Support NeoGAF

[Men_in_Boxes]

We've had a number of GAAS games release recently and most of them have been P2P (pay to play). This is a little surprising considering how well F2P has done over the last few years.

Have publishers figured the following out?

If they expect their GAAS title to struggle with player retention, charge an up front fee.

If they expect their GAAS title to do well with player retention, release it as F2P.

What do you think the most important variable is when deciding how to charge for your GAAS game? Why are some better at P2P and others better at F2P? What's the big variable?

 

[SlimeGooGoo]

OP gets it wrong. I will explain my theory below.

 

[killatopak]

brain damage. more details below.

 

[Danjin44]

As long as GaaS shit stay away from the series I enjoy, I don’t give a fuck what they do to steal more money from people.

 

[lh032]

We've had a number of GAAS games release recently and most of them have been P2P (pay to play). This is a little surprising considering how well F2P has done over the last few years.

Have publishers figured the following out?

If they expect their GAAS title to struggle with player retention, charge an up front fee.

If they expect their GAAS title to do well with player retention, release it as F2P.

What do you think the most important variable is when deciding how to charge for your GAAS game? Why are some better at P2P and others better at F2P? What's the big variable?

I think so as well.

If devs were really confident about retention, they will price it as F2P

 

[Cyberpunkd]

If they expect their GAAS title to struggle with player retention, charge an up front fee.

If they expect their GAAS title to do well with player retention, release it as F2P.

Why leave money on the table? You charge an upfront fee so even if you struggle you made some money. Then you continue with MTX for long-term revenue stream.

I would say the opposite is true: if you make a game F2P from the start you are not confident in the product enough to demand customers to pay up front. People frequently bring up things like Fortnite but I’m sure the moment Fortnite launched it was considered a huge gamble, since it was a new type of game.

 

[TransTrender]

Most everything is a living exploitative nightmare, then you have Helldivers 2 which seems to be pricing the mtx correctly.

 

[killatopak]

Why are some better at P2P and others better at F2P? What's the big variable?

I feel like this is an audience thing.

Generally, P2P are games where pubs feel like there is an existing base that will support it. Take Diablo for example. You KNOW people will buy it despite being filled with MTX.

As for new ips, it's a lot more complicated. What the game itself needs and not what the publishers is the rule of success. As an example, HoN, LoL and Dota 2 were generally developed during the same timeframe. HoN was always going to be P2P while LoL was always going to be F2P. League understood that in that type of game, number of users was gonna matter more in the long term than initial ROI. This is with League playing and looking like dogshit compared to HoN. Dota 2 released late and just followed the successful business model.

 

[Audiophile]

I'd prefer a free trial period followed by a subscription and then unlock everything from there.

Another option is a mid-price game with low/moderately-priced cosmetic mtx.

My main issue right now is with the likes of COD where (outside of warzone) you have a full price game, with battle passes and with a rolling storefront which requires you to wait or make purchases to see all items, then a bunch of trash is bundled in with the one thing you want for $15-20. The entire inventory should be visible and everything be purchasable, with a gun skin being say $0.99 at most. Bundles should be larger discount opportunities, not the norm. I know many people who won't touch these bundles cause the system takes the biscuit, but who say they would engage with it (possibly to a greater overall value) if they could just buy the individual stuff they want. It's almost like they favour predatory practices and a clunky ux for the sake of it; and I wouldn't be surprised if a more user-friendly approach could actually be a win-win by increasing engagement and more smaller purchases across a much larger base. It also helps to feel like you're not getting fucked in the process. Good will might actually be worth something monetarily in the long run.

It's as if they prefer to do-over a single existing consumer to get $20 out of them; while putting off another four, than please five existing consumers and get $5 out of each of them.

If it's over and above a good baseline number of weapons/skins; and artists have spent time creating new assets I'm happy to pay a small amount for each of them. But force me into buying a bunch of crap I don't want for that one thing and I'm not interested.

GaaS was never inherently bad for specific titles where it fits. But the execution is just a mess 99% of the time.

 

[PaintTinJr]

We've had a number of GAAS games release recently and most of them have been P2P (pay to play). This is a little surprising considering how well F2P has done over the last few years.

Have publishers figured the following out?

If they expect their GAAS title to struggle with player retention, charge an up front fee.

If they expect their GAAS title to do well with player retention, release it as F2P.

What do you think the most important variable is when deciding how to charge for your GAAS game? Why are some better at P2P and others better at F2P? What's the big variable?

In (PES/Winning Elven, ISS Pro Evo) eFootball's case it is free to play IMO because it has a learning curve like a Virtua Fighter 4 and without giving it away new players won't have the desire to invest time to reach a competitive level to survive against old hands and potentially invest in the MTX currency. It also has allowed Konami to retain players like myself - with 20years since PS1 - that loathe MTX pay to win that would only buy the game outright, but might struggle year on year to justify buying with the light SP, and light local MP focus and heavy MTX online MP focus, say compared to a GT7.

Sports games also have a constant roster update to drive MTX sales for impatient players, so gatekeeping year on year, probably loses more sales for hardcore games like eFootball with fantastic football simulation than the mainstream alternatives that have become market leader from license use and shallower, less skill based gameplay.

 

[balls of snow]

On one hand Helldivers 2

Helldivers 2 hits 1 million copies sold, attracting over 360k concurrent players on PS5 and PC | Game World Observer

It seems like Helldivers 2 is exceeding expectations after its strong launch last week. The game has already sold around 1 million units in less than a week.

gameworldobserver.com

On another Payday 3

Starbreeze admits Payday 3 is massively underperforming

The studio believes it can rehabilitate the struggling title but has warned there's no "simple" fix.

www.gamedeveloper.com

Charge what you must, success depends on hype levels going into week 1.

 

[Guilty_AI]

If you're gonna charge upfront because you don't expect player retention, why even make it GAAS at that point? The whole business model of a GAAS revolves around keeping players around in the first place.

 

[lughnasadh123]

I think the more important part is if people are paying the prices you're asking regardless of the model.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

If you're gonna charge upfront because you don't expect player retention, why even make it GAAS at that point? The whole business model of a GAAS revolves around keeping players around in the first place.

It wouldn't be a binary. It's not "Do we expect player retention? Yes or no? It's "How big to we expect our player base to be after 6 months, 1 year, 3 years etc..."

A small or medium sized tail is still vastly preferable to no tail.

 

[Guilty_AI]

It wouldn't be a binary. It's not "Do we expect player retention? Yes or no? It's "How big to we expect our player base to be after 6 months, 1 year, 3 years etc..."

A small or medium sized tail is still vastly preferable to no tail.

You don't need to be binary with whether the game is GAAS or not either. Release a normal P2P game, if its successful and players keep coming back, make new content and/or DLC that reflects player engagement and spending. If people leave the game in droves, cancel future content and leave the game as is.

I'd say that is the case here, but by making the game always online they essentially locked themselves into the GAAS route.

 

[Danjin44]

If you're gonna charge upfront because you don't expect player retention, why even make it GAAS at that point? The whole business model of a GAAS revolves around keeping players around in the first place.

God knows how many times I played Elden Ring, I had actively had to force myself getaway from it because other games coming out but to this day I still craving to do another 1-3 more playthroughs…FROM able to keep me playing their game even after 2 years without being GaaS or online only BS.

All I need is fun gameplay loop, I don’t GaaS or force online crap to keep me playing your game. People are free disagree with me but in my honest opinion, GaaS is created to make money, not make my experience better.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

You don't need to be binary with whether the game is GAAS or not either. Release a normal P2P game, if its successful and players keep coming back, make new content and/or DLC that reflects player engagement and spending. If people leave the game in droves, cancel future content and leave the game as is.

I'd say that is the case here, but by making the game always online they essentially locked themselves into the GAAS route.

I think you have to build your studio around recurring revenue because that's what they're after. Not doing so would make them slow footed to take advantage of their success. Speed is huge in business.

 

[Guilty_AI]

I think you have to build your studio around recurring revenue because that's what they're after. Not doing so would make them slow footed to take advantage of their success. Speed is huge in business.

Problem is, recurring revenue isn't a guaranteed factor to any specific degree. I've spoken this with you many times before, but games that can actually keep an ultra high player base are very rare.

The only realistic thing they can do is aim to smaller and more loyal playerbases, but even then it isn't guaranteed those players will spend enough to keep the studio floating.

The safest model they can aim towards is releasing the game as P2P, then sell major expansions over time as they're great ways to renew interest in the game and have a more guaranteed revenue - as long as they know there's interest for the game and the quality of said expansion is good.

 

[ReBurn]

I'm not sure I'd go as far as to say that successful player retention in service-based games is primarily related to the cost of entry. I think you still have to start with something that people want to play and you have to keep it fun over time. Making your game free to play definitely makes it easier to get people to try it, but keeping people around and getting them to pay you for it on an ongoing basis it is still based on how much people enjoy playing in your world and how the items you sell enrich the experience.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Problem is, recurring revenue isn't a guaranteed factor to any specific degree. I've spoken this with you many times before, but games that can actually keep an ultra high player base are very rare.

The only realistic thing they can do is aim to smaller and more loyal playerbases, but even then it isn't guaranteed those players will spend enough to keep the studio floating.

The safest model they can aim towards is releasing the game as P2P, then sell major expansions over time as they're great ways to renew interest in the game and have a more guaranteed revenue - as long as they know there's interest for the game and the quality of said expansion is good.

Don't you think the reason no one is doing this is because it doesn't make any sense?

You're essentially describing the multiplayer model from 20 years ago that foundered on the market.

 

[March Climber]

To have a serious discussion with Men_in_Boxes about this, you guys first have to understand his definition of GAAS. It's not the same as yours.

That's why these disagreements keep happening.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Don't you think the reason no one is doing this is because it doesn't make any sense?

No one?

Spoiler

There's even more, but GAF only lets me put 10 embedded media.

Now, what do all of these have in common?

a) Their new expansions and content can be bought in their entirety. Aka a person enthusiastic about the game can buy every piece of content the game has to offer at a price that can be considered reasonable, at worst the equivalent of some special ultra-deluxe edition (not considering discounts).
>I'm pointing this out because that's the crucial difference between an expasion/DLC model and a MTX one. You can't reasonably own every piece of content in a game that uses MTX as its main revenue source. In fact, often times they don't even sell you content, just convenience.
>The only outlier among the ones i posted would be ETS2 since they sell a bunch of cosmetic packages which sum up to quite the terrible total (Its the oldest in the list with over 10 years of market after all), but their main source of revenue are the map expansions which can all be bought realistically. Also, entirely possible for a person who has been following the game since the start to own everything.

b) None of these games have particular large player-bases, but still manage to make money and stay afloat within this model.

There's even another tier to this which are P2P games with no MTX that release new content 100% for free, usually relying entirely on rasing interest among new potential buyers rather than charging the already engaged player-base.

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

No one?

Spoiler

There's even more, but GAF only lets me put 10 embedded media.

Now, what do all of these have in common?

a) Their new expansions and content can be bought in their entirety. Aka a person enthusiastic about the game can buy every piece of content the game has to offer at a price that can be considered reasonable, at worst the equivalent of some special ultra-deluxe edition (not considering discounts).
>I'm pointing this out because that's the crucial difference between an expasion/DLC model and a MTX one. You can't reasonably own every piece of content in a game that uses MTX as its main revenue source. In fact, often times they don't even sell you content, just convenience.
>The only outlier among the ones i posted would be ETS2 since they sell a bunch of cosmetics which sum up to quite the terrible total (Its the oldest in the list with over 10 years of market after all), but their main source of revenue are the map expansions.

b) None of these games have particular large player-bases, but still manage to make money and stay afloat within this model.

There's even another tier to this which are games that release new content 100% for free, usually relying entirely on rasing interest among new potential buyers rather than charging the already engaged player-base.

Oh, when you said "The safest model they can aim towards is releasing the game as P2P, then sell major expansions over time."

I thought that was a reference to the old Call of Duty map packs the hurt the player base.

It'll be interesting to see how many of PlayStations 12 Live Service games end up being P2P and how much end up F2P. We should understand the patter everyone.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Oh, when you said "The safest model they can aim towards is releasing the game as P2P, then sell major expansions over time."

I thought that was a reference to the old Call of Duty map packs the hurt the player base.

Just another reason why single player and coop games work better within these types of recurring spending models when compared to PvP. They can deliver the experience they want without relying on the active presence of other players.

 

[rhodesianshepard]

I wonder if Concord will be F2P. I can't remember the last PvP GAAS game that wasn't F2P

 

[nowhat]

Missing poll option: why OP still has thread posting privileges is beyond me.

 

[Ribi]

If you're gnna do GAAS and need money to recoup development costs you have to price it lower than $30. Additionally you're gnna have to release content on day one to be worth the price tag, you can't sell a dream and expect people to buy it if there's no foundation. Palworld for example is a good example of a GAAS that sold at a lower price and has content to back it up

 

[Men_in_Boxes]

Just another reason why single player and coop games work better within these types of recurring spending models when compared to PvP. They can deliver the experience they want without relying on the active presence of other players.

Yeah, I wonder if PvP will ever take off in GAAS.

 

[Audiophile]

If you're gonna charge upfront because you don't expect player retention, why even make it GAAS at that point? The whole business model of a GAAS revolves around keeping players around in the first place.

I think with some projects at least they likely start with the expectation and the dreams, then the bean counters get nervous nearer launch and start forcing a shift in strategy to recoup the costs up front rather than hoping for them down the line should the player base be retained. In turn they sabotage the vision and the project.

Almost like studio execs getting nervous around big franchise movies and forcing rewrites and reshoots, but instead they end up watering it down and shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[yurinka]

For them is better to pay upfront full game (CoD, FIFA, GT7) and then add battle/season passes or MTX.

For us, to pay upfront means they already got enough money, so they may be less aggressive with in-game monetization stuff and retention features (see Helldivers 2).

 

[Crayon]

The difference is that mtx should be cosmetic or minimally consequential in a b2p. If it's free to play, go ahead and hit me with the grind wall 10 hours in. I can play all I want but I'll have to buy a booster for a Saturday if I want to get progress. Or buy a skin because looking at the standard one so long has broken me down.

 

[Generic]

God knows how many times I played Elden Ring, I had actively had to force myself getaway from it because other games coming out but to this day I still craving to do another 1-3 more playthroughs…FROM able to keep me playing their game even after 2 years without being GaaS or online only BS.

All I need is fun gameplay loop, I don’t GaaS or force online crap to keep me playing your game. People are free disagree with me but in my honest opinion, GaaS is created to make money, not make my experience better.

There's no reason to replay a singleplayer game, until it's a short game.

 

[Danjin44]

There's no reason to replay a singleplayer game, until it's a short game.

If I enjoyed the game replay it multiple times, I played Eden Ring many, MANY times and without ever touching PVP or co-op.

I take that over online only GaaS crap any day.

 

[ByWatterson]

Opposite.

If you're worried you won't get an initial audience at a premium, go FTP.

If you think you have a banger that will retain an audience, charge and then keep charging.

 

[Guilty_AI]

There's no reason to replay a singleplayer game, until it's a short game.

Elder Scrolls/Fallout fans