So I have seen "micro-subscriptions" in a couple threads but I am not seeing the original post stating how it would work. I have a good idea but thought I would ask, not to mention I think they should be brought out front versus being hidden away in some thread that is only quasi related. :)
So, my assumption is that Micro-Subscriptions would work something along the lines of this:
Costume Micro - $X
Inventory Micro - $X
Bank Tab Micro - $X
Character Slot - $X
etc etc etc
"$X" being an amount determined by the dev team on what they believe is a reasonable cost for the associated micro-sub.
What else could be micro subbed? I would assume we want to keep the game play content open to all players. Would we want to include vanity style items here (like specialized emotes)?
The only concern I have with this is that the long term value may not be worth the investment, dependant on the cost itself. this "value" though could (and more than likely be) looked at differently by different players. Do we want to see a discount provided for folks that purchase more than one micro...the more purchased the bigger the discount?
the problem I see with this model using the examples above is what happens when the player cancels one or more of the micro's? is there around any situation...sure...but how much of a headache is it going to cause, not only the play...but from the dev perspective as well. that which can go wrong, will go wrong at some point.
just curious on the forum's thoughts on this particular subject. :)
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
The idea would be to, hopefully, Micro-sub things that are QoL items that if cancelled will in no way affect the character in a negative way.
For instance, Inventory slots. If Inventory slots are Micro-subbed out then if you decided to not Micro-sub them the next month anything that was placed in those temporarily increased storage slots would still be removable, but you wouldn't be able to add back into them. Character slots would NOT be Micro-subbed because if you decided not to renew that Micro-sub you'd be locked out of that character. So Character slots will be sold as a permanent item from the C-Store. So you'll have to think in terms of QoL items that would make gaming easier and more fun, but not something that would hamper a person from playing the game if they decided not to renew it.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
The devs have said they want to avoid whenever taking away something that the player has earned access to, including costumes, frameworkds, animation sets etc. So the "rent for unlimited access" model that most are thinking in terms of "subscription" seems not to be what they're going for.
If you have created a character with a costume, build, etc.. then they want you to keep that even if you stop subbing. So things like character slots, and costume sets that must remain after the sub ends will likely not be included in any micro-subscription model.
Access to types of content however have been discussed including Raid/Endgame expansions, Famed writer content expansions, Housing (Personal and Guild), Custom NPC content, Official MIDS designer, Avatar Creator, Mission Creator (though this one had been discouraged by many)
Crowd Control Enthusiast
first off, let me state my personal opinion on what I would like to see as an ideal situation, then I will dive back in:
1. Buy to Play, after game is purchased, you can CHOOSE to play for free or get a sub.
2. Subscription where one does not have to worry about any purchasing any content, whether it is costumes, powers, DLCs (excluding full fledged Expansions), etc.
3. Store Purchases for QoL items, extra character slots, inventory and bank tabs, vanity items, inspirations of various types (strength, bonus exp, increased movement speed, etc), extra emotes, etc. for the most part, non-game affecting QoL items.
more than likely I will not get my personal ideal situation, and I am ok with that. just a matter of waiting to see what they come up. in the mean time, I can discuss different options that could happen. :)
ok, that put out there...moving on:
1. micro sub on bank and inventory slots : doable as posted, but only if you can still pull out the items in the affects slots.
2. character slots could be micro subbed. just depends on how it was implemented, after all no one made the player get the microsub for another character slot and as such the player needs to take responsibility if he in turn chooses to cancel.
3. QoL items. I see most of these being worked in but I have to wonder how many people would be willing to pay a subscription for YEARS (being positive here :) ) for something like extra emotes? Better be a butt load of extra emotes to make it worth it. This also applies to other items along a pretty similar line.
1. avoiding taking away something that a player has paid for is a good thing, which if they maintain this line really limits all the biggies for game content, costumes, powers, general content, etc.
2. again, regarding the loss of a character slot...IF it was a microsub should the player not take some sort of responsibility for their loss if they CHOOSE to cancel said microsub? after all, they CHOSE to get the sub...so the reverse seems reasonable to me. I cancel the service, I cancel the character.
3. micro subs for content...this is a biggie and I have to say...NOT a fan at all, the exception being Character Housing, Character Designers and Avatar Creator, all of which I consider more QoL items. you mentioned "Famed Writer content" how often do we really expect to get someone 'famous' to write content for CoT...much less, who determines what is famous? I dunno if anyone would actually get that one...I wouldn't, not without something else to go with it. Mission Architect would be a good one for micro subs though as it is really just a QoL type item.
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
Re: "famous"
Content written by published comics writers such as Chuck Austen, Chris Claremont, Brian Bendis, and the like who are known to write comic books.. The devs (WarCabbit I believe was the post I could cite) would release a small standalone story arc that was written in the Titans universe by these well known writers in hopes that the notoriety of the writer would compel fans of Comic Books to 1) buy the game and 2) buy their story arc.
You say you wouldn't pay for these mission/story arcs but I think people would do so gladly. I not only think it possible, I think it plausible. Writers are always hungry for paid work when they are not under exclusive publishing contracts.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
'Famous'
ok...I can go with those fella's being famous...but from a microsub transaction how worth it is? how often are we going to get these special story arcs. I realize these folks wouldn't be cheap..assuming we can entice one to even write a story arc or two for CoT, the question is from a value stand point. is it worth it to have a microsub for say $2.00/month (number pulled from thin air for example purposes only) for a special story arc. not mention, we are now creating a lovely lil paywall from content that many are trying desperately to avoid.
using my example of just $2/month...I don't think I would do it, especially since I am willing to bet the arc will be available in the store for a set amount which will probably be cheaper than the sub I was paying. if there was a way to guarantee X amount of special story arcs per year by said famous writers, nooow I may consider it.
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
Seeing as there was mention of a royalty attached to these stories, I doubt subs (micro or otherwise) will work for that content.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Here's how I personally would price out some of this stuff if it were up to me:
I personally don't see potential for subscriptions or repeated monthly fees of any kind via the following items, these items listed here are things I would expect to buy one time and either use up as a consumable (like a respec) or else own forever (like a costume part):
1 additional character slots
2 new costume parts
3 unslotters for Augments, etc
4 respec tokens
5 unlocks for new powersets when they become available
6 Augments, Improvements, Refinements, or whatever the equivalent of Enhancements are, but only the "uncommon"" ones, not rare to ultra rares.
7 tokens that non-subs can buy which give the bearer the right to do VIP premium raids/TFs/trials, one run through of the thing per token, token get's used up when the raid/trial/TF reaches some set point near the middle
I can see charging repeated monthly fees or subscriptions, or micro-subs for the following:
1 expanded account-wide inventory (~$2 per month, at most)
2 enhanced crafting ability (make stuff you need for reduced costs in fake game money, ~$2 per month, at most)
3 enhanced chat channel access (~$2 per month, at most)
4 additional market buy/sell slots (I'd give non-subs ONE buy and ONE sell slot, subscribers get WAY more, like 10-12 of each for $2-5 per month)
5 VIP Access to premium content (I'd let everyone go to all the open world zones and do NPC-given missions from contacts, but restrict access to some TFs/raids/trials to subscribers, no "buy it once and own it forever" with this, but rather you can't do the raid/trial/TF if you don't pay a sub, the NPC just won't talk to non-subs at all for this stuff and teams doing that stuff won't be allowed into the raid/TF/trial if there are any non-sub in the group, also, these trials/raids/TFs will have better rewards than the non-premium stuff that the non-subs can do, ~$5 per month for unlimited access to all such premuim raids/trials/TFs, or buy tokens on a raid by raid basis, see above).
edit: On second thought, I can't really see $2 for enhanced crafting, maybe $2 per month for the ability to do ANY crafting at all would be better.
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
If crafting were a micro-sub, it should be for more advanced crafting - like creating aug / ref sets, more complicated costume pieces (like animated costumes perhaps? - no promise there), and more complex temp powers. This access is for creation only, anyone can purchase, trade, gift, and use these crafted items. Non-subs should have access to basic crafting functions in order to provide the experience of what it offers.
For those unaware the VIP access to play content is contentious amongst quite a few. One option on the table is if there were paid access anyone on the paid person's team would be granted access (with possible reduced reward rate). The other option is that there is no paid access to raid / trials everyone has access to everything but paid subs have a higher reward rate than non-paid (think highway drivers with regular accss and faster toll lanes). Or there is simply access for all no paid / unpaid divisions of the player base except for unique paid-for-content everyone would need to purchase (from famous-person story arcs to expansions). Please try to leave it at this we already had a lengthy thread on this topic which was locked due to contentions the above is the summary of the options.
Another thing that could be part of a micro sub is User Genrated Content design. Pay the micro sub for additional slots, or added tools like the ability to publish chained missions (to create a real arc with appropriate arc-ending rewards, or create a task force, or even a raid). Some view this as a one time purchase option, I only suggest the more slots / advanced tools access due to upkeep costs of server-side storage and operations of played content.
Some have also suggested advanced base building options as a micro sub but I feel this is something that can be handled by in-game currency for increased upkeep costs for larger / more functional bases. Charging both a cash store / micro-sub and in-game currency gives me the sense of drawing from the well twice.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
+1. Sub.
+1. Sub.
If it uses Extra Server Space (ESS), it needs to be a Re-Occurring Charge. Sub. ;)
The other issue with bases linked to a micro-sub is the payer can leave, let their sub lapse (for whatever reason), or have an extreme sense of entitlement due to their account pays for the base and leaves little recourse for the rest of the sg players to keep the base active should the owner have problems. Lapses can be possibly negotiated with purchase of stars in the game market with game world currency but isn't a guarantee. So,etching like this is probably best left outside of the micro-sub / tied to a specific account via subscription access.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
I think it would be best to keep all purchases for bases using the in-game money. if we go the route of a micro-sub for base items then the SG could be seriously screwed if the purchaser leaves the SG cand either transfers the microsub to another SG or just plain turns it off, or the player leaves the game (NOOOOOoooo...). the SG in question in the mean time now has a base that has been effectively 'nuked' all because a single player left for whatever reason. no, think it's best that bases are paid for in-game and not using a micro-sub.
User Generated Content as a microsub makes complete sense to me, especially if they are able to generate TF's. Whether this sub covers all content generated or done on a slot by slot basis...I would go somewhere in the middle. The player gets X number of slots...these slots can be used however they feel but depending on the type of mission it may cost more.
Example (numbers pulled from the air)
Player Gets 10 slots from a single micro-sub.
SIngle Mission cost 2 ::: 3 Mission Arc costs 3 ::: 5 Mission Arc costs 5 ::: TF costs 6 ::: Raid costs 8
Crafting is a toughy but my gut says it should have a micro-sub of some kind for the items tannim mentioned previously.
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
SG's by themselves don't use up any significant Extra Server Space, but a built Base DOES! :)
So, If the Original SG Base owner gives up (Defaults, or something) then the SG Base goes up for Auction! ;D
Maybe current SG members get Dibs. I dont know. :{ As long as one of them Steps Up who has "SG Base" in one of their Micro-Subs.
The SG registered Name.. that, you Don't Buy with Micro-Subs.. just in-game currency! :{
Though, might have to wait a (number of ?) Months before it expires and becomes publicly available again? :<
Kinda like when you Delete A Toon, the Name is then publicly available. :)
Oh hells no. That's some massive griefing potential there, especially if the work put into making the base was [i]not[/i] done by the "owner".
If you want micro-sub bases, they should be player housing only. Not SG stuff. SG bases should be paid from some resource generated by the SG, and IMHO it should also be automatically charged, not something that a leader has to go to a base registrar to pay, so even if the entire SG leadership quits (happened to me), the other players can keep things going until a petition to change leadership can pass muster with the GMs.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
Personally, I'm against anything that's group-owned being part of anything but the base game, if only because it'll be highly subject to griefing, and cause more problems for support (and probably cost them more in the support personnel that will be required to mediate in those instances) than the content is worth. Anything that's owned by a collective like an SG shouldn't be subject to a single person's sub. Making one individual pay, and then taking it away if that single individual doesn't, is just asking for trouble.
I'm curious... How would you handle it if your server was the one that was required to store the SG Built Bases, User Created Mission Maps, etc? :P
Would you bite the Bullet and allow all Free 2 Play SG Leader(s) start/Create a Base and use up your Disk Space?
If you said Yes... would there be a Limit to the Size, Prop Count, etc...?
Another question. If the Player is made aware that Server Disk Space is being used for this feature, do you think the player is less apprehensive to the notion of paying Something because its a real resource thats being wasted/used up because of that?
edit: *typo*
Disk (and database) space is incredibly cheap, especially when it's not used. It's when someone's base uses RAM and CPU cycles that it starts having a real cost. So that's what you'd need to charge, if you were trying to nickel and dime the players: usage. SG payments modeled as cell phone bandwidth contracts. So a cost per item (different costs per item) times number of days in use. Maybe a congestion charge when everyone's playing, so you run out of resources faster in addition to lagging.
Or you can just say screw it, let's make it simpler.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
I'm an avid advocate for Guild funds/items/banks/etc belonging to the SG. Meaning whether bought by the Guild leader or simply members.. once put into trust the asset is no longer in possession of the individual.
That being said... there is a lot of player retention value to allowing Guild QoL items to be bought in the cash shoppe. I consider myself a "Whale" when it comes to my Guild. I often buy things for the group that I'd never buy for myself.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Tying advanced base options / larger sizes to an account is simply to problem prone and has a negative impact on a significant social aspect of the game.
However a micro sub that allows access to these options is a little different so long as the base itself is not tied to an account. Non-subbers being limited to their personal housing while a micro-sub offers the option to access these features. It's a distinction I failed to note earlier and may be what Izzy is referring in his comments. And just because the access is there doesn't mean an in-game cost for upkeep won't exist. It may personally irk me but its common among mmos.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
No. no.. You're Too Computer Savvy.. so you're not the target audience.
The casual player doesnt Associate a parcel of Land as being Cheap, it could be viewed more like Real Estate might be.
So, its Value is perceive to be much Greater by a casual player than 1Kb of disk space might be to us.
I Know, its like saying, that Tomato is ORGANIC, so pay me More now! >:{
But I believe we can take advantage of a few Perceived e-Quality items to set a slightly higher perceived value. ;D
I can ramble on about our society and brand names labels, but i'm tired. :<
I'm not saying that free players should be allowed to start SGs (or even lead them once they're created), but once the SG is started, the base becomes the property of the group, not the individual. I'm all for upkeep costs with in-game currency to cull out inactive bases, but don't make the existence of a group's property dependent on a single individual's sub with real money.
If I was the one paying for the Servers, I dont really care Who Owns the SG.. i just dont want to be the one whos paying out of pocket for a feature that takes up disk/db resources that players FEEL Entitled to be FREE! >:(
Just because most large MMO's can offer Free Gas and Electric when you rent their Apartments, doesn't mean Every Rental can do that!
Ohh, but its Super Cheap right now, right?
Yea it is... but little by little, more and more features, base items, custom textures at some point, will start to Grow and Grow and Grow!
Its better to charge for SG Bases now, even if its just 20 cents a month, just to get players accustomed to it.. and as SG Bases expand and Grow......... 20 cents becomes 30 cents... and so forth.
But the thing is...which costs more in the long run? The server resources, or the extra support people that they're going to need by opening up that bag of worms? If they're going to have the feature, and they've said that they will, that's the kind of thing they're going to have to weigh before they make a decision like that. If they decide that the support people will cost them less in the long run, more the power to them, and I'll support the decision to gate a group's base behind a single member's sub. But, I just don't think that will be the case.
I honestly dont care about SG's, or think just One person should be able to Reign Supreme over one.
If it was me, i'd make SG's only formable/maintainable by at least 3 players, and if one player drops from the face of the earth, you'd have 6 months to find a replacement player to fill the 3rd spot. So you always have redundancy. 3 Axis! ;)
Of course, only players that have the SG Base perk as an option in their Micro-Sub can participate. ;D
See, the thing is, You Don't OWN the Land you Build the SG Base on... you're just Renting it!
Just like the way the DMV makes you pay to renew your registration, doesnt mean you get FREE Car too!
Oh, so you're trying to optimize for optimum rip-off based on the demand side of the market having an incorrect perception of real costs. Yuck. Yeah, that's not my kind of thing.
When I'm building a base, I want to make it awesome. I don't want to make it awesome-except-for-all-the-things-I-can't-afford. Let me mess with my base and I play the game. Give me too many reasons I can't and I won't.
... Or the lost sales because key features are too crippled?
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
Good thing Lin says it so I don't have to.
The PRIMARY purpose of Base Building, regardless of scale, is Decorative Awesome. Everything else is secondary to that, including Functionality. I know this for a fact because I've built multiple bases in City of Heroes. The design of every single room was always about how it LOOKED first, with everything else being a secondary consideration to that (especially when building in 3D!).
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
The uninformed opinion of a non Base Builder: If you're going to charge people for base upkeep and you suddenly lose your subscribing leader, then I'm all for the option of letting a F2P player buying Stars from the Cash Shop to keep the base running. It might even be a good idea to make it so every member in an SG, sub and F2P, has to pay a small amount of Stars each month as a membership fee/dues.
As Stars might be earned through in-game achievements (in small amounts) it shouldn't mean that F2P players would have to run to the Cash Shop every month. Unless they're using too many of those Stars buying things to plug into their enhancement slots. Trade-offs and dilemmas are pitfalls to being a F2P player. The art of it all is in making these decisions seem as painless as possible. Nothing in MMOs should be totally free, just cheap enough so that it doesn't hurt much
Lay your hands on me
While I'm bleeding dry
Break on through blue skies
And take it high
From what I can gather stars are only available either directly from the cash shop or by selling stuff other players *FOR* stars.
You cannot just (for example) complete content to get Stars directly.
I may have missed this, but it seems to me that this whole base cost question hinges on there being an "upkeep" cost like their was in CoH. Personally I thought that was the clumsiest part of owning an SG and the cause of most strife. I'd rather it be a one-time cost of stars and it just "exists." That way there's no worries about it disappearing if someone leaves or whether or not they subscribe. Once the server space is allocated, it's not like it gets used up and has to be replenished, right?
You want a small efficient base for your own toons, great. "That" amount of space costs "This" amount of Stars. Want more space? Fine, that will be an additional "X" Stars, please. Just make the initial cost significant enough to justify the server space.
"Ownership" is always the issue, of course. IF the base must be tied to an individual account merely to exist, that's a problem. I could see having the base be "registered" to an individual and allowing them to designate a successor(s) if, for some reason, they drop out of the game. Maybe a 1 year activity lapse causes the Base to switch ownership to the designee, or, if there is none it goes directly to a "closed" status. It isn't wiped out of memory, just compressed and stored on an "inactive" server. It could then be "re-instated" for a nominal fee of Stars.
I'd like to see a way where multiple players could contribute and all get on the "Owner's roster", so to speak. I'm not sure how that would work, just throwing it out as an idea.
Umm, working on a SG Base that someone Else owns does not ENTITLE you to that SG Base should the SG Leader Disappear. That work you did I View it as being on a Volunteer basis. :)
Izzy, players may begin to feel differently about it when their personal housing is can be connected to a base via cental gathering point and in a sense, everyone can end up sharing the base with one another, particularly if in-game currency is used for base upkeep and players are donating for the cause. There would need to be certain safeguards in place that not just one person owns the whole deal and can rip it out from under the other players that have been utilizing the base (intentionally or not).
This is something that is going to be handled within the roster and permission settings of the SG including some firm boundaries set in place at the creation of a group-accessible space.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
SG's have Co-Op's?
:o
If you're linking Personal Housing into a shared Supergroup Base it's really hard NOT to wind up with a co-op styled situation. Besides, Supergroups are supposed to be cooperative (with friends) endeavors anyway ... right?
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
Hmm, can i sell/move my Co-Op to a different SG? for a tiny fee? :D
Wait, Do i have to put it up on Craigs List for another player to buy? :|
No wait... If players could store an Archnos flyer in their UltraViolet space compressin pockets, we can do the same with SG Lots! Not Lots, Pods. :D
IMHO player housing should simply be a player-sized version of SG bases. Where the SG controls the SG base, the player controls their own housing directly. Same with maintenance. As for access, players should be able to access their housing the same way they access their SG's base, and they should be able to invite people (individually or via teaming) in both cases.
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
The co-ops are a consideration from long ago where players can link up their personal housing to an sg. Basically its your room / apartment at the supergroup base - where you can set your own permissions on who can enter your 'room' from the sg.
Personal housing is basically an SG base for that character. The idea is basically taking those individual mini-bases and linking them up to a common base they can all access. Its not firmly set yet, but is a consideration that has been on the table a long time.
[hr]I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team. [/color]
I figured it was just another way to access your player housing. Though it would be interesting to be able to have multiple houses per player, one being your SG office, another being an apartment, a third being a safe house, etc...
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
I'm a Guild leader and I would gladly support having guilds need to pay Stars (Closest to IRL currency) for real-estate. It costs server space. It doesn't need be exorbitant but it's a good reasonable expense.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
SG bases, imo, should have nothing to do with the cash shop and/or stars (assuming those happen, which I gotta say, still hoping they don't). SG bases should be purchased and maintained with the ingame currency only. One reason for being that if SG Member Jack has to spend real money/stars on the base and then he is kicked for whatever reason, he is now out that cash/stars...yeah...very bad bad idea as it opens up all kindsa potential for abuse.
I don't have an issue though with PERSONAL housing being associated to the cash shop/stars. why not? because the ONLY person this affects is the player themselves.
this would be very cool! espiecially if you can set the permission to your entire SG. then...a somewhat cheapie way for SG Bases to work would be get a small one for the "hub...and then players could volunteer to have specific rooms. if everyone was on the same page, an SG base could be huuuuge....in theory at least. the downside would be the 'zoning' required to move about.
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
Put me in the boat for SG bases being IGC only items. This will also help to be a currency sink so inflation won't run rampant in the game.
Also if the leader does stop playing it will make it easier for whomever takes over to keep up the rent. That person may not be able to afford buying Stars all the time to keep it going.
I got chills! They're multiplyin'. And I'm losin' control. Cuz the power, I'm supplyin'. Why it's ELECTRIFYIN'!!
If SG Bases only took up 3 medium sized rooms, if be ok giving it for free (well, semi-ok).
But I think we should reconsider how server storage costs werent really free for Bases in CoH/V either. They just gave in. :/
For Architect Entertainment they started to measure the space used/remaining and that i like. :)
Maybe Bases can have that as well. ;D
Things like SG's, Bases, etc.. that don't affect gameplay... is just Window Dressing to me. :)
...but to others it is more than just window dressing and more so when you attach an actual dollar figure to it.
any purchases used with real money should only affect the player who made the purchase. once you start opening the door in allowing said purchases affect another game play it becomes a slippery slope for a number of reasons and none of em good. keep actual money spent on personal bases only.
...it was also mentioned previously about having members donate "stars" to pay for the bases...yeah...how long till it's a requirement to join an SG....and then what recourse do I have if I quit or worse....get kicked? what happens to my stars then...do I loose them? if I get my contributions back, whose keeping track of this and how is it determined what gets deleted from the base? waaaayyy to many possible headaches, imo. ...need to stick with K.I.S.S.
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
Youre right.
For me, Keeping it simple is:
- Only a player with the 'SG Base' perk (micro-sub or other) can have an SG Base.
Done. ;)
Extend it a bit further to extend to any possible issues: Only those who have the SG Base perk are allowed to be in a leadership position of the SG.
Nothing would suck more than a guild leader going offline/stopping playing and then the whole SG base going POOF because all the other members were F2P players.
And before you say "Sucks to be them, spend money instead", I would rather not play the game than be in a position where the playerbase gets segregated like this.
Also, what happens in the duration between "sub" lapses, even if it is for a second?
Do players get kicked out of the base automagically? What happens to the items in the base? Are they lost until someone stumps up real money?
If that is the case, then thanks but no thanks. I am going to play a game where the developers/other players can hold things hostage for real money.
It doesn't need to go "poof" and cease existing.. It can go into debt tho and tell the SG.. if you're not active enough to get a tiny amount of stars each month to keep your home, and go this deep then it becomes unusable until you do.
I'm talking something like $0.50 a week (50*) that can be earned in the Star Exchange.
One idea. (my general point is that if it takes server space it should be tied to more than IGC.. if the base models end up not taking up server space the point is moot, but I'm assuming they will. So either they need to sell cosmetic stuff in the StarMart for base customization or go ahead and sell the rental itself in the StarMart and sell cosmetic stuff using IGC.)
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Your characters take up space.
Your inventory takes up space.
Your costumes take up space
If this is the case of where players get nickel and dimed left right and center, AND you HAVE to buy the game in the first place, then you will be mocked harder and far far longer than SW:TOR was when it went F2P.
And SW:TOR didn't charge players to get their hands on the game when it went F2P.
general question....if EVERYTHING is micro subbed....why have microsubs at all...just make it a single subscription and you get all the content, barring full expansions. will any given player use everything? possibly not but the option is always there if they choose to use it...plus zero worries about losing anything when they choose to stop using it but it is there waiting for the player when and if they ever choose to use it again.
its a radical idea...I know. :p
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
Are you on the Nina, the Pinta, or the Santa Maria..
Either way that ship has sailed. *I hope you take that as me being funny not being rude*
- -
I'm simply stating that things with costs should come with sales (and even *God forbid* profits)
It's unclear what will be available in ANY subscription model and even more unclear what will be available for purchase. I'm simply pointing out the accounting principle to provide MWM with some outlining accounting principles and how they could be applied.
In this case:
Does the SG Housing cost MWM a cost? Yes. Therefore should MWM find a way to monetize it? Yes.
HOW should MWM monetize it.. good question. Takes ingenuity and market knowledge to find that perfect fit.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
hehe...no worries....I have my tricorn hat laying around here somewhere.... :)
I am thinking we will agree to disagree...in matter of fact I have to say we will have to do that on a good number of thing in regard to monetizing CoT. you appear to be of the mindset that "if it can be monetized it should be." I am of a bit more forgiving nature. I believe that a good number of things should be given for "free" as they are inherent to the product itself....SG bases being the example in this particular case.
the problem I have will charging for EVERYTHING is that it will chase off more potential customers than gain them. while if you make more items inherent to the game and charge extra just for the fluffy bits you have a better chance of attracting a larger customer base. not to mention, once a company gets into the mindset of charging customers for every lil thing it becomes a slippery slope..and soon they are charging for quite literally everything as it all is taking up disk space on their end.
I make no illusions to being a master of sales from a corporate stand point...but I am a customer and I know what will work from my perspective and the folks around me.
sometimes you gotta give a lil to get a lil.... ;)
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
In business, only give a little when you will get a LOT.
I can agree to disagree. I think Guild formation and other inherent features to the game should not cost more than the box cost. But something as large as a instanced (perhaps multi-instanced) map that is OPTIONAL (not every player will want it) is then eligible to have a cost associated with it.
Where that threshold is reached is entirely up to MWM to decide.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Wow... I never realized bases were such a community dividing option. On further reflection though, it does make sense. There are two groups of people in the modern world, the group that feels no one should have to pay for anything and the group that believe only those who can pay should have access to things. Mostly, I fall into the latter group.
If micro-subs are indeed the model (and there is no formal announcement yet), then I would favor the following model:
A box/download cost. The box should cost more than the download and should include a few ingame & real-world premiums, but downloads should also have a price attached. I would even favor a minimal cost for downloads beyond the first (such as if you buy a new computer, format your hard drive, etc.). Both storage and bandwidth cost money so if the developers cannot collect money directly for the download service then they will need to make up for it by charging extra for something else. I know many (perhaps even most) players feel the client download should be free, but that does not make this expectation realistic.
A fixed subscription cost for 1 month, 3 months, 6 months, and 12 months. The more months you pay for upfront, the lower the cost per month. If they wanted to add a 24 month and 36 month purchase option as well, I would definitely encourage it. Maybe something like $14.99 - $9.99 depending on how many months you pay for each time you renew.
In addition to the fixed subscription, an additional monthly fee should be added for people who seek the following:
Extremely elaborate costumes (perhaps animal forms should fall into this category as well)
Extremely elaborate powersets (perhaps my Cat Girl Taskmaster suggestion even!)
Extra character slots
Extra account storage capacity
Extra large supergroup bases
Extra supergroup base functionality (teleports to individual Task Forces, etc.)
Extra large mission instances with special loot
User Generated Content Creation Tools
Additional User Generated Content Creation Slots
Additional User Generated Content Maps/Items/Enemies
Special rewards for inclusion in User Generated Content
Access to User Generated Content that takes advantage of the Additional options and Special rewards
Access to content by famous comic writers/artists/game designers/anyone else famous who can be roped into it
Perhaps instead of a micro-sub some of these could be one-time purchases in the ingame shop (especially things like extra storage/costumes/powersets). Basically, I'm very much in favor of there being a basic purchase/subscription package that includes simplified versions of everything in the game with better versions being available through either micro-subscriptions, ingame store purchases, or some combination thereof. Things like User Generated Content Tools will be of interest to only a small percentage of the playerbase, making them ideal products for add-on value purchases and micro-subscriptions. The same goes for extra large supergroup bases or specialized base items like pinpoint teleports, raid buff providers, PvP bases, etc. For the additional supergroup content, I would charge the supergroup leader. If for some reason the leader drops the micro subscription, then they lose leadership of the supergroup and the group has a fixed time to appoint another leader (maybe 30-60 days?) willing to take over the micro-subscription fee and management of the supergroup. If no one steps up, the group is disbanded and the supergroup base/items vanish from the game. Yes, I know that sounds cruel. Choose your supergroup wisely. If you want a huge supergroup with pinpoint teleports, PvP base raids, and other add-ons, be prepared to take responsibility for that additional cost.
There is nothing wrong with having advanced content only accessed by additional funds. All of that advanced content has a cost associated with it, a cost that only a small percentage of the playerbase then takes advantage of, so charge the ones who actually use the content a high enough additional fee to cover the cost and turn a reasonable profit.
If a person wants a Ford Focus they pay for a Ford Focus. Anyone who drives a Lincoln Continental expects to pay a whole lot more for it.
Last but not least, perhaps the time has come to realize that if these items are not directly sold by Missing Worlds Media through their ingame shop, the secondary market will step in and provide them:
A Max-Level character with no Augments/Refinements (or perhaps with basic ones)
Rare Augment/Refinement sets with special bonuses
Rare Crafting materials
Ingame currency
I know everyone hates "pay-to-win". So do I. Unfortunately, it seems the majority of players in today's world have a much different moral code than I do. I consider buying ingame currency or a max-level character cheating, but for some reason they consider it to be "smart" gameplay. It pains me to say it, but things that pass as "normal" in today's gaming world would have been reason to permanently ban players back in the early days. I guess the thugs and cheats have won this round.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32
If you can [i]get away with it[/i] it's considered "smart" gameplay. If you can't, it isn't. Very simple, easy and obvious vindication upon reward. It's the exact same mentality (of material wealth accumulation) that believes that the bigger your horde of valuables, the more "virtuous" you are. It's the age old oligarchy version of [b]The Golden Rule[/b] ... which says ... [i]He who has the Gold makes the Rules[/i].
The simple fact of the matter is that in Markets that are [b]unregulated[/b] you WILL HAVE parasites and plunderers and snake oil salesmen proliferating ... because there's no one (and nothing?) there to stop them from engaging in behavior that is both selfish [b]and self-righteous[/b]. It's why there's a world of difference between a FREE Market and a FAIR Market, such that the two are rarely (if ever) synonymous in practice.
And I know it goes without saying, but there's a reason why we call them [b]Ebil Marketeers[/b]. All I'm saying is that it's no coincidence that we call them that, and it isn't just for reasons of Envy.
This is why being a [url=http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RulesLawyer]Rules Lawyer[/url] can be such a ... profitable ... profession in gaming, particularly MMOs, where there isn't necessarily an active "watchful" (let alone deft and nimble!) presence of oversight ensuring fair play. Most of these types of people tend towards being [b]Lawful Evil Rules Lawyers[/b] who are just in it for themselves and the proverbial "Quick Buck Schemes" (also known as EXPLOITS). Some of them are of the [b]Lawful Stupid Rules Lawyer[/b] persuasion, which is only to be expected when dealing with complex systems with lots of moving parts. And some people are [b]Lawful Good Rules Lawyers[/b] who can advise and assist the Developers with guarding against the worst potential excesses, even though doing so isn't necessarily in their own selfish interest(s).
I'd hold up Arcanaville as an example of a Lawful Good Rules Lawyer ... and from the sounds of things, perhaps Tannim222 as well.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
What does that make me? :)
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
Chaotic Neutral?
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
The only reason why I am fighting about the SG base part is because you would be limiting something that a group of players can use if and ONLY if they keep on paying for it.
And to an extent City of Heroes had this with base rent. Whilst f2p players could be in an SG, they *couldn't* form an SG (and by extension I would assume lead one as well).
So whilst they *don't* lose access to the base, some things in the base itself (facilities that were offered) could be disabled if they didn't pay the base rent.
They never actually *lost* access to the base. And this was with just an *ingame* currency model to keep the base running.
Now if you are going to tie it up to *real world* money to keep a base running, then you might as well remove the ingame currency tied to it, and keep it just as a "give us money or you lose access" item.
Just like IO's/crafting and the AH were in CoX. Unless of course you had paid enough previously to unlock it permanently.
So for me, this isn't about "giving it away to everyone". It is a case of "not screwing over other players because someone decides to quit the game/there was a billing error" etc etc.
And whilst a billing error should only affect one player, it *shouldn't* affect that players friends/members in the guild (unless he was running it as a dictatorship)
And yes, the latter option CAN happen. And it WILL happen. And if MWM think that whatever service they use will be flawless, I have a bridge I can sell them.
I know there's a Car Pooling analogy that might fit, but I ain't gonna tell it. ;)
For me, if Bases are going to have an Ingame maintenance cost, AND an Real world money cost? I would think that MWM are a bunch of money grabbing bastards who are looking to fleece their customer base as much as possible.
And there is another company that I feel that same way about.
RSI[1]... who just this last weekend decided to release a *time limited* ship for $250. You have 6 days left to buy it, and you will not be able to use it until the game goes live. You cannot even *see* it in game until then. The ship sales for this alone have *already* raised more money than City of Titans kickstarter did [2].
And this is for a company who on a *monthly* basis brings in over $1million in crowd funding alone, and have $77million in the bank already. And with ju they decided to also offer a $2500 ship.
And that $77million is an order of magnitude more than Elite Dangerous had (according to some people, ED was developed for about $8-$10million)
Each time I see them "release a new ship for sale" I think "who has a drug problem now?"
Of course, as long as you are happy to pay the price then who am I to complain? But this to me also stinks of "P2W" at least getting its foot in the door.
[1] Star Citizen developers
[2] Source: [url=http://hexus.net/gaming/news/industry/82078-limited-edition-aegis-vanguard-ship-star-citizen-costs-250/]Hexus website[/url] " In the 24 hours following the announcement of the Aegis Vanguard spaceship 'limited concept sale' RSI's coffers swelled by over $657,000."
Comparing micro-subscriptions to Macro Purchases is a disconnect of logic.
A sliding scale of between 10 and 100 stars per month is about $0.10 cents to $1.00 and can be earned by selling items earned in the Auction Exchange or Currency Exchange.
If you want dedicated server space and have an issue paying a few bucks a year then I simply disagree with you. And agree to disagree.
I know many superhero guild concepts that simply don't need housing. If something that is optional to the main game and is really an external feature to the main game.. why isn't it eligible for monetization?
Crowd Control Enthusiast
[url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb-sCNfE0bM]Mercy?!? You wanted MERCY?!?! I'M CHAOTIC NEUTRAL!!![/url]
R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising
So lets just say that all SG bases start off at $1 a month (100 stars or so), and that is payable each and every month. The Guild Leader is the one who has to pay it (or one who is in a leadership position). If there is no one available at that point in time, then the base gets put onto lockdown, where everyone who was inside gets thrown out.
No one can enter the base until the money gets paid.
That is the impression that I am getting about the "real money sub" for "base rights".
Just like CoX did with the IO license. It was a case of "pay up or wipe your IO's if you want to play the game[1]"
[1] Unless you had spent enough in the past to get the free pass.
Yes, payment would be required or else the feature is turned off..
There's no reason the feature can't be paid for by ANY member of the Guild instead of just the leader.
I know that If for some reason I could not come up with $1 I could rely on one of my friends in the guild could spare it. IF none of us decide to pay the $1 then it gets locked.
It's an optional luxury feature completely outside the scope of combat or "game winning" objectives. If you can't monetize optional luxury features of your game then what CAN you monetize. Especially when there's a IRL cost for said feature.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
To everyone making the "server space" argument: would you change your position if server [i]space[/i] (disk storage) were essentially free, i.e. bases took almost no space, [i]but[/i] bases took [i]online server resources[/i] (RAM, CPU time, and network bandwidth) only when they were in use? So it would be more realistic to charge for usage (number of simultaneous players × time in use × volume), not just size?
[i]Has anyone seen my mind? It was right here...[/i]
Yes I still advocate for a charge. The terms that define the rate have to be understood by the consumer.. Do i think your usage equation is any better or worse than using just size.. not really.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Hmm. I am completely unfamiliar with this "IO license". Never heard of it. Of course, I was a subscriber and a long-time veteran with a complete veteran's tree of rewards.
Anyway, about the bases. I hope to build myself a small lair and nothing more. If CoT wants to add a couple extra bucks to my subscription fee that's okay. Assuming they follow through on everything they've planned, I'll being paying for an annual subscription anyway. I realize I'm not everyone. I might not even be a member of the majority. However, making and deploying a game like this is no small feat! The cost side is unbelievable, especially if you plan on regular updates and expansions. All that money has to come from the players in one form or another.
Math is math, even for someone like me who has trouble with basic addition and subtraction.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
My author page at Amazon: https://amzn.to/2MPvkRX
My novelty shirts: https://amzn.to/31Sld32
Well how about this:
A small base could cost you no stars at all. Every supergroup will be able to have one, paid just with IGC.
If you want something larger, the supergroup has to pay some stars each month.
And this is how I would do that: Every supergroup has its own account for IGC and stars. Everyone can donate both for the supergroup or even get a micro-subscription for supergroup support which would only buy stars for the supergroup on a favored rate each month.
And once in the supergroup- account, neither IGC or stars can be taken out again.
If the leader leaves, nothing bad happens, the base is still there. If he was the main contributer of stars and the group depended on that, the new leader could either shrink the base down a little or the group could find new ways to support their base.
That said I too think a large base should be worth a few stars a month. I am not saying that they should be immensly expensive, but I would be willing to pay a dollar or two for a nice big base.
It was something that was offered in the store:
[url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Invention_License]Invention License[/url]
along with
[url=http://paragonwiki.com/wiki/Auction_House_License]Auction House License[/url].|
Of course, to extend the whole "it takes up server space" why don't we give those who choose to play with just one or two characters or to utilise less than their share of server resources a *cheaper* subscription if they so desire?
So would there be a "single character" special option available?
Of course, I suppose one benefit of the "charge for every SG base" is that it would hit the subscribers as well, so that it would become cost prohibitive for characters to make single character SG's for base benefits.
Altitis would be kicked hard in the nuts. Of course, I am sure that some people would be ok spending $100 a month just keeping their characters SG bases open.
And this would be *on top* of the subscription fee.
There is also the option you find with games like Guild Wars 2 of converting IGC
Technical Director
Read enough Facebook and you have to make Sanity Checks. I guess FB is the Great Old One of the interent these days... - Beamrider
You have to be careful here. In GW2 the price has just been increasing over time due to currency inflation, even though player earning power *hasn't* increased.
To get 800 Gems ($15 iirc) (the amount for a new character slot, new costume set etc) now is 117Gold.
Last year it was about 40ish Gold.
At *Christmas* 2012, it had already gone up from 2 gold for 800 gems (at launch) to 12 Gold for 800 gems.
And whilst I have been writing this post the price has already fluctuated several times... not in the order of a few silver.. but in the order of a few Gold.
So whilst it is *feasible* for a newbie to do so... it isn't really practical for them to try to do it this way.... They are almost chasing a never ending target where they might as well crack open the wallet and pay for it with real money.
Can someone be kind and explain to me why I would want to spend real money on digital landscape? I understand costume, vehicle and power sets. To my noobness, a base gives you a different place to stand for crafting and holding stuff, but that can be had for free in the social zones. Would I like a personal lair sure and willing to buy a sewer or penthouse version but not maint. on it. Would feel like I am buying it over and over again if real money was used instead of IGC.
the argument presented by those in favor, is purely that it cost's MWM money to maintain the servers that this base would be housed on and as such, we players should pay for that service.
I would say that IF this happened, bases had better be pretty durn useful given people will be spending money on them monthly. in CoH, most of the SGs I was a part of...the base was typically a ghost town as there really wasn't any real reason to go there. sure there were the teleportation pods, but really most folks could bypass that and get to missions just as fast, if not faster, via other methods.
personally, if they make it a micro sub, I will not get it. I don't think it should be a microsub type item. *shrug*
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
idea for a micro sub : advertising.
player could submit a pic to MWM for review and if approved it would be slapped on a couple billboards through out the city. to keep it from becoming City of Billboards, just have the billboards rotate the image after a set amount of time. could have multiple layers of advertisement space, meaning one could get advertisement in a single zone all the way to the entire city.
given the time involved on the part of MWM could make it a lil pricey...which 'should' keep most of the requests to only those really want to put themselves, or even their SG out there. obviously there would have to be some kind of guidelines for submissions...and the microsub would not begin until after the approval process completed.
[img]http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/whiteperegrine/84183/69278/69278_original.gif[/img]
In COX, what did I spend real money on?
Powersets: Bough expansion for the new arch types, dual pistols.
Costume Sets: Steampunk
QoL: XP/influence booster, damage/accuracy/de-buff booster more powerful than available in game.
Server: Paid for a server transfer. All my buddies were on one server, but sometimes server was full, so i had a back up server to play on. Game came with 12 slots/server for characters. I had 3 servers with 25 slots. I was an Alt-alcoholic.
Additional Costume slots
Additional power set builds.
What would I pay for in COX?
Individual or in a subscription please see above.
I got to keep it and had account wide access to it.
I paid the Sub for access to the horizontal end game content.
Some items could be earned in game through accomplishments, some were only purchasable, and did not give me an advantage directly over another player. The Melee Build had and Uru-AX. It had a big eyeball on it that looked around. Difficult to accomplish, but worth it.
As a Former Marine, I bout the clothing package that let me have access to military style uniforms. I had my Regen Scrapper wearing Dress Blues look alike with the purchased ribbons.
I would hate to see Something I buy now to be marginalized as an in-game accomplishment to be accessible to F2P players. Sands of Mu: Preorder. Didn't preorder, you get something else, or not Sands of Mu at all.
Yes, maybe one or 2 additional costume slots/power sets through in game accomplishments....but not 25.