Make in-store items purchasable with tokens

[MagicManICT]

And I'm still unsure what is called "didn't work", now by you. What was expected from subscription that didn't happened? Subscription "works" simply: people get an access to the gameplay for some time (e.g. month) in exchange of paying you a fixed amount of money. It grants neither shower of money not media hype nor online counter surge.

I really couldn't put my finger on any one thing here from world 8. Neither jorb nor loftar have shared much insight into the reason they backed away from the payment model for world 8. There were a lot of public posts from players on the matter, though, so that may have been part of it. I wish I could say something simple like "due to pricing, limited play time for non-subscribers, and the new world and 3D client, too many players were unable to or refused to play." Maybe it was that simple, but I am not in the position to say if it is correct or just my perception of what might have been wrong.

I mean making gameplay less fair for a benefit of a vocal part willing to pay you more.

This is why nearly everyone complains about "pay to win" games. The only things available on the store are account verification, subscriptions, and cosmetic items. What is less fair here? The chance for everyone to have a subscription if they put in the effort to the game economy? Maybe those with money able to buy their way through some of the grinding process? (No need to spend days digging up tons of iron, gold, and gems to buy a new top-quality anvil.)

[Ants]

And I'm still unsure what is called "didn't work", now by you. What was expected from subscription that didn't happened? Subscription "works" simply: people get an access to the gameplay for some time (e.g. month) in exchange of paying you a fixed amount of money. It grants neither shower of money not media hype nor online counter surge.

I really couldn't put my finger on any one thing here from world 8. Neither jorb nor loftar have shared much insight into the reason they backed away from the payment model for world 8. There were a lot of public posts from players on the matter, though, so that may have been part of it. I wish I could say something simple like "due to pricing, limited play time for non-subscribers, and the new world and 3D client, too many players were unable to or refused to play." Maybe it was that simple, but I am not in the position to say if it is correct or just my perception of what might have been wrong.

I have a strong feeling it's because the payment system caused the world to go inactive quickly. I didn't play W8 because I figured that's what would happen so I can't confirm whether the population actually plummeted, but it only seems logical that it would.

[Agrik]

Neither jorb nor loftar have shared much insight into the reason they backed away from the payment model for world 8.

I have the same impression, that's why I'm surprised by people making confident statements about devs' wishes.

I wish I could say something simple like "due to pricing, limited play time for non-subscribers, and the new world and 3D client, too many players were unable to or refused to play." Maybe it was that simple, but I am not in the position to say if it is correct or just my perception of what might have been wrong.

To say this, one should define: "too many" for... what? What was the goal?

To have as much people playing as possible? You can make free access for that.
To have some monetary support for your actions? You can take donations.
To have money not at others' disposal but by fixed deal? You can set monthly entrance fee (subscription).
To get as much money as possible? Errr...

One can't offer the same game for different payments. Either people are paying the same for the access and then additionally different sums at their discretion, and then it's donations, or you try to get more than they wish to freely part with, but then you have to offer them things that affect game experience, and you will have gameplay skewed by this.

The only things available on the store are account verification, subscriptions, and cosmetic items. What is less fair here?

It's more fair than many other projects I know and heard of. But then people ask to have something personally in the game world for their money, or for their service to those who paid for advantage. (That's I'm returning back to topic)

The chance for everyone to have a subscription if they put in the effort to the game economy?

"Game economy" is virtual. It is a part of a game board. How come in-game efforts can be awarded with an access to the game (subscription), how come a thing can worth the same as other, being only a part of it? Well, if pumping up game economy is perceived as a kind of animator (?) job to run a game world, developers can pay (obviously just an access to the same game is not enough) for this themselves. But if "animators" are paid by other players, errr... this payment comes in exchange for in-game items, thus effectively doing the same thing backwards, i.e. de-animating the game world for the same extent!

So the goal is not achieved. What is achieved then? Personal goals of some people who would praise the devs for skewing the game, yeah.

Maybe those with money able to buy their way through some of the grinding process? (No need to spend days digging up tons of iron, gold, and gems to buy a new top-quality anvil.)

Yes, that's the de-animation I said about. To name efforts to the game economy rewardable and then allow to omit this efforts in exchange for money? That's bizarre. What's the game purpose of these in-game "efforts" then?

I have a strong feeling it's because the payment system caused the world to go inactive quickly.

How we can know if this wasn't deserved activity level for that time, that existing audience and that level of subscription cost?

I can say only for myself that I'd paid then if there were possibilities that appeared only with W9 IIRC. But monetization changes that came with W9 puzzled me and I became unsure whether I should support such intentions.