 |
View Old Forum Thread
Old Forum Index » Sim Forums » Baseball Enhancements » adopting the new online business model
Jughead
The newest wave of online games are free to play, but you can pay for upgrades to make the game easier/better. FarmVille of course is a leader, but in a more relevant comparison, MLB Dugout Heroes does this too. These games do not have a free and pay version that run in parallel.
As backward as it sounds, usability is not the main concern here. I read in the trial boards sometimes that people wish they could keep their teams (albeit because of the 1950 draft code, which is going away anyway, I understand). The user will slowly EXPECT to start with a free team that can be upgraded if they so choose. It could be something like buying CPs or, once the salary cap stuff is automated, actually paying for contracts.
Every new player on this site will increasingly have a larger percentage of his online experience in this free-to-play business models, and it can increasingly make the structure here seem more obsolete. Does this make sense?
This would be easiest to implement with some new leagues, although gauging interest from other users is key, especially from newer users, the ones most likely to be looking for this. This idea may yet be a few years ahead of its time, but it is always good to look to the future.
And the part I am least comfortable with: If we -- AT SOME POINT NOT NOW -- made this site wide, then the current amount people pay would get you the same setup you have now, but paying more/less would get you more/fewer CPs, draft picks, what have you. This business model rewards good GMs, who would have to pay less for CPs and draft picks because they would not need them. (I suppose when the draft comes out people could actually bid real money for the draft picks, and the rest of the game could be free. It would certainly put a new spin on trading, but really this should be completely separate suggestion. And treating draft picks as free agents was how it used to be done before the amateur draft, and if every team had the same amount of money to bid -- this is using the setup we have today where all the teams are equal -- it would be a different skill altogether.)
This is not without issues. Teams could put no money into their team to end up with the worst record, but then they would need to pay for CPs and/or draft picks at some point. How self-correcting that is is hard to figure.
This is not a suggestion to dismiss out of pocket. Clearly it's a huge shift, but it is important to think of these things while you're still relevant as a business. Someone else will think of it otherwise. (And maybe there is already a baseball sim that does this.) Has this been considered for SD Football? Might be easier to start with something new.
adopting the new online business model
April 14, 2010 at 02:14PM View BBCode
I don't even know that I would like this, but it is something to consider.The newest wave of online games are free to play, but you can pay for upgrades to make the game easier/better. FarmVille of course is a leader, but in a more relevant comparison, MLB Dugout Heroes does this too. These games do not have a free and pay version that run in parallel.
As backward as it sounds, usability is not the main concern here. I read in the trial boards sometimes that people wish they could keep their teams (albeit because of the 1950 draft code, which is going away anyway, I understand). The user will slowly EXPECT to start with a free team that can be upgraded if they so choose. It could be something like buying CPs or, once the salary cap stuff is automated, actually paying for contracts.
Every new player on this site will increasingly have a larger percentage of his online experience in this free-to-play business models, and it can increasingly make the structure here seem more obsolete. Does this make sense?
This would be easiest to implement with some new leagues, although gauging interest from other users is key, especially from newer users, the ones most likely to be looking for this. This idea may yet be a few years ahead of its time, but it is always good to look to the future.
And the part I am least comfortable with: If we -- AT SOME POINT NOT NOW -- made this site wide, then the current amount people pay would get you the same setup you have now, but paying more/less would get you more/fewer CPs, draft picks, what have you. This business model rewards good GMs, who would have to pay less for CPs and draft picks because they would not need them. (I suppose when the draft comes out people could actually bid real money for the draft picks, and the rest of the game could be free. It would certainly put a new spin on trading, but really this should be completely separate suggestion. And treating draft picks as free agents was how it used to be done before the amateur draft, and if every team had the same amount of money to bid -- this is using the setup we have today where all the teams are equal -- it would be a different skill altogether.)
This is not without issues. Teams could put no money into their team to end up with the worst record, but then they would need to pay for CPs and/or draft picks at some point. How self-correcting that is is hard to figure.
This is not a suggestion to dismiss out of pocket. Clearly it's a huge shift, but it is important to think of these things while you're still relevant as a business. Someone else will think of it otherwise. (And maybe there is already a baseball sim that does this.) Has this been considered for SD Football? Might be easier to start with something new.
happy
The reason why there has been widespread success of this business model is largely because this business model is a perfect fit for a very specific market: idiots. Simdynasty is for the most part a thinking man's game, this model will not work.
Furthermore, any game that allows for you to use real money to get fake money in the game is not actually a game, its a scam, and a waste of energy.
April 14, 2010 at 02:43PM View BBCode
This is the stupidest business model ever.The reason why there has been widespread success of this business model is largely because this business model is a perfect fit for a very specific market: idiots. Simdynasty is for the most part a thinking man's game, this model will not work.
Furthermore, any game that allows for you to use real money to get fake money in the game is not actually a game, its a scam, and a waste of energy.
DwightKSchrute
April 14, 2010 at 02:59PM View BBCode
If this were implemented I would leave the site.
Admin
It's an interesting concept, if you spent like $5 / month you'd have all the CPs/ICs you have now, but if you spent $0 you'd be far behind but still be able to participate at some level.
It would probably make it easier to find paying customers because you could sucker people in to some degree. Sure, it's completely free sign up and play. Then when they realize that they need to spend a little money to get over the hump, they're already a fan of the game.
I think it works better in larger MMORPG worlds where you have hundreds or thousands of people playing in the same world. Have you seen sites with smaller worlds do this sort of thing yet?
Tyson
April 14, 2010 at 03:11PM View BBCode
I've participated in games that operate using that model, but have not seriously considered it for Sim Dynasty.It's an interesting concept, if you spent like $5 / month you'd have all the CPs/ICs you have now, but if you spent $0 you'd be far behind but still be able to participate at some level.
It would probably make it easier to find paying customers because you could sucker people in to some degree. Sure, it's completely free sign up and play. Then when they realize that they need to spend a little money to get over the hump, they're already a fan of the game.
I think it works better in larger MMORPG worlds where you have hundreds or thousands of people playing in the same world. Have you seen sites with smaller worlds do this sort of thing yet?
Tyson
happy
thats exactly how it works. And the reason why it only works on idiots, is that the general gaming public sees your scheme within 5 minutes of joining the site, and when they see that you have implemented this pay scheme, they instantly leave the site.
This is how almost every other RPG sports type site out there is. Thats why I have never played another game like simdynasty.
April 14, 2010 at 03:19PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Admin
It would probably make it easier to find paying customers because you could sucker people in to some degree. Sure, it's completely free sign up and play. Then when they realize that they need to spend a little money to get over the hump, they're already a fan of the game.
thats exactly how it works. And the reason why it only works on idiots, is that the general gaming public sees your scheme within 5 minutes of joining the site, and when they see that you have implemented this pay scheme, they instantly leave the site.
This is how almost every other RPG sports type site out there is. Thats why I have never played another game like simdynasty.
redcped
I've had a team for several seasons and don't pay a cent. It doesn't affect my competitiveness as a team.
I also played one of those "free" MMPORG games where you build your cities, fight other players, make alliances, etc. If you don't spend any money, you are at a real disadvantage. I spent some, not a lot, but enough to make myself more competitive. Some folks spent $100 a month.
Bottom line for both is that in one case it is possible to enjoy the complete regular game without ever paying (not a great business model) and in the other it is not particularly feasible to win without paying and players are rewarded for spending more and more. Not a business model this site should use, either.
I've always kind of felt that Tyson has the right balance here.
April 14, 2010 at 03:50PM View BBCode
I play a basketball sim called BuzzerBeater that is ostensibly free. "Supporters" get to do a few extra "cool" things, but I'm not even sure what they all are. Some look interesting, but the money isn't worth it, like being able to place my team in an extra private league.I've had a team for several seasons and don't pay a cent. It doesn't affect my competitiveness as a team.
I also played one of those "free" MMPORG games where you build your cities, fight other players, make alliances, etc. If you don't spend any money, you are at a real disadvantage. I spent some, not a lot, but enough to make myself more competitive. Some folks spent $100 a month.
Bottom line for both is that in one case it is possible to enjoy the complete regular game without ever paying (not a great business model) and in the other it is not particularly feasible to win without paying and players are rewarded for spending more and more. Not a business model this site should use, either.
I've always kind of felt that Tyson has the right balance here.
khazim
Honestly, who wants to play a game and make the hard decisions here that would be thwarted by the first 16 year old with daddy's credit card who essentially buys a championship caliber team?
April 14, 2010 at 04:07PM View BBCode
I could see maybe adopting this to "pay" for cosmetic changes, like customized non-trademarked team logos/team cities or extra customization of stadiums, but beyond that anything you could adopt a micro-payment model for would have too much impact on the game, ruining competition.Honestly, who wants to play a game and make the hard decisions here that would be thwarted by the first 16 year old with daddy's credit card who essentially buys a championship caliber team?
DwightKSchrute
[Edited on 4-14-2010 by DwightKSchrute]
April 14, 2010 at 04:14PM View BBCode
Seems like you'd also be opening yourself up to dealing with a lot more fraud investigations as this model would be much more open to the above problem.[Edited on 4-14-2010 by DwightKSchrute]
Jughead
None of these responses surprise me. People don't like change. However, unless you're Coke or Wal-Mart, it is more viable to attract new customers than to keep existing ones. What I would like to hear are comments from newer players. Is it worth it to you to pay more to make the learning curve less steep?
OK, that's enough devil's advocate out of me.
April 14, 2010 at 04:38PM View BBCode
I played a hockey sim for a while that had this setup too, but I can't remember what it's called. I didn't stop because of the business model. I stopped because I play hockey. I play SD because I suck at playing baseball.None of these responses surprise me. People don't like change. However, unless you're Coke or Wal-Mart, it is more viable to attract new customers than to keep existing ones. What I would like to hear are comments from newer players. Is it worth it to you to pay more to make the learning curve less steep?
OK, that's enough devil's advocate out of me.
khazim
1 season = $10.00
5 seasons = $45.00
10 seasons = $80.00
20 seasons = $140.00
basically the more you buy at once the more you save. Anything beyond this would be problematic.
April 14, 2010 at 05:12PM View BBCode
A payment model that woudl fit this site woudl be something like (these are only rough examples)1 season = $10.00
5 seasons = $45.00
10 seasons = $80.00
20 seasons = $140.00
basically the more you buy at once the more you save. Anything beyond this would be problematic.
celamantia
The only "small pay" model I see being workable is having multiple levels of trial leagues. Imagine having three tiers of "trial" league: level 1, which is completely free, and a level 2, where you pay a nominal fee like $1.99 per league or an annual fee of what, $29.99 for unlimited Level 2 play. Level 1 trial leagues would run 3 half seasons like they do now, level 2 would run more, say 6 half-seasons or something like that. The big hook for paying that nominal fee to get into a Level 2 trial league would be that you would be playing against other competitive owners... you wouldn't have the huge dropouts that level 1 leagues face. And, if you came in in the top, say, 2 places in a trial league in Prestige Points (I know PP aren't kept for trial but they can still be calculated for this purpose), you would earn a free Level 2 ticket. Finally there could be a Level 3 running 9 seasons that you could only get into by earning Level 3 tickets winning a Level 2 league, and the winners of the Level 3 might win D$ to get into a pay league. So it would be worthwhile to chuck $1.99 into a league for a chance to win an entry to the paid leagues, but those who do pay in will be on a level playing field with those who earned their way into Level 2 by winning at Level 1.
(This is similar to the way some "freeroll" online poker tournaments run: A free entry to a tournament that is a qualifier for a tournament that is a qualifier for a tournament with a prize. You can buy in at the higher levels directly but it is possible to win the final prize from a free entry.)
[Edited on 4-14-2010 by celamantia]
April 14, 2010 at 05:31PM View BBCode
Khazim: We actually do allow for logo customization for a nominal fee.The only "small pay" model I see being workable is having multiple levels of trial leagues. Imagine having three tiers of "trial" league: level 1, which is completely free, and a level 2, where you pay a nominal fee like $1.99 per league or an annual fee of what, $29.99 for unlimited Level 2 play. Level 1 trial leagues would run 3 half seasons like they do now, level 2 would run more, say 6 half-seasons or something like that. The big hook for paying that nominal fee to get into a Level 2 trial league would be that you would be playing against other competitive owners... you wouldn't have the huge dropouts that level 1 leagues face. And, if you came in in the top, say, 2 places in a trial league in Prestige Points (I know PP aren't kept for trial but they can still be calculated for this purpose), you would earn a free Level 2 ticket. Finally there could be a Level 3 running 9 seasons that you could only get into by earning Level 3 tickets winning a Level 2 league, and the winners of the Level 3 might win D$ to get into a pay league. So it would be worthwhile to chuck $1.99 into a league for a chance to win an entry to the paid leagues, but those who do pay in will be on a level playing field with those who earned their way into Level 2 by winning at Level 1.
(This is similar to the way some "freeroll" online poker tournaments run: A free entry to a tournament that is a qualifier for a tournament that is a qualifier for a tournament with a prize. You can buy in at the higher levels directly but it is possible to win the final prize from a free entry.)
[Edited on 4-14-2010 by celamantia]
celamantia
The huge difference with Farmville is that in Farmville, people aren't directly playing against each other. It's more like SimCity where it's just about building up. Personally, I'm amazed it works in Farmville but I have a friend who regularly buys Farmville Cash. I agree that the business model is not to be dismissed outright, as Zynga pulls in some $200 million a year, but I don't think it maps well to a serious simulation. Farmville falls in to the category of "casual gaming" where I think that model works particularly well.
Perhaps if there was a "Sim Dynasty Lite" that was played on Facebook and was more of a "caricature" of the game (think Blitz: The League), then I could see something like that working, but it wouldn't be real baseball, sort of a Baseball-themed Facebook RPG.
No, but I have considered using the multi-level model I mentioned in my previous post.
--Chris
April 14, 2010 at 05:44PM View BBCode
Originally posted by Jughead
The newest wave of online games are free to play, but you can pay for upgrades to make the game easier/better. FarmVille of course is a leader, but in a more relevant comparison, MLB Dugout Heroes does this too. These games do not have a free and pay version that run in parallel.
The huge difference with Farmville is that in Farmville, people aren't directly playing against each other. It's more like SimCity where it's just about building up. Personally, I'm amazed it works in Farmville but I have a friend who regularly buys Farmville Cash. I agree that the business model is not to be dismissed outright, as Zynga pulls in some $200 million a year, but I don't think it maps well to a serious simulation. Farmville falls in to the category of "casual gaming" where I think that model works particularly well.
Perhaps if there was a "Sim Dynasty Lite" that was played on Facebook and was more of a "caricature" of the game (think Blitz: The League), then I could see something like that working, but it wouldn't be real baseball, sort of a Baseball-themed Facebook RPG.
Has this been considered for SD Football? Might be easier to start with something new.
No, but I have considered using the multi-level model I mentioned in my previous post.
--Chris
Jughead
April 14, 2010 at 05:45PM View BBCode
I'd like that. And it leaves the speed/private/dynasty leagues alone, too.
happy
Especially those willing to pay 30 bucks for a level 2 ticket, I could see owners running a considerable number of level 2 and 3 teams and never paying another cent to the site, while also increasing the bandwidth usage of the site.
April 14, 2010 at 06:17PM View BBCode
Cel - your idea is cool, but as people can have unlimited teams, that means unlimited level 2 tickets, and subsequent unlimited level 3 tickets, and thus unlimited dollars.Especially those willing to pay 30 bucks for a level 2 ticket, I could see owners running a considerable number of level 2 and 3 teams and never paying another cent to the site, while also increasing the bandwidth usage of the site.
celamantia
Increasing site usage increases ad views so that's not necessarily a bad thing. But I can certainly see limiting the number of level 3 leagues an owner can play at once. A Level 3 league, at 3 games per day, would 9 months to play out and only one person would get the prize at the end, so if someone was limited to, say, no more than 4 Level 3 leagues at once.
Let me think about this more... hmm. A trial season takes about a month to complete, so a Level 2 league last six months. Part of the point of this is that paid owners should care more about their teams, but I see what you are saying: once someone buys in for "unlimited" Level 2, then the incentive to care about each league stops. If the limit was at, say, 5 Level 2 teams, then only 10 Level 2 leagues could be completed in a year, and at that rate you'd be better off buying them $1.99 at a time.
So an "all you can eat" approach may not work here, and $1.99 for 6 months of play (albeit half-season play) may be too little.
But I still think the general idea may be sound, even if the season length/league length/pricing logistics need more thought.
April 14, 2010 at 06:33PM View BBCode
Originally posted by happy
Cel - your idea is cool, but as people can have unlimited teams, that means unlimited level 2 tickets, and subsequent unlimited level 3 tickets, and thus unlimited dollars.
Especially those willing to pay 30 bucks for a level 2 ticket, I could see owners running a considerable number of level 2 and 3 teams and never paying another cent to the site, while also increasing the bandwidth usage of the site.
Increasing site usage increases ad views so that's not necessarily a bad thing. But I can certainly see limiting the number of level 3 leagues an owner can play at once. A Level 3 league, at 3 games per day, would 9 months to play out and only one person would get the prize at the end, so if someone was limited to, say, no more than 4 Level 3 leagues at once.
Let me think about this more... hmm. A trial season takes about a month to complete, so a Level 2 league last six months. Part of the point of this is that paid owners should care more about their teams, but I see what you are saying: once someone buys in for "unlimited" Level 2, then the incentive to care about each league stops. If the limit was at, say, 5 Level 2 teams, then only 10 Level 2 leagues could be completed in a year, and at that rate you'd be better off buying them $1.99 at a time.
So an "all you can eat" approach may not work here, and $1.99 for 6 months of play (albeit half-season play) may be too little.
But I still think the general idea may be sound, even if the season length/league length/pricing logistics need more thought.
Jughead
April 14, 2010 at 06:44PM View formatted
You are viewing the raw post code; this allows you to copy a message with BBCode formatting intact.
Perhaps a dynamic pricing model could be used.
CCondardo
I think it is a great idea to give people a free season (in a dynasty league) if they win a trial league. This might actually help people make that jump from trial to dynasty.
I can imagine someone saying "might as well try the pay league now since it is free for a season." Most people are going to then play 1 season, get addicted, and turn into a paying customer. If they don't feel like doing the pay league after they have experienced it for a season, they most likely never will play.
It might even be interesting to let an owner win a free season a certain amount of times. I would limit a specific franchise to only use a free season once. Meaning the Boston Red Sox of the Albert Puljos League can only use the free season voucher once. But the owner of that team could go use it on one of his other pay teams.
This might give trial leagues more vets to help out with newbs. It could even give a more "pay league" feel to league. You could have 2-3 vet owners in there trying to win a free season. I know I might try to win a WS if I could get a free season. If I was allowed to do that say 10 times, I might try to do it. As we all know winning a WS with only 3 seasons in a trial is not easy, so it wouldn't be very easy to cheat the system...Currently I would never do a trial league so this at least gives me a reason to THINK about it..
~Corey
April 14, 2010 at 10:59PM View BBCode
I like your level idea.I think it is a great idea to give people a free season (in a dynasty league) if they win a trial league. This might actually help people make that jump from trial to dynasty.
I can imagine someone saying "might as well try the pay league now since it is free for a season." Most people are going to then play 1 season, get addicted, and turn into a paying customer. If they don't feel like doing the pay league after they have experienced it for a season, they most likely never will play.
It might even be interesting to let an owner win a free season a certain amount of times. I would limit a specific franchise to only use a free season once. Meaning the Boston Red Sox of the Albert Puljos League can only use the free season voucher once. But the owner of that team could go use it on one of his other pay teams.
This might give trial leagues more vets to help out with newbs. It could even give a more "pay league" feel to league. You could have 2-3 vet owners in there trying to win a free season. I know I might try to win a WS if I could get a free season. If I was allowed to do that say 10 times, I might try to do it. As we all know winning a WS with only 3 seasons in a trial is not easy, so it wouldn't be very easy to cheat the system...Currently I would never do a trial league so this at least gives me a reason to THINK about it..
~Corey
happy
April 15, 2010 at 04:22AM View BBCode
I couldnt imagine that the extra clicks for an owner with a million level 2 teams could possibly make up for the extra infrastructure costs.
cubfan531
April 24, 2010 at 11:47AM View BBCode
I do like the trial league idea, being that it doesn't give any sort of performance enhancement to those who pay more. If it were something along the lines of CP's, IC conversion, IC's given, ect, it'd ruin the balance here. People who couldn't afford to pour money into their teams constantly would become the low-payroll teams of SimD (Royals, Pirates, Rays, A's). And the only way managing one of those teams is fun is if it's a salary cap league, and you enjoy winning for half the cash of everyone else.
StevenSmith
money in the game is not actually a game, its a scam, and a waste of energy.
May 08, 2013 at 07:03AM View BBCode
Sure any game that allows for you to use real money to get fakemoney in the game is not actually a game, its a scam, and a waste of energy.
Jughead
(BTW, this original idea sure would have made a difference, revisiting three years later. I love this game, but you can't say we've been growing.)
May 18, 2013 at 06:47PM View BBCode
Ha, he quoted Happy in his quest to spam. That's not irony. That's just awesome.(BTW, this original idea sure would have made a difference, revisiting three years later. I love this game, but you can't say we've been growing.)
Pages: 1