SHIRUHANTA wrote:>< Should've just posted this. Deserves it's own post to keep it tidy.

http://www.crocout.com/2012/02/03/in-which-renekton-bot-discusses-free-to-play-games-and-why-companies-keep-screwing-it-all-up/

Mainly at DIAMONDDM13.. read every word of this before you give a reply. Be interesting to see what you think of it Pretty much what some of us are saying.

I've read it all. And I can tell you that this is all really nice and sweet, but you should know that this is just the stuff they tell users to be pleasant for your hears.
I don't really know who wrote that, but as I can see, and is pretty obvious, is just another free user.
What you still don't seem to realize is that EA makes way more money from 11 million users than Riot makes from theirs Millions.
NFS World is Play4Free and all of us play for free. And everyone has fun, otherwise people would stop playing. You all people keep on playing because even though you don't have as much fun as we Payers have with the best content, the game is still pretty fun even if you don't pay.
I think you all don't realize the world we live in, and that behind every "Good" company you all love so much is a plan to make you spend your money.
Riot has that PUBLIC philosophy to pretend to care for theirs players over anything else and I can tell that they will be able to keep their company runing with the little income they make. And that is fine for them, until the day that income is not enough to cover their expenses. Until then, you can enjoy that concept they made public to make you all feel happy and trust the company.
But then why are you playing NFSWorld and not LoL?
We will all see who gets the most out of their policy in the long term, but I can tell you know EA will get a better result.

And once again, I'll let you know that EA only does better because of their name and the Need for Speed brand. If this game were "World Street Racing" developed by "Random Studio", it would of failed long ago because of how it is run and it's development (or lack thereof). Let's see a lesser known company produce a racing game, sell power, and in the end be successful. That's right, we won't.

The perfect example of making money because of brand is The Run. It's an absolutely terrible game, but it still made and makes money simply because of the foundation of older NFS games that were actually fun and made a name for the series. Everyone buys from EA and NFS because they hope to have this same experience once again. Afterward, they tell themselves that it can't be true that these games suck, that maybe they just need to spend more. And that's NFS World.

I personally NEVER had fun as a free player. You can't speak for everyone if you don't know. My cousin who's played NFS almost as long as I have played this game once and uninstalled it. He's one of the lucky ones that realized the cheap quality before he got too deep in. People do stop playing, it's just that you're not going to notice them leaving here on the forums.

You're defending a company that uses a strategy no one else is dumb enough to use, yet you're acting like they have it right and no one else does. This game won't last long either, doesn't matter how much they make. You could be the top seller of an item, but if you keep * your customers over, one day they're going to decide to go somewhere else, then you are going to be SOL.

I can't wait to see the day another F2P racing game comes out from a company well known, and they run it right. The guys here running NFS World will then have 2 options. 1) Continue as so and basically let the other company win over all the racers... or 2) Get their * together and compete.

DIAMONDDM13 wrote:

Directly above this post

Just using all the knowledge I've learnt and studied, plus research, experience, industry talk and just figuring out exactly how the business culture works for some and not for others. Firstly nobody cares in LoL how much you spend cos it means nothing.... or any other online game I've played actually. All comes down to skill and time invested since there's not that much a a gameplay advantage. Only experienced it here which is saying something and really upsetting, not that I care anymore

I know EA and even more specifically NFSW make more than Riot and anybody who says otherwise is stupid to say this is untrue. Sure NFSW makes heaps of money, but it's not from word of mouth or player talk, just the brand and the insanely high costs (also using almost two year old exchange rates for me so biggest package cost about $40USD more on an already high cost)

About why I still play NFSW? The community. Got bored ages ago when I saw how things were being handled, got bored of racing, bored setting times and just playing in general, so would only play when killing time. TH has changed that, but just login, do it, logout most of the time anyway. Definately no interest in spending anything here. If not for the community, I'd be gone. Everything ingame could be perfect and I have access to everything in the game with 1 billion Speedboost and still wouldn't really enjoy it as much as I should. Bit weird but that's me.

Companies these days have to take the parenting approach: Look after your customers when they start and they're more likely to look after you in the long term with all their friends. If you treat them badly when they start, it's more likely they'll get away as fast as possible and almost nothing will make them come back.

People feel bad spending money on this game... so exactly how is that good for the long term? Doesn't seem like a good thing no matter how you look at it.

Also.. kinda unfair to compare a mega corporation that has been around for 30 years and has revolutionised so many gaming genres to one which has been around for 2-3 years old and has one game based off a mod. On the other hand... it's perfect to show how adapting to the environment is a good thing and the rise of "backyard" game developers showing it to the big guys

MEGA EDIT: Forgot to say the last paragraph is about the total revenue being made, not the other stuff. Forgot to say the context.

BL33DINGST33L wrote:And once again, I'll let you know that EA only does better because of their name and the Need for Speed brand. If this game were "World Street Racing" developed by "Random Studio", it would of failed long ago because of how it is run and it's development (or lack thereof). Let's see a lesser known company produce a racing game, sell power, and in the end be successful. That's right, we won't.

The perfect example of making money because of brand is The Run. It's an absolutely terrible game, but it still made and makes money simply because of the foundation of older NFS games that were actually fun and made a name for the series. Everyone buys from EA and NFS because they hope to have this same experience once again. Afterward, they tell themselves that it can't be true that these games suck, that maybe they just need to spend more. And that's NFS World.

I personally NEVER had fun as a free player. You can't speak for everyone if you don't know. My cousin who's played NFS almost as long as I have played this game once and uninstalled it. He's one of the lucky ones that realized the cheap quality before he got too deep in. People do stop playing, it's just that you're not going to notice them leaving here on the forums.

You're defending a company that uses a strategy no one else is dumb enough to use, yet you're acting like they have it right and no one else does. This game won't last long either, doesn't matter how much they make. You could be the top seller of an item, but if you keep * your customers over, one day they're going to decide to go somewhere else, then you are going to be SOL.

I can't wait to see the day another F2P racing game comes out from a company well known, and they run it right. The guys here running NFS World will then have 2 options. 1) Continue as so and basically let the other company win over all the racers... or 2) Get their * together and compete.

Of course they are doing better because of their success. And that is why they can give themselves to the luxury of making this division of in-game content for Free & Paying players.
And if you didn't noticed, they have a way larger paying community than the other games have, and they are now testing the market to see if the new prices they came up with have a better reception from the community, and I can tell you that if they make this prices worldwide, about 80% of the community will be buying the biggest SB package in no time.
The only thing I do consider unfair about this game is the prices for SpeedBoost, and even those are on the edge of becoming way more acceptable.
And just like I said before and will say for the last time. No matter how friendly this concept feels, the truth is the paying community only feels the need to buy Boost because it give them access to better and exclusive content. If it was free, people wouldn't pay for anything. And also, I can tell you that this may not leave free players happy, but it does leave paying customers happy, this is what makes us feel rewarded for supporting the game. If I'm paying for a free game and helping the company develop the game, I want to get rewarded for doing so. This is the only way they can make us feel apreciated for spending our hard earned money...

^

Can finally sum up a reply pretty small with those points you made.. mainly from the start and end.

That's the problem I personally have. In such a rare situation for a new game these days and it's not being used properly. Only recently have things changed to improve the game for everyone, so we'll see what happens. Reason the probable % is higher is because people are 'forced' to get speedboost to feel reward OR free player ratio has decreased.

Either way, really good opportunity is being wasted at making even more money and people everywhere hearing about NFSW but again, since TH was introduced the gameplay and advantage balance has been the best ever since V4 going from what people say, and ending this seemingly infinite 'test' of prices will be better. People are risking punishment just to get the low prices and I bet most are now former free players.

In short... EA are generous, but only very recently and still a long way to go till anybody can play this game and be happy. Something's wrong when you lie to the person who recommended you the game back in pre beta development that you play it cos he'd probably wonder if I've lost my sanity putting up with the mismanagement and not maxing potential Best time to be a free player though and things can only get better unless they get rid of a years work.

SHIRUHANTA wrote:>< Should've just posted this. Deserves it's own post to keep it tidy.

http://www.crocout.com/2012/02/03/in-which-renekton-bot-discusses-free-to-play-games-and-why-companies-keep-screwing-it-all-up/

Mainly at DIAMONDDM13.. read every word of this before you give a reply. Be interesting to see what you think of it Pretty much what some of us are saying.

I thought i would leave my thoughts as well on the subject.

My first thought is the article is written by a person who of his own admission tells us he has no money to spend on games and is trying to encourage a better deal for the free player.

I'm sure if a person took the time to look you could find an equally one sided enjoyable read from a paying player argueing that free players are a parasite and drain on resources.

I have nothing against free players, if i felt i could get enough out of a game without paying i would be a free player myself. I have played 4 free2play games, each for quite a long period and one of them i was a free player myself. The other 3 i felt i had to pay to get the enjoyment i wanted out of the game.

If you want to post a link that can be taken seriously about the workings of the free to play model then you need to post something written by an ecomonist or marketing advisor that has experience in the virtual market place.

What people need to realise is these companies have marketing strategies put in place by highly paid, highly qualified proffesionals that actually know what they doing. Each business plan is taylored for the individual company, the business model for a Global billion dollar corporation like EA is not going to be the same as a small limited liabilty company like riot games.

The free to play model of riot games league of legends works for them because there goal is not to make a profit with the game but to create a large customer base. Look at software, sometimes people develop it and distribute it for free, they do not do it because giving free software is the best way to make money they do it to gain a foothold in a market place. Once they have that foothold and customer base they will start to sell. Just because one company gives out free software you would not argue that all companies should give free software.

EA have that big market share in place, they have that large customer base, there freetoplay model is based around generating revenue not generating a large potential customer base.

So stop calling them generous. Because they arent.

Sosad1 wrote:EA have that big market share in place, they have that large customer base, there freetoplay model is based around generating revenue not generating a large potential customer base.

Right, EA is in the good position that they are so popular that they can f** around with non-paying players as they want to if they like to do so. They just don't really need free players and they tell this in a very nice way as you can see daily or at least weekly with every so called "update". I don't like this attitude, so I don't buy boost.

I don't play other f2p-games atm, so I can't tell anything about leaque of legends... After all I've heard, I doubt they would change their philosophy to $$$$$...

SoTOP wrote:So stop calling them generous. Because they arent.

As said earlier this is down to individual opinion. Each person will have there own idea of what generous is. I think both free players and paying players are now getting things for free that we did not get in the past. I think they could get away without giving us them so to me this generous.

You may not feel the same, some would feel they where not generous if everything was free, its just down to personal opinion.

oh thank god that EA is so generous for what has done for us and I'm very satisfied for what they did before and what will lift up because they are all * out if they don't remove car slots
nobody will sell his favorite car for which he worked hard to replace it with a new one and start tuning it all over again this means years

and i think that was all for this year, thank you

Well, let's go back to basics... What is needed to keep the games "play4free"-status:

1 car, maybe 3 (one of each tier), garage space for these cars, events, car fixing, parts, maybe visual tuning

What ea gives away for free:

Many cars of each tier, lots of different events, garage space for 3 cars, car fixing, parts, basic visual tuning, some boost by codes.

If you look at this, EA really is generous.

But: New cars are always for boost, they ad 8 cars per month for boost, 1 that was boost before gets igc, the development is unable to fix bugs or to fix them quickly unless they lose money due to one (Murcielago police edition was available for free after introduction, there they were very fast fixing that), they don't seem to care that much about cheaters, boost cars that are known as good ones aren't released for ingame cash, at least not quickly (murcielago took 1 year, escort almost).
They usually don't really ask the community about new things, the ask Marc is pathetic... Always questions about new cars, the canyons and other "cool new" stuff are making it in there. Maybe they mention the cheaters and tell how serious they take that problem.
At least they did one good thing, they asked their fb-community how they should improve "the 2011 beauty" and "the 2011 beast". After the result was out, they reacted and improved both cars quite nicely, not only the boost editions but the ingame-cash ones as well. They should do such polls more recently, maybe also in here.

Sosad1 wrote:

SHIRUHANTA wrote:>< Should've just posted this. Deserves it's own post to keep it tidy.

http://www.crocout.com/2012/02/03/in-which-renekton-bot-discusses-free-to-play-games-and-why-companies-keep-screwing-it-all-up/

Mainly at DIAMONDDM13.. read every word of this before you give a reply. Be interesting to see what you think of it Pretty much what some of us are saying.

I thought i would leave my thoughts as well on the subject.

My first thought is the article is written by a person who of his own admission tells us he has no money to spend on games and is trying to encourage a better deal for the free player.

I'm sure if a person took the time to look you could find an equally one sided enjoyable read from a paying player argueing that free players are a parasite and drain on resources.

I have nothing against free players, if i felt i could get enough out of a game without paying i would be a free player myself. I have played 4 free2play games, each for quite a long period and one of them i was a free player myself. The other 3 i felt i had to pay to get the enjoyment i wanted out of the game.

If you want to post a link that can be taken seriously about the workings of the free to play model then you need to post something written by an ecomonist or marketing advisor that has experience in the virtual market place.

Thought about it but the way these forums go, it'd probably get skipped over, too in depth, too boring but most importantly, I'd go full research mode and provide links to all sides of the argument and couldn't be bothered then. That seemed to cover one side of the argument in an informal way so posted it. If you want I can get much more relevant views. Just say the word, give me a day and I'll link!

Economists honestly have no idea about this. Marketers.... not as much as you think which makes sense as it's not their job to come up with the payment schemes. LoL honestly is a meh example but as I said, well known enough to use. Bet nobody here knows Seal Online so can't use that from personal experience.

SHIRUHANTA wrote:Thought about it but the way these forums go, it'd probably get skipped over, too in depth, too boring but most importantly, I'd go full research mode and provide links to all sides of the argument and couldn't be bothered then. That seemed to cover one side of the argument in an informal way so posted it. If you want I can get much more relevant views. Just say the word, give me a day and I'll link!

Economists honestly have no idea about this. Marketers.... not as much as you think which makes sense as it's not their job to come up with the payment schemes. LoL honestly is a meh example but as I said, well known enough to use. Bet nobody here knows Seal Online so can't use that from personal experience.

I'm almost at the end of my graduation, my course's name is "Math's Applied to Economics and Management". It's full with disciplines on Math's, Economics, Management, and also Informatics and Law. I think you underestimate Economist, this kinds of marketing models are all studied in my course, and you should know that if you were studying this too. I don't know what you do for a living nor do I know what you are or have studied. But to tell we have no idea about this is just bs.

SHIRUHANTA wrote:

Sosad1 wrote:

SHIRUHANTA wrote:>< Should've just posted this. Deserves it's own post to keep it tidy.

http://www.crocout.com/2012/02/03/in-which-renekton-bot-discusses-free-to-play-games-and-why-companies-keep-screwing-it-all-up/

Mainly at DIAMONDDM13.. read every word of this before you give a reply. Be interesting to see what you think of it Pretty much what some of us are saying.

I thought i would leave my thoughts as well on the subject.

My first thought is the article is written by a person who of his own admission tells us he has no money to spend on games and is trying to encourage a better deal for the free player.

I'm sure if a person took the time to look you could find an equally one sided enjoyable read from a paying player argueing that free players are a parasite and drain on resources.

I have nothing against free players, if i felt i could get enough out of a game without paying i would be a free player myself. I have played 4 free2play games, each for quite a long period and one of them i was a free player myself. The other 3 i felt i had to pay to get the enjoyment i wanted out of the game.

If you want to post a link that can be taken seriously about the workings of the free to play model then you need to post something written by an ecomonist or marketing advisor that has experience in the virtual market place.

Thought about it but the way these forums go, it'd probably get skipped over, too in depth, too boring but most importantly, I'd go full research mode and provide links to all sides of the argument and couldn't be bothered then. That seemed to cover one side of the argument in an informal way so posted it. If you want I can get much more relevant views. Just say the word, give me a day and I'll link!

Economists honestly have no idea about this. Marketers.... not as much as you think which makes sense as it's not their job to come up with the payment schemes. LoL honestly is a meh example but as I said, well known enough to use. Bet nobody here knows Seal Online so can't use that from personal experience.

oh right,
Sorry I didn't realise that profesionals with nice fat 6 figure pay packets who's experience lies in economics and marketing in the virtual market place would not know anything about this kind of thing.

If a billion dollar corporation like EA wants to make some real money they should obviously ignore the advice of those people and come straight to the forums and let the 16yr old school boys point them in the right direction.

Its all clear to me, thats all they need, you people to keep them right.
To be honest i'm amazed they did not manage to come up with your awesome business plan themselves ......giving away everything for free and that way they will make more money because the people who can not afford to spend or do not want to spend will be happy.
Amazed they missed it really.

P.s are you people really this stupid or is it some sort of act?

I could ask you the same question. Are you stupid or are you blind? Because its at least one of these two. And dont talk about EA's experence in free2play games, because that just proves your lack of knowledge in this matter.