Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Q: Will there be a cost to play Pathfinder Online?
A: We are planning a hybrid subscription/microtransaction model. Players will have the option to pay a flat monthly fee for complete access to all standard game features, or to use microtransactions to access desired features and content on an a la carte basis. Pricing details have not yet been finalized.
In Early Enrollment it will only be subscription based payment/billing model. The details of any F2P (Free To Play) will not be finalized until around Open Enrollment (some 18 months later or so at least).
There will be complete avoidance of any pay-to-win (coercive monetization) as and when any suitable F2P transaction types are identified eg cosmetic/vanity items for MTX (microtransactions) or premium content (eg bespoke dungeons - hypothetical eg).
More at Goblin Works Blog:
- This system will work very much like PLEX works in EVE Online.
- Pathfinder Online will also have a robust microtransaction (MTX) economy as well. This system runs in parallel to the in–game economy, and the two have very limited and very controlled places where they interact.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep: what Avena said: I don't pay much attention to my expenses in these games because whatever I spend on them is less per month than my bar tab would be without them.
I thought you should have a response so you didn't feel ignored... so I said what I could.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Yep: what Avena said: I don't pay much attention to my expenses in these games because whatever I spend on them is less per month than my bar tab would be without them.
Well said! I have a few more tricks up my sleeve. ;) But additionally expanding another social circle is the other thing I like about mmorpgs.
@OP: Feel free to introduce yourself and/or ask any more questions.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yep: what Avena said: I don't pay much attention to my expenses in these games because whatever I spend on them is less per month than my bar tab would be without them.
I heard that Being! I went to a "nice" steak house and paid $25 for the meal. It was pretty bad. Hard to screw up a steak and potato, but they managed to pull it off masterfully!
So $25 plus tip on a crappy steak and tater, or $10-15 for a whole month of entertainment!
And I can cook a meaner steak than they did on my own grill and have enough cash left for a 12-pack!
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Basically the easiest summery of the plan they have (people before me have given all the tools to find the information, but I'm going to try to sum it up into an easier to skim and understand form that also makes sense to people who have never played or know the basics of eve's plex system)
Durring early enrollment (IE the closed section for people who contributed to the game development), it will essentially be subscription based.
After open enrollment, it will be free to play, but for free, your character will not gain any experience, unless you buy training time, in one of 3 ways. (Quick summery by the way, when you have training time, you gain XP at a set rate, regardless of what your character is doing, you are either gaining at 100% or 0% potential, there is no way to gain faster than 100%, nor as far as planned, at less than 100%)
1. Pay for a subscription.
2. Buy training time from the cash shop al a carte. IE you can most likely buy a days, weeks, or months worth of training time individually, instead of a subscription.
3. Buy training time with in game money and resources. Basically even paid subscribers have the option to do 2 and get excess training time, in which they can sell for in game resources to other players. Someone with absolutely 0 RL funds, can work in game to buy this training time from other players, the price of this in in game resources will be subject to supply and demand). This allows people who have tons of real life cash, but low real life time, to basically hire you to get them stuff they don't have the time to do, in exchange the player with excess real life time, but no real life money, can have his training time paid for by someone else, for in game tasks. Now how the supply and demand laws are going to influence this is a mystery, possibly 20 hours of in game earning will buy you a months subscription, or it could be the equivelant of hundreds of in game hours. It all depends on how many players are buying excess time and want to sell it, vs how many people are hoping to play for free and intending to buy it. If there are more people selling excess time and fewer hoping to play for free, then it should be fairly easy to earn, if there are tons of people trying to buy, but only a handful of people spending the money to buy excess time, then you could be looking at free players only feasibly being able to train 10% as often as a subscribed player.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This game is not being designed for a free to play crowd.
This game is targeting an audience that can afford and is willing to pay more than your usual monthly subscription.
You will be able to play for free once the game officially launches, but you will be hard pressed to be competitive. The 'free' aspect is mostly for experienced players with developed characters, it gives them the ability to fund an 'alt' for free
Very few people will be able to play without ever paying, and those people will have to dedicate a huge chunk of time to start out, or develop at a much slower speed than everyone else.
I'm guessing most players that get to a level where they can play entirely for free, will put at least $50-$100 into the game.
If you look at the MMOs that let you sell cash shop items in-game, the prices inflate very fast, and inflate to a point where you are effectively earning $0.50 to $1.00 per hour doing the most efficient farm, which a new player has no chance at accomplishing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I think this might be the first game in history to switch from subscription based to F2P already on launch day.?
It was a joke. Many subscription based games have adopted F2P models to counter player loss and there have often been player speculation concerning a new game of the kind "this game will go F2P within a year".
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any discussion of Free-to-Play should probably also include this bit from Ryan:
... our thoughts on "playing for free" are evolving. There will be some form of free play, that's a requirement in today's market where people want to try an MMO before they put in any money.
How long you can play without paying anything is something we're thinking about. We don't want a game full of folks who trained for 6 months, got reasonably competent, and are now playing without producing any revenue.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
It was a joke. Many subscription based games have adopted F2P models to counter player loss and there have often been player speculation concerning a new game of the kind "this game will go F2P within a year".I think this might be the first game in history to switch from subscription based to F2P already on launch day.?
LOL, First thing that popped in my head was a new statement that they wanted it to go F2P.... I know I read plenty saying its not going to happen.
I have always thought F2P was kinda dumb. Just shows you failed I guess.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a rapidly evolving space, and it's hard to predict what we'll do when we get to Early Enrollment, much less Open Enrollment.
There is a question about server capacity and overhead costs. We don't know yet what kind of performance we'll get under various load scenarios. Most of the F2P games have sharded servers, so they can just keep spawning new shards as demand increases, with a relatively small incremental cost. We are planning on having one server, so we can't assume the cost to add capacity will be trivial.
There is a question about putting ourselves in a dead end, where you can get to a point of competence where further training is unneeded, and then you could potentially play without generating revenue. That may, or may not, be a bad thing (see the previous paragraph). The upside is that you're generating content for everyone else, and the longer you stay engaged, the more chances we have to induce you to buy something. So it's not a guaranteed losing proposition.
About all I feel safe in saying at this point is that the first several months of Early Enrollment are going to be on subscription, simply because I don't think we'll be anywhere close to having an MTX capability by then.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
In the modern market, the solution to uncertainty in server needs is cloud computing. Costs vary and at the low end you rarely get more than you pay for. It might serve to plan for using multiple servers in the cloud but hold decision until closer to EE, then look at what hardware you have that can be transitioned to server status. The cloud has option for adjusting support to demand.
There are issues about availability vs down time, but some clouds have bigger pipes onto the backbone.
Could is not solution to everything, but it may offer flexibility until you know the size you need.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
For your tool set that may be. I would more say that it is hardware or network speed dependent. What will GoblinWorks do when they reach network or hardware limits. THere are methods of handling multiple hardware with shared data. Been around for a long while if I know about them as I am 15 years removed form doing these.
But each server concept/process (not every thing is Http) needs to adress how it transitions to such a state, or just clog. How big do you want to grow to? Small but beautiful is good for some. Other need to allow in initial design for multiple server. It can be multiple instances of worlds or shared data. The latter has to be designed in.
Your guys know more about this than I do.
It is not just testing, it is design from the foundation.
Lam
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This article just came to notice is a good read on different monetization methods chosen by three different companies for their respective mmorpgs: Three Worlds: Monetising the MMO
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
This article just came to notice is a good read on different monetization methods chosen by three different companies for their respective mmorpgs: Three Worlds: Monetising the MMO
I just finished the Gamasutra article referenced in the Games Industry article you linked. It sounds like some of these companies are well on their way to the casino industry's level of understanding of psychology.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just my 2 coppers, but I have always been in favor of PfO being subscription only based with NO micro-transaction store. F2P + RL $ store all too often leads to pay to win,(even if the devs never intended that to happen - players, and I use that term very loosely, clamor for more items to be sold and too many games/devs feel the pressure to give in to them) and attracts "players" I would rather not encounter. I don't want immature players, I don't want groups like those Ryan has warned us about from places like EvE, and I don't want players who contribute nothing to the community we're trying to build.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just my 2 coppers, but I have always been in favor of PfO being subscription only based with NO micro-transaction store. F2P + RL $ store all too often leads to pay to win,(even if the devs never intended that to happen - players, and I use that term very loosely, clamor for more items to be sold and too many games/devs feel the pressure to give in to them) and attracts "players" I would rather not encounter. I don't want immature players, I don't want groups like those Ryan has warned us about from places like EvE, and I don't want players who contribute nothing to the community we're trying to build.
I tend to agree. However, many MMOs have been successful selling "cosmetics" in stores. I still dislike that angle, but do not feel it is pay-to-win. Unless looking cool = winning, which I suppose is true for some.
However, these issues fly against evolving Video Game Business best practices, which is namely "Don't put a limit as to how much money players can give you" and make sure "There is always SOMETHING that can be purchased for a little more."
These practices sadden me, but such is the nature of business in our capitalistic culture. Grow or fail.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... these issues fly against evolving Video Game Business best practices, which is namely "Don't put a limit as to how much money players can give you" and make sure "There is always SOMETHING that can be purchased for a little more."
These practices sadden me, but such is the nature of business in our capitalistic culture. Grow or fail.
As contraintuitive as it may seem, self-discipline historically trumps opportunism where Law reigns, even in a complex system dominated by seemingly unbridled capitalism.
The world may bite back.
There was a reason why capitalism bred its antithesis in the late 19th century and that reason did not die with the bankrupting of the CCCP.
If we do not moderate ourselves we will end moderated against our will, and probably in a less than optimal way. We makes our choices and we pays our bills.
Thus game companies might well come out ahead limiting how seriously their addicted customers hurt themselves financially feeding their habit.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just curious, but does the ability to spend $1,400 on a set of irons mean that Golf is "pay to win"?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we do not moderate ourselves we will end moderated against our will, and probably in a less than optimal way. We makes our choices and we pays our bills.
Indeed.
Something that can't go on forever, won't.
Debts that can't be repaid, won't be.
Promises that can't be kept, won't be.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... these issues fly against evolving Video Game Business best practices, which is namely "Don't put a limit as to how much money players can give you" and make sure "There is always SOMETHING that can be purchased for a little more."
These practices sadden me, but such is the nature of business in our capitalistic culture. Grow or fail.
As contraintuitive as it may seem, self-discipline historically trumps opportunism where Law reigns, even in a complex system dominated by seemingly unbridled capitalism.
The world may bite back.
There was a reason why capitalism bred its antithesis in the late 19th century and that reason did not die with the bankrupting of the CCCP.
If we do not moderate ourselves we will end moderated against our will, and probably in a less than optimal way. We makes our choices and we pays our bills.
Thus game companies might well come out ahead limiting how seriously their addicted customers hurt themselves financially feeding their habit.
I should clarify that the problem is not capitalism itself, but rather our current approach to it. I would argue that being the case for most economic systems, is that many if not most are viable but implementation and practice do not always follow idealized paths.
Our current problem is not necessarily Capitalism, but in the focus on Short-Term Gains as opposed to Long-Term Strength. That short-term focus is what has been causing the repeated booms and busts of the last few decades.
Thus game companies might well come out ahead limiting how seriously their addicted customers hurt themselves financially feeding their habit.
And I agree fully. But having an inside view of the industry, very few who manage the decisions made put much thought to this. They want to get what can be gotten before somebody else gets it. This problem exacerbates with publicly-traded companies and all of the short-term investors that need to be satisfied.
So, this is me officially re-targeting my blame finger at Short-Term Thinking.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... having an inside view of the industry, very few who manage the decisions made put much thought to this. They want to get what can be gotten before somebody else gets it. This problem exacerbates with publicly-traded companies and all of the short-term investors that need to be satisfied.
I provide information to decisionmakers for a living. My sales pitch includes the suggestion that there are only two kinds of decision: the informed ones and the lucky ones. Everything else is just a mistake.
Perhaps our fingers then should be pointing less at those decisionmakers and more at those 'informing' them.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just curious, but does the ability to spend $1,400 on a set of irons mean that Golf is "pay to win"?
I'd think golf irons are more like gaming rigs, actually. Making golf pay-to-win might mean buying mulligans while on the course. At the Masters.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
So, this is me officially re-targeting my blame finger at Short-Term Thinking.
Indeed. The ability to delay gratification is the single-most important marker for long-term success.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I'd think golf irons are more like gaming rigs, actually.
If you don't allow for an analogy between the tools used in real-world competitions and the tools used in in-game competitions, then you don't allow for any meaningful analogies.
Making golf pay-to-win might mean buying mulligans while on the course. At the Masters.
Then PFO is already pay-to-win, because they'll sell healing potions. Isn't a healing potion analogous to a mulligan? Instead of removing the effects of a stroke, it removes the effects of an opponent's hit.
I hesitate to restart this discussion, but it seems relevant in a thread talking about free-to-play and how to monetize the game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I remember Seve Ballesteros (rip) saying he used to be able to do things in golf with irons few if no other golfer could die to years of practice as a kid honing his range of techniques... but that was redundant when golf technology came out with new types of light wide-face clubs etc. A lot of manufacturers sales pitch for woods is to strike the ball further etc. I think sports generally do put in place rules eg good those long putters I think have been recently banned from pro golf?
On MTX, I think so long as it does not impact virtual economy and it adds eg graphics or eg player GM dungeons etc to sell / make content it has a place?
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
The system MWO is using is very much like the League of Legends model and it appears to be quite successful if I have any realistic grasp of the numbers.
First they sell 'MC' (MechWarrior credits) which is an in-game currency purchased with real world money.
Some things can only be bought with MC. Among these are the 'Hero' Mechs. These are versions of a mech chassis with special cosmetics and buffs to either experience gain or 'c-bills' (a more common in-game currency that cannot be bought directly with real world money). I have not yet seen an instance where a 'hero' mech is actually better than all the other variants of that chassis which can be purchased with common c-bills. Usually in fact a Hero mech is about second best of all the possible types but it is also available earlier than the common variants.
In order to level up the hero version you also have to level up two other variants, and it all coalesces to keep giving players a way to progress (the full potential for each variant much be gradually unlocked) and over time a decent revenue stream so long as new and desirable kinds of mech are made available.
There are also several other ways for a player to use 'MC' such as converting 'normal' xp into 'GXP' or general pilot experience that can be applied to other mechs than they were earned on. Currently XP can be converted to GXP at about 25 xp per MC where 1250 MC costs $6.95 American.
A new Hero Mech might cost in the neighborhood of 6000 MC give or take. In order to have that new mech you have to have a 'mechbay' which will set you back 300 more MC.
New hero mechs have been coming out at an approximate rate of one variant per month in most (not all) months.
Plus there are skin enhancements and paint jobs only available using 'MC'.
So if a new mech a month is attractive to a player that player can end up paying roughly $15/month without splurging on a pricey package deal like the Project Phoenix deal or its subset the 'Sabre Reinforcement' pack.
And players who spend nothing but their time (free to play) get to run around in weaksauce trial mechs until they get enough c-bills to buy their first customizable 'owned' mech which they can then gradually (very gradually unless the purchase premium time which accelerates income and xp gain) outfit their mech while drooling at the elegant paint jobs and custom skins MC can buy.
Translated roughly to PFO I think that would look like new race options purchasable through the store on a schedule. New spell books possibly. New recipes. Costumes. But all the while a 'free' player could walk abut the world in a minimally viable 'standard' character harvesting materials until he or she could start outfitting them more robustly, meanwhile drooling at all that could enhance their experience if they only spent a few dollars here, a few dollars there.
Then too perhaps instead of new mechs each month there were a new dungeon to buy and share with friends. Should that new dungeon respawn, or would it be more of a rental? What about a placeable house? Architectural plans for a wizard's tower?
A hideout? A druid's grove? A session of monster play?
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
League of Legends has nothing you can buy that makes you better than anyone else. All the things in the store are cosmetic.
They were so successful at this approach that their biggest competitor, World of Tanks, had to change their whole business model to remove "pay to win" objects from their store.
|
CEO, Goblinworks
|
I do find it a bit tiresome when people say "MTX always leads to pay to win". MTX, in the Western market, has only been a meaningful feature for 5 years or less, and the very first "designed from the ground up with MTX" Western MMORPG just shipped - Neverwinter.
Trying to see how MTX in the West will work by looking at how games from the East were converted for use in the West, or looking at how business models from the East were retrofit onto Western games that weren't designed for them is interesting, but not indicative of what will succeed in the West.
And since the MTX model has proven to be such a better business than the old fixed-price subscription model, there is zero, nada, zilch, zip, no chance it will go away. So make your peace.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Just curious, but does the ability to spend $1,400 on a set of irons mean that Golf is "pay to win"?
I realize I am a bit late to respond to this, but I would say not quite. Golf is an expensive game, with a very high entry barrier, and yes to play proffesionaly it is assumed that the highest dollar clubs are a pre-req to even consider playing at that level. However they also have a solid cap, someone who develops the R&D to develop clubs designed to be better than the expensive clubs that you have to use to play competitively, isn't likely going to be allowed to use them in tournament play. At least in my view, I don't consider it pay to win if the company is honest, makes a very clear cap on what is the cost to play competitively, and they don't raise that bar. IE if it starts out seeming that a 100.00 item is the necessary item to play competitively, then next week they add a 200 item that blows the first one away etc... that is pay to win.
If tommorow GW were to explain that their training system requires $100 a day, that would not shift PFO into pay to win category, it would shift it to, holy crap that's an expensive barrier to play competitively.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IE if it starts out seeming that a 100.00 item is the necessary item to play competitively, then next week they add a 200 item that blows the first one away etc... that is pay to win.
I think that's an extremely useful definition. In essence, the "pay-to-win" game requires ever-increasing expenses in order to continue to be competitive.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
IE if it starts out seeming that a 100.00 item is the necessary item to play competitively, then next week they add a 200 item that blows the first one away etc... that is pay to win.I think that's an extremely useful definition. In essence, the "pay-to-win" game requires ever-increasing expenses in order to continue to be competitive.
A secondary thing I would say that can do it, is specifically consumables that are unlimited in potential. IE no notable cooldown etc... IE a guy with 35 will outlast a guy with 25, and the guy with 50 longest still. In some games it gets to the point where it's like... how about we just show eachother our bank accounts, leave the money in it but declare a winner. Save us both the time and money of playing.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
Pay to win is bad and leads to player loss.
But grind long hours to win or log in continually 24/7 to win are also bad models.
Eve has a different dynamic, its a combination of "be the biggest a-hole to win" and "form the biggest schoolyard bully gang to win" ... and that is also bad.
Clearly what is needed a modicum of balance. Paying extra money (even if its to train yourself some alts) should help ... but only a little. Playing long hours should help, but only a little. Forming groups to play together should definitely help ... but solo play should not be impossible.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I do find it a bit tiresome when people say "MTX always leads to pay to win". MTX, in the Western market, has only been a meaningful feature for 5 years or less, and the very first "designed from the ground up with MTX" Western MMORPG just shipped - Neverwinter.
Trying to see how MTX in the West will work by looking at how games from the East were converted for use in the West, or looking at how business models from the East were retrofit onto Western games that weren't designed for them is interesting, but not indicative of what will succeed in the West.
And since the MTX model has proven to be such a better business than the old fixed-price subscription model, there is zero, nada, zilch, zip, no chance it will go away. So make your peace.
Ryan, If this was directed at my post (or those who supported it), I didn't mean to imply it always, 100% of the time a MTX leads to a Pay to win case, put more often than not it does. I am hoping that in this case GW and Paizo will recognize that is the case, and take all the possible steps to prevent it from happening in PfO. I have posted elsewhere in this forum I have no problem with cosmetic items, but I do have an issue where players can circumvent the in game player crafters and buy gear that would/should only be available via that in game market. Keep armor, weapons and magical items out of the shop, and I am fully supportive of your alternative revenue stream idea.
@ Nihimon - to answer your question, I have to say it depends. If said golfer plays only on public golf courses where the average set of clubs is $300 bought at someplace like Target, then yes, I do think it is pay to win. If said player plays at a club where others could also afford that same set but choose not to then no it isn't. Anything that doesn't allow for a level playing field is pay to win. He/she bought that set because he/she could afford to AND they knew it would give them a big advantage over those who couldn't afford to also purchase it or a comparable set. It is no different than an adult baseball league where a team brings in a Triple-A player as a ringer, because he is some friend of one of the players. It is unfair to everyone else who wants to play a fair game.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
... AND they knew it would give them a big advantage over those who couldn't afford to also purchase it or a comparable set.
I think that part's key.
It's not whether you're paying money for something that matters. What matters is whether paying that money is a "big" advantage over those who don't.
If a Skymetal Sword is a typical Tier 3 Sword, and I can spend $40 in the cash shop to get a "Hello My Little Kitty Pony Care Badge" emblazoned Skymetal Sword that is basically the same as the regular Skymetal Sword everyone can buy on the in-game market, then I'm not really getting any significant advantage at all, much less a "big" advantage.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It adds an issue where it causes the raw skymetal market to be hindered, if enough people buy with cash. It is not just about paying real money for cool stuff, there is also the factor of harm caused by being able to circumvent the in-game market for useful gear.
A better option could be a Care Badge Emblazoning kit which will strike the cosmetic brand upon an existing item. Though, not all items may be big enough for it to make a difference...
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A better option could be a Care Badge Emblazoning kit which will strike the cosmetic brand upon an existing item.
I don't see anything wrong with that, but I don't really see anything wrong with the other, either. Selling an Care Badge Emblazoned Skymetal Sword seems functionally identical to the example Ryan gave of their current plan:
This is our current plan (not literally, but by example):
There are 5 horses you can acquire in the game. Red, green, blue, indigo and violet.
All the horse types are different from each other in some material way. You get them via in-game activities.
We sell a Red horse with a non-functional, purely cosmetic unicorn horn you can only get from MTX or trade with someone who used MTX.
Of course, the most important thing Ryan has said on the subject - the thing I'd like to see mentioned whenever this subject is raised - is this:
Our commitment to the players is that nothing you can purchase with microtransactions will be mechanically superior to the materials created in-game through character activity.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A better option could be a Care Badge Emblazoning kit which will strike the cosmetic brand upon an existing item.I don't see anything wrong with that, but I don't really see anything wrong with the other, either. Selling an Care Badge Emblazoned Skymetal Sword seems functionally identical to the example Ryan gave of their current plan:
This is our current plan (not literally, but by example):
There are 5 horses you can acquire in the game. Red, green, blue, indigo and violet.
All the horse types are different from each other in some material way. You get them via in-game activities.
We sell a Red horse with a non-functional, purely cosmetic unicorn horn you can only get from MTX or trade with someone who used MTX.
Of course, the most important thing Ryan has said on the subject - the thing I'd like to see mentioned whenever this subject is raised - is this:
Our commitment to the players is that nothing you can purchase with microtransactions will be mechanically superior to the materials created in-game through character activity.
I don't know. It still feels like it devalues the realm of crafting - or in Ryan's example, animal tamers / breeders if they ever get around to that. You are able to get finished goods without having to interact with merchants or craftsmen. It circumvents the whole system. Again, an item you can apply to a normal horse to give it a unicorn horn would keep the in-game portion relevant while allowing for MTXed cosmetics.
Imagine if you could get bulk skymetal for doing crafting with a microtransaction without having to go hunt it down in the world or buying it from a harvester? Or instantaneously transport merchandise with an MTX. To me, it feels very similar. We are circumventing the interaction with real money.
Goblinworks Executive Founder
|
Imagine instead if you could craft mounts equivalent to those that other players are buying with cash.
In particular, if those mounts are being bought from the cash shop for $7, and goblin balls are being bought for $21, the free market insists that three horses be enough to buy a goblin ball.
THAT is how to monetize f2p players, by having richer players subsidize them. (this specific case of the economics fail to work when the buyers for $7 horses are sated, however)
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
A better option could be a Care Badge Emblazoning kit which will strike the cosmetic brand upon an existing item.I don't see anything wrong with that, but I don't really see anything wrong with the other, either. Selling an Care Badge Emblazoned Skymetal Sword seems functionally identical to the example Ryan gave of their current plan:
This is our current plan (not literally, but by example):
There are 5 horses you can acquire in the game. Red, green, blue, indigo and violet.
All the horse types are different from each other in some material way. You get them via in-game activities.
We sell a Red horse with a non-functional, purely cosmetic unicorn horn you can only get from MTX or trade with someone who used MTX.
Of course, the most important thing Ryan has said on the subject - the thing I'd like to see mentioned whenever this subject is raised - is this:
Our commitment to the players is that nothing you can purchase with microtransactions will be mechanically superior to the materials created in-game through character activity.
My thoughts are along the same lines as Lifedragn's. The difference between buying a skymetal weapon and s skin kit is the first completely bypasses the market. This is a 'Bad Thing' since you are creating something from nothing. The kit, on the other hand, requires you to have the item already, you simply apply the kit to the item to get your special-looking weapon. This way you get your special item, and the in-game economy is unaffected.
|
Goblin Squad Member
|
I have no marketing experience whatsoever, but two things occur to me:
1. People are probably more likely to buy a "Red Horse w/ Unicorn Horn" than they are to buy a skin that applies that look to the "Brown Horse" they already have. I expect this has something to do with not wanting to buy something that doesn't work.
2. Goblinworks needs to make money, and it really is okay if they compete a little bit with the in-game market.
Unless Goblinworks goes back on their promise, the stuff you can buy from the Cash Shop won't be mechanically superior to what you can buy in-game. That means the people who buy the Cash Shop items are probably doing so as Collectors more than anything else. I think it's exceedingly unlikely that players will be buying from the Cash Shop in such numbers that the in-game market is noticeably perturbed.
I understand the desire for "cosmetic skins only". I also understand how it perfectly insulates the in-game market from any perturbations caused by players buying items in the Cash Shop. I'm just not sure that tying Goblinworks' hands in that regard is a good idea, and I'm doubtful that there would be any noticeable harm.