Greetings, glorious testers!

Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest news on Alpha Two.
Check out general Announcements here to see the latest news on Ashes of Creation & Intrepid Studios.

To get the quickest updates regarding Alpha Two, connect your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.

Hourly subscription

DaveRockDaveRock Member
in General Discussion
Hello,

I'd like to join the game (final version) in the future, but I'm a parent and I don't have much time to play, so I'd get to play the game "quality" 4 times a month for a few hours... so a monthly subscription wouldn't be completely worth it.

Would it be possible on your part to consider adding an hourly subscription? The idea is that I'd pay for 100 hours (about 4 days) and spend that time in the game.

Compared to monthly, it would be a cost disadvantage, but for someone like me (and I'm sure I won't be alone) it would be better and I'd be happy to keep coming back (eventually I could switch to monthly if I get more time and play more than 100 hours a month).

Thanks for reading and commenting if you have any 🙂
«1

Comments

  • JeanPhilippeGungharJeanPhilippeGunghar Member, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I kinda support the idea for casuals, but I doubt they will.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Sounds to me that you might as well just pay the expected $14 per month.
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    From a business perspective, this isn't an overly good idea.

    Lets say the game has 1000 players, 800 of which have normal subscriptions, 200 of which have this hourly version.

    The game publisher still needs to maintain hardware for that 1000 players, because the 200 with hourly subscriptions 'could' log on at any moment, and expect to play.

    However, they may not, and those hours would then roll over to the next month, where the publisher still needs to ensure the hardware is there for the full 1000 players, even though 200 of them paid no money this month. Those players still may not even log in at all that month, and so their hourly subscription could roll over again, and potentially again, and again, and again.

    It could well be that you spend money for 100 hours of access, and that locks the publisher in to needing to ensure your access to the games servers for the entire life of the game.

    At absolute best, if a subscription like this were offered, it would be offered in a way where such subscriptions have second tier access to the servers. It is the only real way to make it viable - and I personally think that would be a bad idea.
  • unknownsystemerrorunknownsystemerror Member, Phoenix Initiative, Royalty, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    If you can provide an example of anyone in the industry that does similar, or has in the past that turned a profit that allowed the studio to stay open, you might have a better argument.
    south-park-rabble-rabble-rabbl-53b58d315aa49.jpg
  • nanfoodlenanfoodle Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I don't think this game will be $15 a month when it releases. Second a game that you get everything for a monthly sub. That's the dream and is way cheaper then F2P garbage that charges you for everything.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Why dont you play a different mmo?
    ESO is good for sessions.
    Put the money fact aside (which you wont see any studio doing this), this mmo is open world and highly competitive.
    You will be left behind, you wont have connections to complete certain milestones or find means to complete your crafting and character equipping.
    You wont be able to deal with PvP without a small community.

    In ESO and other such mmos there is no progression. All content is optional and all goals can be achieved at your leisure. They are designed in this way.

    As a parent, that's my advice.
  • DaveRockDaveRock Member
    Noaani wrote: »
    From a business perspective, this isn't an overly good idea.

    Lets say the game has 1000 players, 800 of which have normal subscriptions, 200 of which have this hourly version.

    The game publisher still needs to maintain hardware for that 1000 players, because the 200 with hourly subscriptions 'could' log on at any moment, and expect to play.

    However, they may not, and those hours would then roll over to the next month, where the publisher still needs to ensure the hardware is there for the full 1000 players, even though 200 of them paid no money this month. Those players still may not even log in at all that month, and so their hourly subscription could roll over again, and potentially again, and again, and again.

    It could well be that you spend money for 100 hours of access, and that locks the publisher in to needing to ensure your access to the games servers for the entire life of the game.

    At absolute best, if a subscription like this were offered, it would be offered in a way where such subscriptions have second tier access to the servers. It is the only real way to make it viable - and I personally think that would be a bad idea.

    There are also dynamic servers and here I think they are planning to use them, i.e. according to the number of currently active players they will connect resources... which would eliminate the whole "problem" you describe.

    And if not, it would only be possible to have a certain number of slots reserved for such accounts, if it was exhausted, another such player would be in the queue - the assumption would be that they wouldn't be in the game for extra long - so it was a "low priority" account, but it would still be a potential player who would eventually move to normal.
    unknownsystemerror wrote: »
    If you can provide an example of anyone in the industry that does similar, or has in the past that turned a profit that allowed the studio to stay open, you might have a better argument.

    This is pretty shortsighted... there weren't a lot of things before and because someone tried them, they are successful :)

    Anyway, can I ask, do you know anyone who has tried it and it didn't turn out well?

    The example of setting 100h for a price was just a sketch... Price/hour ratio and other limitations would be up for discussion within the company. I'm merely suggesting something new here that I think would have potential for a significant portion of players.
    George_Black wrote: »
    Why dont you play a different mmo?
    ESO is good for sessions.
    Put the money fact aside (which you wont see any studio doing this), this mmo is open world and highly competitive.
    You will be left behind, you wont have connections to complete certain milestones or find means to complete your crafting and character equipping.
    You wont be able to deal with PvP without a small community.

    In ESO and other such mmos there is no progression. All content is optional and all goals can be achieved at your leisure. They are designed in this way.

    As a parent, that's my advice.

    Because I don't find anything else interesting? I've played Ultima Online and ESO seems like a great successor.

    Why I'd like to play it even if I don't have as much time as others is that

    - friends are planning to play it
    - even if I play at my own pace, I'll still have something to do and the power to explore the world
    - even if I'm behind, I'll be able to play with my friends

    it is a long term game, after some time the time to play may change and it would then be possible to switch to a "normal" subscription and devote more time to the game.

    However, with the current setup I would most likely try the game to see what it's like, but economically it wouldn't be worth it when I only get to play for about 4-5 hours a week.
  • FlankerFlanker Member, Alpha Two
    edited September 17
    DaveRock wrote: »
    And if not, it would only be possible to have a certain number of slots reserved for such accounts, if it was exhausted, another such player would be in the queue - the assumption would be that they wouldn't be in the game for extra long - so it was a "low priority" account, but it would still be a potential player who would eventually move to normal.
    He is right though. As unfortunate as it may sound, I highly doubt that Intrepid would dedicate their time for something like this.
    unknownsystemerror wrote: »
    there weren't a lot of things before and because someone tried them, they are successful :)
    Technically, you are absolutely right. The funny thing is that he is right as well.

    The fact that no studio has ever done that does not mean that it is impossible or pointless. In the meantime, the fact that no studio has ever done is also an indirect factor that lowers the priori probability of Intrepid doing it for the first time.

    Every improvement started with a suggestion, but not every suggestion ended up being an improvement.
    n8ohfjz3mtqg.png
  • CaerylCaeryl Member, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    Sounds like a fair request, though I'd have to wonder how it would handle your hour count hitting zero mid-gameplay. Would it just charge for another 100 hours (or whatever denomination it's set for)?

    As long as it'd be prohibitively expensive for a '6 hours every day' player to do, then it'd be fine as an option to add.
  • DaveRockDaveRock Member
    Flanker wrote: »
    The fact that no studio has ever done that does not mean that it is impossible or pointless. In the meantime, the fact that no studio has ever done is also an indirect factor that lowers the priori probability of Intrepid doing it for the first time.

    Every improvement started with a suggestion, but not every suggestion ended up being an improvement.[/b]

    I totally agree with that. I am not an expert and the decision is up to the company :)
    Caeryl wrote: »
    Sounds like a fair request, though I'd have to wonder how it would handle your hour count hitting zero mid-gameplay. Would it just charge for another 100 hours (or whatever denomination it's set for)?

    As long as it'd be prohibitively expensive for a '6 hours every day' player to do, then it'd be fine as an option to add.

    If someone was playing 6 hours a day, it would be worth it to pay monthly. The hourly price should be a significant disadvantage over the monthly, but still better for the occasional player.
  • George_BlackGeorge_Black Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    DaveRock wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    From a business perspective, this isn't an overly good idea.

    Lets say the game has 1000 players, 800 of which have normal subscriptions, 200 of which have this hourly version.

    The game publisher still needs to maintain hardware for that 1000 players, because the 200 with hourly subscriptions 'could' log on at any moment, and expect to play.

    However, they may not, and those hours would then roll over to the next month, where the publisher still needs to ensure the hardware is there for the full 1000 players, even though 200 of them paid no money this month. Those players still may not even log in at all that month, and so their hourly subscription could roll over again, and potentially again, and again, and again.

    It could well be that you spend money for 100 hours of access, and that locks the publisher in to needing to ensure your access to the games servers for the entire life of the game.

    At absolute best, if a subscription like this were offered, it would be offered in a way where such subscriptions have second tier access to the servers. It is the only real way to make it viable - and I personally think that would be a bad idea.

    There are also dynamic servers and here I think they are planning to use them, i.e. according to the number of currently active players they will connect resources... which would eliminate the whole "problem" you describe.

    And if not, it would only be possible to have a certain number of slots reserved for such accounts, if it was exhausted, another such player would be in the queue - the assumption would be that they wouldn't be in the game for extra long - so it was a "low priority" account, but it would still be a potential player who would eventually move to normal.
    unknownsystemerror wrote: »
    If you can provide an example of anyone in the industry that does similar, or has in the past that turned a profit that allowed the studio to stay open, you might have a better argument.

    This is pretty shortsighted... there weren't a lot of things before and because someone tried them, they are successful :)

    Anyway, can I ask, do you know anyone who has tried it and it didn't turn out well?

    The example of setting 100h for a price was just a sketch... Price/hour ratio and other limitations would be up for discussion within the company. I'm merely suggesting something new here that I think would have potential for a significant portion of players.
    George_Black wrote: »
    Why dont you play a different mmo?
    ESO is good for sessions.
    Put the money fact aside (which you wont see any studio doing this), this mmo is open world and highly competitive.
    You will be left behind, you wont have connections to complete certain milestones or find means to complete your crafting and character equipping.
    You wont be able to deal with PvP without a small community.

    In ESO and other such mmos there is no progression. All content is optional and all goals can be achieved at your leisure. They are designed in this way.

    As a parent, that's my advice.

    Because I don't find anything else interesting? I've played Ultima Online and ESO seems like a great successor.

    Why I'd like to play it even if I don't have as much time as others is that

    - friends are planning to play it
    - even if I play at my own pace, I'll still have something to do and the power to explore the world
    - even if I'm behind, I'll be able to play with my friends

    it is a long term game, after some time the time to play may change and it would then be possible to switch to a "normal" subscription and devote more time to the game.

    However, with the current setup I would most likely try the game to see what it's like, but economically it wouldn't be worth it when I only get to play for about 4-5 hours a week.

    Yes. Get your priorities straight. What you ask wont happen because there is no need to accomodate that.
    Look at prepaid phone sims. They dont exist in the shops. No phone company will bring them back. Even if someone says "I dont do that many phone calls"
  • FlankerFlanker Member, Alpha Two
    edited September 17
    DaveRock wrote: »
    I totally agree with that. I am not an expert and the decision is up to the company :)
    I'd recommend you to look at it from the following perspective: Is the amount of fun I get from playing Ashes of Creation for X hours worth spending $14,99? (or whatever price it will be in you region). Posing the question this way will require a simple "Yes" or "No" answer.

    Also keep in mind, that you may reduce the price of your monthly subscription if you use the referral system and invite friends or other players to create an account using your referral link; or even make it free for you if you invite enough players.
    n8ohfjz3mtqg.png
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    DaveRock wrote: »
    There are also dynamic servers and here I think they are planning to use them, i.e. according to the number of currently active players they will connect resources... which would eliminate the whole "problem" you describe.
    I'm curious now as to how you think dynamic server allocation works - because it doesn't work how I think you think it works.
  • ZehlanZehlan Member, Alpha Two
    DaveRock wrote: »
    Hello,

    I'd like to join the game (final version) in the future, but I'm a parent and I don't have much time to play, so I'd get to play the game "quality" 4 times a month for a few hours... so a monthly subscription wouldn't be completely worth it.

    Would it be possible on your part to consider adding an hourly subscription? The idea is that I'd pay for 100 hours (about 4 days) and spend that time in the game.

    Compared to monthly, it would be a cost disadvantage, but for someone like me (and I'm sure I won't be alone) it would be better and I'd be happy to keep coming back (eventually I could switch to monthly if I get more time and play more than 100 hours a month).

    Thanks for reading and commenting if you have any 🙂

    I would be against this thb! Nobody is playing 24/7 but everyone still has to pay because intrepid servers don't get to the ability to get money back when their 10k population server only has 2k playing during the night, they don't get to not pay intrepid staff for the same reason. Everyone pays x so Intrepid knows it's income is y so they know they have z to spend on maintaining the company. I think the Subscription model brings in a more of a dedicated crowd to the game whether they are 40 hrs a week or 10 hrs a week.

    Oh and just some Dad advice if 15 dollars is a lot of money to you then maybe you should save that for priorities that are a lot more important than gaming. Not a jab just facts!
  • KilionKilion Member, Alpha Two
    If I had to guess then the reason why there are no weekly subscriptions or day passes like in an amusement park in the gaming industry, then it is because their products are not designed in a way that someone with that little time could actually enjoy their product (in other words: You might fall out of the target demographic) and because it would be too much bang for buck for the customer while it is too little utility for the publisher.
    Disney World also has no hourly entry passes. Neither could you cut college fees by asking for part time (or for example 12-hours-a-day) access to campus and education resources.

    The reason is because even though this would be a more precise payment system for you, the costs to provide this service to you do not go away. They have to fund the entire infrastructure 24/7 so you can play at any hour you would decide to. So unstable income from irregular hourly, on-demand payments holds little value to them since their costs are consistent.

    IF a game would introduce a hourly payment model, it would be more expensive than a monthly subscription payment model (if you break it down by "$ per hour of access"), like in all other cases: If you buy in bulk, each unit gets cheaper.
    The answer is probably >>> HERE <<<
  • daveywaveydaveywavey Member, Alpha Two
    DaveRock wrote: »
    Hello,

    I'd like to join the game (final version) in the future, but I'm a parent and I don't have much time to play, so I'd get to play the game "quality" 4 times a month for a few hours... so a monthly subscription wouldn't be completely worth it.

    I mean, I'm a parent too. I just play after the kids have gone to bed. Can get 3-5hrs in, depending on when I go to bed. More at the weekends.

    Being a parent doesn't stop you from playing games! And if you're a new parent, you can use that time when your baby just won't go the hell to sleep, and sit them with you while you play. I'd be interested to know how old your kids are.
    This link may help you: https://ashesofcreation.wiki/


    giphy-downsized-large.gif?cid=b603632fp2svffcmdi83yynpfpexo413mpb1qzxnh3cei0nx&ep=v1_gifs_gifId&rid=giphy-downsized-large.gif&ct=s
  • Arya_YesheArya_Yeshe Member
    Horly fee is a good thing, less people afk everywhere just lagging the game for no reason
    PvE means: A handful of coins and a bag of boredom.
  • DygzDygz Member, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    edited September 17
    Marketing is not going to do hourly subs - because part of the "science" is recurring fees in order to have money continue to funnel in when people forget to cancel the recurring payment.
    And Marketing is not going to want people thinking about that hourly, daily or weekly.
  • CawwCaww Member, Alpha Two
    I would prefer that bots pay the full monthly and not be allowed to wreak the game with an hourly rate...
  • OtrOtr Member, Alpha Two
    edited September 17
    DaveRock wrote: »
    I'd like to join the game (final version) in the future, but I'm a parent and I don't have much time to play, so I'd get to play the game "quality" 4 times a month for a few hours... so a monthly subscription wouldn't be completely worth it.
    So you think you will be able to achieve anything playing solo a little bit when you have time?
    Edit: I see now your reply above:
    DaveRock wrote: »
    Because I don't find anything else interesting? I've played Ultima Online and ESO seems like a great successor.

    Why I'd like to play it even if I don't have as much time as others is that

    - friends are planning to play it
    - even if I play at my own pace, I'll still have something to do and the power to explore the world
    - even if I'm behind, I'll be able to play with my friends

    it is a long term game, after some time the time to play may change and it would then be possible to switch to a "normal" subscription and devote more time to the game.

    However, with the current setup I would most likely try the game to see what it's like, but economically it wouldn't be worth it when I only get to play for about 4-5 hours a week.

    In this case from your point of view it would make sense.
    From IS point of view probably will not happen as long as there are enough players populating the servers.
    But is better to observe the Alpha 2, how long it will be, how the game will end up... Maybe your life will also be different by the time the game launches.
  • IffithyIffithy Member, Alpha Two
    I personally don’t think it is beneficial. But to pay devils advocate I do know someone who won’t play a game with a monthly subscription, but would play if he could do something like this not because limited time but because he does not feel obligated to play every day.

    He recognizes he cannot play in moderation and the fact that he is paying a monthly sub makes him feel like he is losing money by not playing every waking second. Just one of his many quirks. But something like this would allow him to play
  • VoxtriumVoxtrium Member, Alpha Two
    This could be done however to make this viable from a company standpoint the price per hour would have to be lowkey ridiculous and would almost certainly garner poor media. Highly unlikely this happens
  • LaetitianLaetitian Member
    edited September 17
    Iffithy wrote: »
    He recognizes he cannot play in moderation and the fact that he is paying a monthly sub makes him feel like he is losing money by not playing every waking second. Just one of his many quirks. But something like this would allow him to play
    If you base life-altering time-management decisions around a $15 monthly investment, you have deeper issues to solve than a game publisher can help you with.
    The only one who can validate you for all the posts you didn't write is you.
  • IffithyIffithy Member, Alpha Two
    Laetitian wrote: »
    Iffithy wrote: »
    He recognizes he cannot play in moderation and the fact that he is paying a monthly sub makes him feel like he is losing money by not playing every waking second. Just one of his many quirks. But something like this would allow him to play
    If you base life-altering time-management decisions around a $15 monthly investment, you have deeper issues to solve than a game publisher can help you with.



    Maybe, but my take on it really is the Min/Max mentality can go deeper than your characters dps. Some people are just wired differently
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Iffithy wrote: »
    Laetitian wrote: »
    Iffithy wrote: »
    He recognizes he cannot play in moderation and the fact that he is paying a monthly sub makes him feel like he is losing money by not playing every waking second. Just one of his many quirks. But something like this would allow him to play
    If you base life-altering time-management decisions around a $15 monthly investment, you have deeper issues to solve than a game publisher can help you with.



    Maybe, but my take on it really is the Min/Max mentality can go deeper than your characters dps. Some people are just wired differently

    This is very true - but ain't rapids min/max mentality goes even deeper.

    If this isn't something that can work for Intrepid (when costs are factored in), then it isn't something that is likely to happen.
  • nanfoodlenanfoodle Member, Founder, Kickstarter, Alpha Two, Early Alpha Two
    I have not had a MMO I want to play in some time. Console gaming I was the average game costs about $100 after tax. So happy I have game pass with Xbox. I blow through about 1.5 games a month. $18 a month with Game Pass Ultimate. IMO $15 a month and Ashes will be saving me 3 bucks a month lol. I do hope Ashes does a family plan. For people paying on the same CC at the same address.
  • NightmarelolNightmarelol Member, Alpha Two
    Are you going to ask the same for Netflix, for all the times your at work and not watching TV?
    I wonder how Netflix will take your approach on that? 😂
    j2p8mdmovgu9.jpg
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Nightmarelol wrote: »
    Are you going to ask the same for Netflix, for all the times your at work and not watching TV?
    I wonder how Netflix will take your approach on that? 😂

    To be fair, Netflix and other streaming services offering a per show option would probably cut down on piracy a lot.
  • ZehlanZehlan Member, Alpha Two
    Noaani wrote: »
    Nightmarelol wrote: »
    Are you going to ask the same for Netflix, for all the times your at work and not watching TV?
    I wonder how Netflix will take your approach on that? 😂

    To be fair, Netflix and other streaming services offering a per show option would probably cut down on piracy a lot.

    No, no it wouldn't! lol
  • NoaaniNoaani Member, Intrepid Pack, Alpha Two
    Zehlan wrote: »
    Noaani wrote: »
    Nightmarelol wrote: »
    Are you going to ask the same for Netflix, for all the times your at work and not watching TV?
    I wonder how Netflix will take your approach on that? 😂

    To be fair, Netflix and other streaming services offering a per show option would probably cut down on piracy a lot.

    No, no it wouldn't! lol

    It actually would - which is obvious when you consider the reason most piracy of shows and movies right now is happening.

    However, it isn'treally a topic for this thread - or these forums.
Sign In or Register to comment.