Cookies Disclaimer

I agree Our site saves small pieces of text information (cookies) on your device in order to authenticate logins, deliver better content and provide statistical analysis. You can adjust your browser settings to prevent our site from using cookies, but doing so will prevent some aspects of the site from functioning properly.

Pricing

Takasi
Look one or the other Ravenlute. Do you think it's valuable to have more xp than other characters and to what extent? If you do think it's important then you are contradicting your original post regarding Steam. If you don't think it's important, as you stated earlier, then there is less value to buy XP than there is to pay to play.

People are paying because it's the only way to play a character. In your scenario of "taking 3 months off" what I think will happen is that most people will come back and not buy the xp. Why should they? There's no advantage to being ahead of anyone, because you can always buy that xp later if it means anything. Yes, that's a flexible added option. I just don't see how it helps Goblinworks make more money.

Right now you can play the game for free and we're not seeing thousands of people in Thornkeep. How is giving away more playtime for free going to help this?

You are refusing to accept that xp has less value as you level ranks. Your flat rate model does not take this into account, and you are adding a play for free all the time feature when Goblinworks said free trials hurt their revenue.
Takasi
You're also not recognizing how much your suggestions would change the game. It's not identical, same game different model. If I want to build an adamantine shirt +2 it takes me 30 days to make it. Right now it costs me $15 to be able to do that. Under your model I could make that for free.

Many people have suggested allowing people to buy xp and I'm not against the concept. I also don't mind if they sell other things that right now you can only get in game (recipes, mats, etc). I don't really like it, but I don't see it causing too much damage. Removing any cost to play though is huge and you should at least recognize that it might do more harm than good.

I say keep the monthly sub and the xp that comes with it, with options to "catch up" to whatever the current xp cap is. Again though, we're still waiting for Goblinworks to implement changes they said they wanted to do like reverting the free trial back to a box fee.
Ravenlute
Takasi
Look one or the other Ravenlute. Do you think it's valuable to have more xp than other characters and to what extent? If you do think it's important then you are contradicting your original post regarding Steam. If you don't think it's important, as you stated earlier, then there is less value to buy XP than there is to pay to play.

People are paying because it's the only way to play a character. In your scenario of "taking 3 months off" what I think will happen is that most people will come back and not buy the xp. Why should they? There's no advantage to being ahead of anyone, because you can always buy that xp later if it means anything. Yes, that's a flexible added option. I just don't see how it helps Goblinworks make more money.

Right now you can play the game for free and we're not seeing thousands of people in Thornkeep. How is giving away more playtime for free going to help this?

You are refusing to accept that xp has less value as you level ranks. Your flat rate model does not take this into account, and you are adding a play for free all the time feature when Goblinworks admitted free trials hurt sales.

You keep equating population to price when it's really about quality. Why don't we see thousands of people in Thornkeep? Because people don't want to play the game. Free trials only hurt the sale from box prices. Subscriptions aren't related to that.

What you are referring to as the xp value is actually personal value, how much that xp means to a player as they continue to play. That doesn't change the actual xp value. 72,000xp still costs $15. We're talking about two different things.

Takasi
You're also not recognizing how much your suggestions would change the game. It's not identical, same game different model. If I want to build an adamantine shirt +2 it takes me 30 days to make it. Right now it costs me $15 to be able to do that. Under your model I could make that for free.

That's not all you're getting for that $15, you are also getting 72k xp. If you weren't getting the xp as well, you'd have a valid point.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Ravenlute
Takasi, from what you've said over the past week it sounds like you want to keep the subs as they are so that the few folks currently playing and those just holding accounts continue to feed Goblinworks. In addition you would like to add the box price back in so that those who are curious and would like to try the game have to put down money first. This would give some money to Goblinworks. In addition you want to put the game out to the mass public so that more people will pay that box price. You don't care about what people will think of the game because if it gives Goblinworks money they can hire devs back, keep it running and maybe even finish it. Then when it's considered release ready it will have fixed all the problems with it and people will like it and throw money at Goblinworks to play it. (Again, this is just what it sounds like to me.)

People aren't that forgiving. They would rather leave then pay for something they don't think is worth their time. Look at the past few months for example. Your ideas to get more money into the hands of Goblinworks only widens the wedge between the game and its players. Item shops work in part due to the psychology of it. People are willing to spend so much more money shopping around for things to enhance their gameplay than paying a monthly bill (subscription). Changing subscriptions into Advancement Packs for the Item Shop gets rid of the stigma of having both a subscription and an item shop in the game. That generates a more positive perception of the game which in turn creates more players who then spend money at the item shop.

If Goblinworks wants to make more money they have to change how they market the game in addition to continued development. Which is probably one of the reasons they weren't planning on putting the game out to the mass public until Open Enrollment.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Takasi
Don't you think we get much more for $15? Gear? Settlement assistance (to and from)? Entertainment? 72,000 xp is a fraction of that. XP is a commodity used to purchase ranks; it has diminishing value over time. When someone pays per month they automatically receive 72,000 xp per month. Under your model it's entirely optional, allowing people to play as much as they want without spending any money on xp. I think we're paying $15 to be able to post on these forums, have Goblinworks listen to us during development, and play as much as we want on their servers with characters in a persistent sandbox. The XP is a bonus that cannot simply be priced at $15 for 72,000 while giving the rest of the game away for free.

Why couldn't Goblinworks charge for both xp and keeping your account active? Because you personally don't think keeping an active account is worth $15 a month? I think Goblinworks should do whatever is financially sound. Maybe get some professional advice. If they can make the game completely free then great.
Takasi
And again, it was Lisa Stevens who said she wanted to put the box price back on. Someone else posted the Steam thread, and I supported it because I have always wanted to see the game on Steam. Of course I care about how people perceive the game, but it's like tabletop. I can't convince people to like what I like. The game is out there. Nothing is stopping the mass public from buying the game. As I said in the other thread I just like the features of Steam, and hope we can see it there before they pull the plug.

I've gotten my entertainment money's worth, tenfold. smile I didn't need any manipulative cash shop psychology to hand them my money, but I can understand how it might entice others. I just don't think your model is the right one though to fully replace what they're offering today. Making it $15 for 72,000 xp is overly simplifying how this game works.

Maybe we should crowdfund a professional financial analyst to help them. I wonder if they can even weed through the signal to noise ratio from all this amateur advice.
Ravenlute
Takasi
Don't you think we get much more for $15? Gear? Settlement assistance (to and from)? Entertainment? 72,000 xp is a fraction of that. XP is a commodity used to purchase ranks; it has diminishing value over time. When someone pays per month they automatically receive 72,000 xp per month. Under your model it's entirely optional, allowing people to play as much as they want without spending any money on xp. I think we're paying $15 to be able to post on these forums, have Goblinworks listen to us during development, and play as much as we want on their servers with characters in a persistent sandbox. The XP is a bonus that cannot simply be priced at $15 for 72,000 while giving the rest of the game away for free.

Why couldn't Goblinworks charge for both xp and keeping your account active? Because you personally don't think keeping an active account is worth $15 a month? I think Goblinworks should do whatever is financially sound. Maybe get some professional advice. If they can make the game completely free then great.

I get it. Right now it's all tied into the same thing. Like a traditional game you pay for a month and you get access to everything. In addition PFO has a unique mechanic that grants you xp over time regardless of what you do in the game or how long you play. You can't grind extra or power level for it, it's a constant.

You misread my motives. I look at the game and I see that it needs more players. One of the reasons is because of the outdated subscription model. As you've said, veteran players would play for free if they could but instead they quit. So I thought about what it would mean to change to a F2P since we already have an item shop anyway. Even if they did bring the box price back it could run like GW2. But then there was a hang up because, the reason people are paying, even those just holding accounts and not playing, is partly because you gain xp over time. That was the link between $15 and 72,000xp. I realised that in PFO you don't get xp by killing mobs or completing quests, the only way was to pay for it. Since that's already been established then we could fix the hang up with the F2P by moving that xp purchase to the item store instead and make it optional. Now we have a F2P game that requires payment to advance, which people will want to do. On top of that it will draw attention to the item store which can be fleshed out with fun cosmetic items. Finally it allows new players to not feel like they have been left behind, giving them an option to stand with the vets as valued members of their settlement and the game. With this plan I fully expect Goblinworks to receive MORE than the current $15 a month from players. Just because you give a player options doesn't mean they won't pay.

This isn't The Fix for the game, it's only one step, but I think it's an important one.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Ravenlute
Takasi
Maybe we should crowdfund a professional financial analyst to help them. I wonder if they can even weed through the signal to noise ratio from all this amateur advice.

That sounds like a brilliant idea.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
Takasi
OK, general poll of people here…if the game were free to play right now, and you could buy xp whenever you wanted up to a given limit…how much money, with the characters you have today, would you spend each month on xp? Remember, you can always wait a couple of years and "catch up" whenever you'd like.

The game is "stable" today or at least the last we heard it was. We technically do not need more players to keep the dev team we have and the servers up; we just have to retain the players we have today. If the question above ends up being "less than $15 per account per month" for the existing players then you really will need new players.

Maybe you're right and a shift in the model is the only thing stopping a floodgate of new players. I think players who don't play the game today aren't as turned off by the pricing model as much as they are the aesthetics and gameplay. I love the game exactly as it is in EE10 though and plan to keep paying my subs indefinitely even if the staff is laid off and there is no development, so I'm not the best person to comment on why people want something else.
Ravenlute
Takasi
Maybe you're right and a shift in the model is the only thing stopping a floodgate of new players. I think players who don't play the game today aren't as turned off by the pricing model as much as they are the aesthetics and gameplay.

Ravenlute
This isn't The Fix for the game, it's only one step, but I think it's an important one.
Myl - Herald of Stone Bear Clan (Tavernhold)
"You can walk into Tavernhold but a horse will have to carry you out."
 
You must be logged into an enrolled account to post