22 replies to this topic

[Osiris1975]

Hi,

I was discussing premium time with a friend, and we both came to the conclusion that the current way that it works restricts its appeal to those who can maximize the play time while the premium clock is running. That's because once you buy the premium time, the clock starts running, and keeps running until the time runs out, regardless of whether or not you are playing MWO.

This poll is to assess if a metered premium time system would be more attractive to people. By metered, I mean that the clock would only run when you are in a match, or at the very least, when you are logged in.

This would be much more attractive to people who have families, jobs, school, etc. In short, anyone who has a life outside of MWO. As it stands, the only time I bought premium time was when I knew I'd have a stretch of 3 days in which to play.

So this poll is to assess how people feel about premium time in its current form. Feel free to discuss below.

Edited by Osiris1975, 09 December 2012 - 08:34 AM.

[stjobe]

A metered system will never be in MWO. It might be attractive to players, but it's insane from the company's perspective.

[FIat Line]

Greetings: I agree with being a workaholic and having my time cut into small block pieces. I don't have the luxury of running several hours straight. The kids and critters still need fed and my wife wants to talk every now and then. If it were metered I agree when I get into a game the timer should start. Between matches something inherently raises its ugly head and I have to do something. Having to restart the game every time I have to do something else is a pain in the Ferro-Fibrous and Weakens my Endo-Steel.

[Naeron66]

Osiris1975, on 09 December 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Hi,

I was discussing premium time with a friend, and we both came to the conclusion that the current way that it works restricts its appeal to those who can maximize the play time while the premium clock is running. That's because once you buy the premium time, the clock starts running, and keeps running until the time runs out, regardless of whether or not you are playing MWO.

Then you are both wrong, premium time is priced on the basis that most of it is not used actually playing. Its appeal is to everyone who can manage 1 decently long session per week (say 3+ hours in one day). How often you play in a week determines which package of time you get. If you play 1-3 such sessions a week then buy the time in 1 day portions. If you play every day then weekly or monthly purchases make sense,

Osiris1975, on 09 December 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

This poll is to assess if a metered premium time system would be more attractive to people. By metered, I mean that the clock would only run when you are in a match, or at the very least, when you are logged in.

In which case the cost per hour of premium time would rise markedly, probably by a factor of about 4 or more.

Edited by Naeron66, 09 December 2012 - 08:41 AM.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

Meters would always be preferred but will never be in actual practice. Your monthly ISP is a bill, not a meter. Subscriptions are a bill, not a meter. If this was a meter, then everyone would just suicide at the start to get as much out of it as possible because less time in games=more games on the clock. Even without doing that it would become more about game speed rather than game quality. Just run in and die as fast as you can so you can leave the match sooner. The game should encourage wanting to survive, not encourage dying faster. The solution to this would be to have it time based more like League of Legends rather than set values for matches with other numbers tossed into it. But that would be very hard to implement and they can't even get a a much simpler system done half right.(Current economy is horrible)

[Osiris1975]

stjobe, on 09 December 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

A metered system will never be in MWO. It might be attractive to players, but it's insane from the company's perspective.

I don't think it is insane. It allows them to attract a larger demographic for the premium time. If it ends up being unprofitable, they simply adjust the cost of the premium time until it is profitable.

[MrPenguin]

stjobe, on 09 December 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

A metered system will never be in MWO. It might be attractive to players, but it's insane from the company's perspective.

People here will never see beyond a consumers perspective here. They look at this and thing "oh, I would love if it was this". Then when you look at it from a business perspective, you realize that it actually doesn't make any sense at all. in fact, its an incredibly bad idea.

Of course, this is the MWO forums. There is no place for logic here.

Edited by MrPenguin, 09 December 2012 - 08:51 AM.

[Irreverence]

If I'm not buying it now, but would buy it in a metered system, I don't see that as insane from either perspective.

Edit: What if everyone stopped buying it. Then that would be bad for business.

Edited by Irreverence, 09 December 2012 - 08:46 AM.

[MrPenguin]

Irreverence, on 09 December 2012 - 08:45 AM, said:

Edit: What if everyone stopped buying it. Then that would be bad for business.

Most people won't. Because most people either don't care, or realize that the premium time is cheaper then most other F2P games that offer a similar system.

Naeron66, on 09 December 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Then you are both wrong, premium time is priced on the basis that most of it is not used actually playing. Its appeal is to everyone who can manage 1 decently long session per week (say 3+ hours in one day). How often you play in a week determines which package of time you get. If you play 1-3 such sessions a week then buy the time in 1 day portions. If you play every day then weekly or monthly purchases make sense,



In which case the cost per hour of premium time would rise markedly, probably by a factor of about 4 or more.

This guy hits the nail on the head. 4 or more is the conclusion I came to as well.

Edited by MrPenguin, 09 December 2012 - 08:52 AM.

[Irreverence]

MrPenguin, on 09 December 2012 - 08:48 AM, said:

Most people won't. Because most people either don't care, or realize that the premium time is cheaper then most other F2P games that offer a similar system.

And businesses know that too.

[stjobe]

Osiris1975, on 09 December 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I don't think it is insane. It allows them to attract a larger demographic for the premium time. If it ends up being unprofitable, they simply adjust the cost of the premium time until it is profitable.

Let's do the math.

Let's say you play for 3 hours a night, 4 nights a week. That's 12 hours per week, 48 hours per month. Say 50 hours per month.

Now how many hours are there in the current model? Well, since it's running around the clock, let's just for argument's sake say that it's 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's 8 * 7 * 30 = 1680 hours.

1680 / 50 = 33.6 months, or about three years.

Now, what company do you think would say that it's okay to have someone pay $15 once every three years when they instead could have them pay $15 every month? It's a loss of roughly $525 per paying customer.

Or put it this way; in order for it to just break even, they need 35 more paying customers for every current paying customer.

Any way you slice those numbers, the company loses money on a metered model as compared to a regular sub model.

[MrPenguin]

Irreverence, on 09 December 2012 - 08:51 AM, said:

And businesses know that too.

Exactly. Because thats how the market works.
And like stated above, a metered system would end up costing drastically more because people will abuse the living **** out of it. So they have to charge 4x or more then we currently are just so they could break a profit. And barely anyone would buy it if they counted it in hours. Of course, the incredibly small minority here would. But you guys could not possibly sustain the game with your own wallets alone.

stjobe, on 09 December 2012 - 08:52 AM, said:

Let's do the math.

Let's say you play for 3 hours a night, 4 nights a week. That's 12 hours per week, 48 hours per month. Say 50 hours per month.

Now how many hours are there in the current model? Well, since it's running around the clock, let's just for argument's sake say that it's 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's 8 * 7 * 30 = 1680 hours.

1680 / 50 = 33.6 months, or about three years.

Now, what company do you think would say that it's okay to have someone pay $15 once every three years when they instead could have them pay $15 every month? It's a loss of roughly $525 per paying customer.

Or put it this way; in order for it to just break even, they need 35 more paying customers for every current paying customer.

Any way you slice those numbers, the company loses money on a metered model as compared to a regular sub model.

^And this is why stjobe is one of my favorite posters.

Edited by MrPenguin, 09 December 2012 - 08:56 AM.

[headbasher]

Why stop there though. How about only when you win a match does your prem time kick in. Or better yet if you only do really really good will it count.

Naeron66, on 09 December 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Then you are both wrong, premium time is priced on the basis that most of it is not used actually playing. Its appeal is to everyone who can manage 1 decently long session per week (say 3+ hours in one day). How often you play in a week determines which package of time you get. If you play 1-3 such sessions a week then buy the time in 1 day portions. If you play every day then weekly or monthly purchases make sense,



In which case the cost per hour of premium time would rise markedly, probably by a factor of about 4 or more.

I think this says it best

[Osiris1975]

Bluten, on 09 December 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Your monthly ISP is a bill, not a meter. Subscriptions are a bill, not a meter. If this was a meter, then everyone would just suicide at the start to get as much out of it as possible because less time in games=more games on the clock.

ISP bills are not a good analogy. Internet is used constantly and hence it makes sense to have a flat rate. Gas, electric, and water usage are all metered, precisely because the idea of charging someone for something they aren't using is unethical.

The exploitable nature is a good point, but there are ways to deal with that, for example, the length-time of the match could be subtracted from the users clock, rather than time spent in the match. That way there would be no incentive to suicide.

[xxx WreckinBallRaj xxx]

MrPenguin, on 09 December 2012 - 08:50 AM, said:

Most people won't. Because most people either don't care, or realize that the premium time is cheaper then most other F2P games that offer a similar system.

I'd not saying this just to flame you but I think a few things should be noted here. Firstly, they aren't giving you the value they originally promised unless you buy 100$ worth of MC all at once. They put the target value at the very top when it should have been in the middle at worst. Secondly, the game isn't even done yet and still has a "beta" tag, so it's kind of harsh to expect people to pay for boosters for a reasonable grind. But I guess the solution here is to "not" do that and just wait for later. Finally, the grind on this game is really harsh without a boost, whereas on other games it's much more optional. Hopefully they will "eventually" adjust the economy more...

[MrPenguin]

Osiris1975, on 09 December 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

ISP bills are not a good analogy. Internet is used constantly and hence it makes sense to have a flat rate.

If you're sitting at home and using the internet 24/7, then I suggest you get out more. Way more.

[stjobe]

Osiris1975, on 09 December 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

the idea of charging someone for something they aren't using is unethical.

Not that I agree with that premise, but if that's your issue just recalculate the premium time cost like this:
Premium time cost / hours played = what it costs me to play MWO.

For me, that number is in the cents, not dollars. Astonishing value for money. WAY more value for money than most other forms of entertainment; a movie, just to pick an example, is like $5/hour or more.

Incidentally, I also use this rule-of-thumb to decide whether other games give me value for money; if the price/hour is below $1, it has delivered. Deus Ex, for example, turned out to be $10/hour for me - not worth it. Skyrim, on the other hand, about a quarter - well worth it.

Edited by stjobe, 09 December 2012 - 09:17 AM.

[Joseph Mallan]

I buy $15 of MC and the I buy 1 week worth of Premium time, if I am grinding a chassis.

[Firion Corodix]

It's certainly possible to add a metered timer, but it's probably going to be more expensive in most cases. For example right now 1 month is 2500 MC. Going by Stjobe's example of 50 hours a month, lets say that's 5 matches an hour for 250 matches a month, at 2500 MC when using the 1 month option.

Then take a metered option, 2500 MC for 100 games sound reasonable?

That's pretty much 25 games a week, I assume most premium players already play more than that right now and so would not be interested in this metered option in any way because it's less value for their buck. But for players who don't have premium and really can't play all that much every month it might be interesting and result in extra income for PGI. The trick is to make certain that this option will never be better for the players who play at least 2-3 sessions a week at 3-4 hours a session.
Of course the group of players who might buy it could be so small then that it's not even worth the effort to implement, but that's something only PGI could measure/estimate.

[Wizard Steve]

• Buy 360 days of premium time
  
• Play game whenever I feel like it and never give premium time a second thought
  
• ...
  
• Profit?