Free Players in Wurm

[Rathgar 959]

I dont think the limit to skills should be raised (maybe the body stats in order to command some basic means of locomotion)

But I will always agree that free players are important to any game, not many people start playing with a subscription from day one, and even if they never pay premium, player numbers attract other players.  A lively server will give a complete diferent feel from an eerly silent and empty one.

[Pashka 707]

The limits for riding horses and commanding carts were changed so they were just over what a non prem could do.  This is one of the biggest reasons for someone to go premium.  Even now if you do not want to remain premium, you can go prem once and get the skill and never go prem again.

[Raybarg 436]

Free players are players. Just like any other kind of player is. As few people pointed out, some very established and beloved by community veteran players are basically "free players" because they pay their playing trough ingame profits.

[Makarus 458]

My point, exactly. People are people. Some play this game. If they aren't prem for some reason, this doesn't lessen the value of the player.

In the current gaming atmosphere, you typically have to offer things that incentivise the premium expendeture. For me it is simply the playspeed and capability buff that having 50+ skills offers. I literally cannot play free with the limits.

That is me, I am no better or worse than anyone who pays or does not.

 

That being said, a business must offer products/service equivilent to the perceived return value of the desired price.

Traders offer many items, but 25$ for a box, 50$ for a bigger box and 5$ for a one time stick can leave some players with a bit of sticker shock.

Of course, the value for the above items is very high. A new player doesn't always understand these values, that information comes with time.

 

For my part, I have always tried to offer a new player experience with open ended options. There was a varied level of success, but nearly everyone left for a reason or another.

A couple examples:

My founding villagers slapped out a portal and went to epic.

Others left because the grind was emptionally draining.

Others left because 10,000 items a month just to cover basic playtime was (and is) brutal.

Of these, some stayed f2p, while others premmed once or more.

Of the many people I tried to boost start, only a few still play.

It can be a bit disheartening, at times.

 

I only want a good, immersive experience for new players. This is what keeps people playing after the initial rush of a new game.

I think prem pricing is spot on. It is the free/prem playtime incentive area that I think is lacking.

[KyleBooze 451]

7 hours ago, Makarus said:

I only want a good, immersive experience for new players. This is what keeps people playing after the initial rush of a new game.

I think prem pricing is spot on. It is the free/prem playtime incentive area that I think is lacking.

 

I don't see how it's lacking, this game obviously isn't for everyone. The fighting is bland, the building is time consuming as well as the skilling.

Imo though, if we keep removing restrictions on F2P, we'll hit a point where we won't need to pay for premium. The incentives are there, it's the mindset of the customer that determines whether they want it or not.

[elroth 279]

i am not against the concept of FTP but it all depends on what you get when you do pay and if enough people will actually still use RL money on the game since if not the game will die.

 

first off, in this hypothetical, there are two options to begin with:

do we completely remove subs or not

if you remove them completely then you should also remove money creation in the game completely and let the only money in game be money people bought with RL cash. other wise no reason to buy money -> death to wurm

 

if you keep subs then i am not sure how to make it worth it. since alts can now priest so priest income is dead. everyone can do everything with alt armies so markets would be very low prices. if all you get is a free 20 tiles for deed or something then i would sub 1 dude not the 5 i have now.

Elderscrolls online offers you increased skillgain, an infinite bag for raw materials. and monthly money

hmm i have to think about this but even then. i only need the one sub to benefit from all that. and increased skillgain would have to be amazing! otherwise who cares if its all free anyway.

now you cant give them an advantage like better gear or weapons etc. cause that would make it to much pay to win

 

its hard for a game like wurm to find a set of rules that would make ftp interesting as a business model i think

 

i am curious if anyone has a good idea for it..

 

 

 

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

I always thought that a pay for recipes/decorations would be a way to go for wurm.

 

Unlock the ability to make a certain kind of building for a one off fee, run each for a limited time and make the items to unlock these recipes transferable.  Players buy, some buy to invest.  Premium players get that month's recipes for free on top of some convenience bonus (free 1000 karma per month/the odd free item like a reskin (see below) or a mirror)

 

Make priesting a pay service (you can only priest if you cash shop pay for a certain item).  Go an extra step, add in handy utility spells (fire lighting, etc) as a pay once to unlock.

 

Encourage community item/asset designs by allowing players a share of any profits made in the form of ingame currency for any asset sold in the cash shop.

 

Sell re-skins for critters (single use, changes an animal's skin, done)

 

Increase deed upkeep by a factor of 2x and give premium players a discount (half price so current rate)

 

This kind of model plays to the innate creativity of wurm's audience and ensures that purchases they make become assets (recipes out of circulation for a longer time will go up in value, rare skins will also sell well later on).  Premium becomes optional but useful (its essentially a value pack for paid features and some non-balance destroying bonuses)

[elroth 279]

7 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

I always thought that a pay for recipes/decorations would be a way to go for wurm.

 

Unlock the ability to make a certain kind of building for a one off fee, run each for a limited time and make the items to unlock these recipes transferable.  Players buy, some buy to invest.  Premium players get that month's recipes for free on top of some convenience bonus (free 1000 karma per month/the odd free item like a reskin (see below) or a mirror)

 

Make priesting a pay service (you can only priest if you cash shop pay for a certain item).  Go an extra step, add in handy utility spells (fire lighting, etc) as a pay once to unlock.

 

Encourage community item/asset designs by allowing players a share of any profits made in the form of ingame currency for any asset sold in the cash shop.

 

Sell re-skins for critters (single use, changes an animal's skin, done)

 

Increase deed upkeep by a factor of 2x and give premium players a discount (half price so current rate)

 

This kind of model plays to the innate creativity of wurm's audience and ensures that purchases they make become assets (recipes out of circulation for a longer time will go up in value, rare skins will also sell well later on).  Premium becomes optional but useful (its essentially a value pack for paid features and some non-balance destroying bonuses)

 

so i pay a subscription and my deed costs stay same but more stuff is put behind a buy with money wall?

that would make the game to play in its fullest just way mroe expenisve, and freemiums still cant priest do all content, priest or have deeds

 

this changes nothing but make the game more expensive

 

 

[Ayes 3,715]

The game has to continue to make a profit to survive. Enable more "free" options or ways to avoid payment to the Wurm Shop to play the game and more players will use them without any thought that they are a drain on the game's profitability. Only those who pay for their Premium time and Silver coins through the Wurm Shop are the ones that provide income to the game. Increase the cost of playing the game and you only increase it on them.

 

Recently Rolf has done a few things to reduce game expenses, one of which was letting go of paid Staff. Yea sure, *they* decided to move on to other opportunities. At any rate, Contract Workers that are now considered Developers reduce that expense as they can be assigned certain development tasks as required. Even Rolf himself has reduced his own participation significantly and in turn need to pay himself for his time invested.

 

It may be a game, even an enjoyable one, to those of us who play it but remember that at some point of all these free to play the game options, giveaways and subsidies to gameplay, that the game can no longer survive just on a strictly financial basis. Then there is no concern for any of its content, bugs, improvements, attracting new players or anything else.

 

Those who actually pay to play from the Wurm Shop support those who don't. Simple as that. Maybe they are the ones who should decide how many options should be given to others to play the game for free from their payments. Of course this will never happen but food for thought about what is actually going on here in terms of what is "free" and who is actually paying for it.

 

Happy Trails

=Ayes=

[KyleBooze 451]

31 minutes ago, Ayes said:

Those who actually pay to play from the Wurm Shop support those who don't. Simple as that. Maybe they are the ones who should decide how many options should be given to others to play the game for free from their payments. Of course this will never happen but food for thought about what is actually going on here in terms of what is "free" and who is actually paying for it.

 

So I get 3 votes since I pay out of my pocket for my accounts?

[Makarus 458]

7 minutes ago, KyleBooze said:

 

So I get 3 votes since I pay out of my pocket for my accounts?

No worse off than our election system.

'Murica!

[ozmods 271]

i'm a WU fan, but I stopped by the WO last night out of curiosity to see what was happening there, I kind of got all confused so I left before I ended up with feet in my mouth disease,

 

I cant wait to see this stuff implemented in WU, I do play "freemium" games but they're on my ipad, so WO is not really on my radar that much, I will however pop in from time to time, but I definitely wont be setting a deed or anything as I have my hands full as it is lol.

[Tpikol 1,057]

13 hours ago, Ayes said:

Those who actually pay to play from the Wurm Shop support those who don't. Simple as that. Maybe they are the ones who should decide how many options should be given to others to play the game for free from their payments. Of course this will never happen but food for thought about what is actually going on here in terms of what is "free" and who is actually paying for it.

 

Happy Trails

=Ayes=

what about when those who dont pay to play using the shop or sometimes do that with money they made in wurm? what if a "free player" helps a lot of players stay in the game long enough to become paying players and pay for years,making the game money in an indirect way?  i know i did that with a ton of new players over the years,some that are still around and paying. and im not saying im better than others im saying that what most long playing "free players" contribute to the game.

 

BTW: dont take this wrong i dont like the direction this is taking with giving less restrictions to non-premium players but we are mixing two topics here because non-premium players and players that play with premium without paying are not the same.

[Rathgar 959]

32 minutes ago, Tpikol said:

what about when those who dont pay to play using the shop or sometimes do that with money they made in wurm? what if a "free player" helps a lot of players stay in the game long enough to become paying players and pay for years,making the game money in an indirect way?  i know i did that with a ton of new players over the years,some that are still around and paying. and im not saying im better than others im saying that what most long playing "free players" contribute to the game.

 

BTW: dont take this wrong i dont like the direction this is taking with giving less restrictions to non-premium players but we are mixing two topics here because non-premium players and players that play with premium without paying are not the same.

 

They are exactly the same, and they are both needed in the game.

[Tpikol 1,057]

7 minutes ago, Rathgar said:

 

They are exactly the same, and they are both needed in the game.

but they are not the same in that being a player that plays with premium without paying doesnt mean you want to take incentives to go premium away.

[Rathgar 959]

42 minutes ago, Tpikol said:

but they are not the same in that being a player that plays with premium without paying doesnt mean you want to take incentives to go premium away.

 

Of course, I was just refering to Ayes`s post, in the sense that if you dont purchase from the shop you dont conribute to the income of the game.

Maybe paying premium ingame should be revised, turned into a halfway status between premium and free.

[rixk 830]

2 hours ago, Rathgar said:

 

Of course, I was just refering to Ayes`s post, in the sense that if you dont purchase from the shop you dont conribute to the income of the game.

Maybe paying premium ingame should be revised, turned into a halfway status between premium and free.

As all the coins originate from the code club shop (no matter how much they have circled/changed hands)... so it doesn't really matter, if someone pays directly with credit card for premium, or pays with coins they have earned in game. Just like when you go to watch a movie, it doesn't matter, if you pay for the ticket yourself, or your friend buys it for you. The company gets paid either way.

 

[Ayes 3,715]

28 minutes ago, rixk said:

As all the coins originate from the code club shop (no matter how much they have circled/changed hands)... so it doesn't really matter, if someone pays directly with credit card for premium, or pays with coins they have earned in game. Just like when you go to watch a movie, it doesn't matter, if you pay for the ticket yourself, or your friend buys it for you. The company gets paid either way.

 

 

Your analogy makes no sense in terms of game income generation. If your friend paid for your movie ticket then he would be paying for two of them, not paying for only one and then digging it out of the ticket machine to give it to you to use a second time. All you do is use others coins that they have paid for through the Wurm Shop, that they then circulate within the game to pay for various things. In this respect you contribute nothing to game income but rather only avoid purchasing that silver yourself.

 

Also, No, all coins circulating within the game do not originate from purchases in the Wurm Shop. Rolf in his generosity magically drops them into outstretched players hands through several means such as forage/botanize, token sales, Trader drains, etc. What theories these are dispersed upon I can't state with any direct knowledge but that does not really matter because since Rolf creates these coins they don't have to be based on anything other than he wants to do so.

 

The point I am making is that they definitely don't come from Wurm Shop purchases, although they may attempt to be based upon game income in some manner. The effect they do have however is to once again reduce game income by reducing the amount of silver that players would otherwise have to purchase from the Wurm Shop. Not that I think much will change in this regard of offering ways for players to reduce their payments to the Wurm Shop but I just wonder how long the game will be able to sustain itself with all these options for players to pay little to nothing for playing the game.

 

Plus when some players try to deny this reality it encourages me to comment further. A sort of flaw I have, I guess.

 

=Ayes=

[rixk 830]

15 minutes ago, Ayes said:

 

Your analogy makes no sense in terms of game income generation. If your friend paid for your movie ticket then he would be paying for two of them, not paying for only one and then digging it out of the ticket machine to give it to you to use a second time. All you do is use others coins that they have paid for through the Wurm Shop, that they then circulate within the game to pay for various things. In this respect you contribute nothing to game income but rather only avoid purchasing that silver yourself.

 

Also, No, all coins circulating within the game do not originate from purchases in the Wurm Shop. Rolf in his generosity magically drops them into outstretched players hands through several means such as forage/botanize, token sales, Trader drains, etc. What theories these are dispersed upon I can't state with any direct knowledge but that does not really matter because since Rolf creates these coins they don't have to be based on anything other than he wants to do so.

 

The point I am making is that they definitely don't come from Wurm Shop purchases, although they may attempt to be based upon game income in some manner. The effect they do have however is to once again reduce game income by reducing the amount of silver that players would otherwise have to purchase from the Wurm Shop. Not that I think much will change in this regard of offering ways for players to reduce their payments to the Wurm Shop but I just wonder how long the game will be able to sustain itself with all these options for players to pay little to nothing for playing the game.

 

Plus when some players try to deny this reality it encourages me to comment further. A sort of flaw I have, I guess.

 

=Ayes=

Let's make one thing clear, traders/forage/tokens don't create money.. That is just Rolf circulating money back to players, that has been paid to him - kings coffers(money, that has been spent to pay upkeep).. So nothing is being created from thin air, if there would be no player payments, there would be also no money from traders/forage/tokens(you can see how on smaller server the kings coffers are always empty, because there is less money in economy).

 

So in the end ALL the silver comes from the shop. Question is, how many times it has changed the hands, but.. that is really irrelevant. 

[Rathgar 959]

1 hour ago, rixk said:

As all the coins originate from the code club shop (no matter how much they have circled/changed hands)... so it doesn't really matter, if someone pays directly with credit card for premium, or pays with coins they have earned in game. Just like when you go to watch a movie, it doesn't matter, if you pay for the ticket yourself, or your friend buys it for you. The company gets paid either way.

 

 

Sorry, but you are just wrong, if you pay your premium ingame, dont feel attacked, no one said anything negative about it,  but players paying premium ingame are not generating the games income.  The game may benefit from them, from the work they do circulating money, or taking money outside of circulation, generating markets, etc. But that is a whole different thing.

[MaurizioAM 919]

On 10/21/2016 at 6:40 AM, Rathgar said:

I dont think the limit to skills should be raised (maybe the body stats in order to command some basic means of locomotion)

But I will always agree that free players are important to any game, not many people start playing with a subscription from day one, and even if they never pay premium, player numbers attract other players.  A lively server will give a complete diferent feel from an eerly silent and empty one.

Let me ask you a question that you take a few mins to truly look at it and answer it in how it affects you.

 

This isn't the question its the beginning of then jist to the overall question: 

If there are players right now taking advantage of non prem toons to make things like bricks or dig dirt for selling purposes but at the same time a non prem toon is not worth using for much else so the only people that use them for this situation are literally the only ones using these types of accounts... And with limited population their work effort is pretty useless and in hind sight they are working for penny's...

 

Now take the suggestion I made and add that to the FACTUAL statistics of games made free to play having 2x+ population increases... So now I know Wurm cannot be made in a 100% free to play hence why I suggest capping already skilled up skills to cap at 40... This skill level allows you to do everything in the game. Body stats would cap lower at the maximums to ride horse for example and sail sail boat and 30 for are because that is what the devs recently set the non prem cap to.

 

The way this would work is as a fully non prem new account you cap at 20... If you want to raise that cap you have to premium up at least ONCE. In your time of premium you will retain any skill you gain to a max of 40 skill. Now you go non prem and you can still play the game. Giving this ability to players will mean more people would join more people would start playing their old accounts again too... All of this translates into added population which translates to better economy for the items which will be needed by these players.

 

Now your worried well now those other players who were using non prem alts to make bricks and stuff.. Yea so what they have a little bit easier time now wasting their time working for penny's on the dollar still. The added population will trump the negative affect by those few using alts to make materials to sell. 

 

People are drawn to a game with population. Wurm once had a decent influx of players and then stagnation set into effect and additions like WU. But still WO is the ultimate server to be playing on if they can do it right. 

 

One best thing Wurm could do is look into this and really break down what pros and cons there are and the potential upside.

[Etherdrifter 2,517]

Lets take the academic approach:

 

We'll begin with a simple assumption that WO's main lure vs WU is to socialisers (http://mud.co.uk/richard/hcds.htm), this seems a reasonable assumption to make since other player styles are better catered for in WU.  The number of players on WO is slowly dropping over time (http://jenn001.game.wurmonline.com/mrtg/paying.html, I realise this graph is premium players but since free accounts are so restricted its reasonable to assume that premium players represent a good indicator of the game's population).  This is bad news as if the number of social players drops below a certain critical level it can quickly empty out the remaining social players (The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology pp780 (Page available on google books)).  Since our assumption indicates that these are likely to be the main playerforce of WO this would be VERY bad news and could possibley trigger other player types to exodus (The Game Design Reader: A Rules of Play Anthology pp780 (Page available on google books))

 

Something I could find no peer reviewed research on (anyone looking to do a thesis/paper in game design would do well to consider it as it is potentially a very lucrative topic) is looking at player type vs preferred buisiness model, thus I will not argue in this direction.

 

However there is good (non peer reviewed) evidence that going freemium not only increases player count (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-07-09-evolve-player-count-increases-15-930-per-cent-after-going-f2p) but also has a positive impact on revenue (http://venturebeat.com/2010/10/08/lotro-revenue-doubles-f2p/) and is something that other serious sandboxes are doing (http://nosygamer.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/first-thoughts-on-eve-online-going.html).

 

My general conclusion being that not only would shifting away from a "free to try" model towards a "free to play" model be potentially beneficial to the players of WO, but it would also be beneficial for the owners of WO as it would reverse the game's population decline while still keeping its whales (less premium fees = more disposable income).  Meanwhile the continued use of a hard "free to try" system is definitely detrimental to the game.

 

Edited October 24, 2016 by Etherdrifter
Minor correction to conclusion

[Nappy 1,369]

4 hours ago, rixk said:

Let's make one thing clear, traders/forage/tokens don't create money.. That is just Rolf circulating money back to players, that has been paid to him - kings coffers(money, that has been spent to pay upkeep).. So nothing is being created from thin air, if there would be no player payments, there would be also no money from traders/forage/tokens(you can see how on smaller server the kings coffers are always empty, because there is less money in economy).

 

So in the end ALL the silver comes from the shop. Question is, how many times it has changed the hands, but.. that is really irrelevant. 

 

I actually think the changing of hands is very relevant. From a making money perspective every change of hands is a time that someone didn't need to go and pay for some silver from the shop, hence lost income potential.

[Elktazahjr 131]

On 21-10-2016 at 5:21 AM, Makarus said:

Premium is a low cost to someone with a basic job who doesn't live in a vyn-awful place with horrible cost of living.

but wurm is probably not their main source of entertainment, especially if you're new. if you spent 16 euros on every game that came by you'd be poor in no time. it's not so much about having the money as spending it.

[KyleBooze 451]

10 hours ago, Etherdrifter said:

My general conclusion being that not only would shifting away from a "free to try" model towards a "free to play" model be potentially beneficial to the players of WO, but it would also be beneficial for the owners of WO as it would reverse the game's population decline while still keeping its whales (less premium fees = more disposable income).  Meanwhile the continued use of a hard "free to try" system is definitely detrimental to the game.

 

 Don't most F2P models have a cash shop with items and boosts to generate revenue though?