I would like to be able to play 2 chars at same time from 1 account. To be able to do this, I would have to pay double subscription, but I would also have to buy the expansion 2 times. It would for DBG be like that I have 2 accounts, giving them double the income. And for me as player, I would be able to take missions, with 1 account only
so what is the difference between what you are saying and just having 2 accounts. both ways you have 2 toons being controlled and paying for 2 accounts. what is the big difference you want it from one account?
When this has been brought up before various tweaks to the idea included: -2nd character on the account acts like a merc aka mindless AI box. So you don't control it per se, just tell it how to act and enjoy the benefit. -2nd character on the account is a simple-box so one hotbar is added to your regular UI for the 2nd character and it otherwise acts like a merc/pet. benefits: not switching between accounts, /claim and account things earned apply to both characters, 2nd character slot could be swapped for the main at any point (likely a 10 minute refresh on that or something) providing far more customization of how you play as you gear/AA/level the 2nd character(s). But such a feature would have to cost a monthly sub otherwise it could reduce income from boxing. One avenue to keep boxing appealling is only allow the main character to have a merc not the 2nd character. Depending on the programming investment this idea could be impossible or good $$$ ?
What would be cool would be something like a 'family plan'. e.g. The Smith family own 3 accounts, all All Access and all have the same expansions (just to keep things easy.) Currently, they can play 1 character from account 1, 1 character from account 2 and 1 character from account 3. With the 'family plan' they would be able to play a total of 3 characters from any of the accounts. e.g. 1 character from account 1 and 2 characters from account 2, or 3 characters from account 3, or any combination.
How could DBG make money of this, and how could they have costs or loose revenue? Boil it down to that, where DBG and players have an upside, with minimal tech debt, and you have a proposal
Adding a plan to run multiple accounts with reduced cost would entice me to keep a sub year round instead of only running my six subs a few months after each expansion release, but I can't imagine they'd make enough money to do the dev / support work to add that. Plus then they'd have to police people trying to game the system, which would be annoying.
It's been stated in the past that this is an intriguing idea, but likely too costly from tech side. I cannot find the post, but I believe it was Prathun.
1. All the accounts need to be All Access. Could even limit it to Subscribers using a yearly plan. - That gives them guaranteed revenue. 2. Could even make this a 'premium' option. An extra couple of $ a month added to the subscription price.
I'm with Strongbus here, I don't see the difference between what you are proposing and having 2 separate accounts. It would cost you the same amount of money and accomplish the same thing. The only benefit I could see is the Vet AA's, if you only have 1 account with Vet AA's you would gain the benefit of having them on your box as well.
Current system: 2 accounts. E.g. Cleric and Warrior on account 1. Bard and Shaman on account 2. You can only play Cleric and Bard or Cleric and Shaman or Warrior and Bard or Warrior and Shaman. Proposed system: 2 accounts. E.g. Cleric and Warrior on account 1. Bard and Shaman on account 2. You couple play all the options of the current system, plus you could play Cleric and Warrior or Bard and Shaman. Basically, 2 accounts allows 2 'active' characters, regardless of which account they are on.
It would allow for more permutations of mixing and matching for boxing. Especially on old accounts where people didn't put thought in to pairings when creating new characters. This suggestion provides players more flexibility in a revenue nuetral way. The tricky part would be in enforcing expansion access if you're paying for more concurrent logins than you've paid for the current expansion. For that reason, I don't see this ever happening.
The original proposal was :- So one proposed account would cost the same amount as 2 current ones. Other than vet AAs (depending on account age) there would be no real benefit. If they was a reduced cost for running multiple toons from a single account then I can see an advantage. I don't see DBG putting in resources to set something like this up.
yeah the original proposal of this thread doesn't detail out how it is better/different than just boxing two accounts. When account to account transfers work... you could even roll the vet awards character on the old account and move it to the new account. How do I know this? because I oopsed long ago and moved my oldest characters to a much newer account. However, versions of this idea have been floated before (and even relatively recently) that would provide various benefits to the player assuming the extra cost (has to = a monthly sub to run the 2nd character) would make it worthwhile for Daybreak. Most of those proposals equate to easymode boxing for dummies. I don't say dummies in a negative way. I myself would pay for the 2nd character that I can control like a pet (simple UI) but gear/AA and switch to if I want to for an extra sub fee a month. Real boxing wasn't fun for me and I was pretty lousy at it (granted my rigs would lag when I tried in the past).
Simply limit it so that all 'linked' accounts must be 'All Access' (maybe even restrict it to yearly subscriptions) and must all have the latest expansion.
I would just like to be able to play one char on my account and have my baz trader trader up at the same time. that would be nice. or have a buyer and trader up on one char at the same time. Andarriel
