Monthly subscription

[PFH]

Well thats true

But thats my work as to how to get the game promoted and bigger. With that comes more money. Dont worry about that, but if you have ideas you can pm me.

[Kangaroo]

the very premise of pay to play is that you can advance quicker or become more powerful quicker that is not the problem

the problem comes when you believe that you should be able to get more than someone who pays by just utilizing the game mechanics
and believe pay to play players are bad

i suggest that those who feel this way make a game and then pay the fees associated so we can all come play it while you donate your
time and resources to the game

those who pay are supporting the game and those who just play are reaping the rewards of the continued support of pay to play players

subscriptions are normally token benefits for the the smaller collections of those who want to support the game but are financially unable or unwilling
to meet the pay to play game style.

capitalism is a wonderful thing and it helps businesses thrive even a web based business but the socialist idea that everyone should be on equal playing grounds without cash only comes from those who have years of resources built and wish to hold that advantage.

there are games out there that depend totally on ads which i prefer to avoid.
there are other games that wipe your advancements weekly bi weekly or monthly and to stand out
you buy skins for your clothing guns and other portions of the game which i do play
but ultimately if you want pay to play to be equal to a noob those are the only ways available that i have played.

but the incessant cry of toxicity or outrage due to the utilization of purchases made is only a counter productive protest to the life of the game itself.

100%agree with every word.

[sXs]

I am not opposed to the idea, but I am not sure this is something that should be a community decision. Clock is right, this is a PR and question specifically for CJ. If he says yes, then maybe discussion.

I don't know how to vote because I don't know if we should vote on this at all...….

[PFH]

We should vote on it. If you like the idea of the baseline for this, vote yes. Itll give CJ a better idea of what the community wishes to see.

If not then -1. Community i put provides better insight to CJ and coding.

As PR administrator, im good with a monthly subscription. Something to give titles and small benefits to players. Lots of players love “badges” on their accounts on big games so i dont see why not here.

[DezNutz]

This is not something that should be approved or disapproved from a development team standpoint.

This is a question/suggestion that can only be answered by CJ.

[Captain Jack]

PG funding model is targeted to newcomers and the essence of its model is "Use real $ to catch up with those who started playing a long time ago"

Of course, there is something to consider here and it is Major: The game has managed to keep a good inflation model over the years. I do not know if I am entitling it well but what I mean is the following:
-Someone who started playing 9 years ago (let's say Skyhawk, more or less he joined the game 9 years ago) had no access to the options that a newcomer currently gets. For example, a newcomer may join the game and focus in finishing the missions.

You can easily finish most of them (with or without loans) within a month. At the same time, you can also join a nation with Stipends. If you also manage your loans well, you could easily manage to gain assets that worth hundreds of millions, within 3 months time and no real cash spent.

However, when Skyhawk joined, this simply was IMPOSSIBLE. I doubt that any player back then could make more than 100M in the first 3 years, not first 3 months.

Still, thanks to the credits market, it is undeniable that real cash can help you either in speeding up your own path or catching up with the rest.

This, as analyzed, is the first part of the funding model.

The second, is something called SPENDING CAP. This, in short means, that after you have spend a good amount of cash, there is really not enough reasons to spend more. This mostly help veterans to prolong their play here, without spending a sh!tload of their hard earned money.

Both parts help in keeping the game free to play and not pay to win.

The current model can only work when the game is high in population. Right now, the income is fair to poor. We need double the amount of current spenders in order to be upgraded to something fair to okay and 4 times the amount of current spenders to move to something that is self-sustainable and optimal for the future.

The answer to how the game continues if we are to a state of fair to poor is because of one primary reason:
Some players spend way above average. The development of the game all these years is mostly thanks to a handful of players. Their names cycle during the years, but there has always been at least 2-3 backers at any given moment.

It is also worthwhile to mention that while development is thanks to those backers, sustainability of the game is thanks to me. Since I do not make a living through the game, the game is secured for my lifetime and hopefully beyond.

Of course, this has its drawbacks, as it also costs me time which is spent elsewhere to make a living. This is why I mention that if we had 4 times the current spenders, we would be at a self-sustainable and optimal for the future status.

Do note that I keep mentioning current spenders. As the model which I analyzed above, has a specific spending monthly target. This is measured in credits. A few years back, this was at around 600 credits per month per veteran user. Which means that a $19.99 pack was enough. In recent years, this was reduced to 300 credits per month per veteran user, a little over the $9.99 pack.

Of course, most veterans do not pay their credits, they obtain it from the market/banks for gold coins. This is still okay for the game though, as this helps in cutting the gap between newcomers and veterans. The less veterans buy credits, the more the gap shortens. It acts as a game balancer. So, it is a win win situation for the game and it all comes down to numbers and even more down to really active players.

So forget of all these plans. We do not want the game to become pay to win. The current mechanism is okay and I do not want to rise the cost of credits. I actually want to halve it by doubling the credit amount per pack. This always makes the game better in the long run. Before this can happen, we need more players.