next »

[airman4]

Hey all
It have been a long time i haven't posted here

I was thinking of a business model for online game (mostly online )
It's simple , it's kinda very close to the Arcades games room

You have the game for free , ENTIRELY and EVERYTHING but each time you die you have to pay real money to Ressuscitate and play again.
So for example , each lives will cost you 1 euros ? or 1 dollars.
So skilled player will play it mostly free.

So to repeat again  : You enter the game , you create your avatar and have access to everything , but if you die , you'll have to pay the resurrection of your beloved character.

This system already have been established?
It worked well ?
What do you think of it ?
Will you get into this ?
Do you prefer this kind of model or the most classic one ?

[CowBoyDan]

Lame!!!

[zalzane]

So you want to charge people money at the point at which they are likely to be the most frustrated with your game?

[mrj1nx]

An interesting aspect to it is kind of like in games with permadeath, it puts more preassure, thus potentially strengthening the feelings the player experiences while going through a hard part of the game.. Anyways i dont know if it will work but it sounds potentially interesting to me. It just needs to be super clear how the system works. Maybe you could get 3 lifes instead of 1 or something..

EDIT: Maybe you could have the option to unlock unlimited lifes for another fee.

[RudyTheDev]

I think zalzane put it best.

There is a reason arcade games went out of favor quickly when PCs showed up. Even the hearts and limited lives system is now used primarily by game going for retro nostalgia. Going the opposite end of spectrum won't do well at all, I think.

An interesting aspect to it is kind of like in games with permadeath

Games with permadeath are tailored for learning experience and replayability. While "permadeath" is part of the proposed method, everything that makes it fun isn't. You are punished for your failure, rather than encouraged to retry.

[moi]

this could work if every life was like a totally different and real life in a vast universe of friends and enemies where you'd grow and learn.
If it's for a doodle jump clone, then I suppose not

[Sanojian]

There is a reason arcade games went out of favor quickly when PCs showed up. Even the hearts and limited lives system is now used primarily by game going for retro nostalgia. Going the opposite end of spectrum won't do well at all, I think.

I think there is a balance that can be found here.  Maybe I am too old-timey but I am totally bored with most online (I assume you mean mmo-type) games of today because there is no way to lose.  For me this just makes them glorified chatrooms except there is no longer any chatting going on because people are too busy clicky-click-clicking (the substitute for gameplay).

So there needs to be a return of *danger* for these games to become interesting for a player like me again.  *Danger* could be either my time or my money (but not too much of either).  So maybe charge $1 for 3 lives or alternatively the player can't use that character again for 24 hours.  I'd play that.

[Klaim]

Airman you might be interested in this: http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/digital-rentals-and-the-online-arcade

I think it depends on the type of games.

[RudyTheDev]

I think it depends on the type of games.

That's a good point and that video explains the "online arcade" model nicely. Arcades got away with it because there was no alternative to not paying. Today, there are thousands of endlessly replayable alternatives and you would target a very niche group.

The video also makes a valid point that you have to design with foresight and build your game around these types of monetization models and, personally, I believe that goes against indie spirit somewhat.

[ANtY]

I wouldn't like to play this, I'd rather just buy a game. Especially cuz I'm bad at games and I'd die a lot

[CowBoyDan]

If you really want to do something buying lives, give 1 life per day, let the player continue their game day to day of course.  Otherwise let them buy lives (better be more than $1/life though).  And just to make it social, for every $1 worth of lives they buy they can share a free bonus one with a friend via facebook or some built in means.  Get a friend to play and you both get 4 free lives.  I'd make the games longer than most arcade games though, so there's plenty of reason to need multiple lives and not just to do repetitive gameplay.  The thrifty can either just come back daily (page hits for ads on the page if a web based game), or have lots of friends signup (then if they spend money they get a little bit of benefit too).

[moi]

Arcades got away with it because there was no alternative to not paying.

There were plenty of alternatives, there has been personal computers since the 70s.
The reason arcades got away with it is because they always had this awesome hardware advantage that home computers couldn't compete with.
Nowadays every fucking phone has 3D capabilities.

Find a technical advantage that is not replicable at home or for cheap online and you might be able to pull it off.

[airman4]

If you really want to do something buying lives, give 1 life per day, let the player continue their game day to day of course.  Otherwise let them buy lives (better be more than $1/life though).  And just to make it social, for every $1 worth of lives they buy they can share a free bonus one with a friend via facebook or some built in means.  Get a friend to play and you both get 4 free lives.  I'd make the games longer than most arcade games though, so there's plenty of reason to need multiple lives and not just to do repetitive gameplay.  The thrifty can either just come back daily (page hits for ads on the page if a web based game), or have lots of friends signup (then if they spend money they get a little bit of benefit too).

Sound interesting with some neat ideas.
With a game of MOBA type , online fight against other players , it can be addictive guys.
Yeah Klaim , it acts kinda like an online arcade finally.
If i ever do that the cost will be cheap meaning not expensive

For example you enter the arena , you kill people ,and then you get killed , then you have to buy one live to play the game again , like cowboydan you could buy other lives to prevent this , also a good feature could be earn a life if you beat enough people or something like that and of course if you are skilled you'll pay few lives.

ANtY
Well , the game better have some factions and fight group online.
I know it can be frustrating , i'm just asking here some opinion for this kind of economic model

zalzane
Please calm down, my point wasn't to frustrate people on purpose , but doing some kind of alternative to the free to play model ?



Anyway If the cost is cheap and the game addictive , it could be something cool i think.
Don't forget the game will have all features for free , no dlc , nothing to pay , just the necessary live when you die online.

Thanks guys for the posts.

[Muz]

Arcade system runs on a different model. People are playing the game to show off to their friends and get their high score put up there for eternity. They'll pay if it means that they have another shot at getting the high score.

It's similar to how Facebook games sell, but after a while, people realize that most of their friends don't really care about how big their farms are. Also why Farmville 2 didn't take off was because most of the hardcore Farmville players were just trying to show off and didn't want to start over.

Make them pay to win. But the catch is that it can't be the only factor in winning, otherwise winning will have no value.

So you want to charge people money at the point at which they are likely to be the most frustrated with your game?

Pretty much this too. People will pay if they're addicted and having fun, but when they're annoyed, that's the absolute worst time to try to sell them something.

[zalzane]

zalzane
Please calm down, my point wasn't to frustrate people on purpose , but doing some kind of alternative to the free to play model ?

I didn't mean to sound angry, sorry :X

My point is that typically people get mad when they die, and I imagine the stigma associated with death being all that much worse if they had to pay money each time they died. This would become an even more serious problem if there was any kind of chance for accidental deaths either due to game bugs or the carelessness of the player, that kind of stuff would create a lot of frustration really fast.

[s0]

Nowadays every fucking phone has 3D capabilities.

and half the arcade machines being released run on mediocre pc hardware. also everything else that used to be exlclusive to arcades (motion controls!) is now has affordable home equivalents.

arcades have definitely lost the "spectacle" aspect that probably drew in a lot of the more casual players. even as late as the 90s walking into a good arcade felt like entering some kind of futuristic wonderland.

[bluescrn]

arcades have definitely lost the "spectacle" aspect that probably drew in a lot of the more casual players. even as late as the 90s walking into a good arcade felt like entering some kind of futuristic wonderland.

I dunno, if arcades magically reappeared now they could still impress at least console gamers...

How?... with high framerates, proper controllers, big screens, and lots of noise!

Back in the day, 'arcade quality' basically meant 60fps with very-low-latency controls. Which is something that has sadly been lost with the current generation of consoles.

Arcades died not just due to competition from PCs and consoles. They got greedy. In the early days, a skilled player could play for a decent amount of time for their 10p/20p. But it didn't take long to get to a point where games were £1 and mostly time-limited - you get one 3min race for your quid, or a 30sec ass-kicking on a fighting game, and that's it...

Anyway, back on topic - and 'pay per life' might work for games which already suit permadeath - thinking about ARPGs and roguelikes - where you're going to invest a fair bit of time into that 'life' (character)

But the game would have to be fair. No cheap tricks or overtuned bosses to keep killing off players...

[moi]

what really killed arcade was the popularity trends, like that era in the 90s where you could literally not release an arcade game that wasn't a one-on-one brawler, because it would be too much of a financial risk.

[Muz]

I dunno, if arcades magically reappeared now they could still impress at least console gamers...

How?... with high framerates, proper controllers, big screens, and lots of noise!

I don't know what it's like where you live, but they're still a big thing here, more common than cinemas. They're popular with old school, 30-40 year old gamers, and outlasted the cybercafe trend.

[True Valhalla]

I'd love to make a hardcore perma-death MMO someday, but I wouldn't monetize it the way you're suggesting. As already mentioned, monetizing on death is probably the worst time to try and do so. Players will not be in a good mood after dying in a game like this.