At which point they're being priced too high. Is this really too much economics for your brain to process?

Atice, I gotta say it, you know he's not serious. Why bother arguing? The reason it fails economically, is theres absolutely no reason most people (maybe aside from ecka) wouldn't just give all their crap to a placeholder and start a new account when the price went up. It's far to easy to level up, and anyone just here for the PvP could give two shits if they had to start over every year and grind for a week to get back where they were. Lecter is fully aware of this, he may be troll but he's not a moron. The purpose of his suggestion was simply to get shit started. You fell in the trap bro.

Any price increase, while it might not drive vets to unsub (which it probably would, but moving on), would decrease the long term cost/benefit ratio for players who are thinking of subbing (or did you think that you'd just spring this increase on players without telling them at the beginning?), therefore robbing the game of what keeps it alive: new players.

It isn't too much economics, it's your inability to realize the rest of the equation. You aren't winning this one.

Edit: Didn't see endercp12's post. I'm arguing because he's wrong and he knows it, and I'm having a bit of fun (and who's to say he's not falling into mine?).

Actually, I'm right. You're not thinking (big shock) clearly about the ideal here - charge each customer the maximum they're willing to pay. Obviously, $9.99/month is too much for some, and too little for others. The tricky part is implementing a workable system that returns greater yields than a single flat fee: you have to have some sort of system for pegging people at varying rates, and also a way of addressing that natural instinct to not want to pay more than other players, even if you value the same play experience more highly (in terms of dollars) than they do. But there's no doubt that theory is correct, leaving only some sufficiently clever design and implementation work.

That the basic idea behind the system I proposed is workable is proved by the use of discounted rates for true noobs - either $4.99 for a limited period, or using one of VO's various promotional keys . . . followed by a jack-up to the 'standard' price of $9.99 and so forth. Oddly enough, nobody is flipping out about the idea of charging lower rates for people that don't yet value the game, and raising the rate once they've got a sense of how cool it is.

haha lecter is trolling

20 posts later all of them responding to obivous troll. Don't say i didn't warn you

Actually, I'm right. You're not thinking (big shock) clearly about the ideal here - charge each customer the maximum they're willing to pay. Obviously, $9.99/month is too much for some, and too little for others. The tricky part is implementing a workable system that returns greater yields than a single flat fee: you have to have some sort of system for pegging people at varying rates, and also a way of addressing that natural instinct to not want to pay more than other players, even if you value the same play experience more highly (in terms of dollars) than they do. But there's no doubt that theory is correct, leaving only some sufficiently clever design and implementation work.

Right. Let's use magic. Or years of expensive research and testing. I knew there was a great argument in there somewhere. The ideal, shockingly, is useless in this practical application, hence I didn't feel the need to dwell.

The troll may be trolling, but I'd say he isn't living up to his previous standards.

Yes, the only ways of improving from the status quo are either magic or "years of expensive research and testing."

I notice you ignored the fact that everyone already thinks the basic idea of low initial rate, higher later rate is a great idea.

Improvement requires risk. And how much risk is acceptable? From Guild's previous statements, very little. Again, the practical is winning over the ideal here.

I notice you ignored the fact that everyone already thinks the basic idea of low initial rate, higher later rate is a great idea.

And where are these people? (And you know that business models that are out there for other industries don't directly apply in this industry or this particular instance).

To get money out of the committed vets, there should be a trolling fee charged to post to the forum. Something like $.05 x (# existing posts) to make a new post. Then add a surcharge of $5 per curse word.

-9,999,999,999,999,999,999,999 for missioncreek2 :P I may be able and willing to pay a higher sub, but that idea would break me ;^)

There is actually plenty of precedence of companies pricing their products slightly higher than competitors because most people suffer the illusion that if it is more expensive, then it is necessarily better. It'd be great to see a price rise improve Guild's ability to maintain and develop the game, but I understand the need for risk aversion. I do think posting to the forums or accessing the game through IRC should require a subscription.

I love being trolled so I am posting below the troll line

Low initial rate and higher later rate is a well established practice. There is no denying that.

Also, posting below the troll line.