are not better or more engaging, no matter what system they use.
Likewise, if the game does not have staying power to keep players interest, they won't buy into the system.
So it continually drives the market for developers to first and foremost make a better game, a game players find worth spending money on, because players need to become attached to the game before they will buy into it.
So, yes, this model very much a breeding ground for competitive development where everyone is out to make a better game that players will pay into.
There is nothing conductive to good game design with cash shops. They are antithetical to one another. Free to Play as a business model requires the worst form of cash shops. It is nearly impossible for them to not impact the game design process.
The problem is that you assume its good for "game design" by arguing the game has to be attractive to the target audience. What do you think is attractive? Image saturation? Gimmicks like log in bonuses, loot boxes, xp potions? You need to understand that its not good game design driving the methods in which to "hook" players into the service, but behavioral science.
There are all sorts of tricks which drive the incentive to make use of cash shops, and none of it has to do with actual good game design. Do you even know what game design consist of? Challenge mechanics, player centric design philosophy. The monetary aspect never enters into good game design, but the money or lack there of is not a challenge mechanic in and of itself.
You seem to confuse accessibility with good game design. Accessibility is not game design, it is just the means to get the service in as many hands as possible. F2P is "selling point" first.
In so much as "the game must be good enough to retain its playerbase", that applies to all online games, subscription included. If the fact the game is "free" is what drives retention, then we have a problem since its not the games design that is holding them there.
Its almost like gamers these days forgot what quality is. Image saturation is like the flashy graphics to get your attention, the no cost of entry is the enticement, guiding the player into wanting to spend money is approach... its at its core, cash shop design philosophy, not player centric design.
I can't think of one game designer I have met that loves producers getting involved in their game design documents, gearing everything towards a cash shop ecosystem rather than just making a damn good game they can be proud of. Really the only ones who get to be proud of anything theses days are the artist, and thats usually being done by asian developers for localized content outside of Korea (for example).
Even if there is a cash shop - it's a PvE game - other players being more powerful than you won't mean a thing.
....snip...
But how they choose to monetize the game - none of our business.
That's not really true. If we're part of the consumer base, how they choose to monetize absolutely is our business, because it will affect our purchasing decisions regarding that game.
I've never seen a game title and went "oh man, I'm 100% purchasing that now, I don't even care if I can't play more than an hour a week unless I pay extra!"
Monetization ALWAYS factors into consumer purchasing decisions, so it's always the consumer's business how products being offered are monetized.
-Agree. It is extremely odd for anyone to suggest that monetization, the business model itself, cannot or should not be a factor in consumer interest and thus purchasing power.
Monetization furthermore directly impacts a game design. The developer and or publisher can naturally do whatever they want with their software (games are software after all) as well as how to monetize it, but consumers also have their say. That does not exempt the consumer from being able to vote with their wallet, much less criticize or address the "product"/"service" as it relates to their interest.
. . .
-On a side note, DMKano tries to make PvE as a point, that it won't mean a thing since it relates to environment based challenges (scripted content, NPCs..ect). There is this big misconception going around that PvE does not involve players competing with each other. Where PvP generally connotes direct combat between players, in PvE they are still competing against one another, both economically, socially, and via all other game mechanics found in the game. You compete for resources, you compete for drops, you compete via guilds, via parties, via social capital...ect Its just another form of "PvP" at the end of the day.
PvE and PvP in a multiplayer game are just two sides of the same competitive coin.
I don’t agree with that at all
Which parts, exactly? He touched on a couple different points with his post.
His side note about PVP vs PvE
I see where he's coming from with that. The reason things like Beats by Dre are so popular has as much to do with the idea that it shows you can afford it more than anything else. They certainly don't warrant the pricetag; they even add superfluous parts to the headsets to increased the weight because that tricks consumers into thinking they're better made.
Many high-end products leverage exclusivity more than any other product feature. Cash shops are no different. In that sense, yea, PvE cash shops are still about competition between players. Riding up on the $45 mount doesn't seem worth it if everyone else has it, too.
Yet only a small portion of the entire headphone market owns it buys Beats headphones. Same as PvE. Not everyone plays the game that way. Some do sure. Yet many many do not. Many people just play the game with their friends and go on adventures and have a good time.
I have a difficult time relating to playing games for those reasons, and knowing how DMKano plays them I'm sure it's even more difficult.
His has said his guild / friends consist of gamers who voraciously and relentlessly try to get to the top tier of any game as efficiently as possible and in the least amount of time.
Playing to just have fun and hang with friends, I really can't relate much to that concept, will have to take your word that its true.
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
Might as well address the OP finally, I think VR should use the ESO model as their template for monetization.
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
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
Might as well address the OP finally, I think VR should use the ESO model as their template for monetization.
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
That neglects the fact that the vast majority of gamers aren't participating in the cash shop regularly.
2014 article showed that less than 1% of players made up 50% of F2P revenue. When faced with the option of giving devs no support or participating in the cash shop, over half of players will not fork over any cash.
With box sales and subs, ARPU is a constant. That enables you to directly related revenue to popularity. With a cash shop, it isn't a constant, and the data says that games can lose large swathes of players without it being reflected accurately in revenue, so long as the whales are kept happy.
Might as well address the OP finally, I think VR should use the ESO model as their template for monetization.
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
That neglects the fact that the vast majority of gamers aren't participating in the cash shop regularly.
2014 article showed that less than 1% of players made up 50% of F2P revenue. When faced with the option of giving devs no support or participating in the cash shop, over half of players will not fork over any cash.
With box sales and subs, ARPU is a constant. That enables you to directly related revenue to popularity. With a cash shop, it isn't a constant, and the data says that games can lose large swathes of players without it being reflected accurately in revenue, so long as the whales are kept happy.
Sure, but subs aren't REALLY an indicator of popularity, either. Some people may be interested to play, but simply won't pay another sub. We get some pretty good data with F2P games, or we have in the past. The problem with subs is that 1) numbers are rarely published, and 2) Even if they are published, the popularity of the game is always static based on the number of subscribers. With F2P, you might have a rollercoaster ride on your hands, but the trends are likely much more meaningful since there isn't a financial commitment by the user. So your playerbase will be much more tightly linked to your popularity, no?
Might as well address the OP finally, I think VR should use the ESO model as their template for monetization.
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
That neglects the fact that the vast majority of gamers aren't participating in the cash shop regularly.
2014 article showed that less than 1% of players made up 50% of F2P revenue. When faced with the option of giving devs no support or participating in the cash shop, over half of players will not fork over any cash.
With box sales and subs, ARPU is a constant. That enables you to directly related revenue to popularity. With a cash shop, it isn't a constant, and the data says that games can lose large swathes of players without it being reflected accurately in revenue, so long as the whales are kept happy.
Sure, but subs aren't REALLY an indicator of popularity, either. Some people may be interested to play, but simply won't pay another sub. We get some pretty good data with F2P games, or we have in the past. The problem with subs is that 1) numbers are rarely published, and 2) Even if they are published, the popularity of the game is always static based on the number of subscribers. With F2P, you might have a rollercoaster ride on your hands, but the trends are likely much more meaningful since there isn't a financial commitment by the user. So your playerbase will be much more tightly linked to your popularity, no?
Giving a revenue number in a F2P game doesn't accurately reflect popularity. Data supports that, because the vast majority of your revenue comes from a very small portion of your playerbase.
Subs are accurate. If folks don't think the game is worth the sub, that's insight. But you can directly link subs to popularity, because the revenue per user is constant. More revenue, the more users paying a sub to play the game.
If you keep your whales happy, revenue can remain roughly stable even while you bleed players.
Might as well address the OP finally, I think VR should use the ESO model as their template for monetization.
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
That neglects the fact that the vast majority of gamers aren't participating in the cash shop regularly.
2014 article showed that less than 1% of players made up 50% of F2P revenue. When faced with the option of giving devs no support or participating in the cash shop, over half of players will not fork over any cash.
With box sales and subs, ARPU is a constant. That enables you to directly related revenue to popularity. With a cash shop, it isn't a constant, and the data says that games can lose large swathes of players without it being reflected accurately in revenue, so long as the whales are kept happy.
Sure, but subs aren't REALLY an indicator of popularity, either. Some people may be interested to play, but simply won't pay another sub. We get some pretty good data with F2P games, or we have in the past. The problem with subs is that 1) numbers are rarely published, and 2) Even if they are published, the popularity of the game is always static based on the number of subscribers. With F2P, you might have a rollercoaster ride on your hands, but the trends are likely much more meaningful since there isn't a financial commitment by the user. So your playerbase will be much more tightly linked to your popularity, no?
Giving a revenue number in a F2P game doesn't accurately reflect popularity. Data supports that, because the vast majority of your revenue comes from a very small portion of your playerbase.
Subs are accurate. If folks don't think the game is worth the sub, that's insight. But you can directly link subs to popularity, because the revenue per user is constant. More revenue, the more users paying a sub to play the game.
If you keep your whales happy, revenue can remain roughly stable even while you bleed players.
Ok, I THINK we're saying the same thing here? So popularity is linked to active players, not revenues? Subs definitely provide a more stable and predictable revenue stream, especially since you won't have the same spiky active player numbers as you would with F2P, but that's about all it does.
As far as revenue models go, subs definitely provide the most stability, but F2P can provide high returns over time, if you're able to sustain the valleys in the model. You are right, though, it is very much about catering to the whales. You'll have ebbs and flows with players, but you get that with subs these days too. It's always about player acquisition.
Might as well address the OP finally, I think VR should use the ESO model as their template for monetization.
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
That neglects the fact that the vast majority of gamers aren't participating in the cash shop regularly.
2014 article showed that less than 1% of players made up 50% of F2P revenue. When faced with the option of giving devs no support or participating in the cash shop, over half of players will not fork over any cash.
With box sales and subs, ARPU is a constant. That enables you to directly related revenue to popularity. With a cash shop, it isn't a constant, and the data says that games can lose large swathes of players without it being reflected accurately in revenue, so long as the whales are kept happy.
Sure, but subs aren't REALLY an indicator of popularity, either. Some people may be interested to play, but simply won't pay another sub. We get some pretty good data with F2P games, or we have in the past. The problem with subs is that 1) numbers are rarely published, and 2) Even if they are published, the popularity of the game is always static based on the number of subscribers. With F2P, you might have a rollercoaster ride on your hands, but the trends are likely much more meaningful since there isn't a financial commitment by the user. So your playerbase will be much more tightly linked to your popularity, no?
Giving a revenue number in a F2P game doesn't accurately reflect popularity. Data supports that, because the vast majority of your revenue comes from a very small portion of your playerbase.
Subs are accurate. If folks don't think the game is worth the sub, that's insight. But you can directly link subs to popularity, because the revenue per user is constant. More revenue, the more users paying a sub to play the game.
If you keep your whales happy, revenue can remain roughly stable even while you bleed players.
Ok, I THINK we're saying the same thing here? So popularity is linked to active players, not revenues? Subs definitely provide a more stable and predictable revenue stream, especially since you won't have the same spiky active player numbers as you would with F2P, but that's about all it does.
As far as revenue models go, subs definitely provide the most stability, but F2P can provide high returns over time, if you're able to sustain the valleys in the model. You are right, though, it is very much about catering to the whales. You'll have ebbs and flows with players, but you get that with subs these days too. It's always about player acquisition.
No, again, you just wanted a specific response (me to essentially say "yea, I guess MTs ARE needed!"), and instead I offered that if supply were curbed, new and existing titles would all receive larger shares of players, which translates into larger shares of revenue, independent of monetization scheme.
The alternative is the status quo, which is an evolution towards more and more predatory monetization schemes.
No, lets get something clear, you are passing off that I wanted some specific replay, to justify your weak sauce response.
That is not the case, see, When I asked for a solution, I was asking for an answer, if you had something solid, I wanted to hear it. To use a few examples, of people that take the time to think about solutions, Black Gold, uses a very unique system, CoE also had plans for a very unique system. Those people are looking for solutions, and looking for viable alternatives.
That is not what you are doing.
Your suggestion is expect players to go back and paying a sub to play games that are dated, they most likely have burned out on or were simply did not fun the first time through.
Words fail me at how moronic that suggestion is.
No, you're implying something I never said.
I said that the market needs to contract, not that everything needed to go back to subs only. You projected that because it was an easier position to counter. Don't worry; common mistake, rookie.
EDIT- by the way, when you get an agree/awesome from the friendly neighborhood troll @Gdemami, you know your headed in the wrong direction. Pro tip!
So you're idea is limit the number of MMO's so players have less choices, while keeping the Micro Transaction, system in place so that companies can gouge their players more making the current situation worse then it is already.
My god.. your ideas get worse the more you talk.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
I'm sorry....Whaaaaa????. This question coming from a company who charges $10,000 for early entry and some "bogus" bragging rights????? .....PLEASE.....STOP IT!!!!!!
I'm sorry....Whaaaaa????. This question coming from a company who charges $10,000 for early entry and some "bogus" bragging rights????? .....PLEASE.....STOP IT!!!!!!
I'm more than sure there is more to it than that.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
If something doesn't make sense, reference these 10 Golden Rules:
1) All items that can be purchased from the Vanity Merchant can also be purchased with gold.
2) Vanity items are meant to be fun/flavorful items that help build/distinguish character personality/creativity/reputation.
3) Nothing is gated behind vanicoin or enhanced sub. (Vanicoin value is purposely designed to be relatively insignificant.)
4) Vanity Merchant has merit to exist regardless of how everything else ties in.
5) There is absolutely zero P2W. No higher sub tiers.
6) Players are encouraged to help support an anti-RMT fund with minimal gimmicky incentive. (Small monthly allowance of untradeable vanicoin that can ONLY be used at the vanity merchant. No other purpose or function)
7) Reputation ties everything together. Reputation for the game (We are ready to battle RMT, and will win) -- Reputation for the player (annual house item that shows you contributed toward winning the war) -- and reputation for our characters through the items that the vanity merchant offers.
8) Haircuts & Tattoos are other potential vanity items. (Nothing unique, just a makeover using whatever options are available at character select for your race)
9) Can help offset costs of anti-RMT staff, and thus create additional funding for actual game development.
10) No important development time is being used to create cosmetic art assets. Options are very generic, but meaningful. Development team is not encouraged to spend time making more assets. (They could, however be justified and that would be a success)
If this is what you were talking about. I want you to know I read it.
Allow me to start off by saying some companies do things along this line, often in the form of their Game Tokens being able to be bought and sold for In-Game Coin.
To use an example, GW2, allows for a flat up trade between the two of them, so you can buy "Gems" with "Gold" and thus, quite literally, short of expansions, you can buy everything in the game with In-game gold, and never need to spend a single Real Money Cent to own everything from the store.
Other games, offer Game Tokens for completing in game tasks, like "Complete this Dungeon Series, and receive 100 Game Tokens" .. which.. as Irony would have it.. GW2 also does, but I was thinking of an older game.. in any case.
There are quite a few systems in place that some companies use to keep thing "free" for the more determined player.
I will say.. I am not a fan of all vanity items being obtained in game, and my main reason for this, is that.. lets say.. If you need to complete a task to get a hairstyle: Mohawk, and you can Buy the same Mohawk in the store, players will feel that it cheapens their efforts in game.
In this front, it is better to have store items have their own unique look, this way, players will know which is which and there will be less resentment.
I will say, however, from my sampling, most games are moving away from P2W in the sense of giving raw power though their store, and often only offer convenience/cosmetic items, which is a good trend as things are going right now.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
No, again, you just wanted a specific response (me to essentially say "yea, I guess MTs ARE needed!"), and instead I offered that if supply were curbed, new and existing titles would all receive larger shares of players, which translates into larger shares of revenue, independent of monetization scheme.
The alternative is the status quo, which is an evolution towards more and more predatory monetization schemes.
No, lets get something clear, you are passing off that I wanted some specific replay, to justify your weak sauce response.
That is not the case, see, When I asked for a solution, I was asking for an answer, if you had something solid, I wanted to hear it. To use a few examples, of people that take the time to think about solutions, Black Gold, uses a very unique system, CoE also had plans for a very unique system. Those people are looking for solutions, and looking for viable alternatives.
That is not what you are doing.
Your suggestion is expect players to go back and paying a sub to play games that are dated, they most likely have burned out on or were simply did not fun the first time through.
Words fail me at how moronic that suggestion is.
No, you're implying something I never said.
I said that the market needs to contract, not that everything needed to go back to subs only. You projected that because it was an easier position to counter. Don't worry; common mistake, rookie.
EDIT- by the way, when you get an agree/awesome from the friendly neighborhood troll @Gdemami, you know your headed in the wrong direction. Pro tip!
So you're idea is limit the number of MMO's so players have less choices, while keeping the Micro Transaction, system in place so that companies can gouge their players more making the current situation worse then it is already.
My god.. your ideas get worse the more you talk.
Wrong again! He's on a hot streak in all the wrong directions, Cotton!
Less supply, more consumer base share, less need to aggressively monetize to make up for the strained market. Unless, of course, publishers AREN'T utilizing these increasingly predatory schemes just to float.
The F2P model is actually very conductive to good game design, as it forces MMO developers to make a game that is first and foremost, attractive to the player base to build retention, before they can get to the point of making money off them.
If the game is sub-par quality, it simply won't being in funds no matter what system it uses, equally so, in this landscape, players are less inclined to spend money on games that are not better or more engaging, no matter what system they use.
Likewise, if the game does not have staying power to keep players interest, they won't buy into the system.
So it continually drives the market for developers to first and foremost make a better game, a game players find worth spending money on, because players need to become attached to the game before they will buy into it.
So, yes, this model very much a breeding ground for competitive development where everyone is out to make a better game that players will pay into.
There is nothing conductive to good game design with cash shops. They are antithetical to one another. Free to Play as a business model requires the worst form of cash shops. It is nearly impossible for them to not impact the game design process.
The problem is that you assume its good for "game design" by arguing the game has to be attractive to the target audience. What do you think is attractive? Image saturation? Gimmicks like log in bonuses, loot boxes, xp potions? You need to understand that its not good game design driving the methods in which to "hook" players into the service, but behavioral science.
There are all sorts of tricks which drive the incentive to make use of cash shops, and none of it has to do with actual good game design. Do you even know what game design consist of? Challenge mechanics, player centric design philosophy. The monetary aspect never enters into good game design, but the money or lack there of is not a challenge mechanic in and of itself.
You seem to confuse accessibility with good game design. Accessibility is not game design, it is just the means to get the service in as many hands as possible. F2P is "selling point" first.
In so much as "the game must be good enough to retain its playerbase", that applies to all online games, subscription included. If the fact the game is "free" is what drives retention, then we have a problem since its not the games design that is holding them there.
Its almost like gamers these days forgot what quality is. Image saturation is like the flashy graphics to get your attention, the no cost of entry is the enticement, guiding the player into wanting to spend money is approach... its at its core, cash shop design philosophy, not player centric design.
I can't think of one game designer I have met that loves producers getting involved in their game design documents, gearing everything towards a cash shop ecosystem rather than just making a damn good game they can be proud of. Really the only ones who get to be proud of anything theses days are the artist, and thats usually being done by asian developers for localized content outside of Korea (for example).
LOL.
Look, you can piss and moan about cash shops all you want, and it seems you want to do that a lot.
But reality check, if the game is not fun to play to start with, if it not designed to be enjoyable and engaging in it's own right, then no one is going to spend money on it, no matter what type of payment method they use.
F2P is everywhere, so much so it's not even a point of retention anymore.
Let me give you an example: Fortnight, I played it for a bit, and while it had some fun features, I simply did not enjoy it. Did it matter to me what system they used in their cash shop to me? Did they have loot boxes, or XP Pots, or daily log in rewards, I didn't care.. because the game itself was not captivating to me. So I moved on to another F2P game.
Thus, F2P games allow me to be very picky about what I want, and where I'll spend my money, if the game itself simply was not enticing enough, and I will move on. I can list a whole bunch of games that ended the same way with me, F2P allowed me to try them, but if I simply did not find the game itself fun engaging or enjoyable, what money system they used had no bearing.
That is why, F2P games are conductive to good development, they are in constant competition to be better then what else is out there so players will stay around to play and pay into their game.
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
No, again, you just wanted a specific response (me to essentially say "yea, I guess MTs ARE needed!"), and instead I offered that if supply were curbed, new and existing titles would all receive larger shares of players, which translates into larger shares of revenue, independent of monetization scheme.
The alternative is the status quo, which is an evolution towards more and more predatory monetization schemes.
No, lets get something clear, you are passing off that I wanted some specific replay, to justify your weak sauce response.
That is not the case, see, When I asked for a solution, I was asking for an answer, if you had something solid, I wanted to hear it. To use a few examples, of people that take the time to think about solutions, Black Gold, uses a very unique system, CoE also had plans for a very unique system. Those people are looking for solutions, and looking for viable alternatives.
That is not what you are doing.
Your suggestion is expect players to go back and paying a sub to play games that are dated, they most likely have burned out on or were simply did not fun the first time through.
Words fail me at how moronic that suggestion is.
No, you're implying something I never said.
I said that the market needs to contract, not that everything needed to go back to subs only. You projected that because it was an easier position to counter. Don't worry; common mistake, rookie.
EDIT- by the way, when you get an agree/awesome from the friendly neighborhood troll @Gdemami, you know your headed in the wrong direction. Pro tip!
So you're idea is limit the number of MMO's so players have less choices, while keeping the Micro Transaction, system in place so that companies can gouge their players more making the current situation worse then it is already.
My god.. your ideas get worse the more you talk.
Wrong again! He's on a hot streak in all the wrong directions, Cotton!
Less supply, more consumer base share, less need to aggressively monetize to make up for the strained market. Unless, of course, publishers AREN'T utilizing these increasingly predatory schemes just to float.
when the hell.. ever.. in history.. has less supply worked for the consumer.. are you really this clueless?
Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
Comments
If the game is sub-par quality, it simply won't being in funds no matter what system it uses, equally so, in this landscape, players are less inclined to spend money on games that are not better or more engaging, no matter what system they use.
Likewise, if the game does not have staying power to keep players interest, they won't buy into the system.
So it continually drives the market for developers to first and foremost make a better game, a game players find worth spending money on, because players need to become attached to the game before they will buy into it.
So, yes, this model very much a breeding ground for competitive development where everyone is out to make a better game that players will pay into.
The next time some reviewer writes, you can play this game and not spend any money. Ask them if it's OK with them, if we come over and take everything they have for free? Items, money, food from their kids mouth? House, car, computer, TV, life savings?
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
There are two things that FREE implies,it implies FREE and unless it says otherwise with specifications,it should be FREE.A free to play game ,implies THE GAME,that does not imply a very small section of the game or part of the game because they NEVER say that,so again a lie.
How the law allows this BS nonsense is beyond me,i guess it is a matter of enough people filing complaints with the FTC to finally see some action taken,similar to loot boxes and gambling,nobody cares until some notable person cares.
Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.
I said that the market needs to contract, not that everything needed to go back to subs only. You projected that because it was an easier position to counter. Don't worry; common mistake, rookie.
EDIT- by the way, when you get an agree/awesome from the friendly neighborhood troll @Gdemami, you know your headed in the wrong direction. Pro tip!
"I can try it, then decide if it's worth spending money on!" No, the reality is the vast majority of players will never spend anything substantial, no matter the quality of the game.
The problem is that you assume its good for "game design" by arguing the game has to be attractive to the target audience. What do you think is attractive? Image saturation? Gimmicks like log in bonuses, loot boxes, xp potions? You need to understand that its not good game design driving the methods in which to "hook" players into the service, but behavioral science.
There are all sorts of tricks which drive the incentive to make use of cash shops, and none of it has to do with actual good game design. Do you even know what game design consist of? Challenge mechanics, player centric design philosophy. The monetary aspect never enters into good game design, but the money or lack there of is not a challenge mechanic in and of itself.
You seem to confuse accessibility with good game design. Accessibility is not game design, it is just the means to get the service in as many hands as possible. F2P is "selling point" first.
In so much as "the game must be good enough to retain its playerbase", that applies to all online games, subscription included. If the fact the game is "free" is what drives retention, then we have a problem since its not the games design that is holding them there.
Its almost like gamers these days forgot what quality is. Image saturation is like the flashy graphics to get your attention, the no cost of entry is the enticement, guiding the player into wanting to spend money is approach... its at its core, cash shop design philosophy, not player centric design.
I can't think of one game designer I have met that loves producers getting involved in their game design documents, gearing everything towards a cash shop ecosystem rather than just making a damn good game they can be proud of. Really the only ones who get to be proud of anything theses days are the artist, and thats usually being done by asian developers for localized content outside of Korea (for example).
His has said his guild / friends consist of gamers who voraciously and relentlessly try to get to the top tier of any game as efficiently as possible and in the least amount of time.
Playing to just have fun and hang with friends, I really can't relate much to that concept, will have to take your word that its true.
"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
Start with an initial box price, $49.99 and a monthly sub, maybe push the limit a bit say $15.95.
After the initial rush, 3 to 6 months, roll out the cash shop with experience boosters and convenience items such as in the field repair kits or campfires.
If subs have dropped too precipitously at 6 months, flip them to optional tieing them to an item of extreme convenience such as inventory space or buff booster.
Also roll out the first DLC at this time, (new race, class, or area) to draw back any who may have quit by then as well as entertain those actively playing.
Begin adding new items to the cash shop from 6 to 12 months, but mostly items cosmetics, skins including some higher priced ones for those used to playing POE or shooters which offer them.
A year out, another DLC, review what appears to be working well and adjust the plan regularly based on the analysis.
Take almost nothing off of the table pre launch to avoid breaking promises it makes little sense to keep as there is no predicting the future.
What players eschew today (loot boxes, items of power etc.) may be well accepted in 2 or 3 yrs time.
As Tim Eisen noted here once, gamers have demonstrated there is almost no monitization hill they aren't willing to cimb. (Eventually I would add)
"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
Make a good game and people will flock and gladly pay a sub.
2014 article showed that less than 1% of players made up 50% of F2P revenue. When faced with the option of giving devs no support or participating in the cash shop, over half of players will not fork over any cash.
With box sales and subs, ARPU is a constant. That enables you to directly related revenue to popularity. With a cash shop, it isn't a constant, and the data says that games can lose large swathes of players without it being reflected accurately in revenue, so long as the whales are kept happy.
Sure, but subs aren't REALLY an indicator of popularity, either. Some people may be interested to play, but simply won't pay another sub. We get some pretty good data with F2P games, or we have in the past. The problem with subs is that 1) numbers are rarely published, and 2) Even if they are published, the popularity of the game is always static based on the number of subscribers. With F2P, you might have a rollercoaster ride on your hands, but the trends are likely much more meaningful since there isn't a financial commitment by the user. So your playerbase will be much more tightly linked to your popularity, no?
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
----------------
Subs are accurate. If folks don't think the game is worth the sub, that's insight. But you can directly link subs to popularity, because the revenue per user is constant. More revenue, the more users paying a sub to play the game.
If you keep your whales happy, revenue can remain roughly stable even while you bleed players.
Ok, I THINK we're saying the same thing here? So popularity is linked to active players, not revenues? Subs definitely provide a more stable and predictable revenue stream, especially since you won't have the same spiky active player numbers as you would with F2P, but that's about all it does.
As far as revenue models go, subs definitely provide the most stability, but F2P can provide high returns over time, if you're able to sustain the valleys in the model. You are right, though, it is very much about catering to the whales. You'll have ebbs and flows with players, but you get that with subs these days too. It's always about player acquisition.
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
----------------
My god.. your ideas get worse the more you talk.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
If this is what you were talking about. I want you to know I read it.
Allow me to start off by saying some companies do things along this line, often in the form of their Game Tokens being able to be bought and sold for In-Game Coin.
To use an example, GW2, allows for a flat up trade between the two of them, so you can buy "Gems" with "Gold" and thus, quite literally, short of expansions, you can buy everything in the game with In-game gold, and never need to spend a single Real Money Cent to own everything from the store.
Other games, offer Game Tokens for completing in game tasks, like "Complete this Dungeon Series, and receive 100 Game Tokens" .. which.. as Irony would have it.. GW2 also does, but I was thinking of an older game.. in any case.
There are quite a few systems in place that some companies use to keep thing "free" for the more determined player.
I will say.. I am not a fan of all vanity items being obtained in game, and my main reason for this, is that.. lets say.. If you need to complete a task to get a hairstyle: Mohawk, and you can Buy the same Mohawk in the store, players will feel that it cheapens their efforts in game.
In this front, it is better to have store items have their own unique look, this way, players will know which is which and there will be less resentment.
I will say, however, from my sampling, most games are moving away from P2W in the sense of giving raw power though their store, and often only offer convenience/cosmetic items, which is a good trend as things are going right now.
Less supply, more consumer base share, less need to aggressively monetize to make up for the strained market. Unless, of course, publishers AREN'T utilizing these increasingly predatory schemes just to float.
Look, you can piss and moan about cash shops all you want, and it seems you want to do that a lot.
But reality check, if the game is not fun to play to start with, if it not designed to be enjoyable and engaging in it's own right, then no one is going to spend money on it, no matter what type of payment method they use.
F2P is everywhere, so much so it's not even a point of retention anymore.
Let me give you an example: Fortnight, I played it for a bit, and while it had some fun features, I simply did not enjoy it. Did it matter to me what system they used in their cash shop to me? Did they have loot boxes, or XP Pots, or daily log in rewards, I didn't care.. because the game itself was not captivating to me. So I moved on to another F2P game.
Thus, F2P games allow me to be very picky about what I want, and where I'll spend my money, if the game itself simply was not enticing enough, and I will move on. I can list a whole bunch of games that ended the same way with me, F2P allowed me to try them, but if I simply did not find the game itself fun engaging or enjoyable, what money system they used had no bearing.
That is why, F2P games are conductive to good development, they are in constant competition to be better then what else is out there so players will stay around to play and pay into their game.