Concern about Business Model: Episodic Expansions

[NightStroke]

"Business Model - Pay once, no subscription

Should we reach the final game creation and shipping moment, the game will be sold at the higher end of Indie games. Pay once, no subscription fee. Pay for episodic expansions. In-game store with cosmetics and convenience, but not power."(from the latest IGG campaign)

I am completely ok with pay once to play; no subscription appeals to me, as well as paying for cosmetics/convenience, but my concern is with episodic expansions.

The main games I have played are Lego Universe Online, Warframe, Firefall, DC Universe Online, Destiny, and Overwatch. Lego Universe Online was an initial purchase+monthly subscription, a business model which led it to go into the ground(RIP). Warframe, as many of you know, garners revenue from selling cosmetics and a LOT of convenience, including selling premium currency which can be used in the player trading market(everything in the game can be earned without paying real money). We all know how Firefall worked.

This is where my concern comes in: both DCUO and Destiny had business models focused on selling expansion packs(alongside other microtransactions). Both left me personally in a love/hate relationship with the game. I appreciated the systems, mechanics, combat, and other constants of both games, but locking content behind a paywall left me dissatisfied.

Specifically in the case of Destiny, I paid for a variety of content that we only got years after the initial release. With content being locked behind paywalls, I had to pay extra for things I may not have been interested in to get new weapons and gear I liked.

Since this game is about a fight to take over territory, I'd really rather have an expansion-based update involve work to craft things to push further; if someone wants to pay their way through, they can immediately buy those items.

I'm not very certain as to how to articulate. All I know is that when content gets repeatedly locked behind a paywall (especially after an initial cost), I hate it. Please stick to convenience, cosmetics, and the initial cost. The convenience can be a means to pay for episodic expansions, but don't prevent players from accessing any new content after they pay the initial cost.

 

[EvilKitten]

Why I think that Mark should simply continue with using Fundraisers to pay for expansion work, I mean look at how well this one did...No pay gate, expansion is prepaid for by those who can afford it, those who can't can still play. If not enough people are willing to fund it then, well no expansion.

 

[SundownKid]

I think I understand your frustration. GW2 implemented this sort of content in their Living Story, where each season had content that, unless you were a vet of the game and stuck around since living story started, could not be experienced without paying for a microtransaction. It costed something like 3 dollars a segment, where there were at least half a dozen segments per season. Putting aside the quality of Anet's writing (boohoo rox), the price isn't necessarily steep, but it's an underhanded type of marketing. Also, if someone wanted to catch up on the story, they could simply watch a video or read the wiki, leaving the player with little incentive to buy previous content unless they wanted the bonus items rewarded for completing them. I don't know how easy it will be to justify getting expansions for free, but ember devs can take a note or two from anet devs on how you DON'T handle additional content.

 

[DARKB1KE]

Nobody works for free.

That being said, Destiny burned me as well. The highest package, digital deluxe, was worth nothing after more DLC was released with further expansions. I bought it initially, assuming it was a season pass for all future updates... turns out it wasn't.

 

[NitroMidgets]

I played Destiny when it was released and for the first five months. I got bored with it and since I had other things to play on PC I went back to that. Gave away my copy and never went back. So glad I missed the rest of year one or more.
Warframe the game and DE the developer just do a good job at many aspects. Well, other then that time they threatened to ban me for a spanking comment in reference to an employee of theirs. Some people just can't take a spanking or a joke. Personally, I am OK with either depending on the context.

 

[Squid Boss]

There's nothing wrong with buying the base game and paying for an expansion of said game later if it provide sufficient content for its dollar value.

Only problem is that value is subjective.

Development time isn't cheap. The game needs money. The employees need money. The servers cost money.

Why I think that Mark should simply continue with using Fundraisers to pay for expansion work, I mean look at how well this one did...No pay gate, expansion is prepaid for by those who can afford it, those who can't can still play. If not enough people are willing to fund it then, well no expansion.

That sounds awful. You'd potentially spend more money that way or simply stunt the games growth and perhaps ultimately kill it. At least with a box with a dollar amount attached every year or two, they get the return at a simple price point or they don't and now the pressure is on the developer to create better content and we aren't left sending funds now left holding an empty bag.

 

[EvilKitten]

There's nothing wrong with buying the base game and paying for an expansion of said game later if it provide sufficient content for its dollar value.

Only problem is that value is subjective.

Development time isn't cheap. The game needs money. The employees need money. The servers cost money.



That sounds awful. You'd potentially spend more money that way or simply stunt the games growth and perhaps ultimately kill it. At least with a box with a dollar amount attached every year or two, they get the return at a simple price point or they don't and now the pressure is on the developer to create better content and we aren't left sending funds now left holding an empty bag.

And how is that any different from how it is now? You pay what you think something is worth, if it isn't worth it to enough people then it doesn't get funded. Seems fairly logical to me. This will keep the Ember dev team designing content that people really want to see, and it would be a good litmus test to keep tabs on that aspect of the game. The one thing I feel is important is to not gate people based on whether they paid or not. Not saying people who pay shouldn't get benefits, but multiplayer games need the largest population possible. Any restrictions on where a player can go or what events they can participate in should be minimized as much as possible. NOT gating content behind pay walls (however large or small they are) is therefore important.

 

[Squid Boss]

And how is that any different from how it is now? You pay what you think something is worth, if it isn't worth it to enough people then it doesn't get funded. Seems fairly logical to me. This will keep the Ember dev team designing content that people really want to see, and it would be a good litmus test to keep tabs on that aspect of the game. The one thing I feel is important is to not gate people based on whether they paid or not. Not saying people who pay shouldn't get benefits, but multiplayer games need the largest population possible. Any restrictions on where a player can go or what events they can participate in should be minimized as much as possible. NOT gating content behind pay walls (however large or small they are) is therefore important.

Difference being we are funding an entire games creation to get it on its feet. Once it has settled and is standing on its own it shouldn't be our responsibility to fund its future updates by more Indiegogo milestones. We did our part funding its creation and now it is up the developers to take charge and and allow us our payout. It is still up to the user to decide if that content is worth their money.

Basically, if I am under the right thought for this, we'd be doing Kickstarters for expansions. I don't see those being popular. Any rewards for backing would simply be possible in game merchandise to fund the creation of expansions, too. The game has to support itself and we invest into it since we love playing it.

I'll pay $30 for an expansion if I deem the game worthy and the expansion content seems worth it. I don't think I'd want to gamble on Ember indefinitely.

 

[Nunaden]

Well... i think it would be wise to let the whole comm to pay for an expansion (ingame/ over teh website), and those that paid for it are allowed to acces the content one or two weeks earlier than teh others. It would also got pretty hand in hand with the f2p-Monday/Thursday. The ppl that paid for it can access the content one week before the other players that bought the game, and they can access the content one week before the f2p ppl can meaning that the f2p ppl need to wait 2 weeks, but are still able to play it.

 

[EvilKitten]

@Squid Boss, you seem to have this idea that if any fundraiser ever failed then all of ember would fail...or you have some strange definition associated with the term "gamble". In what way is it a gamble? If you want to see something in Ember then help fund it, if you don't then don't fund it. And if you did support something and it failed what are you out? oh right, nothing. If a fundraiser fails then you simply continue to play the game as is.

We don't stop funding content creation simply because the game launches, whether it is through an in game store, or a subscription, or periodic costs you are still funding content creation. The fundraiser concept simply allows you, the player, a much more vocal role in the funding.

 

[Wyntyr]

Perhaps if an actual merchandise store were implemented, and was successful, then funds from that might help to carry the devs/company between content releases. And..if that is the case, then perhaps the DLC's wouldn't be as expensive as what you might be contemplating now.

 

[Squid Boss]

@Squid Boss, you seem to have this idea that if any fundraiser ever failed then all of ember would fail...or you have some strange definition associated with the term "gamble". In what way is it a gamble? If you want to see something in Ember then help fund it, if you don't then don't fund it. And if you did support something and it failed what are you out? oh right, nothing. If a fundraiser fails then you simply continue to play the game as is.

We don't stop funding content creation simply because the game launches, whether it is through an in game store, or a subscription, or periodic costs you are still funding content creation. The fundraiser concept simply allows you, the player, a much more vocal role in the funding.

You do realize any money funding supporting Ember is still a gamble? There is no gurantee it comes to full light or is a game you will enjoy. Not high stakes but still a gamble.

I don't see a single milestone not being met the end. Didn't say that at all. Although if you cannoy fund the game enough to create more content without the help of a funding rally and the game never grows it is as good as dead. Stagnant games lacking content do not survive the angsty masses these days.

All I said was if Ember launches it need to support itself through its own ability to earn and not ask us for more money up front. I will invest money through optional montly subscription or purchase of in game currency for cosmetics and other goodies after launch. I won't support another fund raiser since it means they can't seem to find profit.

 

[EvilKitten]

You do realize any money funding supporting Ember is still a gamble? There is no gurantee it comes to full light or is a game you will enjoy. Not high stakes but still a gamble.

I don't see a single milestone not being met the end. Didn't say that at all. Although if you cannoy fund the game enough to create more content without the help of a funding rally and the game never grows it is as good as dead. Stagnant games lacking content do not survive the angsty masses these days.

All I said was if Ember launches it need to support itself through its own ability to earn and not ask us for more money up front. I will invest money through optional montly subscription or purchase of in game currency for cosmetics and other goodies after launch. I won't support another fund raiser since it means they can't seem to find profit.

Right but you are talking about it being a gamble after we are already playing the released game. At any rate I feel the need to point out that I am not merely supporting Ember, for me personally I am also supporting the method that Mark is using to design his game. Even if I end up not liking the game I will consider it money well spent once Ember comes out because it will show that this method of milestone fundraisers works, so hopefully other developers can get away from the horrid F2P model and use this one instead.

 

[Squid Boss]

Right but you are talking about it being a gamble after we are already playing the released game. At any rate I feel the need to point out that I am not merely supporting Ember, for me personally I am also supporting the method that Mark is using to design his game. Even if I end up not liking the game I will consider it money well spent once Ember comes out because it will show that this method of milestone fundraisers works, so hopefully other developers can get away from the horrid F2P model and use this one instead.

Not really.

It more becomes something along the lines of... "I have spent money on this game for months now. You're asking me for even more after all the in game currency and optional subscription payments now?"; just an example.

I could understand it if going forward it was told it would be this way. Unfortunately I don't know if that would play well. Continued support via good provided is one thing but I would hope not to see both. Would make me uneasy seeing them ask for cash to keep moving forward and make me question where the funds have been going or how things are.

Stable game? Simply create the sales pitch for the expansion and offer pre-order. Simple enough. I like this method of creation and that's why I pitch in as well but I don't think I would like to see it go beyond the initial creation; just my personal view and to each their own.

 

[Bl4ckhunter]

Nobody works for free.

doesn't justify asking customers to pay for the same game twice, set a fair price at the start and stick to it, someone suggested selling 3-6 month early accessess packages on other threads coupled with fundraisers for milestones, (becouse if they work out i don't see any real reason to stop using them) and it seems the best solution to me.

Besides i can't really see what would even be episodic expansions in an open world game with allegedly no campaign.

 

[Grummz]

The difference between a mini-expansion and a kickstarter for an expansion is that in a mini-expansion, the company takes the risk. They fund the development then sell it. A KS for mini-expansions shift the burden of risk to the players.

The free-er I make the game, the more you will have to deal with in-store F2P style mechanics to make up the money. I am more loath to go that route than I am a expansion approach. So, to me it is the lesser of two evils.

Gamers have been comfortable with expansions for decades, well before F2P. I guess its a model I'm comfortable with too.

 

[DARKB1KE]

doesn't justify asking customers to pay for the same game twice, set a fair price at the start and stick to it, someone suggested selling 3-6 month early accessess packages on other threads coupled with fundraisers for milestones, (becouse if they work out i don't see any real reason to stop using them) and it seems the best solution to me.

Besides i can't really see what would even be episodic expansions in an open world game with allegedly no campaign.

No that's not how I pictured it.

Expansions are what, around $15 average? (Call of duty, battlefield) I think that's more than affordable. I remember StarCraft 2 doing expansion packs years ago. That's just how I view it. Not sure where you got the idea of paying for the game twice.

 

[Bl4ckhunter]

Expansions are what, around $15 average? (Call of duty, battlefield) I think that's more than affordable. I remember StarCraft 2 doing expansion packs years ago. That's just how I view it. Not sure where you got the idea of paying for the game twice.

Let us set aside the fact that at least for call of duty and battlefields dlcs are already ready on launch day and that they just delay them to have something to sell later on and that the sales of the base game more than cover for the costs of prodoction, the dlcs, and the production of the sequel as well, do you really think that a complete CoD game is worth 100-120$ ??? i don't think so, can't talk about starcraft as it never was a game i was interested in but as far as the other games are concerned yes, it's a scam and it reeks of it.

 

[EvilKitten]

The difference between a mini-expansion and a kickstarter for an expansion is that in a mini-expansion, the company takes the risk. They fund the development then sell it. A KS for mini-expansions shift the burden of risk to the players.

The free-er I make the game, the more you will have to deal with in-store F2P style mechanics to make up the money. I am more loath to go that route than I am a expansion approach. So, to me it is the lesser of two evils.

Gamers have been comfortable with expansions for decades, well before F2P. I guess its a model I'm comfortable with too.

I totally understand the desire to stay away from F2P model aspects, I loath the whole misnomer of "convenience" and do not wish to see it anywhere close to Ember. I do not know exactly what you have in mind for what content you intend for expansions, I did make the suggestion of having expansions be the arrival of new factions from the various human worlds. Each one could have a unique design to their armor/weapons/abilities without requiring any vertical progression at all. That sort of content I wouldn't be adverse to playing for.

As I have said before though my key argument against post payment expansions is gating anyone from being able to access locations on the map. Or be able to participate in a fight, simply because they have not shelled out more money.

Here is a thought...what if expansions were a hybrid? You could have a kickstarter/fundraiser alongside the announcement of your new upcoming expansion. Anyone who wanted to could help fund the expansion early and in return they would get beta access as well as say a unique skin or some other digital item. Then you could release the expansion as part paid and part free. The free part would be new zones, updates on the storyline and some new main questlines. The paid part would be faction equipment, side quests and anything else that doesn't prevent players from participating in the new locations.

 

[Sud Monkey]

do you really think that a complete CoD game is worth 100-120$ ?

I think by definition it must be, otherwise people wouldn't buy it because it's not worth it.