Forums » Suggestions

Make billing options on Android more obvious.

Jan 14, 2014 yodaofborg link
I seen quite a few players in game wondering about billing options. I thought they were newbs and dismissed them in the past which was not nice of me, but it's not like I am a guide or anything. But I fell into this category this week without knowing. And I'm supposed to be a vet!

Anyway, the subscription model needs updating on the play store, not only is it difficult to decide which subscription to buy, the $0.99 one is selected by default. Also it doesn't say whats restricted in plain English. Please try to explain the difference, and maybe try set the usual $9.99 as default?
Jan 14, 2014 Dr. Lecter link
newb!
Jan 16, 2014 incarnate link
Please try to explain the difference, and maybe try set the usual $9.99 as default?

Heh, a $10 default on mobile? No, we are not going to do that. We had that at one time, and took a beating in reviews. People on mobile are not used to anything costing that much.

But I'm sure we could improve the layout and explanation.
Jan 16, 2014 TheRedSpy link
I've seen some other reviews as well where someone mentioned "free-to-play" in relation to VO, potentially referring to any number of things, the trial period for instance, and some people just went NUTS of the review thing "THIS IS NOT A FREE TO PLAY GAME!"

Similarly some people seemed a bit angry when it wasnt clear that light sub was restricted to 3's. I agree with yoda.
Jan 16, 2014 Jashen Bonarus link
I am one of the full sub players who came from your mobile port. Here are the issues I faced personally:

* I couldn't play my free time, every time I tried to log in it kicked me to a purchase page. I still don't know what the problem was.

* I bought $1 version over android store, played well for a while, not knowing that I will get restricted at 3/3/3/3/3. Fortunatelly, I was already captivated by VO just enough to buy a full sub.

I also want to support the voices about the words 'free' and 'light' being too ambiguous. Maybe 'time limited trial with no-subscription' and 'leveling-restricted light subscription' will suit the paradigms better, respectively. It is also worth stressing out that this is a subscription based game (that's why I used the word 'subscription' in my alternative names above).

Finally, I must say, I would never ever tried out VO if $10 was default, not a chance in a xillion, because I would thoght VO is a half-baked android leftover. But in fact, it is a full-flagged desktop game, however, it is hard to show this fact to the potential player base.
Jan 16, 2014 incarnate link
Welcome, Jashen. We'll have to take a look at what went awry with your free trial time. I assume it's the same account you're posting from now?

I've found it's very difficult to get information across on mobile. The very first sentence of our Play Store description is "Vendetta Online is a graphically intensive (300MB download), cross-platform MMORPG set in space, with a free trial and a $1/month subscription.", but our major complaints are..

- "This game has a big extra download"
- "This is a free trial only! I want it to be F2P!"
- "A subscription is required! But I want it to be F2P!"

All accompanied by 1-star reviews, which further prevent us from being featured by Google and so on, heh. I guess I never thought the word "trial" would be interpreted as anything but a.. limited experience. But perhaps I can change that to "time-limited trial" like you say.

Anyway, we'll see what we can do to improve the descriptions at the very least. And if there are actual trial problems out there, we obviously want to fix that.

But, even with all that, it seems likely that a lot of people are not going to bother reading it, and will be upset regardless. Until we're actually F2P. And perhaps even then, heh.
Jan 16, 2014 Savet link
I know you went a different way with the lite option, but I really feel like the solution is to limit the lite to the mobile platform and make it f2p. Make a full sub $10/month and cash in on the PC players who pay to shoot the fish in the barrel. Is it p2w? Is it evil? Probably yes to both, but paying PC players want more to shoot, and android people want to pay zero. It's symbiotic.
Jan 16, 2014 Jashen Bonarus link
Savet, I don't think that is a solution. In fact, it means killing VO for good for me as I'm a multi-platform player. So, no please.
Jan 16, 2014 Jashen Bonarus link
Besides, isn't introducing full sub to mobile players is a marketing goal?
Jan 16, 2014 TheRedSpy link
Haha, Savet is on the money.
Jan 16, 2014 Savet link
@Jashen

Fair point, there is a use-case that supports the $1 sub.

Perhaps my suggestion should have been:

Superlite - F2P, Android only, License limit 3
Lite - $1/month, License limit 3
Full - $9.99/month - No restriction

Marketing goals remain, free-seekers get free, people-shooters get more people. There's really no downside.
Jan 16, 2014 Jashen Bonarus link
@Savet

"Perhaps my suggestion should have been:

Superlite - F2P, Android only, License limit 3
Lite - $1/month, License limit 3
Full - $9.99/month - No restriction"

This will make all parties happy, I presume. But I think paying $1 must have some additional value over F2P to be attractive, ike offering lowest trade level to buy a moth from Corvus (with no access to 3+ combat levels, hence still no FC cell, no infiniturbo)? Or giving access to a lowest level rag bomber through the verse instead of just Corvus (with still no infiniturbo)? Or something else?
Jan 16, 2014 incarnate link
Superlite - F2P, Android only, License limit 3
Lite - $1/month, License limit 3
Full - $9.99/month - No restriction"


I've actually been working on a version of this as our plan for quite awhile. But juggling our other goals, along with implementing a F2P implementation, is going to take a little time.. as I want to add micro-transactional purchase options for some content.

I do definitely want to have some additional value-adds to Lite sub, beyond simply cross-platform play. I also intend to do some kind of "Long Term Lite Subscriber" program, which enables some additional content (also available to regular PC subs, of course).
Jan 17, 2014 TheRedSpy link
Why is it such a big thing to shoot out a free to play tier? The benefits for doing it I would have thought are pretty substantial for the apparent minimal effort required.

Is there something i'm not thinking of?
Jan 17, 2014 incarnate link
- We have no ability to limit connections based on platform and account type. There's some process to engineer that and handle it elegantly. We've always been "all platforms, all the time".

- Adding micro-transactional implementations that are integrated to allow people to purchase certain items while in the F2P tier, is something we've never had and will need to add.

The former is not a huge deal, but will take some work; the latter is (probably) a bigger undertaking.

So.. yes. There are things you're not thinking of ;).
Jan 17, 2014 Savet link
TRS, there are a number of considerations to consider:

As Inc stated, determining connection type:

1) Do they specify it as an attribute at run time? By Port? Some other method?
2) Defining account type
3) Adding hooks into established procedures to deal with cases where someone tries to log in with an account that violates their current payment tier.
4) Upgrading and downgrading accounts, and how that affects existing users

In theory, it's a simple process. In practice, with an established code base, it is a very involved process which requires documentation and testing.

I am excited to see them seriously considering it, and don't begrudge them for wanting to do it right.

In practice, the micro-transactions can be a later addition, but the above is still a fair amount of work.