Freemium and Whaling

isn't it possible or viable to make a game you can get revenue from a large player base rather then small group of top players?

Sure. There are plenty of examples, like, say, Angry Birds, which don't have prohibitive in-app purchases, and still do fine by virtue of a very large user base.

There are also ad-supported apps that make money this way, i.e. Flappy Birds.

isn't it possible or viable to make a game you can get revenue from a large player base rather then small group of top players?

Sure. There are plenty of examples, like, say, Angry Birds, which don't have prohibitive in-app purchases, and still do fine by virtue of a very large user base.

There are also ad-supported apps that make money this way, i.e. Flappy Birds.

Thanks for response.

I am not sure if Angry Birds isn't that agressive on IAP because has a significant merchandise revenue. Imo, Angry Birds isn't type of game I favor ( same from Candy Crush , Flappy Bird etc line) , game for non-gamers.

And for Flappy Bird, doubt in game advertisement counts as freemium (unless an option to remove it by premium pack is offered)

And for Flappy Bird, doubt in game advertisement counts as freemium

I wasn't suggesting it did. I'm just pointing out that mobile games exist on a spectrum, from ad-supported through freemium, all the way to paid.

When you are deciding where to place your business model on that spectrum, it comes down to whether it easier for you to motivate 1 person to spend $50, 50 people to spend $1 each, or 15,000 people to watch ads?

Most of the thinking today around freemium monetization is such that whales and "chum" (as I like to call Freemium freeloaders who won't participate in the ecosystem) are a sort of natural consequence of the way in which the developer tunes their games. In short, developers tend to take the simplistic view that their sole goal is to increase revenue without consideration pf what share of that revenue comes from a certain amount of people. To their models, earning more revenue means the average player is more happy, even if all increases in revenue were due to whales. Its not a very realistic picture of the health of the game, and I find it pretty cynical, but its what they do. These games don't have a flatter revenue spread because they don't consider optimizing for it.

Given the dearth of "free" entertainment available today, you will always have people who are unwilling to buy into the entertainment they consume -- they'll grind forever if it doesn't cost them anything, or they'll just move on to the next thing. You'll never generate any revenue from them except from advertising. However, because of the need for a large, immediate user-base to penetrate the top-apps list where you need to be to make real money, they are necessary to the success of your app. The typical freemium titles use them to gain placement, which in turn draws whales to the game -- that's why I call them "chum".

Likewise, you'll always have whales who will buy every transaction available, either because they really enjoy the game or because of their own compulsions. The trade-off of relying on whales is that most games encourage whales by making high-end items exclusive, scarce, and/or powerful so that they can charge a high premium to an exclusive clutch of players. This has obvious effects on game balance, and also impacts who the developer will prefer to keep happy as the game changes and evolves -- a move that would alienate whales will never be considered, even if it would make the average player happier at a rate of 100-1.

I don't think eliminating the whales or the chum is the point, but I do think that a healthy game would have a strong "middle-class" of players who have spent something and that you'd see a gentle slope from people who have spent the least to those who have spent more, but are not whales. I also think that you'd make the most revenue by establishing such a middle-class of gamers and then focusing on raising the average revenue generated from them, its just that most games haven't figured that out. League of Legends is one that approaches that, so is TF2 -- both games do so by deliberately choosing to do so -- for example, in Leage of Legends, you can't really buy your way to victory because consumable buffs tend to affect the entire match rather than a specific player, which increases the enjoyment for everyone and encourages all players to participate in that economy. TF2 achieves it by making their entire economy of in-game stuff tradable, and through their crate-system which randomizes loot such that its not only the whales who have the best stuff. This is counter to a whale-based economy where exclusivity and scarcity drive revenues.

I think you CAN design a game where a broader class of player are encouraged to pay something, and the whole whaling aspect is less severe.

I think World of Tanks is a good example here. While most players still don't spend a single dollar, it seems the amount of spending players is way above industry standards.

The way they achieved this is ironically by making the paid items balanced and not game breaking. There are the "wallet-warrior"-whiners, but everyone that is a little bit knowledgable knows that MOST bought items and tanks are actually quite balanced (there are some OP premium tanks, but they seemed to be mistakes by certain designers that the dev cannot remove anymore without people threatening to sue them).

All the items that were pay-to-win in the beginning (better gold ammunition, some enhancing consumables) can now also be bought with normal ingame currency. They are not cheap if not bought with real money, but a very good player can afford them and still make a profit ingame.

Most of their revenue nowadays comes from players trying to grind faster with premium accounts (which will just increase the amount of exp or ingame money earned, not help you win), and people collecting virtual tanks. Their premium tanks seem to be quite sought after, not because they are OP (With very few exceptions), but because they again make additional ingame money and exp, help train the crews of other tanks, and because some of them are either wonderfully weird or even quite famous tanks people want to play.

And then there are the comp1337ionist collectors that gotta catch them all, of course...

Either way, thanks to a quite well balanced premium system, that gives the premium users nice incentives without penalizing the non-paying crowd, and a quite enjoyable game that is fun to play even when "grinding", I think they reach a much better spread of paying customers than the Las Vegas type Whaling casinos some mobile games seem to be.

Really, if you create a free game people would actually pay for, a lot of them might pay anyway because, you know, they like the game and want to support the devs.

And you can still Whale all you want without hurting the perception of the game as pay2win if you target collectors and individualists with premium vehicles and vanity items that do not give them ingame advantages, just lots of snubish individualism and envy from the other players.

Sorry for wall of text

And for Flappy Bird, doubt in game advertisement counts as freemium

I wasn't suggesting it did. I'm just pointing out that mobile games exist on a spectrum, from ad-supported through freemium, all the way to paid.

When you are deciding where to place your business model on that spectrum, it comes down to whether it easier for you to motivate 1 person to spend $50, 50 people to spend $1 each, or 15,000 people to watch ads?

I see your point, just for the records I hate games relying on showing advertisement which means they have nothing to offer suitable for monetization imo.

Most of the thinking today around freemium monetization is such that whales and "chum" (as I like to call Freemium freeloaders who won't participate in the ecosystem) are a sort of natural consequence of the way in which the developer tunes their games. In short, developers tend to take the simplistic view that their sole goal is to increase revenue without consideration pf what share of that revenue comes from a certain amount of people. To their models, earning more revenue means the average player is more happy, even if all increases in revenue were due to whales. Its not a very realistic picture of the health of the game, and I find it pretty cynical, but its what they do. These games don't have a flatter revenue spread because they don't consider optimizing for it.

Given the dearth of "free" entertainment available today, you will always have people who are unwilling to buy into the entertainment they consume -- they'll grind forever if it doesn't cost them anything, or they'll just move on to the next thing. You'll never generate any revenue from them except from advertising. However, because of the need for a large, immediate user-base to penetrate the top-apps list where you need to be to make real money, they are necessary to the success of your app. The typical freemium titles use them to gain placement, which in turn draws whales to the game -- that's why I call them "chum".

Likewise, you'll always have whales who will buy every transaction available, either because they really enjoy the game or because of their own compulsions. The trade-off of relying on whales is that most games encourage whales by making high-end items exclusive, scarce, and/or powerful so that they can charge a high premium to an exclusive clutch of players. This has obvious effects on game balance, and also impacts who the developer will prefer to keep happy as the game changes and evolves -- a move that would alienate whales will never be considered, even if it would make the average player happier at a rate of 100-1.

I don't think eliminating the whales or the chum is the point, but I do think that a healthy game would have a strong "middle-class" of players who have spent something and that you'd see a gentle slope from people who have spent the least to those who have spent more, but are not whales. I also think that you'd make the most revenue by establishing such a middle-class of gamers and then focusing on raising the average revenue generated from them, its just that most games haven't figured that out. League of Legends is one that approaches that, so is TF2 -- both games do so by deliberately choosing to do so -- for example, in Leage of Legends, you can't really buy your way to victory because consumable buffs tend to affect the entire match rather than a specific player, which increases the enjoyment for everyone and encourages all players to participate in that economy. TF2 achieves it by making their entire economy of in-game stuff tradable, and through their crate-system which randomizes loot such that its not only the whales who have the best stuff. This is counter to a whale-based economy where exclusivity and scarcity drive revenues.

I aim to make a (MMO) game with a good "Gini ratio" having a broader player base spending money. And liked the term "chum" (although whales prefer planktons ) players who are primarily there to give whales sport in financial terms. I am also interested in "social whales" (I think it is a good POV) of Ninja Metrics ( http://www.ninjametrics.com/social-whales ).

But the point is (unless you're Zynga) , I think no one creates a game to get highest revenue possible (a short term goal) in a long term game. What I worry is if it is because they have to target whales as a game is not sustainable otherwise. So is it because of irresistable urge to exploit who asks for it ( shut up and take my money crowd ) or an unavoidable situation to keep game running.

I think you CAN design a game where a broader class of player are encouraged to pay something, and the whole whaling aspect is less severe.

I think World of Tanks is a good example here. While most players still don't spend a single dollar, it seems the amount of spending players is way above industry standards.

The way they achieved this is ironically by making the paid items balanced and not game breaking. There are the "wallet-warrior"-whiners, but everyone that is a little bit knowledgable knows that MOST bought items and tanks are actually quite balanced (there are some OP premium tanks, but they seemed to be mistakes by certain designers that the dev cannot remove anymore without people threatening to sue them).

All the items that were pay-to-win in the beginning (better gold ammunition, some enhancing consumables) can now also be bought with normal ingame currency. They are not cheap if not bought with real money, but a very good player can afford them and still make a profit ingame.

Most of their revenue nowadays comes from players trying to grind faster with premium accounts (which will just increase the amount of exp or ingame money earned, not help you win), and people collecting virtual tanks. Their premium tanks seem to be quite sought after, not because they are OP (With very few exceptions), but because they again make additional ingame money and exp, help train the crews of other tanks, and because some of them are either wonderfully weird or even quite famous tanks people want to play.

And then there are the comp1337ionist collectors that gotta catch them all, of course...

Either way, thanks to a quite well balanced premium system, that gives the premium users nice incentives without penalizing the non-paying crowd, and a quite enjoyable game that is fun to play even when "grinding", I think they reach a much better spread of paying customers than the Las Vegas type Whaling casinos some mobile games seem to be.

Really, if you create a free game people would actually pay for, a lot of them might pay anyway because, you know, they like the game and want to support the devs.

And you can still Whale all you want without hurting the perception of the game as pay2win if you target collectors and individualists with premium vehicles and vanity items that do not give them ingame advantages, just lots of snubish individualism and envy from the other players.

I think that distinction between an F2P and a P2W game is if "there is a way to outsmart a paying one" or not. So I am ok with some advantages of paying players unless it doesn't enable god mode, doubt cosmetics have a good ratio to sustain a game.

I think that distinction between an F2P and a P2W game is if "there is a way to outsmart a paying one" or not. So I am ok with some advantages of paying players unless it doesn't enable god mode, doubt cosmetics have a good ratio to sustain a game.

Well, I could be wrong, but I think for some games vanity items DO bring in a ridicolous amount of cash (especially compared to their usefulness). I am not 100% sure TF hats and WoTs Premium tanks could bring in all the cash alone. But I DO know that at least in WoTs case, besides the premium tanks its mostly the premium accounts that drive the gold purchase, and AFAIK, premium tanks are equal or a close second to that.

To be fair though, the premium tanks are NOT just cosmetics. They are actually (mostly) quite well balanced to give a slightly different playstyle, while not being more powerful than normal tanks, and instead give additional perks to lower the grind. So while they are clearly not P2W and are actually more of a collectors item, they still provide enough advantages to make non-collectors interested in at least one premium tank.

Second point is: virtual tanks are highly attractive to virtual collectors. Generally they are closely modelled after historical vehicles, so both tank-nuts and history buffs might drool over them and go into pokemon-mode with their credit card... something that is much harder to achieve with hats, which not only will not make people not interested in vanity items buy them because of (to my knowledge) zero ingame bonus, but will also not really tap into the collector tastes of its normal audience as much (TF would have to sell weapons for that, I guess)

I think that distinction between an F2P and a P2W game is if "there is a way to outsmart a paying one" or not. So I am ok with some advantages of paying players unless it doesn't enable god mode, doubt cosmetics have a good ratio to sustain a game.

Well, I could be wrong, but I think for some games vanity items DO bring in a ridicolous amount of cash (especially compared to their usefulness). I am not 100% sure TF hats and WoTs Premium tanks could bring in all the cash alone. But I DO know that at least in WoTs case, besides the premium tanks its mostly the premium accounts that drive the gold purchase, and AFAIK, premium tanks are equal or a close second to that.

To be fair though, the premium tanks are NOT just cosmetics. They are actually (mostly) quite well balanced to give a slightly different playstyle, while not being more powerful than normal tanks, and instead give additional perks to lower the grind. So while they are clearly not P2W and are actually more of a collectors item, they still provide enough advantages to make non-collectors interested in at least one premium tank.

Second point is: virtual tanks are highly attractive to virtual collectors. Generally they are closely modelled after historical vehicles, so both tank-nuts and history buffs might drool over them and go into pokemon-mode with their credit card... something that is much harder to achieve with hats, which not only will not make people not interested in vanity items buy them because of (to my knowledge) zero ingame bonus, but will also not really tap into the collector tastes of its normal audience as much (TF would have to sell weapons for that, I guess)

I had read somewhere (prolly here at GD) that all people are not super rational (paying more for less when getting bulk game currency, acting as collector) , hope I can find a sustainable mechanism not to exploit weaknesses or overcater whales.

I had read somewhere (prolly here at GD) that all people are not super rational (paying more for less when getting bulk game currency, acting as collector) , hope I can find a sustainable mechanism not to exploit weaknesses or overcater whales.

I personally like to think of it of creating something that is highly valued by customers, no matter what its true worth is.

Lets take personal computers for example. For some reason, Apple computers usually demand a premium over a similarly specced no-name PC, and even then sell like hotcakes while the no-name PC waits for the Sale season in the shop shelf.

IF you look at the raw specs, there might be one or two clever solutions from Apple, but nothing groundbreaking. If you look at the build and materials used, Apple usually is rather on top of the game, still, the asian no-name companies learn fast, and apple look-and-feel-alikes are a dime in a dozen nowadays. If you look at the OS and Software, things tend to get even more "religion" and less tangible advantage, even though the difference is bigger here.

Apple, of course, has a recognised Brand by now and is master of advertising and selling stuff.

The combination of all these small things adds up to a product people really want to posses if they need it or not, rather than have to buy because, you know, gotta own a notebook nowadays.

From what I have seen is that by applying similar strategies in online economies, you can design a virtual good people want to own, even though it gives them little ingame advantage.

It could be a different playstyle, a better looking vehicle/hat/mount/whatever, faster leveling, a recognizable Brand/Person/Name/Whatever as opposed to a no-name one, the urge to finish a virtual collection (maybe by additionally giving achievments and additional goodies for completing the collection), that drives people to invest money in virtual goods without ingame bonus.

Lets say, you have a game where you fight cowboys as an Indian. it is free to play, and you get a no-name Indian. Good looking, but rather bland chap, with his single feather, and rather dull looking equipment. Does to job fine.

Or you could buy an alternative character to play as, Crazy horse. It is a historical figure many know about, and many might want to play as rather than average joe Indian warrior. Then you get this amazing 3D model, with the Feather crown, sparkling looking clothing and amazing weaponry. A true chief amongst Indians. Perfect to show off in front of these free loaders.

Make him play a little different (we know Crazy Horse went a little mental in battle, but seemed to be a very talented warrior, so he could be a better warrior, but somehow harder to "control"), but balanced against average joe indian, and some people might just pick him up for that, even though average joe does the job just fine.

Lets say, you have a game where you fight cowboys as an Indian. it is free to play, and you get a no-name Indian. Good looking, but rather bland chap, with his single feather, and rather dull looking equipment. Does to job fine.

Or you could buy an alternative character to play as, Crazy horse. It is a historical figure many know about, and many might want to play as rather than average joe Indian warrior. Then you get this amazing 3D model, with the Feather crown, sparkling looking clothing and amazing weaponry. A true chief amongst Indians. Perfect to show off in front of these free loaders.

Make him play a little different (we know Crazy Horse went a little mental in battle, but seemed to be a very talented warrior, so he could be a better warrior, but somehow harder to "control"), but balanced against average joe indian, and some people might just pick him up for that, even though average joe does the job just fine.

This Indian analogy conforms with "focusing on selling experience rather than (solely utility of) item" imo and it's a very good example. It also creates diversity in monetization, my intention for such case in my game is using personal (Elvis entered the building style) and squad uniforms , may even consider special edition of common weapons (slightly better Special Colt or excessively more expensive golden plated one making no difference)

This Indian analogy conforms with "focusing on selling experience rather than (solely utility of) item" imo and it's a very good example. It also creates diversity in monetization, my intention for such case in my game is using personal (Elvis entered the building style) and squad uniforms , may even consider special edition of common weapons (slightly better Special Colt or excessively more expensive golden plated one making no difference)

How about exchanging "slightly better" or "different looking but same gameplay stats" for "different look and different stats, but not better"?

I know this might lead to hard to solve balancing problems, and yes, sometimes a Hat is just a Hat, but a) as soon as a premium item is even "slightly better", the masses start complaining, and b) if its just about the different look, you loose out on some sales as some people are not that much motivated by looks, but more by the gameplay stats.

How about that:

bog standart colt: 6 shots, medium accuracy, medium damage, medium Rate of Fire

Billy the kids legendary 5 shooter: 5 Shots, medium accuray, medium damage, high RoF (well oiled, easier to re-cook, whatever the excuse is)

Buffalo Bills Magnum Colt: 5 Shots, low accuray, high damage, medium RoF (Assuming here that damage is more important than RoF when you need to reload the drum after 5 shots anyway)

General Custers long barreled Colt: 6 Shots, high accuray, medium damage, low RoF

And so on. You get legendary weapons that might radically influence gameplay, but with careful balancing will not be straight "better" than the standart colt.... maybe err on the safe side and make them slightly worse with everything taken into account, just so nobody can call it pay2win (some still will).

As long as the Weapon feels different enough gameplay wise, does work somehow, and maybe allows some advanced tactics that might not work with the standard weapon, you will find some people interested even for the gameplay stats of the weapon, while no free loader that knows the games rules and the different weapons can really complain about it.

After all, he was able to spot the shiny long barreled colt in his opponents hands, could have come to the conclusion that it would be a bad idea to take long distance pot shots against an oponnent with a vastly more accurate weapon, and could have worked his way into a closer distance to abuse his much higher RoF against the premium weapon wielding oponnent.

This way, the premium Item actually even enriches the gameplay for skilled free loaders that now have another potential obstacle to overcome... which might make the fight more interesting to them.

Of course, sometimes vanity items are just that, and it makes little sense to tack on ingame bonuses just to draw in additional sales. If it feels like an afterthought tacked unto a premium item just to heighten the perceived value, it will most probably feel cheap and lead to p2w claims.

As for the uniform: you could even make that more than a vanity item.

What happens when an officer (pre-WW1, even military guys learned that part in WW1 :) ) enters the stage clad in his shiny uniform, with all his golden rank insignias and medals? Instantly his troops are awe inspired as all the gold and sparkles leave no doubt about both his authority and his expierience in battle.... and instantly he will be prime target to enemy snipers (how could he miss something so shiny? :) ).

IDK how this could translate to ingame stats, but how about the uniform making the premium user giving nearby troops bonuses, maybe even grant himself some bonuses, but he will need to play more careful now as he is easier to spot (and that is a fact, there is a reason why "the gold" disappeared from active military non-parade uniforms in last few decades), and will be prime target to snipers. Maybe enemy troops that eliminate him get a bonus for that?

This way the uniform does not only makes the player look more sparkly, it instantly slightly transforms his role among his own troops, and the importance of him to the enemy also changes.

Counterbalancing premium item's premium feature ie making it vanityish is a nice approach , partly conforms with my intention to make premium vehicles consuming ridiculous amount of fuel and/or premium fuel.

And for vanity items, I am more interested in items creating a sense of social belonging, lone wolf approach may be more lucrative but conflicts with "social whales" strategy and large "customer" base intention. Yet it is a path of some (killer type players et al) players, so might serve such items not bordering on exploitation.

But I am very simulation oriented for bonuses making no sense, I know I will have to bend reality in an MMO but bonuses out of nowhere annoys me atm

I also dislike irrational bonuses. On the other hand, with a good explanation and a small dose of "suspension of disbelieve", most things can be explained.

Only thing I would maybe rethink would be the "premium fuel" route. Making the player pay for something he has to pay even more later on to use might not go down well with part of the potential buyer base.

One possible route is what Wargaming did in WoT for the Gold ammo / consumables: originally they were only available for gold, thus real money, which lead some people to call it P2W, as all this items gave ingame advantages over their regular counterparts.

In the end, Wargaming switched to a different strategy: you can now buy all the premium items (ammo and consumables) either with gold (thus real money), or for a value in ingame currency that equals the gold to ingame currency exchange rate (thus 4-10x as expensive as the normal ammo / consumable).

Net effect was that nobody can REALLY claim this to be P2W (some still do), as free loaders can now also afford to use some premium consumables. But its just expensive enough so that an overuse will drain ingame currency quickly, leading to not so active / good players still being inclined to invest small sums of real money into buying a small stock of these premium consumables, while they now also act as ingame money sink for the better / more active players to keep ingame economy in check.

Quite a clever solution.

On thing to be careful though: if your premium vehicle is extremly expensive to run, even if it is just ingame currency, there must be payoff. Lots of player in games like World of Tanks seem to monitor net profits of vehicles quite closely, and if your premium vehicles are getting them lower net profits in the ingame economy, they might prove less attractive no matter how cool they look or what other advantages they have. So the advantages to balance the lower net profits must be quite large...

Making a vehicle very powerful but making less exp / ingame money than normal vehicles is a worse balancing act IMO than making it slightly less powerful but raking in a better profit.

Free loaders and other player most likely will not see the profit of the premium user, and even if, they hardly care. If they get stomped by an overpowered premium vehicle they couldn't care less that the premium user made a loss on the game, they will cry P2W and rightly so. Lots of premium users abuse any premium option that is OP just to "farm free loaders", push their stats, and make some people rage.

They will pay top dollar for that. You as a developer might like that... but they are also upsetting the rest of the player base. Even if they are free loaders, each one of them has value to the MMO as a whole.

My bad, when I call it "premium fuel" it sounds like a miraculous substance that a super duper vehicle can only operate consuming it.

Actually what I (tried to) meant was premium quality fuel , which has a relatively long manufacturing process involving purification (thus requiring more raw) and chemical enriching processes. So it costs more than common one but not necessarily bought from game's "Evil Admin Company" (as I like to call it :) ) but others that can afford to have such facility.

Otherwise, an ingame item having a TCO with item itself has very low percentage would really annoy me. :)

Also beside TCO, I think a vehicle "you can watch fuel gauge moving" :) can be a good counterbalance if set proper.

My bad, when I call it "premium fuel" it sounds like a miraculous substance that a super duper vehicle can only operate consuming it.

Actually what I (tried to) meant was premium quality fuel , which has a relatively long manufacturing process involving purification (thus requiring more raw) and chemical enriching processes. So it costs more than common one but not necessarily bought from game's "Evil Admin Company" (as I like to call it ) but others that can afford to have such facility.

Otherwise, an ingame item having a TCO with item itself has very low percentage would really annoy me.

Also beside TCO, I think a vehicle "you can watch fuel gauge moving" can be a good counterbalance if set proper.

Okay, so the premium fuel would make any car go quicker? Do I undestand that correct? That sound P2W-ish, depending if its only attainable through real cash or also with ingame currency.

On the other hand, having different vehicles consume fuel at a different rate can be a good gameplay mechanic, depending on how refueling works. I am not 100% sure that it might balance a better armoured or armed vehicle, but if it is a race we are talking about, it can balance a faster car for sure. If a car is slightly faster but has to stop for refueling more often, a slightly slower car with better fuel consumption might keep up with it and maybe overtake it during refuel.

Mixed with combat mechanics (if that is planned) it might make for very interesting and dynamic gameplay. Just remember, in this case the guy with the high fuel consumption and better engine gets an additional advantage, as normal combat vehicles tend to be extremly vulnerable from behind. And after every refuel cycle, the faster car can catch up again and attack the slower one from behind.

Without combat, the slower car might on the other hand have a slight advantage as it can block the faster car behind it.

So yeah, depending on your exact design, that might work out quite well, but you need to balance it carefully.

Working on something similar currently, but its all in an early prototype stage at the moment. I couldn't run real tests yet as not everything is coded yet. Fuel consumption without refueling is kinda pointless ;)

Well , my intention to have different quality levels for fuel comes from a basic classification like diesel for tractor, fuel for old cars, lead-free fuel for new cars, kerosene-type fuel (ie chemicals additive) for aircraft etc.

So the main idea is partly counterbalancing effectiveness of these vehicle with higher TCO.

And for the purpose of premium fuel, I am more like both making restrictions (a sports car can't consume low quality fuel) and making premium fuel more efficient. I like the way Starbound handles ship fuel, there you can put coal, oil, uranium they all count as fuel (coal counts less, uranium more) , so my primary intention is not burst but mileage. So higher Q fuel will be more efficient and more vehicle friendly (causing less damage to vehicle) , but it won't enable god mode.

And for refueling, there involves logistics mechanics :)

Finally on my own, I am at GDD to TDD stage, so nothing solid atm

I think the effectiveness of this balancing act is very much up to you general game design. Depends a lot on how important fuel milage is, and how easy / hard it is ro refuel. Also of course how big the gap in effectiveness between vehicles is.

Generally I like the idea though. Especially with different types of engines consuming different amount of fueltypes... like the gas turbine of some modern tanks, that seem to run on pretty everything... somehow. Perfect for a post-apocalyptic / salvage your own fuel type of game. So you can drive around in that big heavy tank with gas turbine at 50 MPH, and pretty much every ignitable liquid you find can keep it running. Or you run around in that sports car at 200 MPH onroad, but god help you if you don't find a (abandoned?) gas station in time (how about giving the player the option to push his light sports car that ran out of fuel around at 2 MPH? :) ).

Anyway, I think we left the topic of what should be discussed in this forum a long time ago even though it is an interesting topic. I suggest if you want to continue this discussion you either open a thread in the Game Design forum or we discuss it in private... :)