Price Modelling Guess and Hopes for the Way it Will Really Be

Team Fortress 2 and the Mann Co. store is an excellent free-to-play model. So is the League of Legends free-to-play model. Both games allow you to buy access to game changing items/XP/Influence Points EARLIER than if you gained them through simply playing the game. None of the game changing items are excluded from non-paying players. The only items you have to pay for are vanity items. I think paying for vanity items is great, it allows players who love the game and want to support it and easy way of doing so and they get a bit of recognition for it. I've payed for a few skins in LoL because it has provided me with many nights of entertainment and I can afford to do so. With TF2 my clan gives each other TF2 christmas presents each year. Normally you don't get anything great out of them, but it's a way of supporting a game that has provided us with another year of entertainment.

I've been thinking about information about Card Hunter to ask Jon for next, an I keep coming back to this thread. I'd like to know more about the social hub (where players organise games) and how it works, eg how PvP and Single Player/Co-Op (I don't think there is Co-Op, but here's hoping) achievements will be displayed. I remember Jon saying there would be achievements for running modules with particular party make-ups or on harder difficulty etc. But the longevity of the game depends upon its replayability. Replayability can come through having lots of single player content through having reasons to rerun adventure modules, or LOTS of modules. (probably a combination of both) Without player generated content, (which I think Jon said was maybe on the board for Card Hunter 2) the designers might struggle to keep providing quality modules as fast as the community wants them. (the map maker we've seen in action looks pretty slick, but you still need new artwork for bosses, map templates, new and balanced equipment cards, etc)

The other option for replayability is to have a strong PvP scene. But a strong PvP scene depends greatly upon how the pricing method works. If paying players have access to items non-paying players can never aquire then the PvP scene is pretty much doomed unless an external group creates and organises a competitive scene. Assuming (and hoping) that Blue Manchu don't take this path, (which includes paying for modules, that contain items that can be used in PvP) then what options for earning money are left to them?

Vanity items: - in another thread Jon has already stated that creating playing pieces that change their clothing/weapons/helms etc according to what you're wearing/wielding is something they might do in Card Hunter 2, but it might be possible to have a whole bunch of set playing pieces, some of which are free and some of which must be payed for. Similar to LoL where each champion has a free skin and several paid skins. For each class there could be 1 (or 2 or 3, if you can have a party of three warriors it'd be kinda lame if they all looked the same) playing piece that is free and several that you can pay for. Another vanity option is allowing players to become "supporters" of Card Hunter. In the social hub supporters names might show up in a different colour to free-to-play players. I like these options.

Single Player content that doesn't provide PvP bonuses.
This could come in the form of "Challenge Modules." Challenge modules would be ones you have to pay for (maybe a few are free) and the idea would be that they contain XP rewards and achievements which would need to be displayed in the social hub when you cursor over a player or check their profile or something. (Even if nobody ever looks at them, people need to feel like players CAN look at them, I'm sure nobody ever checks my steam profile, but knowing they'll see a ton of cool achievements there if they do allows me to sleep at night) (also, achievements NEED to be cool, completing The Barbarians of Quloth, with nothing but 3 naked priests is an achievement, clicking through a tutorial is not. Good achievments extend gameplay, I could play through The Barbarians of Quloth with 3 naked priests even if there wasn't an achievement, but bragging about it in the social hub afterwards is much more satisfying if those doubters can click on my profile and see that I really did) Importantly these modules would NOT include item rewards like normal modules. They could almost be considered end-game content. I like this option too because it doesn't screw the competitive scene, but people get annoyed more by being denied content than they do being denied vanity items.

Deck unlocks
So you can play through the adventure modules over and again and gain all the possible items in the game and have max XP etc. But what if you're some sort of weirdo and you aren't really excited about playing the modules over and over again. (that's not sarcasm, I'm honestly looking forward to replaying modules over and over again, the game looks that fun) However, if you want to skip days of single player content to aquire all your items for PvP, you can instead head on over to the shop and buy what you want. You're not buying anything non-paying customers can't get through single player, you're just getting it more quickly. The shop could sell individual items or a bundle of every item for a particular class or even "god mode" (you gain ever item in the game, and when new adventure modules are released, all items from those modules are instantly added to your available items.) I like this option, I doubt I'd use it, but nobody gets screwed if someone else does.

The "Time Points" model.
This is a really common model in facebook and other browser games. It's where you have a certain number of "time points" to perform actions with. Playing an adventure might cost 5 "time points," fighting a PvP battle might cost 1. However, your time points only regenerate at a rate of 1 per hour, so you can't sit down and play Card Hunter all day unless you enjoy fiddling with your deck for hours or watching your clock. Paying players can buy potions that restore their "time points" allowing them to play more. I HATE this model. Thankfully, while he hasn't completely ruled it out, so does Jon. Still, while it's frustrating to play, it doesn't deny content or screw PvP. Still, from past experience, even with a game looking as good as Card Hutner, I'd probably only play a month or so before the frustration would get to me.

Everything else I can think of at the moment either gives an advantage to paying players in PvP or essentially turns Card Hunter into a demo version unless you pay. I don't like these options.

Ultimately though, we need to know how the payment model is going to work before we can understand how the game will play. Don't stuff it up Blue Manchu.

 

I believe this is an idea we haven't brought up yet. It's a possibility, though I'm a little iffy on the exact method you used to define them as "optional."

It might also be a little annoying on the developers, given the ratio of player fun to developer effort. All the effort that goes into making a scenario, complete with board and play balancing, to let people earn a single "achievement."

But come to think of it, my concern applies to the ordinary idea of a for-pay module anyway, and Jon said they were thinking of doing just that.

 

A "Challenge Module" would actually be slightly easier for developers to make than a normal module. The only real difference between my idea of a "Challenge Module" and a regular adventure module, is that access to a "Challenge Module" is paid for but the reward for completion is an achievement (or some other form of recognition) instead of items. ie. the developers wouldn't have to create balanced items, just a social hub icon or something.

 

To be honest I'd be happy to pay for the game from the get go, and then maybe later for further expansions. However, as this is the kind of game that lends itself to micro-transactions I expect I'll be dissappointed. What would be nice would be options, like you can pay a fixed amount for the whole game or have a certain amount free-to-play with more advanced modules purchasable as microtransactions. This is a little like how Wizards 101 works. A certain amount of the game is free to play and then, if you enjoy it, you can either subscribe, as a normal MMO, or invest in "crowns" which you can buy game areas and premium items (such as mounts) with. I'd rather have a single payment (a la Guild Wars) rather than a subscription model, personally, but this game looks so good I'd hapily pay something at least.

 

I would bet money that something that like would not pay for itself, even with minimal development and upkeep costs.

That's really the primary problem with all the reasons why gamers are "against" the free-to-play model - they want it to be vanity only, or things that don't affect gameplay. But the reality is that without real gates (either grind gates like LoL employs or hard gates like Wizard 101), a product will find itself hard pressed to generate meaningful revenue - let alone even pay for itself.

 

I'm sure most of us here would be happy to make a one-time payment for Card Hunter. But as soon as there's an upfront price, your game isn't free-to-play and you lose a huge number of players. If a major part of Card Hunter is PvP then you NEED a minimum player base to keep the game running. Jon's already mentioned Card Hunter 2 a couple of times, and while its existence is obviously dependent upon Card Hunter 1 being successful, it does show that it is being considered. A strong following for Card Hunter 1 basically guarantees a strong player base for Card Hunter 2. An upfront payment works for a game like Guild Wars II because Guild Wars has the MMO tag so the "no subscription" tag is a marketing coup. It also has a huge marketing department. Also, unlike Guild Wars, Card Hunter is a pretty niche game, even with a low upfront cost, many potential players won't look twice when they hear about it if that barrier to play exists.

 

. . . Or rather, that he is thinking about "the future." I have never taken the words "Card Hunter 2" to reference a literal object coming down the development pipeline. Rather, these ideas could be something they put into a sequel, or into an optional expansion on the original, or directly into the original depending on how implementation goes.

Certainly, one would WANT all enjoyable features to be in the first game, instead of planning to make a sequel with the really fun stuff "once the first one is a success." It's kinda like that saying: there is no such thing as a "good Plan B"; if it were any GOOD, it would be part of "Plan A." Thus, yes, think of the future, but plan to make some of that money right now.

 

I just thought of another silly way to sell vanity items. Remember how they are trying to use the special advantages of the "faux-tabletop game" mixed with "card game" deal? You know, things like depicting physical miniatures and oldstyle adventure modules?

Awhile ago, I asked about this:

How about selling things that cater to the visuals of the faux-tabletop? How about selling different "card stocks," like cardboard or papyrus, for you to use as the basic material on which character art is printed? I think these characters would look really good on some old yellowed card stock, for instance.

Also, there's the physical tabletop within view during the game, with "doodads" like pencils and dice. Buying vanity "backgrounds" or "board skins" is something people do in other games anyway; here, it could be re-envisioned to mean buying chips and soda for gaming night. Yeah, I'm just making this stuff up (and I wouldn't buy a "vanity bag of chips"), but what do you think of the direction I'm going?

 

A relevant article shared without much personal comment, owing to Roshirai suddenly developing a crippling lack of free time.

http://www.geekwire.com/2011/experiments-video-game-economics-valves-gabe-newell

Newell claims Team Fortress 2 has a conversion rate of 20-30%, which is, uh, astounding if he's indeed talking about the same conversion rate that the rest of us are talking about (free player ---> paying player). Kinda makes you wonder how League of Legends is doing in that area.

 

Yea, that 20-30% they released was very surprising to us in the industry. In fact, it's so high it sounds ludicrous. That kind of conversion rate almost unheard of. There are other oddities as well, such as:

This is also crazy. We (including myself, personally) run AB testing all the time on pricing and it has a significant impact on revenue. Now, what they imply is that their conversion rate changes matches exactly to recoup the revenue lost or gained - which, again is crazy in this industry in my experience.

~

Talking to some people at work, it seems there's at least one other example where a company has 20-30% conversion rate for their product. It's a Facebook FPS:
https://www.facebook.com/uberstrike

 

Yeah, breaking the quote down...

Emphasis mine. The Arkham Asylum note really muddles that quote for me. Is he saying that 20 to 30 percent of people that play TF2 or Arkham Asylum buy something? Just TF2? And when he says "they buy something", does he mean TF2 microtransaction items, or Steam purchases in general?

At any rate, I suppose it's a little moot: TF2 does very well. From a practical standpoint, I'm far more interested in purchasing specifics. What are people buying? Mann Co. Crate Keys? Freshly minted item packs? Specific vanity items?

 

Yea, I am not entirely what that distribution is now for them, since their conversion is a whole magnitude different than the data I am used to looking at.

 

I have a job and while i dont make tons of money, I can certainly put 4-20US a week into a game that I enjoy. Are you just cheap or completely ignorant on how an online game makes enough money to stay in business? The MOBA genre of games was already pretty big with the success of DOTA....LoL just capped on DOTAs failures because Icefrog already knew what to do to be successful. While i like the idea of Cardhunter, to say that it will be as popular with the masses as a MOBA is umm..ignorant at best.

My take? Just do whatever you guys need to do to make the game succeed, and dont worry about the leechers. People like myself (with jobs) will support you if the game play is good.

 

I think I see your point, but you may be making a false connection between "customer would pay for permanent ownership" and "the company won't get much money from this customer." Hajeil Sounak was mostly concerned with permanence. (You might tone down the "cheap" language.)

Consider the metaphor of the card game: people will pay money for physical game cards, get permanent ownership, and CONTINUE to pay on a regular basis. Magic: The Gathering was a financial success. How about a computer version?

No guarantee that the payment system will be anything like any of these examples; I'm just pointing this out.

 

People spend tons of money on games like Poxnora.....the only reason Pox isnt bigger is because Sony Online is, in a word, stupid. People DID spend $$$ on Magic Tactics, but they ruined themselves by having a BUG ridden game and some super unpopular features. My friends regularly spend $100 a weekend in bars/clubs.. To say you cant support a pricing system that only requires a $10-40$ a month investment is just being cheap, im not going to tone down anything. The devs need to make MONEY...otherwise theres no reason to keep running the game, and it will never get any better then launch.

 

Am I cheap? I prefer the term frugal but yes. Am I ignorant to how an online game makes money? No. Now to move on to something actually related to the topic. If you would have thoroughly read my post you would have seen the part where I wrote, "I just could never see myself paying for something that I can only play on the internet that will eventually be deleted. If I pay for content I want to be able to use that content 20 years from now if I would like to regardless if the servers or website is still up." This is why I would or would not pay money for it. Whether I'm cheap or ignorant is a moot point but thank you for coming off as only mildly insulting.

 

""I just could never see myself paying for something that I can only play on the internet that will eventually be deleted." I read your whole post, this is the exact line i have the most problem with.

At least you can admit it...Id stay away from online games if i were you, because almost EVERY one of the big ones you have nothing left but memories when the game shuts down... WoW, LoL, Poxnora, TOR ad infinitum. Def not for you if your that poor man. Once again, the devs need to make money. The best way to make money is to charge reasonable prices for everything.

 

You have missed my point completely be devolving my statements into ones about money. Money or being "poor" has nothing to do with it. Either you are oblivious to the point I have made or you are trolling hard. Either way you are borderline offensive and do not seem to be adding much in the way of value and input within these forums and the Card Hunter community at large.

 

honestly neither are you by your stated desire to not pay for anything you cant physically take home....your thought process regarding online games is flawed in that case. Thats exactly like telling the devs that "im not going to pay for anything and want it all for free" because you ARE NOT going to actually OWN anything u use in this game, just like the majority of games...at best youre a renter and you should look at it as a diversion instead of an investment.

 

You have obviously not bothered to read this entire thread and see that we have all been disusing many different price model options. You also continue to misinterpret one single post by me and constantly troll me and insult me over it. Please cease and desist your actions so that I do not have to escalate this situation to the proper authorities.