View from the Road: No Such Thing as a Free Lunch

Aphroditty

New member
Nov 25, 2009
133
0
0
elvor0 said:
... TANSTAAFL in my eyes only applies to the person you're speaking to, OK yeah someone is paying for that lunch, but it isn't me, so therefore from my perspective it's free.
Nah, you're still paying for it by investing your time. Obviously the benefits of getting a "free" lunch versus the costs of, say, fifteen minutes chowing down make that a favorable scenario for you in most cases, but you're still paying in some way (for the most obvious example, people might pay through increased customer loyalty to the restaurant). Imagine that you have to be on a train in five minutes, and it takes you five minutes to eat lunch. Then, you were offered this free lunch. Either way you choose, you pay.
 

Danpascooch

Zombie Specialist
Apr 16, 2009
5,231
0
0
You know, the games that you see advertised every time you load up Steam to play TF2. Or the deals that come up once you're done and exit the match. By constantly updating TF2, Valve keeps players coming back to Steam, where they see the new games and probably buy some every now and then.
The description of this article said that TF2 has microtransactions, that's completely false, all it does is a bit of advertising and not even in a direct way, they're not the same thing, and it's not cool to drag people to the article by claiming they are.
 

John Funk

U.N. Owen Was Him?
Dec 20, 2005
20,364
0
0
danpascooch said:
You know, the games that you see advertised every time you load up Steam to play TF2. Or the deals that come up once you're done and exit the match. By constantly updating TF2, Valve keeps players coming back to Steam, where they see the new games and probably buy some every now and then.
The description of this article said that TF2 has microtransactions, that's completely false, all it does is a bit of advertising and not even in a direct way, they're not the same thing, and it's not cool to drag people to the article by claiming they are.
I disagree entirely. In practice, they work out to being the exact same thing. It's how Valve funds development of TF2.
 

Miumaru

New member
May 5, 2010
1,765
0
0
So....what about people who play for free, never buy anything extra, and DONT buy the stuff in ads?
 

Aphroditty

New member
Nov 25, 2009
133
0
0
danpascooch said:
The description of this article said that TF2 has microtransactions, that's completely false, all it does is a bit of advertising and not even in a direct way, they're not the same thing, and it's not cool to drag people to the article by claiming they are.
As the article stated, no, you're never going to be paying, cold, hard, straight-out-yo'-wallet cash for something in TF2. But a microtransaction can be easily, and correctly, interpreted as any economic transaction that's simply very small. Those advertisements are an economic transaction--you're at least paying with your time (the time it takes for you to scroll your clicker to close the damn thing), and you're almost certainly paying with small amounts of your mindshare.
 

Ravek

New member
Aug 6, 2009
302
0
0
Even without Steam, updating games for free has the great benefit of making your customers love you. TF2 not only makes users keep coming back to Steam, it makes users keep coming back to Valve.

Stardock, by the way, does the same thing as Valve. I hope it's working for them, because this is a great way to do business.

By the way, I do consider it a free lunch if the 'price' I pay is making me feel good about buying Valve games. It's a win-win situation, sounds like free lunch to me.
 

xyrafhoan

New member
Jan 11, 2010
472
0
0
Miumaru said:
So....what about people who play for free, never buy anything extra, and DONT buy the stuff in ads?
How many people do you know who HAVEN'T broken down and made an impulse purchase on a crazy weekend sale on Steam? The fact that a person who played TF2 will be seeing ads for weekly deals all the time, and typically they'll find something they just can't pass up. Because Steam keeps its ads focused on games, it's way more likely to catch the interest of the typical Steam user: A dedicated gamer. Just like with an f2p MMO, the extras are ferociously pushed upon the player whether they think they're ignoring it or not, until you figure "oh, why not, it's on sale" or "Oh wow that looks cool and I want to try it". There might be a person who doesn't have a credit card and thus has an easy time ignoring these special offers, but there is almost always a tipping point for people.

I mean, I picked up KOTOR for $2. $2! That's ridiculous, and that's how Valve convinces the masses to keep tolerating, and perhaps even love, Steam.
 

Miumaru

New member
May 5, 2010
1,765
0
0
xyrafhoan said:
Miumaru said:
So....what about people who play for free, never buy anything extra, and DONT buy the stuff in ads?
How many people do you know who HAVEN'T broken down and made an impulse purchase on a crazy weekend sale on Steam? The fact that a person who played TF2 will be seeing ads for weekly deals all the time, and typically they'll find something they just can't pass up. Because Steam keeps its ads focused on games, it's way more likely to catch the interest of the typical Steam user: A dedicated gamer. Just like with an f2p MMO, the extras are ferociously pushed upon the player whether they think they're ignoring it or not, until you figure "oh, why not, it's on sale" or "Oh wow that looks cool and I want to try it". There might be a person who doesn't have a credit card and thus has an easy time ignoring these special offers, but there is almost always a tipping point for people.

I mean, I picked up KOTOR for $2. $2! That's ridiculous, and that's how Valve convinces the masses to keep tolerating, and perhaps even love, Steam.
I dont use steam, and I am not involved with steam at all. So I am unaware of such people.
 

Tom Phoenix

New member
Mar 28, 2009
1,161
0
0
blackshark121 said:
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...
Sorry, but I doubt your numbers are accurate here. You need to keep in mind that out of the 11.5 million players, roughly 5 million come from Asia and they don't use a subscription model like elsewhere. Instead, they pay per hour of play, so Asian players are not a reliable source of income. Plus, as Funk mentioned in his article, the figure 136,986 is only for actualy keeping the servers running. There is a whole slew of other expenses that need to be considered.

I am not saying Blizzard isn't making a fair bit of money with WoW. But I think people tend to oversimplify and exaggerate how much money they make and also ignore how much it costs to maintain an MMO of such a magnitude as WoW.
 

xyrafhoan

New member
Jan 11, 2010
472
0
0
Miumaru said:
I dont use steam, and I am not involved with steam at all. So I am unaware of such people.
Then, using the example of an f2p MMO, most of these f2p games offer shortcuts through cash shop purchaces, seasonal sales, and sometimes offer free cash shop items to loyal players. Once you start making cash shop purchases, it's really hard to play the game without them. In games were microtranscation items are sellable to other players in-game, the players who DO hold off on purchasing items from the cash shop can do so because someone else on the market is doing all that purchasing for them. Like the article said, why trust some 3rd party to go out and earn gold and levels for you when you can buy a desireable item from the company and either use the item for yourself, or resell for in-game currency without anyone else touching your account?

The article pretty much summed up this exact idea: Even if you believe you're getting something for "free", someone else down the line has done something to pay for your experience.
 

Tharwen

Ep. VI: Return of the turret
May 7, 2009
9,145
0
41
Interesting... I'd never considered the 'free' updates like this before.

Does that mean that their aim is to simply get people to see Steam or that they are simply trying to provide a game of quality which will
in turn get people onto Steam?
 

Plurralbles

New member
Jan 12, 2010
4,611
0
0
Marmooset said:
Plurralbles said:
no shit sherlock.
If I were Sherlock, I might have an idea whom you're responding to.
I'd make Watson explain first, though.
seeming as I didn't quote anybody.. My aim would seem to be squarely on the article.
 

The Rogue Wolf

Stealthy Carnivore
Legacy
Nov 25, 2007
16,733
9,356
118
Stalking the Digital Tundra
Gender
✅
This reminds me, strangely enough, of a new MMO coming out on Steam called APB. There's some drama on the Steam forums because the devs at one point pledged a "no pay to play" policy, but then rescinded it further along the development path. Many, many Internets were filled with vitriol, with a number of people claiming "I'll never pay a monthly fee" and "I should only ever pay for a game once", despite the fact that the company would be maintaining the servers. When faced with this fact, one poster posited a real gem of "wisdom": The argument that "since it only costs $3 a month to rent a slot on a Counter-Strike server, then an MMO server should only cost $3 a month per person to run". This mental reprobate was thankfully torn down by everyone who had a clue, but it highlights just how little your common gamer knows about what goes on behind the scenes with their favorite (and most hated) games. It still amazes me how many people think a company should maintain servers, issue patches, etc. indefinitely without any sort of compensation besides initial purchase (and there's some people who think they shouldn't even have to buy the game, but should be allowed to play pirated versions with everyone else and yet still be supported by the company).

Also, in honor of this article, if I do end up buying APB (beta reviews are pretty mixed) my character might just bear the last name of Tanstaffel.
 

Nico III

New member
Apr 16, 2008
89
0
0
Well thanks to the new Steam UI, I can now login and boot up TF2 through the desktop icon without ever seeing any ads...
Shot themselves in the foot?
 

Podunk

New member
Dec 18, 2008
822
0
0
Miumaru said:
xyrafhoan said:
Miumaru said:
So....what about people who play for free, never buy anything extra, and DONT buy the stuff in ads?
How many people do you know who HAVEN'T broken down and made an impulse purchase on a crazy weekend sale on Steam? The fact that a person who played TF2 will be seeing ads for weekly deals all the time, and typically they'll find something they just can't pass up. Because Steam keeps its ads focused on games, it's way more likely to catch the interest of the typical Steam user: A dedicated gamer. Just like with an f2p MMO, the extras are ferociously pushed upon the player whether they think they're ignoring it or not, until you figure "oh, why not, it's on sale" or "Oh wow that looks cool and I want to try it". There might be a person who doesn't have a credit card and thus has an easy time ignoring these special offers, but there is almost always a tipping point for people.

I mean, I picked up KOTOR for $2. $2! That's ridiculous, and that's how Valve convinces the masses to keep tolerating, and perhaps even love, Steam.
I dont use steam, and I am not involved with steam at all. So I am unaware of such people.
Then you're not one of those people you mentioned in the first place, clearly, as you do not even use the service.

I was incredibly skeptical when I opened this article. One of the many reasons for my undying love of TF2 is never having to pay for anything. But in this light they are correct. I bought Droplitz(Love Atlas, too) because it was like two bucks, and The Secret of Monkey Island Special Edition when I saw them in the ads. And it seems reasonable to say that I am most likely on the lower end of the Steam-users purchasing of things from the adverts.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
I look down on microtransactions for a number of reasons. One of the primary ones is simply that I do not agree with the idea of real money directly influancing the games. With a subscription based model everyone pays the same thing, and pretty much competes on an even keel within the game. With a microtransaction based model, people are going to succeed or fail for the most part dependant on how much money they can invest in the game. I play games for escapism, to get away from a world in which the rich people control everything and have a massive advantage over everyone.

What's more I think it ruins the accomplishment of raiding, or PVP, if people are basically just going to be buying success in those endeavors.

Then of course there is the entire issue of microtransactions being a way to try and get people to pay more than they would for a subscription fee per month, albiet one tiny transaction at a time, in hopes that they don't notice.

I have no objection to paying for an MMORPG, but I will generally not do "cash shop" games and instead simply pay a flat subscription fee.

What's more I am just waiting for more "Sword Of The New World" type games where they will try and charge a subscription fee, AND make the game dependant on microtransactions. Paying them a fee for the right to buy the content you need to play their game. :p

-

Also on the matter of there being no such thing as a free lunch, I think that's not nessicarly true: the idea that the cost has to come from somewhere.

The reason I say this is because of things like "Trust Funds". Simply put Trust Funds are when you invest a bunch of money in a bank, and set them up so you can only typically withdraw money based on the a portion of the interest. Typically the amount of money in such funds is massive, so only pulling out a bit of the interest still amounts to bucket loads of cash. Effectively creating a perpetual pile of wealth. You might ask "well, what happens if the banks that you finance with go out of business, after all they are making your money work for you..." well typically such funds are somewhat insulated in what kind of risks a bank can take with that money, and beyond a certain point the funds are set to automatically move to another bank... something that has allegedly killed financial institutions when they did something that brought them to a certain point that cased a lot of their big accounts to automatically migrate for self protection.... it can be complicated.

This is how a lot of rich people set it up so their kids can enjoy a playboy lifestyle and never have to work, unless they are phenomenally stupid. Simply put they and their children are guaranteed a constantly expanding pile of money.

As it relates to this article, consider that one of the problems with the industry and things like server expenses, is that nobody has yet to develop a trust fund as part of the development cost, that exists to pay server maitnence and the needed techs in perpetuity.

Indeed, as ironic as it might sound, one of the things I've been favoring is the idea that the goverment require companies selling "virtual" property have funds established to guarantee the operation and continued existance of that property even if they go out of business. Basically if you buy a game for digital download, the company should have the servers for that game covered by a trust fund (as part of development) to protect the customers buying that property should the company itself go out of business (or something).

Now yes, that's a bit silly, but it's the only way I see "digital" purchuses can be protected for the consumer. Personally I prefer to just stick with discs, and physical media, but I wound up putting some thought into how someone could make the whole digital media thing work without totally nuking consumer rights.

In an overall sense, the point that I'm making is that with the way money works, it is possible to create perpetual financing. This is simply a very simple way, and one that is frequently exploited by "trust fund kids", various charitible foundations, certain PACs, and even various properties that have their own assigned funds to cover maitnence and pay staff (some of which miught also be charitible organizations, such as hostels/communes to support artists so they can focus on creating art without worrying about more mundane concerns).
 

xyrafhoan

New member
Jan 11, 2010
472
0
0
Therumancer said:
What's more I am just waiting for more "Sword Of The New World" type games where they will try and charge a subscription fee, AND make the game dependant on microtransactions. Paying them a fee for the right to buy the content you need to play their game. :p
Sword of the New World may be one of the worst microtransaction models I have ever had the displeasure of getting tangled up in. Want to finish a quest you just started? Buy ____ item from the cash shop that is available from no other source, and then realize that character you just recruited starts at level 1! Want to hit the max level and participate in end-game content? Buy a (very expensive) cash shop scroll! Want to forge that awesome armor for your character? Buy boxes full of random costumes that in no way guarantee your money's worth and are heavily weighted towards the more mundane outfits and rage when you don't get what you want!

This is pretty much the reason why most people believe that microtransaction model is awful. And that is justified when basic gameplay elements are unavailable to the player without shelling out a significant sum of money. We should probably be thankful that Valve simply foists a bunch of ads for other (usually good) games on us.
 

ThreeKneeNick

New member
Aug 4, 2009
741
0
0
Your article was free. Or was it? Oh, i see what you did there.

Up until the end your article was pretty negative about the whole thing, kinda makes me wonder, have you considered what you just did there?

Just asking.