Pay to Win? Please tread carefully, this game can be amazing

To the devs: Please tread carefully with the cash shop items in this game. You've designed a game that is truly unique and extremely addictive. I just spent a few hours playing this game and was totally engrossed. I absolutely love it.

I REALLY wish you would have just charged a flat fee for the game and included everything (I'd drop $30 on this game without thinking twice), but I won't pretend to know anything about marketing so you made your choice. Here's what I think from playing:

The cash shop items are a little too in-your-face. I shouldn't have to see every item I'm losing by not being in the "club" after every quest. It really makes it look like a "pay to win" game when you're pushing items for cash. If this game sinks, this is going to be why. It's extremely discouraging to constantly be reminded that you're not collecting the same loot as someone who dropped some change.

I understand you guys still need a pay check. League of Legends has made laughable amounts of money by charging for simple aesthetic skins and other minor game play enhancements. I would follow suit, and try to rein in these cash-for-items transactions. I find it especially troubling that you can buy single adventures that yield epic quality items, and these adventures are only available to paying customers.

A strong player base is important in a game like this and I personally feel like your cash shop strategy is going to end up driving people away. Maybe it's too late to reassess it, maybe I'm dead wrong, but that's just my two cents.

Either way, great job. This game really stands out.

 

Bumped, I'd really like to hear how other players feel about the current state of the cash shop.

 

Nobody does really well (I"m talking tournament level or close to it) at LoL without putting in lots of time playing the game.

If you put in a similar amount of time playing Card Hunter. You would receive, for free, all the items earned from the campaign and quests. Each day you maxed out the multiplayer rewards you would also recieve 4 magnificent chests and one epic chest per day, again for free. Those chests have a value of 270 pizza per day, which is about 1.5 times the 5 dollar pizza bundle.

So, if you're willing to spend a lot of time playing card hunter, the kind and generous developers will give you 30+ dollars of items per week (plus everything you get for playing the incredibly entertaining campaign).

Find me a real world collectible game willing to give you that much product for hanging out playing their game. But, if you want to have all the really rare items, for free, and not play a bunch, well than you're just asking for too much.

 

Which is the inherent problem of pay-to-win games. John spends 10 hours playing to get that epic item, Steven swipes his credit card and has it in seconds. It's a bad, bad business model.

Team Fortress 2, League of Legends, DOTA 2, Planetside 2, Tribes Ascend, and so on and so forth. Games where cash earns you items (and subsequently an edge against non-paying opponents) crash and burn, historically speaking. I want nothing but success for this game, but I'm very skeptical as to their chances with this kind of business model.

 

How is this bad? Steven spent his time going to work and earn the money to pay for the items he purchases. John spends his time playing the game to earn his items. Both players contribute to the game in a positive way, one through being a part of the active playerbase the other monetarily. Unless you want to alienate a large portion of potential players by requiring large amounts of game time in order to get items, this seems like the way to go.

The pay up front model doesn't work very well for games that have continued support and require server maintenance.

 

Nonsense. Many real world and online collectible games have used similar models quite successfully. Magic has been going for over 20 years, Magic online for over 10. Not to mention games like Clix, VS, Pokemon, etc... The actual truth is that the market leading collectible games have had much longer life spans than any of the games you've listed.

 

Historically speaking this is a terrible business strategy. I'm not trying to be rude or condescending at all, but I'm really surprised that I actually have to explain this to you. This business model does, by it's own nature, alienate a HUGE portion of potential players by giving a competitive edge to paying customers. You and I both know that your example fails on so many levels. It doesn't have to do with Steve spending time working and John spending time playing. It doesn't balance out like that.

I know that the game needs to bring in revenue, which is why there should be aesthetic items for sale and other gameplay enhancement features-- but nothing that will actually give you an edge over a non-paying person. These types of games ALWAYS, ALWAYS fail.

 

Games like Magic the Gathering had an immense player base prior to going online, and the online game isn't even a fraction as successful as League of Legends-- and doesn't pull in a fraction of the revenue that LoL does. Card Hunter is brand new, it has no player base, there is no history with this game like MtG and Pokemon. Besides all of this, Card Hunter is going to be going toe-to-toe with Hearthstone. If this cash shop strategy remains in place as it is right now this game will crash and burn. I want this game to be successful so badly, I LOVE it, but the pay-to-win stench is all over it.

 

Yeah, and Path to Exile was going head to head with Diablo 3, and that didn't work out at all. Multiple games can succeed in the market, it's not a winner take all scenario.

You're expressing an opinion about an aspect of the game you don't like, but lets not stretch it into something larger. I don't like McDonalds, hate their food and haven't eaten there in 20 years. But it would be foolish of me to claim it was a bad business model or that it would "crash and burn" based solely on my opinion. I am but one person, and I've had to learn that (sadly) not everyone agrees with me. Businesses are apparently more than capable of succeeding or failing without my patronage.

Most every free to play game gets called "pay to win" by somebody. Whether it's gold ammo in World of Tanks or cards in Duel of Champions (yeah there's already a CCG free to play game out there). Doesn't change anything, or slow them down. I do think League of Legends is one heck of a great design though, but not everybody has to do things the same way.

 

I am really enjoying this game so far. I want to chime in because I am hobbyist game designer, so I spend a lot of time in the psychology of games, the big issue that runs people off of the microtransaction games isn't really a whether they have the option or not, but if your giving us spend time, vs spend money the ratio on those two things needs to be close, I'll happily spend money or time, if i think the ratio is good. If I have to spend 10 hours for the work of getting a 50 cent item, i won't do either because the time commitment is unbalanced to the cost, and I won't pay the cash because then I feel spending those transactions is essential to the game, even if it isn't. Why would I ever spend the time when I can spend the money to get it, and if I am spending money to get better at the game, it's not my skill and patience that is being rewarded. On top of that everytime i note the little pay icon, i have to spend my time and willpower over whether or not to buy something, it takes me out of the game, I've got to interupt my gaming distraction with finacle responsibility, it's like watching tv and having a little pop up window ask if you've done your taxes. Now stuff that is non-crucial to gameplay is generally fine, buying hero outfits is a great example, the extra item per encounter is okay, its a little in your face, "here's the item you didn't get!!!!" but you could have. But the game here is so much fun, I am enjoying it immensly, but how you charge for the game is really going to influence me purchase of it in the future, as it stands in beta right now, I have no desire to put cash into the game, as I have no guarantee to keep anything I'm doing in the beta, cause its a beta.

 

I just joined the beta today and I'd like to weigh in on this.

First things first - I really really really LOVE how the game turned out, its freaking amazing and oh my god it's already 1:00 AM and I'm getting up early tomorrow...

Now, the money thing...

Sure, but how much does that cost? WOW is $15/month - are you saying card hunter maintenance is 2/3 WOW? really?
Even without that comparison the asking price of $10 for 30 days of premium membership is quite a lot in the days of decent indie games going for around the same amount on steam.

This really sounds like work, only you get paid in items. Sorry, but this kind of talk is just rubbish. Myself, I don't play games because I get stuff for playing. I do it because it's fun. If I like the game and it does not come with a pricetag I tend to drop a few bucks into the devs pocket anyway.


To sum it up
* If you want a healthy multiplayer experience the subscriber options can't give players an edge. Doing otherwise will discourage people.
* Subscriber options don't really do anything for people who play in bursts or might suddenly stop playing for a week or two because life, yeah.
* Selling boosts is tricky and can make the game imbalanced for people who don't buy them.
* Selling drops is just making you look desperate and is also a major turn off
* Random chests smell of zynga.


My advice would be to charge something up front (and make a demo) and then offer stuff that does not really give you an edge but is fun to get for people play a lot, for example:
* costumes (you have that, but offer more, and time-limited costumes which you cant get after they go off the shop)
* subscriber option that gets you earlier access to new dungeons (for example 2-4 week ahead)
* some higher tier options, for example $50 to have your artist draw a custom costume or avatar for the person who donates. or some such

 

Not being a smart ass, but are you a dev? I'm finding you strangely defensive over an extremely unpopular and generally unsuccessful business model. It's not just an aspect that I personally don't like, pay-to-win models are widely hated throughout the gaming community. I've happily bought $10 skins in League of Legends, but paying $10 for an item that would give me an edge against my opponent leaves a bad taste in my mouth-- and please don't act as though this is some unique obscure personal taste.

p.s. I've never heard of Path to Exile

 

So much this. Like I said before, I would happy drop $30 on this game, maybe more. All you'd have to do is let people play a modest demo-- I was hooked on this game within an hour. Even if the up front fee isn't enough, continue a micro-transaction strategy for AESTHETIC ITEMS ONLY. You'll make way more cash doing this than what you're currently doing.

 

You realize you get the pizza back when they wipe things for a new version of the beta right? You can just buy it all again or buy different things if you decided the things you bought the first time sucked.

 

I wasn't talking about the price of the membership, which is being discussed elsewhere, but rather the time for money aspect of the game which I see happening through the shops more than the membership.

How much does server maintenance cost? It varies based on the resources needed, and sure you can float the servers for a while off of the initial burst of up front payments for a game. The real cost comes from the salaries and running a business to continue to offer support, fixes, improvements and expansions to the game. This business strategy can not be held aloft for long if an up front cost without further income. On the extreme side this can give you a flash pan game that doesn't have any support and where the servers will shut down in a few short years without any further expansions.

Additionally, if there is continued development, the up front cost plan will actually lead to a much more hard and fast pay to win situation should any expansions be released -- which you will have to pay for to attain the same cards/power that other players have.

Allowing for continual payments for specific gear, though still random(I believe?) (through pizza/shop) as well as random items through the membership give a very different dynamic to how new elements can be released into the game organically. The game can continually grow, multiplayer metas change, new maps, campaigns, arenas etc. can be added almost on a whim. This keeps things fresh and interesting.

Sure, if you want to be one of the top ranked players, you'll have to buy a card here and there, or play enough to find specific cards randomly. Is it really an ego buster if someone comes in and spends a bunch of money (and support the game you love so much) in order to try to compete in a skill+luck multiplayer environment? You don't want to pay, fine, keep playing and you'll get there (and likely have better skills than someone who just purchased cards). Can't spend the time? Fine, buy some cards and test your skills against the other players (who likely have more options than you from just playing) who have had more experience playing the game...

Because purchasing cards in any CCG has created an "unhealthy" multiplayer experience?

Depends on how much they play the two or three weeks they are playing doesn't it? Not sure you can rule out the value for others. When does it "do anything" for people? Do they have to play once every week, 5 hours a week? What about if they only play for one day but do so for 24 hours? What their time is worth is up to the individual.

I'd be interested to hear about any actual research you have done on this. It's a heck of a lot less cut and dry than you make it out to be (to be able to generalize based on your own opinions).

Or, you know, old school RPGS like the game is based off of. With all of these comments, I'm worried you might not actually like this game.

 

Have you actually played LoL? Early on it gives heavy advantage to people who can get enough the runes. Quite similar to Cardhunter actually. Once you sink in enough time these disparities become less and less meaningfull. I'd bet cardhunter reaches even ground much faster, but LoL allows people to focus in single champ (runepage actually) that allows them to feel that they're even.

Actual p2w is something horrible, and quite far from current cardhunter model. There isn't anything that limits non-paying players, given enough time they will get same cards. And imho f2p games have to sell something that players "need" to progress faster. Path of Exile was/is nice game, but why would you pay for it when there's no need? I have a friend who wanted to pay, but because there was only cosmetic upgrades he really wouldn't bother. Many games have cosmetic micro-transactions and it's very good idea to just flat out refuse to pay for them ever.

Why would you prefer demo when you get whole game for free? Club is actually not needed and paying flat 15 or 30$ fee for it would be bad. And that's actually only thing that would be guaranteed to change in the flip from f2p to upfront pay. Bonus adventures and skins could still be micro-transactions. Sure, it's worst case scenario, but be carefull what you wish for.

 

Sorry, but do you have ANY evidence at all that this business model is "generally unsuccessful"? To me it seems as if you are saying "I don't like it, so it must be unsuccessful", but you couldn't be further off from reality.

Magic the Gathering, which is far more dependant on you buying cards to win than Card Hunter is, was one of the most profitable business models ever. And if you look at online games, World of Tanks is also one of the top earners, in spite of allowing you to buy high level gold tanks and gold ammo. On the other side of the equation is games with a fixed monthly subscription: They are dying out due to lack of success. Of the MMORPGs only a handful of the biggest is still working on monthly subscriptions, while there is a very long list of games that abandoned monthly subscriptions and switched to a Free2Play with item shop model, often announcing tripling of earning after the switch.

The only variety of item shop business model which tends to drive players away (In Europe and America, it does work in Asia) is one where you can buy items for real money that are BETTER than the best item you can get from playing. Most people consider games where money or time ends you up with the same sort of gear to not be Pay2Win at all. After all, the guy with the big wallet isn't actually winning over the guy lots of time to spare, he only expends a different resource to get to the same point. In a multiplayer duel it would still be down to skill who of them wins.

 

This exactly. I know people have different definitions for p2w, but most commonly agreed variation is that if free player can get same meaningfull things as paying player it is not pay to win. Although there is some expections, generally anything over 100% boost, sometimes even 100% boost.

Sadly Cardhunter has tiny problem in that while succesfull f2p games like LoL or WoT give boost to progression, they still manage limit the effect heavily in single match. In cardhunter specialisation is very hard, and even if you build deck solely based on your items, pvp oppenent with club membership and same amount of matches can easily have same deck but better. Gap will close eventually, but there still might be item or two difference over long period of time. Not to mention difference in flexibility, but that is pretty much basic premise in f2p games.

Compared to stuff like World of Tanks, where Premium gets you tanks much much faster, but ultimately (not always) in each match non-paying customer with certain tank is exactly even with paying customer with same tank.