My last post ran into the character limit (talk about a wall of text!). This is the continuation; probably not much point in reading unless you've read [url=https://www.bungie.net/en/Forums/Post/253268498?sort=0&page=0] Pt. 1 here. [/url] To recap: [quote]Destiny is wonderfully unique experience, as can be seen in these comparisons, and it means that many of the monetization strategies employed by other big games don't fit it very well. Additionally, some of the games which might mechanically seem a close companion have either avoided attempts to rely on in-game purchases or have abandoned them completely. So what now? Well, I think the greatest model for how Eververse might evolve going forward might best be found in none other than Pokemon GO. "Holy s**t. You did not just bring up a mobile game." Yes, I did. I even made a pun. Allow me to explain.[/quote] Despite the huge outward variances between the two, Destiny and Pokemon GO share an interestingly similar structure (even if the actual gameplay mechanics are wildly different) and Pokemon GO's monetization strategy is successful, markedly less sinister than many others in the mobile market, and readily adaptable to Destiny's current style of play. Like Destiny, Pokemon GO features a core Hunt: seek out Power (high CP/DPS/TDO pokemon), Perks (specific move sets & stat sets), and Personalization (favorite/rare pokemon and the eternal quest for "shinies"), all while exploring the world and taking down challenges solo or in groups with strangers and friends. Also like Destiny, Pokemon GO features an internal store and a premium currency - yet, unlike the Eververse Store, Pokemon GO sells items and tools that support the players in engaging with with the full breadth of the Hunt, rather than locking parts of it away and hoping players will pay for it. This contributes to an internal consistency and harmony between the store's objectives and the players's objectives that means people are more willing to spend and feel less like they're being cheated or coerced. Before I get pilloried for advocating for any kind of in-game purchases (if you've read this far I'm hoping you haven't down-voted yet), allow me to state the obvious and say that any store can be awful; it takes careful thought, planning and balancing to create a store that provides value to the player (i.e. customer) while providing reasonable return to the developer (i.e. vendor), all without spoiling community goodwill. With that in mind, here are some thoughts on the Pokemon GO shop: What's great: [i]Premium currency can be earned in-game. [/i]The rate is tightly controlled, but it means that with light planning and some patience, all items in the shop can be purchased without paying a [real] dollar ("In a free-to-play game, free is the default") [i]The rate currency is earned keeps items accessible[/i]. Again, some planning and budgeting are required, but key items like storage expansions are always within reach in the short-term (<1 week) [i]All items for sale help you in your Hunt[/i]. There is no way to buy pokemon. You have to engage with the game to actually obtain any of the 3 P's [3]. [i]There is no need to buy consumables[/i]. Many of the items in the shop are consumable, but everything is entirely optional, and no purchases are ever required. Even worst-case, with some planning and scouting of your local area, it is very possible to get everything you need to play from simply engaging with the game. [i]Budgeting is almost it's own mini-game[/i]. Okay, tough sell, I know, but you don't earn premium currency hand-over-foot, and if you want to talk about making meaningful decisions in-game, here they are. "Do I get the expansion or the incubator?" "I have this objective that requires I hatch an egg, but there's also an event coming up and those extra storage slots would be real nice." "But there's an opportunity cost to holding onto that objective, and I have time to earn enough coins for storage pack if I start towards it now, and I do really want the item the object rewards." [i]It makes money.[/i] The last points have been fairly consumer-friendly, but the numbers show: this game makes money (for simplicity we can - even should - ignore summer '16). Sure, it's user base is one of the largest in the world, but numbers also show that it has steady, growing engagement, and engages a high number of players who previously had not made in-game purchases in other apps. A lot of that can be attributed to Pokemon being one of the largest franchises ever, but a significant portion is also because: [i]It's not scummy.[/i] The two top-grossing mobile games for a long time were Clash of Clans and Candy Crush which raked in absurd amounts of money by latching onto psychology traps and demanding payment to get around the limited lives and ridiculous wait times that intentionally impeded gameplay - they were everything people loathe mobile gaming for. Pokemon GO now consistently ranks in the Top Grossing lists simply by being an item shop that enables people to play, and players are okay with paying into it. While these 'gotcha' games explode in the short term, they fizzle out when the next 'gotcha' comes along because no one has any loyalty to it beyond sunk-cost fallacy. A shop that caters to player needs while fostering goodwill also builds loyalty, and any franchise that wants to make for the long run needs that. What's less great: [i]Incubators and Raid Passes.[/i] Undoubtedly where most of the shop's revenue generation comes from, hatching eggs and taking part in raids are a big part of Pokemon GO, and the game only gives you one free incubator ever (unlimited uses, but all incubators only hatch one egg at a time) and one free raid pass per day. This is generally fine for casual play but can be constraining for regular or serious play. The issue here feels more one of balancing than the core concept though; the ability to unlock a second incubator or stockpile a second pass would go a long way. Maybe they're aware of that. Business I guess. [i]Not-so-"micro" transactions.[/i] I personally find it reprehensible to include $55 and $140 in-game purchase options in a Free-to-play game (many games do this). I have never heard heard a morally defensible justification for this - or really any justification other than "because someone will buy it". Again though, this is more implementation than the model. Nothing about the approach would change if the largest possible purchase shrunk a bit or if someone could present a sound reason for the extreme outlier price tags. Ultimately there's a lot to like about the model, and I think monetization changes to Destiny and Eververse should aspire toward the perspective and goal of supporting player action rather than impeding it. "Okay, so that's cool and all, but how does this get translated to Destiny?" I'm actually a little leery of diving fully into this in a public forum (even after such long posts) because I fully expect explaining how to monetize features that aren't currently monetized will get you pilloried, whatever sense it makes or whatever value it brings to players and developers, but suffice it to say some of it can be implemented quickly, and some needs a little more groundwork laid first. There are a number of features that have languished without any real updates for a long time and some quick changes could provide both an avenue for monetization and for re-invigorating those old mechanics. If there's an audience for discussing further, I'd definitely be interested; for now I hope this has been enough food for thought. If you've read my other posts, you know where to find me. [3] Recently added Special Lures (Glacial, Mossy & Magnetic) stretch this a little bit as these items are only available through the shop and are necessary for obtaining certain pokemon, however they are inexpensive enough to be earned with some planning, and are shared with all local players when used.