can we have an option of using out in game credits to pay for membership

[josephxp]

Ya unlikely to happen, especially with how easy credits are to make in game. Also F2P/Pref credit cap would prevent them from buying those tokens so only current subs could buy tokens, and then they would stop their sub, get a toke, BW looses money from subscribers = GG SWTOR died because not enough REAL MONEY is being put into the game, which it needs to run and stay profitable. Remember MMO's are company based to, the more subscribers the more cash they generate which is used to pay employees, make new content (and higher more people to make new content faster), and keep the game from shutting off.

 

So ya wont happen sorry folks.

[IanArgent]

Ya unlikely to happen, especially with how easy credits are to make in game. Also F2P/Pref credit cap would prevent them from buying those tokens so only current subs could buy tokens, and then they would stop their sub, get a toke, BW looses money from subscribers = GG SWTOR died because not enough REAL MONEY is being put into the game, which it needs to run and stay profitable. Remember MMO's are company based to, the more subscribers the more cash they generate which is used to pay employees, make new content (and higher more people to make new content faster), and keep the game from shutting off.

 

So ya wont happen sorry folks.

 

Token would have to cost more than a month of sub, even at month-to-month (US$20 or more); and the escrow limit would have to be set to allow a "reasonable" conversion rate of that cash. These are not insurmountable obstacles. (I'd say the escrow limit needs to be revisited with the changes in the credit economy anyway, and I have no intention of dropping my sub anytime soon.

[Gokkus]

Well since you described your personal situation in such detail, lets add a feature that will impact the entire game:rolleyes:

 

If you want to make a point, use real arguments. Any individual situation is meaningless when you want changes that affect a great deal of people.

[Andyhipkiss]

It could work but there are several caveats:

 

1. Make the token a 'cash sale only' from the website. No CC option. Needs to be priced at 1.5-2x monthly sub. The token can then be sold on the GTN. Perhaps limit the amount of tokens an account can buy per month.

 

2. No CC stipend from monthly tokens.

 

3. In game credit exploits would need to be closed down sooner than previously.

 

4. Would this impact on credit sellers? Would their price per mil be cheaper than subscribing? Leading to a situation where you buy from a credit seller and buy a token in game which is CHEAPER than subbing or the token from cash purchase.

[IanArgent]

It could work but there are several caveats:

 

1. Make the token a 'cash sale only' from the website. No CC option. Needs to be priced at 1.5-2x monthly sub. The token can then be sold on the GTN. Perhaps limit the amount of tokens an account can buy per month.

 

2. No CC stipend from monthly tokens.

 

3. In game credit exploits would need to be closed down sooner than previously.

 

4. Would this impact on credit sellers? Would their price per mil be cheaper than subscribing? Leading to a situation where you buy from a credit seller and buy a token in game which is CHEAPER than subbing or the token from cash purchase.

 

One of the reasons to do this is to attack RMTs in their business plan. Among other things, this would allow people to "buy" credits via a "legitimate" avenue (buying the sub token with cash, selling it for credits). One of the things to consider when setting the escrow cap is the point at which RMTs can't compete in the $/mil department.

[Soul_of_Flames]

One thing I don't understand is why they don't have subscription time available on the CM?

 

They could make it work as a consumable item that can be traded to other players. This seems to be a win-win for everyone.

 

-Enterprising players who can afford to pay real money for extra sub time consumables can sell them to other players through trade or GTN listings for credits.

-Players who can't afford to pay the subscription can still wrack up in game credits to purchase time from other players.

-EA makes a profit regardless of whomever the end user of the consumable ends up being.

 

The only things that I can see throwing a wrench in that plan is

1. The free cartel coin grants subscribers and security key holders get, which could potentially kill the profit margin... but I'm sure something can be done to circumvent that.

2. The cost of these consumables need to be kept expensive enough that it forces players to list the prices at rates higher than that of what credit spammers sell credits for. This way they avoid a situation were buying from a credit seller is cheaper than buying sub time. - Perhaps the CM version of the subscription is actually more expensive than the normal creditcard method?

Edited September 11, 2016 by Soul_of_Flames

[Theeko]

Don't think it'll kill it at all cause the ones buying the tokens would still be subbing technically

[Andryah]

One thing I don't understand is why they don't have subscription time available on the CM?

 

Because the CCs in circulation are heavily dosed with CCs that were given out for free. ~ a third of all CCs in circulation at any one time were likely NOT purchased with real money. That is why.

 

Ponder that.

 

Back of the envelope ranged guesstimate: There are on average 2 to 3 billion CCs in circulation at any given time and 500-1000M of them came from subscriber rewards, and referral rewards. That would equate to a lot of lost revenue if they sold subscriber tokens via CCs.

Edited September 11, 2016 by Andryah

[IanArgent]

If they sold subscription time for Cartel Coins, they're have to stop giving away CC.

[Matisaha]

I'll agree with the other guy saying copy wow's method.

 

Buy a token-sell it, get credits.

 

Seller of the token: gets credits

The Buyer: a sub

The Company: Money

[josephxp]

I'll agree with the other guy saying copy wow's method.

 

Buy a token-sell it, get credits.

 

Seller of the token: gets credits

The Buyer: a sub

The Company: Money

 

Ya but then you can say goodbye to the 500 free CC's each month <_<

 

But what people are asking for is not off the GTN but paying actual in game credits not Cartel Coin.

Meaning they pay 50 million credits to BW and get a token <_< that will never happen.

[Drake_Averrod]

Well on top of CC they could introduce a new currency called "suscriber coins" (SC) or something. Subs would no longer get CC but "SC". SC prices could differ from CC prices making some items cheaper and some items cost the same.

 

This would also generate an additional sub perk as the SC cost for lets say packs would be slightly lower. CC of course could be used to substitute SC but not vice versa. meaning if something costs 1000 SC and you have only 500 you could use 500 CC to complete the payment but you couldn't use 500 SC to complete a 1000 CC cost if you only have 500 CC.

 

While packs might get a lower suscriber price. Sub tokens would not and stil price slightly over what a real sub costs.

 

Allthough Bioware might actually lose money with this idea because I assume that the big pack buyers are most likely also subs.

[DreadtechSavant]

In theory this is a nice idea, in practice it would be a huge error on BW's part. You can make enough credits in-game that no one would sub. That would be game over. Now I am sure others will say well so & so game is totally f2p blah blah blah. Well that not this game. By now BW would have looked at totally making this f2p as it has not happened they must feel it not a viable option for them.

[IanArgent]

In theory this is a nice idea, in practice it would be a huge error on BW's part. You can make enough credits in-game that no one would sub. That would be game over. Now I am sure others will say well so & so game is totally f2p blah blah blah. Well that not this game. By now BW would have looked at totally making this f2p as it has not happened they must feel it not a viable option for them.

 

Someone still hast o fork over cash to EA for the "sub token." (Least impact is that the sub token must be bought directly for cash, not CC, so that sub CC can still be given out). If priced at higher than a month-to-month sub, EA makes more money if someone chooses that method of gaining access to sub benefits.

[Soul_of_Flames]

Because the CCs in circulation are heavily dosed with CCs that were given out for free. ~ a third of all CCs in circulation at any one time were likely NOT purchased with real money. That is why.

 

Ponder that.

 

Back of the envelope ranged guesstimate: There are on average 2 to 3 billion CCs in circulation at any given time and 500-1000M of them came from subscriber rewards, and referral rewards. That would equate to a lot of lost revenue if they sold subscriber tokens via CCs.

I already addressed that in the part of the post you didn't read