Trending Games | WildStar | ArcheAge | Landmark | Middle-earth: Shadow of Mordor

  Network:  FPSguru RTSguru
Login:  Password:   Remember?  
Show Quick Gamelist Jump to Random Game
Members:2,851,033 Users Online:0
Games:732  Posts:6,224,492
Rift (Rift)
Trion Worlds | Official Site
MMORPG | Genre:Fantasy | Status:Final  (rel 03/01/11)  | Pub:Trion Worlds
PVP:Yes | Distribution:Download | Retail Price:Free | Pay Type:Free | Monthly Fee:Free
System Req: PC | Out of date info? Let us know!

General Discussion Forum » The Pub at MMORPG.COM » A true compromise on 30 day subscriptions.

7 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Search
132 posts found
  Myrdynn

Hard Core Member

Joined: 3/25/07
Posts: 1388

5/10/13 9:26:55 AM#121

This is a good idea, I posted a few months back about a pay model that offers different options

for example 50 hrs of play for 5$, 100 hrs of play for 10$, unlimited for 15$

under your model, I would think paying 15$ for 20 days of play would be fair, or you can do unlimited for a 15$ a month recurring fee, that would still encourage full-time subs

 

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13314

5/10/13 9:27:10 AM#122
Originally posted by Yaevindusk

 

It depends on how that is marketed and how the system actually is.  I wouldn't pay $20 for 30 24 hour tokens myself simply because I'll likely be losing out on 22 hours since I only play a few hours a day (if that).  If that's the point, then I'd prefer the $15 a month (that I currently boycott simply because I've spent tens of thousands of dollars in monthly fees since 1997 on all kinds of games).  As a casual player myself, I'd end up paying for more as I'd activate it every day just for a couple of hours.  It wouldn't be reasonable and it would be torn a new one on reddit and other places, with people making videos against it as well.  Then we'd all be wary of new payment models and future products will suffer from it.  It's almost like that whole DRM / cash shop thing what with one bad system ruins the thoughts of such by the majority for the future.

If you genuinely have spent tens of thousands of dollars on online games, then you're a whale, and $15/month is dirt cheap compared to what you've been paying.  $15/month times 16 years comes to $2880, which is far shy of tens of thousands of dollars.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13314

5/10/13 9:33:15 AM#123
Originally posted by Yaevindusk

 

Though that's just to remake the costs involved.  You also have to add in cash shop models or any new potential payment model that will start giving them free money (free money in the sense you are giving something virtual for something physical).  It's a cash making cow, a money machine and, in most cases, the current P2P models are excessive as seen in the first link (albeit i'd admit looking at just one company is a little folly, but this isn't an in depth analysis).

Here's a nice video regarding MMOs in general.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvK8fua6O64

 

There's a nice little talk of payment model reasonings by Wildstar's Gaffney (I think it's towards the beginning).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ct9Ogn7AazM

 

This is why a new payment model is needed.  When thinking of the potential newblood we have, also how to draw them in with sweets and candy while also presenting it in a way they would accept or understand.

 

 

Though yes, that is a good detail to consider.  I actually touch on it very slightly with the info about A Realm Reborn and how they kind've need it, at least at the start (It's also hinted that this is one reason why only the whales in the industry go the MMO route as only they can afford the initial investment to make the cash machine).  While Yoshi-P was against F2P at first, he soon said that it was "interesting" and that he was "looking into it" for the future.  But that FFXIV as it was now is not compatible with that model.

 

I could imagine many console players on the PS4 picking it up if it was B2P or F2P as that would seem to target that audience a great deal, especially since both Sony and Microsoft are starting to target that now themselves.  They will be used to it on consoles eventually, just as they are now with B2P and microtransactions.

You're basically arguing, the previous models didn't make enough money, so let's switch to something else that we know will make a lot less.  That's not going to improve anything.

Arguing that we should stop making much money off of MMORPG players, in order to try to get non-MMORPG players to also play our games and not make much money off of them either, is arguing that games shouldn't bring in much revenue at all.

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13314

5/10/13 9:35:03 AM#124
Originally posted by Vesavius
Originally posted by itgrowls

can see this going over well now

"in the middle of a raid. HEY what happened to bob?! Oh he'll be back in a minute he forgot to use his token before coming here. (bob clicks on token and tries to rejoin the raid but can't) BOB! NOOO!

Yeah this just wouldn't work.

 

A warning comes up on your screen telling you that you are nearing the end of your current session and 'click here' to use another token, allowing you continue uninterrupted play from within the game.

Next?

 

"Why didn't you dodge that super powerful attack that one-shots you if you don't dodge it?"

"I had to stop to click a pop-up asking if I wanted to use another token."

  Quizzical

Guide

Joined: 12/11/08
Posts: 13314

5/10/13 9:38:12 AM#125
Originally posted by laokoko

That is exactly how the asian market pays right?  They pay by the minute/hour.

The thing is you need to convince game studio to adapt this model.  Which many of them probably would be reluctant to use this model.  Since they probably make less money.

 

Convincing a game company to adopt a different model is simple--which is not the same thing as easy.  You just have to convince them that they'll make more money under the new model than the old.

  Volkon

Novice Member

Joined: 9/14/10
Posts: 3813

Facts do not require fiction for balance.

5/10/13 9:59:11 AM#126

It's an interesting idea, true. However, no matter how you slice it, I have to pay for a game then pay on top of that to play the game I bought already.

 

Much happier with B2P. Bought GW2, can play "forever". No P2W, no gated content, just a cosmetic cash shop that I use on occassion for things I want, not things I need. 

Oderint, dum metuant.

  User Deleted
5/10/13 9:59:43 AM#127

Won't make Blizzard happy... they like getting paid for nothing.  If people only paid for the time they ACTUALLY played... they'd lose millions.

 

The reality is, if the game was fun, you wouldn't squirm about the cost of a sub fee... most games are just meh... a distraction, hence the come and go attitude towards them.  You'd be just as likely to try out a new game than play an existing one because you're not attached to the existing ones in any way.  This is why F2P and B2P are becoming so popular... it allows us the freedom to come and go as we want without having to pay for the privilege.

 

I say allow in-game currency to be used for game time... LOL, the game is only free if you are willing to play it non-stop in order to earn enough currency to purchase the game time.  Now that's hardcore.

  Volkon

Novice Member

Joined: 9/14/10
Posts: 3813

Facts do not require fiction for balance.

5/10/13 10:09:05 AM#128

The more I think about it the more I think it's a bad idea. 

 

Right now, using WoW as an example, many people will log in for an hour or two on some days just to do dailies, chat, etc. If someone knows they only have an hour to log on, are they going to burn a 24hr token for that? Yes, logically, it's the same cost overall as a generic 15/mo sub. But psychologically it's dramatically different. Instead of the invisible subscription and open access that provides, you now have these "visible" tokens that you have to give up every time you play. If my token gives me 24 hours access, but I only have an hour right now... I may very well opt not to play simply because it'll feel like wasting a token.

 

Think of it this way... right now you have a cable bill of, say, $90/month. If your cable company instead mailed you tokens that cost $3.00 each that you were physically required to insert into your cable box to unlock 24 hours of TV time, and you only had 1/2 an hour before you had to go out, I'd be willing to bet that most people would simply save the token and not watch TV.

Oderint, dum metuant.

  Volkon

Novice Member

Joined: 9/14/10
Posts: 3813

Facts do not require fiction for balance.

5/10/13 10:13:10 AM#129
Originally posted by pmiles

Won't make Blizzard happy... they like getting paid for nothing.  If people only paid for the time they ACTUALLY played... they'd lose millions.

 

The reality is, if the game was fun, you wouldn't squirm about the cost of a sub fee... most games are just meh... a distraction, hence the come and go attitude towards them.  You'd be just as likely to try out a new game than play an existing one because you're not attached to the existing ones in any way.  This is why F2P and B2P are becoming so popular... it allows us the freedom to come and go as we want without having to pay for the privilege.

 

I say allow in-game currency to be used for game time... LOL, the game is only free if you are willing to play it non-stop in order to earn enough currency to purchase the game time.  Now that's hardcore.

Eve Online. Earn ISK in game, convert it to time. You can pay for your subscription through earning it in game. If you don't, your account gets dinged or you lose access until you pay somehow.

 

The "priviledge" argument is odd... if I pay $60.00 for a game why is being able to play the game the priviledge? Here's $60.00, let me play. If you want additional money from me, give me the choice to buy things I want instead of mandating I buy things I need. This is proving to be a winning formula.

Oderint, dum metuant.

  gaeanprayer

Novice Member

Joined: 8/06/08
Posts: 2360

5/10/13 10:16:32 AM#130
I actually rather like this idea. Unfortunately I've no doubt in my mind that, if a company were to adopt this formula, they'd find some way to corrupt it.

"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."

  OG_Zorvan

Apprentice Member

Joined: 8/31/12
Posts: 646

 
OP  5/10/13 3:08:09 PM#131

Wow, nice to see this thread took off with some actual discussion. Very cool.

Just wanna say, I never said this was a "perfect" or even "ideal" solution. It was merely a thought I had, for good or bad, however you guys see it.

But without ideas, even bad ones, nothing ever progresses.

Carry on.

EA CEO John Riccitiello's on future microtransactions: "When you are six hours into playing Battlefield and you run out of ammo in your clip, and we ask you for a dollar to reload, you're really not very price sensitive at that point in time...We're not gouging, but we're charging."

  laokoko

Advanced Member

Joined: 9/14/09
Posts: 1895

5/10/13 5:39:11 PM#132
Originally posted by Quizzical
Originally posted by laokoko

That is exactly how the asian market pays right?  They pay by the minute/hour.

The thing is you need to convince game studio to adapt this model.  Which many of them probably would be reluctant to use this model.  Since they probably make less money.

 

Convincing a game company to adopt a different model is simple--which is not the same thing as easy.  You just have to convince them that they'll make more money under the new model than the old.

If I would to pay by hour, being an addicted gamer, I'll pay way more than the standard monthly fee.

That being said, the average gamer in asia probably pay way less than the standard 15$ a month.  So in fact paying by the hour will net way less money than sub fee.

Unless it became a trend, I doubt the western game studio will change the payment model.

7 Pages « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Search