Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[santamonica811]

(I hunted for about an hour in the various fora, but had no luck in my search.  Sorry in advance if this has been asked and answered a million times already) :-)

My current understanding:  When the switch happens, we will have the option of getting the offline version--good for as long as our computer software/OS allows us to use it.  Or, getting a free one-year subscription to the online version--after which; we'll pay a monthly fee.

Right so far??

My question:  For those of us who have purchased expansions...will these all be included in the monthly fee?  I bought the "bulk" package of adventures last year, so I assume that my monthly fee (after the first year) will include all the expansions I now own, right?  Person Number Two, for example, bought only one expansion.  So, she will be paying the exact same monthly fee that I do, but will have access to only the expansion she has paid for?  Is this correct?  (And in this second example, she would have to pay some extra amount each month for each additional expansion she wants access to.)

I am considering buying the Adventures expansion this month.  Given that there are only 6 more months left of usage via MF, I would not bother to do this, unless this new purchase carried over, and my future monthly payments (i.e., starting in 2018) covered access to all the expansions--including Adventures--that I bought as of Dec 31, 2016.

Much thanks in advance for the info.

(By the way; I vaguely recall reading somewhere here that the monthly fee will be about $2 bucks.  Was the right, or did I imagine this?)

[drsteelhammer]

Subscription is $3 a month. If you have all sets you can get those for free for a year. If you only have less expansion you will have to pay $3 minus the stuff you already own to play with all the expansions. There will be a package for $2 for half the sets, altough it is not clear yet whether you can choose those or whether there will be a package.

I'm not sure if you can just choose to continue playing with one expansion or whether you will have to upgrade. I suppose you have to upgrade though.

[Awaclus]

I thought nothing was set in stone yet.

[-Stef-]

I thought nothing was set in stone yet.

Most things aren't set in stone indeed. Those $2/$3 numbers are indications, not exact things.
But there are some misunderstandings here I should be able to clear up anyway.

What you buy from the current vendors has no impact on online Dominion from 2018 on. At that point you will be able to play with all current sets for approximately $3/month, and half the sets for approximately $2/month.

2017 is the transition year, where you get all sets you have on MF for free (unless you go for the offline option).

If somewhere during 2017 you decide that the sets you're playing with isn't enough, you can upgrade to the $2 or the $3 package. For the remainder of 2017 you wouldn't pay the full $2/$3 each month, but instead some reduced price based on the number of expansions you were already getting for free.

[Witherweaver]

Sorry if this is repetition, but just for more clarity:

Is  'all current sets' is a continually checking thing?  So, if a new expansion is added in the future, is it automatically included for those paying the ~$3/month plan?  And does a new set get enabled in the ~$2/month plan with every other new expansion added?

Also, for the ~$2/month plan, are the sets fixed or can users choose which half they want?  If users can choose, are they allowed to swap sets in and out?

[-Stef-]

Sorry if this is repetition, but just for more clarity:

Is  'all current sets' is a continually checking thing?  So, if a new expansion is added in the future, is it automatically included for those paying the ~$3/month plan?  And does a new set get enabled in the ~$2/month plan with every other new expansion added?

Also, for the ~$2/month plan, are the sets fixed or can users choose which half they want?  If users can choose, are they allowed to swap sets in and out?

The general idea is: you buy some collection of sets for some period. You get exactly what you buy. It won't change after you buy it.

We will not be trying to swindle you with already-bought-packages or in-between-currencies. If at some point you want more then what you already had bought (suppose you have everything and a new set is released), you'll just pay a little bit extra.

[werothegreat]

I'm still iffy on the idea of a subscription service, particularly with regards to trying to capture new/casual players, but I guess you guys are going to do what you're going to do.

[Chris is me]

I'm still iffy on the idea of a subscription service, particularly with regards to trying to capture new/casual players, but I guess you guys are going to do what you're going to do.

I'm pretty sure a casual player would rather pay $3 to try an online game than $100 though

[enfynet]

Is there any idea of having one price "per month" versus a deal paying "per year" or similar?

[JW]

Is there any idea of having one price "per month" versus a deal paying "per year" or similar?

It's actually 36k/millennium, which is a terrific deal if you take inflation into account. But those reluctant to take advantage of this great opportunity can just pay for whatever month they want to pay.

[Cave-o-sapien]

I'm still iffy on the idea of a subscription service, particularly with regards to trying to capture new/casual players, but I guess you guys are going to do what you're going to do.

There should be a free trial period (2 weeks? 1 month?) to encourage new signups.

[SmithySmithy]

How much is the offline version? That's the only thing that interests me.

[Donald X.]

How much is the offline version? That's the only thing that interests me.

The friendly thing to MF would be to not talk about pricing until much closer to the release date.

[funkdoc]

I'm still iffy on the idea of a subscription service, particularly with regards to trying to capture new/casual players, but I guess you guys are going to do what you're going to do.

I'm pretty sure a casual player would rather pay $3 to try an online game than $100 though

i just talked with someone on twitter right now who hates MF's pricing since he owns the physical game.  the subscription price being floated around here is much more palatable, especially since it includes empires!

[SirD]

Hello,

Some years ago I have had a beautiful experience with the smartphone navigation system offered by the German Telecom. Their system calculated the route centrally on their servers and was sent to your smartphone. They had a price model, that I loved very much. You had the following options:

- pay per single navigation
- buy a flatrate for 30 days
- buy a flatrate of 365 days

I found that perfectly reasonable and simple, since everybody was able to select the best option for their type of usage. Think about it. A monthly subscription is kind of difficult for me to accept since I often do not play Dominion for months. Maybe other people feel the same.

[SCSN]

A monthly subscription is kind of difficult for me to accept since I often do not play Dominion for months.

Then why not take the subscription just for the months you do want to play?

[werothegreat]

A monthly subscription is kind of difficult for me to accept since I often do not play Dominion for months.

Then why not take the subscription just for the months you do want to play?

The whole idea of a subscription makes people feel like they'll have to play a lot in order to get their moneys' worth.  For casual players who might play every other month or so, that doesn't sound appealing, even if it's cheap.  They'd probably rather pay $30 for a game and never have to pay for it again, and play it whenever they want, without feeling guilty about it, then pay for some "subscription" that will make them feel pressured to play it.  This is the case even if, calculating it, the subscription would be cheaper for them anyway.  It's a mental thing.  Pay once: this is my game, I own it.  Subscribe: I'm renting this, and I feel dirty.

Maybe you could have some sort of "lifetime membership" where you pay some flat fee and never have to pay again?

[SCSN]

Maybe you could have some sort of "lifetime membership" where you pay some flat fee and never have to pay again?

The last time someone came with similar arguments I offered him something like that. Somehow I never heard back from him. It almost seems like having to back words with banknotes makes one act far more rationally than people think!

Additionally: false promises made by our predecessors about "lifetime memberships" have created tremendous amounts of misery that we have to deal with, and we have no interest in adding any more of that on top.

[enfynet]

Do you trade for movie tickets?

[Burning Skull]

Hello,

Some years ago I have had a beautiful experience with the smartphone navigation system offered by the German Telecom. Their system calculated the route centrally on their servers and was sent to your smartphone. They had a price model, that I loved very much. You had the following options:

- pay per single navigation
- buy a flatrate for 30 days
- buy a flatrate of 365 days

I found that perfectly reasonable and simple, since everybody was able to select the best option for their type of usage. Think about it. A monthly subscription is kind of difficult for me to accept since I often do not play Dominion for months. Maybe other people feel the same.

I like an idea of several free games every month for non-subscribers (well, five maybe? idk), with maybe some small bonus if you win them all, say, one or two more free games, or a golden phallic symbol on your record or smthing like that just to make people's day better.

[popsofctown]

I'm having a lot of trouble seeing what's wrong with a monthly subscription.  I'm sure they will be happy to let you buy 12 of them in advance if that's what you want.  If your ego requires a discount when priced in bulk, well they can raise the price of buying 12 months all at one time, then reduce it back down to the same cost as buying the 12 months individually, just for you.

[SirD]

A monthly subscription is kind of difficult for me to accept since I often do not play Dominion for months.

Then why not take the subscription just for the months you do want to play?

Well if this will be possible, it is nearly the same model which I explained. I guess many people dont enjoy the word "subscription". That's great news. Way to go, you two!

[SuperHans]

Man. I want to purchase the entire set for Making Fun but it hardly seems worth it at this point with the change in pricing. If even contractually possible, I would love to see a drop in the rate as we get closer to next year. Hardly seems worth it to pay essentially $60 for the next 6 months ($100-$36 fee waiver next year).

[popsofctown]

that would be a choice for MF to make so this seems like the wrong thread? They stand to make more money by hiding the announcement that they are losing the contract in the ToS and getting people to pay top dollar thinking they'll have the cards for years, I don't expect them to switch from that strategy.

[JW]

Man. I want to purchase the entire set for Making Fun but it hardly seems worth it at this point with the change in pricing. If even contractually possible, I would love to see a drop in the rate as we get closer to next year. Hardly seems worth it to pay essentially $60 for the next 6 months ($100-$36 fee waiver next year).

Donald X has said this isn't possible because all of the contracts are already negotiated. Which makes sense: MF shouldn't be able to get paid for promising that ShuffleIT will provide a product to you in the future.

That MF can still sell the sets and ShuffleIT will honor those purchases for a year is already nicer to MF than it deserves. MF should never have been allowed to imply that people were getting "perpetual ownership of sets" when MF only had the license through the end of 2016 in the first place. I'm happy that the new Dominion Online will have a much more transparent pricing structure.

[SuperHans]

Man. I want to purchase the entire set for Making Fun but it hardly seems worth it at this point with the change in pricing. If even contractually possible, I would love to see a drop in the rate as we get closer to next year. Hardly seems worth it to pay essentially $60 for the next 6 months ($100-$36 fee waiver next year).

Donald X has said this isn't possible because all of the contracts are already negotiated. Which makes sense: MF shouldn't be able to get paid for promising that ShuffleIT will provide a product to you in the future.

That MF can still sell the sets and ShuffleIT will honor those purchases for a year is already nicer to MF than it deserves. MF should never have been allowed to imply that people were getting "perpetual ownership of sets" when MF only had the license through the end of 2016 in the first place. I'm happy that the new Dominion Online will have a much more transparent pricing structure.

I completely agree. I strongly suspected that it wouldn't be contractually possible. I haven't played online since isotropic so what's wrong with waiting just a little longer.

[JW]

I completely agree. I strongly suspected that it wouldn't be contractually possible. I haven't played online since isotropic so what's wrong with waiting just a little longer.

If you buy only one set from MF, buy Adventures ($15). I'm sure that lots of people who own all of the other sets will want to play with you, so you can get many games with all sets if you spend the effort to find opponents with all other cards. Even if you don’t look for opponents who own all other sets, Adventures is likely the least-purchased set so it will also add the most variety to your games.

[luminatedlucy]

I love Dominion and it's my favorite game, but I'm pretty upset to find out about these developments. Buying the expansions via Goko and Making Fun wasn't exactly cheap, and a 1 year free subscription ($36 via their currently stated pricing model) really doesn't compensate for the money spent.

Offering local wireless with offline dominion seems more fair. Most of the time when I'm playing online it's with people I know anyway.

It's very unlikely will I be paying the monthly subscription fee. I play mostly with my local board game group, who have varying levels of income and interest in Dominion. It's highly unlikely all of them will be getting the monthly subscription, so if I can't play with the people I like to play with, there's really no reason for me to play either.

It's too bad because I did find online dominion to be superior product to using the physical cards, because setup with tons of expansions gets very unwieldy. I'm not sure whether I'll be interested in going back to that cumbersome process or simply stop playing dominion entirely.

[Donald X.]

I love Dominion and it's my favorite game, but I'm pretty upset to find out about these developments. Buying the expansions via Goko and Making Fun wasn't exactly cheap, and a 1 year free subscription ($36 via their currently stated pricing model) really doesn't compensate for the money spent.

The people trying to compensate you aren't the ones who collected the spent money.

[Kirian]

It's very unlikely will I be paying the monthly subscription fee. I play mostly with my local board game group, who have varying levels of income and interest in Dominion. It's highly unlikely all of them will be getting the monthly subscription, so if I can't play with the people I like to play with, there's really no reason for me to play either.

I obviously cannot and do not speak for ShuffleIT, but it would be highly surprising to me if they had a setup where base-only players could only play with other base-only players.

[luminatedlucy]

I love Dominion and it's my favorite game, but I'm pretty upset to find out about these developments. Buying the expansions via Goko and Making Fun wasn't exactly cheap, and a 1 year free subscription ($36 via their currently stated pricing model) really doesn't compensate for the money spent.

The people trying to compensate you aren't the ones who collected the spent money.

I kind of assumed you got a licensing fee or share of profits so a portion of my money effectively went to you? Sorry if that's not accurate.

[luminatedlucy]

It's very unlikely will I be paying the monthly subscription fee. I play mostly with my local board game group, who have varying levels of income and interest in Dominion. It's highly unlikely all of them will be getting the monthly subscription, so if I can't play with the people I like to play with, there's really no reason for me to play either.

I obviously cannot and do not speak for ShuffleIT, but it would be highly surprising to me if they had a setup where base-only players could only play with other base-only players.

If it was just 3$ a month to have access to all the sets and I could play them with anyone I wanted (including non-subscribers) that would be a pretty reasonable deal, if Dominion continues to come out with expansions once a year (since I'd be paying around $36 for each new expansion anyway if I got the paper version). I was assuming that to get access to the game at all you'd have to be a subscriber, but you're right that that might not be correct.

[Calamitas]

I love Dominion and it's my favorite game, but I'm pretty upset to find out about these developments. Buying the expansions via Goko and Making Fun wasn't exactly cheap, and a 1 year free subscription ($36 via their currently stated pricing model) really doesn't compensate for the money spent.

The people trying to compensate you aren't the ones who collected the spent money.

I kind of assumed you got a licensing fee or share of profits so a portion of my money effectively went to you? Sorry if that's not accurate.

Donald stated in another thread that they were getting just a ridiculously small amount of money which they have spent to help making the current plan (transition year 2017) possible.

[enfynet]

It's very unlikely will I be paying the monthly subscription fee. I play mostly with my local board game group, who have varying levels of income and interest in Dominion. It's highly unlikely all of them will be getting the monthly subscription, so if I can't play with the people I like to play with, there's really no reason for me to play either.

I obviously cannot and do not speak for ShuffleIT, but it would be highly surprising to me if they had a setup where base-only players could only play with other base-only players.

If it was just 3$ a month to have access to all the sets and I could play them with anyone I wanted (including non-subscribers) that would be a pretty reasonable deal, if Dominion continues to come out with expansions once a year (since I'd be paying around $36 for each new expansion anyway if I got the paper version). I was assuming that to get access to the game at all you'd have to be a subscriber, but you're right that that might not be correct.

What did you assume the $3/month was for?

[Donald X.]

I kind of assumed you got a licensing fee or share of profits so a portion of my money effectively went to you? Sorry if that's not accurate.

I totally get a share. It's just that that share has been tiny compared to the money taken in. Jay (Rio Grande Games) and I will be giving up more money than we've made total from online Dominion, over the entire time it's been around, to get people that year that isn't good enough (I won't know exactly how the math works out until 2018, since it's a %, and even then you can say, how much of that goes to what exactly).

[luminatedlucy]

It's very unlikely will I be paying the monthly subscription fee. I play mostly with my local board game group, who have varying levels of income and interest in Dominion. It's highly unlikely all of them will be getting the monthly subscription, so if I can't play with the people I like to play with, there's really no reason for me to play either.

I obviously cannot and do not speak for ShuffleIT, but it would be highly surprising to me if they had a setup where base-only players could only play with other base-only players.

If it was just 3$ a month to have access to all the sets and I could play them with anyone I wanted (including non-subscribers) that would be a pretty reasonable deal, if Dominion continues to come out with expansions once a year (since I'd be paying around $36 for each new expansion anyway if I got the paper version). I was assuming that to get access to the game at all you'd have to be a subscriber, but you're right that that might not be correct.

What did you assume the $3/month was for?

To get access to all the sets and play only with other subscribers, like many online games where a subscription is required.

[luminatedlucy]

I kind of assumed you got a licensing fee or share of profits so a portion of my money effectively went to you? Sorry if that's not accurate.

I totally get a share. It's just that that share has been tiny compared to the money taken in. Jay (Rio Grande Games) and I will be giving up more money than we've made total from online Dominion, over the entire time it's been around, to get people that year that isn't good enough (I won't know exactly how the math works out until 2018, since it's a %, and even then you can say, how much of that goes to what exactly).

Got it. Thanks for offering us at least something then.

[Donald X.]

If it was just 3$ a month to have access to all the sets and I could play them with anyone I wanted (including non-subscribers) that would be a pretty reasonable deal, if Dominion continues to come out with expansions once a year (since I'd be paying around $36 for each new expansion anyway if I got the paper version). I was assuming that to get access to the game at all you'd have to be a subscriber, but you're right that that might not be correct.

The plan is for ~$3/month to give access to all sets; the plan is not to let you play them with non-subscribers (to allow that, the price for paying customers would have to go up).

The plan is to actually charge for expansions; if there's an 11th expansion then I expect the price for "get everything" to go up some small amount. To me there's no point to programming new expansions for the online version otherwise; they are not intended to just be promotional items.

[Kirian]

If it was just 3$ a month to have access to all the sets and I could play them with anyone I wanted (including non-subscribers) that would be a pretty reasonable deal, if Dominion continues to come out with expansions once a year (since I'd be paying around $36 for each new expansion anyway if I got the paper version). I was assuming that to get access to the game at all you'd have to be a subscriber, but you're right that that might not be correct.

The plan is for ~$3/month to give access to all sets; the plan is not to let you play them with non-subscribers (to allow that, the price for paying customers would have to go up).

That... is... uh, well, as I said, highly surprising.  I'm not your business guy, or even a business guy, but this seems like a bad idea.  I know a couple of people who would become non-customers.

The plan is to actually charge for expansions; if there's an 11th expansion then I expect the price for "get everything" to go up some small amount. To me there's no point to programming new expansions for the online version otherwise; they are not intended to just be promotional items.

That definitely makes sense.

[LastFootnote]

Assuming that a subscription is necessary, here's what I would suggest (and maybe what I did suggest at the time, can't recall). When you purchase an expansion, you're purchasing it for both online and offline play. Playing online costs $1 per month, or something in that range, and only allows you to play against other subscribers. But local wireless/bluetooth play is included and free; there's no server to keep running there. Regardless of whether a game is online or local, it can have all cards that any of the players own; price expansions accordingly. Maybe charge for the base game.

The plan is to actually charge for expansions; if there's an 11th expansion then I expect the price for "get everything" to go up some small amount. To me there's no point to programming new expansions for the online version otherwise; they are not intended to just be promotional items.

That definitely makes sense.

It does superficially make sense, but uh nobody else does that and I think it's pretty obviously a bad idea. World of Warcraft does not up their subscription fee every time they release an expansion. You just have to pay for the expansion itself and then keep paying the same subscription fee. A subscription fee for an online implementation of a physical card game is already a tough sell for a lot of folks. But a subscription fee that might go up at any time? Oof.

[Donald X.]

It does superficially make sense, but uh nobody else does that and I think it's pretty obviously a bad idea. World of Warcraft does not up their subscription fee every time they release an expansion. You just have to pay for the expansion itself and then keep paying the same subscription fee. A subscription fee for an online implementation of a physical card game is already a tough sell for a lot of folks. But a subscription fee that might go up at any time? Oof.

The subscription fee only goes up if you want more stuff. Or I mean, if it goes up due to changing realities the way that any price goes up, except when instead they lower the amount of peanut butter and put that big dimple in the bottom of the jar to try to hide this fact.

But I mean, I'm reasonable. Other fine options:
- online versions simply never get any further expansions; hooray, no-one misses out due to price outrage
- there are no further expansions; hooray, everything made it online
- no new expansions come out until the online version ceases to exist; hooray, new expansions happen despite the desperate need for any new content to be free online because something something World of Warcraft

Those are all fine. New expansions that we give away online, meh, I'd rather work on projects that the world pretends are worth something. I don't need you to understand; you aren't changing my mind; if people will be too unhappy that the price for "everything" goes up when there's more everything, well I have these fine three alternatives.

The subscription model wasn't my idea; I don't know how well it will do; it if fails we will put whatever effort into considering the matter Then. It is getting its shot. Any change that affected what people with the existing software would expect to get in 2017 can't possibly happen until 2018. You say "there's no server to keep running there;" I am guessing that's referring to costs? My understanding is that that's not relevant so maybe there's some significant misunderstanding there; you could ask Stef for clarifications on their forums, where it is so much more reasonable for people with inside information to be discussing these things.

[werothegreat]

I'm just trying to think of one other online game with a tournament scene that has a subscription model.  Hmmm.... nope, can't think of any.  There are those with a purchase fee, maybe micro-transactions, but none with subscription fees.  Unless there's one I'm missing, in which case, please do enlighten me.

[Donald X.]

I'm just trying to think of one other online game with a tournament scene that has a subscription model.  Hmmm.... nope, can't think of any.  There are those with a purchase fee, maybe micro-transactions, but none with subscription fees.  Unless there's one I'm missing, in which case, please do enlighten me.

Maybe it's just awful! Jay and I were initially against a subscription, but one thing that swayed us was that they weren't the first people pitching it. And it prevents a new event like the existing incredible awfulness, where people feel like we owe them because some other entity did not inform them of the facts; I like preventing that a lot.

One thing I should add, that I don't think I've said, and well I am that honest guy.

For any talk of "will this work" for Dominion 2017, the threat, the danger, is that it won't work, that online Dominion will falter or die. And I can understand, for people who enjoy online Dominion, worrying about that. For me personally, online Dominion has been absolutely awful, it has cast a long shadow of sorrow over my life, and the threat of "no online Dominion" is just no threat at all. Man if only there had never been online Dominion. I could be that happy-go-lucky guy, making cards, with no-one mad at him ever. Okay there would be people mad about bendy Adventures cards but that's it.

And well probably I should just stay out of these discussions, and not even see what people are saying, except people are starting to complain to me directly that, hey I bought online Dominion and now I hear I'm not really getting it, where's my money. Somehow these facts need to get to people before they buy; I wish somehow that could happen.

[singletee]

The subscription fee only goes up if you want more stuff.

Doesn't this create an additional pricing tier? The people who had half the sets are paying their $2/mo, the people who had all the sets are paying their $3/mo, and now the people who have all the old sets plus the new one are paying their $3.20/mo or whatever it is. Why not just have a monthly price per set? I mean that's more tiers but it's easier to understand.

[Donald X.]

The subscription fee only goes up if you want more stuff.

Doesn't this create an additional pricing tier? The people who had half the sets are paying their $2/mo, the people who had all the sets are paying their $3/mo, and now the people who have all the old sets plus the new one are paying their $3.20/mo or whatever it is. Why not just have a monthly price per set? I mean that's more tiers but it's easier to understand.

Yes it creates an additional pricing tier. I think something like 2 tiers is easier to understand up until that point. I don't think an extra tier is hard to understand later.

[drsteelhammer]

The subscription fee only goes up if you want more stuff.

Doesn't this create an additional pricing tier? The people who had half the sets are paying their $2/mo, the people who had all the sets are paying their $3/mo, and now the people who have all the old sets plus the new one are paying their $3.20/mo or whatever it is. Why not just have a monthly price per set? I mean that's more tiers but it's easier to understand.

Yes it creates an additional pricing tier. I think something like 2 tiers is easier to understand up until that point. I don't think an extra tier is hard to understand later.

It's not hard to understand, it just looks hard to implement into matchmaking? At the moment, like six people look for a game at the same time. Finding a match gets a lot harder the more tiers there are. One can hope that the player base increases exponentially, but that takes time. (Tier 3 exists since the first day due to Empires, right?)

That said, I very much like the subscription model. If Dominion had a millon weekly players, you could probably live off mico-transactions or giving additional features for free but there aren't, so you can't.

[Donald X.]

It's not hard to understand, it just looks hard to implement into matchmaking? At the moment, like six people look for a game at the same time. Finding a match gets a lot harder the more tiers there are. One can hope that the player base increases exponentially, but that takes time. (Tier 3 exists since the first day due to Empires, right?)

I do not think there will be a tier for "everything but Empires"; instead it will just be, as has been said previously, that people can pay the difference to upgrade from "what they have" to "larger tier."

[drsteelhammer]

It's not hard to understand, it just looks hard to implement into matchmaking? At the moment, like six people look for a game at the same time. Finding a match gets a lot harder the more tiers there are. One can hope that the player base increases exponentially, but that takes time. (Tier 3 exists since the first day due to Empires, right?)

I do not think there will be a tier for "everything but Empires"; instead it will just be, as has been said previously, that people can pay the difference to upgrade from "what they have" to "larger tier."

Ah, I see. I partly misunderstood what was going to happen when a new expansion is released.

[Chris is me]

If it was just 3$ a month to have access to all the sets and I could play them with anyone I wanted (including non-subscribers) that would be a pretty reasonable deal, if Dominion continues to come out with expansions once a year (since I'd be paying around $36 for each new expansion anyway if I got the paper version). I was assuming that to get access to the game at all you'd have to be a subscriber, but you're right that that might not be correct.

The plan is for ~$3/month to give access to all sets; the plan is not to let you play them with non-subscribers (to allow that, the price for paying customers would have to go up).

That... is... uh, well, as I said, highly surprising.  I'm not your business guy, or even a business guy, but this seems like a bad idea.  I know a couple of people who would become non-customers.

Personally, I really value that I can play Dominion online with other people who don't play often enough to justify their own accounts. I'd be willing to pay more per month to be able to play games with guests who don't own the sets. I understand not letting those guests play matchmade games against people who paid, etc, but I would really like to be able to host games for my friends.

I have a few friends who like Dominion enough to play it when I'm around, as a social thing, but not enough to play it on their own. Sometimes I play online with these friends as something to do with them even when I'm far away. I guess I could buy multiple subscriptions and lend out dummy accounts to friends I want to play with, but that seems kind of wasteful and ridiculous. Would it be possible for me to pay like, $6 a month / twice as much as a normal subscription to be able to host a game with up to 3 guests or something? I think this functionality is limited enough that it wouldn't prevent anyone from getting a paid account that otherwise would have, and yet it would allow me to play with friends and introduce the game to people.

In any case, I do have some friends who have told me "I love Dominion, but I'm not paying $100 to play all the expansions online", and I'm happy to tell them "talk to me in January, and you can try all of them for just $3!". So, maybe this won't be such a big problem.

[cactus]

I'm just trying to think of one other online game with a tournament scene that has a subscription model.  Hmmm.... nope, can't think of any.  There are those with a purchase fee, maybe micro-transactions, but none with subscription fees.  Unless there's one I'm missing, in which case, please do enlighten me.

Well one thing is that up until now Apple has been very restrictive about what kind of apps on iOS can have subscription models - games and productivity apps have not been able to have subscription pricing for instance. This has pushed a lot of developers towards the (widely, justifiably) hated micro transaction model. From what I have read this is about to change so it is quite possible things in the industry might start to change and subscription pricing may start to be more of the norm for high quality software.

I was initially against the idea of subscription pricing because I was afraid it might be a barrier to new players taking up the game. But I now think it might be a better option than the MF/Goko debarkel. 1/ I want an excellent implementation of my favourite game. 2/ I want the developers to charge a realistic price that remunerates them for the time and effort of developing and maintaining said excellent implementation 3/ I want the designer and publisher of the game to get sufficient remuneration that they will be encouraged to continue their excellent work.

I now think a subscription model - maybe with a two week free trial period to encourage new players to try the game - offers the best hope of an excellent and sustainable version of dominion online exciting into the medium / longer term future. Yes the model doesn't suit everybody perfectly - if you only want to play two or three times a year you might not want to pay for a full years subscription - but it also doesn't seem fair (to the designer and developers) that if you just want to play now and then you should play for free. If you can subscribe monthly rather than just yearly it could work well - if you know you're going to play with your friends this weekend then renew your subscription for $3 (or whatever) - not going to play fir the next couple of months? Let your subscription lapse.

[popsofctown]

I'm just trying to think of one other online game with a tournament scene that has a subscription model.  Hmmm.... nope, can't think of any.  There are those with a purchase fee, maybe micro-transactions, but none with subscription fees.  Unless there's one I'm missing, in which case, please do enlighten me.

I hope when you say "other online game with a tournament scene that has a subscription model", you're referring to World of Warcraft, because tournament Dominion is not very much of a thing.  Anyhow, "tournament scene" really probably shouldn't be the core value for how this product and its monetization is designed.  You make the average joe most boring use case as good as you possible can, if a tournament or two happens to arise from that then great.

[SirD]

For me personally, online Dominion has been absolutely awful, it has cast a long shadow of sorrow over my life, and the threat of "no online Dominion" is just no threat at all. Man if only there had never been online Dominion. I could be that happy-go-lucky guy, making cards, with no-one mad at him ever. Okay there would be people mad about bendy Adventures cards but that's it.

I feel you bro. Expansion/progress is inevitable, but consistently painful. I personally think the idea of stagnation (if only things stayed the way they were) is soothing but illusionary. Life is weird, but vivid mixture of good and bad. Hugs for everybody.

[popsofctown]

Given a subscription model, it probably maximizes profits to charge a certain fee and not increase that fee each time a new expansion is added.  This is totally unfair/illogical/dumb, but so is selling next gen consoles at a loss and letting you get away with stealing the hotel towels and charging me the same for my haircut the times I accept the complimentary 20 oz of coke and the times I don't.  People aren't rational.  The answer to the thought exercise of releasing new paper expansions and not adding them to the online game so that the fee won't increase is that people would actually stop playing online due to the relative deprivation from new paper expansions coming out, and not getting to have them.  Which again, is unfair, and illogical, they didn't actually lose anything, but that's just what reality is.

It's not always good to assume people are fair and/or rational, they buy bottled water and save money by skipping preventative medicine.

If you don't implement the new expansion, you lose subscribers.  If you implement the new expansion and increase the fee accordingly, you get some new revenue from the people that stay, but you still lose lots of subscribers.  The subscribers that would be lost due to not implementing the new expansion almost certainly covers the costs associated with implementing the new expansion (unless implementing the new expansion is harder than I'm guessing or online dominion becomes even more sparsely populated than I'm guessing, in which case I think the "don't implement anything" strategy is an improvement over offering a higher tier)

[Chris is me]

Popsofctown - I think your post would ring true if there was just one choice for a subscription price, and the price went up with each new expansion, but they've stated that is not how it's going to work. You pay $3 a month for all the sets as they are now. When a new set comes out, you still pay $3 a month unless you want the new set, then you add some money to that when you choose to buy it. It's not a rate hike, why would anyone stop paying the same price for the same content because different content costs more? If they don't want to pay more they just won't get the new content.

[LastFootnote]

Popsofctown - I think your post would ring true if there was just one choice for a subscription price, and the price went up with each new expansion, but they've stated that is not how it's going to work. You pay $3 a month for all the sets as they are now. When a new set comes out, you still pay $3 a month unless you want the new set, then you add some money to that when you choose to buy it. It's not a rate hike, why would anyone stop paying the same price for the same content because different content costs more? If they don't want to pay more they just won't get the new content.

Because, the way it's currently planned, I believe the folks paying $3 and the folks paying $3.25 (or whatever) won't be able to play against each other. It further fragments the player base. I'm not 100% sure that's the plan, but it sure sounds that way?

[popsofctown]

Popsofctown - I think your post would ring true if there was just one choice for a subscription price, and the price went up with each new expansion, but they've stated that is not how it's going to work. You pay $3 a month for all the sets as they are now. When a new set comes out, you still pay $3 a month unless you want the new set, then you add some money to that when you choose to buy it. It's not a rate hike, why would anyone stop paying the same price for the same content because different content costs more? If they don't want to pay more they just won't get the new content.

Because they are paying the same rate they were paying before, but that rate used to get them "everything", and now it no longer gets them "everything".

I thought I mentioned how irrational humans were enough times in there.  I could edit to add in some references to how the Ultimatum Game goes in live experiments in various cultures if that would help.

[Donald X.]

Because, the way it's currently planned, I believe the folks paying $3 and the folks paying $3.25 (or whatever) won't be able to play against each other. It further fragments the player base. I'm not 100% sure that's the plan, but it sure sounds that way?

That seems like a poor prediction for how things will actually work, but it's all stuff to be worked out in private.

[LastFootnote]

My understanding is that that's not relevant so maybe there's some significant misunderstanding there; you could ask Stef for clarifications on their forums, where it is so much more reasonable for people with inside information to be discussing these things.

That seems like a poor prediction for how things will actually work, but it's all stuff to be worked out in private.

Ah shoot, sorry I somehow just saw that first post now. Certainly I will recuse myself from this conversation; I am for sure not trying to stress you out. In defense of my previous posts, I don't believe I actually have any sort of inside info about this right now. But who knows what the future holds; I'll just see myself out.

[Donald X.]

Given a subscription model, it probably maximizes profits to charge a certain fee and not increase that fee each time a new expansion is added.  This is totally unfair/illogical/dumb, but so is selling next gen consoles at a loss and letting you get away with stealing the hotel towels and charging me the same for my haircut the times I accept the complimentary 20 oz of coke and the times I don't.  People aren't rational.  The answer to the thought exercise of releasing new paper expansions and not adding them to the online game so that the fee won't increase is that people would actually stop playing online due to the relative deprivation from new paper expansions coming out, and not getting to have them.  Which again, is unfair, and illogical, they didn't actually lose anything, but that's just what reality is.

It's not always good to assume people are fair and/or rational, they buy bottled water and save money by skipping preventative medicine.

If you don't implement the new expansion, you lose subscribers.  If you implement the new expansion and increase the fee accordingly, you get some new revenue from the people that stay, but you still lose lots of subscribers.  The subscribers that would be lost due to not implementing the new expansion almost certainly covers the costs associated with implementing the new expansion (unless implementing the new expansion is harder than I'm guessing or online dominion becomes even more sparsely populated than I'm guessing, in which case I think the "don't implement anything" strategy is an improvement over offering a higher tier)

I am not assuming people are fair/rational. I am in fact giving you a direct example of a non-rational person: me. I am not going to treat expansions as worthless promotional items even if that's the rational move. If online Dominion were just free, e.g. isotropic, I wouldn't mind new expansions being added for free, as they were. I never lost sleep over people playing online Dominion for free. But with online Dominion as a sold product, the expansions can't be free, it makes them worthless and just sucks too hard for me. So they won't be free. And RGG agrees with me, and ShuffleIT has already agreed to this, as part of our negotiations.

So I mean, have fun posting, but it will have to fail hard before we reconsider this.

[Donald X.]

Ah shoot, sorry I somehow just saw that first post now. Certainly I will recuse myself from this conversation; I am for sure not trying to stress you out. In defense of my previous posts, I don't believe I actually have any sort of inside info about this right now. But who knows what the future holds; I'll just see myself out.

Thanks; I'm not trying to cost you any posting fun, it's just, I was thinking through what there was to say, and then thought, well I can say that to LF but I can't talk about this stuff in public, and then it seemed like, hmmm what is going on with this conversation.

[werothegreat]

Wait, Stef and co. have their own forum now?

[eHalcyon]

If you don't implement the new expansion, you lose subscribers.  If you implement the new expansion and increase the fee accordingly, you get some new revenue from the people that stay, but you still lose lots of subscribers.  The subscribers that would be lost due to not implementing the new expansion almost certainly covers the costs associated with implementing the new expansion

I don't think enough is known about the pricing model to make this prediction.  The number of subscribers who drop out after a small price increase might be minimal, even if they grumble about the extra cents.

[popsofctown]

Counterintuitive as it is, I speculate you might actually get more revenue not implementing the new expansion at all.  I could be wrong on that, it seems like a closer call.  But those that don't become aware of new expansions don't become relatively deprived at all, you get a lot of continued subscriptions from high sense-of-entitlement players that way.  So I was supporting at least one option that retains respect towards your work, my post wasn't solely about "here are the ways to sell out."

It generates a sense of paper dominion as being "premium", could generate sales that way too, with the occasional diehard online player picking up every single box after getting hooked.

[popsofctown]

If you don't implement the new expansion, you lose subscribers.  If you implement the new expansion and increase the fee accordingly, you get some new revenue from the people that stay, but you still lose lots of subscribers.  The subscribers that would be lost due to not implementing the new expansion almost certainly covers the costs associated with implementing the new expansion

I don't think enough is known about the pricing model to make this prediction.  The number of subscribers who drop out after a small price increase might be minimal, even if they grumble about the extra cents.

I am pretty sure I know enough.  If X is very low, not enough additional revenue is generated, but some subscribers are still lost (Even over a nickel!  People are that awful)  If X is very high, a higher number of people bail.  I do not think any value for X works.  Donald is not disputing that, he seems to be aware that he is losing revenue (or at least risks the same) so that his work will hold more meaning, which is totally reasonable, it just wasn't clear to me yet from his earlier posts.

Very small X has a good shot at losing him very little revenue, though.

[eHalcyon]

If you don't implement the new expansion, you lose subscribers.  If you implement the new expansion and increase the fee accordingly, you get some new revenue from the people that stay, but you still lose lots of subscribers.  The subscribers that would be lost due to not implementing the new expansion almost certainly covers the costs associated with implementing the new expansion

I don't think enough is known about the pricing model to make this prediction.  The number of subscribers who drop out after a small price increase might be minimal, even if they grumble about the extra cents.

I am pretty sure I know enough.  If X is very low, not enough additional revenue is generated, but some subscribers are still lost (Even over a nickel!  People are that awful)  If X is very high, a higher number of people bail.  I do not think any value for X works.  Donald is not disputing that, he seems to be aware that he is losing revenue (or at least risks the same) so that his work will hold more meaning, which is totally reasonable, it just wasn't clear to me yet from his earlier posts.

Very small X has a good shot at losing him very little revenue, though.

Sure people are awful, but they are also hypocritical, so they'll grumble and continue paying anyway.  Who knows?  I'm just saying that this is all just speculation.

[Beyond Awesome]

I'm not a fan of paying extra per month for a new expansion. I am however willing to pay a one time fee for the expansion ($5 or so) to continue paying $3/month for Dominion Online. This seems to make the most sense to me. A new expansion should not cause the monthly service fee to go up.

[faust]

Wait, Stef and co. have their own forum now?

It's called f.mpbs.

[JerseyFrank]

If another anecdote = another data point, I want simplicity and transparency in pricing.  I'm not very price-sensitive, but I am quickly turned off by complicated pricing.  I just don't want to learn it, and can't shake the feeling that the complication is just going to screw me over.

• I own all expansions, but not all promos (initially due to the complicated virtual currency in unusable amounts).
• I expect that I'll be treated as "owning it all" customer who will get the 1/yr subscription.
• I expect that when new expansions are added, I'll get them included in my monthly subscription cost.
• I expect that subscription cost to remain constant.  The business should look to increase the user base and generate profits through non-linear economies of scale.  They should focus on being cost-efficient before nickel-and-diming the subscription price.
• I would tolerate some increases while ShuffleIt is going through the growing pain of figuring out what they need/can to charge to stay in business; but tying it to changes in functionality (e.g., expansions, or improved software) would break me.  I'd quit.

* Edited to add: These aren't meant to be angry or terse customer demands.  Just adding to the chorus.  I want this to be successful.

[Donald X.]

If another anecdote = another data point, I want simplicity and transparency in pricing.  I'm not very price-sensitive, but I am quickly turned off by complicated pricing.  I just don't want to learn it, and can't shake the feeling that the complication is just going to screw me over.

• I own all expansions, but not all promos (initially due to the complicated virtual currency in unusable amounts).
• I expect that I'll be treated as "owning it all" customer who will get the 1/yr subscription.
• I expect that when new expansions are added, I'll get them included in my monthly subscription cost.
• I expect that subscription cost to remain constant.  The business should look to increase the user base and generate profits through non-linear economies of scale.  They should focus on being cost-efficient before nickel-and-diming the subscription price.
• I would tolerate some increases while ShuffleIt is going through the growing pain of figuring out what they need/can to charge to stay in business; but tying it to changes in functionality (e.g., expansions, or improved software) would break me.  I'd quit.

I'm there for you with the transparency.

In the long run, either I wouldn't make any more expansions, or you'd be changing your mind or quitting, because any new expansions would not be free.

[Chris is me]

I don't understand. Imagine you're paying for a gym membership. The gym adds another location down the street, offering a small fee to allow you to use both gyms or the same fee to keep using the one gym. Would you be so angry that the other gym isn't given to you for free, that you would quit using the original gym? Even though neither the price nor the product changed? I don't understand this.

[eHalcyon]

I don't understand. Imagine you're paying for a gym membership. The gym adds another location down the street, offering a small fee to allow you to use both gyms or the same fee to keep using the one gym. Would you be so angry that the other gym isn't given to you for free, that you would quit using the original gym? Even though neither the price nor the product changed? I don't understand this.

I suppose some people are seeing it a different way... They're paying for a gym membership. The gym buys a new machine. They want to use this machine, but then the gym tells them that they'll have to pay more to get access to it. It feels like they're just trying to milk more money out of a customer.

I'm not saying I agree with this sentiment, but I understand it. People hate price increases. They would probably be happier if you just charge the slightly higher price from the start.

[Witherweaver]

I don't understand. Imagine you're paying for a gym membership. The gym adds another location down the street, offering a small fee to allow you to use both gyms or the same fee to keep using the one gym. Would you be so angry that the other gym isn't given to you for free, that you would quit using the original gym? Even though neither the price nor the product changed? I don't understand this.

I suppose some people are seeing it a different way... They're paying for a gym membership. The gym buys a new machine. They want to use this machine, but then the gym tells them that they'll have to pay more to get access to it. It feels like they're just trying to milk more money out of a customer.

I'm not saying I agree with this sentiment, but I understand it. People hate price increases. They would probably be happier if you just charge the slightly higher price from the start.

It's also slightly different in that.. all the machines in the gym require two people to use.  They open up a new room of new two-person machines that everyone goes to, and now you can't use the other machines as much because everyone is in the new room.

Well, not exactly, but there's slightly that effect with the matching.

[Beyond Awesome]

I don't understand. Imagine you're paying for a gym membership. The gym adds another location down the street, offering a small fee to allow you to use both gyms or the same fee to keep using the one gym. Would you be so angry that the other gym isn't given to you for free, that you would quit using the original gym? Even though neither the price nor the product changed? I don't understand this.

usually, with gym memberships, you are allowed to go to any location for whatever priced you paid upfront. That's usually how they work.

[drsteelhammer]

I don't understand. Imagine you're paying for a gym membership. The gym adds another location down the street, offering a small fee to allow you to use both gyms or the same fee to keep using the one gym. Would you be so angry that the other gym isn't given to you for free, that you would quit using the original gym? Even though neither the price nor the product changed? I don't understand this.

usually, with gym memberships, you are allowed to go to any location for whatever priced you paid upfront. That's usually how they work.

And they prizes are usually adjusted to the service they are offering (The more service the more it costs)

[Calamitas]

I don't understand. Imagine you're paying for a gym membership. The gym adds another location down the street, offering a small fee to allow you to use both gyms or the same fee to keep using the one gym. Would you be so angry that the other gym isn't given to you for free, that you would quit using the original gym? Even though neither the price nor the product changed? I don't understand this.

usually, with gym memberships, you are allowed to go to any location for whatever priced you paid upfront. That's usually how they work.

And they prizes are usually adjusted to the service they are offering (The more service the more it costs)

Actually not...Usually the price remains the same whether they buy a new machine or not. They are just investing in new machines to improve their offer to keep their subscribers and to attract new ones. The same should apply here (in the interest of ShuffleIT & their customers).

[AdrianHealey]

Has there been an explanation what's wrong with the following model:

- Pay a subscription fee
- When a new expansion is added: pay a one time fee for the additional expansion
- Continue pay same subscription fee

I guess it's probably more difficult for newer members.

Either way, I'll be paying. I love dominion. I love what Donald has given us. I love that ShuffleIt is offering a year for free, even though they didn't see any of the money I offered MF. It sucks, but sunk costs are sunk costs. I am glad they are doing what they are doing.

[Donald X.]

Has there been an explanation what's wrong with the following model:

- Pay a subscription fee
- When a new expansion is added: pay a one time fee for the additional expansion
- Continue pay same subscription fee

So, the one time fee is for a lifetime of that extra expansion? Neither publisher has rights that last that long.

[singletee]

Has there been an explanation what's wrong with the following model:

- Pay a subscription fee
- When a new expansion is added: pay a one time fee for the additional expansion
- Continue pay same subscription fee

So, the one time fee is for a lifetime of that extra expansion? Neither publisher has rights that last that long.

Here's a solution that will please everyone: self-destructing expansions.

[AdrianHealey]

Has there been an explanation what's wrong with the following model:

- Pay a subscription fee
- When a new expansion is added: pay a one time fee for the additional expansion
- Continue pay same subscription fee

So, the one time fee is for a lifetime of that extra expansion? Neither publisher has rights that last that long.

[Witherweaver]

Has there been an explanation what's wrong with the following model:

- Pay a subscription fee
- When a new expansion is added: pay a one time fee for the additional expansion
- Continue pay same subscription fee

So, the one time fee is for a lifetime of that extra expansion? Neither publisher has rights that last that long.

Here's a solution that will please everyone: self-destructing expansions.

Cards that, when trashed, are actually gone forever!

[wujeklew]

I have a question:
Now I have only two expansion: Prosperity, Seaside. What will happen if I now buy subscription through December 31? I will lose Prosperity and Seaside and in 2017 I will must buy new subscription or I will still have choice between offline – online version?
And second question?
Now I will sign up and buy one small expansion. On 2017 will I can choose full 2017 subscription?

[SCSN]

I have a question:
Now I have only two expansion: Prosperity, Seaside. What will happen if I now buy subscription through December 31? I will lose Prosperity and Seaside and in 2017 I will must buy new subscription or I will still have choice between offline – online version?

You will still have Prosperity and Seaside for 2017, but not any of the other expansions (you'd need to pay to get those).

And second question?
Now I will sign up and buy one small expansion. On 2017 will I can choose full 2017 subscription?

I'm not sure I understand your question, but the free subscription you'd get would be till the end of 2017 for precisely those expansions you bought before the first of January 2017 (not including the subscription MF is currently offering).

If you want the full subscription with all the expansions for 2017 but do not own all the expansions come the new year, you can pay an additional fee that is less than the full price to get them all.

[madeintw]

I've searched and couldn't come up with the answer to this; kindly do direct me to the proper thread if you already know.

I currently own Intrigue, Seaside, and Prosperity and want to continue to be able to play against other players.

When will the option be made to choose 1 Free Year of Online or Perma-Offline?
Need I login on December 31st precisely to decide, or will there be a certain time window to make my choices?

[Donald X.]

I've searched and couldn't come up with the answer to this; kindly do direct me to the proper thread if you already know.

I currently own Intrigue, Seaside, and Prosperity and want to continue to be able to play against other players.

When will the option be made to choose 1 Free Year of Online or Perma-Offline?
Need I login on December 31st precisely to decide, or will there be a certain time window to make my choices?

It will be no earlier than right near the end, because people could conceivably buy in near the end, and it's easier to not have to have the data sent between MF and uh the other guys multiple times. I don't see the beauty of forcing you to make the decision in a timely fashion though so I don't think you will be forced to.

[madeintw]

Thank you. That makes sense.

[NolanA]

I'm a relatively new Dominion player.  I am ready to get my first expansion, probably Intrigue.  I will likely be interested in getting another expansion or two before the end of the year.  It sounds like the timing of getting expansions is not optimal with the switch from MF.  As I understand it, if I buy Intrigue, I will have it until the end of the year on MF.  At the end of the year, I'll be given the choice to either keep it permanently offline, or have it online for 1 additional year with no cost to play online for that year.  If I choose online, then at the end of the year, I'll need to switch to a tiered subscription model, with prices on the order of $2 or $3 per month.   At the time I make the decision between online and offline, I'll have additional information from the forum to help choose, such as the quality of the offline bots (hopefully, they'll include some better players than the bots at MF) and how easy it is to find a desired game online. Is that correct?

In my opinion, one of the things that makes online Dominion most enjoyable is the large number of active players. I can play a game on any day at any time, usually with someone who has a reasonably compatible rating.  In addition to being a great game, one of the key reasons why there are hundreds of players at any given time, is there is an option to play for free (base set only).  This makes it easy for people to try out the game.  If I have a game playing friend who is not familiar with Dominion, there is a good chance they'll try it out, if I recommend the game. We'll end up playing a few enjoyable games through the challenge feature.  However, if all players must pay a subscription, my game playing friends almost certainly will not try the game.  Similarly I would not have discovered the game if my initial play required a subscription, and would not be looking at getting expansions today.   So I'd be strongly in favor of a  business model that had some way for people to play for free.  This might include only having access to the base set, having advertisements, not having access to special features (examples could include things like subscribers have more control in who to play against, are able to choose custom rules for games, have special game log/stat/review features, have more customizable avatars, can unlock special bots after reaching level of achievement, can unlock special card(s) that do not appear in any boxed sets after reaching level of achievement, special tournaments, etc.), not having access to additional online games, or not having countless other subscription benefits.

[Donald X.]

I'm a relatively new Dominion player.  I am ready to get my first expansion, probably Intrigue.  I will likely be interested in getting another expansion or two before the end of the year.  It sounds like the timing of getting expansions is not optimal with the switch from MF.  As I understand it, if I buy Intrigue, I will have it until the end of the year on MF.  At the end of the year, I'll be given the choice to either keep it permanently offline, or have it online for 1 additional year with no cost to play online for that year.  If I choose online, then at the end of the year, I'll need to switch to a tiered subscription model, with prices on the order of $2 or $3 per month.   At the time I make the decision between online and offline, I'll have additional information from the forum to help choose, such as the quality of the offline bots (hopefully, they'll include some better players than the bots at MF) and how easy it is to find a desired game online. Is that correct?

Yes, but note that you can instead get a subscription on MF now.

[ackmondual]

I don't understand. Imagine you're paying for a gym membership. The gym adds another location down the street, offering a small fee to allow you to use both gyms or the same fee to keep using the one gym. Would you be so angry that the other gym isn't given to you for free, that you would quit using the original gym? Even though neither the price nor the product changed? I don't understand this.

I suppose some people are seeing it a different way... They're paying for a gym membership. The gym buys a new machine. They want to use this machine, but then the gym tells them that they'll have to pay more to get access to it. It feels like they're just trying to milk more money out of a customer.

I'm not saying I agree with this sentiment, but I understand it. People hate price increases. They would probably be happier if you just charge the slightly higher price from the start.

In this case, the gym won't increase the price.... at first.  If later on they see that a combo of these extra improvements and equipment isn't maintainable, they'll find other ways to make up... put off new projects, cut some employee hours, raise the prices in other areas like extra services, concessions/drinks, or offer less services while keeping the same price.

As a last resort, they'll increase prices since that tends to be the most noticeable.