How monetization is done wrong...
For clarity this is the etra credit video about F2P game.
But gw2 is a b2p game with cosmetic pay. It doesn’t fall under the category of this video because you already payed the money upfront to enjoy the game.
Most people who played the game have 1k+ hours, and that’s alot coming from the original $60 they paid. Now you have people who only need to pay $10-20 for the same game.
Hell, FTL and Rogue Legacy are probably one of the best games of last year and I only got in 60 hours per those.
We need to get over this distinction. If anything, the BtP model means that people are MORE sensitive to poor monetization in the RL store.
The overall point of this video is what retail has known for years, making things that make it fun to part with your money means more will come and do just that.
The overall point ….is what retail has known for years, making things that make it fun to part with your money means more will come and do just that.
And apparently, ANet has done well in that regard, since they continue to make money from the gem shop.
I’m not against ANet doing even better with the offerings, in terms of pricing and selection and how they influence how much fun we have. But for now, they seem to have done quite well in terms of profit.
There are a number of likely reasons that some players (even a sizable number) might be unhappy with the gem shop, but that’s very different from saying “monetization is done wrong” for this game.
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
The overall point ….is what retail has known for years, making things that make it fun to part with your money means more will come and do just that.
And apparently, ANet has done well in that regard, since they continue to make money from the gem shop.
I’m not against ANet doing even better with the offerings, in terms of pricing and selection and how they influence how much fun we have. But for now, they seem to have done quite well in terms of profit.
There are a number of likely reasons that some players (even a sizable number) might be unhappy with the gem shop, but that’s very different from saying “monetization is done wrong” for this game.
Only unhappy that there’s been such a lack of ingame rewarding items since launch compared to the gemstore. I’m not saying these two things are related, but it does make you feel like more of the new fun stuff is hidden behind gems.
The overall point ….is what retail has known for years, making things that make it fun to part with your money means more will come and do just that.
And apparently, ANet has done well in that regard, since they continue to make money from the gem shop.
I’m not against ANet doing even better with the offerings, in terms of pricing and selection and how they influence how much fun we have. But for now, they seem to have done quite well in terms of profit.
There are a number of likely reasons that some players (even a sizable number) might be unhappy with the gem shop, but that’s very different from saying “monetization is done wrong” for this game.
Only unhappy that there’s been such a lack of ingame rewarding items since launch compared to the gemstore. I’m not saying these two things are related, but it does make you feel like more of the new fun stuff is hidden behind gems.
seriously… gem store is fun?
The overall point ….is what retail has known for years, making things that make it fun to part with your money means more will come and do just that.
And apparently, ANet has done well in that regard, since they continue to make money from the gem shop.
I’m not against ANet doing even better with the offerings, in terms of pricing and selection and how they influence how much fun we have. But for now, they seem to have done quite well in terms of profit.
There are a number of likely reasons that some players (even a sizable number) might be unhappy with the gem shop, but that’s very different from saying “monetization is done wrong” for this game.
a good monetization plan gives you the most money, while improving the user desire to spend, at the same time providing what you need to keep your product viable in the long run.
That of course would be measured in different levels of success, but simply making money does not mean you have a great monetization plan. If you have a product in demand, any where below its price point, you will make money, that doesnt mean you are maximizing earnings, and giving the product a strong sustainable ability to earn
When I watch this video I see the opposite from what the OP sees. I feel that the game mostly is doing what they suggest, making players want to spend money because of the convenience/cosmetic aspects of the cash shop. Sure we have boosters and RNG grab bags but there’s a reason the Gold to Gem rates spike when new armor/outfit is released. We had a small kick up in rates when the finishers were put on sale. Remember that the Gold to Gem crowd represents the paupers and Scrooges out there and not the player who doesn’t mind dropping cash for gems. There’s a reason most everything at the shop is 800 gems or less and it’s because that’s only $10.
ANet made around $20 million last quarter in sales on the model of people voluntarily paying them. Not a monthly commitment they forgot to cancel. Sure some of that was box sales but I’ll wager 75% or more is from gem purchases.
As for failure case one from that episode, that by not paying the game is more interesting, that might be true with boosters but there is no real shortcuts for sale in our cash shop. You can’t buy better gear. You can’t buy achievements (well you indirectly can now with the BL Collections but it’s not that many point for the money you would have to spend) short of Golden. You can’t buy a level to 80 token or buy a pile of dungeon currency or unlock all way points for sweet, sweet lucre.
And the video’s 2nd failure condition, change for everything is clearly not being done either. There isn’t any content that we are locked out of unless we pay. And that’s the advantage of B2P, we all sort of already ponied up that cost up front.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
(edited by Behellagh.1468)
ya anyway, I know the author of extra credit is a game designer, but I’m not sure why he get so much credit.
Besides you have a bunch of people linking his video and says GW2 is terrible because they dont’ follow extra credit, and you have a bunch of people linking his video and says GW2 is great because they follow his video…
All I can say is the eyes sees what they want to see…
For clarity this is the etra credit video about F2P game.
But gw2 is a b2p game with cosmetic pay. It doesn’t fall under the category of this video because you already payed the money upfront to enjoy the game.
Most people who played the game have 1k+ hours, and that’s alot coming from the original $60 they paid. Now you have people who only need to pay $10-20 for the same game.
Hell, FTL and Rogue Legacy are probably one of the best games of last year and I only got in 60 hours per those.
I don’t understand where your distinction has anything to do with the topic. In any game with a store, it makes more sense to offer items that people actively want to buy than things they feel they have to buy or things they don’t buy at all.
That said, Roybe needs to be more specific regarding how he believes GW2 isn’t following this tenet. Many people do like to purchase things from the store.
it’s this luck based mystic toilet that we’re all so sick of flushing our money down. -Salamol
The funny thing is, Extra Credit’s free to play playlist down the side does have an appropriate video – metrics.
I’d forgotten how good Extra Credits can be. Might have to watch some more of them soon. Drives me crazy when people link to a video though and say “This is what’s wrong with ____!” without offering more of their own thoughts in the same post.
I’d like to second basically everything Behellagh said. The non-paying game doesn’t feel crippled the way a bad F2P game does. Speaking personally, there’s nothing I feel I have to buy to have a fulfilling experience, other than the base game.
People are always complaining that we don’t get new content (usually armor sets) because it goes in the gem store, and while not 100% true, I think that also hints at a wrong way of approaching a B2P game. It’s not a subscription model, where I pay constantly to get new content constantly added into the base game. I paid once, expecting to get everything in the base game when I bought it, plus some festivals, because that’s an expected part of the genre. I don’t expect new armor suits to be added to vendors / crafters / drop tables on a 1:1 basis with the gem store. Someone’s got to pay for that stuff, and I’m sure the money I put into the game initially is long gone.
(Possibly spent on the Living Story updates, which I’ve generally enjoyed rather a lot.)
~The Storyteller – Elementalist – Jade Quarry~
ya anyway, I know the author of extra credit is a game designer, but I’m not sure why he get so much credit.
Besides you have a bunch of people linking his video and says GW2 is terrible because they dont’ follow extra credit, and you have a bunch of people linking his video and says GW2 is great because they follow his video…
All I can say is the eyes sees what they want to see…
Well that was interesting. Thread got moved while reading it.
Anyways Extra Credits at least tries to inform people about game design and theory. It’s no different than a non-developer reading Gamasutra or reading general books on video game design.
It’s a series of 5-7 minute videos with a clever art style talking about the a myriad of aspects about game design. Sure it’s one person’s point of view but one person who’s been in the belly of the beast and not just a coder but as a designer. Insights, like metrics, is open to interpretation and while you might not agree with the conclusions, it does present the choices that go into game design. It’s not a review show.
We are heroes. This is what we do!
RIP City of Heroes
RIP City of Heroes
The overall point ….is what retail has known for years, making things that make it fun to part with your money means more will come and do just that.
And apparently, ANet has done well in that regard, since they continue to make money from the gem shop.
I’m not against ANet doing even better with the offerings, in terms of pricing and selection and how they influence how much fun we have. But for now, they seem to have done quite well in terms of profit.
There are a number of likely reasons that some players (even a sizable number) might be unhappy with the gem shop, but that’s very different from saying “monetization is done wrong” for this game.
a good monetization plan gives you the most money, while improving the user desire to spend, at the same time providing what you need to keep your product viable in the long run.
That of course would be measured in different levels of success, but simply making money does not mean you have a great monetization plan. If you have a product in demand, any where below its price point, you will make money, that doesnt mean you are maximizing earnings, and giving the product a strong sustainable ability to earn
I agree with everything you said. I just don’t think we have any metrics about whether they are close or far from “maximizing” earnings or maintaining customer loyalty. I wouldn’t choose to do a lot of things they have done, but then again, I can’t see the context in which those decisions are made.
All we can go by is whether they have been successful in selling enough gems to continue to offer the game as originally intended: evolving world, B2P, and no traditional expansions. Since, to-date, that’s what they are delivering, I conclude that they are “successful” by the metrics important to them (and their corporate sponsors at NCSOFT).
John Smith: “you should kill monsters, because killing monsters is awesome.”
My apologies for not putting in my 2 cents on this. I do feel that the GW2 gem store is a good thing. However, they are not utilizing it in a fashion that is maximizing it and in a certain light is actually using it incorrectly. The maximization part is related to this video is the idea that there could be huge profits made IF there was more items like the box of fun, something already sold. Things that have little or no inherent use to the owner, but fosters greater community involvement. Bobble headed tonic and the water balloon fight are others. These are great implementations of the idea and need to occur with more frequency.
Although I agree that cosmetic items (skins of armors) offer no ‘advantage’ to the game to other players, they do create a level of friction between players. They are a constant reminder to some that the game reward system is influenced by the gem store, otherwise the various game skins featured in the store would be available through the game or remain within the store perpetually. Yes, I am aware that one can use in game gold for this, however, many times the availability time is so short for the skins, that this is not physically possible to generate the gold within the amount of time.
Another problem, tied to this, is that this game’s end game is about the skins…we all love to play dress up. This endgame is in general, gated through the store. Again, with in game gold this leads to people trying to maximize their time and gold earning by champ farming, speed running the dungeons, etc. Again, these are not the only reasons people do these things, nor are they always a problem to the game at large, but people setting the goals of getting store items with gold are playing to avoid the monetary system, is one of the points of the video.