| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
S Park Finner
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
99
   |
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Touches on what "Free to Play" and "Pay to Win" mean in practice. It's here. |
Iron Wolf Saber
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
3085
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
"Superior Monetization
While your "hardcore" gamers (I define these as playing more than two hours per day on average, and typically eight or more hours on at least one day per week) may be your most vocal, they are not necessarily your biggest spenders. The person with a job, high income, and very little free time will spend a premium for quality entertainment on those times when she does have time to play.
Creating a game that provides a quality experience for these high-budget, relatively casual players without resorting to Supremacy Goods should be the ultimate goal of a well crafted monetization design. Obviously exceptions will occur in the case of niche products, but those niches can get crowded very quickly, leading to rapid loss of positive net income.
Just as there are almost infinite ways to craft said design, there are also just as many ways to really foul up your design. The key is to know your consumer, and how any change you make to your design will affect the relationship between you, them, and your product."
Hmm sounds like a casuals to me. |
S Park Finner
BetaMax.
CRONOS.
99
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:41:00 -
[3] - Quote
I'm not sure of the object of your comment. I think the point of the author is that hard core gamers are not the most valuable players in many circumstances. Well-to-do casual gamers are.
Developers are put in the position of getting feedback mostly from the players that, in aggregate, will not be funding their games. And to the extent that well-to-do players have different gaming goals than hard core the developers are certain to take a raft of s... err, negative feedback from the hard core players when they make design decisions for their better paying customers.
But on reflection I guess this is old news.
I wonder how CCP parses the feedback from the two groups and if they consciously try to separate them out in some kind of use case / playing style analysis. |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
249
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Originally was its own thread...but the OP was its inspiration:
So maybe this is getting too much of the weeds of CCP's development practices and tradecraft, but in terms of business models, if the funding for building a game comes from the microproducts that are sold in pieces such as dropsuit BPOs and weapons, or UVTs or skill boosters, how does this affect which team is rewarded for what kind of development?
In other words, when you have a subscription, you have a gateway that you must pass through to get at all of the content, therefore, there must be a business interest to develop and pay equitable attention to progressing all of that content in harmony to maximize an experience that keeps people coming back. In a way, all developers can claim a part in that sale of a subscription.
However, I would feel like the incentives and forces that would drive a sales and marketing team to put pressure on developers would change as a result of how you design microtransactions to fund your development.
Example:
Lets say the dropsuit design team is expected to come out with a new suite of limited offer 'front page' dropsuits each quarter and a few (3-4) individual event items in the same amount of time. Depending on how reliant the company is on funding from these accelerated skill/vanity goods the choices of what to make will be based on the largest possible market that could be sold to.
So if 75% of the community uses assault rifles and assault suits most of the time, how often do you think we would see a some kind of specialized logistics suit akin to the gallente black eagle one? Probably much less often...just a guess.
The other funding source is the 'accelerated skill' source of funding that is found in the skill boosters and advanced meta gear. To me, I feel like I can buy boosters to 'make my time more valuable' Boosters worth it to me because it means that I may not have the same opportunity as others to play as much, but I can get an equal amount of the content out of the game.
I would hope that most funding comes through this kind of transaction source, where it doesn't pander to a game play style as much as a 'sense of value' aspect of the game.
I'm looking for better ways to articulate this concern, but a few different things have gotten me thinking about this. One is the term 'legibility' I've come across in different economics literature. A fundamental principle of taxation (funding models) is that foundations of taxation rely upon certain immutable or very slow changing assumptions about a community. When you have social revolution that alters community 'shapes' your funding is disrupted.
Another way of putting it is...how will the paradigms of the behavioral economy of choosing to play Dust and Eve, their interactive in-game economies, and the real world development economy all be appropriately managed from the design end to create the best possible sandbox for the future? |
Beren Hurin
OMNI Endeavors
250
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 18:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
See I was afraid to post a walloftext here because I figured it would kill the thread, which I think is really important for the community to weigh in on. But my guess is that most FPS players aren't too concerned with behavioral microeconomics... |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |