OCARINA
“F2P” Subscription Review & Rebranding
09/21/2020 07:58 AM CDT
-Wyrom
So, I don’t expect even a read by you on this thread as more likely than not you’re probably super busy and also “F2P” long ago was written off.
But, if you are reading this and you still deem “F2P” to be of value to your company financially please consider doing a full review on all the SIMUSTORE items that would include fixes for passes that just plain don’t work (looking at you Area spell Cooldown removal pass) and addition of passes that would allow access to important profession features such as the Warrior Guild, not to mention a pass for the new Ascension etc.
Finally, it’s time to stop calling this “F2P” and start calling it for what it is, MicroTrans. I know you’re extremely familiar with the gaming industry and I know our Microtrans is much to be desired. I think some modernizing is in order.
Once again, I’am not asking for discounts here just *access to the rest of the product.*
Please, feel free to discuss and make suggestions. Thanks everyone.
KRAKII
Re: “F2P” Subscription Review & Rebranding
09/21/2020 08:44 AM CDT
It is Free To Play.
It is also Pay To Improve.
The improvements themselves are not, in fact, as good as "a basic monthly subscription," even taken all together. This is by design, to make the basic monthly subscription attractive (both monetarily, and as a convenience).
What's the problem?
It is also Pay To Improve.
The improvements themselves are not, in fact, as good as "a basic monthly subscription," even taken all together. This is by design, to make the basic monthly subscription attractive (both monetarily, and as a convenience).
What's the problem?
DOUG
Re: “F2P” Subscription Review & Rebranding
09/21/2020 10:54 AM CDT
>>What's the problem?
There is a movement afoot that suggests that micro-transaction is a better model than free plus benefits or subscription -- even when the total costs are higher than a subscription would be. There are several justifications for it including infrequent but highly focused periodic game play, a desire to experience more 'game' and less 'grind' and so on.
I have to say that I doubt it would ever be for me, but as a business there is also no sense leaving money on the table either. The infrequent but highly focused periodic game play is not likely to change for a segment of our population. Bringing the capabilities in line with a basic sub plus a 'convenience' charge doesn't seem like a bad way to pick that money up.
Doug
There is a movement afoot that suggests that micro-transaction is a better model than free plus benefits or subscription -- even when the total costs are higher than a subscription would be. There are several justifications for it including infrequent but highly focused periodic game play, a desire to experience more 'game' and less 'grind' and so on.
I have to say that I doubt it would ever be for me, but as a business there is also no sense leaving money on the table either. The infrequent but highly focused periodic game play is not likely to change for a segment of our population. Bringing the capabilities in line with a basic sub plus a 'convenience' charge doesn't seem like a bad way to pick that money up.
Doug
OM1E5GA
Re: “F2P” Subscription Review & Rebranding
09/21/2020 11:28 AM CDT
<What's the problem?>
Aside from the problem with passes not working that the OP mentioned (not acceptable, call Chris in billing if something you bought isn't working as advertised. He's awesome.), I have to concur with Krakii....for the most part.
As far back as the release announcement for F2P it's been stated that F2P was meant to be more of a trial version of GS then an alternative billing structure. It's always been technically possible to get all the way to cap on F2P, but players are intended to upgrade to a basic account after playing a couple months. This is why things like the guilds aren't accessible and banking features/etc are so restrictive (seriously, anyone sticking around past level 20 would be much better off going basic).
That said, I've always thought that F2P went too far with restrictions... to the point that it could turn off new players. I wouldn't be against a review of it, but I don't think the restrictions should be eased to the point that those accounts are at the same level as the subscription tiers even if they purchase all the passes.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
PS Krakii, I sent you a couple emails almost 2 weeks ago, if you responded I haven't received it.
Aside from the problem with passes not working that the OP mentioned (not acceptable, call Chris in billing if something you bought isn't working as advertised. He's awesome.), I have to concur with Krakii....for the most part.
As far back as the release announcement for F2P it's been stated that F2P was meant to be more of a trial version of GS then an alternative billing structure. It's always been technically possible to get all the way to cap on F2P, but players are intended to upgrade to a basic account after playing a couple months. This is why things like the guilds aren't accessible and banking features/etc are so restrictive (seriously, anyone sticking around past level 20 would be much better off going basic).
That said, I've always thought that F2P went too far with restrictions... to the point that it could turn off new players. I wouldn't be against a review of it, but I don't think the restrictions should be eased to the point that those accounts are at the same level as the subscription tiers even if they purchase all the passes.
Starchitin, the OG
A severed gnomish hand crawls in on its fingertips and makes a rude gesture before quickly decaying and rotting into dust. A gust of wind quickly scatters the dust.
PS Krakii, I sent you a couple emails almost 2 weeks ago, if you responded I haven't received it.
AVAIA
Re: “F2P” Subscription Review & Rebranding
09/21/2020 11:40 AM CDT
>call Chris in billing if something you bought isn't working as advertised. He's awesome.)
She!
Avaia, player of
She!
Avaia, player of
MENOS
Re: “F2P” Subscription Review & Rebranding
09/21/2020 12:46 PM CDT
I have not really experienced the free to play system fully. I have my paid subscription and already more characters than I can really play in the time I have. But I do agree with you earlier poster that the system looks like it's designed just as a trial experience, and not really a free-to-play option. I think in that capacity it has more restrictions they are good for it.
I submit that focus should be more tilted towards a complete (if bare bones) game experience than limitations in fear of losing current players. Not completely, but more than it is now. People having fun with a game will naturally choose to spend money as passes or subscriptions. If I was a potential new player and saw that list of restrictions on a free account, it is unlikely I would even give it a try and that's not the right way to draw people in.
The other efforts to bring people to gs are having results. Certainly I see more online now then at any time in the last decade, but more players still would be better. The real free-to-play model is obviously successful for many games for good reason, and gs should align itself closer to the other industry examples. I believe that would result in a net increase in revenue and a better game experience for everyone (more folks to interact with, more money to fund dev and pay events). Everyone here knows gs is basically text crack and anybody who really starts will be hooked for life, so let's get more people started.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
I submit that focus should be more tilted towards a complete (if bare bones) game experience than limitations in fear of losing current players. Not completely, but more than it is now. People having fun with a game will naturally choose to spend money as passes or subscriptions. If I was a potential new player and saw that list of restrictions on a free account, it is unlikely I would even give it a try and that's not the right way to draw people in.
The other efforts to bring people to gs are having results. Certainly I see more online now then at any time in the last decade, but more players still would be better. The real free-to-play model is obviously successful for many games for good reason, and gs should align itself closer to the other industry examples. I believe that would result in a net increase in revenue and a better game experience for everyone (more folks to interact with, more money to fund dev and pay events). Everyone here knows gs is basically text crack and anybody who really starts will be hooked for life, so let's get more people started.
Sweet is the sound of the pouring rain,
And the stream that falls from the hill to plain.
Better than rain or rippling brook,
Is a mug of beer inside this Took.
SIMU-WYROM
Re: “F2P” Subscription Review & Rebranding
09/29/2020 01:05 AM CDT
I've definitely been keeping busy, but I read these topics (even if I can't respond right away). The current F2P model was designed before my time as Product Manager (and even before my time as Assistant Product Manager). I have a lot of pricing, duration, and item updates on my list for F2P, but I've not had the time to get to it.
All F2P models in the industry center around microtransactions or downloadable content. There is no reason to rebrand or anything like that. The game is very much playable to a new user on a F2P subscription. It's also very welcoming for those who just wish to roleplay or revisit old friends/areas. It's those who want the full experience that F2P doesn't appeal to very much. The original F2P idea was to stop at level 20. Instead, you can play the game entirely, though it's (extremely) slow.
Changing how subscriptions work isn't something I can decide though. It's very much a company decision over my head. I have several varying ideas that I'd explore if able.
Wyrom, PM
All F2P models in the industry center around microtransactions or downloadable content. There is no reason to rebrand or anything like that. The game is very much playable to a new user on a F2P subscription. It's also very welcoming for those who just wish to roleplay or revisit old friends/areas. It's those who want the full experience that F2P doesn't appeal to very much. The original F2P idea was to stop at level 20. Instead, you can play the game entirely, though it's (extremely) slow.
Changing how subscriptions work isn't something I can decide though. It's very much a company decision over my head. I have several varying ideas that I'd explore if able.
Wyrom, PM
ALLENM20
Re: “F2P” Subscription Review & Rebranding
09/30/2020 11:37 AM CDT
Gemstone is a lot of things to many folks, but I think the root of it is to be a roleplaying game which anyone can do at any level. The amusing thing to me is that many folks that stay F2P and purchases passes end up spending more than a base subscription per month.
| As I gaze over the horizon, the wind tugs at my cloak and whispers, "Adventure" in my ear. |
| A squeaky halfling nearby asks, "Why you playing with orcs heads and troll rearends?!" |
