Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Original message details are unavailable.
Okay, so what happens if we release permanent F2P and 30% of members unsubscribe to take advantage of it.
Then you simply reverse the decision.
What happens if you release permanent F2P and 95% of members that cancel membership for any reason use it for a month or two and resubscribe?
(I'm assuming that significantly more than 5% of members that cancel end up not coming back.)
If we were to remove full F2P we would have lost the members and mugged off the rest of the community be removing F2P. If 95% of the members return within two months, we have still lost some members and two months worth of subscription. The best solution is to make the right decision.
I don't believe that 95% of all members that cancel, come back. I don't think 95% would come back even with permanent F2P (I just think 30% leaving for permanent F2P is a huge number, too.
What I would believe is that if someone has to cancel membership due to not having the money for a month or two, emergency, etc., if that person has access to F2P, they are more likely to stay around than if they have no access to the game.
What the exact numbers would be, I don't know.
If, on the other hand, after several months, it were doing more harm than good to the game, some people might not like it, but those of us heavily in favor could at least say it got a fair shake.
It seems it's not being considered for fear tons of members will go to F2P.
If losing money is such a major concern (and I understand fully why it is), I can't, for the life of me, figure out why there's still a bonds sticky, and why F2P is being shot down over concerns a third of members will go play F2P only rather than talking about how to get that 10% of "long term" players that try out F2P to sign up.
23-Jul-2014 15:32:40
