View from the Road: No Such Thing as a Free Lunch
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
Quite true. I had this saying ground into my skull when I took Macro Economics in high school (not so long ago), but it applies to pretty much everything.
I do wonder how the profit turns out compared to the traditional subscription format. Because, last time I checked, both WoW and RuneScape are riding high the old-fashioned way. Albeit with nigh-and-day approaches to getting players interested enough to pay, but still both subscription based.
I do wonder how the profit turns out compared to the traditional subscription format. Because, last time I checked, both WoW and RuneScape are riding high the old-fashioned way. Albeit with nigh-and-day approaches to getting players interested enough to pay, but still both subscription based.
I'm all for the micro-transaction model in an MMO when it's the model replacing subscriptions, as it's a return to an era where if you wanted something, you paid for it, and then you were done because you had it now. Of course they're going to make all sorts of content that you can see but not actually use until you fork something over for it, and of course they're going to make sure it's sitting there all the time tempting the hell out of you, but it's a far cry better than paying a monthly fee irrespective of how often you intend to actually play the game.
On the other hand, I hope more MMOs don't start using this model as I value my free time and depending on the game that might very well spell the end of it, heh! I wouldn't be complaining if the Warhammer 40,000 MMO was micro-transaction supported though.
On the other hand, I hope more MMOs don't start using this model as I value my free time and depending on the game that might very well spell the end of it, heh! I wouldn't be complaining if the Warhammer 40,000 MMO was micro-transaction supported though.
Turbine announced they saw a 500% increase in revenue when they switched D&D Online to this model.Brainst0rm said:
That article essentially just said, "Valve use a cut of the money they generate when people buy games to make new content for TF2" Isn't that just a ovbvious point? I mean yeah obviously people need to be payed to make new TF2 content, but I could never buy another game from Steam, and still ejoy every piece of conent in TF2 that exists and will exists, this isn't the same as a microtransaction in the traditional sense, because I would have to pay to access the extra content, but I don't, it's all there for me once I have the game in my hands. TNSTAFL in my eyes only applys to the person you're speaking to, ok yeah someone is paying for that lunch, but it isn't me, so therefor from my perspective it's free.
Agreed. I've seen a ton of people point to Valve as a developer that does free updates, particularly during the DLC discussions that have been going on around Project $10. A lot of people don't seem to realize that Steam, having such a huge share of the digital distribution market, makes them such an outlier. There's a psychological factor at play that makes people more willing to click through a few ads rather than feel like they're paying for content, even though they're really paying either way - whether it's for the DLC or for the game that they'll eventually buy when they see an ad saying "hey, it's 30% off!"
Very nice.
As I saw the number, I was suddenly curious whether just subscriptions maintained the $136,986 per day. After the number crunching... Blizzard gets $5,500,000 a day, so they have $5363131 per day. Of course, with 11 million players...
As I saw the number, I was suddenly curious whether just subscriptions maintained the $136,986 per day. After the number crunching... Blizzard gets $5,500,000 a day, so they have $5363131 per day. Of course, with 11 million players...
My mind always automatically associates "TANSTAAFL" with the whole "gratis" vs "libre" issue... Not that that's applicable in this case.
But yeah, the article is 100% right. Everything has a price, and they're gonna get their money's worth one way or another. The thing is that not every method of extracting that money from you is equally acceptable ('acceptable' is a bad word, but I can't think of a better English word atm...) to every customer. Some people might dislike micro-transactions, others might dislike monthly fees, and others yet would gladly shell out some bucks if it meant they'd have to look at less advertisements.
Just because someone frowns on one form of payment for his lunch, doesn't necessarily mean they think they should get their lunch for free.
But yeah, the article is 100% right. Everything has a price, and they're gonna get their money's worth one way or another. The thing is that not every method of extracting that money from you is equally acceptable ('acceptable' is a bad word, but I can't think of a better English word atm...) to every customer. Some people might dislike micro-transactions, others might dislike monthly fees, and others yet would gladly shell out some bucks if it meant they'd have to look at less advertisements.
Just because someone frowns on one form of payment for his lunch, doesn't necessarily mean they think they should get their lunch for free.
I don't mind the micro transactions. If I don't want the DLC I just simply won't buy it. Granted some of them are crap DLC or re touched old stuff. Someones gotta make money though, and they don't do that by making things for free.
Does this mean wikipedia is unsustainable when donations dry up? All that info lost would be tragic.
Don't forget constant updates to tf2 bring a lot of exposure to the game. Generally, even large updates might add 3 weapons and a couple of maps, but it usually gets shown everywhere, and more exposure means more new players. On top of expanding the player base, by keeping the player base happy, they have a lot more guaranteed customers for any sequel down the line, or any Valve product in general, due to amount of support they can expect (the entitlement issue bit them on the ass with Left 4 dead 2 though, since Valve fans pretty much expected them to deliver on the first game like tf2, when really they should have been grateful for what they got. But that's another issue, and my parenthesis bound aside will get too bloated if I go on.)
It's an ingenious marketing technique, because I can see clearly what they are doing, yet I don't care. They're still giving us tons of free content, and exploiting it in the best way a company could.
It's an ingenious marketing technique, because I can see clearly what they are doing, yet I don't care. They're still giving us tons of free content, and exploiting it in the best way a company could.
Very good article, and very true. What Valve does is essentially a cyclical built in advertising service. They put out "free" updates for their games, which get advertised on most major gaming sites (and in Steam itself), which pumps up Valve's reputation and draws eyeballs to both them and Steam, which gets people to buy the games they sell, which funds the "free" updates and so on. Like Valve or not, as said, they really aren't doing things solely out of the goodness of their hearts.
I do hope the thing with Valve and adverts isn't supposed to surprise me.
Good read and all, but not surprising.
Good read and all, but not surprising.