Subscribers and Economics in Design Philosophy

ID:151488
 
Aug 26 2010, 12:28 am
I've been working on a small project over the last week or so. I'm really taking a hard look at the mechanics of the in-game economy, and the possibility of enhancements for subscribers.

Essentially, the idea of the game is something of a survival game based on a faraway planet. Economics plays a heavy part in the game, and resource production, aggregation, and sale is going to be where players spend the most time in the game.

One of the ideas I've recently come up with, is static and dynamic economies, and giving players a leg-up for subscribing.


Since the game is based on logical futuristic economics, the cost of moving goods on and off planet is very high. The energy required to move cargo from one solar system to another is much smaller than the energy required to actually get the goods off planet.

I've determined that because of the difficulties of transferring energy on and off planet, moving goods from one terrestrial biome to another would be pretty much useless, so moving matter from one world to another would not be economically viable when there is an effectively infinite amount of matter floating in accretion disks around stars, and just bouncing around in asteroids. The energy required to move from solar system to solar system would be cheaper as well, because energy can be moved across space in wave form without significant loss, and harvested from stars themselves.

So, I've decided that the goods produced on-planet are pretty much going to be consumed on-planet, and only goods that cannot be harvested in a null-g environment would be moved off-planet.

Because of these factors, it is necessary to create three different economy rule-sets.

On-planet value (Factored by shipping cost via terrestrial vehicles)
Off-planet value (Factored by the cost of reaching orbit)
On-planet value to players (players determine shipping cost)

In order for the economy to succeed, there needs to be a static economy (Player-NPC purchase of goods), and a dynamic economy (Player-Player purchase of goods).

I'm considering giving players a leg-up for being subscribers through a system called "branding". This will allow players to gain a reputation for quality/well priced goods. Players earn reputation for the quality of the goods they sell, and at the same time earn reputation for the price of the goods they sell. NPCs are more likely to purchase by product reputation than sheer cost alone, so this will allow players to create a brand if they subscribe, and build brand-loyalty, whereas non-subscribers will only have their products considered based on baseline price and quality.

There will be a certain percentage of NPC buyout that ONLY buy branded goods if they are available, (I'm thinking around 25%), and a certain percentage of NPC buyout that buys based on price alone (Again, thinking around 25%, and the rest of the economy will factor price and quality. (mind you, NPCs purchase goods both on and off planet.)

I'm trying to come up with all the pros and cons of a system like this... Anybody got any other ideas for how I can balance subscribers against non-subscribers without giving too much of an unfair advantage to the subscribers, and without nullifying the purpose of subscription?

I'm considering making sale of goods off-planet a subscriber-only perk, so this will not only allow subscribers access to more of the market, but also allow them to make more in-game money by selling non-subscriber goods off-planet on commission, and taking a share of the profits.

Anybody got any other ways I could throw in subscription benefits that wouldn't affect balance horribly?
#1 Aug 26 2010, 1:20 am
So... you're idea is basically: The only/best way of making money would be subscribing?
#2 Aug 26 2010, 1:46 am
In response to Moonlight Memento (#1)
No. Not at all what I said. This is what this system is trying to avoid.


25% of the local market is reserved for subscribers. If subscribers make up a significant enough proportion of sellers, this 25% is going to be flooded, and subscribers' brand-name goods are going to be competing with non-branded goods. (Brand name goods come with a few negatives that make them incur slightly more overhead than non-brand-name goods, for instance, you have to invest in a factory...)

Non subscribers build market reputation, but only up to a certain point. A player that produces poor quality goods continually will receive lower and lower ratings, thus restricting his sales to the bottom 25% of the market (which means he HAS to compete based on price alone) (there are items in the tech tree that allow cutting corners to reduce the cost/time of production, but this also reduces quality)

The middle 50% of the market is a "free market", meaning that NPCs weight price against quality to determine their purchase, so the subscribers and the free players will be competing in the bottom 25%, AND the middle 50%.


The player market is completely free-market driven, so that's an area where free players and subscribers will actually be completely even.

Then there's the third market, which is the off-planet market.

The off-planet market incurs some serious cost overhead, so a lot of goods aren't worth shipping, because of the cost of shipping alone, however some goods are just plain impossible to produce off-planet, and therefore will be well worth the cost of shipping them. The reason that subscribers have access to the extra-planetary market, is that there are regulations on trade off-world, meaning you need to be branded, and pay taxes. The off-world market is actually a completely NPC-driven market, and won't cause direct competition with players be they free or subscriber, because the market dynamics of the off-planet market are based on entirely different factors.

So in essence, the costs of producing a brand incur penalties, and regulates the higher-end market, so that subscribers compete with each other for a 25% share of the local market, and compete with each other for 100% of the off-world market. This will keep free players and subscribers somewhat interdependent on each other without inducing too much direct competition. For instance, instead of producing ALL of his goods through his factory, he can just buy up a lot of the goods from free players, then pay the packaging costs, and send his brand-name goods off to market.

This ensures that free players are getting paid by subscribers, and that subscribers can get a significant advantage, if they play the game intelligently.

What this essentially does, is create an environment where free players have access to 75% of one market, and have an easier time selling things, while the subscribers have access to a more complex, and more risk/reward based system.
#3 Aug 26 2010, 1:56 am
In response to Ter13 (#2)
I'd also like to point out that there are ways to make money that are indeed better than others. I'm messing with a shipping system where subscribers can own space ports and other structures that will provide jobs to anyone willing to contract themselves an a job-by-job basis.

NPCs will buy out any job that is "worth it" to them, but the cost for an NPC to do something is a bit higher than what a player would charge. Essentially, players can steal jobs from the NPCs, and save the shipper outgoing expenses, while earning money themselves.

One thing I'm really trying to implement, is a system where goods and services can be competed over by three castes:

Subscribers, Free players, and NPCs. I'm attempting to build a scaffolding for the economy that will safeguard peoples' investments, inspire competition, and at the same time, create multiple profit avenues, so that a subscriber isn't just a "better player". They just have the ability to do things that free players can't, but they aren't just doing the same thing better.
#4 Aug 26 2010, 4:08 am
The question is: why have subscriptions affect the balance in the first place? Doing so is like saying you don't have the creative facilities to come up with attractive subscriber benefits that don't necessarily take the form of an in-game advantage. The subscriber benefit you've discussed is both obviously unbalanced and boring from a gameplay perspective. I wouldn't subscribe to a game to get market benefits or make my character more powerful.
#5 Aug 26 2010, 9:25 am
In response to Toadfish (#4)
All sounds very solid to me.
The plans you have for the games subscription sound very fair.

The only way this would be unbalanced if there was indeed a way to push forward with this extra 25% of the market, immediately.
"You have got to spend money to make money"
If someone was to join the game and immediately subscribe (even though good for the business of the game) and even though he has nothing, no money or nothing. It will put other free users off if subscribers can use this extra market to rise through the ranks much quicker.

The more the subscriptions are directed as a next step. The better i feel when effecting performance.
The branding is a sound idea, but should be expensive to do as well as purchasing stations. So people have to play the game well just like any other user, subscriber or not, to get to this market.

Example a user who has been playing the game for some time has made himself quite a fortune is looking for the next step in the game and subscription should be that step. So he can build a business and a brand with his earnings and become more profitable.

To do it this way though would make subscriptions pretty useless for new players and would be not worthwhile buying. So why not make it attractive?
Making subscribers have a lot more stats to look at, or just more in depth stats could be a good idea for a marketing game
Example: say a user without subscription could see the last 10 sales he has made and a few details with them. A subscriber could maybe have more than that. Graphs/charts for example designed attractively and easy to understand, showing profits/quantity, total income/time?
Maybe subscribers could have in-game interactive to-do lists which will show within the interface.
Ideas like this dont effect the success rate of any user but do add to the convenience of the user.

Im probably strolling away from your game ideas but there maybe something i've written that may be inspiring or help in some way.
#6 Aug 26 2010, 1:27 pm
In response to Tonyth (#5)
That's precisely what I was planning to do. Thanks for the support.

I'm actually looking for ways to balance this, and attempt to make it lucrative to have subscriber access from very early in the game without giving players unfair advantages, so thank you for your thoughtful input.

"The only way this would be unbalanced if there was indeed a way to push forward with this extra 25% of the market, immediately."

Yes, I am attempting to avoid this problem. The only case where a player can "push forward", is essentially in building "market reputation" to a slightly higher level than a free player. Since only a small fraction of the public market is sorted by reputation, the majority of purchases are going to be strongly based off of value and quality, and since low quality goods at a high price will completely destroy your market reputation, the advantages this would give to the paying players would not be often abused.


Another thought that occurred to me, was NPC purchases, and a dynamic market. Perhaps, I can make every single subscription good for everyone by introducing more consumers into the NPC market based on how many active subscribers there are. This way, free players will also benefit from subscribers in more indirect methods as well.
#7 Aug 26 2010, 1:36 pm
In response to Toadfish (#4)
The question is: why have subscriptions affect the balance in the first place? Doing so is like saying you don't have the creative facilities to come up with attractive subscriber benefits that don't necessarily take the form of an in-game advantage.

Because a proper marketing strategy involves making paying to support the developer seem like more than just a method of pandering to people with money. A proper marketing strategy should actually have a REAL perk for players, and an item mall doesn't do it for most breeds of players.

I believe you are using an unfair term here, "in-game advantage". Certainly, it is an in-game advantage, but does my method really give them an unfair advantage over free players? Not necessarily. It gives them access to different markets, not necessarily BETTER markets. Their goods have equal selling power in 75% of their own market. Actually, brand name goods are less likely to sell in the bottom 75% BECAUSE they are more expensive. So this means that the on-planet market is actually, in a lot of ways stilted heavily toward the free players.

The subscriber benefit you've discussed is both obviously unbalanced and boring from a gameplay perspective.

Please give specific references to how it's obviously unbalanced. I'm looking for constructive criticism to help me tweak the idea into something that's going to work for most people.

As for "boring from a gameplay perspective", It's a sandbox game, not a first person shooter. It's not going to be 24/7 explosions, the fun of these games is working with other people to accomplish things. Do you suggest that I give players a neat gun with a shiny icon and custom subscriber helmets?

I wouldn't subscribe to a game to get market benefits or make my character more powerful.

Fantastic, but what would you subscribe to a sandbox sci-fi economy/manufacturing game for?
#8 Aug 26 2010, 5:12 pm
In response to Ter13 (#7)
I'd say it's less of an advantage and more of a restriction for people who aren't subscribed (or unrestricted access for subscribers depending on what spin you want on it). rather than saying subscribers have the "advantage" of using D, you're saying everyone has "ABC", but subscribers have access to "D" also.

In other games, paying for item mall benefits, such as +25% Experience, +25% money, etc. definitely give the player an advantage, Rather than 125 experience to level, they only need to get 100, since the +25% would mean they level. A player without that +25% isn't unable to level, they would just have to make up for it by getting that extra 25 experience.

Now if the extra portion of the market actually adds something to the game, then by all means market it as such, but if it's nothing more than a mechanic to basically give +25% income, it might be worth trying to make it into something that actually adds to the game.
#9 Aug 26 2010, 8:59 pm
In response to Ter13 (#7)
Because a proper marketing strategy involves making paying to support the developer seem like more than just a method of pandering to people with money. A proper marketing strategy should actually have a REAL perk for players, and an item mall doesn't do it for most breeds of players.

A perk--yes, an advantage--no. Just look at Proelium: it is (or was) one of the most subscribed-to games in BYOND, and does not offer a single in-game advantage to subscribers. I believe NESTalgia does the same.

I believe you are using an unfair term here, "in-game advantage". Certainly, it is an in-game advantage, but does my method really give them an unfair advantage over free players? Not necessarily. It gives them access to different markets, not necessarily BETTER markets. Their goods have equal selling power in 75% of their own market. Actually, brand name goods are less likely to sell in the bottom 75% BECAUSE they are more expensive. So this means that the on-planet market is actually, in a lot of ways stilted heavily toward the free players.
Please give specific references to how it's obviously unbalanced. I'm looking for constructive criticism to help me tweak the idea into something that's going to work for most people.

Reading your post, the perk you are describing is definitely an in-game advantage. If I misunderstood, it is because you did not explain yourself properly. In the first place, this post was about how to make this feature not "affect the balance too horribly" so I don't think there's much place to discuss that.

As for "boring from a gameplay perspective", It's a sandbox game, not a first person shooter. It's not going to be 24/7 explosions, the fun of these games is working with other people to accomplish things. Do you suggest that I give players a neat gun with a shiny icon and custom subscriber helmets?

I like the attempted sarcasm but I stand by my opinion that this marketing perk is banal. If you ask me why it is banal; I don't feel a particular need to answer that, except the following tautology, that I don't think it will be 'exciting' and notable enough to make my game more fun. What I could do, is tell you what I think more interesting perks are, but:

Fantastic, but what would you subscribe to a sandbox sci-fi economy/manufacturing game for?

I would gladly answer your question should you tell me more about your game. However, first, let us differentiate: in your first post you claimed the game is "something of a survival game based on a faraway planet" where economy plays a heavy part. Now you claim it is a sci-fi economy/manufacturing game. I would like to know where the more focus lies: the economy aspect, or the survival aspect?
#10 Aug 26 2010, 10:47 pm (Edited on Aug 26 2010, 10:57 pm)
In response to Toadfish (#9)
I would gladly answer your question should you tell me more about your game. However, first, let us differentiate: in your first post you claimed the game is "something of a survival game based on a faraway planet" where economy plays a heavy part. Now you claim it is a sci-fi economy/manufacturing game. I would like to know where the more focus lies: the economy aspect, or the survival aspect?

...You sure imply quite a fair bit with the language you choose to utilize.

Anyway, both are quite capable of being valid. One doesn't have to have a lack of economics to be a survival game. The early game is more like wilderness survival, while the later game is more of an economic/sandbox type of game.

The reason I chose to expand upon the idea, is that survival isn't something that you can really manage to keep someone playing for a long period of time. Players tend to get bored if their homestead is completed, and allows them to survive too easily. I moved the focus to research/manufacturing/resource acquisition after the early game because of the trend of players getting too cushy. The two goals don't contradict each other completely as you indirectly imply.

I like the attempted sarcasm but I stand by my opinion that this marketing perk is banal.

Nah, it was better than attempted. As for the entire concept of banality... Have you ever taken a course in marketing or consumer economics? Originality for the sake of originality is not necessarily better than a marketing strategy that is ubiquitous throughout the industry when it has proven a tried and true method through which to attain commercial viability.

If I misunderstood, it is because you did not explain yourself properly. In the first place, this post was about how to make this feature not "affect the balance too horribly" so I don't think there's much place to discuss that.

I don't feel that you have a realistic viewpoint. Players who spend more time are going to invest more in-game money into the game, and have advantage over other players. Subscription itself does not give the player an instant advantage, but allows a player to PROGRESS into a few different paths that allow the player to invest in more expensive risk vs. reward activities. The higher the risk, the higher the potential loss or reward.

Since you refuse to explain yourself in anyway other than semantics, I can't really find your opinion anything more than pointedly unrelated to the genre, and based on conjecture and semantics.

...Plus, I find some of the language you use extremely insulting. You imply some things in a terribly rude and uncalled for way.
#11 Aug 26 2010, 10:54 pm
In response to Xioden (#8)
It is a good point. Semantics can work to an individual's advantage in this case.

Most people who don't subscribe look at it like they can't do what other people do, and it's "not fair". Personally, I've never understood the idea that things have to be fair. Fairness isn't a part of life anywhere else... Why should it be included in a marketing strategy of all places?

However, I agree as well that expanded gameplay mechanics are a difficult thing to advertise to someone who doesn't have them as anything other than a restriction. But if there wasn't a want for something you don't have, I might as well call it a tip jar instead of a subscription, and thus it loses the "marketing strategy" moniker.

Of course, tip jars have become impressive marketing strategies these days. (Look at Toady One of bay 12 games, lives completely off of donations for a free game).

It certainly IS something to think about.
#12 Aug 26 2010, 11:03 pm (Edited on Aug 26 2010, 11:17 pm)
In response to Ter13 (#10)
Firstly, I did not imply anything but the fact that you did not adequately describe your game for me to understand it - and thus make valid suggestions. Furthermore:

I don't feel that you have a realistic viewpoint. Players who spend more time are going to invest more in-game money into the game, and have advantage over other players. Subscription itself does not give the player an instant advantage, but allows a player to PROGRESS into a few different paths that allow the player to invest in more expensive risk vs. reward activities. The higher the risk, the higher the potential loss or reward.

Please clarify what you're trying to say here, as I'm not sure I understand your point. If a subscription perk affects the game's balance--why does it matter in which way it does that? If your perk does not affect the game's balance, please clarify how, because the feeling I got out of your posts was that indeed it does.

Since you refuse to explain yourself in anyway other than semantics, I can't really find your opinion anything more than pointedly unrelated to the genre, and based on conjecture and semantics.
...Plus, I find some of the language you use extremely insulting. You imply some things in a terribly rude and uncalled for way.

Aren't you being oversensitive here? I am not attacking you. You made a post asking for constructive criticism about a potential subscriber benefit -- I answered your request and gave you my genuine opinion about it. If you don't like what you hear then I won't bother continuing, but please don't misunderstand: my only intention here is to express my thoughts about the feature you outlined. I'm sorry if you find my language offensive. If you tell me how, I will try my best not to offend you.
#13 Aug 26 2010, 11:09 pm
In response to Ter13 (#11)
Let me expand my opinion on this point:

Most people who don't subscribe look at it like they can't do what other people do, and it's "not fair". Personally, I've never understood the idea that things have to be fair. Fairness isn't a part of life anywhere else... Why should it be included in a marketing strategy of all places?

From a pure marketing perspective, to make a successful product you must make an enjoyable one. Players must find it fun before they subscribe. A gameplay aspect that affects the balance is detrimental to a player's overall enjoyment. If, therefore, a subscription benefit affects the balance--players will find the game less enjoyable, and thus, will be less likely to subscribe.

That being said, from a pure marketing perspective, intentionally upsetting the balance through subscription benefits can be a very successful marking strategy also, as "item malls" and the such prove.

But from a pure marketing perspective... well, what are you doing here? This is BYOND for Christ's sake. Your goal, I am assuming, is not to make a product that sells, it is to make a good game. Considering this we can understand why balance-affecting features are a bad idea.
#14 Aug 27 2010, 5:00 am
In response to Ter13 (#7)
Basically:

You *need* free players, to increase the raw amount of players you have and to make sure that those who aren't free players can see a difference between themselves and the free players.

Status symbols and in-game ways to differentiate might be in order, or special forum badges, etc. - In addition to whatever marketing strategy you have planned.

The key point is to keep a balance between free players still getting decent enough progress, and allowing paid players to feel the effect of their money instantly. Item malls serve this purpose well, because they provide instant gratification - An XP potion, or a piece of gear, or a hireling, or whatever.

The more vague your benefits are, and the less visible they are, the less appealing they are.

Splitting your market economy in two seems like a very bad move, as it has an adverse effect on the game and may provide a vague, arguable benefit. Worst of all, the benefit depends on *other players* - Thats a nono.
#15 Aug 27 2010, 11:42 am
In response to Toadfish (#12)
Aren't you being oversensitive here?

Yes, yes I was. My bad.



I think the goal is to affect balance, so that there is a definite perk to subscription, as this game isn't based around direct player confrontation and competition, and therefore, isn't going to compromise the game.

However, the "too horribly" was a less-than adequate way to explain what I was looking for. And you nailed it right on the head.

I don't think it's bad to benefit subscribers, as long as it doesn't completely destroy competitive gameplay (if competitive gameplay is the focus of the game), but at the same time, you called it, that there needs to be an immediate benefit for subscribers.

Essentially, my current thought process locks free players into more or less a slave position... So I'll be reviewing my methodology to open doors for free players while still giving a bonus to the subscribers.
#16 Aug 27 2010, 11:45 am
In response to Alathon (#14)
Good call. While I was thinking about this at work, I realized that the split economy does seem to alienate the free players, and make the two far too dependent on one another...

I'll be reviewing my ideas and implementing something that will likely give individuals who help fuel the game economy an edge, as affecting balance isn't too much a direct concern, but you don't want to alienate potential paying players while they are still in the free stage...

So yes, I fully agree with you, Alathon.
#17 Aug 27 2010, 10:55 pm
In response to Ter13 (#15)
I'm glad this was a silly misunderstanding :)

To continue this line of thought: the best kind of features are those that are attractive to subscribers, but do not necessarily affect the free player-subscriber power balance. For example, if subscribers could create "merchant guilds" that cooperate for a shared goal, then this feature is both appealing and fun--even to free players, who will get to join such guilds. I have no idea if such a feature would fit into your game, but the general direction is, I think, where subscriber benefits should be headed in any game... to give a different example (that is probably not relevant in your game's case), Proelium, as I understand, gives subscribers the benefit of being able to choose from more classes. However, the classes remain balanced against the "free player" rooster.
#18 Aug 28 2010, 1:59 am
In response to Toadfish (#17)
Merchant guilds would work arguably as the best idea for this kind of game in my opinion, because it's not entirely game-breaking and it encourages people to subscribe perhaps to join others for a common goal (money).