I did a GDC talk. I’ll be uploading the slides to my Presentations and Talks (UPDATE: NOW UP!) page. GamesIndustry.biz did a writeup here.
For what it’s worth, I know I’m packing a few extra pounds nowadays, but putting a picture of Jabba the Hutt next to me feels unfair.
Calling a whale a patreon doesn’t change the fact that it’s still a whale .
Maybe they don’t want to be called “whales.” Maybe a more respectful term would get more mileage.
But the difference between “whale” and “patron” isn’t just connotation. A patron spends money not merely so they can have something desirable, but also so that something they deem good or beautiful can continue to exist for everyone.
If you’ve decided that you want high-spending players to think of themselves as patrons rather than whales, that means you need to convince them to be proud of the overall game, not merely proud of their success within the game. This has implications for how the game should be designed. Fascinating idea.
Patrons is a much nicer term than whale. The connotations are far more positive. And if simple wordplay encourages developers to think of users more like partners (albeit screechy partners with a poor overall understanding of design mechanics) I’m in favor.
One is a term for a target to be harvested.
The other is a term for a relationship to be nurtured.
One of the people I talked to while researching F2P on SWTOR said that on his own game, they had a producer that was pretty much the concierge of his game’s heavy spenders. That concierge producer made it his mission to understand and provide excellent service for this spender. Because that game was something like 98% free users, so that spender was literally providing the gift of gameplay for thousands of users.
Think of ‘whales’ as ‘patrons’ and classify them as the dukes and barons who subsidize art so that the normal folk can have access to some.
So, I’d like to offer a bit of feedback on TOR, which I experienced strictly as F2P, I played the game for about six weeks and got to around lvl 24 — enough to explore the first few Sith planets. It was real-life engagements, not any dislike of the game, that took me away from it.
The Good:
A surprisingly tight story, with reasonably good character development, new powers and abiltiies, soloing options, etc. It was the first MMO I’d played since WoW, and while it copied a great many conventions, it put its own unique spin on them. There was lots to do, including lots of free content.
The Bad:
It felt like Star Wars: The Ferengi Republic.
EVERYTHING was monetized. If it wasn’t Pay-To-Win, it was certainly Pay-To-Not-Be-Annoyed. Want rest XP? Pay for it. Want cartel packs? Pay for them. Want space fights? Pay for it. Want X, or Y, or Z? Pay for it.
In theory, I realize this was supposed to create a system in which people could pay for the things they wanted, but the NAGGING never went away. I was constantly reminded that X and Y don’t see these prompts / can do more missions / can use these chat channels!
The game’s relentless hyperdrive to convert me to a paying customer was the biggest single reason why I didn’t go back to see how the plot lines finished up. I started off seriously considering subscribing, but by the end was actively avoiding the idea of paying, having been annoyed into digging in my heels.
People should never have to pay for the privilege of not being spammed by advertisements in a product that was converted to F2P. While I didn’t quit TOR for ad-related reasons, I haven’t been in a hurry to go back, either.
We overmonetized SWTOR, particularly at launch, and mistakes were made. That being said, I’ll stand by the fact that when I left SWTOR, we’d found what I feel was a happy medium.
As one example, the Cartel Packs are full of entirely cosmetic items, so there is literally no need at all to pay money for them. People who do pay money for them can literally sell anything in them for in-game credits, so people who want those items ANYWAY but refuse to pay real cash can watch the auction house for those items to appear. It may require some level of grinding daily quests to earn credits (which would have been hard at level 24) but it would have been possible. As such, our payers were highly favorable towards the end results.
By the way, good to see you back, Joel.
Damion,
Thank you!
I don’t think the problem was *what* content was blocked off, but how often I was reminded of it. It felt as though every time I moved the mouse, I was seeing a pop-over reminding me that I could buy something or pay to remove a lockout / timeout / XP penalty.
There’s obviously a very fine line here, because players have to know what they can remove by paying for it, and TOR obviously went for something far more complicated than just adding a buyable currency. Props to BW for that. But I felt as though I was constantly being reminded that the game wasn’t as good as it could be if I’d just pony up some cash.
It’s interesting to read views of people that have only experienced SWTOR from the other side of the subscription model.
I was an early access subscriber and have kept up my subscription with the 6 month sub. With the price of buying sub six months at a time and the associated cartel coins it works out at about £0.13p a day, I struggle to think of any source of entertainment that comes in at such a low cost.
If SWTOR was to lift the inconveniences that F2P players encounter I would be likely to unsub as well. I don’t tend to buy additional CC relying on the complementary subscription ones to indulge my minor purchases and picking up the cartel market gear I like from the Galactic Trade Network.
To balance out that move I could see the only recourse would be to restrict the re-saleability of Cartel Market items (you would need to offset my loss as a subscriber by restricting my ability to purchase through freely earned in game credits). Straight away you shut down the de facto in-house gold seller (the interaction between Cartel Market and GTN is imho one of the strongest positive aspects of SWTORs marketing model) and open it back up to disreputable external gold sellers.
Personally 13p a day is worth it to avoid all that hassle and contribute to the maintenance and development of future content.
I think the biggest flaws in MMOs seem to stem from an inability of developers to understand just how quickly players can consume the content. Equally an inability of the players to accept that it takes time and funding to generate content. But the biggest failing I would lay at the feet of the accountants that don’t seem to factor in at least two years of post release development into the initial project costings.
Having reread that last paragraph back to myself, and being unable to edit it 🙁 , I think I was being a tad harsh on the developers. I would imagine most are well aware of how quickly players are likely to get through content they just lack the funding and infrastructure that allows them to generate said content at a speed that will ever satisfy the hardcore content consumers.
It must be one of the most frustrating positions to be in :/
That’s fair to say, but there are other problems:
1. RMT (gold farmers)
2. Inadequate community building and policing, in and out of game
3. Inadequate customer service (tools, deflection, agents) at launch
4. Inadequate tools to make player connections that become a draw for the game
Content needs to be adequate to the last vector, and be varied and exciting enough that players actually want to do it with other players, even if they don’t know each other well.
I fully understand there are a whole host of problems. As a player I am sure there are problems facing developers of any project that I could never be aware of (NDA and a reluctance of developers to burn bridges with previous employers).
I made my comment as a player that has entered the MMO environment as an individual. What I’ve tended to see is a push to get you up to ‘endgame’, pressure to make you rush the content as quickly as possible because that stuff is dull and repetitive, to end up on the gear treadmill running content of an even more limited scope. While I accept that PvP content is at least unpredictable I find the population and selection very unpredictable and a deterrent to me wanting to join in.
Just because a game is an MMO doesn’t necessarily mean the players want to play together, or more that they don’t need to be grouped together to enjoy group content. The conquest objectives and building a Guild flagship saw a massive surge of guild activity, not everyone grouped up but all contributing, but now those objectives have been completed it has died down again.
The more segmented a population becomes the harder it becomes to create a sustainable community. SWTOR is one game and there is infighting between the various cliques, each saying their preferred activity is being overlooked to the benefit of others. Or their preferred playstyle is ‘better’ and should receive more attention.
I would love to see the real metrics behind a working MMO population with regards to time spent on activities.
No argument. 🙂
Looking forward to reading the presentation in full.
I’m not from a gambling background but is the term ‘whale’ that disrespectful? I just thought it was someone who liked to spend money, a lot of money, irrespective of whether they win or lose. They certainly get a lot of attention from the Casinos, plenty of complementary rooms and meals to keep them on side.
Starting to see a few other funding options such as Kickstarter bringing in reward tiers. A tricky aspect as the high level reward tiers that could be attributed to ‘Patrons’ may start to offer in game rewards that lean towards pay-to-win. Or windows of opportunity to buy into in game advantages that are not available post release (Most noticeable in Elite: Dangerous, one of the few games I’ve backed on Kickstarter).
I struggle to get into a ‘give the basic game away for free’ mind-set. I’m from an era where if you want a product you pay for it up front, but I know the times are changing. It seems entertainment in the digital medium lacks the respect other forms of physical entertainment receive. I wouldn’t expect to dine for free and only pay for it if I wanted to, or walk into a gym and use the equipment without a membership. But I guess the ‘Free-to-pay’ cat has well and truly been let out of the bag.
I would quibble over the common usage of ‘free-to-pay’ as players always seem surprised when they start to get charged for features, or have a less feature rich environment than subscribers. No one can afford to give games away for free, they take time and money to develop. It’s a shame the industry has a hard time actually informing the public of the costs involved.
Whale: Not human, giant, stupid, exotic, unknown, blubbery.
Patron: Human, appreciated, can be understood with effort, worthy of respect.
I don’t have enough perspective to know where the term was first used, but it probably shouldn’t have escaped the shop. No customer service agent should be saying, “Sir, you are a whale, therefore you will get service befitting a whale. Here is a boatload of dead krill and plankton we’ll dump over the side of the boat.”
I’d argue against your definition of ‘whale’ and ‘patron’.
You have heard of and understand the meaning of ‘metaphor’?
When a ‘high-roller’ is being termed as a ‘whale’ it is not meant to reflect that they are not human, giant, stupid, exotic, unknown or blubbery. But rather reflects the value of whales back before the oil industry struck black gold, in this pre-crude era those graceful giants of the ocean were literal gold mines and were hunted to the brink of extinction because of their real world value.
As for ‘Patrons’ I could point you to many examples of over privileged, stupid patrons of the arts that are easily parted from their money in pursuit of securing an additional rank of social one upmanship. There’s something along the line of ‘A fool and their money are soon parted’.
What’s interesting is the mindset of the ‘whale’ when visiting a casino. I recently saw a repeat of ‘Louis Theroux: Gambling in Las Vegas’ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b007957z) that highlighted the relationship ‘whales’ have with casinos and the casino rep that keeps them onside.
I think it’s important to encourage people to pay for a product but also realise that not everyone can afford huge amounts (I would strongly debate whether a subscription model that works out to be £0.13p a day is a huge amount). Certainly the way forward is free access as this opens up the foot-fall of potential long term players, but this is meaningless if the game has no content, and developers need a source of money and time to generate that content.
Does Theroux use the word “whales” to describe these people?
The intention of a term is important, but so is all the associated meaning with the term, intentional or otherwise. If the argument is that the people that a term represents aren’t getting enough respect, it seems worth pointing out that in a certain context, the term isn’t as respectful as it could be.
Luios Theroux’s technique tends to be quiet but blunt confrontation. He does focus on the relationship between a Whale and the casino rep, highlighting the fact that in many cases the loyalty is to the rep rather than the specific casino… or at least it is while the rep is able to provide comped suites, meals and ever expanding credit limit 😉
A customer service rep would never call a customer a “whale.” such as many casino’s rarely call repeat customers “gamblers”. That’s a problem right there. By prettying up the word we encourage people to ignore the exploitative business model that is at it’s core.
Are games and gaming indistinguishable in your mind, then? Are casinos and video games in the same business? Is it OK to call people “whales” behind their back because that’s all they mean to us, just like gamblers are to casinos?
I don’t think that’s the way to treat or think about people who pay money to play video games.
It’s really a mentality. It’s the idea that whales are a pot of gold to hit. Far better to think of them as a premium class of subscribers.
Premium class of subscribers is the pot of gold, and as long as the monetzation strategy rests on that calling them a nicer term doesn’t change that fact. You are still going to put up roadblocks to non-whales/patrons/whatever and cater to those who do pay.
Personally I don’t care, I mean as long as the studio hits payroll and I’m paid I’m cool with that, but we don’t need to pretend free to play doesn’t work by squeezing a certain % of people as much as you can. Calling people “whales” is brutally honest, but in my opinion that’s one of the few good things about it.
Off-topic as this isn’t solely a F2P thing but this year GDC has furthered convinced me that many people don’t understand or want to admit what their audiences really are like.
You seem to have an unhealthy contempt for your paying customers.
I appreciate people who buy whatever I work on.
But I’m not doing them a favor by lying to myself. If I worked at a casino and saw someone with a gambling addiction, I’m not being nice by pretending otherwise and calling them something other than an addict.
There’s a difference between concern for someone who is sick and contempt for a customer who spends more money than average. You seem to have contempt for people described as “whales,” specifically because your first reaction to the suggestion that they be given a human rather than animal term, and your second reaction is to compare them to someone with a gambling addiction.
Is someone who spends $500 on a F2P game necessarily comparable to an addict?
This is another fine line. I understand that casinos are going to cultivate a relationship with high-rollers and spenders. Well and good. But the service at a casino should still be good no matter what you’ve spent.
I think I’ve dropped maybe $100 in Las Vegas in three separate trips, making me the opposite of a high roller, but the room service was still prompt, the hostesses on the floor are attentive, and the machines are kept orderly and in good operation. That basic level of prompt service leaves a positive association with people and encourages the formation of the kinds of patron relationships Damion is talking about.
I spent a lot of time in retail, time enough to see the time spent by upper management coming up with ways to conceal that they only think of the customers as ‘walking wallets’.
The only reason I don’t find the term ‘whale’ to be disrespectful is the fact that it is honest. Bluntly honest maybe but it leaves very little ambiguity between the provider and the consumer that the relationship is one based on a financial exchange.
I like the idea of tiered subscriptions, but it goes hand in hand with the idea that the entirety of the game is not available for the lowest tier. However, as the first time player would experience the game in this free access stage I can see there being all sorts of calls of ‘content restriction’,’pay-to-win’ and being forced (incentivised) to subscribe. You only have to look at the comments from players who have only known SWTOR as a F2P player (I’ve only ever known it as a subscriber) to see the truth of that.
I only play one F2P mobile game — it’s called Castle Clash, and there are some blazing balance issues that are driving me quietly nuts regarding certain Heroes that you *must* have to realistically perform optimally, but that cannot even be purchased directly.
The reason I bring up CC is because I really like one thing it does: It offers a single buyable currency (gems) but *still rewards gems for various in-game activities).
You get gems for the following:
1). Logging in every day.
2). Completing daily achievements.
3). Completing daily quests (you can earn up to 300 gems in one quest, though you only get that quest every few days).
4). Whenever the game servers are down for maintenance, there’s a gem reward.
The end result of all this is that you can gather several thousand gems per month.
What I like about this method is that I’m *aware* of what I can buy with gems but am not constantly hit with reminders that the game could be more fun if I’d just plunk down some cash. Meanwhile, I may have a miniscule chance of gambling up the Hero that I want in any given role, but at 150 gems per role and 3000+ gems per month, I do have a shot at it.
Obviously this doesn’t necessarily translate well to a game like TOR, but it does feel closer to what “good” F2P should be, IMO.
I think the difference is for the consumers, not the management. As far as I know, gamblers don’t need to care or simply need whales. Consumers pays for their gambling and whales gives them no real benefits. Even if a well managed casino has no whales, it can stay in business with sufficient gamblers. Whales are just interesting for the management, is it advantageous to convince them to spend at your establishment.
While the dynamic between MMOs and their big spenders is similar, the relationship between big spenders and low spenders is different in FTP, especially those where the paying content is truly optional. The game is “free”, up to a point, because there is big spenders” remove those whales and the little players may have to pay, or lose their game.
The little spenders in MMOs benefit from big spenders, which not true in gambling. I think the term “patron” expresses the contribution that some players do and all benefit, even if the managers see them not differently than “whales”.
Solid write up, looking forward to the full presentation.
One if the largest differences I’ve seen with your approach to free to play is how hopeful you view is. I used to be one of those that hated the idea of free to play because it seemed like a cheap product, or incomplete somehow. When SWToR went free to play, I kept my subscription and low and behold, my experience was not diminished. Having higher populations actually made my experience better. The way your team managed that pivot was brilliant. Especially with how quickly you learned from your missteps and corrected them. Overall the free to play move has made my experience better.
I really think there’s something to the perspective you approach the model with. There are certainly games out there that are just looking to get into people’s wallets. They pay gate all content and have pay to win scenarios. It’s hard to not get mentally bogged down in that and release a shitty free to play product. I think with more successes like SWToR, and LotRO will improve the state of Free to play games and remove some of the Free to Play stigma. Not denigrating your paying customers is a great start.