Because if there’s no spender, how can this game survive or how f2p players keep playing this game for free? Right?
F2P are the ones who keep.the game alive.
You keep telling yourself that.
I've played online massively multiplayer progressional games where everyone was a spender. The last time I played an online progressional game where no one spent it was Islandia, it was text based, I was still connecting to the internet with a hijacked SLIP tunnel connection bounced off the University of Colorado's library, and I was thinking about a document floating around at the time written by a dude at CERN for this thing he was calling a "web" of "hypertext."
F2P games are built upon a social trade. The trade goes like this: we'll let free to players play the game for free, and in exchange some of them will eventually convert into spenders. The reason why F2P games need a lot of F2P players is not because they need a lot of F2P players. It is because only a tiny fraction will go on to spend enough money to support the game, so we need to capture a ton of them to get the small percentage of spenders hidden within them.
Having a lively game with a lot of players is something that a game wants to have so having a lot of F2P players has secondary benefits. But want to have is secondary to revenue, which is the need to have.
I’ve got all 6 stars except the ones in the next featured. Why are ppl being so sarcastic against spenders. Because if there’s no spender, how can this game survive or how f2p players keep playing this game for free? Right?
Unless you just bought that account yesterday, you know how strong your roster is. So you aren't asking for an honest evaluation. You're asking for validation. And when it comes to validation, nobody cares what you have, they care how you got it. People share luck, they share openings from completing content, and if they start new accounts they share progress. These are all things the majority of the players can get behind.
There's nothing wrong with someone who has everything because they bought everything. but far fewer people cheer on spending, because spending is not a spectator sport. It is a thing 97% of the players of the game either will not or even cannot practically do. It is just a flex, and while there is a time and place for flexing, some self awareness is required to pull it off.
Comments
I've played online massively multiplayer progressional games where everyone was a spender. The last time I played an online progressional game where no one spent it was Islandia, it was text based, I was still connecting to the internet with a hijacked SLIP tunnel connection bounced off the University of Colorado's library, and I was thinking about a document floating around at the time written by a dude at CERN for this thing he was calling a "web" of "hypertext."
F2P games are built upon a social trade. The trade goes like this: we'll let free to players play the game for free, and in exchange some of them will eventually convert into spenders. The reason why F2P games need a lot of F2P players is not because they need a lot of F2P players. It is because only a tiny fraction will go on to spend enough money to support the game, so we need to capture a ton of them to get the small percentage of spenders hidden within them.
Having a lively game with a lot of players is something that a game wants to have so having a lot of F2P players has secondary benefits. But want to have is secondary to revenue, which is the need to have.
There's nothing wrong with someone who has everything because they bought everything. but far fewer people cheer on spending, because spending is not a spectator sport. It is a thing 97% of the players of the game either will not or even cannot practically do. It is just a flex, and while there is a time and place for flexing, some self awareness is required to pull it off.
0/1000000000000000000
U don't have the Chair