P2P or P4Benefits?

[Draco]

P2P is great and all... but in my opinion thats only for games that can 100% guarantee a player base up in the hundreds of thousands.

I believe a big problem of why people didn't try xenimus is because it was a "free trial" and P2P when they've never even heard of it... this was an issue many many many times introducing others to xen.

Here's some separate ideas...

1) Giving bonuses for paying customers...
- access to special dungeons
- special quests
- +X% EXP
ect...

2) Get points to use special item from the Geosids
: say $5 gets you 2,500 points...
: you spend 300 and you can use a temporary NDNT Soul Drainer (weapon); the item would last say 3 days; then break and disappear.
: you can spend 500 to be granted a special personal buff, something like +3% EXP for a duration.

3) Restricting unpaid accounts from easily logging in during high population times.

4) Limited XX Hours per day.

Anything anyone else can come up with?

Come on, let's try to think of a way to keep new players coming and hooking them into the game, and encouraging players to spend their money for more than "just to try the game" or "just to play".

[Joe M.]

No real-world wealth for in-game goods. Perhaps access (to the game or to some dungeons) would work, but absolutely no buying of in-game items.

And I rather thought that Xen's system worked well: a long enough trial period to give somebody an idea of what the game is like, followed by a relatively low monthly fee.

[Karl G.]

In principle, I agree that pay for benefits would be ideal. Getting more people into the game is definitely a priority, since more people = more interaction = more complex game play, which is almost always more fun. The downside is the complexity that this brings.

I agree we can tackle this together--so let's get talking! I definitely agree with #3: unpaid accounts should be suppressed somewhat during peak hours. I don't think a special item is so good, though, because this allows people to essentially buy their power--we can't unbalance the game just because they have money.

So I'll just start throwing out ideas. They aren't winners but just to get us all thinking:

Players pay to put "points" on their account. These points can be used to "energize" a character so that they can gain access to a shrine at a lower level than is otherwise allowed--that way, characters who were paid in the beginning would end up somewhat stronger than those who didn't. These shrines would be available to everyone at a certain level.

Players lose EXP when they die, unless they use points to remove this effect.

Players can buy "protection" for an item they own, which will cause it to become NDNT. Possibly, this NDNT could be non-permanent (based of # of deaths, time period)

Forming a permanent "guild" has a start-up cost (guilds are distinct from parties--parties are just informal groups). Joining a guild could cost $$ also. It could be set up such that a guild gets "guild points" based on how much they charge to admit new members. These guild points could be used to buy guildhalls, castles, shared mounts, territory, items, upgrades for owned structures (such as guards), etc...


Unfortunately only the last guild idea has a semi-regular payment period. The issue is that some of these get a small amount of income, once. After that...nothing! And I still have to pay a monthly cost for server space.

[Joe M.]

NOTE: This is presented in reverse order, conclusions first, groundwork second. Apologies for the length, though most of the space is taken by quotes.

Conclusion:
Our accepted test is this: "Does a proposed measure (M) allow a player to 'buy power'?"

Of the measures so far proposed, we have seen a few Types of Measures:
Those That Pass: Buying Access: Access to Game; Access to Content (i.e., areas, social structures, &c.).
Those That Fail: Buying Power: Buying Character Power (i.e., exp boost, &c.); Buying Goods; Buying Protection for power (either for goods or for character power).

If we disagree on my pass/fails, we must either:
(A) Reject our Test (i.e., we must accept the "buying of power");
(B) Object to my Types of Measures (i.e., to argue that a certain classification, such as Buying Protection, does not fail our test);
(C) Or object to my Classification of a particular Measure as a particular Type (i.e., a certain M does not constitute Buying Protection).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Groundwork:

I don't think a special item is so good, though, because this allows people to essentially buy their power--we can't unbalance the game just because they have money.

Herein lies the problem. Our test then, is this: "Does a proposed measure (M) allow a player to 'buy power'?"
So which of the suggested measures do not pass our test, and why?

From Draco:

(1) Giving bonuses for paying customers...
- (a) access to special dungeons
- (a) special quests
- (b) +X% EXP

(2) Get points to use special item from the Geosids
: say $5 gets you 2,500 points...
: you spend 300 and you can use a temporary NDNT Soul Drainer (weapon); the item would last say 3 days; then break and disappear.
: you can spend 500 to be granted a special personal buff, something like +3% EXP for a duration.

(3) Restricting unpaid accounts from easily logging in during high population times.

(4) Limited XX Hours per day.

(1) Here we really have two suggestions: (a) buying access to content, and (b) buying power. Clearly (a) fails, but (b) passes.
(2) Buying power/goods: Fails.
(3) Buying access to game itself: Passes.
(4) Buying access to game itself: Passes.

From Karl:

(5) Players pay to ... gain access to a shrine at a lower level than is otherwise allowed ... These shrines would be available to everyone at a certain level.

(6) Players lose EXP when they die, unless they use points to remove this effect.

(7) Players can buy "protection" for an item they own, which will cause it to become NDNT. Possibly, this NDNT could be non-permanent (based of # of deaths, time period)

(8) Forming a permanent "guild" has a start-up cost.

(9) Joining a guild could cost $$ also.

(10) It could be set up such that a guild gets "guild points" based on how much they charge to admit new members. These guild points could be used to buy guildhalls, castles, shared mounts, territory, items, upgrades for owned structures (such as guards), etc...

(5) Buying access to content: Passes.
(6) Buying protection: This is essentially the same as buying power. Therefore: Fails.
(7) Buying protection: Fails.
(8) Buying access to (social) content: Passes.
(9) Buying access to (social) content: Passes.
(10) Buying goods: Fails.

[Joe M.]

And, to make this even easier to discuss:

These are simply Measures that Pass/Fail our Test. This says nothing about the other considerations that must be taken into account when considering a Measure: Too much, too little, unnecessary, too complex, even a good idea?, &c., &c.

Also, I apologize for the convoluted numbering. I'm trying to keep all my lists separate so we can refer to each distinct idea clearly.

The test: "Does a proposed measure (M) allow a player to 'buy power'?"

Measures that Pass our Test: (P)

(P.A) Access to game:

(P.A.1) Must pay to play.
(P.A.2) Unpaid accounts suppressed during peak hours.
(P.A.3) Unpaid accounts allotted XX hours of play per time period T.
(P.A.4) Unpaid account kicked when server is full and paid client wishes to log in.
(P.B) Access to in-game content:

(P.B.1) Access to special (i.e., exclusive-to-paid-players) dungeons.
(P.B.2) Access to special quests.
(P.B.3) Access to level-exclusive dungeons at a lower level.
(P.C) Access to social content:

(P.C.1) Start a guild.
(P.C.2) Join a guild.
(P.C.3) "Guild Rent."

Measures that Fail our Test:(F)

(F.A) Buying of Enhancers:

(F.A.1)Exp boost.
(F.A.2)Item boost.
(F.B) Buying of Goods:

(F.B.1) Special item.
(F.B.2) Special building.
(F.C) Buying of Protection:

(F.C.1) Protection for item (becomes NDNT).
(F.C.2) Protection for exp (no exp penalty on death).

(P.B.3): "Guild Rent": A small, recurring fee to keep a guild running. If not paid, guild shut down.

Note that (P.A), (P.B), and (P.B.3) are all something for which a recurring fee can be charged. I do not think that (P.B.3) is a good idea, but I thought it would be good to have it on the table.

[Karl G.]

Thanks Joe!! Having a way to evaluate these methods will make this much easier to debate in a useful way.

The problem I see with the methods that pass this first 'coarse' test is that they do not provide a constant source of payment, and it is difficult to imagine an intuitive way to allow players to pre-pay.

I think that the maximum hours per day thing might be a workable alternative to pay-for-time. That way, people who really like the game could support it and gain even more access. What about kicking unpaid accounts when the server is full and a paid client wants to log in?

The exclusive dungeons might be toeing the line. If an exclusive dungeon is inherently better due to fewer players, more spawn or easier/higher EXP monsters, then it is nearly the same as a player buying enhancement for him/herself. If it isn't inherently better, then why would players want to pay to get access to it?

[Joe M.]

Added:

(P.A.4) Unpaid account kicked when server is full and paid client wishes to log in.

This is clearly related to (P.A.2), though a little more aggressive.

-------------------
Now to your concerns.
Here's what I was envisioning: a fully functional game available for free, for a limited number of hours per day, with accounts subject to further restrictions during high traffic; an expanded game (more areas, more quests, more social features) with unlimited play available for a monthly payment. If you stop paying, your account is relegated to "unpaid" status and subject to all appropriate restrictions until you start paying again. Accounts inactive for a while are deleted. This provides a constant flow of money without unreasonably advantaging paid accounts.

The exclusive dungeons might be toeing the line. If an exclusive dungeon is inherently better due to fewer players, more spawn or easier/higher EXP monsters, then it is nearly the same as a player buying enhancement for him/herself. If it isn't inherently better, then why would players want to pay to get access to it?

Although paid accounts would have access to more content, and would thus have more opportunity for enhancing their characters, I see this as distinct from buying the enhancement directly: access to hunting grounds vs. buying EXP directly. There doesn't seem to be a difference between what you fear in this case (more/better places to level --> more powerful characters) and a time restriction (more time to level --> more powerful characters).

Of course there is some advantage to be gained by paying, but that's just the nature of the paying/not-paying split.

[Sankt Pauli]

Those ideas sound pretty nice, i especially like the ideas about the different way of buying "enhancements" so that you cannot simply buy yourself a powerful character.

[Karl G.]

Of course there is some advantage to be gained by paying, but that's just the nature of the paying/not-paying split.

Haha oh yeah... duh. I guess that would be the whole point.

Well, unless there are any more ideas I think we have a winner: limit hours/day and accessible areas on unpaid accounts.

[joeafro]

you could always pull an adventure-quest, and have it ftp, with limited access, or you could purchase an account and get full access >.>

[Joe M.]

That sounds like what we're saying, but it could be different ; what do you mean by "limited access"?

[joeafro]

well like, you don't get access to all of the places, all of the gear, use of all the mechanics (bazaar for instance) but your still free to use some of the stuff and go most of the places and use most of the gear...

get what i mean?


its kind of like buying an expansion imo

[Joe M.]

So the underlying idea is the same as what we've discussed, though you've, pointed to two options that we haven't specifically addressed:

* Access to the Bazaar.
* Access to (as opposed to the direct buying of) special items.

I'm not sure how to classify the first: it seems similar to <(P.C) Access to social content>, but there is a distinction. A similar idea might be <Access to world chat>: Access to in-game utilities. These seem to pass our test--no direct buying of power--but might not be a good idea.

Similarly, it seems that <Access to special items> would pass our test, but might not be a good idea.

So:
We have three new proposals: <Access to special items>; <Access to in-game utilities: Bazaar>; <Access to in-game utilities: World Chat>.
All three seem to pass our initial test, though whether or not they should be implemented is questionable.
What do y'all think: do they pass or fail, and if they do pass, should they be implemented, why or why not?

[Karl G.]

I have a new idea: expansion packs. I know, this sounds a little WoW-ish, but bear with me.

The basic game is free, perhaps limited by hours/day or something. However, there are areas of the game accessible via dungeon entrances, portals, boats, etc. that are considered "expansion" areas. These areas are actually on different servers. When a player pays for an expansion, the updater downloads the content pack (including new maps/monsters/whatever) and the server allows them to travel to that region.


Oh, and as far as those ideas go: I agree that they pass the test, but I don't think that they should be implemented. They seem too severely restrictive.