PITTPETE

New Subscription type

23 posts in this topic

Motorhead -allows a player to use all tiered armor

Flyboy -Players have access to all tiered air

Grunt -Players have access to all tiered infantry

Navy -Lets face it, who's going to pay for just navy?:P

I'm sure this has been discussed before but can't/shouldn't be to difficult to implement?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 2:28 PM, Pittpete said:

Navy -Lets face it, who's going to pay for just navy?:P

 

You -could- put air and naval together, and offer three sub types rather than four.

 

 

 

-Irish

 

 

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL.   What you forgot to say is that these subscriptions should be less expensive than the the regular ones, the real reason you are suggesting this.

So the Rats are going to go through all that work, spend thousands or tens of thousands to code, test and implement, and to risk issues that screw up the subscription process, so you can save a few bucks?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spend 10's of thousands to code?

Put down the pipe....Perhaps you are accusing the wrong person of saving a few bucks?

Might just bring a few more subs..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, GrAnit said:

LOL.   What you forgot to say is that these subscriptions should be less expensive than the the regular ones, the real reason you are suggesting this.

So the Rats are going to go through all that work, spend thousands or tens of thousands to code, test and implement, and to risk issues that screw up the subscription process, so you can save a few bucks?

I dont think he is trying to save anything
I think he is just offering ideas on more sub types to cater to more potential customers
 

And good lord man, Tens of Thousands to code?
Come on, honestly, rethink that.
5 seconds, probably not, but copy what was done to create the starter, assign it different ID's
Hardest part is probably doing the billing system, which could be sandboxed and tested using beta accounts, because yes that part is true, the billing system likes to go wonky.
That isn't $10,000+ spent

It isn't a terrible idea, and perhaps may actually make sense in today's market to investigate after some other more pressing things come up to speed.

Something like

$7.99 Starter
$13.99 Niche (12 month agreement $11.99)
$17.99 Premium (12 month agreement $14.99)

 

Maybe good idea, maybe not, thats for sales and marketing guys to decide, no need to be a [censored] to the guy about it though?
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical line of high quality (and it better be!) code costs $30 to $40.  I would bet that the change would require at least a couple of hundred lines of code to implement.   Easy $6K.  Then double the estimate because software cost estimates are always off be at least a factor of two. 

Edited by GrAnit

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, GrAnit said:

Typical line of high quality (and it better be!) code costs $30 to $40.  I would bet that the change would require at least a couple of hundred lines of code to implement.   Easy $6K.  Then double the estimate because software cost estimates are always off be at least a factor of two. 

If you pay your inhouse staff like externally contracted persons, may i come work for you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2017 at 3:12 PM, merlin51 said:

$7.99 Starter
$13.99 Niche (12 month agreement $11.99)
$17.99 Premium (12 month agreement $14.99)

I think this "niche" option could work and bring in more subs too.  Great idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CRS's costs per player are not decreased based on that customer playing only one game-mode.

CRS's need is to get $17.99/$14.99 per player. That's the way the numbers shake out. It doesn't matter what that customer plays.

Offering a subscription-type at a lower revenue point would have the anti-CRS-success effect of decreasing total revenue from some existing customers, and causing some percentage of future subscribers to come in at a lower revenue point.

I certainly understand why some customers would like a lower price. Everyone would prefer to pay less for the things they buy. Why though would CRS want to offer pricing below what will result in a survivable revenue level?

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, jwilly said:

CRS's costs per player are not decreased based on that customer playing only one game-mode.

CRS's need is to get $17.99/$14.99 per player. That's the way the numbers shake out. It doesn't matter what that customer plays.

Offering a subscription-type at a lower revenue point would have the anti-CRS-success effect of decreasing total revenue from some existing customers, and causing some percentage of future subscribers to come in at a lower revenue point.

I certainly understand why some customers would like a lower price. Everyone would prefer to pay less for the things they buy. Why though would CRS want to offer pricing below what will result in a survivable revenue level?

understand the points and the paradox. however some of the recent threads speculating on the F2P/Subscription model and subscription variations have to do with the opportunity for new/younger/different players via Steam. 

surely the cost per player (and to what point on the sliding scale is that a viable way calculate costs/revenue?  ie. there must be a point or number at which CRS doesn't actually NEED $17/14 per player to survive depending on the actual discrete number of player/subscriptions) goes down dramatically if there are more players, no? so the opportunity (or dream or wish or possibility or potential) of having say 1000 new subs at $4/mo is equal to or better than 250 players at say, $16/mo - given two opposite considerations: 

> more players is good for the game and gameplay (thus obviating, hopefully, some of the low pop/tz3/no pop issues) and 
> assuming that the 1000 new players at $4/mo stick around 

and of course assuming that somewhere there is a magic number of  players/subscription cost that is a break even point - given the current givens of the game. (staff/monthly costs/hardline survival of the game number - beyond which incremental subs/revenue is profit and can be put back into game dev)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jwilly said:

Everyone would prefer to pay less for the things they buy.

Not so much i want them to give things away for less,
But for the 5 guys cool to plunk down the 17, i wanna scoop up the 20 in the corner that got 8 bucks burning away in their pocket.
Get them hooked on the little packs of crack, maybe some move to the bigger ones.
If not i still got 20 small time addicts.

It sounds good anyways? 
Maybe it does not play out as well as it sounds, lord knows i couldn't sell sex to a pervert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/5/2017 at 7:39 AM, GrAnit said:

LOL.   What you forgot to say is that these subscriptions should be less expensive than the the regular ones, the real reason you are suggesting this.

So the Rats are going to go through all that work, spend thousands or tens of thousands to code, test and implement, and to risk issues that screw up the subscription process, so you can save a few bucks?

 

Less expensive subscriptions for restricted access to all tanks only, or all planes only, etc = more profit for CRS due to economy of scale.

I would suspect that, all else being equal, this idea would result in a net increase in subscribers. More subscription options is more ways to get someone to sub and to stop existing subscribers from unsubbing.

Edited by xanthus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing wrong with offering more options to players.

Some people will never touch air or naval combat, why make them pay for that?

Lets not forget, just having population is the greatest payment, since more people=more content for everybody. If giving more flexible payment will keep someone in the game longer, then why not offer it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, xanthus said:

Less expensive subscriptions for restricted access to all tanks only, or all planes only, etc = more profit for CRS due to economy of scale.

I would imagine they would definitely consider it, IF we gain a sizable enough player base that shows a very positive interest in it.
It is a lot of work to set up in the game client, the database, server side, the billing system etc.

Im sure they will be monitoring steam heavily for feed back.
First though, they have to get the backbone premium subs, they will be what initially floats the ship, with the starters filling in the gaps.

Subs are good, and in an alternate reality where money does not exist and food just arrives at your door 3 times a day, i think i could guarantee you that everyone involved in the making of this game, from the official devs, the volunteers, the testing team etc would love to just put it out there 100% free just to have 10s of 1000s of people playing round the clock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HERO up boys and girls! 

It's the good thing to do!

Nothings gained without some "sacrifice."

:)

S!

(Well if you can.....that is)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Elfin said:

HERO up boys and girls! 

Of course if you want to be a real hero, get 3 normal subs
(Your own personal army LOL)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, knucks said:

Some people will never touch air or naval combat, why make them pay for that?

No one is paying for a game mode they don't use. We only pay for access to the game, and we can only access the game one mode at a time. If we only ever use one mode, that doesn't affect CRS's costs at all. They still need revenue of $17.99/$14.99 per player, whatever mode is being played.

It'd be different if a player could play ground and air and naval all at once. Then a player that only played ground would be using fewer CRS-paid resources. But, that's not how the game works.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/28/2017 at 10:42 AM, knucks said:

There's nothing wrong with offering more options to players.

Some people will never touch air or naval combat, why make them pay for that?

Lets not forget, just having population is the greatest payment, since more people=more content for everybody. If giving more flexible payment will keep someone in the game longer, then why not offer it?

Too many options become hard to support and confuse potential customers, especially new ones.

We are definitely concerned with getting more players into the game hence our focus on Steam and other marketing initiatives. By default this will dramatically improve game play with instant effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/3/2017 at 11:28 AM, Pittpete said:

Motorhead -allows a player to use all tiered armor

Flyboy -Players have access to all tiered air

Grunt -Players have access to all tiered infantry

Navy -Lets face it, who's going to pay for just navy?:P

I'm sure this has been discussed before but can't/shouldn't be to difficult to implement?

This sounds risky from a business perspective. If we have a die-hard air player right now paying a premium subscription, and they say Navy and Army play is negligible, that would directly harm the stability of operations here. We would need to see some exponential growth to consider something like this (which we are not considering at this time for these reasons).

I do appreciate the suggestion though, I know you meant it well to encourage growth, but there is also some very risky losses involved. S! 

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On Fri Jul 28 2017 at 7:42 PM, knucks said:

There's nothing wrong with offering more options to players.

Some people will never touch air or naval combat, why make them pay for that?

Lets not forget, just having population is the greatest payment, since more people=more content for everybody. If giving more flexible payment will keep someone in the game longer, then why not offer it?

Fully agree. Some veterans, that would pay full fee, did unsub because of the low pop situation and the problems it brings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.