General Discussions

 
^ Back to top
 

Free-to-play Subscription hybrid.

Author
OSG Planetary Operations
#61 Posted: 2016.10.19 02:51
Ah yes, ISK equivalent would be fine, and Id be ok with a fairly high ISK price on that type of content.
#62 Posted: 2016.10.19 03:54
*slaps Pokey with white glove*

We go at dawn, you scoundrel!

Sanity is a myth

Ancient Exiles.
#63 Posted: 2017.01.09 23:18
Since monetization being discussed...

Join the DUST STEAM GROUP

100+ members and growing!

D3ATH CARD
RUST415
#64 Posted: 2017.01.11 05:37
Talos Vagheitan wrote:
I really like how CCP handled the F2P system, but was it the best option for them? Best for the community? Dust was not profitable on its own until the end of its life, and that definitely has an impact on development.

I've thought of an alternative and curious what the community would think. It's a bit of a combination of total free-to-play and the PLEX route of EVE.

Players would purchase a 'mercenary license' that allows them to participate in FW and PC for one month. Pubs are free. There would be different tiers of licenses with better perks for each.



(The system I've imagined if it were applied directly to Dust)

Unlicensed Militia Merc - FREE - not eligible to play FW or PC

Level 1 Basic license - $1.00 OR 1,000,000 ISK - Allows players to participate in FW+PC for one month

Level 2 Advanced License - $5.00 - Allows participation in FW/PC and includes $5.00 worth of AUR + 1 key

Level 3 Prototype License
- $10.00 - Allows participation in FW/PC and includes $15.00 worth of AUR + 1 key + 1 Booster

Level 4 Officer license - $20.00 - Like above, but comes with more goodies, and maybe a longer license duration. Includes a unique SUPPORTER SKIN only available in this pack.



You get the point..............


Discuss!

.
Great idea , they would have to mix it up a bit . keep a standard and separate different items . the standard should be 1$-20$ ( booster pack's / keys+boxes / skins+weapons+vehicles ) , free pubs , free fws , but PC should be grand and worth it with big reward's . I wouldn't put it per individual , I'll put it per corp fee ( not everybody can chip in individually ) . as a group ( 30+ people for example can chump change a good amount ) . but I agree with the notion that P.C should be in some way special . well that's a thought .
.

( F U!!!! ) * ( Why Dead? )

, (メ`ロ´)•︻デ═一X - - - - \(º □ º l|l)/

0uter.Heaven
#65 Posted: 2017.01.11 21:23  |  Edited by: Viktor Hadah Jr
Just reread the OP and the hairs on my neckbeard stood up with rage...

Keys, can't we just get rid of these damn things. Holy f*ck does it p*ss me off to have items locked behind a lottery...

Grrrr

EVE Trial 250k Bonus SP

EVE Chat channel for dust players: Photon Depot

Ancient Exiles.
#66 Posted: 2017.01.11 21:42  |  Edited by: Talos Vagheitan
Viktor Hadah Jr wrote:
Just reread the OP and the hairs on my neckbeard stood up with rage...

Keys, can't we just get rid of these damn things. Holy f*ck does it p*ss me off to have items locked behind a lottery...

Grrrr


Was there anything you could only obtain from lockboxes?

Oh well, free game's gotta get supported somehow.



Edit: Issue also irrelevant with a player market.

Join the DUST STEAM GROUP

100+ members and growing!

#67 Posted: 2017.01.11 22:15
Honest gut reaction after reading the first few replies? This makes me ...uneasy, to say the least. Unless the conversation took a wide turn on page two, then what I'm reading is "pay for end game content."

I saw it noted that the license could be purchased for ISK as well, but even with that a precedence is made where a player can access progressive content only after paying a fee, whether in cash, or ISK, or cash to get ISK. There is no in-game progression incentive or requirement from that point forward.

A few points for me:
Do you honestly want to pay money to enter an FPS arena? There is no PVE, there is no level design for campaign mode progression. You are running a map shooting people and paying to do it. That is weird to me. That seems to be about the same as paying a monthly fee to arena or even battleground in WoW, where the arena is the only thing that exists in WoW. Granted, Warcraft has a sub, but that sub pays for the world. Not just arena.

On the progression side, an argument can be made that "of course there is incentive for progression! As soon as you have your ass handed to you for entering PC/FW you have incentive to level up for better gear!" except that now, I am buying gear. I mean, why not?

Slightly off topic (not really), but it is a strange transition that I am seeing play out as I get older. Before, I would buy a game with a one-time-fee and have that game forever to play indefinitely. Eventually, a subscription model came out and required a continued purchase agreement to maintain access to a game. Even DLC is an expansion of sorts, at least in theory. This was silly to me at first, but then I rationalized the continuing fee as an access point to an ever-evolving gaming world. So I eventually conceded and subbed a few games. Then micro-transactions started popping up. The game might have been free, and the purchases were not required as they were for novelty items. Novelty became boosters. Now it seems that boosters are becoming keys through locked doors. Pay to play...again.

I see arguments for both sides. But I am very concerned that younger consumers are getting to a point where it is totally normal to pay subscription fees for anything.

My company used to buy a license for various Adobe applications (primarily Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign). We might pay an average of $1,600 for a license that gave us those primary apps but in doing so we were also paying for secondary apps that we just did not need. From the licensee's perspective, that was acceptable because we had a license for what we needed and could expand our productivity should the desire or necessity demand it. Two years later, Adobe would release a major update and we had the option to purchase the update or continue working with our current version. Our work effort requirements rarely changed and the software updates were rather insignificant except for maybe every other or every third update. So we usually opted to keep our current version---without losing access to our single-purchase license. We might get 4-6 years out of our purchase before we found a true need or desire to upgrade and, at that point, we reinvested.

Now we are subscribed to the CC plan and have been so for a while. While it is arguably more convenient to have immediate access to the latest updates, those updates are still relatively useless. Now we pay maybe $50 a month per license. That's about $3,600 over a six year window now compared to approximately $1,600 average per to use a license for the same time frame. The justification now comes down to convenience; however, convenience eventually leads to complacency in that we stop being aware of just how much we are spending over time. Complacency leads to ignorance that primes an individual to conveniently subscribe to the next whatever as that seems to be the shift now.

It is mind-boggling.

Now I see this post where users are actively proposing more ways to pay into something? I admit that my head twitched a time or three.

I would argue that the financial faults of DUST514 were less to do with individual players not paying enough and more to do with the number of players from which a viable portion who might choose to pay was just too low.

TL/DR:ranty rant-rant followed by not enough players.

Funny, no? That we put the TLDR at the end of a post? After people have to read it?
Lol


P.S. I will continue reading from where I left off once my blood pressure drops. ;)
There was another major point, but I lost it in the desperation to jot these thoughts down before the stroke. Thank you for your patience.

kitten bacon taco (nom)

Ancient Exiles.
#68 Posted: 2017.01.11 22:49
byte modal wrote:

...


Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully I can clear some of that up.

I liked Dust a lot, but CCP won't invest in it if it's not profitable. Dust was only profitable in the last quarter of it's life (or so I've read).

Dust's F2P model was very generous. Nothing was behind a 'Pay-wall', and I'm not proposing anything be put behind a pay-wall. A lack of profit will always translate into a less-developed product. If you enjoy the game then it's in all our best interests for the game to be profitable.

I went a long time without spending any money in Dust because I didn't need to. At the end I started buying things just for the sake of it, even tho I hated fitting aurum equipment. Made re-stocking a hassle.

There are a few traditional ways of paying for a game

Traditional - Purchase the game once and be done with it. Game is no longer worked on unless separate expansions added

Free to Play - Paid for by micro-transactions, "boosting" player progression (or Pay to Win) or paying to bypass paywalls

[These two options are more commonly being combined, with companies charging for the game, then holding back content as F2P-style micro transactions]

Subscription Pay a monthly fee and have regular content added indefinitely.

Based on how Dust's model was a cash-loss, it will likely be less generous than it was before anyways. I believe everybody can win tho by combining certain aspects of F2P and Subscription.

In my opinion everybody can win this way

- More money for CCP --> Better game
- No pay-walls
- No pay-to-win
- More content for players.


Do you see any specific downsides to the system I proposed? Who does not benefit?

Join the DUST STEAM GROUP

100+ members and growing!

Night Theifs
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#69 Posted: 2017.01.16 16:23
Talos Vagheitan wrote:
byte modal wrote:

...


Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully I can clear some of that up.

I liked Dust a lot, but CCP won't invest in it if it's not profitable. Dust was only profitable in the last quarter of it's life (or so I've read).

Dust's F2P model was very generous. Nothing was behind a 'Pay-wall', and I'm not proposing anything be put behind a pay-wall. A lack of profit will always translate into a less-developed product. If you enjoy the game then it's in all our best interests for the game to be profitable.

I went a long time without spending any money in Dust because I didn't need to. At the end I started buying things just for the sake of it, even tho I hated fitting aurum equipment. Made re-stocking a hassle.

There are a few traditional ways of paying for a game

Traditional - Purchase the game once and be done with it. Game is no longer worked on unless separate expansions added

Free to Play - Paid for by micro-transactions, "boosting" player progression (or Pay to Win) or paying to bypass paywalls

[These two options are more commonly being combined, with companies charging for the game, then holding back content as F2P-style micro transactions]

Subscription Pay a monthly fee and have regular content added indefinitely.

Based on how Dust's model was a cash-loss, it will likely be less generous than it was before anyways. I believe everybody can win tho by combining certain aspects of F2P and Subscription.

In my opinion everybody can win this way

- More money for CCP --> Better game
- No pay-walls
- No pay-to-win
- More content for players.


Do you see any specific downsides to the system I proposed? Who does not benefit?


Again, though, Dust didn't make as much money because it failed to cash in on one of the biggest cash cows of free-to-play games, which is cosmetics. Notice that the game started to make more money after they put all the SKINs in?

If they put in a variety of SKINs of various complexity at a good range of price points, the income will pretty much take care of itself.

That's also not even counting things like SP boosters. I mean, I'd prefer those not be there and they adopt a purely micro-transaction funded model like games such as Path of Exile have done, but that's entirely dependent on their marketing team and what they think they need to do to make the game profitable.

Cosmetics were a huge part of why Dust initially didn't have a lot of income as a F2P title though.

Amidst the blue skies

A link from past to future

The sheltering wings of the protector

#70 Posted: 2017.01.16 18:19  |  Edited by: byte modal
First, I applaud the enthusiasm in the OP. My criticism is not in that. I do believe though, you are going way out of your way to find a solution to a problem that likely doesn't exist. Basically, you're trying to change the oil when really you just have a flat tire.

For my arguments on the downside, please refer to my earlier post. Also, reference Mobius Wyvern's comments. While we're sort of focusing on slightly different things, I think both views are based on practical and holistic observations to work with what we know existed and the known restrictions in that environment, rather than assuming very specific cause-and-effect consequences to justify what (at least in my opinion) is a rather extreme suggestion.

Mobius: if I'm misreading you, then my apologies.


*edit*
i just noticed the post date of the OP. wow. I feel slightly trolled ;)

kitten bacon taco (nom)

warravens
Imperium Eden
#71 Posted: 2017.01.16 18:34
Why should I have to pay money on a F2P game to take part in fac war or PC?

Change the Ion Pistol Fitting Skill Pls.

#PortDust514

'Echo is a dirty hooker' - UnclS2

Ancient Exiles.
#72 Posted: 2017.01.17 01:26  |  Edited by: Talos Vagheitan
Mobius Wyvern wrote:

If they put in a variety of SKINs of various complexity at a good range of price points, the income will pretty much take care of itself.


"If we have SKINs income will take care of itself"... probably the most naive viewpoint I've heard so far on this topic. It does not work that way.

Not everybody likes SKINs, fewer people like ALL the skins. A lot of people purchased a SKIN or two for their favorite suits, but SKINs are in now way anything close to a final solution for how to finance this game.

Echo 1991 wrote:


Why should I have to pay money for a F2P game



Because, if you want to play this game, or any game for that matter, it needs to be paid for. This is a proposition which in my eyes would generate more revenue for CCP (more money into game development), while still being more than fair to the player base. There needs to be a way to *encourage* players to pay without outright forcing them, which is what the system I have proposed would do.

byte modal wrote:


For my arguments on the downside, please refer to my earlier post.


I re-read your previous message. Although it was very long, you did not mention a specific downside to my proposed system.

Join the DUST STEAM GROUP

100+ members and growing!

warravens
Imperium Eden
#73 Posted: 2017.01.17 16:41
My problem isn't paying money, while i saw your system would allow for people to buy a way to play PC using isk, which is great, I shouldn't have to pay in order to be able to take part. It's not EVE online where having a subscription makes your clone better and it stops people making ults that can just pop cynos in a risk free clone.

Cosmetic items would generate more revenue than a subscription of a $1 a month.

Change the Ion Pistol Fitting Skill Pls.

#PortDust514

'Echo is a dirty hooker' - UnclS2

Ancient Exiles.
#74 Posted: 2017.01.17 18:45
Echo 1991 wrote:
My problem isn't paying money, while i saw your system would allow for people to buy a way to play PC using isk, which is great, I shouldn't have to pay in order to be able to take part. It's not EVE online where having a subscription makes your clone better and it stops people making ults that can just pop cynos in a risk free clone.

Cosmetic items would generate more revenue than a subscription of a $1 a month.


Sorry, but "I shouldn't have to pay" is just not valid (even though you wouldn't have to with this system, you'd basically just be encouraged to buy Aurum).

A game is a service, which requires money to develop and maintain. Cosmetics do not automatically guarantee indefinite profit.

If CCP can't profit off this game, then they won't make it at all.

Join the DUST STEAM GROUP

100+ members and growing!

#75 Posted: 2017.01.17 19:44
Talos Vagheitan wrote:
Echo 1991 wrote:
My problem isn't paying money, while i saw your system would allow for people to buy a way to play PC using isk, which is great, I shouldn't have to pay in order to be able to take part. It's not EVE online where having a subscription makes your clone better and it stops people making ults that can just pop cynos in a risk free clone.

Cosmetic items would generate more revenue than a subscription of a $1 a month.


Sorry, but "I shouldn't have to pay" is just not valid (even though you wouldn't have to with this system, you'd basically just be encouraged to buy Aurum).

A game is a service, which requires money to develop and maintain. Cosmetics do not automatically guarantee indefinite profit.

If CCP can't profit off this game, then they won't make it at all.



sorry, but saying "it's not valid" because you disagree is... well. not valid. your words.

If the game is F2P then by definition it is valid that the player should not have to pay to play. Revenue is, instead, brought in through optional in-game/app transactions that serve to enhance the player's experience.

In-app micro-transactions exist for a reason. And they are profitable. No one is denying that a game developer needs income to support itself. That is a given. You seem to continually redefine your opposition's argument to an extreme that you then counter to justify your assumptions. He did not type "cosmetics automatically guarantee indefinite profit." You typed that as a misrepresentation of what he actually said, which was that "cosmetic items would generate more revenue than a subscription of $1 a month." it was a reasonable comparison.

Again, I think you are trying to change the oil of a car to fix a flat tire. You can distort the opinions of those around you to make your assumptions seem more reasonable in contrast, but the reality here is that your entire basis for profit is off. Not recognizing the criticism from those that offer it is... well. silly.

Good luck all the same.

kitten bacon taco (nom)

Ancient Exiles.
#76 Posted: 2017.01.17 20:36
byte modal wrote:
.


Rather than waste time in a mult-paragraph back and forth. I'll just ask you a question.

The system we had in Dust was very generous and convenient for us players, but it didn't work. CCP lost money, therefore will not try the exact same thing again.

What do you propose then as an alternative which would be profitable enough for CCP to want to build Nova?

The basic opposition I'm getting is in fact along the lines of: "Keep the system we had, but earn money from SKINs". In fact, I've heard no other alternatives from so far. So no, my representation is correct.

1.) So what do you propose?

2.) Who specifically would not benefit from the Sub-F2P hybrid?

Join the DUST STEAM GROUP

100+ members and growing!

#77 Posted: 2017.01.17 22:49
I responded in my original reply that I believe the fundamental problem was player count and retention. Increase count, and you arguably increase revenue.

I may very well be wrong, but I do not believe DUST514 is a good case study to draw hard conclusions from as the player base was simply too low on average. CCP did say that they were turning a profit near the end doing what they were doing. Sure there's the argument as to whether it was right or wrong or practical or efficient, but that's another topic. They saw profits. Tweak the system progressively and let it find equilibrium. Increase player count, and it stands to reason that profits increase as well. Without the risk that comes with changing the core product. I mean product as a commodity.

In my opinion, DUST simply did not have enough players. Other developers profit off of in-game purchases. To suggest that this model does not work ignores all games that do work. Again, I think it is unfair to use DUST as a single point of proof of that assumption because it is a poor example to begin with.






To my "changing the oil to fix a tire" comment, I mean to say that I do not think transactions specifically need to change. I believe obvious improvements within the game will make a bigger impact.

To insure the game is profitable enough for CCP to build NOVA, my answer is to first attract a larger market through a better game. Not by charging to gain access to game zones.

How? Basically what they are probably trying to do already:
A. Improving/correcting core game mechanics. They appear to have already done that, at least based on the demo.
B. Improving balance between teams to help avoid a repeat in protostomping mentality.
C. Make better use of EvE-like philosophies of player access tiers. Start players in a new-player friendly zone and give them access to move forward as desired. It doesn't matter much how this happens, but it needs to be addressed. New players need to learn and advance at their relative progression level to feel confident enough to risk investing money into a suicidal meat-grinder experience.
D. Provide proper PVE level learning objectives to help direct new players. Whatever that may be. Again, this is all to help guide new ignorant players to the philosophies of the EvE/DUST/LEGION/WTFever play style and attitudes.
E. Market the damn thing properly.
F. Provide something to the player type that wants to explore (PVE).

...or whatever. CCP can do ANY number of things to improve the game to make it more attractive to new players while offering more than a protostomp environment that will send kids running.

Ultimately, increasing player numbers should increase playing purchases. If not, then reevaluate! But I do not believe measuring DUST with all of its flaws is a valuable indicator of potential profit---which is what seems to be going on.

Improve the game to be as desirable as possible for a wider community, within the limits of the game's spirit of course. If profits do not change still, then at least you have a much clearer idea of what is failing. You know, it's like troubleshooting anything really. Start small and go through the list of possible errors. Once you rule out an error, check it and move to the next. By the end of the check, you find the issue and move on. Otherwise, you're all over the place rebuilding the foundation every time you want to make a change effectively creating a whole new list of undiscovered bugs to resolve ...again.

I won't derail this thread any more. If that's what I'm doing, then my apologies! Carry on. I'll keep quiet from here on. At least I'll try ;)

kitten bacon taco (nom)

Ancient Exiles.
#78 Posted: 2017.01.17 23:16  |  Edited by: Talos Vagheitan
Okay, thanks for the response.

So basically, you're saying leave monetization the same (since you haven't proposed any changes to that), but just improve the game and more people will play, and buy cosmetics...

That's wishful thinking, but I don't think they'll do that. The business people in charge of making money will be saying something a long the lines of: We lost money on Dust, what are we going to do differently this time?

Dust saw a spike in revenue at the end when the shiny new SKINs came out, but that's not sustainable. Once people have a SKIN, they have it forever, most aren't going to keep buying them regularly. Would you?

All I'm proposing is that players be encouraged to purchase around $5 of Aurum/month, and yet if they don't want to, it's very easy to bypass.

You also didn't answer which type of player it is who does not benefit from what I proposed.

Join the DUST STEAM GROUP

100+ members and growing!

Klandatu
#79 Posted: 2017.01.17 23:34
3 to 5 $ monthly sub.

Is that too much.

I will pay that much for a eve fps.

07
#80 Posted: 2017.01.21 01:48
Russel Moralles wrote:
3 to 5 $ monthly sub.

Is that too much.

I will pay that much for a eve fps.

07

A $36 to $60 yearly subscription fee is steep. It would make more sense if the the price dropped off if you chose a longer subscription. So maybe $5 per month, but $30 up front for a year?

Put your flags up in the sky. And wave them side to side. Show the world where you're from. Show the world we are one.

Forum Jump