P2P or F2P?

[Morgan]

Thats not pay to win IMO. If you can get the dabloons through normal game mechanics then paying for them to get them quicker doesn't necessarily mean you win more.

 

From my experience in MMO's, every single one of them that had an option to buy currency/items with real money, was pay-to-win.

 

The magic word in your phrase that points out the pay-to-win function, is the "quicker".

If u get Y ammount of ingame currency in 24 hrs and someone who has the money to spend buys 5xY, then he is already 5 days ahead of you in just one click. And without playing at all.

Add the number of players who will use that function and keep in consideration that some will use it multiple times.

Bottom line: Doesn't matter the time u spend on game. You won't rewarded better for working ur way since everyone can spend real money and advance much further than you.

You have the definition of pay-to-win game.

And is pretty simple actually, doesn't need too much knowledge to understand it.

 

Sorry, i completely disagree.

[Alex Connor]

From my experience in MMO's, every single one of them that had an option to buy currency/items with real money, was pay-to-win.

 

The magic word in your phrase that points out the pay-to-win function, is the "quicker".

If u get Y ammount of ingame currency in 24 hrs and someone who has the money to spend buys 5xY, then he is already 5 days ahead of you in just one click. And without playing at all.

Add the number of players who will use that function and keep in consideration that some will use it multiple times.

Bottom line: Doesn't matter the time u spend on game. You won't rewarded better for working ur way since everyone can spend real money and advance much further than you.

You have the definition of pay-to-win game.

And is pretty simple actually, doesn't need too much knowledge to understand it.

 

Sorry, i completely disagree.

A successful F2P game needs to be selling something people want to buy.

 

PotBS tried selling avatar items, pets, account upgrades and premium account subscriptions that were only worth buying (once per account) because they came with all the account upgrades. Failed miserably. They switched to selling recipes for new ships that outclassed the old ones and even ships that required buying the recipe plus several expensive items, apparently this has brought enough money to keep the game going. Not strictly pay-to-win because you can buy these ships or the BSN for them off other players without spending real money, but still not very satisfactory since it effectively obsoleted all the existing ships people had worked for (with a few exceptions).

 

I expect Naval Action to follow more along the lines of WoT's F2P model. Silver and gold currencies. Silver used for most ingame purchases, gold for account upgrades, premium account time to progress faster and premium items. Logically you should be able to buy regular items with gold too, but if gold can be traded between players and is the only way to buy certain items this will skew the exchange rate in favour of gold and encourage people to trade it rather than spending it on items that can be brought with silver.

 

As to what you can buy with gold...

 

Account upgrades and premium time that cover all characters on an account would encourage people to stay on that one account (and nation). The premium time needs to be worthwhile, something like the +50% XP/Influence/etc seen on WoT. Possibly increased prize money and reduced upkeep costs in econ too. More character slots as an account upgrade, all sharing in premium time if purchased. Not sure if dockyard slots should be account wide or per-character. Could work either way, depends on the price.

 

Econ slots should definitely be per-character. Per-character means if you want more econ slots, might as well buy them on your main trading character where they can use premium account time. Combined with giving new characters only some raw materials slots and a high or even unlimited cap on econ slots per character this would curb the spam of free accounts with low level 2 slot econ characters that plagued PotBS.

 

Premium ships (sold via ingame store) would rule out loss-based gameplay, so I hope this will not be the case. Instead, ship recipes should cost gold. Possibly some high quality materials like live oak or bronze cannon might only be available for gold. Something reasonable though, perhaps a 10% increase in performance for a 50% increase in cost. Enough that those who must have the best can buy them without completely unbalancing the game, but only priced high enough to be a luxury rather than something only the richest can ever use.

[Morgan]

Instead of starting a discussion that doesn't lead anywhere I quote you what i' ve posted some days ago in the "f2p or p2p?" topic debate:

 

http://forum.game-labs.net/index.php?/topic/141-p2p-or-f2p/page-2#entry18129

 

If this game actually launches as promising as it seems right now, i would be glad to p2p.

A p2p player isn't looking for a game only to kill his boredom and spend some time. Is dedicated and he actually pays the game he really like and enjoy after searched hundrends.

Also, the developers can always earn standard ammount of money to improve the game.

Most f2p games suffer on this: Earn money by various other things, like on PotBS was the Treasure Island. Never know when and how many players will use it, after a while everybody was loaded with money and ships

and stopped using it. Thats the reason PotBS never seriously upgraded after it became f2p and at the end sold and died.

 

I was always a big supporter of the philosophy: "You get rewarded according the time and the effort you spend in a game".

So, bottom line:

 

- Do you really want to play this game?

- Yeah.

- Also support the people who work for that?

- Yeah.

- All players starting equal and be treated equal, with no exceptions, as long as will last?

- Yeah.

- Then pay for it. Everyone, same ammount of money, every month.

 

Examples of destroyed games by f2p, p2w and i don't know whatever grey-zone money-earn policy: Thousands, just check around most Major and Medium MMO's.

People come 'n go and most of them have something to complain about.

 

Example of successful game that still keeps it's players for over a decade: WOW. And was always a P2P game.

 

Thank you.

[Johny Reb]

Morgan,

I agree with most of what your saying in your last post. I'm quite willing to spend 10-15 dollars a month and have all content open to me with no restrictions. No matter how much I like and support the game, if I am paying a monthly fee I will never buy other stuff from them if they offer a monthly fee that get you only a discount in the store!

 

My largest fear about p2w (as I have mentioned before) is that this is a niche game and I'm not sure how many would flock to it if they knew they had to pay monthly for it.

 

Wow has succeeded because it set the tone. It was one of the originals and has millions of players. Its not really a realistic comparison to try and put up this game with WoW.

[Alex Connor]

To be sure, I'd play with P2P.

 

But the number of successful and long lasting P2P MMOs can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and the transition from a game that starts as P2P and has to go F2P to survive is never pretty. Better to start as F2P with mechanics and systems designed for it than end up trying to shoehorn them in later.

[Brigand]

My largest fear about p2w (as I have mentioned before) is that this is a niche game and I'm not sure how many would flock to it if they knew they had to pay monthly for it.

We're drifting off-topic here, but anyhow. I think that Pay to Win does not combine very well (if at all) with niche games; rather quite the oposit. Pay to Win is designed around attracting as many players as possible, something that will never happen with a niche game. But Pay to Win changes a lot more than 'just' the revenu model, it changes how the game and the in-game targets are designed (an interesting discussion, but too broad to interject here).

Niche game players usually have a pretty good idea about what they would like to play (as opposed to casual or mainstream gamers) and they have learned that the game they are looking for is hard to find. So, when they find it, they are generally more than willing to pay for it. This is motivated by the knowledge that they want to play (demand) and that they are not likely to find an alternative anytime soon (scarcity). They are also more likely to stick with a game they enjoy longer (since there are not that many alternatives to begin with) and they do like this type of game. Paying for something contributes to the feeling of value. So, as a result, the Pay to Play model amplifies the relation the niche player builds with the game she is playing.

~Brigand

[Alan Lewrie]

Generally speaking (as there are many unkonowns at this time...) I would pay to play this game.Either one time or modest monthly fee.

[Flip]

A monthly fee of 10 - 15$ or your regional equivalent (max) beats a free to play model any day of the week.... if and only if there will be continued 'large' scale development.

[Samuel Adams]

I think if they advertise and make it appealing to people and mainstream it it will do well and a P2P

[Captain Rotgut]

To be sure, I'd play with P2P.

 

But the number of successful and long lasting P2P MMOs can be counted on the fingers of one hand, and the transition from a game that starts as P2P and has to go F2P to survive is never pretty. Better to start as F2P with mechanics and systems designed for it than end up trying to shoehorn them in later.

 

You are spot on. I like P2P because it keeps most of the riff raff out of a game, and there is no need to constantly ask how new developments will affect the "in game store". 

 

We're drifting off-topic here, but anyhow. I think that Pay to Win does not combine very well (if at all) with niche games; rather quite the oposit. Pay to Win is designed around attracting as many players as possible, something that will never happen with a niche game. But Pay to Win changes a lot more than 'just' the revenu model, it changes how the game and the in-game targets are designed (an interesting discussion, but too broad to interject here).

Niche game players usually have a pretty good idea about what they would like to play (as opposed to casual or mainstream gamers) and they have learned that the game they are looking for is hard to find. So, when they find it, they are generally more than willing to pay for it. This is motivated by the knowledge that they want to play (demand) and that they are not likely to find an alternative anytime soon (scarcity). They are also more likely to stick with a game they enjoy longer (since there are not that many alternatives to begin with) and they do like this type of game. Paying for something contributes to the feeling of value. So, as a result, the Pay to Play model amplifies the relation the niche player builds with the game she is playing.

~Brigand

 

I would argue for F2P for the exact reasons you argue against it. If this game goes live as a P2P, it will have a small subscription base because it is a niche game. After the initial buzz wears off, there might not be enough sale revenue to keep the game profitable. It may force them to change the model and offer something like a free trial or potentially, a F2P model which, after the game is launched, and as Alex mentioned above, will be disastrous. 

It's a double edged sword. You have to make the cost of the game, or the subscription cheap enough to attract people, but by making it cheap, you've locked yourself in to a modest profit model that is guaranteed to decline year over year. Using me as an example, I played EQ2 when it was P2P. I spent $20? a month for years. So in one year, I spent maybe $240. In WoT during that same time, I spent about $1,000 in the first year alone and the only reason I started playing WoT was because it was free. Heck, WoT is so profitable with a F2P model, they pay the players! I haven't played WoT lately but I do not recall anything you could buy in game to be game breaker. In fact, the tanks you could buy in game were on average, inferior to the upgraded free tanks (except for one exception. Type59 pre nerf...). WoT brought in $372 million in 2013 and you can't get any more niche than a tank game.

And if that doesn't sway you, then look at League of Legends. Honestly, I've played Facebook F2P games with better graphics but LoL is a huge cash cow. In 2013 they pulled in $624 million.

I want NA  to succeed...bad. First and foremost, that requires revenue. F2P like LoL is the way to go. A game that suffers declining revenue, is...well...PotBS. Imagine what GameLabs could do with $100 million? They could continue to make the game better and add awesome content regularly, instead of working double shifts and hating life because they had to lay off half the staff. If the subscription was $20/month, or they charged $240 for the game, they would need over 400,000 monthly subscribers or units sold annually to hit those numbers. Those are not "niche" game numbers, I'm afraid.

[Barberouge]

I think we just have a different definition of P2W.

If I can attain everything in the game through the game then even if you sell a quicker route then its not P2W.

A company needs to make money somehow.

Do you feel the selling of BSN's in Potbs makes the game P2W?

 

When PotBS went F2P, FLS clearly stated that they'd never sell anything which could give an upper hand in PvP. One year later, they made some new specific repairs buyable with BSNs. And they explained that because BSNs could be purchasable with doubloons, the repairs weren't P2W. But because of the BSN/doubloon price, the farming time required to PvP had doubled. That was unacceptable.

 

I played PlanetSide 2 and the F2P model was good. There was no P2W, and non-paying players participated more to the open world just by populating it. But there was no economy. Bartle give those words about F2P and immersion in MMOs:

 

If you want people to buy in-game goods and services for real money then real money has to be involved. Real money is sufficiently important to players that, however you disguise it, they will regard it as being real. Unfortunately, the more real that they see in the virtual, the harder it becomes for them to sustain the conceit that the virtual is separate from the real – an essential component of immersion.

 

 

As for NA's revenue model, one shouldn't forget that there will be different game modes: arena, open world, single player, co-op. Maybe a combination of F2P, B2P and P2P could be used - even for each mode. I don't know whether there's a better revenue model when the game is niche. I'd guess a F2P model fits a competitive market, where attracting new players isn't easy. But will NA be a niche game ? Aren't there enough Age of Sail games around, forming a competitive market ? Won't NA game modes be close enough to others (plane or tank arenas, MMOs, single-player games) to compete against them ? Also, what kind of players will NA attract ?

 

The switch from subscription to free-to-play is bad for achievers. It doesn’t matter how much you try to persuade them otherwise, any payment for any gameplay-affecting item or service is pay-to-win. Anything that improves your chances of getting something gameplay-affecting is pay-to-win. Only purely cosmetic items are not seen as pay-to-win (and even some of those are unacceptable if they give the impression you’ve achieved something you haven’t). Pay-to-win attracts socialisers but puts off achievers (except cheating achievers). Achievers are the core audience for MMOs; they’ve long been abandoning them for single-player games. When an MMO is designed around a revenue model rather than around fun, it doesn’t have a long-term future.

 

[Thomas Blackwell]

To be honest, I don't mind what the developers eventually chose to do with Naval Action. So long the price is reasonable, I plan to play it regardless!

[Chunx]

Well maybe there can be the best of both worlds here. Whilst the devs I'm sure would love to see this succeed even if there was no money in it, something needs to be done to ensure it's financial continuity. So you could do something that not many have done before.

 

First though, if the devs decide to go with F2P they can NEVER have P2P. So many people who join after release would be OUTRAGED by it and think either; The game is sinking and becoming money grubbing. OR Plain and simple "I wasn't paying for this before, why should I start now?" So you would safely assume that P2P to start with would be a safer option to provide an ongoing income for the game.

Now yes that also raises complications about not as many people playing because of the monthly fee and then if you charged say $50 to buy the game as well that might turn even more people off.

 

But.....

 

What if, on release you charge that $50 (I would happily pay console game price if this game turns out like I think it will) but instead of charging $10-$15 monthly sub.... you instead charge a $5-$10 sub, with a discount to buying the game in early access stage. Say, $24.99 a pop.

 

That way, you gain a large community before the game is launched. You get to stress test everything while getting some funding as well. You launch with the $5-$10 P2P option and charge $49.90 for the game itself. Now when you look at those numbers compared to a lot of other games being released these days those prices will jump out at you.

 

"Oh sweet this game is UNDER $50"

"Holy hell! $7.50 for a month! Just means I eat at home tonight instead of getting McDonalds."

 

Both of those will just leap out at people and you will still have the best of both worlds. A P2P system at the start to provide some semblance of financial security and a low sub price to keep people there and bring more in.

 

That's just my opinion anyway. Feel free to point out pros and cons

[Thomas Blackwell]

What if, on release you charge that $50 (I would happily pay console game price if this game turns out like I think it will) but instead of charging $10-$15 monthly sub.... you instead charge a $5-$10 sub, with a discount to buying the game in early access stage. Say, $24.99 a pop.

That way, you gain a large community before the game is launched. You get to stress test everything while getting some funding as well. You launch with the $5-$10 P2P option and charge $49.90 for the game itself. Now when you look at those numbers compared to a lot of other games being released these days those prices will jump out at you.

Sigh* if only Skyrim Online followed this advice, I may have actually bought the game...

[Chunx]

Sigh* if only Skyrim Online followed this advice, I may have actually bought the game...

 

Hahahahaha I bought it for the lore only....

[Thomas Blackwell]

 

This guy makes some good points about MMO's in general.

[Sweetdeal]

Please go the Guild Wars Model

[Macross]

I see you can pre order naval action and it has the extras but will there be or are there microtransactions or "itemshop" thing?

[Robert Danforth]

The devs have said no Pay-to-win, although I suppose that doesn't rule out a cash shop for some items that don't give any benefits.

[Destraex]

There will be micro-transactions for some ships I believe.

But I believe most will be available through the usual grind for free.

[Macross]

So you mean you can unlock them earlier from the item shop? Also will there be exp or money gain buffs?

 

Almost forgot where can I see link to show the complete minimum and recommended specs for the game?

[Prater]

I think certain items will be pay only.  Such as the royal yacht, which is given to those who pre-order.  I think there will be other ships you can buy but they won't be pay-to-win.  I know that bare minimum game will not work unless your gpu fully supports directx11.  Be sure that your graphics card supports directx11.  Windows can lie if you check dxdiag, you need to check the manufacture specs on your card.

[ParaBellum]

I would prefer P2P since some F2P games I've tried in the past had the most horrible player base imaginable.

[Mirones]

its neither f2p or p2p its b2p

buy once and play

[Wicked Mouse]

I'd expect a Pay-To-Play model much like Elite: Dangerous or The Secret World. Pay once, play forever, with added (cosmetic?) microtransactions.