Most MMO companies sell "game cards" with an activation code on them. The card typically costs $40 and gives you 3 months of play once you enter the code.

I don''t think pay-per-hour would work. Early online games used that model, and I think EverQuest was started back when that model was still the reigning champion, but I think that monthly subscription just works better for *MOST* people and *MOST* developers. If there''s a niche where something else will work better, the market system will fill it eventually.

If if you have two models running side by side, eg: you can pay for £30 up front and you get unlimited play - or you can pay and go.

Either way, how would you get your game content to the player?

downgraded, why would the technical details of getting the game content to the player be related to the business model? Unless you''re talking about ''getting the game content to the player'' in a different sense...

I''m still not hearing very convincing arguments as for why it''s not good ("because nobody does it" is not an argument ). The people who lose out are the people who play such games 24/7, but (a) I''m trying to look at this as a businessman/developer rather than a player, and (b) whether or not that happens will depend quite largely on the game. I''m thinking of another idea of mine, Zombie Nation, when I look at this.

And as far as monthly subscription goes, is it the ''unlimited play'' aspect of it which gives it the advantage, or is it the automatic / fixed payment? If the latter, I think I''ve already shown that subscription can be ''simulated'' with an automated credit purchasing system.

Richard "Superpig" Fine
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3 | Enginuity4 | Enginuity5
ry. .ibu cy. .y''ybu. .abu ry. dy. "sy. .ubu py. .ebu ry. py. .ibu gy." fy. .ibu ny. .ebu
"Don''t document your code; code your documentation." -me
"I''m not a complete idiot; parts of me are missing." -}}i{{

The way to go would definitely be to have payment up front. Users in debt would have to have their payments enforced in some way, requiring extra admin costs and credit agreements. The legal implications would be horrendous, you'd probably need one for each country the game is played in.

I like the idea of a moving rate of payment. It reminds me of the prepaid phone tarifs where you make 3 minutes of calls at 50p a minute, then the cost per minute decreases after that. A similar idea could be implemented for this model. This would allow things like your Cyber Cafe idea (users get charged a premium or the rate is fixed) But surely the Cafes would have a special kind of public license - kind of like a business use phone tarif. Eg: The Cafe itself buys x hours from the software house but also pay a fee. These purchased hours would be cheaper per unit volume than home users (because the cafe would be buying 1000's at a time). THe cafe can then either charge the users a flat rate or devise their own scales. Either way, the developer gets paid.

Back to the users. I really think there should be a one-off unlimited payment option for hardcore players. Other people could then contend with the previous sliding scale system. Paying and playing for 10 hours would work out cheaper per hour then it would to buy 5 hours for example.

But yes, if people pay up front, it would not be good practice trying to credit them back with unplayed hours. Much like mobile phones, use it or lose it. You could have these limits as infinite though, meaning that it never expires.

Back to my content delivery question: I mean, as a business model, would you hand out copies of the game on CD or allow the download from the net? This could have an impact on the cost of such a model. For example, handing out CDs in Dixons will probably mean that a high amount of people will log in and play for a couple of hours, then never log in again. If you incur an admin cost for each new player this could result in high costs initially. The issue is the same for internet downloads, except that if you game is 600Mb, only people who really want to play it and therefore are more likely to pay for more hours will download it. However, selling a boxed copy would cover a certain amount of hours pre-paid and the initial admin set-up costs.

EDIT:

More from me hehe...

The automatic collection of payment is a dangerous idea. Would the player have to confirm it or will it just happen? Storing credit card details for auto-payment collection is open to abuse IMO.

Also, it would be a BAD idea disabling features that people don't pay for. Just because someone has subscribed for the "CHEAP ASS LAME-O" plan at £3 an hour over the "SUPER PLAN PLUS" option which charges them £7 an hour, why should their gaming suffer? The elitism will be then divided into people who can afford to pay more over those that are good at the game and have a lot of experience. Would it be right for a player that has evolved a character on the £3 plan to be trounced by someone who can afford to pay £7 and has unlimited magical powers and an Uber-Slayer 2000 sword? I think not.

[edited by - downgraded on December 8, 2003 10:40:46 PM]

The decreasing rate of payment is an interesting one. If it were implemented, I suspect it would probably have to be a two-level thing (i.e. first three hours at full price, after that at 80% price) rather than a compound thing (decreases by 5% every hour), largely because a compound system isn''t so easy for the consumer to understand.

With regards to the cafes, I feel that it''s better to avoid any cost to the player at all. I mean, something that has the appearance of being free (even if it actually isn''t) is usually attractive. Add to that the fact that the cybercafes are in a much better position to ensure their equipment is high-powered, and what you end up with is a whole load of people choosing to go and play down at the local cafe rather than at home, because (a) they don''t have to take any cash with them, and (b) the hardware is good.

Given that the player''s going to be logging directly into their account in order to play the game, why get the cafe involved in handling the credits at all? All it would take would be a specialised client, one which can report a ''cafe ID'' to the server, for the server to charge the credits at the appropriate rate and to pay the cafe. Given that most cafes have their machines locked down and people keeping an eye out, it''d be difficult to hack. Cafes would sign up for the customised client on a (probably free) program, recieve their uniquely ID''d copy, install it on machines, and start recieving payment. The developer would be recieving cash just as if it were being installed by a home user.

Onto unlimited play: Well, the maximum possible number of hours in a month is 744. So why not just have the bulk discounts arranged in such a way that buying 700 credits is pretty cheap - working out at $15 or thereabouts? Doing that every month would effectively be a $15/month subscription, and hell, nobody is actually going to play for 700 hours in a month. That means that if you''ve had a bit of a busy month and haven''t had time to play, then the next month you only need to buy half as many play credits. Some months you wouldn''t need to buy any at all.

Content delivery: I was thinking through both, but making the boxed copy very cheap (like £10 / $15) to cover costs of production/distribution. It makes it very easy for people to pick up the game and feed a few hours of credit into the system. If they don''t like the game after an hour, then you''ve been paid for a couple of hours that they''re never going to use, great. Of course the ''free three hours credit with a new account'' thing blows that out of the water, but...

I suppose a lot of it does depend on admin costs. The largest part of that, I suspect, would be credit card handling... well, thinking back to my idea of a unified system for this (i.e. a number of games all using the same play credit accounts, so you buy credits and can use them in any of those games), then it may well be cost effective to sell ''top-up cards'' at gaming stores, just like with mobile phones. It''s another slight increase in costs of production (though making those cards is cheap), and it''s another server-side system, but the largest cost there would be incurred during the development stage rather than during the game''s release

*running to class now, back later *

Richard "Superpig" Fine
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3 | Enginuity4 | Enginuity5
ry. .ibu cy. .y''ybu. .abu ry. dy. "sy. .ubu py. .ebu ry. py. .ibu gy." fy. .ibu ny. .ebu
"Don''t document your code; code your documentation." -me
"I''m not a complete idiot; parts of me are missing." -}}i{{

(There were only two people left in my class, so I''m back already. Whee.)

I''m not sure why storing credit card information for automatic charging is a bad idea. After all, isn''t that exactly what subscription-based services do at the moment?

And I agree about disabling gameplay features being a bad idea (it didn''t feel quite right when I wrote about it). However, what about the ''perks'' that usually come with a game - things like custom skins? It has limited usage, certainly, but I still think it''s worth considering.

Richard "Superpig" Fine
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3 | Enginuity4 | Enginuity5
ry. .ibu cy. .y''ybu. .abu ry. dy. "sy. .ubu py. .ebu ry. py. .ibu gy." fy. .ibu ny. .ebu
"Don''t document your code; code your documentation." -me
"I''m not a complete idiot; parts of me are missing." -}}i{{

I dunno, I still think you''d end up alienating your customers and losing subscribers over the long haul if it isn''t handled carefully.

I understand, from a developer''s perspective, why you''d want to have the money upfront instead of at the end of monthly service. Of course you could always just charge a low box cost, add on an "installation charge" (see: cable companies, telephone companies, etc.), and that in essence becomes your security fee. It''s about perception.

But you HAVE to look at it from a player''s perspective, even as a sales rep/developer, especially if you''re going with a sliding scale fee. If I, as a player, pay X amount of dollars for the month - fully expecting that I''ll be playing for Y number of minutes - but then run into a problem and can''t play Y minutes that month, then I lose out. Big time.

And I''ll be pissed when you tell me I can''t rollover what I paid into the next month.

Buying blocks in advance also, to me, defeats the "freedom" of a pay-for-what-you-play system. People go on vacation, students have exams, computers crash - there are tons of reasons why someone might not be able to sign into the game for that month, completely unexpectedly and, to them, disappointingly. I would absolutely worship a company who won''t force me to pay for what I didn''t use.

The fact is, if you''re going to force them to pay upfront you might as well just go with a flat fee and forget the sliding scale. Most people simply won''t know how much they''ll be using until at least a few months go by, and would just shrug and go with the "unlimited flat fee" option - meaning you''ve done a lot of work for nothing. Even if they discover they don''t play a lot, they''ll likely just keep the flat fee so they don''t have to think about it. And isn''t that really what a customer wants - not to have to think hard about it?

Personally I''d be more comfortable with a month-end payment, with the option of setting limits on my game time within the software. Or, barring that, warning flags that I can set letting me know when I come within certain time levels. It''s about control - I want to know how much I''m playing, and I want to control what I''m paying.

Payment upfront denies that sense of control the player would feel; it''s basically saying "here''s my money, hopefully I get to use it all". Worse - the player is "suckered" into buying short blocks out of fear that they won''t use up a lot, and end up paying more over the long haul than they anticipated. The next month they buy a larger block, expecting (from the last month) to use that many minutes...then find out they paid for entirely too many minutes, but can''t get their money back.

Frustrated customers anyone?

quote: Original post by EricTrickster
But you HAVE to look at it from a player''s perspective, even as a sales rep/developer, especially if you''re going with a sliding scale fee. If I, as a player, pay X amount of dollars for the month - fully expecting that I''ll be playing for Y number of minutes - but then run into a problem and can''t play Y minutes that month, then I lose out. Big time.

If they can''t connect to the server, then they don''t get charged any credits; if they get charged credits erroneously they can get them refunded (or possibly even get some of their money back, depending on the severity of the case). But I have a feeling that...

quote:
And I''ll be pissed when you tell me I can''t rollover what I paid into the next month.

Oh, no no NO!

That''s not what the customers would get told at all! They *can* keep credits across months. I''m talking about credits with no expiry date. If they can''t get their Y minutes of play this month, then they can have those missing minutes the next month instead. Or the month after. Or whenever they want.

The only time I could see your credits failing to roll over would be if you didn''t log into your account, or charge it up, for a long period of time (say 24 months). The account would become considered ''inactive'' and would get pruned. In such a situation you wouldn''t just lose your credits, you''d have to start a completely new account.

quote:
Personally I''d be more comfortable with a month-end payment, with the option of setting limits on my game time within the software. Or, barring that, warning flags that I can set letting me know when I come within certain time levels. It''s about control - I want to know how much I''m playing, and I want to control what I''m paying.

That''s certainly something to be considered - help the player avoid spending too much. The game could easily be set up to only allow a certain number of credits to be spent in a session (so that when it hits that limit, the game is actively stopped until you increase the limit on the session or quit and restart).

quote:
Frustrated customers anyone?

I don''t think that''d be the case at all.

Richard "Superpig" Fine
- saving pigs from untimely fates, and when he''s not doing that, runs The Binary Refinery.
Enginuity1 | Enginuity2 | Enginuity3 | Enginuity4 | Enginuity5
ry. .ibu cy. .y''ybu. .abu ry. dy. "sy. .ubu py. .ebu ry. py. .ibu gy." fy. .ibu ny. .ebu
"Don''t document your code; code your documentation." -me
"I''m not a complete idiot; parts of me are missing." -}}i{{

I guess I should take your own statements into consideration and not the combined concepts displayed here.

I don''t want you to get the impression I don''t think it''ll work at all. I do believe that the simple idea of paying for services I haven''t yet used will be a turnoff - but with control options it can be counteracted, to the player/customer''s benefit.

It is an interesting idea, I''ll concede that much

In ways, I disagree. People would want to say "right, I have £10 to spend on this game in 2 months. I''ll top up my credit and let it run out whenever".

I remember back in the days of dialup, the shock at the end of the month with the phone bill was not nice. If people were charged as they played, it would lead to such things. Plus as I said before, you''d have to enforce the collection of the payment.

Like mobile phones, I buy £10 credit I can guage roughly how long it''ll last me based on my own usage. Rather than pay £15 a month for a contract service, I''d rather pay the £15 and let it last me as long as it does. Sometimes it may be less than a month, sometimes it will be 3 months, the point is that it''s up to me.