A curious question to the Devs: Viability of the PoE Business Model?

So this is coming from someone who has avidly played a free to play game and spent money on it. The main free to play game I have spent my time on is League of Legends.

Although the game is free to play, I have easily spent over a hundred dollars( I have often spent 40+ dollars on much worse games with much less content from a store than I did on league ) on it in the two years that I have been playing it. It is not massively multiplayer and I have gained no specific advantages other than cosmetic "skins" for the champions I choose to play in league of legends.

When thinking back and asking myself "Why did I spend so much money on such frivolous things?" I realize the answer is this: There is just so much content, and it is so cheap that as the new cosmetic skins came out I kept buying. While the micro transaction system may seem unable to support it, trust me it is definitely capable of supporting this game.

Now the answer you are all thinking is "Well, what about freeloaders? They won't buy anything and they just take up space." And if we all existed in a closed world, and every single freeloader is one their own when they play video games. Then you might have a point. The problem with that theory is that most "freeloaders" aren't all alone, fat, smelly 40 year olds in their basement playing games. They have friends.

This game is multiplayer and meant to be played with others, while a "freeloader" might not pay money, they can bring in three other friends who MIGHT want to pay money. So with this kind of business model, even the people who don't pay have the potential of "paying" or brining in paying customers.

So thats a bit of insight in how this kind of business model works. In many cases, if the game is popular enough it often makes more money than any game you have to pay for upfront.

Most likely there was more venture capital involved at the start beyond what Chris threw into it.

"

derphooves wrote:

This game is multiplayer and meant to be played with others, while a "freeloader" might not pay money, they can bring in three other friends who MIGHT want to pay money. So with this kind of business model, even the people who don't pay have the potential of "paying" or brining in paying customers.

That's a really good point. I'm not sure how often it works, but it's definitely a consideration. I approach it from the other end: I'm a paying customer who tries to encourage people who might also pay by signing them up. Not sure how often that works either, but it's the same philosophy.

"

Trapperkeeper wrote:

Most likely there was more venture capital involved at the start beyond what Chris threw into it.

Oh, definitely.

Some reasons why I think it'll succeed:

1) Free to play exposes the game to a much larger potential player base, increasing the players likely to support the game financially.

2) You'd be surprised at how many people want cosmetic content.

3) "Internet cred" or "E-Penis" is as real as it is in real life. People love to show off. People love that "Silver Supporter" is a badge they can wear that will be seen. People love to one-up each other and have the coolest car, or the biggest house, or the best looking game character.

4) The "pay what you want" model is growing in popularity. If a person is getting something for free and they see value in it, they can decide how much it's worth to them. This is in contrast to having a high barrier for entry for a product they may feel they are being overcharged for.

5) Microtransactions work because they're small. $5 is pocket money, we don't think about it. $60 requires more thought, and there's more doubt about the payment versus reward. Next thing you know, you've spent $60 in microtransactions over a year.

"

Charan wrote:

That's a really good point. I'm not sure how often it works, but it's definitely a consideration. I approach it from the other end: I'm a paying customer who tries to encourage people who might also pay by signing them up. Not sure how often that works either, but it's the same philosophy.

You would be suprised. If I were to spell it out this how in essence how my friends and I picked up League of Legends:

I got into the game and at first I thought that buying anything was stupid, because you can easily get everything you need from the game for free. It just takes a lot of time. Soon, I got one of my friends into the game and we had lots of fun. Soon, he decided to buy something with his money which convinced me to buy a cosmetic item. A little while later we got more friends to join, and now all of us have at least one or two cosmetic items we bought we our own money. If I added up the total between the six of my friends who play this game, then I believe it would easily be above a thousand dollars amassed on purely cosmetic items.

Burnoutbrighter hit the nail on the head aswell: Never, ever underestimate a person's need to show off. People buy fancy cars and houses merely to show off how much money they have. They do the exact same thing in video games. They NEED to feel like they are more important or cooler, and thats how they do it.

"

derphooves wrote:

You would be suprised.

Not so much surprised as pleased. I'd clearly be a hypocrite if I were surprised at how much people are willing to contribute for cosmetic items, after all.

If there is surprise, it lies in how many other people were as eager to lay down a grand on PoE as I was. I figured there'd be ten, maybe twenty diamonds. Not sixty plus.

I think that's a very pleasant surprise, though! :)

My main reservation right now comes from the query of how much of the $800k or so raised comes from voluntary support and how much comes from the nickel-and-dime (relatively) increments of 'necessary' key purchases.

We. Shall. See. :)

I'm honestly surprised you're still not sold on the whole F2P thing. It works when done well and fails abysmally when done poorly. Or at least, it's barely sustainable when done poorly (see Company of Heroes, which went "Pay to Win" in manners so grotesque I'd rather not talk about it).

This isn't a crazy venture - it works. Look at Nexon. Or Valve.

"

anubite wrote:

I'm honestly surprised you're still not sold on the whole F2P thing. It works when done well and fails abysmally when done poorly. Or at least, it's barely sustainable when done poorly (see Company of Heroes, which went "Pay to Win" in manners so grotesque I'd rather not talk about it).

This isn't a crazy venture - it works. Look at Nexon. Or Valve.

I'm not sold on other people. ;)

If you think about it, part of that misanthropy is why I supported GGG to the extent I did. I don't trust other people to think as I do (even though I've found so many here who do!), so I supported to a point that in a way slightly compensates for those who won't.

...so even my doubt in the f2p model manifests in a strangely positive way, in the end.

It's real simple in my mind:

F2P has either of two paths to success:

1) Pay to win : Make a game compelling and interesting enough for a target audience that has not got the time required to play "Long Haul" ALA Spiral Knights or anything on Facebook.

2) Ethical-microtransactions : Make a game of such quality that players are drawn by the quality of care/design and are drawn by a company with ethics. ALA PoE


I have no doubts that GGG will get at least $200 out of me over the next 3-4 years. I'm way too much of a pack rat to have less than 30 tabs. ( 26 x 3.00=$78 before anything else.

Hell, I've spent more for far less..

But, even with me expecting to shell that money out, I still spend any spare time I have not in game recruiting friends and colleagues. So HOPEFULLY I'm helping bring in even more money to them.

I fervently hope that GGG busts out in a HUGE way and shows the world that focus on the customer can still be big business.

Hell, even Apple has that down pat, looks like they have a few bucks.