Give A Little More Love To F2P

[Ratheden 56]

I am torn between Brash_Endeavors and Kami's posts. but in general, my god yes. add this. riding a cow was great as a new guy...

[leaf 283]

+1 to the op

[BjornYngvar 35]

-1

The game is extremely cheap. 5 euros a month or $6.50.

Honestly if you cannot afford that you should not be playing video games.

Free players have enough as it is. They can play on EVERY server save two and are allowed to progress up to 20% in every skill. That's a lot. Most free players get MUCH less than that.

The point of a free account is to give the player a taste of the game and entice them to PAY for it to help support the developer. NOT to give them a game to play for free.

[alaskanbob 225]

Brash ~ people come people go. Everyone has their say about this game. You are one of the first people that comes to mind in awareness of new or newer people. I applaud the effort you have gone to at the orphanage and for your efforts in these heartfelt forum suggestions. I think you have come up with some wonderful suggestions.

[Brash_Endeavors 4,735]

The game is extremely cheap. 5 euros a month or $6.50.

Honestly if you cannot afford that you should not be playing video games.

Free players have enough as it is.

First -- that's true for working Americans, $6.50USD is pretty dang cheap entertainment for a month. But not all of our playerbase are Americans, and not all are working. But anyway It probably wouldn't make much difference in the end if Rolf charged $15 a month (frankly most of us would still pay), or if he charged only $1 a month (frankly most of the free players, would still not pay).

Bottom line is ... most of us in Wurm already pay exactly what we feel like paying and very few "premium" players are really shelling out exactly $6.50USD a month. Some buy silver or even gold coins every month. Some have extensive and very expensive deed holdings that cost a lot more than their character's paid playtime. Some pay for 3 or 4 characters even if they only play one of them at a time, or even for characters they rarely ever play at all. I would wager there are a surprising number of Wurm players who pay $50 a month or more, or who now and then shell out $100 in order to buy some dragon armor, or a fancy new deed, or one of those magical no-decay chests or a rod of transmutation, or a prelevelled priest. Or all of the above. Most of us who play regularly, actually LIKE the idea that we can choose to spend as much or as little as we like, and still have FUN. The $6.50USD a month, and whether that "isn't much", isn't really the point. Even those who ARE paying precisely $6.50 a month, are actually being subsidized today by a much smaller pool of players who are paying far far far more than that. Wurm's success has NEVER hinged on having all 3,463 or whatever-the-number-is of premium subscribers, paying exactly $6.50 a month. Much of its success is actually because people pay what they want to pay, and that's usually MORE than $6.50 a month. Somehow "forcing" everyone into paying exactly $6.50 a month, accomplishes ... zilch. Rolf would actually be a lot poorer if that was the only working model, and we'd probably not be on the verge of seeing customer characters and new art and Wurm 1.0 et al.

What makes a game a success is not always in percentage of paid subscriptions. That might have been true ten years ago, but not in today's gaming world. It actually has much more to do with whether the game is PERCEIVED as a success or as a failure. Whether it is dynamic and alive and fun, or decaying and dying A lot of MMOs have been shutting down despite having a small but solid core base of paying subscribers. Earth and Beyond, Asherons Call 2, Chronicles of Spellborn, Tabula Rasa, Shadowbane, Sims Online, Matrix Online, Star Wars Galaxies, now City of Heroes. I am sure I missed another dozen or more. Theres a wide variety of reasons why those games closed the doors, and it wasn't always because they could not pay their basic bills. Most of those MMOs shut down because they did not meet someone's expectation of success. In some cases their parent companies simply wanted to focus energies on other titles seen as bigger successes, and dump titles seen as failures, even if those titles were breaking even. In today's MMO world, what makes or breaks a game's success is NOT what percentage of the playerbase is paying the base subscription amount. That might have been true ten years ago but it is not true today. A game can be successfully profitable even when only 20% of the playerbase is paying money into the game.

Often, what makes a game a success is just ... success. Lots of people logging in and having fun with friends. There is a special dynamic lifeblood in some games that have active and growing populations, and a certain morbid graveyard feel to games that have slowly decaying populations. If you join a Wurm village with 20 people, and nine weeks later its down to six, then there is a very good chance those last six people are going to start questioning each week if maybe they should also be leaving, and they are certainly going to question whether they should be investing MORE money into the game. The game never once changed in its core mechanics, but your attitude and feelings about the game changes as you see friends come and go. And the reverse is also true -- if you start a village with four people and a month or two later your village is growing and growing, even if now you are only up to nine people total, you still feel optimistic and excited. You start trying to talk more friends into trying the game. You start getting a little more free with the wallet, to buy that fancy weapon, those power tools, that deed expansion.

Free to play players are not JUST "free trial players" who need to eventually either pay up or get out. They are also the players who may just play a few hours a week, and partly just to socialize with their friends who ARE premium. They are never going to be very powerful, being capped at 20 as they are, but they still have a big impact on the game just by giving it that "bustling, alive" feeling. Some may only play a few hours a month ... but maybe would play more often if they had more fun things to do. Some may play only a couple weeks .. but might still be playing if there was more "fun" for them to partake in. It's not about somebody "getting something for nothing," it's about whether a game is dynamic and fun enough that even more people want to jump into the pool. And I don't think minor things like letting them ride cows, or build a dugout canoe, or have a pet dog, is really going to end up "encouraging freeloaders". But if I have not convinced you of that by now, I seriously doubt 15 more pages from me (or even 15 more words), will make any difference. You might as well go back to the "7-day trial" (which most MMOs have now realized is shooting themselves in the foot) if the only concern was to punish the freeloaders. The issue has never been about PUSHING people into paying, but PULLING them into paying.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Brash_Endeavors

[Iulianx 90]

Wurm lost its "unque" F2P busniess model, now there are a lot of MMO that have F2P and offer the player MUCH more content than wurm dose now. Basically, Wurm is going to the opposite dirrection making it almost a P2P and F2W (Free to Watch)

[Bernd 0]

Somehow "forcing" everyone into paying exactly $6.50 a month, accomplishes ... zilch. Rolf would actually be a lot poorer if that was the only working model, and we'd probably not be on the verge of seeing customer characters and new art and Wurm 1.0 et al.

No, at least.

What makes a game a success is not always in percentage of paid subscriptions. That might have been true ten years ago, but not in today's gaming world. It actually has much more to do with whether the game is PERCEIVED as a success or as a failure. Whether it is dynamic and alive and fun, or decaying and dying A lot of MMOs have been shutting down despite having a small but solid core base of paying subscribers. Earth and Beyond, Asherons Call 2, Chronicles of Spellborn, Tabula Rasa, Shadowbane, Sims Online, Matrix Online, Star Wars Galaxies, now City of Heroes. I am sure I missed another dozen or more. Theres a wide variety of reasons why those games closed the doors, and it wasn't always because they could not pay their basic bills. Most of those MMOs shut down because they did not meet someone's expectation of success.

I don't know what you want with this purly profit-marginal view, this is a private company? They don't need to bow to Investors and failed MMOs go the F2P-way.

[Ratheden 56]

Keep up the good fight Brash

[Martynas5 435]

5s premium for month should fix problem since as free player you can more easily get that amount than 10s .

[demondan 1,865]

Ive never payed a cent for premium.

[sweatygopher 88]

I think we need to give and take. On one end, F2P players need more. I think the skill cap should be raised to 25-30, and more things given to them. At the same time, I think Rolf needs to look into more micro transactions to compensate. Various items we don't need, could even be cosmetic (with the new model system: cooks outfit, farmers outfit, etc). Most games are going this route, and are successful because of these micro transactions. In fact, look at League of Legends, DOTA 2, and Guild Wars 2. Cosmetic items are insanely popular, and people will pay money for them. Sell me a golden throne, and I'll pay it's weight in gold

I'm surprised he doesn't sell skill boosters. As in, gain 100% skill gain for a day. Etc...

I think it'd be really awesome to be able to buy a custom made guild emblem cloak or shirt that goes over armor!

Edited October 8, 2012 by sweatygopher

[ago 470]

F2P players need more.

That's the point of the restrictions. They NEED more and are encouraged to go premium to fulfill the need.

I think Rolf needs to look into more micro transactions to compensate. Various items we don't need, could even be cosmetic (with the new model system: cooks outfit, farmers outfit, etc). Most games are going this route, and are successful because of these micro transactions.

Traders already work as item shops. You can get sleep powder which gives 100% skill gain bonus for an hour, magic chests, twigs.

Even Zynga with Farmville and a dozen other Facebook games is not doing to well with their freemium games. Smaller companies are having even more trouble making enough money from the shops to compensate for the costs. A manager from Wooga once said in an interview that only 1-3% of all players buy from the shop and to earn money you need at least 5.000.000 active players in those games (http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/GDC-Europe-Klicken-fuer-Millionen-1323373.html). With hundreds of games competing in the market it getting much harder to get to those numbers.

Edited October 8, 2012 by ago

[Wulfgar 1,124]

Most games are going this route, and are successful because of these micro transactions.

I'm surprised he doesn't sell skill boosters. As in, gain 100% skill gain for a day. Etc...

I don't know if you noticed this, but Wurm is not like most games and it should stay like this. Most games go the way of micro transactions and f2p in a final act of desperation and they shut down within a year after that usually.

I wouldn't object to more money sink items like gnomes, fireworks, spyglasses, etc. It shouldn't be too extreme though or it will just be plain ridiculous. All items in the game, except for a few like magic chests and gnomes, should be craftable for and by all players, Wurm should never go down the route of micro transactions and I am pretty hopeful that Rolf would never consider it.

As for your last sentence there, its just plain dumb and I hope you will reconsider what that would even do to a game like Wurm.

[sweatygopher 88]

Oh he already offers sleep bonuses? What do you know I've never looked at the traders lol.

As long as the items don't give unfair advantages in PVE content or PVP I personally don't have any problem with it. More money = more developers = more advertising = more players = more money which all equals more content. Win win for everyone.

Just plain dumb? People who say things like that typically aren't very bright themselves. After all, to judge so quickly isn't exactly a sign of higher intelligence!

Edited October 8, 2012 by sweatygopher

[Wulfgar 1,124]

Selling things like skill gain boosters doesn't offer unfair advantages in PvP or PvE?

And suggesting changes to a game you don't even care to find out what offers already is dumb IMO.

(and yes, I am having a bad morning).

Edited October 8, 2012 by Wulfgar

[Nimba 16]

The competition for free players is already cutthroat for all the reasons Brash mentioned and then some. Big publishers realise they need the bustle, the content, the buzz for sure. They also want the free publicity generated by people who "like" a game on stuff like Facebook, and with all the new games coming out they realise that getting and keeping people's attention is not as easy as whanging "Free Except For (insert premium features)" on the website.

To keep F2P players for all the indirect benefits they bring and to have any chance of directly monetising them, you need people to feel comfortable when they play, so yes, I think some of the small things suggested could be a very good idea.

Effective monetisation takes indirect benefits into account. You can account for indirect benefits even. Free publicity via social media looks better on the bottom line than paying for hype. Judging by the way the big games are trending, it's more effective too.

+1

[KunAlt 844]

+1

And don´t need to add a new boat, instead make the rafts rideable. Only one person per raft (captain), no management options (like small carts), need to equip a staff to be able to control it, only works on coastal zones and lakes, slower than a rowboat make it to deacay faster wen off deed and not in another ship container.

Salu2.

PD: Not-lockable, not-moorable.

Edited October 8, 2012 by KunAlt

[Protunia 735]

-1

Sorry NO.... they should not be given more as that would just encourage less people getting premium.

As it is they can take over land without buying a deed and have access to pretty much everything except skill past 20 for the most part.

Not only that there was a recent addition that has given the ability to make free coin without doing anything at all in game.

F2P is perfectly fine as it is now. They can try the game out and do most things while they learn the game and decide if they wish to have higher skills by purchasing premium to unlock this.

[Xandra 353]

Hi,

I widely agree with Brash, and I'll save me the hassle to comment any single proposal. Some I'd +1, others I'm not sure, anyways.

I'm living on Independence, quite far from the spawn, but I'm in an Alliance with 20+ deeds. On Indy alone. More on the other servers.

Did we get any newbies recently? Yes, we did.

Did they prem up? Yes, they did, most of them. We are helpful.

Did they stay for longer? No, sorry.

Oooops. Why did we loose them?

Didn't we take enough care of 'em? No.

Did we over-care them? No.

Did we use 'em as slaves? No.

What did they say?

"I cannot get any fight skill, no monsters out there that I can take on."

"I'm useless here. You are helping so much, and I cannot pay back. Feel like a leecher."

("I don't have the time required to play this. Cannot be on every day, reliably.")

("This all takes ways too long. I don't have the compassion needed.")

Here we come to the point. I've bracketed the ones of people that are just not suited for this game. Well, Wurm isn't for everyone, it will stay to be a niche game, no matter what would happen - or it would loose it's unique point of selling.

But - "no monsters out there that I can take on" - this is a claim.

The newbies today are thrown into a world where they are the dead end of the food chain. No young wild cats spawning anymore regularly, they have to be searched for. Wading through deadly monsters that are the populating the world now ... When I spawned, there was young wolves, cats, pumas, everywhere. Now it's high-mature spiders, hell hounds, trolls. In our area. What a fun for a new player ...

And: "I cannot pay back. Feel like a leecher."

Even if we don't ask for pay-back, this is a point. There's really no need for low ql planks, shafts, bricks or slabs - our specialized free alts, with high ql enchanted gear, are much more faster. And the fresh players cannot be used for hauling things around anymore, they just cannot do it now.

In my opinion this just asks for for a GV 2.0, better done. I'm very sure that at my days at GV we had a ways better conversion rate. And new players shouldn't be confronted with enemies ways above their possibilities. And they should have a place in the Wurmian economy, else we'd starve to death sooner, or later.

Have a good time!

[Ayes 3,715]

Brash,

I like the way you look out for the new players and realize the value that they contribute to this game. In this respect you are a visionary with your suggestions made in your OP. I find them good suggestions, well thought out and explained in ways that are easy for others to understand. If Rolf were more of a marketing type in respect to his game, he would see the value in these suggestions and put many of them into effect, as well as some other positive contributers suggestions added within this thread.

Although I can easily afford the perks of the game that FtP players do not have available to them, I would not resent them having these perks added. Although I am quite content to spend the vast majority of my time in game alone doing my own thing, I can see the value of FtP players being added into and held into the game. If they come or go it will effect me little but for a game Dev it should be critical to find ways to entice and hold these players into the game. The suggestions made within this thread are *gems* given freely to those who have the power to enable them and ignoring them blithely will be to their loss, not mine.

=Ayes=

[Kegan 3,926]

I like the ideas. To be honest if it was not for the game being f2p i would not have started and i have been playing for almost two years now.

[Cally 96]

I like the ideas. To be honest if it was not for the game being f2p i would not have started and i have been playing for almost two years now.

[alaskanbob 225]

I like the ideas. To be honest if it was not for the game being f2p i would not have started and i have been playing for almost two years now.

[ReaverKane 363]

Only thing i think f2p'ers are missing is having back the ability to drive a hitched large cart.

I was seriously against Rolf "fixing" it so they couldn't anymore. And IMHO its bad. Like i said around 2 years ago, when they changed it, if i didn't have that ability when i was a froob, i'd never kept playing wurm.

Being able to drive a cart gives a taste of other veichles, also allows for newbies to take on larger scale projects that might be the extra push onto being hooked onto wurm.

[Depends 220]

I think a lot of these suggestions would be okay. Let them ride tamed rats.

As it is they can take over land without buying a deed

They can, but anyone with a deed can take it right back by dropping a perimeter over their stuff and waiting for it all to rot.