Top Mud Sites Forum - View Single Post - Pay-to-Play vs. Pay-to-Advance

Brody · 05-26-2005, 08:58 AM

I've gone through three different models for my project, with varying degrees of success.

One-time fee: Back in the beginning, you could play a peasant for free, but paid a one-time fee if you wanted to be higher on the social ladder. The higher in the social strata a player wanted to be, the more it cost. For their investment, they got their own homes/castles and other benefits. This was somewhat successful, but hindered playerbase growth - and this led to inadequate income for the game. So, then we switched to...

Monthly fee: We exempted people who'd been playing the game since it started, but all new players would have to pay a monthly fee. The free-to-play as peasant model still existed and players got 30 days as a trial period. However, this proved to be less successful than the one-time fee. It's possible I did something wrong, but I have a suspicion that in the age of graphical MMORPGs, it's going to be really hard to maintain growth of a monthly subscription base in a text-gaming environment. The monthly fee simply didn't work out for us, reducing income and hindering playerbase growth even further than the first model. So, we evolved to...

Paid enhancements: Basically, for all intents and purposes, the game can be played for free. Whether a player wants to be a peasant or a high-society blueblood, it's free *unless* they want their own private buildings, personalized weapons and heirlooms, fast horses, and extra crafting minutes. In effect, they pay for the time and effort involved in the building projects or the convenience of the horses and crafting minutes. Although this method doesn't carry the certainty of a subscription or a one-time up-front fee, it has (for us) been the most successful model in allowing a balance between income and playerbase growth.

05-26-2005, 08:58 AM	#7
Brody Legend Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: North Carolina Home MUD: OtherSpace Posts: 1,599	I've gone through three different models for my project, with varying degrees of success. One-time fee: Back in the beginning, you could play a peasant for free, but paid a one-time fee if you wanted to be higher on the social ladder. The higher in the social strata a player wanted to be, the more it cost. For their investment, they got their own homes/castles and other benefits. This was somewhat successful, but hindered playerbase growth - and this led to inadequate income for the game. So, then we switched to... Monthly fee: We exempted people who'd been playing the game since it started, but all new players would have to pay a monthly fee. The free-to-play as peasant model still existed and players got 30 days as a trial period. However, this proved to be less successful than the one-time fee. It's possible I did something wrong, but I have a suspicion that in the age of graphical MMORPGs, it's going to be really hard to maintain growth of a monthly subscription base in a text-gaming environment. The monthly fee simply didn't work out for us, reducing income and hindering playerbase growth even further than the first model. So, we evolved to... Paid enhancements: Basically, for all intents and purposes, the game can be played for free. Whether a player wants to be a peasant or a high-society blueblood, it's free unless they want their own private buildings, personalized weapons and heirlooms, fast horses, and extra crafting minutes. In effect, they pay for the time and effort involved in the building projects or the convenience of the horses and crafting minutes. Although this method doesn't carry the certainty of a subscription or a one-time up-front fee, it has (for us) been the most successful model in allowing a balance between income and playerbase growth.