Topic

Subscription -Only Model for Glitch

Hey, TS team, why don't you try a subscription-only model? Maybe it will work??? Please, do try!!! 

Posted 7 years ago by bumz Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • im in
    Posted 7 years ago by ? ? Leď.Leď ? ? Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 maybe....
    Posted 7 years ago by Misty Power Subscriber! | Permalink
  • would appreciate this! but don't think this will happen unfortunately :((
    Posted 7 years ago by king smo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1
    Posted 7 years ago by Snarlo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Me and the wife would be up for it, if it meant keeping the game running.
    Posted 7 years ago by Isllyiate Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1
    Posted 7 years ago by Dartha Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I could be wrong here but acording to my calculations even if everyone who plays paid it still wouldn't be enough to run the game, plus not everyone would have enough to pay so they would lose a huge percent of the current population that may or may not have made a ocasional credit purchase.
    Posted 7 years ago by koolaroo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • I'd be in favor of a subscription-based model -- as long as it also included a way for players with the means to pay to gift-subscribe a random nonsubscriber. (With a system in place so that nonsubscribers could do SOMETHING in order to register and show their continued interest, and therefore that only active nonsubscribers who would USE their time would receive it.)
    Posted 7 years ago by akatonbo Subscriber! | Permalink
  • i would be in for subscription only, i'm curious tho why there wasn't more marketing of this game? i understand that in beta there prob wasn't a huge marketing push, but after it was opened up - i never saw ads or anything for this game. if one of the issues was not enough players then...were they just relying on word of mouth?
    Posted 7 years ago by Zudora Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Count me in and being able to give gift subscriptions is a must.
    Posted 7 years ago by Abel Caine Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 Totally in.
    Posted 7 years ago by Lana Caine Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 I'm in.
    Posted 7 years ago by Dr. Drizzle Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1
    Posted 7 years ago by Airil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 and I could "host" a couple other players also..
    Posted 7 years ago by Daisy Blooms Subscriber! | Permalink
  • With less players, koo, the game would require a large amount less maintenance to run, as less servers and staff would be necessary. And with this model, the number of players would severely drop, making both costs to run and net profit increase.
    Posted 7 years ago by QuinnR Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There are fixed costs, and costs that scale with user numbers some other way than linearly.  I think that too many of the costs involved in running Glitch are fixed or have a significant fixed portion for the per-user price of running it with a small userbase to be reasonable.  (For instance, no matter how few users there are, the creative work needed is essentially the same.  And no matter how few users there are, there have to be at least a couple full time user-support people to keep the chat-spamming down to a dull roar and unstick people's stuck quests and so on, in different time zones.) 
    Posted 7 years ago by Bela L Subscriber! | Permalink