lordrichter wrote: »

I have very little respect for the "free games" that I have played. They might be entertaining, for a while, but they always fail to close the deal. It does not matter to me what the intentions of the developers are, they simply fail to make a game that deserves my attention. If they are not confident enough of their abilities to be able to make a game that people will buy, why should I be interested in that game? *emphasis mine -Phinix

The problem with increasingly "Free to Play" micro-transaction cash shop business models isn't the people who dislike or complain about micro-transaction business models, it is that micro-transaction business models are fundamentally insecure, unreliable, and generally BAD investments in the long-term.

The number one reason however does center on PUBLIC IMAGE.

This is HUGELY important in a micro-transaction market. Since it isn't a one-time all or nothing payment you NEED to encourage people to want to spend money, and not just that but to want to come back and spend MORE money next month. So, it is much more important that players don't get a sense of being misled or taken advantage of because you rely on those future micro-transactions as part of your revenue model.

If people are left with a bad taste in the subscription model, they lose ALL access to the game, their in-game friends, characters, EVERYTHING. In a micro-transaction model, at least in the case of ESO, you still get to play the game, any expansions/DLC you bought, AND you have full access to the community and friends you socialize with in-game.

That means it is MUCH easier to say "well, I just won't pay then" since you still get all this other stuff. "Just not paying" is far less an option in a sub game where you lose it all. So, it is much more important (and difficult) for a micro-transaction game to encourage players to WANT to spend money without totally strong-arming them with content gating and feature-disabling that Free to Play games extensively rely on, and which ultimately ruins the fun and the image of the people running the game as a respectable company worth investing in moving forward.

Nothing will foul a customer to your product quicker than the sense of being taken advantage of. It is "fool me once" syndrome. Also, many of the tactics inevitably adopted by the Free to Play model, including real money gambling items where you literally don't know what you are getting for your money, are directly responsible for this souring of public perception and for good reason. They are scummy and cheap and take advantage of people with a compulsive need for validation.

There is a reason most veteran gamers consider Free to Play the "death cycle for MMO's." It is unsustainable in the long-term due to exponentially increasing burnout combined with less buzz and so less influx of new players. It then stands to reason that it would ONLY be resorted to for short-term money grabs by small companies or as a way for big companies to "park" a game they were basically done with anyway and continue to generate back-burner revenue with minimal future development.

Ergo, a model to be adopted at the END of a game's life cycle (and only then if you didn't care about dragging your company name through the dirt), but EXTREMELY risky as an actual operating model for a major studio to adopt de facto.

For years industry jingoists have been pushing F2P/B2P micro-transaction models as "the new way to do things," but in reality it inevitably turns out to be an unnecessary complication of a simple, reliable revenue stream that subscription games like World of Warcraft offer, one that creates a hostile and adversarial atmosphere of constant status-affirming competition, posturing, envy, and resentment, which greatly diminishes immersion and a sense of community and enjoyment.

It makes maintaining a reliable income stream MUCH more difficult, exponentially so proportional to the time the game runs as each new wave burns out on being milked, gamed, and excluded. This is also why these type of games are typically much shorter running or move to the "minimal content and maintenance" phase much more quickly than more reliable models.

This all centers on this core variable of PUBLIC IMAGE: The perception of value and a good investment, of "what I get for my money" that is WHY players will come back and spend on micro-transaction market again and again. Yet so many of these jingoist marketing grads pushing the micro-transaction model seemingly fail or flatly refuse to consider this entire aspect of the business equation.

The real question is, WHY ARE AAA COMPANIES HIRING THESE PEOPLE?

lordrichter wrote: »

Phinix1 wrote: »

The real question is, WHY ARE AAA COMPANIES HIRING THESE PEOPLE?

Are they? Not sure what you consider to be a AAA studio.

Well, I will have to do some research now, but I saw a post earlier claiming the person responsible for introducing the gambling crates to ESO, a blatantly F2P-style gimmick, is actually one of the industry veterans at F2P conversions.

I consider Zenimax to be a AAA company, mostly due to the Elder Scrolls and Fallout franchise.

But baring WoW you would be hard pressed to find a single MMO today that hasn't fallen prey to the fad of the moment F2P tactics, even if it is just creeping in a bit at a time into B2P or subscription games.

The market has a saturation point for this sort of shenanigans. Sooner or later MMO's will have to start focusing on quality content rather than cheap gimmicks as no one will fall for it anymore and they won't be able to turn a profit making entire games just for the handful of people that will throw obscene amounts of money at them as a charity just because they can.

And really, why would they? All the gimmicks and schemes of F2P games really aren't very much fun.

I called it going B2P at launch, and I wasn't wrong. I think between that, the cash shop, and the wealth of new content in 2016, the game is on exactly the path it needs to be on. Making it totally F2P incentivizes ZOS to put more stupid *** like $40 Elk Mounts in the game, and that is something neither we nor they need.

Lylith wrote: »

schwarzman1 wrote: »

I wish it was sub only

i couldn't agree more.

Same here.