LordNothing, on 05 June 2020 - 05:33 PM, said:
the model has its merits but it also has its drawbacks. unfortunately no utopia is realistic (even the old timey otp games had gone to hell with all the exclusive bonus content and microtransactions). people who make f2p games have time and time again come up short. no matter how many whales you have you simply can not generate enough funds to make up for the hordes of players who havent dropped a dime. games were just better when everyone pays.
i was kind of curios about star trek online. of course i never bothered checking it out and i think its too eol at this point to pick up. thats the problem with f2p nobody talks about, gamedeath. i got a story about that.
sorry that got out of hand. maybe il come back and fix the punctuation and paragraphs and stuff after ive had some sleep.
Yes some formating would be nice...I stopped reading after the first few lines
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f4cc/8f4ccd3a90d6f76598941614b5f1aad076a7e87a" alt="Posted Image"
Also sorry...wall of text incomming....
TL:DR at the beginning and something about StarTrek Online at the end.
TL:DR
- Methode of payment dosn't equal quality of games. There are examples for both ends of games that work and don't with the same payment methode
- Developers need to give more power to the creative people then analyticers who think they understand something about costumers. ( They don't
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/8f4cc/8f4ccd3a90d6f76598941614b5f1aad076a7e87a" alt="Posted Image"
)
Now for the long explanation
As for "models" of income. There isn't "The" best way to do it, at least from what I see and I don't release games so I have to go by what I hear when a developer lets you peak into what they experiance.
Going from there it seams that "Story games" with a definite beginning and ending sell best with a one time payment.
Everything else is actualy better of with either subscribtions or the F2P model. Yes you see a lot of those games fail but I think they would have failed anyway because they where either bad games to beginn with or where to greedy and had terrible monetization.
Let take Anthem for example and StarTrek Online.
Both started by using a subscribtion model. Both are/where pretty bad and started to die quickly.
Anthem never realy adressed the basic faults in its core and failed hard and I have my doubts that even if it would be for free that people would play it.
StarTrek Online on the other hand realised at least some of the problems, worked on them and changed to a pretty forgiveing F2P model that even allows you to earn ingame "realworld" money.
And no you can't earn real world money, just to make that clear. What you can do is earn "Dilithium" through missions and other gameplay element. Normaly you can only earn Dilithium by dropping real coin into the game.
Sure its a heavy grind, as a more casual player it takes me a realy long time, several month, to earn a noteable amount BUT at least I can and do so while I play anyway.
Anyway back to the point...STO adressed its problems, developed a pretty good F2P model around all its game elements and the result was that also the numbers of players dropped over the years the income was better. So good that the game survived to this day and even more and more content was released.
With that player numbers even increased a little bit again.
Still there will be an end to every game. I highly doubt, no matter how good you are and what you do as a companie, people will get tired of a game at some point. Like me with STO. I feel like have done everything there is to do and only return either for a special event, I like Qs Winter event or the Risa summer event or I will return when I see they have made a new story chapter.
Still I return that is more than I can say for Anthem. I played it during the Beta and later on I had a free month but I think I only played the frist few mission during that month and dropped it after the first week of free play.
If a game is so bad that people don't want to play it for free then you have a problem.
So to me that shows that the payment model isn't the thing that is the problem. The base problem lies much, much deeper in the economie and how big companies are structured and how creative people are treated.
First of so called AAA titles cost an amount of money that is mind boggleing. The bigger the companie, the pricier the game the less risk you can take. You could say that they got to big for their own good.
At that point companies tend to listen to the "experts". Marketing analyticers who say "we can sell this game with that amount to group XYZ".
Problem with that is gamers, no better say customers in general, don't know what they want until they see it. Analysing the market can give you a rough idea where you can go to but its not the holy grail of garantied wins.
I mean "Battle Royal shooters".... no one wanted to do that because of analytics saying we don't know if we can sell it. Then someone made it and it was a hit. Something no one could forsee because there wasn't anything like it on the market.
Other examples of where analytics failed are "Jedi fallen order" and "APEX".
A one time payment game that is just story focused with no multiplayer? Analytics said "No that won't sell, only the SW branding will save the game"....and oh boy where they wrong. Sure the SW branding helped but even if you strip away that you still have a solid game that would still be fun.
APEX....next to no marketing before launch. Every companie would tell you that you need to put at least half of your games budget into marketing to sell. APEX was downloaded in such high numbers that no one could have predicted and why? Because its was a solid game that plays well.
To current analytics that is a slap in the face....a game that sells without massiv marketing just with quality? How dare that works !
StarTrek Online
What does "eol" stand for? "End of line" ?
Well its still there. They even ported it over to consoles last year, I think it was, along with some reworks of game systems and graphic reworks. Also don't aspect to much about the graphics. The game IS old and it looks old. Still I like the exploding ships...ground battles are still terrible IMO.
They still semi regular release new story content and if you never played it there are now, IIRC, 10-12 Episodes that each focus around one specific topic to be played. Some smaller with ~5 missions to bigger ones that have ~10 missions.
Also there are 2 main factions, Federation and Klingons and a token faction, namely the Romulans where you have to decide to either allign with the Federation or the Klingons in the end.
Still Fed, Klingon and Roms have each their unique starting Episode that tells you what happend after the destruction of Romulus and Remus.
Frankly I consider the STO timeline to be more canon to me then whatever JJ and Discovery and Pikard brought to the table.
So if you are a StarTrek fan and you can acept that it has its flaws it can be quite entertaining. I put quite some hours, maybe around 800+, into the game before I put it on the backburner.