What Payment Model is most fair to Gamers and Developers?

[Flatlander]

Hi Everyone,
I want to start a discussion about paying for video games.

I want to include Micro-Transactions, DLC/Seasons Passes, Expansion Packs, and Single-Payment.

First I want to explain my opinions on them:
Single Payment:
This used to be the only way to buy games. You paid to buy a CD or Disk. Took the game home from the store, and you played the game.
Pros:

• Generates a lot of day 1 income (Then income slows to almost nothing)
• Guaranteed the Developer received money for their games most of the time.
• You received a Hard-Copy of the game you could re-sell if you wanted.

Cons:

• Bad for online games that the Developers manage their own servers. (You need constant income to keep updating, patching, and hosting servers for a game)
• If your game broke, disk got scratched, or you lost your game, you'd have to buy a new one. (I believe I bought 4 copies of Starcraft, and 2 copies of Diablo II due to these issues)

Expansion Packs:
These were basically the first "DLC". Some online games generated a huge amount of players on the PC. So developers would offer expansions to the game to keep it alive and fresh. Players GLADLY bought these expansions because they offered new and exciting content to a game they already loved.
Pros:

• Offered new content to expand popular games.
• Generated additional income for developers to keep Online Games alive.

Cons:

• Expansions were usually released years apart (There had to be enough content to be worth $20-$60 or no customer would buy it)
• Everything was packed in one, so for example, I don't play the Single-Player Campaign of Starcraft, but I am forced to pay for it because it is included with the expansion.
• Divided the Community. Players without the Expansion Pack would be "left behind" and unable to play with friends who bought the expansion pack.

DLC/Season Passes:
Once the internet was fast, Developers found out they could release smaller Expansions, and customers only needed to pay for the things they wanted. No longer would customers be forced to buy a Single-Player Campaign if they only wanted Multiplayer content, or vice-versa.

Pros:

• Customers can pay for only the items they want.
• A lot of the time, you can play with others who have DLC, even if you haven't paid for it. (You do not have to own the DLC, to play WITH others that have the DLC most of the time)
• Developers get to see which items generate the most money, and focus on what their customers actually want. (If they design a cool outfit, and a new map, and everyone buys the outfit and ignores the map, they know to stop making maps and make more outfits)

Cons:

• Some (VERY FEW) Developers abused DLC to try to get extra money for the same content.
• DLC quickly got a bad name for itself, and now any game with DLC is labeled as a "Cash Grab"
• Some DLC would not allow you to play with your friends (Most newer games fixed this issue).

MicroTransactions:
Micro-transactions are very small payments to help you advance in a game. It usually will skip a timer, give an extra life, or give you a chest/pack that includes random game items. These aren't always bad, unless they create a Pay 2 Win environment. Some games allow you to pay to progress. Meaning players are encouraged to pay money to "win". (Expecially bad in online games, where players would pay thousands of dollars to become a very powerful player)

Pros:

• Constant income generated by players allowing developer to support their game as long as it is active.
• Players who have a lot of income, can pay as much as they want, to support the developer more. (Whales can generate a huge amount of income)

Cons:

• Gameplay is often unfair. Since players who pay more money are generally stronger.
• Some players feel compelled to continue to pay for more power, often causing them to use money they shouldn't. (Almost like Gambling)

 

[Xikini]

Single Payment: Only Good for strictly single player games.
Expansion Packs: Good to keep a game fresh. Annoying in the longer run, for both players and developers.
DLC/Season Passes: Assuming the Developers don't abuse the DLC situation, and the DLC's/Season Passes are not mandatory, this is a nice option, and can be the most flexible for both developers and players.
MicroTransactions: Terrible for the players that get sucked in, however insanely easy to generate profit for the developer. Often times the game goes up and down in popularity every 1-2 months, for about 1-2 years, then dies completely.

 

[Flatlander]

Single Payment: Only Good for strictly single player games.
Expansion Packs: Good to keep a game fresh. Annoying in the longer run, for both players and developers.
DLC/Season Passes: Assuming the Developers don't abuse the DLC situation, and the DLC's/Season Passes are not mandatory, this is a nice option, and can be the most flexible for both developers and players.
MicroTransactions: Terrible for the players that get sucked in, however insanely easy to generate profit for the developer. Often times the game goes up and down in popularity every 1-2 months, for about 1-2 years, then dies completely.

I made this post because I seem to find people who think all games should be free (except for cosmetics) when I talk about gaming everywhere on the internet.

When a game is coming out and stats "Will have DLC". Gaming Journalist start writing hate blogs and bashing the game for being a money-grab, and many gamers join in and also say "We should boycott games that have DLC" etc.

I wondered what opinions people here in the Otland community hold, and I'd like to find the reason so many people think they DESERVE free games.

 

[Xikini]

Free games = micro-transactions.
micro-transactions = almost always a money grab

Maybe I'm just too old to care about free games any longer.
When I was younger, I would download cracked games, movies, et cetera once I learned how.
I was broke, my parents couldn't afford to buy me games, and I didn't want to go outside.
After awhile I started to shy away from any games that required you to pay for them.
Every mmorpg was a cash grab. To get around the cash-grab situation, I'd use unofficial tools, to "level the playing field".
After that, I ended up wanting more power, to keep up with more experienced players, and started using all tools available to me, including money to get the "op" gear/weapons, along with the unofficial tools.

You start realizing that the games become dull and boring, and you yourself don't feel like you've accomplished anything.
Sure, you were the best, and without the tools, you were in the top 90% of players, but you still shortcut-ted your success.

At this point, you get a new perspective, and go to to the start, and cycle your way through to realizing your broke, and become picky-choosy about the games you play.

Single payment games, and expansion packs, are basically the same thing.
Large amount of money for 1 game.
You either research the game after it's come out, and buy it when your certain it's a good game..
or
You buy it as soon as it comes out, so you won't fall behind other players, and hope it's a good game.

I already know almost micro-transaction games are bad, so you either find one that looks entertaining, and only buy the required micro-transactions to be a 'free to play' player, or you just avoid them.

DLC/Season Passes, for single payment games, are basically just another word for expansion pack.
DLC/Season Passes for free to play games, usually mean more content, and possibly more items et cetera that will only be obtained through other players. Sometimes pay-to-win, sometimes not.
Season Pass games for free to play games, is basically the same as above, however if you don't have the season pass, you'll be left far behind other players.

DLC/microtransactions, without season passes, is usually a free-to-play mmorpg, that focuses on cosmetics for their primary income source.
This is a good option for some games, where they don't want pay-to-win features.

At this point, you either see yourself as a filthy casual or competitive player.
Casual gamers will jump around and try out new games and genres.
Competitive players will often stick to one game, and invest heavily into it.

Casual gamers are the cash-cow of your game.
Competitive players will be your actual player base, and a good majority of them will pay some money as well.

From a competitive gamers perspective, they want a fair game with no pay-to-win features.
From a casual gamers perspective, they want a fun but fair game, even if they are not good at the game.
Coming from a competitive adolescent viewpoint, they want a game that they can win at.
Coming from an adolescent viewpoint, they want a game that is fun.

From my viewpoint, somewhere between a competitive player and a casual gamer at this point, I have no qualms paying for content to pass my free time.
While I won't play games that have explicit pay-to-win features, I don't mind indulging some cash to make my progress through the casual gamer portion of the game a bit quicker.
I will also buy single player games. If the game has multiplayer features (often a selling point for me), I will buy some DLC/season passes/expansion packs as well, if my friends enjoy the game.
Being somewhere in the middle, I will sometimes get a good spark, and play competitively in games for a month or so, and will often buy cosmetics to make me stand out a bit.


"When a game is coming out and stats "Will have DLC". Gaming Journalist start writing hate blogs and bashing the game for being a money-grab, and many gamers join in and also say "We should boycott games that have DLC" etc."
Just view this as free advertising. the Journalist knows that bad reviews of good games will get them more money.
Gamers who comment on these posts are immature kids/adults, or the game IS actually a cash-grab pay-to-win hot garbage fest, and should be avoided at all costs.
While emotional articles will bring extra comments, increasing the 3% of your playerbase to around 7-10% of your potential playerbase posting, realize that that is what these articles want to happen.
They write these articles to elicit an emotional response from the viewer. Think about these articles like facebook. The entire premise of facebook is make people feel wanted by keeping them emotionally attached to the platform.
Emotional responses give you the most views and comments. Period.
The people who view the article will either post an emotional response, will research the game to see what the hype is about, or will just "meh" and move on to the next article.
Of the whatever% of people who go researching the game, a small portion of them will try your game.
Free advertising.

---------

Basically it comes down to this triangle.

Time.
Quality.
Money.

You can choose two.

Time + Quality | Less cash-flow for the developer.
Quality + Money | Large amount of time invested.
Money + Time | Less quality into your product.

Of course, there is many middle grounds, as you can stretch your triangle slightly in each direction, but the basis still stands.

That's my perspective.

 

[owned]

Free games = micro-transactions.
micro-transactions = almost always a money grab

Maybe I'm just too old to care about free games any longer.
When I was younger, I would download cracked games, movies, et cetera once I learned how.
I was broke, my parents couldn't afford to buy me games, and I didn't want to go outside.
After awhile I started to shy away from any games that required you to pay for them.
Every mmorpg was a cash grab. To get around the cash-grab situation, I'd use unofficial tools, to "level the playing field".
After that, I ended up wanting more power, to keep up with more experienced players, and started using all tools available to me, including money to get the "op" gear/weapons, along with the unofficial tools.

You start realizing that the games become dull and boring, and you yourself don't feel like you've accomplished anything.
Sure, you were the best, and without the tools, you were in the top 90% of players, but you still shortcut-ted your success.

At this point, you get a new perspective, and go to to the start, and cycle your way through to realizing your broke, and become picky-choosy about the games you play.

Single payment games, and expansion packs, are basically the same thing.
Large amount of money for 1 game.
You either research the game after it's come out, and buy it when your certain it's a good game..
or
You buy it as soon as it comes out, so you won't fall behind other players, and hope it's a good game.

I already know almost micro-transaction games are bad, so you either find one that looks entertaining, and only buy the required micro-transactions to be a 'free to play' player, or you just avoid them.

DLC/Season Passes, for single payment games, are basically just another word for expansion pack.
DLC/Season Passes for free to play games, usually mean more content, and possibly more items et cetera that will only be obtained through other players. Sometimes pay-to-win, sometimes not.
Season Pass games for free to play games, is basically the same as above, however if you don't have the season pass, you'll be left far behind other players.

DLC/microtransactions, without season passes, is usually a free-to-play mmorpg, that focuses on cosmetics for their primary income source.
This is a good option for some games, where they don't want pay-to-win features.

At this point, you either see yourself as a filthy casual or competitive player.
Casual gamers will jump around and try out new games and genres.
Competitive players will often stick to one game, and invest heavily into it.

Casual gamers are the cash-cow of your game.
Competitive players will be your actual player base, and a good majority of them will pay some money as well.

From a competitive gamers perspective, they want a fair game with no pay-to-win features.
From a casual gamers perspective, they want a fun but fair game, even if they are not good at the game.
Coming from a competitive adolescent viewpoint, they want a game that they can win at.
Coming from an adolescent viewpoint, they want a game that is fun.

From my viewpoint, somewhere between a competitive player and a casual gamer at this point, I have no qualms paying for content to pass my free time.
While I won't play games that have explicit pay-to-win features, I don't mind indulging some cash to make my progress through the casual gamer portion of the game a bit quicker.
I will also buy single player games. If the game has multiplayer features (often a selling point for me), I will buy some DLC/season passes/expansion packs as well, if my friends enjoy the game.
Being somewhere in the middle, I will sometimes get a good spark, and play competitively in games for a month or so, and will often buy cosmetics to make me stand out a bit.


"When a game is coming out and stats "Will have DLC". Gaming Journalist start writing hate blogs and bashing the game for being a money-grab, and many gamers join in and also say "We should boycott games that have DLC" etc."
Just view this as free advertising. the Journalist knows that bad reviews of good games will get them more money.
Gamers who comment on these posts are immature kids/adults, or the game IS actually a cash-grab pay-to-win hot garbage fest, and should be avoided at all costs.
While emotional articles will bring extra comments, increasing the 3% of your playerbase to around 7-10% of your potential playerbase posting, realize that that is what these articles want to happen.
They write these articles to elicit an emotional response from the viewer. Think about these articles like facebook. The entire premise of facebook is make people feel wanted by keeping them emotionally attached to the platform.
Emotional responses give you the most views and comments. Period.
The people who view the article will either post an emotional response, will research the game to see what the hype is about, or will just "meh" and move on to the next article.
Of the whatever% of people who go researching the game, a small portion of them will try your game.
Free advertising.

---------

Basically it comes down to this triangle.

Time.
Quality.
Money.

You can choose two.

Time + Quality | Less cash-flow for the developer.
Quality + Money | Large amount of time invested.
Money + Time | Less quality into your product.

Of course, there is many middle grounds, as you can stretch your triangle slightly in each direction, but the basis still stands.

That's my perspective.

Very well said. I agree with this.

 

[RazorBlade]

I voted for single and expansion. Then I changed it to just single payment. For the most part I like to just keep playing and playing and if there's updates to the game, that keeps me open to new adventures. There's no reason beyond making money to charge for those updates. An expansion is just a big update to add a new adventure or a new way to play, but you don't need to charge for it for it to be fun and new. That being said, I don't think it's wrong to charge for expansions or large updates. It works for plenty of games. Something that I like is a game like Hearthstone. They get expansions, and those expansions become somewhat irrelevant (not entirely) after a certain period of time, but those expansions are actually optional, and you don't HAVE to buy them to continue playing while the expansion is live. You just lose out on certain new cards that may improve your experience (entertainment-wise, not necessarily success-wise). I think this is a good model. It's somewhat like DLC or micro-transactions, but because it's not necessarily a permanent benefit, I don't know if I'd consider it to be a pay to play or pay to win type of scenario. I suppose it might be a little weird to use this model in a Tibia-like game or OT, since like.. what would you do, limit people from going to certain cities or areas? Certain universes? It feels like it would just separate your player base. With Hearthstone as the running example, you still get pitted against other players who have the expansion and its benefits/features, even if you haven't purchased it. Much harder to do in a game where the players tend to control their own fates. I think, if we're talking your own game, my best recommendation would be DLC (things like outfits, mounts, maybe new sprites for their items [same item as the original but new look], house decorations, etc. as well as maybe some extra things like a premium account to gain some extra benefits)

If you could come up with a way to allow paid expansions that don't leave the other players behind, but allow those who bought the expansion to still enjoy a load of new content, I think that would be my favourite scenario.