Content for paying users only - an obsolete concept?

[Chris]

I was observing SoccerStar. At their start they had premium content (bought by stars which was acquired by $ only). Then, after several months they allowed a lot of in-game options to acquire stars, therefore, in theory, you could now get everything the paying users get, just slower.

Another example, TeamFortress2. They sell 2 kinds of things. Eastetic accessories ($ only) and better guns (both $ and eveything can be found ingame). So, as long as you don't need this cool looking hat you can get everything paying users get (and the random drops are not shabby at all). Also the random/purchasable guns are not that much better from the default ones.


Which makes me thinking, is it more profitable (and don't even dare to bring to this topic morality) to allow everything be acquirable in-game as an option?

[Emicarn]

In the games I play I am frustrated, personally, by the sometimes inane decisions made on this topic.

For instance, one game I play on FB to help friends put out a Christmas based clothing set, the entire set was available for in game coins EXCEPT the Santa Coat to finish the outfit which was only available through pay to play. 

My opinion is that making content that anyone can get, even if significantly slower, by both dollars and in game means makes sense.  You can still provide some incentive for people to spend a few bucks without creating two classes of players, which is where my objections tend to land.

Having some pay only item such as boosts, or buy down training/crafting time, or a better in game ship, makes sense as it speeds up game play.

Just my .02 cents worth.

[133794m3r]

It's semi-over with. To be honest it's best to make it so that they can always get the item, now I don't mean just getting the item itself inside of the game world but making the items tradeable so that some players can always get them. That's how it should be done as you're also cutting down on the amount of RMT since players can buy the items from the cash shop(it's what I'm going to call it) and then trade that item to others for in game currency, thus allowing for those with a lot of time and not a lot of money to get the items. But also cosmetic items sell insanely well also players are not as angered by cosmetic items being sold to them. But also make sure that those items are  tradeable so that as stated players can continue to get the items and have fun with it.

Also in TF2 you forgot that there are chests which you have to buy keys from valve for money to get into random "chests" and these chests give people items, these keys are also tradeable. As such free players don't feel extremely angry since they can get a lot of items for free and thus can if they want get anything since it's all tradeable. Valve is getting money from both ends, they're selling people the keys to open these crates which gives players items, they're selling hats and other things to people. And all the while people are playing their game for free. It's all about making sure that items that are 'exclusive' to the cash shop tradeable. Do that and people won't be as angry with them.

Also as far as cash shop only content, it depends on who you're talking to and what kind of demographic you're talking about. If you make it so that it's mostly cosmetic items and "boosts" or time items then most people won't mind and you'll have a larger reach for users. If you're a simple game that cares nothing about players having fun but want to be a skinner box getting them addicted to spending money, then you can go all out since very very few will buy anything but those that do will, will buy items at insane rates.

And the "stars" thing, yes you should make most content available to users, even if it takes time. Look at any free to play game, I mean just look at it. Know what the best selling items are? Here's a huge hint, one does nothing, the other is cheap. Done? Well here it is. Cosmetic items, and 'boost' items. Things that increase the xp rate, item drop rate, or any other thing that they can get to increase the rate at which they get things in the game. It also allows them to progress faster in the game. So it becomes a time vs money issue. The cosmetic item thing, is because there are always people who want to be "unique" and those people will be big spenders, if you let them give the items to people, they'll buy even more.

In one game(this is the best example I have right now), I'll use Perfect World(it's the most recent f2p game i've played so sorry about my out of touch with newer ones). If you looked into the auction house or asked players what they were buying the most of. Here it is, "HP Talisman, MP Talisman. Gold XP Boost Scroll". I don't remember the names right now but it was something like that. They allowed you to get more XP, and "Spirit" their skill xp resource. The other two automatically restored your HP/MP whenever they got low, thus reducing the amount of time and money you had to spend getting potions. Also the cosmetic items were a HUGE seller. ~40% of the people that I saw had some cosmetic item on them. the rest were using those "talismans". The next biggest sellers were the er... they were lottery items. You bought them and they had a chance of giving you something awesome. So that's where you should go. If you're designing content for users in the form of paid content go there. That's where your best bets are. The last one, is more of a skinner box thing instead of "fun" but oh well it's the other big seller.

Anyway that's my view on this issue, and it's what I'm going to be doing inside of my game world. Cosmetic items, and "boost" scrolls for users to level up faster(the game uses time as the limiting factor and thus has the xp curve). Mine doesn't rapidly increases and instead goes the other way, starts by rapidly increasing and then petering out and relatively staying the same for the rest of the games life. This way people with little time can stay ahead if they have money to spare, and others that have time can go about it on their own way and buy the items from the auction house.

[Chris]

If you're a simple game that cares nothing about players having fun but want to be a skinner box getting them addicted to spending money, then you can go all out since very very few will buy anything but those that do will, will buy items at insane rates.

That's the assumption in this topic. Only profit, everything else irrelevant.

Especially SoccerStar made me puzzled, they had an insane advertising budget (I was seeining their advert everywhere for like 2 months). I can't imagine them caring about "fun" with that level of investment. Still, they decided to switch (later). Which again is a strange thing since should not they do it from the start? Does it mean their initial strategy failed and they were forced to switch?

[hiigara]

You can lock as much content as you like, as long as you don't lock the features that make the game fun.
My guess is that the SoccerStar guys overestimated how fun their free content was, and when they saw the free account players not coming back, they decided to unlock some of the premium features.

I personally prefer to do the opposite, start with everything free and then progressively lock some features.

[133794m3r]

If you're a simple game that cares nothing about players having fun but want to be a skinner box getting them addicted to spending money, then you can go all out since very very few will buy anything but those that do will, will buy items at insane rates.

That's the assumption in this topic. Only profit, everything else irrelevant.

Especially SoccerStar made me puzzled, they had an insane advertising budget (I was seeining their advert everywhere for like 2 months). I can't imagine them caring about "fun" with that level of investment. Still, they decided to switch (later). Which again is a strange thing since should not they do it from the start? Does it mean their initial strategy failed and they were forced to switch?

Then I doubt you're going to get that far. If all you care about is making a skinnerbox and reusing the same wheel with people to play on it. You'll never get anyone to stay except those who are easily addicted.  Profit comes from players having "fun". Your choice is to be like zynga(skinner box only everything else is irrelevant). Wherein you constantly have to release the same game over and over again with slight reskins and hope that  you maintain enough people to keep your game going, spamming everyone everywhere to try to get anything to stick on for very long. Or you can try to hide the skinnerbox better. The entire point of "fun" is hiding the skinner box. Everygame is just a skinner box simulation, the more layers you put between the basic skinner box concept and the players, the more likely that players will continue to play.

Of course it does(or likely did), look at any "p2p" game out there right now. They switch to f2p with cash shop and their profits skyrocket.  The entire point of it is lowering the barrier for people getting used to using the item. By putting the stars into the game world, players can use them and get them. Once they use the item, and get used to it(no matter how hard it is intially) they'll learn how good it was to use it. This makes them more likely to buy the item(s) since they know what they're getting themselves into, and they know how much it helped them when they originally used it.

hiigara is right also, if you lock away almost everything behind pay, you'll not have enough of an initial groundswell. No on is going to go around and then decide to start playing your game if there's a huge barrier to entry. Start off free, give the players some "premium" content at points throughout their initial progress of the game, and then when they're done. The players know how those items feel to them, and also it means that they're more likely to use it and get it. Also all items that people buy from you, should be tradeable. This also lowers the barrier to entry for players who don't want to trust their card with {insert payment processor here} so they know that they can still get the items on their own.

I suggest that you stop caring solely about profits and look at "fun", because if all you care about is money you'll never get enough to people to drive up your profits, since you'll not take the time to abstract the skinner box enough to keep people playing. Blizzard is one of the best examples here, their goal is profit. They also modify the skinner box and hide it behind Achievements, Events, "group events", etc. Their game is just a giant skinner box there's nothing else to it. Now it's getting old due to how long they've kept that same exact formula, and people are leaving. But you have to, make sure your abstract the core "skinner box/mind tricks" enough away so that people think that they're having fun.

[Chris]

Profit comes from players having "fun". Your choice is to be like zynga(skinner box only everything else is irrelevant).

Can't we at least pretend in one topic that we are bloodthirsty capitalists who care about nothing else than profit? Just to understand how monetarization really works...

Not directly related, but about monetarization: http://blog.betable.com/roger-dickeys-hacks-for-game-monetization/

[133794m3r]

Profit comes from players having "fun". Your choice is to be like zynga(skinner box only everything else is irrelevant).

Can't we at least pretend in one topic that we are bloodthirsty capitalists who care about nothing else than profit? Just to understand how monetarization really works...

Not directly related, but about monetarization: http://blog.betable.com/roger-dickeys-hacks-for-game-monetization/

I never said we couldn't. I was simply stating that to maximize your profits you have to hide the skinnerbox and simple addictive behaviors and training that you do to your users better. If you simply state "ignore the man behind the curtain", you're not likely to get very far with them. The better you hide it, the better you'll be able to handle it.  I've talked with many many people about what kinds of games that they like and it depends on your demographic. If you want the asians(generalizing here but mostly China, Japan, Singapore, Java, Malaysia) then you'll want to not really hide the skinner box at all. For some reason a majority of those players like the "grind" and actively seek it out. All other countries though, the "grind" is seen as boring.  You can be a cutthroat bloodthirsty capitalist, but you still have to know your markets.

Any online game is just a skinner box, no matter how much the designers might think otherwise all they're doing is training their players to yearn for the random rewards, they're making them want to continue on the same patterns that they've done for all of this time. It's insanity, it's modifying their behavior, it's evil. But everyone does it. Some don't realize why most games have "levels", "xp", or "loot". But every mechanic out there right now is about training people to like the game, and also making them become addicted to it.  Evil is as evil does. The next link is a "humorous" article on it, and the following one is the article in blunt terms.

The humorous one.
http://www.cracked.com/article_18461_5-creepy-ways-video-games-are-trying-to-get-you-addicted.html

The blunt one with more information about the players.
http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/3085/behavioral_game_design.php?page=1

Also look at zynga for a moment, they're not trying to hide their skinnerbox at all. What have they done? They've hired legions of behavioral psychologists to help optimize their skinner boxes. Games in china have all kinds of things to pump cash out of people and keep them addicted and continually spending their money.

[Marek]

Not directly related, but about monetarization: http://blog.betable.com/roger-dickeys-hacks-for-game-monetization/

Great link. I've always been interested in seeing how Zynga works on the inside.

Here's something from that article that stands out to me:

It is worth noting that players care much less about payer vs. non-payer fairness than a game designer would think.

I've always thought that players care a lot. Maybe this is, in fact, where I've been completely wrong.