I like this, every time I post there's a new reply,

“I like the idea of the top players recieving a gift for playing well but make it extremely clear that this is not costing average players more.. it's just a bonus.”

Thanks, I'll keep that psychology in mind.

“If payment was determined after a tournament event, you would have issues with disgruntled players not wanting to pay.”

It's actually a larger RTS model- I was just using a tournament style as an example; certainly charging in those ways would be a bit of a hassle. It would, as you mentioned would be better, be more of a discount off future payment than a difference in requirement for immediate payment.

Cheating is also not possible in this game (without hacking into the servers)- this is why it costs so much to run the game, as all game mechanics are done on the servers in addition to the client. (it's difficult to explain in so few words)

Quote:

Original post by BioMors With the exception of newbies, do you feel it would seem particularly unfair for two comparably seasoned players to relate this way?

I know this was the tradition in arcade games, but I'm not sure how well this would go in the on-line world. I'm just not sure whether it is a good business strategy to be offering financial incentives to those who most likely would pay you anyway. Usually you give discounts to people who you think are likely to switch to another company. I can certainly see why you need to provide a benefit to those players that are skilled, but usually they have better equipment and prestige in-game that also count as rewards.

Quote:

I, personally, won't play a game with a free trial for very long, because I know that if I got addicted to it, I'd have to pay a reoccurring payment that I don't care to budget. A game with a short free trial that also promised me either a discount, or entirely free play for being a very skilled player, on the other hand, I might take up out of sheer egotism ;) - it's much the same psychology that makes people play the lottery “maybe I'll win”, but with a bit of skill based gamer ego attached.

I'm sort of the same in a way, although for me it is time more than money; I can't afford to put in the constant time required to maintain my level of prestige in a MMOG. If your game was friendly to the casual MMOG player, then maybe I'd be interested (or I would be, if I had a proper internet connection [smile]).

I don't think only charging the middle ranked players (those who are not on their free trial, but aren't elite) will work either, as there's a financial drop-off between the levels there; won't you end up with some sort of caste system?

I can see endless free play being offered if the game was somehow limited for the free players; for example, if you had a Roman arena MMO game, you can make the paying customers the gladiators and charioteers, and the free players could be the spectators. Your elite players could be rewarded with huge statues of their avatars around the colosseum, which would provide a non-financial benefit which I think would be very enticing to a hardcore player.

Addition: I've been thinking a bit on this (mainly because I can't concentrate on my research paper at the moment, which is what I should be doing). Maybe your system would work if you had a very few select Champions who could play for free. However, to make it work it should be very easy for other good players to challenge these Champions for these positions. Make it a very public event (like a big arena fight in my Roman colosseum example) with the winner taking the position of Champion, and this might work as a big feature of your game to win people over to paying subscriptions. However, I think the system would still work if the benefit was a large statue instead of free play. Also, it would only really appeal to the hardcore, which by definition would not make up the bulk of your customer base.

[Edited by - Trapper Zoid on August 18, 2005 12:06:49 AM]

“Usually you give discounts to people who you think are likely to switch to another company.”

It does sound rather ironic to do it in reverse. What I'm looking to do, primarily, is get as many people exposed to the game as possible- I have a very narrow target audience. If the target audience plays the game, I'm fairly confident they will stick around for a few months- if they don't try it, the player base (out of typical players) will be insignificant.
For sake of the game play, it is also a benefit to attract the most skilled and competitive players- those who might be drawn to the 'play free if you're good enough' method- unskilled players bumbling around brings down the overall quality and enjoyability of a skill based game, so perhaps to discourage them from continuing to play would be a good thing?

“I can certainly see why you need to provide a benefit to those players that are skilled, but usually they have better equipment and prestige in-game that also count as rewards.”

That's true to an extent- mostly, I hope to hook them through what they are building and experiencing in the world. With a game that doesn't use character levels, that might be slightly more difficult though.

“If your game was friendly to the casual MMOG player, then maybe I'd be interested”

This is the target audience- I can't compete with EQ or WOW; that would be foolish. Instead, I intend to cater to the casual 'log on for an hour a day' gamer, who doesn't appreciate level grind. Parents, wives and husbands alike who want to long on for an hour after putting their children to bed, students and employees who want to log on for an hour during their lunch break, and most of all, my theory is that if a monkey could do it, the player shouldn't have to- game design based largely on eliminating any kind of tedious activity. Strategy- it's not a game designed for the feeble minded, or for those who don't appreciate a well developed world.
The intelligent gamers I want to target, however, may not try the game if they can't be reasonably assured that it would be free to them- I'm looking for the gamers who are intelligent enough to be cocky- those who will know that if they pay based on skill, the game will be simple for them to play free (though it may wipe those grins away quickly enough).

The curve I'm considering is more of a flat line until I can be reasonably sure that the player has gotten to know the game well enough to stick around (if it's their kind of game, or leave if it isn't), then dependent on skill, slightly more or less throughout the progress of the game, finally leveling out at free after they've been playing long enough to learn enough strategic skill (or quit out of frustration with their own incompetence).

The issue I have with giving paying players much more is consistency in the game world- I believe anything should be achievable for a character, regardless of what homage the player has paid to the capitalistic gods. I have mused on ideas of selling to the players 'official' web pages devoted to their character(s) and how awesome they are- kind of as proof to their friends, or the community, or what have you- but this would be far from a reliable source of income, even if I thought up a hundred little gimmicks like that.
Potential of free play must be something the player can achieve through skill (something they have an influence over- randomizing it simply wouldn't work), I feel, and payment shouldn't have an effect within the game world (other than restricting the ability to continue playing at all, at the extreme).

“Maybe your system would work if you had a very few select Champions who could play for free. However, to make it work it should be very easy for other good players to challenge these Champions for these positions.”

Making the group of free players very small is one method... so long as it's possible to play free, I think it will still encourage the players who would find he notion of having to pay a turn off to try the game.
Whether somebody was awarded free play or not wouldn't be relative so much to how much they played, as how well they played- somebody who role plays cleverly, or is generally courteous and never an ass, in addition to playing skillfully and with style. In a real role playing game, being the best/most skilled player isn't always about being the most powerful character- in fact it usually isn't (the reality of the situation is more abstract though, so the tournament winning is a better example overall).

If the best 1% of players received relatively free play, that would probably cover the losses by allowing the possibility- 1% isn't all that uncommon. Then beyond that, offering a sort of trial period to get to know the game might be enough to ensure a pretty quick pickup.

When it comes down to it, it's the starting numbers I'm concerned with (covering the price of bandwidth is no easy task)- hoping for a thousand players in a relatively short period of time, even considering that I'm drawing from a relatively abandoned market, is a bit of a stretch.

I've just had a thought: have you looked at the billing policy of Second Life? From what I know about the game, people pay to own virtual real estate in the game, which they can build what they like on it. This would be a good way to allow free play; free players don't own any land, so would not be able to create any interesting features. But they would be free to experience all the fantastic stuff that the paying customers are doing with their real estate, convincing them to want to buy.

I don't know what sort of game you are designing, so that mightn't be appropriate to your game style.

“I've just had a thought: have you looked at the billing policy of Second Life? From what I know about the game, people pay to own virtual real estate in the game, which they can build what they like on it.”

Second life isn't really what I would call a game, but I see where you're going- that's an interesting concept.
Essentially letting free players play, but preventing them somehow from ever putting down permanent roots.
The issue to real estate would be the advantage it would bestow upon paying players- a really strong one, dependent on the game. In second life, it isn't as if you have a castle to prevent an attack by a rival army, so it doesn't bestow a terrific advantage. In a game oriented more on social aspects than strategic battle, that might an excellent method to encourage payment fairly, though.

I have considered such things as custom flags, emblems, and orchestrations, which don't provide any particular game play advantage- I don't think those are enough to attract much payment though.

There's also Puzzle Pirates, there testing a somewhat similar economic model as secondlife on their viridian server, worth checking out.

Just wanted to jump in here. I work with Biomors on his project. You guys have basically covered all the concerns I myself have voiced about our game's planned payment method.

My main concern is the contradiction between the method of payment and the target audience. If the game were an arcade style shooter, a fighting game or a puzzler I could see the pay-by-skill method working well. Players of those games are used to disposable arcade-style fees and quick win-or-lose gameplay.

But the game BM and I are working on is an MMO. One designed for the casual roleplayer, the "log on for an hour a day' gamer, who doesn't appreciate level grind" as my partner so eloquently put it. My experience with roleplayers and intermittent gamers leads me to believe they would ultimately reject a skill based payment system.

It adds a certain psychological pressure to the game. Rather then seeing the system as a reward for exceptional players, they see it as punishment for casual players such as themselves. Unintentionally, the system may weed out the casual players in place of addicts whose main motivation is to evade payments. This would not only be disasterous to our community, but it would be a financial slap in the face.

Anyhow, your feedback has been extremely helpful and both me and BM are looking forward to seeing more.

“Not having had any chance to play your game, how do you expect them to be skilled?”

Free trial- learning curves aren't all that long, and everybody will have one because the interface is somewhat different from most games. If the person is intelligent, they will have some skill initially.

“Casual gamers who only "log on for an hour a day" don't play (i.e. practice) enough to become skilled (they're also much less likely to be cocky in their gaming).”

This game is based more off an intelligent kind of player skill- successful strategy and management. There's plenty to learn by just thinking about past battles, and the environment itself- but of course players would learn small tricks through practice.
All of you generally have a good point- there's no way to prevent differences in skill though. Game play is used to compensate for this somewhat, as the pvp is controlled and channeled through the type of character the player has- it's very difficult to go around randomly player griefing in this system, and much easier to avoid pvp with bad matches.
Being the best player in an RPG is more than just being the most powerful and ruthless.

“Pyramid scheme?”

Might sound like it, but the curve actually results in total loss of profit under static circumstances. Essentially, I'm counting on the statistical fact that players' attention spans are relatively short. Players usually don't stick with a game for more than a couple years, because something new comes out. Even if they get a couple months of play nearly free at the end, it would all balance out with their previous play. It counts on a regular supply of new players trying out the game- players generally cycle through games anyway.

You've all helped me realize that the free play does need to be highly limited, if used, and needs to be on a relative scale. That not just because they're good enough they get it, but because they are the best all around, or because their playing is very limited in scale.
I also believe I should change some of the specifics to minimize the effect of more skilled players paying less in general, if they're obviously getting more out of the game. It will of course be an issue of balancing these multitudinous details after the core game play function is observed in Beta.

Thanks,

Here's another idea BioMors: my main concern is that by granting free play to the hardest of hardcore ultra-skilled players you will be supporting people who will drive the newbies away. However, as an alternative why not grant free play to a handful of players who make your game more friendly and beneficial to the new players? You could give them some title like "ambassadors" or have a society like a knighthood granted to those who make your gameworld a better place to play in.

That way, your most loyal players would be getting an incentive to play your game, and they would also be making your game better for the new players, making them more likely to stay and become playing players.

Now I'm not sure on the best way of selecting these players, as I don't know the mechanics of your game, but I'm sure you could think of something.

“as an alternative why not grant free play to a handful of players who make your game more friendly and beneficial to the new players?”

I like that idea, it's difficult to implement fairly without harming role playing or immersion though.
With letting only helpful players, it would either have to be something too simple, like PKing versus no PKing (which would kill PVP role playing by denying PVPers that reward), alignment based (such as good can kill evil- which is completely contrary to the game design which defines a character by what they do, and not by what 'alignment' they chose), or it would have to be some indication to let the players know which characters are alright to battle.
Such an indication, for me, is probably the only way to go, but I'd hate to see a flashing icon over character's heads saying whether it's okay to kill them or not, as that would spoil immersion, and take everything sneaky and tactful out of game play, as it would become impossible to trick anybody into thinking you weren't a potential enemy with that thing above your head.

I could leave it up to the third way, taking into account how long the player has been playing, how skilled the player seems to be, and the various indications that the player might be a threat/enemy, but simply not share this information to the player- leaving it up to player intuition. This would probably help encourage players to be pretty sure somebody was an enemy before killing them.

“Now I'm not sure on the best way of selecting these players, as I don't know the mechanics of your game, but I'm sure you could think of something.”

The third method I described wouldn't be tough at all- it's a very open/free RPG environment, but the server keeps pretty good tabs on characters in various ways- molding their game play experience. So the question is, then, do you think it would be a big issue to have players out there you had to kill before they killed you, and players out there that killing would hurt your chances of free play rewards- or do you think that might make it more exciting?