test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

Vet Reward - Lifetime Access?

SystemSystem Member, NoReporting Posts: 178,019 Arc User
I've seen suggestions for ways to approach lifetime membership incentives, vet rewards, etc.

I'd go one further and suggest introducing a few vet rewards and making one them be:

Subscribe for 3 years (36 months) at a monthly rate - Receive lifetime access.

It still costs less to do a standard lifetime sub but you might sway people into sticking it out, knowing their monthly fee is like making monthly payments on lifetime access. You get it at the point where you've paid for 3 years. That would mean that if you play the game for two years, you could buy a 12 month plan to upgrade your account to lifetime.

As it stands, it sure looks like the huge chunk of the playerbase is lifetime and that, at some point, C-Store is going to be what finances the game.

So why not build on that and offer everyone lifetime membership once they've paid for 36 months of gametime? It might improve retention. And you'll probably sell a lot of bulk gametime packages that way at the one and two year marks.

I think it enhances the perceived value of the $15 a month if you know that part of the value of your monthly fee is making payments on a lifetime membership.
Post edited by Unknown User on
«1

Comments

  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    This is a good idea. It is cheaper than plunking down 300 US dollars for a lifetime subscribtion. The risk is fairly acceptable since there are alot of players leaving due to complaints about connection or gameplay issues. Offering a reward could definitly convince people to stay for the long haul. Cryptic, if you are reading this, start working on a plan for rewarding long-term players.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I don't see this being good for Cryptic, unless they only allow it to be 36 concurrent months (i.e. if you cancel your account for 2 months, you start all over when you re-sub).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Soupgoblin wrote: »
    I don't see this being good for Cryptic, unless they only allow it to be 36 concurrent months (i.e. if you cancel your account for 2 months, you start all over when you re-sub).

    I've been a proponent of Vet Rewards being for concurrent months played before so I have no issue with this.

    But it also seems to me that this game is predominantly lifers and that even new recruits to the game who enjoy it seem to go lifetime. As such, the profitability model is going to be C-Store centric after a large initial investment anyway... So you wind up penalizing non-lifers in a system like that, where the C-Store and pricing models will likely assume that everyone is a lifer.

    So my thought is, you pay more over time by not just buying the lifer plan. But it frees Atari and Cryptic up to plan this game as a free to play game with a high initial buy-in (which you can finance as a monthly fee). I think that's probably the model this game will use longterm planning (free to play, C-Store subsidized, with a high initial buy-in) so the only thing I'm really suggesting is to make that model more attractive by treating the monthly fee more as a financed lifetime plan payment.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Oh noooooo, the link in my signature is coming true?

    Look I'm not saying the current post-launch lifetime is a bad idea (From the player perspective), and I support Vet Rewards, but too many liftimes asks the question, who's paying the salaries of the devs month to month? Surely the game can't survive on CStore purchases only?

    Online games are a business, and of course most game devs love their job. But even if devs worked for free, there's server and electrify costs.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bron wrote:
    Oh noooooo, the link in my signature is coming true?

    I don't know. I kinda think that a free to play game with a $400-$550+ buy-in at a monthly rate over three years or one time payment of $340, with C-Store subsidiziation... It might not be such an awful model for a niche game. At the very least, it creates several likely "points of no return" where you know that each month you keep a subscriber around, you're less likely to lose them. And as a subscriber, maybe you'll sub a few months when there isn't as much going on that interests you just to "stick it through" for lifetime access. And it opens up lifetime to people with less disposable income per month. And it pushes aside the lifer vs. monthly debate since lifer is where everyone will eventually end up.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Yea but if this game goes F2P the lifetimers don't get their money's worth, though.

    Just think about it for a second. You paid 300/240 + retail code, and now the game is free to play with optional Cash Shop. You just lost your initial investment.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bron wrote:
    Look I'm not saying the current post-launch lifetime is a bad idea (From the player perspective), and I support Vet Rewards, but too many liftimes asks the question, who's paying the salaries of the devs month to month? Surely the game can't survive on CStore purchases only?

    The game will have to survive on C-Store and expansion purchases largely in about a year or so as it stands.

    I think treating the monthly fee as a fairly high interest, $15 a month "rent to own" on lifetime access would attract and retain more players overall.

    This really is a free to play game with a high buy in. If you doubt that, look at how much blue you see in the average forum thread. All I'm saying is, I think you'll get more monthly subs if you acknowledge that and treat monthly subs as a financed lifetime plan.

    Whereas the alternative is a game almost exclusively played by people who can afford to go lifer.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bron wrote:
    Yea but if this game goes F2P the lifetimers don't get their money's worth, though.

    Just think about it for a second. You paid 300/240 + retail code, and now the game is free to play with optional Cash Shop. You just lost your initial investment.

    I'm saying that the game right now is a $330 FTP game. That's where the value is.

    It's worth a one time $330 fee, if you can afford it, but not really worth a monthly fee. But if the monthly fee is effectively a financing plan on the $330, you're more likely to get people to try it out and stick around.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    That is what I'm saying too, so we agree. ;) There's too much blue. If everybody is eventually aiming for the 300 dollar lifetime, there comes a point at which the monthly income for the company is too low to support itself.

    Either they stop offering lifetimes (CO still doesn't have any post-launch lifetime plan), or the game could end up F2P eventually, with the blues effectively losing their high buy in (Meant to pay for upcoming months then "free play" after).
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bron wrote:
    That is what I'm saying too, so we agree. ;) There's too much blue. If everybody is eventually aiming for the 300 dollar lifetime, there comes a point at which the monthly income for the company is too low to support itself.

    I'm saying that point may come anyway and it will be C-Store supported at that point. You can see that in the rate C-Store content is coming out.

    So what I'm saying, acknowledge that and embrace it. Take the plunge and you'll see more monthly subs and retail sales by treating the monthly fee as a financed lifetime.

    They come out ahead that way if nothing else because only half of retail sales on an MMO translate to subscribers in an MMO -- but they generate retail sales with the offer.

    And I also think you'd see a shift in the community. Do I have issues with the game? Sure. Do you? Sure. But lifers generally tend to have a more positive outlook and I think the monthly subbers would take on a bit more of that tone if they were lifers on a finance plan. All of which would generate more goodwill and growth.

    I realize what I'm saying is basically the MMO equivalent of the Dominion War plan proposed by Jack, the augment from DS9. But I think it's worth weighing into consideration. This game is and will have to be managed not as a monthly game ($30 and $15 per month) but as an expensive FTP game (ie. $330+). If you're looking at the latter outcome anyway, you can generate buzz, new subs and retention by treating the $15 as a financing plan on the $330 FTP game.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Yes I do have a positive outlook on the game because I have that kind of time, and I understand what you're saying. While subbers seem to only stay while the game is worth the upcoming month. I'm not trying to argue with you.

    Look, were both blue, and paid that up front fee. In 16 months from February I will be effectively playing for free and possibly supporting the game through the Cash Shop.

    If the game goes F2P before those 16 months, I am losing money on this investment. If the game goes F2P before 16 months, it's no longer worth the early investment for the pre-launch consumer. If the game goes F2P before 20 months, it is no longer worth the early investment to the post-launch consumer.

    I was not trying to start an argument or shoot down your idea. Please do not think that. I support this idea, and even an eventual conversion to full F2P. The one point I was trying to stress is the F2P conversion shouldn't happen earlier than 16/20 months.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I like this idea.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    I think Leviathan doesn't like me anymore and got the wrong idea? I'll just bottomline it if he still cares to read. :(

    1. I support this thread. It's only fair to those paying consecutively for 3 years.

    2. If the game goes F2P too early the current lifetimers get shafted.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bron wrote:
    I think Leviathan doesn't like me anymore and got the wrong idea? I'll just bottomline it if he still cares to read. :(

    1. I support this thread. It's only fair to those paying consecutively for 3 years.

    2. If the game goes F2P too early the current lifetimers get shafted.

    Ah. Yeah.

    Nothing personal. Not upset with you or anything. I just thought that our cases had pretty much been stated.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Lifetime subs are about putting faith in a company whether you buy it before launch as some of us did which was a tremendous leap of faith or you do it now while they still offer it which is a different level of faith. Anyway you either buy it or you don't and lose out when they stop offering. They should offer some sort of vet reward like CoH has for every 3 months etc...
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting a monthly payment plan for lifetime membership, where once you reach to set price, you'd stop being charged. Sounds fantastic to me, the NRA does something similar for their lifetime membership, only theirs is quarterly.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're suggesting a monthly payment plan for lifetime membership, where once you reach to set price, you'd stop being charged. Sounds fantastic to me, the NRA does something similar for their lifetime membership, only theirs is quarterly.

    Basically, in reverse, yes.

    As long as they offer lifetime plans, people who enjoy the game will buy them if they can afford them. People who buy lifetimes seem to be more patient.

    So why not infect the monthlies a bit by telling them that their monthly fee will stop at a certain point (36 months) if they stick with the game?

    It generates buzz. Gets people to check out the game. Improves monthly player satisfaction and retention. And it doesn't cost Cryptic anything for people who don't stick around or if we're looking towards a point in the future when the game will be almost all lifers anyway.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Ah. Yeah.

    Nothing personal. Not upset with you or anything. I just thought that our cases had pretty much been stated.
    Oh thank you for explaining that. I thought I got you annoyed at me and I was like :(. I'm just not sure if offering lifetimes post-launch for an indefinite amount of time (As in if they never stop offering the $300 lifetime) is good for the company in the long term, but that's off topic and I'm sorry about the off topicness.

    But yea it is definitely a tremendous leap of faith as Akikisaragi said.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    cryptic wont do this because if the consumer pays for 3 years whats going to make them not pay next month or the month after that.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Goons101 wrote:
    cryptic wont do this because if the consumer pays for 3 years whats going to make them not pay next month or the month after that.

    Can someone translate this for me. Seriously, I can't for the life of me understand what is meant by this post.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bron wrote:
    That is what I'm saying too, so we agree. ;) There's too much blue. If everybody is eventually aiming for the 300 dollar lifetime, there comes a point at which the monthly income for the company is too low to support itself.

    Either they stop offering lifetimes (CO still doesn't have any post-launch lifetime plan), or the game could end up F2P eventually, with the blues effectively losing their high buy in (Meant to pay for upcoming months then "free play" after).

    Well, even well-established MMOs (Eve is the only one I've seen a cited figure for - 7 months) have average sub lengths of less than a year. That's why the effort goes into veteran rewards and such, to entice people to stay on for lengths greater than the statistical average. Cryptic's almost certainly averaging getting more money up front from the lifetimers than they would over an infinite length of service availability.

    Idunno if the rent-to-own idea is as good, because someone with 36 months of subbing has essentially already lost the bet with themselves of not buying a Lifetime, so Crytpic can probably keep counting on them for continued income. Or something. Blood sugar just started running out, and thus intelligence.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Soupgoblin wrote: »
    I don't see this being good for Cryptic, unless they only allow it to be 36 concurrent months (i.e. if you cancel your account for 2 months, you start all over when you re-sub).

    Well, unlike some of you big money people, I hit hard times from time to time where believe it or not, 15 bucks is too much. So I guess people like me, who have played games like City of Heroes for 5 years with a few months here and there off due to finances are just SOL.

    Bad idea.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Well, even well-established MMOs (Eve is the only one I've seen a cited figure for - 7 months) have average sub lengths of less than a year. That's why the effort goes into veteran rewards and such, to entice people to stay on for lengths greater than the statistical average. Cryptic's almost certainly averaging getting more money up front from the lifetimers than they would over an infinite length of service availability.
    then is this a bad sign that lifetimes are still available? I've always figured the CO lifetimes were to "start up" the company after initial dev time on their game, but either they still need money that badly or dare i say it, they want this money up front so they could walk away with it and STO could be canned by Atari before the investment of the lifetimers pays off for them?

    Seriously I'm scared now.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bron wrote:
    then is this a bad sign that lifetimes are still available? I've always figured the CO lifetimes were to "start up" the company after initial dev time on their game, but either they still need money that badly or dare i say it, they want this money up front so they could walk away with it and STO could be canned by Atari before the investment of the lifetimers pays off for them?

    Seriously I'm scared now.

    You worry too much. Matrix Online by far had the lowest population in any game I have ever seen. It went live in March 22nd of 05 and ran until July 31 of 09. That's 4 years+. Sad really, I actually enjoyed that game a great deal. Was sad to see it go. I think if that game can last 4 years, this game can too. In which case a Life Time Sub will be well payed for.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Bron wrote:
    then is this a bad sign that lifetimes are still available? I've always figured the CO lifetimes were to "start up" the company after initial dev time on their game, but either they still need money that badly or dare i say it, they want this money up front so they could walk away with it and STO could be canned by Atari before the investment of the lifetimers pays off for them?

    Seriously I'm scared now.

    I wouldn't let that scare you. What I meant to convey was along the lines of, "Lifetime subs would probably even be a winning proposition for Eve". Except people who would be lifetiming to Eve tend to be of the more ruthlessly calculating sort so they'd probably enter into it much less impulsively.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Well that makes me feel better. Thanks guys. :)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    So... the most loyal customers... they should stop making money off of them?

    Where in business school is this covered?




    -np
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    So... the most loyal customers... they should stop making money off of them?

    Where in business school is this covered?




    -np

    He he. I like it. I think you'll find it as a sb chapter of the segment entitled sure-fired ways to go bankrupt ;)
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    There's one thing a lifetime sub does that people aren't thinking about - it ties you into the game.

    If I'd paid for a LTS for EVE I wouldn't bother playing STO or whatever the next space MMO that comes out is. People tied into a game will spend more on extras for the game - like the C-Store.

    So lifetime subs are good for retaining customers.

    I couldn't risk the LTS with the way the game was during closed beta - it stunk and I didn't have the cash to invest. A LTS is good for me because I'm a casual player.
  • Archived PostArchived Post Member Posts: 2,264,498 Arc User
    edited April 2010
    Why not give a veteran player. Who paid for the game 36 months. A in game title or 360 Cryptic points. Instead throwing away profits?
Sign In or Register to comment.