28 Mar, 2013, Chris Bailey wrote in the 1st comment:
Votes: 0
So I've been looking into ways to get some return for my time investment in indie game development. I like the idea of pay for perks but I rarely see good implementations. I'd hate to create a system that unbalances the game or effectively punishes players for not paying. I'd like to toss around some ideas of how to implement commercialization without some of the more common drawbacks. Making some money isn't the primary purpose here, it is just an added bonus. My first idea, since the game in question includes permanent death and death from old age, is to allow purchasing a permanent character that cannot die forever. In a game that, to an extent, uses death and character recreation as a game play feature, how damaging could this be to balance? I've also considered just allowing character resurrection for a fraction of the cost but that, in essence, creates the same potential for trouble. What are some others ways of implementing pfp without dissuading casual and free players?
28 Mar, 2013, Rarva.Riendf wrote in the 2nd comment:
Votes: 0
As you said, matter of implementation. If a good player can avoid death thus not pay ever and still compete, why not. (maybe have ressurection have a heftier price than paying regulary (or like tenth of the price of the total initial cost, so a player can die ten times before he pays the full price (or be able to go for the full price after two deathes with a little price cut so he does not feel too cheated)

Now if you make death unavoidable or too frequent, it may piss of everyone in the first place.

Like any idea…not bad in itself, nor good.
28 Mar, 2013, Chris Bailey wrote in the 3rd comment:
Votes: 0
I like your idea of having each death, and subsequent resurrection, reduce the cost of purchasing an immortal character. Death can be avoided if players choose their actions wisely and take few risks. Of course greater rewards come with greater risks so it's a give and take. I'm loathe to implement the oh so common energy system that limits the amount of time you can play without paying for a refill but I have considered a system that limits the number of times per day, or some other arbitrary period of time, that you can do specific tasks. Perhaps entering into specialized zones or going into combat with key boss figures. I was thinking I could market some type of entrance token for these areas and make it available in limited capacity through free game play. I've been annoyed by games that used a similar practice but if I enjoyed the game I went ahead and bought them anyways.
28 Mar, 2013, Orrin wrote in the 4th comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
What are some others ways of implementing pfp without dissuading casual and free players?

The two most common models are to either provide an alternative in game method for free players to get the same perks (IRE's credit market system for example), or to only sell perks that the majority of your players don't care about (WoW's pet store for example).

In general you'll make far more money by giving your whales plenty to spend their money on than by trying to nickel and dime everyone else.
28 Mar, 2013, Nathan wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Just my two cents:

Not sure what kind of game you have, but if resurrection, etc via other players is possible then you could leverage the system.

Create some kind of virtual currency (like lots of games and MMOs these days), that offers some useful thing (maybe just full healing, repairing equipment if you have a wear system) and can be traded among players. The benefit provided by it needs to be outside the game's normal currency markets. I.e. you can spend it on something unusual or you can use it as another currency just between players, but you can't use it to buy things from vendors or in direct exchange for gold. In short, a player economy within the game.

As an aside, you could implement something like the energy system but more realistic. Have hp be recoverable on an in-game day/night cycle, but also by healing. Allow healing with gold or something (WoW gold is hard to come by initially for instance..), but make it cheaper in the virtual currency somehow. That way there's a way to get healed by playing, but incautious play will result in needing lots of healing. Eventually, if the game is fun, someone will be willing to pay some RL money to get back in the game.

Ex. Shakes and Fidget.

Basically you want this be a money sink of some kind, that takes money in trade for convenience or similar. You don't want to undermine the game, so ideally it should be worth just enough in benefit to be preferred over normal means, but not enough to offer a huge advantage unless you're loaded with excess RL money. Not sure it's ideal in the business but limiting transactions to a certain amount per day, per month, etc might go some way to keeping it balanced.

** The real trick here is having a fun game people WANT to play and not losing the market to someone else. If you could keep the game modest in players, it could be more exclusive.
28 Mar, 2013, Chris Bailey wrote in the 6th comment:
Votes: 0
Very valid points. I will definitely take them all into consideration. Another thing I've toyed with is providing a means of quick travel between various locations as a paid feature.
28 Mar, 2013, Kline wrote in the 7th comment:
Votes: 0
Path of Exile only sells cosmetic items and minor convenience items, like additional bank slots. But you get a plethora of bank slots to begin with…I haven't even filled a single tab yet.

In contrast, DC Universe Online is also "free", but in a very crippling way: restrictions on content, chat, trading, money, you name it. Yes you can "play for free", but you're definitely a third class citizen. PoE doesn't do this to people.
28 Mar, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
Death can be avoided if players choose their actions wisely and take few risks. Of course greater rewards come with greater risks so it's a give and take.


The pitfall here is that most players, being human, will avoid risks, limit their own experience, and then complain about 'the grind', etc. You also have to reckon with the fact that most contemporary MMO's have pretty much no penalty for dying. Most don't even have dying. If you base your pricing model on something that players can avoid entirely merely by playing another game, that's going to be a very tough sell.

Chris Bailey said:
I'm loathe to implement the oh so common energy system that limits the amount of time you can play without paying for a refill but I have considered a system that limits the number of times per day, or some other arbitrary period of time, that you can do specific tasks. Perhaps entering into specialized zones or going into combat with key boss figures. I was thinking I could market some type of entrance token for these areas and make it available in limited capacity through free game play. I've been annoyed by games that used a similar practice but if I enjoyed the game I went ahead and bought them anyways.


I think this is a much better idea. I am actually a firm believer in the refill model and I think it's here to stay. I think casual players secretly love the fact that they can play in 5-min. sessions and still progress pretty well. Like you observe, the limit is felt by first by the non-casuals, and they have plenty of time to decide whether the game experience is worth paying for, and how much to pay to accelerate their development at every stage.

The entrance token does have the pitfall of potentially making some areas much more undesirable than others. There's a reason why running out of energy is a much more prevalent dynamic, I think. It's simple, and it makes the player feel like they chose where to expend their energy (rather than feel barred from certain content by Big Brother). A more subtle way to get the same result would be simply to charge more energy in areas with higher rewards. That "makes sense" to players and should be a lot easier to implement, balance, maintain.

In general, there's nothing wrong with picking a tried and tested monetizing formula. Originality, if any, should be in the gameplay. If most of your players enter the game feeling like they already understand how best to spend and not to spend, they are likely to spend sooner, I think.
29 Mar, 2013, Jhypsy Shah wrote in the 9th comment:
Votes: 0
Interesting thread, I'd like to see where it goes and I hope it grows. XD

I've actually spent more buying passes for others to try new content that I like, than I have on the price of the original adventure.

Same with instore Teleportation items, especially if there's a guildie (or a significant other) with horrid direction sense..

I've spent some on 3D assets, mostly for my characters of the opposite sex. It may sound bad but in an MMO, that toon's ass is going to be in the center of my screen, for periods of game play and anything inbetween, so I figure why not buy a kit to make it a little shinier with some fur trim or something nice. I don't know if something like that can be applied to alot of text games tho' but.. Sexiness sells. XD

I can't help but wonder if it would be wise to have at least part of your funds set aside for adding other assets to and for your game, that you don't want to do yourself, should you have any short or long term goals of expanding. I was just thinking it may sound better (to the players) if you said that some of the funds were being set aside to make their world a better place, invest some back into the content, even if it were minimal. New stuff, fresh stuff, fun stuff. It seems to me that even writers these days have alot of outlets.

Otherwise it sounds (to me) more like just sales tactics and gimmicks, not that there is anything wrong with that. I would think that the worst thing about it is that, having to worry about sales and promo, could pull you away from what you're doing..and without a concrete plan, could possibly pull others away from what they're doing. I hope what I just typed isn't, just a long-winded version of what Orrin was saying. :/

I can't help but think that it would be more important to appraise your assets and the time and skill put into them. Also know how to charge fairly for them and have a measure of success that you are happy with. With the right tactics and a plan, I believe you could balance out, without too much trouble.

I like how Plamzi puts it:

"In general, there's nothing wrong with picking a tried and tested monetizing formula. Originality, if any, should be in the gameplay. If most of your players enter the game feeling like they already understand how best to spend and not to spend, they are likely to spend sooner, I think. "

Sounds like the fair and safe bet to me.

Not sure if that all that crap I type helps but best wishes and good luck. XD
29 Mar, 2013, Tijer wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
on my mud were doing a work for perks… ie, we have an in-game wiki (replacement system for helpfiles) if players submit to this they we get some "ecash" < trying to think of a better name for it, with which they can buy ingame items. No real money is changing hands…
29 Mar, 2013, Ssolvarain wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
Very valid points. I will definitely take them all into consideration. Another thing I've toyed with is providing a means of quick travel between various locations as a paid feature.


I played a game where that was a feature of a specific class. Then they up and opened a cash shop offering the same thing, effectively pissing off pretty much every player who had that class as a main.

But if that's not anywhere else available… eh. As long as players aren't spending 10+ minutes traveling, that'd probably be fine with most people. Otherwise you might alienate your base.
31 Mar, 2013, Chris Bailey wrote in the 12th comment:
Votes: 0
I was considering making travel a bit of a chore just so I could offer faster travel commercially. I guess that is doing exactly what I don't want to do. ;)
31 Mar, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
Have you considered and ruled out a subscription model?
01 Apr, 2013, Chris Bailey wrote in the 14th comment:
Votes: 0
I feel like subscriptions present an unwanted barrier. Personally, I am much more apt to pay multiple times for something I want at that moment than to commit to paying for something I might want in the future. It might just be me, but I actually refuse to play great games that require monthly subscriptions while continuously dumping money into crap games that I only play for a week.
01 Apr, 2013, plamzi wrote in the 15th comment:
Votes: 0
Chris Bailey said:
I feel like subscriptions present an unwanted barrier. Personally, I am much more apt to pay multiple times for something I want at that moment than to commit to paying for something I might want in the future. It might just be me, but I actually refuse to play great games that require monthly subscriptions while continuously dumping money into crap games that I only play for a week.


I share all of your misgivings. I would also add that a subscription is a hard sell if it comes from a new developer rather than someone the player already trusts will provide quality service (but that can be mitigated by a generous trial period).

That said, I feel there are some pretty huge benefits to a subscription model that may in some cases could outweigh all the downsides. The big ones that come to mind:

* Everyone pays the same, so no-one ever feels that the field is not equal because of real $.

* It gives you a chance to develop a stable eco-system/community that may, in the long term, bring you more profit than a short burst/fad. This also means that you can focus more on retention (and end game quality) than on getting new players to bring new ones before they quit.

* It is fairly simple to implement and maintain.

* And, of course, the fact that you'd have paying customers who may not get around to use the service they're paying for. That doesn't have to be as callous as it sounds. Ideally, you'd want to charge a minimal amount and have people keeping their subscription out of support for the game, as well as out of desire to come back one day.

I'm not sure this is going to be at all useful in your case, but for the next project of mine I'm considering a "donations playfully encouraged" model. Basically, it's the NPR model: a free game in which the developers try to form a relationship with the playerbase and make them understand that donations keep the game they love going. Encouragements could include advertising the biggest donors (and shaming the ones who have played for n days without donating a dime), giving donors more of a say in which direction the game would take, or starting a collection pot for the next big feature, or even doing outrageous stuff like putting a bounty on the heads of active players who haven't donated in ages. I was also thinking of providing alternative means to contribute, for those who simply don't have money to spend but can spend time. These would be along the lines of what Tijer is doing. So, e. g. if you build an area for the game, you will not be nagged for donations in any way for a year.
01 Apr, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 16th comment:
Votes: 0
Just as a point of interest. I play (and have played) a number of different online MMO's. If done carefully, the pay-for-perks model works quite well and gets me to fork out about the same amount I'd pay having a subscription, at least in the short term.

To elaborate on this… let me point out two popular games. World of Warcraft, which is subscription based, and Guild Wars 2, which is not.

Like millions of other people, I think of WoW as my "go to" game. It's the one that I end up returning to when I get bored of some other shiny new game I picked up, often played for only a few months. Part of the reason for this is familiarity and stability… it's a mature game that's been around for almost 10 years now. Another part is that while I may lose ground in the competitive progression, I never lose character progress… I can leave for 2 years and jump back in right where I left off.

WoW costs an up-front box fee for each expansion, plus a set subscription fee. They usually price new expansions at the market rate for games ($60 currently), while discounting older expansions and bundling them into the base game. The subscription is $15/month, with $1 off if you buy game time in 3 month chunks, $2/month for 6 months, and $3/month for 12 months. So, a year of game time costs roughly $140.

Guild Wars 2 costs $60 for the box. There is no subscription. They have a cash shop which sells vanity and convenience items. While you can purchase small buffs (XP boost potions, etc), you can't buy anything that really unbalances the gameplay. Personally, I've purchased several additional bank slots, and several additional character slots. In total, I've probably spent about the same $140 I'd spend on WoW, but the difference here is that it's not a recurring revenue stream. People who enjoy the vanity costume sets and whatnot, may continue to spend cash, however players with my mindset will likely spend it on a few convenience items like I mentioned and stop there.

One thing to note… the way the system in GW2 is implemented is that your purchase an alternate currency called "gems" via a real-world money source. These gems can then be used to purchase items from the cash shop or sold on the in-game market to other players for in-game gold. This sets up a player driven market environment, where it's possible to obtain the cash shop items through gameplay alone, by buying gems from other players who wish to buy gold via gems. This, IMHO, is a win-win. It lets people who can't afford real money compete AND it provides a money sink, while ensuring that Arenanet gets actual profit for every gem purchased… the gems have to be purchased by a player at some point.

EVE-Online also has an option to purchase game-time via in-game money, again, from other players who purchased redeemable items and sold them on the market to other players for gold.

IMHO, the trick is to not cripple the gameplay experience with a cash shop. A counter-example is Everquest 2. Originally a subscription based game, they went "free to play" a while ago, but put severe limitations on non-subscription customers. Many things have to be unlocked through purchases, others are now pay-per-use, and some are simply unavailable to non-subscribers. This includes race/class choices, equipment slots, limits to higher tier gear, etc.

Just a final note. One advantage of a non-subscription model is that there's no barrier to returning to the game. I can, at any time, just decide to play GW2 again with no financial output… where if I'm away from WoW, I have to make the decision to fork out that month of subscription to return. I also can't afford to keep more than one subscription active at a time (or at least, I can't justify it). As a developer, a subscription game is a safer source of income, but you really have to offer a great deal of value to keep people paying it over time. Because many people won't pay for multiple subscription games at a time, it also means you really have to convince them that your game is BETTER than others.
01 Apr, 2013, Orrin wrote in the 17th comment:
Votes: 0
quixadhal said:
IMHO, the trick is to not cripple the gameplay experience with a cash shop. A counter-example is Everquest 2. Originally a subscription based game, they went "free to play" a while ago, but put severe limitations on non-subscription customers. Many things have to be unlocked through purchases, others are now pay-per-use, and some are simply unavailable to non-subscribers. This includes race/class choices, equipment slots, limits to higher tier gear, etc.

Kline made a similar comment earlier in the thread and I think it's important to remember that you can't judge the success of a payment model from the developer's point of view without access to the financials. EQ2's model may be less attractive to you as a player, but presumably they make more money now than when they had a subscription and none us can know whether they'd be even more successful with a less restrictive F2P model.

There are a lot of players who don't like IRE's aggressive "pay to win" model for example but there's no denying that it's extremely profitable.
01 Apr, 2013, quixadhal wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
Very true.

Another point to note is that EQ2 has aggressive marketing and a very large base of potential players to draw from. They can afford to adopt the stance of getting people to play for a few months, dropping cash, and then getting disgusted and leaving. The MUD community draws from a MUCH smaller pool of potential players, so the same tactics are likely to poison the well much faster.

IRE's pay to win model works well because it attracts players who have the kinds of disposable income that many of us don't have. I'm sure many of those who are complaining about it would not be complaining if they were wealthy enough to just buy whatever they needed to keep pace. The thing to remember there is, know your target audience. IRE will never attract poor college students, nor those who are morally opposed to the idea.. but that's not their market, so they're fine with it. :)
01 Apr, 2013, Chris Bailey wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
I spent entirely too much money on IRE games to ever return. I was honestly disgusted with myself when I sat down and thought about it.
02 Apr, 2013, Ssolvarain wrote in the 20th comment:
Votes: 0
I just wanted to say that I strongly prefer a subscription model over pay for stuffs, as long as the product is quality, and content additions are frequent.
0.0/44