paying to win (presentation)

[wiseblood]

I posted about this a while ago on the ROf forums, but I think it's got some good points to bear in mind on any game forum anywhere. This is one of the producers of Battlefield Heroes talking about how they dealt with customer feedback and designing an F2P game, and while some of it is fairly specific to their product (how to co-develop and reinvent an F2P FPS with some south koreans) there are some fascinating general insights into game development and funding in there too.

One thing I thought was pretty awesomely funny from it -

 

 

 

 

http://www.slideshare.net/bcousins/paying-to-win

Edited December 19, 2012 by wiseblood

[theOden]

Interesting graph indeed but hard to tell how valid it is.

 

I get this picture that, when a forum crowd want something the counter-argument is a description of above graph, i.e. "you are only a small insignificant part of all customers".

 

When the product at hand not really succeeds on the market, these few that complained about it (say 50% of that small green slice), was actually the reason for the whole failure.

 

And as seen here, if anyone will complain in the future - they will risk the whole project for us all.

 

Strange world we live in huh?

Edited December 19, 2012 by theOden

[wiseblood]

Well, I would suggest sitting through the presentation.  What they found was pretty much what you would expect - the people posting on your forums are your most dedicated customers who tend to spent the most money of anyone and the most time with your product.  They are the rusted-on, die-hard fans.  However it is dangerous to take their word for everything - they had something similar to the "1 star review at amazon/downvote at metacritic" stuff happen to them as happened to a number of games (not mentioning any, but, you know one ), but in their case, they had back-end data to go with that and could tie forum accounts to game accounts and track how people behaved. They found that the people who were protesting the loudest and told everyone they'd leave forever if the game was changed in ways they didn't like, actually spent even more money over time than they were before.  So they're a very useful slice of the audience to talk to, but you can't make everything only around their wishes, not least because what they say they want and what they'll actually do if they don't get their way may not be the same thing. 

[kestrel79]

I think that graph is pretty true. Like it or not we are the NERDS. The hardcore simmers.

[SimHog]

I can't view the presentation at moment however the question I have is what % of the die-hard fan makes up direct revenue.

 

It's one thing for a die hard fan to spend more money in a "Pay to Win" model but if they represent only 1% or even 10% of the user base then I'd say the "Pay to Win" doesn't work.

Edited December 19, 2012 by CoderX71

[wiseblood]

Well, the F2P model generally revolves around courting 'whales' - the people who will spend an unlimited amount of money if you let them.  Usually you have a pyramid of people who pay nothing ever, people who buy something occasionally, and then people who buy the lot - nd those are the guys who blow out your revenue per paying user.  Important to bear in mind though that while a lot of forum posters are whales, not all whales are forum posters.

 

As far as I can tell from google translate, BoS won't be F2P, or at least Loft does not see it starting out that way. 

[SimHog]

I've had RoF for over a year now, probably flown it online about a dozen times. But me being the sim nut I am, I bought evey fighter that was available at the time AND I gifted the same to my mate so we would have the same fighters when we flew online. In all I spent around $120

 

So I don't mind the RoF payment model in terms of buying aircraft. But what I don't like is paying for the mods, and I refuse to buy them, but thats just me. I feel that the aircraft should be complete.

 

Maybe if more whales posted LOFT would get a better idea of what people want. Trouble is you can't please everyone

Edited December 19, 2012 by CoderX71

[gavagai]

DLC is not the same thing as pay-to-win.  For example, with RoF's business model, you can buy the best aircraft right up front, and never have to pay again to remain competitive.

[SimHog]

DLC is not the same thing as pay-to-win.  For example, with RoF's business model, you can buy the best aircraft right up front, and never have to pay again to remain competitive.

 

Forgive my ignorance but doesn that mean "Pay To Win" is something like buying special ammo, and once used you need to buy it again?

[Skoshi_Tiger]

I'm sad to admit it but the only time I've spent money in a 'pay to win' style game was Backyard Monsters on Facebook. I think I spent  $15.00

 

Man  I was rocking with getting those towers built and my outposts established. But the unfortunate truth is that there is only one person in the world that can truely state that there is no-one geekier than them!

 

Even if you class yourself on the 99th percentile in terms of geekdom, (Which most fligh simmers land on by the way) there is still 70,000,000 individuals more geeky than youself and are willing to sell the souls of their first born children (If they ever have them) to win.

 

In successive waves of geek empires my own  was erroded from about 50 outposts to just my main yard. Fortunately most geeks can not use the ignore button and in the end my weapon of choice was bad poetry and suicide attacks. Plus the fact that there is a limit on how long a geek can maintain an empire without melting down.

 

This type of game is design to require you constant attention to win. I have a deep fear that many of these Uber Geeks that fall off the map will be found dead at their monitors - having starved to death because they could not leave their empires.

 

In the end it boils down to  the simple fact that winning was just not worth the cash outlay.

 

Winnig should be based on the skill you have in the game not how much money you have at your disposal.

Edited December 19, 2012 by Skoshi Tiger

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Yeap I did this as well..was sucked into a browser game because of the great community, than decided to spend some money in order to keep up with them. Even if I had wanted to I couldn't have - I think some of them spent close to a thousand in a very short amount of time.

 

(In the end I gathered a big group of people who refused to pay to win, and together, and with a lot of tactics, we managed to beat the crap out of them - and after that we left the game )

 

Anyway, here is what I don't like about the 'vocal minority' argument:

 

Maybe the vocal minority aren't the ones bringing in the most cash...but they are the ones who make or break your game. They are the ones who create mods, build website dedicated to your game, make maps, make missions, make skins, make training videos, give training sessions to new pilots, give away free content on the forums, run the squadrons and run the multiplayer servers, make beautiful videos and screenshots and share them around the internet, do their best to advertise your product, go to museums or other venues to display the product and more........

 

In the end, the vocal minority might not be the ones bringing in the most cash, but without them, the silent majority wouldn't even be there.

 

Don't think that IL2 would still be lasting without these people! And not RoF either.

Edited December 20, 2012 by hq_Jorri

[wiseblood]

Well, Loft is one of those guys who made the big back end tools for Il-2, and you see him repeatedly making the same point on the RU forum - that you can't make the entire game revolve around the preferences of that tiny slice of the playerbase (he has some views about where that led a certain other project we won't get into here).  That doesn't mean that you switch around entirely and tell those guys to get lost, but, it's not so much a matter of satisfying those guys utterly as satisfying them to the extent that it doesn't lose you the other customers as well, or compromise the stability/main functionality of the game.  But in terms of how it relates to the presentation - the main point is that yep, the forums often are as small a slice of the userbase as is claimed, and also, while they are a great resource for feedback on the game, you can't always rely on them 100%, they themselves can't be relied upon to come to a realistic prediction about their own behaviour.  You have to take into account your back end stats for the whole playerbase.

Edited December 20, 2012 by wiseblood

[LG1.Farber]

hq_Jorri

 

Well said, we saw this on the clod forum.   Some people tried to make something of it but more people tried to bad mouth it... 

 

S!

[=IRFC=Jorri]

Well, that should be a lesson to those who think being vocal will result in them being listened to by the devs. Just by complaining , you're not helping yourself...but contribute to the sim and to the community, and you'll quickly find a listening ear with the developers or Jason.

 

Of course, wether they'll agree with you is another matter. After all, they can still think for themselves, it's not like they don't have a mind of their own and they'll just follow the one who shouts loudest...

[wiseblood]

I wasn't around when the planes were developed but from forum archaeology I guess a good example from ROF is the DH-2 and E III?  Something that the forum playerbase demand and insisted would be very popular, but actually bombed to the point where (I've heard) Jason said he wished they'd never been made.  I don't think it's any slam on any particular team that they might get led astray by their playerbase, they just went along with what people were telling them they wanted.  If I had to guess I would say it's not so much a negative personality trait of the 1c team as an overactive desire to please people - rather than make a tough decision that annoys people, but delivers something the project needs.  Keep saying yes to people enough and you just end up with something that is physically impossible to deliver.

Edited December 20, 2012 by wiseblood

[gavagai]

I wasn't around when the planes were developed but from forum archaeology I guess a good example from ROF is the DH-2 and E III?  Something that the forum playerbase demand and insisted would be very popular, but actually bombed to the point where (I've heard) Jason said he wished they'd never been made.  I don't think it's any slam on any particular team that they might get led astray by their playerbase, they just went along with what people were telling them they wanted.  If I had to guess I would say it's not so much a negative personality trait of the 1c team as an overactive desire to please people - rather than make a tough decision that annoys people, but delivers something the project needs.  Keep saying yes to people enough and you just end up with something that is physically impossible to deliver.

 

That quote from Jason is apocryphal.  I was silly once and quoted someone who repeated that story, but he couldn't produce the original source.  If you have it, please post it.

[wiseblood]

I don't, but it strikes me as the sort of thing that might get said in anger and then edited out 5 minutes later

[gavagai]

Yeah, that might be why! :D

[=IRFC=Jorri]

It wouldn't surprise me

[76SQN-FatherTed]

This is quite interesting because I imagine that Jason and his team must have access to exactly this sort of data for RoF, given the DRM system in place.

 

I was worried about "pay to win" in RoF when the weapon mods were mooted, but they've cleverly (or maybe accidentally) made it so that, in general, you get more guns but that comes at the price of decreased performance.  In other words, you can't buy an outright advantage.  Whether it's possible to carry this model on (if they want to) in BoS, and maintain historical fidelity, I don't know.

 

Going back to the original post - is it possible that the small percentage of customers who use forums actually represent a reasonable cross-section of the whole customer-base in terms of what they want out of the game?

[FlaviusNavius]

 

 

 

 

So I don't mind the RoF payment model in terms of buying aircraft. But what I don't like is paying for the mods, and I refuse to buy them, but thats just me. I feel that the aircraft should be complete.

 

 

The thing with the mods, is that to the best of my knowledge each aircraft you buy is standard from the factory as it was delivered to each unit. But because pilots liked to experiment with their aircraft back then there were a lot of possibilities for variation in aircraft. What I mean to say, is that you pay for a complete aircraft and the mods are little extras.

Anyway, it's your choice what you pay for. I don't have many mods because a lot aren't really essential. But I would like an 8 gun Dolphin, mind

On topic, this is a very important point and I one I feel the entire community should remember going into this new venture.

[VaeTibi]

Well with that graph you can beat any argument dead, and just ignore what people say in the forums.

Sort of like "Those that give feed back are only the nut jobs" might be right, but might be totally wrong.

But since no one can prove otherwise around............

I would say that is a knife that cuts both ways.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Well with that graph you can beat any argument dead, and just ignore what people say in the forums.

 

It's a bit more to it than that. I urge you to watch the whole presentation. It is quite interesting in itself, and is highly relevant to the upcoming BoS title. I bet Jason & Co have watched it and are making their decisions on a similar approach.

[VaeTibi]

It's a bit more to it than that. I urge you to watch the whole presentation. It is quite interesting in itself, and is highly relevant to the upcoming BoS title. I bet Jason & Co have watched it and are making their decisions on a similar approach.

Well I have had a look at it, if I got it right the talk is mainly about "Browser games"? Which I view a bit differantly than a flight sim like IL2.

I play now and then browser games too, never visit those forums, as the game is just for diddling a bit of time but no real big interest in the game or at best very minimal.

IL2 is a differant cup of tea, have bought every CD-ROM that was brought out and am rather interested in the game.

Being that I am interested in the game, if it is good quality I will buy. I bought COD because I was firmly hoping it would be at least on par with IL2

which it wasn?

Edited December 21, 2012 by VaeTibi

[gavagai]

 

 

 

 

 

So I don't mind the RoF payment model in terms of buying aircraft. But what I don't like is paying for the mods, and I refuse to buy them, but thats just me. I feel that the aircraft should be complete.

 

 

The thing with the mods, is that to the best of my knowledge each aircraft you buy is standard from the factory as it was delivered to each unit. 

 

No, I am afraid that is not correct.  For example, the SE5a had a factory standard Aldis gunsight, but in Rise of Flight the gunsight is a field mod.  Moreover, don't forget that Nieuport 28s were delivered to American units without machine guns, but Rise of Flight doesn't make you pay extra for them.

[79_vRAF_Friendly_flyer]

Well I have had a look at it, if I got it right the talk is mainly about "Browser games"? 

 

You didn't look through it very thoroughly I see. B)

 

The type of game is largely immaterial. The interesting aspects is that he looks at the relationship between the forum, the player base and the buying habits in a game with "upgrades" (comparable to buying extra "plane packs"). He rounds off with a conclusion of what role the forum plays for a game and what value it has for the developer. If the economy of game developing and production isn't your thing, skip it. If you are interested in those sort of things, I suggest spend the three quarters of an hour it takes to play it through.

[76SQN-FatherTed]

  Moreover, don't forget that Nieuport 28s were delivered to American units without machine guns

 

 

Early gun-control laws?

[LukeFF]

Moreover, don't forget that Nieuport 28s were delivered to American units without machine guns, but Rise of Flight doesn't make you pay extra for them.

 

The first Nieuport 28s were delivered without guns.

[Jason_Williams]

I've seen this before and I can relate to everything in this video.

 

Jason

[Freycinet]

How do you quantify the number of people who never become customers because they believe the hate by an extremely vocal group of forum posters? I have a lot of comments about my CoD movies (in forums and on my youtube channel) saying something like "wauw this looks great but I never bought it because I resd everywhere that it was crap"...

 

Thsnks for popping by Jason, even tho you'll never listen to us... ;-)

[gavagai]

How do you quantify the number of people who never become customers because they believe the hate by an extremely vocal group of forum posters? I have a lot of comments about my CoD movies (in forums and on my youtube channel) saying something like "wauw this looks great but I never bought it because I resd everywhere that it was crap"...

 

Thsnks for popping by Jason, even tho you'll never listen to us... ;-)

 

That kind of begs the question, though.  Watching a youtube movie doesn't indicate whether a flightsim game will run well on your machine.

 

However, in 777's case they do have a measure of how many do not become paying customers.  Rise of Flight's f2p and BoS's demo are adequate for that purpose.  In fact, I recall that if ~70% of those who only played RoF f2p spent $7 in the store, it would fund the development team for a year.

 

My favorite part of the presentation is about the peacocks.  I definitely thought of the RoF streamers and scarves when I saw that, but it is convincing that flair is important to some.

[Zmaj76]

I've seen this before and I can relate to everything in this video.

 

Jason

 

Yes. Its math. Most customers are offliners. And out of all MP folks (who are minority anyways) who are interested in FM revisions only "few" are vocal (to have correct relative performances between planes - as much as possible). With that in light (and that FM revisions, *directly!*are not bringing cash) its no wonder we got last revision a year ago (plus now, the team, though bigger - will need to deal with BOS`s FMs). But at the end, most customers are obviously fully satisfied. And thats whats the most important for you. This is my last post about it. 2013 is a new year in which I swear I will not "insult" anybody or "demand" anything from anybody and I will not purchase a single thing from you until I see FM revisions.

Fair enough.

 

Now you can ban me.

Edited December 30, 2012 by Tvrdi

[theOden]

Not sure this applies, though we the internetcrowd aren't too popular voicing our concerns at all times the offliners must be a tougher crowd to handle - they will just suddenly dissapear, no new purchase no nothing and the producer has now way to understand why and as such cannot create any counter move.

 

As I understand it very few RoF flyers becomes customers - why is that? since 777 have absolutely no contact with them they will never know and stand no chance to correct any "mistakes/missing features".

 

If these statistics are indeed true and not just propaganda to make online folks to shut up I would say game producers are pretty much walking in the blind and purely "hoping" to catch as many flightsimmers as possible (probably reading the success/failure of earlier titles).

 

 

Edit: btw, forum manager, could we have a chance to have the quote we're responding to put up before the response we write?

 

.. most customers are obviously fully satisfied...

Edited December 31, 2012 by theOden

[wiseblood]

It's the same with all F2P games.  That's the "conversion rate" he talks about - you are extremely lucky if you even get 1% of the customers paying you any money at all, and the typical range is about 0.something to 5%.  Something like Team Fortress 2 with a ~20% conversion rate is a very very rare exception.