I would like a capped use each month. It would do several things: It would combat farming, make it possible to combat addiction (<--very important imo), force game designers to provide more content and gameplay instead of repetitive tasks. More importantly, it would put players on a more level playing field. I'm a very big fan of the Chinese limited 2-3 hour / day approach. (do not read this as being a fan of their general institutional policies)
No. I was laid up for two months after a knee surgery and played 8-14 hours a day during that period. It's about the only thing there was to do besides watching soap operas, which I hate. So don't apply your nanny state ideas to people who neither desire nor need them. If you want to put people on a level playing field shoot them in the head and lay them out in rows because that's the only time people can truly be on a level playing field. All else being equal, things never are.
Currently I play about eight hours a week maximum.
I have that experience before, being ground after a severe incident, and played Everquest every waking moments for weeks.
But in the modern days studies your special behaviour do not influence the average score that much. You will be grouped under the subgroup 40hours +, and 41hours or 441hours, you are the same 1 entry in that subgroup. In calculating pooled averages, you are an outlyer sample, bad sample and is likely to be suppressed. Or they use median measures, whereby you are simply excluded from the formula
Not that players do not go hog the computer for a week or 2 once in a while, but most studies look for average, not extreme behavour. After all there are also extreme behaviours on the other side, say LOTRo. Me and family got 3x lifetime accounts. Not been playing for almost 1 full year.
Funny, this is how most of the eastern games are sold. So in essence the vast majority of gamers in this world use this method to pay for their gaming.
So being as on average as a casual gamer I get maybe 10h/week. Sometimes a bit more, but 50 hours a months would do me plenty. That's $5 a month. How does that make the mmo company more money that many people with a life more money?
$5 rather than $15? Yup, I am sure MMO companies would be willing to jump all over that.
Ten cents per hour? When a game comes out that I would actually want to play for more than an hour, I'd definitely go for that. I love the idea that players would get feedback that they are spending inordinate amounts of time in games.
Whether a company could operate on ten cents per hour is another question. Getting $15 subscription payments from players who only show up occasionally sounds like a great deal for a publisher. Also, it would tend to mean that servers would not operate 24/7. They would operate when sufficient players were typically online to support the cost of the infrastructure. Lastly, it would tend to encourage publishers to pack as many players onto a server as possible to get the most bang for the buck out of their infrastructure.
It would be interesting. Perhaps Aion will tell us how it can work.
I feel compelled to point out that Jimmy did say that the price per would still indeed be capped at that standard $15 dollars a month, i.e. not to exceed that amount so even if someone did spened 320 hrs a month playing a game it would still only be $15, not $32 dollars. Personally I think this is a really good idea, half the reason I've hesitated to switch between f2p's to p2p's is because I don't want to sink money into a game I may only play a little. There is a considerable difference between 4 or 5 dollars a month to $15 on top of the cost of the software. In a changing gaming enviroment, and for as much as I have seen some people lunge into attacks on Rmt's and rants about f2p's how could making p2p's more accessible be a bad thing?
i'll admit that I also missed the part about there being a cap at 15/month, and it seems like many of the people against the idea also missed that part. If there was a cap, then it could only possibly mean we pay the same or we pay less. Which is why many companys are probably hesitant to do something like this. There is still the strong argument which you present that they may end up making more money by getting more people to play who may not have otherwise.
To Adam 1902: LOL, I've been there buddy. I've Played 20, 30, maybe 40 hours straight, have actually passed out on my keyboard, woken up and continued playing!! HAHA. That was back when they made games worth playing of course. And yes, I too have a life, but what else can you do when you are snowed in or it's -40 degrees outside? =D
It would save me a bundle!!! 10 hrs a week is a pretty good number for me, more or less. Don't see how this would be advantageous to any developer though. Bring it on!!
The advantage to the developer is that they can get a ton of extra subscribers who will pay a couple of bucks a month to keep their account active and ready to play.
How about something like this:
$1 per 10 hours capped at $17.00 month.
$2 minimum per month.
Now your hardcore players pay a small increase (which they should since they are the ones that eat content so quickly and utilize more bandwidth and your casual players get to play when they want for cheap.) At that point there are a few games that I would re-up on. It would even be good to pay a couple per month for the ability to log into whatever strikes my fancy.
You youngsters are weak. Back in "my day" we used to pay $15//hour to play MMO's on Genie and Compuserve ($6/hr off peak) and back then (mid -80's) a dollar was worth a lot more. (and I got paid a heck of a lot less of them)
I don't object to the pay by the hour model, as long as its capped at a montly fee around 15.00 for those who care to play more.
And for those who said they've played MMO's 70/hrs per week on occasion, seriously, take a good hard look at your life and consider making changes, because that just never should happen.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
As far as cost of operation is concerned, this model makes roughly the same amount of money as the current subscription model. In fact, if you break it down by the hour, the current subscription model makes a little bit less, even at $15 a month.
Let's say that you own a small MMO with only one server that can host 3,000 players at a time. Keep in mind that a server will generally have a total population much larger than it's maximum number of available slots. If you can fill the server to capacity, each player is giving you ten cents for every hour of operation. That means that the server is making $300 an hour.
With the subscription model of $15 an hour, the more your customers play, the less you make. You are dependant on the casual few that play for a week or two and forget that they've signed up to be automatically rebilled. The guy playing 40+ hours a week is actually a liability to you. This is why P2P games have become increasingly more casual and disposable while most F2P games are powerleveling grindfests.
Doing a quick search for server rack space, I found that I can lease a decent server for about $400 a month. With those specs, I would have to lease two servers and connect them into one server. That's a total overhead of about $800 a month. The server would be making $216,000 a month.
With the subscription model, you make less money as your game becomes more popular. With the item mall model, your game makes more money as it becomes more popular, since you profit is based on the average percentage of people that will actually buy items. With the pay-as-you-go model, your profit grows and shrinks with your player population, but it never completely disappears.
Also to emphasize, if you are a hardcore player, you should pay significantly more than a casual player. That's only fair. Why?
(1) You are usually the reason that my character gets nerfed
Hardcore players are the ones that find the small loopholes and exploit the living daylight out of them. They force devs to make changes based on their obsessive behavior.
(2) You are the reason that no new mid level content gets released
The hardcore crowd is also typically the race to max level crowd. Those same folks are the same ones that complain about the end game having no content. This completely ignores the fact that they rushed right by all the stuff that the devs placed in the game. I loose on content because there's a large contingent of players that are going to get to max level and scream that there's nothing new to do.
(3) You use up more server time/bandwidth
You're on more. Not much to say here.
So hardcore players require more dev resources, more content, and more hardware. Casual players finance their additction and really they should not have too. An hourly plan, with some reasonable caps is a much more equitable way to go. Content that would take me months to go through (giving the devs more time to create more) some people will go through in a day or two. That just encourages more bad content to keep them happy instead of working on giving a good quality ride.
From a perspective of equity, pay per hour would be a godsend.
I don't think I could enjoy the game with an hourly rate. It would be to distracting.
I've had a cell phone with unlimited minutes, and a cell phone with minutes.
Even if the price ends up being about the same, the effect if vastly different.
When I have unlimited minutes, I concentrate on what someone is saying, and what I want to say. When I have minutes, I"m thinking, do I really need to talk about this now, on the phone, for this long? I'm spending minutes!
Same with an MMORPG.
With unlimited time, I will chat with you in a game, and concentrate on what you are saying, etc. But with an hourly time limite, even a cheap one, I"ll be thinking, do I want to spend my minutes chatting with you? Hurry up! Hurry up! HURRY UP! You're costing me MINUTES!
And what about when I get a soda or go to the bathroom? Should I run to the refrigerator so I don't waste minutes? Should I wait to zip up until I get back to the keyboard so I dont' waste minutes? Or should I log off, and log on every time I want a soda?
There is a reason most internet service providers changed from hourly based fees to flate rate fees.
Also changing mmos to an hourly based fee rate is not a guarentee that any design of play options would change as a result.
Charging a lump sum saves a lot of adminstration cost. Imagine you have to pay your dish by a count of the number of rice, the weight of veget, the weight of meat, and the drops of water that goes in. Imagine paying a flat $5 for a dish.
I would like this. There have been some months where I put in very little time and others where I play non-stop. I would feel better if I payed just when I play instead of just the chance I might log on.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day. And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
Seriously, this is a win / win situation for everyone. The players get there game cheap AND balanced, while the devs get an easy tool for scaling their backend infrastructure while still turning a profit.
This system would never work. I would quit a game that tried doing this. Raids would never function. "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."
You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power. You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them. Just deal with it.
I don't think I could enjoy the game with an hourly rate. It would be to distracting. I've had a cell phone with unlimited minutes, and a cell phone with minutes. Even if the price ends up being about the same, the effect if vastly different. When I have unlimited minutes, I concentrate on what someone is saying, and what I want to say. When I have minutes, I"m thinking, do I really need to talk about this now, on the phone, for this long? I'm spending minutes! Same with an MMORPG. With unlimited time, I will chat with you in a game, and concentrate on what you are saying, etc. But with an hourly time limite, even a cheap one, I"ll be thinking, do I want to spend my minutes chatting with you? Hurry up! Hurry up! HURRY UP! You're costing me MINUTES! And what about when I get a soda or go to the bathroom? Should I run to the refrigerator so I don't waste minutes? Should I wait to zip up until I get back to the keyboard so I dont' waste minutes? Or should I log off, and log on every time I want a soda?
The most basic of casual players would benefit from an hourly fee. The players who don't group, who don't pvp, who don't raid, and who don't level characters to the max level. Anyone else, even players who only run very basic groups, would not benefit. The idea that someone in the group, if not all of the group members, are watching the time to see how much they are spending, is horrible. It would mean developing games around the least wasted time so that even the most basic group content could be completed.
Like I said above, you more than likely pay more a month to power a house you are not in 24/7. You must run your fridge and most people leave some form of A/C on to keep their house somewhat temperate. 15 bucks is a fixed rate and chump change.
Seriously, this is a win / win situation for everyone. The players get there game cheap AND balanced, while the devs get an easy tool for scaling their backend infrastructure while still turning a profit.A
This system would never work.
Absolute statements aren't very good arguments. Never is a long a time, and you're not taking into account things like game design, population size or target audience.
I would quit a game that tried doing this.
Yes, if an already established game were to switch from a subscription to any other form of payment plan then a lot of people would quit. If a pay-as-you-play model were established from the beginning then you wouldn't play. There have already been people on this thread that have announced that they would play if the game was good.
Raids would never function. "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."
And what's the longest raid you've ever been involved with? The top end is about ten hours which is one dollar. If you're raiding like that every day, clogging the bandwidth and taking up slots that someone else could be using, then you would pay $30 a month (one raid a day). I spend more than that on cable TV. Although I've always looked at grinding and raiding as a rather shady way to keep players subscribing anyway.
You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power. You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them. Just deal with it.
Cable and satellite are fixed monthly rates unless you watch a lot of pay-per-view movies. Internet is also fixed rate. I get my internet from my cable company and the combined total comes to $100 month. Quite a few people on this site have multiple MMO accounts which means that they're digging up $30+ dollars a month for their game time. In other words, I doubt that anyone here would be busting their balls for 320 hours ($32) a month. Even at 40 hours a week, you'd only be spending $16.
Seriously, this is a win / win situation for everyone. The players get there game cheap AND balanced, while the devs get an easy tool for scaling their backend infrastructure while still turning a profit.A
This system would never work.
Absolute statements aren't very good arguments. Never is a long a time, and you're not taking into account things like game design, population size or target audience.
You did not go into specifics about a game that would be centered on using this system, nor did you talk about population size. You talked about a super casual to casual gaming market which would have a negative impact on the community that spent the most time on the game. If you charge players who play more and have a greater impact on your community you will see the game limited to casual to super casual players.
I would quit a game that tried doing this.
Yes, if an already established game were to switch from a subscription to any other form of payment plan then a lot of people would quit. If a pay-as-you-play model were established from the beginning then you wouldn't play. There have already been people on this thread that have announced that they would play if the game was good.
These are three statements I support. I would quit any game that switched to this system or offered it as an option. I would also never start playing a game that offered it. Yes, some people agreed with you, that's why this is a debate and not a bandwagon.
Raids would never function. "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."
And what's the longest raid you've ever been involved with? The top end is about ten hours which is one dollar. If you're raiding like that every day, clogging the bandwidth and taking up slots that someone else could be using, then you would pay $30 a month (one raid a day). I spend more than that on cable TV. Although I've always looked at grinding and raiding as a rather shady way to keep players subscribing anyway.
I have never been to a raid that took ten hours. I also do not raid every day. I would never play more money just so I could raid every day. I pay a fixed monthly fee in order to access every aspect of the game. Your argument here seems to cater far too much to casual gamers. Casual gamers, when they sign up for a game, must realize that they are not going to play the game ten hours a day. That means they accept a monthly fee for what they can access. Like you said, you pay more than thirty dollars for cable TV. Fifteen isn't so bad, even if you don't use it ten hours a day.
I also do not understand what you mean by your first statement in this paragraph. You started the original post saying that hardcore people play 20 hours a week. That does not match this statement. In fact, that would be more like 70 hours a week.
You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power. You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them. Just deal with it.
Cable and satellite are fixed monthly rates unless you watch a lot of pay-per-view movies. Internet is also fixed rate. I get my internet from my cable company and the combined total comes to $100 month. Quite a few people on this site have multiple MMO accounts which means that they're digging up $30+ dollars a month for their game time. In other words, I doubt that anyone here would be busting their balls for 320 hours ($32) a month. Even at 40 hours a week, you'd only be spending $16.
This is a very confusing point. You seem now to be creating a system where everyone has to pay more. That's busted. Super casual players who have other things that take up their time should pay the same as "hardcore" players. Just like, as you said, people pay for other services they don't always use hours upon hours a week.
Honestly, just pay the fifteen a month or play a one time fee game. You'll eventually get your money's worth with those games.
Also, you must realize that games make money based on a fixed monthly fee system. The system proposed here is probably less profitable. Right now, most MMORPGs are working against the Blizzard juggarnaut. That means that every penny earned is important. I think a system like this would ultimately bankrupt games even earlier than they seem to be dying now.
There is a reason most internet service providers changed from hourly based fees to flate rate fees.
Also changing mmos to an hourly based fee rate is not a guarentee that any design of play options would change as a result.
Charging a lump sum saves a lot of adminstration cost. Imagine you have to pay your dish by a count of the number of rice, the weight of veget, the weight of meat, and the drops of water that goes in. Imagine paying a flat $5 for a dish.
I'm not sure how much of an hourly charge would need manual attention over a flat rate fee, but I doubt it would save "a lot" of administrative cost. I am guessing it would be just as automated as a flat rate fee would be and there isn't someone with a stop watch logging your time played. Your analogy doesn't make sense in comparison to this.
An hourly fee puts your customer into the situation where they are forced to make a conscious effort to stay your customer every time they log in. Every time they click to login button the thought will enter their mind "I am going to pay for this". For every single hour that they play they will have that question in the back of their mind. Furthermore you never want to put your customer in a situation where a bad day makes them think "did I get my moneys worth of playtime today?" or "Was it really worth paying $X.XX to do what I did".
Effectively that company is asking the customer to stay married to their product every single time they log in.
Originally posted by Daffid011 @topic An hourly fee puts your customer into the situation where they are forced to make a conscious effort to stay your customer every time they log in. Every time they click to login button the thought will enter their mind "I am going to pay for this". For every single hour that they play they will have that question in the back of their mind. Furthermore you never want to put your customer in a situation where a bad day makes them think "did I get my moneys worth of playtime today?" or "Was it really worth paying $X.XX to do what I did". Effectively that company is asking the customer to stay married to their product every single time they log in.
The subscription model is the same way though. The main reason why more people play traditional box games, mostly bought used or long after launch, is precisly because they feel that they should only have to pay for a game once. Between subscription or hourly fee, we're really only talking a matter of degree. You can divide $15 a month over how much time you actually spend logged in to see how far your entertainment dollar is going. For some people that will be more and for others it will be less.
let's go back to cable TV for a second. I don't watch TV. I maybe watch two or three hours of television over the course of a week. We're paying $50 month for digital cable. Why? Because my wife has shows that she absolutely has to watch every week. Even so, she's only really watches those shows on the weekend when she has the time. For me, cable is a horrible value. My wife on the other hand, is getting about $3.13 per hour out of our subscription. See how that works?
I'm not going to bother comparing video games to electricy, cell phones or internet subscriptions since those things are practically a neccessity anymore.
As for charging the hardcore more....
No, it isn't fair.
But it is just.
If you don't understand the difference then you really aren't qualified to debate this topic.
As for me, I think that the OP's basic idea has some merit.
I think I'd have a cap on the top end-- sort of like when I was in college and you paid by the credit hour, but full-time was a set tuition, defined as 12-18 credit hours. Perhaps it could be flex-payment: $15 a month for unlimited usage, or a pre-paid hourly rate of up to $14/month.
I think most people would go for $15 a month for unlimited usage, but some people, like myself, who play 10 or fewer hours a week, would have more of an incentive to pay for a subscription game if we didn't feel like we're paying for something we're not really using. I can tell you right now that $10 for LoTRO has me looking long and hard at that for my gaming fun when I get back from vacation in a week. I have $15 a month. I just don't think I play $15 a month. $10, maybe.
(Edit: I am not currently subscribed to anything. There are several games I could enjoy playing, but right now, none of those companies are getting any of my money because I feel too busy to get $15 out of their games.)
... This is where I draw the line: __________________.
As for charging the hardcore more.... No, it isn't fair. But it is just. If you don't understand the difference then you really aren't qualified to debate this topic.
First off, trying to disqualify someone from a discussion for disagreeing with you is a tad egotistical. I don't agree with you about charging people more for more time spent by changing a system that has been around for 10+ years. Therefore, I am not qualified to argue with you? That's a bit crazy, really.
It is not fair to change a system so that people who play more are punished. It is not just, either. You've used the analogy of cable TV so many times you would think you'd realize its the same system. It works, and companies have used it for a long time.
If this has become an anti-hardcore pro-casual thread you've lost a lot of credibility.
Edit: Also, take into consideration how many of these "hardcore" players would see that the game cost them more and not sign up. What would happen to the game's community if most of the players only logged in a couple hours a week? Interesting things to ponder, I think.
Comments
Pay for amount of hours you played. Sounds perfectly fair.
Can not tell you how many MMOs i quit cause i lost interest and could not justify paying subscription for game i only play few hours a month.
No. I was laid up for two months after a knee surgery and played 8-14 hours a day during that period. It's about the only thing there was to do besides watching soap operas, which I hate. So don't apply your nanny state ideas to people who neither desire nor need them. If you want to put people on a level playing field shoot them in the head and lay them out in rows because that's the only time people can truly be on a level playing field. All else being equal, things never are.
Currently I play about eight hours a week maximum.
I have that experience before, being ground after a severe incident, and played Everquest every waking moments for weeks.
But in the modern days studies your special behaviour do not influence the average score that much. You will be grouped under the subgroup 40hours +, and 41hours or 441hours, you are the same 1 entry in that subgroup. In calculating pooled averages, you are an outlyer sample, bad sample and is likely to be suppressed. Or they use median measures, whereby you are simply excluded from the formula
Not that players do not go hog the computer for a week or 2 once in a while, but most studies look for average, not extreme behavour. After all there are also extreme behaviours on the other side, say LOTRo. Me and family got 3x lifetime accounts. Not been playing for almost 1 full year.
Funny, this is how most of the eastern games are sold. So in essence the vast majority of gamers in this world use this method to pay for their gaming.
Western subscriptions are in the minority here.
So being as on average as a casual gamer I get maybe 10h/week. Sometimes a bit more, but 50 hours a months would do me plenty. That's $5 a month. How does that make the mmo company more money that many people with a life more money?
$5 rather than $15? Yup, I am sure MMO companies would be willing to jump all over that.
Ten cents per hour? When a game comes out that I would actually want to play for more than an hour, I'd definitely go for that. I love the idea that players would get feedback that they are spending inordinate amounts of time in games.
Whether a company could operate on ten cents per hour is another question. Getting $15 subscription payments from players who only show up occasionally sounds like a great deal for a publisher. Also, it would tend to mean that servers would not operate 24/7. They would operate when sufficient players were typically online to support the cost of the infrastructure. Lastly, it would tend to encourage publishers to pack as many players onto a server as possible to get the most bang for the buck out of their infrastructure.
It would be interesting. Perhaps Aion will tell us how it can work.
i'll admit that I also missed the part about there being a cap at 15/month, and it seems like many of the people against the idea also missed that part. If there was a cap, then it could only possibly mean we pay the same or we pay less. Which is why many companys are probably hesitant to do something like this. There is still the strong argument which you present that they may end up making more money by getting more people to play who may not have otherwise.
To Adam 1902: LOL, I've been there buddy. I've Played 20, 30, maybe 40 hours straight, have actually passed out on my keyboard, woken up and continued playing!! HAHA. That was back when they made games worth playing of course. And yes, I too have a life, but what else can you do when you are snowed in or it's -40 degrees outside? =D
There is a reason most internet service providers changed from hourly based fees to flate rate fees.
Also changing mmos to an hourly based fee rate is not a guarentee that any design of play options would change as a result.
It would save me a bundle!!! 10 hrs a week is a pretty good number for me, more or less. Don't see how this would be advantageous to any developer though. Bring it on!!
The advantage to the developer is that they can get a ton of extra subscribers who will pay a couple of bucks a month to keep their account active and ready to play.
How about something like this:
$1 per 10 hours capped at $17.00 month.
$2 minimum per month.
Now your hardcore players pay a small increase (which they should since they are the ones that eat content so quickly and utilize more bandwidth and your casual players get to play when they want for cheap.) At that point there are a few games that I would re-up on. It would even be good to pay a couple per month for the ability to log into whatever strikes my fancy.
You youngsters are weak. Back in "my day" we used to pay $15//hour to play MMO's on Genie and Compuserve ($6/hr off peak) and back then (mid -80's) a dollar was worth a lot more. (and I got paid a heck of a lot less of them)
I don't object to the pay by the hour model, as long as its capped at a montly fee around 15.00 for those who care to play more.
And for those who said they've played MMO's 70/hrs per week on occasion, seriously, take a good hard look at your life and consider making changes, because that just never should happen.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
I think it's time to go over some figures.
As far as cost of operation is concerned, this model makes roughly the same amount of money as the current subscription model. In fact, if you break it down by the hour, the current subscription model makes a little bit less, even at $15 a month.
Let's say that you own a small MMO with only one server that can host 3,000 players at a time. Keep in mind that a server will generally have a total population much larger than it's maximum number of available slots. If you can fill the server to capacity, each player is giving you ten cents for every hour of operation. That means that the server is making $300 an hour.
With the subscription model of $15 an hour, the more your customers play, the less you make. You are dependant on the casual few that play for a week or two and forget that they've signed up to be automatically rebilled. The guy playing 40+ hours a week is actually a liability to you. This is why P2P games have become increasingly more casual and disposable while most F2P games are powerleveling grindfests.
Doing a quick search for server rack space, I found that I can lease a decent server for about $400 a month. With those specs, I would have to lease two servers and connect them into one server. That's a total overhead of about $800 a month. The server would be making $216,000 a month.
With the subscription model, you make less money as your game becomes more popular. With the item mall model, your game makes more money as it becomes more popular, since you profit is based on the average percentage of people that will actually buy items. With the pay-as-you-go model, your profit grows and shrinks with your player population, but it never completely disappears.
Also to emphasize, if you are a hardcore player, you should pay significantly more than a casual player. That's only fair. Why?
(1) You are usually the reason that my character gets nerfed
Hardcore players are the ones that find the small loopholes and exploit the living daylight out of them. They force devs to make changes based on their obsessive behavior.
(2) You are the reason that no new mid level content gets released
The hardcore crowd is also typically the race to max level crowd. Those same folks are the same ones that complain about the end game having no content. This completely ignores the fact that they rushed right by all the stuff that the devs placed in the game. I loose on content because there's a large contingent of players that are going to get to max level and scream that there's nothing new to do.
(3) You use up more server time/bandwidth
You're on more. Not much to say here.
So hardcore players require more dev resources, more content, and more hardware. Casual players finance their additction and really they should not have too. An hourly plan, with some reasonable caps is a much more equitable way to go. Content that would take me months to go through (giving the devs more time to create more) some people will go through in a day or two. That just encourages more bad content to keep them happy instead of working on giving a good quality ride.
From a perspective of equity, pay per hour would be a godsend.
I don't think I could enjoy the game with an hourly rate. It would be to distracting.
I've had a cell phone with unlimited minutes, and a cell phone with minutes.
Even if the price ends up being about the same, the effect if vastly different.
When I have unlimited minutes, I concentrate on what someone is saying, and what I want to say. When I have minutes, I"m thinking, do I really need to talk about this now, on the phone, for this long? I'm spending minutes!
Same with an MMORPG.
With unlimited time, I will chat with you in a game, and concentrate on what you are saying, etc. But with an hourly time limite, even a cheap one, I"ll be thinking, do I want to spend my minutes chatting with you? Hurry up! Hurry up! HURRY UP! You're costing me MINUTES!
And what about when I get a soda or go to the bathroom? Should I run to the refrigerator so I don't waste minutes? Should I wait to zip up until I get back to the keyboard so I dont' waste minutes? Or should I log off, and log on every time I want a soda?
Charging a lump sum saves a lot of adminstration cost. Imagine you have to pay your dish by a count of the number of rice, the weight of veget, the weight of meat, and the drops of water that goes in. Imagine paying a flat $5 for a dish.
I would like this. There have been some months where I put in very little time and others where I play non-stop. I would feel better if I payed just when I play instead of just the chance I might log on.
Hold on Snow Leopard, imma let you finish, but Windows had one of the best operating systems of all time.
If the Powerball lottery was like Lotro, nobody would win for 2 years, and then everyone in Nebraska would win on the same day.
And then Nebraska would get nerfed.-pinkwood lotro fourms
AMD 4800 2.4ghz-3GB RAM 533mhz-EVGA 9500GT 512mb-320gb HD
This would work great for me and my fluctuating college schedule....
This system would never work. I would quit a game that tried doing this. Raids would never function. "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."
You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power. You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them. Just deal with it.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
The most basic of casual players would benefit from an hourly fee. The players who don't group, who don't pvp, who don't raid, and who don't level characters to the max level. Anyone else, even players who only run very basic groups, would not benefit. The idea that someone in the group, if not all of the group members, are watching the time to see how much they are spending, is horrible. It would mean developing games around the least wasted time so that even the most basic group content could be completed.
Like I said above, you more than likely pay more a month to power a house you are not in 24/7. You must run your fridge and most people leave some form of A/C on to keep their house somewhat temperate. 15 bucks is a fixed rate and chump change.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
This system would never work.
Absolute statements aren't very good arguments. Never is a long a time, and you're not taking into account things like game design, population size or target audience.
I would quit a game that tried doing this.
Yes, if an already established game were to switch from a subscription to any other form of payment plan then a lot of people would quit. If a pay-as-you-play model were established from the beginning then you wouldn't play. There have already been people on this thread that have announced that they would play if the game was good.
Raids would never function. "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."
And what's the longest raid you've ever been involved with? The top end is about ten hours which is one dollar. If you're raiding like that every day, clogging the bandwidth and taking up slots that someone else could be using, then you would pay $30 a month (one raid a day). I spend more than that on cable TV. Although I've always looked at grinding and raiding as a rather shady way to keep players subscribing anyway.
You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power. You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them. Just deal with it.
Cable and satellite are fixed monthly rates unless you watch a lot of pay-per-view movies. Internet is also fixed rate. I get my internet from my cable company and the combined total comes to $100 month. Quite a few people on this site have multiple MMO accounts which means that they're digging up $30+ dollars a month for their game time. In other words, I doubt that anyone here would be busting their balls for 320 hours ($32) a month. Even at 40 hours a week, you'd only be spending $16.
This system would never work.
Absolute statements aren't very good arguments. Never is a long a time, and you're not taking into account things like game design, population size or target audience.
You did not go into specifics about a game that would be centered on using this system, nor did you talk about population size. You talked about a super casual to casual gaming market which would have a negative impact on the community that spent the most time on the game. If you charge players who play more and have a greater impact on your community you will see the game limited to casual to super casual players.
I would quit a game that tried doing this.
Yes, if an already established game were to switch from a subscription to any other form of payment plan then a lot of people would quit. If a pay-as-you-play model were established from the beginning then you wouldn't play. There have already been people on this thread that have announced that they would play if the game was good.
These are three statements I support. I would quit any game that switched to this system or offered it as an option. I would also never start playing a game that offered it. Yes, some people agreed with you, that's why this is a debate and not a bandwagon.
Raids would never function. "Dude, this wipe is about to cost everyone another 2 dollars, let's quit."
And what's the longest raid you've ever been involved with? The top end is about ten hours which is one dollar. If you're raiding like that every day, clogging the bandwidth and taking up slots that someone else could be using, then you would pay $30 a month (one raid a day). I spend more than that on cable TV. Although I've always looked at grinding and raiding as a rather shady way to keep players subscribing anyway.
I have never been to a raid that took ten hours. I also do not raid every day. I would never play more money just so I could raid every day. I pay a fixed monthly fee in order to access every aspect of the game. Your argument here seems to cater far too much to casual gamers. Casual gamers, when they sign up for a game, must realize that they are not going to play the game ten hours a day. That means they accept a monthly fee for what they can access. Like you said, you pay more than thirty dollars for cable TV. Fifteen isn't so bad, even if you don't use it ten hours a day.
I also do not understand what you mean by your first statement in this paragraph. You started the original post saying that hardcore people play 20 hours a week. That does not match this statement. In fact, that would be more like 70 hours a week.
You pay more a month on cable or satelitte TV or internet access or power. You use all of those things at different times, but most people pay monthly for them. Just deal with it.
Cable and satellite are fixed monthly rates unless you watch a lot of pay-per-view movies. Internet is also fixed rate. I get my internet from my cable company and the combined total comes to $100 month. Quite a few people on this site have multiple MMO accounts which means that they're digging up $30+ dollars a month for their game time. In other words, I doubt that anyone here would be busting their balls for 320 hours ($32) a month. Even at 40 hours a week, you'd only be spending $16.
This is a very confusing point. You seem now to be creating a system where everyone has to pay more. That's busted. Super casual players who have other things that take up their time should pay the same as "hardcore" players. Just like, as you said, people pay for other services they don't always use hours upon hours a week.
Honestly, just pay the fifteen a month or play a one time fee game. You'll eventually get your money's worth with those games.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
Also, you must realize that games make money based on a fixed monthly fee system. The system proposed here is probably less profitable. Right now, most MMORPGs are working against the Blizzard juggarnaut. That means that every penny earned is important. I think a system like this would ultimately bankrupt games even earlier than they seem to be dying now.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde
Charging a lump sum saves a lot of adminstration cost. Imagine you have to pay your dish by a count of the number of rice, the weight of veget, the weight of meat, and the drops of water that goes in. Imagine paying a flat $5 for a dish.
I'm not sure how much of an hourly charge would need manual attention over a flat rate fee, but I doubt it would save "a lot" of administrative cost. I am guessing it would be just as automated as a flat rate fee would be and there isn't someone with a stop watch logging your time played. Your analogy doesn't make sense in comparison to this.
@topic
An hourly fee puts your customer into the situation where they are forced to make a conscious effort to stay your customer every time they log in. Every time they click to login button the thought will enter their mind "I am going to pay for this". For every single hour that they play they will have that question in the back of their mind. Furthermore you never want to put your customer in a situation where a bad day makes them think "did I get my moneys worth of playtime today?" or "Was it really worth paying $X.XX to do what I did".
Effectively that company is asking the customer to stay married to their product every single time they log in.
The subscription model is the same way though. The main reason why more people play traditional box games, mostly bought used or long after launch, is precisly because they feel that they should only have to pay for a game once. Between subscription or hourly fee, we're really only talking a matter of degree. You can divide $15 a month over how much time you actually spend logged in to see how far your entertainment dollar is going. For some people that will be more and for others it will be less.
let's go back to cable TV for a second. I don't watch TV. I maybe watch two or three hours of television over the course of a week. We're paying $50 month for digital cable. Why? Because my wife has shows that she absolutely has to watch every week. Even so, she's only really watches those shows on the weekend when she has the time. For me, cable is a horrible value. My wife on the other hand, is getting about $3.13 per hour out of our subscription. See how that works?
I'm not going to bother comparing video games to electricy, cell phones or internet subscriptions since those things are practically a neccessity anymore.
As for charging the hardcore more....
No, it isn't fair.
But it is just.
If you don't understand the difference then you really aren't qualified to debate this topic.
As for me, I think that the OP's basic idea has some merit.
I think I'd have a cap on the top end-- sort of like when I was in college and you paid by the credit hour, but full-time was a set tuition, defined as 12-18 credit hours. Perhaps it could be flex-payment: $15 a month for unlimited usage, or a pre-paid hourly rate of up to $14/month.
I think most people would go for $15 a month for unlimited usage, but some people, like myself, who play 10 or fewer hours a week, would have more of an incentive to pay for a subscription game if we didn't feel like we're paying for something we're not really using. I can tell you right now that $10 for LoTRO has me looking long and hard at that for my gaming fun when I get back from vacation in a week. I have $15 a month. I just don't think I play $15 a month. $10, maybe.
(Edit: I am not currently subscribed to anything. There are several games I could enjoy playing, but right now, none of those companies are getting any of my money because I feel too busy to get $15 out of their games.)
...
This is where I draw the line: __________________.
First off, trying to disqualify someone from a discussion for disagreeing with you is a tad egotistical. I don't agree with you about charging people more for more time spent by changing a system that has been around for 10+ years. Therefore, I am not qualified to argue with you? That's a bit crazy, really.
It is not fair to change a system so that people who play more are punished. It is not just, either. You've used the analogy of cable TV so many times you would think you'd realize its the same system. It works, and companies have used it for a long time.
If this has become an anti-hardcore pro-casual thread you've lost a lot of credibility.
Edit: Also, take into consideration how many of these "hardcore" players would see that the game cost them more and not sign up. What would happen to the game's community if most of the players only logged in a couple hours a week? Interesting things to ponder, I think.
Doktar - 70 Troll Priest - Perenolde