2 replies to this topic

[Mike Townsend]

I've been thinking about MW:O's monetization scheme a lot lately, particularly in comparison to other games. It seems like it doesn't quite completely fit any single monetization model.

There's the Zynga model. It's essentially pay to skip tedium, and it is designed to monetize whales to the maximum extent possible. It largely works (worked) because Zynga hitched their wagon to Facebook, which provided an effective mechanism for applying social pressure to people to play games which were fundamentally un-fun. MW:O has some elements of that with the GXP grind, which can be largely skipped by converting MXP, but it doesn't quite fit this model because it actually doesn't allow the user to waste enough money. Paint sort of follows this model. There's no real advantage to customization, it's entirely optional. The key thing about both of these mechanisms is they encourage spending on a small scale. A buck or two here or there. Note that for suggestion 2.

There's the LoL model, which is sort of like the customization model.

There's the premium time model. The more premium time you buy, the cheaper it is by unit.

Then there's the WoT/Hero mech model. WoT also has the golden ammo P2W model, which MW:O thankfully does not.

It seems like there's at least a little bit of throwing monetization schemes out there and seeing what will stick. The sales these past few weeks also seem like they are intended to figure out how to maximize revenue. That's cool. I've worked on a F2P game before and games which don't readily fit the pay to play at all MMO (WoW) model or the Zynga model are a lot harder to monetize. In that direction, I'd like to make a couple suggestions. The first is a significant change, may already be underway, and, as it fits the incremental, small payment model, would be more effective, I think, if coupled with the second suggestion.

The first suggestion: Modify the mech lab to allow you to equip anything that can physically fit without concern for price. Right now, you can't equip an engine if you don't have c-bills. Let people equip the engine and see what the build looks like. Then, if they don't have the c-bills, let them pay the difference in MC. There's already a c-bill to MC conversion rate established. The MC prices of non-hero mechs are proportional to c-bill cost. If someone is c-bills short on a build, let them save, pop a screen that says "You're x c-bills short, would you like to pay Y MC to purchase these upgrades? Note again that these will be purchases in small increments.

The second suggestion is an observation related to the bulk of monetization mechanisms being small purchases (mech bays, exp conversion, paint, the proposed mech part purchases.) Just as a trial, maybe for a month or two, flatten the tiered pricing on MC. Exactly which pricepoint you flatten two or exactly how many tiers is somewhat irrelevant. I'd say to go with one rate, the current $100 rate, or two rates, the $100 rate and the $50 rate, but it could be three tiers and have the bottom be the $30 rate. For purposes of the experiment the ideal would be to go with one rate only. The point isn't to lower the price, it is to make the dollar cost per MC the same no matter how many MC you buy. Right now, if you look at MC pricing, the circumstances in which purchasing at the $7 level are very narrow. If you JUST wanted the Spider and Hunchback for this weekend's sale, then $7 for two mechs makes sense. However the bulk of the opportunity for monetization is in much smaller increments. 300 for a bay or a few hundred to convert the MXP overage from eliting a chassis into GXP.

While tiered pricing has proven successful for the Zynga model, there is another model which more closely fits MWO in the range of prices on offer. The Xbox LIVE model. Microsoft points are the same price per point no matter what quantity you buy. I have no access to metrics on sales, but I have noticed that one difference between Microsoft points and MC is that I don't hesitate AT ALL to spend 160 MSP. I can buy a block of 400 msp for $5 without paying a penalty to replace it. I often do buy larger packs, because adding points $5 at a time is a hassle, but unlike MWO, where if I was 50 MC short of a purchase I would not buy at the $7 level and, due to the need to spend $50 for it to feel cost effective, I wouldn't buy anything at all, I don't even think twice about buying a $5 pack of MSP if I'm 30 points short of what I need to rent a movie. Because I know I'll spend the small amount of remaining points on something, and there's no financial penalty for buying in small increments. I know the ide of tiered pricing is to provide a bonus for buying at higher price points, but I think the actual effect is to make people feel like they are being punished at lower price points. Even worse, for someone who is looking at premium time, say, for a period like double XP weekend, they are looking at a double penalty. You pay more per MC for a small enough pack to buy 3 or 7 days of premium, and more MC per day for the time. I think it dissuades small purchases more than encouraging large ones. (FD I work at Microsoft but have no access to any BI or useful pricing studies on microcurrency. I'm merely pointing out that there's a very successful microcurrency model which does not have variable exchange rates based on volume exchanged.)

I think it would be really interesting to see whether overall revenue increased with flat rate MC pricing vs variable pricing. I bet it would because there'd be no reason, if you wanted to spend 200MC to convert MC, to not do it. Right now, I hesitate to do it in case I end up spending in such a way that I'll be a few MC short of a Hero I want and then have to think about whether I really want to spend another $50 or $100.

Just a suggestion.

[Kobold]

I've already said I will only pay MC for permanent things, or features. Give me permanent paints and I'll pay for those.

Also I think charging MC to open up certain features would be fair, like the ability to host 1v1 games, or the ability to choose opponents in private matches. Charge MC to start a merc corp, etc.

Also, many people would pay MC to play in tournaments for bragging rights (and unique paint schemes, trophies, badges, etc, that they can show off).

[Mike Townsend]

This is less about specific pricing for things or permanence and more about viewing the current price of MC as 25000/$100. Purchases below the $100 point get fewer MC/$. One could view the thousand fewer MC you get for buying two blocks of MC at $50 each vs 1 at $100 each as, effectively a convenience tax. The best way to get less of something is to tax it. I'm suggesting that if they try eliminating the convenience tax on MC in smaller blocks, they're likely to see total MC purchases increase more than the potential revenue loss from reducing the average price of MC. I've got no data to back it, but as far as I know they haven't run a sale for any length of time which is sufficiently long to allow purchase behavior changes which offers MC at a fixed cost. What you buy with the MC is largely irrelevant. Different people will value different things differently.

FWIW, I feel the same way about paint, but exactly what they sell with what usage pattern and for how many MC is a different discussion.