Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

One payment method to rule them all!

EnerzealEnerzeal WarringtonPosts: 326Member

Well not really one payment model, but three designed to work in tandem in the same game, all the while avoiding the pay to win issue and allowing as many people in as possible. I could smash this thread with an essay but I'll let the proposed systems talk for themselves.

Subscription model.

Everything is given to the player for the usual price, £9 or 12 euros or 15$. They do not have anything to purchase to unlock in terms of features, areas, classes or races, inventory slots, character slots. 

Build your own subscription.

If you cannot afford the subscription costs, then perhaps the build your own subscription would work out better for you. Perhaps you only intent to play a certain amount each day, or maybe you only want four race slots and half of the classes on offer. This is a more advanced option, but the player would be able to add things until they were happy, or until they finally arrived at a point where a subscription was a better deal.

Free to play.

The free to play option would allow the player access to the game, a selection of races and classes, limited race slots, limited bag slots, limited coin allowance. Then you let the players pick what they want to buy outright, perhaps they KNOW they never want to touch a caster, and are SET on that specific race, a quick charge of the race, class, some bag slots, and they've got all they need to continue playing on a free to play option. As always however if they never wished to spend a penny, then they are free to continue as they want playing in a limited fashion, which a good portion of free to play gamers are happy with.

________________________________________________________

That is the subscription models section of the post taken care off, now onto the item shop that I would allow in game. The unique difference is that everything purchased from the item shop can make its way from one player to another through in-game trades, no bind on account. This doesn't take money from the developers, but gives the whales the option to spend their cash and sell on these items for in-game money. (Yes it is purchasing gold in effect, we do however move gold purchase in-game and kill off RMT from third party.)

Items in the shop would not be allowed to sell things like..

  • Any gear that has a stat on it.
  • Consumables.
  • EXP boosts.
Things to expect would be..
  • Mounts.
  • Skins.
  • Pets.
  • fluff items specific to the game in question (for example fancy house furniture.)
Now remember all of these can be sold in game once purchased.
 
_______________________________________________________
 
Lastly I would allow the eve based system of trading PLEX to exist within the game as well. For those who do not know, PLEX is an item that is purchased outside of the game, which when used offers the account 30 days additional on its subscription. These "PLEX" can be sold in game to other players.
 

_______________________________________________________

That's everything! Now I love my subscription based games, I prefer them over all else. I like a flat rate no fuss kind of game. What I get from this system is exactly that. Everyhting the game offers I can have without paying more than my subscription. The values are there for the other pay options as well however, with the free to players happily enjoying the its they want without spending to much. The whales get rich without creating a pay to win system, and those who create they subscriptions can pay for the small amount they want for a short time and enjoy just as easily.

The only play time that doesn't win in this model is the Pay to win gamer, with no options of buying power apart from the gold they could generate from spending money on shop based items to then purchase from other players the best equipment, this however is NOT pay to win, it's pay to progress faster, they'll still die just as easily as another maxed out character who didn't spend a dime in the case of the free to play gamer.

 

 

Comments

  • EnerzealEnerzeal WarringtonPosts: 326Member
    If you vote no then please give reasons. Also please remember this system attempts to make all groups happy.
  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member

    As soon as you have variation between how players are paying, you create an incentive for the publisher to focus on moving players up a ladder to higher and higher spending.

    The more I look at the varied models out there, the more firmly convinced I am that "one player, one bill" is the only way to ensure that developer resources are focused on an entertaining experience rather than min-maxing access to your wallet.

  • EnerzealEnerzeal WarringtonPosts: 326Member
    Originally posted by maplestone

    As soon as you have variation between how players are paying, you create an incentive for the publisher to focus on moving players up a ladder to higher and higher spending.

    The more I look at the varied models out there, the more firmly convinced I am that "one player, one bill" is the only way to ensure that developer resources are focused on an entertaining experience rather than min-maxing access to your wallet.

    Ideal world yes that is the way to go in my heart and mind, but focus on the simple fact that the subsription is being stamped out slowly but surely, it's dying, and soon we'll lose it for good unless we adapt.

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,187Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by maplestone

    As soon as you have variation between how players are paying, you create an incentive for the publisher to focus on moving players up a ladder to higher and higher spending.

    The more I look at the varied models out there, the more firmly convinced I am that "one player, one bill" is the only way to ensure that developer resources are focused on an entertaining experience rather than min-maxing access to your wallet.

    Developer resources are designed to get to your wallet with whatever payment model.  With sub only games they get to your wallet by implementing time sinks, raid/instance locks, and scarcity of resources so you must spend more time playing.  Sub-free games rely on exclusive cash shop items, boosts/buffs, and content packages to get money.

    I would expect to see a move away from more clearly defined payment models to more homogeneous and custom models like is seen with TSW.  I'm expecting to see somewhat more B2P titles for those that can get away with it.  I'm also expecting to see games that rely solely on subscriptions to provide more than content churn - those that only provide the latter will either end up with a sub-free model or go the way of the dodo.  Expect to see more sub-locked games have cash shops too because some people are willing to throw money at a monthly fee and buy the extras.  Expect to see people justify the model they are most comfortable with and lambast the others as gouges, substandard, etc.

  • kadepsysonkadepsyson sun prairie, WIPosts: 1,937Member
    My payment method to rule them all... is a credit card.

    El Psy Congroo

  • asmkm22asmkm22 Anchorage, AKPosts: 1,788Member
    Originally posted by Enerzeal
    Originally posted by maplestone

    As soon as you have variation between how players are paying, you create an incentive for the publisher to focus on moving players up a ladder to higher and higher spending.

    The more I look at the varied models out there, the more firmly convinced I am that "one player, one bill" is the only way to ensure that developer resources are focused on an entertaining experience rather than min-maxing access to your wallet.

    Ideal world yes that is the way to go in my heart and mind, but focus on the simple fact that the subsription is being stamped out slowly but surely, it's dying, and soon we'll lose it for good unless we adapt.

    Subscriptions are only being stamped out because companies decided it's easier to change the sub model than it is to create a game good enough to justify a subscription.  The amazing thing is that they've manage to convince so many younger (and some older) gamers that this is a good thing, partly through marketing it as "free to play" rather than "cash shop."

    The days of making fun of people spending money on facebook games are over because that's exactly what we're being fed now.

    You make me like charity

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member
    Originally posted by Enerzeal

    it's dying, and soon we'll lose it for good unless we adapt.

    Comprise is (a part of) what's hurting it - as soon as you add paid services or cash-for-items to a game, they become an intoxicating source of high margins that publishers can't resist, devaluing the core subscription.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by asmkm22
     

    Subscriptions are only being stamped out because companies decided it's easier to change the sub model than it is to create a game good enough to justify a subscription.  The amazing thing is that they've manage to convince so many younger (and some older) gamers that this is a good thing, partly through marketing it as "free to play" rather than "cash shop."

    The days of making fun of people spending money on facebook games are over because that's exactly what we're being fed now.

    Why would it be hard? It *is* a good thing.

    What is not good about a huge selection of games, and you can play at least part of everyone for free?

  • eye_meye_m Notta Chance, ABPosts: 3,133Member Uncommon

    I wouldn't play a game that had that model because it's p2w

    EDIT:  (or at least that what so many people say when there is multiple payment models especially including a cash shop)

     

    Ultimately, I wouldn't play because it offers greater rewards if a person is paying a subscription, and I won't pay a subscription. So I would be at a disadvantage to those people playing a subscription and therefore, I would rather play something which does not allow that payment model.

     

    Note: Sorry I didn't get my edit in sooner, work was not forgiving today.

    All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

    I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

    I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.

  • EnerzealEnerzeal WarringtonPosts: 326Member
    Originally posted by eyelolled
    I wouldn't play a game that had that model because it's p2w

    No it isn't pay to progress faster, learn what pay to win means before you post.

     

    Pay to win = the act of buying items that are more powerful than what can be bought in game, with in-game currency.

  • rojoArcueidrojoArcueid hell, NJPosts: 6,762Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Enerzeal
    Originally posted by maplestone

    As soon as you have variation between how players are paying, you create an incentive for the publisher to focus on moving players up a ladder to higher and higher spending.

    The more I look at the varied models out there, the more firmly convinced I am that "one player, one bill" is the only way to ensure that developer resources are focused on an entertaining experience rather than min-maxing access to your wallet.

    Ideal world yes that is the way to go in my heart and mind, but focus on the simple fact that the subsription is being stamped out slowly but surely, it's dying, and soon we'll lose it for good unless we adapt.

    i think i agree with Maplestone here. I can see publishers taking (or trying to take) advantage of players here by making subscriptions for short amount of time more expensive than month to month in the long run. Lets say 1 month is 15 bucks. I can see them charging more than 15 bucks for less a month if you choose to pay for less days instead. Trying to force players to sub every month. Here only the company wins, players lose. Whatever model they come up with should be a win/win (players/company)

    image
  • SpectralHunterSpectralHunter So CalPosts: 386Member Uncommon

    I honestly think $15/month is not a big deal.  I think when people argue against it, it's because they have reservations about the game and don't want to pay, which is absolutely reasonable.  The point is, they probably wouldn't play for a long time even if the game were f2p. 

    Now there are gamers who like to play multiple MMOs so I can understand why they don't like subs.  But again, those types of gamers tend to migrate from game to game, never involving themselves within the game's community.  A perfectly fine way to play but I want something more substantial in my MMOs.

    That's why I like subs.  It's a committment, a small one but a committment nonetheless.  I think it fosters a stronger community.

    If you don't want to spend $15/month on a game, then you probably don't want to play anyways and even if you do, you'd probably quit quickly.

  • madazzmadazz A town, ONPosts: 1,564Member Uncommon

    LOL. The Sub isn't going anywhere. It's going to stay put for games that warrant the purchase price. At this point I am willing to buy a game for $100 and pay a $20 a month sub just to get what I frickin want! I will play a game with all those sub options though. But I would prefer one where I am not stuck with people at any form of disadvantage. Your payment method is not detailed at all. You bring up points like classes and inventory slots, but where does it stop? How about respecs? You even bring up coin limitations. That is going to be crippling in any later game. And it is P2W if I am not inconvenienced with the burden of only carrying 10 items like the F2P guy, because I can carry 100 and thus sell/trade more with less trips/time wasted. 

    Besides, if the other F2P players are anything like the ones on this forum then I am glad that cash cows like me are letting all of their games die. They are cheapskate freeloaders that don't support the game in any fashion because they quit in the first month typically anyway. Of course, if you aren't like the representatives here, yet still a F2P player, then that doesn't apply to you lol. 

  • FonclFoncl UppsalaPosts: 197Member

    For me there is no advantage to this payment method, give me a good game and I'm willing to pay a subscription. I don't want power or advancement sold in the game though, especially since I'm paying a subscription.

    This is a subscription game with pay to win as far as I'm concerned.

  • eye_meye_m Notta Chance, ABPosts: 3,133Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Enerzeal
    Originally posted by eyelolled
    I wouldn't play a game that had that model because it's p2w

    No it isn't pay to progress faster, learn what pay to win means before you post.

     

    Pay to win = the act of buying items that are more powerful than what can be bought in game, with in-game currency.

    unfortunately it's another one of those terms that are open to interpretation.  My interpretation of pay to win includes more types of payment models than just cash shop.

    From a B2P perspective, if a person was allowed access to better gear (storage) by renting bank space or bag space, that I couldn't purchase in game, then that implies P2W. If a person gets the same thing from paying a subscription, I see no difference.  

    All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

    I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

    I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.

  • kadepsysonkadepsyson sun prairie, WIPosts: 1,937Member
    Originally posted by eyelolled
    Originally posted by Enerzeal
    Originally posted by eyelolled
    I wouldn't play a game that had that model because it's p2w

    No it isn't pay to progress faster, learn what pay to win means before you post.

     

    Pay to win = the act of buying items that are more powerful than what can be bought in game, with in-game currency.

    unfortunately it's another one of those terms that are open to interpretation.  My interpretation of pay to win includes more types of payment models than just cash shop.

    From a B2P perspective, if a person was allowed access to better gear (storage) by renting bank space or bag space, that I couldn't purchase in game, then that implies P2W. If a person gets the same thing from paying a subscription, I see no difference.  

    Best way is one subscription fee, everyone has to pay the same or they can't play.  Everyone is able to earn and achieve based on their ability as a player, not based on their wallet.

    El Psy Congroo

  • eye_meye_m Notta Chance, ABPosts: 3,133Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by kadepsyson
    Originally posted by eyelolled
    Originally posted by Enerzeal
    Originally posted by eyelolled
    I wouldn't play a game that had that model because it's p2w

    No it isn't pay to progress faster, learn what pay to win means before you post.

     

    Pay to win = the act of buying items that are more powerful than what can be bought in game, with in-game currency.

    unfortunately it's another one of those terms that are open to interpretation.  My interpretation of pay to win includes more types of payment models than just cash shop.

    From a B2P perspective, if a person was allowed access to better gear (storage) by renting bank space or bag space, that I couldn't purchase in game, then that implies P2W. If a person gets the same thing from paying a subscription, I see no difference.  

    Best way is one subscription fee, everyone has to pay the same or they can't play.  Everyone is able to earn and achieve based on their ability as a player, not based on their wallet.

    The best is not one subscription fee except in the cases of what is the best subscription model.  The best is subjective to the individual, and though some might be willing to pay subscription, other might not.

    I prefer B2P because I think P2P is a greedy cash grab with very little substance to justify the extra cost. Realize however, that my perspective is determined by how I play.  Individual results may vary.

    All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.

    I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.

    I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.

  • Lovely_LalyLovely_Laly genevaPosts: 734Member

    no thanks

    I think it will remove commercial freedom of each dev to decide which model to use.
    I guess 90% will go play WoW (as I rather will pay 15$ for WoW then for Aion, just an example of my long list).
    I guess limited content is not fun either or you'll find out fast that you need to pay same 15$ (still prefer WoW).
    I dislike a fact that when you can't pay 15$ you are unable to visit your account and have no idea what going on with, only a reason why I dislike subs.
    I think f2p game can use anything to make money and it's for us to have cold brain and resist to temptation. =D (here again same formula: 5$ of, for 10$ I can play LoTRO, for 15$ I can play WoW, for 750$ I can pay me 1 week of holiday =D )
    b2p used to be very good only now it's seems to be item shop oriented game but with cost to download (same as f2p but for money.=D)

    as all seems fail to me I would rather have less games but great quality for 10-15$ per month and with option to visit your account (even if you can't do anything) when you out of sub.
    or medium quality but for 5-8$ or b2p with constantly added payed content (if it possible to make).

    try before buy, even if it's a game to avoid bad surprises.
    Worst surprises for me: Aion, GW2

  • jtcgsjtcgs New Port Richey, ILPosts: 1,777Member

    NO and NO.

    There has never been nor will there ever be a freemium game that makes more money than the better F2P games on the market. in fact, you cannot name any 2 freemium games that make more money combined than any one the better F2P games.

    Freemium does not target the F2P market players, it targets players used to subscriptions but dont think the game is worth the money. It creates a player class system where the subscribers are the upper class, the premium players are the middle class, and the free players are the lower class.

    And any SANE business will tell you that you NEVER treat one customer better than the other.

    Either go F2P with a good cash shop or stop pretending that you are trying to do anything but save a dieing game by milking as much money as you can before you pull the life support.

    “I hope we shall crush...in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." ~Thomes Jefferson

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,734Member Uncommon
    Personally I like to try a game before I pay anything for it...That being said, the best option often for me is f2p where I can pay later to add  the features I want (if I actually like the game)....The worst is paying full price (ie p2p) wehre I dont evne know if I'll like the game and dont know how often I'll even play it......Years ago this method was fine but not anymore.....There are too many options out now to dedicate all my time and resources to one MMO.
  • ArclanArclan Chicago, ILPosts: 1,494Member Uncommon


    Originally posted by maplestone
    As soon as you have variation between how players are paying, you create an incentive for the publisher to focus on moving players up a ladder to higher and higher spending.The more I look at the varied models out there, the more firmly convinced I am that "one player, one bill" is the only way to ensure that developer resources are focused on an entertaining experience rather than min-maxing access to your wallet.

    Yes exactly.


    Originally posted by Enerzeal
    Ideal world yes that is the way to go in my heart and mind, but focus on the simple fact that the subsription is being stamped out slowly but surely, it's dying, and soon we'll lose it for good unless we adapt.

    Considering most MMOS are failing by many metrics, I'd say game companies, not players, need to adapt. Although, this could be calculated losses. Are companies churning out junk and losing money in the short term in hopes players get used to the p2w model?

    /edit this has to be the absolute worst text editor in the history of text editors. /rude MMORPG

    Luckily, i don't need you to like me to enjoy video games. -nariusseldon.
    In F2P I think it's more a case of the game's trying to play the player's. -laserit

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member
    Originally posted by maplestone

    As soon as you have variation between how players are paying, you create an incentive for the publisher to focus on moving players up a ladder to higher and higher spending.

    The more I look at the varied models out there, the more firmly convinced I am that "one player, one bill" is the only way to ensure that developer resources are focused on an entertaining experience rather than min-maxing access to your wallet.

    The two are not unrelated.

  • ObiClownobiObiClownobi CoruscantPosts: 186Member
    Originally posted by nariusseldon
    Originally posted by maplestone

    As soon as you have variation between how players are paying, you create an incentive for the publisher to focus on moving players up a ladder to higher and higher spending.

    The more I look at the varied models out there, the more firmly convinced I am that "one player, one bill" is the only way to ensure that developer resources are focused on an entertaining experience rather than min-maxing access to your wallet.

    The two are not unrelated.

    But in the F2P version of that equation the more entertainment they provide the greater the cost to the wallet.

    image
    "It's a sandbox, if you are not willing to create a castle then all you have is sand" - jtcgs

Sign In or Register to comment.