https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B-dhpHA30UtQX244Y0EtcllpN0U *edit to fix the link, it should appear in black on white now. Here is an abridged version of the above document for people who don't want to read it but still want to comment on it. I think it's important we let SOE know what we think of their pricing model and how it is affecting us as a community. The game is fun. We can banter about gameplay and balance all we want but that's only one aspect to making this game successful. Though I admit some discussion of gameplay does crop up. It is relevant to the topic at hand. This is the abridged version of a much longer essay. · Planetside 2 needs X amount of players playing Y hours to pay Z dollars per hours played in order to make reasonable profits. · I theorize that people make purchases of any form of entertainment roughly based on the idea of: money in to fun out. · Planetside 2 has a very poor ratio of money in to fun out due to a cognitive dissonance created by high gun prices with little perceived benefit. · To fix this SOE should make guns a hook. Selling them for between $1-3 should see an increase in gun sales. · The benefit of increased gun sales is that it gets people invested in the game. The greater the sense of enfranchisement players feel by putting money into the game, the more likely they are to stick around · No MMO can survive without a massive player base, especially this one. · It should lead to more aesthetic sales as people grow more use to the idea of spending money on the game. · There should be a “drop” system. Players should receive a free item every time they level up. At low levels free stuff will come quickly but that slows down the higher they get. See Dota 2. · Utilize Steam Workshop to have player created models, emblems, voice work and even custom interfaces (as approved by SOE). · Rested XP anyone? · Try and promote the resource bonus implants. Sell them cheaply at certain time intervals that give you better return for your $ for longer time periods of XP/Cert Boost. · I’m not really sure how to reconcile Premium Membership with a good F2P model. I think with some tweaks to how F2P works it might as well be axed.
Guns don't need a decrease in price, they need to be diversified so that one can actually see bigger playstyle changes, creating incentive to buy new weapons. You could keep a gun at $7 if it noticeably changed the way you played. The issue is that infantry guns have extremely minor differences between them to the point where people need to break out the spreadsheets to actually find the difference. So really, dropping the price isn't going to make sales jump the way you think they might. I can almost guarantee you'd see the exact same number of sales regardless of the price difference, which of course means "same number of sales + lowered price point = lower total revenue." Regarding things like the "Steam Workshop," or Sony's own "Player Studio," there are plans for emblems and such. As for models, the guns are made up of nine unique parts and SOE needs to create a pipeline for getting that out to people so that they can start creating their own models; until that happens, or if that doesn't happen, there won't be any player-made weapon models. Disagreed on the drop system. Sorry, that's a bad idea for a game like this. It doesn't spur purchases in any way.
Pretty much this. Though I really don't see how this can be done without combining the different traits each faction has. NC with hard hitting, TR with fast shooting, and so on. Atm we all have shotguns (I don't use them and have no idea how similar they are). I like the variety we all have.
Drop system isn't helpful without allowing player trading. Although if you did allow player trading, that opens up a whole new window of possibilities for this game. And something needs to be done to improve Free Player experience - the people who spend no money on the game. Call them cheap/greedy/whatever, but the fact is that they are not sticking around and leaving in droves. SOE's F2P model needs to compete with the more generous F2P models offered by competitors.
This is brilliant. Many cheap guns is going to get people hooked. Granted, this will mean that SOE might need to hire 1 more guy to design more items, guns and aesthetics however. This as well. F2P players are always going to be a large amount of players in F2P games, so keeping them hooked is absolutely essential for the game. If we lose most of our free players, it will also diminish the gaming experience for our paying players.
I think there are plenty of play style changes between the guns, though I admit I haven't played with some of them since beta. For instance, the standard TR rifle is definitely inferior in CQC to the RF-3. The RF-3 reminded me very much of the AEK-971 from BF3 if you're familiar. It's not a ranged weapon but it's a face melter up close if you can handle it. You are right that in many cases a spreadsheet is nice to really see the difference but what I'm saying is this: No matter what the "superior" guns will exist. Symthic.com will pry out the data and there will be definite "duds" and "winners". I'm arguing for a pricing model that makes those "duds" more appealing. Sticking with BF3 as an example, the AUGa3 is a fun gun to use but statistically it's middle of the pack. Is it fun to use? Yes, I like the look and feel of the gun and it's usable. Is it competitive? No. Would I buy its equivalent in PS2? For the right price. What I'm really advocating here is that the guns aren't really there to make money for SOE. They're there to get people used to buying stuff in game. They're small commitments with more rewarding outcomes. The current prices I believe makes them too big of a commitment. As for the drop system. It isn't necessarily about spurring purchases, it's about rewarding the players who are playing the game totally for free as another poster has mentioned. You're not exactly giving away a lot of items, you can simply make the drop chance give away more generic things with very small chances of better drops the higher the level. I am hesitant to suggest a trading system but I think it might actually be a good thing. It would essentially allow gifting of store bought items to friends (or potentially drops). That's something that might need a bit of market research on SOE's part.
/signed x2 · Planetside 2 needs X amount of players playing Y hours to pay Z dollars per hours played in order to make reasonable profits. · I theorize that people make purchases of any form of entertainment roughly based on the idea of: money in to fun out. · Planetside 2 has a very poor ratio of money in to fun out due to a cognitive dissonance created by high gun prices with little perceived benefit. · To fix this SOE should make guns a hook. Selling them for between $1-3 should see an increase in gun sales. · The benefit of increased gun sales is that it gets people invested in the game. The greater the sense of enfranchisement players feel by putting money into the game, the more likely they are to stick around · No MMO can survive without a massive player base, especially this one. ^^^ This x1000000000
Well to be fair the guns will be ~$3 on the 21st due to the x3 sale And alot of your points are theory, so it's your theory against the market research that SOE did . Give it time (3 months) before any changes to the payment model will be made
Pricing of weapons need to reflect the cost of certs. I dont understand why a weapon is 250 certs and still 700 sc while a 1000cert weapon is also 700sc.
Yea but you only notice that the 3x station cash comes out to mean that the guns are $3 because we're on topic. Most users see 700sc and realize how much that translates to in the usual dollar conversion. It creates a dissonance when you think of paying $7 for a digital weapon you use situationally on one server for one character. As for their market research, yes I realize that they have people dedicated to this and that they probably hired a professional company to discern demographic and pricing models but their pricing suggests to me they are using a "skimming" strategy whereas I propose "penetration" strategy. My disagreement comes down to what will promote growth. I beleive (perhaps incorrectly) that quantity of transactions beats quality in terms of an MMOF2P. I am afraid that the higher pricing model designed to target a few users is actually alienating new users who may one day be paying customers, but feel the barrier is too high. They are no doubt aware of this potential problem and probably think that their model is set in such a way as to avoid discouraging new purchasers. But my personal response and the anecdotal response I get from peers is that the pricing is too high. Perhaps I am wrong. But I haven't used a dime of my station cash because I really don't see the value. Normally you could chalk this up to me being stingey but I preinvested $60 into this game: I'm determined to get $60 out of it.
Luckily, all weapons will be selling for 66% off this Friday (in effect)! That means that all guns will be cheaper than $2.50, and if you throw in the Walmart bonus and wait for a daily deal on a specific weapon then each weapon will cost less than $1.
I like sales, sales are good. But seasonal sales on these things make it harder for players who start up after the new year to get into the game because everything is generally expensive. A lot of stores and games rely on the holiday season to support themselves and I suppose it's not a bad strategy for PS2 to do so, especially with its MMO growing pains. If only purchases were more reliable. I would have really liked to have seen account bound purchases for common pool and faction specific items at launch. Right now I hesitate to buy anything because it's still up in the air as to where I'll end up. Also with guns being steadily released I hesitate to buy something now with the possibility that in the future, a better gun might replace it (for us try hards anyway). I seriously hope SOE stops making guns soon. I know that sounds crazy but guns really shouldn't be the cash making priority. And by guns I mean infantry and vehicle weapons. It's a pain to balance what you have and you can't possibly make THAT many guns viable for various situations.
I don't care. I'm only willing to pay $10 a month for full access to all features as I see fit, or an outright purchase of $50 for the game with full access to features. Its fine to have leveling and have access to new weapons and features as one progresses, but within a reasonable amount and ability to do so... not 1000 per gun... wf/ever. Madness. This is not World of Warcraft, there are no quests, no path to follow, its a glorified deathmatch. Charging $7 for a digital set of mathematical values is ******** and is outright highway robbery, and I will never do it. If this is not acceptable, perhaps this gaming model is not for me, and I'm going to have to pass.
Nice try, but your money isn't counted as unearned revenue. You seem to misunderstand what business SOE is in, I suggest you read the EULA/TOS. You're not buying virtual items. You're buying magical fairie points, and SOE could care less if you never ever "spend" them on anything in game. Their job is to sell you smed bucks, and you bought smed bucks. Next time you want to vote with your wallet and you're unhappy about something, abstain from giving them real money.
Well thought, an similar in line to what I currently feel about the SC shop. Overpriced, lowers incentive to spend/buy. Especially on many of the cosmetics like camo+decals. 5$ for a poor decal or 7$ for a flashy decal.. meh.
More affordable guns for variety would be nice Cheap guns now are just a gimmick of your starter weapon
@Entity: Yea I actually kind of hear you on the F2P model but it is what it is. I wouldn't have had a problem dropping a subscription for full access or straight up $60. But generally I think the F2P model encourages more users to try the game and this game most definitely thrives on having massive numbers of people. @NOX2097 I put in a vote of confidence with Alpha squad and the extra $20 on 3x SC. What I didn't realize and why I spent time writing that thing was because I felt like I paid for a new console game but only got a demo of one. I will not be partaking in the 3x station cash event coming up as a result. You're probably right about the unearned revenue part. I was more or less pointing out that they haven't earned the money I spent on them and thus they would have to earn it before I would be willing to spend more.
A game gets massive numbers of people due to word of mouth, not just simply opening up a public beta testing version of your game. Counterstrike was successful for years, and garnered many loyal Valve customers, because it was a solid game, period, and word got around "I'm playing Counterstrike, man, you gotta come play". If you think about it, truly.. Is this model holding up? My friends are waiting for my opinion right now, and dabbling in it themselves - and guess what, they're not playing it tonite (their second night) when I logged on. THats' not a good sign, lol.
