Now, is it worth it to me to purchase it? No. But that’s because I don’t want all the stuff it includes. I may end up buying one or two additional weapons, but that’s about it. I’d be shocked if my total expenses in NML exceed fifteen dollars.

By the way, for what it’s worth…VEEMEE’s not trying to deliberately hoodwink anyone by not showing the comparison stats. Trust me on that. It’s worth noting that NML isn’t the only Home game which doesn’t show you comparative damage ratings. Cutthroats (which, yes, I hold up as an example of how to do things wrong) didn’t show you damage stats, either, so you had to go strictly off of price differential. And keep in mind that I *want* games to show me comparison stats; it’s much more conducive to sales if I know what I’m buying first.

Constructive feedback (positive *and* negative) can have an impact. We’ve seen it before in Home. Remember that godawful Konami video in the Jetsetter Apartment?

The thing to keep in mind is that what’s also studied is sales data. Much as x7 is rather unpopular here at HSM, the seven-day pass (which is the single worst way, economically, to gain access) has cracked the top-ten sales lists for the last two months. So everything has to be factored in.

A developer may not always overtly announce their presence, such as with responses to comment threads (even though it’s super cool when they do), but they’re watching. And taking notes.

I would also like to hear a lot more from the people who are actually playing the game now -- both those with and those without the controversial $50. package.

Your example of a hypothetical $100,000 car is irrelevant; as you pointed out at the bottom of your comment, the forum thread deals with a fifty-dollar commodity, not a fifty-dollar game. Thus the behavioral economics need to be examined in accordance with what’s actually being offered. If NML itself cost fifty dollars to play, that example would hold up. However, it doesn’t require that kind of money to play, nor does it even require anything close to that money to achieve a tactical advantage. As little as $1.49 for an upgraded firearm, in the hands of a skilled player, can make a huge difference.

This is not to suggest that the game does not have issues with balancing, or is using a perfect freemium commerce model. HearItWow and Liza have already touched on several excellent points in that regard. This has specifically to do with the outrage that a developer would dare to offer a fifty-dollar commodity in Home. I think a lot of frustration regarding the game’s commerce model is feeding *into* the invective about the premium pack, but if we exclude the flaws in the game’s balancing for a moment, the *pricing* is actually very reasonable.

With regard to behavioral economics: what Home developers should keep in mind is that the PSN is free, Home itself is free, and nearly every game in Home is free to at least access. And when studying the games which consistently and blatantly generate huge revenue — Midway and the Casino — a strong case can be made that the easiest way to pull large sums of money out of a sufficient number of people is to bleed them through microtransactions. This neatly avoids any cost comparisons to disc-based games, and a lot of users never bother to add up how much they’ve actually spent.

The catch with such a model is that it tends to be reliant on limited-use items, rather than permanent power-ups. Cutthroats could have duplicated the same success as the Casino and Midway, but they got greedy and wildly overpriced their goods (which is where your example of the market kicking them out becomes apropos).

Personal opinion: a good, full-scale game in Home is worth about fifteen to twenty bucks. You can potentially get more than that (along with a more normal distribution) if you go the microtransaction route with low-priced, limited-use goods, whereas permanent power-ups require a different pricing scale — most notably, one or two high-priced commodities which will sell in low numbers to the most-engaged percentage of users enjoying the game. Which is exactly what VEEMEE did. And it makes perfect sense.

It’s not the first time you mention Zynga in one of articles. A good, well thought example. But theres one difference. NML is a PsHome based game. Thats where the human factor change the deal. On a regular online base the player sit alone in his living room. On home you have friends… Wich means, social pressure from peers. You remember that I said shooters are the most competitive type of games? Competition and Social pressure are two incentives that push the power distribution up.

I first logged on home 2 days after the outtage. So the store was close… for about a month. I didnt planned to spent money there anyway Found this neat old school game called Novus Prime, met friends, rest is history. I make it to the top rank on free stuff(Cptn, lvl 20 back then). Sure I was slow as hell. Had to leave neb balls behind sometimes, but i was able to “fly with the guys”. In a coop game like Novus, if I can kill the ennemy faster, everyone benefit from it. I’ve helped many “non-gamer” at Novus.One of them is “my girl” She made it to 11 on All time and spent ($) much more than the market value on that game.

You like bell curves and power distribution? I love them
You can apply power distribution to hours played too. Hardcore players spend way much time playing then casual one. They are more competitive and more skilled too.(Thats one thing. Yes skills is probably better than $. But usually the best players also buy good armor.) So aplly all the power distribution… Only an infenetisimal portion of PsHome user buy that premium bundle. But most of PsHome user are not interested in shooters anyway. So of the small amount of players a fraction buy the bundle. But they are the hardcore portion, the one who play the most… Wich means theres a good chance i’ll face one. Especially at 4h00am..

I could go on and on.. but my gf is hitting me!
No making profit isnt evil. Banks also found a quick way to make profits a couples years ago remember? Hardcore capitalism aint holy. Last time i checked the thread was named “A $50 outfit..” Not “A $50 game..” Yes VEEMEE have the right to try that. Peoples have the right to complaints too

I read many cheerleaders say “you dont HAVE to buy it”. I have only basic 101 knowledge on marketing. But i’m pretty sure saying that is not a good strategy.

gotta go. keep up the good work!

The Veemee staff might be in need of tissues when a misguided marketing strategy causes their blockbuster game to bomb.

This is the approach that Granzella has very successfully used with Great Edo and Southern Island. Buying upgrades provides clear advantages to the user, and in the case of the new Ninja gear, customizes the game experience to the player’s preferred style. That’s ultimately what Veemee is striving for with the different weapon types, but as you pointed out, Norse, there’s no indication of what they do.

The rage over the $50 package may have been misdirected but a lot of the blame still rests on Sony/Veeemee. First of all, the package wasn’t even listed properly in the store. Then, it failed to include all the items for people who did buy it. The outrage was largely out of confusion, not cleared up on the Forum until the next day. If they want to start selling premium-priced bundles, they’d better get the listing and transaction right at the very least.

The other problem over the $50 package was their analysis of the intended audience. The casual Home gamers accustomed to microtransactions were shocked to see anything in the store for that much money. The hard-core gamers were appalled that people could buy themselves onto the leaderboard with disproportionately powerful equipment. Again, Veemee’s fault there.

Just a poor rollout of a mediocre game.

No, my unusually sharp invective has to do with the knee-jerk rage reactions to the fifty-dollar bundle. My god, the way people bleated about that, you’d think VEEMEE was out massacring civilians in Darfur. It was creating this false notion that someone had to pay fifty bucks to have any hope of playing the game effectively, which just isn’t true. The rest of the game’s commerce model is a completely different topic, and HearItWow laid out some excellent points.

One small point worth mentioning: Salt Shooter (which I’ve made no secret of extolling as the thing that hooked me on Home, and I consider to be one of the most remarkably well-structured games Home still has to offer) *did* have a method of monetizing right up front: purchase an outfit to unlock forty-five more game levels. I wouldn’t have objected at all to No Man’s Land being deployed with only one virtual commodity for sale (grenades, perhaps?), just to give everyone a sense of the game at first, but there has to be something which allows for immediate monetization.

You should go back and read through your Forum thread about “Defining Home’s It Game”. See how well this game stacks up to your own criteria and the public opinion that follows. Aside from the permanent upgrades and a somewhat social aspect, I don’t think that it fares well. The people behind Mercia and Home Tycoon might be well served to peruse that thread as well.

HearItWow’s review is dead on target. Veemee had an innovative concept for a game and botched it on multiple levels. I give them credit for trying but this could be a harsh lesson learned. They could always overhaul the game and re-release it as John Carter of No Man’s Land.

One thought that’s been floating around in my head, as a temporary power-up which could generate sales: what if there was a random (say, 1/100) chance of a downed opponent “dropping” their premium firearm for you to pick up and use for the remainder of the round? It would be a way for players to experience a premium item without having to initially pay for it, and that might be sufficient enticement to acquire it on a permanent basis.

Another reward might be to offer some sort of free item (either a functional piece of armor/weaponry or just a piece of clothing) after racking up X-number of kills. Since the game penalizes ragequitters, it would cut down on people trying to abuse the stats, and create an incentive to play the game for people who aren’t motivated by the leaderboard.

The problem is the lack of balance. People who pay to buy the best guns are always going to have a significant advantage over free players, and those who shelled out the $50 for the “ultimate” bundle have an additional advantage over paid players. The more you pay, the closer you get to in-game immunity. Why not just sell immunity or inassailable camping spots for $100?

Piling this on top of a game with a very unusual mechanic and a steep learning curve has contributed to perhaps the most flawed game launch in Home history. Home isn’t the best platform for PvP shooters to begin with, as those who enjoy those games, and are skilled enough to compete at them, make up just a portion of the community. Casual gamers will give the thing a try, meet instant death from unseen snipers while fighting with the controls and give up on the thing before they ever learn to get good at it. If they do manage to find some enjoyment in it, they’re certainly going to notice that Heavy Armor and a sniper rifle provide a decidedly unfair advantage.

Then comes the question of why bother. There are no goals, no rewards and no point in accumulating stats other than the fleeting promise of securing a space on the leaderboards. That’s attractive to a small percentage of Home users, and they can buy their way to the top in true Steinbrenner fashion.

Veemee deserves some credit for choosing one-time purchases over consumables or pay-to-play, but without some level of balance, there’s no incentive to own any of the items.

Consider the freemium games in Home that do work: Sodium 2 launched with no rewards and was a huge hit, thanks in part to its “Taunt” system that kept groups of friends engaged (and still does). It also gave players the ability to balance gameplay.

Paradise Springs is giving away extremely limited rewards and immortalizing its top players in the Casino itself.

Midway offers jackets for completion that are walking trophies for those skilled and determined enough to earn them.

Granzella rakes huge amounts of cash out of Great Edo defenders and fossil hunters with an ever-changing stream of items, spaces and outfits that improve performance in the game.

Hellfire produces items and outfits that enhance a player’s abilities in-game, but not so much so that those players will dominate.

No Man’s Land offers none of these features and reserves its best items for those who will shell out the equivalent of a disc-based game to buy every item, even though only the handful of premium items in the bundle are worthwhile.

It’s stunning to see something executed so poorly at this stage in Home’s development. The right way to do this would have been to release the game without any buyable items, let people get used to it on an even footing for a week or two, then release the premium content. Create a matching system so that unpaid players aren’t cannon fodder and give people a reason to go back and play again, such as rewards or a campaign mode.

Personally, I found the tutorial far more compelling than the multiplayer game, and the lack of balance was evident during the open beta. It may be possible to fix what’s wrong with No Man’s Land, but at this point would enough people care?

I tried the game a couple times and it just isn’t any fun. Took forever to get a game going. Once the game started, there was one chap in the golden suit running around killing everyone. Half the players left the game after 5 minutes. I made a couple kills and was killed probably 15 times.

I haven’t bought any upgrades and I won’t be playing again. Kills aside, it’s just a tedious drag of a game.