Forums » Suggestions
There's been a lot of discussion lately (on General), about how we should be free-to-play, or advertising-based, or.. something. Basically, the idea of reducing barriers to entry and getting a higher population in our gigantic universe, something I support. Towards this end, we've been working for around a month on having different "tiers" of access that could be capable of different types of capabilities.
My first experiment with this will probably be on mobile, as "Lite" subscriptions. Ie, highly limited access to the game (low level cap, limited equipment, very limited chat, no guilds, etc), with a $1/month type of price point.
This should be a bit more palatable for people coming in from mobile, who are used to either F2P or extremely low prices. At the same time, it gives us some revenue from these users, and also leaves the door open to doing micro-transactional offerings to them, while keeping the whole "lite" equipment loadout well beneath the tier available to our "real" subscribers (would anyone really care if some Lite subscriber could buy access to a Neutron Blaster Mk I for $0.99? It could even be equipment normally available at their level, but simply blocked by the default Lite Mode settings).
"Lite" subscribers could always upgrade to "Standard" subscriptions, and then revert back to being "Lite" (any level gains would be recorded but their old "Lite" levels would be re-instantiated). You would not be able to improve levels or expand your character beyond "Lite" levels while in "Lite" mode (ie, no shadow-recording of advancement that only appears when you upgrade).
"Lite" subscribers could play on any platform, just like "Standard" subscribers, but the limitations would be no different. The option would probably only be offered on mobile though, for the time being.
For now, I'm only looking to roll this out on Android. There are some merits to doing this tiny-transaction stuff on a platform where someone else has to deal with all the credit-card headaches. It's an experiment, I don't know how it'll all pan out, but it's a little easier for me to approach the shallow end of the pool this way, as opposed to trying to re-architect the game as completely F2P or whatever.
Thoughts and feedback are welcome.
My first experiment with this will probably be on mobile, as "Lite" subscriptions. Ie, highly limited access to the game (low level cap, limited equipment, very limited chat, no guilds, etc), with a $1/month type of price point.
This should be a bit more palatable for people coming in from mobile, who are used to either F2P or extremely low prices. At the same time, it gives us some revenue from these users, and also leaves the door open to doing micro-transactional offerings to them, while keeping the whole "lite" equipment loadout well beneath the tier available to our "real" subscribers (would anyone really care if some Lite subscriber could buy access to a Neutron Blaster Mk I for $0.99? It could even be equipment normally available at their level, but simply blocked by the default Lite Mode settings).
"Lite" subscribers could always upgrade to "Standard" subscriptions, and then revert back to being "Lite" (any level gains would be recorded but their old "Lite" levels would be re-instantiated). You would not be able to improve levels or expand your character beyond "Lite" levels while in "Lite" mode (ie, no shadow-recording of advancement that only appears when you upgrade).
"Lite" subscribers could play on any platform, just like "Standard" subscribers, but the limitations would be no different. The option would probably only be offered on mobile though, for the time being.
For now, I'm only looking to roll this out on Android. There are some merits to doing this tiny-transaction stuff on a platform where someone else has to deal with all the credit-card headaches. It's an experiment, I don't know how it'll all pan out, but it's a little easier for me to approach the shallow end of the pool this way, as opposed to trying to re-architect the game as completely F2P or whatever.
Thoughts and feedback are welcome.
Honestly, this doesn't sound like too good of an idea. I see it turning into tiers and pay-to-win accusations and all sorts of nasty things, and it probably wouldn't even really draw in the F2P crowd anyway, since their problem with subscriptions seems mostly to be that they don't see why they should pay to be able to play at all.
I also think that a micro-transaction store is a very dangerous trap to approach, since it's all too easy to get sucked into trying to/having to milk it for all it can give, which leads to bad practices like selling power. To be perfectly honest, you're already slipping down that slope.
_____________________________
Something I've been thinking about in my personal musings has been something similar to VO's trial system. Where you get 8 hours of play that only tick down when the client is open?
If you change subscriptions to work like that (720 straight hours that only tick down when in the client, or whatever you think the "average" player will burn through in 30 days real-time, or whatever), it'd probably be more casual friendly, since it would be easier for them to feel they'd gotten their money's worth (which is the whole point of trying to appeal to them).
You might or might not even be able to justify upping the price a few dollars, since it's basically selling greater amounts of time. It's almost buy-to-play, which seems to be a popular method of monetizing an MMOG.
_____________________________
I'm not opposed to a micro-transactions store per se, but selling power, selling 'boosters' (experience points, credits, standing, whatever), selling weapons, selling ships, etc., etc. is an absolute no, and I say this as someone who's thought about it as both a player and someone working on getting into the industry myself.
If you do go down that route, though, sell skins. Camouflage patterns, guild-related skins (an [ITAN] skinned Valkyrie, or a [BR1] skin Prometheus, for example), special skins (skull and cross-bones, red cross, etc.), variations on the custom color schemes, etc., etc..
I would suggest prices of around $1.50 for simpler skins (ex. custom color variants) up to $5 for really complex or outrageous skins (ex. shark mouths, skeletons, extra detail, etc.), with access to them either being permanent, or very long lived (15 to 30 days minimum), to, again, make the buyer feel that they've gotten good bang for their buck.
I also think that a micro-transaction store is a very dangerous trap to approach, since it's all too easy to get sucked into trying to/having to milk it for all it can give, which leads to bad practices like selling power. To be perfectly honest, you're already slipping down that slope.
_____________________________
Something I've been thinking about in my personal musings has been something similar to VO's trial system. Where you get 8 hours of play that only tick down when the client is open?
If you change subscriptions to work like that (720 straight hours that only tick down when in the client, or whatever you think the "average" player will burn through in 30 days real-time, or whatever), it'd probably be more casual friendly, since it would be easier for them to feel they'd gotten their money's worth (which is the whole point of trying to appeal to them).
You might or might not even be able to justify upping the price a few dollars, since it's basically selling greater amounts of time. It's almost buy-to-play, which seems to be a popular method of monetizing an MMOG.
_____________________________
I'm not opposed to a micro-transactions store per se, but selling power, selling 'boosters' (experience points, credits, standing, whatever), selling weapons, selling ships, etc., etc. is an absolute no, and I say this as someone who's thought about it as both a player and someone working on getting into the industry myself.
If you do go down that route, though, sell skins. Camouflage patterns, guild-related skins (an [ITAN] skinned Valkyrie, or a [BR1] skin Prometheus, for example), special skins (skull and cross-bones, red cross, etc.), variations on the custom color schemes, etc., etc..
I would suggest prices of around $1.50 for simpler skins (ex. custom color variants) up to $5 for really complex or outrageous skins (ex. shark mouths, skeletons, extra detail, etc.), with access to them either being permanent, or very long lived (15 to 30 days minimum), to, again, make the buyer feel that they've gotten good bang for their buck.
Ok, first of all, let's just eliminate the entire discussion of microtransactions, and just look at it as a very limited "Lite" subscription. That's what we're actually building. Any other possibilities are somewhere down the road, and perhaps I shouldn't have even included that in the post, as it seems to have clouded the discussion a bit.
No, it won't help with F2P people, because they want everything for free. It will help for non-F2P expecting people who are willing to monetize at a lower level. Basically no mobile game asks people to play $10 for anything, it's a huge barrier. But lots of them ask for someone to pay $1, and many of those games are successful.
No, it won't help with F2P people, because they want everything for free. It will help for non-F2P expecting people who are willing to monetize at a lower level. Basically no mobile game asks people to play $10 for anything, it's a huge barrier. But lots of them ask for someone to pay $1, and many of those games are successful.
Yes to the general idea of SubLite.
In that context, even the microtransactional thing becomes acceptable, as long as you guys leave it (as you hinted re:Neut1) at a considerably low level.
Unlike TerranAmbassador I can see no pay-to-win in this: Currently you can only win by paying $10 a month, because that is the only way you can play. As long as the full sub for $6.66-9.99 remains the "full game" without the ability to pay more for benefits (Tridents etc.) there shouldn't be any issue there.
their problem with subscriptions seems mostly to be that they don't see why they should pay to be able to play at all
Disagree. Not everyone can afford to simply pay $9.99 for a month after an 8-hour trial, especially the "younger playerbase". (Don't get me wrong, ten bucks is a fair price and I'm happy to pay it - though only when my bank balance allows it.)
you're already slipping down that slope.
Really? Tell me more. Because I can honestly not see any of that.
but selling power, selling 'boosters' [...] is an absolute no
I sort of adressed that above, you must've misunderstood. This is not about being able to boost a full sub for money but about boosting the SubLite to be a little bit closer to the full one. An "ITAN" skin would be of no use to LiteSubber since he wouldn't be allowed to join the guild in the first place.
+1
<edit: Inc addressed most of what I said in a more compact manner. Ignore everything but the "+1"./>
In that context, even the microtransactional thing becomes acceptable, as long as you guys leave it (as you hinted re:Neut1) at a considerably low level.
Unlike TerranAmbassador I can see no pay-to-win in this: Currently you can only win by paying $10 a month, because that is the only way you can play. As long as the full sub for $6.66-9.99 remains the "full game" without the ability to pay more for benefits (Tridents etc.) there shouldn't be any issue there.
their problem with subscriptions seems mostly to be that they don't see why they should pay to be able to play at all
Disagree. Not everyone can afford to simply pay $9.99 for a month after an 8-hour trial, especially the "younger playerbase". (Don't get me wrong, ten bucks is a fair price and I'm happy to pay it - though only when my bank balance allows it.)
you're already slipping down that slope.
Really? Tell me more. Because I can honestly not see any of that.
but selling power, selling 'boosters' [...] is an absolute no
I sort of adressed that above, you must've misunderstood. This is not about being able to boost a full sub for money but about boosting the SubLite to be a little bit closer to the full one. An "ITAN" skin would be of no use to LiteSubber since he wouldn't be allowed to join the guild in the first place.
+1
<edit: Inc addressed most of what I said in a more compact manner. Ignore everything but the "+1"./>
I'm always leery when games start to add or transition to some sort of micro-transactional system.
Your proposal, as described, does not sound terrible at face value. In fact, it's somewhat similar to what SOE has done with Everquest. I'm kind of curious how buying access to addons/ships would be approached. Would this be an additional recurring fee tacked onto the $1/mo or a one-time payment for limited or permanent access to the item in question? If it's an additional recurring fee, would the player's account be automatically upgraded to a full subscription if their total recurring fees reach $9.99/mo?
The big problem I foresee is that Android is currently the most misunderstood platform by the majority of players. There are many areas where the interface (not including the HUD) is unclear about how it should work and this is complicated further by the condensed UI. Many players seem to struggle with the condensed UI while in stations.
I don't want to drift too far off topic here, so to bring things back around, what I see happening is Android players, who may be already frustrated by their initial experience, may not have the patience to fully understand the limitations being imposed on them by this "lite" subscription. Afterall, many new Android players already are surprised when they find out that the game is subscription based and not free.
---------------------------------
EDIT: Incarnate's followup was posted while I was still thinking and typing.
---------------------------------
EDIT2: With regard to guilds specifically, what would happen to a character that join's a guild on a full subscription and then downgrades to a lite subscription?
Your proposal, as described, does not sound terrible at face value. In fact, it's somewhat similar to what SOE has done with Everquest. I'm kind of curious how buying access to addons/ships would be approached. Would this be an additional recurring fee tacked onto the $1/mo or a one-time payment for limited or permanent access to the item in question? If it's an additional recurring fee, would the player's account be automatically upgraded to a full subscription if their total recurring fees reach $9.99/mo?
The big problem I foresee is that Android is currently the most misunderstood platform by the majority of players. There are many areas where the interface (not including the HUD) is unclear about how it should work and this is complicated further by the condensed UI. Many players seem to struggle with the condensed UI while in stations.
I don't want to drift too far off topic here, so to bring things back around, what I see happening is Android players, who may be already frustrated by their initial experience, may not have the patience to fully understand the limitations being imposed on them by this "lite" subscription. Afterall, many new Android players already are surprised when they find out that the game is subscription based and not free.
---------------------------------
EDIT: Incarnate's followup was posted while I was still thinking and typing.
---------------------------------
EDIT2: With regard to guilds specifically, what would happen to a character that join's a guild on a full subscription and then downgrades to a lite subscription?
Okay, forgetting mention of Micro stores, I'm still leery. I get very, very leery when people start talking about limiting who has access to what based on how much they pay you.
What's too little? What's too much? The problem is that the answer to those questions might be very, very blurry, especially in a more skill-based game like this.
If you give a 'Lite' player too little, then they're essentially at a lower tier, and it would be harder (possibly too hard (see my previous post for the pay-to-win/pay-to-win accusations fears)) for them to compete with 'premium' or 'regular' players.
Give them too much, and most will probably never 'upgrade' to the $10/month plan.
_____________________________
I'd still like to know whether my hybrid subscription suggestion would be viable.
What's too little? What's too much? The problem is that the answer to those questions might be very, very blurry, especially in a more skill-based game like this.
If you give a 'Lite' player too little, then they're essentially at a lower tier, and it would be harder (possibly too hard (see my previous post for the pay-to-win/pay-to-win accusations fears)) for them to compete with 'premium' or 'regular' players.
Give them too much, and most will probably never 'upgrade' to the $10/month plan.
_____________________________
I'd still like to know whether my hybrid subscription suggestion would be viable.
then they're essentially at a lower tier
That is the point. That's why don't pay for the full game
it would be harder (possibly too hard [...]) for them to compete with 'premium' or 'regular' players
That is the point. You want the full game, you pay for the full game.
see my previous post for the pay-to-win/pay-to-win accusations fears
There is no element of "pay-to-win" here. Again, reversed: You pay for the full game, you get the full game. You pay less, you get less. The game doesn't get any more expensive, neither can you get any unfair advantages.
Your "hybrid subscription suggestion" is a tiny bit off-topic here. This is about extending the existing model by what I see as a sort of "extended trial". (And quite frankly, the game does not need more casual, but more regular players, imo.)
I'd like to second draugath's questions about (a) guilds and (b) the "extensions" pricing model.
That is the point. That's why don't pay for the full game
it would be harder (possibly too hard [...]) for them to compete with 'premium' or 'regular' players
That is the point. You want the full game, you pay for the full game.
see my previous post for the pay-to-win/pay-to-win accusations fears
There is no element of "pay-to-win" here. Again, reversed: You pay for the full game, you get the full game. You pay less, you get less. The game doesn't get any more expensive, neither can you get any unfair advantages.
Your "hybrid subscription suggestion" is a tiny bit off-topic here. This is about extending the existing model by what I see as a sort of "extended trial". (And quite frankly, the game does not need more casual, but more regular players, imo.)
I'd like to second draugath's questions about (a) guilds and (b) the "extensions" pricing model.
You're misunderstanding my concerns.
They're paying less, and getting less. I got that. There's nothing wrong with that per se. The problem is, what is too little and what is too much? What is the point where the 'lite' players are actually well and truly, for all intents and purposes, second class citizens? And don't tell me that that's the point. If that's the point, then GS should pull the plug now.
How do I translate this into a legible concept?
. . .
Get this wrong, and it would be like selling power in a Micro store. Hell, get it just wrong enough for it to just look like that to people, and there would be problems.
_____________________________
I think my suggestion is well and truly on topic. Inc is talking about a change to the model to bring in more players. I suggested an alternative. The whole point of Inc's idea seems to be to appeal to people who can't play enough to justify paying more than a few bucks for what may, over the course of a month, be just a handful of hours of gameplay.
Inc talks about changing the price and people's access to things. I'm talking about changing the way that the time bought is handled.
They're paying less, and getting less. I got that. There's nothing wrong with that per se. The problem is, what is too little and what is too much? What is the point where the 'lite' players are actually well and truly, for all intents and purposes, second class citizens? And don't tell me that that's the point. If that's the point, then GS should pull the plug now.
How do I translate this into a legible concept?
. . .
Get this wrong, and it would be like selling power in a Micro store. Hell, get it just wrong enough for it to just look like that to people, and there would be problems.
_____________________________
I think my suggestion is well and truly on topic. Inc is talking about a change to the model to bring in more players. I suggested an alternative. The whole point of Inc's idea seems to be to appeal to people who can't play enough to justify paying more than a few bucks for what may, over the course of a month, be just a handful of hours of gameplay.
Inc talks about changing the price and people's access to things. I'm talking about changing the way that the time bought is handled.
And don't tell me that that's the point
errr.... Sorry, but I must.
and there would be problems.
Where? What kind? You never specify that. You keep saying that, but... you don't really make a point. No one is selling "power in a micro store". Power, if you like, is being sold in any case: The power to play the game and make things currently costs ten bucks.
With this model introduced, you could buy a limited access for less. That's it.
and perhaps I shouldn't have even included that in the post, as it seems to have clouded the discussion a bit.
Inc clearly wants us to state our opinions and thoughts concerning this specific model, not some Alloh-style deviation. Start a suggestion post about your alternative model, but it is off topic in a discussion about an addition to the existing model.
Inc talks about changing the price and people's access to things.
Nope.
I tried to make that clear in my last post. The full game will still cost USD 6.66-9.99 per month. All subscribers will retain the same access they have now, and nobody would have more. There would merely be more people around, some of whom will simply not be able to enjoy the full potential until they subscribe to the whole game.
The problem is, what is too little and what is too much?
That might be more to the point of this thread, something you should focus on, an issue partly addressed by draugath's 2nd edit.
(fully) Subscribed players don't lose anything, they might merely have a more populated game to play. "Lite"-subscribers can continue to play the game for a low price (e.g. have an 8-hour trial, extend it to 14 days, then append another month for 0.99) while having certain limitations that might convince them to take the full sub. The only difference to the current situation is that their "trial" is longer and gets GS at least _some_ cash to work with. Where exactly does this cause all hell to break loose?
errr.... Sorry, but I must.
and there would be problems.
Where? What kind? You never specify that. You keep saying that, but... you don't really make a point. No one is selling "power in a micro store". Power, if you like, is being sold in any case: The power to play the game and make things currently costs ten bucks.
With this model introduced, you could buy a limited access for less. That's it.
and perhaps I shouldn't have even included that in the post, as it seems to have clouded the discussion a bit.
Inc clearly wants us to state our opinions and thoughts concerning this specific model, not some Alloh-style deviation. Start a suggestion post about your alternative model, but it is off topic in a discussion about an addition to the existing model.
Inc talks about changing the price and people's access to things.
Nope.
I tried to make that clear in my last post. The full game will still cost USD 6.66-9.99 per month. All subscribers will retain the same access they have now, and nobody would have more. There would merely be more people around, some of whom will simply not be able to enjoy the full potential until they subscribe to the whole game.
The problem is, what is too little and what is too much?
That might be more to the point of this thread, something you should focus on, an issue partly addressed by draugath's 2nd edit.
(fully) Subscribed players don't lose anything, they might merely have a more populated game to play. "Lite"-subscribers can continue to play the game for a low price (e.g. have an 8-hour trial, extend it to 14 days, then append another month for 0.99) while having certain limitations that might convince them to take the full sub. The only difference to the current situation is that their "trial" is longer and gets GS at least _some_ cash to work with. Where exactly does this cause all hell to break loose?
I don't know what in gods name TerranAmbassador is trying to say. Software developers only make money by limiting access based on what people pay them. So yes, that is the point.
There's nothing wrong with having classes of players based off real world dollars, the justification for that is because it's just as arbitrary as having classes of players based on skill or time played. At least the former is profitable and appealing to the target market rather than unemployed people or minors with low disposable income and a high amount of free time.
There is no need for concern, in any case, that Vendetta could become the kind of game where there is a disturbing gameplay distinction between those who pay more and those who don't because the element of skill is the most defining factor in a players usefulness, prosperity and therefore their 'class' in the gameplay.
Third and finally, there is absolutely no harm to adding additional business models in and around the existing one, as long as it remains available.
No, it won't help with F2P people, because they want everything for free. It will help for non-F2P expecting people who are willing to monetize at a lower level.
That's not entirely true, there is a demographic that would buy into a one off payment but prefers not to enter into a subscription arrangement. You should consider this.
There's nothing wrong with having classes of players based off real world dollars, the justification for that is because it's just as arbitrary as having classes of players based on skill or time played. At least the former is profitable and appealing to the target market rather than unemployed people or minors with low disposable income and a high amount of free time.
There is no need for concern, in any case, that Vendetta could become the kind of game where there is a disturbing gameplay distinction between those who pay more and those who don't because the element of skill is the most defining factor in a players usefulness, prosperity and therefore their 'class' in the gameplay.
Third and finally, there is absolutely no harm to adding additional business models in and around the existing one, as long as it remains available.
No, it won't help with F2P people, because they want everything for free. It will help for non-F2P expecting people who are willing to monetize at a lower level.
That's not entirely true, there is a demographic that would buy into a one off payment but prefers not to enter into a subscription arrangement. You should consider this.
Ok, I see Inc. idea as 50% of getting more full subbed players. How about Guild tries a 16 hour trial first , maybe then someone on a mobile device will get interested more with that (seeing how they may need more time to really love the game). Mobile devices to me include phone, android and MS surface tablets (not everyone bought a kb with the surface).
But something has to be done to stop trial abusers who just keep getting trial time to play forever and will never pay for the game.
as far as joining guilds are concerned, have a 30 waiting period to join guilds and/or make guilds
the extended free trial (without friend keys) make it seem that more players (trial Acct.) may stay.
try this first and if it doesn't work then no time was lost and could try what Inc said after this.
But something has to be done to stop trial abusers who just keep getting trial time to play forever and will never pay for the game.
as far as joining guilds are concerned, have a 30 waiting period to join guilds and/or make guilds
the extended free trial (without friend keys) make it seem that more players (trial Acct.) may stay.
try this first and if it doesn't work then no time was lost and could try what Inc said after this.
How about Guild tries a 16 hour trial first
If I recall correctly, they did try that at one point and it wasn't particularly fruitful. With trial time in starting sectors being unlimited now, there's even less reason to extend the total limit, and extending it doesn't address the problem Incarnate is trying to tackle in the first place.
If I recall correctly, they did try that at one point and it wasn't particularly fruitful. With trial time in starting sectors being unlimited now, there's even less reason to extend the total limit, and extending it doesn't address the problem Incarnate is trying to tackle in the first place.
8 hours of in-game time are enough to get you to Combat Licence 3. They were enough to make me subscribe.
Players already get 16 hours and more of trial time - via friend keys.
What does "trial abuse" have to do with this? This is wildly off-topic again and I've stated my opinion on this in the relevant thread(s): He's not getting the full gameplay experience. (You're clearly referring to the individual case of DE-%s)
What good does the "guild-waiting-period" do to anyone? Most reasonable guilds will only take subbed players anyway. The question is what happens to an existing guild membership if someone decides to "downgrade" their full sub to a SubLite.
And, if they did try your suggestion first, there would in fact be time lost. Just saying.
Players already get 16 hours and more of trial time - via friend keys.
What does "trial abuse" have to do with this? This is wildly off-topic again and I've stated my opinion on this in the relevant thread(s): He's not getting the full gameplay experience. (You're clearly referring to the individual case of DE-%s)
What good does the "guild-waiting-period" do to anyone? Most reasonable guilds will only take subbed players anyway. The question is what happens to an existing guild membership if someone decides to "downgrade" their full sub to a SubLite.
And, if they did try your suggestion first, there would in fact be time lost. Just saying.
Andy I think what he's actually suggesting is that Vendetta should rename to 'TGFT Online', definitely a separate thread for that.
Hey Inc does lite work on the PC at all? or is it only for android. Are you saying that you will start on android and move to PC with the concept or only have it on android?
Additionally, why are you considering a restriction based light subscription when you could just implement a micotransaction based f2p model straight up, the revenues are probably higher and it solves the player increase problem nicely too. You're going to get just as much of a community downvote with either one, you might as well go the more effective one.
Hey Inc does lite work on the PC at all? or is it only for android. Are you saying that you will start on android and move to PC with the concept or only have it on android?
Additionally, why are you considering a restriction based light subscription when you could just implement a micotransaction based f2p model straight up, the revenues are probably higher and it solves the player increase problem nicely too. You're going to get just as much of a community downvote with either one, you might as well go the more effective one.
...because a full microtransaction based f2p model would drive even me out of here? (Oh the hybris of overestimating one's own significance, like honey to the soul...)
The first question is one I wanted to ask as well though. Android first, or Android only?
The first question is one I wanted to ask as well though. Android first, or Android only?
But it wouldn't, because it would be done properly and tastefully right incarnate?
I don't see an issue with a lite edition, it's sort of a trial extension, you'll lose $8 a month on pup cause he could probably get by fully on lite mode but for most of us it wouldn't be a problem, maybe those DE-1234 trial ripperoffers would spend a buck too...lol
something like 3/3/3/3/3 wouldn't be too awful, would let them get to taste the better missions and parts of the game but without being the best pilots in the galaxy their equip would still suck enough that they may want to pay the bigger tag to get moar.
something like 3/3/3/3/3 wouldn't be too awful, would let them get to taste the better missions and parts of the game but without being the best pilots in the galaxy their equip would still suck enough that they may want to pay the bigger tag to get moar.
Sure why not.
I hate to say it, but this game is totally not worth $10/mo on Android. The controls suck pretty hard and some things are still pretty clunky compared to the full PC experience.
Also, +1 for $1 Android turret gunner accounts! :)
I hate to say it, but this game is totally not worth $10/mo on Android. The controls suck pretty hard and some things are still pretty clunky compared to the full PC experience.
Also, +1 for $1 Android turret gunner accounts! :)
1) TheRedSpy "Andy I think what he's actually suggesting is that Vendetta should rename to 'TGFT Online', definitely a separate thread for that."
hmmm TRS/ESP hasn't been in TGFT for about 2 yrs.
2) Andy "8 hours of in-game time are enough to get you to Combat License 3. They were enough to make me subscribe. Players already get 16 hours and more of trial time - via friend keys."
right forgot about that.
"trial abuse" withdraw that ty
"What good does the "guild-waiting-period" do to anyone,Most reasonable guilds will only take subbed players anyway - forgot that also
hmmm TRS/ESP hasn't been in TGFT for about 2 yrs.
2) Andy "8 hours of in-game time are enough to get you to Combat License 3. They were enough to make me subscribe. Players already get 16 hours and more of trial time - via friend keys."
right forgot about that.
"trial abuse" withdraw that ty
"What good does the "guild-waiting-period" do to anyone,Most reasonable guilds will only take subbed players anyway - forgot that also
I think the Lite subscription mobile test is a good idea. It can be implemented quickly, some of the billing work is pushed off to someone else, the game IS inherently different on a mobile (not as immersive, probably not the best combat platform at this point - though they will still have the option of hopping on their desktop), and it is quite true that mobile users are accustomed to paying lower monthly rates. This is a good use of available assets to test the concept now.