Am I the only one here who plays League of Legends? I have a very hectic schedule as I have a family and a baby. I played Mechwarrior 4 and could dedicate whole evenings to it regularly. These days I cannot. League of Legends sells boosts that last for days or wins. I only buy win boosts. A 10 day boost costs the same as a 10 win boost. The 10 win boost is a much better value for me, as some days I don't play at all. I love the per win boost, although I have read some other great ideas in this thread.
6
PGI: An honest, important suggestion/question regarding the "subscription" and its value.
Started by Frostiken, Jun 19 2012 02:49 PM
108 replies to this topic
#83
-
-
- 42 posts
Member
- Facebook: Link
- LocationOld Connaught
Posted 01 July 2012 - 04:53 AM
add me to the list of supporters of this idea deducting time from the boosts on a log in basis sounds very fair and reasonable and it would encorage people to buy boosts which would help the player and piranha equily. piranha gets more purchases of boosts and players get full use of their purchase...its win win! id spring for legendary every time if they did that! 
#84
-
-
- 1,156 posts
Member
Posted 03 August 2012 - 07:07 AM
I'm going to rebump this thread. Has anyone heard any rumors about this, or about PGI acknowledging this in some way?
Losing a month of Premium Access or whatever it's called would be quite annoying.
I'd also like to add that, on top of my original month out, I'm getting redeployed come November, moved back Stateside, which again - several weeks if not a month without, means several weeks if not a month of my account time ticking away.
Losing a month of Premium Access or whatever it's called would be quite annoying.
I'd also like to add that, on top of my original month out, I'm getting redeployed come November, moved back Stateside, which again - several weeks if not a month without, means several weeks if not a month of my account time ticking away.
Edited by Frostiken, 03 August 2012 - 07:08 AM.
#85
-
-
- 110 posts
Member
Posted 03 August 2012 - 12:57 PM
There are a lot of ways that other companies deal with Premium bonuses, but I'm sure that having different 'plans' available vary in effect. A few that I've seen are:
From most of the people I know who avail of things like this, the majority prefer shorter duration boosts compared to the longer ones. The result might be that more people will buy these short-term boosts when they would not even think of purchasing a 30 day duration one. The revenue lost from someone not paying $10 a month due to buying smaller boosts is usually made up for by more people purchasing them.
For some games I've seen the pricing might go like:
30 day Premium - $10 (Good if you play a lot)
7 day Premium - $3 (Good if you're on a short vacation)
1 day Premium - $1 (Good if you play for less than 10 days a month)
1 hour Premium - $0.50 (Good if you barely have any time to play at all)
And I think that's already pricing it kindly. Normally the under 30 day duration packs would be priced much higher.
Now, if they plan on doing something like this (different durations of boosts available), I think they can pool the value of the Founder's packages into a Premium fund. This would give Legendary Founders $30 in Premium funds (meant to be spent only for Premium bonuses) and it will be separate from MC. With something like this, the Founders who have scheduling issues will be free to allocate their $30 (3 months worth) of Premium so that is not wasted due to deployment/vacation/work/etc.
Anyway, I don't know if it's easy or hard to do or if they intend to get something like this going, but I thought I would give my suggestion anyway.
- 1 hour / 1 day / 3 day / 7 day / 15 day / 30 day boosts
- Fixed amount of games played boosts
From most of the people I know who avail of things like this, the majority prefer shorter duration boosts compared to the longer ones. The result might be that more people will buy these short-term boosts when they would not even think of purchasing a 30 day duration one. The revenue lost from someone not paying $10 a month due to buying smaller boosts is usually made up for by more people purchasing them.
For some games I've seen the pricing might go like:
30 day Premium - $10 (Good if you play a lot)
7 day Premium - $3 (Good if you're on a short vacation)
1 day Premium - $1 (Good if you play for less than 10 days a month)
1 hour Premium - $0.50 (Good if you barely have any time to play at all)
And I think that's already pricing it kindly. Normally the under 30 day duration packs would be priced much higher.
Now, if they plan on doing something like this (different durations of boosts available), I think they can pool the value of the Founder's packages into a Premium fund. This would give Legendary Founders $30 in Premium funds (meant to be spent only for Premium bonuses) and it will be separate from MC. With something like this, the Founders who have scheduling issues will be free to allocate their $30 (3 months worth) of Premium so that is not wasted due to deployment/vacation/work/etc.
Anyway, I don't know if it's easy or hard to do or if they intend to get something like this going, but I thought I would give my suggestion anyway.
#86
-
-
- 27 posts
Member
- LocationVictoria, British Columbia, Canada
Posted 03 August 2012 - 01:15 PM
I pay $5 for a coffee a starbucks once a week and it lasts about 20 minutes.
I pay $15 for a movie that lasts 90 minutes in the theatre
I pay $25 per month for a Gym membership I use rarely
Although I understand the request for more flexibility, is a $10 a month subscription even if you only play every second month or 4 hours a week or whatever really impacting?
I propose that the value proposition here is damaged. I do not go into my gym and ask for a discount because the 20 y/o uses it 8 hours a day and I use it 8 hours a month, nor do I cancel my membership when I am on vacation and then start it back up again when I get back.
I propose that if this was a gym membership, IE inconvenient to turn on and turn off as needed, it would not be worth the time for anyone in this thread to get to the gym, fill out the paperwork as needed.
I am not saying this as a "suck it up buttercup" message, I want to ensure that the perception is valid and the comparison actually relative. Anyone that actually has a computer that can run this game can afford $10 a month you just need to put it into the correct perspective.
If you put yourself in the developers shoes, they will have to make this not just profitable but more profitable than time spend elsewhere. So first there would have to be enough people to justify the addition then it would have to be profitable enough to justify it over producing something like more content for example. This would likely make it cost prohibitive to the consumer.
That all said, I do not disagree that it is a valid idea, just that for my $10 per month of buying/product direction power I want more mechs, more areas, more components over more payment options
I pay $15 for a movie that lasts 90 minutes in the theatre
I pay $25 per month for a Gym membership I use rarely
Although I understand the request for more flexibility, is a $10 a month subscription even if you only play every second month or 4 hours a week or whatever really impacting?
I propose that the value proposition here is damaged. I do not go into my gym and ask for a discount because the 20 y/o uses it 8 hours a day and I use it 8 hours a month, nor do I cancel my membership when I am on vacation and then start it back up again when I get back.
I propose that if this was a gym membership, IE inconvenient to turn on and turn off as needed, it would not be worth the time for anyone in this thread to get to the gym, fill out the paperwork as needed.
I am not saying this as a "suck it up buttercup" message, I want to ensure that the perception is valid and the comparison actually relative. Anyone that actually has a computer that can run this game can afford $10 a month you just need to put it into the correct perspective.
If you put yourself in the developers shoes, they will have to make this not just profitable but more profitable than time spend elsewhere. So first there would have to be enough people to justify the addition then it would have to be profitable enough to justify it over producing something like more content for example. This would likely make it cost prohibitive to the consumer.
That all said, I do not disagree that it is a valid idea, just that for my $10 per month of buying/product direction power I want more mechs, more areas, more components over more payment options
Edited by Arakasai, 03 August 2012 - 01:18 PM.
#87
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 715 posts
Member
Posted 03 August 2012 - 02:07 PM
Arakasai, on 03 August 2012 - 01:15 PM, said:
I pay $5 for a coffee a starbucks once a week and it lasts about 20 minutes.
I pay $15 for a movie that lasts 90 minutes in the theatre
I pay $25 per month for a Gym membership I use rarely
Although I understand the request for more flexibility, is a $10 a month subscription even if you only play every second month or 4 hours a week or whatever really impacting?
I propose that the value proposition here is damaged. I do not go into my gym and ask for a discount because the 20 y/o uses it 8 hours a day and I use it 8 hours a month, nor do I cancel my membership when I am on vacation and then start it back up again when I get back.
I propose that if this was a gym membership, IE inconvenient to turn on and turn off as needed, it would not be worth the time for anyone in this thread to get to the gym, fill out the paperwork as needed.
I am not saying this as a "suck it up buttercup" message, I want to ensure that the perception is valid and the comparison actually relative. Anyone that actually has a computer that can run this game can afford $10 a month you just need to put it into the correct perspective.
If you put yourself in the developers shoes, they will have to make this not just profitable but more profitable than time spend elsewhere. So first there would have to be enough people to justify the addition then it would have to be profitable enough to justify it over producing something like more content for example. This would likely make it cost prohibitive to the consumer.
That all said, I do not disagree that it is a valid idea, just that for my $10 per month of buying/product direction power I want more mechs, more areas, more components over more payment options
I pay $15 for a movie that lasts 90 minutes in the theatre
I pay $25 per month for a Gym membership I use rarely
Although I understand the request for more flexibility, is a $10 a month subscription even if you only play every second month or 4 hours a week or whatever really impacting?
I propose that the value proposition here is damaged. I do not go into my gym and ask for a discount because the 20 y/o uses it 8 hours a day and I use it 8 hours a month, nor do I cancel my membership when I am on vacation and then start it back up again when I get back.
I propose that if this was a gym membership, IE inconvenient to turn on and turn off as needed, it would not be worth the time for anyone in this thread to get to the gym, fill out the paperwork as needed.
I am not saying this as a "suck it up buttercup" message, I want to ensure that the perception is valid and the comparison actually relative. Anyone that actually has a computer that can run this game can afford $10 a month you just need to put it into the correct perspective.
If you put yourself in the developers shoes, they will have to make this not just profitable but more profitable than time spend elsewhere. So first there would have to be enough people to justify the addition then it would have to be profitable enough to justify it over producing something like more content for example. This would likely make it cost prohibitive to the consumer.
That all said, I do not disagree that it is a valid idea, just that for my $10 per month of buying/product direction power I want more mechs, more areas, more components over more payment options
"Folks can afford <insert x amount of dollars less than a price of a movie here> a month" keeps coming up in discussions of the online industry. The issue is, continued shift of the market towards F2P models show that while people can, as a general rule they don't want to and that is all that matters in a luxury industry. Not so much that they don't want to spend money, but that they don't want a, as you put it, "gym membership." Granular payment options are central to the profitability of the F2P model (i.e. "pay for what you want and nothing else"). People who never would have participated at all will pay a bit to sate their specific need, and people who already would have paid will pay more.
I don't think you are putting appropriate value on options that give users more control of their spending. People who want to pay monthly already will be doing it (and they don't really seem to be a majority of the modern market). Folks who want to pay weekly will just be keeping their money in their wallets, money that would be funding that other content.
#88
-
-
- 49 posts
Member
Posted 03 August 2012 - 04:27 PM
Hikaru, on 19 June 2012 - 08:52 PM, said:
/sign
I'd actually prefer 60 days on a per-day basis than 90 days concurrent, in a heartbeat.
I'd actually prefer 60 days on a per-day basis than 90 days concurrent, in a heartbeat.
And this is exactly why it's never going to happen.
30 single-day boosts is much more value than a whole month. Therefore it costs more.
Typically if a month costs $10, a single day is $1 (see WoT).
Your 90 days concurrent are worth 30 days on a per-day basis, not 60. Still want to take the trade?
Edited by optimal pain, 03 August 2012 - 04:29 PM.
#89
-
-
- 27 posts
Member
- LocationVictoria, British Columbia, Canada
Posted 03 August 2012 - 04:34 PM
SteelPaladin, on 03 August 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:
"Folks can afford <insert x amount of dollars less than a price of a movie here> a month" keeps coming up in discussions of the online industry. The issue is, continued shift of the market towards F2P models show that while people can, as a general rule they don't want to and that is all that matters in a luxury industry. Not so much that they don't want to spend money, but that they don't want a, as you put it, "gym membership." Granular payment options are central to the profitability of the F2P model (i.e. "pay for what you want and nothing else"). People who never would have participated at all will pay a bit to sate their specific need, and people who already would have paid will pay more.
I don't think you are putting appropriate value on options that give users more control of their spending. People who want to pay monthly already will be doing it (and they don't really seem to be a majority of the modern market). Folks who want to pay weekly will just be keeping their money in their wallets, money that would be funding that other content.
I do not disagree with what you have stated, but what you are referring to is really not under discussion here. The question with the granularity of micro transaction for premium play. All I am saying is that everyone has a different price point and you have to be careful, as a business, to ensure your available price points do not actually cost you more than they are worth in implementation or lost upsell opportunity.
IE I am willing to spend $10 a month for a premium account but if you offered me hourly play I would take that option and only end up paying you $4 per month for example. So there would have to be more money to be gained with the folks that are unwilling to pay $10 per month but would pay $4 per month for less access to make up the difference. I honestly believe there are more of me than there are of you
But I agree I do not have insight in to how large the market is for the people willing to pay for 1 hour premium play packages vs. 1 month premium play packages, nor do you, nor does Piranha in all likelyhood yet
It could well be that they lose money by offering a more granular fee or that they gain more.It is really easy to say "you will earn more if you do what I ask, there are more people like me and it will be worth it" but in reality it is rarely the case from a business perspective. That usually requires some demographic review and experimentation all while not trying to **** off your subscriber base.
So, perhaps you are correct and consumers want lots of choices. In my opinion, the consumer as a group is pretty dumb (this is not an individual attack so please do not take it that way) and prefer simple easy choices not a large number of overly complex ones. But hey, that is just my opinion
#90
-
-
- 110 posts
Member
Posted 03 August 2012 - 05:09 PM
Arakasai, on 03 August 2012 - 04:34 PM, said:
So, perhaps you are correct and consumers want lots of choices. In my opinion, the consumer as a group is pretty dumb (this is not an individual attack so please do not take it that way) and prefer simple easy choices not a large number of overly complex ones. But hey, that is just my opinion
This is true at some point. It mostly relates to consumers who are unfamiliar (or choose to remain ignorant) of the products that they need to (or are interested in) buying. When I was in a hurry to purchase something at the department store that I wasn't used to buying, I ended up wandering around until some sales person caught me looking and immediately explained the product, the price and the purchase options that were available to me. I had passed other similar products just earlier, but I stopped to buy the one that was offered by the more aggressive (but very helpful) sales clerk.
Of course, when I am buying something I am very interested in, I will look at all the details and check my options with different brands to make sure that I am getting the best deal (in terms of quality and price) that I can.
I would have to say with some confidence that the number of people who would purchase if lower plans were available would more than make up for smart consumers downgrading their purchases to said plans. People who would also like to just try out the product can avail of the cheaper plan and if they end up liking it they will see the value of the 30 day plans over the 1 day ones.
I personally prefer to keep a subscription going for the month even if I barely have time to play the game (simply because I mostly do not want to go through the hassles of keeping track of expiration and purchasing items repeatedly if I happen to play frequently).
#91
-
-
- Knight Errant
- 1,073 posts
Member
- LocationOutreach
Posted 03 August 2012 - 06:07 PM
Actually it would be a great if Piranha allow boosts to be used only when you are logged in. I myself will be heading out to the reserve units for training again this late august and I won't have any time till near September ends.
#92
-
-
- 24 posts
Member
- LocationAlkaid, Skye Province
Posted 03 August 2012 - 07:12 PM
I just couldn't agree more with the OP, and thos who have pointed out how a 'log-in/use-a-day' would be so helpful as compared to pay for all 30 days, and sucks to be you if you can't.
I'm also in the 30's gen, having played the Original MW game. I first purchased the elite, just beacuse I was keen on one mech, but then decided, meh I'll support the game, and went 'yellow-belly.' Couldn't care less about the other mechs or the credits in the game.
But would I would be keen to support is a decent pay to win (we all know that's what it is these days) situation, for these 'free' games. Yes, I reckon some of us will sucker in and go for the xp cbill boost, but sometimes I'm wondering....what if we don't ever purchase the boost month as it is?
Will I forever be doomed to have the 'old lemon' of a mech, because I can't play as often as teenage johnny and his father's credit card, or fat slob in his parents basement/attic bob and his computer of uber +5?
I reckon the OP has a way to at the very least keep people interested in the boost system, myself included.
I'm also in the 30's gen, having played the Original MW game. I first purchased the elite, just beacuse I was keen on one mech, but then decided, meh I'll support the game, and went 'yellow-belly.' Couldn't care less about the other mechs or the credits in the game.
But would I would be keen to support is a decent pay to win (we all know that's what it is these days) situation, for these 'free' games. Yes, I reckon some of us will sucker in and go for the xp cbill boost, but sometimes I'm wondering....what if we don't ever purchase the boost month as it is?
Will I forever be doomed to have the 'old lemon' of a mech, because I can't play as often as teenage johnny and his father's credit card, or fat slob in his parents basement/attic bob and his computer of uber +5?
I reckon the OP has a way to at the very least keep people interested in the boost system, myself included.
#93
-
-
- Veteran Founder
- 30 posts
Member
Posted 03 August 2012 - 07:39 PM
I think a 1-week boost as the smallest option would be a good compromise. Options such as 1-hour or 1-day are so extremely efficient, the price of each would have to be quite high to make longer boosts more desirable. I also prefer activating all the days of a boost at once rather than per login.
Edited by FrostFire626, 03 August 2012 - 07:53 PM.
#94
-
-
- 262 posts
Member
- LocationWisconsin, USA
Posted 04 August 2012 - 12:52 AM
Something I just thought of, the OP along with a system where it doesn't kick in until you actually START the match. There has been many a time where I have logged into a game, thrown around in the menus, then either decided not to play, got distracted, or just got pulled away by one of many of the commitments of life.
Edited by aresfiend, 04 August 2012 - 12:53 AM.
#95
-
-
- Mercenary
- 4,763 posts
Member
- LocationAurora, Indiana, USA, North America, Earth, Sol, Milky Way
Posted 04 August 2012 - 06:00 AM
LoL has a per-win boost system, for both xp boosts and ip boosts. It does a very nice job of giving you the same effective rewards as anyone else who has the same boost package, but at your own pace. They also tend to use ip boosts as a sort of "thank you" or "sorry" when stuff happens (like 1 million facebook likes, or extended server instability).
If MWO did something similar with its "premium" accounts instead of (or even in addition to/as an alternative to) the monthly boost, I'd expect it to be successful. I know I'd be inclined toward something like a "100 win xp boost" or a "100 win cbill boost" simply because it'd be something that you can track and predict, that'd be independent of the vagaries of real life. Few things would be more frustrating than having a monthly boost active and suddenly your ISP starts having problems with stability, or you live in Ohio and lose power for three weeks after a breeze comes through, or whatever else.
If MWO did something similar with its "premium" accounts instead of (or even in addition to/as an alternative to) the monthly boost, I'd expect it to be successful. I know I'd be inclined toward something like a "100 win xp boost" or a "100 win cbill boost" simply because it'd be something that you can track and predict, that'd be independent of the vagaries of real life. Few things would be more frustrating than having a monthly boost active and suddenly your ISP starts having problems with stability, or you live in Ohio and lose power for three weeks after a breeze comes through, or whatever else.
#96
-
- Survivor
- 3 posts
Rookie
Posted 04 August 2012 - 06:39 AM
Well this is a huge thread and I don't have much more to contribute than my support for only counting days played/logged in.
I play a bit of Blacklight: Retribution and have basically stopped activating the freebie trial items that have a 3 day limit because I know I'll probably only get to play a few matches with them before the next time I log in and have to deal with the nag screen to re-buy or trash the items.(My big issue was the inventory system not working half the time but still...)
Long story short. I support the OP and the rest of the suggestions that would only deduct days on days played. I don't expect hourly tracking.
I play a bit of Blacklight: Retribution and have basically stopped activating the freebie trial items that have a 3 day limit because I know I'll probably only get to play a few matches with them before the next time I log in and have to deal with the nag screen to re-buy or trash the items.(My big issue was the inventory system not working half the time but still...)
Long story short. I support the OP and the rest of the suggestions that would only deduct days on days played. I don't expect hourly tracking.
#97
-
-
- 1,156 posts
Member
Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:23 AM
Glad to see support, guys.
I'm a little sad that nobody from PGI hasn't said anything in this thread at all
I'm a little sad that nobody from PGI hasn't said anything in this thread at all
#98
-
-
- 110 posts
Member
Posted 04 August 2012 - 09:35 AM
Frostiken, on 04 August 2012 - 09:23 AM, said:
Glad to see support, guys.
I'm a little sad that nobody from PGI hasn't said anything in this thread at all
I'm a little sad that nobody from PGI hasn't said anything in this thread at all
They are still in the beta phase so perhaps they are not sure themselves if they can get something like this done in time. They have previously mentioned that they would look into things such as delaying the start of the Premium service but they also said no promises. It doesn't hurt to keep discussing this issue though.
I am sure that it will require them to meet and discuss if this is possible with their resources / timeline and if those in charge of marketing / finance will agree to having such a system in place. Perhaps a few days or weeks down the line they will have a reply, be it official or not, but until then it would be safe to assume that it will go on as we expect with the service starting when the game goes live.
#99
-
- Legendary Founder
- 8 posts
Rookie
- LocationUK
Posted 06 August 2012 - 01:31 PM
Adding my voice to the many - I won't be able to take advantage of the whole premium account time if it just starts running from Day 1 due to work commitments, so some flexibility in activation would be gratefully received!
#100
-
-
- Legendary Founder
- 6,003 posts
Member
Posted 06 August 2012 - 01:39 PM
How awesome if everything in the world were metered this way, but alas it is not.
They do it this way because it's easiest. You start, and in 30 days, you game as much as you can. It's not optimal, but implementation is easiest.
Or, if they allow per-day control, you get more out of it, but it's harder to implement. There will be tons of support tickets of people wanting days refunded because they left the mode on, etc.
And lastly, you can have the "30 days worth" and account for being active only while you're logged in. The moment you log out, it stops using it. This is hardest to implement, warrants PGI the least money, but gives the consumer the most.
Maybe, instead, PGI can opt that for $X USD you get X games boosted. You can turn on/off a tick mark so that it uses up 1 boost, but that game gets boosted, ie:
$10 = 150 boosted games (5 games/day)
That way, you use them when you want, and don't lose them when you're away from game. Also, if there are players who are doing 30 games/day (extreme), they might offer discounted packages such as $17.50 = 300 boosted games.
They do it this way because it's easiest. You start, and in 30 days, you game as much as you can. It's not optimal, but implementation is easiest.
Or, if they allow per-day control, you get more out of it, but it's harder to implement. There will be tons of support tickets of people wanting days refunded because they left the mode on, etc.
And lastly, you can have the "30 days worth" and account for being active only while you're logged in. The moment you log out, it stops using it. This is hardest to implement, warrants PGI the least money, but gives the consumer the most.
Maybe, instead, PGI can opt that for $X USD you get X games boosted. You can turn on/off a tick mark so that it uses up 1 boost, but that game gets boosted, ie:
$10 = 150 boosted games (5 games/day)
That way, you use them when you want, and don't lose them when you're away from game. Also, if there are players who are doing 30 games/day (extreme), they might offer discounted packages such as $17.50 = 300 boosted games.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users
