Hello everyone. In the last 20 years games prices have not increased even remotely close to inflation as you can tell because a PlayStation game isn't like $180. So thinking about subscription fee's being only $15 a month being literally being the price of a big mac meal these days, do you think that the company will make enough money to not introduce cosmetics for cash in a cash shop?
Do you think a Stormhammer type server or servers would work? ($50 a month server EverQuest had where gm's were more active but also here would not allow any cash shop at all including cosmetics or anything, at least on those servers)
I have no doubts that VR will keep the monthly subscription at $14.95 but it doesn't reflect the reality of inflation. Realistically, $24.99 is more accurate a monthly fee, taking into account inflation since 1999. But will VR do it? No. Why not? Fear, mostly. Fear that people will avoid the game because it isn't $14.95 a month. People don't avoid driving cars even though gas now is >$4.00 a gallon compared to ~$1.00 in 1999. People don't balk at spending >$100 a month for cable TV, or monthly mobile phone fees..but a monthly subscription to a game being more than $14.95? OMG..what a travesty!! Bull#%$@%.
People don't think about the economics of it either, a per-hour cost. An average month has 730 hours so if you could play 24/7, you're pay $0.02 per hour. If you only played, say, 40 hours in a month, your hourly cost would be just $0.37/hour. At $24.99 a month it would be $0.62/hour.
If the gameplay is engaging, is challenging, is compelling, is interesting, is complex and exciting..if the game makes you think about it every minute of the day, makes you stare at the clock at work counting down the hours and minutes until you get home so you can play? That game would definitely be worth the $24.99 a month.
Now, as for a Stormhammer type server? If the subscription stays at the meager, and stupidly underpriced/undervalued $14.95 but a Stormhammer was offered at $24.99 with all the perks and benefits associated with it? It would be an even greater steal in terms of monthly cost. But if the base subscription were $24.99 and a Stormhammer type server was >$30.00 a month? It would really depend upon the perks, but as we all well know, there will always be some percentage of the playerbase who will pay for such things.
Hate to be that guy but searching the forum for "subscription" will bring up a ton of similar threads.
Also it can be better to get 100,000 players at $15 then 60,000 at $25 even if the same end result. More players in game means a healthier server pops and a perceived health that makes new players join.
As is often the case - this question is influenced by the spectre of microtransactions. The dreaded in-game store.
If Pantheon has one, and they have not ruled the possibility out, higher population means more store revenue so the benefits of a lower subscription fee to them are obvious. If not - it is simply a question of how much they can make on each subscription. If they would lose money running the game at $15 per month (less for three month, six month or one year subscriptions I would assume) they have no choice. Either the subscription costs more, they have the in-game store or both.
Subs are a numbers game. You want casual players to maintain subs. Your hardcore gamers are going to be there and you can obviously charge them more, but the real money comes by keeping the very casual player subbed.
At 14.95/mo, you would make the same amount gross raising your subs to 24.95 and losing just under 40% of your subscriber base. Could the game raise its sub to $25 and not lose 40% year over year? That's the only question that matters.
This game WILL NOT be amazing to everyone that plays it. We are all fans for the most part and even we can't agree on what would make this game amazing, so average Joe will be torn on whether he keeps his sub year over year. If the cost is negligible, he will be less likely to cancel the sub, even if he only plays a couple times a month. If you can keep him playing for 6 months to a year, he will be less likely to cancel the sub and lose everything he has worked to gain. Gamers that think the game is amazing and can't wait to play don't matter in the world of finance.
My 2c
1) Price must be in line with other similar products.
2) As others have noted, and things have been hinted, that there is an emotional value to the charge. At a certain price, people will keep the account open even if they are not playing.
Think of Planet Fitness, I know many people who open a membership but never close it because "They might start going again" and "$10 isn't much".
The hardcore players are essentially being subsidized by the casual gamers, based on resources used.
Vandraad is right. Public perception of a reasonable MMO subscription fee is low. I suspect this is mostly because that was the going price when cash shops took over, so our perception is stuck in time.
I wouldn't be opposed to a multi-tier subscription provided it didn't feel like a cash shop. Perhaps your monthly fee is based on total hours allowed. This would keep subscription cheap for those with limited time (and keep them subscribed since it's easier to justify maintaining a subscription you can't use much if it's cheap). Or a defacto tier system where there's a low $9.99 subscription and then you charge to add extra blocks of hours for the month, with a ceiling price for unlimited.
I continue to wonder why popular streaming/ subscription services don't have s gaming bundle. Imagine if a service like Netflix offered a gaming bundle that was only a small additional charge for access to subscription games. It would be great for the games and it would help the services retain subscribers. Shows may be binge-watched, but games are always on and you can't run out of episodes.
Median wages in the US have barely kept pace with inflation since 1999 and the lower end of wages haven't even come close to keeping pace. And that's not even speaking to the huge cost of living increases over the last two decades.
Pantheon is entertainment, not a necessary service. Having a subscription cost at all will already exclude a huge number of potential gamers across the world. I think Pantheon should have a subscription so that VR can offer us a high level of service (such as actual GMs/Guides and new content releases,) but VR should keep the sub as low as they are able so as to include as many people as is financially possible. Plus, if I understand how Amazon servers work correctly, then once you pass a certain threshold the cost of additional users becomes almost negligible meaning that more and more of a user's subscription fee is profitable.
Ideas like premium servers are definitely something they should explore, though.
I suspect that the average gamer either doesn't have a good understanding of what they would truely be willing to pay for something OR are easily manipulated into seeing similar price-points differently based on poor reading comprehension, herdmentality, or phrasing/marketing. While other factors are at play with these posts below, I asked two similar question of r/MMORPG not two days apart and received VERY different results...
1) https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/wl8mzh/would_you_be_willing_to_pay_1927mo_to_play_a/
Would you pay $23-$26/mo. after box price for a MMO with no Cash Shop/MTX. 5 of 27 Unique Commenters with an understandable answer (19%) said YES.
2) https://www.reddit.com/r/MMORPG/comments/wk99ij/seeking_community_input_on_a_dynamic_boxsub/
Would you pay $19-$27/mo. for a quality MMO with no Cash Shop/MTX. 327 of 482 of Poll Voters (68%) said YES.
Basing off inflation is a poor metric, it should be based of median household income adjusted for inflation.
Median household income (adjusted for inflation) in 2000 was $63,292 where median household income in 2020 was $67,521. That is an increase of ~6%. So 14.99 adjusted for a modern household would be $15.89.
Prices of many things have changed but for the most part relative income and spendable excess funds have not, people don't have much more now to throw at things than they did back in the day yet we all seem to have so many more subs/bills pulling at us from Netflix/Game Pass/all the other streaming stuff and even phone + utility bills adding all sorts of charges.
(Also Blizzard was making billions of dollars from subs alone for WoW before they even added cash shops, so it isn't like those are or were required)
I have no doubt VR will give this considerable attention, when the time is right. Inflation since 2005, in the U.S., has been approximately 52%. That would make the $14.99/month about $22.78 currently. Sadly inflation is running a bit high right now, and we are a couple or three years from launch, so I'm thinking the $24.99/month price would be reasonable. VR would hopefully give the option to buy in bulk, say $19.99 per month if you buy a year in advance. $20-25 per month is cheap to me, but then I will pay extra to not have to watch commercials too. I would pay double that for a vigilant gm force to keep gold sellers and bots out.
Another quick thought. Everybody thinks about their situation, as well they should. The developers are not immune to inflation. They too want to eat, clothe their children and buy nice stuff. This game will pay for their livelihoods. If you don't raise subscriptions you are telling them make do with the same salary from 2005 (when EQ bumped subscription to 14.99). This is simplistic of course, some costs may have come down in running games, but just remember that money from gaming helps them pay their bills too.
Leave it 15$ and give me a cash shop full of non sense cosmetic items. As long as this doesn't lead to 0 cosmetic items in regular gameplay I have no problem. I am a tmog shop slave. I want it to have it I love it to have it. I think shops have lead to plenty of extra income and that is largely why subs are fine at 15$. If I buy 1 extra item per month I'm already paying a 20$ sub in most cases. You don't scare anyone raising the costs even though as others have mentioned it would be a logical increase. And, you still get increased income. Not to mention one person with even more disposable income can by a glut of items and compensate for the next 50 who buy 0 heh.
I'm anti cash shop. I like tailoring. In game it adds to my experience to be able to craft in town clothing, fancy duds for the bards (i'm looking at you Kumu), fine dresses for the ladies. It gives me a market and increases the number of things I can do in game. Selling cosmetics means the team is taking their efforts away from content creation, essentially trading my enjoyment for additional income. Just bill me monthly, put all your effort into game content. There are already so many games out there with cash shops. The entire premise of Pantheon was "old school" play, a niche game that harkens back, not more of the same, as mmo's have become.
Im not sure how well tiers of subscriptions would work these days.
However I am not adverse to paying some more per month. People can do the math all they want to prove one way or another and talk about the existense or non-existence of whales let alone the foolishness of chasing after the very very narrow margin of that clientelle and depending on it for sustainability, Or the only proven support for an average of $350 spent a year on cash shops skins (Mom! can I get a spiderman suit! pleeeeeeez!?). How long does the thrill of the suit last, it's only 25 bucks.
I'm ok with paying 75-85% more than the established norm.
It's kind of ridiculous to claim that the cost of a sub needs to keep up with inflation, when the cost of other forms of entertainment don't really follow.
Here are some monthly subscription fees for common entertainment mediums:
Netflix (Basic): $9.99
Hulu (no ads): $12.99
Amazon Prime: $14.99/$139 ($11.59 avg monthly)
EA PlayPro: $14.99/$99.99 ($8.33 avg monthly) - allows you access all games in EA's catalog
World of Warcraft: $14.99/$13.99/$12.99 (1/3/6 months, respectively)
If inflation was a factor at all you would expect those fees to be $20+. While some of those have increased over the years, it obviously isn't inflation that sets the price of entertainment commodities, it's customer expectations. Setting the sub for a new MMO out of range of what customer expectations are is going to turn a lot of people off, no matter how necessary it might be perceived to be. I suspect VR anticipates this, and we can probably expect a sub fee in the range of $10-15 monthly at different packages, similar to what Blizzard does for WoW.
@eunichron EA and wow have cash shops... that exactly proves the point of inflation but to combat it they are selling items over raising the price Per month on the sun. I'm asking if people would just pay more per month to avoid those cash shops.
Taledar said:@eunichron EA and wow have cash shops... that exactly proves the point of inflation but to combat it they are selling items over raising the price Per month on the sun. I'm asking if people would just pay more per month to avoid those cash shops.
That isn't the reason for cash shops. WoW was pulling in billions a year on subs alone before they added a cash shop for more profit.
Folks have covered the issues I think. Inflation not a good measure. Entertainment like movies, TV and games has changed radically over the years. Much more convenient and cheaper in general.
Personally, I would pay £25 happily and, yes, would pay more for active GMs and no cash shop, loot boxes, MTX or the like.
I think part of the low subs issue is people having less, or quite variable, play time. Whether it's overall 'cheap' or not, it feels bad to pay a sub on the months you might not be playing much, so a low sub is less 'bad'.
If you had a £50 monthly sub, you'd have the hassle of trying to bunch up your play time and then unsubscribe for breaks, or the annoyance of paying a lot for nothing some months.
Maybe there should be an option of paying by the hour (perhaps with upper and lower limits)?
Umm, yeah inflation increases the cost of things. Companies will absorb some of those costs, if possible, to maintain customer base. They will also, raise prices, if their costs increase they must increase their costs, or they can downsize their commodity, ever seen something you buy at the store now sold in a smaller size? Or they can open a cash shop in their game. Personally I'd rather pay the higher subscrition fee. If VR feels they can recover their costs, pay their salaries, and pay back their investors (those folks do want their money back, and then some) at $14.99 per month then that will be the subscription price. Inflation isn't some mythological beast, it's real and after a couple of decades it seems to be a bit silly to keep clinging to $14.99/month as though it were written in stone for all eternity.
Now if you would prefer a cash shop and holding at $14.99, or hell, no fee at all, and a no holds barred cash shop that's your choice, and you should certainly express your opinion so VR can use that information when it comes time to evaluate how they will get reimburse for their game. Me, I want no cash shop whatsoever, and am willing to pay a higher monthly fee for that, just so VR knows...
Two Options
$14.95 a month
$29.95 a month and you automatically get into future Play Test Servers, Pantheon 'lootbox' delivered to you twice a year(T-Shirts, Hoodies, Artbook, Figurines, Mousepad, Mug, Cap, Screensavers, etc.), Automatic entrance into yearly raffles to get to name new race, NPC, POI, submit a skill/disposition. Front of the line in GM tickets.
All the above are incentives for those who want it. I, however, would just pay the $29.95 and want none of the perks(maybe the GM perk though), just so I can support the game and not have to worry about cash shops.
Inflation may have skyrocketed, but the wages have not. Maybe if wages ever catch up with inflation we could talk about increasing gaming subscriptions. Until then you would be better off adding a patreon for people who want to voluntarily send VR more money if you don't want a cosmetic shop.
I'd argue at least with a cosmetic shop you get *something* in the game for the extra voluntary money you would be sending them making it easier to justify the extra spending but I know at least on these forums I am in the minority there. I personally wouldn't subscribe to a patreon but would buy a fun cosmetic that I would get (hopefully) years of use from. Extra content/round tables/whatever would probably be worth it for some to pay for a patreon though.
If you want a massively multiplayer game it has to be at a pricepoint that is massively available to everyone. Remember that everyone just got a huge paycut after covid and the recession that is here, putting more in a situation that adding anything extra to their gaming/fun budget may be out of the question.
Iksar said:Taledar said:@eunichron EA and wow have cash shops... that exactly proves the point of inflation but to combat it they are selling items over raising the price Per month on the sun. I'm asking if people would just pay more per month to avoid those cash shops.
That isn't the reason for cash shops. WoW was pulling in billions a year on subs alone before they added a cash shop for more profit.
WoW was never making "billions" on subs a year. Only after they added the shops did they crest the big B. Make the Sub $14.95 and add the cosmetic shop like we all know they will. I have said this for years, they will have a shop no matter what they say or the game will die. End of story.