i hate how we have to pay to change our username it just makes osu look like a freemium game
also i want osu supporter so i can change my name but im broke
also i want osu supporter so i can change my name but im broke
forum
paying for a name change is stupid
posted
Total Posts
36
Topic Starter
Honestly I fw it
freemium is an actual gameplay advantage, I don't think paying for something like a name change in a mostly free game makes it look premium, by that logic, any transaction would make it look premium and then it would probably be not sustainable
Local Forecast
Honestly, I think name changes should be based on how frequent you do so. I shouldnt have to pay $16 USD for my namechange when I havent changed my name since 2015.
That being said any small changes to names like capitalization and stuff like that only takes an email to support, so its not as bad but it is tough for people that make their account when they are young (so they may make it cringe) and want to make it less cringe or completely rebrand themself
That being said any small changes to names like capitalization and stuff like that only takes an email to support, so its not as bad but it is tough for people that make their account when they are young (so they may make it cringe) and want to make it less cringe or completely rebrand themself
Topic Starter
Update:got to change my name thanks to aireu giving me supporter!! Thank you aireu!!!
I like the current system
Yeah they should make downloading maps or submitting scores paid instead.
it kinda makes sense, but I do wish it were the same price each time. Exponential price increases is nutty
I'm pretty sure it's also to prevent people spamming name change.stevennnn wrote:
it kinda makes sense, but I do wish it were the same price each time. Exponential price increases is nutty
Some rich people still change like 10+ times but at least it's quite rare.
I do agree with Blushing though it should reset after some time.
wait, is this patatitta?Patatitta wrote:
freemium is an actual gameplay advantage, I don't think paying for something like a name change in a mostly free game makes it look premium, by that logic, any transaction would make it look premium and then it would probably be not sustainable
i wanted to imagine a possibility where this could be applied... its not a serious suggestion from me, so if someone likes it then thats up to them to advocate for it, but i dont expect it to be taken seriouslyKarmine wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's also to prevent people spamming name change.stevennnn wrote:
it kinda makes sense, but I do wish it were the same price each time. Exponential price increases is nutty
Some rich people still change like 10+ times but at least it's quite rare.
I do agree with Blushing though it should reset after some time.
maybe...
...a static price, exclusively for when you fulfill a waiting requirement between changes, with the duration being listed as a number of years matching the number of consecutive changes made, with half of the next price you would have otherwise upgraded to (in case the free tier was included in order to halve the value of $8 to $4)
in essence, change once and wait a year to change again for [$4 if "good" / $8 if "bad" or if the half-cost idea is not applicable] with only one time allowed per every year afterward in order to remain at that price level, otherwise if youre impatient or spam usernames you will immediately upgrade the cost to the next price tier like nothing ever changed. after your free name-change, if you make 3 more changes over the course of the proportionately allotted 3 years, then that means you are probably not spamming and cycling through usernames to an absurd level or anything
at that point, you will have only spent $24 at most, instead of being treated the same as if you were changing twice a year within 3 years at the cost of $310 or thrice a year within 3 years at the cost of $910
also... if you did spam too many new names, you probably cant go back to $8 but you could at least make it easier on yourself when you do wait... like if you changed five or more times after your free change, you won't spend $100 if you're patient for six years so that you pay $64 every time afterward and stay there
maybe you would only reset to $8 and no less if you do make a major contribution to the community in some way equivalent to the community contributor title, considering the description of that role including "provide service to the osu!community at great cost to themselves" which may be likened to the irl-equivalent "community service" as labor in exchange for a lower duration of someone's sentence from criminal charges
additionally, i wonder if it could be argued as incentivizing more spending because a far larger playerbase of people could be more willing to pay that stable rate over the course of their time playing the game especially if theyre committed to the game-- the game is already free, they still have to pay $8 for their second name change, but it stays there for someone who relies on their current paycheck and is patient with the game-- which i imagine could appeal to a lot of people
if a larger threshold is desired, maybe instead of being able to stop at $8 every year, it would need to be $16 at the third purchase before sticking in place after a year. it would mean that there would be more weight to those name changes, but this takes a little bit away from the difference between having just spammed new usernames a few times so idk
in essence, change once and wait a year to change again for [$4 if "good" / $8 if "bad" or if the half-cost idea is not applicable] with only one time allowed per every year afterward in order to remain at that price level, otherwise if youre impatient or spam usernames you will immediately upgrade the cost to the next price tier like nothing ever changed. after your free name-change, if you make 3 more changes over the course of the proportionately allotted 3 years, then that means you are probably not spamming and cycling through usernames to an absurd level or anything
at that point, you will have only spent $24 at most, instead of being treated the same as if you were changing twice a year within 3 years at the cost of $310 or thrice a year within 3 years at the cost of $910
also... if you did spam too many new names, you probably cant go back to $8 but you could at least make it easier on yourself when you do wait... like if you changed five or more times after your free change, you won't spend $100 if you're patient for six years so that you pay $64 every time afterward and stay there
maybe you would only reset to $8 and no less if you do make a major contribution to the community in some way equivalent to the community contributor title, considering the description of that role including "provide service to the osu!community at great cost to themselves" which may be likened to the irl-equivalent "community service" as labor in exchange for a lower duration of someone's sentence from criminal charges
additionally, i wonder if it could be argued as incentivizing more spending because a far larger playerbase of people could be more willing to pay that stable rate over the course of their time playing the game especially if theyre committed to the game-- the game is already free, they still have to pay $8 for their second name change, but it stays there for someone who relies on their current paycheck and is patient with the game-- which i imagine could appeal to a lot of people
if a larger threshold is desired, maybe instead of being able to stop at $8 every year, it would need to be $16 at the third purchase before sticking in place after a year. it would mean that there would be more weight to those name changes, but this takes a little bit away from the difference between having just spammed new usernames a few times so idk
ultimately, the table might look like this...
(♡ free of charge ♡)
#2 = $8
(be "good", cumulatively spend $8, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $8, wait two years to be "redeemed")
#3 = $16
(be "good", cumulatively spend $16, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $24, wait three years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $16, plus $8 for every post-redemption year)
#4 = $32
(be "good", cumulatively spend $24, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $56, wait four years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $40, plus $16 for every post-redemption year)
#5 = $64
(be "good", cumulatively spend $32, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $110, wait five years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $88, plus $32 for every post-redemption year)
#6 = $100
(be "good", cumulatively spend $40, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $210 plus $100 every time onward, wait six years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $174 or more, plus $64 for every post-redemption year)
how about we can change it ONCE IN A YEAR. buuuuuuuuuuut if you wanna change it in less in a year it can charge u some mone, spamnamechange proofAchromalia wrote:
i wanted to imagine a possibility where this could be applied... its not a serious suggestion from me, so if someone likes it then thats up to them to advocate for it, but i dont expect it to be taken seriouslyKarmine wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's also to prevent people spamming name change.stevennnn wrote:
it kinda makes sense, but I do wish it were the same price each time. Exponential price increases is nutty
Some rich people still change like 10+ times but at least it's quite rare.
I do agree with Blushing though it should reset after some time.maybe......a static price, exclusively for when you fulfill a waiting requirement between changes, with the duration being listed as a number of years matching the number of consecutive changes made, with half of the next price you would have otherwise upgraded to (in case the free tier was included in order to halve the value of $8 to $4)
in essence, change once and wait a year to change again for [$4 if "good" / $8 if "bad" or if the half-cost idea is not applicable] with only one time allowed per every year afterward in order to remain at that price level, otherwise if youre impatient or spam usernames you will immediately upgrade the cost to the next price tier like nothing ever changed. after your free name-change, if you make 3 more changes over the course of the proportionately allotted 3 years, then that means you are probably not spamming and cycling through usernames to an absurd level or anything
at that point, you will have only spent $24 at most, instead of being treated the same as if you were changing twice a year within 3 years at the cost of $310 or thrice a year within 3 years at the cost of $910
also... if you did spam too many new names, you probably cant go back to $8 but you could at least make it easier on yourself when you do wait... like if you changed five or more times after your free change, you won't spend $100 if you're patient for six years so that you pay $64 every time afterward and stay there
maybe you would only reset to $8 and no less if you do make a major contribution to the community in some way equivalent to the community contributor title, considering the description of that role including "provide service to the osu!community at great cost to themselves" which may be likened to the irl-equivalent "community service" as labor in exchange for a lower duration of someone's sentence from criminal charges
additionally, i wonder if it could be argued as incentivizing more spending because a far larger playerbase of people could be more willing to pay that stable rate over the course of their time playing the game especially if theyre committed to the game-- the game is already free, they still have to pay $8 for their second name change, but it stays there for someone who relies on their current paycheck and is patient with the game-- which i imagine could appeal to a lot of people
if a larger threshold is desired, maybe instead of being able to stop at $8 every year, it would need to be $16 at the third purchase before sticking in place after a year. it would mean that there would be more weight to those name changes, but this takes a little bit away from the difference between having just spammed new usernames a few times so idk
ultimately, the table might look like this...#1 = $0
(♡ free of charge ♡)
#2 = $8
(be "good", cumulatively spend $8, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $8, wait two years to be "redeemed")
#3 = $16
(be "good", cumulatively spend $16, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $24, wait three years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $16, plus $8 for every post-redemption year)
#4 = $32
(be "good", cumulatively spend $24, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $56, wait four years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $40, plus $16 for every post-redemption year)
#5 = $64
(be "good", cumulatively spend $32, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $110, wait five years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $88, plus $32 for every post-redemption year)
#6 = $100
(be "good", cumulatively spend $40, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $210 plus $100 every time onward, wait six years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $174 or more, plus $64 for every post-redemption year)
i think thats what i meant yea, if yearly name changes were free then that would be sweet ^^ but i dont think they'll do that, so... it would still cost the $8 but remain at that rate if you wait a year each timeNoreu wrote:
how about we can change it ONCE IN A YEAR. buuuuuuuuuuut if you wanna change it in less in a year it can charge u some mone, spamnamechange proofAchromalia wrote:
i wanted to imagine a possibility where this could be applied... its not a serious suggestion from me, so if someone likes it then thats up to them to advocate for it, but i dont expect it to be taken seriouslymaybe......a static price, exclusively for when you fulfill a waiting requirement between changes, with the duration being listed as a number of years matching the number of consecutive changes made, with half of the next price you would have otherwise upgraded to (in case the free tier was included in order to halve the value of $8 to $4)
in essence, change once and wait a year to change again for [$4 if "good" / $8 if "bad" or if the half-cost idea is not applicable] with only one time allowed per every year afterward in order to remain at that price level, otherwise if youre impatient or spam usernames you will immediately upgrade the cost to the next price tier like nothing ever changed. after your free name-change, if you make 3 more changes over the course of the proportionately allotted 3 years, then that means you are probably not spamming and cycling through usernames to an absurd level or anything
at that point, you will have only spent $24 at most, instead of being treated the same as if you were changing twice a year within 3 years at the cost of $310 or thrice a year within 3 years at the cost of $910
also... if you did spam too many new names, you probably cant go back to $8 but you could at least make it easier on yourself when you do wait... like if you changed five or more times after your free change, you won't spend $100 if you're patient for six years so that you pay $64 every time afterward and stay there
maybe you would only reset to $8 and no less if you do make a major contribution to the community in some way equivalent to the community contributor title, considering the description of that role including "provide service to the osu!community at great cost to themselves" which may be likened to the irl-equivalent "community service" as labor in exchange for a lower duration of someone's sentence from criminal charges
additionally, i wonder if it could be argued as incentivizing more spending because a far larger playerbase of people could be more willing to pay that stable rate over the course of their time playing the game especially if theyre committed to the game-- the game is already free, they still have to pay $8 for their second name change, but it stays there for someone who relies on their current paycheck and is patient with the game-- which i imagine could appeal to a lot of people
if a larger threshold is desired, maybe instead of being able to stop at $8 every year, it would need to be $16 at the third purchase before sticking in place after a year. it would mean that there would be more weight to those name changes, but this takes a little bit away from the difference between having just spammed new usernames a few times so idk
ultimately, the table might look like this...#1 = $0
(♡ free of charge ♡)
#2 = $8
(be "good", cumulatively spend $8, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $8, wait two years to be "redeemed")
#3 = $16
(be "good", cumulatively spend $16, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $24, wait three years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $16, plus $8 for every post-redemption year)
#4 = $32
(be "good", cumulatively spend $24, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $56, wait four years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $40, plus $16 for every post-redemption year)
#5 = $64
(be "good", cumulatively spend $32, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $110, wait five years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $88, plus $32 for every post-redemption year)
#6 = $100
(be "good", cumulatively spend $40, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $210 plus $100 every time onward, wait six years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $174 or more, plus $64 for every post-redemption year)
the extra conditions are for levels of punishment and redemption if you cant wait
unless im misunderstanding what u mean? :O
YOU GET WHAT I MEAN YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAchromalia wrote:
i think thats what i meant yea, if yearly name changes were free then that would be sweet ^^ but i dont think they'll do that, so... it would still cost the $8 but remain at that rate if you wait a year each timeNoreu wrote:
how about we can change it ONCE IN A YEAR. buuuuuuuuuuut if you wanna change it in less in a year it can charge u some mone, spamnamechange proofAchromalia wrote:
i wanted to imagine a possibility where this could be applied... its not a serious suggestion from me, so if someone likes it then thats up to them to advocate for it, but i dont expect it to be taken seriouslymaybe......a static price, exclusively for when you fulfill a waiting requirement between changes, with the duration being listed as a number of years matching the number of consecutive changes made, with half of the next price you would have otherwise upgraded to (in case the free tier was included in order to halve the value of $8 to $4)
in essence, change once and wait a year to change again for [$4 if "good" / $8 if "bad" or if the half-cost idea is not applicable] with only one time allowed per every year afterward in order to remain at that price level, otherwise if youre impatient or spam usernames you will immediately upgrade the cost to the next price tier like nothing ever changed. after your free name-change, if you make 3 more changes over the course of the proportionately allotted 3 years, then that means you are probably not spamming and cycling through usernames to an absurd level or anything
at that point, you will have only spent $24 at most, instead of being treated the same as if you were changing twice a year within 3 years at the cost of $310 or thrice a year within 3 years at the cost of $910
also... if you did spam too many new names, you probably cant go back to $8 but you could at least make it easier on yourself when you do wait... like if you changed five or more times after your free change, you won't spend $100 if you're patient for six years so that you pay $64 every time afterward and stay there
maybe you would only reset to $8 and no less if you do make a major contribution to the community in some way equivalent to the community contributor title, considering the description of that role including "provide service to the osu!community at great cost to themselves" which may be likened to the irl-equivalent "community service" as labor in exchange for a lower duration of someone's sentence from criminal charges
additionally, i wonder if it could be argued as incentivizing more spending because a far larger playerbase of people could be more willing to pay that stable rate over the course of their time playing the game especially if theyre committed to the game-- the game is already free, they still have to pay $8 for their second name change, but it stays there for someone who relies on their current paycheck and is patient with the game-- which i imagine could appeal to a lot of people
if a larger threshold is desired, maybe instead of being able to stop at $8 every year, it would need to be $16 at the third purchase before sticking in place after a year. it would mean that there would be more weight to those name changes, but this takes a little bit away from the difference between having just spammed new usernames a few times so idk
ultimately, the table might look like this...#1 = $0
(♡ free of charge ♡)
#2 = $8
(be "good", cumulatively spend $8, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $8, wait two years to be "redeemed")
#3 = $16
(be "good", cumulatively spend $16, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $24, wait three years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $16, plus $8 for every post-redemption year)
#4 = $32
(be "good", cumulatively spend $24, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $56, wait four years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $40, plus $16 for every post-redemption year)
#5 = $64
(be "good", cumulatively spend $32, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $110, wait five years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $88, plus $32 for every post-redemption year)
#6 = $100
(be "good", cumulatively spend $40, wait one year to remain "good")
(be "bad", cumulatively spend $210 plus $100 every time onward, wait six years to be "redeemed")
(be previously "redeemed", cumulatively spend $174 or more, plus $64 for every post-redemption year)
the extra conditions are for levels of punishment and redemption if you cant wait
unless im misunderstanding what u mean? :O
why would you ever need to change your name more than 2-4 times anyway?
sometimes you just come up with an even better nameNikolai wrote:
why would you ever need to change your name more than 2-4 times anyway?
or you want to escape your past or reform yourself or not be found in the history of forever because the future is always dependent on the past andLyawi wrote:
sometimes you just come up with an even better nameNikolai wrote:
why would you ever need to change your name more than 2-4 times anyway?
ok but actually i do think people would like that flexibility, both because sometimes a name is simply better to someone, and because it might relieve them to moult away from how they appeared to people before, or idk
i think its rlly not imo but i dont like the exponential price increase each time
$100 for a 6th name change is actually insane
$100 for a 6th name change is actually insane
+1Leviathan wrote:
i think its rlly not imo but i dont like the exponential price increase each time
$100 for a 6th name change is actually insane
Ive come up with a formula for what seems like a decent change to the system, rewarding patience and not abusing, but if people still abuse it would be still cost the same, as long as its in the same year.
Check it out and give feedback;
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w4jsv2kowm
edit: look at the y-value for what the purchase price would be and any decimal values would round UP to the nearest dollar. (i.e. 6.6 would round up to 7)
Check it out and give feedback;
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w4jsv2kowm
edit: look at the y-value for what the purchase price would be and any decimal values would round UP to the nearest dollar. (i.e. 6.6 would round up to 7)
Honestly, I’m down with it. It’s little things like that that keep osu! free for everyone. I don’t see myself changing my username anytime soon but if I did, I wouldn’t mind paying $32 USD to do so as it supports the game.
I do quite like this - the price goes down depending on how long it’s been since your last name change. Though, the scale at which it goes down could be up for debate. I feel that the savings from a net 10 years of not changing your name could be a bit less.Blushing wrote:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w4jsv2kowm
I like the system how it is now, however...
I wish they could make it cheaper (4 usd each time).
I wish they could make it cheaper (4 usd each time).
The main thing that can change this is using square rooting the 'a' value as itll lead to a heavier decrease. Though it was just a thought experiment.nbtm wrote:
Honestly, I’m down with it. It’s little things like that that keep osu! free for everyone. I don’t see myself changing my username anytime soon but if I did, I wouldn’t mind paying $32 USD to do so as it supports the game.I do quite like this - the price goes down depending on how long it’s been since your last name change. Though, the scale at which it goes down could be up for debate. I feel that the savings from a net 10 years of not changing your name could be a bit less.Blushing wrote:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w4jsv2kowm
Id be interested in hearing more feedback on it.
im not sure i understand it... i think i would prefer a more explicit table ^-^;Blushing wrote:
Ive come up with a formula for what seems like a decent change to the system, rewarding patience and not abusing, but if people still abuse it would be still cost the same, as long as its in the same year.
Check it out and give feedback;
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w4jsv2kowm
edit: look at the y-value for what the purchase price would be and any decimal values would round UP to the nearest dollar. (i.e. 6.6 would round up to 7)
and is this per purchase? what about cumulative cost for each outcome? i imagine if we involve too many possibilities it might be harder to explain in the product description for name changes, where youre balancing an accurate proportion of someone's patience per purchase but also aiming for enough simplicity that it isnt a headache to communicate the exact pricing and the consequences/implications of a user's actions...
it was actually what i had been fearing when i made my table, i didnt want to make it too complicated but i didnt want to neglect the anti-spam priority, so it was an attempt at balancing those while keeping the price at predictable increments by just repeating the price, similar to offdensen's preference for a low and stable/static price (except $4 instead of $8) each time... with the added condition of judging whether you've been patient for a baseline amount of time like a year
regardless of that complexity, i might like what you seem to be describing... but i dont entirely know, i would have to see something clearer to understand it more fully
peppy needs money NOWnbtm wrote:
Honestly, I’m down with it. It’s little things like that that keep osu! free for everyone. I don’t see myself changing my username anytime soon but if I did, I wouldn’t mind paying $32 USD to do so as it supports the game.I do quite like this - the price goes down depending on how long it’s been since your last name change. Though, the scale at which it goes down could be up for debate. I feel that the savings from a net 10 years of not changing your name could be a bit less.Blushing wrote:
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/w4jsv2kowm
It could be seem like an annoyance but I am glad that this game and the devs can get paid for making it, since this free to play. Most people wouldn't change their name much but it helps keep this lovable game free so I fw it
True, it would help if instead, it would cap at 32$. Though idk anything about the profit osu gets sostevennnn wrote:
it kinda makes sense, but I do wish it were the same price each time. Exponential price increases is nutty
i don’t like it either but i think it’s fine since it’s how the devs can support running the game since it’s a free game with no ads…
Imagine trying to get a new fc and between a break midmap you'd just get a honey ad 💀[-Omni-] wrote:
i don’t like it either but i think it’s fine since it’s how the devs can support running the game since it’s a free game with no ads…
S a x o wrote:
It could be seem like an annoyance but I am glad that this game and the devs can get paid for making it, since this free to play. Most people wouldn't change their name much but it helps keep this lovable game free so I fw itTrue, it would help if instead, it would cap at 32$. Though idk anything about the profit osu gets sostevennnn wrote:
it kinda makes sense, but I do wish it were the same price each time. Exponential price increases is nutty
im curious about both of these (not to discredit them! i believe they would be entirely fair sentiments/values/appraisals)[-Omni-] wrote:
i don’t like it either but i think it’s fine since it’s how the devs can support running the game since it’s a free game with no ads…
because in my mind, i think a lot of the alternatives that were proposed here didnt necessarily mean there wouldnt be payment, its just
...then any new payment structures would maybe still be able to concentrate on that premise (punishing/discouraging name-cycling on the basis of frequency) while possibly indirectly incentivizing more payment from a wider pool of the userbase that would be more willing to regularly pay relatively small amounts that dont exponentially increase
(which works as long as they dont go crazy lol,, but then by that point the idea would be that the exponential system applies only when they do :p)
if someone has enough discretionary income to spend on an $8 nametag on a certain month, but the position theyre in makes it so that there will not reasonably be enough for a $64 nametag just three names later than the three they already had, then it would arguably already prevent any further support once the dollar value is too high for that person's budget. and if the average population is only going to get two new names, it would not matter very much that the prices dont increase exponentially because those first two times are already relatively low-cost...
+ the difference between 8+8 (for "good" users in my "patience & redemption" model) and 8+16, if we assume the same rate and volume of purchase, is maybe a 33% reduction in profit for a product that some people would have been entirely willing to exchange for that new name otherwise, so we dont see nearly enough opportunity for benefit from a stable low price...
+ ...but beyond that point, people are less likely to pay money for new names. still, the difference between 8+8+8+8 and 8+16+32+64 makes for a significant loss of $88 from that potential $120 in theory, being almost a 75% reduction in profit. it is definitely a lot being lost if lower prices didn't affect customer behavior whatsoever
+ however, because customer behavior is very much affected by prices, that can easily be compensated if three more people were enabled to willingly purchase a couple new names in addition to what they already had-- because they were already half of the way and were very likely able to afford that amount once again when it would hypothetically be a stable price, whereas there isnt nearly as much of a chance as things are now
+ additionally consider the vaguely-applicable possibility of "lifestyle creep"! i dont know how salient my very poorly-informed interpretation of that concept is yet, but this premise will assume it's distinct/common/probable enough to be meaningfully relevant... where in the case that someone did have more income, they may have higher overall living costs-- presumably, maybe that person made enough money that they thought they could finally afford a better apartment or trade for a better car, for example-- which have lasting effects that reduce what can be freely spent in the budget overall. that would make it hard to save nearly as much money as before, and doing so takes time-- by then, that player could have lost interest before saving enough to willingly contribute $64 to this game when they could have contributed it to any number of much more urgent expenses
+ contrast that to a population of four times as many people (wider customer base who can now afford this price for just as much value) who do not need higher income (which is difficult to enable and takes time and lots of various efforts and skills) for their fourth $8 name, and at that point you have arguably equivalent-or-greater profit. because if they lose interest but then return to the game after two years and want to rebrand themselves, there isn't a $100 price tag to haunt them and make the likelihood of a purchase incredibly low-- by then, you already filtered for a much narrower population of a dedicated playerbase that would stay long enough to need/want six names, but you would have dozens more players to replace them who would then also be much more likely to be capable of making their purchases for as much value and for as long as they care to play the game, in essence making them happy while theoretically being reasonably likely in my ignorant-of-business mind to not sacrifice much more than... idk, 33% of profit, and arguably having it be possible that you might profit more than you already do
+ ...but beyond that point, people are less likely to pay money for new names. still, the difference between 8+8+8+8 and 8+16+32+64 makes for a significant loss of $88 from that potential $120 in theory, being almost a 75% reduction in profit. it is definitely a lot being lost if lower prices didn't affect customer behavior whatsoever
+ however, because customer behavior is very much affected by prices, that can easily be compensated if three more people were enabled to willingly purchase a couple new names in addition to what they already had-- because they were already half of the way and were very likely able to afford that amount once again when it would hypothetically be a stable price, whereas there isnt nearly as much of a chance as things are now
+ additionally consider the vaguely-applicable possibility of "lifestyle creep"! i dont know how salient my very poorly-informed interpretation of that concept is yet, but this premise will assume it's distinct/common/probable enough to be meaningfully relevant... where in the case that someone did have more income, they may have higher overall living costs-- presumably, maybe that person made enough money that they thought they could finally afford a better apartment or trade for a better car, for example-- which have lasting effects that reduce what can be freely spent in the budget overall. that would make it hard to save nearly as much money as before, and doing so takes time-- by then, that player could have lost interest before saving enough to willingly contribute $64 to this game when they could have contributed it to any number of much more urgent expenses
+ contrast that to a population of four times as many people (wider customer base who can now afford this price for just as much value) who do not need higher income (which is difficult to enable and takes time and lots of various efforts and skills) for their fourth $8 name, and at that point you have arguably equivalent-or-greater profit. because if they lose interest but then return to the game after two years and want to rebrand themselves, there isn't a $100 price tag to haunt them and make the likelihood of a purchase incredibly low-- by then, you already filtered for a much narrower population of a dedicated playerbase that would stay long enough to need/want six names, but you would have dozens more players to replace them who would then also be much more likely to be capable of making their purchases for as much value and for as long as they care to play the game, in essence making them happy while theoretically being reasonably likely in my ignorant-of-business mind to not sacrifice much more than... idk, 33% of profit, and arguably having it be possible that you might profit more than you already do
...at least, that's how it looked in my head in that ideal world, if we were worried about the health of business-- additionally, there are already other things people purchase in the shops so if not enough people purchased new names or needed/wanted a new name even when affordable, then i kind of assume that if someone still wanted to support the game and had that $92 difference in leftover income, they could still spend some of it for other products that justify and compensate the people involved in producing those other items/products
i,, i hope im not embarrassing myself opining on subjects i dont know anything about;; this is purely from my intuitions bc i dont have the education or experience to know what practices work best (and since peppy presumably already runs the business and may be just fine i would assume that he knows enough to believe the nametag pricing has remained perfectly justifiable), so this could be something worth rebutting-- while also being something to learn from as a result ^^
i will now sit here excitedly looking up at the notification counter hoping that typing all this had some kind of vaguely positive consequence (or at least enables an interesting conversation) <3
While I'm reading this I'd definitely say you impressed me with how indepth you've described ur thoughts on the matter. Especially for a osu!forumAchromalia wrote:
S a x o wrote:
It could be seem like an annoyance but I am glad that this game and the devs can get paid for making it, since this free to play. Most people wouldn't change their name much but it helps keep this lovable game free so I fw itTrue, it would help if instead, it would cap at 32$. Though idk anything about the profit osu gets sostevennnn wrote:
it kinda makes sense, but I do wish it were the same price each time. Exponential price increases is nuttyim curious about both of these (not to discredit them! i believe they would be entirely fair sentiments/values/appraisals)[-Omni-] wrote:
i don’t like it either but i think it’s fine since it’s how the devs can support running the game since it’s a free game with no ads…
because in my mind, i think a lot of the alternatives that were proposed here didnt necessarily mean there wouldnt be payment, its just
...then any new payment structures would maybe still be able to concentrate on that premise (punishing/discouraging name-cycling on the basis of frequency) while possibly indirectly incentivizing more payment from a wider pool of the userbase that would be more willing to regularly pay relatively small amounts that dont exponentially increase
(which works as long as they dont go crazy lol,, but then by that point the idea would be that the exponential system applies only when they do :p)
if someone has enough discretionary income to spend on an $8 nametag on a certain month, but the position theyre in makes it so that there will not reasonably be enough for a $64 nametag just three names later than the three they already had, it would arguably already prevent any further support once the dollar value is too high for that person's budget. and if the average population are only going to get two new names, it would not matter very much that the prices dont increase exponentially because those first two times are already relatively low-cost...+ the difference between 8+8 (for "good" users in my "patience & redemption" model) and 8+16, if we assume the same rate and volume of purchase, is maybe a 33% reduction in profit for a product that some people would have been entirely willing to exchange for that new name otherwise, so we dont see nearly enough opportunity for benefit from a stable low price...
+ ...but beyond that point, people are less likely to pay money for new names. still, the difference between 8+8+8+8 and 8+16+32+64 makes for a significant loss of $88 from that potential $120 in theory, being almost a 75% reduction in profit. it is definitely a lot being lost if lower prices didn't affect customer behavior whatsoever
+ however, because customer behavior is very much affected by prices, that can easily be compensated if three more people were enabled to willingly purchase a couple new names in addition to what they already had-- because they were already half of the way and were very likely able to afford that amount once again when it would hypothetically be a stable price, whereas there isnt nearly as much of a chance as things are now
+ additionally consider the vaguely-applicable possibility of "lifestyle creep"! i dont know how salient my very poorly-informed interpretation of that concept is yet, but this premise will assume it's distinct/common/probable enough to be meaningfully relevant... where in the case that someone did have more income, they may have higher overall living costs-- presumably, maybe that person made enough money that they thought they could finally afford a better apartment or trade for a better car, for example-- which have lasting effects that reduce what can be freely spent in the budget overall. that would make it hard to save nearly as much money as before, and doing so takes time-- by then, that player could have lose interest before saving enough to willingly contribute $64 to this game when they could have contributed it to any number of much more urgent expenses
+ contrast that to a population of four times as many people (wider customer base who can now afford this price for just as much value) who do not need higher income (which is difficult to enable and takes time and lots of various efforts and skills) for their fourth $8 name, and at that point you have arguably equivalent-or-greater profit. because if they lose interest but then return to the game after two years and want to rebrand themselves, there isn't a $100 price tag to haunt them and make the likelihood of a purchase incredibly low-- by then, you already filtered for a much narrower population of a dedicated playerbase that would stay long enough to need/want six names, but you would have dozens more players to replace them who would then also be much more likely to be capable of making their purchases for as much value and for as long as they care to play the game, in essence making them happy while theoretically being reasonably likely in my ignorant-of-business mind to not sacrifice much more than... idk, 33% of profit, and arguably having it be possible that you might profit more than you already do
...at least, that's how it looked in my head in that ideal world, if we were worried about the health of business-- additionally, there are already other things people purchase in the shops so if not enough people purchased new names or needed/wanted a new name even when affordable, then i kind of assume that if someone still wanted to support the game and had that $92 difference in leftover income, they could still spend some of it for other products that justify and compensate the people involved in producing those other items/products
i,, i hope im not embarrassing myself opining on subjects i dont know anything about;; this is purely from my intuitions bc i dont have the education or experience to know what practices work best (and since peppy presumably already runs the business and may be just fine i would assume that he knows enough to believe the nametag pricing has remained perfectly justifiable), so this could be something worth rebutting-- while also being something to learn from as a result ^^
i will now sit here excitedly looking up at the notification counter hoping that typing all this had some kind of vaguely positive consequence (or at least enables an interesting conversation) <3
Welcome to Achromalia
Remember that osu! began as a simple port of a Nintendo DS game ran by one person. The game's way to fund itself is much less invasive than other games and the player base is also quite a lot smaller than other games.
i kinda wish it wasnt like this;; or at least, it would be more efficient if i understood how to simplify things (while still being able to express sincere impressions/thoughts/reasoning) according to how each person communicates and then only did this with people that didnt view it as particularly unusual/special, or more unfortunately, burdensome to readYmir wrote:
Welcome to Achromalia
maybe it's because these thoughts might be saturated with more subjects/conjecture/thoughts/opinions than necessary? idk, i just usually hear that its too much for people
if its a neutral acknowledgment, whether as a way to normalize/identify the way i type as simply being something to expect, thats ok and i would clarify that my opinions arent in opposition to that
if its a positive compliment, thats understandable too and i am glad/grateful when it does seem to contribute something for someone or at least appear interesting, i just have awkward insecurities around it and with short comments like these i tend to be much more unsure what the function/intent/sentiment is and in moments of doubt i commonly retreat to self-scrutiny
i'm unsure if this is in response specifically to the original poster or if it also has the posts above in mind... in either case, thats also a good point insofar as its highly reasonable/understandable that people should be able to be appreciative for what we have, especially with the consideration given to how fans of media in general often ask for more from individual/private creators than those creators can afford or tolerate/endure (as opposed to conglomerates/corporations or other form of company with wider and more powerful influence), which may be discouraging/exhausting, and may be summarized by the sentiment of "give an inch and they take a mile"Winnyace wrote:
Remember that osu! began as a simple port of a Nintendo DS game ran by one person. The game's way to fund itself is much less invasive than other games and the player base is also quite a lot smaller than other games.
that being said, it seems like it would still be fair to at least imagine or discuss it in places like these forums, provided that it would be safe to infer that it's not a form of direct harassment toward creators in any way-- although i assume that might not be relevant or representative of what you mean to say, this is more of a "just in case" addition to my reasoning and position on it
Apologies if the way I said that came off as an insult, because that wasn't my intention.
It was more of a compliment as well as a neutral statement; its just a fact that you type the way you do, and I was conveying that.
Personally I like that about you, gives you character and makes you seem a little more transparent in your thought process. No need to change I'd say.
I guess 'Welcome to Achromalia' was, in the end, a way of saying that this is to be expected, or that there's more of this where it came from
It was more of a compliment as well as a neutral statement; its just a fact that you type the way you do, and I was conveying that.
Personally I like that about you, gives you character and makes you seem a little more transparent in your thought process. No need to change I'd say.
I guess 'Welcome to Achromalia' was, in the end, a way of saying that this is to be expected, or that there's more of this where it came from