• Advertisement
Sign in to follow this  

Struggling with the idea of in-game purchases

This topic is 2252 days old which is more than the 365 day threshold we allow for new replies. Please post a new topic.

If you intended to correct an error in the post then please contact us.


Recommended Posts

Right now I'm in the process of making a 2D turn-based RPG, and I'm thinking through and reading articles about how to make money off of it. It's still early in development.

One of the things that there's alot of discussion about in the industry currently is in-game transactions - people have been discussing them more and more frequently over the past several years, and currently the term 'free-to-play' has been getting alot more publicity.

I don't want to make my game free-to-play, it's a single-player game. However, the idea of in-game purchases both appeals-to and disgusts, me. Okay, 'disgusts' is too strong of the word, but I as a gamer, dislike in-game purchases. I, as a developer, need to make money to survive.

Thinking about my game with the assumption that I do add in-game purchases, I've been thinking about good ways and bad ways to handle them.

Here's some situations of in-game payments that I think I'd be okay with:
  • Allowing the player to get instant-satisfaction by paying for something he knows he would get later anyway ([size="1"]Leveling up, you get a skillpoint to spend on a new skill. But hey, you can spend $3 and get another new skillpoint and spend two this level instead of just one, so you can advance up the skilltree faster to get to that skill you set your eye on. [size="1"]Another example is purchasing a weapon you don't currently have enough regular game currency for, by using real-world money instead of waiting)
  • Having extra content that's not part of the regular game be available to the player ([size="1"]A whole different skilltree can be unlocked by purchasing it)
  • Purchasing the regular in-game currency, and/or buying in-game items with real money as an alternative to in-game currency ([size="1"]both payment options being available to the player for every item except cheap items like potions).
  • Paying for fancy cosmetic changes ([size="1"]Red fireballs? Lame. Mine are blue!).
  • Paying for extra awesomeness for no apparent reason ([size="1"]Bribing an NPC with real currency to kill another NPC, or paying to get the burn down an entire village).
  • Paying for an ability or combat accessory that you can't otherwise get, but isn't directly 'better than' the ones you can get, only different.
  • Paying to get an awesome teammate or pet animal you otherwise wouldn't get.
    Here's some situations of in-game payments that I wouldn't be okay with:
    • Making the player progress aggravatingly slow, unless he purchases something [size="1"](faster leveling or better equipment).
    • Having awesome abilities or content that seems like an actual part of the game that is locked away unless he purchases it ([size="1"]Can't get the final skills in his skill tree without paying, for example. Contrast with the earlier approved 'pay to unlock an entirely new skilltree' with this disapproved 'pay to unlock the skilltree that you are already working up')
      I also wouldn't like it if in-game purchases are super naggy. On the other hand, they must be plainly visible - hiding in-game purchases behind multiple menus is setting yourself up for defeat. So if I implement it in my game, I'll have them clearly visible as part of the regular GUI, but colored differently to distinguish them as separate from the regular game.
      I wouldn't have them flashing or have popups or glowing in and out, or draw your attention in any way other than any other GUI element - but I will distinguish them by coloration, so players know at a glance that color X means external payment color Y means regular payment, in the same way my GUI will also use the color red to mean something negative and the color green to mean something positive (like green 'Yes' and red 'No' on a dialog box).

      I'd probably even integrate the in-game payments to be better themed with the game world. Regular in-game currency maybe being 'silver coins', and real-world-payments currency being 'gold coins'.

      As a gamer, I don't like spending money while in games! I'm fine with buying the game itself and buying expansions; I'm even fine with monthly payments (for MMOs). I'm fine with MMOs that sell other players extra customization to their appearances (white hair or mustaches or glowing capes or whatever), but I never buy such things.

      The primary motivator for even considering such things in my own game, was reading some articles in favor and against in-game transactions, and coming across the statement "Never cap the amount of money your customers can give you", or something like that. That statement stuck with me - if my fans want to give me more than the $15 I'm charging for my game, I should let them, as long as I'm not manipulating them to give more, nagging them with constant requests for more, or cheating them by sell 'extra' content that should've been in the game in the first place.

      Basically, I think I'm fine with allowing players to purchase short-cuts to get to something their focused on sooner, as long as I'm not deliberately making them game progress aggravatingly slow to force them to make such purchases. My self-decided standard for my game is, "As a gamer who doesn't like making in-game purchases, can I play through my own game and enjoy it, without missing out on important content, without feeling cheated or tricked by having bought an 'incomplete' game, and without feeling nagged or pressured to buy something?"

      I'm still working through my thoughts, and I'd value your opinions. What do you think, not about in-game purchases in general, but about my specific case and the things I've mentioned? I know I haven't explained anything about my game (other than the loosely defined '2D turn-based RPG'), but really, it shouldn't matter too much.

      What are your thoughts about all this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Advertisement
My answers to my own poll, so you know where I'm coming from.

As a gamer, have you ever purchased an in-game item?
> Nope, never have and (hopefully) never will!

What kinds of things are acceptable to offer as in-game purchases?
> Cosmetic options (hair color, fancy cape, etc...)
> Convience (faster leveling, etc...)

What do you think (as a developer) about adding in-game purchases to your game?
> I'm resisting going down that road.

What games do you find acceptable for in-game purchases?
> Persistent virtual worlds like MMORPGs (WoW, Runescape, etc...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ive never purchased anything as a gamer in f2p games with paid contents.
Cosmetic things are the only kind of paid content I'd consider buying if I get attached to the game for a while.
Convenience could be also acceptable but I wouldnt buy them honestly. These should be fairly balanced tho, it shouldnt be frustrating playing the game without these boosts.


If the content I could buy is of the kind of giving a competitive advantages to who helps letting them get privileges that you will never get by playing without paying I generally dont even start playing that game regardless of how good and fun it might be.
Exclusive contents would be lame aswell, they might not be too lame if they dont give a real advantage to those that buy em, like mini games to unlock cosmetic or convenience stuff.

From my gamer point of view I cant see how you could make money with a f2p game since Im not a paying customer, Id much rather pay 10€ once and have all the content avaible. Tho it looks like the winning choise nowadays, with some games keeping it balanced (LoL), and some other not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're speaking about in game purchases in a single player game?
I remember playing Dragon Age, and at the camp some dude offered me a quest. However he told me I just had to pay a few quid.
Massive massive immersion breaker, and it really gave you the feeling you didn't get the full product. Even announcing future dlc upon game release is a bad idea (Battlefield 3 with Karkand). In Skyrim they may add future content (hopefully expansion sized), but they don't throw it in your face right away. They let you play the game, giving you a feeling that you've got the full game (which you have), and some time later (atleast a month), they may announce upcoming content.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yeah, single player game.

[color="#1C2837"]I remember playing Dragon Age, and at the camp some dude offered me a quest. However he told me I just had to pay a few quid.<br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 16px; text-align: left; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252); ">[color="#1C2837"]

Massive massive immersion breaker, and it really gave you the feeling you didn't get the full product.

[/quote]
[color="#1C2837"]



[color="#1c2837"]How can the immersion breaking be minimized? That's one of my complaints too, is immersion breaking. I was thinking of treating real money as if it's part of the world's economy, so the player actually has gold (real money) and actually has silver (the in-game currency), and NPCs list their wares in both currencies. Or maybe 'gold' is just a higher denomination of currency, that can be broken into silver, and likewise, silver can be converted upward to gold.

[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1C2837"]

Even announcing future dlc upon game release is a bad idea (Battlefield 3 with Karkand). In Skyrim they may add future content (hopefully expansion sized), but they don't throw it in your face right away. They let you play the game, giving you a feeling that you've got the full game (which you have), and some time later (atleast a month), they may announce upcoming content. [/quote]


[color="#1C2837"]

I *think* the real issue is how fast you encounter a option to spend real money, and how naggy it is (correct me if I'm wrong).


[color="#1c2837"]If in-game transactions are integrated into the interface in a non-distracting, non-naggy way (like only on merchant windows), and the game doesn't stop you from doing anything for lack of paying extra, would it be as bad to you, personally?


[color="#1c2837"]I mean, the NPCs aren't nagging for money, the game isn't nagging for money, it just gives you the option to spend money, just as seamlessly as a game gives you the option of spending regular game currency (with the added hassle of a confirmation window and a paypal box when you spend real money, but that's hidden until after you already decide to buy).


[color="#1C2837"]Personally, I never play games the second they come out anyway. I always wait for the price to drop, so I can't really relate. [color="#1C2837"]If I buy Skyrim 6 months after it releases, and they just release DLC at the exact time I buy it... how's that different ([color="#1C2837"]

psychologically

[color="#1C2837"]

) from you buying it at release date, and them releasing DLC at release date? Oddly, there *is* a difference, with the

[color="#1C2837"]

feeling of having been cheated and slighted out of content they were 'holding back' if it happens at release date but not 6 months later.


[color="#1c2837"]However, if the game from the beginning is a 'full game' and the game never stops you from doing anything, and the full experience is available to you, is the option to expedite your progress to certain skills or weapons (that you'll get anyway with a little patience) still a issue to you as a gamer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I would have voted for convenience except faster leveling is a specific example I'm opposed to. Faster mounts would be fine.

As far as MMOs go, I prefer subscription games but in a cash shop game what I really want to see is players who buy cash shop items for cash then being able to auction those items to other players for in-game money. That's what makes everyone happiest AND generates the most money. The items could even be soulbind-on-equip such that each one can only be auctioned and used once, and people are still pretty happy. (Also, no single item in the cash shop should be more than $20, nor should a base item plus a bunch of upgrades to max out that item be more than $20. $40 mounts are freaking absurd. And absolutely don't combine cash shop and subscription, that makes an ugly mess.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Concerning micro transactions in single player games:

[color="#1c2837"]How can the immersion breaking be minimized? That's one of my complaints too, is immersion breaking. I was thinking of treating real money as if it's part of the world's economy, so the player actually has gold (real money) and actually has silver (the in-game currency), and NPCs list their wares in both currencies. Or maybe 'gold' is just a higher denomination of currency, that can be broken into silver, and likewise, silver can be converted upward to gold.

Then it's definitely in your face. Atleast that's what I feel whenever I see real currency cash shops (doesn't matter if you call it something like gold, or rubies).
[color="#1C2837"]
I *think* the real issue is how fast you encounter a option to spend real money, and how naggy it is (correct me if I'm wrong).[color="#1C2837"][/quote]
This is different. This is about adding expansions (probably small). Not a bad thing, but BF3 should have waited until a while after the game was released. It's important to feel satisfied with what you bought. Worse is when DLC arrives when game comes out (Dragon Age). To me that feels like they've removed part of the game, and charges extra for it.

[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1c2837"]If in-game transactions are integrated into the interface in a non-distracting, non-naggy way (like only on merchant windows), and the game doesn't stop you from doing anything for lack of paying extra, would it be as bad to you, personally?[color="#1C2837"][/quote]
So what should people pay for then? Consumable pay to use items in a single player rpg, is in my opinion ridicilous. Only on merchant window does not make it non-naggy.

[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1C2837"]Personally, I never play games the second they come out anyway. I always wait for the price to drop, so I can't really relate. [color="#1C2837"]If I buy Skyrim 6 months after it releases, and they just release DLC at the exact time I buy it... how's that different ([color="#1C2837"]

psychologically

[color="#1C2837"]

) from you buying it at release date, and them releasing DLC at release date? Oddly, there *is* a difference, with the

[color="#1C2837"]

feeling of having been cheated and slighted out of content they were 'holding back' if it happens at release date but not 6 months later.[color="#1C2837"][/quote]

Because you know that DLC at launch means it is something they could have added to the full game at release. They did not focus entirely on the game.
6 months later is after release, and buying the game later you would expect that they may release new content, because they have actually had time to do it, and many would welcome it. There's also many more who buy the game at launch.

[color="#1C2837"]
[color="#1c2837"]However, if the game from the beginning is a 'full game' and the game never stops you from doing anything, and the full experience is available to you, is the option to expedite your progress to certain skills or weapons (that you'll get anyway with a little patience) still a issue to you as a gamer?[color="#1C2837"][/quote]
How will you work out balance? Also what kind of message do you send to the gamer? The game is boring until you reach level xxx. It's fun after that. Trust me. People who play Skyrim are more likely to complain that end game is boring because it offers no challenge. It's more fun earlier when some things can kill you. It's the path that's fun.

Your model sounds very much like the micro transaction games intended for children (smurf gate). Where they get their hands on their parents credit cards and spend huge amounts of money without really realising the gravity of what they're doing. I'm not saying it won't make money, but they're more like frauds than real games.

I'd love to see a proper mmorts. Problem is they all jump on the microtransaction wagon. Stronghold kingdoms actually had a client (not browser based). It had quite a few balance problems, and it was also more of a grinding game thant actual strategy, but the micro transaction model (cards) totally ruined the gameplay.
Age of Empires Online (although not a mmorts which it claims to be) could be really good. There are several designs I really don't like, and they're very closely connected to the microtransaction model. Another is that the AI sucks.

I know many mmo games use this and with surprisingly bad games are able to make huge profits. Can't think of a single player rpg though.
It might work economically, but personally I'm very biased against this. I genuinely do think this is the major negative deleopement concerning games.
[media]
[/media]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that you will have some conceptual issues in doing the cash shop in a single player game.

When I think of cash purchases, I think mostly of MMOs. It makes sense there, where inter-player interactions are the meat of the experience. When there are 10,000 players working off of the same sets of costumes and equipment, a good chunk of people will pay cash to have something that most others won't have. The cash price itself will prevent a lot of people from buying it, preserving the uncommon-ness. And since the cash content is not very significant, no one feels left out if they don't buy it.

A single player game is a different thing. When I buy a game, I expect to have everything I need and have no real interest in cosmetic stuff- certainly not for cash. If I want a different color costume or spells or something, I'll mod the game and I expect to be able to (even if it takes some doing). Since it's just for me to see anyways, I wouldn't put much cash value on it. Convenience purchases probably wouldn't sway me either, because if the game is fun I'd much rather spend my free time playing it than use some of my work time to cut out play time.

I really have a hard time imagining much I'd be willing to pay for in a single player game except for bigger content, like new missions and whole new features. I would (and have) pay for new content packs, a la Magicka and others, provided that the core game is fun and the packs are not priced very expensively. I'm all for not limiting the amount of money that players can give you, but for my own part I'm too used to getting the complete package on purchase, and filling in traditional MMO cash fodder with fan-made content. An expansion pack I'd buy, and wouldn't necessarily feel cheated about it though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For single player games the main thing you can offer is additional content, it is however not a great idea to sell a game that feels incomplete (Having an npc in a rpg you allready payed for tell you to pay real money to do a quest is insane), the total war games handled this nicely (on the menu screen they advertised new DLC), If a game is free however it is perfectly fine to let a player pay as they progress through the game, (a bit like old shareware games)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So far the only place I find micro-trans acceptable are when what they are selling really has no bearing on the game at all, for example the selling of hats in TF2. It's purely a bonus in that game. There are a few "MMOs" (I use the term loosely) that use a micro-trans model and in those cases I really don't mind it. Mainly because the game itself is so shallow and designed specifically around a cash shop that I could never take it seriously enough to care.

The version that springs to mind when this subject comes up are those used by MMORPGs sometimes when either their sub based or free to play. They often seem to sell cosmetic items because (and players often agree with it) it has "no bearing on the game". The problem is it does, cosmetics have always been important in MMORPGs and allowing people to buy certain items does basically trivialise a crucial aspect of the game. The same goes for border line cosmetic items such as mounts. I don't feel that real life should have any real bearing on the game outside of the amount of time you are available to play for, especially in MMORPGs which are essentially trying to create an alternative world for the player to escape into. I don't necessarily mind paying for services outside of the game world (e.g. character transfers), but anything that directly changes a players character or their experience of the game is something I would rather not have in any MMORPG.

PS: I should add that I understand that out of all the options cosmetic items are the least objectionable for most people and would likely be the way to go. From a purely money making perspective buying power (a small amount) is also highly successful if done correctly. But I personally feel that micro trans should not be used unless you really have to (I quite liked the idea of a scaling monthly sub depending on what the player wished to access).


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
These are questions a lot of game devs have. Frankly, it's all about the kind of game you want to create. There are some ways that are more "true" to the love of gaming, while others are explicitly set up to make money at the behest of gameplay. I'd highly recommend checking out the video below to get a laundry list of game mechanics from Roger Dickey, the creator of Mafia Wars of Zynga fame. Then you can pick the mechanics that you're comfortable with.

[media]http://vimeo.com/32161327[/media]

Hope this helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm willing to play arcade games (actual arcade games in actual arcades) where I buy my way into the game with a credit, and get to play until I either beat the game or lose.

I'd be fine with the same price structure on the net: starting a new game costs $0.25, no other payments. Unlike in the physical arcade model, there's no need to limit the game to be a maximum of 35 minutes long.

In competitive multiplayer, no purchases other than cosmetic ones are okay IMO.
In a situation where we have a fighting game and 5 out of 20 characters are locked behind a paywall, I'd be likely to do one of two things: either never buy the game in the first place, or mentally add all the purchasable characters into the purchase price, buy the game and immediately buy all those characters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
About releasing DLC right after release.

First:
I bought SWTOR. I had to set up a subscription, which is annoying since I do have 30 days of play time, or wait, apparently my days were running from when the game launched. Only problem was, I couldn't set up such a subscription because of to big loads for SWTOR's undersized server capacity.

Second:
Now, what I really was gonna talk about is what happened right after this. I got a message of a digital upgrade pack. That's right. Pay to get some extra trivial stuff (or stuff that should really be there in the first place). This is a pay to play game. Do I feel cheated? Yes I definitely do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[edit: sorry to dredge the thread]

Second:
Now, what I really was gonna talk about is what happened right after this. I got a message of a digital upgrade pack. That's right. Pay to get some extra trivial stuff (or stuff that should really be there in the first place). This is a pay to play game. Do I feel cheated? Yes I definitely do.


It's stuff that's available in the collector's edition. I'm fine with a company offering to sell me that stuff without the fancy box.


As for the original topic. I'm against subscriptions in games, so as you might imagine I'm not thrilled by spending more money when I've paid for my game. And I'm not thrilled by advertising a game as free, but then you can't play or compete without spending money.

TF2 hats are cool. Spiral Knights has a good free to play system. In general I approve of these f2p systems where the pay currency can be bought/traded for via free currency (read: time). D&D online also has a decent system like that where you can eventually get some of the pay content for free in-game by accumulating quest rewards.

Buying cosmetic items is fine. I can kinda approve of the iPad sort of system where the game and chapter 1 is free, and then extra chapters are sold. (though I prefer if such systems offer 'unlimited access' options/discount). Paying for extra character slots or inventory is annoying.

I am actually okay with free games supported by ads, either a little banner at the top or a on-login one-time ad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's stuff that's available in the collector's edition. I'm fine with a company offering to sell me that stuff without the fancy box.

Okay, I guess that's fine (they could have mentioned that). Not sure what the droid did, but if you could get that along with your companion (making you stronger), then I dislike it, because it's a subscription based game.

I think subscription model has many advantages. It could be more flexible though. Many pay to play games seem to make some bad gameplay changes to support a pay model (especially pay to win games).
Especially in persistent world games where players can control areas, a subscription model would ensure higher degree of activity. For instance tribalwars can be quite empty, but there's a premium server which you are required to subscribe if you want to play (in the other's it's optional), and it's supposedly much more active.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

  • Advertisement