Forums » Off-Topic
genka
You missed the point of my initial post. I'm realized that I come to "frat party" where are always the same 3-4 boys and there are no girls around. I'm asking for more girls, but you continues to urge that the "sanitary" beer is the first priority.
It's obvious for me that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" (or "free beer" if you stick to it). But i'm here for "girls" and "beer". And i dont see arguments why VO developers unable simultaneously a) hire bartenders who don't spits in the beer and b) attract more girls by advertising as 'free beer party'.
You missed the point of my initial post. I'm realized that I come to "frat party" where are always the same 3-4 boys and there are no girls around. I'm asking for more girls, but you continues to urge that the "sanitary" beer is the first priority.
It's obvious for me that "there's no such thing as a free lunch" (or "free beer" if you stick to it). But i'm here for "girls" and "beer". And i dont see arguments why VO developers unable simultaneously a) hire bartenders who don't spits in the beer and b) attract more girls by advertising as 'free beer party'.
Wait, let me get this straight. The trick to attracting girls is cheap unsanitary beer?
Anyways, I think you're missing genka's point actually. The "spitting in the beer" is how it is able to be given away for free. The free version has to be lesser than the paid version, or else there is no motivation to pay. Going back to the analogy, if you fire the bartenders who spit in the beer, then you will have to find some other way to make people want to pay for the beer. Maybe offer a different lesser quality beer, or water it down, or don't wash the glass, or restrict the drinking of that beer to a location filled with mosquitoes.
The point is that the people who pay get something better than the people who don't, and that the difference is intentional, therefor the free version is intentionally worse than what the people who pay for everything get.
I think you are looking at this as "get the basic cheap car, or pay more and get the same car but with power windows etc. added", whereas genka is looking at it as "we build the fancy car, but then sell a version with the power windows removed for cheaper". Filling the glass halfway up vs. pouring the glass halfway out.
In the end they are basically the same. Genka's view is more accurate in the case of things like level caps and activity restrictions or serious equipment restrictions that limit overall gameplay. Your view is more accurate when it's mainly minor location and equipment restrictions but nothing on the order of "No greyspace for you! No swarms for you!".
My opinion is that being free to play would attract the wrong crowd, namely whiny little snots who are too stupid to understand that they could pay for a subscription by simply mowing a lawn once a month. We don't need their kind. I don't think the publicity would be worth the lower quality of playerbase. Furthermore, the change would require developer effort, which would be more wisely spent developing.
The way it is now, everybody is equal. This is the way it should be. When playing chess, the rich are not allowed to pay a fee to replace a rook with a second queen, nor is castling restricted to those who have a premium membership. Granted this is an unfair analogy, as chess doesn't require a subscription either...
I understand that people feel they should be able to use their money, but the point of a game world is to escape from reality, not drag it into the game. Whether you are rich or poor outside the game should have no bearing on what you have inside the game.
The only thing I would have no issue with being paid for content would be alternate silly ship textures, which have no impact on gameplay. I certainly don't believe that sufficient revenue could be garnered through that sole means to justify making the game free.
Anyways, I think you're missing genka's point actually. The "spitting in the beer" is how it is able to be given away for free. The free version has to be lesser than the paid version, or else there is no motivation to pay. Going back to the analogy, if you fire the bartenders who spit in the beer, then you will have to find some other way to make people want to pay for the beer. Maybe offer a different lesser quality beer, or water it down, or don't wash the glass, or restrict the drinking of that beer to a location filled with mosquitoes.
The point is that the people who pay get something better than the people who don't, and that the difference is intentional, therefor the free version is intentionally worse than what the people who pay for everything get.
I think you are looking at this as "get the basic cheap car, or pay more and get the same car but with power windows etc. added", whereas genka is looking at it as "we build the fancy car, but then sell a version with the power windows removed for cheaper". Filling the glass halfway up vs. pouring the glass halfway out.
In the end they are basically the same. Genka's view is more accurate in the case of things like level caps and activity restrictions or serious equipment restrictions that limit overall gameplay. Your view is more accurate when it's mainly minor location and equipment restrictions but nothing on the order of "No greyspace for you! No swarms for you!".
My opinion is that being free to play would attract the wrong crowd, namely whiny little snots who are too stupid to understand that they could pay for a subscription by simply mowing a lawn once a month. We don't need their kind. I don't think the publicity would be worth the lower quality of playerbase. Furthermore, the change would require developer effort, which would be more wisely spent developing.
The way it is now, everybody is equal. This is the way it should be. When playing chess, the rich are not allowed to pay a fee to replace a rook with a second queen, nor is castling restricted to those who have a premium membership. Granted this is an unfair analogy, as chess doesn't require a subscription either...
I understand that people feel they should be able to use their money, but the point of a game world is to escape from reality, not drag it into the game. Whether you are rich or poor outside the game should have no bearing on what you have inside the game.
The only thing I would have no issue with being paid for content would be alternate silly ship textures, which have no impact on gameplay. I certainly don't believe that sufficient revenue could be garnered through that sole means to justify making the game free.
@Phaserlight: Though I didn't read all of your link, I think I understand what you're getting at and I agree to an extent. I think the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" is something that can be controlled by the specific implementation of the digital goods model. But I still think, especially when we are talking about the type of player involved and for the purposes of conversion, your F2P model is going to be MUCH more attractive to the type of player that might not be willing to commit to a subscription model, but would otherwise play regularly.
Okay I usually enjoy Rin's posts. But you can all drop the ridiculous attempted RL metaphors right now, they are nauseating, extremely unconvincing and you all remind me of ARF and that's not a good thing.
F2P is a marketing penetration and recurring revenue strategy. It's designed largely around the concept of a micro-transaction supported business model which is a current big trend in the digital commerce scene. That's all well and good, but the whole premise of the thread is whether or not this could/should work for VO.
Ultimately, in it's current state, I think it's a reasonable assertion to say that F2P would kill VO. With that in mind, I think it is something that Vendetta should work towards. This is the type of game that has potential to be extremely populated. For this to happen, something needs to change, and F2P is a fantastic way to tap into the massive casual gaming market especially in the mobile marketplace. A successful F2P business model conversion would be far better for VO in the mobile marketplace than anything they have done to date in my view.
The problem is, as I think phaserlight correctly refers to, is how to correctly implement the balance between those who contribute a majority of the income, and those who do not. Subscription might not suit everybody, but it is considered fairly egalitarian as far as an equal playing field is concerned. It's a delicate balance, for sure, but I don't think it's as difficult to implement or has to be as gameplay destructive. My favourite example is Team Fortress 2. People pay for HATS, decorative items, with no gameplay altering affects. It's entirely cosmetic and exists to give players a unique callsign or look. The same kind of model can work for vendetta, we don't need to give players a big fat advantage just because they happen to have a big fat wallet, but we also don't have to compromise income just because we want to keep our game fair and fun for everyone who plays.
I agree with genka that it is disgusting, even heinous the way some of these games are developed around creating psychological desires or problems and then presenting the solution as an easy payment. But that is how all marketing works, thats how copyright works, thats how intellectual property works. Artificial restrictions created purely for profit. Welcome to capitalism. Its yuck.
The TF2 method is just one particular example, I know there are other creative solutions out there that create ROI for developers and a good balance of egalitarianism and fairness amongst players in the F2P model.
I think it ultimately is the way to go as far a model goes, I think the subscription model is antiquated and really only appeals to an older demographic. I certainly had reservations about committing to a subscription. I still do. I don't like that I have to pay recurring monthly fees to just log on and play every now and then. It feels like I'm wasting time that I've paid for if I don't play, and that's not how you want your players to feel. From the devs perspective, the less time I play, the less server resources I use, but they pocket the same amount. In a F2P model, your high spenders usually correspond to those who spend more time online.
Another point is that digital goods feel like possessions to mmo players. You work hard to earn some of them, but if you have to pay subscription money to access them casually, that creates the feeling of a barrier that is inconsistent with property, and it makes it less desirable. This is another part of the reason I feel that F2P works better for MMO games. the reason people are playing is BECAUSE you offer persistence of progress. If you're throwing up a psychological barrier to that it is less desirable.
What it comes down to is ultimately, yes, you will have players who don't want to pay in your game. And they will need some sort of psychological motivation to purchase additional items or benefits in the game for it to remain profitable. That doesn't mean the game has to spiral into a hierarchical mess. Money is a force for hierarchy, but in a subscription model, time is arguably just as big a discriminating factor as money can be in a F2P model.
Oh look I've written too much. Great.
TL;DR: I don't blame you at all. Basically, I think F2P is the way to go for VO in the future (but definitely not right now), but it's not a question of whether or not the model is right for VO at all, but how it is executed that makes all the difference in success vs. failure.
Okay I usually enjoy Rin's posts. But you can all drop the ridiculous attempted RL metaphors right now, they are nauseating, extremely unconvincing and you all remind me of ARF and that's not a good thing.
F2P is a marketing penetration and recurring revenue strategy. It's designed largely around the concept of a micro-transaction supported business model which is a current big trend in the digital commerce scene. That's all well and good, but the whole premise of the thread is whether or not this could/should work for VO.
Ultimately, in it's current state, I think it's a reasonable assertion to say that F2P would kill VO. With that in mind, I think it is something that Vendetta should work towards. This is the type of game that has potential to be extremely populated. For this to happen, something needs to change, and F2P is a fantastic way to tap into the massive casual gaming market especially in the mobile marketplace. A successful F2P business model conversion would be far better for VO in the mobile marketplace than anything they have done to date in my view.
The problem is, as I think phaserlight correctly refers to, is how to correctly implement the balance between those who contribute a majority of the income, and those who do not. Subscription might not suit everybody, but it is considered fairly egalitarian as far as an equal playing field is concerned. It's a delicate balance, for sure, but I don't think it's as difficult to implement or has to be as gameplay destructive. My favourite example is Team Fortress 2. People pay for HATS, decorative items, with no gameplay altering affects. It's entirely cosmetic and exists to give players a unique callsign or look. The same kind of model can work for vendetta, we don't need to give players a big fat advantage just because they happen to have a big fat wallet, but we also don't have to compromise income just because we want to keep our game fair and fun for everyone who plays.
I agree with genka that it is disgusting, even heinous the way some of these games are developed around creating psychological desires or problems and then presenting the solution as an easy payment. But that is how all marketing works, thats how copyright works, thats how intellectual property works. Artificial restrictions created purely for profit. Welcome to capitalism. Its yuck.
The TF2 method is just one particular example, I know there are other creative solutions out there that create ROI for developers and a good balance of egalitarianism and fairness amongst players in the F2P model.
I think it ultimately is the way to go as far a model goes, I think the subscription model is antiquated and really only appeals to an older demographic. I certainly had reservations about committing to a subscription. I still do. I don't like that I have to pay recurring monthly fees to just log on and play every now and then. It feels like I'm wasting time that I've paid for if I don't play, and that's not how you want your players to feel. From the devs perspective, the less time I play, the less server resources I use, but they pocket the same amount. In a F2P model, your high spenders usually correspond to those who spend more time online.
Another point is that digital goods feel like possessions to mmo players. You work hard to earn some of them, but if you have to pay subscription money to access them casually, that creates the feeling of a barrier that is inconsistent with property, and it makes it less desirable. This is another part of the reason I feel that F2P works better for MMO games. the reason people are playing is BECAUSE you offer persistence of progress. If you're throwing up a psychological barrier to that it is less desirable.
What it comes down to is ultimately, yes, you will have players who don't want to pay in your game. And they will need some sort of psychological motivation to purchase additional items or benefits in the game for it to remain profitable. That doesn't mean the game has to spiral into a hierarchical mess. Money is a force for hierarchy, but in a subscription model, time is arguably just as big a discriminating factor as money can be in a F2P model.
Oh look I've written too much. Great.
TL;DR: I don't blame you at all. Basically, I think F2P is the way to go for VO in the future (but definitely not right now), but it's not a question of whether or not the model is right for VO at all, but how it is executed that makes all the difference in success vs. failure.
See look what you made me do. a bunch of incoherent points that have no symphony or direction. It's one of the least persuasive pieces I've written.
/sigh. Stupid democracy.
/sigh. Stupid democracy.
If you want market penetration, make up a flyer with a QR code to the main website and post it around your local community college. Write honest reviews leaving positive feedback on websites you have connections with. Describe what things you enjoy about the game. Tell your friends about it. Word of mouth is a powerful tool.
My girlfriend knows all about Vendetta Online, and I don't think she's ever heard of Eve. When asked if there were any brands I was loyal to in class I responded "Guild Software". If someone hears something once, twice, three times in passing, they are more likely to respond to a call-to-action. You can do subliminal marketing all on your own. It's like that novel Pattern Recognition by W. Gibson.
My girlfriend knows all about Vendetta Online, and I don't think she's ever heard of Eve. When asked if there were any brands I was loyal to in class I responded "Guild Software". If someone hears something once, twice, three times in passing, they are more likely to respond to a call-to-action. You can do subliminal marketing all on your own. It's like that novel Pattern Recognition by W. Gibson.
Resuming this ancient issue, for me if rules are clear when you first visit site, then it is not "fooling the user", but choices! I like choices!
Instead of Advertizing "F2P", VO should say Flexible model
Maybe VO should dare and open a new path:
F2LP+S4A+P4E
Free to Limited Play, Subs for Play unlimited, Pay for extras
-Free play default for mobiles/small screens, limited play TBD
-Subs for all is current model.
-Pay for Extras, as capships, stations, guild creation, SHOP location, etc...
Free Limited play can be some of:
-few slots per server, deferred for subscribers (popular on clan/team servers)
-Gameplay limited to gunner/hive-BOT/Pirate,Rogues,NewFaction
-Limited hours per day per player (opposing to now's few hours per email)
-limited licenses, standing, banking
-Restricted ships, items and areas
-Free accounts are unable to fly thru wormholes, only as passenger or gunner.
-limited only to Android/Portable clients
-Many other options discussed many times
Extras are best suited for groups, and should not imbalance game. Just like owning one ConqStation or cappie does not make anyone invencible. And remain buildable. But if a new kid want to spend some $100 for a trident that can be destroyed as any other ship, why not?
Complex? not really, just a new wider path...
For me, I would keep subscribing for regular gameplay, but would also use a daily time quota to play on a free account as (hiveBot,Pirate)... and I believe that it could indeed improve VO income...
Instead of Advertizing "F2P", VO should say Flexible model
Maybe VO should dare and open a new path:
F2LP+S4A+P4E
Free to Limited Play, Subs for Play unlimited, Pay for extras
-Free play default for mobiles/small screens, limited play TBD
-Subs for all is current model.
-Pay for Extras, as capships, stations, guild creation, SHOP location, etc...
Free Limited play can be some of:
-few slots per server, deferred for subscribers (popular on clan/team servers)
-Gameplay limited to gunner/hive-BOT/Pirate,Rogues,NewFaction
-Limited hours per day per player (opposing to now's few hours per email)
-limited licenses, standing, banking
-Restricted ships, items and areas
-Free accounts are unable to fly thru wormholes, only as passenger or gunner.
-limited only to Android/Portable clients
-Many other options discussed many times
Extras are best suited for groups, and should not imbalance game. Just like owning one ConqStation or cappie does not make anyone invencible. And remain buildable. But if a new kid want to spend some $100 for a trident that can be destroyed as any other ship, why not?
Complex? not really, just a new wider path...
For me, I would keep subscribing for regular gameplay, but would also use a daily time quota to play on a free account as (hiveBot,Pirate)... and I believe that it could indeed improve VO income...
Well, having to pay real money to establish a guild would help to reduce instances of silly vanity guilds I suppose.
As for people being able to just plop down money and get a trident... Long-run, I'd have to say no to that. Short run, that might actually be a good fund raising idea. Frame it as a reward for large donations rather than a purchase. Throw the devs $100 and get a free uninsured trident. An insured trident costs a lot more real money than $100, considering the time it takes to craft one, and that time is money. Make that a $5k donation, on the off chance some loon actually does it.
But in general over the long term, I disagree with that. Games should be equalizers. Within a game, it should not matter how much money you have. The only out of game factors that should matter are skill, time, and network quality. Nothing useful should be purchasable.
As for people being able to just plop down money and get a trident... Long-run, I'd have to say no to that. Short run, that might actually be a good fund raising idea. Frame it as a reward for large donations rather than a purchase. Throw the devs $100 and get a free uninsured trident. An insured trident costs a lot more real money than $100, considering the time it takes to craft one, and that time is money. Make that a $5k donation, on the off chance some loon actually does it.
But in general over the long term, I disagree with that. Games should be equalizers. Within a game, it should not matter how much money you have. The only out of game factors that should matter are skill, time, and network quality. Nothing useful should be purchasable.
See now you're thinking rin.
There's no reason why actual game content that changes the dynamic couldn't work, as long as there are also freely available alternatives that are just as powerful. For instance, I would pay for different coloured blaster shots. Or even if you had a blaster with more speed but less damage than a neut and higher weight or something. There's even the possibility of having special effects from some weapons.
If you could purchase the ability to unlock and use these it would promote more freedom of choice, generate income without necessarily prejudicing those who do not pay, while still offering a unique point of different for those who do. Now my instinct is Rin is going to have a problem with that. You will find those that are
@Phaserlight: I know you advocate the game in your community, and it's admirable to support an independent game developer so vigorously. But It's not our job to market the game for GS. They already receive way more community support per capita than any other game I'm aware of. Ultimately GS needs to come up with a marketing strategy that works.
The answer can't be "If you want market penetration go out and tell the world". Market penetration is not just about promotion, it's also ultimately about the right product for the right person at the right price (4 p's anyone?). Having a F2P model appeals to the casual/mobile gaming market where 90% of the apps on the marketplace are either free, or require only a few bucks to play forever.
I heard something from incarnate in one of his posts about android having a low conversion rate. If that's the case, I think it might be a seriously viable option to offer a single fee for download on the android app, and then have android play be free after that. The game has some things to offer to android players, and If it's only like 10-15bucks once off it would be a much easier sell. Afterwards, as players decide they want to get more into PVP or they want to experience the game on computer, they can pay for a subscription to use it there. That way you appeal to casual players who just want to do a bit of mining/trading and botting on android, but the ones that want to participate fully in the big wars etc.. will be wanting to buy a subscription to use it on the computer.
It's just an idea, but I think some attention must be paid to the way the different marketplaces work. Market penetration is about appealing to people that you wouldn't usually appeal to. Removing the recurring or initial price-tag is a great way to do that and removes a barrier to entry after you've got them paying attention to the product.
There's no reason why actual game content that changes the dynamic couldn't work, as long as there are also freely available alternatives that are just as powerful. For instance, I would pay for different coloured blaster shots. Or even if you had a blaster with more speed but less damage than a neut and higher weight or something. There's even the possibility of having special effects from some weapons.
If you could purchase the ability to unlock and use these it would promote more freedom of choice, generate income without necessarily prejudicing those who do not pay, while still offering a unique point of different for those who do. Now my instinct is Rin is going to have a problem with that. You will find those that are
@Phaserlight: I know you advocate the game in your community, and it's admirable to support an independent game developer so vigorously. But It's not our job to market the game for GS. They already receive way more community support per capita than any other game I'm aware of. Ultimately GS needs to come up with a marketing strategy that works.
The answer can't be "If you want market penetration go out and tell the world". Market penetration is not just about promotion, it's also ultimately about the right product for the right person at the right price (4 p's anyone?). Having a F2P model appeals to the casual/mobile gaming market where 90% of the apps on the marketplace are either free, or require only a few bucks to play forever.
I heard something from incarnate in one of his posts about android having a low conversion rate. If that's the case, I think it might be a seriously viable option to offer a single fee for download on the android app, and then have android play be free after that. The game has some things to offer to android players, and If it's only like 10-15bucks once off it would be a much easier sell. Afterwards, as players decide they want to get more into PVP or they want to experience the game on computer, they can pay for a subscription to use it there. That way you appeal to casual players who just want to do a bit of mining/trading and botting on android, but the ones that want to participate fully in the big wars etc.. will be wanting to buy a subscription to use it on the computer.
It's just an idea, but I think some attention must be paid to the way the different marketplaces work. Market penetration is about appealing to people that you wouldn't usually appeal to. Removing the recurring or initial price-tag is a great way to do that and removes a barrier to entry after you've got them paying attention to the product.
I have found video of TRS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoSQnewtSqI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NoSQnewtSqI
Re: TRS - I know it's not my job to promote VO, but I'll never hesitate to tell someone how I feel about it (I think everyone in the world should at least try it).
As far as what mobile users want; it's hard to say without conducting a survey. One of the most popular mobile MMOs, Order and Chaos Online, charges a monthly sub price. I think many players are surprised at VO's $10/month price tag because they don't realize it includes access to the game on all platforms.
Personally, I am very satisfied with the value I get out of the 2-year subscription plan ($6.67/mo, paid in advance). I don't believe in paying more than I should for a game, and I also admire transparency in business. For those reasons, the subscription plan works well for me. I think it would be interesting if VO offered a 4-year subscription plan at an even lower rate, but only the devs can really judge the utility of this.
The viewpoint of the gaming community is not as polarized as your argument makes it out to be, from my perspective. There are some that feel strongly enough about games not being free-to-play to suggest advertising the fact. I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, just offering a reminder the argument has many sides.
As far as what mobile users want; it's hard to say without conducting a survey. One of the most popular mobile MMOs, Order and Chaos Online, charges a monthly sub price. I think many players are surprised at VO's $10/month price tag because they don't realize it includes access to the game on all platforms.
Personally, I am very satisfied with the value I get out of the 2-year subscription plan ($6.67/mo, paid in advance). I don't believe in paying more than I should for a game, and I also admire transparency in business. For those reasons, the subscription plan works well for me. I think it would be interesting if VO offered a 4-year subscription plan at an even lower rate, but only the devs can really judge the utility of this.
The viewpoint of the gaming community is not as polarized as your argument makes it out to be, from my perspective. There are some that feel strongly enough about games not being free-to-play to suggest advertising the fact. I'm not suggesting this is a good idea, just offering a reminder the argument has many sides.
And again it points to the Fact that VO could benefit a lot from a diverse business model, with limited F2P and subscriptions, as I pointed above...
As long as instead of saying "FREE BEER" you say "ONE Free Beer" or "FREE warm BEER, cheap cold beers", you're not fooling the user, and also increasing the userbase, both casual and hardcore games.
Just remember how much more fun it is during that FREE WEEK every year, when all vets can play unsubb'd? More crowded, more action... more reasons to keep paying... or a way to visit once in a while for a quick play?
As long as instead of saying "FREE BEER" you say "ONE Free Beer" or "FREE warm BEER, cheap cold beers", you're not fooling the user, and also increasing the userbase, both casual and hardcore games.
Just remember how much more fun it is during that FREE WEEK every year, when all vets can play unsubb'd? More crowded, more action... more reasons to keep paying... or a way to visit once in a while for a quick play?
WALL OF TEXT
Alloh, do you think those vets would continue playing the rest of the year if it were free? I don't. The sort of people who show up during those bits of free time either don't have the time or the inclination to play the rest of the year. They're willing to show up for a little while around Christmas to check on things and hang out a bit (especially since the scheduling means they know other people will do the same thing at the same time, making it kind of a reunion type deal). If the devs said, "Starting this Christmas you can play for free forever", some of them would hang around for a while, but the majority would just trickle away after the first month or so. Because it isn't money that stops people from playing this game. It's lack of depth. (Yeah yeah, it has *some* depth, but not enough for everybody.)
And frankly, the sort of people who are attracted by F2P games are not the sort I want to play with anyway. Namely: people who are unwilling to pull their own weight.
And frankly, the sort of people who are attracted by F2P games are not the sort I want to play with anyway. Namely: people who are unwilling to pull their own weight.
I've said it before and I'll say it again.
Free2Play is a bad idea.
A subscription that only ticks down when you're in the game though, that might work.
Free2Play is a bad idea.
A subscription that only ticks down when you're in the game though, that might work.
Phaserlight said something neat:
If you want market penetration, make up a flyer with a QR code to the main website and post it around your local community college.
I'm going to go do this. IN fact, I'll do it tonight and email off the resulting PDF to Guild to do whateverthefuck they want with it. Done.
If you want market penetration, make up a flyer with a QR code to the main website and post it around your local community college.
I'm going to go do this. IN fact, I'll do it tonight and email off the resulting PDF to Guild to do whateverthefuck they want with it. Done.
A subscription that only ticks down when you're in the game though, that might work.
Well, it's better than F2P, and I wouldn't mind it being available as an alternative to normal subscription, but I would abhor using that kind of payment system myself. If other people want to pay that way, that's up to them, but I just want to throw a small fixed amount of money at the game and then play as much as I want without feeling like every minute I spend flying around was another drop leaking out of my wallet.
Well, it's better than F2P, and I wouldn't mind it being available as an alternative to normal subscription, but I would abhor using that kind of payment system myself. If other people want to pay that way, that's up to them, but I just want to throw a small fixed amount of money at the game and then play as much as I want without feeling like every minute I spend flying around was another drop leaking out of my wallet.
Well, technically, it's that way right now, with the added delight that it's all leaking out even when you're not playing.
But I can see your point.
But I can see your point.