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.
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.
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.
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.
unknownsystemerror wrote: » there weren't a lot of things before and because someone tried them, they are successful
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]
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.
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.
DaveRock wrote: » I totally agree with that. I am not an expert and the decision is up to the company
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.
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 🙂
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.
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.
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.
