Start selling your game and update min spec requirements.

"
Boem wrote:
what's the difference between "recommended spec" and "minimum spec" when the later simulates running the game with 900 ping. A minimum spec should still provide an enjoyable game-experience.


Minimum spec has literally always meant "the game won't crash consistently on the lowest settings".

Sorry you're playing on a potato, but this entire thread is a bad joke.
F2P in practice concerns mostly two major factor, with a loose relation to each other :

1. The mode itself - free installation with no additional costs, game funding/profit relies on voluntary donations/MTX/other.

2. All invited - this business model relies on amassing a player base to function as expected. Player retention could be required, could be not - depends on the game.

Because of pt. 2, most of the F2P games have lower system requirements on purpose. It makes sense indeed.

So Boem is at least 50% right.

My personal opinion is, that lower system requirements are a must in a F2P game, and the business logic says so.
As a kind of a proof, the majority of F2P games on market work this way. And many of them come out of big studios, able to bring "much more" in terms of computer system demands.

This is a buff © 2016

The Experts ™ 2017
The moment people start talking shit about free2play because of system requirements. *sigh*
"
Boem wrote:
"
cipher_nemo wrote:
Your argument is based on an assumption that F2P is about lower-end games meant for people with less money. The reality is that people often spend *more* in F2P games. From your supporter tags alone, you already paid for a regular game many times over.
No my assumption is based on the fact that, they can.

Of course you are correct in that they "can" play for free. But there is no factual correlation between 'free game' = 'more players who have less money to spend'.

All of these would prove your assumptions/argument wrong...

From: https://www.polygon.com/2013/2/8/3967410/kongregate-jim-greer-core-gamers-free-to-play-spend-more-money
"
For a developer, core gamers are just engaged, and in any field it's the most engaged people who are most willing to pay money... the average amount spent per month by a player who does spend is about as high as it gets, $60 a month since January [2013]


From: https://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/03/the-shocking-truth-about-mobile-gaming.html
"
...free-to-play games are the ones people spend the most on


From:https://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-farrell/the-fascinating-psycholog_b_6076502.html
"
Obscuring pricing information is a sophisticated concept called Price Shrouding that was first discussed in 1957. If “real” money were used (no successful free-to-play game developer does this) then the consumer would see be able to accurately gauge the cost of ownership. Ensuring that the actual cost remains a very fuzzy concept keeps consumers naive and spending.


...and all of this is exactly why F2P games such as PoE earn more money from their core players than subscription or single purchase games. They use 'points' for currency you buy to obscure the real cost of MTXes, and they continually advertise and update all of the things you can buy, making it MORE expensive, not less, for regular players.

So your argument of F2P yielding players with less money is bogus. All of those on the forum here would be considered "core" players since they're active in the game and community, and are possibly the 1 to 3% of people who actually pay for MTXes.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▒▒▒▒░░░░░ cipher_nemo ░░░░░▒▒▒▒ │ Waggro Level: ♠○○○○ │ 1244
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
"
cipher_nemo wrote:

So your argument of F2P yielding players with less money is bogus.


Are you twisting logic?

Do i really need to mention that i am comparing against games with an initial purchase when the OP is titled "start selling your game"?

Or are you telling me that games with an initial purchase attract more costumers with lower incomes then the free2play market?

Obviously this model is based on wales and core players providing the bulk of the income. But it is also based on keeping as much people as possible into the game to create an economy so that those same wales can enjoy their gaming experience.(since the economy is based on a pyramid model, it requires a large base to function)

Meh whatever, i will simply upgrade my PC if the requirements keep going upwards, since people seem to conclude this topic concerns me personally.
I just think it's poor form to first attract people to solidify the economic foundation required to lift-off the game and then ignore them later on.

I guess i'm the only one that attributes value to F2P in relation to an economy driven game as a business decision.

Peace,

-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
The faulty corroletion he is doing in his mind is the logical failure of this assumption he has

He says to be able to say someone f2p,he should meet minimum specs and be free for everybody.

I wonder,I thought we talked to a person that can make arguments.

Dear boem,can anyone say by your logic his game is free 2 play if he must buy a Pc first to play?

Is the next Crysis game(graphic wise)which should want to follow a free to play game but can run only on top end machines be ever considered a f2p?

You don't have to answer.,, Checkmate, your logic fails and you should think your analogies before shitposting meaningless to what I see as a whine post and not as feedback.
Bye bye desync!
Last edited by elwindakos on Dec 12, 2017, 12:12:19 PM
"
Boem wrote:
Do i really need to mention that i am comparing against games with an initial purchase when the OP is titled "start selling your game"?

Or are you telling me that games with an initial purchase attract more costumers with lower incomes then the free2play market?

No, not at all. I'm telling you that F2P games vs Retail games have no bearing on what player base they're intended for, regardless of how much money players have to spend.

Now I agree with you that performance in PoE needs to be both addressed and re-evaluated in terms of specs, but tying that into players with less money to spend is a fallacy.
▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
▒▒▒▒░░░░░ cipher_nemo ░░░░░▒▒▒▒ │ Waggro Level: ♠○○○○ │ 1244
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
Last edited by cipher_nemo on Dec 12, 2017, 12:23:06 PM
"A gateway exists to my free-to-play game that its owners don't make any money off of, so they should work harder to circumvent a market they have no stake in so that they can make less money, since I'm arguing the people they're accommodating have no money to begin with."

First of all, no one is obligated to give access to a luxury, regardless of whether you're amongst the wealthiest or the poorest populations on the planet. If you want to argue humanism, argue for the redistribution of food or shelter, not for access to a vidyagame.

Second, take a look at your logic. Let's assume you're correct for a moment and free2play games pander to a less wealthy crowd of gamers. Studies have shown this to probably not be the case, but for the sake of argument let's assume that to some degree it is. Since we acknowledge that it requires man hours to adjust the hardware requirements of their game, and since you've acknowledged that your championed crowd won't spend money on a high-end computer to play games let alone the games themselves, what economic incentive does GGG have to put more man hours and therefore more of their own capital towards catering to people who won't spend money and therefore render an economic return on that spent capital?

Your argument falls flat on so many fronts I'm surprised I'm even responding to it.
Last edited by sainthazard on Dec 12, 2017, 12:29:12 PM
"
elwindakos wrote:
The faulty corroletion he is doing in his mind is the logical failure of this assumption he has

He says to be able to say someone f2p,he should meet minimum specs and be free for everybody.

I wonder,I thought we talked to a person that can make arguments.

Dear boem,can anyone say by your logic his game is free 2 play if he must buy a Pc first to play?

Is the next Crysis game(graphic wise)which should want to follow a free to play game but can run only on top end machines be ever considered a f2p?

You don't have to answer.,, Checkmate, your logic fails and you should think your analogies before shitposting meaningless to what I see as a whine post and not as feedback.


If you advertise free2play and your minimum specs are actually accurate to deliver an enjoyable game experience i see no issue with your example.

As far as being a whine post, i'm not concerned about this for myself at all.
I can buy a new PC whenever i feel like it and probably will if this trend persists in the future where they just keep introducing more demanding effects on-top of one another without actually considering the variation of machines in their player-base.

I think most of you under-appreciate the effect free2play has on the game as a whole because of it's economy driven nature, but i could be wrong so whatever.

Peace,

-Boem-
Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes
PoE at 1440p is one of the most demanding titles in existence. People should use PoE under a breach to do benchmarks instead of crysis.
IGN: Arlianth
Check out my LA build: 1782214

Report Forum Post

Report Account:

Report Type

Additional Info