First of all, as has been pointed out, the subscribed person has already paid well over the cost of a LTS, so it really doesn't cost them anything apart from an ongoing subscription. Having said that, continuing to pay for a subscription after you have the 1000 day Veteran reward is pointless anyway - You already have all of the rewards.
Next, it means that person is no longer paying $15 per month to PWE, and while they might not get the complete amount, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of that 'extra' money the player now has is spent in the Z-Store. Why? They have already paid for over 1000 days subscription, which in my eyes proves they are dedicated to the game, but they may not have been able to afford everything from the Z-Store on top of the subscription (like me and the OP). Besides, even if they have bought everything from the Z-Store already, new things are constantly being released into the store, and these new Veteran LTS'ers would now have more spare cash to throw at them.
They may not quite make as much as if someone continues subscribing, but with next to no reason to keep paying after you hit 1000 days, they would be losing it anyway. At least this way, they are encouraging people to continue playing and financially contributing to the game.
Um, ok. So how exactly does this benefit Cryptic again? Cause all I'm seeing is them losing out on a potential $15 dollars a month (or an additional $200 lifetime fee).
It is in their financial gain. I have and continue to spend vast sums of money on their product. Showing some loyalty towards me in return is not unreasonable.
Sorry, but financially its not. It's not unreasonable, it's just unlikely. Your trying to prop up the lifetime bonus as a reason you'd keep playing the game. The fact is, if you kept a subscription for 1000 days, your probably not going anywhere.
I'm not saying it isn't something they shouldn't do, I'm saying its something they won't do.
Um, ok. So how exactly does this benefit Cryptic again? Cause all I'm seeing is them losing out on a potential $15 dollars a month (or an additional $200 lifetime fee).
Because, who is more likely to spend money in the store? The silver player who comes and tries the game, or the dedicated player who has already been playing for over 1000 days and has been rewarded for it? Yes, they may lose out on a monthly subscription, but that player will have an extra $15 to spend per month, and since they don't have to pay a subscription any longer, they may go and spend that in the Store. I know I would.
Um, ok. So how exactly does this benefit Cryptic again? Cause all I'm seeing is them losing out on a potential $15 dollars a month (or an additional $200 lifetime fee).
I'm seeing a lot of assumptions that Vet Rewards stop at 1,000 days too. That could be what's partially driving this expectation of earned LTS aside from the crazy assumption that multiple subscriptions filled up a LTS gauge to full entitling one to a free LTS.
Folks, they didn't chart Vet Rewards out to 1,000 days when they instituted the program in the beginning. I don't believe they went as far as even 400 or 500. As time went on, they revealed more, and eventually just plotted out to 1,000.
If you have a quote somewhere that there'll be no more vet rewards beyond 1,000, please bring it. But as it is, assuming that just because you've reached 1K that you've maxed out on Vet Rewards, have nothing new to be rewarded for, and thus deserve to just be given the additional lifetime perks, is unrealistic.
Cryptic is not going to stop requesting your contract renewal just because you've reached 1,000 days. The Veteran Rewards are their way of rewarding you for being a subber already.
This debate is going into another page and I doubt rehashing the same point of reason's going to change anything though. So I suppose it's 'agree to disagree' time.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] The Artist Formerly Known As Nikotaka ][ Join Date: Jan 2010 "Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers...?"
Because, who is more likely to spend money in the store? The silver player who comes and tries the game, or the dedicated player who has already been playing for over 1000 days and has been rewarded for it?
Is it not feasible that fresh meat that sees a whole sea of new shinies in the store, much of which they do not have access to automatically like Gold players do (Silver Account and all), would spend money to achieve it, rather than a Gold player who's gotten more perks of bank space, character slots, free respecs, an additional ship or three, so on?
You assume Silver Players are ephemeral beings who are only there for the free ride and vanish with the dawn. In fact, the whole essence of 'Free to Play' is to get people a taste of what they could have if they just shell out a little here, a little there, pad out their account to make some of the frustrations a bit easier. Silvers take a hit, buy more, potentially become Gold as they do. Or they stay as Silvers, peeking in now and then. There is no one type of F2P player.
There are going to be players who will spend on microtransactions regardless of their account status. But it's the Silver players who are already starting out with less to begin with, so there's more incentive for them to purchase.
P.S.: As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I am a Gold Player a few days away from 1K. I spend my time grinding dilithium to convert to Zen while it's still cheap on the exchange. I don't pump my $$ into STO very often because (and I assume some other vets can agree) anything I wanted from the C-Store, I either already got, or know enough ways to earn it through dil-exchange.
A newbie Silver likely gives up more cash to Cryptic than craggy old farts like vets do.
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC] The Artist Formerly Known As Nikotaka ][ Join Date: Jan 2010 "Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers...?"
Calculations for Present/Future Value depend on the rate you assign, and inflation is not generally a deciding factor unless you have no investment options. A company's demand for operating capital fluctuates according to their activities and fiscal period.
Businesses should be treated as rational. Obviously they would make more money from less LTS and more long term subscriptions, so when they promote LTS with discounts they either feel the LTS will make more than a subscription (the "game is dying" theory) or they merely want an influx of funds (either for an investment such as one-time purchases of hardware for Neverwinter, or to improve their financial statements for their shareholders as we near the end of Q4). In the latter case, obviously they value a large lump sum higher than small monthly installments.
I work in the financial sector, and annuities is basically our company's business model, with profit being made due to PV/FV differences. At least for us, inflation is irrelevant since we deal with rates ranging from 10% to 15%.
Thanks for pointing that out, was waiting for somebody to spell it out in financial terms.
To (try to) simplify the point being made in that article, there are two factors to consider here:
1. Risk - When you front $200-$300 for an LTS, you are taking a risk. You are risking that, before your LTS pays itself off, that the game will not shut down and you will not lose interest. Say you buy for $200, that takes just over 13 months to pay off at $15/mo. If the game shuts down before you reach that point, you lost money. Likewise, if the game fails to hold your interest and you leave never to return before that 13 months, you wasted money. In investments, higher risk grants higher rewards. When you pay monthly, you are just paying for a service as you receive it. Your risk is minimal, and your rewards appropriate.
2. You get to hold on to your money - If you don't fork your money over to Cryptic all at once, you have the ability to make it work for you. You can spend it on other things. You can invest it to make more money. That last thing is really the kicker, it's the same reason you shouldn't set your income tax witholdings up so you get a refund. It's your money, there's value to holding onto it as long as you can. When you fork it over to Cryptic in a lump sum, you can be assured they put it to work to make more, and it accumulates over time. That's why $200 up front is worth more than $200 paid incrementally over time. It's also why when somebody lends you money, you pay interest, because they have lost the ability to gain from their money as long as you have it.
That's why auto converting monthly accounts to LTS doesn't make sense. It may not feel fair to you, but it is. These are economic concepts refined over centuries, and they make just as much sense to Cryptic running an MMO as they did to Florentine bankers in the Renaissance. You take a risk, you get a bigger reward. You pay somebody a bunch up front, they will compensate you for the use of your money during that time.
Look, I would not even be supportive of this but given they mishandled the Veteran Rewards as just a sales ploy to get people to dump one-large sum of money in game right now (instant gratification), I see no reason why the final 1000-day reward for Gold's is the upgrade to "lifetime"
Golds over that time have invested more money for a subscription than the costs of a lifetime.
Golds were a stable income over that time allowing for a baseline income for development.
I think my question is, "what's the upside for them?"
The upside for them is it gives meaning again to being a long-term Gold veteran. This in turn could result in more people that are F2P transitioning to Gold if they see there is an ultimate benefit to it. If we are assuming (as Cryptic has stated several times), F2P players are probably more fluvial in terms of sticking to a game, have less "cash-on-hand", or are more skeptical before investing in a game. A typical F2Per could be any or all of of those three or even ones I cannot think of. Seeing an ultimate goal of a transition from Gold to Lifetime at the 1000-day mark might persuade some people to take the "installment" route rather than the "one-lump-sum".
At the very beginning I made a choice to be cautious about the game even though I am a huge Star Trek fan. Thus, I chose to be more frugal and only pay for a subscription, that way I could cut my payments if the product was not up to snuff. If crafting, exploration, PvP, and the KDF content had seen a significant upgrade prior to F2P launch, I had made the decision to go lifetime. We all know that did not happen and there were several hits we did not like that have remained as things to live with. Although I did enjoy the DOFF system, that alone was not worth a subscription in my view. At that point, I made the decision to downgrade happily to F2P and I know many lifers were upset they did not have that option. Recently, with the subs sale I realized the price-point to pay again was reached because I do enjoy the basics of the Fleet System (grouping with my friends and running the missions) and I still have the right to not buy anything additional (C-Store purchases) if I don't feel development is progressing in areas of the game I enjoyed.
Now for a F2Per, I would speculate that they are a bit more skeptical and frugal. Allowing a transition from Gold - Lifetime at the 1000-day mark might just be enough for a few to make the leap.
Even though I'm over 600 days and only three months away from 700, it's very unlikely that I would ever sub to 1000 days month to month. Experience thus far has shown me that my money gets more bang for the buck by going Silver and spending my money in the C-Store.
I would be willing to buy a pro-rated Lifetime subscription, discounted on the basis of a percentage of the time I've already been subscribed, if they ever offered such a thing.
Of course I don't expect to get it 'at cost'. Sure, I'd expect them to make extra money on it. But I'd want a deep discount.
So let's say that somebody gets to 1000 days through subscriptions. And let's say that equates to the cost of 5 six-month subscriptions, or somewhere around $390 dollars.
I don't see anything wrong with Cryptic charging that person basically $10 or so and granting them Lifetime status. Cryptic still makes a few more bucks off that guy, keeps them loyal, and gets the opportunity to entice them to spend more money on Zen.
Me, I've spent more than the equivalent of 3 six-month subscriptions over the life of my account, which would be about $234. (Actually, my total monthly cost comes to somewhere over $299). Since I figure Cryptic should be able to charge me something for a Lifetime membership, I think another $65 over and above what I've already spent is fair.
I'm not saying they're obligated to do that, or that I deserve that, or that they should do that. I'm just stating under what conditions I'd consider it, reasonable or not. For me, neither continuing to subscribe nor buying an LTS makes good sense at this point.
My views may not represent those of Cryptic Studios or Perfect World Entertainment. You can file a "forums and website" support ticket here Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
I have already almost payed for a 1000-day subscription as a Gold Subscriber.
Why should I now need to pay the cost of a LTS when I have already paid more than one is worth again....
Its not an outrageous request by any means. It's is entirely reasonable.
Most businesses offer similar rewards to long-term clients.
You dont get rewarded for sticking around with a LTS. You get rewarded when you invest up front; that's what a LTS is ... a vote of confidence from the start of your payment.
Think about it, you could have walked away anytime you chose with paying month to month. There was no forcastability, no long term commitment that Cryptic knew they could count on. Just their hope you'd keep paying. Hell they couldnt even earn any interest in your sizable up front payment as ... you didnt pay any sizable up front payment.
And you did get rewarded for sticking around ... 100, 200, 300 ... etc day Vet rewards.
But no ... you don't get a LTS now just because you stuck around for 1000 days. You get the opportunity to buy a discounted LTS now to show your confidence in Cryptic that you'll invest up front in them for another 1000 days and longer.
I have to agree with the OP. Anyone that subs monthly for 1000 days ought to at least get a very heavily discounted buy-in to LTS.
__________________________________
STO Forum member since before February 2010. STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
You dont get rewarded for sticking around with a LTS. You get rewarded when you invest up front; that's what a LTS is ... a vote of confidence from the start of your payment.
Think about it, you could have walked away anytime you chose with paying month to month. There was no forcastability, no long term commitment that Cryptic knew they could count on. Just their hope you'd keep paying. Hell they couldnt even earn any interest in your sizable up front payment as ... you didnt pay any sizable up front payment.
And you did get rewarded for sticking around ... 100, 200, 300 ... etc day Vet rewards.
But no ... you don't get a LTS now just because you stuck around for 1000 days. You get the opportunity to buy a discounted LTS now to show your confidence in Cryptic that you'll invest up front in them for another 1000 days and longer.
I completely disagree with your logic and you have it switched around.
A lifetime account is a one time up front charge - Cryptic gets that as a pulse of money to do development with. Then no more.
A gold account is a monthly more stable source of income where a "fixed" amount of money comes in from a player paying monthly to 1000-days.
As far as the being rewarded for vet rewards, lifers were also rewarded the same, until now when a hook was added to it.
Bottom line is, a similar amount of cash was put into the game by both routes so why should one be penalized? There is no reason for it.
Nope, I did not. I know they value large lump sum influxes of cash much more than stable sources. Just look at how this game is marketed...Lock Box influxes, Lifetime Sales, etc... It all geared at toward an "episodic" or "pulse-oriented" strategy. Yes, from a business standpoint that might be fine for them and they might budget that "pulsed" income well. However, they do need a stable enough source to meet basic needs.
Now your post was from the view-point of them as a business. Mine is from the viewpoint of the consumer who buys the product. They do differ.
The viewpoint of an unreasonable consumer with an unjustified sense of entitlement. (Which is basically all customers, I guess.)
Claiming a monthly subscriber is "more stable source of income" is unsubstantiated. It is an unstable source of income, because the customer is free to cancel at any time. When the consumer chooses not to risk their money, that risk is then taken by the business who cannot rely on that income stream. Why should the customer expect to be rewarded for not taking any risks? They got what they paid for. When the consumer pays upfront, they are taking the risk - if the business folds before 20 months ($300 at 15/month) the customer loses money, the business does not. Appropriately, the customer should be given an incentive to absorb that risk.
If you're paying for a service in installments, there's really absolutely no basis to expect to suddenly be exempt from payments just because you've paid more in total than somebody who purchased the service permanently in one lump sum. If someone bought a gym membership permanently for $300, while others pay $15 a month, do the latter really demand not having to pay after they had been members for 2 years?
Choices have consequences. If you choose to rent instead of buy and end up paying three times as much as a result, that's on you. Nobody owes you anything when you chose to pay more over time.
Addendum:
If they prefer a stable source of income, why on earth would they cut that off for no reason? Someone who has already paid for 2 years is unlikely to quit entirely. Further, even if they quit it would be less of a loss than converting them to LTS - either way they lose the subscription fee, but if they aren't LTS they wouldn't be given a stipend.
It's a completely unreasonable and unjustified position from any viewpoint other than "I deserve it because I'm special."
The viewpoint of an unreasonable consumer with an unjustified sense of entitlement. (Which is basically all customers, I guess.)
Claiming a monthly subscriber is "more stable source of income" is unsubstantiated. It is an unstable source of income, because the customer is free to cancel at any time. "
Nope, I do not have any unreasonable sense of entitlement, but thanks for losing your argument with an irrelevant personal attack. I am just over 800-days (I did take a hiatus in payments from January to the subscription sale). I would have a long way before this would even affect me. The point of the matter is that Veteran Rewards really are not that anymore since they were turned into cash rewards.
Now back to the question, your logic may be justified but in this specific case we are discussing in this thread, it is untrue. Yes a person subscribing can be seen as just an unstable base as the large cash input of a lifetime membership, they can cancel. However, we are not talking about all Gold subscribers here, we are talking about a subset paying a subscription fee for 1,000 days. Thus, a person sustaining a Gold membership through the 1,000 day mark is far from an unstable source of income. The question is then, why are people so averse to giving these players the lifetime status? For that I can find no rationale reason why not, seems more emotionally driven on protecting what they have.
Claiming a monthly subscriber is "more stable source of income" is unsubstantiated. It is an unstable source of income, because the customer is free to cancel at any time. When the consumer chooses not to risk their money, that risk is then taken by the business who cannot rely on that income stream. Why should the customer expect to be rewarded for not taking any risks? They got what they paid for. When the consumer pays upfront, they are taking the risk - if the business folds before 20 months ($300 at 15/month) the customer loses money, the business does not. Appropriately, the customer should be given an incentive to absorb that risk.
Then by your definition, a sustained investment is not a risk at all? But the real matter is, you are treating the money you put into the game as an investment. It is far from an investment, it is a purchase. Your entire argument falls apart right there. If you have this sense that your life-time subscription was an investment in the game you could not be farther from reality. All you chose to do was willing pay a one-time up-front fee to use the game. All golds do is choose to pay a smaller monthly fee to use the game. The end points are the same, no investment.
It's a completely unreasonable and unjustified position from any viewpoint other than "I deserve it because I'm special."
Ahhh, who has the sense of entitlement? By your very statement right here, (and that nice blue forum title) you are the one projecting that sense of entitlement..."I paid all at once therefore only I and others like me should have". Again, I see no rational reason why this should not be done. It is not an unreasonable stance at all.
As much as I would love to see this happen, especially since God knows when I'll afford the LTS up front, I doubt it ever will and agree that it should not. And it all comes down to (what should be considered) common sense these days.
Buying in bulk is a common way to get items cheaper by unit. Companies are willing to lower the price per unit as you increase the amount of units you purchase. It helps them get more money at one time, and helps the buyer save some money overall.
If I spend a few years going to my local warehouse store and buying a single item every month, will I later be entitled to a lifetime supply of that item for no cost, except money already spent? I could have saved money in the long run by purchasing larger supplies at a time or even that high dollar "lifetime supply" (probably doesn't exist, but for examples sake, play along), but I either chose not to or couldn't afford to so that's just the way it goes.
Providers of webspace also offer cheaper rates for longer commitments. Consumer saves a bit, company make more at once. I don't expect to get an e-mail from Godaddy one day thanking me for my years of loyalty and offering me free premium service for the rest of my earthly days.
The summary of all this is that asking STO for a lifetime membership based on the fact that you've paid your monthly subscription fee for x amount of time is nonsensical. It's no different than any other "bulk rate" system.
Now back to the question, your logic may be justified but in this specific case we are discussing in this thread, it is untrue. Yes a person subscribing can be seen as just an unstable base as the large cash input of a lifetime membership, they can cancel. However, we are not talking about all Gold subscribers here, we are talking about a subset paying a subscription fee for 1,000 days. Thus, a person sustaining a Gold membership through the 1,000 day mark is far from an unstable source of income.
This is utterly irrational. For the entire duration of that subscription, at that point in time they were unreliable sources of income. You don't retroactively look back 1,000 days later and change your view in the past.
Then by your definition, a sustained investment is not a risk at all?
A strawman argument. When you purchase monthly, your risk is only for that month - you lose at most 29 days. When you purchase an LTS, your risk is for the 20 months your $300 would otherwise cover - you lose at most 599 days.
The latter customer has 20 times greater risk than the former, but received (until the new perk) nothing significant in return (if you disagree with that, then feel free to argue in the dozens of threads that complained the LTS was a rip off prior to the new perk).
But the real matter is, you are treating the money you put into the game as an investment. It is far from an investment, it is a purchase. Your entire argument falls apart right there. If you have this sense that your life-time subscription was an investment in the game you could not be farther from reality. All you chose to do was willing pay a one-time up-front fee to use the game. All golds do is choose to pay a smaller monthly fee to use the game. The end points are the same, no investment.
Actually, it only serves to strengthen my argument more.
The fact that it's a purchase nullifies any and all arguments based on how much somebody paid. You paid for access, and you received exactly what you paid for. To argue otherwise reeks of entitlement - the LTS got what they paid for, the monthly subscribers got what they paid for, but because you've been a monthly subscriber for a long time you feel you deserve more.
Ahhh, who has the sense of entitlement? By your very statement right here, (and that nice blue forum title) you are the one projecting that sense of entitlement..."I paid all at once therefore only I and others like me should have".
Yes, clearly "We got what we paid for, you don't get what you didn't pay for" is an unreasonable position stemming from a sense of entitlement.
Again, I see no rational reason why this should not be done. It is not an unreasonable stance at all.
There is no rational reason why it should be done - otherwise someone would have mentioned it by now. All that we have heard are emotional ones.
"I made a choice and ended up paying more than that other guy who choose differently! I should have what he has! It's not fair I have to suffer the consequence of my choices!"
This is just crazy....what makes you think they'll go for it...Cryptic is here to make money and just dont waste your time...when it comes to money you are on the losing end...hey did you ever think this world is fair...even a virtual world :cool:
Comments
Um, ok. So how exactly does this benefit Cryptic again? Cause all I'm seeing is them losing out on a potential $15 dollars a month (or an additional $200 lifetime fee).
Sorry, but financially its not. It's not unreasonable, it's just unlikely. Your trying to prop up the lifetime bonus as a reason you'd keep playing the game. The fact is, if you kept a subscription for 1000 days, your probably not going anywhere.
I'm not saying it isn't something they shouldn't do, I'm saying its something they won't do.
/supported
Because, who is more likely to spend money in the store? The silver player who comes and tries the game, or the dedicated player who has already been playing for over 1000 days and has been rewarded for it? Yes, they may lose out on a monthly subscription, but that player will have an extra $15 to spend per month, and since they don't have to pay a subscription any longer, they may go and spend that in the Store. I know I would.
Actually they lost out on both. I went F2P.
Folks, they didn't chart Vet Rewards out to 1,000 days when they instituted the program in the beginning. I don't believe they went as far as even 400 or 500. As time went on, they revealed more, and eventually just plotted out to 1,000.
If you have a quote somewhere that there'll be no more vet rewards beyond 1,000, please bring it. But as it is, assuming that just because you've reached 1K that you've maxed out on Vet Rewards, have nothing new to be rewarded for, and thus deserve to just be given the additional lifetime perks, is unrealistic.
Cryptic is not going to stop requesting your contract renewal just because you've reached 1,000 days. The Veteran Rewards are their way of rewarding you for being a subber already.
This debate is going into another page and I doubt rehashing the same point of reason's going to change anything though. So I suppose it's 'agree to disagree' time.
The Artist Formerly Known As Nikotaka ][ Join Date: Jan 2010
"Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers...?"
Is it not feasible that fresh meat that sees a whole sea of new shinies in the store, much of which they do not have access to automatically like Gold players do (Silver Account and all), would spend money to achieve it, rather than a Gold player who's gotten more perks of bank space, character slots, free respecs, an additional ship or three, so on?
You assume Silver Players are ephemeral beings who are only there for the free ride and vanish with the dawn. In fact, the whole essence of 'Free to Play' is to get people a taste of what they could have if they just shell out a little here, a little there, pad out their account to make some of the frustrations a bit easier. Silvers take a hit, buy more, potentially become Gold as they do. Or they stay as Silvers, peeking in now and then. There is no one type of F2P player.
There are going to be players who will spend on microtransactions regardless of their account status. But it's the Silver players who are already starting out with less to begin with, so there's more incentive for them to purchase.
P.S.: As I mentioned earlier in this thread, I am a Gold Player a few days away from 1K. I spend my time grinding dilithium to convert to Zen while it's still cheap on the exchange. I don't pump my $$ into STO very often because (and I assume some other vets can agree) anything I wanted from the C-Store, I either already got, or know enough ways to earn it through dil-exchange.
A newbie Silver likely gives up more cash to Cryptic than craggy old farts like vets do.
The Artist Formerly Known As Nikotaka ][ Join Date: Jan 2010
"Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers...?"
Actually given your own link, and the period vs. inflation proves my point if you bothered to check.
Time value of money. Do the maths.
There's no need for further topic. As I have stated. It's no longer a concern.
The horse. She's dead.
Calculations for Present/Future Value depend on the rate you assign, and inflation is not generally a deciding factor unless you have no investment options. A company's demand for operating capital fluctuates according to their activities and fiscal period.
Businesses should be treated as rational. Obviously they would make more money from less LTS and more long term subscriptions, so when they promote LTS with discounts they either feel the LTS will make more than a subscription (the "game is dying" theory) or they merely want an influx of funds (either for an investment such as one-time purchases of hardware for Neverwinter, or to improve their financial statements for their shareholders as we near the end of Q4). In the latter case, obviously they value a large lump sum higher than small monthly installments.
I work in the financial sector, and annuities is basically our company's business model, with profit being made due to PV/FV differences. At least for us, inflation is irrelevant since we deal with rates ranging from 10% to 15%.
Hope you can update accordingly but it doesn't even seem that people with the Lifetime Memberships have all the requisite access.
Go Figure.
J.
Thanks for pointing that out, was waiting for somebody to spell it out in financial terms.
To (try to) simplify the point being made in that article, there are two factors to consider here:
1. Risk - When you front $200-$300 for an LTS, you are taking a risk. You are risking that, before your LTS pays itself off, that the game will not shut down and you will not lose interest. Say you buy for $200, that takes just over 13 months to pay off at $15/mo. If the game shuts down before you reach that point, you lost money. Likewise, if the game fails to hold your interest and you leave never to return before that 13 months, you wasted money. In investments, higher risk grants higher rewards. When you pay monthly, you are just paying for a service as you receive it. Your risk is minimal, and your rewards appropriate.
2. You get to hold on to your money - If you don't fork your money over to Cryptic all at once, you have the ability to make it work for you. You can spend it on other things. You can invest it to make more money. That last thing is really the kicker, it's the same reason you shouldn't set your income tax witholdings up so you get a refund. It's your money, there's value to holding onto it as long as you can. When you fork it over to Cryptic in a lump sum, you can be assured they put it to work to make more, and it accumulates over time. That's why $200 up front is worth more than $200 paid incrementally over time. It's also why when somebody lends you money, you pay interest, because they have lost the ability to gain from their money as long as you have it.
That's why auto converting monthly accounts to LTS doesn't make sense. It may not feel fair to you, but it is. These are economic concepts refined over centuries, and they make just as much sense to Cryptic running an MMO as they did to Florentine bankers in the Renaissance. You take a risk, you get a bigger reward. You pay somebody a bunch up front, they will compensate you for the use of your money during that time.
Fixed for ya. + 10 tribbles
"Last Engage! Magical Girl Origami-san" is in print! Now with three times more rainbows.
Support the "Armored Unicorn" vehicle initiative today!
Thanks for Harajuku. Now let's get a real "Magical Girl" costume!
Look, I would not even be supportive of this but given they mishandled the Veteran Rewards as just a sales ploy to get people to dump one-large sum of money in game right now (instant gratification), I see no reason why the final 1000-day reward for Gold's is the upgrade to "lifetime"
I see no REAL issue with that logic.
The upside for them is it gives meaning again to being a long-term Gold veteran. This in turn could result in more people that are F2P transitioning to Gold if they see there is an ultimate benefit to it. If we are assuming (as Cryptic has stated several times), F2P players are probably more fluvial in terms of sticking to a game, have less "cash-on-hand", or are more skeptical before investing in a game. A typical F2Per could be any or all of of those three or even ones I cannot think of. Seeing an ultimate goal of a transition from Gold to Lifetime at the 1000-day mark might persuade some people to take the "installment" route rather than the "one-lump-sum".
At the very beginning I made a choice to be cautious about the game even though I am a huge Star Trek fan. Thus, I chose to be more frugal and only pay for a subscription, that way I could cut my payments if the product was not up to snuff. If crafting, exploration, PvP, and the KDF content had seen a significant upgrade prior to F2P launch, I had made the decision to go lifetime. We all know that did not happen and there were several hits we did not like that have remained as things to live with. Although I did enjoy the DOFF system, that alone was not worth a subscription in my view. At that point, I made the decision to downgrade happily to F2P and I know many lifers were upset they did not have that option. Recently, with the subs sale I realized the price-point to pay again was reached because I do enjoy the basics of the Fleet System (grouping with my friends and running the missions) and I still have the right to not buy anything additional (C-Store purchases) if I don't feel development is progressing in areas of the game I enjoyed.
Now for a F2Per, I would speculate that they are a bit more skeptical and frugal. Allowing a transition from Gold - Lifetime at the 1000-day mark might just be enough for a few to make the leap.
I would be willing to buy a pro-rated Lifetime subscription, discounted on the basis of a percentage of the time I've already been subscribed, if they ever offered such a thing.
Of course I don't expect to get it 'at cost'. Sure, I'd expect them to make extra money on it. But I'd want a deep discount.
So let's say that somebody gets to 1000 days through subscriptions. And let's say that equates to the cost of 5 six-month subscriptions, or somewhere around $390 dollars.
I don't see anything wrong with Cryptic charging that person basically $10 or so and granting them Lifetime status. Cryptic still makes a few more bucks off that guy, keeps them loyal, and gets the opportunity to entice them to spend more money on Zen.
Me, I've spent more than the equivalent of 3 six-month subscriptions over the life of my account, which would be about $234. (Actually, my total monthly cost comes to somewhere over $299). Since I figure Cryptic should be able to charge me something for a Lifetime membership, I think another $65 over and above what I've already spent is fair.
I'm not saying they're obligated to do that, or that I deserve that, or that they should do that. I'm just stating under what conditions I'd consider it, reasonable or not. For me, neither continuing to subscribe nor buying an LTS makes good sense at this point.
Link: How to PM - Twitter @STOMod_Bluegeek
You dont get rewarded for sticking around with a LTS. You get rewarded when you invest up front; that's what a LTS is ... a vote of confidence from the start of your payment.
Think about it, you could have walked away anytime you chose with paying month to month. There was no forcastability, no long term commitment that Cryptic knew they could count on. Just their hope you'd keep paying. Hell they couldnt even earn any interest in your sizable up front payment as ... you didnt pay any sizable up front payment.
And you did get rewarded for sticking around ... 100, 200, 300 ... etc day Vet rewards.
But no ... you don't get a LTS now just because you stuck around for 1000 days. You get the opportunity to buy a discounted LTS now to show your confidence in Cryptic that you'll invest up front in them for another 1000 days and longer.
STO Forum member since before February 2010.
STO Academy's excellent skill planner here: Link
I actually avoid success entirely. It doesn't get me what I want, and the consequences for failure are slim. -- markhawman
I completely disagree with your logic and you have it switched around.
A lifetime account is a one time up front charge - Cryptic gets that as a pulse of money to do development with. Then no more.
A gold account is a monthly more stable source of income where a "fixed" amount of money comes in from a player paying monthly to 1000-days.
As far as the being rewarded for vet rewards, lifers were also rewarded the same, until now when a hook was added to it.
Bottom line is, a similar amount of cash was put into the game by both routes so why should one be penalized? There is no reason for it.
It's powdered bonemeal now.
You are all dangerously close to making Jell-O.
The Artist Formerly Known As Nikotaka ][ Join Date: Jan 2010
"Can anyone remember when we used to be explorers...?"
Nope, I did not. I know they value large lump sum influxes of cash much more than stable sources. Just look at how this game is marketed...Lock Box influxes, Lifetime Sales, etc... It all geared at toward an "episodic" or "pulse-oriented" strategy. Yes, from a business standpoint that might be fine for them and they might budget that "pulsed" income well. However, they do need a stable enough source to meet basic needs.
Now your post was from the view-point of them as a business. Mine is from the viewpoint of the consumer who buys the product. They do differ.
Claiming a monthly subscriber is "more stable source of income" is unsubstantiated. It is an unstable source of income, because the customer is free to cancel at any time. When the consumer chooses not to risk their money, that risk is then taken by the business who cannot rely on that income stream. Why should the customer expect to be rewarded for not taking any risks? They got what they paid for. When the consumer pays upfront, they are taking the risk - if the business folds before 20 months ($300 at 15/month) the customer loses money, the business does not. Appropriately, the customer should be given an incentive to absorb that risk.
If you're paying for a service in installments, there's really absolutely no basis to expect to suddenly be exempt from payments just because you've paid more in total than somebody who purchased the service permanently in one lump sum. If someone bought a gym membership permanently for $300, while others pay $15 a month, do the latter really demand not having to pay after they had been members for 2 years?
Choices have consequences. If you choose to rent instead of buy and end up paying three times as much as a result, that's on you. Nobody owes you anything when you chose to pay more over time.
Addendum:
If they prefer a stable source of income, why on earth would they cut that off for no reason? Someone who has already paid for 2 years is unlikely to quit entirely. Further, even if they quit it would be less of a loss than converting them to LTS - either way they lose the subscription fee, but if they aren't LTS they wouldn't be given a stipend.
It's a completely unreasonable and unjustified position from any viewpoint other than "I deserve it because I'm special."
Nope, I do not have any unreasonable sense of entitlement, but thanks for losing your argument with an irrelevant personal attack. I am just over 800-days (I did take a hiatus in payments from January to the subscription sale). I would have a long way before this would even affect me. The point of the matter is that Veteran Rewards really are not that anymore since they were turned into cash rewards.
Now back to the question, your logic may be justified but in this specific case we are discussing in this thread, it is untrue. Yes a person subscribing can be seen as just an unstable base as the large cash input of a lifetime membership, they can cancel. However, we are not talking about all Gold subscribers here, we are talking about a subset paying a subscription fee for 1,000 days. Thus, a person sustaining a Gold membership through the 1,000 day mark is far from an unstable source of income. The question is then, why are people so averse to giving these players the lifetime status? For that I can find no rationale reason why not, seems more emotionally driven on protecting what they have.
Then by your definition, a sustained investment is not a risk at all? But the real matter is, you are treating the money you put into the game as an investment. It is far from an investment, it is a purchase. Your entire argument falls apart right there. If you have this sense that your life-time subscription was an investment in the game you could not be farther from reality. All you chose to do was willing pay a one-time up-front fee to use the game. All golds do is choose to pay a smaller monthly fee to use the game. The end points are the same, no investment.
Ahhh, who has the sense of entitlement? By your very statement right here, (and that nice blue forum title) you are the one projecting that sense of entitlement..."I paid all at once therefore only I and others like me should have". Again, I see no rational reason why this should not be done. It is not an unreasonable stance at all.
Buying in bulk is a common way to get items cheaper by unit. Companies are willing to lower the price per unit as you increase the amount of units you purchase. It helps them get more money at one time, and helps the buyer save some money overall.
If I spend a few years going to my local warehouse store and buying a single item every month, will I later be entitled to a lifetime supply of that item for no cost, except money already spent? I could have saved money in the long run by purchasing larger supplies at a time or even that high dollar "lifetime supply" (probably doesn't exist, but for examples sake, play along), but I either chose not to or couldn't afford to so that's just the way it goes.
Providers of webspace also offer cheaper rates for longer commitments. Consumer saves a bit, company make more at once. I don't expect to get an e-mail from Godaddy one day thanking me for my years of loyalty and offering me free premium service for the rest of my earthly days.
The summary of all this is that asking STO for a lifetime membership based on the fact that you've paid your monthly subscription fee for x amount of time is nonsensical. It's no different than any other "bulk rate" system.
A strawman argument. When you purchase monthly, your risk is only for that month - you lose at most 29 days. When you purchase an LTS, your risk is for the 20 months your $300 would otherwise cover - you lose at most 599 days.
The latter customer has 20 times greater risk than the former, but received (until the new perk) nothing significant in return (if you disagree with that, then feel free to argue in the dozens of threads that complained the LTS was a rip off prior to the new perk).
Actually, it only serves to strengthen my argument more.
The fact that it's a purchase nullifies any and all arguments based on how much somebody paid. You paid for access, and you received exactly what you paid for. To argue otherwise reeks of entitlement - the LTS got what they paid for, the monthly subscribers got what they paid for, but because you've been a monthly subscriber for a long time you feel you deserve more.
Yes, clearly "We got what we paid for, you don't get what you didn't pay for" is an unreasonable position stemming from a sense of entitlement.
There is no rational reason why it should be done - otherwise someone would have mentioned it by now. All that we have heard are emotional ones.
"I made a choice and ended up paying more than that other guy who choose differently! I should have what he has! It's not fair I have to suffer the consequence of my choices!"