Are People Here Really Ok With This Sort of Thing?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Ice Queen, Feb 24, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Gideon Thrax

    Gideon Thrax Avatar

    Messages:
    2,497
    Likes Received:
    6,771
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    I got caught up in a conversation with some CoE folks about SotA micro-transactions and was trying to explain to the group why SotA wasn't P2W. I was expressing the best way I knew how that SotA had introduced POTs... and how owning a private scene really appealed to a lot of people and how the add-on store just sort of evolved to feed the housing/deco/RP crowd and that there really wasn't any P2W. That led to talking about the potential and recurring revenue property/home and POT owners represent and how it was a good call for Port to focus on decos and wearables because that's what the bulk of the target playerbase wanted. Some people will see the add-on store and be turned off because it gives off a P2W vibe, and others will see it and get excited because they want the housing sim deco collecting RP game. It is what it is, like it for what it is and enjoy playing it for what it is... it's a grindy, findy, deco/rare collection game with housing and player controlled private scenes. The add-on store defines this game for a lot of people; and folks love it.
     
  2. Myrcello

    Myrcello Avatar

    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    9,176
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    For me it is like this.

    They have a Percentage of Backers who basically justify the strategy. I think they only need 5% of all customers to be willing to pay ongoing for Add On Store Assets and be "High Spenders" and the Business Model works.
    I think i read microtransaction Systems need like 3% who carry the Game and the rest plays on for free. They have a Pay for the Game and then sort of a same System. They are fully aware that only a small percentage will keep shopping in the Add on Store.

    Lets say from 50 000 Backers - 5 % spend on Add on Store Items a month 100 Euro - and the rest does not. That would be in this example 2500 time 2 Assets around 50 Dollars - So 250 000 Dollars.
    I bet we have like 1% who basically carry the Funding for this Game and are more like 1000 Euro a Month. So we got 500 000 Euro coming in from them monthly.
    ( think of the Pledges, the POT Prices and look around in the Game with open eyes. Some have countless snow men , every Plant - you know what i mean)

    What is fun is you can go through a Town and look at a LOT and basically calculate on your own how much this person is invested.

    The thing what everyone has to ask himself is - do i myself require such a Horse and all that. Or can i enjoy the Game with all what it provides me for the basic 45 Dollars for example.


    Just tell yourself - there are some who are happy to spend such money. Does not have to be you.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  3. Rufus D`Asperdi

    Rufus D`Asperdi Avatar

    Messages:
    6,347
    Likes Received:
    15,785
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    In a standard, mobile MTX title, a 3% conversion rate is a huge hit... 1% is a good rate... 5% is a runaway smash... Most have less than a 1% conversion rate.
     
  4. Myrcello

    Myrcello Avatar

    Messages:
    2,662
    Likes Received:
    9,176
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Gender:
    Male
    I remember Dalles stating that we had a unsusual high percentage. Well long ago. Do not lawyer me. But maybe it is lower now. But they had been above 3%. :)

    Think of the Pledge Levels he did show.
     
    Numa and Roycestein Kaelstrom like this.
  5. Canterbury

    Canterbury Avatar

    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    3,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not going to disagree with any of that... because it wasn't my point :) My point lies in how long that can continue. Everyone has different circumstances; different points at which they decide, "Enough is enough."

    It's not as easy, I fear, to pluck numbers from the air and assume 'x' per cent of people will behave in a certain way every week/month/year forever more. I make no qualms about it, the model worries me, medium-long term.
     
  6. Burzmali

    Burzmali Avatar

    Messages:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Some titles try to get a little from a lot of users and some try to get a lot from a few users.
     
    Roycestein Kaelstrom likes this.
  7. redfish

    redfish Avatar

    Messages:
    11,366
    Likes Received:
    27,673
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Yea, the add-on store is good for short term revenue, but in the long term they need to just make a great game which people want to keep playing, and has fun enough gameplay that it has a lot of re-playability. To whatever extent that the add-on store detracts from that, its a bad thing.
     
    Hornpipe, Xandra7, Solazur and 5 others like this.
  8. Roycestein Kaelstrom

    Roycestein Kaelstrom Avatar

    Messages:
    4,627
    Likes Received:
    10,229
    Trophy Points:
    153
    How else would you think the company should raise the fund? Relying on one-time $20/$40? I do not see that as an viable options unless there is no further plan to expand the game any further.

    Have you considered that perhaps they are people who are willing to pay $x for y item while there may be other people who do not want to pay anything beyond the base cost? Also, none of these items are being forced upon people to buy. If someone really wants it, but do not wish to pay real money for it, the person could make a trade with other players using in-game items such as in-game gold, resources, and/or COTOs as well.

    I do not understand why people have to be at the point of "enough is enough." For me, one could not have enough of options. However, it is a personal responsibility to know their own limit of what they can afford on. This applies to all consumer products. Should Apple be blamed for people spending more than what they can afford on iPhone and iPad? Do you see people go around and crying about Mercedez Benz have too many car models?

    As for SotA, it's not like they putting stuff on add-on stores like 2-3 months ago. They have been doing it almost from the beginning and that seems to work ok so far, no? I mean... there is no way they could raise 11 millions on by just selling the base game. Should it come to the time when this add-on store model no longer a viable way to raise the fund, they will probably come up with something else.

    At the end of the day, SotA is just another game for me, it's the activity that I enjoy doing. It's about rose-tint glasses or whatever phrase you want to use. But I find things like radiation leakage in pacific ocean, ice on northpole melting, war in middle east, tension in eastern Europe, which summer camp my kids gonna go, how to deal with needy customers, how to please the wifey to be more concerning than how Portalarium selling stuff on the add-on store that seems overpriced. I mean if they really want to get people to buy certain items, there is nothing stopping them from reducing the price, which probably cause some saltiness for those who pays full price, but it is what it is. If I have 99 things to worry about, how Portalarium making money isn't really one. Maybe it's just me, though.

    Having said that, if people don't find all those issues concerning, but feel more like SotA is their life line.. That is ok too. Maybe they care more about how the game being developed differently from how I do. As long as it's not too the point of people losing sleep over it, it's all good, I guess.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  9. Abercrombie_McCloud

    Abercrombie_McCloud Avatar

    Messages:
    108
    Likes Received:
    141
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Well said Sir!
     
  10. Gix

    Gix Avatar

    Messages:
    2,203
    Likes Received:
    4,014
    Trophy Points:
    153
    My intent is not to put you under fire but I have to be very skeptical about the reasoning provided.

    You're (hopefully) paying the artist a one-time fee for something that you're potentially going to get multiple sales from. As a 3D artist, I'll take a wild guess that you've paid the artist (as a contractor) what? $700-to-$1000? Judging by this particular model; that's about as much as I would charge if I was asked to sculpt a horse. To which it would take you as much as 50 sales to pay it all off.

    I'm willing to accept that my numbers could be off, but how far off could I possibly be?

    It does, indeed, take many hours to fine-tune 3D models to work within a particular game and I'm really glad that you're exposing this kind of information for everyone here (who might not be aware of the process) to read. This is the kind of stuff I have to deal with at work with little to no credit. The part that gets to me is that if the implementation for something like this warrants a $20-$50 price tag, you're either:
    • Wasting your time and energy when you could focus on actual development and original (needed) artwork.
    • Not efficient with your implementation methods.
    • Not confident that you'd get enough sales despite your efforts to put it in the game.
    I don't have a problem if you use Asset-store products to build your game; I really don't. But, when it comes back to me with a $20 (minimum) price tag it's where I have to pause. That horse isn't going to add anything interesting to the game... like its not something useful like a loot chest, a monster or something cool that could be used for the game's story... yet you're still selling it to me.

    You want funding? I bought two of your original character armours for the same price each... one of which I won't wear because it's heavy armour... and it's animated. How much more complicated was the horse in comparison? Was it worth it?

    I don't mind spending extra cash to help continue fund the game, I've done it on multiple occasions when I see a patch that introduced significant advancements to the game (I nearly spent $300 when the controversial combat system was introduced)... my problem is that there's hardly anything in the add-on store that looks interesting for me (although that Ornate Dagger looks sexy, which is $5 less than that horse you're selling from the Asset-store) and seeing stuff like this kinda puts me off.

    I'm actually annoyed that the horse is gaunty as hell more than anything, really.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2017
  11. redfish

    redfish Avatar

    Messages:
    11,366
    Likes Received:
    27,673
    Trophy Points:
    165
    (I'd add: Also, to whatever extent the add-on stuff makes the game look unappealing, and subtracts potential customers, its also a bad thing)
     
  12. Canterbury

    Canterbury Avatar

    Messages:
    1,458
    Likes Received:
    3,874
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Of course not. But if you enjoy something, like a video game, desiring its long-term health isn't really the same thing... or as weird as you're portraying it as. It's actually pretty normal to my way of thinking.
     
    Roycestein Kaelstrom likes this.
  13. WrathPhoenix

    WrathPhoenix Avatar

    Messages:
    1,270
    Likes Received:
    4,407
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This asset is a part of the game world. Was before it was made availibe as a deco item in our towns. It added to the game world FIRST, THEN came on the addon store.
     
    Roycestein Kaelstrom likes this.
  14. Berek

    Berek Portalarian Emeritus Dev Emeritus

    Messages:
    3,957
    Likes Received:
    12,761
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    I've moderated out a few posts for personal attacks, but everything else remains.
     
  15. Blake Blackstone

    Blake Blackstone Avatar

    Messages:
    1,019
    Likes Received:
    2,979
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Interweb
    Any word on when they are going to announce delaying launch again? Is it going to be at the telethon? A little off topic but figured it's relevant to raising even more money without delivering a finished product.
     
  16. Ashlynn [Pax]

    Ashlynn [Pax] Avatar

    Messages:
    995
    Likes Received:
    2,242
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Gender:
    Female
    It looks pretty bad. As in really bad. It's easy money though I guess.

    What is worse (like the rest of the add-on store) is that it is more of a macro than a micro-transaction. So to go along with the whole perception of SotA being a cash-grab and a game only for wealthy people with big disposable incomes, the individual items in the store are also really highly priced. I mean $20 kimonos and $10 hats? It's pretty obvious they aren't interested in the people with only a few dollars to spare here and there.

    But when the biggest issue for most of the people still here is a blue halo around quest NPCs, I don't expect it to change anytime soon.
     
  17. Ice Queen

    Ice Queen Avatar

    Messages:
    2,111
    Likes Received:
    7,738
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Female
    We haven't invested hundreds, thousands, ten of thousands of dollars to those people and don't need to hold them accountable with their spending or decisions and they aren't making decisions with money we gave them.

    It appears a lot of people here are fine with paying too much for Sota store items and the devs find the pricing justified so it seems this won't change, but at least this has been a good discussion where we all kept our cool. :)
     
  18. Roycestein Kaelstrom

    Roycestein Kaelstrom Avatar

    Messages:
    4,627
    Likes Received:
    10,229
    Trophy Points:
    153
    If holding the dev team accountable with their spending or decisions is the main concern here, shouldn't you be pleased that they put items add-on store that didn't cost them any license fees and seemed to be very minimal effort according to some folks?

    I think the more legit concern here is rather about the add-on store item pricing are too darn high and that maybe they will make more sales if the prices are lower, no? But perhaps, their goal here isn't to sell in volume, but rather provide people access to horse statues if they are willing to pay to help out with the development fund? That's debatable here.
     
  19. Rufus D`Asperdi

    Rufus D`Asperdi Avatar

    Messages:
    6,347
    Likes Received:
    15,785
    Trophy Points:
    165
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    This.

    This right here.
     
    Onyx and Roycestein Kaelstrom like this.
  20. Burzmali

    Burzmali Avatar

    Messages:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    1,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To me at least, the concern is that behavior like this indicates that Port is trying to fund themselves using a model similar to Clash of Clans in that the majority of the funding comes from a small subset of players. The downside of that model is that it tends to lead to the P2W scenario where the game is designed to cater to that small subset of high paying players, with everyone else getting an experience only good enough to keep them from leaving. This is only more frustrating because many of us second tier players having actually spent a reasonable amount of money on the game, at least the mobile titles that use this funding scheme tend to F2P. In SotA, look at how many man-hours have been sunk into POT tools and management, if POTs didn't exist, and Port had found a way to recover those funds elsewhere, the game would probably be at release by now.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.