...and we wrote a blog post about it:
http://blog.subterfuge-game.com/post/12 ... -model-for

would love to hear what all of you think about this. it's super important to us that this seem fair to the subterfuge community.

the idea makes sense (a good game can not live without funding) but I subscription system I find its limit
if he have to have a subscription it will have to be more like a month subscription for as the game can be a long pause between part 2 can be therefore feel a big subscription can "disturb"
5,10,20 a party access card will probably be a better idea I think (more than one point of view marketings the developer to meet again the player)
I excused my English French: - /

I don't agree with the logic in the pricing justifications on the blog entry, nor do I think Subterfuge will be successful with this pricing model.

I think it's an interesting pricing model but I don't think the current game will convert well over a longer period of time. New players will pay $2, get wooped on by veterans and probably never play again. The veterans will try hard to win those noob games to earn the free games. This could of course be thwarted by a ranking system.

Sure, I'd probably pay 20$ to continue playing the game indefinitely but I'd be much more interesting in different game modes. The tutorials were a lot of fun. If there was the ability to create maps and scenarios and even the odds by creating a custom line of specialists choices or having all of the players have the same exact specialists options, these things would increase the life of the game. Also, ranking system is huge as well as game modes like Capture the Flag or Coop maps, time delayed outpost destruction, public chat only game mode, no gifting game modes etc..

Another option that would be popular is the Free to Play model. You'd have to really focus on what you could provide a paying player that wouldn't imbalance the game. Ideas for this are:
-Free player can zoom 24 hours using the time machine, paying player can zoom 48 hours.
-Free player can't see the upcoming specialists hires until they are available, paying player can see the next available specialist hires 18 hours in advance.
-Free players can't join tournaments, private games or custom play. Paying players have access to custom maps, tournaments, and private games as well as in depth specialist reference.

These are just rough ideas but what it would provide is a more solid player base for everyone by still having a good amount of free players to boost the number of games as well as word of mouth and provide for enough public games so the paying players don't lose interest by playing against the same people.

Keep in mind, whatever IAP model you use, you need to focus on marketing. No matter how you really price a mobile game, the only way you'll make money is by marketing to the most people as possible. (Source: I work in mobile game development with one of the largest distributors on iOS and GP. One solution to this is publishing. We publish outside games, I don't think Subterfuge would fit into our model but if you're interested, PM me.)

I hope this helps.

Also, remember that no matter what pricing model you choose, not everyone will be happy. Go with what you think is best and what will reward you for the hard work.

Great game guys. Well done.

I had a chat to AdmiralAdama in a game today regarding this and I thought I would come here and put in writing my thoughts following this conversation. I should note that a lot of the general ideas here were raised by AdmiralAdama and that this is just my interpretation of our conversation and how I think these ideas might best be implemented.

Firstly, my opinion on the currently proposed idea. I generally don’t spend much money on apps. In fact I have only spent more than $5 on an app once. This was for the app version of the board game Agricola (This game is considered one of, if not the best, board game adaptations to digital format). So initially the game seems very expensive at $10. I say initially because if I was to go to a friend’s house and play a board game that I realised I liked I would happily go out and buy it for $50-$100 so based on that logic why wouldn’t I buy a game that has already proved hours of entertainment that I would like to continue. But for some reason because this is an app and not a physical item there is a difference in perceived value. I think the biggest hurdle is how to get over this barrier without devaluing your work. So this is where my conversation with AdmiralAdama was heading:

---------------------------------------------

Subterfuge Lite (Free)

‘Subterfuge lite’ would be a version of the game that allows people to play the game and experience the dynamics at its basic level. Essentially it would be locked to a 6 player game, a set neptunium goal and limited to a pool of roughly 50% of the specialists currently available.
In addition to this you would have unlimited access to the tactical puzzles and possibly 1 play of the premium content to let you see what you’d be getting.
Also, if you choose to consider advertisement banners then this is where they would be.

---------------------------------------------

Subterfuge Premium ($5)

Subterfuge premium is essentially the game we have today with a few options for game control such as neptunium goal options, speed options, player count and possibly even the option to select what specialists are possible to spawn. Subterfuge Premium would also include rankings and statistics of your game play as they become available.

---------------------------------------------

Subterfuge bonus features (In App Purchases)

The option for certain extra features that enhance the game without them becoming ‘pay-to-win’ would fit into this category. This could be handled by each option having a set fee or by an in game currency that covers all options and allows for easy awarding of currency as a prize that can be spent on anything. Examples are:

Automated tournaments similar to what we are running at the moment. Either an elimination tournament or a round robin style format.
A one off payment that allows you to name outposts in future games as you acquire them. After 1 name change this outposts name would be locked to avoid constant renaming and confusion.
The ability to change your username. I know the arguments against this but realistically people could just buy a new version of the game for another $5 to get around it anyway so why not offer the option at say 50% of the app price so people can retain their statistics and other IAP’s.
The ability to play more than 1 game simultaneously.
Ability to choose colour (out of available remaining colours) when joining a game.
Pre-set novelty maps.
Or even a choice of a generator or factory heavy map. (all of this would be visible to anybody wanting to join so no advantage gained)

---------------------------------------------

So if you are currently valuing your game at $10 (as per the blog) then wouldn’t an approach like this be a better option considering most players will end up spending at least a little bit on some additional features that are not game-breaking. You’ve overcome the initial wall by halving it and you’ve opened up the opportunity to get more than your original stated price from some players. Also, people can spread their purchases over time. And the free version lets people discover what the game is in a very limited capacity whilst also generating income through possible advertising. I can’t recall where I read it but I read something that said there is more money to be made in free versions with advertising than in premium games without it.

Anyway, just my thoughts following my conversation with AdmiralAdama.

(as I was about to post this I realised that the blog actually mentions $15/$30 and $20/$40 as the possible pricing. I won’t change the above as the values weren’t critical but maybe the cost of my proposed ‘Subterfuge Premium’ would be half the price of what you consider the game value, and the other half is recouped through IAP over time. $20 for a single app is pretty high in the app world though.)

I had a shower thought this morning.

This game does such an amazing job at design, the artwork, the story, and the world. The point of each game is to win by mining Neptunium.

One of the effective psychological strategies to 'help' people spend money is to add a layer between a dollar and a purchase in game.

So, why not use Neptunium for purchases in the game. The added benefit of using neptunium is that players can literally mine it in each game. This may allow for some end-game diplomacy as players could offer to trade mines to extend the game in order for a partnership or alliance time to mine closer to the 200N goal.

Perhaps then, the absolute winner of a game can earn a modifier on the Neptunium collected. Perhaps a 50% bonus or maybe a bonus on on total Neptunium mined in that particular game or perhaps an ante paid by each player before the start of a game.

This may help alleviate players in first place wanting to finish the game super quickly because they want other players to mine more Neptunium - allowing the players in last places some time to grow and position themselves to win the game.

Even if those players lose, this creates a scenario where players may still leave feeling happy after a lost match because at least they were able to mine some 'neptunium' to pay for a seat in the next matchup or tournament. A game is no longer a 'wasted' 7-10 days of play all for nothing.

oh, man, using neptunium as in game currency is such a cool idea! it's very unlikely we'll have in-game currency at launch, but we have lots of ideas for using it if we continue to work on the game post-launch.

oh, and champino, thanks for writing out your thoughts on this. some of what you say parallels what we've been thinking too. we got a bunch of feedback about or model and are working on some possible changes. one of the main things we want to do is allow people to play the game for free as much as they want so that (a) they have more opportunities to buy the game, and (b) allowing people only a single play might choke the growth of the player community -- as FateCreatr wisely pointed out.

Like others I have paid up to $8 for an initial game GoF2 as I knew what I was getting. I then spent a further $8 buying two expansion packs.

So $20 seems like a big ask especially if the first game you play ends in a spanking. I'd say free 1 month, $5 game, with 6 month pass, $10 for 15 months is about as much as could be charged and maintain a sufficient user base.