2 options to make MPQ more profitable & make players HAPPY

Unknown

I'm actually going to have to be the token naysayer here....

1) Right now, as far as HP prices go, 20 bucks gets me two 3* covers and one 2* cover. That really isn't a bad deal.
2) As far as your hr shields go, letting people shield-hop for 15 HP would be really, really awful, there would be no way to gain points in the last 12 hours of events
3) Likewise, with a "full event" shield, people could shoot up on the first day and pull up the ladder behind them, causing a drought of points. That's also undesirable imo.
4) With covers as cheap as your recommendation, players would be able to cover out a few 3*s incredibly easily just from the free HP they get, aside from new players buying roster slots I can't imagine why someone would purchase HP if 3* covers were only 400 HP

Unknown

gamar wrote:

-
4) With covers as cheap as your recommendation, players would be able to cover out a few 3*s incredibly easily just from the free HP they get, aside from new players buying roster slots I can't imagine why someone would purchase HP if 3* covers were only 400 HP

There could be more characters, to bring more diversity.

Besides, there could be "skins" (or whatever you want to name it), so as to bring new abilities to the characters. Investing in a game and innovating in a game that is so open is limitless.

You could buy "Equipments" to have better protection or additional weapons to make even more damages.

They would sell a lot of these, making the game very fun and diverse.

Customizing one's character made the success of WoW and LoL, making them very profitable.

You only need imagination.

When you want to bring additional value to the product you have to struggle. The way D3P does it is a bit too easy for the money they expect from us.

Spoit

Man, when you put it like that, $20 for just 2 3* covers, that makes me want to spend money even less

Nemek

My personal view on the topic is that the proposed changes would make the game way more P2W than it is now (which, I think is only barely P2W now), which would be bad for the game.

I also think the assertion that lowering prices will make MPQ more profitable and make players happier is unfounded.

While I'm only a single data point, lowering prices will most certainly not make me happier with the game, but elicit the direct opposite response. By spending paltry sums of money on the game, a high percentage of players will get to the 'end-game' of maxed characters, creating an even greater divide between those who have paid money into the game and those who have not, and also making it very difficult to place well without continuously spending money to keep up.

Then, it's certainly not clear that nearly doubling the amount of HP/ISO for a price point would more than double the amount of purchases, especially with little data to back it up. I think the VentureBeat article said that 8% of players bought something in March. Would you bet that increases to 15% if we halved all costs? (While taking note that only 2.2% of players of F2P games pay, on average? Source: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-09-only-2-2-percent-of-free-to-play-users-ever-pay-report). If half of all revenue comes from whales in the first place, and whales generally buy enough HP/ISO to already max out all of the characters, we would also be effectively cutting the spending of all whales in half, since they would hit the upper limit of all maxed characters much quicker?

Unknown

Nemek : thanks for the link.

Here is what is being said :

Speaking with Re/code, Swrve CEO Hugh Reynolds said the report was a "word of caution around user acquisition," stressing that developers who focus their resources on goosing the total number of downloads need to worry more about keeping users engaged after the app has been downloaded.

With what recently happened in the game, it is quite unlikely.

Only the very old players (that you are) say that the business model of MPQ is correct. Because your experience is definitely different than what it is now for newer players. Your testimony is therefore not necessarily relevant.

Unknown

HailMary wrote:

And yes, as a high-level F2P player, I tend not to give any credence at all to emotional condemnations of MPQ being cash-grabby or P2W, much less ask for said condemnations.

I didn't know you were one of the F2P gamers. So let me ask you, if either option 1 or two were implemented, would it tempt you to purchase HP?

Edit: Typo

Unknown

Nemek wrote:

My personal view on the topic is that the proposed changes would make the game way more P2W than it is now (which, I think is only barely P2W now), which would be bad for the game.

Why so? And it's not so much play to win anymore. Season 1 burnout has chilled everyone down a bit to more casual play. But it is pay to play. Which I am ok with. I love this game. If I didn't, I would have deleted and I wouldn't bother with the forums.

Nemek wrote:

While I'm only a single data point, lowering prices will most certainly not make me happier with the game, but elicit the direct opposite response. By spending paltry sums of money on the game, a high percentage of players will get to the 'end-game' of maxed characters, creating an even greater divide between those who have paid money into the game and those who have not, and also making it very difficult to place well without continuously spending money to keep up.

That is the wonderful thing about this game. There is no "end point". It's like the stupid song from a show in the 90's with the sock lamb puppet (Can't remember the name). ~This is the game that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friends. . . .~ LOL (It'll be stuck in your heads for DAYS! )

Especially since they are constantly releasing new characters and Ice hinted that there is more to come AFTER the Dark Reign story has finished.

Nemek wrote:

I think the VentureBeat article said that 8% of players bought something in March. Would you bet that increases to 15% if we halved all costs? (While taking note that only 2.2% of players of F2P games pay, on average?

I honestly believe, from my experience with finance/retail/customer service management that MPQ could hit 30-40% paying user base if they implemented one of my options. Not saying that they would have to do it exactly as I laid out, those were just figures based on my opinions and small knowledge of F2P games.

Unknown

aaron : The Internet economy and virtual businesses are not set in stone.

Therefore, what is true today can be otherwise tomorrow.

Candycrush is the one to be followed BUT MPQ is nothing to be compared with CandyCrush. MPQ is far richer in player's experience than CandyCrush. Besides, it bears one of the most successful licence (and for years to come).

It has all the ingredients to be a smash hit. I can not believe that they do not do better to keep players in the game, unless the servers issues are more problematic than we could think. That way, they do not care less to have more players, since they can't provide a service to the ones they already have. Overload I would say.

It looks like the devs are focused on improving the game and its stability, and are not concerned about growing the general audience. Marketing issues may not be a priority then. I can't see any other explanation. Their marketing strategy is currently as lame as can be. Yet, the game is still fun (when you stop shielding and buying Health packs).

Spoit

A better comparsion than candy crush would be something like Puzzles & Dragons

Unknown

Was thinking about a potential financial success.

HailMary

arktos1971 wrote:

Several questions here (if you don't mind) :

When did you start playing ?
Have you NEVER purchased anything on MPQ ?
Do you have an explanation about the fact that Djangounbuffed is no longer Top 5 (nor Top 10) ?

If you are an old player, do you think the players entering the game lately will remain motivated in the long rum with the current business model ?

Answers, in the order they were requested in:
1. End of January.
2. Correct.
3. We didn't explicitly push for alliance season ranking in Season 1, either. Our members had individual Season goals we wanted. For example, I wanted to hit 1100 in a PVP, and end with an individual Top 10. We were actually pleasantly surprised when we really started noticing our alliance ranking in the last week of the Season. That was a result of us, individually, getting caught up in the Season fervor -- I think I even did a shield-hop in a Loki/Rags-rewarding PVP, which is simply absurd. Now that we're over that rush, we're takin' it easy, and as an alliance, just aiming for alliance covers in Events and the Fury cover for Season 2.
4. I have no idea. You've provided no evidence to the contrary. Demiurge has much better access to their own metrics than you do, and knows their goals far better than you. Ergo, I'm going to take their statements over yours at the moment.

arktos1971 wrote:

Only the very old players (that you are) say that the business model of MPQ is correct. Because your experience is definitely different than what it is now for newer players. Your testimony is therefore not necessarily relevant.

I wouldn't use the "your experience is different from the norm, so your opinion isn't relevant" line if I were you. I doubt that even 1% of MPQ's paying userbase pops health packs like candy or insta-maxes every cover they get their hands on.

That said, the 2*-3* transition period has seemingly been extended, and on that point, I sympathize with current 2* players attempting their transition. However, virtually every other recent change has benefited lower-tier players.

aaronschmiz wrote:

I didn't know you were one of the F2P gamers. So let me ask you, if either option 1 or two were implemented, would it tempt you to purchase HP?

I don't tend to publicize it much, because I don't celebrate it. But, the recent spate of forum complaining about dev greed has encouraged me to use it as a supporting data point.

Frankly, there is no sane pricing change that would change my HP (non-)buying habits. I'm sitting on several thousand HP, and I feel no need to buy covers in the foreseeable future (I've bought just one so far). However, were alliances allowed to further expand with HP-purchased member slots, I'd gladly buy Django's next couple of slots using real money at the current HP exchange rate. Someone mentioned a Santa hat for Hulk in a thread somewhere, which got me to thinking a random thought last night: I'd totally drop 200 HP on a cosmetic add-on that "Grunt Birthday Party'd" Hulk's Anger ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zdqUsSfX7P4 ). That would be so awesome.

So, yes, lower prices would be nice, but i have no practical incentive to spend money right now. I rather enjoy earning covers in events and rolling the token dice. Iso has a terrible exchange rate, and I see that as a good thing: HP is the premium currency, whereas Iso is the experience currency.

Unknown

We are not top 10 anymore cause 19/20 members of our alliance are ****. Of course me been the exception. I'm UberCrap. But seriously though, what HM said is all true. Every single one of us is taking it easy this time, especially IceIX, that guy is always relaxing and posting ridiculous scores that make us want to vomit tears. If we decided to try, then we would easily make top 10 but we figured whats the point? As long as we get our alliance rewards we don't really care.

I have a much stronger roster than i did in season 1 and can get points much easily this time around but i only really go for the 50HP progression reward and that's that. No point going higher unless i really wanna. Plus Brave Frontier has taken up more of my time

Unknown

You both at Django just prove that the game has no future from any point of view.

Either financially (because you don't spend a dime) or because you take it easy just to get the cover you need and it is easily reachable and do not feel the need to struggle (use Shield and the like). D3P did not convince you to spend cash in the game then.

HM : so you are just happy that some other players pay for the game so that you can keep on enjoying it ? (that's not a judgement whatsoever, just a thought). Because in the end, someone has to pay for it, there is no advertisement to support the game. Nothing can be sustained with no money.

So, HM, what would you do to make MPS profitable since, so far, you were not entinced to invest in the game ?

Would you play it still if you had to pay for it and had no choice ?

Unknown

arktos1971 wrote:

So, HM, what would you do to make MPS profitable since, so far, you were not entinced to invest in the game ?

What indication whatsoever do you have that what they're doing right now isn't profitable?

And if their revenue is going downhill, where have you seen anyone indicate that it's because IAP costs too much; as opposed to complaining that their servers crash, their matchmaking system is out of whack, or scaling is too high?

Nemek

It's only been going up.

Past 90 days Gross Rank on iPhone:

HailMary

arktos1971 wrote:

You both at Django just prove that the game has no future from any point of view.

This is clearly true, because everyone knows that not only are anecdotal user stories equivalent to quantitative financial analyses, but the Djangoliers are the True Voice of the People and embody all that resides in MPQ's known userverse. QED.

arktos1971 wrote:

Either financially (because you don't spend a dime) or because you take it easy just to get the cover you need and it is easily reachable and do not feel the need to struggle (use Shield and the like). D3P did not convince you to spend cash in the game then.

While I'm sure that your business strategy analyses are based on thorough evaluations of usage metrics, quarterly revenue reports, and competitors' monetization efficacy (as opposed to personal emotions, reporting bias, and guesswork), D3 assuredly has more than one type of target player in mind for revenue generation. I suspect that high-level F2P players comprise a tiny fraction of MPQ's high-level playerbase, and a downright minuscule portion of its total active playerbase.

arktos1971 wrote:

HM : so you are just happy that some other players pay for the game so that you can keep on enjoying it ? (that's not a judgement whatsoever, just a thought). Because in the end, someone has to pay for it, there is no advertisement to support the game. Nothing can be sustained with no money.

My stance on this is similar to Warren Buffett's stance on taxes: if they change the rules to incentivize me enough to pay real money, I'll do it. Until then, if I can stay F2P, I'll merrily stay F2P.

arktos1971 wrote:

So, HM, what would you do to make MPS profitable since, so far, you were not entinced to invest in the game ?
Would you play it still if you had to pay for it and had no choice ?

That depends on the incentive. I know that I wouldn't have even installed the game if I had to pay for it right off the bat. I don't really have the inclination to devise the "correct" business strategy for D3 based on my in-depth knowledge of their fiscal machinery.

Unknown

I do not base my opinion on emotions. I base it on more than 17 years of successful customers oriented marketing.

Had you read the article that was linked earlier on on the thread, you would base your opinion on something else than Warren Buffet's opinion and on your personal experience with the game that consists of only F2P. You do not make propositions. You simply criticize the ones from others. That's easy. I guess you did not understand the point of aaronschmitz (and neither mine).

HailMary

arktos1971 wrote:

Had you read the article that was linked earlier on on the thread, you would base your opinion on something else than Warren Buffet's opinion and on your personal experience with the game that consists of only F2P.

The link that Nemek put up? The link that shows MPQ's proportion of paying users to be much higher than the F2P industry standard? Yes, I can definitely see how that supports your declaration that MPQ is doomed.

arktos1971 wrote:

You do not make propositions. You simply criticize the ones from others. That's easy. I guess you did not understand the point of aaronschmitz (and neither mine).

Says the guy who wrote "Whoever tells us that having a maxed character is pointless is a liar. The business model of MPQ is totally wrong now." in his opening comment.

Apologies to your grandiose resume and inner amateur populist, but I'm not going to take it at face value that a guy who spends $10+ per PVP, declares not-too-gung-ho players to be harbingers of the MPQ apocalypse, declares competitive players to be "robots" because he hasn't figured out how to use his titanic 3* roster, and believes that getting 900+ points in PVP relies entirely upon having a maxed LT remotely even begins to understand the experience of the average "newer player."

There are several criticisms of the current game that I agree with, at least in part, e.g. nerfed token 10-packs, sharding, crazy PVE scaling. Yours, however, are downright silly ("It takes too much Iso to max out every single character in existence! They need to release more characters!"). But hey, I'm sure the core problem is that you use too many big words (like "financially", "entinced", and "lame") for my powers of comprehension to handle.

noobprime

man i would hate to see what happens when django gets buffed.

Unknown

I completely understood how to use maxed 3* characters, don't you worry for me. I just don't want to pay a fortune to perform in events that bring nothing exciting. And I do not anymore. Same for many other guys right now.

You play the devil's advocate and try to counter argue each thread that criticizes the D3P strategy (how impartial can you then be ?). I think there is a conflict of interest since IceIX is in your alliance and acknowledging D3P is wrong in their strategy would not be so good.

If you feel normal that a forum has turned into a general bashing of the company who produces a game which criticizers pay for, I don't think it is. It is symptomatic of something going wrong.

But how could you criticize a game that you do not feel the need to support financially when you just try to treat people who are angry against the current system as dumb guys who do not know what they are talking about.

I started the game at the same time you did. So our history is the same (I thought you were older in the game).

Let me remind you when you told me Patch was damn good. I hadn't maxed him. Once that was done, he was truly damn good.

I'm sorry that you can't share the same experience because you choose not to invest in this game. A level 25 Patch is not so fun to use.