F2P is a monetization model characterized by offering a significant portion of the game experience to the player at no monetary cost. There are several subcategories of F2P games, however, the most heavily used model at the moment involves “Freemium” games. Freemium titles provide the full version of a product free of charge, while users are charged microtransactions and/or in-app purchases to access premium features and virtual goods, often in a piecemeal fashion.(D) The accessibility and lack of base game price barrier makes the product available to a larger population, a portion of which engages in the monetization, rendering the model viable. Moreover, several of the commonly used F2P monetization schemes lend themselves to an endless monetization loop without a concrete money cap/limit that is not seen on traditional Pay To Play titles: leading to marked discrepancies in monetary contributions per player.


The F2P model has its origins in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s in the MMO genre, in titles that were initially “marketed towards children and casual gamers.”(D) As F2P MMO’s became mainstream, during the late 2000’s many titles transitioned to a subscription model or a F2P/subscription hybrid. Slowly, the F2P model made its way into other genres such as First Person Shooters (FPS): Quake Live (2008-09) and Team Fortress 2 (2008 Standalone/2011 F2P). Additionally, within the F2P realm, the crate and key mechanism of distributing loot probably first appeared in 2006 - 2007 in a chinese MMO: ZT Online.(7, 12) In the last 5 years, F2P has gained incredible acceptance and popularity. According to wikipedia, in 2011, revenue from F2P games overtook revenue from premium games in the top 100 games in Apple’s App Store. As of 2012, F2P MOBA’s such as League of Legends and DOTA 2 surfaced among the most popular of PC games.


The following terms refer to behavioral psychology models or concepts that are commonly used in the design of F2P games and their monetization.

• 1. Ego depletion - It refers to the observed phenomenon that self-control, under certain circumstances, is believed to be a finite but renewable resource. This fact is commonly exploited in F2P monetized games by frequently and persistently testing your will through different mechanisms.
  
  An experiment performed in the University of Iowa, utilizing functional MRI technology demonstrated that the anterior cingulate cortex is the portion of the brain that recognizes if a situation requires self control. The dorsolateral prefrontal cortex is the part of the brain that actually manages self control, and it can only maintain its activity for a set period of time. In other words, through functional MRI it was possible to assess as an individual’s will had “worn down” in which case they would be more likely to make impulsive purchases.
  
  Journal of Consumer Psychology - University of Iowa - fMRI Experiment
  https://neuroscience.grad.uiowa.edu/content/your-brain-no-self-control
  
  A second experiment challenged ½ of its test subjects to exert self control by trying to ignore words appearing on a screen. Then contestants were tempted to spend their $10 USD participation fee on gift shop items. Those who did the ego depletion exercise reported feeling more tempted to buy and spent more money than those who had not done the exercise.
  
  University of Minnesota - Ego Depletion Exercise Experiment
  https://carlsonschool.umn.edu/file/81961/download?token=UemN9fOO
  (Video Reality Check)
  
  
• 2. Reciprocity - Refers to the concept that if an individual does something perceived as favorable or positive for you, you may feel compelled to do something positive in return.
  
  Coca-Cola experiment@Cornell University (1971): A researcher posed as a participant in the waiting area, said researcher told the participant: “ The study leader said i could have a ‘Coca-Cola,’ so i brought one for you too.” Later on, the “benevolent” researcher would attempt to persuade the contestant to purchase raffle tickets, explaining that more money would be raised if more raffle tickets were sold.
  
  Observations of the Study:
  -Contestants more likely to pay for the raffle tickets if they got a free cola
  -Contestants spent far more money than the actual value of the cola
  -When asked to rate how much they liked the gift giver, this rating had no impact on how much money was spent. Ie. Money given was independent from “liking” the person
  
  Conclusion: Pressure to reciprocate was the driving force that drove individuals to part with their money
  
  http://med.stanford.edu/coi/journal%20articles/Regan_DT-Effects_of_A_Favor_and_Liking_on_Compliance.pdf
  (Video Reality Check)
  
  
• 3. Conspicuous Consumption/Jealousy -
  The act of buying things, which may be rare or expensive, that are not necessary to life but are bought in a way in which other people will notice that you made that purchase. Economist and sociologist Thorsten Veblen used the term to describe the new social class which arose as a result of the second industrial revolution. In turn, conspicuous consumption may make others jealous, which may result in and drive more sales. (Video Reality Check)
  
  
• 4. Intermediate Currency - Coercive Monetization: Mere Exposure Effect
  This refers to the practice of placing one layer of buffer between cash value and the value of in-game currency (ie. points, XP, in-game currency, crafting materials, etc.). It is generally difficult for individuals to assess the value of an unfamiliar currency.
  
  According to Ramin Shokrizade, the use of virtual currency is where the coercion really takes off. Griffiths, a behavioral psychologist specializing in gambling and gaming addictions, states that spending virtual currency teaches players the mechanics of gambling, however, Shokrizade goes a step further and argues that when players see their real-world cash in terms of virtual currency, it lowers the sense of anxiety and allows them to be less apprehensive about spending larger amounts.
  
  Research has shown that putting even one intermediate currency between the consumer and real money, such as a “game gem” (premium currency), makes the consumer much less adept at assessing the value of the transaction. Additional intermediary objects, or “layering”, makes it even harder for the brain to accurately assess the situation.(13, 14)
  
  Coercive monetization: Mere Exposure Effect - The broad psychological idea that things which we are familiar with have a higher value to us, simply because we have been exposed to them in the past. This is believed to be one of the contributing agents behind the observed increased spending with unfamiliar currencies, including foreign currencies. (Video Reality Check)
  
  
• 5. Grinding vs. Compulsion vs. Addiction
  
  Grinding - Performing repetitive, time consuming tasks, usually at the expectation of a reward.
  
  Compulsion - A strong, usually irresistible impulse to perform an act, especially one that is irrational or contrary to one's will.
  
  Addiction - A condition that results when a person ingests a substance (e.g., alcohol, cocaine, nicotine) or engages in an activity (e.g., gambling, sex, shopping) that can be pleasurable but the continued use/act of which becomes compulsive and interferes with ordinary life responsibilities, such as work, relationships, or health. Users may not be aware that their behavior is out of control and causing problems for themselves and others.
  
  
• 6. Operant Conditioning - Skinner Box
  “BF Skinner was a famous psychologist, behaviorist and social philosopher who postulated the principles of reinforcement. He considered free will an illusion and human action dependent on consequences of previous actions. If the consequences are bad, there is a high chance the action will not be repeated; if the consequences are good, the actions that led to it being repeated become more probable.” (D)
  
  Skinner referred to the use of reinforcement to strengthen behavior as “operant conditioning” and devised a “Skinner Box” or “Operant Conditioning Chamber” to test his model. “An operant conditioning chamber permits experimenters to study behavior conditioning (training) by teaching a subject animal to perform certain actions (like pressing a lever) in response to specific stimuli, such as a light or sound signal. When the subject correctly performs the behavior, the chamber mechanism delivers food or another reward. In some cases, the mechanism delivers a punishment for incorrect or missing responses.These types of apparatuses allow experimenters to perform studies in conditioning and training through reward/punishment mechanisms.” (D)
  
  In other words, these methods can condition and alter volition, or the way individuals act. Skinner noted that there are primary conditioners, primary biological needs, which have a satiation or progressively diminishing effect. However, there are secondary reinforcers, such as money, social approbation, which have no satiation point.” (Video Extra Credits) These secondary reinforcers are powerful agents that can be used to produce the desired behavior for longer periods of time.
  
  
• 7. Gambling
  Skinner frequently referred to his behavioral concepts and models in the setting of gambling. As most individuals know, gambling is generally rigged against the consumer. Many of his experiments used different patterns of reward, including randomness or the perception of randomness, in order to achieve the desired result. Of note, in many gambling frameworks the actual tables that determine probabilities can be modified without the player’s knowledge.
  
  
• A) Key Crate RNG
  According to Dr. Lehdonvirta, an economist with special interest on virtual markets and micro-economies, “the key crate method of distributing loot is basic gambling psychology He describes it as a “variable-rate reinforcement schedule, a slot machine. Today, it’s of course used in a wide variety of games as a tacit way of introducing a revenue-generating slot machine into the game that’s at least slightly integrated with the core gameplay. But as a developer you have to be mindful of gambling laws if it becomes possible to convert the winnings into real money.” (8, 12) Other ancillary problems include the involvement of underage individuals in these monetization schemes (1,2), and the potential synergy of gambling, gaming or spending addictions.(3)
  
  
  
• 8. Reward schedules: Ratios and Intervals
  
  “ Ratio schedules provide rewards after a certain number of actions have been completed. For example, a player might gain an extra life after killing 20 opponents. This would be called a "fixed ratio" schedule, because the same number of kills is required every time. Fixed ratio schedules produce a very distinct pattern in the participant. First there is a long pause, then a steady burst of activity as fast as possible until a reward is given. This makes sense when one considers that the very first action never brings a reward, so there is little incentive to make that first kill. Once participants decide to go for the reward, they act as fast as they can to bring the reward quickly.
  
  The distinct pause shown under a fixed ratio schedule can be a real issue for game designers. Having a period of time where there is little incentive to play the game can lead to the player walking away. Additionally, the length of the pause is a function of the size of the ratio (the number of actions required), so the more actions required the longer the pause. This can lead the player to walk away from the game.
  
  Variable ratio schedules are those in which a specific number of actions are required, but the number changes every time. A player might be required to shoot down approximately 20 enemy fighters to gain an extra ship, but the precise number is randomly generated each time. It's important to note that the player does not know how many actions are required this time, just the average number from previous experience.
  
  Under variable ratio schedules, participants typically respond with a steady flow of activity at a reasonably high rate. While not quite as high a rate as the burst under a fixed ratio schedule, it is more consistent and lacks the pausing that can cause trouble. Since it's possible (though unlikely) that the player can gain a life for shooting down only one enemy, there's always a reason to go hunting.
  
  In general, variable ratio schedules produce the highest overall rates of activity of all the schedules that I'll discuss here. This doesn't necessarily mean they're the best, but if what you're looking for is a high and constant rate of play, you want a variable ratio contingency.
  
  Interval reward schedules provide a reward after a certain amount of time has passed. In a fixed interval schedule, the first response after a set period of time produces a reward. Participants usually respond to fixed interval contingencies by pausing for a while after a reward and then gradually responding faster and faster until another reward is given. As in the fixed ratio, there is a pause that can cause problems for a game designer. Unlike the fixed ratio, there is no sharp transition to a high rate of activity. Instead, there is gradual increase as the appropriate time approaches. The pause remains, a period where player motivation is low.
  
  In Variable interval schedules the period of time involved changes after each reward. A counterpart to the variable ratio schedules, these also produce a steady, continuous level of activity, although at a slower pace. As in the variable ratio schedule, there is always a reason to be active...The activity is lower than in a variable ratio schedule because the appearance is not dependent on activity.
  
  These are the basic building blocks, but this is by no means an exhaustive list. Each contingency is an arrangement of time, activity, and reward, and there are an infinite number of ways these elements can be combined to produce the pattern of activity you want from your players. ” What a game designer also wants from players is a lot of "behavioral momentum," a tendency to keep doing what they're doing even during the parts where there isn't an immediate reward. One schedule that produces a lot of momentum is the avoidance schedule, where the players work to prevent bad things from happening. Even when there's nothing going on, the player can achieve something positive by postponing a negative consequence. There are multiple additional contingencies and strategies that can be used to achieve specific results of player behavior; the basic patterns of consequences and rewards form the framework which enable all the rest. By understanding the fundamental patterns that underlie how players respond to what we ask of them, we can design games to bring out the kind of player we want.“(6)
  
  These reward schedules, when used unscrupulously, can be designed to condition to continue to perform an action way past the point in which it has become tedious, past the point of being fun. This can be a lazy, cheap way to get an individual to believe that they are enjoying a product and may create the illusion of engagement while extending playtime. The alternative would be creating a deep, immersive experience with high entertainment value and flow, rather than resorting to operant conditioning techniques to simulate it. (Video Extra Credits)
  
  
  
• 9. Zeigarnik effect
  Zeigarnik was a german psychologist who, in the early 1900s realized that restaurant waiters would remember tables worth of complex orders, take that information to the kitchen and make sure the plates were delivered to the correct person. However, he noticed that once the food was delivered, people would forget about the details of each order.
  
  He designed an experiment to test this observation: Puzzles were administered to individuals, some were interrupted prior to completion, and the recollection of these individuals were compared to those that had completed the puzzle.
  
  Zeigarnik noted that individuals were able to remember the tasks and recall more information when the puzzles were left incomplete and when they were interrupted in the middle of the action. The details of the incomplete process would linger in the mind of the participants and would lead to internal tension and preoccupation with the unfinished task. Completing the task, overall, made the individual happier, released mental tension and allowed the individual to dismiss the information. Examples of this concept include: progression badges, achievements, quests, etc.
  
  http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Zeigarnik_Effect
  (Video Jamie Madigan, 10)
  
  
• 10. Endowed progress effect
  Refers to the concept exemplified by the following experiment:
  2 individuals decided to get their car washed, they go to an automated car-washer, and both receive an offer in the way of a card to be stamped with a “buy so many washes and get one free” type deal.
  
  Individual A received a card which requires 10 stamps, however, the counter employee gives 2 stamps to get Individual A started, and 8 stamps would be left to get the free carwash.
  
  Individual B gets a card that requires 8 stamps, but no freebie stamps were given.
  
  Who do you think finishes their card first?
  Individual A. Freebies got that individual 20% of the way, he/she is more likely to come back, wait less time between car washes and to actually get that free car wash offer redeemed.
  Principle: We are more likely to try harder and longer to reach a goal if we think we started progress towards it.(10)
  
  https://msbfile03.usc.edu/digitalmeasures/jnunes/intellcont/endowed%20progress%20effect-1.pdf

In a traditional paid (Pay To Play) model, success is measured by multiplying the number of units of a game sold by unit price; however, F2P titles have changed that meta considerably. The most important factors for success in F2P involve creating a highly accessible experience with new audiences in mind, maintaining the player continuously engaged for a long duration of play, followed by how many compelling spending opportunities the game offers its players.(D) In this manner, F2P experiences aim to hand-hold the player in order not to frustrate him/her early, provide progress bars and indicators that create the sensation of progression and set objectives that are easily achievable at first, but then proceed to become increasingly time consuming and/or complex. The purpose of maintaining the player “hooked” long and early is in order to maximize exposure to opportunities of monetization. With this model, the majority of the players “ride for free, a minority pay and an even smaller minority, commonly referred to as “whales,” pay the bulk of the income.(7)

Currently, while devising F2P games, there is an emphasis in a powerful system of statistical analysis. Game data provides clues as to the users' behavior and preferences. The goal is the optimization of a system which increases player exposure to the monetization and fosters player retention. There are numerous mechanics instituted into F2P games to optimize these parameters, including providing “open loops”: tasks or items that players are encouraged to complete and/or collect, rewarding players who log in frequently, including mandatory tasks and special, time-limited events and/or features. Additional mechanisms instituted with the aim to induce virality and exposure include integration with social platforms, design for coop play and cross marketing promotions.(9)

Ultimately, F2P design is planned for the metrics. Data regarding moment in game progression, points where players tend to drop out, open loop parameters likely to result in daily visits, factors that drive the first purchase, impact on revenue of price modification, revenue generated by different player profiles are all taken into account in the direction of the game design, development and its monetization. (9) The end goal being, of course, to maximize exposure, player engagement/retention, player interaction with the monetization and, ultimately, profit.

Given the above, it is no accident that economists, mathematicians, statisticians, psychologists, sociologists and other experts in the fields of interest are employed in the creation and optimization of these systems. When these factors are used unscrupulously and/or maliciously, they may effectively rely on operant conditioning and, possibly prey on consumers’ compulsions/addictions, and may emphasize player contact with the monetization structure rather than a product that engages the player through entertainment, game depth and flow.



Fee To Pay is a term coined on July 2013 by journalist and youtuber Jim Sterling. It encompasses paid titles that use a Pay To Play monetization model but then proceed to charge microtransactions as if they were Free To Play. Essentially, titles where the consumers pay to then go on to pay some more (or are expected to do so).

Whereas a Pay To Play model provides the customer with a closed loop transaction, a Fee To Pay model exposes the customer to (at least some of) the previously described psychological and sociological pressures of a Free To Play title. The goals of a Pay to Play model is to move as many units of the title as possible, which incentivizes marketing ploys such as pre-ordering and game content/expansions with DLC. However, the underlying driving force and intention is to create a compelling marketing and/or gaming experience that attracts the players, has replay value, and sells units as revenue is directly proportional to the actual game content sold. On the other hand, Fee To Pay is a hybrid between the Free To Play and the Pay to Play model. In Fee To Pay, the monetization is diversified and both Pay To Play and Free To Play mechanisms are utilized. Of note, there is less incentive for the developer/publisher to make actual game content and focus efforts on game optimization, design and improvements as there is an alternate revenue source that is independent of those factors. Moreover, whereas prices are typically set by the developer/publisher on a Pay To Play model, on Fee To Pay there are innumerable mechanisms that are meant to: 1) Incentivize player interaction with additional monetization 2) Introduction of operant conditioning techniques and incentivization of completionist and compulsive traits in individuals in order to goad into item consumption/monetization involvement 3) Create artificial values, qualities, rarities and disparities of the items or currency in order to affect the perception of value 4) Introduce vanity items that essentially function as a marker of “in-game status” and “in-game marketing” 5) Introduce item or money sinks in-game that essentially create a potentially endless loop of monetization, with no cap or limit. 6) Actively make the game accessible to the greatest population possible, in order to capture that low percentage of individuals that engage in the monetization. Within this percentage, these titles tend to cater to the even lower percentage of individuals that form the bulk of the contributions to the monetization, so called “whales.” In short, on Fee To Pay titles, individuals pay for a full Pay To Play experience, but are delivered with all of the pressures and ploys utilized on Free To Play titles. Whereas Pay To Play titles may refer to these operant conditioning and other psychosocial techniques organically within the game design, or sometimes through lazy development; Fee To Pay and Free To Play titles have the incentive to do so, given the fact that optimization of player retention and interaction with the title’s monetization is of utmost concern.

I may do a second part to this article or addend it with a discussion on: Fee To Pay, User Generated Content, Steam/Steamworks Key Crate RNG and its Market/Microeconomy. Feel free to let me know your thoughts below and/or if interested in a 2nd part/addendum.

Appendix:

F2P and Game Design Videos (Sources):

Extra Credits: The Skinner Box - How Games Condition People To Play More
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWtvrPTbQ_c

Jamie Madigan: Psychology and Video Game Product Engagement
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CJtIwjzflcs

Jim Sterling: Fee To Pay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqNuS03k6gI

Jim Sterling: Fee 2 Pay
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHszeYz5Mi0

Jim Sterling: MONETIZING WHALES FOR THE RETENTION OF VIRALITY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yDrbgdf7UFE

Reality Check: How Free To Play Exploits Your Brain
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=px74uw4ExN4

Reality Check: League of Legends: Why Spend Money On A Free Game?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV0IALUrllY

Yassin Tali (SandSeven7) - Deceptive Monetization Models of F2P Games Part 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jN0hZ4DObg

Yassin Tali (SandSeven7) - Deceptive Monetization Models of F2P Games Part 2: Gaming Addict to Spending Addict
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcnpS7uH46Q


Sources:

A. Dictionary.com: Addiction, Compulsion
B. Encyclopaedia Britannica: Conditioning
C. Psychology Today: https://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/addiction
D. Wikipedia: BF Skinner, Free To Play, Operant conditioning chamber, Quake Live, TF2


Source Articles:

1. Bright, Peter. Valve can’t pass the buck to third parties for teaching CSGO kids to gamble. Ars technica. http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/07/valve-cant-pass-buck-to-third-parties-for-teaching-csgo-kids-to-gamble/

2. Brustein, Peter, et al. Virtual Weapons Are Turning Teen Gamers Into Serious Gamblers. Bloomberg. http://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-virtual-guns-counterstrike-gambling/

3. Campbell, Colin. Psychologist calls for F2P game designers to be more aware of addiction dangers. Polygon. http://www.polygon.com/2016/3/14/11227210/psychologist-calls-for-f2p-game-designers-to-be-more-aware-of

4. Farell, Joseph. The fascinating psychology behind Free To Play mobile app games. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-farrell/the-fascinating-psycholog_b_6076502.html

5. Galyonkin, Sergey. Why paid games are adding micropayments. Medium. https://medium.com/steam-spy/why-paid-games-are-adding-micro-payments-526f358426c6#.bdimvstis

6. Hopson, John. Behavioral Game Design Series. Gamasutra http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_game_design.php ; http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/172409/10_years_of_behavioral_game_design_.php

7. Johnson, Eric. A long tail of whales: Half of mobile games money comes from 0.15 percent of players. Recode http://www.recode.net/2014/2/26/11623998/a-long-tail-of-whales-half-of-mobile-games-money-comes-from-0-15

8. Lehdonvirta, Villi. http://vili.lehdonvirta.com/

9. Luban, Pascal. The Design of Free To Play Games. Gamasutra http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/6552/the_design_of_freetoplay_games_.php?print=1

10. Madigan, Jamie. http://www.psychologyofgames.com

11. Makuch, Eddie. Freemium is the Future, says EA Gamespot http://www.gamespot.com/articles/freemium-is-the-future-says-ea/1100-6389123/

12. Richardson, Emily. How CounterStrike: Global Offensive’s Economy Works. Rock, Paper, Shotgun. https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2015/08/14/csgo-skin-economy-explained/

13. Rose, Mike. Chasing the Whale: Examining the ethics of Free-To-Play games. Gamasutra http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/195806/chasing_the_whale_examining_the_.php?print=1

14. Shokrizade, Ramin. Systems of Control in F2P. Gamasutra
Shokrizade, Ramin. The Top F2P Monetization Tricks. Gamasutra http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130626/194933/ ;http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/RaminShokrizade/20130516/192386/Systems_of_Control_in_F2P.php ; http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/author/RaminShokrizade/914048/

Additional Recommendations:

1. Gamble your life away in ZT Online. http://www.danwei.org/electronic_games/gambling_your_life_away_in_zt.php

2. The Cult of the Peacock. http://blog.brendanvance.com/2014/01/05/the-cult-of-the-peacock/

3. The Psychology of Loot Boxes and Microtransactions
https://platinumparagon.wordpress.com/2017/11/16/the-psychology-of-loot-boxes-and-microtransactions/

Howdy gamers and concerned customers,

I wanted to let the word out on the fact that TWI has made an official Killing Floor 2 Survey which includes questions about the current state of the game, including Zedconomy.

The survey was available during the Beta and is currently available on the in-game menu when you launch the game. It is in a window on the left lower quadrant of your screen, which contains different announcements and links so you may have to scroll to find the proper option.

I suggest you give the update a spin and let your voice be known in the Survey with your honest feedback.

If this survey remains live for a significant amount of time and it takes a good heterogeneous and large cross section of the population it may actually help steer the future of the title in a better direction. I hope that some of you which haven't touched the title in a while at least give it a spin and let your voice be known, in order to provide TWI with a good representation of where the community stands on the issues at hand.

Regards,

BlackSpawn

Dear gamers and concerned customers,

I'd like to thank everybody, regardless of view point, that speaks out and let their voices be heard in any way. In my opinion, community reaction and vocipherous response is the only reason why this LiveStream occurred in the first place. Along with other positive changes such as the institution of the Trello page and the nerfing of the Zed resistance system. On the other hand, there are other significant issues in need of action such as the F2P styled monetization, the emphasis on PVP and its effect on PVE balance (including perk reworks taking PVP into account) and the community forum facelift which relegates the "General Discussions" to secondary subforum status.

In this post, I aim to address several points that were discussed on the LiveStream and I will do so loosely in the chronological order in which they were brought up, not in order of importance.

The Cruise

This was a fun way to start the Livestream. Although, ultimately inconsequential, this is the source article that brought the "cruise" situation into the consciousness of the fanbase: It is a Gamasutra job search post dated 3/2016 in which TWI claims that they just went on a cruise:

"Think going on a fully paid company cruise would be fun? So did we, which is why we just took one."

Source: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/269417/Get_a_job_Tripwire_Interactive_is_hiring_a_Lead_Designer.php

Ultimately, I don't see anything wrong with taking a vacation when need be; I thought it was a good way to start the LiveStream with an icebreaker silly controversy to make way into the points of substance.

Employee Turnover

I have confirmed reports of 9 staff members and 1 contractor that ceased to work for TWI in the last year.

These are a few of the individuals that have ceased to provide services to TWI in the last year:

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/id/FGFennec
http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/id/shuu37
http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/id/jeffreyianwilson
http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/profiles/76561198074379999
http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/id/v3nia

I beleve that actual number of staff losses was minimized on the stream yet there was no real choice but to admit that it has hindered and delayed development, at least from the originally planned milestones. Even though I have evidence of additional staff losses in the last year, my aim is NOT to include any personally identifiable information in this post as I dont wish to impinge upon Steam Forum/Community Guidelines and Rules.

Free Content Packs

I understand the marketing/PR speak behind this...However, I couldn't feel but find it quite insulting that an Early Access game that I already had paid for kept calling routine updates as "Free." Not only that, but a TWI staff member mentioned this on the forums:

"when you buy Steam Early Access, you buy a game for what it is on that day, not for any future state."
Basically stating that TWI has no obligation to finish the content specified on the Steam store page. While legally speaking this is correct, as Steam's Early Access terms are surprisingly lobsided and non-committal, this is hardly what you want to hear from the developer of an Early Access game.
http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?p=1429890#post1429890

And its best not to go in-depth into the "Free" post release updates that are being funded via Early Access period microtransactions as we speak.

"Only six bans"

I think most individuals that frequented the forums in the time of interest are aware that the actual number of banned individuals was much, much higher. I have personally heard of many that were reticent to post on the forums knowing that their posts may be unfairly handled with warnings or bans. Perhaps TWI were referring only to "permanent bans"? Even then, it is common knowledge that Steam Global Mods are generally laissez-faire as they are crazily understaffed and mostly voluntary labor; they typically do not interfere on Game Specific Forums unless heinous transgressions or invited by the Game Forum Administrator / Developer. Nevertheless, the provided number is still a significant underestimation as has been documented in the following thread:

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/groups/TWINOMICROTRANSACTIONS/discussions/0/371918937258389095/

Of note, even some individuals that were banned temporarily were effectively permanently banned by being given "Game Bans" and being kicked from the KF2 Steam Group which disallowed them from posting on the Kf2 forums indefinitely. Game Bans CANNOT be provided by global steam moderators, so sadly these actions were unequivocally, uniquely TWI's.

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/groups/TWINOMICROTRANSACTIONS/discussions/0/366298942112434239/

https://support.steampowered.com/kb_article.php?ref=6899-IOSK-9514

I really wish I could rejoice and applaud TWIs decision to unban these individuals that were apparently "bullying others" and being "toxic" in the community. The fact of the matter is that many individuals that were NOT toxic nor bullies were banned in kind simply for being critical of TWI or the game in one way or the other. These actions were never acknowledged and even less so was an apology even hinted at on these matters.

If there is any question about the uneven moderation and bans at the time, take a gander at these nuggets of toxicity that were allowed to go unimpeded:

https://imgur.com/e3K8Hh5


Zedconomy Math

" 10 Common Material > 1 Uncommon Item
10 Uncommon Material > 1 Rare Item
10 Rare Material > 1 Exceptional Item
10 Exceptional Material > 1 Master Crafted Item
"

10 Common items = 1 Uncommon
100 Common items = 1 Rare
1000 Common items = 1 Exceptional
10000 Common items = 1 Master Crafted

Usual drops are common items. A significant portion of drops, approximately half by some community estimates, are USBs/Crates ie. non-craftable material.

At a rate of 1 common item drop every 4 days it would take you:
1 Uncommon item: 40 days with a perfect drop rate, more like 80 days (2.6 months) taking uncraftables into account
1 Rare item: 400 days (1.1 year) with a perfect drop rate, more like 800 days (2.2 years) taking uncraftables into account
1 Exceptional item: 4000 days (11 years) with a perfect drop rate, more like 8000 days (21.9 years) taking uncraftables into account
1 Master Crafted item: 40000 days (110 years) with a perfect drop rate, more like 80000 days (219.2 years) taking uncraftables into account


At the new proposed rate of 1 common item drop every day it would take you:
1 Uncommon item: 10 days with a perfect drop rate, more like 20 days taking uncraftables into account
1 Rare item: 100 days (3.3 months) with a perfect drop rate, more like 200 days (6.6 months) taking uncraftables into account
1 Exceptional item: 1000 days (2.7 years) with a perfect drop rate, more like 2000 days (5.5 years) taking uncraftables into account
1 Master Crafted item: 10000 days (27.4 years) with a perfect drop rate, more like 20000 days (54.8 years) taking uncraftables into account

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/forum/killing-floor-2/kf2-news-and-announcements/news-and-announcements-af/119807-kf-1027-update-revenge-of-the-zeds
http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/app/232090/discussions/0/392184522714433203/

Just.....wow. Talk about an unreachable carrot on a stick.

Way to support Zedconomy, "ignore it" (30:30 Time stamp)

F2P psychology: I plan to make a dedicated post about this subject in the near future. The fact of the matter is that F2P psychology cannot be ignored, it is a constant pummeling of your will (consciously or subconsciously) and it literally uses operant conditioning manipulative techniques to exploit known human reponses to stimuli and induce participation in the system. This on top of preying on addictive personalities and potentially exposing underage individuals to said gambling styled games of chance and lotteries.

After being exposed to the F2P styled monetization of the game, it is easy to understand why the PVP modes have been been pushed aggressively and early, even though the PVE portion of the title and the main perks: the core game, are relatively and underwhelmingly unbalanced and incomplete. Moreover, it is no surprise that perk reworks are a thing now, as basically every perk, their bonuses and their skill trees now have to take into account the PVP mode. In my opinion, this is no accident.

I believe the PVP push is a conscious and persistent effort to incite and goad adoption of the F2P styled monetization and cosmetic microtransactions towards crowds that have already been conditioned to consider this a type of "new normal" and to attract "whales." In my esteem, the fact that this PVP balance is affecting PVE deleteriously implies that the true interest is to goad participation into the microtransaction millieu rather than complete a title that actually has merits and stands to be a worthy successor to the original Killing Floor.

In my opinion, there is no reason why Early Access supporters should not be afforded an option to run "Vanilla KF2" without the continuous exposure to a Freemium ecosystem or to fail to provide the ability to "disable/enable" the contents of particular USBs and Crates for users that aim to have some control over this "optional" Zedconomy.

Support till 2017 (31:00 Time stamp); KF1 5 years (2009 - 2014)

After all of the above, the most surprising aspect of the LiveStream is that TWI said they guaranteed ongoing support to the title to Q4 2017 and that subsequent support would depend on community response and whether the updates "pay for themselves." Even though at the same time they claimed that the Zedconomy was doing better than the KF1 DLC model and there is the fact that they were able to provide post release support for KF1 for 5 years. It amounts to further goading to partake in the free to play style monetization in order to extend the life of the paid early access game we already paid for; not the most straight forward, honest of models.

All of this without taking into account that KF2 was ALREADY funded at release and that it was one of the best sellers of 2015 while having ALREADY grossed over $11 million USD by December 2015.

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/forum/killing-floor-2/killing-floor-2-general/general-discussion-af/119499-twi-playable-zeds-needs-to-wait/page4?amp;postcount=51

https://d262ilb51hltx0.cloudfront.net/max/800/1*mrLxE3Uac1F-R0t6l7WJeQ.png
https://medium.com/steam-spy/steam-sales-in-2015-2e81a6bb0f5a

I still have hope that they will actually listen to the community and institute a fair, honest monetization model diginified and appropriate for a paid early access game, something that actually tells Early Access supporters that their trust was not unfounded and will be rewarded...rather than abused. This is particularly relevant as TWI does aim to introduce additional titles in the future, I doubt reception will be as warm-hearted if they fail to do right by KF2 Early Access supporters.

As a bonus:
Shils are massaging KF2 Steam Reviews:
http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/groups/TWINOMICROTRANSACTIONS/discussions/0/360670708790750375/

As always,

Thank you for your time and your support.

I exhort you to request honesty, transparency and respect from developers, publishers and companies which you choose to support with your patronage.

Cheers,

BlackSpawn

LiveStream Link:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qal-EVWcDn8

Dear gamers and concerned customers,

As the Steam sale continues TWI have changed their PR/Media handling ways. After taking their cue from the article that delineated how several succesful Early Access games have managed to do so, they seem to have an interest in changing course regarding the community interactions. The Trello page has been launched but they have once again changed how the Steam forums are being displayed. A few months ago they made the KF2 Steam forums owners only, this was reverted recently. Now, as the Steam sale is ongoing, they have placed the "News and Updates" subforum as the default: Only TWI can post in this subforum. The "General Discussions" which is the main subforum where customers get to speak out their mind and used to be "The Forum" has been relegated to secondary subforum status. It is a common mechanic I have seen used, usually by embattled indie devs that aim to control the flow/visibility of information on their forum. Of note, the Trello page still has ZERO mentions of a "rework" or plans to improve the microtransactions of the game. Even though in the past TWI have mentioned that ALL ASPECTS of the system were up for iteration and that they had been discussing/looking into ways of improving/changing the system. Moreover, on the Trello page they divert/direct fans/customers to the TWI forums rather than the more accessible/visited KF2 Steam forums.

https://trello.com/b/ZOwMRlcW/killing-floor-2-community-issue-roadmap

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/app/232090/discussions/0/358416640391368710/

Moreover, the blatant and obvious abuse of the warning and banning system seems to have quieted down for the moment. I do believe this is in the best interest of everybody involved. As many of the relatively outspoken individuals that provided critique of the game and its monetization have already been permanently banned, it is hardly a comforting measure to those that have been on the receiving end of such abuse. Regardless, in my opinion, it is important to remember that these events transpired and that individuals that were unfairly banned should be reinstated. After all, this is a paid Early Access game and providing feedback and input is part of the package we all bought into.

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/app/232090/discussions/0/358415738192487064/

Some individuals point to the introduction of a temporary rolling cadre of items into the ingame store as proof that TWI has changed "Zedconomy/Trading Floor." The fact of the matter is that the paid Early Access game continues to have Key Crate RNG, differing rarity quality Steam marketables/Free To Play styled monetization on top of the Early Access base game price, an ingame store, Deluxe Upgrade DLC, Cross Game promotions and plans for additional things for sale in the future. These temporary additions to the ingame store are nothing but a band-aid that pales in comparison to the model that KF1 used. For example, even right now you can get KF1 Complete for under $20 USD (It has been cheaper in the past.). I can't even fathom how much it would be for the entirety of KF2's content.

This current movement of introducing Free To Play styled microtransactions and monetization on a title with a Base Game Price is called "Fee To Pay": where you get to pay an entry Fee in order to be able to pay some more. The term was coined by Jim Sterling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fHszeYz5Mi0

In the meantime, another Free to Play styled XP event is ongoing. As additional marketing gimmicks and game design decisions are introduced, it is clear that the primary goal at the moment is marketing and introducing NEW players to the game. As PVP balance affects PVE, it will be interesting to see if TWI will continue to try and balance them both concurrently (In my opinion wrecking PVE in the process) or if they will do the more sensible thing and balance them separately or relegate PVP to mod status while PVE is worked on to completion. Only time will tell. Lately, reviews have started to echo the schizophrenic game development and design; I think it initially catered to fans/KF community but currently the design/development seems to cater/pander to new/newer players.

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/games/232090/announcements/detail/951765661118170626

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/app/232090/discussions/0/358415738213850562/

I suggest you continue speaking out, continue directing your money towards developers and publishers that respect your business and your wallet and I thank you for contributing to bringing things up to the attention of the group.

Cheers, happy weekend and, as applicable, happy holiday,

BlackSpawn

Dear concerned gamers and customers,

The most recent WWAUT is titled: "WWAUT - Bulls-Eye, Onward, and Improving Community Interaction"

http://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/showthread.php?p=1493174#post1493174

It is difficult to consider the words "Improving community interaction" seriously when Tripwire Interactive and their moderation has singlehandedly bludgeoned said interactions into unrecognizable DooM hamburger face by their community overmoderation, warning/banning abuse and overall censoring. This has been clearly documented (some of the instances) in the following link:

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/groups/TWINOMICROTRANSACTIONS/discussions/0/371918937258389095/

While currently, the warning/ban abuse seems to have ceased, the fact of the matter is that NUMEROUS individuals have been UNFAIRLY PERMANENTLY banned as a result of such actions. Tripwire has failed to acknowledge this or to even provide an apology and/or correct said behavior. Ceasing the overmoderation abuse does nothing to correct the multiple silenced voices that were simply targetted for providing critifcal feedback. While these proclamations of improving community moderation are nice, they are completely devoid of meaning if they fail to be accompanied by congruent actions. Until they acknowledge and fix said transgressions, it is hard to construe said proclamation as anything more than an attempt at Public Relations; after persistent actions that have done nothing but damage them.

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/app/232090/discussions/0/358415738192487064/

In the past week there was a very interesting Gamasutra article that described the experience of 7 Early Access projects that were/are successful and were able to transition to Full Release effectively. Even though some of these projects had dire straits, they were able to gather their pieces, utilize community feedback effectively and push on through towards a true Full Release. Clearly, TWI seems to have read the article and seems to be trying to emulate the example of others that have had success in the Early Access platform (This is a good thing).

This is the article:

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/275719/7_successful_Early_Access_games_that_all_developers_should_study.php

I paraphrase the main positives and negatives of Early Access, as described in the article, below:

"Positives:
1. Each major update can be treated as a DLC or expansion with a name and marketed theme. This can reignite interest of fans and attract new players, moreover, these updates became integral to the identitity and gameplay of the index case: Don't Starve
2. Include the community in the prioritization and implementation of updates and new features, "Trello Board" and in-game feedback system. Manage expectations appropriately.
3. Game should be a positive, fun experience from the outset.
4. Strike a balance between listening to the community without pandering to them. Utilize forums to institute community driven features and manage player expectations.
5. May use the program to help find a way and grow an audience at the same time. Include players as much as possible in the equation in order to make them feel invested in your game.
6. Enter Early Access with the project funded to a reasonable degree of completion in order to maintain a steady pace of development and not to have to make creative decisions in the basis of financial necessity.
7. Even if you feel you are making the right decisions for your game, consider maintaining a separate gameplay branch available for players when significant game changing features are implemented. Use incremental improvements rather than swift, sweeping changes to the meta of your game.

Negatives:
1. Early Access is easily exploited by inexperienced developers, many of whom sell their game on a promise, then fail to deliver as the realities of the time and work commitment sink in. Establish a strong premise from the get-go, not just to attract player interest but to maintain your own sense of commitment as well.
2. Avoid exploiting the Early Access model by coming to the table with some amount of financial self sufficiency. "

Likely as a result of the article (They both came out on the same date: 6/24/2016), TWI FINALLY instituted a "community roadmap Trello page"; something that had been requested as far back as November of last year:

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/app/232090/discussions/0/358415738190656620/

https://trello.com/b/ZOwMRlcW/killing-floor-2-community-issue-roadmap

http://gtm.steamproxy.vip/app/232090/discussions/search/?q=trello&gidforum=558755529742559460&include_deleted=1

It remains to be seen if this actually signifies an actual improvement in community interactions and communications and whether TWI will FINALLY make significant changes to the Free To Play style Key Crate RNG and differing rarity quality marketable monetization model of this paid Early Access game (Of note, no mention of Zedconomy/Trading Floor is noted on the Trello page, even though TWI have claimed in the past that they are working on changes to it)....or if this is simply a PR assuaging move in order to silence critics in preparation for the Steam sale. Only time will tell...stay tuned.

As always,
Thank you for your time and your support.

BlackSpawn