Paying for blocks of game time, an alternative payment idea?

Kyleran

Recent discussion about viability of the subscription only model reminded me of an alternative l've wanted but not seen to date.

I think paying for blocks of game time might appeal to many gamers, especially those loath to spend money on subs they might not end up using in a month for "reasons." 

What they could be able to do is purchase game time in fixed units, say $15.00 for 150 (or whatever) hour blocks, which would not have to be used in a specific timeframe.

This way they could spend them as they wished, even if it took quite some time.

EVE PLEX may work in this fashion somewhat now, right about the time I left they broke PLEX up so it could be spent in smaller units (to spend on cash shop items) but I don't think they had an option to spend them on Omega Sub time except in 30 day monthly equivalents.

Perhaps the reason devs don't offer this option is it might be seen as a debt which would have to be refunded should the player get banned or the game has to be closed down.

Still, some services like cell phone providers have offered carry over minutes or data blocks without issue so not sure why it couldn't work in gaming, perhaps with some limitations such as has to be used within a year of purchase date.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

LynxJSA

I think the last time I saw that was the original APB. Eh... vov... everything is worth revisiting to see if it can work in a new age with new mediums and new business models. 

Theocritus

I did that with my cell phone...Stopped paying close to a hundred a month and just bough a GO phone with time/useage increments on it...it works very well for me but maybe not for others.......FOr me, its nice to not have to pay constant monthly fees....The more of them I can eliminate the better....I think this would be a great idea Kyleran... THe difficulty would be what is the right price for a certain amount of time?

cameltosis

I can't say im a fan of this, though I can see where your reasoning comes from.

Part of the reason I dont like it is an average person still wouldn't be able to know how much the game will cost them, nor the frequency with which I will need to be paying.

The other part is that I'm a smoker. With this model, I can already see myself logging off every time I want a smoke, or every time I need the loo, or every time I want to make myself a snack. It's not uncommon for me to leave a game running while I perform tasks around the house, but this business model would directly punish me for doing so. I don't want to be worrying about my game time when im playing a game!

I would much rather see the original intent of F2P become realised: paying for the content in small pieces.

Instead of paying £40 box + £8.99 pm sub, the player can buy all the content for a fixed fee. Pay £5 for The Shire, another £5 for Erid Luin, £10 for Bree-land etc.

That is how F2P was first advertised to me (by Turbine), and it made total sense. A subscription can be a big barrier to some people, and the time limits can be irritating. so, instead, buy the content for a fixed fee and then have access to that content forever.

The total cost of buying everything was supposed to be higher than a subscription for a year, but you had the convenience of controlling your spending and play time.

Sadly, that vision of F2P from Turbine was never realised, they went immediately to a shitty cash shop with cosmetics and convenience items as well as the content packs.

Nebless

Kyleran said:

Perhaps the reason devs don't offer this option is it might be seen as a debt which would have to be refunded should the player get banned or the game has to be closed down.

I think there's also the same reasoning as with Gym Memberships.  The companies know only a small fraction of those paying will actually show up regularly and make use of the service.

Also I'm with Cameltosis; I'd be logging off every time I had to step away from the computer if I was on a timer.

Mendel

I'd rather pay for blocks of game time than a base subscription, but both have be 'perceived' as equivalent value.  I could buy a block of time when I have the cash, a very important consideration for me.  It would just be another thing to budget (and time to manage).

Think of it like a phone company's pay-for-minutes plan rather than a monthly pay plan.  If I pay for 100 hours, I need to expect to play 100 hours, not to lose them when the calendar changes.

Nanfoodle

PS-Now and Gamepass are kinda under that concept. Play games you have to pay retail price for and play with a sub. That kind of service is catching on. Maybe good for MMOs to join forces that way. Each taking a % of the sub for how many hours played. 

Dattelis

I believe China does this for a lot of their games, where people pay for hours as it were since I think its against the law there to have subscriptions. Someone more familiar can clarify this for me if I'm wrong though. Personally, it doesn't sound so bad if my time doesn't depreciate after a while if I dont log in for a while, like if they use a clause that says my hours tick down if I haven't logged into the game at least once every 30 days or something.

Nanfoodle

Dattelis said:

I believe China does this for a lot of their games, where people pay for hours as it were since I think its against the law there to have subscriptions. Someone more familiar can clarify this for me if I'm wrong though. Personally, it doesn't sound so bad if my time doesn't depreciate after a while if I dont log in for a while, like if they use a clause that says my hours tick down if I haven't logged into the game at least once every 30 days or something.

If I could pay by the hour. I would more likely play MMOs more. Im casual and if I feel like playing for the weekand because my wife is busy, I question the $20+ I need to pay to play for a weekend. 

Quizzical

Instead of a month subscription, that $15 isn't going to get you 150 hours of game time.  For an average game, an average player spends massively less than 150 hours per month.  If the problem is that subscriptions don't bring in enough revenue, then making them bring in massively less than before doesn't help publishers get revenue.

If paying money is going to buy game time, then think $1/hour or so, not $1 per 10 hours.

Nanfoodle

cameltosis said:

I can't say im a fan of this, though I can see where your reasoning comes from.

Part of the reason I dont like it is an average person still wouldn't be able to know how much the game will cost them, nor the frequency with which I will need to be paying.

The other part is that I'm a smoker. With this model, I can already see myself logging off every time I want a smoke, or every time I need the loo, or every time I want to make myself a snack. It's not uncommon for me to leave a game running while I perform tasks around the house, but this business model would directly punish me for doing so. I don't want to be worrying about my game time when im playing a game!

I would much rather see the original intent of F2P become realised: paying for the content in small pieces.

Instead of paying £40 box + £8.99 pm sub, the player can buy all the content for a fixed fee. Pay £5 for The Shire, another £5 for Erid Luin, £10 for Bree-land etc.

That is how F2P was first advertised to me (by Turbine), and it made total sense. A subscription can be a big barrier to some people, and the time limits can be irritating. so, instead, buy the content for a fixed fee and then have access to that content forever.

The total cost of buying everything was supposed to be higher than a subscription for a year, but you had the convenience of controlling your spending and play time.

Sadly, that vision of F2P from Turbine was never realised, they went immediately to a shitty cash shop with cosmetics and convenience items as well as the content packs.

Could be easily solved. My cell phone company charges me for overages till my overages = the cost of the next package upgrade. So if your per hour charges = a monthly sub, they just charge you that. 

Iselin

I'd just be happy if they remove the "convenience" of auto-renew as the SOP for subs. Yes I can cancel shortly after renewing so I don't forget later but please inconvenience me by default.

Theocritus

The nice thing about time cards and such is you dont have to have a credit card on file with the game company.....With the amount of hacks and ripoffs these days, I dont really feel comfortable having my credit card info on file with some company I know little about...Many of them aren't even in the US or Europe....That's one of the biggest reasons why I am not a fan of subs.

Amaranthar

Did subs hurt WoW or ESO? 
Subs have always been the best way to make money. 
But you have to have a quality game, which is the same as saying that you have to have "a better game." 

You guys. 

kjempff

You would think it would be a great way to add an alternative to a sub game. Meaning a sub game could offer a sub for unlimited time, and also the alternative pay for blocks of game time.

Why is everyone not doing this?
Maybe they found out that it is not something players want?
Maybe it is because no ne makes sub games anymore? (f2p and shops makes more money short term).
Premium sub model probably doesn't fit well with game time model either, so you would have to be pure sub.
Maybe it is because mmo devs are not very imaginitive and willing to try new things (certainly the case with their game design).

Amaranthar

Torval said:

Amaranthar said:

Did subs hurt WoW or ESO? 
Subs have always been the best way to make money. 
But you have to have a quality game, which is the same as saying that you have to have "a better game." 

You guys. 

I feel like you're not phrasing this fairly or logically. No one really said subs hurt WoW, ESO or any other game. I don't see that as an argument in most any of these threads. The argument is that using subscription access as a sole means of revenue does hurt the game, and in most cases kills it.

You mention the two most popular western MMOs as an example. Those are about the only 2 MMOs that can get away with it. Additionally, both of those games triple dip. WoW has charged for expansions since forever, something original sub-based games like Lineage didn't do. WoW has had a cash shop since sparkle ponies. FF14 has a cash shop, multi-tiered sub (where you pay more for full storage benefits), and charges a box fee for expacs. Clearly both Blizzard and SquareEnix believe that subscriptions alone aren't a viable revenue source.

And to your last point, you don't just need a better game, as you put it. You need to have a subscription saturation in the hundreds of thousands or millions to get away with it. ESO has a sub, but it isn't mandatory. Zenimax felt that they needed to go with B2P + optional sub + cash shop + loot crates in order to be revenue viable.

You're under-selling how many gamers are tired of all those extra ways games make money. 
And think about this one, when it comes to sub price. 
Who, of those tired gamers, wouldn't pay the price of a good pizza for a great game (a better game) once a month. 
You guys are swallowing the "company line" of an industry that's full of sheet, looking to make more money for their same old crap in a different dress. 

Well, in my opinion.
And I don't mean to offend anyone, but it's hard not to when addressing reality on this fog shrouded road. 

AlBQuirky

This is interesting. It could work for some, for sure. I see some great points being made for and against it. I do like the idea of the time paid for carrying over if unused.

My immediate thought on that was, "Can I come back in 5 years (if the game still exists) if I want to?" lol

With the old "subscription" games, we got 30 days free. Would MMOs trying this out have something similar?

Nanfoodle said:

PS-Now and Gamepass are kinda under that concept. Play games you have to pay retail price for and play with a sub. That kind of service is catching on. Maybe good for MMOs to join forces that way. Each taking a % of the sub for how many hours played. 

Yet those services "change libraries" every now again. No guarantee that the game you enjoyed one month will be there next month.

Theocritus

Torval said:

Amaranthar said:

Did subs hurt WoW or ESO? 
Subs have always been the best way to make money. 
But you have to have a quality game, which is the same as saying that you have to have "a better game." 

You guys. 

I feel like you're not phrasing this fairly or logically. No one really said subs hurt WoW, ESO or any other game. I don't see that as an argument in most any of these threads. The argument is that using subscription access as a sole means of revenue does hurt the game, and in most cases kills it.

You mention the two most popular western MMOs as an example. Those are about the only 2 MMOs that can get away with it. Additionally, both of those games triple dip. WoW has charged for expansions since forever, something original sub-based games like Lineage didn't do. WoW has had a cash shop since sparkle ponies. FF14 has a cash shop, multi-tiered sub (where you pay more for full storage benefits), and charges a box fee for expacs. Clearly both Blizzard and SquareEnix believe that subscriptions alone aren't a viable revenue source.

And to your last point, you don't just need a better game, as you put it. You need to have a subscription saturation in the hundreds of thousands or millions to get away with it. ESO has a sub, but it isn't mandatory. Zenimax felt that they needed to go with B2P + optional sub + cash shop + loot crates in order to be revenue viable.

Any idea what % of players pay for a sub in ESO?

Theocritus

"With the old "subscription" games, we got 30 days free. Would MMOs trying this out have something similar?"

It wasn't really free though...It came with the box purchase which was anywhere from $30-50

Slapshot1188

As someone who actually paid per minute for games (and internet!!!) in "Ye Olden Times", I have thought about this as well, but it's VERY bad for many gamers. 

Griefing is bad now... but imagine if Seamus McStabby face the griefer was actually costing your money for the time you spend having a dirt nape or walking back to your corpse, or getting those resources back...

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing an option to have an all inclusive sub along with a pay as you go model.   More choice is usually a good thing.
 

Amaranthar

Torval said:

Amaranthar said:

Torval said:

Amaranthar said:

Did subs hurt WoW or ESO? 
Subs have always been the best way to make money. 
But you have to have a quality game, which is the same as saying that you have to have "a better game." 

You guys. 

I feel like you're not phrasing this fairly or logically. No one really said subs hurt WoW, ESO or any other game. I don't see that as an argument in most any of these threads. The argument is that using subscription access as a sole means of revenue does hurt the game, and in most cases kills it.

You mention the two most popular western MMOs as an example. Those are about the only 2 MMOs that can get away with it. Additionally, both of those games triple dip. WoW has charged for expansions since forever, something original sub-based games like Lineage didn't do. WoW has had a cash shop since sparkle ponies. FF14 has a cash shop, multi-tiered sub (where you pay more for full storage benefits), and charges a box fee for expacs. Clearly both Blizzard and SquareEnix believe that subscriptions alone aren't a viable revenue source.

And to your last point, you don't just need a better game, as you put it. You need to have a subscription saturation in the hundreds of thousands or millions to get away with it. ESO has a sub, but it isn't mandatory. Zenimax felt that they needed to go with B2P + optional sub + cash shop + loot crates in order to be revenue viable.

You're under-selling how many gamers are tired of all those extra ways games make money. 
And think about this one, when it comes to sub price. 
Who, of those tired gamers, wouldn't pay the price of a good pizza for a great game (a better game) once a month. 
You guys are swallowing the "company line" of an industry that's full of sheet, looking to make more money for their same old crap in a different dress. 

Well, in my opinion.
And I don't mean to offend anyone, but it's hard not to when addressing reality on this fog shrouded road. 

I'm not swallowing any line, company, shill, or anything else and I'm not even sure what you're trying to say there. I'm talking about what I find value in and then pointed out that no one has claimed subs hurt WoW, FF14, ESO, or any other game. You didn't really deny that or even address my point.

I'm not selling anything. I'm talking about what I find value in and what I don't and what I'm not interested in or willing to buy in to.

Personally I am tired of having my wallet tapped constantly so I just don't play GaaS games much at all anymore. The idea of paying monthly rent to a game doesn't change that. If paying a subscription to GaaS games works for you and others then cool. I'm not advocating people shouldn't do that.

Let me quote you from the post I originally replied to. 
"The argument is that using subscription access as a sole means of revenue does hurt the game, and in most cases kills it."

As I said that a game with a sub needs to be a "better game", i.e. not crap, and then you went on to support your contention using yourself as an example, I'll have to stand by my comments. 

I don't think badly of you, personally, or anyone else for falling for the PR. But I do think that a lot of these ideas come directly from Developers who have made these arguments to support their choices. It sounds reasonable until you think deeper about it all. 

If you're happy with playing multiple games and not having a lasting "home" in MMORPGs, that's fine with me. 
But lets not continue this false line that subs harm a good game. They don't. 
And as I stated, they can charge more for their subs, and Players will pay it, if they really like that game. 

Kyleran

Sub only models leave money on the table and no developer who doesn't have to will do so. (And very few do so today)

Each revenue stream appeals to different player demographics so the more "choices" the better from a dev point of view.

Just as we're unlikely to see pay by the hour return, same for the concept of a sub only payment model, at least not in online games as they are today.

Ready Player One VR, maybe, but we are decades away from that.

Scot

Well I think Amaranthar is right for calling this a fog shrouded road, we don't know where any new revenue system will lead Passes included. I am naturally adverse to any new revenue method simply because I have seen so many misused, but I don't see any truly detrimental effects from passes yet so I think they are an open question.

Paying for blocks of time is interesting, on the thread I did it seemed clear players felt they "owned" the MMO more if they could just pop back anytime like with B2P.

I have a solution for our OP's "Perhaps the reason devs don't offer this option is it might be seen as a debt which would have to be refunded":

How about you get the game's CEO to do those refunds by himself, one at a time sorting the envelopes. That way you could pay back the debt in manageable monthly instalments over what two to five years?  

Astropuyo

Zero motivation for the business head people. Time blocks give you the customer too much fludity.

We rejected the concept long ago. That's why it was wacky when they were like "Hey 9.99 and you can play all you want". 


Like there just isn't a demand which is why you'd only read it in a sci fi book now. Man no one wants to play games on minutes we barely want that on phones which is why burner phones rock em so hard.


It works in cyberpunk movies "Your cred stick is out you can't lease anymore time on the ATLUS 5283 BLT DRIVE NETWORK" because those are written by lazy ass writing and are also written by boomers.

Kyleran

Some gamers have an aversion to paying up front for a monthly sub which they may not use all that often, hence might not get their monies worth.

One option might be to sell players a months worth of game time in daily blocks.

If a standard monthly sub is $15 a month, sell 30 "days" for say $25 but the difference is they are consumed only if the player logs in on any given day.

Some won't like the idea as they can't just hop in for an hour or so daily, but if that's their play style they'd be better off paying the standard sub fee.