700k is not enough users for a facebook game - Freemium discussion

[charlesr]

http://www.edge-online.com/news/popcap-close-facebook-game-over-700000-players

Not sure what to make of this. That seems like a lot of players to me.

Only spend real money on virtual items if you don't mind them disappearing at some point I guess.

[Flabio]

With the freemium model though, you're relying on less than 10% of the players generating almost all of the revenue. You want lots of players so you'll suck in friends of friends who DO spend money on these things, cause you know almost everyone thats playing won't.

Once the guys who actually spend the cash on the game aren't playing anymore, you're just running at a loss no matter how many players you actually have.

It's why I don't like it as a model at the moment, I'd rather designers looked for ways to get most of the players willing to drop a couple of quid and perhaps have lower overall numbers.

[FelixofMars]

Agreed, it is almost like gambling in every way. You have your high rollers who they try to treat to keep them keen and the rest of the customers either buy very little or nothing.

[EvilBoris]

I don't think 700k users is enough for most retail titles given the costs involved.

[MisterBubbles]

From this post can we discuss people's feelings of freeium as a strategy and model for gaming, my own opinion is i hate it and dont even download or try most of

[MisterBubbles]

ooops freemium even...

[EvilBoris]

Doesn't bother me to be honest, I've yet to come across a game that actually interests me enough to part with cash.

[Lebowski]

Freemium really puts me off games, lets golf 3 is a disgusting game as not only is it a blatant rip off everybodys golf it reqires you to pay money to recharge your golfer every few holes infact i pretty much despise all of gamelofts current output.

Whats more worrying is the slow trickle of freemium payment models into full price games, infinity blade has some pretty expensive in game weapons and armour that is only there to tempt you into buying vast amounts of in game currency, the time outlay to save enough gold is stupidly high. its put me off buying the second one as ive read it really is pushed in your face.

[EvilBoris]

I'd not even noticed it til you said, could you not buy gold in IB1?

[MisterBubbles]

Im thinking that devs are seeing freemium parts in full games as mini DLC, and trying to milk it, i dont mind it if it's not in your face and doesn't spoil your enjoyment , but most devs are using it to extend games by making the difficulty spike jump hoping you cough up the dough, i hope the industry and community ignore it and it does one, cause if we/they dont, i see Acti and other publishers saying, so it pay as you play, that 1 quid to play your COD level and such nonsense.

[Neon Ignition]

I don't really use it as 99% of the time it's used for games that I wouldn't be interested in paying for anyway but I do feel it's another avenue that the casual gaming market has scrabbled down in a mad rush for profitability which is symptomatic of why I expect this sector of gaming to have a minor collapse in the next few years.

[Corranga]

This sort of thing really gets on my nerves. Once I've bought a game, I don't want to be constantly pestered that I haven't entered an online code, or that I haven't bought a game, or that I can part with more cash to make a player have better stats / weapons..

I'm generally a single player gamer, I've been annoyed by too many people screaming n00b down a headset, or playing up glitches / spending entire races barging etc..

Firstly, the online play code thing.. I understand why it exists, and I support the idea too, I just hate it being rammed down my throat.
With Battlefield I bought it knowing I could play the single player fairly quickly, and sell it on getting back most of my money, especially if the online code wasn't used. Everytime you switch it on, it prompts you for the code - I'd like an option to turn this off please.
I've spent 30-40 quid on this game, why should I be pestered to spend more money (or in my case, loose money) on it.

Madden was the same. I have no want to play it online and has loading screens advertising that you can spend real world cash on in game player improvements.

Dirt 3 has events and cars that appear in the select list with something like "available when you enter your VIP code"

Fable 3, when entering the sanctuary, had the voice saying "there are new quests in the sanctuary shop" or something to advertise DLC.

NFS:Hot Pursuit had an update that, from memory, added a couple of 'free' events, but also all of the dlc ones to your map so it looked like you hadn't done some events.

Anyways, back on to freemium...
I guess it's that vs. in game adverts which are maybe more annoying?
Are any of the games actually that good?
From a dev / publisher perspective, it's a real gamble I suppose, but potentially easier to get the free game out there, and rely on word of mouth, then hope for some people to buy some paid content, than try to sell a game in a market full of free ones?

Chris

[Lebowski]

This thread seems to have mutated into a thread about all extra payment options in games, so I think this is relevant.

There was an interesting article on kotaku about call of duty yesterday, one of the devs was talking about the elite model, it seems to be a way to test weather people will pay to play call of duty without pissing off the community as a whole, so watch this space if elite dose well enough expect the next call of duty to be pay to play, if you have purchased elite you only have your self to blame.

[Neon Ignition]

It'd be interesting as Activision has already gone on record as saying they will never make a mandatory pay-to-play COD. They've no need too either, the franchise is popular enough that Elite and DLC will bring in huge revenue. No need to rock the boat.