Check out his blog post from Psychology of Videogames...

Afrocigar

Short interesting read

http://www.psychologyofgames.com/2015/0 ... n-gets-it/

SuperSkrull

Makes a lot of sense. His example at the end about truly evil use of psychological reactance already exists in the game in some ways, I.e. the ever increasing cost of roster slots.

brisashi

You might not agree with the business model but it is hardly "evil". Especially since recent changes have been made, the game is a lot easier to play for free or for very little money than your average free to play competitive title.

The last time I bought any HP was in November when I was out of roster slots. I spent $20 and still have 1500HP in the bank. That's about $5 a month with the ability to have room for every 2-4* in the game.

I can't imagine I would be successful playing a title like clash of clans or game of war at a competitive level for $5 a month.

Unknown

I think the problem is that people are so used for games like Clash of Clans taking all your money (all that money they make has to come from somewhere) that if you've a game offering quality product for very little or no cost people start thinking there's got to be a catch. It's sort of the same like this even in PC games. I'm so used to half of a product being released with another $100 worth of DLC that if something is released without DLC and looks complete it makes me wonder what's going on and I'll think twice about buying something.

SuperSkrull

brisashi wrote:

You might not agree with the business model but it is hardly "evil". Especially since recent changes have been made, the game is a lot easier to play for free or for very little money than your average free to play competitive title.

The last time I bought any HP was in November when I was out of roster slots. I spent $20 and still have 1500HP in the bank. That's about $5 a month with the ability to have room for every 2-4* in the game.

I can't imagine I would be successful playing a title like clash of clans or game of war at a competitive level for $5 a month.

Don't get me wrong I wasn't calling D3 out as being evil, I was just referencing the linked article where they gave an example of how to fully monetise the psychological mechanism being discussed and the article called it "truly evil" in a tongue-in-cheek way. I was trying to highlight that the issue around increasing price of roaster slots with expiring cover times is an example of fully leveraging the mental principle discussed in the article.

I have no problem with D3 making money and I have spent my fair share of cash on the game. I just find it fascinating how freemium games really know how to push the irrational cognitive buttons. I mean Clash of Clans makes what? $1.x million a day? For a mobile phone game? I am definitely in the wrong business!

Unknown

If they offered cheap monthly subscription that all it included was a "free" roster slot every time they released a character I would buy in (assuming the value was actually more than purchasing HP to buy the slots normally, pricing is important). Would become a better deal the farther along in the game you are so would make more and more sense to sign up with each roster slot you buy. If they are feeling generous maybe throw in some extra from time to time up to the total number of characters, so you can subscribe your way to a full collection.

Unknown

Cryptobrancus wrote:

If they offered cheap monthly subscription that all it included was a "free" roster slot every time they released a character I would buy in (assuming the value was actually more than purchasing HP to buy the slots normally, pricing is important). Would become a better deal the farther along in the game you are so would make more and more sense to sign up with each roster slot you buy. If they are feeling generous maybe throw in some extra from time to time up to the total number of characters, so you can subscribe your way to a full collection.

That would be amazing for most long term players. The danger is that many people would take it as some sort of insult if they got the roster slot, but not the character. The roster slot would need to be convertible. The other downside is that'd it cut into their whale income. As long as enough people are buying roster slots at 1000HP+ a pop, d3 doesn't have much motivation to cater extra to a few people at the top end.

Unknown

10% of the playerbase buying a monthly subscription at any price would be a much better revenue stream than a few whales buying many expensive roster slots. And my suggestion would only allow one to keep up, not make room for duplicates which the whales would still likely spend for.

Omega Blacc

Great points in this article.

This is probably more true for lower level transitioners than people with expansive rosters.

One thing I've learned about this game is that EVERY character will come back around eventually. I feel like D3P capitalizes more on a lack of patience than anything.

A character sitting in my card collection for days doesn't bother me so much as forgetting they are there and losing the Iso. The way I look at it, that one card does you very little good in the short term. All it can ever do for you at MOST is give you an essential character on occasion. Even that one card only gives you the option to buy that one power with HP.

I don't believe in being married to your whole roster. I've disposed of people to make room rather than spend HP sometimes. You can fully card and level multiple 1-2* in less than a season if you play enough. I have one or two slots of disposable heroes (cue Metallica) for this very reason.

Unknown

People have much higher expectations when the game is on a sub, even if it's $5 a month. Look at all the failed MMORPG on the sub model for an example. And no you can't just say make a sub + the current stuff, because there's a good chance you alienate both population. That is, the guys buying up the non sub stuff is going to say 'I'm already spending all this money and they still nickle & dime me for $5 a month?' while the guy on the sub is saying "I'm paying $5 a month and still got to buy all this other stuff?' Not saying this model can't work, but it's hardly risk free and can easily backfire on you, so you got to be very sure about your player's tendencies to have this model.

Unknown

True it would have to be carefully considered and branded appropriately. And a lot of people would have high expectations of a $5 subscription, which is why I didn't specify an actual number just "cheap" would you pay $2.50 a month just to be part of the roster slot of the month club?

Maybe I am an oddball but I would welcome an avenue to support the game that was clearly a good "deal."
I also have always hated that moment of roster choices. I'm low on HP and wanted to save up to buy that cover I can't ever seem to get, but I just got new character of the week, do I ditch the new character, sell an old one to make space, or let the game strongarm me into swiping my credit card. That feels like nickle & dime to me. The game giving me an upfront choice and a reasonable deal on the table to take or not take so I can keep all my 2*s and never feel like I "have" to sell someone then I feel like the game is treating me like an adult who can make rational decisions about when and where to spend money, instead of a commodity to be squeezed until $5 pops out.

But to your point above, no not all players think like that.

Unknown

As of now I have exactly 10675 hp saved up I was planning on whaling thora but if I do that means that I won't have hp for roster slots. So I've come to the conclusion that when I do run out of hp weather I whale a toon or open roster slots and if it becomes impossible to recruit the new character (buy roster slots) that's when I'll quit the game. I am a vet I've been around for a long time but I have to draw the line somewhere.

I would also like to add something that I remembered the other day. You can all come up with your own conclusion. Some while ago someone made a post complaining about not having enough slots for he's heroes. I believe the max at that time was 99 slots. This player had purchased the maxed slots already. Can you all guess what happened next? Well the next day the max for roster slots went from 99 to what it is now. That change only took one man to complain.

The oldest thread that I could find about someone complaining about roster slots dates back to around July, and the "solution" to that problem has been addressed about two weeks ago with dpd. I have come up with my own conclusion that they just simply don't care or are trying to extend it and milk us while they can. It's sad because this was a game with potential when I started playing.