Print

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

[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).