Followup on the Monetization Talk

4 Comments

1. 

   Vhaegrant

   March 25, 2015 at 1:47 pm

   A good read and at least they didn’t go with the Jabba the Hutt picture 😉

   I think there is potential with Kickstarter funding but it needs to develop. Maybe not as an external site but an internal game element for the more transparent funding of future content.

   At the moment it seems to fall into delivering early beta access (many funding players burnout/ get tired of the bugs before the game makes it to full release, or want hardcore features that would not appeal to the wider player base – or at least that’s been my anecdotal experience of the only Kickstarter game I’ve backed). Or it adds on in-game advantages or fluff that detracts from the core experience.

   I would hope it could develop into a more transparent way of allowing players to fund the content they want to see in a game. Of course this opens up the need to talk about development costs and whether a studio wants to reveal how much it costs to get something done, although you may be able to abstract that to a point by creating ‘development units’ and hide some of the profit margin in it.
   There’s also the issue with delay between successful funding and role out and those aspects that never reach their funding point.

   Maybe at the very least a game could allow a player to associate their donation/subscription fee/cash shop purchase to a specific aspect of further game development.
2. 

   Joel Hruska

   March 26, 2015 at 2:30 pm

   Damon,

   Question for you: How much of the shift to F2P do you think is driven by the fact that the market seems unwilling to tolerate higher prices for games?

   It seems to me that this topic has resonance in more than just the gaming industry. If you look at funding changes for city, county, and state governments over the past eight years, many areas have compensated for tax revenue declines by increasing the fees and penalties imposed on people within the justice system or simply by raising administrative fees associated with common tasks like getting a driver’s license. Revenues from lotteries, cigarettes, and gambling have also been increased.

   While the F2P model might have little to do with punitive fundraising at a glance, I wonder if they don’t both spring from a common problem — strong resistance to paying for things (or paying more for them).

   This seems particularly unfair in the non-mobile F2P world, where the cost of producing games has genuinely gone up due to the increased amounts of artwork and consumer expectations. What’s your opinion?
3. 

   Dan

   April 2, 2015 at 12:25 am

   Damon hope you can reply.

   Couple questions on ‘whales’:

   Question 1: I have seen a few game design conferences were the concept of endorphins being released into the brain is a motivator for the ‘pay to progress’ model. In that light ‘whales’ would be akin to drug addicts. Obviously you would not agree with that characterization. Please explain why that is incorrect. I understand that this might seem a bit odd of an angle but spending 30 thousand in a year on a game seems a bit odd to me and I’m trying to make since of it.

   Question 2: How dependent do you feel free to play games are on whales/patrons? Is it a staple of success for any F2P or just something that occurs in some F2P games?

   Question 3: Games that are considered a sort of sport. Like Street Fighter or DotA or LoL. Should they avoid and severly crack down on any money advantage such as professional sports do with steroids? Obviously not those specific games but potential future games.

   PS: I like the use of the word patron. Your giving to the extent that you really like the game, not that you expect a fair trade (financially speaking).
   • 

     Vhaegrant

     April 2, 2015 at 4:50 pm

     Not Damon but I’ll take a stab at the answers 😉

     Q1: The amount other people spend on games may seem ridiculous to you if you are in the average-low income bracket. As you climb the paygrade (or are fortunate enough to be born into) what you deem a normal expense to pursue your chosen hobby may seem excessive to others (I’ve known a few average/below-average golfers who are happy to spend a small fortune on pursuing their hobby from clubs to membership to lessons to golfing holidays and they think nothing of it because they are earning a lot)

     Q2: Free to Play are dependent on securing a massive footfall of players. A reasonable percentage will pay a little cash to get stuff and a small (I would say very small) percentage will pay significant amounts. Again tying into Q1 you tend to spend what you can afford on your hobbies. The trick is making people ‘want’ to spend their money because it’s enjoyable to, and not a requirement to progress 😉

     Q3: Professional Sports don’t crack down on equipment advantage (they may have some rules/ guidelines on what is allowed) most professional sports players take advantage of sponsorship deals or hope they can compete with lesser gear till they start to win. Look at formula 1 racing there are rules to how the cars can be built but the teams that pour cash into R&D and have good engine deals (sponsorship) tend to be the ones finishing first.
     As long as the top end price is kept affordable and they compete in a separate league I see no reason not to allow some element of ‘pay for better gear’.
     However I think the real ‘steroids in sports’ comparison is cheat software like aimbots and macros that remove huge portions of skill from the game. There’s also the ‘tech’ advantage some players are able to enjoy by playing on top end rigs with high fidelity connection speeds. But, allowing usage of thirdparty voice coms in premade groups that are then matched against groups of random players with no voice coms falls into my ‘things good games should avoid’ folder.