Jump to content

Photo

Economy and its Effect on the Grind and New Players

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41
Lily_from_animove

Lily_from_animove

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

Well, most free 2 play games are like this, get basic stuff quick, get the edgy one with a lot of effort. it is also to motivate players to unlock stuff with real currency.

 

And honestly, an entire mech (following the latest advertisement) including unlocks, for 20$ thas quite cheap in comparsion to what yo get from other games.

 

It's not easy for a game to find the middle between, keeping people go for soemthing (otherwise they cry for more and new content too early) and not saying its p2w, becuase the time to outcome ratio is bad that it feels like a paywall.

 

So for the casual player the money is probably fine to get new stuff here and there, but it will nto push him to the competitive situation in a good amount of time.

 

It felt ok so far, but it was with 2xHC weekends I think, so without its probably quite a painful grind. Especially for the more expensive mechs.

maybe lower mech prices and increase equipprices? The casual can then easier get a variety of mechs, which may keep him motivated a bit longer since he is not forced to play a small amount of mechs by variety for a lomger time. And then he can make a choice which equip to unlock which will take a bit more grind then, yet is a bit more targetted goal to go for..


  • Silverfire and DieselCat like this

#42
Silverfire

Silverfire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1421 posts
Considering the idea of lowering mech base prices and raising weapon prices is an interesting prospect, but many players in the past have complained that their weapons are sometimes the same price or more expensive than the mech's original price.

Is it just a case of players wanting everything cheap? Or is this current model of flat weapon prices and varying mech prices decent enough? I find the logic behind the more expensive mechs being that it helps keep new players away from non-noob-friendly mechs like the Predator, a historically difficult (but effective) mech. It makes sense but also breeds the idea of grindiness, especially considering the price of primary weapons. This is all in addition to pricey pricey items (I find internals pricing somewhat fair tbh). Those could be lowered some.

It's the nickel and dimey look of the game that drives players away. I guess the question is how the devs can reduce that image while still maintaining a sense of "I want to get that so I need to work for it" sort of feel.

Edited by Silverfire, 15 May 2015 - 04:49 AM.

  • Veklim likes this

lNM7VnC.png

( ^ click for the EMP song ^ )

 

Come take a look at Hawken guides | Join me on #hawkenscrim IRC

 

 


#43
Veklim

Veklim

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

I'm starting to get the feeling that no matter how many good ideas and solutions the community comes up with, the same complaints will always be had. I truly cannot get into the headspace of someone who is given a great game for free, never has to pay a penny to unlock every mechanically affective item in the game, and still manages to complain. If the grind was a 3 month slog, then maybe it would be worth complaining about, but when I started I hit lvl 30 inside 4 weeks, all without any double XP/HC weekends (whilst holding down a full time job and raising a family).

 

Moreover, much of the issue which keeps arising is the amount of HC required to purchase all mechs and internals, and honestly there's only one answer to all that. You don't need all the mechs and internals, most ppl who HAVE all the mechs and internals only really play with 3-5 of them, and even then I highly doubt all of them have felt the need to purchase all the internals they're not wanting to use on said mechs. If you REALLY feel the need to own them all, then you can do so by grinding (or better still buying some, so the poor devs get to eat that week), but it's not a requirement of the game in order to remain competitive, it's the player's own completionist mentality. Why on earth should the devs put so much work into completely overhauling the market system to cater for the, at most, 10% of Hawken players who genuinely feel they must own the lot?

 

Pokemon has SO much to answer for.....


  • DieselCat likes this

All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by.


#44
Lily_from_animove

Lily_from_animove

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 36 posts

I'm starting to get the feeling that no matter how many good ideas and solutions the community comes up with, the same complaints will always be had. I truly cannot get into the headspace of someone who is given a great game for free, never has to pay a penny to unlock every mechanically affective item in the game, and still manages to complain. If the grind was a 3 month slog, then maybe it would be worth complaining about, but when I started I hit lvl 30 inside 4 weeks, all without any double XP/HC weekends (whilst holding down a full time job and raising a family).

 

Moreover, much of the issue which keeps arising is the amount of HC required to purchase all mechs and internals, and honestly there's only one answer to all that. You don't need all the mechs and internals, most ppl who HAVE all the mechs and internals only really play with 3-5 of them, and even then I highly doubt all of them have felt the need to purchase all the internals they're not wanting to use on said mechs. If you REALLY feel the need to own them all, then you can do so by grinding (or better still buying some, so the poor devs get to eat that week), but it's not a requirement of the game in order to remain competitive, it's the player's own completionist mentality. Why on earth should the devs put so much work into completely overhauling the market system to cater for the, at most, 10% of Hawken players who genuinely feel they must own the lot?

 

Pokemon has SO much to answer for.....

 

 

how much playtime do you have?

you forget that  laod of palyers plays maybe 5 hours a week or less.



#45
Veklim

Veklim

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

I have 278 hours currently, which when averaged out over the course of the time I've been playing this game is roughly 6 hours a week, accounting for the 4 month hiatus I took during the 'dark age' between devs. A real part of the issue is the modern expectation for instant gratification and the attitudes of modern online gamers. Once upon a time, the vast majority of ppl gaming online were at least reasonably astute and educated, unfortunately with the advent of Farcebook, Twatter and their ilk, everyone AND THEIR DOG (literally in some cases) seem to be online and complaining like a confused schoolkid (which many of them may well be....) the moment they're expected to put a little work into something before they reap rewards..... *deep breath*

 

I admit, I first picked up the game whilst I had a week of holiday, and I did spend time playing which should really have been spent sleeping for that first month, but all told that is not exactly unusual for many reasonably casual gamers when they find something they really like. I merely wanted to point out that the 'grind' aspect of Hawken is as little or as much as the player wants to do, and moreover I felt that those who complain about a (comparatively) light grind for any F2P game need their morals examined. (I would like to note that this does not apply to those discussing the economic effects or adjustments to the grind/benefit ratio, that is not ungrateful hipocrisy, it's just optimising which I'm fine with!)

 

I see your point Lily, and I'm not arguing with it, I actually agree with you. I do feel though, that catering to the thankless masses dilutes the gaming experience, and the best intentions of devs, elite players and dedicated community forums like this will never asuage the tide of idiots required to pay for the upkeep and development of modern titles, be they AAA, Indie or anything in between.


All I ask is a tall ship, and a star to steer her by.


#46
AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts

Knowing what you signed up for is pretty important. Just saying. This is a f2p game. More specifically it's f2p class based arena shooter. The game needs to make money and thus must be tedious. It won't make monry if you can unlock all of the things in a week. Sorry. You can feel like it's garbage, but that's just a feeling. What's a fact is my point.

Omg.

That's so not true it's hilarious how wrong it is.


Edited by AsianJoyKiller, 17 May 2015 - 10:27 AM.

  • dorobo, crockrocket and WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW like this

#47
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

I have 278 hours currently, which when averaged out over the course of the time I've been playing this game is roughly 6 hours a week, accounting for the 4 month hiatus I took during the 'dark age' between devs. A real part of the issue is the modern expectation for instant gratification and the attitudes of modern online gamers. Once upon a time, the vast majority of ppl gaming online were at least reasonably astute and educated, unfortunately with the advent of Farcebook, Twatter and their ilk, everyone AND THEIR DOG (literally in some cases) seem to be online and complaining like a confused schoolkid (which many of them may well be....) the moment they're expected to put a little work into something before they reap rewards..... *deep breath*

 

I admit, I first picked up the game whilst I had a week of holiday, and I did spend time playing which should really have been spent sleeping for that first month, but all told that is not exactly unusual for many reasonably casual gamers when they find something they really like. I merely wanted to point out that the 'grind' aspect of Hawken is as little or as much as the player wants to do, and moreover I felt that those who complain about a (comparatively) light grind for any F2P game need their morals examined. (I would like to note that this does not apply to those discussing the economic effects or adjustments to the grind/benefit ratio, that is not ungrateful hipocrisy, it's just optimising which I'm fine with!)

 

I see your point Lily, and I'm not arguing with it, I actually agree with you. I do feel though, that catering to the thankless masses dilutes the gaming experience, and the best intentions of devs, elite players and dedicated community forums like this will never asuage the tide of idiots required to pay for the upkeep and development of modern titles, be they AAA, Indie or anything in between.

 

https://docs.google....#gid=1828620220

 

Familiarize yourself with the fact that a small, unoptimized (no room for gameplay experimentation) game experience at the very best case, in terms of money, costs over 280$. At 280$, I could buy 4 triple-A games priced at 70$.

 

Sorry, but I don't think inflation can account for that. The cost of the game is completely irrational, the prices of the in-game purchases are almost entirely irrational, and when you measure up against other standards like room for experimentation, completely unlocking all gameplay elements (most of which have significant effects on gameplay), and optimization for in-game competition (e.g. tournaments), the cost of the game is, conclusively, ridiculous.

 

Can we throw out this attitude that somehow people are somehow "whining" if they feel like they are being ripped off (which they are)? I don't understand why people think a greedy, nickel-and-dime attitude is somehow the standard that is worth striving toward when there are so many other options available that don't completely antagonize new (and existing) players.


Thank you for your time,

 

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW


#48
crockrocket

crockrocket

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1989 posts

It's worth noting that I'm not mentioning this for my own good. Between a lot of hours in game and too much money spent, I have every mech and within a couple weeks they'll all be outfittable with at least one build. The only reason I bring this up is concern about player retention. As such, you need to consider this issue from the mindset of someone who doesn't have hundreds of hours in game. 

 

Like Wx32 said, $280 is astronomical and nonsensical. And like I said in the OP, ~250 hours for a grind is not going to be enticing to new players if you're going the full f2p route. And going back and looking at Salty Stats, 250 hours is lowballing it by quite a bit.


  • WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW likes this

                                                                    JgQjgkx.png

 

Salvage: An Idea to Stop Leavers

Player Retention & Howken

 

[14:31] <Crafty> I know that in my balls
[14:32] <Crafty> hawken is unlike anything Ive played

 

 


#49
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts
I shouldn't have to point out that I have 200+ hours in Hawken (more from closed beta phases, when grind was easier) and I have all mechs unlocked, some duplicates, and a load of items and internals to be able to substantiate that Hawken is overpriced in both f2p route and the paid route. I've already put in 40$ into the game, another 20 and I fully expect to have all items and internals unlocked, sorry. I just feel bad for those who have supported Hawken for even more money.
  • crockrocket likes this

Thank you for your time,

 

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW


#50
Silverfire

Silverfire

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1421 posts

Just so 32W isn't breaking the forums...

 

Grind isn't bad, could be better, but it could be a lot worse.  Less nickel and dime-y, and but maintain grind? idk

 

this post so 32W don't break dem forums 


lNM7VnC.png

( ^ click for the EMP song ^ )

 

Come take a look at Hawken guides | Join me on #hawkenscrim IRC

 

 


#51
GGGanjaMan

GGGanjaMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts
Familiarize yourself with the fact that a small, unoptimized (no room for gameplay experimentation) game experience at the very best case, in terms of money, costs over 280$. At 280$, I could buy 4 triple-A games priced at 70$.

 

Sorry, but I don't think inflation can account for that. The cost of the game is completely irrational, the prices of the in-game purchases are almost entirely irrational, and when you measure up against other standards like room for experimentation, completely unlocking all gameplay elements (most of which have significant effects on gameplay), and optimization for in-game competition (e.g. tournaments), the cost of the game is, conclusively, ridiculous.

 

Your comparison doesn't hold up very well at all. You're comparing two entirely different business models. For the F2P model, there is no up front charge you're paying; any money the publishers make is entirely from microtransactions and in-game items after already granting you access to a fully functional game. Not everyone who plays is going to pay. Most won't pay anything, or spend anywhere close to what they might pay for a triple-A game. The P2P games charge you up front before you can even access the game... it's a completely different business model. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, pardon the obvious cliche.

 

In the F2P model, it's assumed that people are NOT going to spend the full amounts to unlock/customize everything. Thus, why they usually include copious different microtransactions trying to encompass everything - to give people the choice to choose the few they may want to pay for. They have to include more choices, unlockables, content since those microtransactions are what they're selling to pay for the game. You can't then add up all the costs of the microtransactions and try to compare that to an obviously different model. It's like playing LOL and saying it costs you a $1000+ or whatever it is to unlock everything and comparing that to the cost of 15+ triple-A games. It's a fallacy based on not understanding that there are two different business models at play.

 

Also technically, this game is completely free to unlock all gameplay elements (besides customization) regardless of how you may try to argue that it's ridiculously costly to unlock everything with real $ for experimentation. The point where experimentation becomes a salient point in your argument, is also the point where a line is probably being crossed between that of a casual player and an enthusiast. And as an enthusiast, you can damn well grind for what you need, or just pay for it. This has always been the inherent choice in the F2P model.


Edited by GGGanjaMan, 18 May 2015 - 05:27 PM.

  • Jakyll and DieselCat like this

#52
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

Your comparison doesn't hold up very well at all. You're comparing two entirely different business models. For the F2P model, there is no up front charge you're paying; any money the publishers make is entirely from microtransactions and in-game items after already granting you access to a fully functional game. Not everyone who plays is going to pay. Most won't pay anything, or spend anywhere close to what they might pay for a triple-A game. The P2P games charge you up front before you can even access the game... it's a completely different business model. You're trying to compare apples and oranges, pardon the obvious cliche.

 

In the F2P model, it's assumed that people are NOT going to spend the full amounts to unlock/customize everything. Thus, why they usually include copious different microtransactions trying to encompass everything - to give people the choice to choose the few they may want to pay for. They have to include more choices, unlockables, content since those microtransactions are what they're selling to pay for the game. You can't then add up all the costs of the microtransactions and try to compare that to an obviously different model. It's like playing LOL and saying it costs you a $1000+ or whatever it is to unlock everything and comparing that to the cost of 15+ triple-A games. It's a fallacy based on not understanding that there are two different business models at play.

 

Also technically, this game is completely free to unlock all gameplay elements (besides customization) regardless of how you may try to argue that it's ridiculously costly to unlock everything with real $ for experimentation. The point where experimentation becomes a salient point in your argument, is also the point where a line is probably being crossed between that of a casual player and an enthusiast. And as an enthusiast, you can damn well grind for what you need, or just pay for it. This has always been the inherent choice in the F2P model.

 

This point fails in attempting to apply prescriptivism to what Hawken "should be" in terms of model: F2P model vs. P2P model. This is attempting to apply a dichotomy when no such dichotomy necessarily exists or needs to exist in order to improve the Hawken model, which naturally, leads to an unoriginal business model with an unoriginal, consumer-antagonizing model that only serves to wring-dry players in exchange for the illusion of choice. There is no choice to be made when the majority of items, internals, and mechs lock out players from the very beginning. There is no choice to be made when the purchasing power of a player is significantly lower than in other games.

 

People before have cited multiple games that have better models that are more consumer-friendly and competitive than Hawken. The prime example here being Smite, a F2P game that offers all current and future gameplay content (Gods, analogous to mechs) for 30$.

 

However, what ultimately is inconsistent between my point and your point is that I am addressing that regardless of model, that amount of money paid to purchase similar amounts of content as in other games is completely ridiculous, especially because other games have succeeded with lower price points and different models, which I can only say is conclusively better for the consumer.

 

BTW, LoL's model is just as garbage and it's ridiculous to have to spend that much money on a game to be able to witness and experience the various facets of balance and optimization. At the very least, I don't have to pay to unlock each individual champ's abilities.


Edited by WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, 18 May 2015 - 06:00 PM.

Thank you for your time,

 

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW


#53
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts

But hey, you know what? Given your logic and the false pretense of "CHOICE", the game should put the mech ability behind a paywall, it should put certain parts of the maps behind paywall, hell, it should put the secondary behind a paywall. That way, the player can experience the maximum degree of choice for how to get ripped off.

 

It's even better than LoL because, clearly, it provides more choice!!!!!!


Thank you for your time,

 

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW


#54
GGGanjaMan

GGGanjaMan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 89 posts

You first tried to compare costs/prices between a P2P game's up front price against adding up all the microtransactions in a F2P game. I explained the reason that doesn't work is because they include a whole bunch of microtransactions in the first place, due to the majority of players never buying more than a few for instance. Thus why they make so many to choose from to begin with. You adding up all the costs doesn't mean anything because ultimately you don't have spend any real money at all to unlock them all; you can acquire everything freely by playing if you wanted to. Now you're ranting about adding more content behind a paywall, when there is no paywall to begin with. A paywall implies content that you can't unlock without having to spend real $. You can argue for it to go a model where a 1 time payment unlocks all content, sure, that's not a problem. But trying to compare price points between two different models originally to try and exaggerate costs here, was where your error lay. I'm not supporting a model full of microtransactions, I also believe there are ways to improve it. But your original post was simply trying to equate costs from micotransactions into how many triple-A titles you can instead buy, which was what I pointed out.



#55
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 209 posts
You misunderstood me. I talked about triple A games because of gameplay experience to cost ratio, not equating cost.

Also sarcasm doesn't transmit well across text, but that's okay.

Edited by WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, 18 May 2015 - 08:02 PM.

Thank you for your time,

 

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW


#56
GalaxyRadio

GalaxyRadio

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 131 posts

That's a very valid point, and one that I hadn't considered while writing this. I guess my question here is how many new players are scared away by what appears to be a very daunting grind? Unfortunately that question is nearly impossible to answer.

 

Additionally, while it does take a significant amount of time to master each mech, it is conceivable that at my 184 hours in matches, I could be passably proficient with every mech (particularly for a player more skilled than I, or a quick learner) While it makes sense for players to learn their mech before they buy another, I feel that 200+ hours is just too much.

 

Perspective 1

 

Man, dude, i lost again to that rocketeer, after that to the raider, after that to that ultra fast scout, that .... pay to win game, iam out!

 

Perspective 2

 

Dude, its not pay to win, i have already all internals, items and mechs to choose, because i bought the game for 60$, i playd againts rocketeer, scouts, raider, sniper, predator and i lost to all of them, whatever weapon internal or item i used. I suppoe they are just better then me, i have to learn 1 mech for the beginning, get better through games to get near those dudes, yeah i like that, i stay

 

Actual we have perspective 1 going on all day long, people come, loose, leaving and see player like me sitting out, because i know we are going to win whatever i do, watching a wall or killing myself for fun, or skilled people shooting the .... out of new players because of new matchmaking that puts them on such one sided games and make them leave and quarrel about pay to win, hacking or even glitching (some people really loves to do this glitching on top and getting on nvers of everyone and calling them kids if they are tired of this).

 

Pretty simple.

 

Galaxy Radio


  • DieselCat likes this

#57
reVelske

reVelske

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 229 posts

If anything, I'd prefer the old business model of there only being one purchasable version of each usable item (Repair Kit, EMP, etc), rather than one for each size. I don't remember how exactly it was prior to the skill tree system removal (which I actually enjoyed for the most part), but all mechs I had from during that time period has transitioned to post-skill-tree era with all versions of each item unlocked.

 

Also, if you want to make it your goal to get every mech available and have them outfitted fully, that's your problem. To make it sound like 250 hours/$280 are the absolute requirement/goal for every player is just frankly fuzzy bunnyng nonsense. You want to farm up EVERYTHING available in a F2P game? Ha, good luck to you, sir, just don't pretend everyone else is as silly as you.

 

That said, I wish Hawken was a pay-once title, I'm sure most others would agree with me on that. Unfortunately, the game's conception happened around a time when F2P model was the fuzzy bunnyng hot fuzzy bunny, and it's too late to change all that.


Edited by reVelske, 19 May 2015 - 09:02 AM.

  • DieselCat likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users