47 replies to this topic

[Meatball095]

First:

PLEASE SIGN THE THREAD IF YOU AGREE


So my thoughts were in response to a suggestion by Dreadp1r4te as follows:

Dreadp1r4te, on 25 November 2012 - 05:25 PM, said:

Premium time should be PLAYED time, not real time. I'm not making any money when I'm logged off or in the 'Mech bay; buying Premium Time should guarantee I get the bonus for a duration, not vary depending on how much I play on a given day, Thoughts?

I like this concept. I'll explain why premium time tied to PLAYED time is a better marketing idea and is likely to bring in more revenue for MWO:

---

In MWO there are two types of players: Casual players and Dedicated players.

Casual players are the majority of players in Free-to-Play games.
As a general rule, most players have a relatively small budget, if any, to spend on playing games online. Casual players also do not play a great amount of time in a given day. Therefore, there are two things that make premium time not attractive to the casual player:

• They often do not play enough time in a given day to justify spending money to pay for premium time. They cannot use the premium time fully.
  
• Because they do not play enough time in a given day to use the premium time efficiently, they view premium time as an inefficient way to spend their small budget.

For these two reasons, premium time isn't bought by causual players as much as it would be if it were tied to PLAYED time.

Dedicated players are a minority of players in Free-to-Play games.
These players are more likely to have a larger budget to spend on playing games online. Dedicated players spend a lot of time playing MWO. For the opposite logic in the reasons listed above, premium time is likely to be bought by dedicated players (regardless of if it were tied to PLAYED time). If the price of premium time were increased with a change that tied premium time to PLAYED time, this would discourage dedicated players from buying premium time.

So what says that premium time tied to PLAYED time is a better revenue stream for MWO?
The answer to that question is based on the type of player that makes up the majority of the playerbase. Casual players are the majority, and so if you can encourage the majority to spend more, then you increase revenue. If you discourage the minority dedicated players from spending money, for the reason in the above paragraph, you decrease revenue. However, the increase in revenue from the casual players would be larger than the decrease in revenue from the dedicate players, resulting in a net increase in revenue.

---

If this were implemented, I would likely spend money to buy premium time at about two times the rate I currently do, which is about a day every weekend. Not only that, but I would be willing to pay a bit more for the time since it allows me to use it more efficiently.

These are the options:

• Keep the premium time system as is and keep it tied to REAL time.
  
• Change the premium time system and tie premium time to PLAYED time.
  
• A mixture of the two options above, where you can buy premium time as either REAL time or PLAYED time.

Edit: 2 DEC 2012:

If you think this would result in a decrease in revenue because people would need to buy premium time less often, please see my (long) post below (clicky: http://mwomercs.com/...ost__p__1533948)

Edited by Meatball095, 07 December 2012 - 06:37 PM.

[Dreadp1r4te]

I'm Dreadp1r4te, and I support your pirating of my thread. ;D

And thank you for taking the time to word it in infinitely more detail than I.

[pied]

With my job, I get to play 2-3 hours a night tops, that's a lot of time going to waste, and as such I have no intention of spending any extra money on premium time.

[Critical Fumble]

They could also offer bonuses on a per battle system.

IE: purchase 100 battle boosts, one of which is expended before each match and gives a bonus to that match alone. The cost effectiveness would balance at some reasonable number of matches/night. They might also offer an option to turn off the uses in case you want to save them for premade matches rather than burn them on random drops. Of course then they could also offer the same kind of thing, except make it activate only if you win the match.

Anyway, good thread. Offer better services to a wider consumer base, get more money, have larger budget for more content, rinse, repeat.

[Meatball095]

Critical Fumble, on 25 November 2012 - 10:49 PM, said:

They could also offer bonuses on a per battle system.

IE: purchase 100 battle boosts, one of which is expended before each match and gives a bonus to that match alone. The cost effectiveness would balance at some reasonable number of matches/night. They might also offer an option to turn off the uses in case you want to save them for premade matches rather than burn them on random drops. Of course then they could also offer the same kind of thing, except make it activate only if you win the match.

Anyway, good thread. Offer better services to a wider consumer base, get more money, have larger budget for more content, rinse, repeat.

The fact that they could increase revenue by offering premium time to a wider base is exactly my point. Additionally, that's not a bad idea to offer premium time in the form of "battle boosts."

[Xandralkus]

This is actually a very insightful point. Premium time as played time is an excellent model for an F2P game. And likewise, we should keep the premium time as real time option for lower cost, so that the hardcore dedicated players feel like the devs love them too.

[Mazgazine1]

This would boost playtime significantly AND it would be a gaming first, to go with an in-game time system instead of a "monthly subscription".

It should obviously cost most, but not much more.

I would like to know how much I've already played too, so I can gauge how much I should buy.

Again, this would be an awesome idea.

[Meatball095]

So, if premium time were tied to PLAYED time, I would have bought premium time yesterday.

Unfortunately, since I can only play a few hours a night during the week if I'm lucky, it is not cost effective for me to buy premium time during the week. Therefore, I did not buy premium time. Since many people are experiencing the same dilemma (that is fact), MWO is losing revenue relative to what it could be pulling in with premium time tied to PLAYED time.

Edited by Meatball095, 29 November 2012 - 02:27 PM.

[Meatball095]

Bump for visibility.

Also, I've been thinking about problems with implementation that could make paying for PLAYED premium time not possible. Regardless, the battle boosts idea is definitely feasible and I would purchase them if offered.

Battle boosts would have the same effect as premium time (+50%), but they would only be used on a per battle basis (spent before you drop into a specific battle).

[DeadlyNerd]

I fully support this suggestion and if it ever gets implemented I'd gladly buy that "played premium time". This would definitely go a long way in marketing this game as a "best buy" solution in F2P games with premium subscriptions.

[Xandralkus]

Bump'd.

Also, I heavily, heavily support this change. Not doing this is just flushing money down the toilet.

[Mahws]

I was actually looking at buying some more premium time just a moment ago, then decided that if I'm only able to play two or three games a day it really isn't worth my while, I'd just feel like I'd be losing money every time I don't have time for a game. I'd drop that money on a per battle or per game played boost in an instant though.

[Meatball095]

Mahws, on 01 December 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

I was actually looking at buying some more premium time just a moment ago, then decided that if I'm only able to play two or three games a day it really isn't worth my while, I'd just feel like I'd be losing money every time I don't have time for a game. I'd drop that money on a per battle or per game played boost in an instant though.

Same thing this morning. I woke up, and I was going to buy premium time, but then I realized that I won't be able to play more than 3 hours today. Therefore... once again I am not buying premium time.

Good job loosing revenue, Piranha...

[Deadoon]

I would buy played time even if it were 5X the cost of real time.

Why? Say I play 8 hours a day, at 3x Costs, I doesn't matter which I choose, however at 5X it makes it more viable to buy it for real time. If I play 1 hour a day, I don't benifit from real time at all and thus am more likely to buy the more expensive comparably game time version.

[Wildhound]

Put simply: Give me a better deal, I'll spend more. Give me a bad deal, I won't spend at all.

Right now I feel that MC is valued a little too high. I have bought some, and will buy some more because I feel I have gotten enough out of the game that the developers should get some money for it.

However, while I feel like the game itself deserved some payment, I also feel like the amount of MC you're getting is too low for the price. As such, once I feel I have given Piranha what they deserve, I will be unlikely to spend any more money on MC.

I think a change like this would make Premium Time far more attractive to me, and over the long term I would probably spend a decent amount on it. As it stands, I'll probably never spend on it and just use my MC for mech bays. I am patient, so even though it would be nice to earn faster, I can wait.

[Satan n stuff]

You forgot the option: I would spend less money because I'd need to buy less premium time for the same amount of play time.

Premium time is fine the way it is, tying it to time played instead of real time would generate less revenue unless the MC cost of premium was significant increased to compensate, which would make it an exercise in pointlessness.

[Deadoon]

***** n stuff, on 02 December 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

You forgot the option: I would spend less money because I'd need to buy less premium time for the same amount of play time.

Premium time is fine the way it is, tying it to time played instead of real time would generate less revenue unless the MC cost of premium was significant increased to compensate, which would make it an exercise in pointlessness.

Precisely why I said 5X the cost or 10X the cost.

[Satan n stuff]

Deadoon, on 02 December 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Precisely why I said 5X the cost or 10X the cost.

"excercise in pointlessness"
I stand by my statement.

[Meatball095]

***** n stuff, on 02 December 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

You forgot the option: I would spend less money because I'd need to buy less premium time for the same amount of play time.

Premium time is fine the way it is, tying it to time played instead of real time would generate less revenue unless the MC cost of premium was significant increased to compensate, which would make it an exercise in pointlessness.

***** n stuff, on 02 December 2012 - 11:28 AM, said:

"excercise in pointlessness"
I stand by my statement.

Actually it would not be a pointless change. Follow me for several minutes (please).

TLDR: More people buying at a higher cost will more than compensate for people possibly buying premium time at a lower rate. Don't bother arguing/replying if you are only reading the TLDR...

There are two systems that could be used:

1) Premium time tied to real time (A.K.A., the current system)

2) Premium time tied to PLAYED time

Nothing new so far.

The current system works if everyone realizes that the cost of premium time accounts for 1) time spent playing and 2) time spent not playing. For example, Piranha Games might have set the cost of premium time assuming people would play 6 hours per day. However, a large majority of people do not realize that this is how Piranha Games set the cost of premium time. This is evidenced by the fact that approximately 80% (at the time of writing) of players would be willing to spend more money on premium time if it were tied to PLAYED time.

Ok, that's cool, but what does that have to do with MWO's revenue stream?

Instead, what players are doing is attempting to optimize the amount of gameplay time they get while paying for premium time. Therefore, the majority of players are not buying premium time except when they know they can spend a lot of time playing during the premium time period. This is resulting in a large fraction of players only buying premium time when they can spend a lot of time playing, which is the minority of the time for that large fraction of players.

So a lot of people aren't buying premium time with the current system the way it is. How do you change that problem?

You eliminate the possibility of trying to optimize how much players try to play during premium time. This is a major reason why people are not buying premium time. Without that possibility, people will buy premium time according to whether they want its benefits, not according to whether they can use it.

The way you do this is by tying premium time to PLAYED time. Two things happen here:

1) You eliminate any way to optimize how you use premium time.

2) You make premium time seem like a better deal, even if the cost-per-played-time is the same.

The elimination of ways to optimize how you use premium time is why tying premium time to PLAYED time is not an "exercise in pointlessness."

But some believe there is another reason for why premium time should be left as is. If you tie premium time to PLAYED time, people won't need to buy premium time as often. This could decrease revenue. What do you say about that?

There are three things that determine the revenue generated by premium time.

1) The rate, or how often, people need/want to buy premium time.

2) The number of people buying premium time.

3) The cost of premium time.

I agree that changing the system by tying premium time to PLAYED time, while not increasing the cost of premium time, would actually result in a loss of revenue only if you assume that the same number of people are buying premium time and you assume that people buy premium time less often. However, that is probably not a good set of assumptions.

In my example for how Piranha Games set the price of premium time above, I said that the average time played per day with premium time might be 6 hours. Suppose that premium time is changed and tied to PLAYED time. Now people might be buying premium time a quarter as often (6 hours divided by 24 hours in a day).

So people are now buying premium time at 25% (0.25) the rate that they used to. How does Piranha Games generate more revenue if this happens?

I've explained enough before that I'm not going to restate why (see above posts), but more people will be buying premium time. To break even with the same cost, four times as many people would need to be buying premium time. Although this might be ambitious, again, my poll is showing that approximately 80% (at the time of writing) of players would be willing to spend more money on premium time if it were tied to PLAYED time. So that could suggest that five times as many people are willing to buy premium time if it were tied to PLAYED time.

Just because approximately 80% of people are more willing to buy premium time tied to PLAYED time does not mean that five times as many people will be buying premium time...

Right, which is why there should absolutely be a price increase in premium time if it were tied to PLAYED time (it is a better deal after all). Suppose that only two times as many people are buying premium time tied to PLAYED time than are buying it in the current system (I think this is way less than the increase we would see). Now the price would only need to double for Piranha Games to break even on the change. I would pay double the price if this change were implemented. I'm guessing a lot of other people would too.

Ok, I see what you are arguing, but you're also making some assumptions some people might not agree with...

Also right.

1) I am assuming that a.) the increase in the number of people buying premium time and b.) the increase in the cost would more than compensate for the decrease in the rate at which people buy premium time. For example, let say the rate is 25% of what it was, and the number of buying people becomes 3 times what it was, and the cost is 2 times what it was, then revenue would change by a factor of 0.25 x 3 x 2 = 1.5. That is, you would see a 50% increase in revenue.

2) I am also assuming the there is a decrease in the rate that people buy premium time at. Who knows, maybe people will buy premium time more often than they do with the current system??? Personally, I would be buying premium time MORE OFTEN than I do currently. I am making this assumption for conservatism, not for practicality. I think people would buy at about the same rate actually.

Edited by Meatball095, 02 December 2012 - 08:01 PM.

[Satan n stuff]

I think you're being very optimistic about the people claiming they will buy premium if it's tied to time played. Looking at any other f2p game you'll see a huge amount of people claim they will start paying if the devs change something or another, often relating to the payment system. But the truth is that never happens. The players find something else to complain about and the devs and publisher end up with a lot of time wasted on a zero profit increase, or even a decrease in profit.
It's called moving the goalposts.