An argument for your support of a monthly pay model

wirius

So after seeing the survey and quietly leaping with joy on the inside, I thought, "I wonder if people see the benefits to this?" So, a few points below.

1. Game designers inevitably cater to those who pay

With a pure free to play model, it usually devolves into focussing entirely on whales. Wouldn't you if they were the ones who paid your bills? But when you have a cheap monthly model with decent payout and can get a lot of your players on it, the scope extends now to those who pay every month. Now you want to broaden your design to ensure its fun for more people!

2. Whales can still whale

If you're spending hundreds of dollars a month on this game, you'll still be way ahead of a month to month person.

3. Once a player spends, they're more likely to spend.

More people paying into the game means better development, and a game that sticks around for a while. While I do not encourage hundreds of dollars, I highly encourage those who stick around a free to play game to chip in something. This seems like a great way to chip in a little and receive something substantial.

Chime in more reasons for or against.

slidecage

only way a pay model will work if it included events where only PAID members are allowed to play.

wirius

slidecage wrote:

only way a pay model will work if it included events where only PAID members are allowed to play.

I would argue against this. I welcome free to play players. Not everyone can pay. Those that have fun and want to pay, should pay because they like the game, not because they're forced too. Why can't everyone enjoy the game?

Skygazing

wirius wrote:

So after seeing the survey and quietly leaping with joy on the inside, I thought, "I wonder if people see the benefits to this?" So, a few points below.

1. Game designers inevitably cater to those who pay

With a pure free to play model, it usually devolves into focussing entirely on whales. Wouldn't you if they were the ones who paid your bills? But when you have a cheap monthly model with decent payout and can get a lot of your players on it, the scope extends now to those who pay every month. Now you want to broaden your design to ensure its fun for more people!

3. Once a player spends, they're more likely to spend.

More people paying into the game means better development, and a game that sticks around for a while. While I do not encourage hundreds of dollars, I highly encourage those who stick around a free to play game to chip in something. This seems like a great way to chip in a little and receive something substantial.

Chime in more reasons for or against.

This regards both of these points.

I have little to no faith in D3 to work towards what players want. There have been a lot of great additions/changes in the past, but the current game state is something of a mess, and the worst part about it is how little communication we receive. We are told that "we know that x, y, and z are an issue and we're working on it," yet the ISO drought persists and grows larger, legendary odds are going to get worse, scaling continues to be a problem, older characters are still in desperate need of reworks, and the reward tiers still represent a meta that hasn't existed for months, before 3*s were nerfed and there were maybe half as many 4*s.

Why do daily rewards continue to drop paltry amounts of ISO along with standard and heroic tokens (whose odds again represent a defunct meta)? Why do I have the same chance of pulling a top tier 4* like Rulk as pulling the unarguably terrible Chulk? And more importantly why does that large a disparity in power level still exist, especially among older characters?

And then we circle back to the biggest question at hand. Why, with all of these problems existing and constantly being brought up, does a new format of PvE seem to be the top priority? It's baffling.

I would absolutely love to support D3. I truly would. MPQ has a lot of great content, and I enjoy the core idea of the game. But until D3 really starts making an effort to connect with its playerbase, and at least explain their design and production rationales, I have no interest in giving them more of my money and I don't see why anyone else would.

Pylgrim

wirius wrote:

1. Game designers inevitably cater to those who pay

With a pure free to play model, it usually devolves into focussing entirely on whales. Wouldn't you if they were the ones who paid your bills? But when you have a cheap monthly model with decent payout and can get a lot of your players on it, the scope extends now to those who pay every month. Now you want to broaden your design to ensure its fun for more people!

Not sure what you are going on about with this? Even though whales support MPQ currently almost every change and feature added to MPQ in the last 6 months has been beginner-friendly, while sometimes being outright veteran-hostile. It is clear that the number crunchers believe that getting more people into the game and holding them for the first year is much more important than retaining the 1+ years players. Good thing for all of us that whales keep on whalin', regardless.

morph3us

Skygazing wrote:

I have little to no faith in D3 to work towards what players want. There have been a lot of great additions/changes in the past, but the current game state is something of a mess, and the worst part about it is how little communication we receive. We are told that "we know that x, y, and z are an issue and we're working on it," yet the ISO drought persists and grows larger, legendary odds are going to get worse, scaling continues to be a problem, older characters are still in desperate need of reworks, and the reward tiers still represent a meta that hasn't existed for months, before 3*s were nerfed and there were maybe half as many 4*s. <snip>

But until D3 really starts making an effort to connect with its playerbase, and at least explain their design and production rationales, I have no interest in giving them more of my money and I don't see why anyone else would.

The problem is, some of that stuff is actually a deliberate design decision. We, as the playerbase, might regard it as a problem, but Demi have done some of that stuff on purpose. For instance, the iso drought, and the exorbitant cost of iso is a design decision to try and extend the longevity of the game, by preventing the vast majority of the playerbase from insta-maxing all of their characters (or indeed, any of them!). Likewise, the randomness of 5* drops from LTs, is designed to create an "endgame" which is very, very difficult to get to. There's no specific end-game content, no "League of Champions" or what have you. Since the end-game content is based on character collection, the poor LT odds are designed to try and encourage players to pony up for CP.

Agree with you about the reward tiers and the reworks though.

I'm not necessarily trying to paint Demi as the bad-guy. Freemium games have to be monetised in some way, and from a business perspective, it makes sense. At the same time, I also think Wirius is correct, Demi do need to cater to the non-whale playerbase, and a monthly pay base model might assist with that. After all, the entire game is designed around competitive principles, and the larger the playerbase, the better.

TheWerebison

****. Now I wish I hadn't just skipped past the survey.

Quebbster

TheWerebison wrote:

****. Now I wish I hadn't just skipped past the survey.

I did too, then I noticed I could get back to the notification by through the Options menu and the Today's News button.

bobbyfish

My initial reaction is the opposite to this excitement. I'm currently weighing up whether to bother carrying on if this comes in. I'm almost a fully F2P player (though I have spent in moments of weakness) and thought of even more people paying to gain advantage over me in the game just puts me way off. I know it's probably a good business decision, but it's just not why I play games.

OneLastGambit

Interesting points raised :

Whales - these are clearly spending regardless of change to the game so d3 has no motivation to make changes geared towards them. However if New customer retention is suffering then obviously they will focus on attempting to improve that aspect of business until the whales slow down their whaling.

Disparity between players- worried about vets getting further ahead? Or noobs catching up? Don't. Whatever your place now in relation to other players is the position you will always be in unless you spend lots and lots of money. The only times when this could be in flux is when :
A. Other players spend more/less money relative to you.

B. The game has just been created and a pecking order has yet to be established.



Honestly (it may sound a tad self centred) but I'm not all that bothered in changes that affect how everyone places or wins prizes. I'm interested in changes which mean this game doesn't interfere with life. I've seen a lot of vets quit this game, not because of RNG or unfair placement or costs. Every time it's been because it interferes with RL too much. I don't want to end up as one of those vets because I still like this game a lot.

A few of those vets might even return if the time requirement and scheduling to play decreases.

I think the idea being surveyed (and the OP) have their merits. I don't like subscription services as I don't want to always pay, I like having a choice, so I wouldn't become a VIP member but I would from time to time buy the pack being suggested as for once it seems like good value.

Dragon_Nexus

Was the survey suggesting a subscription, or simply a pack you could buy if you had some money spare?

I was assuming the latter. A $10 thing that was available once a month if you wanted it, but if you didn't want to that's fine too. I'd be a lot less interested in subscribing to this game, gotta say. Especially since 700 HP and 9 CP isn't that interesting...and knowing my luck the two legendaries would have Nick Fury, Invisible Woman, Elektra and XFW covers galore.

Der_Lex

In my entire gaming career, I've never paid a subscription for any game. For me, a game would have to release a lot of quality new content on a monthly basis to warrant a monthly subscription. MPQ definitely does not fit that description.

JVReal

If I were to pay monthly for a subscription to play a game, it wouldn't be this one.

I played FFXI for a year, and I didn't even pay for that subscription, I played a character on my brother's account. I really enjoyed it. Lots of stuff to do, lots of interactions, lots of goals, just such an open feel and freedom that I couldn't get in a closed retail non-mmorpg.

I would have even paid for the subscription myself if a free way had not been available already. Since then though, I've not been a fan of any subscription pay service that has come to pass. Perhaps it is that my life has changed, priorities have changed, responsibilities have changed, (wives have changed... got a new one that actually wants me to spend time with her).

I won't even pay for a Playstation or Xbox Live account, then have to pay for an additional subscription cost, then pay for DLC... no thank you. This payment model that goes beyond the retail copy of the game is ridiculous with all the hands that are in the pot. But even with those... they are of such a greater value to me than a subscription to play a mobile game.

If I subscribe to a game, I better not hit a pay-wall.

firethorne

JVReal wrote:

I won't even pay for a Playstation or Xbox Live account, then have to pay for an additional subscription cost, then pay for DLC... no thank you. This payment model that goes beyond the retail copy of the game is ridiculous with all the hands that are in the pot. But even with those... they are of such a greater value to me than a subscription to play a mobile game.

If I subscribe to a game, I better not hit a pay-wall.

Interesting that you bring up Xbox live, to which I do subscribe. To me, that really shines a light on how bad a deal MPQ is. The most compelling part of Xbox live is the Games with Gold feature, in which you get four games per month (2 Xbox One and 2 360). And while they are usually a bit older or lesser known, they're far more compelling than two thirteenths of an mpq character. Last month was Dead Space and Saints Row 4 on the 360 side, and Sunset Overdrive and The Wolf Among Us on Xbox One. Not too shabby. The devs need to understand that things like that make two paltry random draws look horrible by comparison.

Konman

How about MPQ not being so stingy with their pixels and electrons? They create a huge ISO shortage, a top heavy character slate with a low end reward structure, and then suggest that spending more money each month might help alleviate the problems that they've designed into the game.

There are plenty of avenues where players can and do spend money.

slidecage

wirius wrote:

slidecage wrote:

only way a pay model will work if it included events where only PAID members are allowed to play.

I would argue against this. I welcome free to play players. Not everyone can pay. Those that have fun and want to pay, should pay because they like the game, not because they're forced too. Why can't everyone enjoy the game?

they would stay in the free events... not everyone can score 10,000 per season and still enjoy the game game so just cause you cant play in special events means you can not still enjoy the game.

maybe when we have a new 4 star

NON payers top 100 get 4 star
Payers top 250 get the 4 star

give people a reason to pay

mpqr7

The crazy thing is that the main problem with this game is ISO shortage. It costs 350,000+ iso to champ a 4*. So giving us an extra 10,000 per month does NOTHING toward that. It would take an extra 35 months = ~3 years to champion a 4*, based on this extra ISO.

The main two problems with this game are:

* Major lack of ISO. Complete drought. Instead of being excited to have 13 covers of a 4*, it's the dread at the time it will take to champion it.

* No progression beyond 4*s. Yeah, I'm doing great getting plenty of 4*s, but since 5* is the true meta, and I only gain a new 5* every 1-2 months, I've basically been at a stand-still for all of 2016. There's basically nowhere for me to go at this point. I'll be stuck at a 405 OML forever, and I'll never be able to have any other 5*s anywhere near usable.

This expensive monthly packet doesn't resolve either of those issues.

Warbringa

There are quite a few issues with the proposal and the general idea of a subscription based game. Until the devs get a better handle on the economics of the game, they will not get significantly more $ under any model they choose to use.

The first major problem is that the game has been a F2P for quite a while. If you move to a subscription model you will lose a lot of players who simply won't pay a subscription although they may on occasion spend money when needed or available. A subscription model has the potential to drive away even more players. I myself am an example of I don't know if I would pay a subscription if it were required (either by requirement or simply you really need the subscription to compete).

Second, the rewards they offered for said subscription were terrible and not even remotely close to being worth $9.99/mo. (let alone $14.99). As I have pointed out in many posts before, the developers really don't have a very good sense of economic matters in both the real world and for the in-game economic world (iso, CP, etc.). This is very clear just by the pricing of iso which is terribly utterly ridiculous and has been for so long. You are charging $100 for the most basic and common currency (albeit most needed too) in a much too small of amount. Here is the issue with your pricing - based on the scarcity of iso then yes 78,000 is approximately 15 DDQ's give or take (assuming you sell the 3* and don't cash in the taco tokens). Let us say each DDQ takes an average player 15 minutes a day, that is nearly four hours of play spread over 2 weeks. For $100 you get all that Iso up-front. This of course doesn't include if you play PvE/PvP rewards which can add significant iso to the picture. So based on a pure $ you pay vs. Iso you receive it is already a questionable price but the BIG, BIG disconnect is that 78,000 doesn't really give you very much IN THE GAME. You can't even max out a 3* character with that! The 3* meta is way gone and why would I pay $100 for that amount of iso when it can't even do that? Four and five star characters, 78,000 iso is literally like nothing at the higher ends.

Third, randomness. I know it is a major part of the game and I actually like it overall however a large part of the player base does not. Here is a chance for you to capitalize on that. Offer specific rewards in a monthly subscription - not a bunch of tokens. You can offer tokens too but you need to understand that players don't value tokens nearly as much as you do because they are random. It gives you the "chance" to get something good. People will buy more when they actually know what they are getting as well and just tokens as the main carrot won't do that. In addition to increasing Iso in the package why don't you offer the following: every month you get 9 specific 3* cover (3 character at 1 covers of each color), 2 4* cover (1 character at 1 cover of each color) and 1 5* cover. This would promote growth in every transition and people would like the ability to get specific covers in addition to tokens. You would be way more likely to have people buy at least on certain months because they need covers for that particular character to cover them out. The other covers are bonus iso or champion levels.

Consider the following example for $10 per month (or $9.99 since marketing says people will be more likely to buy for one less cent):
Month 1: 3* covers - one of each color - (Hulk, Bullseye, Psylocke)
4* covers - one of each color - (Jean Grey, Ant Man)
5* cover - Silver Surfer - Red
5 heroic tokens, 2 Legendary tokens, 15,000 Iso and 750 HP
Month 2: 3* covers - (Magneto, Iron Fist, Sentry)
4* covers - (XFW, IMHB)
5* cover - Green Goblin - Purple
same tokens, iso, HP as above
Etc, Etc.

PeeOne

And here is my counter argument.... As a parent with school kids those kinds of amounts are band fees, and excursions, etc...

I'm a player not a cash register!

wirius

Some good comments from people. I want to clarify, I was not talking about a subscription model. I was speaking about the monthly package you could choose, or not choose to buy.

tizian2015

wirius wrote:

So after seeing the survey and quietly leaping with joy on the inside, I thought, "I wonder if people see the benefits to this?" So, a few points below.

1. Game designers inevitably cater to those who pay

With a pure free to play model, it usually devolves into focussing entirely on whales. Wouldn't you if they were the ones who paid your bills? But when you have a cheap monthly model with decent payout and can get a lot of your players on it, the scope extends now to those who pay every month. Now you want to broaden your design to ensure its fun for more people!

2. Whales can still whale

If you're spending hundreds of dollars a month on this game, you'll still be way ahead of a month to month person.

3. Once a player spends, they're more likely to spend.

More people paying into the game means better development, and a game that sticks around for a while. While I do not encourage hundreds of dollars, I highly encourage those who stick around a free to play game to chip in something. This seems like a great way to chip in a little and receive something substantial.

Chime in more reasons for or against.

The problem is as others wrote, that this monthly package is not worth it. I´ve read an opinion its a good offer compared to the other offers, but a bad offer is not a good offer only because the other offers are really bad.

The problem of this game, it depends economically as other freemium games on whales. So give us a monthly package it has to get a worth compared to whales. but then the whales will not be whales if a monthly package gives comparable advantages to whaling. So in fact we discuss a change of the economic base of this game. broaderbase of payers means they pay less than whales. I had payed for this game, i regret it because for what i´ve spend i could buy two fullprice-console/pc-games and it feels like nothing (in the 3* meta it was something, but i joined this game nearly before the meta goes to 4*land, and now i see, i had to spend another amount like this to get there, but with this iso-"offers" i will never get them leveled before the meta goes to 6*). If they want me back as a payer, they have to give me a REAL good offer. This package isnt this offer.

P.S.: I think the revenuess are enough from this game for a solid development. So i doubt this monthly package will lead to a sort of development we players earn.