this proposal to introduce a separate subscription class.
Beta players, not alpha, not omega, don’t train skills past 5m, and have restrictions placed on their abilities to use capital class ships, however they can use T2 subcap ships and have better industry skills than their alpha counterparts. Their access to PI will be restricted to 3 planets per character.
Other restrictions may be added as seen fit, but basically this class costs less than Omega and has alpha skillpoint restrictions, to prevent the oversaturation of the market with skillpoints (it already is).
Alternatively, if players want, they can opt to upgrade their Beta account to an Omega one using PLEX
Alphas should be limited to cruisers and exclude T2, Navy and Pirate faction variants). No criminal status. Betas should be a paid $10/month subscription, have training speed up to 10M skillpoints and the same restrictions on Alpha skills (Navy and Pirate faction variants included up to battleships; still no T2). Omegas can be left as is.
makes EVE cheaper for players from countries with weaker currencies.
also reduces the glut in skillpoints on the market. The extraction value of skillpoints are getting lower and lower. Didn’t I say this here already?
That would be EvE Online, where alphas are, and always were, players trying out the game for free.
If you love gaming so much without paying, go play the free demos for any other MMO and, by all means, come back here and tell us about your experiences in those other MMOs and how their free demos compare to ours.
Indeed he did. Then he went off the rails by suggesting that omegas having reservations about alpha status / demands should join games only allowing subscribed customers - which is what I reacted to.
While I fully empathize with players from countries with weak currencies and accompanying economic realities, they can still play the total luxury product called EvE Online free of any charge except their connection costs. If that is not generous enough by CCP, then what is ?
I can already think of several ways to abuse a beta system especially the very generous one shown in the OP. That means others can think of even better ways as well.
Well he’s not entirely wrong. EVE is not a sub only game anymore.
This idea that it’s supposedly generous for CCP to offer the game for free is silly. They’re not doing it to be generous. They’re doing it because it makes economic sense.
I think you’re showing your hand a bit by calling making use of a $10 beta sub to be an abuse.
I’m not sold that that would be in CCP’s financial interest either, but as I don’t have access to their books, I can’t really make an authoritative comment on the issue. I do know however, that there were quite a few people who stopped paying the sub when it was bumped up to $20.
So what you might get in this instance, is people training up accounts with an omega and transitioning to a beta clone once they attain the skills they want. Or maybe they’ll just start as a beta and use injectors.
The thing that’s difficult for CCP to gauge is whether or not those people would have paid the higher $20 sub, or whether having a mid tier sub would afford them more money through higher subscriber numbers. This is the same problem CCP faces in dealing with alpha access, only the issue with alphas is even more complicated because you’re dealing with public perception more than a pure market supply and demand function.
I do think you’re running into shady territory here. If beta clones were introduced, how long would it be until CCP releases drifter battleships complete with the dd weapon to a new omega+ clone type? It’ll just be $100 a month.
Then you all can experience the fun of having omega+ players calling you freeloaders while they blow you up with one click of their mouse.
It’s not ? You mean playing a demo - as generous as it currently is - is a guaranteed way for ccp (a business) to create revenue ? Or could it be wishful thinking that alpha is now, or ever was, the alternative to paying for what you consume ?
I was never on board with this alpha status. I honestly think it was a mistake. The only thing it does for certain is to increase the PCU. Whether it actually increases revenue only ccp can tell. If it creates enough revenue to cover the costs (each account does incur a maintenance cost of some sort) only ccp can tell.
Perhaps you should let my statement sink in. It has nothing to do with the price itself being an abuse (although there are a few arguments to support that particular claim - which I did not make). It has everything to do with the proposed “beta” and its possibilities. It is too broad, too powerful. It would at the very least require a multibox prohibition for beta’s, just like it does for alpha’s. Even better, it should be limited to one per customer, but that is a lot harder to implement given vpi technology. On top of that, OP didn’t even push cap ships out of its possibilities, only a vague mentioning of “restrictions”.
And that is exactly what I, if I were running the business, would want to avoid !
Any alternative monetisation plan requires careful balancing. The business still has to attract new customers that will create revenue, while the plan must never alienate existing customers who create full revenue, and at the same time keep the game firmly balanced including the customer base. That the customer base is handled a bit more carefully for EvE Online, where losses are real, and is not thrown to the whales, is a given. That includes avoiding p2w like the omega+ you just invented. It’s a Pandora’s box. And once the wriggle room is established, there will be no stopping it, as you correctly assume, from both sides (vendor and customer).
This is not the first thread about changing sub price i.e., lowering it for countries with less buying power or, in this particular “idea” to renegotiate the same thing in principle but calling it a “beta” status. CCP undeniably has a long history of successfully creating revenue. So the thoughts undoubtedly crossed their commercial minds. At the time I was not opposed to the increase of the sub, it seemed fair. The costs of running the business have not lowered, quite the contrary. Yet the sub price was still the same as during the first decade… It probably didn’t even cover inflation costs. In that light it’s probably the better outcome to take a few losses from fewer subs than to decrease net profit overall.
Thought/question added: do you think halving the price of the sub for everyone would lead to more paying customers and a net increase in proft for CCP ? If that were true, I’d be 100% backing up a 50% reduction of the price - and so would CCP.
I didn’t say alpha was an alternative did I? Nor did I say EVE isn’t a subscription based game. I did say it isn’t a “sub only” game. And yes, CCP does make quite a bit of profit off of alphas. I don’t know what those numbers are exactly, but I do know it’s substantial.
Could CCP switch to f2p entirely and get rid of the subscription? I doubt it. Not as the game currently is anyway. It’s too niche of a game.
If the game was a more visceral experience, maybe.
But then I’m not advocating for that, nor is anyone in this thread.
Quite honestly, it doesn’t matter what you think about it. If it were bad for the game, they’d remove it.
Sure there’s maintenance involved, but if you think alphas create a substantial amount of it beyond what’s required to keep the server running in the first place, you’re fooling yourself.
It would be one thing if alphas were 90% of the player base, and CCP had to have a significant amount of extra server infrastructure to keep the servers running properly, but that’s just not the case.
If I had to take a guess, I’d venture the majority of the server maintenance (above and beyond the norm) is caused by null blocks throwing fleets at each other in those big brawls.
imo, all accounts should have a multibox prohibition, but I know that wont happen, because CCP makes a ton of money off of multiboxers.
I assumed that meant betas couldn’t use them, but perhaps my understanding wasn’t correct.
And what if the alternative is no subscription at all? That’s what I meant when I was talking about this matter being difficult. They have to do research into the matter and see what people are willing to do.
If they play around with a concept like this… I suspect we’ll first be seeing some trial runs of the program. But it might coincide with another bump in omega sub pricing. ie: $30 for omega, and 20 for a tau clone that gives everything except for caps. (Inflation is terrible in recent years, so don’t be surprised when another sub hike comes.)
In the post you responded to, I actually said I wasn’t sold on the idea.
As for the price hike in question…
I was of the same mindset on this.
Everything has gone up, it was a bit silly for people to be so upset about it when it happened.
Furthermore, the fanfest it was announced, there wasn’t really a whole lot being revealed. Players tend to have this weird obsession about online games needing to have constant updates… and if they don’t… or the update is lackluster… somehow their sub was wasted. As if they’re investing in the future of the game or something, rather than paying for what is already there.
I mean, I understand being excited for future potentials, but throwing a fit over a failed expansion is weird.
It hasn’t. Prices on a lot of things have basically doubled in the past 3-4 years. That may be in part due to lingering effects of covid, but quite a bit of that inflation is here to stay. Governments can’t print trillions in extra currency or kill all the local businesses by forcing them to close and expect no effect.
This is the strategy f2p games employ btw. Rely on the whales to support everything along with huge sales from some choice cosmetics.
An unsubstantiated claim, which should be avoided. It’s not like “it exists, therefore it must make sense”. We have no numerical basis for a discussion on that subtopic (wish we had :p)
So you’re saying that the extra data volume and transfer does not incur extra costs like hardware and running costs ? Interesting.
Do you have an idea about the attraction level that these big brawls - which are often highly publicized - establish for ccp ? They are eye catching. Big brawls and big wars are an attractant i.e., revenue.
Do you think it would be a viable alternative for the game and the customers overall to not have these big fleet ops so that there is less hardware needed ?
That’s where comparative pricing comes in. Not even EvE Online is so grandiose that the average customer would want to pay double of what other subs cost. Or is it ?
But let’s assume your scenario occurs: where would that leave the customer who now wrongly or justly asks for a beta at 10$ ?
If losses were real in those games, meaning invested money into winning would evaporate once a character gets downed, not even focusing on whales would keep them alive.
Fair enough. But hey, you were doing it, so I figured I’d also give it a try.
Do you have a habit of misrepresenting people you’re talking to?
I didn’t say there would be no cost… but a substantial cost? When they have to allow for massive fleet fights? and a network to support them? Really?
Again with the misrepresentation… what makes you think I would believe any of that?
I merely posited that that is likely the majority cost of maintenance (beyond normally operating costs.)
I would have left this alone, but after your comment about unsubstantiated claims, I’ve got to poke you back about this one. I’ve heard a lot of the people who get drawn in because of those stories don’t stick.
For the record, I do actually believe what you said is correct, but it is, technically, unsubstantiated. (Unless you can find actual numbers to prove your claim. )
Your guess is as good as mine. A $10 sub in that environment might remove t2 ships and caps. Of course the op was suggesting to keep the alpha skill cap in place and only have access to 3 PI planets as well.
That’s what a large part of my post before the last one was about. CCP will have to do market research to determine if the tactic is viable. And if CCP were to increase Alpha ability, it would be highly advised they do market research before they implement it there as well.
Release some trial runs. Pay attention to player behavior. Though to be fair, the tests on alphas would probably be more difficult, since it would likely take longer to see the benefits.
You mean like Albion Online? Which is practically the same type of game EVE is.
so yes, betas won’t be able to fly capital class ships.
And you’re absolutely right, CCP won’t implement a beta class unless it can be profitable for them.
But they won’t know whether it is profitable or not unless they conduct market research and experiment with short-term beta status
I’m confident they do their market research, and are very aware of market trends in their sector. Having an in between subscription rate is not exactly something that is new. The spectrum goes all the way from “free demo” to “pay once get a lifelong sub”, although the latter are probably a thing of the past now (I have one for an old MMO).
I’m also confident that if ccp sees a way of implementing such a thing, preserve the customer base and its balance, keep the game itself balanced, and make a net profit, they will do so eventually.
That they haven’t so far can mean one of two things: 1) it’s not profitable/too risky/impossible to implement correctly, or 2) they haven’t thought about it. Which of these is more likely ?
No, you’re likely correct. I assume the sub packs they do periodically function as market research as well.
That’s similar to box cost mmos without a sub. gw2 and destiny2 both do that, though they might also have a season pass sort of thing that gives people a few perks.
Speaking of ds2, if anyone likes shooters, the first 3 content packs are free in the epic store right now until sometime on the 20th.
I mean…
just sayin’ …
They also have suits that make decisions, and if the suits aren’t convinced, it doesn’t happen. CCP’s execs seem to be more competent than most. Sure they make mistakes, but they’ve maneuvered out of those situations in the past and ended up where they are today.
Change in general is risky especially when you have something that is working. However, the climate is constantly changing, and people who are friendly to subscription based models seem to be disappearing, based on what I’ve seen over the past 10-20 years. I’m guessing that plays a large factor into CCP’s drive to improve the new player experience and play around with various monetization efforts.
EVE Onlines monetezation model is distracting af. Its one of the biggest motivators for people to stop playing.
There was a time where you just paid a monthly subscription and that was it. A 14 day free trial for people who wanted to try the game. It was simple and effective. But they decided to introduce micro-transactions on top of the monthly subscription and have made the game feel like a money grab more than anything else.
They make it seem as if they do not have the players best interest at heart. Maybe they do, but the complicated monetization model does not make it seem that way.
And then OP comes in, with good intentions, and suggest to make the monetezation model even more complicated. What could go wrong
