124 réponses à ce sujet

[GoWest89]

BjornDaDwarf wrote...

Came for mechanics, found a business plan.

You seem to be justifying BW/EA's store model though. While it is one viable business model for microtransactions, that doesn't mean that it is the only viable way. Microtransaction games are proving that they can be sustained by a robust number of variations, including ones that are less ethically dubious than depending on the slot machine gambling effect.

I wholeheartedly support BW/EA's ability to generate consistent revenue for things like ME3: MP, particularly when a year's worth of content has been released for it. But there are other, and I suspect better, ways to monetize that have more respect for customers.

preach!

[CosmicBuffalo]

Bryan Johnson wrote...

Interesting analysis, I enjoyed reading if I am honest

Thanks.  Hopefully I've covered at least some of the things you and your team cannot.

The funny thing is, everyone here is still playing the game, complaints and suggestions aside.  That just goes to show that what you are doing IS working.  But then again, you already know that.

I'll try to respond to some comments later, but I'm at work.  Hate it when real life gets in the way of Mass Effect...

[ABjerre]

Sudis wrote...

I wonder if there are other ways they could monetize the multiplayer to pay for additional support. Would there be a lot of backlash to some tastefully placed advertisement on the loading screens or something?

There are several ways already on the market, utilized in other franchises. The most common are:

Monthly Subscription:
You pay a fixed amount of money for access to the games online features. In return, you can pick and choose the items you want to purchase onece you've saved up enough currency to buy them. In return, to keep people from farming everything they want the first month and then stop playing, there is usually some form of a weekly maximum on the in-game credits that one can earn.
A twist:
Furthermore, the most powerfull items bought are typically confined to use on a single character.
In this case an example could be a weekly cap of 1.000.000 MP credits to spend in the MP store on the weapons and upgrades you want on your infiltrator; after you reach the weekly maximum, the credits you earn will go towards your SP campagin. If you want the same gear and or weapons on other kits/classes call them what you want, you have to earn the credits using them also untill the weekly cap.

Paid DLC:
Does what it says on the package. Contrary to the above discriped model, online access is free and there is no cap on weekly points earned. The game is playable, but if you want access to the newest guns, gear and kits, you have to pay for the DLC that enables it.
A twist:
Combined with the in-game credit earning method mentioned above, this could be a way of forcing people to pay if they want the ability to eventually earn access to a weapons pack: "Retribution DLC out now! Gain access to 3 never seen before maps and add 3 all new kits along with 3 new and powerfull weapons to the in-game store. Only $14,99".

In-game advertizing:
This is largely used in free-to-play, simple browser games because they allow the add-space to blend in to the screen picture - it would seem odd to see a coca-cola logo on the walls in FB: Giant, and FB:Glacier this week is sponsored by Burger King or Dominoes. Next week it will be some other company - Razor or LogiTech perhaps. Never the less, it would be out of place in a game like this.
A twist:
These smaller browser games usually do this in conjunction with a gameplay that rewards frequently coming back to the game (farmville, whatever) so that people look at the new adds as often as possible. Also, this is frequently used in conjunction with micro-transactions, which we know already.

Modifié par ABjerre, 15 mars 2013 - 03:05 .

[dstrawberrygirl]

Interesting discussion! Considering just one slice and thinking about the BW points system, what works (to a point) and what remains for ME3 multiplayer...

I've bought packs several times - since I've played almost nothing else for a whole year, each time a DLC dropped I figured since I would have spent money on a different game, instead I would grab some BW points to help unlock some of each new DLC. I work and I have a family, so I can't play hours a day to stockpile credits - best I managed was 3mil. Buying packs each time a DLC dropped worked well for me once I got commons and uncommons maxed; it was a good way to get rares, and the occasional UR.

But now I have all the rares, the UR drop rate is too low for me to justify doing the same again in future, I'll just have to see how much more I can manage in the hour or two here and there when I get to play each day to unlock the remaining. (hey I got 2 last night - BW 7 and a Saber 3, I was SO pleased!)

I would consider it highly unlikely that people who have just URs left will want to spend money in the store given the drop rates, so the remaining funds for the game via the store would be people who are newer or who haven't played as much.

The group of people who have not got a full manifest who need only URs must be fairly large (assuming ballpark figures of approx 50% play time to get Rares maxed, another 50% to get the URs complete after around 600-1000 hours total play) - my own manifest as an example, it'll be at least another 200+ hours or more til I get to that point, assuming I don't move on to other games. It could be a last potential source of revenue if there were something in the store they could buy.

But hey, let's take my other role as a parent with a young kid and compare this to another game - Dragonvale. I won't assume any of you know it, but essentially it's like farming with dragons. It's free to play, but they sell gem packs you can use to buy... stuff. Now, unlike the BW points system, these packs can go up to $99 in price - and they barrage young kids with these in-app purchase options. Friend of mine somehow had the parental lock on her phone turned off, her son spent over $500 on these packs... and I've heard of others who have had over $2000 spent "accidentally" by their kids.

So thanks, BioWare, for not making PSPs cost that much - no I would not spend that much on Mass Effect!

[Bendigoe]

Interesting! I don't know how you got me to read all of that OP.
Possibly the lack of asterisks In the title.

[TheThirdRace]

Nice analysis.

The problem I have with the current store resides in the "random chance of reward" and the "price for such chance". When I buy a pack, I fully expect to at least have a "reward". The problem is the packs aren't built for that and their price discourage many to even sink money in this game.

Here is why I think the store is flawed:

[Random chance of reward]
Currently, you can buy a pack and get nothing but consumables which is unacceptable for many people including me. That's what I call a "random chance of reward". That kind of "chance for reward" caters to gamblers or people inclined to it. "Balanced" people, for a lack of better words, don't like their hard earned credits for nothing of value to them.

A better solution would have been to remove the "chance of", leaving only a "random reward". Having a specialized pack with a guaranteed weapon in it would have been more rewarding to the majority of people. Even if you don't get the specific weapon you're looking for, at least you got a weapon, you got that reward you were seeking for. You buy a weapon pack, you get a weapon. As simple as that.

If you want to keep the divisions between common, uncommon, rare and ultra-rare, you just give them different drop rates in the weapon pack. If you maxed a tier of weapons and you get that tier as the random reward then you get the worst tier of weapons still available. So if you max all your common weapons, you get uncommon weapons when the reward would have been a common. That also mean that if you somehow max your rares before your uncommons and you should get a rare, then you get an uncommon because it's the worst tier still available.

On one hand, that would make ultra-rares easier to max, but on the other hand that would motivate a lot of people into paying real money because they would have a guaranteed reward no matter at what state of completeness of their manifest they are. You cater to everyone instead of a small group.

[Price for such a chance]
With the current state of the store, the return on investment is abysmal, be it with credits or real cash.

The problem with real cash is two-fold.

First, it's not possible to buy Bioware points for the exact amount you need, forcing you to buy more and waste the unused points. That's a really bad ROI and a really poor business practice. I completely understand why Bioware and/or EA did it, it gives them more cash in advance and people tend to be bad at math so they spend more than they should. But at one point you have to show respect to your customers, make them want to give you their money instead of making them reticent to give it to you.

The second problem with real cash is that a game that cost 60$ shouldn't cost you more than 1000$ to max a blank manifest. And 1000$ is very very conservative... I understand they wanted the game to last, but that wasn't the right way. The "challenge points" were the right way and I applaud their additions.

The majority of people never spent a dime on this game because the price for the packs were excessive. I don't doubt a lot of people have bought the packs nonetheless, but even more have been so disgusted by the cost of those pack they never spent a dime on them. The return on investment wasn't only bad because of the "chance of reward", it was also bad for anyone that have to work for a living. I understand nobody have the same amount to spend on a game, but more than 1000$ to max a manifest is excessive. Have that limit been adjusted to something like 250$, more people would have been inclined to pay to get those packs. Maybe this would have net a better profit, maybe not, but the image of the company would have been positive instead of negative. I still believe they would have make more profit going for a more reasonable "extra fee".

As with real money, the return on investment is bad for credits too. Credits equal time in this game and you shouldn't have to play 600 hours to max your manifest, you should play 600 hours because you want to play. Something more realistic like 200 hours would have been much better.

You could balance the hours required by having a lesser gap between the rewards of the different difficulties. Platinum doesn't have to give you 100K credits more than Bronze to be "interesting". The challenge itself and the "prestige" would be sufficient for people to chose an higher difficulty. I'm not against giving people more credits for higher difficulties, I just believe that an extra 10K per difficulty would have been more appropriate. People would play the difficulty they're able to handle and in turn this would have given a much better PUG experience. A better experience equals a better image, better publicity, better sales, better profits.

[Conclusion]
While we all have our rant against the store, it was an "Ok" first try. I just hope that Bioware/EA are listening to their fans and can do better next time. We got a hell of a game, we want an even better one next time.

[Commander Coriander Salamander]

CosmicBuffalo wrote...
***Balance***
If UR weapons are given away too freely, the game would be 'beaten' far too easily and quickly.  This would have the side-effect of decreasing revenue from pack-purchases, as well as decreasing player traffic, which decreases word-of-mouth, which decreases purchases, which comes full circle and decreases player traffic.  On the other hand, being too stingy with UR (or even rare or UC) weapon drops would cause players to lose hope, and the same downward spiral would ensue.  All-in-all, BALANCE must be the main theme here.  

There have been many threads calling for various 'nerfs' to weapons or classes to bring a certain order to things.  Bioware's goal on the financial side is no different, except with the added risk that if they get it wrong, the support for this game, the DLC, the story, even future titles, might all end.  To quote a dear friend:  "Someone else may have gotten it wrong."

I especially enjoyed this point, you don't see many people talking about both ends of the spectrum, however...

CosmicBuffalo wrote...
  They BUILT this masterpeice for us, so lets keep the drama to a minimum and sit back and enjoy it.

This point is what set me off a bit as It seems to imply all the threads that have come up criticizing aspects of the game are just pointless drama. ALthough not as polarizing, it reminds me of the statement "Don't complain because it's free" that's frequently made when new DLC crops up.

I'll use the issue over URs since it's a hot topic at the moment. I'd argue that with the addition of 9 new UR weapons in the past couple weeks these threads arguing that there are too many URs or that we need an UR pack show that there has been a shift in the balance you mantioned previously. If the community is expected to just sit back and be passive about these issues then it's impossible for them to be adressed.

[geezer117]

I bought Arsenal Packs, because the cost in dollars for the drop rate of rare weapons was acceptable, and the value against the game time to get the same weapon with play credits was acceptable.

But with ultra rare weapons, Bioware has priced them so high in game time and in dollars that neither one is attractive. So simple economics says to play the game for fun and take whatever URs come along. That contradicts Bioware's business model.

[CosmicBuffalo]

CosmicBuffalo wrote...
  They BUILT this masterpeice for us, so lets keep the drama to a minimum and sit back and enjoy it.

tThis point is what set me off a bit as It seems to imply all the threads that have come up criticizing aspects of the game are just pointless drama. ALthough not as polarizing, it reminds me of the statement "Don't complain because it's free" that's frequently made when new DLC crops up.
I'll use the issue over URs since it's a hot topic at the moment. I'd argue that with the addition of 9 new UR weapons in the past couple weeks these threads arguing that there are too many URs or that we need an UR pack show that there has been a shift in the balance you mantioned previously. If the community is expected to just sit back and be passive about these issues then it's impossible for them to be adressed.

My apologies.  I did not clarify what I considered to be drama and what I did not.  Civilized and orderly discussion (with the occasional troll) is just fine, but I've seen threads where individuals became downright hostile.  I do not consider this thread 'dramatic' (nor your response) and will cease posting if it turns that way.
I actually agree with your statement about balance shift, I just maintain my opinion that it is a quantifiable shift.  Having that information means a lot to me.  It was my intention to educate the populous as to the many factors that the developers must take into account when making changes and the overall impact of those changes.

[TheThirdRace]

geezer117 wrote...

I bought Arsenal Packs, because the cost in dollars for the drop rate of rare weapons was acceptable, and the value against the game time to get the same weapon with play credits was acceptable.

But with ultra rare weapons, Bioware has priced them so high in game time and in dollars that neither one is attractive. So simple economics says to play the game for fun and take whatever URs come along. That contradicts Bioware's business model.

No offense, but for the cost to be "acceptable" you have to be playing Bronze or Silver. I don't know any Gold or Platinum player that paid 3$ to save them 20 minutes or less.

[billpickles]

Nice post, OP
10/10
Would bang.

I find the obsession with maxing your manifest a bit silly, actually. Sure, I'd love to max all my URs, but I don't think it's necessary to enjoy the game. There are plenty of Rares that get the job done exceptionally well. And you don't need most of the URs at X for them to perform well. My Harrier III got me through the Platinum challenge last week just fine. Sure, X would be better, but I'm not gonna cry about it.

[AndanteInBlue]

CosmicBuffalo wrote...
In Psychology, this is called Variable Ratio Positive Reinforcement, and is scientifically proven to generate the highest number of 'responses' (packs being opened) in the shortest amount of time.

Alright, if you want to bring up randomized reinforcement, you'll also want to know that the ideal ratio (measure as hormone spikes in mice brain, I believe) is about 1 in 2.  For an animal trainer, a reinforcement ratio of 1 in 10 is typically reserved for "extinction level behaviors", behaviors that you are planning to remove from the animal in the near future, or trying to reduce the level of display in the animal.

One might also say there are ethical issues on employing randomized reinforcement in video games for the purpose to earning microtransaction revenue.  It is akin to online gambling (in fact, exactly the same in mechanism), but targetting a younger demographic.

Modifié par AndanteInBlue, 15 mars 2013 - 05:12 .

[dimeonwu]

I come from a country which government is dominated by 1 party and is highly paternalistic. I'm used to being told what to do.

So everytime people complain about things, I just shrug and say, "It could be better. Could be worse. Who's to say?"

Doesn't mean I agree with what's being done- its just the cards we're dealt with. Could be better cards- Ultra Rare Black Lotus cards, for example; could be worse cards, like catastrophic hard disk failure (together with loss of several terabytes of pr0nz).

(I'm even more amused when BW employees actually take our feedback seriously, cos, you know, I'm not used to that stuff! I'm used to being told what to do and how to think!)

Just gotta roll with it, its all I'm saying.
Peace out

[ryanshowseason3]

A fair assessment. I'm not convinced there is so much research as your conclusion suggests, but thought is there. All in all though I agree. There had to be something to strive for just out of reach that wasn't difficulty limited. The rng was that.

I can think of better ways to present the rng that would leave the player feeling less cheated and more like they got lucky though.

[Commander Coriander Salamander]

@CosmicBuffalo

Thanks for the response and clarification. As I mentioned I've seen a lot of the "negative feedback is bad feedback" attitude in response to controversy so I wasn't sure how to interpret your conclusion. Glad we are both on the same page

[nicethugbert]

What does psycology have to say about people who hate Variable Ratio Positive Reinforcement so much that under no circumstance will they buy a game that has it?

Modifié par nicethugbert, 15 mars 2013 - 06:13 .

[CosmicBuffalo]

nicethugbert wrote...

What does psycology have to say about people who hate Variable Ratio Positive Reinforcement so much that under no circumstance will they buy a game that has it?

It would say those individuals are an extreme minority.

Modifié par CosmicBuffalo, 15 mars 2013 - 06:25 .

[CosmicBuffalo]

AndanteInBlue wrote...

CosmicBuffalo wrote...
In Psychology, this is called Variable Ratio Positive Reinforcement, and is scientifically proven to generate the highest number of 'responses' (packs being opened) in the shortest amount of time.

Alright, if you want to bring up randomized reinforcement, you'll also want to know that the ideal ratio (measure as hormone spikes in mice brain, I believe) is about 1 in 2.  For an animal trainer, a reinforcement ratio of 1 in 10 is typically reserved for "extinction level behaviors", behaviors that you are planning to remove from the animal in the near future, or trying to reduce the level of display in the animal.

One might also say there are ethical issues on employing randomized reinforcement in video games for the purpose to earning microtransaction revenue.  It is akin to online gambling (in fact, exactly the same in mechanism), but targetting a younger demographic.

If a parent doesn't leave a credit card linked to the Xbox (the system I use), then there is no money involved, no actual gambling.  It would be akin to playing poker with bottle caps.  When you win, you get the satisfaction of winning, if you lose, no harm done.

[CosmicBuffalo]

ryanshowseason3 wrote...

A fair assessment. I'm not convinced there is so much research as your conclusion suggests, but thought is there. All in all though I agree. There had to be something to strive for just out of reach that wasn't difficulty limited. The rng was that.

I can think of better ways to present the rng that would leave the player feeling less cheated and more like they got lucky though.

Im at work so I can't easily link any of these threads, but there are several members who have brought forward data amassed through tracking purchases.  

I would like to hear some of your ideas though.  A way to put a more positive spin on the weapon unlock system while preserving the longevity and profitability of the game.

[CosmicBuffalo]

Commander Coriander Salamander wrote...

@CosmicBuffalo

Thanks for the response and clarification. As I mentioned I've seen a lot of the "negative feedback is bad feedback" attitude in response to controversy so I wasn't sure how to interpret your conclusion. Glad we are both on the same page

You know the BSN, most of them see more than a sentence and move to the next thread =)

 Oops, was that a troll?

[Lucky]

I agree with you about rarity and that this whole "MP will die without an UR pack" craze is silly. However, the money they have brought in from these transactions has not lead to a real patch since retaliation. No, the missile glitch patch doesn't count because they purely did that to improve their short term revenue.

While Mass Effect multiplayer is a lot of fun I feel it is pathetic the amount of bug fixing that EA/Bioware is willing to do even with the constant revenue of microtransactions. It speaks volumes about them as a company and erodes long term faith in the products they create, even if it makes them more money in the short term.

BTW, this is in no way a knock on the developers as I am sure they want to fix the bugs as much or more than we want them fixed. This is a knock on the corporate strategy of just barely patching a game to the point where it is playable while leaving blatantly obvious bugs in the game. It may make you more money now but it degrades your companies good name.

[Quarian_Lover]

TMTDR

[CmnDwnWrkn]

I see it differently. BioWare doesn't reveal "the drop rate" because they have something to hide. If item drops were based on constant percentages, there would be no reason not to reveal it, as it would be easy to determine anyway by players aggregating and analyzing data. The fact that they need to keep the store mechanics a secret suggests they manipulate the probabilities in some fashion.

The store gives limited information on what the player actually receives for their purchase. This is by design, because they obviously feel the player would be less likely to purchase a pack if they knew exactly what they were getting. The fact that they feel the need to hide information from the consumer with respect to the product they have made available for sale - this speaks volumes about their intentions. They're exploiting an information differential much in the same way as investment bankers marketing investment products to clients while hiding what the portfolio they're peddling actually contains. This leads one to the conclusion that the actual value of a pack in the store is less than the value that is being represented.

In short, the store is opaque and manipulative, and people should have a healthy distrust of what they're actually being sold, just as they should anytime a seller isn't being upfront with them.

AndanteInBlue wrote...

CosmicBuffalo wrote...
In Psychology, this is called Variable Ratio Positive Reinforcement,
and is scientifically proven to generate the highest number of
'responses' (packs being opened) in the shortest amount of time.

Alright,
if you want to bring up randomized reinforcement, you'll also want to
know that the ideal ratio (measure as hormone spikes in mice brain, I
believe) is about 1 in 2.  For an animal trainer, a reinforcement ratio
of 1 in 10 is typically reserved for "extinction level behaviors",
behaviors that you are planning to remove from the animal in the near
future, or trying to reduce the level of display in the animal.

One might also say there are ethical issues on employing randomized reinforcement in video games for the purpose to earning microtransaction revenue.  It is akin to online gambling (in fact, exactly the same in mechanism), but targetting a younger demographic.

It's a system that exploits individuals prone to addictive behavior or at the very least people who have poor impulse control.

Modifié par CmnDwnWrkn, 15 mars 2013 - 06:56 .

[CmnDwnWrkn]

rlucht wrote...

I agree with you about rarity and that this whole "MP will die without an UR pack" craze is silly. However, the money they have brought in from these transactions has not lead to a real patch since retaliation. No, the missile glitch patch doesn't count because they purely did that to improve their short term revenue.

While Mass Effect multiplayer is a lot of fun I feel it is pathetic the amount of bug fixing that EA/Bioware is willing to do even with the constant revenue of microtransactions. It speaks volumes about them as a company and erodes long term faith in the products they create, even if it makes them more money in the short term.

BTW, this is in no way a knock on the developers as I am sure they want to fix the bugs as much or more than we want them fixed. This is a knock on the corporate strategy of just barely patching a game to the point where it is playable while leaving blatantly obvious bugs in the game. It may make you more money now but it degrades your companies good name.

Totally agree with this The way this game has been managed since Retaliation has really lowered my opinion of EA/BioWare's business practices.  In the short-term it may be increasing their earnings, but they may be shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.  A company isn't voted "the worst company in America" for no reason.  I see EA having more and more influence on how BioWare operates, and it's sad.

Modifié par CmnDwnWrkn, 15 mars 2013 - 07:01 .

[Lucky]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...
Totally agree with this The way this game has been managed since Retaliation has really lowered my opinion of EA/BioWare's business practices.  In the short-term it may be increasing their earnings, but they may be shooting themselves in the foot in the long run.  A company isn't voted "the worst company in America" for no reason.  I see EA having more and more influence on how BioWare operates, and it's sad.

Agreed, I have seen games that I know for a fact generate less "post original sale revenue" get far more bug fixing patches than ME3 has gotten, it is sad indeed.