Announcements

Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2

Please read the current update for instructions on downloading the latest update. Players with Mac versions of the game will not be affected, but you will have a slightly longer wait for your version of the new maps. Please make a copy of your character folder before running the new update, just to make sure you don't lose any of your custom work.

It looks like we can give everyone a list of minimum specs for running City of Titans. Please keep in mind that this is 'for now' until we are able to add more graphics and other system refinements. Currently you will need :
Windows 10 or later required; no Intel integrated graphics like UHD, must have AMD or NVIDIA card or discrete chipset with 4Gb or more of VRAM
At least 16GB of main DRAM.
These stats may change as we continue to test.

To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.

Doc Tyche's "Dusting off this forum" post

63 posts / 0 new
Last post
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Doc Tyche's "Dusting off this forum" post

In the Dev Digest is a thread about F2P and monetization that Doctor Tyche wrote. Unfortunately there is no "reply" button on the Dev Digest forum, as it was originally a one-way communication channel I guess.

Anyway I just read it and here are my reactions:

1. I generally agree with Dr. Tyche's points.

2. I'm planning on playing with a monthly sub, if the sub exists and if that sub actually does something for me and isn't just a voluntary contribution to the game with no tangible benefit attached for the subscriber.

3. As soon as you attach a tangible benefit, of any kind, to a sub, the people who know they can't or won't be paying a sub start to complain that the subscription model is ruining the game, dividing the player base, etc. Good luck addressing those concerns and still making a sub meaningful enough that anyone will pay for it. If I'm going to get a stipend of Stars, this begs the question "What am I spending my Stars on every month?" The closest thing I can see to a recurring use for Stars is trading them to F2P players for Augments and Refinements (or selling them for IGC then using that to get such items). Presumably the F2P-ers will want those Stars for something, like to pay for THEIR subscriptions or some such, I don't know.

4. If the game could get advertisers to pay for advertising somehow, I'm all for that. People complain about THIS too, saying that it hashes their fun to have to stare at ads. To me this is looking a gift horse in the mouth. I can say right now that if CoT get's a partnership deal with, say, Pepsi, I, a life-long Coke drinker will buy more Pepsi to support the game, if such purchases could be tracked as such.

5. I'm not against selling stuff that others would prefer to grind for. Some people call that "Pay to Win" but that doesn't worry me. If the game is like CoX in that the TFs and Trials are easy enough that they can be done without requiring a 100% well-built team of specialists doing the ONE strategy that actually works, etc to succeed on them, then I don't think Pay to Win will be a problem even if some power-enhancing items are available for purchase. They sold Enhancements in CoX's cash shop and it didn't break that game.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
He said he was going to open

He said he was going to open replies in that thread. It might be better if we wait to reply there.

Pyromantic
Pyromantic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/14/2013 - 08:20
Since the original thread

Since the original thread hasn't opened up and I think it's well worth responding to, I'll add my thoughts here.

I'm very likely to be a subscription player. Perhaps I'm anachronistic in this regard, but years of playing City of Heroes left me comfortable paying a monthly subscription for a game I really enjoy, but wary of anything that requires me to pay for each little thing, as I find the latter model leaves me with an unsatisfied feeling.

I really like the model being described, in which everything available to characters can be earned through in-game play. I do, however, have a couple of points in this regard. One is in response to the specific example of the cape mission. The thing is that in CoH, good content was well worth repeating. I have no idea how many times I did the ITF, for example, but I never got tired of it. As I recall the issue with the cape mission is that it was not remotely interesting content to repeat, because it mostly was travel and lore, which you only need revealed so many times. Thus, I would hope that content that is likely to be repeated by players many times over to earn unlockables is specifically designed to be more enjoyable to repeat. It would be a shame for such content to feel like a chore with the excuse that players can pay to skip it.

Secondly, one area where you might have to be cautious is in the use of earnable temporary powers of great potency, similar to the Wedding Band or Warburg Nukes, assuming analogs exist. Even with the option for all players to earn them through time rather than money, it could turn into a pay-to-win scenario in the practical sense, without some form of time-gating.

Overall though, the plan sounds great and very encouraging to players like myself that are quite happy to pay for the game we enjoy, but prefer that in-game power come from in-game accomplishments.

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote: Secondly, one area
Quote:

Secondly, one area where you might have to be cautious is in the use of earnable temporary powers of great potency, similar to the Wedding Band or Warburg Nukes, assuming analogs exist. Even with the option for all players to earn them through time rather than money, it could turn into a pay-to-win scenario in the practical sense, without some form of time-gating.

I agree completely and this is something that should be said if for no other reason than to emphasize the issue this can cause.
I do think the devs have considered it though. I believe the purchasable unlocks will be mostly limited to QoL powers, Cosmetic options and special power sets or AT's. I don't think the model they are going to follow is one of purchasable temp combat powers at all as they tend to be rewards for an activity and not an unlock.
Still a confirmation would be appreciated.

Pyromantic
Pyromantic's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 7 months ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 11/14/2013 - 08:20
I expect they have too. Both

I expect they have too. Both of the issues I raised are just points that I think are important remember, but I have good faith that they will be handled well.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
In CoX, we defeated mobs and

In CoX, we defeated mobs and did missions and so forth and it was fun, but the primary driving force behind WHICH content you decided to do at any given time on any given toon was the rewards you expected to get. If you wanted your level 24 freespec, you did the first Respec Trial, if you wanted a Synthetic HamiO, you did the Statesman TF, etc. There were also some things that only ever dropped at random (purples, recipes for wings, etc).
These mechanics were pretty fundamental to that game and were in a lot of cases the main driving force behind why you logged on, when you logged on and what you were trying to do in the game at any given time. I used to level up my toons, mostly doing the original TFs and whatever using primarily Single Origin Enhancements, which were really cheap during the era of IOs and sets. Then, if I had a level 50 toon with some extra INF, I'd slowly try to fold in the rares and uniques and procs that the toon needed. The +Stealth for whatever travel power I was using, the Numnina Health thing, etc. After hitting 50 on a toon I'd start to look seriously at getting the powers totally twinked out with sets and frankenslotting etc. After THAT was done, I would relax and set into the long slow process of eventually getting the purples I wanted. I had enough alts that this "get the purples" idea was as much a pipe dream as it was a slow, ponderous, reality. There was molasses-like progress happening, and I could feel my toons getting a bit better as it happened, but it took long enough that you were almost never really done.
I liked that and would like to see it happen again in CoT, somehow. I don't know what the story is going to be in terms of rewards for doing different content, but I hope it's something like that, in terms of what the leveling and eventual building of the toons is like. I want some kind of relatively cheap items I can get easily and slot into my powers as I level up, then a rarer and more powerful alternative to turn to when I'm at the cap and looking to improve still, then a VERY rare "best" option for the long term playability of the toon, something to shoot for in the 2-3 year range.
I splurged for "Fashionista" level perks, so I've already paid more money to MWM via the Kickstarter than I did to the CoX people over the entire life of that game. If CoT gives me what I've just described above for nothing more than the up-front cost of purchasing the game, I don't see why I'd have any pressing reason to pay a monthly fee. That said, I WANT there to be a pressing reason why I would pay a monthly fee. I just know that for me, "you get the new costume piece a month before everyone else" isn't going to cut it, because for the most part, I feel like I should just buy the items I actually like and want for a toon "off the rack" as one-of purchases. I don't want to subscribe to the Costume of the Month Club, because you never know what costume you're going to get on any given month and I probably won't want most of them. I might not really care about 75% of them, if fact. If they make some specific thing that I actually want, I consider that an "I want that" moment and I purchase that one thing right then and there.
I've heard people talk about not wanting the game to be a gear grind. WoW is a gear grind (I'm told). CoX was not (my opinion). CoX HAD gear. It had purples, PVP recipes, rares, procs, uniques, sets with set bonuses, etc. Avoiding the grindyness is good but, in my opinion, it's not accomplished by eliminating the gear itself. It's not a matter of not having rare and very rare gear that people want and have to work for, it's a matter of not making raids SO impossible to win that you MUST have the BEST gear in order to not be a detriment to the team you're on. As long as the theoretical "good" player is not beholden to their team to have THIS item and THAT item etc in order to be able to function on the team and "do their job", then I think the "you must have ____ to be our tank" type stuff will not happen. It's not about the gear itself, it's about the content that we're doing and the difficulty level involved.
So I personally still want there to be items that I have to work for, items that are rare and very rare. It gives me a reason to want to do content repeatedly and makes my toons more playable in the long term and as such it makes the game more playable. As long as you can actually finish most TFs with a PUG containing one or two goofballs dragging the team down with their cruddy gear and lack of expertise, I think the gear grind won't be a problem.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Radiac wrote: In CoX, we
Radiac wrote:

In CoX, we defeated mobs and did missions and so forth and it was fun, but the primary driving force behind WHICH content you decided to do at any given time on any given toon was the rewards you expected to get. ...
These mechanics were pretty fundamental to that game and were in a lot of cases the main driving force behind why you logged on, when you logged on and what you were trying to do in the game at any given time.

No offense, friend, it may explain your motivations, but this doesn't work for Me.

I played the game for mostly casual and social reasons, even when I was playing solo. The 'gear-grind' you support only mattered (to me) at max-level, and with 180 alts, I didn't have time for it. I only ever did TFs because my friends invited me to. I never even Saw the Hamidon. I only visited the Shadow Shard on a Portal Corps mission.

For me, the reason I paid my subscription was for the Meat of the game, not the Sauce on top. I enjoyed defeating bad-guys, running missions, and exploring content. I enjoyed making friends and teaming up with a few of them to stomp the baddies even better.

Sure, there were certain missions I sought out, mostly to unlock content and rewards - AP Bank for the Jetpack, for instance (which, come to think of it, I almost never Used.) I had so many Vet Respecs that I only ever ran the Reactor TF for the Challenge of it.

My point is, 'getting stuff' was never that much of a motivator. I never Had a 'purple' or PvP that I could actually Use - they were Terrible for getting the enhancements that I actually Wanted. I bought my 'final build' enhancements on the market, or with Hero Merits, and I never paid a million Inf for anything.

I played for the Fun of it. That easy access to Fun was the best thing about CoH and I'm looking forward to finding the Fun in City of Titans.

Be Well!
Fireheart

RottenLuck
RottenLuck's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 12/05/2012 - 20:32
I will be subbing just

I will be subbing just because I can.

For me, it was never the rewards. I was one of those people who went with the newbies into the sewers and spammed healed and/or buffed them. The most fun I had was with my level 50 going around Old Galaxy City teaming up with new players and showing them the ropes.

Joining or watching Costume contests reading bios and enjoying the creativity.

Many many many hours lost getting a character look just right!

Very little rewards very much fun on my part.

-------------------------------------------
Personal rules of good roleplay
1.) Nothing goes as planned.
2.) If it goes as planned it's not good RP

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote: In CoX, we defeated
Quote:

In CoX, we defeated mobs and did missions and so forth and it was fun, but the primary driving force behind WHICH content you decided to do at any given time on any given toon was the rewards you expected to get.

I fully agree as long as those rewards can also be simply enjoying the content itself.

Quote:

I splurged for "Fashionista" level perks, so I've already paid more money to MWM via the Kickstarter than I did to the CoX people over the entire life of that game. If CoT gives me what I've just described above for nothing more than the up-front cost of purchasing the game, I don't see why I'd have any pressing reason to pay a monthly fee. That said, I WANT there to be a pressing reason why I would pay a monthly fee. I just know that for me, "you get the new costume piece a month before everyone else" isn't going to cut it, because for the most part, I feel like I should just buy the items I actually like and want for a toon "off the rack" as one-of purchases. I don't want to subscribe to the Costume of the Month Club, because you never know what costume you're going to get on any given month and I probably won't want most of them..

Its HIGHLY unlikely that the only reward for subscribing will be costumes. There will most likely be some or all of the following... QoL powers, IGC or XP boosters, new power sets or ATs, special mission arcs, cosmetic pets, decorative base items, recipes/enhancements/salvage, starting level options and special zone access in addition to direct character cosmetic options like new costumes, power animations, auras, titles and emotes. There will probably be some things I haven't even thought of.
Some of these things might be restricted in the F2P option and be unlocked in the P2P option. You might not have access to new power sets if you are F2P and would need to buy them individually yet in the P2P model they are given upon release.
We just don't have enough information on how they are going to work these business models. We do know they promise to not include anything in store that cannot be earned in the game itself but we don't know if F2P will have different rules regarding this.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
From reading Fireheart's post

From reading Fireheart's post I can only infer that Fireheart would only pay a sub if that sub were a way to unlock some content (a TF, a Trial, a story arc, etc). Is this so? Because when one types "For me, the reason I paid my subscription was for the Meat of the game, not the Sauce on top. I enjoyed defeating bad-guys, running missions, and exploring content. I enjoyed making friends and teaming up with a few of them to stomp the baddies even better." it sounds a lot like the way to get Fireheart to pay a sub is to gate a lot of the meaty content that is the stuff of the game behind a paywall. Otherwise, if all the content is unlocked and available for only the price of purchasing the game, then the person who typed the above quoted statement would not then have a reason to pay a sub, or so it seems.
I would also point out that though Fireheart might not personally be after the rewards, as evident in this statement: "I played the game for mostly casual and social reasons, even when I was playing solo. The 'gear-grind' you support only mattered (to me) at max-level, and with 180 alts, I didn't have time for it. I only ever did TFs because my friends invited me to." I think the group of friends and teammates mentioned in the quote most likely DID contain at least one person who DID care about the rewards, and this desire for rewards was probably what drove that particular friend to ask Fireheart to do that TF and not some other content, in that case.
In other words, even if you claim to be casual and social and not care about the rewards, the people you're socializing with are still going to want to do certain content to get certain rewards. Not EVERYONE is driven by that as a motivating factor, I'll admit, but some people are, and those people tend to try to get others to help them do those TFs and get those rewards. So I think even the social player needs the rewards to be there, because that's what attracts players like me who would be apt to try to form a TF so I can get a Synthetic HamiO I want, and in so doing provide myself and Fireheart with some fun socialization and entertainment for the evening while we partake in the meaty activities of the game together. The rewards attract people like me, people like me attract socializers like Fireheart, we all have fun together.
I did almost none of the Signature Story Arcs in CoX, and I definitely I didn't try to get every badge, not even just on my main. But I DID try to get every Accolade for each of my toons, and I formed many PUG teams to get the 10,000 monkeys for Zookeeper and to farm Carnie missions for the badge you needed for Archmage, and every time I was going to get a badge needed for Portal Jockey I advertised it in case anyone needed that, etc. It was fun, it was content, it was a way to get ME the accolade powers I wanted and to help others do the same. So that sort of desire for rewards does drive people to form teams and socialize, I feel.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Fireheart
Fireheart's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 months 2 weeks ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/05/2013 - 13:45
Radiac wrote: From reading
Radiac wrote:

From reading Fireheart's post I can only infer that Fireheart would only pay a sub if that sub were a way to unlock some content (a TF, a Trial, a story arc, etc). Is this so?

Mmm, I can't afford to subscribe right now, but, when I did/do, it's for access to better systems in the game. When CoH went F2P, I had so many Vet Rewards that I did not suffer at all from dropping my subscription. I hated the policy decision inherent in "Who Will Die" and flatly refused to play any of those missions.

In another game, being un-subbed meant losing half of my inventory, greatly reduced access to the market, mail access was restricted, and barely any storage in Bank or Guild. For that game, I tended to waffle back and forth, subbed and un-subbed.

In CO, the only thing I miss from being un-subbed is my freeform characters. I do hate the way we are Forced to play 'Silver or Gold' and have to pay to convert each way. Lots of other things I hate about CO, but those aren't changed by subscribing.

In other games, I play F2P, but paid cash to the Store for things like crafting, storage, and inventory, as well as some cosmetic bits and in-game utility items. Oh, and Character Slots - I need, um... more than they usually offer for free.

So, my subscription status generally depends on my ability to pay and just which features are locked behind the pay-wall.

Be Well!
Fireheart

Izzy
Izzy's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 5 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/09/2013 - 11:09
Fireheart wrote: Radiac
Fireheart wrote:

Radiac wrote: From reading Fireheart's post I can only infer that Fireheart would only pay a sub if that sub were a way to unlock some content (a TF, a Trial, a story arc, etc). Is this so?Mmm, I can't afford to subscribe right now, but, when I did/do, it's for access to better systems in the game. When CoH went F2P, I had so many Vet Rewards that I did not suffer at all from dropping my subscription. I hated the policy decision inherent in "Who Will Die" and flatly refused to play any of those missions.In another game, being un-subbed meant losing half of my inventory, greatly reduced access to the market, mail access was restricted, and barely any storage in Bank or Guild. For that game, I tended to waffle back and forth, subbed and un-subbed.In CO, the only thing I miss from being un-subbed is my freeform characters. I do hate the way we are Forced to play 'Silver or Gold' and have to pay to convert each way. Lots of other things I hate about CO, but those aren't changed by subscribing.In other games, I play F2P, but paid cash to the Store for things like crafting, storage, and inventory, as well as some cosmetic bits and in-game utility items. Oh, and Character Slots - I need, um... more than they usually offer for free.So, my subscription status generally depends on my ability to pay and just which features are locked behind the pay-wall.Be Well!
Fireheart

I like the FEELing of Ownership for anything i spend cash on. So... this Conversion feels Iffy to me. Like there's a Middle Man i rather not be dealing with. I played CO very very briefly, I hated the confusion of Gold, Silver, whatever it was called, and the Need to Convert my Real Money into BitCoin gave me so much trepidation... I just gave up on trying. Like doing Taxes myself. Blehhh! :/

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Let's assume for a second

Let's assume for a second that the monthly subscription brings with it some kind of access to Augments and Refinements that the non-subbed personal cannot acquire or use. Like IOs instead of SOs in CoX. Clearly the advantage to the IOs is that they augment or refine your powers MORE than the less-valuable SOs do and maybe you get set bonuses on top of that. This is the classic Pay to Win scenario that most people are afraid of, or so I assume from reading posts about Pay to Win.

Several points about this, with reference to good old CoX:

1. In CoX, you either had to pay for a crafting license or pay a sub.
2. In CoX, you had very limited access to the auction house if you did not pay a sub.
3. In CoX people could BUY IOs from rare sets in the cash shop.
4. In CoX, there was PVP, it wasn't the primary attraction for most CoX players, but it was a motivation for a subset of the population.

I would not have construed CoX as a "Gear grind" or as "Pay to Win" personally. It never felt that way to me. It wasn't a game where you had to have the perfect team of the right classes with the exact gear necessary to actually have a chance at succeeding at a Manticore TF or whatever you were trying to do on any given evening. They rolled out the IOs after the game had been designed for SOs and they never made the difficulty any harder (by default) and as a result of that decision, the game was never a horrendous gear grind like that, at least not for those people who wanted to avoid such. You could have had a toon with a lot of really low-level gear in CoX and it never really made a difference to anybody running a TF, unless they were advertising for a "Master Of" run or something with the difficulty cranked up.

Given this information, I respectfully submit to those people who hate Pay to Win that even if CoT DOES put the "Best" gear firmly behind the subscription paywall, it will not lead to a WoW-like gear grind type game, as long as they stay true to their "spiritual successor" intentions and don't crank up the default-lowest-available-difficulty level on the raids. Giving people the option to turn up the difficulty when they want to is great, and I want it to be there too, but letting people play on the cheap/casual and just play with the difficulty set to the lowest setting is fine also.

If it were up to me, I would just prevent non-subbed players from being able to actually use items above a certain rarity. They still get them to drop at random, they can still craft and slot them into powers, they just can't get the full power buffage out of them or the set bonuses. This causes them to want to sell that stuff on the market to those of us that CAN use them and maybe we pay those people for their rare/very rare Augments and Refinements in IGC or in Stars and maybe those people can actually play on a sub one month at a time every once in a while. If you're on a sub and you let it lapse, your gear is still in place and it just get's nerfed by the game to give you only as much power buffage as the SOs you're allowed to use would give you. Then if you go back on the sub again, your gear magically "turns back on" and you get the better power buffage and set bonuses again, etc. So like every rare or very rare item would have an "equivalent for the non subber" that it effectively reverts to when your sub lapses so that when you put a "Overclock's Heat Sink +Damage" Augment in your Cold Blast attack, you know it works like a "Generic Damage Augment level 50" (which is cheaper and not as good) when you're not subscribed and thus nerfs you a bit.

This should not adversely affect PVP either, as this game will not have forced PVP. All PVP will be "join voluntarily at your own risk" and I think they've already said they're not going to have PVP zones that have "victim bait" in them to attract people like CoX did. As such people will have the ability to set up matches or team fights that are "non-sub only" or "sub-only" or a fair-sounding mix of the two, etc.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote: Given this information
Quote:

Given this information, I respectfully submit to those people who hate Pay to Win that even if CoT DOES put the "Best" gear firmly behind the subscription paywall, it will not lead to a WoW-like gear grind type game, as long as they stay true to their "spiritual successor" intentions and don't crank up the default-lowest-available-difficulty level on the raids. Giving people the option to turn up the difficulty when they want to is great, and I want it to be there too, but letting people play on the cheap/casual and just play with the difficulty set to the lowest setting is fine also..

If gear is your (general your not specifically you) only concern and CoT does not have a reliance on the 'best gear' then I have no issue with this at all.
As a reason for subscribing I don't personally find access to gear compelling enough on its own. I think is the game had many of the things I said earlier as the difference between f2p and subscription I would be more likely to subscribe.

Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 weeks ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
I think the biggest problem I

I think the biggest problem I have with the F2P model is that very possibility of its becoming predatory, even if unintentionally so. I don't think CoX Freedom was intentionally predatory, but I saw friends who I knew were in difficult financial situations gleefully welcome the fact that they no longer had to pay a sub....and then spend magnitudes more per month buying everything available. I certainly expect MWM to strive for an honourable path here, and I'm familiar with the old "buyer beware" saying, but, to echo what Pyromantic said, the F2P model has always left me unsatisfied. Or perhaps I should say uncomfortable.

In addition to the problem described above, I think that discomfort, for me, occurs when real life money crosses over into the virtual world. In a sub-only game, I set up the payment in the real world, then I dive into the virtual world, where every shop and item is paid for in virtual currency and I no longer have to think about real money. As soon as that line is crossed, it both breaks my immersion and raises my salesman-defence hackles, no matter how good-intentioned the devs may be.

So yes, I'm a dinosaur who prefers the sub-only model. But I've accepted the fact that, for various reasons, sub-only won't be the model for CoT. That does leave me with a huge question mark regarding how the business model for CoT will actually work. If everything will be earnable in-game, and if no one is required to pay a sub to play, that means that conceivably the only income MWM will ever get will be the "box" price. Is that enough to support the game? Will the shop be only for people who can't wait to earn stuff through play? Are there that many of them to keep CoT afloat?

Like others have said, I would like to be a subscriber to CoT, but I hope this will amount to more than being simply a charitable patron. I'd like to get something for the sub that I consider worthwhile, but I'm really fuzzy on exactly what that will be. Sure, a stipend, but to buy what? If it's only stuff I can earn through play, why would I want to use my stipend on it? Early access is only a 'meh' benefit for me. (And won't that cause problems with teaming if it's any sort of content?)

Regardless of sub or B2P, it seems to me the financial survivability of CoT will depend on box sales combined with Starmart sales, and I'd expect over time for the latter to take up the majority of the burden. So it seems to come down to exactly what will be available for sale on the Starmart -- something that has been hotly contested in several threads over the life of this forum, with someone always objecting strongly to having to pay for something that another person says is something that they would feel was worth paying for. We can even see a bit of that in this thread (though discussed much more calmly). The problem here comes from what is normally one of the greatest strengths of an MMO in the CoX style: the fact that there is so much to do, and that everyone has his/her own preferences. In CoX the only things I spent my stipend on were Power Sets and the SSAs -- and that's the kind of stuff I would need to get in CoT to make a sub worthwhile. But others don't value that kind of thing as much, and some object to having to pay for any content at all.

I have no idea how MWM is meant to sort out this puzzle. I just wish them the best of luck in doing so, because I want this game to be a success that runs for many, many years.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
One use for Stars, as I

One use for Stars, as I mentioned earlier, is to let people pay for a Sub with them.

So like, you pay your monthly sub for, say, $10. You get 1000 Stars with that. Then you can go on the Auction House and sell them for some amount of IGC (negotiable) which you will then use to acquire some kind of Augments or Refinements you want (either on the auction house or someplace else). The people buying those Stars are doing so because THEY want to use the Stars to buy a month of subscribed time for, say, 2000 Stars (it has to be more than 1000). As such, you, the guy who paid cash for the sub, get to cut in some other person who wants a sub in exchange for some of the swag they spent hours upon hours of non-subbed time grinding for. Thus the paid subbers support the subscription needs of the non-subbers in exchange for not having to spend all that time grinding for all that swag, and the non-subbers support the swag needs of the paid subbers in a symbiotic sort of way.

The only question then is, why do the non-subber want a sub at all? Assuming they're paying 2000 Stars to get 1000 back, this still costs Stars (which are basically one cent each, by my math). So Subscribed Time has to get you something that Unsubscribed Time does not. Some kind of right or service has to be available to the Subscriber that is not available to the Unsubscribed. To me this comes right down to either specific types of content (TFs, trials, missions, or something) or else it is a matter of character power level in some way (Augments and Refinements, level caps, power sets, something like that). This is why I've suggested the Augment and Refinement rules for Subs and Nonsubs that I have above. In that scenario, it is possible for a non-sub person to grind for everything, including subscription time. The only important factor is to set up the costs and benefits of things such that making a reasonable net profit is next to impossible for the gamers to the point that it's not a viable option to just quit your job and play the game for net personal gain all day.

Edit: Honestly, it could be as simple as "You get set bonuses while your sub is paid up, then they get 'turned off' like your electricity when you stop paying the monthly sub bill." Assuming the set bonuses are worthwhile and make a difference in some noticeable way.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Going back to the question of

Going back to the question of making people pay for content, I've written about this before, too.
I would not object to making some of the TFs and Trials "Subscriber only" then opening them up to non-subscribers on a pay-as-you-go basis. This is basically the "Amusement Park" model of sales. Subscribers would get unlimited access to all TFs and Trials for as long as their subs are paid up, while the non-subbers can only join a gated TF or Trial if they pay some number of Stars at the beginning, and that's a cost paid PER RUN of the gated TF or Trial. So like if you're a non sub, you aren't gated out of the hot new TF they just rolled out entirely, as you could maybe trade some Augments and so forth on the auction house for IGC, use that to buy Stars on the auction house, then use those Stars to buy what is essentially a ticket to a single run of a specific TF or trial.
In the past I practically received death threats (not really) for suggesting something like this, but I still think it would work.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
I'm not sold on separating

I'm not sold on separating subbers and non-subbers in such a way, even for a very small amount of content. I think the Extra Credits guys said to never ever do so.

The biggest problem I see with your specific suggestion is what to do if the non-subber doesn't complete that run especially if, through no action of their own, they "drop out" just minutes after loading into the TF/Trial.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I think the way I'd handle

I think the way I'd handle refunds is that when you pay your Stars, you buy a "ticket" to a TF. You can't get your Stars back, but if you get kicked before a specific point in the TF (the point of no return), you get your ticket back and can try to do that TF again. Alternatively, a person who has an unwanted ticket could try to "scalp" that ticket on the auction house or in player-to-player trading for some IGC.
One way to handle the sub/nonsub thing in the game is that when you're subbed, you're considered "bonded" or "licensed" or have your "union card" or whatever, then the non-subbers are all "unlicensed" or whatever and need to get a "waiver" to be able to participate in the TF or Trial in question. The waiver would be sold by the NPC that gives out the TF, for Stars, and is non-refundable as far as the NPC is concerned, but the person who buys it can then either use it to do a TF or else sell it on the market for IGC.

Edit: It's fine with me if the point-of-no-return is like, right at the end. That is, anyone who doesn't get the "DING! TF Successful!" at the end for some reason can get their ticket back, for all I care. Presumably those doing the TF with purchased tickets would then NOT lose their ticket if the TF fails or disbands before succeeding for any reason, or if the person get's kicked for being difficult like RIGHT at the end, they still get their ticket back.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
More sub / non-sub ideas

More sub / non-sub ideas (none of them really all that new):

1. If CoT is going to have an auction house, and I assume it will, then further assuming it works like Wentworth's in CoX (by and large), I would give subscribers and non-subscribers all the same buy/sell perks but make the "house cut" on completed sales a higher percentage for sales where the non-subber is selling something for IGC back. I could see offering more buy/sell slots to the subscribers too, but in general I think it helps the subscribed player more if the non-subbers are encouraged at every turn to liquidate their unneeded stock of items, so that other players interested in such can buy it. Some people have a tendency to stockpile stuff because they're too lazy to sell it, or just due to having a pack rat mentality of "always keep everything". Also, items in general will retain value whereas IGC loses value over time due to inflation. Free to play means you get to play the game for free, it doesn't necessarily mean you will get rich in the process, after all.
2. Assuming the players can have personal lairs, once one makes a lair, it's kind of no fun to have the whole thing taken away when your subscription runs out, so instead of making that a thing that turns on and off entirely, I would maybe make it such that when your sub expires, some PART of your lair get's closed off (due to renovations, lack of power for the equipment, etc if you want fluff text for it). This way the subscriber can access the parts of the personal lair that are "added bonuses for the subscriber" and the non-subbed person still get's to have a lair, just not one that has as many cool bells and whistles working. If there are trophies, I would leave them in the non-sub accessible areas, because that's stuff you're proud of and want to show off once you unlock it. Things I'd put behind the "subscriber wall" might include an "improved" crafting station that crafts items for less IGC than the "standard" one you can use publicly, additional storage space for items (when your sub lapses you can no longer add items to the storage, only remove stuff).
3. Some kind of limit to chat access for non-subber A) to encourage people to pay a sub and B) to try to impede the efforts of gold farmers advertising in chat.

Edit: Between the gold farmer issue and the sub/non-sub rules for the auction house, it might make sense to only allow subscribers to initiate player-to-player trades, if such will even exist at all.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
As a non-subscriber, I expect

As a non-subscriber, I expect full access to content including TF's (with exceptions for level and mission pre-req gating, of course) and the basics that let me play along-side subscribers without feeling like a second-class citizen. Including general chat functions, entry to bases, regular leveling abilities and a mechanism that lets me acquire additional play advantages (gear/enhancements) by investing time playing the regular content. I fully expect to pay extra for cosmetic goodies or be able to acquire them through an in-game market system through PROTRACTED play. I'd like to be able to purchase some of the QoL features on a per month basis to see how much it actually improves the Q of my L. And if I bought all the features that a subber gets for a month it should cost me significantly more than a subscription.

Basically, If I'm willing to put in the time and effort, all the while churning the game economy, it should be possible for me to see and do anything a subber can. Just without all of the frills and fancy bits. I love the game and I have the time, just not all the money.

As a subscriber I expect full access to content, (with the same exceptions as above) a majority of the QoL features and a stipend of whatever kind of currency sufficient to purchase all the cosmetic goodies over time. I might have to pick and choose which new costume pack I want RIGHT NOW, or whether I buy XP boosts or temp powers or what-have-you. And it would be nice to get a freebie tossed to me once in a while as a loyalty reward for keeping my sub up for X months. Then if I'm really antsy for something in particular I can get it from a cash shop.

I would expect to see attractive discount packages for buying 3 month/6 month/1 year/++/lifetime subscriptions.

Basically, I want to pay extra for easy access to things that would otherwise require turning my fun diversion into a part-time job. I love the game, I've got the money, I just don't have as much time as used to.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
One thing I forgot to add.

One thing I forgot to add. If personal lairs are going to have "fast transportation" type items, like the teleporters we had in CoX, I would limit them for non-subbers such that you can only TP to points within a certain range of your base's own location. If you're paying a sub, the teleporters (or whatever they are) would then have no such distance limits.

From a fluff perspective, your lair could have secret passages which take you to locations near your lair's "in door" whereas the part that takes you to more remote locations might be the helipad, the garage where you keep your supercar, motorcycle, etc. When your sub lapses, you can still click on your supercar, but it pops up a message that says "The Radiac-mobile is currently unavailable." or something.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
Radiac wrote:
Radiac wrote:

Going back to the question of making people pay for content, I've written about this before, too.
I would not object to making some of the TFs and Trials "Subscriber only" then opening them up to non-subscribers on a pay-as-you-go basis. This is basically the "Amusement Park" model of sales. Subscribers would get unlimited access to all TFs and Trials for as long as their subs are paid up, while the non-subbers can only join a gated TF or Trial if they pay some number of Stars at the beginning, and that's a cost paid PER RUN of the gated TF or Trial. So like if you're a non sub, you aren't gated out of the hot new TF they just rolled out entirely, as you could maybe trade some Augments and so forth on the auction house for IGC, use that to buy Stars on the auction house, then use those Stars to buy what is essentially a ticket to a single run of a specific TF or trial.
In the past I practically received death threats (not really) for suggesting something like this, but I still think it would work.

o like dungeons and dragons online where half content pay for and will good for subscribers

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
For me, the easiest division

For me, the easiest division between Subscription and Free to Play is this ...

Preferential Treatment

It basically amounts to being sent to the "front of the line" if you're a Subscriber. It may take LONGER for the Free to Player to reach the same "stuff" ... but it's not inherently walled off or about keeping them locked out forever.

The same notion then applies to content releases ... such that Subscribers get the content immediately, while Free to Play people wait to get to it later (after the Subscribers have filed all the bug reports and the patches have been applied). Again, it's a "go to the front of the line" versus waiting kind of deal. If you don't want to wait ... there's the subscription right over there. If you don't mind waiting ... you can keep playing for free.

So the dividing line becomes more a matter of Subscribers being "first" to get things, while Free to Play has everything available to them "eventually" on down the line (6 months? a year?) later on. That way, the Subscribers are "rewarded" for their Loyalty to the game by receiving preferential treatment, but Free to Play isn't "locked out" of being able to participate without paying up.

You'd be amazed at how fast people are willing to change their minds about something if their subscription means they get things FIRST as opposed to whether or not they get to play AT ALL. That then transforms the difference to one of Patience versus Payment ... in which if you want to get stuff early, you can pay for the privilege (via Subscription) or you can go the ala carte route of paying Stars to get (earlier) access to stuff before it goes Free to Play for everyone to enjoy.

So then, rather than it being a question of HAVE versus HAVE NOT ... instead it becomes a question of Have NOW versus Have LATER.

HAVE versus HAVE NOT is something that inherently lends itself to exploitative practices and pricing, since it caters to the Collector Mentality.

Have NOW versus Have LATER, by contrast, is merely a test of Patience and is thus less prone to exploitative practices, pricing and Second Class Citizen status (since in the long run, everyone gets access to everything anyway).


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Going by the "move to the

Going by the "move to the front of the line" idea, proposed above by Redlynne, what I interpret that to mean is this (correct me if I'm wrong):

When a new content release comes out, the subscribers get to access it right away (and presumably they do that, in droves) but the non-sub players are locked out until either A) the start paying a sub (so every new release is now a prompt for the non-subs to pay a sub for like one month just to get a look at the new content, which I'm all for) or B) wait for like a year for it to go free, presumably when some NEWER piece of content comes out and everyone is now doing THAT instead.

This basically divides the player base with no hope of the non-subs ever getting to do the new content while it's popular and hot. This plan leaves no wiggle room for the person who, maybe like a young teenager, doesn't have access to the credit card and can't actually get a sub at all, but wants to do that TF or that new story arc.

Under the "buy a ticket" plan I proposed, you could gate the content exactly the same as the "wait for it to go free in like a year" plan, but then add in the added option of "or you can grind for IGC, use it to buy a few Stars, and do ONE run of the new TF or whatever" despite not being a subscriber.

So the Radiac "ticket" system COULD be implemented such that it is precisely the Redlynne "wait for it to go free" system, but with the added option of buying a single ticket to a single trial or mission arc or what have you. You could have Star prices for a day pass into the new zone, if there is one, you could have a price for the new mission arc, etc. This way, the locked-out non-subs who don;t have the physical or financial ability to pay for a sub can still get into that content somehow, by grinding for, begging, or borrowing Stars off of friends.

As a subscriber, I would love to be able to use some of MY monthly Stars to allow some non-sub friend or member of my SG to do a TF with me, especially if I feel like I need that particular toon to do that TF successfully. I feel like everybody has the ability to participate and have more fun that way.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Lynne didn't stress the point

Lynne didn't stress the point but she did mention a third option of buying an unlock for said content without the need to be a subscriber.

So we have:
A) Be a subscriber and get automatic unlock when it goes live.
B) Buy a permanent unlock for stars.
C) Wait for it to become free for all.

It's effectively what you are saying with the difference that it's a larger one-time fee for permanent unlock instead of a smaller per-run fee. Personally I think that the only real question here is how to formulate option B (permanent unlock vs. day/run tickets). For option A it's only a matter of how big a stipend, and option C is only a matter of time frame before going free which would depend on the content itself.

Of course, this is only for playable content like zones, mission arcs, AT's and power sets (mechanically). For purely cosmetic things like costume pieces and power animations then hardly any would be made free, so a large portion of a subscribers stipend would most likely go towards that.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
If I missed or didn't do

If I missed or didn't do justice to the Redlynne post vis a vis the unlock, please forgive me. That said, I think asking people to pay Stars (possibly a lot of them) to permanently unlock new content, which content is going to become free eventually anyway, is not as good a deal for the consumer as the per-run system would be, assuming the permanent unlock price remains fixed.
To explain, if I'm paying Stars for a permanent unlock of something, that assumes, I think, that the thing being unlocked will be unlocked, for me, forever and that it would otherwise be locked out forever if I don't pay for the unlock. In this case, you're asking people to pay a one-time unlock fee for something that they know they'll have free access to eventually anyway, which seems bad to me as a consumer. I wouldn't want to do that. It's not a good deal, to me, personally. If that's the decision I make, then I'm locking myself out of the content (or maybe I'm locked out de facto because I can't afford it) and as such the player base is now divided with no real chance of reunifying it.
On the other hand, paying a much smaller fee to do a single run or day pass or whatever, if it's reasonably priced for what you get, would be better, because then your proposition is "do I want to do this content right now, y/n? If yes, I pony up a few Stars somehow and do it, if not, I don't." You could theoretically charge people for a run of a TF 12 hours before that TF becomes totally free to play, and if you do, those consumers know what they're getting and they're getting what they paid for. They want to do it NOW, not tomorrow morning, so they're paying a few Stars (or getting their friends to do so for them).
With the permanent unlock, every day that goes by after the roll out of a new thing the global "fee to play" unlock for everyone get's a day closer and the incentive for anyone to pay for that unlock decreases just a little bit. I wouldn't want to pay for a permanent unlock of a thing that's going free for everyone tomorrow (or next week), I'd wait. So now you have to decrease the Star cost of the permanent unlock over time to be commensurate with it's value. If you're going to do that, you may as well offer the single run ticket anyway. Assuming the people paying for single runs with tickets are buying those tickets with Stars, and assuming that they're grinding for IGC to buy those Stars (or begging and borrowing from their friends) then the lower per-run price is actually better for them, because they might not be doing that TF or mission arc over and over and over, maybe they just want to do it one time.
As Doc pointed out, the idea of making people pay for like $40 worth of add-ons to be able to play the game like everyone else after a few years is bad. $60 up front ought to get you the whole game, which is why add-on content like new zones shouldn't be a thing that you get permanently locked out of for not paying for the upgrade. It just raises the up-front pricewall to the new customer, which is something to avoid. You want to attract new customers every year, not make it harder to get into for the newbies two years after all the new content rolls in. Thus I am against any kind of permanent unlock that actually does unlock anything that would otherwise be permanently locked. I'd rather let those new things that would be locked go "free for everyone" after some amount of time. That said, I think in that regime it's a bad deal to try to charge $5 for the permanent unlock when the thing's going free for everyone in like a month anyway. I think it's better to offer a lower-priced pay-per-run cost and let the non-subbers scrape together enough Stars to do the limited number of runs of TFs and so forth that they might actually want instead.
It just seems inherently better to me, putting myself in the place of the non-subber, to have to pay say 50 Stars for a single TF run as opposed to 500 Stars to unlock it "permanently" when it's going to go free eventually anyway. And the closer that "go free" point comes as time passes, the less I want to pay for a "permanent" unlock of a thing that was never going to be permanently locked in the first place.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Just because you can't see

Just because you can't see value in having it permanently unlocked for a fixed price doesn't mean that no one else will either. Personally I feel that having only single run tickets in such situations would make me feel like they are getting close to nickel and diming.
The biggest advantage of permanent unlocks over single run tickets is that once you have bought it you will never have to worry about having enough stars to be able to run it again, if you so choose. Using only single run ticket will most likely make it so that non-subbers will have to always have a significant star balance just in case something pops up that they want to run.

So what about having both systems in then, being able to buy a per-run ticket if you just want to check it out or do the very occasional run, or buy a permanent unlock if you know that you are gonna run it lots of times and not have to worry about your long term costs? This would also, to some degree, adress your concerns about the value of the permanent unlock the closer it gets to the free for all unlock.
The thing to balance here is how many single-run/limited-time tickets you get for the cost of a permanent unlock.

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
Radiac have good idea but i

Radiac have good idea but i play lots dungeons & dragons online and i pay 300$ contents my point is contents add up over time

(edit comment 20 time sigh)

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I'm not against the idea of

I'm not against the idea of offering products that I personally wouldn't buy, that's fine. I just want to point out that offering per-run tickets for a small price is not some evil plot to take everyone's money, at least not on my part and not intentionally.
Consider the plight of the kid who literally cannot pay any money into the game. Their parents buy them the game as a Christmas present and tell them "It's supposedly free to play, so we're not giving you any more money for it, just play it for free and know that if you ask for any additional money for this game the answer is no."
Okay, this kid can't buy a permanent unlock for anything now. He's locked out of whatever hot new content they roll out, forever, until such content becomes old and goes free (probably right when the NEXT new thing rolls out and is now the hot new thing). So subscribers and people with some money are constantly doing whatever is "new" and our kid is constantly unable to participate in it with them.
In the "buy a ticket" system, I, a paid Subscriber who has stars, can throw this kid, possibly a friend of mine, a few, like 50 of my 1000 monthly stars, to do a TF with me, one time, just to check it out. And 50 Stars is a lot less to have to grind for (make IGC, buy Stars off auction house) than the 500+ you'd be charging for the permanent unlock. By the time the kid grinds for that, he's probably better off waiting for the next new thing to roll out instead and get in on that while it's hot. Do I, the paid subscriber want to kick in 500 Stars to buy this poor kid a permanent unlock? Well, how do I know he's actually going to be around to use it? He might get bored and bail on the game in like a month. Permanently unlocking something for someone is a bit more generous than I'd probably be, but the occasional 50 Stars now and then isn't going to bankrupt me and isn't invested in any kind of long-term plan. It's just for one evenings fun.
Some of us might not like the per-run ticket, and I will certainly concede that the monthly sub ought to be the more cost-effective way to proceed for those of us that have that option, but per-run tickets do in fact serve a purpose for the benefit of certain gamers at large, namely that segment of the population that is required to grind for everything and cannot pay in real money. That's how I see it.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 5 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
The primary issue with the

The primary issue with the single ticket-per-play option is that it can create a sense of the "nickle and diming" of the player. It moves away from offering a service. It would also necessitate an in-game intrusion of the cash-shop option - a constant intrision that takes the player out of the game.

Analysis has shown that intrusive cash shops in western gaming markets for on-line games is not welcome by a significant portion of the player base. It also tends to not be a revenue driver except for a small percentage of players (typically in the sense of pay to win purchasing). Which means the design of what is placed into the game - and also the focus of developers is toward "the whales".

Full access via subscription, full unlock via one time purchase, and "free pass ticket" via teaming with those who have access keeps the cash shop from being too intrusive. It falls in line of offering a service vs a constant reminder of the requirement to pay to play. And lastly, it allows for ease of play.

Please keep in mind this is my own opinion and not indicative of any actual direction of this game's business model.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote: Radiac have good idea
Quote:

Radiac have good idea but i play lots dungeons & dragons online and i pay 300$ contents my point is contents add up over time .

DDO has one of the worst f2p models ever. Its entirely predicated on the notion that the majority of the content is locked behind a paywall while giving the illusion of an open game that is in reality requiring f2p players to repeat content many times just to advance to the point that unlocks the next small set of f2p content they can use.

There is nothing wrong with locking some content behind paywalls and its foolish to think that a game will survive by giving everything away for free. There is a big difference between a few special power sets, classes, special mission arcs and VIP gathering zones that's locked behind a paywall and having so much locked behind a paywall that just progressing in the game becomes difficult if not impossible.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
In response to Tannim222's

In response to Tannim222's thoughts, it's unfortunate that the psychology of the people playing these games is averse to the per-run ticket idea, but I guess it is what it is. I have to wonder though, aren't virtually all microtransactions one might pout in the cash shop also seen as a form of nickel and diming? And isn't just having a cash shop in and of itself an immersion-breaking annoyance? In CoX they had that "go to the store" icon that you couldn't get rid of. I gotta believe that was as bad of an annoyance to people, but there it was. They did it anyway.
I still agree with Doc Tyche that adding on another necessary add-on cost every time you roll out new zones or new content get's expensive to the new player as the years roll on.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Ultimately, I think if you're

Ultimately, I think if you're going to have the sub option and the non-sub option exist side by side, the comparison between the two will probably always come down to which option has more features and/or which one has fewer annoyances.
If both options are just as featured and they're both free of annoyances, then the best option will always be not to pay a sub. Why pay for what you're already getting for free?
Making the sub at least AS attractive as the non-sub option requires that it have either more features that players want or fewer of the annoyances they want to avoid, or both.
Creating a non-sub option that is totally free of all annoyances will then require that the non-sub option be less full-featured and make the players feel like "second class citizens".
Creating a non-sub option that has all the features of the sub will then require that the non-sub has some annoyances and people will feel like they're getting "nickel and dimed".
In other words, people want everything for free and when you try to charge them money, they complain. You can't win.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Radiac, did you completely

Radiac, did you completely dismiss or ignore my suggestion to have both a permanent unlock and a single-use ticket system for non-subbers?

To use you figures. 500 for permanent unlock equals 10 runs of single-run tickets at 50 a piece, that is little over 3 months at only 1 run a week. That may be perfectly fine for casual ones but there are those who have lots of time and can run it once a day or even more often. For those people it would have cost 3500 (at 1 run a day) for the same time period if they only had single-run tickets to use, compared to paying "only" 500 (or even 1000) for a permanent unlock.

Both systems has their pros and cons and ideally both systems would be used so that each individual player could choose which one they think would give most value for money. By harping on about your preferred system, and only that one, without even acknowledging the possible benefits of other systems makes it look like you don't think that the other ones are good enough to be included.

Also, I'm not sure you're using "nickle and dimed" in the right way there.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I hope you'll forgive me for

I hope you'll forgive me for trying to argue in favor of an idea I came up with. I acknowledged the "buy it once" option. I said I personally don't prefer it.
In this discussion, anyone who intends to do the new hot TF or whatever is apparently going to have to pay for it some how. Those of us who pay a sub, well, we get unlimited access for as long as our subs are paid. $10 per month or whatever it is get's you all the TFs you want. Given the amount of runs you're talking about, yes, I agree that one person probably doesn't want to (or can't) pay that much for those runs, one at a time. At least not by themselves, and most likely not for cash. I would expect those Stars to be paid for in IGC off the auction house, more often than not, in fact.
Now, if my Sub gets me 1000 Stars per month, and if the TF supports, say, 6-8 people doing it as a team, then me and the other 5-6 people on the team (possibly my SG mates) could collectively each throw the one non-sub (also in our SG) that's joining us like 5-10 Stars each to run it with us. At 10 Stars per donor per run, that's 100 runs per month that our "non-subbed friend" can do with us. Granted that cleans out all of our Stars for the month, but frankly I'm having a hard time figuring out what else I personally would spend it on. If I'm subscribed, shouldn't I be getting all of the other perks and so forth more or less for the price of the subscription? Or are we assuming that even the subscribers are going to have to buy unlocks of costume pieces etc using Stars? Even if we are, how many new costume pieces do I really want to buy every month, maybe zero some months. I feel like I would spend my Stars on buying IGC so I can get Augments for myself and/or helping my SG mates out by getting them into a TF once in a while.
Is buying the unlock once a good deal in some cases, sure. As you described. In fact, it's BETTER deal than paying a sub every month if all the sub gets you is the new content unlocked while you're subscribed. Therefore, with the permanent unlock option open, your subscription now needs to offer something ELSE that the non-subber doesn't get in order to make a sub attractive relative to just rolling as a non-sub forever and then paying for new content every time new content rolls out (which isn't going to be as frequently as once a month, not by a longshot). Also, the problem, as I had pointed out, is that as the "go free date" for that content nears, you need to drop the price of that permanent unlock. That or else you need to lock people out of new expansions forever and thereby raise the barrier to entry for the totally new players over time as new content rolls out, which I personally dislike.
So the permanent unlock, which I am willing to ponder, upon closer inspection brings with it baggage that I personally don't like from the vendor point of view and from the customer point of view. As a vendor, I would rather give people the option of either pay a sub (maybe just for a month or two) and go nuts doing all the new TFs you want while subscribed, or else or pay as you go and like DON'T do a million TFs for the ticket price every time because you can't afford it (there is other content to do, I assume, including other, non-gated TFs). As a customer, I would only buy the permanent unlock if I think it's going to be locked forever or if the unlock date is like really far away. By the time that unlock date is like 1-2 months away, the money I'd be willing to pay for that unlock has dwindled significantly from whatever it was 6 months ago. I'm not ignoring "buy it permanently" as a thing, and I wouldn't try to dictate to MWM that they definitely shouldn't offer it. I'm certainly not going to throw a fit and tell people I'm rage-quittting if they ever deign to offer it. I'm just not really in favor of it, when I personally consider the options, that's all.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Then why do you keep harping

Then why do you keep harping about it so freaking much? I get the feeling that you feel that you need to "remind" MWM about what you think is "The Best" option in this regard every time a single post appears here that is not fully aligned to your thoughts.

You've made your point very clear, you don't really need to keep repeating it when it doesn't add anything new to the discussion.

However, a lot of what we both THINK is a better deal is based on speculation, mainly what benefits a sub actually gives us.

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 5 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I think there is a bit of a

I think there is a bit of a confluence with 2 separate pricing methods for granting accesss to content going on that should remain distinct.

One thing that our business team has stated is the desire to not "take stuff away" from the player who goes from sub to non sub. That is, the core game gives you certain things.

Subscribing woud therefore offer additional perks that may add onto the core game, yield preference in certain aspects (subscribers having preference of beta testing first, customer service preference, to even a slight yield in in-game rewards, and so on).
If there were any additional "pay to play" content involved in the game, it would be something that everyone has to pay for, subscribing or not. An example fromt the old game are the signature story arcs, or how TSW side stories. With Subscribers being given a cash shop currency stipend, they can in essence save up to purchase these at no additional cost. Meanwhile a non-subscriber purchases the DLC at a one time cost. And if you are teamed with someone who doesn't have access, for the sake of ease of play, the team member is given a "free pass ticket" under the owner's access if the owner is the team leader.

Of course, any such DLC or Pay To Play content should offer additional in-game reward incentives to encourage multiple plays. And to encourage everyone to purchase, this additional reward incentive would only be available to those who have actual purchased access, not free pass. The free-pass players would get standard rewards, but not necessarily the extra goods. Again please keep in mind this is my own opinion on the matter.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
What Tannim222 describes in

What Tannim222 describes in the above post is not the same as what I had envisioned, and that's fine. MWM can and will do what they feel is best in that regard and all I'm doing here is voicing my opinions on it, and I'm only one person.
To go into detail, as a future subscriber-in-waiting, I would personally want the subscription to get me something more substantial than just "subscribers having preference of beta testing first, customer service preference, to even a slight yield in in-game rewards, and so on" I'm not sure what the "and so on" entails exactly, but none of the specific things mentioned would sway me to pay for a sub, personally. I never did the test server on CoX, and I have no desire to beta test new content down the road. That said, I WANT to end up paying for a sub, I just need it to look attractive to me as compared to the other options.
As for paying for new content as it is published, if this is going to be a "buy the expansion once and own it forever" deal, it sounds like those who never pay for it never get it. That being the case, a new player who buys the game three years after it starts up will need to pay the purchase price of the game plus all of those upgrade costs to get the full game, and as Doc Tyche mentioned that presents an increased price barrier to the new player. What's worse, to me, is that this increased price barrier includes new players who pay for a subscription, as they would still need to save up Stars to pay for the expansions, which adds insult to injury, I feel. You're going to tell the new incoming players who just bought your game that they don't get access to the new content in the expansions until they pay like 2000 Stars for each expansion, then tell them they only get 1000 Stars per month and that they should either save up or pay more money right away to get the full game access they want. I think that's a really big deal breaker for a lot of new people down the road, especially because the ill effects are cumulative. Every new expansion makes that problem worse for the new player.
As to the "take nothing away" directive. There's giving stuff and taking it away, and then there's enabling and disabling features. I feel like we should still allow the enabling and disabling of features. Taking away things like powers, gear, and levels (like what happened in CoX, once you stopped paying a sub, your Incarnate levels went away and you lost those powers, etc) was, I believe the original intent of that directive. If you apply "giving and taking" in the broadest sense, your power company is "taking your electricity away" when you stop paying your power bill. That said, I would not have expected to get it for free in that case, and I fully expect that there are services and features that could be enabled and disabled based on subscription in CoT too. Therefore thare are are services and rights that can in fact be "taken away" in the very broad sense that some services and features might become disabled for the non-subber. I see nothing wrong with that, and I don't think it violates the directive as it was originally intended. I know this sounds like a cop out, but if you take the "take nothing away" order to the extreme, and by that I mean applying it to services and features that could be enabled or disabled as a subscription benefit (without deleting anything or denying people access to levels and gear they already acquired, etc) you're probably giving away the store for free, in many ways, I fear.
Next, I personally don't like paying a sub then STILL having to pay Stars for permanent content unlocks. I just personally feel like my subscription ought to get me access to that stuff for as long as my sub is paid up. This is probably because all of the other stuff Tannim22 mentions as coming with the sub doesn't appeal to me. To me, when I stop paying the sub, I feel as though maybe I should get locked out of certain TFs or areas. That, to me, is not "taking something away" but rather "disabling a feature while you're not subscribed". The right to enter a specific zone or start a specific TF is not a "thing" in any concrete sense, to me, and as such you're not taking away a thing, you're disabling certain features, which is fine. That's where I draw the line on that, YMMV.
I know that Tannim222 has quoted studies that indicate that players don't all think as I do, and I respect that. Maybe I just don't think like the average gamer because I'm older than they are, I don't know. One thing I do believe though is you can't give the customer the price tag gun. They just make everything cost $0.00 and take the whole store when you do that. So you can only take what the gamers say they want so far before you have to pull back and actually charge money for things, and you'll always get complaints and push back for that, no matter how you do it, I think.
One thing I am encouraged by, and happy about, is what feels to me like a serious effort being made to make sure the non-sub player can somehow access all the same content that the subscriber can access, somehow. Whether its free rides on the leader's subscription rights, or something else, I like the idea of keeping the player base undivided, so thank you for keeping that in mind.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 5 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
Radiac wrote: To go into
Radiac wrote:

To go into detail, as a future subscriber-in-waiting, I would personally want the subscription to get me something more substantial than just "subscribers having preference of beta testing first, customer service preference, to even a slight yield in in-game rewards, and so on" I'm not sure what the "and so on" entails exactly, but none of the specific things mentioned would sway me to pay for a sub, personally. I never did the test server on CoX, and I have no desire to beta test new content down the road. That said, I WANT to end up paying for a sub, I just need it to look attractive to me as compared to the other options.

I was purposefully giving very basic examples and not refined details because: first it isn't my place to provide fine details and second, any current concepts for handling the business end may change by the time we're ready to implement them.

But you glossed over one broad descritption which are additional perks that add to the core game. That is buying the box gives the basics necessary to access all core parts of the game, subscriptions expand those core portions. Games that have used this method for the number of global chats, types of chats, personal inventory, account inventory, personal housing expansion, auction house inventory, crafting inventories, and so on.

Radiac wrote:

As for paying for new content as it is published, if this is going to be a "buy the expansion once and own it forever" deal, it sounds like those who never pay for it never get it. That being the case, a new player who buys the game three years after it starts up will need to pay the purchase price of the game plus all of those upgrade costs to get the full game, and as Doc Tyche mentioned that presents an increased price barrier to the new player.

Expansions are quite different than the examples I cited such as signature story arcs or TSW's side missions. Yes, any game that has sold major expansions creates a barrier of entry for new players. Except when an there are two versions of an expansion - the add on to the core game price, and the full game+expansion price.

For example let's say an MMO released last year of 2015 for $50. In 2017 they release a major expansion. Those who already have the core game can buy the expansion-only package for $25, meanwhile a new coregame+expansion can be sold for $50.

The downside when similar things have happened is that current players get "upset" over the fact that they have to pay more than a new player would for the core game+expansion. Subscribers of couse, could with forewarning, have saved up their stipend and obtain the expansion for "free".

Another wrinkle in this barrier to entry is for nonsubsribers who have been playing in a game where the cash shop currency is available for trade for in-game currency on the game's auction house. This allows players who can afford the in-game transaction to also end up purchasing the expansion for "free".

Keep in mind, these numbers are just for example, the situations are based off examples of similar things done in other games.

Radiac wrote:

As to the "take nothing away" directive. There's giving stuff and taking it away, and then there's enabling and disabling features. I feel like we should still allow the enabling and disabling of features. Taking away things like powers, gear, and levels (like what happened in CoX, once you stopped paying a sub, your Incarnate levels went away and you lost those powers, etc) was, I believe the original intent of that directive.

From what I have been told, the concept is, anything you've earned access to, you keep. The example you gave was the exact example I was given as to not what to do. Just like when I suggested that subscriptions provide additional character slots that could potentially be locked out if a sub lapsed goes against this type concept.

Again, keep in mind this is all incredibly speculative as the market has changed and will continue to change by the time the game heads toward release. And nothing I've said here other than the concept of what you earned you keep is indicative of any direction the company make take for monetization.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Thank you for the additional

Thank you for the additional details, Tannim222. From what you've written so far I think I can say with confidence that I don't envy the people who have to make the tough business decisions on this stuff.
The "take nothing away when the sub lapses" thing is, to me, particularly difficult in a game if you intend for there to be subscribed play and non-subscribed play coexisting side by side. I feel like there may a sort of Arrow Impossibility Theorem that mathematically makes those two things mutually exclusive. That is, it might be impossible to obey the "take nothing away" order, taken to the extent that you said people have demanded, and also still have paid subscribers and non-subs BOTH as viable play modes. Frankly, if the subscriber who let's their subscription drop "loses nothing" in that process, well, then they haven't lost anything but they're no longer paying money every month either. It then begs the question of why WOULD anyone continue to pay money when they literally lose nothing for ceasing to pay? I wouldn't pay in that scenario, I don't know a rational person that would, in fact.
For this reason alone, I think rational people can see the problem there. You want to effectively give people the option to pay a sub with no real incentive to actually do so. This sounds, to me, a lot like the people directing us to "take nothing away" are interested in "getting high off their own supply" to use a colloquial expression from the illicit drug trade. I mean, sure, if you're a dealer and also a junkie you'd definitely want to give away all the crack for free, because that means YOU get all of it, for free. At what point then do you actually make enough money to buy food and clothing for yourself though?
Two or three more points and then I'll stop. First, I think the only problem with the CoX Incarnate sub/nonsub system was that the non-subs had no way of just jumping into ONE Trial once in awhile. That is, you couldn't just change your mind and go Incarnate again for like one night, you had to pay the month's sub or nothing. Also, if I were remaking it, I'd allow people to retain earned progress in the Incarnate power trees, I'd just deny them access to those powers while the sub is not paid up, then when you pay again, you get access to all of your old powers back. I don't honestly remember what they did in CoX back in the day, but if it wasn't that, I think it should have been. I wouldn't completely delete all the Incarnate powers forever, just grey them out such that they'll be available again when the sub is once again paid in full.
Second, I want to point out that I personally don't hate the idea of making it a "sub-only, pay or you don't get to play" game. Having a free trial mode is fine, giving people a few months of sub time with the upfront purchase is fine, etc, but I'm not sure that the so-called free to play option (which as some people have pointed out is not technically true as you still need to buy the game up front) is even worth bothering with. The sub-only monetization method worked well for the most financially successful MMO ever (WoW) and I think in a niche market like Superhero MMOs (especially ones NOT connected to the successful Marvel movies) you're not going to have a really broad appeal to everyone and as such you're depending on a solid core of devoted fans to make you your money. The superhero MMO sector probably isn't ever going to be as big as the fantasy one, especially in other countries, like in East Asia, and as such your audience is probably a bi-modal distribution of people who fall into two camps: 1) people who like the superhoero genre and will pay a sub (if able) and 2) people who don't really care for all this superhero stuff and would most likely not pay a sub, even if they can afford it. I realize that this type of game leaves those who liked CoX but can't afford a sub out in the cold. In my opinion, any adult that can't afford $15 per month on a game like this probably has bigger problems than not being able to play CoT, and the teenagers who can't afford it because they don't have credit card access will have to ask their parents and maybe work for it, or maybe the parents simply don't want their kids playing such games and those kids can't play for that reason. That's a private family matter at that point anyway.
Lastly, I think all new content should somehow monetize itself. That is, I don't think the idea of "let's charge them for X so as to pay for Y" is ever going to work. A business has the responsibility to respond to its customers desires not in terms of what they verbally ask for but in terms of what they'll actually BUY. People have to understand that it does us no good to yell and scream that we want new content, then demand that it be given to us for free. If new content is a desired good or service, then you have to put your money where your mouth is and actually agree to buy it, somehow. If you don't agree, as a customer, to buy things you want from the game company, for money, then they will not have any compelling reason to manufacture such things in the first place. Market demand drives future offerings. The reason McDonalds has Chicken McNuggets to this day is because they tried it as a new idea back in the 80s and people actually bought them, in droves. If people had screamed "WE LOVE McNUGGETS!" and marched outside of stores holding placards demanding them for free instead of being willing to pay for them, there would be no McNuggets today.
Whatever they come up with, I hope MWM as a company becomes very successful. I want them to succeed. I will not come to them with my hand out and demand that everything about the game that I actually would like and want should be free. I am willing to pay for the game I want to play. Not just one time, not just once a year when new content rolls out, but every month, as a subscription. That said, if the subscription is unnecessary because they're giving me everything I want without it, then I doubt I'll bother to subscribe. As I said, I already donated enough money to the Kickstarter that my conscience is satisfied on that score.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Radiac, I think you are

Radiac, I think you are taking it too literally with "don't take anything away that they've earned". I think it is much more that since we most likely will get extra character slots, Ah slots and so on with the sub that they won't "forcefully" remove access to characters or delist items on the AH so that we only use the number of slots that are our now "reduced" max if the sub drops, only that they remove currently free/unused slots. If we manually remove a character or delist an item that there won't be a free slot from it, not until we get down to our new max.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Hey, I'm personally all for

Hey, I'm personally all for any amount of disabling of features for the non-subber. As I said, I fully intend to pay a sub if it's not pointless. But I am not the person at MWM who is the official arbiter of what is or is not considered "taking things away" versus "disabling features when not subscribed".
Here is a short, and not exhaustive list of some things I would be in favor of that could be set up so as to be subject to having an enable/disable switch gating them:
1. While subbed, your Augments and Refinements work as advertised, while not subbed, they get nerfed to some extent (set bonuses don't work, lower diminishing returns curve, lower hard caps, an Augment that migth give you three Refinement slots to work with might have one or two of them greyed out and not working, etc)
2. While subbed, you get a large number of different slots for characters, probably more than you need. While not subbed you have to pick some smaller number (maybe just 1-2) that are accessible and the rest are locked. You cannot access those slots or the toons in them. I would allow people to switch the "turned on" slots from one toon to another for a microtransaction fee of some kind.
3. While subbed, you may initiate player-to-player trades of stuff, while not subbed you may not. Note that even this kind of trading might end up being subject to some kind of IGC tax to avoid rampant black marketeering, I don't know. This assumes that player-to-player trades will even be possible, which they might not.
4. While subbed, all content is accessible to you. While not subbed, you are locked out of some amount of stuff, most probably the newest stuff. As I posted earlier, I would let people pay to do this content on a per-run basis somehow, or maybe per-day for outdoor street sweeping areas.
5. While subbed you get a large amount of "wallet space" to carry around excess items. When your sub drops that space is reduced in the sense that you may take the items ion those extra slots out, but you may not put anything in them.
6. The aforementioned chat accessibility could be subject to having certain features disabled, not going into detail here, but I'm not against it.
7. The badges you collect are yours to keep. If there are any buffs from getting any of them (like how Accolades got you +10% HP in CoX etc) those bonuses are disabled while not subscribed.
8. While subbed you can create new events in the PVP realm and decide who get's to join them. This might include setting up 5 on 5 team fights, etc. While not subbed you may only join existing ones with the subscriber-creator's permission or do ones that the game software auto-runs (meaning you get matched automatically with another toon by the game software).
9. I would actually allow non-subbers to keep all the buy/sell slots they want in the AH, I would just increase the house cut on items they sell. Restricting legitimate commerce is bad, and worse, if we deny the non-sub access to the market, he or she cannot as easily sell their stuff to the subscribers that might want it. So for the skae of the subscribers that want more items available to buy, I would let the non-subs sell and buy as much and as often as anyone else, I'd just hit them with a bigger rake than the subscribers.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
i agree blacke4dawn I think

i agree blacke4dawn I think you are taking it too literally Radiac

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
I'm sure that points 1 2 3

I'm sure that points 1 2 3 and 7 are exactly the kind of "not taking anything away that they've earned" that Tannim was talking about. From what I gather they don't want to disable features whole sale but rather reduce the "magnitude" of them.

To address a few other points.
3) Tax on direct player to player trading? Taxing just giving IGC to another person would be met by screams of bloody murder, and taxing item-to-item trading would necessitate that everything gets an official value. Also consider that depending on how the crafting system is set up such taxes could have a major dampening effect of "no-fee crafting" within guilds and friend-circles.

9) So you are considering direct player to player trading to not be part of "legitimate commerce" in games since you are perfectly fine with restricting that?

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Radiac wrote: 1. While subbed
Radiac wrote:

1. While subbed, your Augments and Refinements work as advertised, while not subbed, they get nerfed to some extent (set bonuses don't work, lower diminishing returns curve, lower hard caps, an Augment that migth give you three Refinement slots to work with might have one or two of them greyed out and not working, etc)

In other words, PUNISH the performance of those who are not subscribed.

NO.

Radiac wrote:

2. While subbed, you get a large number of different slots for characters, probably more than you need. While not subbed you have to pick some smaller number (maybe just 1-2) that are accessible and the rest are locked. You cannot access those slots or the toons in them. I would allow people to switch the "turned on" slots from one toon to another for a microtransaction fee of some kind.

Again, PUNISH anyone who is not subscribed.

NO.

Radiac wrote:

3. While subbed, you may initiate player-to-player trades of stuff, while not subbed you may not. Note that even this kind of trading might end up being subject to some kind of IGC tax to avoid rampant black marketeering, I don't know. This assumes that player-to-player trades will even be possible, which they might not.

In other words, if you aren't a subscriber you'll be PUNISHED.

NO.

Radiac wrote:

4. While subbed, all content is accessible to you. While not subbed, you are locked out of some amount of stuff, most probably the newest stuff. As I posted earlier, I would let people pay to do this content on a per-run basis somehow, or maybe per-day for outdoor street sweeping areas.

The basic idea that I've been advancing is that if you're not a subscriber, your access to new features and content is DELAYED. Subscribers get those features and content immediately, while non-subscribers have to wait for them. In the long run (in which everyone dies of old age, but never mind that) everyone gets everything eventually ... but the question of who gets things FIRST is decided by subscription status.

Radiac wrote:

5. While subbed you get a large amount of "wallet space" to carry around excess items. When your sub drops that space is reduced in the sense that you may take the items ion those extra slots out, but you may not put anything in them.

In other words, we're back to PUNISHING non-subscribers again so as to sell them the "service" of inventory space. The fact that a lot of games do this doesn't exactly make it perfectly acceptable.

Radiac wrote:

6. The aforementioned chat accessibility could be subject to having certain features disabled, not going into detail here, but I'm not against it.

There are certain ... realities ... of bot run gold spamming that need to be recognized here, and guarded against. There is no question as to whether gold farming services will attempt to "move in" to City of Titans, because they will. The only question is how EFFECTIVE the countermeasures to their business model and tactics will be in driving them off (and how quickly and permanently).

Radiac wrote:

7. The badges you collect are yours to keep. If there are any buffs from getting any of them (like how Accolades got you +10% HP in CoX etc) those bonuses are disabled while not subscribed.

And now we're back to PUNISHING people for not subscribing.

/em sigh

Radiac wrote:

8. While subbed you can create new events in the PVP realm and decide who get's to join them. This might include setting up 5 on 5 team fights, etc. While not subbed you may only join existing ones with the subscriber-creator's permission or do ones that the game software auto-runs (meaning you get matched automatically with another toon by the game software).

This actually sounds reasonable.

Radiac wrote:

9. I would actually allow non-subbers to keep all the buy/sell slots they want in the AH, I would just increase the house cut on items they sell. Restricting legitimate commerce is bad, and worse, if we deny the non-sub access to the market, he or she cannot as easily sell their stuff to the subscribers that might want it. So for the sake of the subscribers that want more items available to buy, I would let the non-subs sell and buy as much and as often as anyone else, I'd just hit them with a bigger rake than the subscribers.

And now we're back to PUNISHING people who aren't subscribed again. I'm more comfortable with limiting auction slots for non-subscribers than I am with taxing their transactions more than those of subscribers. Mind you, that also partially depends on the transaction taxation rate. If we're talking 10% vs 15%, that seems to be too much of a differential, but if we're talking 2% vs 3%, that doesn't seem all that unreasonable. The ratio between them is the same, but the granular values are much closer together in the second option, meaning that the difference is SMALL, even though it is still present. So the relative difference stays the same, but the absolute difference becomes small enough to not significantly impede the functioning flow of goods and services through the market, since it's only a +1% "penalty" for not being a subscriber.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
Cinnder
Cinnder's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 3 weeks ago
Gunterkickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/26/2013 - 16:24
Yep, that's what I was

Yep, that's what I was getting at, Radiac. How will MWM be able to provide value to a sub yet keep the promise never to take anything away, while still allowing everything to be earned in-game? There are so many different preferences regarding what would make a sub valuable to players that I am struggling to see how MWM can make everyone happy. You and I don't agree on every detail of what would make a sub worthwhile, but it does seem that every time you get close to making me think, "OK, that might make me feel like I'm not a sucker compared to those playing for free," one or more people object strongly to the mere suggestion. I don't see how MWM will be able to solve this conundrum.

But here's a thought: I notice that most of your ideas, if implemented, would strongly encourage the player base to subscribe. Have you considered that that might not be MWM's business model? Instead of the model resting on both Starmart purchases and subscriptions, it's possible that they've calculated everything to run off only the Starmart (and the box purchase of course), and subscriptions are expected to be nothing more than ancillary income. MWM could be including subscriptions only to placate dinosaurs like you and me who prefer to subscribe, and they may not have any desire to encourage more players to do so. In fact, subs could be something that MWM would actually rather not have at all, but they might feel forced to offer them by the Kickstarter and by a sort of legacy from the predecessor. Just something to think about.

Spurn all ye kindle.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
To Cinnder, yeah, I had

To Cinnder, yeah, I had thought of that, and from the Dev Digest post Doc Tyche wrote, it sounds like he did too. I suppose it is possible that the model will be pushing more the microtransactions and not so much the subscription, which of course would make the subscription benefits originally mentioned in the Kickstarter less appealing. But the really bad thing about that model is that, when done elsewhere, it tends to diverge into a bunch of lockboxes (based on the Extra Credits video), which I think MWM want's to avoid if at all possible, and I know I do.
To Red, the things I listed were things I personally would not object to, that's all they were. And that wasn't even all of the things they could monetize, as far as I care, just a few I thought of off the top of my head. It's easy to say "NO." to stuff on that list and then not replace any of it with anything else you might be willing to pay for, because that leaves us players with all of that stuff (which I would have let them gate for money) for free. As future players, we would all like everything to be given to us for free, so I tend to take these sorts of reactions with a grain of salt anymore, I'm sorry to say. The problem is if you don't replace at least some of that stuff with something compelling enough to get people like me to subscribe, then you'll probably get close to ZERO subscriber, I would think. I remember the "delayed free release of new content" idea you posted, and I can tell you that for me, there are two ways I think that could go. In a world where the new content is gated via a timer on when it goes free, I personally would just wait, assuming that all there is to do are new mission arcs and so forth. Even if it were permanently-locked things like the Signature Story Arcs in CoX, I'd just ignore them forever. I didn't care "who done it" or which heroine Manticore was sleeping with that week, I cared about my own characters and what gear they had and being able to get on a decent Incarnate Trial team to get the Lore pets I still wanted or the Synthetic HamiO from the Statesman TF, keeping their shivans recharged, etc. The only way to get me to pay for a sub or for the "get it now" early unlock would be to go the WoW direction of making every new expansion bring with it like 5 more character levels and some new gear that can only be gotten in the new zones (this is basically what Incarnate did in CoX, and that was the most compelling reason for me to pay a sub after the game went F2P, also, most other subscribers I knew were people I met and got to know on Incarnate Trials at night on weekends, I didn't see them much outside of that, so it was a motivator for others as well, as far as I can tell). If that did happen, it would have the same basic effect as nerfing those characters who can't subscribe or pay for the unlock right away, because they'll want the new, better gear and the new levels right now. MWM has already stated that this isn't going to be as gear-centric a game as WoW is, so I doubt they'd do it like that, but that leaves us back at "Radiac, and people like him, won't be subscribing, thank you." so there's that problem again.
On a more general note, and this isn't pointed at any specific person, but it is being written in response to a post above, I have to admmit that I don't personally see any problem with putting in nerfs for the non-subbers. I'm not philosophically opposed that, like some people are. This is a difference between us, and one I think we can agree to disagree about. To me, a side-by-side comparison of subscribed play vs. non-subbed play ought to yield a good compelling reason to subscribe for those of us who can readily afford it, and a desire to be able to subscribe for those who cannot. It should not, my opinion, look like the result of attempts to talk the MWM people into giving away the entire game and everything it will ever have for just the initial $50 purchase, which is waht I think many people are actually angling for, maybe not individually, but that's the collective result. To get me to subscribe, the sub cannot be MWM trying to push a bunch of pointless extras on subscribers that we're largely "meh" about getting anyway, for the sake of giving everything useful and desirable away for free to everyone so as not to hurt the delicate feelings of those people who are not able or willing to pay any money beyond the up-front purchase. What about the feelings of the subscribers who actually paid money this month? Are we to be made to feel like great buffoons for laying out our $12 per month for a bunch of tripe and trinkets? This means that some useful, core, vital part of the game has to be different for the sub versus the non-sub, I think. It's okay with me of the non-subbers feel more like Spiderman and Daredevil, having to scrape by and dole out justice on the streets while the subscribers feel more like Tony Stark and the Silver Surfer with powerfulness on a slightly but palpably larger scale. I'm okay with it if non-subbed players are nerfed such that they would tend to want to set their difficulty settings lower because they can't generate the kind of DPS, defense, regen, stamina, and resistance that a subscriber can. They can still do the missions and play the game. It's really just a matter of difficulty level settings at that point, and many of my toons in CoX left that low just because they were Defenders. On a TF or trial or team of any kind, you have to find a level of difficulty that works for the team you have, and that's no different really than CoX was in the first place.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

blacke4dawn
blacke4dawn's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 2 weeks ago
Joined: 03/28/2015 - 03:02
Quote: "Radiac, and people
Quote:

"Radiac, and people like him, won't be subscribing, thank you."

And that is a problem how? As long as you buy the occasional power and /or costume set then I don't think it will be a major problem.

Quote:

On a more general note, and this isn't pointed at any specific person, but it is being written in response to a post above, I have to admmit that I don't personally see any problem with putting in nerfs for the non-subbers. I'm not philosophically opposed that, like some people are. This is a difference between us, and one I think we can agree to disagree about. To me, a side-by-side comparison of subscribed play vs. non-subbed play ought to yield a good compelling reason to subscribe for those of us who can readily afford it, and a desire to be able to subscribe for those who cannot. It should not, my opinion, look like the result of attempts to talk the MWM people into giving away the entire game and everything it will ever have for just the initial $50 purchase, which is waht I think many people are actually angling for, maybe not individually, but that's the collective result. To get me to subscribe, the sub cannot be MWM trying to push a bunch of pointless extras on subscribers that we're largely "meh" about getting anyway, for the sake of giving everything useful and desirable away for free to everyone so as not to hurt the delicate feelings of those people who are not able or willing to pay any money beyond the up-front purchase. What about the feelings of the subscribers who actually paid money this month? Are we to be made to feel like great buffoons for laying out our $12 per month for a bunch of tripe and trinkets? This means that some useful, core, vital part of the game has to be different for the sub versus the non-sub, I think. It's okay with me of the non-subbers feel more like Spiderman and Daredevil, having to scrape by and dole out justice on the streets while the subscribers feel more like Tony Stark and the Silver Surfer with powerfulness on a slightly but palpably larger scale. I'm okay with it if non-subbed players are nerfed such that they would tend to want to set their difficulty settings lower because they can't generate the kind of DPS, defense, regen, stamina, and resistance that a subscriber can. They can still do the missions and play the game. It's really just a matter of difficulty level settings at that point, and many of my toons in CoX left that low just because they were Defenders. On a TF or trial or team of any kind, you have to find a level of difficulty that works for the team you have, and that's no different really than CoX was in the first place.

But you're not the only kind of player so MWM has to do some calculation, projections and speculations in what subscription model will bring in more money. If that points towards it being more likely that your suggested subscription model will alienate more pleyrs that it will bring then it won't be used.

The more I think about what MWM (Tannim only?) has said about it the more I get the feeling that MWM intends this "subscription" to be more in line with an automated monthly purchase of stars with a few additional perks as a "thank you" for doing it, rather than an actual subscription to the game. Its intentions doesn't seem to be to capture everyone who can afford it but rather enough of the player base so that they have a decently steady income.

Personally I don't look so much at the specifics of the subscription itself but rather the overall benefit it brings to me, and how much enjoyment I get out of the game as a whole.

Interdictor
Interdictor's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 years 5 months ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 08/22/2013 - 05:26
blacke4dawn wrote: The more I
blacke4dawn wrote:

The more I think about what MWM (Tannim only?) has said about it the more I get the feeling that MWM intends this "subscription" to be more in line with an automated monthly purchase of stars with a few additional perks as a "thank you" for doing it, rather than an actual subscription to the game.

This is what it looks like to me as well - and I'm totally fine with it - as long as the store offers a steady supply of cool things to buy.

Darth Fez
Darth Fez's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 months 2 weeks ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 09/20/2013 - 07:53
Interdictor wrote:
Interdictor wrote:

This is what it looks like to me as well - and I'm totally fine with it - as long as the store offers a steady supply of cool things to buy.

That's my take on it. If the subscription offers more Stars than the money for the sub would buy normally, then that's enough value for money for me. Provided enough cool stuff is available on which I can spend those Stars.

- - - - -
Hail Beard!

Support trap clowns for CoT!

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Okay, so assuming you guys

Okay, so assuming you guys are correct (or more accurately, assuming Tannim222's descriptions of things end up being the way MWM actually does decide to proceed, and he's been very clear so far that these are only HIS personal thoughts, so take that for what it's worth) and the subscription is nothing more than a contract to receive Stars on a monthly basis at a decent discount price relative to the "pay as you go" player, that brings up the question of "What do we, the future players of this game feel we should be paying Stars for?"

It sounds like the permanent unlock of new content might be a thing that Stars would buy, about as often as such can be manufactured. How often is that? Once per year? Six months? What are wee paying for that? About 1-2 months worth of Stars for the new content unlock of the year every time it hits?

More questions below, and for each one, assume the monthly cost paid via subscription Stars is somehow cheaper than paying for everything every month a la carte. Please answer each one with "I would Subscribe." or "I would pay a la carte." or "I would not buy this." or "I think this should just be free for everyone." My personal answers to these questions below is that I would pay a sub and pay for all of this stuff while subscribed if I could do so with the monthly allotment of Stars and still be able to save up for the new content unlock when it hits, maybe even paying in a few extra dollars for the new content if it's not more than like $10 extra once per year. Then, when I inevitably get bored or tired with the game, I'll leave for a few months and go do something else to recharge my interest, letting my sub lapse and coming back to re-up it when I feel like being a hero again.

Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to keep your personal lair fully powered up?
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to contribute toward your SG base(s) being fully operational?
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to retain access to premium content, like Incarnate where there are raids to do and powers to gain and items like components to collect? (I would expect that when my sub lapses as described above, my current progress would remain fixed, but "greyed out" and unavailable to me, until I once again pay the Stars to reactivate it.)
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to maintain upkeep on your rare and very rare Augments and Refinements to prevent them from reverting to "set bonuses and other extras disabled due to lack of upkeep" status (as I had described in a post above)?
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to ensure that you get the better diminishing return curve on Augments and Refinements and the higher hard caps on damage, defense, resistance, regeneration rate, and stamina?
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to help your friend get into a premium raid or something once in a while either as a per-run donation to the friend or as a per-month "Patron" fee that YOU would buy with Stars to allow others to get into premium raids and missions with you as your "plus 1"?
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to enable the larger inventory space deal for your toons (all of them)? (this is the first thing I'd probably let drop to save Stars every month)
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to get "preferred stockholder status" in the auction house, thus giving you a lower transaction fee rate on the AH? (granted this one is a matter of economics, even I would try to run the numbers to see which benefits me more, and it may well end up being not to buy this perk, if it's an individual option in and of itself).
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to give you the right to set up your own private PVP matches that you could allow or not allow others to join at your discretion? (THIS is one I fully do not care about, since I'm not into PVP at all)
Would you personally pay a few Stars every month to ensure that you got access to a broader array of costume pieces to choose from, which pieces would go "unavailable" when you stop paying for access, thus forcing you to redo some/all of your costumes at that point (game would subtract out the items in question, and basically force you to hit the costume editor to redo it without them)? (I think most people would prefer that this be a "buy it once and own it forever" type thing, which I personally think makes it really hard for the game to actually devote any internal resources into making new costume pieces, because specific pieces will likely not individually make a profit every time).

As you might have already noticed, the above questions are pretty much the same things I posted above as subscriber perks, but broken down into individual Star purchases. So it's basically the same, only now, presumably, you can pick and choose a little. Those people who said they were dead set against ever monetizing some of this stuff are now going to have to explain to me what they think they're spending their Stars on every month, because I personally would expect that the more "NO. This shall not be monetized in any way." responses there are, the less Stars anyone really needs, due to everything being just free for all. This brings us squarely back to "All of us future players have unanimously agreed that we think the whole game and everything in it should just be free after the up-front purchase." which is unrealistic, to me.
Personally I'd give the subscribers who agree to a 6-month or 12-month subscription a better rate on Stars AND access to some package deals that make the Star prices of the stuff they might want a little cheaper still. That way, if you don't sub at all, you're paying the highest per-item rate for everything in Stars, and presumably you're grinding for those Stars by getting them off the AH in exchange for Augments and IGC. If you decide to pay for ONE month of sub just to get in on some new thing right when it rolls out, then you're getting a better deal, but those who paid for 6 months of subscription time got a slightly better deal than that, and the 12 month subscribers did the best, in terms of Stars acquired and prices offered.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Tannim222
Tannim222's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 5 hours ago
Developer11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 01/16/2013 - 12:47
I would not say that any

I would not say that any subscription would solely result in a stipend of stars, though it is certaibly part of what would be available. Subscription (in my opinion) should come with perks which expand upon what purchasing the core game makes available.

Personally, I would hope that a buy-to-play player has sufficient access to the core game elements so as not to feel like a "second class citizen". While the subscriber feels justified with their monthly payments aiding in the ease of play.

I would not like to see players cut off from content for subbing vs purchasing of the game. I would not like to see players cut off from build quality in either pve or pvp. Nor have to modify rates of exchange for purchasing items through either the game world stores or player to player auctioning.

Particularly if subscriptions offer perks which make it easier to accumulate igc in one or multiple ways. To be clear if subscriptions offered a different earn rate this makes it easier for the subscriber to purchase over the nonsubber who could poententially earn the same amount, it would take longer. If subs offered more auction slots, expanded character storage, expanded account storage, these all contribute to the subber's earning potential over the nonsub. The trick is to not make the nonsub so insignifant as to frustrate a new player who just decided to purchase the game. There are many games that do this in an atrempt to "encourage" subbing, but often has the opposite effect.

Then there are account level services subscriptions can provide: this where the monthly stipend comes into play, early access to beta test new content and powersets, early access to purchase offerings on the cash shop. If there is a queue for logging jn, subs can skip the queue. If there are cutomer service issues either in the game or out, a sub would be given preference. Not that a non-sub would be ignored, or cut off from help of an issue for a sub came up, it is just like queue priority or having a special team dedicated to such services.

There could also be sub-based loyalty rewards that affect the account. We hope in the furture to not just have one game, but if we are succesful enough, to offer different types of games. Having a single cash shop for all opens up the possibilities for account based loyalty rewards which can encourage a player to look into the other game offerings. It can also be combined with straight purchasing loyalty rewards-bonuses for having purchased items from the cash shop. Which if you sub, a monthly stipend being spent can help a subber get both sub-based account loyalty rewards and purchasing-based rewards.

Again, these are my personal views on the subject, though I feel they are in line with most of what the business team's views are - it doesn't mean they view my opinions the same way.

I think we can all agree on some of the basics here: subscriptions should offer perks that make the in investment feel worth it. While we may have different opinions on what those perks should be, I would hope the sentiment of making sure non-subscribers who purchased the game don't end up feeling like " a second class" is at the least a worthy goal.


I don't use a nerf bat, I have a magic crowbar!
- Combat Mechanic -
Tech Team.
Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I agree with the bulk of

I agree with the bulk of Tannim222's above post but I would add that I personally fear that "making subscribers feel like subscriptions are worth it" and "avoiding making non-subs feel like second class citizens" might actually be mutually exclusive goals, in reality. I think it might become apparent that the specific stuff that makes the sub seem "worth it" to me, the subscriber, is the exact same stuff that the lack thereof will cause the non-subber to feel "second-class", and not by accident or coincidence.
Going back to the root question of subscriptions or microtransactions, I think the original driving force behind that was the desire of game companies, which were already using the subscription model, to make MORE money somehow. They had the subscription model of WoW and CoH when they were relatively new, and then they saw this new game come on the market called "Magic Online" and it offered play for free with no sub required BUT as it turns out you ended up having to buy a LOT MORE money's worth of packs and event tickets to actually play the game at any kind of competitive level. This is how Magic Online makes it's money, they charge you an infinitesimally smaller fee for each tiny little bit of their game content you want, and they make you want the best, most expensive stuff in order to be able to win, because EVERY Magic player that ever loses blames the cards and not themselves.
That model is practically unfair compared to monthly subs. No monthly sub game will ever be able to make that kind of money that fast. Unfortunately, it's a HUGE stretch to actually monetize an MMORPG that way, because in Magic Online, people are somehow used to the idea of buying randomized packs of Magic cards and they don't complain about it. Can you imagine if your character's classes and powers and augments and refinements were all the result of the randomized "packs" you had to buy, then trade with other people until you get the build you want? Because that's about what it takes to make an MMORPG monetize that way, and that leads directly to SuperPacks, Lockboxes, etc. which is the exact stuff that the Extra Credits people are saying is so wrong with the new F2P systems.
I don't envy the people who have to make these decisions, as I've said.
On the other hand, if the game sells a million copies at roll-out for $50 each, then they have $50,000,000 don't they? At that point you probably COULD make it a "buy to play, play free forever" type game. I mean, if you took just $30mil and invested it in Municipal Bonds getting 3% per year, which is not impossible to do, you'd get almost $1mil per year in interest, tax free. That alone pays 18 people working for $50k/year each.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Redlynne
Redlynne's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 day 7 hours ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/28/2013 - 21:15
Radiac wrote: I agree with
Radiac wrote:

I agree with the bulk of Tannim222's above post but I would add that I personally fear that "making subscribers feel like subscriptions are worth it" and "avoiding making non-subs feel like second class citizens" might actually be mutually exclusive goals, in reality. I think it might become apparent that the specific stuff that makes the sub seem "worth it" to me, the subscriber, is the exact same stuff that the lack thereof will cause the non-subber to feel "second-class", and not by accident or coincidence.

You Can't Please Everybody ... and it's a Fool's Errand™ to try.

Congratulations. You've gained a Level.

There are some things that can't be reconciled to EVERYONE'S satisfaction. The best you can do is strike a *reasonable* balance where the two competing priorities aren't that far apart, even if they don't overlap. That's about as good as you can hope for.

This is definitely a case where the Perfect is the enemy of the Good Enough.


Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.
WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
Let me preface this with the

Let me preface this with the assertion that I will almost certainly buy a subscription. I paid for two accounts for 4 the last years of CoH/V without a break, (including after Freedom) and considered it money well-spent.

I rather dislike the attitude of 'Cripple the non-sub enough to encourage them to get a subscription out of envy.' As Tannim points out, that often backfires. Remember, MWM is asking EVERYBODY to buy the game for (I expect) $30-$50. This isn't a 'dip your toe in for free' situation like many modern games where you fully expect micro-trans to be the money maker. Nowadays, if I plunk down that money "sight unseen" I'm going to be p!$$ed if the majority of the game isn't available to me 'out of the box'.

Having people PLAY the game for free (after initial purchase) isn't a net loss proposition. There is virtually no net cost per player. I think what needs to be enacted is a game that is fun and challenging and rewarding enough to keep non-subbers around to occasionally buy a $5 micro-trans or a $10 DLC. IF they love the game enough they will buy a subscription for convenience sake, after they've found that they are buying everything they can get their hands on anyway and the sub would clearly save them money.

You should absolutely get some luxuries thrown in as a subscriber. QoL type stuff like extra character slots and early access to costume packs and content, etc. But if you start limiting character development like capping stats, gating gear or withholding services that hinder them playing with subscribers, you immediately create a divide in the player base and at least the perception of Pay-to-Win. That will turn people off and away.

You want to keep as many people playing as possible. Non-subs right along-side subscribers. That is what will keep the game alive over time and attract new players and potential subscribers. You need to appeal to the broadest base without giving away the store, of course. I absolutely recognize that you have to monetize this thing somehow to keep it going. But there has to be careful thought given to profit vs. longevity. The modern business model of 'Start-up and Sell-Off" colors everything now. The idea that you have to make as much money as POSSIBLE as quickly as possible can hurt the game much more than making as much money as NECESSARY to maintain it over the long haul. The balance of giving the right value to keep the maximum people playing, while being able to fund new content will be a much bigger challenge for MWM than merely designing and building the game.

I supported this endeavor by donating to the KS, I will support it via subscription when it launches. Soon, I hope.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Redlynne wrote: Radiac wrote
Redlynne wrote:

Radiac wrote: I agree with the bulk of Tannim222's above post but I would add that I personally fear that "making subscribers feel like subscriptions are worth it" and "avoiding making non-subs feel like second class citizens" might actually be mutually exclusive goals, in reality. I think it might become apparent that the specific stuff that makes the sub seem "worth it" to me, the subscriber, is the exact same stuff that the lack thereof will cause the non-subber to feel "second-class", and not by accident or coincidence.You Can't Please Everybody ... and it's a Fool's Errand™ to try.Congratulations. You've gained a Level.There are some things that can't be reconciled to EVERYONE'S satisfaction. The best you can do is strike a *reasonable* balance where the two competing priorities aren't that far apart, even if they don't overlap. That's about as good as you can hope for.This is definitely a case where the Perfect is the enemy of the Good Enough.

In a world where you can't please everybody, to whom does the game company owe a greater responsibility? The players who pay $10 per month, or the players who do not? It seems to me that the players paying the extra money should be the ones that get pleased when the company needs to finally answer the hard question of "Whom do we please and whom do we choose not to please in this case?"

But from what I can gather, that means either adding in nickel and diming or making the non-subbers feel like second class citizens, or both, in various amounts. If you avoid both of those pitfalls, you're probably not providing the subscriber with any good reason to actually subscribe.

And I personally feel like the "Buy it once, no serious need to pay a sub, and then microtransactions from there on out" model is ill-suited to MMORPG games like this because this is not Magic Online where you can get away with selling your whole product in the form of randomized packs. Those, in MMORPGS, are the dreaded lockboxes. So to me, a vote for that model is a vote in favor of lockboxes, because that's the only way to make any real money in that model, ultimately, and even that is a sketchy proposition in the long term.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

islandtrevor72
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 1 month ago
11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 04/28/2014 - 11:24
Quote: Having people PLAY the
Quote:

Having people PLAY the game for free (after initial purchase) isn't a net loss proposition. There is virtually no net cost per player.

If this is what you are basing your opinion on then you might want to look into a few things. Support, servers and maintenance are not free.
I honestly think a lot of people are not thinking about the future of the game. When new 'issues' are released they cost money to make too. Subscriptions pay the cost for current support and future development of the game. I have NO problem with charging non-subs for EVERY extra thing the game will provide. Crafting, special missions, special social gathering zones, new issues, new power sets, new aesthetics, new classes and whatever else that is not essential for the core game.
Its not a matter of making non-subs a second class citizen...its making them pay for the content they actually want.
If the devs think they can get away with giving everything away for free....regardless if the have to wait or not... then more power to them....but I really doubt the game will survive doing so.
The hinted at stars per month to buy the content you want with a subscription is WAY too close to a cash grab. Far too often this type of system provides you with only enough of the stars equivalent in that game to buy a bare minimum and unless you pay more beyond the subscription you don't get everything....and I don't mean aesthetics or QoL stuff...I mean actual gameplay. It also just continues the idea that you don't get access to everything if you are a late adopter. I hope I am wrong and am waiting with baited breath until the official subscription models is released.
I don't see any reason CoT can't follow the same sub and non-sub model that CoH did. Subs get everything except for some cosmetic/QoL stuff, non-subs get most of everything but have to pay for certain 'non-essential features'. Every once in a while ...when the issue is big enough, both subs and non subs have to buy it if they want it.
To me it comes down to how MWM wants to make the money....is it from people subbing or is it from micro/macro transactions. Either they provide a solid reason to sub....even if you join late... and have ways those who don't sub can buy that stuff or they focus on micro/macro transactions and forget the entire subscription entirely.

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
I basically agree with

I basically agree with islandtervor72's above post concerning overhead and ongoing maintinence costs. I don't personally know what they would realistically amount to, but you gotta at least have a team of people who deal with complaints and fix bugs, a team that maintains the website and forums, and a team the actually develops new content. I feel like that's easily 12-15 people, some working for hourly wages, some salaried. I personally wouldn't do any of those jobs for less than $25k per year, so you're easily looking at no less than $250k per year, maybe closer to $500k, maybe more, I don't know.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

WarBird
WarBird's picture
Offline
Last seen: 5 years 9 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/17/2013 - 19:11
I didn't say there were no

I didn't say there were no costs to maintaining the game, and I did say "virtually". I'm saying that once content is created, the costs for having 10,000 people playing are basically the same for having 1,000,000 people playing. Yes, you have to cover development and maintenance costs. No argument there, obviously. The question is, how do you keep the RIGHT amount of capital in-flow over the long term to pay all the bills, while keeping your player base happy and expanding?

Now, I don't have access to any more hard numbers than anyone else. What we're talking about here is the mind set of potential players and what would induce the broadest base to cough up the optimal amount of money. I think it would backfire to start with an attitude of how can we make the MOST money. That's usually short-term thinking. Thinking in terms of making the bare minimum doesn't allow for expansion or mitigate emergencies.

MWM will already be asking, at least initially, for a 'box' purchase price. That will be a hurdle for some. I think it's perfectly reasonable, mind you, especially for an independent company that doesn't have a deep-pocketed parent. (I might hope that a voucher for a free trial period of premium access would be included with new purchases.)

Sub-only will severely limit new player adoption because of all the free games popping up regularly. Many players can't/won't do that simply because they don't have the wherewithal.

Free-to-Play draws new players, but a micro for everything turns players off and sends them away to other new free games.

All I'm saying, and I believe that MWM has reached a similar conclusion, is that there must be a way, with careful balancing, to find the sweet spot that is the best of both worlds. And what I presented above is what I think the parameters are for finding that sweet spot. Also remember that all of us on the forums and, I strongly suspect, our beloved Devs at MWM are working on conjecture and 'feel' for the MMO market. (I'm sure MWM hasn't funded any surveys, but I certainly hope they've researched what is already out there.) I agree with IslandTrevor72 that the model CoH had was pretty good. My suggestions were based on that model, in fact. But CoH shut down. Maybe it's worth a tweak or two, yeah?

dawnofcrow
dawnofcrow's picture
Offline
Last seen: 6 years 3 months ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/31/2013 - 08:56
i hope follow guild guild 2

i hope follow guild guild 2/EverQuest II where u have buy next expansions or dungeons & dragons online if dungeons come out the mean u buy for 2.99$ or more

edit i agree warbird

whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster and when you look into the abyss, the abyss also look into you, -Friedrich

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
My disagreement with WarBird

My disagreement with WarBird's above post is that I feel it is in the best interests of the developer and the fans of the game that the company make the MOST money it can from it's game. Now, taking a short sighted approach and saying "Let's really hammer them with fees for everything as soon as the initial purchase subscription time wears off." or "Let's put everything they might want inside of lockboxes." are both well-known to kill your game pretty fast, as far as I know, and as such I would avoid them specifically because that type of stuff causes you to make NO money once everyone quits on you.
I also believe that the problem of sub and non-sub is mostly because people actually want the games they play to be an all or nothing experience. Either you give me the whole game with all the features for whatever price we're both willing to agree to, or I give you zero dollars and get nothing. This is why I think all people actually prefer "Sub or nothing" games like WoW. There just aren't as many people who can actually pay a monthly sub in the first place, so not all people can actually play that type of game. You'd like to be able to sell your game to everyone, even those who know they can't subscribe long-term, but then you end up with those SAME non-sub players going "Yeah, it's nice that I can still play, but it's not really the same experience as the subscriber gets, and as such I'd just rather spend my time elsewhere." and then they leave the game and take away some fraction of the player base. People are more willing to NOT play a game because they stopped paying than to continue playing a half-featured, Lite(TM) version of the same game for free. This is probably because they know that the game COULD be better, but they can't pay to make it so, so they feel like they ought to go find something else to do instead of playing half-featured game.
Thus you're squarely in the realm of the impossible. If you offer people the full featured game with no annoyances for just the up-front price, then nobody has any reason to pay a sub. If you pull back on some stuff for the non-subbers, they eventually decide to stop playing entirely. If you make it "Buy the game once, nobody even pays a sub in the traditional sense, it's all microtransactions after the up-front buy" then you have just taken like the first two steps into lockbox land. I just don't see that scenario making decent money without the lockboxes.
Since the subscription is mentioned in the Kickstarter, and since I think it's a more reasonable way to monetize I personally would either go "sub only" like WoW or else go "subs and non-sub coexisting" with the drawback that the non-subs will probably feel second class and have to deal with some annoyances. I realize this will drive some of them away, I don't care. Driving away people who are already NOT paying money every month is probably better than lockboxes, to me, and that's the real trade-off here. Lockboxes, or disappointed non-subbers, that's the hard choice you have to make. I personally would opt for disappointed non-subbers, but that's probably because I can and would like to pay a meaningful sub. I played Magic Online for a while, I stopped when I got bored of Magic, and I could tell it was costing me more than $20 per month when I was really intellectually invested in playing it. Those who THINK they can get by on the cheap in a world of lockboxes might want the lockbox option, and they might be wrong about how much they're actually going to end up spending in lockbox land as compared to the monthly sub. And of course, in BOTH of those scenarios, the poor kind who doesn't have access to the credit card is still out of luck either way, because they'll never be able to pay for enough lockbox keys in the one scenario or be able to pay a sub in the other.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising

Radiac
Radiac's picture
Offline
Last seen: 4 months 1 week ago
kickstarter11th Anniversary Badge
Joined: 10/19/2013 - 15:12
Just be clear, if the game is

Just be clear, if the game is "buy it and then no sub, just microtransactions" then I personally would buy it and deal with the microtransactions. I'm not averse to that, even with lockboxes, I just think it's the richest of "rich kids only" options and will cause people to have to cough up more money over time than anything else (not that that's bad, in and of itself, as far as I'm concerned). But then that's just me, Mr. Moneybags. I've played Magic Online, so I'm used to it, and I know I can afford it. I know there's a tabletop hero combat game (HeroClix) that uses randomized packaging to sell more product for more money too. I would vocally object to being made to pay for randomized figurines when the ONLY reason for such is to make people have to chase the rares like they were collectible cards, and I don't get having like 4 different versions of Spider-Man just so there can be a rare one and a common one to sell to people. So I don't play that game. I think many people feel the same way about lockboxes in MMORPGs. They feel forced, like someone somewhere is TRYING to turn your game purchases into a form of gambling so as to make more money, which is precisely what is in fact going on. At least with Magic cards it feels less forced and more like collecting them is part of the hobby.

R.S.O. of Phoenix Rising