MrChapeau
Posts: 31
1/3/2015
|
I want to buy Fallen London, and I'll pay you a AAA retail price to do it.
Why can't I pay you a lump sum to play your game how I see fit and enjoy the narrative on my terms?
I love story games. I love Sunless Sea. I don't love 20 turn increments.
As you advance from needing to start up and get going to being "found out" and noticed, I think your flagship product's business model is starting to hold it back.
I want to pay you to enjoy your prose and imagination. But I don't want to do it on a browser for 20 minutes at a time. In fact it's so torturous to try to do so that myself and many others that are right in your target audience are unable to pay you for your product.
I love your product. Please sell it to me.
|
|
|
0
link
|
CulturalGeek
Posts: 79
1/5/2015
|
I've taken a bunch of allergy medicine that tells you not to operate heavy machinery, but my laptop is a Surface Pro so I'm probably fine typing this. Maybe. I hope.
I'm a game dev - mostly big studio, not indie. I've been working in the "game exists and is updated forever" genre for about a decade. One game I worked on has been operating continuously for well over ten years now (creeping up on fifteen), another recently shut down after five years. When you're sub, there's always someone who comes along to tell you you'd be better off Free To Play with Microtransactions. When you're FTP, people always say they'd like to pay a flat price, or a sub. There is literally no revenue model that will make every potential customer happy, but if you DO transition between models, it's best to do it slow and careful while keeping your existing users happy (I know some producers who could do you a lovely powerpoint about user retention vs. acquisition). There's some interesting demographic inside baseball that the bigwigs use to figure out whether to go Box+Sub, Box Only, or FTP at launch, and whether you should transition later. But FBG has figured out a monetization scheme that a lot of people in the biz would consider borderline miraculous.
You can't really compare the business model for retail/episodic games with always online, always changing, updated frequently games. They're very different models, and the kinds of studios that produce them are different.
So far, nobody has come up with a consistently profitable "buy a box and then pay again for any expansions" model that can sustain a game for as long as Fallen London & the Echo Bazaar have existed. You can argue that Guild Wars did it, but the original GW was known for being pretty much dead outside of PvP between box releases. GW2 decided that model was fundamentally unsustainable for a number of reasons, and did some different things as a result, with a model that kind of encourages a virtual subscription.
If there's one thing the last decade of game industry analytics has taught us, it's this: nothing kills an "updating forever" game faster than being easy to "finish." Adding a PvP or PvE endgame that requires hundreds of hours of personal investment and goals which are (almost by definition) out of reach of the vast majority of players is the most common "fix" for this. Most successful "perpetually online" games in the last decade have had SOME manner of time gating to their content, whether it's raid lockouts, daily grinds, action limits, or what have you. Nobody likes 'em, but they have positive side effects on the community.
Box + DLC just does not have the revenue longevity of FTP+MT or subscription. The box+maybeDLC revenue model frequently involves CONSTANT LAYOFFS and COPIOUS WEEPING. Long-term streams from MT or subs give a studio some hint of stability, which is why so many corps keep dumping buckets of cash chasing the online dragon even when the vast majority of MMOs or browser games ultimately fail.
When I started Fallen London, I felt similarly antsy: I wanted to play more than 20-40 actions at a time. That is FOR SURE a problem, and I'm pretty sure Failbetter is aware of the issue. But there are a lot of less risky fixes that could ameliorate that problem without a complete business model shift, ways to give new players more flexible actions and more freedom without disrupting the overall pace of the game. For instance, I know that Storynexus's bones would allow for a much larger action bank. If they kept action refresh at the same rate but let you bank 1-200 rather than 20-40 (and started new players at a hundred), that might increase the feeling of freedom while still time gating a bit. Or maybe give out a bunch of "action refresh" items to new players that can only be used early on. None of these would eliminate time-gating altogether, they'd just dull its sting for newer players.
Is there a way to eliminate all time-gating from an investment/reward structured game without destroying or disincentivizing the kind of return visits and loyalty that provide stable revenue streams? Nobody's found one yet. If somebody came up with one it would revolutionize the entire industry. I know a half dozen studios who have done relevant experiments, and five of them no longer exist. That's the risk/reward you're looking at here: maybe someone will figure it out someday and get insanely rich, but if you try and fail you may end up losing everything.
I don't know if any of this is even helpful. I've had to simplify quite a lot just to prevent it from turning into a scholarly essay on modern monetization strategy. I'm getting really drowsy, so I'd probably better go to sleep. Hopefully some of this was useful.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/CulturalGeek
|
|
|
+21
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
1/3/2015
|
re: the last laugh
The thing is, you know, those industry consultants are right. Content takes a lot of work and time to make, but also, you can't just hire twenty writers and sell twenty times as much of it. It has to fit into what's there already. It doesn't scale, so we'll never be rich, but like I say, safety first, profit last, and we've found our niche with you guys.
re the Gift and its impact
The Gift was encouraging because it got a rave response although the economic impact was minimal. Economic impact is always difficult. A small reward leaves some players disappointed, but a large reward overshadows the actual point of the story. With the Gift, we just did the very best job we could - and applied some extra QA, editing and review processes we've worked up - and hoped people would like it for the narrative more than the rewards (though it still has unique rewards, just not big economic effects). The clear response we've seen, and what I'm seeing again on this thread, is that people like that approach
re EFship and small amounts of monthly content
This is good to hear - thanks, folks! In the past it was basically impractical to provide a steady monthly stream of regular content, but a slightly larger team and a better process may now make that possible. You'll have noticed that Fallen London has had a lot of updates over the last few months.
re big spenders - Random Walker's point earlier -
We do have our share of, ah, articularly exceptional friends, some of them legendary, but for the record, we're less big-spender-dependent (Adam and I loathe the term 'whale') than many free-to-play games - because our monetisation mechanisms are so much less aggressive. It is a consideration, but the bigger consideration is that even a modest amount adds up if a player sticks around for the long term. And we're interested in the long term.
|
|
|
+16
link
|
CulturalGeek
Posts: 79
1/5/2015
|
Another monetization/gating sidebar I thought of while drifting off last night: ungated progress in any game with an economy leads to the original EverQuest. This is going to get a little MMO-specific inside baseball, but I hope it'll offer some insights.
Consider these resources: time, skill, and money. These are all things that games can reward you for, and a lot of modern games reward you for all of them.
Cookie Clicker is a pure "time" game. The longer you play it, the more cookies you have. Yes there are some choices as to what to upgrade, but the main gameplay is "spend time, numbers go up."
Street Fighter is close to a pure "skill" game. Be good and win. But in some ways, skill is linked to time: you gain skill by practicing, by doing research, by memorizing combos. While some people may be more inherently talented, nobody is born highly skilled in fighting games.
There are scads of microtransaction games that are maligned as "pay-to-win" with varying levels of accuracy, so I'm not going to call out anything specific here. I will say that this is actually a very popular and deliberately designed game type in several specific markets.
Things get more complicated when you get into an online shared world where resources are accumulated (we call this an economy). At this point it's a challenge to ensure that the person who can play twelve hours a day every day doesn't just completely overshadow the player who wants to play an hour a day, or four hours on the weekends... the dedicated player should have more, but the difference shouldn't be so overwhelming that it makes the more casual player feel like they can't do anything cool. In games with skill-based combat, you also want to reward people who are proficient in that. And in games with direct monetary expenditures, you want them to be worthwhile but not unbalancing.
At one point, I was in a WoW raid that was one of the top 50 in the US. Almost everybody in the raid had a full time job, so we raided "only" 3-4 days a week, 4-6 hours a night. Every other raid group in our tier was on a 5-6 days a week schedule, but we made up for that with better skill and coordination. This was only possible because time-based content gating existed. Let's say we played 20 hours a week. During that time, we spent 10 hours farming bosses we knew how to kill and 10 hours practicing new bosses. Raid lockouts are a form of content gating that prevent someone from "farming" the same boss more than once a week. So we could maintain a similar gear level to our rivals by just playing those ten hours. Some of our rivals were playing 40 hours a week. In a game without limits to what a given player can do in a week, our rivals could have spent their extra 20 hours farming and surpassed us in gear handily.
Fallen London is different, of course. There's no twitchy-skill component to balance, and players aren't really in direct competition. The Haves aren't parading around the Have Nots in their super impressive armor, but many of the same principles still apply: if you don't limit the number of times you can do X per day or week, you have to design with the person who will play twelve hours a day every day in mind. He exists, he always exists, and he'll be a huge influence on your economy if you let him.
A side note: when time equals money/progress/xp, it actually disincentivizes players from reading. Often if I'm questing with a friend in an MMO I'll get yelled at for taking the time to read the NPC dialogue. In this modern day of mods and FAQs and wikis, reading can be seen as wasteful, because that's twenty seconds that could have been spent getting more xp/gold/whatever. In MMOs, the efficient player does not read, so modern games have been designed to be played with minimal reading, which hurts my heart. It hurts my heart SO BAD, you guys. There are people who read and we put as much stuff as we possibly can in for them, but when time is money, reading suffers.
As a result, the Venn diagram of "games where most of the players read a lot" and "games that have an economy" doesn't overlap very much. In a shared world with unlimited, untimed "actions," a player who reads will always progress more slowly than a player who skips, so the words you put in front of them have to be worth falling behind for. If the player encounters too many non-worthwhile words in a row, they'll just skip everything from then on and there's nothing you can do to win them back.
This is why most of the reading-focused games we see these days are single player adventures where everyone gets their own little universe. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, Walking Dead, The Wolf Among Us... we're in a golden age for those kinds of games. At the same time, the studios making them are PRECARIOUS. Dragon Age 2 was released early for budgetary reasons, and people could tell it wasn't quite ready. Double Fine had to lay off a crop of people a few months ago when a single project got cancelled. These are the BEST American and Canadian storytelling studios, and neither of them are really secure. That insecurity is the entire reason Bioware is owned by EA at this point... it offers them some small semblance of a buffer.
Interactive economies and shared worlds keep players coming back. They make them roll alts. Few people wax rhapsodic about the economy in an online game, but it's a secret lifeblood. It causes some problems when time you spend reading is really time you could have spent accumulating, creating a weird tension between the two.
Limited actions are such a simple and clean way to reconcile these things. As long as it doesn't take you more time to read than it takes an action to refresh, you're not really sacrificing any efficiency by reading. Reading doesn't make you fall behind in Fallen London. That's HUGE. It's practically alchemical.
Economies and persistent worlds give a studio a kind of security not found anywhere else in gaming. They create a home and family for players. The fact that Failbetter has managed to create one where words are a draw not a distraction is... borderline miraculous from the perspective of a lot of industry assumptions.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/CulturalGeek
|
|
|
+14
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
1/5/2015
|
Ewan: we want to do a couple of parallel blog posts on FL and SS sales figures, because it's been so useful when other indies have shared. You're likely to see those after SS has left Early Access, when we have final figures to show.
Edit: Green is my favourite colour.
edited by babelfishwars on 1/5/2015
|
|
|
+12
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
1/5/2015
|
Chapeau, I left your comment in the moderation queue because it was mostly a copy-paste repost of the one here; and I'm afraid the correct response to the one here was the one you got, that you need to reread my original post.
1. Riskier or more short-term strategies mean a chance of greater profit. Focusing on the long term means more modest profits. We're a boutique business; I've no interest in being Henry Ford.
2. We have different products that address different audiences. It is safer and wiser to expand our range with other premium projects than destroy our existing audience for a successful product.
3. I am confident that unless SS is a runaway hit, FL will make us the same or more revenue over the next five years (although less next year). Many indies would kill to have cash flow as steady as ours right now.
4. Genuine life advice. If you find yourself lecturing a business owner on an *obvious* way they could make *much* more money... stop and think about whether they really haven't thought about it. We have data, we've talked to other indies, we've talked to our audience. We are confident that very few of the 90% of players who don't pay would pay a AAA price, and even if they did then we would lose money in the long term.
This thread has been an interesting and useful discussion. Thanks for beginning it, but please don't keep making the same points: if you are in fact right, then I'm too blind to see.
Edit: (hopefully) helpful combining posts edit.
edited by babelfishwars on 1/5/2015
edited by Alexis on 1/5/2015
|
|
|
+10
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
1/5/2015
|
Ewan C. wrote:
[The offhand '90% of players pay' in the comment preceding the one I am quoting
oh, wow, that was a typo I'm going to blame on our so-called moderator. 90% of players *don't* pay. If 90% of our players paid on FL, I would have nicer shoes.
|
|
|
+9
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
1/3/2015
|
Yup. People ask us about this from time to time, and I thought it would be useful to have something to link to.
http://www.failbettergames.com/why-is-fallen-london-still-free-to-play/
|
|
|
+9
link
|
babelfishwars
Administrator
Posts: 1152
1/4/2015
|
MrChapeau wrote:
Meanwhile, while they rework the system don't you think they'd keep the current one up doing what it's doing
But stop releasing the new content that gets/keeps people paying? Stop supporting it? FL takes time and money to maintain and support regardless of new content. And if you look at the SS combat debates - running two concurrent versions is unfeasible. Won't happen.
a larger audience is itching to pay him for his superb products. "a larger audience" = you? Bearing in mind they have to take into account the risk of losing all the people who love and pay for the current model - the 'larger audience' has to not only compensate for that but be greater than that, and somehow have the same longevity (how would they keep selling it in 5 years time?). It's a huge gamble.
Confirmation bias applies to yourself, also.
I started playing Fallen London *because* it was a browser based turn limited thing - it kept me company in a miserable job. Perhaps were it less niche it'd be lost among the mass of 'normal' games.
Anyway - 'the man' has been spoken to, and the man has responded. They've considered it, weighed the pros and cons, and would prefer to improve the current model than create a new game with similar content. I'm cool with that - an improvement on something I already like a great deal is much more promising to me than something I might not enjoy one bit. Woo for me, boo for you. ;-)
--
Mars, God of Fish; Leaning Tower of Fish
|
|
|
+9
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
1/4/2015
|
Thanks, folks, for a clutch of interesting and positive responses!
"when I want to play something like Sunless Sea, well, I play Sunless Sea."
Exactly this. By making other kinds of game with other kinds of model, we can expand the Failbetter audience without risking Fallen London, and keep different eggs in different baskets.
As it happens, I would like to put out a small, self-contained piece of FL choice-based interactive fiction some time this year, as an experiment, and as a bit of a break after Sunless Sea (and I'd be interested to hear you folks' thoughts on that).
"boxes of Extra Stuff"
We're still developing and investigating this - there may be news soon.
>opportunity cards
No promises, but we are in fact discussing an increased op deck flow into the Exceptional Friend offering.
edited by Alexis on 1/4/2015
|
|
|
+9
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
1/5/2015
|
Sir Frederick Tanah-Chook wrote:
Sure, every time FL pops up on Rock Paper Shotgun or wherever, there's a few folks who say "I love the concept but I don't like playing F2P webgames."
I have a very specific and familiar wince for exactly that, and a matching wince for whenever someone says 'I gave up, too grindy'. And there's a lot of room for improvement in FL (every time I go back to our five-year-old UI, now, I have a very specific third wince. Some of that stuff is placeholder.) But we have a unique magic that I don't want to kill, and a community (that's you, people) that does us proud. We want to grow that community, not replace it. I'm looking forward to making more box games, but FL is our home town.
|
|
|
+7
link
|
Alexis Kennedy
Posts: 1374
1/5/2015
|
This thread continues to deliver! Thanks, CG.
CulturalGeek wrote:
The box+maybeDLC revenue model frequently involves CONSTANT LAYOFFS and COPIOUS WEEPING.
It's worth mentioning that when I tweeted my blog post, I got a heartfelt positive response from a guy who used to run a (good, innovative) indie dev studio that went out of business last year.
CulturalGeek wrote:
For instance, I know that Storynexus's bones would allow for a much larger action bank. If they kept action refresh at the same rate but let you bank 1-200 rather than 20-40 (and started new players at a hundred), that might increase the feeling of freedom while still time gating a bit. Or maybe give out a bunch of "action refresh" items to new players that can only be used early on. None of these would eliminate time-gating altogether, they'd just dull its sting for newer players.
We did well out of increasing the action bank size. Our data and our intuition both suggest to us that doubling it again would take us past the point of diminishing returns, and people would get bored of repeatedly clicking the same button. Now we have such a giant amount of content in the bank, would be to add more variety early on - which is much harder, but it's something we're much better at now.
We're also finding ways to improve the UI, to answer questions - esp for newbies - like
- what should I do now?
- what's all this Rostygold good for?
- Phosphorescent what now?
- what was I doing again?
...so people can navigate the landscape better. But our FL UI guy is currently very busy on Sunless Sea, so that's been on hold.
|
|
|
+6
link
|
CulturalGeek
Posts: 79
1/6/2015
|
From what I know about the bones of Storynexus (and assuming FL works similarly enough), it could be entirely possible to add options to individual cards that would remove them, either temporarily or permanently. The question is, would doing that be more worthwhile than making new cards?
Personally, I like the idea of an option that removes a card until Time, The Healer comes around. That way you'd still have to SEE a card to remove it and it'd never be truly gone. Some pesky cards could take more actions to cull, or require a resource. What if giving that moron of a painter double what he asked for in jade actually got him to leave you alone for a week?
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/CulturalGeek
|
|
|
+5
link
|
Hannah Flynn
Administrator
Posts: 491
1/5/2015
|
Sir Frederick Tanah-Chook wrote:
Really, there's nothing quite like Fallen London. It's carved out this weird little niche at the centre of the Venn diagram mapping fans of webgames + speculative/horror fiction + modern English literature + world history + queer issues + fancy hats.
This is so spot on, Fred. Can I quote you on Tumblr? 
--
Wields the news canon, aboard the hype train.
|
|
|
+5
link
|
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3493
1/5/2015
|
This has been a fascinating discussion to follow. I am trying to imagine taking a five-year-old semi-social web game (presumably even older by the time the content is completely complete, if that ever happens) and repackaging it as a standalone game (with, I can only assume, circa 1990 RPG style gameplay) with a AAA or even indie pricetag. Sure, every time FL pops up on Rock Paper Shotgun or wherever, there's a few folks who say "I love the concept but I don't like playing F2P webgames." Is that group larger than the current playerbase? Hell if I know; could just be the same bloke over and over again. But, well, if any game's actual fanbase were really dwarfed by the hordes of wannabe customers ready to lay down cash and held back by just one element, well, surely we'd notice. For a start, there'd be rival games sucking up all that unclaimed capital.
Really, there's nothing quite like Fallen London. It's carved out this weird little niche at the centre of the Venn diagram mapping fans of webgames + speculative/horror fiction + modern English literature + world history + queer issues + fancy hats. It's hard to imagine that the one secret to making Crazy Riches would be to replace this with a Venn diagram mapping fans of 1990-style RPGS + speculative/horror fiction + modern English literature + world history + queer issues + fancy hats... then subtracting everyone who already fit in the first diagram and doesn't want to pay for it again.
You know... I can't even imagine Fallen London qua Fallen London working as a standalone title. The dynamism its online status brings - the constant updates, the proximity to the developers, is such a large part of its character. Sunless Sea works because its standalone status was baked in from day one. Maybe Fallen London could have been developed as an offline game from the start, except it couldn't, because A: it wouldn't have had the capital, and B: without the experimentation and feedback years of being played online has brought, it wouldn't be the game it is.
On a personal note, well, I've said this before, but if additional Exceptional Friend content or even, dare I speculate, a second standalone spinoff is announced, I will be there with a fancy hat adorning my blowhole.
--
Sir Frederick, the Libertarian Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
|
|
|
+5
link
|
Kade Carrion (an_ocelot)
Posts: 1372
1/4/2015
|
(I know I keep saying it, but if I could bank more than 6 cards as an Exceptional Friend I would be REALLY REALLY happy.)
--
Social Actions: send them to Kade Carrion (she/her; no Tournament of Lilies, please). an_ocelot has gone NORTH and cannot benefit from social actions!
Possibly-Useful Things: Spreadsheets and hints and link collections, oh my.
|
|
|
+5
link
|
Snowskeeper
Posts: 575
1/4/2015
|
MrChapeau wrote:
Snowskeeper wrote:
MrChapeau, your business model relies on them rewriting their entire game to be feasible as a pay-to-own game. That would mean they'd have to do nothing but that for over a year. In the meantime, they'd go bankrupt.
So no, your model does not allow them to "grow the pie."
Mr Kennedy's prerogative is his. It's not for me to tell him what to do with his business. I am merely making the case that I'm not alone in not being offered a product I want to buy.
Meanwhile, while they rework the system don't you think they'd keep the current one up doing what it's doing, and then I presume offer the new version of the game for free to people who have bought a certain amount of nex or more... *rolls eyes*
I understand that nobody likes the idea of something they love changing, not that this is ever going to happen, but yeesh. FB are making SS happen, no?
In reality most people engage in confirmation bias. You guys don't want to see something you love change, and Mr Kennedy perhaps doesn't want to spend a substantial portion of time rewriting something he's already spent a great deal of his life on.
Who am I to tell him he is wrong to move on to the next thing? I'm just trying to speak to the man and tell him a larger audience is itching to pay him for his superb products.
Failbetter has been working to make the system less grindy for a very long time, now, and Fallen London fans have been generally supportive of the vast majority of their choices. Reactions of that sort are not characteristic of an audience or developer averse to change. Trust me; I know the difference. I've spent seven years of my life trying to put up with the massed horror of the Runescape fanbase whenever Jagex did something even marginally innovative, and I've played a few of the last five Call of Duty games.
You're asking them to add yet another massive project to the pile of stuff they already have to work on--a project that will more than double their existing workload if they continue to put out content while working on it. And neither they nor the majority of their fanbase feel that it's a necessary change. That's still not a viable option.
I strongly recommend rereading the blog post Failbetter provided you with to explain why they haven't chosen to do what you're asking them to. I'd also like to point out that many of the players who've spent some money on action refreshes--say, five dollars--will be totally turned off by a $60 price tag, and that the market for expensive text-based games is incredibly small.
--
S.F., a midnight midnighter and invisible eminence. Impossible to locate them, personally, but there are dead drops and agents.
|
|
|
+5
link
|
friendshipranger
Posts: 274
1/4/2015
|
Thanks Dr. Chapeau for bringing this up, and thanks Alexis for the great post. I have a suggestion about EFriendship. I dig the 40 action pool- that's cool- but it would be nice to be able to choose between that and adding 1 or 2 more cards per hour. Not card spaces, like lodgings provide, I mean like upping the refresh rate from ~6 per hour to maybe ~8 or 9. That's around half what you get for spending 3 NEX to replenish your Opportunity cards, so in the short term it doesn't replace refreshes and doesn't interfere with the income flow from that. But it would feel good over the long run, and would make me feel like Mister Chimes was helping me do battle with the evil wiles of the RNG.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/J.L.%20Moriarty
|
|
|
+4
link
|
dismallyOriented
Posts: 215
1/4/2015
|
I fear that not even the Masters can combat the wiles of that infernal--no. Not infernal. The RNG bends not even to Hell. But we shall see if perhaps the Masters could strike a deal. After all, we all know how skilled they are at that.
|
|
|
+4
link
|
RandomWalker
Posts: 948
1/3/2015
|
While I would love for this to be an option, I can't see it happening.
Free to play games work by having relatively well-off regulars give money for perks and extra content while the majority of the players spend very little, or nothing at all.
The income is disproportionate - most of the money comes from a small handful of people, 'whales', who give far, far, more than the cost of a AAA title every year. If FB said: pay £60 and you get everything (or even £60 / year), then they would take a massive hit on their income - they'd lose the whales, and not get enough sales from everyone else to make the game cost-effective. It also removes incentive to continue to create new content. It's just how these games work.
It would also devalue all the effort that people have put into the game up until now.
Don't think of the game as a AAA title. Think of it as an MMO. Think monthly subscriptions, exceptional friend. Think of regular events, and difficult grinds, to keep people coming back. The opportunity deck and actions are built into the game from the top down, and cannot be removed from the game without killing it.
edited by RandomWalker on 1/3/2015
|
|
|
+4
link
|
dov
Posts: 2580
1/5/2015
|
Alexis Kennedy wrote:
We're also finding ways to improve the UI, to answer questions - esp for newbies - like
...
- what was I doing again?
I know this probably won't happen due to complexity, but this, combined with a journal rework could be amazing not only for newbies. I'm thinking of a feature which storifies the individual character's past actions (see storify.com for an example). We all know the limitations of the current journal system. I'd love to be able to go to a real and intelligent journal, which will show the story of my character in context (even just using snippets and not the full texts).
--
 Want a sip of Hesperidean Cider? Send me a request in-game. Here's an_ocelot's guide how.
(Most social actions are welcome. Please no requests to Loiter Suspiciously and no investigations of the Affluent Photographer)
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Mirrorhouse
Posts: 38
1/6/2015
|
As a casual player I have to say I enjoy how FL works immensely. I bought SS because I love FL, but it turns out SS is not a type of game I enjoy at all. I left it to grow mold in my programmes folder...
Main reasons I love FL:
It's well written, wide open sand box.
I can play it anywhere, on any device.
It can't be played continuously for too long, which allows someone with no self control some time to sleep, and keeps me from becoming completely bored with it.
Basically it's for casual gaming. If it becomes like a real game then it's too demanding for me. I like FL largely because it's a browser game.
New contents and seasonal events keep me coming back.
P.S. on money matters, I have paid for my main account a number of times. I used to subscribe, which is great for more intensive periods of playing, which I don't do now. I do still keep nex around for some fate-locked stories I feel inclined to try. I appreciate that most FL contents are free. If the devs fate-lock a lot more contents I think it may discourage people. Some people who love indie games may have a tendency to dislike anything that feels 'corporate' or very profit-driven. If much of FL is in the paid content then it could put people off.
edited by Mirrorhouse on 1/6/2015
edited by Mirrorhouse on 1/6/2015
--
Here lies Sylvester Stardust Mirrorhouse
May they rest in peace
|
|
|
+4
link
|
thedeadlymoose
Posts: 214
1/6/2015
|
This whole thread is fascinating to read.
As a side note, I am still relatively new, so forgive me if I say silly things!
I haven't been able to pick out quite what the alchemy of Fallen London is that has driven me to jump so far into the deep end of playing, to regularly draw cards on my phone, to regularly spend money on it over everything else that's non-essential when I have never spent money on a F2P game and probably never will again. Certainly, given that 90% of players do not pay, it's an alchemy not replicated for everyone!
The initial nearly unique thing is present and increasing queer-friendliness... the caring about diversity of fandom and character... race, sexuality, gender, it's so endlessly strange in the best way to see fiction that's closer to binary gender parity than almost anything I read, and while I wish for more non-binary characters, the fact that there are any and that I can play one -- play a person like myself in a fantasy game -- is glorious to the point of heartbreak.
The player community is similarly very friendly in such ways, which I don't even get in my home community most days.
And the writing is amazing, as everyone says. I'm still busy being gobsmacked by the 12 Days of Sacks content. (Oh, that black card. Oh. Oh.)
Regarding the actions, it's also kind of a benefit that I can't binge myself out on it, even with an EF subscription and an alt. The limits mean I can pretty much fold Fallen London in with other things I normally do. Yes, some of my friends have quit FL because of the action cap. But on the other hand, with the cap removed, I wonder if I wouldn't just binge myself out and quit. Who knows.
Plus the sheer interest in player feedback from the developers is really cool! 
I am also super excited about the potential changes, and I also count myself lucky to have joined the community when new content started being fairly regularly released.
I love the idea of giving content snippets for EF types, and increase op card deck flow (though I know there are no promises).
And I won't lie, I'm also reaching a point of frustration with the op deck limits, and the difficulty (and strangely outsized benefits) of removing certain cards, and suchlike. I kinda wish you could unlock improvements to the op deck the way you can have more cards in your hand! But I have no clue about feasibility of that.
I would also love to see Fallen London interactive fiction! I am not fully sure what was meant by that, but it sounds exciting regardless.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/profile/Eris~Jay
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/profile/Red~Rose
|
|
|
+4
link
|
Caninicus
Posts: 68
1/11/2015
|
If we're talking about possible mechanic changes in the future, I wonder how feasible it would be to have an option for fewer actions available in exchange for a larger bank of actions?
I would like more actions, of course, I imagine nearly all of us would. However, I do not have internet access throughout the day, and even with exceptional friendship, I often must go 8-16 hours or more without it, not counting traveling. A tradeoff for a slower gain of actions in exchange for a larger number of candles or something would be beneficial to me.
I've never brought it up before, because I don't know if it would be viable for enough other paying FL players or feasible to accomplish with Failbetter's resources. But since the topic is here already, I thought that I might as well pitch it.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Caninicus
Editor of the Daily Thesis. Proud owner of one starveling cat. Will accept most social actions except loitering.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Aximillio
Posts: 1251
1/4/2015
|
Personally, I'm pretty fond of the pacing. While I too enjoy games with higher speed, I think some of the most fun with a game is the time you *don't* play it, but instead think about it. When I only get this much actions in a set amount of time, I'm paying much more attention when I'm playing; and I also get to have a life otherwise as well. You might be right that it would be economically smarter to have a higher-paced game and more pay-to-win, but that's just not the game I'd like to play.
--
Possibly returned after a long hiatus. Please do not send live rats or tournament requests.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Zeel
Posts: 257
1/4/2015
|
MrChapeau wrote:
In reality most people engage in confirmation bias. You guys don't want to see something you love change, and Mr Kennedy perhaps doesn't want to spend a substantial portion of time rewriting something he's already spent a great deal of his life on.
Personally, I would like it to change. I'd like a version of the game where you don't have to wait for actions. However, given how the game is built, I see it as unfeasible and I enjoy the game as it is. As another fan, I'd MUCH rather new content to a reworking of the current one, especially since the issue that Failbetter has mentioned previously of people just reading everything then leaving is likely. If Failbetter were to make an Open-World title or something, that would be one thing. But changing this system, not worth the costs.
--
http://www.fallenlondon.com/Profile/Zeel - Zeel, also known as the Hollow Hellion. A soulless, heartless, empty individual who will only deal with those who are advantageous to him.
http://www.fallenlondon.com/Profile/Jass The Sly Socialite, or the Devious Rogue, depending where you see her. Jass lives a double life, alternating between the God-fearing, popular socialite and one of the many crime-lords of London.
IF YOU WANT A PARABOLAN KITTEN please send me a social engagement or menace reduction to either account, preferably not Coffee at Caligula's.
|
|
|
+3
link
|
Snowskeeper
Posts: 575
1/3/2015
|
MrChapeau, your business model relies on them rewriting their entire game to be feasible as a pay-to-own game. That would mean they'd have to do nothing but that for over a year. In the meantime, they'd go bankrupt.
So no, your model does not allow them to "grow the pie."
--
S.F., a midnight midnighter and invisible eminence. Impossible to locate them, personally, but there are dead drops and agents.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Snowskeeper
Posts: 575
1/5/2015
|
It was incredibly helpful! If you have time, later, I'd be very interested in seeing a longer blog post or summat on this subject.
--
S.F., a midnight midnighter and invisible eminence. Impossible to locate them, personally, but there are dead drops and agents.
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Kirr
Posts: 44
1/5/2015
|
Alexis Kennedy wrote:
As it happens, I would like to put out a small, self-contained piece of FL choice-based interactive fiction some time this year, as an experiment, and as a bit of a break after Sunless Sea (and I'd be interested to hear you folks' thoughts on that).
I would definitely consider it - depends what it was. It would have to have a story hook, and not be just "here is another addition to FL", because there's a lot of worldbuilding I haven't explored in FL so I'm not particularly interested in buying something separate just for more lore and atmosphere.
I would be more likely to buy something with a narrower, story- and character-based focus. My favourite storylines in FL have been things like the Wry Functionary and the Secret of the Plaster Face (I also intend to buy the Reluctant Soldier one at some point) - I feel you have a gift for writing compelling characters that I want to know better, but the nature of the game means you're never very closely tied to any of them, and you can't make meaningful long-term allies of them or get more than a handful of scenes with them.
I loved the brief Clay Man and monster hunter comic that didn't get printed in the end - I would definitely have bought that in interactive form. Colourful characters, compelling goals, the feeling we'd be with someone on a journey that lasted more than a handful of storylets. Sunless sea is very unforgiving and doesn't reward you getting attached to people; I would really like something with allies, with friendship, with other characters we can care about without having to fill in all the details of the story in our heads.
I think you'd have to sell it to me as "character with a specific compelling problem in a specific environment" in the blurb, rather than the atmospheric blurb of the main game. (On the other hand, you may surprise me!)
Edit: Well, that formatting didn't work. The top paragraph is Alexis' post.
Edit: Bored at work. Sorry, I'll behave. - Babel
edited by babelfishwars on 1/5/2015
|
|
|
+2
link
|
babelfishwars
Administrator
Posts: 1152
1/5/2015
|
Alexis Kennedy wrote:
Ewan C. wrote:
[The offhand '90% of players pay' in the comment preceding the one I am quoting
oh, wow, that was a typo I'm going to blame on our so-called moderator. 90% of players *don't* pay. If 90% of our players paid on FL, I would have nicer shoes.
I'm ILL. Be nice to me or I'll ... I'll... go on a non-moderating rampage. I'll ... encourage people to say rude things, such as: POOT!
--
Mars, God of Fish; Leaning Tower of Fish
|
|
|
+2
link
|
Snowskeeper
Posts: 575
1/5/2015
|
Alexis Kennedy wrote:
- what's all this Rostygold good for?
I have no respect for anyone unable to figure that one out. Obviously, one is expected to hide it under one's bed and whisper secrets of violence and misdemeanor and night, when the gas lamps burn low and the Bazaar hums.
--
S.F., a midnight midnighter and invisible eminence. Impossible to locate them, personally, but there are dead drops and agents.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Diptych
Administrator
Posts: 3493
1/5/2015
|
!!! :C
...oh, the OTHER so-called moderator! Carry on!
But seriously... okay, not -that- seriously... it just struck me that Monsieur Hat is advocating that Failbetter shift away from offering a very affordable, relatively no-frills product, in favour of an expensive, all-frills product, and justifying it with specific reference to the success of the affordable, no-frills Model T Ford. Not quite sure about that logic there. Of course, the Ford Motor Company later had to bring out the Model A in response to public demand for expensive luxury automobiles, so, damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess? I'm not sure the metaphor entirely holds up. Plus, Henry Ford was a contemptible Nazi. Sharing the pie between capital and labour? The man used slaves to produce war machines for the Axis. He was a leading racist and anti-labourist in an era already rich in human latrines.
(I was amused to discover, in the course of fact-checking this rant, that one of Ford's associates was called "Childe Harold Willis." I like to imagine that his siblings were called Young Werther Willis, Jane Eyre Willis and Barnaby Rudge Willis.)
--
Sir Frederick, the Libertarian Esotericist. Lord Hubris, the Bloody Baron.
Juniper Brown, the Ill-Fated Orphan. Esther Ellis-Hall, the Fashionable Fabian.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Rupho Schartenhauer
Posts: 787
1/5/2015
|
Sir Frederick Tanah-Chook wrote:
But seriously... okay, not -that- seriously... it just struck me that Monsieur Hat is advocating that Failbetter shift away from offering a very affordable, relatively no-frills product, in favour of an expensive, all-frills product, and justifying it with specific reference to the success of the affordable, no-frills Model T Ford. Not quite sure about that logic there. Of course, the Ford Motor Company later had to bring out the Model A in response to public demand for expensive luxury automobiles, so, damned if you do, damned if you don't, I guess? I'm not sure the metaphor entirely holds up. Plus, Henry Ford was a contemptible Nazi. Sharing the pie between capital and labour? The man used slaves to produce war machines for the Axis. He was a leading racist and anti-labourist in an era already rich in human latrines.
(I was amused to discover, in the course of fact-checking this rant, that one of Ford's associates was called "Childe Harold Willis." I like to imagine that his siblings were called Young Werther Willis, Jane Eyre Willis and Barnaby Rudge Willis.)
I'm so glad you were able to explain this in a reasonable voice. I actually had to put a restraining order upon myself yesterday when I read Mr Chapeau's original post. Had I written an answer, there would've been a lot of strong language in it, and this forum deserves better!
Here's an excellent article about Mr Ford, for those who are interested:
http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-71ce-Henry-Ford-a-life-not-for-celebrating#.VKq_dXv-kXh
And no more shall be said about him here.
--
Rupho Schartenhauer has killed a Master, well: most of it.
Cortez the Killer has killed a Master, definitely.
Deepdelver has become the progenitor of London's brightest star. It's... complicated.
Dr. Kvirkvelia, gone NORTH on 23/12/1894.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
CulturalGeek
Posts: 79
1/4/2015
|
The RNG seems to be the biggest source of frustration, apart from the grinds. Making certain opp cards pinned storylets for Exceptional Friends (perhaps a varying selection per month) would be a huge draw, or even creating repeatable story chains with new text that summon a functional equivalent of the desired card at the expense of some actions.
As a newish player (assuming newish players are still something of a focus), I think I'd also benefit immensely from some story-meets-tutorial style content that helps me figure out some of the more obtuse mechannics. For example, I just opened Wilmot's End, I'm trying to get strong-backed labor, and I need Dramatic Tension. How do I get that? Who knows?
Well, the people HERE know, of course, and I'll end up asking them. But I have three readerly-and-writerly friends who, when I mention FL, say that they played it long ago, then got kind of stuck and quit. They're not the types to end up on a message board or to use asks on tumblr, so they couldn't find the help they needed. Personally, I've kinda had to repeatedly risk spoilers in order to figure out how to progress with even a modicum of efficiency. You may say that efficient play isn't really a priority, but when one feels directionless, one tends to start to lose interest.
A fate-locked storyline that is a combination of a tutorial/exposition fairy and a potential companion/spouse would be incredible, and appeal to both old and new players. Or you could start it out as a non-fate-locked tutorial-style NPC, whose extra services and benefits can only be unlocked by exceptional friends. Perhaps themed as someone who is indebted to the bazaar, so they know more about it but have less agency, and you can only reliably see them at the House of Chimes. The end game being freeing them from their debt/getting some patsy to take their place, so they can then become your spouse or companion.
One of the things I like most about the optional sub + microtransactions model is that they have so many potentially delicious interactions, and can be balanced for multiple playstyles.
It... may be obvious that I've worked on MMOs before, huh?
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/CulturalGeek
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Fhoenix
Posts: 602
1/5/2015
|
Alexis Kennedy wrote:
The Gift was encouraging because it got a rave response although the economic impact was minimal.
I just hope new content either does not add any more cards, or for every card added you will remove some old card. From an end game point of view having one more card that gives 1.3 echo (or any other 1-3 action reward) is actually a demerit, not a bonus. And end game players are interested in trimming their deck not growing it. It is concerning that as the deck grows it's getting harder and harder to get the card you want.
But I get why the reaction is so encouraging to you) For me, I always new that FB writes good stories, so no surprise there)
edited by Fhoenix on 1/5/2015
--
My Character
|
|
|
+1
link
|
dismallyOriented
Posts: 215
1/3/2015
|
You also presume that maximizing profits is their endgoal. Mr. Kennedy himself has stated that profit-seeking isn't the company's first priority. Their model works and suits their goals.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
doctor wolfram
Posts: 61
1/4/2015
|
By the way, while this has almost nothing to do with the current conversation, could you please move the aunt story? I'm sick of it chewing up cards.
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/doctor~wolfram-school2
|
|
|
+1
link
|
babelfishwars
Administrator
Posts: 1152
1/3/2015
|
Argh. My reply didn't send.
I think, from my limited knowledge of storynexus, what you're asking for is near impossible anyway. They'd have to completely rebuild how it works. I suppose they could do something like a sunless sea build, and use fallen London content, but I suspect it would take as long as creating a new game without the constraints of pre existing content. I'd rather they made another completely new game, or a boat load of new content, than worked on a delivery mechanism for stuff much of which I've already seen.
Which I suppose ties into my preference, as an old player I'm always going to care more about fresh content than a new wrapper...
edited by babelfishwars on 1/3/2015
--
Mars, God of Fish; Leaning Tower of Fish
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Dom_Delouise
Posts: 76
1/3/2015
|
Yes, thank you! It's so exceptionally nice to have such a responsive and engaged dev team. <3!
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/Dom_Delouise
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Grove
Posts: 38
1/3/2015
|
Rupho Schartenhauer wrote:
So, giving EF more value would be exactly the right move: currently, there is hardly any incentive for those players (like me) who've been around for years and have played it all (sometimes repeatedly) to subscribe for more actions when, most of the year, there is not much to do with these actions (except grinding for Cider etc. which is not everyone's cup of tea). But a guaranteed steady trickle of new content for EFs would, I think, persuade the larger group of those seasoned players who've already spent Fate in the past (and some of those who haven't done so yet) to make their EF subscription more or less permanent.
Completely agree. I recently let my EF subscription lapse for this reason, but will happily renew it if there will be steady, albeit even small amount of new content.
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/grove
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Ewan C.
Posts: 675
1/4/2015
|
Add me to the roster of those interested in the economics that allow FBG to be viable (and interested in maintaining that situation!).
I've certainly spent far more on Nex than the cost of any other computer game I have ever bought (kudos, FBG!); and I am cognizant of the many posts noting that even very small Nex amounts are seen as significant burdens. So I was surprised to read from Alexis that the income-stream is not as bimodal as I would have predicted. If there are data whose sharing would not harm FBG, I think that they would be fascinating to examine.
[And I should reflect at some point on how much is too much to pay, really. Hmm. It's a lot of words, sure; but so are second-hand novels, and much cheaper ]
A further vote, too, for the proposed new EF model. Only ever paid for EF once, to experience the House of Chimes; more actions per se don't do it for me, but more content likely would.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
An Individual
Posts: 589
1/4/2015
|
I just want to throw my 2 cents in and say that I like the current system and the idea of including a steady trickle of premium content in Exceptional Friendship. I like the path you're on. Thumbs up all around.
In slightly longer terms, every time I try to picture how a removal of the timed action system in Fallen London would work I end up at Sunless Sea. Infinite actions would destroy the pacing (I do feel the forced spread of story advancement over time adds something) and when I want to play something like Sunless Sea, well, I play Sunless Sea. No system is perfect, and while some things can occasionally be frustrating (curse you RNG and your fickle nature!) the system still works quite well.
--
An Individual's Profile
The RNG giveth and the RNG taketh away.
Goat Farming or Cider Brewing? This browser extension may help.
Want a Cider sip? Please refer to this guide before requesting.
Scholaring the Correspondence? A Brief Guide to Courier's Footprint.
Contemplating Oblivion? First Steps on the Seeking Road.
Gone NORTH? Opened the gate? Throw your character in a well.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Flyte
Administrator
Posts: 671
1/13/2015
|
Caninicus wrote:
If we're talking about possible mechanic changes in the future, I wonder how feasible it would be to have an option for fewer actions available in exchange for a larger bank of actions? This is unlikely to happen, for a few reasons. The biggest is that we have a very large list of things we'd like to add to or change in Fallen London, and all else being equal we'd rather prioritise ones which will make the game better for a majority of players.
Another reason, though, is that we already offer something which helps with this: Exceptional Friendship. Fallen London is very lightly monetised, and we're proud of that, but we'd need to be really convinced of the benefits to the player base before allocating scarce development time to something that would make Exceptional Friendship less attractive. (It has happened: long-time players may remember that the price of Exceptional Friendship was lowered when we removed daily action caps.)
|
|
|
+1
link
|
lady ciel
Posts: 2548
1/13/2015
|
How about just including Darkdrop Coffee as a possible reward from Bundles of Oddities? Or giving everyone access to the Caligula's Coffee House card.
--
ciel
Sorry RL means I am not a very active player at the moment. No social actions unless you are prepared to wait and definitely no sparring or other mult-action things.
No Calling Cards or boxed cats please. Will take dupes on the affluent photographers. Other social invitations welcome. Parabolan Kittens usually available, send me an in-game social action saying you want one and I will get one to you as soon as possible.
storynexus name - reveurciel
|
|
|
+1
link
|
An Individual
Posts: 589
1/14/2015
|
I'm actually pretty happy with the way EF works at the moment, and I'm one of those people who is around a computer all day and as a result doesn't use the extra candle that often. At a minimum it gives you an extra 20 actions each day (assuming you sleep a semi-normal amount) and if you are need to login on a more spaced out schedule it helps you even more. That extra breathing room on action usage was actually my original reason for paying for EF.
I'm not sure what increasing the refresh rate of actions or cards would do to the game's pacing but it would certainly increase the pressure to login frequently and use your actions and while I probably wouldn't drop EF over that it's not really what I wanted to get out of it. I could get behind increasing the number of undrawn cards you can bank but even that I would only take so far. I'm much more interested in the idea of including a small but stead of feed of EF locked content than in further altering the game mechanics with it.
--
An Individual's Profile
The RNG giveth and the RNG taketh away.
Goat Farming or Cider Brewing? This browser extension may help.
Want a Cider sip? Please refer to this guide before requesting.
Scholaring the Correspondence? A Brief Guide to Courier's Footprint.
Contemplating Oblivion? First Steps on the Seeking Road.
Gone NORTH? Opened the gate? Throw your character in a well.
|
|
|
+1
link
|
RandomWalker
Posts: 948
1/14/2015
|
Not sure it's in keeping with the original intent of the revised thread, but how about a fate-purchasable object to temporarily lower stats? It's hardly pay-to-win, but I know I'd buy one. It'd allow people to revisit old content, or more easily finish the last grind to max stats, but I don't think it would be massively unbalancing...
The Mantrap (Weapon)
You have deliberately put your handing into the working trapjaws of a mantrap. It hurts, it's distracting, the chain is very noisy, and dripping blood on the carpets is simply not done in polite society. People start to question your sanity.
-100 Dangerous, -100 Watchful, -100 Persuasive, -100 Shadowy, +1 wounds, +1 Nightmare, +1 scandal, +1 suspicion
|
|
|
+1
link
|
CulturalGeek
Posts: 79
1/15/2015
|
I think exceptional friends getting more content is a good priority too, but from a game design perspective, it's always good to see if something can solve two problems. Too many times I've seen a project say "ok, we need to continue plotline #27 and make a new dungeon. Team 1, work on content for plotline #27! Team 2, make a dungeon!" The idea of having a single team make a dungeon that simultaneously illuminates or references the story you want to develop doesn't always occur to people.
That's why I kind of like the idea of new Exceptional-friend-only options on older or unwanted cards: in my mind, these convenience improvements wouldn't be just functionality-based, they'd all be tied to some new storyline or character. (I have this whole idea about making friends with the concierge at the House of Chimes and as you get to know them better you can decide what services they offer you and some of their major story junctions could require free evenings and at first you're just after utility but eventually you start to... sorry, I think I have to go have a bit of a lie-down.)
edited by CulturalGeek on 1/15/2015
--
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/CulturalGeek
|
|
|
+1
link
|
Ben
Posts: 657
1/6/2015
|
If you think about it... we've already seen card removal by subset.
Look at the remote location homes, that's what they /are/.
The opportunity cost of those is that you can't use a 4 or 5 card lodging while in one.
Lets think in similar terms for how it could likewise be done for other sets of cards.
A home furnishing that while it was active, closed a set of cards, perhaps? Awarded in an event to keep the number of them lower, so it has to be sought out, not just gotten without notice. By making it a home furnishing you've required that the person be a POSI, and thus have played long enough to be aware of what this represents. Third, by having it be a piece of equipment, the step in troubleshooting "take off all of your items and furnishings" would solve it.
--
The wind has no destination.
http://fallenlondon.storynexus.com/Profile/IcountFrom0
|
|
|
+1
link
|