95 replies to this topic

[Dunning Kruger Effect]

I enjoyed watching a video about Battlefield Heroes where the director talks about monetization in F2P games.

It has the provocative title "Paying to Win" (most apt given the current climate on these forums).

Since it is a 40minute video I'll summarise the key bits. The video applies to Battlefield Heroes but a lot of this resonates with what I can see within MW:O. The strategies Ben Cousins implemented made truckloads of cash for BF:H and he said many other F2P games watched their approach and results with interest.


Here is the video.

Here's some of the "key points" he made along with where they occur in the video.

7min There are 3 key "sale" items - "cosmetics" (camo/paint) "convenience (XP/premium etc)" "advantage giving items - which must be subtle." (coolshot, hero mechs?) Paying users make up under 2% of the player base. The average paying player spends $20. Given the amount of hero mechs and clan mechs, this must be much higher for MW:O In most FPS F2P games, cosmetics make up the majority of $$S spent.

23min Don't give away too much XP People shouldn't earn too much so they have to buy with $$$ - the XP/hour earnings need to be relatively low. There is a fairly strong "grind" element in MW:O, in the past XP/game has been dramatically lowered; it is thus quite attractive to buy a mech rather than spend a month trying to "earn" one.

18min Embrace subtle "Pay to Win" People do buy advantage items, and this attracts competitive players not just the "peacocks" aka cosmetics buyers. A in-game poll of BF:H showed a surprising number of people wanted "advantage giving items." Advantages were minor i .e. ~10% boost in specific area. This could be a special UAV, a coolshot or a hero mech with well-placed weapons.

28 min "Ignoring the Forums." In BF:H the forums exploded in protest with "P2W" claims and people angry at "broken promises." Devs were scared so many would quit the game would be worse off. The press even got on board due to forum turmoil. Sound familiar?
However:
*people did not quit like forums suggested
*spending went up as competitive players now opened their wallets
* 78% of players never visit official forums. 20% of players visit to "lurk" and read, but not post, only 2% post!
*Posters would say they would "not spend" on forums, but forum users are a tiny percentage that are unreliable - they say "I will leave, and not spend" but do the opposite - the average forum poster spent 10x more than average user.
*Forums are not a good gauge of the game. Posters are not representative user. They are a small subset, who are useful as a "canary" with regards to gameplay or "OP" items - devs take notice, but then ignore them and actually look at the data.
Ever wonder why devs spend more time on reddit or facebook than their "official forums?" Because that's where they're more likely to find their "typical player."

38min. More shiny stuff, more $$$. The more items to spend, more money made over all. Goes without saying, really. That's why new mechs will always take precedence over CW, or new maps - or anything that is not "saleable".

40min. Summary.
Game balance changes may cause uproar, but revenue improves anyway. The forums are a tiny, unreliable subset of players who do not always do as they say. P2W or "pay for gameplay advantage" is good for revenue as it attracts competitive players who don't care for cosmetics. People don't mind P2W - or at least, the user base of BF:H didn't suffer. Equipment buys advantage in sports like cycling, golf, car racing and it is accepted there. Inequality is a fact of life. Players don't begrudge getting beaten by more expensive equipment. If he's good, he would have won anyway. If he was bad, it's all the more beat him and mock his shiny toys.

[Ozric]

Sounds very interesting, but I was so depressed after reading your summary that I am going to put off watching it for a while.

There are other ways to fuel a business than by cajoling your captive audience (which battletech fans surely are) with tricks and traps at every turn. This is true for all businesses everywhere of course. If more people thought this way the world would be a better place, and if PGI thought the same we would have a stronger community and dare I say it a better game too.

Edited by Ozric, 09 July 2014 - 12:30 AM.

[Dunning Kruger Effect]

Welcome to the 2%

[Khobai]

Consider this though...

If only about 10% of players in any given F2P game are paid players. And anywhere from 50%-75% of forum posters are paid players (which seems to be the case in MWO).

Then those 2% forum posters could easily make up 10%-15% of a game's paid players. So it would be wise to listen to them.

[Dunning Kruger Effect]

Well if we use the BF:H analogy, average forum poster spent 10x more over their "lifetime" than the average users "lifetime" use- which wwould suggest they control 20% of the income stream? Does that math make sense?

I'd say much higher in MW:O (maybe 30%+), as MW:O does not have "micro transactions" per se - a single mech at $30 can cost more than a full game, which I'd argue is no longer a "micro transaction." A bit different than someone buying a $1 funny hat.

Edited by Dunning Kruger Effect, 09 July 2014 - 01:20 AM.

[Karamarka]

I thought Battlefield: Heroes was dead?

Junk game.

[CheeseThief]

Quote

If only about 10% of players in any given F2P game are paid players. And anywhere from 50%-75% of forum posters are paid players (which seems to be the case in MWO).

Then those 2% forum posters could easily make up 10%-15% of a game's paid players. So it would be wise to listen to them.

Yea but the presentation provides stats that prove in BF Heroes case, whiny forum posters are hypocritical dipsticks who kept playing and paying regardless of what they said.

[Vassago Rain]

Dunning Kruger Effect, on 09 July 2014 - 12:31 AM, said:

Welcome to the 2%

It's probably more like 10-20% for this game. MWO is big on the community.

[Ursh]

I think in MWO the segment of paying players is much higher than 2%. I see clan or hero mechs in almost every match.

[FlipOver]

So, in a way, forum posters are the beta-testers the games get for free.

They (devs) will pay attention to bug reports, suggestions to improve the game or the revenue and little more.

[Karl Streiger]

Khobai, on 09 July 2014 - 01:12 AM, said:

Consider this though...

If only about 10% of players in any given F2P game are paid players. And anywhere from 50%-75% of forum posters are paid players (which seems to be the case in MWO).

Then those 2% forum posters could easily make up 10%-15% of a game's paid players. So it would be wise to listen to them.

logic has no place here - nor in economy

[CaptainDeez]

World of War tanks did their monetization model right. There are plenty of premium tanks to buy, but all of them are properly balanced to compete with free-tanks. Recently they made the desicion to remove their subtle pay to win items.(like 5% crew boost from cola, ect) And unlike the creator of BF:Heoroes, they've taken their earnings and been able to create 3 free to play games. I don't here anyone singing praises about BF:H today, I don't hear word of a sequel.

Unfortunately, if you head too far into P2W territory, you're going to drive away that 98% part of the population, and most won't take the time to write a thoughtful post in the forum before they go. It ends up resulting in increased wait times and shrinking community. Worst case scenario, p2w can give them game a bad reputation and even kill the game. You can't maintain a population of free players when they are only food for paying players, it's only a fun game for that 2%.

Edited by CaptainDeez, 09 July 2014 - 03:44 AM.

[Pjwned]

Dunning Kruger Effect, on 08 July 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

28 min "Ignoring the Forums." In BF:H the forums exploded in protest with "P2W" claims and people angry at "broken promises." Devs were scared so many would quit the game would be worse off. The press even got on board due to forum turmoil. Sound familiar?
However:
*people did not quit like forums suggested
*spending went up as competitive players now opened their wallets
* 78% of players never visit official forums. 20% of players visit to "lurk" and read, but not post, only 2% post!
*Posters would say they would "not spend" on forums, but forum users are a tiny percentage that are unreliable - they say "I will leave, and not spend" but do the opposite - the average forum poster spent 10x more than average user.
*Forums are not a good gauge of the game. Posters are not representative user. They are a small subset, who are useful as a "canary" with regards to gameplay or "OP" items - devs take notice, but then ignore them and actually look at the data.
Ever wonder why devs spend more time on reddit or facebook than their "official forums?" Because that's where they're more likely to find their "typical player."

Yeah, that worked really well with that "island" analogy some time ago.

[Xeno Phalcon]

FIRST thing I thought of when I read this topic was the Breadlines from the depression era

With us being the smucks handing out bread to a never ending line of sales.

[Zaptruder]

How to monetize a F2P: An *******'s handbook. Signed by BFHeroes and PGI.

Meanwhile in Valve land... Make awesome games, let players collaborate and HATS!

[Bishop Steiner]

Dunning Kruger Effect, on 08 July 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

stuff

um, mos tof the summary ain't bad, but...since coolshots are 100% obtainable, for the same efficacy as CBills? Might want to remove that from the OP as it weakens any argument to post inaccurate "facts".

otherwise, interesting.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 09 July 2014 - 04:56 AM.

[Tombstoner]

Dunning Kruger Effect, on 08 July 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

They are a small subset, who are useful as a "canary" with regards to gameplay or "OP" items - devs take notice, but then ignore them and actually look at the data.


Ever wonder why devs spend more time on reddit or facebook than their "official forums?" Because that's where they're more likely to find their "typical player."

But how do you tell the difference... The official forum user is just as likely to hit Reddit or face book. Given the PR nightmare that unfolded recently over on reddit a forum PGI cant control and chose to ignore.

How do you interact with your fan base and not come off as bad as PGI?

[NextGame]

Dunning Kruger Effect, on 08 July 2014 - 11:54 PM, said:

I enjoyed watching a video about Battlefield Heroes where the director talks about monetization in F2P games.

It has the provocative title "Paying to Win" (most apt given the current climate on these forums).

Since it is a 40minute video I'll summarise the key bits. The video applies to Battlefield Heroes but a lot of this resonates with what I can see within MW:O. The strategies Ben Cousins implemented made truckloads of cash for BF:H and he said many other F2P games watched their approach and results with interest.


Here is the video.

Here's some of the "key points" he made along with where they occur in the video.

7min There are 3 key "sale" items - "cosmetics" (camo/paint) "convenience (XP/premium etc)" "advantage giving items - which must be subtle." (coolshot, hero mechs?) Paying users make up under 2% of the player base. The average paying player spends $20. Given the amount of hero mechs and clan mechs, this must be much higher for MW:O In most FPS F2P games, cosmetics make up the majority of $$S spent.

23min Don't give away too much XP People shouldn't earn too much so they have to buy with $$$ - the XP/hour earnings need to be relatively low. There is a fairly strong "grind" element in MW:O, in the past XP/game has been dramatically lowered; it is thus quite attractive to buy a mech rather than spend a month trying to "earn" one.

18min Embrace subtle "Pay to Win" People do buy advantage items, and this attracts competitive players not just the "peacocks" aka cosmetics buyers. A in-game poll of BF:H showed a surprising number of people wanted "advantage giving items." Advantages were minor i .e. ~10% boost in specific area. This could be a special UAV, a coolshot or a hero mech with well-placed weapons.

28 min "Ignoring the Forums." In BF:H the forums exploded in protest with "P2W" claims and people angry at "broken promises." Devs were scared so many would quit the game would be worse off. The press even got on board due to forum turmoil. Sound familiar?
However:
*people did not quit like forums suggested
*spending went up as competitive players now opened their wallets
* 78% of players never visit official forums. 20% of players visit to "lurk" and read, but not post, only 2% post!
*Posters would say they would "not spend" on forums, but forum users are a tiny percentage that are unreliable - they say "I will leave, and not spend" but do the opposite - the average forum poster spent 10x more than average user.
*Forums are not a good gauge of the game. Posters are not representative user. They are a small subset, who are useful as a "canary" with regards to gameplay or "OP" items - devs take notice, but then ignore them and actually look at the data.
Ever wonder why devs spend more time on reddit or facebook than their "official forums?" Because that's where they're more likely to find their "typical player."

38min. More shiny stuff, more $$$. The more items to spend, more money made over all. Goes without saying, really. That's why new mechs will always take precedence over CW, or new maps - or anything that is not "saleable".

40min. Summary.
Game balance changes may cause uproar, but revenue improves anyway. The forums are a tiny, unreliable subset of players who do not always do as they say. P2W or "pay for gameplay advantage" is good for revenue as it attracts competitive players who don't care for cosmetics. People don't mind P2W - or at least, the user base of BF:H didn't suffer. Equipment buys advantage in sports like cycling, golf, car racing and it is accepted there. Inequality is a fact of life. Players don't begrudge getting beaten by more expensive equipment. If he's good, he would have won anyway. If he was bad, it's all the more beat him and mock his shiny toys.

This is all very well and good, and I don't really have much of a bone to pick with it in general other than to say that forum populations are actually reasonably representative of the player base (see how I too can make baseless claims with no evidence about that).

Anyway, regardless of that, all of these points are irrelevant if you don't have more of a game to play than a 10 map demo with a lot of mechs.

[Tombstoner]

Bishop Steiner, on 09 July 2014 - 04:54 AM, said:

um, mos tof the summary ain't bad, but...since coolshots are 100% obtainable, for the same efficacy as CBills? Might want to remove that from the OP as it weakens any argument to post inaccurate "facts".

otherwise, interesting.

This was a canary moment for PGI. As cool shots where originally implemented they where pushing the line of P2W if not out right pay to win. Goes under the heading of who do you listen too since "we" are not typical players.

[General Taskeen]

http://www.ageofempi...om/blog/?p=1086

If it does end, there will sorrowful posts about "Why can't I download and play anymore?" "Where did all my digital goods go that I paid for?"

I can torrent MW4 right now, actually I already did, and just play it. For most F2P's, you can't do that once they are over, all the property is in the hands of a publisher/dev. This seeds a major problem for games today compared to how it was in the past.

Edited by General Taskeen, 09 July 2014 - 05:26 AM.