Micro transactions are an effective business model and the new wave of not just the game industry, but pretty much 'ALL' mediums of entertainment. Redbox for movies forced Blockbuster to adopt a similar system and actually killed off 2 blockbuster stores in my area, just to compete. Cloud gaming is trying to kill off the traditional blu-ray disc in a case system and so on.
People are just very willing to pay more for convenience. The system is not intrinsically amoral; it just has much more room in it's design for exploitation. Above all else, it just means consumers have to REALLY beware more than ever before. It's essentially the evolution of Pay-per-view.
Far as the game industry in particular goes...one thing that delighted me to read in this that I've been saying for a while, and something I wish EVERY SINGLE F2P PLAYER WOULD TAKE TO HEART IS THIS:
Just by actively playing, you are still an asset to the game's structure: so stop taking the companies' failures and shortcomings up the butt (and suggesting others do the same) because you 'didn't have to pay for it'. You contribute to the success and profits of the company indirectly. You're not playing 'for free' you're the sponsee of a sponsorship (The host of the game) providing life to their game's structure in return.
Another noteworthy segment is this:
This is what separates a crap F2P from a good one. And lately I think Maple Story has taken one step forward, 2 steps back recently. We once had permanent NX, now its gone: We no longer have to rely on 2x EXP cards to get anywhere, but the potential system has upset the balance.
Now... Here's the thing though... The blog fails to mention the concept of tradable cash items. Granted, Maple *is* behind the curve and only has this in limited form, via selling off Miracle Cubed gear and lol SoKs, but a LOT of other games allow paying players to sell cash-shop only gameplay items to the F2P community to easily get ingame money. Where would this fall in the structure of microtransaction? Would this still count as 'milking'? It's good in that it prevents free players from feeling truly disadvantaged and gives the cash spenders economic strength. Is this 'healthy' enough to be sustainable, does it strike a balance between maintaining value-per-customer and growth market ideas?
Tempted to comment to get their opinions out of it now.
People are just very willing to pay more for convenience. The system is not intrinsically amoral; it just has much more room in it's design for exploitation. Above all else, it just means consumers have to REALLY beware more than ever before. It's essentially the evolution of Pay-per-view.
Far as the game industry in particular goes...one thing that delighted me to read in this that I've been saying for a while, and something I wish EVERY SINGLE F2P PLAYER WOULD TAKE TO HEART IS THIS:
Quote:There is another synergy of long-play and free-to-play, which is that in most freemium games, the non-paying players provide 'content' for the paying players just by being there. They keep the system lively, create nodes for conversation and trade, and even just make the paid players feel good about themselves. However, if the free players don't stick around very long, then there is less incentive (in this context) for the paid players to stick around either.
Just by actively playing, you are still an asset to the game's structure: so stop taking the companies' failures and shortcomings up the butt (and suggesting others do the same) because you 'didn't have to pay for it'. You contribute to the success and profits of the company indirectly. You're not playing 'for free' you're the sponsee of a sponsorship (The host of the game) providing life to their game's structure in return.
Another noteworthy segment is this:
Quote:Most of the cases where "abuse" happens is when this graph is extremely sharp. Most of the players in a game are nothing but an expense, and so the few players that pay get milked to death. A healthier game flattens out the curve. More players are paying, and each is paying a healthier amount. (Both healthier for themselves, and healthier for the developer.)
....
By distributing this load across more players, the amount you need to eke out of each player is reduced. As well, there is the easily observable phenomenon that paying customers are stronger advocates of the game.
This is what separates a crap F2P from a good one. And lately I think Maple Story has taken one step forward, 2 steps back recently. We once had permanent NX, now its gone: We no longer have to rely on 2x EXP cards to get anywhere, but the potential system has upset the balance.
Now... Here's the thing though... The blog fails to mention the concept of tradable cash items. Granted, Maple *is* behind the curve and only has this in limited form, via selling off Miracle Cubed gear and lol SoKs, but a LOT of other games allow paying players to sell cash-shop only gameplay items to the F2P community to easily get ingame money. Where would this fall in the structure of microtransaction? Would this still count as 'milking'? It's good in that it prevents free players from feeling truly disadvantaged and gives the cash spenders economic strength. Is this 'healthy' enough to be sustainable, does it strike a balance between maintaining value-per-customer and growth market ideas?
Tempted to comment to get their opinions out of it now.