Menu
By:
Filters
What's new

Wildstar Your Thoughts on Wildstar's Revenue Model

K

Korova

New member
Hi

What do you think would be the best route for Cryptic/Carbine to take revenue and keep Wildstar alive for at least a decade?

While I am open to ideas and have a few of my own, I think that a homogeneous free to play model is not the right way to go. More often than not, when companies begin charging for 'features' it takes away some aspect of the game from all the players and gives it to a few. Also, game play advantages which seem nice in the beginning lead to a hastened boredom and to nonchalant exuberance and eventual stagnation.

Even 'ethical' micro-transactions pose problems - although many people may think that League of Legends as a free to play game, with it's amazing popularity, is a successful model of ethical MT's - it's not. Sure, you don't *have* to buy any of it, but if you dont you have to make a job out of the game to access some features days or weeks after it's old news. Don't want to have to deal with the people we've banned who've made alts and are leveling up with you because we refuse to ban IPs? Pay us money and get to 30 faster.

That is of course if we define an ethical transaction as something which doesn't provide an advantage to a paying customer.

Anyhow, my take is to use a blend of the B2P and P2P models: when the game is released, there should be box sets of the game - essentially /types/ of 'Collector's Editions' - which offer a non-existent or lowered P2P fee. In it you can get skins, nice housing decorations, posters, plushies, books...goodies which confer no benefit AND full access to the game without having to pay a subscription fee.

Most CEs are priced a bit below $100 - in this instance I would think $125-$250 would be reasonable depending on the other added features. Perhaps at $80 - the 'base CE' - which includes most of the goodies but no sub fee reduction. Then there are $125, $185 and $250 tiers which include more and more stuff and lower to $0 fees for the life of the game (or possibly up to the next expansion, relative to other extra possibilities).

I'll refer to these as the 'Cushioned Collector Editions' - maybe put a smiley cloud on the front of the box too for fun. The other primary option is the 'Standard Edition' . You pay the usual $45-$70 for a base game and box with a one month subscription. The small catch here, and I think it would be within reason, would be to charge a slightly heftier amount than a usual subscription MMO. Say $18. This would be to help keep up the game in lieu of the statistical lapse of revenue due to the CCE's.

Regardless of tier chosen, there is no benefit to anyone because of how they choose to 'pay into' the game.

Finally, an option which* could be considered: add a feature in houston which allows players to create content which could be 'sold' to Carbine/Cryptic for a small fee and/or subscription time. Now, we wouldn't want just *any* content purchased by C&C to be put into the game - hence a need for some review/regulation/modulation process within the company. They could also consider a population vote to determine content integrated into the game.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TL;DR - What is your take on the best option for Wildstar's revenue? In the thread, I advocate for a non F2P model and suggested tiers of 'Cushioned Collector's Editions' which could reduce or negate the fee all together. Player content could be created by an addon to Houston which could be reviewed and sold to C&C for a fee and/or subscription time. A player population vote could determine features added.
 
If I wasn't on my phone I'd do a nice long response (as I fucking love getting into financial debates of business models) but I really want to see Wildstar as a pay2play model. For what they plan on doing with content releases (4-6 weeks with substantial releases) I want to pay a flat fee monthly. I've spent more money on the nickel and dime scheme than I ever did on a monthly sub. I'd like to see an update to the payment model as well, maybe at a 20 a month charge instead of 15, but that will cause more grief than good. Seriously, 15 a month is outdated and doesn't support like it did 10 years ago.

But a micro transaction system just doesn't do enough for the grand scheme of things. By paying a monthly sub, one would expect that to be a returned investment, as it usually it. Micro's can e a bigger profit for the company, but it has little to no guarantee that it'll be invested back into the game itself instead of investors.
 
I would rather see a monthly sub system. I don't pay the nickle and dime stuff for f2p with micro transactions. It just seems like more work in game to be competitive.
 
Definitely pay2play. Most micros and other systems just never rub me the right way for one reason or the other.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
 
This is something that I was speaking to my friend, fishsticks, about recently. I thought of an interesting idea, which he promptly shot down obviously because he wanted to steal the idea and send it to carbine first. (j/k XD)

I think the game should be a combination of everything out there right now, b2p/p2p/store, all at once. So I'll break down my ideas.

1. Buy 2 Play - I think we should pay for the game. I don't see anything wrong with companies asking for an upfront cost for their game. However, I think that the starting price should be somewhere around 25-30 dollars. At this price people will be willing to try the game if they're unsure of it. It will allow a large # of people access to the game, because let's be honest not everyone is 1%. In fact I believe that there is 99 other percents that would love to play the game.

2. Pay 2 Play - I also feel there should be a subscription, but not the $15+/month. I think somewhere like 5-8 dollars a month. I think that at this rate people will be more likely to buy longer subscription packages and not feel so cautious about buying a year's worth of playtime. $5 for 12 months is $60, where $15 for 12 months is $180. Huge difference for those who have a strict budget. With this subscription access to everything in the game will be available, but there will be more to it in the following section "The Store." Lastly, I think they should offer some form of incentive for having a longer subscription. For example, every month you are subscribed you get a component to build something, perhaps on your house or a mount, pet, novelty item, anything, as long as it's awesome. At 3 months you can build it, then at 6 you have the components to upgrade it, etc.

3. The Store - I think that the business model that Riot uses at League of Legends is almost too perfect. Even though they have been raising the prices lately, I still think it's a great idea. I think that it could also work in an MMO. If they have a set period of time, perhaps 2-4 weeks where they rotate different items, pets/mounts/costumes/etc and they're free to use. Think about it like the free champions, except for in game cosmetic items. Then they change every set period time and you get to try out the next. This where the store comes into play. Perhaps you really liked the one mount or something, then I think it should be available for $5-10, but nothing over that except maybe server transfers. On a side note, I think that server transfers are about the only thing I would accept being $20 or higher because it takes some work on their end and to discourage the ability of being a horrible person and then just jumping servers. ANYWAY - Taking advice from frishstricks I think it's important that all of these items be available in game through hard work and perseverance because we are subbed and purchased the game. The key to making this work, as is the case with Riot and LoL, is to have a large amount of cosmetic items available and ofc convienence items, boosters, etc. for those who can not play as much as others and want an xp boost.


So in conclusion, the company would get a solid flow of cash up front, steady amounts monthly from the subs, and little perks that the community would be rewarding the company for adding new cosmetic items and just doing a damn fine job.

:rainbowsheep: Thoughts?
 
Penny pincher here. F2P or i don't touch it. unless of course its DCUO. I'll grab a 3 month sub every once in a while, PS3
 
Demetrio said:
:rainbowsheep: Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I'd pay a $5 sub without thinking twice. Thinking twice begins at $10, whereas $15 (or Gyoin's suggested $20) would most likely result in me not playing Wildstar.
Blame it on Guild Wars for spoiling me since 2005.
 
The only issue I have with your analysis Demetrio is that the prices are too low. The Micro transactions typically work because there ISN'T a monthly fee, so people have that feeling of "Oh, I'm not paying monthly, but I can purchase what I want selectively." That mentality goes away INSTANTLY when you put a sub fee onto a game. Less people will pay for the luxury items and will complain that they should be included in the gameplay BECAUSE they are paying a monthly sub.

A new game, especially backed by a AAA scale, shouldn't cost less than 50-60 dollars in box. The investment numbers are too great by NCSoft, those initial box sales are meant to cover the cost of devenlopment. Don't get me wrong, your argument for a 30 dollar box sale will bring in more people initially, but you're forgetting about the "second wave" that price cuts bring in (especially during a holiday season). Starting with a 30 dollar box sale doesn't give them anymore to move sale wise. No matter what the price, there is a VERY large market of people that REFUSE to purchase anything at full retail (@Baldorax).

Also, it's said that 65% of MMO purchasers don't stick around after 3 months, mostly because of casual playsets. That's where the issue of subcription comes in. This is where the continual player base is paying for growth in game. If that cost is too low, Carbine will not have the funds or resources to continually pump out patches as they plan to do. At minimum, it should be 15 dollars, mostly because of the way the current MMO payment plan archetype works. The people that are willing to pay sub will be more willing to pay the price that is most "agreed upon" in the MMO world.

So, box price covers cost of development. Subscription and micro's cover the cost of post launch development. Spreading decreased costs between the two CONSISTENT payment plans will decrease over-all budget. Micro's would have to be perfect, and I mean PERFECT in order to work in a 3-payment type. Look how Blizz did it. "Here, have mini-pets and mounts and plushies." No one will complain because they are just flavor. Sadly, because they are just flavor, less people will be inclined to pay a large $ value for them. Blizz was able to pull it off because of the sheer numbers of people they had playing. (100,000 mini pets sold in the first weekend, but at the time there was a 14,000,000 player base).

Carbine can't use that system, the player base will not be that strong, especially at the start. 2-3 years down the line? Only if the player base has grown substaintially enough to have a larger market and not died off (as is the norm for MMO's past 2008).

Base box price - $60
Sub - $15-20
Micro's - Tricky, but I could see a pet/mount, even a key system (that would have a chance of a month gametime in it).

Also, while I bring that up, would you guys be interested in a EVE Plex system in game? If they offer Micro's and have a secondary currency system, would you want the conversion system to exist? I think that's more of a... cop-out, but a lot of people like that feeling of earning their gametime with gameplay.
 
Gyoin said:
The only issue I have with your analysis Demetrio is that the prices are too low. The Micro transactions typically work because there ISN'T a monthly fee, so people have that feeling of "Oh, I'm not paying monthly, but I can purchase what I want selectively." That mentality goes away INSTANTLY when you put a sub fee onto a game. Less people will pay for the luxury items and will complain that they should be included in the gameplay BECAUSE they are paying a monthly sub.

A new game, especially backed by a AAA scale, shouldn't cost less than 50-60 dollars in box. The investment numbers are too great by NCSoft, those initial box sales are meant to cover the cost of devenlopment. Don't get me wrong, your argument for a 30 dollar box sale will bring in more people initially, but you're forgetting about the "second wave" that price cuts bring in (especially during a holiday season). Starting with a 30 dollar box sale doesn't give them anymore to move sale wise. No matter what the price, there is a VERY large market of people that REFUSE to purchase anything at full retail (@Baldorax).

Also, it's said that 65% of MMO purchasers don't stick around after 3 months, mostly because of casual playsets. That's where the issue of subcription comes in. This is where the continual player base is paying for growth in game. If that cost is too low, Carbine will not have the funds or resources to continually pump out patches as they plan to do. At minimum, it should be 15 dollars, mostly because of the way the current MMO payment plan archetype works. The people that are willing to pay sub will be more willing to pay the price that is most "agreed upon" in the MMO world.

So, box price covers cost of development. Subscription and micro's cover the cost of post launch development. Spreading decreased costs between the two CONSISTENT payment plans will decrease over-all budget. Micro's would have to be perfect, and I mean PERFECT in order to work in a 3-payment type. Look how Blizz did it. "Here, have mini-pets and mounts and plushies." No one will complain because they are just flavor. Sadly, because they are just flavor, less people will be inclined to pay a large $ value for them. Blizz was able to pull it off because of the sheer numbers of people they had playing. (100,000 mini pets sold in the first weekend, but at the time there was a 14,000,000 player base).

Carbine can't use that system, the player base will not be that strong, especially at the start. 2-3 years down the line? Only if the player base has grown substaintially enough to have a larger market and not died off (as is the norm for MMO's past 2008).

Base box price - $60
Sub - $15-20
Micro's - Tricky, but I could see a pet/mount, even a key system (that would have a chance of a month gametime in it).

Also, while I bring that up, would you guys be interested in a EVE Plex system in game? If they offer Micro's and have a secondary currency system, would you want the conversion system to exist? I think that's more of a... cop-out, but a lot of people like that feeling of earning their gametime with gameplay.
Click to expand...


This is basically what Fishsticks said to me.. you two must be plotting against me... {-_-}


Anyway, I guess the majority wins, i just want something that is reasonably priced to play for many years otherwise i end up spending stupid amounts of money on a game (league of legends). The company has to make money, so i guess that's the flaw with my idea. Not putting the company first.
 
I have a heavy education in accounting and finance. I'm currently employed as a Procurement Analyst, but I do a lot of financial analyst work. It's literally my job to think of these things. lol
 
There is no doubt that you, and fishsticks, are correct. The company has to make money, thats the point for them right?, I just think that games now a days expect too much from the player base in terms of $. I think that asking for $60 up front, 15/month, and then other $ on top for fancy stuff is absurd. I really feel that will be their model, buy the game, sub the game, and then spend more in the cash shop on novelty items.

I just wish they'd tone down the overall costs of all three, for the players (my) sake.

You know?
 
Well, it also depends on the QUALITY of the services you're getting. I'm hoping that even for the tightest of wallets, if the quality is there you won't "feel bad" about putting that money into it. But again, I know it's easier for some people than it is others.[DOUBLEPOST=1368796387,1368796328][/DOUBLEPOST]I mean, I won't pay for 15 a month on WoW now, because I don't think it's worth it anymore, even though I could easily afford it, y'know?
 
I typed a long response, but somehow it didn't post properly and i lost it. so TL;DR I hope the game is worth the cost. I hope it delivers.
 
I wouldn't mind a 15$ sub fee.

f2p cash shop always seems to have the developer focus on cash items vs in game shit. I'd honestly have a new area to explore over a pretty costume.

and if it was 15$ and I at least got 15 hours out of it I'd be plenty happy. More hours = more worth tho.
 
First, thanks for the interesting posts everyone. There's a point of view which everyone can put on the table and it's not necessarily wrong - it may just need changes due to uncertainty about Wildstar.

Second and to the point: Gyoin, please explain the EVE plex system. I'm remotely aware that in EVE there is a player-generated crafting system which creates unique-to-player items which can be sold or traded, but that's about all I know of the game. However, the context makes it appear to be something related to trading real world currency for in-game currency - is it something that could give players who spend more money an advantage in game?

First Option as 'B2P'/Subscription

Our first revenue option, as was brought up about the initial box rates as in 'buy to play' or a hybrid with a subscription fee - assuming for the moment that it was the best route (defined as the method which would generate the most consistent flow of income to the game), shouldn't there be options which give players choices as to what they would prefer as long as no option conveyed an advantage over another? In my OT, I suggested different tiers of box options, but one I didn't mention was the $0 box, or the No Purchase/Free Download model. If we were to accept for the moment a *base* subscription fee of approximately $18, then to offset a free download of the game, a sub fee of $22-$23 may be a reasonable option for the player.

Then again, a multitude of options can get very messy if they offer different boons or sets; so, making them equal in terms of the fundamental gameplay experience* offered is the way to go - everyone can chat, send messages, create the same number of characters, visit the same dungeons, be any class/race/path, etc. - the differences being purely aesthetic goodies.

However, let's also think about catering to 'specific' groups for a moment too. While it's easy to break the population down into hardcores and casuals...it goes a lot deeper. There are subgroups within subgroups, a few of which are 'bottom feeders' who contribute nothing and would want to pay nothing to keep Wildstar alive. Most would be immature pre-teens filled with piss and vinegar (not that all are). Sure, they might be a small $5 purchase of an in game pet or visual, but do we need them or how long do we want them around in our game?

Second Option as 'F2P'
Our second revenue option, given a F2P option and assuming it was the best method to take, there are two games out there right now which I think are doing a relatively ethical job and one other game which is successful, but is in many respects pay to win (which I don't think many of us would want).

Right now, Path of Exile and EverQuest offer F2P options and are doing reasonably well, taking in to fact that they are both small populations with smaller dedicated teams. Yes, EverQuest does have SOE, but it's a small part of the company keeping the game alive. If we look at the quality compared to similar 'non-F2P' games, it's also obvious why their populations are so small - the games themselves aren't as well coded, take longer to process content, have otherwise-fixable technical issues, or they're older than the average MMO player.

The exception in EQ's place is that they have P2W options in their MT store - however, for a fifteen year old game, it's not as drastic. Path of Exile is a good ARPG, but imagine if they had constant revenue or money from the start of the project how different the game would be? We probably wouldn't have desync and the game systems would be more tuned - even though it's a good beta for the game it is. Their MTs are completely ethical but, at the moment, I don't think it's going to be enough to fuel growth of the game.

The successful 'F2P game is League of Legends (the one I think of anyhow). But it's pretty much pay to win, because we designed the leveling system such that you have to play with trolls whose IPs we refuse to ban and you have to have enough IP to get rune pages and runes AS WELL AS purchase champions. Those who really play the game for free? Expect those types of people to be the bottom scrubbers who contribute nothing and ultimately make your game experience worse (most of them, maybe not all).

What do we do now to arrange F2P as the best, most consistent way to create growth in the game over at least a decade (maybe longer) ? I'm open to ideas as when I look to F2P, I see a fad and nothing more.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
**PLEASE NOTE: My 'political perspectives' are far different when applied to the gaming world than they are to the real world. I'm not so callous, I swear >.< lol**

***TL;DR*** What is EVE Plex? In addition to the tier box options I suggested in the OT why not a free download box with a $22+ sub fee? Do we really want to cater to populations who don't want to contribute to the growth of the game or are too immature to play with anyhow? If F2P was the best option, how do we arrange it such that revenue becomes consistent enough to allow the game to grow while at the same time remaining completely ethical?
 
I believe (I could be wrong) that you can pay for game time for an X dollar amount out of game, gives you an in-game item and you can trade item on their market place for in-game currency. Thus, you can effectively TRADE Real Money for in-game currency, but instead of a second currency (such as gems in GW2), it's Plex, a 30 day "subcription" item.
 
lol. league isn't pay to win. The fact of the matter is that you dont have to spend a dime on league to be good, or to win. You can't buy runes with real money, the most you can buy is rune pages. and you do get two free ones, which have been proven to be more than enough to play. (tho more is always helpful. same goes with like bag space in a normal mmo.)

And most games offer leveling systems where you can purchase boosts. And as for the trolls at the low levels, their are trolls at the higher levels too. No matter where you are at in league, you get trolls.

So league is pay to win like most other mmos out there. I'd argue that a game like GW2 where you can buy in game currency with real money is pay to win.
 
League is bad, m'kay.

Edit: All MOBA's are bad. Except Awesomenauts. Because that's awesome.
 
Roasty said:
lol. league isn't pay to win. The fact of the matter is that you dont have to spend a dime on league to be good, or to win. You can't buy runes with real money, the most you can buy is rune pages. and you do get two free ones, which have been proven to be more than enough to play. (tho more is always helpful. same goes with like bag space in a normal mmo.)

And most games offer leveling systems where you can purchase boosts. And as for the trolls at the low levels, their are trolls at the higher levels too. No matter where you are at in league, you get trolls.

So league is pay to win like most other mmos out there. I'd argue that a game like GW2 where you can buy in game currency with real money is pay to win.
Click to expand...

The point I was making was that, while - yes - you don't have to pay money to *be good* (win any one particular game), you can either pay money to get RP which translates into XP boosts and IP boosts OR you can /not/ spend a red cent and drudge through the time it would take to surpass those hundreds of toxic players who have been *banned* and remade another account. Even still, when you do get to the 'maximum point', it's not a lot better.

To elaborate, they purposefully designed the game so that you /need/ rune pages and /need/ runes to compete. They purposefully intended for you to play your 1-30 with banned accounts. You can waste hours doing it with people you don't like, you can play many many more repetitive games with bots, or you can just pay $25 and get to the actual 'game' (30) in a fraction of the time you'd have spent wanting to die inside because of all the rage and immaturity. Which option do you want? It's a false choice and it's a subtle form of P2W.

Although please, correct me if I'm wrong.

But to your point, Guild Wars 2 was *also* pay to win in the respect that you could spend currency to get in game currency, which lead to players having advantages. There's more than one definition of P2W.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom