I understand most restrictions for f2p players. The alert system is not one of them.

[Blatantfool]

Take a look at League of Legends. Objectively to grind all the heroes or at least all the heroes you need in your arsenal to be well rounded in one role would take enormous amount of time. Just a single new hero costs around 6k ip as i recall and you get 150ip for first win of the day and then 70ish per win. That means you need ~80 games for a single new hero give ot take. Lets round up the games last 30 min each that is 40 hours of playing in close to perfect conditions (all wins lasting 30 min). And i ll repeat again its a single hero. Multiply that to all the heroes / runes you need for a single role and you realize that f2p is quite relative term. But noone complains because the progression is controlled and linear. You have a clear goal and you work towards it at your own pace. Impatient people or people with money will skip the process and purchase everything they need to be at maximum efficiency (except runes i guess).

Here you are left with a luck based system that doesnt reward you for playing at all. In fact it can be quite discouraging to play 16 hours a day only to have a catalyst alert pop up when you go to bed.

This is not true.

Champions now cost a diminishing amount of in-game currency. The longer they exist in the game the less they cost. Only the newest characters in the game are actually difficult to earn. There is absolutely no reason to purchase an old character with real money because he can be earned in a single sitting now.

Meanwhile buying new League Champions is a convenience, one that few people bother with.

Almost all of the money League of Legends generates is in Skins. Riot cares so little about money made from selling the characters they literally made purchasing them pointless.

Riot knows that it is better for them to convince you to buy something like skins. In fact, they know that more often then not players will pay twice as much for a single skin then they would for the character itself. They made owning a huge array of champions extremely easy. They've focused on giving you a huge option of attractive skins for you to try to stand out. They make ridiculously amounts of money this way. Players never grow sick of feeling like they have to pay to keep up to speed in gameplay because they never have to, no matter how long the game trudges forwards. Instead players enjoy the constant streams of neat stuff to wear on their favorite lineup. Repeat costumers are super high for League of Legends. Riot never ends up being a one night stand.

[Blatantfool]

It's the original tactic. F2P is overdone. We're just going to end up moving dev studios to China due to developer costs if people keep increasing their sense of entitlement.

This post was so edgy I got a papercut quoting it.

You don't actually understand what you are talking about though.

[Xelorx]

It's the original tactic. F2P is overdone. We're just going to end up moving dev studios to China due to developer costs if people keep increasing their sense of entitlement.

It's never about the entitlement. I expect f2p games to have its limitations of course. It's a game you're playing for free. The point should be for the business to entice you into its paying area without frustrating you outside of it.

Which by the way, you'll always see people that will never pay even in more limiting f2p games. We all know forcing them is definitely one way to lure them in, but being selfish aside, you don't have to be forceful. I won't say you're not open-minded as I do see a lot of these companies pulling this off nicely, but there ARE successful ways to not force players. Again, League of Legends and Path of Exile pull this non pay-to-win concept off even more nicely than I've ever seen.

[WildJuice]

"Crap, I need that" brings out the potential in free players, converting them to paying players. Paying players are potential unlocked. This is a good thing.

I am somewhat a f2p. If a company wants me to dish out some money, it truly has to be f2p. I am not supporting a company who blatantly tries to pull some forced money out of me. I will simply just play the game until I hit that wall and be done (I'm almost at that point after over 60 hours). No single dollar out of my wallet.

Examples of games I'd invest in : Dota 2 , LoL.

[Indiscipline]

This is not true.

Champions now cost a diminishing amount of in-game currency. The longer they exist in the game the less they cost. Only the newest characters in the game are actually difficult to earn. There is absolutely no reason to purchase an old character with real money because he can be earned in a single sitting now.

Meanwhile buying new League Champions is a convenience, one that few people bother with.

Almost all of the money League of Legends generates is in Skins. Riot cares so little about money made from selling the characters they literally made purchasing them pointless.

Riot knows that it is better for them to convince you to buy something like skins. In fact, they know that more often then not players will pay twice as much for a single skin then they would for the character itself. They made owning a huge array of champions extremely easy. They've focused on giving you a huge option of attractive skins for you to try to stand out. They make ridiculously amounts of money this way. Players never grow sick of feeling like they have to pay to keep up to speed in gameplay because they never have to, no matter how long the game trudges forwards. Instead players enjoy the constant streams of neat stuff to wear on their favorite lineup. Repeat costumers are super high for League of Legends. Riot never ends up being a one night stand.

I see, i didnt know that. I stopped playng the game. But when i played it keeping with owning all characters was a feat. Regardless the point i was trying to make was that systems with clear goals, no matter the actual time you need to obtain it, are much better then lottery based ones. Because the lottery based ones dont reward people for playing the game. Its like the total opposite of what developers should want for their games - people playing and being rewarded for being in game, not refreshing forums waiting for RNG to pop the thing you need.

[KGeddon]

It's never about the entitlement. I expect f2p games to have its limitations of course. It's a game you're playing for free. The point should be for the business to entice you into its paying area without frustrating you outside of it.

Which by the way, you'll always see people that will never pay even in more limiting f2p games. We all know forcing them is definitely one way to lure them in, but being selfish aside, you don't have to be forceful. I won't say you're not open-minded as I do see a lot of these companies pulling this off nicely, but there ARE successful ways to not force players. Again, League of Legends and Path of Exile pull this non pay-to-win concept off even more nicely than I've ever seen.

Incorrect. The trick is to set limits as high as you can without inducing excessive rage quit. Free players aren't a rare commodity. Turnover happens in all areas, but the barrier to entry into F2P is exactly nothing, so you get many more new players.

[Blatantfool]

I see, i didnt know that. I stopped playng the game. But when i played it keeping with owning all characters was a feat. Regardless the point i was trying to make was that systems with clear goals, no matter the actual time you need to obtain it, are much better then lottery based ones. Because the lottery based ones dont reward people for playing the game. Its like the total opposite of what developers should want for their games - people playing and being rewarded for being in game, not refreshing forums waiting for RNG to pop the thing you need.

You should take another look. I wont try to convince you to play again, but they actually did a total restructure of their in-game currency. Everything flows now. For every 2 weeks a champion exists their price drops according to a tier system.

Buying champions is kinda senseless since they have ramped up the focus on skins and made earning new characters easy.

[Xelorx]

Incorrect. The trick is to set limits as high as you can without inducing excessive rage quit. Free players aren't a rare commodity. Turnover happens in all areas, but the barrier to entry into F2P is exactly nothing, so you get many more new players.

That much makes sense. No frustration=Happier players. It's just the matter of what to limit and what people want/need.

[Blatantfool]

Incorrect. The trick is to set limits as high as you can without inducing excessive rage quit. Free players aren't a rare commodity. Turnover happens in all areas, but the barrier to entry into F2P is exactly nothing, so you get many more new players.

Games that follow your logic are examples like Blacklight:Retribution. They have abysmal player retention. Most new players leave before paying the first time.

Trying to wow a player early on to bleed their wallet a bit and then just letting them leave is not what makes a good game and it will certainly never get them close to any of the big Free 2 Play titans like League of Legends, DotA2 or the soon to be free Tera Online that is shaping up to be a pretty good contender.

You want to retain players. You want repeat spenders. Each purchase is what helps decide the likliness of the next. It matters both in the case of that individual AND it effects anyone that guy plays with. Especially since it doesn't take long for minor frustrations to turn into a big tide of crap when it comes to word of mouth.

Somehow I doubt DE is shooting for mediocrity with this game. I'd bet they'd want people to feel each purchase is totally justified, not that they are spending just to keep up.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Blatantfool

[KGeddon]

That much makes sense. No frustration=Happier players. It's just the matter of what to limit and what people want/need.

It's gonna be a tough slog. The pricing scheme as it stands now is so unreliable. They're counting more on goodwill.

An example of a reliable system was when EQ went F2P. They essentially axed their subscription/expansion pack fees, but instead you pay micropayments for each fragment of content. It ends up being higher, but since it's an MMO, it requires quite a bit in terms of server fees, customer service, live teams, etc. They had to make it profitable and they used a "paywall" to ensure success. Smed acknowledged that it was inelegant, but EQ wasn't designed to be on micropayments.

Enter another reliable system, PS2. You can't shoot down a plane unless you have the right weapon. You can get the weapon via certs, but then you're lacking upgrades. Or you can buy the weapon with real money and use the certs to upgrade. They set the value of cert farming time -> real money at about 40 cents an hour.

Edited January 28, 2013 by KGeddon

[KGeddon]

Games that follow your logic are examples like Blacklight:Retribution. They have abysmal player retention. Most new players leave before paying the first time.

Trying to wow a player early on to bleed their wallet a bit and then just letting them leave is not what makes a good game and it will certainly never get them close to any of the big Free 2 Play titans like League of Legends, DotA2 or the soon to be free Tera Online that is shaping up to be a pretty good contender.

You want to retain players. You want repeat spenders. Each purchase is what helps decide the likliness of the next. It matters both in the case of that individual AND it effects anyone that guy plays with. Especially since it doesn't take long for minor frustrations to turn into a big tide of crap when it comes to word of mouth.

Somehow I doubt DE is shooting for mediocrity with this game. I'd bet they'd want people to feel each purchase is totally justified, not that they are spending just to keep up.

There are many games out there. You can't single out one or two as a sign of the ultimate business model. People have tried the LoL model and not seen the same success. It's because their business model isn't the reason for their success.

[Indiscipline]

It's gonna be a tough slog. The pricing scheme as it stands now is so unreliable. They're counting more on goodwill.

An example of a reliable system was when EQ went F2P. They essentially axed their subscription/expansion pack fees, but instead you pay micropayments for each fragment of content. It ends up being higher, but since it's an MMO, it requires quite a bit in terms of server fees, customer service, live teams, etc. They had to make it profitable and they used a "paywall" to ensure success. Smed acknowledged that it was inelegant, but EQ wasn't designed to be on micropayments.

Enter another reliable system, PS2. You can't shoot down a plane unless you have the right weapon. You can get the weapon via certs, but then you're lacking upgrades. Or you can buy the weapon with real money and use the certs to upgrade. They set the value of cert farming time -> real money at about 40 cents an hour.

But that is exactly what people want more or less. Value / hour. Whatever the ratio, just let it be consistent. Currently there is no value/hour because its luck based. Following alert subforum and only loging in when the correct alert is up is the most optimum value/hour you can get. Playing the game is the lowest possible value/hour you can get. That doesnt make sense.

[Blatantfool]

There are many games out there. You can't single out one or two as a sign of the ultimate business model. People have tried the LoL model and not seen the same success. It's because their business model isn't the reason for their success.

That much we agree on, however the patterns all remain roughly the same in regards to how your customers are going to feel after buying. Which matters a lot. My satisfaction as a customer effects myself and my friends. If I can't be confident in my spending they wont feel they can.

If you make a purchase because you feel like you are keeping up there is a distinct chance you wont bother the minute that purchase becomes null, like if future content meant you had a whole new layer of things to consider buying to stay relevant. I mean, why would anyone want to feel like their money is how they keep pace?

And then on the other hand you have games where the focus in the shops is totally seperate from gameplay and you see people shoving money into it, in some situations weekly. The amount of money Valve made off hats should have left most companies doing F2P reelings. All that money and none of it had to even touch how the game played. League of Legends shows the same thing at work, as does DotA.

Winning a customer over with "This is AWESOME!" is generally superior to "I need this."

Edited January 28, 2013 by Blatantfool

[KGeddon]

But that is exactly what people want more or less. Value / hour. Whatever the ratio, just let it be consistent. Currently there is no value/hour because its luck based. Following alert subforum and only loging in when the correct alert is up is the most optimum value/hour you can get. Playing the game is the lowest possible value/hour you can get. That doesnt make sense.

The alert loot table is quite cluttered however, since they removed all the melee weapons from bosses to make room for starter warframe parts(orokins and melee BPs are a relatively new thing). They're going to make more missions, and that means more bosses. That means more "I want this item, so I'm going to go make this specific bosses life hard".

[BL4CKL1STED]

"Crap, I need that" brings out the potential in free players, converting them to paying players. Paying players are potential unlocked. This is a good thing.

There is so much wrong with your post I can't even wrap my head around it.

It's not 'a good thing' to force players to pay in order to be competitive. That kind of thing drives away players from otherwise good games.

Making the f2p's go OOOH I WANT THAT is a much better way to get them to pay than making them feel they 'need' something in order to be competitve. More will stop playing if they NEED to make purchases to be stronger.

However, I do like that they start you off with 50 plat, so a player can make their suit and one weapon have the level 30 tree without having to complete alerts, that's a generous move, and helps f2ps feel they aren't so screwed by the system.

I, however, do agree with OP. Make missions last longer, or have daily missions with a small chance to recieve those big necessary items. Alerts are already something even p2pers do, since they can yield artifacts. There's no reason to make them also benefit F2Pers more.

[Blatantfool]

The alert loot table is quite cluttered however, since they removed all the melee weapons from bosses to make room for starter warframe parts(orokins and melee BPs are a relatively new thing). They're going to make more missions, and that means more bosses. That means more "I want this item, so I'm going to go make this specific bosses life hard".

I don't think the Alert loot table needs touching.

Just the likliness of alerts. The fact that you can go long periods of time without an alert at all needs changing. We should be seeing some form of a ? Alert at the very least every two hours.

[KGeddon]

That much we agree on, however the patterns all remain roughly the same in regards to how your customers are going to feel after buying. Which matters a lot. My satisfaction as a customer effects myself and my friends. If I can't be confident in my spending they wont feel they can.

If you make a purchase because you feel like you are keeping up there is a distinct chance you wont bother the minute that purchase becomes null, like if future content meant you had a whole new layer of things to consider buying to stay relevant. I mean, why would anyone want to feel like their money is how they keep pace?

And then on the other hand you have games where the focus in the shops is totally seperate from gameplay and you see people shoving money into it, in some situations weekly. The amount of money Valve made off hats should have left most companies doing F2P reelings. All that money and none of it had to even touch how the game played. League of Legends shows the same thing at work, as does DotA.

Winning a customer over with "This is AWESOME!" is generally superior to "I need this."

The value of real money in game is VERY low. If they sink it farther, I'm gonna regret spending anything. That's what the ACTUAL issue is.

Most of the time these conversations don't take into account that increasing what a free player can do reduces the value of real money payment(This game operates under a time vs money scheme, there being only one purchase with practical application that is plat only)

[KGeddon]

There is so much wrong with your post I can't even wrap my head around it.

It's not 'a good thing' to force players to pay in order to be competitive. That kind of thing drives away players from otherwise good games.

Making the f2p's go OOOH I WANT THAT is a much better way to get them to pay than making them feel they 'need' something in order to be competitve. More will stop playing if they NEED to make purchases to be stronger.

However, I do like that they start you off with 50 plat, so a player can make their suit and one weapon have the level 30 tree without having to complete alerts, that's a generous move, and helps f2ps feel they aren't so screwed by the system.

I, however, do agree with OP. Make missions last longer, or have daily missions with a small chance to recieve those big necessary items. Alerts are already something even p2pers do, since they can yield artifacts. There's no reason to make them also benefit F2Pers more.

Pay 2 win games exist. They do rather well. Because people like winning enough to pay for it.

[Blatantfool]

The value of real money in game is VERY low. If they sink it farther, I'm gonna regret spending anything. That's what the ACTUAL issue is.

Most of the time these conversations don't take into account that increasing what a free player can do reduces the value of real money payment(This game operates under a time vs money scheme, there being only one purchase with practical application that is plat only)

Focusing on selling things that are generally cool instead of things players are going to feel they need does not in any way devalue their currency. It is the difference between focusing on making money through skins and costmetics or focusing on pushing things like the Orokin Items. I feel there is much more money to be made in skins anyway.

They already intend to get skins into the game. Items like that are what I feel ought to be the focus of their efforts in making money.

[Blatantfool]

Pay 2 win games exist. They do rather well. Because people like winning enough to pay for it.

Give me an example of a F2P game that is legitimately P2W while also being considered a successful game.

It is one thing for you to claim something like that, it is another to have evidence of it you could easily show someone else.

Games with exploitative Cash shops either fail quickly or fall to a very low population count and hover there, often seeing new players come in but only extremely rarely retaining these newcomers. Having servers that can barely be considered populated is not success.

I'll not doubt they exist, I know they do. But I think you are talking out of your &#! to claim any of these games would be considered successful outside of some Facebook/IOS game or smalltime Korean Grindfest made on a 25$ budget.

Edited January 28, 2013 by Blatantfool

[Zakalwe]

The answer here is usually cosmetics, but if it can't be helped, then think through it.

Research has shown that cosmetic sales are sometimes not enough to float a F2P game. For instance: http://de.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

Take that as you will, I can imagine it's close to the mark though.

Still, I don't like the super-charger drop system. If I stuck to it I would only have levelled half my gear, and I've been on my pc a lot because I've been off work sick. Had I been working and as socially active as usual, it would have been half that again.

There needs to be a way that F2Pers can attain these (aside from log-in rewards) for a small chance at all times, imo. Better that than a guaranteed chance you may miss because you sleep. I can imagine missing a guaranteed chance for one because you had to sleep after waiting for days would be more frustrating than any kind of RNG farming badluck.

[Ryme]

There needs to be a way that F2Pers can attain these (aside from log-in rewards) for a small chance at all times, imo. Better that than a guaranteed chance you may miss because you sleep. I can imagine missing a guaranteed chance for one because you had to sleep after waiting for days would be more frustrating than any kind of RNG farming badluck.

Which is why I think the reward needs to be randomly determined at the end of a mission, and not just set in stone when the mission originally comes up. At least then you would have a purpose to play all the alert missions that come up, as opposed to just checking the forums to see when you should log in.

[Volume]

"Crap, I need that" brings out the potential in free players, converting them to paying players. Paying players are potential unlocked. This is a good thing.

"I need that" makes a player say "Game is P2W in general, I don't want to be forced to pay to advance, I've hit the F2P wall, and I don't care anymore."

It makes the player reevaluate their experience before committing money to it.

[Blatantfool]

Which is why I think the reward needs to be randomly determined at the end of a mission, and not just set in stone when the mission originally comes up. At least then you would have a purpose to play all the alert missions that come up, as opposed to just checking the forums to see when you should log in.

Still solves nothing. Instead you get on and constantly find yourself wasting time for a Jaw Sword BP or Steel Charge.

Absolutely useless. At least when people can tell you it lets you decide if it is worth the effort.

[KGeddon]

Give me an example of a F2P game that is legitimately P2W while also being considered a successful game.

It is one thing for you to claim something like that, it is another to have evidence of it you could easily show someone else.

Games with exploitative Cash shops either fail quickly or fall to a very low population count and hover there, often seeing new players come in but only extremely rarely retaining these newcomers. Having servers that can barely be considered populated is not success.

I'll not doubt they exist, I know they do. But I think you are talking out of your &#! to claim any of these games would be considered successful outside of some Facebook/IOS game or smalltime Korean Grindfest made on a 25$ budget.

Collectible card games.

edit::Also, lookup Mobage, owned by DeNA.

Edited January 28, 2013 by KGeddon