Pricing Poll - PLEASE Respond

[Brekk]

Guys/Gals,

I am looking to simplify pricing and want to get feedback, so please respond and leave additional comments if you like.
My one concern is with unlimited games, is people signing up then dropping right away, open to thoughts on that as well.

Thanks in advance,

John

[Maximus Dominus]

$22 Monthly Fee - No limit to games played. This includes all game types
$19 Monthly Fee - 2 games This includes all game types
$30 All In 1 game - This includes all game types

Guys/Gals,

I am looking to simplify pricing and want to get feedback, so please respond and leave additional comments if you like.
My one concern is with unlimited games, is people signing up then dropping right away, open to thoughts on that as well.

Thanks in advance,
John

1. I'm not sure what the third option, the $30 one, actually means. As I read it, that option is the most expensive of the three options listed, yet it offers the least - 1 game, which means what, exactly? One game at a time?

2. My gut feeling is that none of the three options come across as particularly appealing. I grasp that you probably want to begin making back some of the money that you spent to buy Alamaze. Yet, that is quite a distinct thing from whether the options listed above are a viable way to achieve that to any notable degree.

3. From my perspective, all three options listed above are too high, if your aim is to grow the player base at an accelerated rate. After all, where newcomers to Alamaze are concerned, you're basically starting with a blank sheet. They will only really have the price, itself, to serve as the foundational basis for making their decision on whether to play or not.

4. In the current day and age, Alamaze's competition is not simply other games that may be similar to it, in some way, but pretty much anything that qualifies as entertainment - including streaming movies and television services. How many free games are there out there which are Internet-accessible, to include on sites such as Steam, and to also include free games of a great many different types available as free downloads for smartphones? All of those, combined, are but a mere drop in Alamaze's overall competition for players and entertainment budgets.

5. Even if you were to offer Alamaze for free, there is no actual guarantee that you will succeed in growing the player base at an accelerated rate. Currently, you have not yet significantly recaptured a sizable portion of the former Alamaze player base, and less than 40 unique forum users have logged into the forum, at all, in the past 21 days, since the 1st of June. If you can't succeed in regrowing a sizable portion of the player base that previously players and loved earlier versions of Alamaze, those who are already familiar with much of the game's offerings and interface, it begs the question be asked, how much harder will it likely be, to persuade those with absolutely no familiarity with the game's offerings or its interface?

6. The amount that you charge to play the game can easily constitute a barrier to entry, as well as another barrier to retention. How high do you want these two barriers to be? How many potential new players (and existing players, as well) are you willing to risk losing?

7. What do you think is the average player's monthly entertainment budget for all of their entertainment pursuits? Remember, what you choose to charge to play Alamaze is only a single portion of their potential budget outlays. Furthermore, the word recession is a word bandied about in many circles, of late. Recession, or even widespread talk about the potential for recession, tends to make people nervous. Recession and the potential for recession constitutes barriers to Alamaze's potential for growth.

8. The ability to offer unlimited game play is an advantage that can be exploited to grow the game's player base at an accelerated rate. A common lament by experience Alamaze players in recent years has been the shrinking pool of Alamaze players. The smaller the player base for the game, the lower the potential is to generate revenue of note. From my perspective, growing the player base is the paramount consideration. If you don't have many players, then the timeframe for recovering what you paid for the game, much less to achieve a profit beyond your costs, becomes extended. In essence, you can't count your chickens (paying customers) before they hatch (materialize and stay).

9. Without a player base of notable size, you have little in the way to work with for the generation of profit. The bigger the player base, the more potential for generation of profit. Additionally, a secondary consideration for a bigger player base is an increase in competition. A third consideration that argues in favor of a bigger player base is that new games of Alamaze are more likely to start more frequently. Players who are still playing Alamaze, today, can explain to you what it feels like when they want new games to start, but there simply aren't enough players signed up for new games to start without sizable delays.

10. Your pricing model and your pricing methodology need to be attractive. The more attractive, the better. The less attractive, the worse. I would encourage you to think outside of the box.

11. As regards your concern about people signing up, and then dropping right away, you shouldn't allow yourself to operate under an assumption that you actually have, or can obtain, control over that. I am not aware of any game on the market where players don't choose when they will drop out of playing. The bigger your player base, the more easily you can likely fill gaps that occur from player dropouts. Also, players will drop games of Alamaze for a variety of different reasons. Each reason is a different and unique problem, separate from one another, although the end result of players dropping out of games invariably tends to end up "looking" the same. More important than players dropping out of games is what is your plan (or plans) for remedying those dropouts.

12. If you limit how many games that Alamaze players can play in at any one time, then you undermine your ability to fill gaps created by player dropouts.

13. The less limits you impose for whatever price you charge, the more value that inheres in the price that you charge.

14. My own recommendation is to offer unlimited play of Alamaze in unlimited number of games for free. Why? Because it's likely the fastest way to grow the player base, and also, if you can't succeed at growing the player base noticeably with that model, then it begs the question of how successful you will likely be at growing the player base for Alamaze by imposing costs to play the game, and limits on how many games of Alamaze that players can play in at any given time.

15. Crowdfunding can create possibilities for changing the cost/revenue dynamic. Naturally, sloppy, half-ass, and dull crowdfunding campaigns tend to do much worse than crowdfunding campaigns of real consequence. If all that you have in your bag of tricks is a dated and archaic pricing model, then you might want to consider more fully your potential for generation of profit, as well as the time frame for expected materialization of profit.

[Pine Needle]

I think those are all fine. I'd be least likely to pay $30 for one game but as an option seems fine.

[astyreal]

I suggest you create a voluntary pay structure.

Those that select one of the pricing schemes above get a special badge on forum and in-game (purely cosmetic).

That way, devoted players that have an interest in seeing the game and the PBM format survive can contribute.

And, let's be honest, if the hardcore players don't chip in the format may very well go extinct.

Asty

[Brekk]

All great responses and appreciated!

[RELLGAR]

$5 a game setup, $10 a month for 1 game, $15 a month for 2 games, $20 for 3 or 4 games, $25 a month for unlimited games.

[Zar@shand]

$5 a game setup, $10 a month for 1 game, $15 a month for 2 games, $20 for 3 or 4 games, $25 a month for unlimited games.

Just what I was thinking with the monthly pricing, but with setup and first month free for new/returning players.

For me the priority would be whatever pricing is most likely to encourage new players and once we have a larger player base, adjust the pricing accordingly.

[Ry Vor]

Greetings Lords.

I will at some point offer more on my departure from Alamaze, but I will just say for now I am very pleased John became the Captain of Alamaze and he has big plans and better resources to carry them out than I could offer.

The first and obvious thing on this thread is new management is still in the transition stage and the posts from there are to the existing player base and near term sabbatical players.  For those, I can tell you that John is foremost interested in your satisfaction and will be encouraging your input as the most knowledgeable people on why Alamaze has survived for 35 years and resurging. 

John has plans for many things, including to me, importantly, an enhanced interface.  That is in no way a slight to Mike, who by the way was involved in this transition and acted for the best interest of seeing to it Alamaze had a better path to the future.  But things have moved fast in things like game interface, and so you can look forward to changes there down the road.  

I had to chuckle a bit on my first return here seeing Charles' post here.  Primary, miss you old friend, sometimes frenemy.  Charles in some sense, despite his younger years, sometimes reminded me of one of my football coaches, always expecting not only the best from me, but beyond any example.  Don't ask Charles to give examples of better fee schedules, game play, or anything like that from traditional what he calls PBM.  He wanted me to carry the hobby forward, but when he became influential, with the magazines as well as just being smart and involved, etc., we kind of struggled on setting a course.

Charles, there is no doubt there will be moves for a broader audience, but I think John's approach is to take the temperature of the experts on Alamaze, the players.

[Jon Deaux]

You could play with the pricing (not much difference between two games and unlimited) but yeah, this looks good.  People don't understand the "all in" option, let me explain.  If you have a life, and only want to play one game at a time, and with a 72-hour turn around, the $30 "all in" (all in means no monthly fee, you pay once, and play the entire game regardless of how long it takes) is the cheapest option.  A 72-hour turn around game is likely to last three or even four months.  Either of the other pricing option for three months of play time gets you to around $60, so the "all in" is half the cost, or less. It also discourages early drops, allowing people to explore seldom used game options like running a kingdom from a sanctuary, in "exile" as it were.  I've done it, it's fun, I even came back and reclaimed my region after being forced into a sanctuary.

Round numbers are appealing, you could raise the unlimited games to $25.  Maybe two games for $20, and lower "all in" to $25, as this is the option for people looking for a real inexpensive option.

You might want to give another inexpensive option which might be good for attracting new players, 1 game for $12 or $15.

[Maximus Dominus]

Greetings Lords.

I will at some point offer more on my departure from Alamaze, but I will just say for now I am very pleased John became the Captain of Alamaze and he has big plans and better resources to carry them out than I could offer.

The first and obvious thing on this thread is new management is still in the transition stage and the posts from there are to the existing player base and near term sabbatical players.  For those, I can tell you that John is foremost interested in your satisfaction and will be encouraging your input as the most knowledgeable people on why Alamaze has survived for 35 years and resurging. 

John has plans for many things, including to me, importantly, an enhanced interface.  That is in no way a slight to Mike, who by the way was involved in this transition and acted for the best interest of seeing to it Alamaze had a better path to the future.  But things have moved fast in things like game interface, and so you can look forward to changes there down the road.  

I had to chuckle a bit on my first return here seeing Charles' post here.  Primary, miss you old friend, sometimes frenemy.  Charles in some sense, despite his younger years, sometimes reminded me of one of my football coaches, always expecting not only the best from me, but beyond any example.  Don't ask Charles to give examples of better fee schedules, game play, or anything like that from traditional what he calls PBM.  He wanted me to carry the hobby forward, but when he became influential, with the magazines as well as just being smart and involved, etc., we kind of struggled on setting a course.

Charles, there is no doubt there will be moves for a broader audience, but I think John's approach is to take the temperature of the experts on Alamaze, the players.

Good to see you again, Rick! I hope that you are well.

As far as when I became "influential," I've never considered myself to be an influential person. Even if I were, then one can't legitimately lay claim to being influential, when others don't really listen, or are resistant to changes suggested. I've probably been through a half dozen different computers, since you and I first crossed paths all those many years ago in a Yahoo! discussion group for PBM Design, so I not longer have access to the vast majority of changes that I have suggested going back to my introduction to Fall of Rome. My lost hard drives aside, other suggestions contained in previous iterations of different Fall of Rome and Alamaze forums have been lost to the sands of time.

But such is life in the digital age.

I'm not sure how much that Alamaze was sold for, but simple math is easy enough for most anyone to do. Not knowing how many paying customers that Alamaze currently has, if it has 40 players (as an example), and each of them pay $20 per month to play the game, then 40 x $20 = $800 per month, and $800 x 12 = $9,600 per year. $9,600 X 10 = $96,000, assuming retention of 40 players remains a constant without losing any, or assuming that any losses in players is mitigated by achieving new players.

Now, whether Alamaze sold for that amount or less, then clearly, one doesn't even need to achieve a large player base, in order to recoup money invested to purchase Alamaze from you. But if one wants to either recoup that investment sooner, rather than later, or if one wants to significantly increase their profit margins, then growing the Alamaze player base is imperative, if one wants to stick with an archaic or dated pricing model. Fortunately, in this day and age, other options exist to supplement (or even replace) a more profitable approach to the overall money equation. Crowdfunding is one such example, as was pointed out a number of years back.

Rick Loomis, God rest his soul, in his latter years learned to utilize crowdfunding to noticeable effect, succeeding in 8 out of 9 Kickstarters launched. These can be found here:

https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...by-michael
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...-adventure
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...-adventure
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...e-and-more
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...ry-edition
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...cards-2014
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...and-trolls
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...-reprint-0
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/994...poker-deck

Fortnite, a game that players can play for free, has generated billions of dollars in revenue, since it's inception. Of course, that game took a different approach to generating revenue, notable through in-game purchases. That said, there are likely countless instances of models of revenue generation based upon in-game purchases that were not nearly as successful, or indeed, outright failures. It's not just a particular revenue generation model that matters nearly so much as how one chooses to implement said model.

As I explained to John/Brekk in an e-mail that I sent to him three days ago, "Keep in mind that I posted an opinion. My opinions are always an opinion of one, meaning that it only extends as far as myself."

In that very same e-mail, I also told him, "Keep in mind that Rick McDowell created my player account for Alamaze so that I could try the game and play the game for free, and to provide him some feedback. Those guys paying to play the game know what makes the game attractive and valuable to them. They can offer insight that I can't offer, because we approach the game from different perspectives. Also, in case it needs to be said, none of us have 100% of the answers that you need to know." So, as far as John's approach is to taking the temperature of the experts on Alamaze, the players, is concerned, it would appear, Rick, that I'm not out in left field, where believing that John should seek out what his current players, aka the "experts on Alamaze," think. This is particularly true, I think, if he hopes to ever recover all of those Alamaze players who played for an extended period of time, previously, yet which have not returned to resume their play of the game.

As far as your assertion of, "Don't ask Charles to give examples of better fee schedules, game play, or anything like that from traditional what he calls PBM." goes, I try to look beyond just a narrow sub-set of "examples" that others might already have their hearts and minds set on. For instance, back on February 16th, 2023, I sent John/Brekk my thoughts on leveraging things in the public domain to Alamaze's benefit. Specifically, The Wizard of Oz (the book, not the movie).

I wouldn't want to bore you with all of the details, especially since you think that John/Brekk should not ask me to give "better examples," but my analysis of Alamaze's problems and shortcomings led me to try and figure out a better way forward from the approach that you implemented for Alamaze. Alamaze isn't just a game. It's also an experience. Yet, it suffers from such notable problems as a lack of widespread name recognition, one that is a considerable challenge to overcome, if one limits one's thinking to just Alamaze, itself, and what had already been tried with that approach, to date, but had thus far failed to deliver the results desired. In essence, how do you better catch people's eyes and lure them into not just the game of Alamaze, but to the Alamaze game engine?

Alamaze, it should be noted, suffers from a well known literary connection of depth, such as Middle-earth PBM benefits from with J.R.R. Tolkien's The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings books. Alamaze also suffer from a lack of a sizable art portfolio unique to itself to accompany the game, as a primary mechanism to fire the imaginations of those who have never heard of Alamaze before. Art is a primary form of visual temptation, after all. Repurposing art can be useful, at times, but just because one repurposes art that originated for other uses does not mean that the gaming masses will necessarily latch onto it for the purpose of giving Alamaze a try.

Attracting people to Alamaze does not have to mean that one limits Alamaze's attempts to grab the attention of gamers with only Alamaze, itself. Arguably, that may well be the hardest approach to succeed with, and especially if Alamaze is an unknown gaming commodity to those who have never tried it, before. Best to look outside the box, I say. Otherwise, one can get stuck in a rut of one's own creation.

At any rate, I am passing through, tonight, and your appearance in your recent visit here caught my eye. Glad to see that you are still around, Mister McDowell. Don't be a stranger.