Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 69 of 69
  1. #61
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    27,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renvar View Post
    Ways it would generate more revenue:

    Capturing Premium players as a revenue stream. - Currently not available. There are thousands of them that are contributing $0 to this.

    Capturing per character fees, in addition to store charges. Every time a character dies, it will cost you to get another. Every time you want to compete for the leader board spot, it will cost you to start a character with a 40 hour timer. This revenue model seems to be more sustainable than banking only on store purchases for however many characters don't die.

    By limiting it to a 40 hour timer on the leaderboard, more players can compete. By creating the tiers, more players will compete. There are players that will try to place on all 3. Or try to get 4 of the top 10 spots. Also, you will not see the huge drop off after 30 days that was seen last time. Since the leaderboard is only measured by the first 40 hours of in-quest time, people can try for the leader board in the last month, last two weeks, and even last week of the competition. Instead of it being largely over after 45 days, unless you are already on the leader board at that point.
    This is operating on the assumption that people will continue to pay over and over again for the same benefits, which we do see evidence that they will not do, in the form of people reducing the number of characters they play (and pay for power on) the more grindy the game becomes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renvar View Post
    I'm still not convinced that the +8 stat tomes $500 per hard core league whales are all that plentiful. For every one of those, I think there are 10 people who just roll up characters and spend nothing or next to nothing.
    Im 100% positive you are correct here, that they are NOT that plentiful. Its not the quantity of big spenders, its how much each of them spends.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renvar View Post
    The +8 supreme whales will still spend $500. Everyone who wants to spend now will be able to do so and will probably continue to do so. You aren't losing any revenue streams, you are only adding new ones.
    This is what I stated before, in favor of just giving premium access. It is in congruence with the way the rest of the game is monetized. People's spending habits dont change. Right ow on HC they have a bunch of VIPs who spend minimally as well as a small percentage who p2w to the extreme, as well as varying degrees in the middle of those two extremes. There no business reason to disallow all the Premium players, some who spend minimally as well as a small percentage who p2w to the extreme, as well as varying degrees in the middle of those two extremes - to also participate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    We are no more d000m'd then we were a week ago. Note - This was posted in 10/2013 (when concurrency was ~4x what it is today)

  2. #62
    Bounty Hunter
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    11,681

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Justicesfury View Post
    How is it hardcore when you can buy +8 tomes in the store, +5 skill tomes in the store, pots for leveling in the store, and astral shards for gold roll XP in the store?

    Sounds more like STORE-core
    The people actually playing on hc realize those things don't help you live and the constant stream of death notices is a reminder of that. I keep hearing about people rolling to 20 which I am not sure I believe and even if true it doesn't really bother me because the 1750 favor and 20 prize are the low-risk participation prize anyhow. I mean getting to 20 via EN isn't hard, time-consuming or even risky. Running low level on content on hard and higher level content on just normal will get you to 20 and 1750 and no risk.

    I mean seriously farming for level 1 and level 6 gear with +3 and +4 mythic bonuses probably gets you way more power than any of those things. That prr/mrr at low levels is meaningful.
    Last edited by slarden; 02-26-2020 at 10:45 AM.

  3. #63
    DDO Players Council Renvar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    This is operating on the assumption that people will continue to pay over and over again for the same benefits, which we do see evidence that they will not do, in the form of people reducing the number of characters they play (and pay for power on) the more grindy the game becomes.
    We've never had a system like this before in this game.

    If you had a leaderboard that was up for 3 months that tracked Reaper XP and Favor earned over a 40 hour timed period on the HCL with a cost of $5 per character to compete, a single player would absolutely purchase multiple characters to try to place as many as possible on the leader board and/or to beat their Personal Best.

    Certainly not all players would, but there are some competitive folks in our midst who would be all about this. By putting a time limit on the leaderboard, you would also force people to run harder difficulties and at greater speed. Speed running at higher difficulties is inherently more risky. This would result in more deaths, which would mean more $5 character purchases to try to compete.

    The current situation is one where the time window is too long (3 months) and the time/money requirements to compete are too high for a majority of the player base. The best path to success is also one that minimizes risk heavily.
    It's just not a recipe for generating a higher degree of participation. And does not allow the Premium player base to participate.

    I do not care about placing on the leaderboard in HCL because I don't play HCL more than 5-8 hours per week. The leader board focused players are doing 20-30 hours per week. Or more. Now, it was timed and all that mattered was my score over 40 hours vs. their score over 40 hours, I could get through 3 iterations of that with 3 chances to place on the board. And I would absolutely do that. Sure, more active players could take more cracks at if they want. But the competition is more accessible. Which gains more involvement. Which gains more revenue.
    Asheras - Velania - Renvar - Ventarya - Officer in Loreseekers and Officer of Lava Divers - Khyber

  4. #64
    Community Member SiliconScout's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Saskatchewan, Canada
    Posts
    2,290

    Default

    What people need to keep in mind is that coming in first, second, third or 907th on any of the leaderboards comes with no more material value / reward assuming all crossed the threshold. The character with 5000 favor and 20 Repaer points has every single material reward that the player with 6,710 favor and 158 reaper points

  5. #65
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    27,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renvar View Post
    We've never had a system like this before in this game.

    If you had a leaderboard that was up for 3 months that tracked Reaper XP and Favor earned over a 40 hour timed period on the HCL with a cost of $5 per character to compete, a single player would absolutely purchase multiple characters to try to place as many as possible on the leader board and/or to beat their Personal Best.

    Certainly not all players would, but there are some competitive folks in our midst who would be all about this. By putting a time limit on the leaderboard, you would also force people to run harder difficulties and at greater speed. Speed running at higher difficulties is inherently more risky. This would result in more deaths, which would mean more $5 character purchases to try to compete.

    The current situation is one where the time window is too long (3 months) and the time/money requirements to compete are too high for a majority of the player base. The best path to success is also one that minimizes risk heavily.
    It's just not a recipe for generating a higher degree of participation. And does not allow the Premium player base to participate.

    I do not care about placing on the leaderboard in HCL because I don't play HCL more than 5-8 hours per week. The leader board focused players are doing 20-30 hours per week. Or more. Now, it was timed and all that mattered was my score over 40 hours vs. their score over 40 hours, I could get through 3 iterations of that with 3 chances to place on the board. And I would absolutely do that. Sure, more active players could take more cracks at if they want. But the competition is more accessible. Which gains more involvement. Which gains more revenue.
    That last part is the questionable portion.

    The game is no longer (and hasnt been for quite some time) monetized in a linear fashion based on headcount, so a premise of "more headcount = more money spent" doesnt necessarily follow in the current monetizing model. The folks you need to entice are the big spenders.

    Sure, you'll still get players like me who spend the 10USD/mo to play on the server, but all it takes is a single group of big spenders to spend 2k each to "win" the competition, and they out earn the rest of the minimal spenders. If your model convinces 2-3 groups of THOSE players to join, then you're on to something, heh.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    We are no more d000m'd then we were a week ago. Note - This was posted in 10/2013 (when concurrency was ~4x what it is today)

  6. #66
    DDO Players Council Renvar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    That last part is the questionable portion.

    The game is no longer (and hasnt been for quite some time) monetized in a linear fashion based on headcount.
    That's true of the live servers, but this is an HCL specific revenue model. You keep saying "the game is no longer monetized this way" about a propsal for an HCL league with leaderboard competitions that was just introduced 6 months ago. It feels like you are really only "thinking inside the box" on this one. We aren't talking about the live server revenue model.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    so a premise of "more headcount = more money spent" doesnt necessarily follow in the current monetizing model. The folks you need to entice are the big spenders.
    If you charge $5 per character to make a 40 hour run at getting on the reaper or favor leaderboard, then yes, you can charge on headcount. And yes, it would be new and different than how live servers are monetized, but that's because this is an HCL specific model that only really works on a short term, time limited server with leaderboard competitions that players will want to participate in.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    Sure, you'll still get players like me who spend the 10USD/mo to play on the server, but all it takes is a single group of big spenders to spend 2k each to "win" the competition, and they out earn the rest of the minimal spenders. If your model convinces 2-3 groups of THOSE players to join, then you're on to something, heh
    In the proposed model a player can't spend 2k to "win" the competition. Because there are separate leaderboards for the tier with store spenders in and and the tier with entry fee only participants. The spenders will compete with each other and the players who just want to pay $5 or $10 will compete with each other.
    Asheras - Velania - Renvar - Ventarya - Officer in Loreseekers and Officer of Lava Divers - Khyber

  7. #67
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    27,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renvar View Post
    That's true of the live servers, but this is an HCL specific revenue model. You keep saying "the game is no longer monetized this way" about a propsal for an HCL league with leaderboard competitions that was just introduced 6 months ago. It feels like you are really only "thinking inside the box" on this one. We aren't talking about the live server revenue model.
    Im thinking "inside the box" because that is the bed SSG crawled into for monetization purposes. Good luck getting any game that has been p2w for quite some time off that revenue model, especially when proposing a more linear model (hitched in a linear fashion to headcount). You will find that once a game relies on p2w monetization , it becomes a self perpetuating mess that becomes harder and harder to undo the longer it has continued. The minute someone internal proposed such a thing, it is likely the counter proposal would be "keep selling character power in the competition server." When this proves in on making money, its difficult if not impossible to prove it out.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renvar View Post
    If you charge $5 per character to make a 40 hour run at getting on the reaper or favor leaderboard, then yes, you can charge on headcount. And yes, it would be new and different than how live servers are monetized, but that's because this is an HCL specific model that only really works on a short term, time limited server with leaderboard competitions that players will want to participate in.

    In the proposed model a player can't spend 2k to "win" the competition. Because there are separate leaderboards for the tier with store spenders in and and the tier with entry fee only participants. The spenders will compete with each other and the players who just want to pay $5 or $10 will compete with each other.
    Business wise this works better with a larger number of players, or when attracting more players. Youd have to reverse the attrition that has been occurring for some time now. p2w - the unhitching of revenue generation from head count in a linear fashion, is a specific reaction which occurs in MMOs when the population begins to attrite, and they have no answer for reversing the population trend.

    When you use a linear headcount model where revenue increases as headcount increases, the opposite is also true in that same model - revenue decreases as headcount decreases.
    Last edited by Chai; 02-26-2020 at 03:50 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    We are no more d000m'd then we were a week ago. Note - This was posted in 10/2013 (when concurrency was ~4x what it is today)

  8. #68
    DDO Players Council Renvar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    4,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chai View Post
    Im thinking "inside the box" because that is the bed SSG crawled into for monetization purposes. Good luck getting any game that has been p2w for quite some time off that revenue model, especially when proposing a more linear model (hitched in a linear fashion to headcount). You will find that once a game relies on p2w monetization , it becomes a self perpetuating mess that becomes harder and harder to undo the longer it has continued. The minute someone internal proposed such a thing, it is likely the counter proposal would be "keep selling character power in the competition server." When this proves in on making money, its difficult if not impossible to prove it out.



    Business wise this works better with a larger number of players, or when attracting more players. Youd have to reverse the attrition that has been occurring for some time now. p2w - the unhitching of revenue generation from head count in a linear fashion, is a specific reaction which occurs in MMOs when the population begins to attrite, and they have no answer for reversing the population trend.

    When you use a linear headcount model where revenue increases as headcount increases, the opposite is also true in that same model - revenue decreases as headcount decreases.
    I get your point, but you are creating a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be an either/or. We are talking about additive revenue streams to the current, not replacement.
    Asheras - Velania - Renvar - Ventarya - Officer in Loreseekers and Officer of Lava Divers - Khyber

  9. #69
    Community Member Chai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Wisconsin, birthplace of D&D
    Posts
    27,309

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Renvar View Post
    I get your point, but you are creating a false dichotomy. It doesn't have to be an either/or.
    What I am pointing out, is its the bean counters that create the false dichotomy. Once p2w makes money better than linear headcount systems do (and it does in any system with net loss attrition of headcount) then the bean counters will either deny any proposal that doesnt use p2w outright, or they will accept and implement a modified version of it, with p2w added into the mix.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renvar View Post
    We are talking about additive revenue streams to the current, not replacement.
    Precisely my point. They will add p2w to your non-p2w version of the proposal, then implement it. If this means chopping the legs off any chance of game balance so be it. If this means making it an unfair "competition" where the wallet warriors have orders of magnitude better chances to win, so be it.

    Guys like me - game system mastery players and build enthusiasts - can still have subjective levels of fun in that dichotomy, but we wont ever be objectively top tier stat-wise. We can still be top tier play wise because play quality cant be altered through p2w (yet lol).
    Last edited by Chai; 02-27-2020 at 09:33 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Teh_Troll View Post
    We are no more d000m'd then we were a week ago. Note - This was posted in 10/2013 (when concurrency was ~4x what it is today)

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

This form's session has expired. You need to reload the page.

Reload