Own Subscription service

[Scott Zodiac]

I don’t seem to understand the Own Broadcaster when it comes to subscription service.

 

I have over 90 pop for most areas in my home region, but the text that comes with the invest in a new broadcaster tells me it forecasts a loss at Big size. I make the most money if I have tiny size broadcasting everywhere. If I increase the coverage, my profit goes down! How can that work?

[liontamer]

I don’t seem to understand the Own Broadcaster when it comes to subscription service.

 

I have over 90 pop for most areas in my home region, but the text that comes with the invest in a new broadcaster tells me it forecasts a loss at Big size. I make the most money if I have tiny size broadcasting everywhere. If I increase the coverage, my profit goes down! How can that work?

 

I'm noticing the same.

[Sprout1883]

I am guessing its trying to say you wont get enough subscribers to cover the cost

[Scott Zodiac]

Just in British Isles:

Popularities: 96-95-84-97-82-92

 

Create new Internet PPV provider just for British Isles:

Tiny: 2,946 per month profit

Very Small: 2,466

Small: 1,986

Medium: 1,506

Big: 1,266

Very Big: 1,026

Huge: 786

Enormous: 546

 

What is the point in having a subscription broadcaster when I take in millions with a commercial broadcaster and would only make a grand with a subscription service?

 

I must be overlooking something.

[Adam Ryland]

If you scroll through the various coverage levels when creating a subscription broadcaster then you will see your profits are going down as you go up in coverage size because you're substantially increasing your costs each time you go up in size but your subscriber base is staying the same (as your popularity - and therefore potential subscriber base - isn't increasing). It'd be better to pick a higher size though because although you're making less money you're getting far more benefit in terms of potential exposure and therefore popularity growth.

 

If you're just after profits then a commercial broadcaster is generally going to be a far better choice.

[Scott Zodiac]

If you scroll through the various coverage levels when creating a subscription broadcaster then you will see your profits are going down as you go up in coverage size because you're substantially increasing your costs each time you go up in size but your subscriber base is staying the same (as your popularity - and therefore potential subscriber base - isn't increasing). It'd be better to pick a higher size though because although you're making less money you're getting far more benefit in terms of potential exposure and therefore popularity growth.

 

If you're just after profits then a commercial broadcaster is generally going to be a far better choice.

 

So a subscription broadcaster is similar to free-to-air? But with a couple of thousand swing between profits?

 

I’m guessing advertising profits aren’t configured into this as USPW run on Reverie and make 10+ million per month on Reverie.

[Deattribution]

The subscription broadcaster really feels a little underbaked, or rather non-intuitive. A commercial internet broadcaster in real life is going to on average make much less compared to a subscription based one, that's why there are so many internet sub services and much less ad based ones.

 

Commercial is going to lead to more viewers but the value per viewer is never going to average out to the 3-10 dollars per subscriber you get with a subscription. Where in the current game it seems subs = more viewers, and commercial = more money. That seems backwards.

 

IMO the scale in real life is -

PPV - most money, least viewrs.

Subs - a lot of money, average viewers.

Commercial - a lot of viewers, average money.

Free - most viewers, least money.

 

Obviously this is skewed by the high rates sports and live events earn on terrestrial/cable TV but with your own broadcaster being internet based it's a different situation.

 

Maybe the game already works in this fashion but from my playtime a subscription broadcaster appers to be the least appealing option.

 

In future iterations, I think it would be more accurate to have the sub broadcaster have much higher expenses but significantly higher payout however have it tied to both your popularity (to create the ceiling) and your momentum to simulate how many subscribers are actively engaged in your current happenings. So if your momentum dropped you could end up losing money due to the high cost (ie WWE is still popular but their current stuff is meh, however people would resub if things picked up) but if your product is hot it would pay big dividends.

[Adam Ryland]

That is the direction I'd likely go in if I was to redo it, yes.