Static's post about why he wouldn't buy anything because it doesn't change his game experience is, first off, indicative of a certain mindset, not of all players' attitudes. League of Legends, as an example, sells "skins" for their characters. A skin does nothing but make it look different. In some cases, it makes it have new voice-over sounds for certain effects. But mechanically, it does nothing.

To reveal that I'm much the same kind of player as Static, I've bought vanishingly few skins. (I admit that I was so charmed by Christmas Tree Maokai and his exploding presents that I bought the character [i]just so[/i] I could buy the skin, but that is by far the exception for me.)

That said, Riot Games makes a killing on League of Legends, and skins are incredibly popular things to buy to customize the character you play. The avatar-builder is our first product that we plan to release, and there will be costume pieces for which we charge additional fees. It works for Gaia Online, and I have no doubt it will work for us.

Different people spend money for different things.

Now, to Static's point again: if nothing we offer is worth spending money on, why would you buy anything? He makes the assumption that there will [i]have[/i] to be "pay to win" items in the c-store, because that's all that would even tempt him. But why, then, would he pay a subscription, if everything he wants in the game is free anyway? Is the subscription supposed to be "pay to win," too?

I'm not trying to pick on you, here, Static, but rather to analyze the point you're attempting to make.

For people like you, Static, there may be nothing in the game on which you wish to spend money. But you can still prove a money-earner for us just by being a fellow-player for those who will spend money, but only because they have people to play with. Heck, if you decide you want to put things up on the market for Stars - if you want to get Stars for any reason at all without spending money on them - you've contributed to MWM's sale of Stars by making something available to those with more money than time who were willing to buy Stars to buy it. You have made Stars more valuable while helping MWM avoid making the game "pay to win."

[b]Now, to focus this thread on its topic for a bit...[/b] I would like to hear what people would want to see in a subscription. What specific things would you want available in one that would entice you to buy it?

My goal with this is to break down subscrptions into bite-sized, single-produce micro-subscriptions, so that players can fully customize what they're paying for. I'd like to combine multiple items into one or more "subscription packages," but these are just items of convenience that can be tweaked by adding or subtracting microsubscription options, and are otherwise built directly from the microsubsctiptions that make them up. They're there for people who just want 1-3 choices rather than having to build a custom shopping cart.

I would also like to make these microsubscriptions have their prices listed in Stars per month. You buy the Stars, then micro-subscribe and your Stars are debited every month. This allows the free player who goes on the market to sell items for Stars to also get microsubscription benefits.

This means, obviously, that a "stipend" makes little sense for a micro-subscription. We will likely have a "recurring charge" option whereby you can put your card on an auto-pay schedule to get a stipend of Stars, however.

But for this thread, if I could get lists of things that people would expect out of a subscription, particularly with an eye towards each being individually available as a "micro-subscription" perk, that would be very helpful.

JayBezz wrote:

I maintain my assertion that the threshold for where F2P and Subscription models become fiscally advantageous is based on the Dev Resourse vs Buyer model.
If we have a 1,000,000 user game with any specific feature developed at a Dev Resource cost of $800,000 (payroll, overhead, hardware, etc) is costing $0.80 cents per buyer. This same feature for a 100,000 user game costs $8 per user. A Subscription will cover the cost of continued development for a 1M user game. A Subscription will NOT cover the same cost of development for a 100,000 user game.
If a subscription game becomes F2P (usually fremium) its because they have fallen far enough short of that threshold of buyers and need to add value to their content releases and can no longer afford to offer the "value meal" option and need to bring in MORE/Additional revenue.
- -
Neither option is the DEFAULT better option, but they have shown to be situationally advantageous (Though if a huge user product were to go F2P they would likely make more money, there is not as much incentive because they already have a huge user base. There is not enough data to predict what consumers would/will do in a huge subscriber game if it goes F2P)

And I'll maintain that your outdated numerical/financial estimates might (stress "might") make sense in the world of Blizzard-sized corporate-based MMOs. Unfortunately for you CoT is not one of those. Frankly I believe you're trying to pound your square-shaped assumptions about how this is going to work into the round-shaped hole of the reality of how CoT is going to work.

Given that a hybrid model of some sort is all but guaranteed to be our approach, it's a bit of a false dichotomy to discuss the benefits of solely being freemium vs. solely being subscription-based.

What would be helpful is discussion of what a subscriber might expect to get for his subscription that a free player might not have.

JayBezz wrote:

Lothic wrote:
Unfortunately for you CoT is not one of those. Frankly I believe you're trying to pound your square-shaped knowledge about how this is going to work into the round-shaped hole of the reality of how CoT is going to work.

My mathematical hypothetical is not reliant on its relation to City of Titans to remain true. We all know that development costs money. We all know that users are the main source of resource of that revenue (the game may offer some advertisment or other revenue streams but it has not been announced outright). This is why I hold to my assertion that the factors are Development Cost and the Users.
Where this applies to City of Titans is unclear. We do not have a user base yet nor does MWM have any operating capital to know what their development will cost. We do not know how many users will use the product. [color=red]So I invite you to review the basis of your belief[/color].

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're the one trying to use all sorts of "corporate-oriented statistics" to back a theory that almost certainly won't cleanly apply to CoT's semi-unique situation.

JayBezz wrote:

I AM stating that I think it's smarter to plan for a lower userbase model. I do not have evidence to definitively say this will be the case but it if the my guess turns out to be false the result is much less drastic and more recoverable than if they use a model that is based on a large number of users. Using a model that assumes a large number of users and failing to reach that goal has drastic long-term effects on the studio and thus the game.

Actually your logic here is completely faulty. Even if we can assume the pretense that the subscription-only model works better for a low userbase situation that doesn't automatically mean that CoT would be doomed if it somehow got a million people to subscribe to it. But conversely it's more likely that if CoT blissfully estimated it would get a million microtransaction-ers and it only got 100,000 that it would be in far more trouble than if it had 100,000 stable subscriptions it could count on.

JayBezz wrote:

So much of what we're talking about is speculative. We all understand that, but asking to pay $15 per user per month for what may actually require $50 per user per month (the first few months) is not being a realistic consumer.

Hyperbole much? If it turns out that this game is going to require the equivalent of $50 per user per month to stay afloat (at ANY time after launch) it's not going to deserve to operate REGARDLESS of which income model it's using.

JayBezz wrote:

Segev wrote:
What would be helpful is discussion of what a subscriber might expect to get for his subscription that a free player might not have.

Can you offer a Dollar amount per month for your hypothetical? How much for the "key" (box value to buy game)? How much per month?
Also you have to define your sales model before I can begin to define how much value I am saving by being a subscriber. Are unlocks per account? Per character? Both? And the value of a $15 subscription bundle is only as important as the sales price of the other digital products.
I can tell you that I expect the box fee to help in recovering the cost of initial development (Minimum wage retro-pay in this studio's case). I personally will not pay over $50 for the initial cost of any game .. this is the arbitrary number given as the baseline from way back in console days and I've stuck to it ever since. In my case that is A/(B*(N, <50)) where A is the retropay, B is the anticipated user and N is the price per key no greater that $50.
There is alot of assumption to be made on the default sales model first to begin to package it for a better value:
How much is a new character to buy? Only after knowing this will i be able to assess the value of what it is to rent over time. Also, how much time is our model based on before the rent shows Gains on Principle (when the cost to rent = the initial cost to buy). The same questions to be asked for all purchases in the digital store (Costume sets, Animation Sets, FX sets, etc)
Also there's much discussion to be had about what happens to things given in the subscription when the sub ends. If I get a personal base in the sub does it stay with my character/account? Costumes i've equipped? Resource cap?
Until the store products and sales model are better defined we cannot possibly help you speculate the perceived value of a subscription model.

You do realize that practically ALL of your concerns about "value" for players is already addressed by the HYBRID model CoT is going to use don't you? Pay only as much as you want to get only what you want.

Sure in the long run we'll get more info about the details you seem to be desperate for here. But if over the course of the next TWO YEARS what you learn about the payment model of this game doesn't satisfy you you could always just not play it. Amazingly simple don't you think?

Lothic wrote:

You do realize that practically ALL of your concerns about "value" for players is already addressed by the HYBRID model CoT is going to use don't you? Pay only as much as you want to get only what you want.
Sure in the long run we'll get more info about the details you seem to be desperate for here. But if over the course of the next TWO YEARS what you learn about the payment model of this game doesn't satisfy you you could always just not play it. Amazingly simple don't you think?

I did not ask for the final information. I asked for some information for his proposed hypothetical.

If he says a subscription is $20 dollars.. what do you expect to get for 20 dollar a month? then the answer is staunchly different than the subscription is $5.. what do you expect to get for $5 per month.

And that is still not taking the sales MODEL into account. Do i get the purchases per account? or per character?

And the box amount IS very important to how much I will pay per month so I also asked for that information.

Segev wrote:

What would be helpful is discussion of what a subscriber might expect to get for his subscription that a free player might not have.

In an effort to cut through the noise and generate some signal here ... I think I've got an answer for you, Segev, that goes to the root of what you're asking about.

[b]A subscriber expects ... [i]preferential treatment[/i].[/b]

That preferential treatment can take a bewildering variety of forms, but the bottom line is that subscribers expect to be well cared for and taken care of FIRST. That means that subscribers expect to be the ones "first in line" for all kinds of stuff ... whether it be beta invites, early access to newly developed game features, "restricted" content that will be made available to ALL Players at a later date, special discounts on store purchases (or other extra "bang for buck" considerations), being "first in line" for game queues to fill up in play (meaning less waiting to form teams through LFG systems) ... etc. etc. etc. so on and so forth.

The EXPECTATION is that by subscribing a Player is demonstrating their Loyalty to the game and its developers and staff ... with a corresponding expectation that that Loyalty will be "rewarded" in a variety of ways by the game's developers and staff, up to and possibly even including *mild* prioritizing for something as mundane as Customer Service and in-game GM Support (where being "first in line" can have some pretty serious advantages in terms of time not wasted in game).

That is what subscribers expect to receive in return for their Loyalty ... preferential treatment ... because in a great many important ways that matter, [i]they've already paid[/i] (especially if they're a long time, continuous subscriber).

Now, if you're looking for a "microsubscription" option, Segev, here's something you might want to think about.

Say you set the base monthly subscription rate at $10 (because I like that number) ... but that subscription rate includes no Stars as a monthly stipend. However, if you've got a basic subscription (at $10), you can add an additional subscription of +$5 per month that will automatically purchase Stars for you ... and the amount of Stars purchased by this monthly stipend will be better/more efficient than the exchange rate of buying Stars in bulk from the Star Store. So if $5 would normally get you 500 Stars in the MWM Store (just to keep the math easy) as a Freebie Player, this monthly subscription would offer a stipend of, say ... 600 Stars. But if you wanted to actually Buy Stars as a one time microtransaction, because you're a subscriber (the $10 per month) your $5 buys you 550 Stars instead of merely 500 Stars like a Freebie Player would be getting.

There's all kinds of things you can do to tinker around the edges of that basic formula (must be subscribed for X number of months to get Y benefits), but that's the underlying shape of it. The key thing is that you can subscribe to the game (without Stars stipend) at $10 per month, or subscribe to the game (with Stars stipend) at $15 per month. Being a subscriber though gives you preferential treatment.

You follow me, Segev?

Note that these preferences in treatment need not be for things that have a direct monetary value ... such as reserving slots for beta testing new features on the test server(s) or being given a "staged" advance access to new features on the Live Servers where at first only subscribers can access those new development for a period of time before they're made available to everyone later on. Once again, being able to be "first in line" for things can offer a powerful inducement to subscribe for opportunities and services that don't necessarily fall into the "Pay To Win" category, but can fall into the "Pay To Experience Sooner" category.

So [b]preferential treatment[/b] is the key to attracting and holding onto subscribers.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to spend some time being mesmerized by my signature ...

Redlynne wrote:

That is what subscribers expect to receive in return for their Loyalty ... preferential treatment ... because in a great many important ways that matter, they've already paid (especially if they're a long time, continuous subscriber).

Amazingly enough I pretty much agree with everything you said here. ;)

But I'll add one other general aspect of the subscription model of payment that I appreciated from CoH - simplicity. For six years in a row I was able to pay for CoH with their annual subscription option. With that it was a once-a-year thing that I didn't have to think/worry about the rest of the year. That peace of mind is something that the semi-chaotic F2P concept can't provide.

I am going to jump in and say that I do not like the idea of any powersets being behind purchases (subscription or microtransaction). I do not like the idea of paying for combat mechanics, period. Aesthetic changes (Animations, FX, Costumes, etc) sure, but paying for combat mechanics I do not support.

Also, access to a test server should not require a subscription if access to the game server does not require a subscription. I just hope your server infrastructure can port over the account settings from the game server AND still allow free use to the development that needs testing. Unsubscribed players should not be considered second class users even if you give perks that make subscriptions appealing.

- -

I like the "Discount" model as I've stated before. It is much more attractive when the discount gets steeper over time to encourage KEEPING a sub as much as GETTING a sub.

If character slots are rented at the sub level I would never think about it unless it was a "rent to own model" the number of slots can be unlimited but by keeping the sub active (perhaps consecutive only) you "own" a new slot for every X months you've subscribed.

- -

Your micro-subscription models are also appealing. I am making the assumption we're talking about the same type of system so I will elaborate on what was said by others and what I understand that to mean:

A Stars subscription (hypothetically priced at $5) could allot you a stipend and a discounted rate on stars.
A Slots subscription (hypothetically but seperately priced at $5) could allot you unlimited character slots on a "rent to own" basis.
A Powers subscription ( " ") could allot you unlimited temporary acces to all the available animations and FX on a rent to own basis
A Costumes subscription (" ") could allot you unlimited temporary access to all the available costumes on a rent to own basis
A Story subscription (" ") could alot you access to all the story on a rent to own basis.

I make it a note that sustained subscription is the goal, so the idea that a longtime subscriber goes back to zero for not paying their subscription is something I am attempting to avoid as its a large barrier in the subscription model to user retention. I also understand that it's a motivator for keeping the sub active. IF there's consecutive subscription benefit then what should happen if a subscription fails payment? Also does the entire subscription go away or would you give options to simply lower the subscription at any time before the renewal date?

I'm trying to compare the "rent" vs "rent to own" model for effectiveness in subscription retention (not player retention).. If the rate of ownership is too slow (equal or less than what they could get paying for free) then the entire value of the rental model loses appeal. But if it's too high then it invalidates the sticker price and once the player unlocks "enough" they will stop subscribing. It's hard to see the value in a subscription of a particular type once a player has "enough" of what they're micro-sub is offering them and they don't pay for it.

Selling content is hard but (in my opinion) necessary. I like the idea of selling a number of runs over time (I want to say 4 hours because 24 hours discourages people from logging in and anything shorter is not long enough to hinder people's enjoyment) with both in-game currency and stars but not through stars only. Offering this to any subscriber (using the proposed $5 hypothetical) for free/unlimited does not sound unreasonable. Maybe it would require two of the micro subs to reach a $10 subscription threshold.. I put the threshold on a $ amount and not a number of subs because the micro subscription pricing will depend on what your development schedule looks like according to its classification. If you're releasing much more costumes than you are powers then the costume subscription has less value than the powers subscription and the price should reflect the value.

JayBezz wrote:

I'll need to look at the actual market research for player retention for both models before accepting you assumptions that the F2P player is always a "serial f2p gamer". The term "Serial F2P gamer" is psuedoscience and not based on any measured statistic.. the entire revenue model is too new to have conclusive data and there's relatively no way to to really track player behavior between games. Consumer behavior can be predicted but not with fake science.

Of course, not all F2Pers are like that, but at least a few (more than a few) of us have known quite a few F2Pers who were like this.

Well, I don't know of any serial F2Pers, but I do know some F2Pers who might like a F2P game, but they never think anything is worth buying in the store. They're there for the free game. They're either okay with the limitations or they're complaining about the limitations but still refuse to buy anything.

At the same time, I have a brother if he plays the game regularly will buy something a bit regularly, usually about $15 dollars a month worth, if he thinks it's worth it, sometimes even a bit more because he knows if he doesn't spend any money the game could very well stop. While I have a few friends who will be hard pressed to purchase anything from any game, outside a couple exceptions, and know if a game closes they can go to the next F2P game.

So obviously, there are different kinds of players, but the, YAY FREE GAME, seems a bit more prevalent to me in F2P games.

Hrm. There seem to be some misconceptions about what I mean by "microsubscriptions." Most of this discussion about price levels and how much is enough value for a given dollar amount per month is beside the point of what I'm asking about. However, this discussion's been useful in a couple of ways, so I'd like to help it continue. First off, the sort of answer that's most helpful are Red's comments about "preferential treatment" and ones like Jay's here:

JayBezz wrote:

A Stars subscription (hypothetically priced at $5) could allot you a stipend and a discounted rate on stars.
A Slots subscription (hypothetically but seperately priced at $5) could allot you unlimited character slots on a "rent to own" basis.
A Powers subscription ( " ") could allot you unlimited temporary acces to all the available animations and FX on a rent to own basis
A Costumes subscription (" ") could allot you unlimited temporary access to all the available costumes on a rent to own basis
A Story subscription (" ") could alot you access to all the story on a rent to own basis.

Red's has a good philosophical basis for the sorts of things to consider in subscriptions. Jay's actually talks about what the subscriptions might [i]buy[/i].

I can't really answer "how much would you have to spend per month." It also isn't relevant to answering the question I'm asking right now.

Jay's response here is good not because it has "subscription level" pricings, but because it suggests specific things that - for some unspecified amount of money - people might be interested in paying a subscription fee to get. (No, I know nobody would agree "sure, any amount of money is worth that!" What I'm looking for is what people might be willing to pay a subscription fee for, assuming the sub fee was 'reasonable' in their minds. It doesn't matter how reasonable the sub fee is if the things you are being offered for it are not things you want! The guy who wants to play City of Titans like a standard MMO wouldn't be moved to buy a subscription if its perks were things like "access to the Bejeweled-clone mini-game you can play while waiting for a team to form," to make a somewhat silly example.)

"Preferential treatment in semi-intangible ways," "discounts in the c-store, possibly increasing with time," "more character slots," "bulk access to things (powers, costume pieces/sets, etc.)..." these are good suggestions for what one might get in a subscription.

Again, don't think about price, here. Just... what sorts of things might make a subscription worth considering [i]at all[/i] to you?

I'll try to address the concerns about what I've said about stipends, and more explain why I said it and what I mean by "microsubscriptions" (though Jay's got the right idea in the quote box I included above - pay for [i]specific[/i] components of the subscription you want) and how the two are related later.

One attempt at a short version: I would like, to use Jay's examples, to have the "slots subscription," the "powers subscription," the "costumes subscription," and the "story subscription" be things people pay for in Stars. Not in dollars, not directly. This obviously doesn't work for the "Stars subscription," because paying Stars for Stars is kind-of silly on the face of it.

But the reason I'd like to go that route, if possible, is that it means that the people who get Stars from the market - the free players who sell stuff to those who have more money than time and thus wish to spend real money to get mechanically-useful items for their characters - will be able to purchase microsubscriptions.

This is also related to why I said what I did about "people like Static" contributing to supporting the game. I will note that, perhaps erroneously, an inherent assumption to my statement was that he was NOT subscribing in that example. Obviously, anybody paying a monthly rate for any reason is going to be contributing to the support of the game. The point I was making was that the model I'm hoping to implement means that even free-to-players who get their hands on Stars through in-game activities are contributing to the support of the game.

Col. Kernel wrote:

Segev wrote:
The thing one must remember about "lost revenue" vs. "retaining customers" is that customers you never get or do not retain are also lost revenue.

True. And the empty suits of the business trained have no way to track those numbers. A fact they conveniently forget.

These numbers are tracked in what are called "impressions". A store before opening asks the traffic of any potential area before they open.. if a mall has 1500 visitors a day then depending on exposure the store can expect X amount of impressions.

In the digital marketplace these are marked by IP impressions to the game site (website in this case). The more impressions/exposure the more potential customers. Then you track the conversion rate of how many of those impressions took the next step (going to your about us page).

- -

I won't elaborate on "what makes a good game" but what I'm saying in the post you quote is that the conversion rate is proven much better to get users if the game has a low financial threshold to start. And if that threshold requires continued financial investment (money) to continue it further diminishes the chance for that impression to lead to sustained sales.

- -

I would gladly support City of Titans as a 501c3 if people would be willing to fund it. It'd be a hell of a hard sell to get a successful grant-writer but it's a goal.

Missing World Media is an incorporated equity company, meaning they are a business. Why do people hate the principles of business? "Empty suits"? Venture Capital hate? I just don't get it.. NOTHING comes for free. The idea that if you are forced to pay to have access to the development you want to use is not "milking cash cows". If I open a lemonade stand I have every right (and by all means SHOULD if I want success) to charge for the cup, the sugar, the water, the lemons, AND the labor it takes to make lemonade and factor that into the price.

I honestly feel like people are asking to have a for profit corporation say "Lets ignore business principles" and pray our players make it work out.

JayBezz wrote:

Why do people hate the principles of business? "Empty suits"? Venture Capital hate? I just don't get it.. NOTHING comes for free. The idea that if you are forced to pay to have access to the development you want to use is not "milking cash cows". If I open a lemonade stand I have every right (and by all means SHOULD if I want success) to charge for the cup, the sugar, the water, the lemons, AND the labor it takes to make lemonade and factor that into the price.
I honestly feel like people are asking to have a for profit corporation say "Lets ignore business principles" and pray our players make it work out.

I'm not anti-business or anti-profit. One more time I'll say that I hope MWM can make as much money out of this as possible.

But to use your lemonade analogy I still think you're attempting to jump up the scope of this from being a group of neighborhood kids selling lemonade all the way to a global multi-billion dollar brand sold by Coca-Cola or PepsiCo in one fell swoop. Let's be serious here - as much as I love what MWM is doing they aren't going to be the next Blizzard. That's a pie-in-the-sky goal about 37 steps beyond what we even need to worry about with this. If MWM manages to make it to a financally comfortable "mom-and-pop local store" level of success that's all we really need.

Okay. So I purchase *1500 a month with my monthly fee and then I sign up for whatever "Pieces" of a subscription I want to have. Do I have to do this every month or does it remember everything I chose and automatically does it for me every month? If so, can I change my mind a few months down the road and get something else? If so, do I retain anything I previously spent stars on before? If so, what's stopping me from "Collecting" every "Piece" I want in the game by changing my format every month? Again, what am I going to do with stars saved up that I have no use spending for anything else because I've already obtained everything I feel I need or want in the game? Do they just sit in my account wasting money and space? Can I sell them to another player? If so, how? If so, what would be the value conversion of them? And wouldn't that kind of be like gold farming in a way? Collect enough stars by buying them cheaply from another player that doesn't want them, then turn around and sell them for a higher price to someone who does? I dunno. This just doesn't sound like a good idea to me.

The answer to that also lies in the Loyalty benefits, if those will be included. Much like CoH, if you subscribed for X amount of months you retained certain parts of the game for your monthly contributions. That is why I asked. Will there be some kind of loyalty reward for subscribing on a monthly basis and if so, how will it be implemented? Also, why isn't my Micro-Transaction Sub treated the same as a Micro-Transaction? I mean I paid money for it, so I should be able to keep it? Right? What's the difference between spending $15.00 a month on *1500 and using those stars to buy the subscription model I want and just buying *1500 stars and just randomly picking items that I want as a F2P player? I'm just not seeing the benefit to what you are trying to propose.

Usually having a subscription comes with some kind of perk involved for the subscriber not allotted to the F2P player.

If you are not going to give a subscriber some kind of perk then there is no reason to offer a subscription package at all, might as well just make the game F2P with a Micro-Transaction store.

I mean, I'm all for us having stars, much like City had Paragon Points. That's all cool. But I say use them much like City did in that you had the ability to use them as an alternate form of currency to purchase items that were also listed on the Market that people who didn't have Billions of Inf to purchase said item had, or to purchase costumes, new power sets, pets, xp boosters, booster packs, etc.

oOStaticOo wrote:

Usually having a subscription comes with some kind of perk involved for the subscriber not allotted to the F2P player.
If you are not going to give a subscriber some kind of perk then there is no reason to offer a subscription package at all, might as well just make the game F2P with a Micro-Transaction store.

In principle I'd have to agree with this. Any kind of "subscription" needs to offer either more than you could get for the same money spent on equivalent FP2 microtransactions or offer some kind of discount versus the same money spent on equivalent FP2 microtransactions.

The main benefit the company gets from a subscribed player is the quasi-guarantee that the player will continue to pay every month. This allows the company some assurance that there will be long term income for them. In exchange for this "financial assurance" the subscribed player ought to get some added benefit in return that a FP2 player (almost by definition) doesn't deserve based on their relative lack of commitment.

Redlynne wrote:

... Hardy Pioneers ...

Someone's been playing Sid Meier's Colonization! :-)

Lothic wrote:

oOStaticOo wrote:
Usually having a subscription comes with some kind of perk involved for the subscriber not allotted to the F2P player.
If you are not going to give a subscriber some kind of perk then there is no reason to offer a subscription package at all, might as well just make the game F2P with a Micro-Transaction store.

In principle I'd have to agree with this. Any kind of "subscription" needs to offer either more than you could get for the same money spent on equivalent FP2 microtransactions or offer some kind of discount versus the same money spent on equivalent FP2 microtransactions.
The main benefit the company gets from a subscribed player is the quasi-guarantee that the player will continue to pay every month. This allows the company some assurance that there will be long term income for them. In exchange for this "financial assurance" the subscribed player ought to get some added benefit in return that a FP2 player (almost by definition) doesn't deserve based on their relative lack of commitment.

This gets to the point I was trying to make.

A subscription offers something that micro-transactions do not. Whether it's veteran awards, some sort of scaling store discount, early access to beta content, or a broader "package" (such as "rent this for every character on your account" versus "buy this for one character at a time, but forever"), a subscription does something [i]different[/i] than a one-off microtransaction.

A micro-subscription is not the same thing as a micro-transaction. Microtransactions are one-off purchases that permanently add something to a character or an account. Subscriptions are ongoing things that open a door as long as you remain subscribed. A microsubscription is just a subscription, but to one specific thing a "normal" subscription would offer.

If a "normal" subscription offered early beta access, 5 extra slots, access to the MinionMaster Classification, and 20% more costume pieces available to all your characters, the "microsubscription equivalent" would be a micro-subscription for each extra character slot, a micro-subscription to open the MinionMaster Classification to every character you create, and some number of microsubscriptions to allow access to the various costume pieces for all your characters.

The microtransaction equivalent would be buying each costume piece individually (possibly for one PC at a time, possibly for every one of them), buying each slot individually (which is a reason why that may not work as a micro-subscription option, since people probably would prefer not to have to keep paying for the privilege of using their characters), buying the MinionMaster Classification for a specific chracter (making it reasonable as either a microSub or as a microTransaction, depending on whether you want to buy it once for one PC forever or keep renting it so you can use it on any PC you ever build).

What I'm trying to use this thread for is to identify those things that make sense as "subscription" items, versus those things which make more sense as one-off microtransaction purchases. The breakdown into micro-subscriptions means that some things that might normally be carrots tied to the subscription package don't make sense when compared to the microtransaction equivalent, such as "extra character slots," but I am fairly sure there are some things that do just make more sense as "subscription items" than as "microtransactions."

JayBezz wrote:

I'll need to look at the actual market research for player retention for both models before accepting you assumptions that the F2P player is always a "serial f2p gamer". The term "Serial F2P gamer" is psuedoscience and not based on any measured statistic.. the entire revenue model is too new to have conclusive data and there's relatively no way to to really track player behavior between games. Consumer behavior can be predicted but not with fake science.

Or they're 15 and couldn't pay a sub, so had to be serial F2P, I have a relative in this boat.

If you're asking "what makes a subscription worth it"

My answer is value.

1) I only rent services (verb). Whenever possible I never rent commodities (noun). To add value to a rental (subscription) I will only do it as a rent to own model. I will not find any subscription worth having if when I stop paying the subscription I am left with empty pockets.

- -

2) I generally avoid "package deals" as they usually offer me more than I want and need. I'm okay with buying a la carte because I am not a gluttonous consumer. This is why a microsubscription model may be attractive to me.

- -

JayBezz wrote:

Your micro-subscription models are also appealing. I am making the assumption we're talking about the same type of system so I will elaborate on what was said by others and what I understand that to mean:
A Stars subscription (hypothetically priced at $5) could allot you a stipend and a discounted rate on stars.
A Slots subscription (hypothetically but seperately priced at $5) could allot you unlimited character slots on a "rent to own" basis.
A Powers subscription ( " ") could allot you unlimited temporary acces to all the available animations and FX on a rent to own basis
A Costumes subscription (" ") could allot you unlimited temporary access to all the available costumes on a rent to own basis
A Story subscription (" ") could alot you access to all the story on a rent to own basis.

3) I tend to be a cash cow for my SG Mates whenever I have the dough to spend so if after 1 year of consecutive subscription I get a 30-50% discount on all my future purchases I may be willing to pay for this (depending on cost biensure).

I will likely only play one character who has a defined look and power animations so these I will buy once and likely not be interested in ANY subscription (Alt-a-holics will).

As a single character player having new story to run is important to me so I would be interested in this microsubscription. And the rent-to-own model means that if for some reason I have acquired all of the story available or if story production slows drastically this appeal drops majorly. The speed of releases is a major factor in this micro-subscription model and it may not be feasible. But being unable to run content with my SG mates is compelling enough so I may still pay to enter instances/maps/etc on a microtransaction basis.

- -

4) The Costume microsubscription will likely NOT cost the same as the Story microsubscription because it Story takes much longer to produce and there's not as measurable a timetable. And frankly after Champions Online scarred me to the point where I'd buy a costume with a 30% bug quality factor and almost ALL new story came with a 90% bug quality factor (meaning that 90% of the time story {and powers} content was released with HELLA bugs). This may just be Cryptic Studios, but the point remains that some development goes faster and more reliable than others and thus I value them differently. The cost should reflect the value

- -

5) If a patternof "wait, don't take the bait" happens where new releases are riddled with bugs, apt to constant change, or mechanics that are new and untested.. I will usually prefer to "test the waters" so I may buy a microsubscription for the month of release then go back to my microtransaction to buy outright what I want when it works to my satisfaction.

- -

I will point out that I think any * discount model should be for "personal gain only" meaning the value of a * in YOUR *Store is more than the value of a * in the SG. Items should bind on character/account. And the SG bank of *s would work as a store at its own rate (and not offer any per account rewards). A "Bind on SG" option could be nice assuming a minimum character number for SGs where someone can't just invite you to the sg in order to circumvent this. In my mind donating to the SG is for personal gain if you have equity in that entity.

The SG is its own entity where once it's put in the SG its managed by the SG. There's a whole separate conversation about SG rule creation and player gifting.

But even still the star subscription will be attractive to people who want to sell things in the conversion auction too.

See I'm really sympathetic to the guy who wants to sub and can't.
He (or she.. sticking with he for simplicity) wants to sub for the perks, loves the game and plans on playing it to the max.
Doing this via microtransactions would be really expensive in the long run (as it should be) but he can't get his parents to sub.

There are other financial models than just "kid with crap parents" that would benefit from being able to do x in-game and then translate that into a sub.

Is that good for the game? This is a totally new scenario to me, it's not something CoX had to offer, you subbed or you didn't, you bought from the shop or you didn't.
But.

Does it need ten different subscription models? You're looking at revenue streams. Not enough people paid for pvp so you don't develop it?
There's a bagzillion costumes. People LOVE COSTUMES. Your costume guy ACTUALLY DIES as it's not possible to make any more.
(but god forbid you siphon that stream off to the PvPers, right)

Segev wrote:

You have to be careful when you pick and choose "nobody does this" and "everybody does this" as reasons to or not to do something.

Sure but it really helps when you provide examples. "Like CoX" and "Spiritual successor to CoX" can be worlds apart or very similar. I just want to get what you're thinking.

I can understand where you are wanting to go with using stars to be able to purchase subscriptions instead of using real cash. I can. I'm just not to sure about how implementing that would work or not be taken advantage of somehow. I applaud trying to think outside of the box to allow users who may not be able to fund a subscription or even make micro-transaction purchases with real money. It's a noble and novel idea. I would just hate to try to implement something so new right out of the box without having some kind of trial period with it. I fear that in the beginning somebody might be able to take advantage of the situation and turn it into something that it was not originally meant for. I'd hate for something to happen that would have major consequences to the game in a way that was not foreseen. That's why I'd like to limit stars to making purchases off of the cash store for things like extra character slots, respecs, costume pieces, xp boosters, booster packs, pets, vehicles, additional powers as they are developed, bundle packs of super inspirations, additional AT's as they are developed, etc.

I like the idea of offering different subscription packages that have varying options to choose from that cost different prices. That way we can try to reach the most players that are willing to pay as much as they can or is available to them. All while also trying to cater to the people that like F2P and Micro-Transaction processes. Options are a good thing. The more options you have the more people you'll be able to draw in and cater to.

You will inevitably end up with "I paid for these things"
and "those things for sale.. $5"

I worry that the business model allows for that is all.
Otherwise carry on, it's awesome to see somebody who actually has a plan come on and tell us what it is.

As long as the sub is "all the things you can microtransaction".. then it will probably be fine. As a subber I don't want to have to pick between too many options. I will finish by saying that you want to offer up a whole bunch of choices. I don't want them. I want one thing. I pay that thing. That's the end of it.

Pricing that will be interesting.

Subscription vs Transaction and the Rent vs Own dichotomy:

Anything that is subscribed to, or "rented" if you prefer, needs to be something which is in some way "reversible" in the way of Now You Have It, Now You Don't. People get *REALLY* upset when you take their toys away when they feel like they've either "earned" them or otherwise "bought" them in perpetuity. A lot of the things that will fall into the category of being "rentables" ought to be things that are basically privileges ... stuff like early access, bonuses/discounts, stipend awards and so on. All of these privileges are effectively reversible in that they can be taken away if the subscription is terminated or suspended.

Those things stand in contrast to services and rewards that are either effectively "unlocks" such as additional character slots, extra costume slots, added inventory slots, new powersets, new costume sets, and so on and so forth. All of these rewards and services are things that essentially fall under the category of [b]Do Not Back Up, Severe Tire Damage[/b] and are essentially "irreversible" once acquired due to how they interact with other systems (and expectations).

A third category of things that can be bought are consumables and repeatable purchases, with the most common of the latter being things like lockboxes and the keys that open those lockboxes. Consumables however could include things such as no only Inspirations and INF, but also Set IO Enhancements and other itemization(s) where a particular build may need more than one copy of something to slot into multiple Powers.

Reversible privileges make sense to put into subscriptions.
Unlocks make sense to put into microtransactions.
Consumables and repeatable purchased make more sense to put into microtransactions, but there is also a case to be made for allowing subscriptions to be awarded these items [i]at a sufficiently slow rate of speed[/i] so as to not disrupt the market at large. In a lot of cases, this latter "hybrid" situation is often resolved though use of a monthly stipend subscription that can then enable purchases through microtransactions, allowing Players to "choose your own reward" in effect.

JayBezz, there's an "In Soviet Russia..." joke just begging to be told based on your content creation idea.

Best way I can think of to do so would be to allow Players to award Stars to the writers of Player Created Content on a voluntary basis, so as to potentially generate a form of "income" for those content creators.

I have always thought that it was risky, at best, to hand out the c-store currency for in-game activities that generate said currency for nothing but the in-game actions. It either frustrates players because it's practically illusory in that you never get enough to do much, or it risks breaking the bank by giving away the store. Now, perhaps LotR and DDO managed to do it effectively, but...I'd rather avoid the risk.

This is why I have a strict "somebody must have paid for it somewhere" philosophy on every Star generated.

Redlynne wrote:

Now in Star Trek Online, I'm not a subscriber, so I don't get a stipend of Zen every month. That means I'm basically a "free" Player when I do play. However, there have been things that I've wanted to buy in the Zen store, but which I couldn't justify paying Real Money to get. However, because there is a way to mine in-game resources (Dilithium Ore) and refine it daily (into Refined Dilithium) which can be exchanged for Zen, I've been able to finance all of my Zen purchases in Star Trek Online by virtue of playing the game rather than forking over real money to Cryptic. Mind you, the "pay rate" for doing it this way has basically never gone higher than $1 per hour of gameplay due to exchange rate equivalencies ... but that isn't what's important to me. Instead of doing Pay To Play ... instead, I've been doing Play To Pay ... and in so doing I've been fulfilling my part in keeping the in-game economy liquid and flowing, supplying resources to meet the demands of other willing to sell. Quite frankly, this has been an aspect of Star Trek Online that I rather appreciate, where through accumulation of in-game resources and careful management it is actually possible to Play The Game so as to be able to Pay For Stuff that can only be bought out of the Zen Store.

And it's that thought which worries me. Oh hey! Look! Everyone quit getting ZEN! No money is going into the game, because everyone has gone the route of Play to Pay but there's nothing to pay for now!

Likely to happen? No. Possible more going Play2Pay vs Pay2Play? Yes.

Segev wrote:

This is why I have a strict "somebody must have paid for it somewhere" philosophy on every Star generated.

I get that. The game isn't giving you mission rewards of stars, that's fine. As somebody who is paying to play the game I don't want to give my stars to other players. Not for player generated content or items. If people want to buy things that costs stars, they should pay for them or convert in-game currency into stars via an exchange method that benefits the game further. At the moment the only person being charged constantly is me. Once I stop buying stars, your f2per is not generating income.

As for the cost of the all-in-one package. Again, you've created a bunch of payment plans and then tell me it might be too much for me because of that? My payment plan for everything should still be in the $15 range. If you've got 5 packages at $5 each that shouldn't make mine $25.

GH wrote:

JayBezz wrote:
Dinma wrote:
2. Adventure creation via AE

Some of these may be "free" in CoT, but I would likely pay to enjoy the remainder.

I plan on using the content creation methods available to players (costume mods, story, etc) but I will NOT do it if it costs me money to do so. In fact I think all content creators should be compensated.

So your plan is to not sub and play the game as f2p and then to make money by creating and selling things in-game. Good luck with that, I do not see how that keeps the game going but I'm not a financial expert.

It doesn't. It requires another player willing to buy extra to support the other players free game.

GH wrote:

So your plan is to not sub and play the game as f2p and then to make money by creating and selling things in-game. Good luck with that, I do not see how that keeps the game going but I'm not a financial expert.

I very succinctly and clearly stated what I plan on purchasing in posts above. Your tone as to make an implication that I (the person who has been advocating for the most aggressive financial strategy) want to get away with not paying the game is baseless.

I do not make personal insults or accusations, but anyone with a history with me will tell you that I am not above responding to them swiftly and harshly. By any means necessary keep them to yourself.

Segev wrote:

I have always thought that it was risky, at best, to hand out the c-store currency for in-game activities that generate said currency for nothing but the in-game actions. It either frustrates players because it's practically illusory in that you never get enough to do much, or it risks breaking the bank by giving away the store. Now, perhaps LotR and DDO managed to do it effectively, but...I'd rather avoid the risk.
This is why I have a strict "somebody must have paid for it somewhere" philosophy on every Star generated.

Neverwinter gets round this problem by making astral diamonds you earn ingame "rough astral diamonds" that you have to refine with a limit of 24000 or about 60 cents worth that you can refine per character per day, and you'd have to play a real lot to earn that much on more than one character.

Quote:

Hey, Minotaur, question about your relative: would he take advantage of a system whereby he could sell stuff he gets from playing the game on the AH for Stars and use those to support a subscription or otherwise to patronize the c-store? Or would he stick to serial F2Ping?

Not sure, probably depends what he can drop/earn in PvP, as that's where he'll be most of the time.

Redlynne wrote:

Minotaur wrote:
Neverwinter gets round this problem by making astral diamonds you earn ingame "rough astral diamonds" that you have to refine with a limit of 24000 or about 60 cents worth that you can refine per character per day, and you'd have to play a real lot to earn that much on more than one character.
Star Trek Online does effectively the same thing with its Dilithium Exchange. Each character can refine up to 8000 Dilithium per day (although Fleets with Dilithium Mines can do a daily mission to add 500 to that daily amount) and if you're a Veteran with sufficient subscription time, there's an NPC you can visit for an additional +8000 refining capacity per day. So you're looking at either ~8k or ~16k refining capacity PER CHARACTER per day.
Last I looked (3 months ago) the exchange rate for Zen was around 130 Refined Dilithium per Zen. 60 Zen at 130 Dilithium per is 7800 Dilithium total daily capacity. The exchange rate from $$ to Zen was approximately 1¢ equals 1 Zen.
I have 4 Captains in Star Trek Online, and I could (with some dedicated effort) generate ~8k Dilithium Ore per day on each of those 4 characters (this would take multiple hours of game play). Net result would be somewhere in the neighborhood of ~32k Dilithium refined per day by my account. At a price of 130 Dilithium per 1 Zen, I was capable of extracting ~245 Zen per day (equivalent) from the market by Playing The Game. This would usually require about 3-4 hours of gameplay for a real dollar value of less than $2.50.
Needless to say, I couldn't exactly make Federal Minimum Wage ($7.25) doing that. But when you need (read: want) to buy things in the Zen store that cost 2000 Zen (ie. $20), you CAN do it as a Play To Pay sort of Player ... it's just going to take a *LOT* of grinding to mine the resources necessary to do it over the course of a couple weeks. Suffice it to say, the economic equivalencies break down in such a way that If Time Equals Money you're simply a lot better off just buying Zen with real money than grinding Dilithium every day doing daily missions for weeks at a time. The irony is that the Play to Pay system ensures that although *I* paid no real $$ for those Zen, someone else did ... meaning that even though *I* am paying Cryptic Studios nothing in real cash, someone else did on my behalf and I was able to buy their Zen for an in-game resource they wanted more than I did.
The important thing to take away from this real world example is that this sort of exchanging in-game resources for currency that is only generated as a result of a real money transfer to the game developer is that although it makes alternative "freebie" paths to being able to afford/acquire items, services and unlocks from the cash shop POSSIBLE it doesn't actually make the Play To Pay route a particularly PROFITABLE one, simply due to how the game bottlenecks the refinement capacity, as well as the resource acquisition and mining opportunities situation(s). Most people would consider "working" for under 60¢ per hour to be a remarkably "unprofitable" endeavor and a waste of time (if putting it in "job" and employment opportunity terms). But for people who have more free time than they have disposable income ... it can make for an enjoyable alternative to spending scarce real $$ that your real life budget may not be able to afford.

And it still relies on people who are willing to spend money. If no one does, then the play to fails. Fails even more so when there's to many Play to Pay vs Pay to Play.

What I fear, is a game that is awesome, but most players don't actually want to support. They want to play it free and would rather watch it be shut off, than pay a cent to the game.

Brand X wrote:

What I fear, is a game that is awesome, but most players don't actually want to support. They want to play it free and would rather watch it be shut off, than pay a cent to the game.

You can live in fear, if that's the way you want to live your life.
I prefer to not live in fear, so I don't.
Absent evidence to counteract your fear, you'll just have to decide for yourself how much you want to let your fears rule you.

Gangrel wrote:

For those who complain about it being unfair to those who do not use social media... I can see their point. However, these people have spread the world about the game, they have helped advertise game... the costume piece/title/whatever is a "thank you" from the developers for helping out.

The problem with the way that Paragon Studios handled it was that they went with the Eternal Exclusive option. So the *ONLY* way to get the reward was to Jump Through THIS Hoop. There were no other ways to obtain the reward. THAT was the mistake!

If they'd done something like having a reward that could be obtained 2-4 weeks exclusively by social media, after which it could be obtained by social media methods [i]and other methods as well[/i] then there wouldn't have been a backlash, since the reward would come to "everyone" eventually instead of being a Social Media Only EXCLUSIVE!!!!

That way you can generate a "spike" of social media buzz [i]without shooting a finger at everyone who isn't already participating in social media[/i] and pissing off a sizable segment of your playerbase. You get upside without a serious downside of resentment and backlash. It was the *EXCLUSIVE!* promotional aspects that ticked people off.

Exclusives are a tricky thing. On the one hand, they're really, really cool for those who can get them. They make it special that you participated in the specific event. On the other, nobody can do [i]everything[/i], so they're a nightmare for completionists.

Maybe making it possible to sell/trade "exclusives" on the player-to-player market would help? Create only the limited number of exclusive items that are needed to award everybody who participated, but then let them be traded. Create a "collectors' market" that way. (If we do the multiple auction houses idea that was brought up elsewhere, we could have a literal specialty AH for it, even.)

Segev wrote:

Exclusives are a tricky thing. On the one hand, they're really, really cool for those who can get them. They make it special that you participated in the specific event. On the other, nobody can do everything, so they're a nightmare for completionists.
Maybe making it possible to sell/trade "exclusives" on the player-to-player market would help? Create only the limited number of exclusive items that are needed to award everybody who participated, but then let them be traded. Create a "collectors' market" that way. (If we do the multiple auction houses idea that was brought up elsewhere, we could have a literal specialty AH for it, even.)

I'm guessing you're thinking of actual items like CO has with its action figures? GW2 has a bunch as well. I suppose it would be like collecting all the companions / mounts / other items in NW. They all have a rl cash shop price on a lot of the items whilst others are available in-game so you'd get as many as you could by playing then buy the missing ones from the shop I'd guess.

Keeping some things as limited time only - for instance only available during Spring (every Spring, not just Spring 2016) would be useful for making cash calls Whether they should be re-sellable or tradeable I don't know, I'd say not to prevent RMT for items.

GH, you make a comment I'd like a little explanation on so I can get into your headspace a bit, if I may: You say you'd not spend Stars on other players in the AH.

Assuming that Stars are, in fact, the c-store currency, why would you never spend your Stars on the AH to buy an item you really want for your character?

Redlynne wrote:

Gangrel wrote:
For those who complain about it being unfair to those who do not use social media... I can see their point. However, these people have spread the world about the game, they have helped advertise game... the costume piece/title/whatever is a "thank you" from the developers for helping out.
The problem with the way that Paragon Studios handled it was that they went with the Eternal Exclusive option. So the *ONLY* way to get the reward was to Jump Through THIS Hoop. There were no other ways to obtain the reward. THAT was the mistake!

Brand X wrote:

Segev wrote:
Exclusives are a tricky thing. On the one hand, they're really, really cool for those who can get them. They make it special that you participated in the specific event. On the other, nobody can do everything, so they're a nightmare for completionists.
Maybe making it possible to sell/trade "exclusives" on the player-to-player market would help? Create only the limited number of exclusive items that are needed to award everybody who participated, but then let them be traded. Create a "collectors' market" that way. (If we do the multiple auction houses idea that was brought up elsewhere, we could have a literal specialty AH for it, even.)

Or we just tell people to get over themselves and keep some exclusive stuff :)
However, even with the KS perks for those who could afford to donate enough to create their own costume item or what have you, those items become non-exclusive after a year/four issues...so maybe if people missed it, they can get it on the market in a year!

I think the only "tricky" thing about MMO exclusives is that people have unfortunately equated exclusivity with permanence. They automatically assume that if something is labeled "exclusive" it will remain that way forever. But you only have to look at any official definition of the word to realize that there is NO implied timeframe related to it. An exclusive item is simply CURRENTLY restricted to a certain group of people - there's no implication that the restriction will last forever.

I have no problem with there being exclusive items in MMOs. But I have never really been a fan of "permanent exclusiveness" so I actually really like the idea of things like the KS perks having a built-in end to their exclusivity. Ultimately I think everything that starts out as an exclusive item in a MMO should eventually be released to the general playerbase in some form or fashion, even if that means making it an arbitrarily expensive item in the game's online store. That way if the game wants to keep something "rare" it can still be rare, but those who are willing to spend big money on something will eventually have that option as well.

Ultimately the longer a game lasts the more annoying a pile of permanently exclusive items becomes to a new player. Frankly if I wanted to start playing game XYZ a few years after it launched and there were dozens of "permanently exclusive" items I can never get just because I wasn't around from the beginning I'm probably going to react to that as a major turn-off. Basically I don't want to see this game dissuade new players a few years from now just because they weren't around since the Kickstarter or during some short-term social media promotion.

Redlynne wrote:

(good stuff)

Thank you, Redlynne; that was very well put.

Redlynne wrote:

Now, if Segev wanted to "mean" and impose a "tax" on the Exchanges, wherein there was either a Listing Fee or other sort of Transaction Fee involved in trading through the exchange so as to "sink" some of the Stars in circulation outside of the cash shop itself ... that's entirely his perogative (and something I'd recommend, simply to help keep the markets from getting flooded with "frivolous" listings because there's no cost associated with doing so, preventing the market from becoming a giant inventory mule).

I'd feel a bit off about putting listing prices up in Stars for this purpose, simply because - even if we had good reasons for doing so - it would likely be bad PR. I can already hear the phantom cries of "money-grubbing" and "cash-grab" if we tried to do that.

HOWEVER, we definitely will be using this as an [i]in-game currency[/i] sink. So listing prices will likely be in in-game currency, rather than in Stars.

I might be persuaded otherwise between now and when this goes live, but for the moment, that's where my thoughts lie.