Article and discussion about using systems design for premium-first games to achieve self-operatable games without the need for pushing for F2P, hybrid monetization, and/or live service models.
Some time in the next week I intend to publish rules for improving large online strategy games, and there I will talk a lot about how the F2P model is incompatible with that genre because it leads to people multi accounting on a map. Making players pay up front to be on a map discourages multi accounting and also discourages people from joining then dropping out due to sunk cost fallacy. These games can run for days, weeks, or even months so the value can be very high for the player, justifying the fee while protecting them from exploits.
Thanks for the thoughtful input. I agree that large-scale online strategy games can have unique needs when it comes to e.g., engagement, monetization, player integrity, and such.
Multi-accounting is a persistent challenge in many 4X and e.g., other map-based strategy games. And, you’re right way looking it from a specific PoV; on which the F2P model often can turn inviting exploitative behaviors that distort competitive balance and long-term play.
Premium or pay-to-enter models can be an elegant way to filter for committed players and create healthier map-level ecosystems. There, of course, can be other solutions to this, even from passive systems' and measurements' perspective, but to nail them right way without losing business potential is tough.
Some time in the next week I intend to publish rules for improving large online strategy games, and there I will talk a lot about how the F2P model is incompatible with that genre because it leads to people multi accounting on a map. Making players pay up front to be on a map discourages multi accounting and also discourages people from joining then dropping out due to sunk cost fallacy. These games can run for days, weeks, or even months so the value can be very high for the player, justifying the fee while protecting them from exploits.
Thanks for the thoughtful input. I agree that large-scale online strategy games can have unique needs when it comes to e.g., engagement, monetization, player integrity, and such.
Multi-accounting is a persistent challenge in many 4X and e.g., other map-based strategy games. And, you’re right way looking it from a specific PoV; on which the F2P model often can turn inviting exploitative behaviors that distort competitive balance and long-term play.
Premium or pay-to-enter models can be an elegant way to filter for committed players and create healthier map-level ecosystems. There, of course, can be other solutions to this, even from passive systems' and measurements' perspective, but to nail them right way without losing business potential is tough.
Looking forward to your rules post!