Topic

Why Would I Subscribe?

Enjoying the beta-testing of Glitch, quite the fun and addictive game. So, I headed over to see what I get for subscribing that I don't have now.

Voting: to me, I honestly don't care about that. I'm sure some do, but I'm not one of those people. I can play this Gltich without it and be just as happy while letting other players worry about upcoming changes and the like.

Teleports: while I can see how this could be important, I think I'll be able to have loads of fun in Ur without it. At this stage, I don't understand how/why teleporting is a real incentive.

Store Credits/Subscriber-only Items: The store is filled with vanity items, and I'm one of those people who simply do not care a whit about such things. It's the game I enjoy, not the dress-up. I know folks do love playing dress-up and will pay some real life cash for it. But I, and certainly plenty more like me, don't see why we'd need that.

So are there planned changes to the store to include selling items that effect gameplay, or make certain streets/zones "purchasable"? As it stands right now, there's no reason for me to purchase a subscription, or even a few credits.

EDIT: Some sample ideas of what might incentivize me to get a sub:

- Real Money Real Estate: over the basic 1 or 2 home types, deluxe homes are only purchasable with store credits/combination of credits/currants, or an insane amount of currants.
- Downloadable Content: Certain zones/activities can only be accessed by first purchasing them from the store, or only eligible to subscribers.
- Purchasable-only Skills: Make some higher level skills/skill trees only eligible for subscribers.
- Additional Durability: Every tool we have that degrades, offer a version in the store that is double/triple as durable. Additionally, take the appliances (grills, machines, etc.) that don't degrade, make them degradable and require repair like tools, and sell non-degrading versions in the store.

Just some thoughts.

Posted 17 months ago by Sean of the Moor Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

1 2 Next
  • I explicitly mentioned that they Do bring a 'product' which is themselves. I described them as more kids to play with, but yeah. So, I agree with you on that front, dude. Not that you said we disagreed, but I just want to be clear that we do.

    I don't know if 'commenters/favoriters' are worth anything. (EDIT: I don't know if they should be considered a 'product.' I'm sure they're worth something.) They might be, but I really just don't know.

    She is kinda at a different level of thinking. People use Flickr to share pictures first. Interaction is secondary. The site benefits more from people adding pics than people interacting. There are always going to be more lurkers than interactive users. 

    And, to reply to your biting comment, yes, you could just mumble that. They do have their reasons. It should be sufficient. I don't think they need to explain every innocuous decision to us. They really don't. Obvious things that they would have considered do not really need to be analyzed. They are going to analyze the obvious things. We know it. They're not dumb.
    Posted 17 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks for all of the replies, and some of the ideas for what they could add for subscribers I saw mentioned were quite good.

    However, while I hope this game succeeds, I also think that giving people something for nothing is leaving money on the table. Money that would no doubt be used to add more content, and speed the development of the next iteration of Glitch.

    One thing I'll sort of "take issue" with is the idea that free players, in and of themselves, are a net positive to any game (I say this as a free player here). In other games, free player accounts are far, far more likely to be griefers, botters, gold farmers, etc. to the point that free players are definitely a net negative to any game. If you've no skin in the game (and no CC# on file), there's a much greater ease with which a free player can and will be a drag on the community.

    If anyone has ever played the game Runescape, they have "free" and "members" servers. The subscriber servers are fairly civilized places to be, though the suffer varying amounts of negative behavior. However, the "free" servers are the MMO equivalents of Star Wars' Mos Easley (wretched hive of scum and villainy).

    Should this game become successful (and I'm quite sure at the very least it will be very successful attracting users and players), I fear most of you will learn the negative side of what success breeds in the world of MMOs. The way this game is set up, it really lends itself to many potential negatives.

    We'll see what happens. Just wanted to throw in my 2 cents, as I do hope the game does succeed financially.
    Posted 17 months ago by Sean of the Moor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If I am not mistaken the subscriptions are actually for a full 12 months starting the day the game goes live.
    Posted 17 months ago by Piece of Serenity Subscriber! | Permalink
  • This and similar topics have come up a few times so maybe it'd help to try to clarify our plans and the rationale for them.

    A Bit on Our Plans for Selling Stuff & the Rationale Behind It

    First, it's ok with us if the majority of active players don't buy subscriptions, or a la carte credits, or a la carte tokens, or iPhone minigames, or Glitch merchandise, or any of the other things we intend to sell. This can be a very successful business with a pretty small minority paying. (And that's good because if it is free-to-play, most people won't pay.)

    Our projections for this early period were optimistic (though still realistic) and so far sales have been almost exactly on track. We're selling plenty of subscriptions and plenty of credits and believe we will continue to do so. We also have plenty of money in the bank and have several years to get things right. While our continued existence is not in question for the foreseeable future, buying subscriptions now does help because it help teach us what we are doing right, right now (and it's encouraging and morale-raising and generally gratifying for us).

    (That doesn't mean more benefits won't be added for subscribers: they will. But those are dependent on the development of some features which are still-to-come. Many of things players have requested as subscriber benefits will actually be available to all players though.)

    When we do projections and model out the business we assume that we will never get close to a majority paying. But, when we add up the costs (player support staff, hardware, bandwidth, technical operations, community management, ongoing software development, world building, etc.) and estimate revenue based how many people pay for the various things we can sell, the revenue is greater than the cost by a happy margin so: good business!

    Of course, all other things being equal, we'd rather have a higher % of people paying. But the number of variables is much greater than that: how many people hear about it? Of those, how many sign up? Of those, how many actually create a character and get through the tutorial? Of those, how many actually stick with the game long enough to fall in love?

    And then there is a whole other layer that is harder to quantify: Glitch has a particular "vibe" to it and the whole experience is important. Success on that front includes having interesting people playing the game and having a strong & healthy community (the internet is a wonderful, amazing thing but it also has an entropic tendency towards scammy, spammy, porn-y grossness which service providers have to constantly be working to avoid).

    But success in creating, preserving and maintaining that specific experience we want to provide includes controlling when and for what you are being asked to pay. We want to be direct & straightforward and mostly keep transactions out of the way of the game itself.

    Most of the "social games" have been quite successful on the basis of getting people to pay for success/achievement and specifically getting people to pay to play *more* than the game mechanics would otherwise allow them too (e.g., selling "energy" in Zynga games; the energy regenerates at a fixed rate, limiting the amount you can do at one time; buying energy let's you do that one next thing you are trying to do right now instead of later). To us, that creates the "wrong vibe" since you always have to wonder what you can do and what you are unable to do without paying.

    So, what will we sell? Decorations which you otherwise can't get (both for you and for your home or group hall, probably including "blueprints" for housing styles that are otherwise not available); teleportation tokens[1], which we envision players will mostly use for the benefit of other players (sending pre-paid invitations to an event for example); games on other platforms (iOS, Android, and maybe others) which use your avatar from Glitch and allow you to advance in Glitch[2]; some physical "stuff" (merchandise/schwag) and in-game ads (only by players, for players, advertising stuff in the game — e.g., ad spots on the subway or literal billboards in busy transit locations[3]; these will likely work in conjunction with teleportation tokens.

    And we'll probably think of other things in the future (we have plenty of ideas!). But all of the above we believe are worth experimenting with. And we'll see how they work out … some people will be willing to pay for some, but not others. A few people will be willing to pay for many of them. And most people won't pay for any of them. But, if it works out anything like what we anticipate (and all signs point to "yes") we can still have a very successful business and create an experience consistent with our principles, making something we can be proud of.

    Summary

    We're pretty sure we'll do fine financially and we want to make decisions about what we sell based, in part, on what we think will continue to make Glitch its own unique thing.

    [1] Teleportation tokens, like the other footnoted items, do give a minor game advantage in that they can be used to teleport without energy usage. If used as we anticipate, they will offer other advantages as well: a player who can offer free teleportation to others for the purpose of attracting them to their in-game business/store or group/religious organization or whatever will likely get some additional influence or prestige or otherwise be able to translate the effect into something which gets them ahead in the game.

    But tokens are not essential to gameplay: they're a convenience (and one whose usage is limited). And we're not trying to be dogmatic about "nothing for which players pay real money should give any advantage at all" because even fancier duds can be a small advantage in dealing with other players and as social interaction becomes a more important part of the game (e.g., through groups) appearing powerful or trustworthy or attractive or otherwise superior can get people ahead as well.

    [2] Games played outside the context of the main MMO may be a separate, parallel opportunity for people to earn currants, XP, favor, energy, mood, items, etc. The act of *buying* the game won't give any of those, but rewarding successful play (high scores, achievements, etc.) with advancement in the big MMO makes sense: time spent mining or gardening or completing quests gives XP, currants, favor, energy, mood, items, etc. so time spent in out-of-band minigames should also be rewarding.

    [3] This is the most experimental of the ideas and all ads would definitely be reviewed by staff, but I really like the idea of being able to buy the attention of other players, especially if the messages are in the spirit of the game (I can imagine some pretty awesome public service announcements). It would also give an advantage to the extent that players can convert the attention of their peers to currants, etc., but again: not an enormous advantage and not essential to gameplay.
    Posted 17 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • ...I wish I could afford a subscription. Alas, as a poor law school student I have no room for things that aren't food and housing. If the devs created subscriber-only areas of the world I would cry. As for the second/special house, special-sized toolboxes, unbreakable equipment (etc.), I'd feel alot better about it if there -was- a way for someone like me to get ahold of them, even if at an extremely, extremely high currant cost. At least I'd feel like I wasn't completely missing out on something cool in the game due to my IRL monetary situations. I'd just have to work really hard to get what the subscribers could easily acquire.

    just some thoughts :)
    Posted 17 months ago by Seylah Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sean of the Moor: you make a really good point about the free-ness itself potentially creating pressure towards a "devolved community". We have considered an initial charge to get a Glitch account in order to prevent some of the potential negative consequences of scale (something like $1-2 for an invite, which we'd probably donate to charity).

    The advantages: people care more about something they pay for, it makes it harder for griefers, the people who get in are pre-qualified as people who have the ability to pay in general. Disadvantage: paying anything at all is a serious barrier to get people to try it.

    We'll see!
    Posted 17 months ago by stoot barfield Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Fascinating. (Love the ad stuff.)
    Posted 17 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sean, good points all around. I haven't played RS in a long time, but I know *exactly* what you're talking about. You're right. Definitely like the charity donation for an account. But, yeah, like Stewart said, we'll see. That is going to be a really tough decision, and I'm glad I don't have to make it.

    Interesting read, Stewart. I had no idea about the outside games. Looking forward to those. 
    Posted 17 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks for taking the time to explain Stoot, it's good to see it all in one place. The ability to personalize housing, both inside and out is something many of us are patiently waiting for.
    Mini games that transfer rewards will certainly appeal to many people who cant play the main game at their leisure.

    Did I mention I have some small shelves near my puter desk, just waiting for some Giants/ Glichens etc :)
    Posted 17 months ago by Teena Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "We have considered an initial charge to get a Glitch account in order to prevent some of the potential negative consequences of scale (something like $1-2 for an invite, which we'd probably donate to charity)."

    reminds me of the metafilter model.

    that's a really interesting idea. would likely keep out kids without credit cards too. app store games have it good in this regard, since a buck or two is so easy to pay.

    consider too, that something like this .. and i won't say that this would really be *why* one would want to do it .. but a system like that might somewhat counterbalance the discouraging effect by encouraging other players who might not otherwise be interested in glitch, simply by virtue of being novel and socially conscious [to both in-game and irl society].

    i like the idea of in-game ads, but not for real money. i think working as a group in-game to manufacture and post the ads would be better for community building. if the ads do end up costing real money, i would like it if there was a cap on how many ads anyone could buy each month, or have the ads linked to the monthly subscription credits system, which is self limiting.
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks for replying stoot! I LOVE the idea of being able to purchase "blueprints" not available to other people.  If the clothing/vanity options themselves didn't keep me subscribing, having an opportunity to get a really cool house would absolutely keep me subscribing.

    I also really like the idea of a $1-$2 charge being donated to charity.  I'm not sure if its in the plans for this game to become "big" or very popular, but I feel like the word of mouth alone between the players would attract a lot of attention from people who would be very willing to donate a couple bucks to playing.  I have already gotten 3 players to start up and make characters, although only 2 of them continue to play.  The teaser trailer is also very very enticing.  Plus, the idea of service is incredible.  I belong to a co-ed fraternity that pledges 30 hours of service a semester, so I am all for charity!

    Final thoughts: @Seylah, I understand it sucks to not be able to afford a subscription, believe me I am in college also and I completely understand being broke.  But there are some advantages that should be for people who pay.  I had to pinch and squeeze to get the money to subscribe, so I feel like I should get some rewards for doing so.

    tl;dr: If I subscribe can I still have global chat once the game goes live?
    Posted 17 months ago by Laurali Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I think if you want us to pay you should give some real life,  in-game incentives. I am pretty sure you WILL be already doing that, but you are saving it for the "real" game. I will absolutely pay, but I need some kind of ... portfolio (?!) for lack of better word. 

    I will subscribe if I am getting something for my money, in-game. For example, real estate discounts. Or a domestic animal for my house (narrow, lame, mass effect pre-order example!). I don't give much of a sheet about clothing. I want to be able to do more with house, I would like more animals. I am on a budget, but I really, really want to contribute to the development of this game. 
    Posted 17 months ago by Sadie O Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Would it make sense to offer something like a 1 week free trial, after which you charge $1-2 charity dollars to make the account permanent?  A week is certainly long enough to get a feel for whether you'd like to keep playing the game, I think.  Or make it a month, whatever.

    Better still, give people 3-5 choices of charities and let them choose which their money goes to.  (Kind of like when Chrome had this thing where they donated some amount of money per tab you opened, and you could have trees planted or send books to kids or send food to people or I forget what else.  Of course, that was *their* money, not mine, but I think the whole thing was set up really well.)
    Posted 17 months ago by larky lion Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Mr. Stoot, thanks for the detailed reply. Just a few thoughts:

    A donation to try out the game defeats the "free to play" point. Maybe an unlimited trial server, and said nominal charge to port the character over to the real server(s).

    Your description of your revenue model seems like you're designing it for the few to pay for the enjoyment of the many. While that, I guess, is "in-game fair", it is most certainly "real-world unfair". And quite honestly, is leaving money on the table, money that could be spent developing the game.

    And I'll just leave with this: would it be better to start with the game quite restrictive and limited for free players and then give them more stuff as you're more and more successful? Or, if the model you have now stumbles a bit, would it be better to make people who have gotten used to and started paying for a certain style of game start paying for content that the previously had for free?

    As it stands now, the only reason I would pay for Glitch is out of sympathy or support. The free game I'm beta-testing now has everything I would want, and nothing the subscriptions are going to offer are the kinds of things I'd really utilize or care about. I think it's nice for me that you're designing a game that others will pay for but that people with playstyles like me will fully enjoy without kicking in a dime. That doesn't stick in anybody's craw at all?
    Posted 17 months ago by Sean of the Moor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hah, Teena, I have a few empty shelves by my desk waiting for some Glitch merchandise too :3
    Posted 17 months ago by Hburger Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Sean...  I'm a subscriber and it doesn't bother me at all that you are not.  I'm not sure *why* it doesn't bother me... <g>...  I have the luxury of some "play" money.  I choose to spend it here.  Others may choose varying hobbies... photography, cycling, whatever.

    What I DON'T want, is the be one of the "haves" in a have/have not scenario.   I really don't want to see or play in an atmosphere of us vs them.  I'm willing to pay for that.

    ETA:  I'm ready to start wearing my Glitch t-shirt! :)
    Posted 17 months ago by Pirate Apples Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Sean, I'm a paying subscriber also and it does not bother me one whit that you are happy as a free player - I'm happy that you're playing for free.  Here's a few reasons (in no particular order, just numbered):

    1.  When I signed up for my sub, I knew there would be other players who would be playing for free - I looked at what the sub offered me and decided it was worth it for me.  I wasn't making a decision for anyone else or expecting anyone else to follow my lead.

    2. Having a game that is free to play encourages a greater diversity of players and a greater number of players.  I'm not particularly interested in playing a sparsely-populated game that is a country-club wasteland.  

    3. I believe the game always being free to play with the subscriptions not conferring a huge benefit has a beneficial effect on the community.  Do we all fart rainbows and sing kumbaya? Heck no.  There have been some very sharp interactions.  People will always find a way to create conflict.  However, we all know that we are all playing the same game: as a subscriber I'm not sipping a martini and skipping to the fun stuff while nonsubscribers grind their way though stuff I've bought my way out of.*  I've seen some chaff about "Why subscribe? You're wasting your money," and the converse, "You should subscribe, otherwise you're not invested," but I don't think that conflict is particularly mainstream.  The fact that being a subscriber doesn't confer huge benefits means there is not much substance to argue over.  

    *Even teleportation has its drawbacks - you can harvest a great deal over the course of a long walk.  And I like looking at the changing terrain.
    Posted 17 months ago by jasbo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'm  a subscriber and one of the selling points for me was that other people can play free and not have their game play nerf'ed. Yes, that's right: I subscribed BECAUSE I didn't have to (in part).

    Jasbo gave a lot of my feelings. Actually many people expressed my feeling but jasbo happens to be right before me.
    Posted 17 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I should also add that if I were to fall on hard times and couldn't pay for a subscription it would break my heart to have the game taken away from me for failure to pay.  So perhaps there is an element of selfishness in my reasoning as well!  ;-)
    Posted 17 months ago by jasbo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • You go, jasbo!  Good sayin'.
    Posted 17 months ago by Nanookie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Another thought - Sean, you've used the phrase "leaving money on the table" several times, but I don't think Stoot & Co. are necessarily doing that.  Would people pay just to play the game?  Probably.  Would everyone?  Definitely not.  So by definition, we wouldn't be playing the same game with the same vibe.  Which means... that the pool of people who enjoy the game we're currently playing might not pay to play that other "pay only" game.  Swings and roundabouts.

    Having just watched the Escapist vid that was referenced above, I also recommend it.  Thanks for the tip, baggyn!
    Posted 17 months ago by jasbo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • the free server versus paid server thing is problematic because it would prevent paid players from playing with their many of their friends, while also discouraging them from introducing their friends to the game. 
    Posted 17 months ago by striatic Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I signed up after about a day of playing, I think just wanting to support a game I loved. I realized the money didn't buy any in-game advantage, which at first made me question the decision, but then I remembered I am suspicious of freemium games that offer to speed things up with money, I think because it gives them an incentive to make the free gameplay boringly hobbled.

    But I'm not an MMO person... more from the console game world where you pay $60 just to play at all and then they try and get you to buy horse armour and other crap DLC on top of that. So this seems like a great deal!
    Posted 17 months ago by Rock Opera Jr Subscriber! | Permalink
  • When the game goes live I might throw some cash at it to support the devs. They've done a great work.
    Posted 17 months ago by Veqtor Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks stoot for the long post on some of the plans.  That helps somewhat for those still trying to figure out if they want to subscribe.

    I'm still one of the sub fence sitters.  I'm not totally enamored with the game as so many are - it still has a long way to go in my books.  I like it okay.  Aspects of it are brilliant, others are meh, and still others I really don't like at all.  Right now, my biggest draw to this game are my friends that are here, not the game itself yet.

    I believe in the vision that you have for the game, just not sure I have the faith yet that you'll get there with what you currently have, or that you won't take a hard left turn down a road that I totally don't like and then I have no alternative in game play for that element. Right now, I can still work around things (by avoidance) that I don't agree with or don't care for, but what I fear the most is having my options being limited vice expanded in the future since that seems to be the precedence that continues to be set during beta.  I truly want to believe in this game as others do, but honestly, I'm just not there yet. 

    Maybe I should subscribe so my voice could be heard when you eventually get to voting on things, but I dislike the thought of subscribing for a year, and three months down the road being completely disenchanted with various decisions that have been made, and wishing I had invested my money into something else.  (If you can get me 6 months down the road; however, I'll at least feel like we broke even...and anything past 6 months, I'll be happy with the ROI).

    I guess too, since so many are subscribing because they 'love' this game, I don't want there to be any question that my subscription, if I get one, to be misinterpreted as tacit approval of all that is in the game.  If I eventually subscribe, it may be solely for the votes (to have a voice in changing things) or frankly for an ability to have a second house, if that got added.

    I know I'm the hard sell, but I have extremely high standards for what I want to see in this game before I buy into it.  Frankly, it's because I do believe in your vision and was attracted to that aspect.  I want the glitch world that I can customize and mold into what I want it to be, for me.  I don't have that yet.  Even in it's limited stage, the game is still somewhat fun, and I love my friends here.  But I'm still totally missing the creative outlets - those things that I can mold.  I fear further restrictions on things, vice more options for alternate game play.  I like to play outside the box...and we're still playing inside a medium sized box that is dictated by you guys.  I continue to hope that it is because there is lots of foundational work that has to be done before the game can take off in these other areas...but...well, I guess we'll see. (I truly hope to be pleasantly surprised...)

    Will I subscribe?  Meh, I don't know...maybe...
    Posted 17 months ago by b3achy Subscriber! | Permalink
  • As a player, while I might not be rolling in dough, I looked at the subscription fee and the cost of credits, and reasoned out that $7 is not a lot of money per month (about 5 Euros?) which is easily 2 people out for coffee one time. Also, knowing myself, I figured I would want to change my character's outfit a lot (I consider this part of the game as much as it is in games like the Sims, which I also loved). So the entertainment value is high for little cash. When my free subscription runs out in August, I plan on paying to play.

    I read somewhere (maybe Seth Godin?) that people only like to give money to people they trust and I guess that's true.  I read about Keita Takahashi joining the staff (that's actually how I found out about this game, from an article), and the fact that the staff really seems to care about their game and enjoy it as well, and all that makes me more inclined to pay.
    Posted 17 months ago by Crucial Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @Crucial, you may want to start your sub as soon as possible because the benefits start right away but the clock does not start ticking until we go live.
    Posted 17 months ago by MaryLiLamb Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Of course it's nice to be able to use ALL the clothes and ALL the skin colours and teleportation tokens, but - to be honest, I'm even a little bit ashamed in front of myself that I spent money for DIGITAL clothes, w.t.h.!!??

    But, someone mentioned one thing here in this thread and I suddenly I saw why I did it: IT WAS BECAUSE I DIDN'T HAD TO:)))
    That's so funny, but it's true! Apart from the fact that I almost never saw a game I liked that much before, I never even considered to buy a subscription for an any kind of online game! I'd always be surfing away when paying was required. And so, probably the developers aren't that wrong with their decision... Probably there are lots of folks who pay totally voluntarily, just because everything and everyone here seems so nice and inspiring confidence!

    And, apart from that, I probably bought the subscription for the same reasons others might buy themselves a pair of new shoes although they don't need it at all - sometimes it's just a good feeling to buy something for yourself although you know it's not rational at all. I have no clue, why this is the case, but I think most of you know what I mean.
    Posted 17 months ago by Kuki, very sad. Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Crucial makes a good point, too. It's not that expensive. They're not trying to wrench $15/mo outta ya.

    Sean, you're assuming it takes a high turnover rate to make money on a FTP. It's a small percentage of people that need to buy in order to make money here. That's from Stewart's post and from other things I've read. In an interview with the Zynga guy, he said they expect something around 5% of people to buy anything. The company is making millions. 
    Posted 17 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • They're not trying to wrench $15/mo outta ya.

    Well, once beta specials are over, they will indeed be inviting you to hand over $5-15/mo.  But it's your choice!
    Posted 17 months ago by larky lion Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Yeah, I forgot about the more expensive accounts. True, true.
    Posted 17 months ago by Mr. Dawgg Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I started playing Glitch less then 24 hours before the most recent beta test was scheduled to end, but after a couple hours, I was convinced that I'd enjoy playing it again in the future, and even though I'm not certain that it will hold my attention for an entire year (hopefully!), I purchased a top-tier subscription…

    … primarily as a way to communicate my genuine interest to the developers.

    I'm curious to see what options are available in the future for credits and/or tokens, but as it stands, those really weren't a compelling reason for me to subscribe. HOWEVER, I would not have chosen to invest in the game financially if I had thought that there particularly significant "advantages" only available to paying players—for example, teleportation is a convenience, but it doesn't allow access to any areas of the game that are unavailable by other means.

    Certainly, one can't simply ASSUME that a game will be successful with this type of payment model, but I follow the game industry enough to be aware that it is not only POSSIBLE, it is in many cases PROBABLE to be successful (vs. other revenue models)—sure, it takes care and attention to hit the right mark, and be both financially viable AND create the type of game/community that it looks like Tiny Speck is aiming for, but it's certainly doable and I'm glad they're giving it a try.
    Posted 17 months ago by Morgan Blair Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I just started playing the beta a couple of days before it closed up this time, but since I played GNE for a long time, I feel like I have I much longer track record with the devs. Still, while I don't think the currents subs are outrageous, I do think that twice the cost would be pretty high.

    I might spring for a couple of credits, so maybe I'll go for the middle tier, but I doubt I would ever pay the regular rate for that down the road. It's just not worth it (to me) for more clothes changing.
    Posted 17 months ago by Colette Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 to supporting the game but to much subscriber only content is bad perhaps more items or better items for subscribers and better houses but I don't think non purchasable items should be off limits to non members I also think that instead of making certain skills unavailable to non members all skills should have a much decreased learning times while non members should have a much increased learning times.
    Posted 17 months ago by Zephod Beblbrox Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Thanks MaryLiLamb for the info. :)

    Was just thinking... I guess we pay more for games here in Europe, too. We end up usually paying the same number as in the US, but in different currency. The companies price like this: $50 in US, 50€ in Germany. But 50€ is actually around $70. So it's not exactly fair. When I look at the prices, they seem reasonable to me (even cheap) because of this comparison. Even if you consider they could be doubled when the game comes out.
    Posted 17 months ago by Crucial Subscriber! | Permalink
  • @b3achy: I understand your concerns completely.  I felt the same way until one thing happened.  Perhaps several of you were present during my little "episode" when they changed mining so only one person can mine at a time.  It made it possible for a new player to actual "steal" a rock from you if you were mining first and they took the opportunity between your mines and lock you out.  But that is not the only reason I was so upset about it, I was really upset because it made it possible to create confrontation, competitiveness, and antisocial behaviors which did not seem to fit with the community vibe.  When I brought this up, hours later they changed the mining to make co-op mining more beneficial to those involved (almost nearly every circumstance).

    The devs have done an incredible job sifting through the forums and addressing the current issues people have.  They have already done such a great job listening, I can't imagine them all of a sudden not listening/caring what their players have to say.  The devs have treated us with great respect and even though this is my first time ever testing a game, its really nice to know that your opinion is being taken into account.  The openness the devs have (stoot explaining his business plan above and other times when we have been told all the reasons about particular decisions) is attractive to me.

    Long story short, the thing that changed my mind about subscribing is knowing that the devs are listening to us already, and making the game in a manner consistent with the shared visions we have, and that to me is worth $54 (I think that's how much my subscription was).  I would have paid the Moly prices, but come on, I'm a broke college student.  
    Posted 17 months ago by Laurali Subscriber! | Permalink
  • TL:DR all these posts, so I'm sure it's already been said, but for me, and others (I know, because we discussed it!) we buy a subscription more as a donation because we enjoy the game, and want to say "thanks" for the awesomeness so far...we also want to support the team and give them some encouragement! The extra teleports and clothes are just an added bonus....

    And trust me, I know to a multi millon dollar business, my 80 dollar subscription (or whatever the moly cost) isn't much, but I'm sure they realize that to a single mom, it's a lot of money, and appreciate every bit. 
    Posted 17 months ago by NutMeg Botwin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 to stoot! that´s a great feedback :)
    Posted 17 months ago by acreditando Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Hmm. The comment on the $15.00 USD a month is what City of Heroes charges on a month-to-month basis (much less for longer time stretches). But once you buy into the game they don't try to hit you with any (significant) extras. Everything is open. But the game is continuously updated with very complex setups, has worldwide servers (very high speed/bandwidth), etc. They have the overhead to justify the fees involved and I fork out the cash when I have it. They don't delete your account or characters even if you haven't been online for years (I know from recent experience). DDO is pretty static at the moment and quite buggy with other support problems
    Posted 17 months ago by Fokian Fool Subscriber! | Permalink
1 2 Next