Drop outs

[Gavinwj]

Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going to stop.
Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting one for
fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from that is,
do you want those players in the first place...?

There are proven solutions, but they will never be implemented here.

So, the question become "how can we encourage players to stay the course?"
instead. None are perfect, but they might be worth considering. Off the top
of my head:

- If a player loses his capital, the turn fee drops for a few turns

- if a player is down to less than five characters or a single MT or city,
then the turn is free if using MEOW/Automagic/latest-gismo for order
submission

- if a player commits to playing through to the end of the game (excluding
bug hunts unless previously agreed) and pays for turns in blocks of ten,
then he gets a discount, but no refunds if he drops

- a player who drops with a viable position is automatically at the end of
the queue for nation assignment in the next game

- players who consistently stay the course and finish games move to the
front of the queue for nation assignment in their next game and are
guaranteed to have at least two characters with bonuses in at the start of
that game

Gavin

Kevin Brown wrote:

> This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
> company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think it
> is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even when a
> team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
> people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a position
> just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may not
> be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
> people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
> come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
> there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
> ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people dropping.

[Brad Brunet]

Well, I for one would be alienated if those who can *afford* 10 turns
consistently get a discount, while those who simply can't afford to ante up
10 turns worth (especially if they're already running close to the bone due
to Volume...) have to pay more. The rich get richer...?

It's a tough call on both sides. The only _overt_ penalty I see below is
the "bottom of the queue" for nation selection. Really, not much of a
penalty as the last time I recall a discussion about this there was a
significant constituency with the perception that they never got their first
selection anyway, so while they might enjoy getting it, they wouldn't notice
if they were "penalized" as such. (the poor paying more is a penalty too, of
course, I didn't think you were an American Gavin... ;-) )

So the benefits of "staying the course" are top of the list for nation
selection and a hand moderated bonus. Now, what if our perception is skewed
to the reality and Most players actually complete their games? Well, then
I'm in a list of those at the top of the list... And Most nations are now
handed a 2nd (hand moderated) bonus... Clint's rarely cheering these ones
one...

Not to simply rain on the parade. Thanks for the efforts, certainly a
worthwhile discussion, the type that often produces results in this
particular consumer-driven community (moreso than most others). I like the
ideas regarding supporting players on the brink, and would be more than
willing to pilot these policies in game 233... ;-)

Hopefully the discussion can centre on the carrots and the sticks: what are
the rewards for NOT dropping and what are the penalties FOR dropping out in
the minds?

To clarify *my* position, yes, drops are annoying at the best of times, some
moreso than others. But when dealing with people... I'm not in the
community of "fed up", so I consider myself an objective observer.

Cheers,

Brad

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavinwj" <gavinwj@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:45 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Drop outs

>
> Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going to
stop.
> Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting one for
> fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from that
is,
> do you want those players in the first place...?
>
> There are proven solutions, but they will never be implemented here.
>
> So, the question become "how can we encourage players to stay the course?"
> instead. None are perfect, but they might be worth considering. Off the
top
> of my head:
>
> - If a player loses his capital, the turn fee drops for a few turns
>
> - if a player is down to less than five characters or a single MT or city,
> then the turn is free if using MEOW/Automagic/latest-gismo for order
> submission
>
> - if a player commits to playing through to the end of the game (excluding
> bug hunts unless previously agreed) and pays for turns in blocks of ten,
> then he gets a discount, but no refunds if he drops
>
> - a player who drops with a viable position is automatically at the end of
> the queue for nation assignment in the next game
>
> - players who consistently stay the course and finish games move to the
> front of the queue for nation assignment in their next game and are
> guaranteed to have at least two characters with bonuses in at the start of
> that game
>
> Gavin
>
> Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
> > company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think it
> > is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even when a
> > team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
> > people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a position
> > just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may not
> > be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
> > people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
> > come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
> > there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
> > ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people dropping.
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Kevin Brown]

I can't come up with a lot of carrots, but a stick that would carry a
lot of weight would be for a player that drops a position when the
rest of his allies are continuing (don't want to encourage bug hunt
fans or create bug hunts) is also removed from control of the rest of
his nations and removed from entry into new games for a period of
time (6 months). A neutral that dropped a viable position would
always be subject to this rule. A little draconian, but it would take
care of the dropouts. However, this would alienate some players and
cut down on revenue so probably won't be instituted.

Kevin

--- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, Gavinwj <gavinwj@c...> wrote:
> Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going
to stop.
> Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting
one for
> fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from
that is,
> do you want those players in the first place...?
>
> There are proven solutions, but they will never be implemented here.
>
> So, the question become "how can we encourage players to stay the
course?"
> instead. None are perfect, but they might be worth considering. Off
the top
> of my head:
>
> - If a player loses his capital, the turn fee drops for a few turns
>
> - if a player is down to less than five characters or a single MT
or city,
> then the turn is free if using MEOW/Automagic/latest-gismo for order
> submission
>
> - if a player commits to playing through to the end of the game
(excluding
> bug hunts unless previously agreed) and pays for turns in blocks of
ten,
> then he gets a discount, but no refunds if he drops
>
> - a player who drops with a viable position is automatically at the
end of
> the queue for nation assignment in the next game
>
> - players who consistently stay the course and finish games move to
the
> front of the queue for nation assignment in their next game and are
> guaranteed to have at least two characters with bonuses in at the
start of
> that game
>
> Gavin
>
> Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
> > company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think
it
> > is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even
when a
> > team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
> > people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a
position
> > just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may
not
> > be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
> > people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
> > come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
> > there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
> > ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people
dropping.

[Colin Forbes]

Hi,
I think it would be a mistake to assume that the majority of drop-outs
happen because of money. In my experience the most common reason a
player drops a game is simply a lack of time. In fact money is
probably third on the list behind in-game events that cause a player
to simply walk away from the game.

Personally speaking I buck the trend here, with money and in-game
reasons fighting it out for the major reason I drop games. However,
looking back over my notes on past games, a lack of time is far and
away the most common cause for players dropping.

Gavin suggests that a penalty needs to be imposed on a dropping
player. I don't see how this would help the situation. Asking people
to pay up-front would probably lead to slower game start-ups and make
little difference in the drop-out rate. People would think twice
before starting a new game (lumps sum are always harder to justify
than little payments) whilst this would not address the way time and
real life events constrain the time people are able to devote to gaming.

Ultimately the choice to play or not to play is up to the player. In
my view if ME Games penalise players or in any way regulate the system
in an attempt to reduce drop-outs, the result may well make the overal
gaming experience worse.

ME Games offer a huge range of options in terms of game styles and
variants. If you are someone that finds their game enjoyment is
wrecked by drop-outs, then why not play grudge games? The drop-out
rate from team games is much lower - and does not usually affect the
game much.

It's a free market out there, drop-outs are going to happen. I don't
like it, you don't like it .... but excessive regulation or penalties
will not improve the situation. We just need to accept it as part of
the gaming experience.

Colin

[Kevin Brown]

Lots of comments here.

I'll reply to the question about why not play grudge games - I guess
this is making the assumption that people would be part of a team.
Personally I like playing the neutral nations - not pre-aligned
neutrals, actually non-aligned nations at the beginning. I don't mind
playing a neutral nation in a grudge match, but a lot of teams don't
want or like the uncertainty of neutral nations/players.

Kevin

--- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Colin Forbes" <colin@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I think it would be a mistake to assume that the majority of drop-
outs
> happen because of money. In my experience the most common reason a
> player drops a game is simply a lack of time. In fact money is
> probably third on the list behind in-game events that cause a player
> to simply walk away from the game.
>
> Personally speaking I buck the trend here, with money and in-game
> reasons fighting it out for the major reason I drop games. However,
> looking back over my notes on past games, a lack of time is far and
> away the most common cause for players dropping.
>
> Gavin suggests that a penalty needs to be imposed on a dropping
> player. I don't see how this would help the situation. Asking people
> to pay up-front would probably lead to slower game start-ups and
make
> little difference in the drop-out rate. People would think twice
> before starting a new game (lumps sum are always harder to justify
> than little payments) whilst this would not address the way time and
> real life events constrain the time people are able to devote to
gaming.
>
> Ultimately the choice to play or not to play is up to the player. In
> my view if ME Games penalise players or in any way regulate the
system
> in an attempt to reduce drop-outs, the result may well make the
overal
> gaming experience worse.
>
> ME Games offer a huge range of options in terms of game styles and
> variants. If you are someone that finds their game enjoyment is
> wrecked by drop-outs, then why not play grudge games? The drop-out
> rate from team games is much lower - and does not usually affect the
> game much.
>
> It's a free market out there, drop-outs are going to happen. I don't
> like it, you don't like it .... but excessive regulation or
penalties
> will not improve the situation. We just need to accept it as part of
> the gaming experience.
>
> Colin

[Colin Forbes]

Gavin wrote:

> Having people think a little more before signing up for a game
> might not be a bad idea.

I'm not sure that ME Games would agree that having waiting lists that
were even slower to fill up was a good idea. Similarly players who
already wait a long time for some scenarios to start.


> "Can I afford the time and money?"

It's surely not posisble to say, at the start of a game, that you will
definitely have enough time? All my recent games have lasted (on
average) a year. I have no way of predicting demands on my time 8
months hence. Just as I have no way of knowing whether the game will
prove to be full of idiots of send personally insulting emails, thus
cuasing me to drop. (Sadly this has happened more than once, and is
something that anyone playing a Neutral should be prepared for).


> A lump sum *is* more difficult to justify. (As an aside, that's
> how credit card companies make so much money.) So, you give a
> discount for buying turns in bulk: it's a win-win situation.

How many turns qualifies as "bulk"? How much discount should ME Games
offer? It's worth pointing out that, in the past, most PBM companies
who have tried discounts for bulk payments have come to regret the
decision. The discount needed to attract a decent number of players,
cuts into the very narrow profit margins within which even successful
PBM companies operate.

However, none of this addresses the fact that the most common reason
for dropping a game is a lack of time, usually brought on by unforseen
circumstances in "real life". Paying a lump sum in advance is not
going to stop someone from dropping a game because their work now
takes up more time or they get a girlfriend.

Other potential difficulties include ...
* Legal problems. The system would need to be some form of
non-refundable despot. PBM companies who have tried this in the past
have not prospered and more than one has been successfully sued.
* Would this not require a system whereby a each individual game had a
seperate account? Requiring ME Games to spend resources redesigning
their accounting software (again).
* Any non-monetary system of rewards and punishments for drop-outs
would require a high level of additional administration. This would of
course mean we'd have to pay more for the game.

To be perfectly honest, I don't really see where the problem lies with
drop outs. When the game first came out over hear, at least 50% of
games I played were profoundly affected by drop-outs. In the last few
years I can barely think of one such game, thanks in part to ME Games'
efficient filling of vacant positions. To be fair, I don't really
know how 2950 and 4th Age games are affected these days.

Colin

[Colin Forbes]

Gavin,
I think we've aired the issue fairly thoroughly :-) I think we're
just going to have to agree to differ - probably because of different
game experiences. Couple of points for the sake of clarification.

> We don't know Clint's margins and that is his business.

In no way was I questioning ME Game's business structure. They have
shown abusiness accumen which has often been sadly lacking amongst PBM
firms.


> I suspect the litigation you're thinking of is related to one
> of the companies mentioned previously and widely reported in
> Flagship?

As assistant editor of Flagship, I really couldn't comment on
individual cases ;-) Not all the cases I was thinking of have made it
to the pages of Flagship. But yes, I agree it's possible - it just
requires proper legal phrasing etc.


> offering a turn for free to someone taking over a position
> is roughly equivalent to offering a ten percent discount on
> bulk turn buying...)

I would question whether 10% would be sufficient inducement. At least
one large PBM company has found the take-up of such an offer to be
surprisingly low.
Do ME Games still offer 1 free turn for taking over a position? If
this is the case, I need to chase them for a missing free turn ;-)

Colin

[Steven K. Mariner]

> From: Gavinwj <gavinwj@...>
> Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 06:45:03 +0100
> [...]
> Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not
> going to stop. Currently there is no penalty and Clint is
> afraid of instituting one for fear of alienating some
> players. Now, the question that arises from that is, do you
> want those players in the first place...?

There's a countering argument, though.

When one of the online RPG games started listing certain player
activies as "wrong" or "cheating" - and made efforts to enforce the
behaviors - a large portion of their players migrated to other online
RPG games.

It's sort of like the RIAA suing its own customers -- you're not going
to win by alienating your customers. You need to mould your business
to suit both their needs and yours.

Those who can find a way to do that will succeed. In the gaming
industry, those who cannot are unlikely to enjoy longevity in their
successes. We're too small a worldwide market.

I won't comment on your specific suggestions in detail except to say
that you've put some good thought into the problem and potential
solutions.

Whether or not those solutions match the business model which is the
cornerstone of Harlequin's phenomenal success in keeping this game
going when others have died along the roadside is something only those
who drafted that business plan can address. I hardly think myself
qualified to levy judgement on what they should do with their
business. I hope (and trust) they are watching the suggestions roll
by, and move on the ones that make sense to them.

But it must be their call. They have succeeded where others have
failed, and success is your only proof.

[ME Games Ltd]

>Judging by comments on this list, there is still enough of a problem to
>cause concern among players who want to be able to stay the course. Surely
>that warrants reflection? And, even though Clint has got fairly good at
>finding replacements, there is still the problem of what happens to the
>nation prior to the drop (often a special service turn or two or three) and
>while Clint signs someone up. (And, if you want to talk margins, then
>offering a turn for free to someone taking over a position is roughly
>equivalent to offering a ten percent discount on bulk turn buying...)

This is slightly a different topic. Basically that's quality of players -
ie how committed they are, quality of individual and team play etc.

That's harder to organise... up front payment - not a big fan of that. One
do we offer a discount for such? If we do we lose out. If we don't
players are less likely to offer it. (We tried this with giving a token
offer for investing funds with us and had a small, but very appreciated,
input of funds from players - so from that it's going to be unlikely we're
going to find players prepared to ante up so to speak.) So we're talking
about a small player base that are prepared to support such an endeavour at
present.

Clint


----------


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 27/10/04


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[R.K.Floyd]

>>Well, I for one would be alienated if those who can *afford* 10 turns
>>consistently get a discount, while those who simply can't afford to ante up
>>10 turns worth (especially if they're already running close to the bone due
>>to Volume...) have to pay more. The rich get richer...?

* So Ford should only make Ford Focuses because not everyone can afford the new Ford GT? BMW should only make 3 series cars because not everyone
can afford the 7 series?

-Russ










It's a tough call on both sides. The only _overt_ penalty I see below is
the "bottom of the queue" for nation selection. Really, not much of a
penalty as the last time I recall a discussion about this there was a
significant constituency with the perception that they never got their first
selection anyway, so while they might enjoy getting it, they wouldn't notice
if they were "penalized" as such. (the poor paying more is a penalty too, of
course, I didn't think you were an American Gavin... ;-) )

So the benefits of "staying the course" are top of the list for nation
selection and a hand moderated bonus. Now, what if our perception is skewed
to the reality and Most players actually complete their games? Well, then
I'm in a list of those at the top of the list... And Most nations are now
handed a 2nd (hand moderated) bonus... Clint's rarely cheering these ones
one...

Not to simply rain on the parade. Thanks for the efforts, certainly a
worthwhile discussion, the type that often produces results in this
particular consumer-driven community (moreso than most others). I like the
ideas regarding supporting players on the brink, and would be more than
willing to pilot these policies in game 233... ;-)

Hopefully the discussion can centre on the carrots and the sticks: what are
the rewards for NOT dropping and what are the penalties FOR dropping out in
the minds?

To clarify *my* position, yes, drops are annoying at the best of times, some
moreso than others. But when dealing with people... I'm not in the
community of "fed up", so I consider myself an objective observer.

Cheers,

Brad

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavinwj" <gavinwj@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 12:45 AM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Drop outs


>
> Unless there's a penalty to the dropping player, this is not going to
stop.
> Currently there is no penalty and Clint is afraid of instituting one for
> fear of alienating some players. Now, the question that arises from that
is,
> do you want those players in the first place...?
>
> There are proven solutions, but they will never be implemented here.
>
> So, the question become "how can we encourage players to stay the course?"
> instead. None are perfect, but they might be worth considering. Off the
top
> of my head:
>
> - If a player loses his capital, the turn fee drops for a few turns
>
> - if a player is down to less than five characters or a single MT or city,
> then the turn is free if using MEOW/Automagic/latest-gismo for order
> submission
>
> - if a player commits to playing through to the end of the game (excluding
> bug hunts unless previously agreed) and pays for turns in blocks of ten,
> then he gets a discount, but no refunds if he drops
>
> - a player who drops with a viable position is automatically at the end of
> the queue for nation assignment in the next game
>
> - players who consistently stay the course and finish games move to the
> front of the queue for nation assignment in their next game and are
> guaranteed to have at least two characters with bonuses in at the start of
> that game
>
> Gavin
>
> Kevin Brown wrote:
>
> > This has been discussed before without too much input from "the
> > company" except to state that this isn't a problem. I still think it
> > is. I've seen a number of people drop or suggest dropping even when a
> > team is winning or even. Sometimes there are "real" reasons for
> > people dropping a position, but occasionally people drop a position
> > just because they're starting a new game. While the problem may not
> > be with the game (and I agree it's not), it's not a problem that
> > people discussing it here are going to solve. The solution has to
> > come from whoever is running the game. I'm afraid that as long as
> > there is someone else to continue paying for the turns (now that
> > ought to get a response) there isn't a problem with people dropping.
>
>
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>



Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[R.K.Floyd]

"Why not play grudge teams" . . . . well, I don't know about the rest of you, but every grudge team I've ever played with came about by meeting people through open games.

Russ


----- Original Message -----
From: Kevin Brown
To: mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com
Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 4:48 PM
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: Drop outs



Lots of comments here.

I'll reply to the question about why not play grudge games - I guess
this is making the assumption that people would be part of a team.
Personally I like playing the neutral nations - not pre-aligned
neutrals, actually non-aligned nations at the beginning. I don't mind
playing a neutral nation in a grudge match, but a lot of teams don't
want or like the uncertainty of neutral nations/players.

Kevin

--- In mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com, "Colin Forbes" <colin@t...> wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I think it would be a mistake to assume that the majority of drop-
outs
> happen because of money. In my experience the most common reason a
> player drops a game is simply a lack of time. In fact money is
> probably third on the list behind in-game events that cause a player
> to simply walk away from the game.
>
> Personally speaking I buck the trend here, with money and in-game
> reasons fighting it out for the major reason I drop games. However,
> looking back over my notes on past games, a lack of time is far and
> away the most common cause for players dropping.
>
> Gavin suggests that a penalty needs to be imposed on a dropping
> player. I don't see how this would help the situation. Asking people
> to pay up-front would probably lead to slower game start-ups and
make
> little difference in the drop-out rate. People would think twice
> before starting a new game (lumps sum are always harder to justify
> than little payments) whilst this would not address the way time and
> real life events constrain the time people are able to devote to
gaming.
>
> Ultimately the choice to play or not to play is up to the player. In
> my view if ME Games penalise players or in any way regulate the
system
> in an attempt to reduce drop-outs, the result may well make the
overal
> gaming experience worse.
>
> ME Games offer a huge range of options in terms of game styles and
> variants. If you are someone that finds their game enjoyment is
> wrecked by drop-outs, then why not play grudge games? The drop-out
> rate from team games is much lower - and does not usually affect the
> game much.
>
> It's a free market out there, drop-outs are going to happen. I don't
> like it, you don't like it .... but excessive regulation or
penalties
> will not improve the situation. We just need to accept it as part of
> the gaming experience.
>
> Colin





Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com



Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT





------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mepbmlist/

b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
mepbmlist-unsubscribe (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com

c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Brad Brunet]

----- Original Message -----
From: "R.K.Floyd" <rkfloyd@...>
To: <mepbmlist (AT) yahoogroups (DOT) com>
Sent: Sunday, November 07, 2004 11:33 AM
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Drop outs


>
> >>Well, I for one would be alienated if those who can *afford* 10 turns
> >>consistently get a discount, while those who simply can't afford to ante
up
> >>10 turns worth (especially if they're already running close to the bone
due
> >>to Volume...) have to pay more. The rich get richer...?
>
> * So Ford should only make Ford Focuses because not everyone can afford
the new Ford GT? BMW should only make 3 series cars because not everyone
> can afford the 7 series?
>
> -Russ

MEPBM is MEPBM. The issue is that we're _both_ buying Focuses. Other games
with different names might qualify as Expeditions, Benz's, etc... Gavin
wants to buy 5 of them for his rental fleet at 18,500 each but I'm only
buying one (at a time) so I have to pay 20,000.

A tangential argument from the "volume discount" would be that while I'm
financing my $20,000 Focus over 48 months at 0% interest, Gavin wants to pay
the Cash Purchase Price of 18,500 up front.

Either way you look at it, "conventional mass consumerism" supports this
type of price variation. I don't believe this product serving this market
would necessarily be better served by playing those macro-economic games.

But as an understanding and objective type, I proposed increasing the price
of the games for *everyone* and giving it back when (IF) your game ends
"naturally". Someone then brought up the possibility that players will
intentionally self-destruct in order to "quit" and get their surcharge back.
Who's to prove that it was 'intentional' and not simply a "mistake"...?
Well, you could add a Dumb-Dumb clause that defines "naturally" as "As a
result of enemy actions or allegiance victory" such that people who Buy
instead of Sell and cash-out lose their dough. The more you consider
various pricing schemes to alter player behaviour, the more you tread the
fine line of losing a popularity vote regardless of what you do. Much ado
about nothing, and all that.

Regards,

Brad