Niien said:For the right game I would pay 50-100 a month easily. However I want others to play with, so a lower price is needed. However I would bet that 20-25 a month would easily be doable by a lot of others. Maybe multiple accounts per person/family could get a discount as well.
I would easily pay 20 or 25 a month if I knew the game had a healthy population. I like the idea of a discount for Multiple accounts or maybe a discount if you pay for a full year upfront so instead of 240 a year if you pay it all at once you pay 200 or something
Id gladly pay $20-$25 a month for a good game. Honestly im surprised that up to now its stayed at $15 a month despite the fact development costs have gone up, maintenance ... not to mention its ignored inflation. I think $25 a month is a good price point well within the range of most people's "entertainment budget."
However... I may be alone in this, but I think a payment model way too many developers overlook is the pay as you go method which used to be more common in Asian MMO's. Hear me out.
One of the most common anti-subscription arguments I have heard is something along the lines of, 'I dont like feeling like I HAVE to play or I lose money." That, IMO, is one of the (if not THE) only understandable disadvantages of the typical sub-model I have heard. Sell X hours for $Y up to a max of a full unlimited monthly sub and that excuse goes out the window. No one feels pressured to play or lose their money, everyone still has to play the game to get any item they want, no more free players to make money off of in a cash shop, all items can be obtainable (cosmetic or otherwise) by just playing the game the old fashioned way. Hardcore players can still pay a full sub to spend all month in the game. Busy this week? This month? Active duty? Found a female/male that actually wants to spend time with you for some reason? Abducted by aliens? Np! Take as long as you want you still have X hours left to play when you get back.
Not sure how many of you have experienced this method but I played KR Aion that way for a few months back before it NA release and it really didnt feel like I was constantly buying time... even the free 10-20 (or so) hours I got in the beginning lasted a fair amount of time. Played for about a week, 3-4 hours average, almost every day and was surprised it lasted me that long.
I always like the subscription thread , and one think bothers me when people say well if it cost it will turn people away . Well you have to question what type of people you want playing the game but that asside.
Anyone living in the real world put a real value on money , rather than the kid who gages it on how much their parents frown ....
I look at 10$ or 15$ and think how much time do I have to play for value for money and I guess if I play half an hour a week then I am more than getting my monies worth if I align it with most other forms of entertainment / Cinema / Going out.
I think that people need to start getting real at how much value you get out of a basic sub model and need to start with a reality check.
Other options can always be made available but the monthly sub for everything is the only check and balance you can lay on a Developer to stop them taking advantage, and know you are getting all the game has to offer.
While I would pay $30/mo for a premium old school experience with interactive GM events, it's just simply not feasible on the grand scale of things. As a veteran player who had those old school experiences, and someone with a job to support that, I could see paying it. But the bulk of players ultimately won't be our group of early adopters here. While the group here may have a hand in helping mold an amazing game, the average gamer who hops on the bandwagon 2 months before release will be the majority in the end, and that average gamer would scoff at anything above $15/mo sub and $60 for standard edition game. With $60 for the game and $15/mo it's totally acceptable imo to expect live GMs and Guides with occasional interactive events.
There are TONS of players out there who would work part time as guides and contribute to events.
malist said:
There are TONS of players out there who would work part time as guides and contribute to events.
Yeah I agree, I would and I did in EQ2 as a Guide.
I think Pantheon could follow an old EQesque model and be successful. Have pay tiers based on how long the person subscribed too, and adjust for inflation today:
24.99/month
21.99/3 month
18.99/6 months
14.99/year
Typically, if I'm incentivized, I'll always subscribe to the lower price/longer time if it's something I feel I'd even be remoted interested. I'd still prefer the box price + free month like EQ, but either way, with the free 10 levels that's proposed now, a player would have a good idea if and for how long they'd want to subscribe.
I'd also provide the option to pay all the total in a lump sum, or in monthly increments.
It seems like jacking the price up way above what every other subscription based game offers would be a turn-off for a lot of people. Adjusting for inflation sounds like a good idea except you will definitely be isolating potential players this way. Especially with how prevalent the free to play model is, going further up on the price is just really going to dissuade people.
Liav said:It seems like jacking the price up way above what every other subscription based game offers would be a turn-off for a lot of people. Adjusting for inflation sounds like a good idea except you will definitely be isolating potential players this way. Especially with how prevalent the free to play model is, going further up on the price is just really going to dissuade people.
Perhaps - some market research would definitely need to be done first. But, I think there wouldn't be as much backlash as long as the accepted going rate of 14.99 was offered in some form.
Krixus said:I'm a bit surprised that $15 is still the going rate, but VR has to make an exremely important business decision(and has). Being the first sub game to cost $20 or $25 a month might end up being a net negative.
I agree, especially when you consider that the fact that so many games have had 14.99-ish subscription fees has set a precedent. The community has "gotten used to" paying that amount, and it would be difficult to justify to that same community why paying $10 more per month is worth doing on their part.
While I'm one of group of people here who seem like they'd be willing to pay a bump in subscription cost over what's been the norm, you have to consider that it's likely to be a much more sound business decision to stick with that norm (appealing to a larger group of people); assuming they do go with a subscription model.
I think it's important to note that UO and EQ were largely frowned upon by gamers in general for having monthly fees, yet both ended up very successful. Eventually gamers saw the value in paying a subscription and WoW showed just how successful a game could get. The sub was $10.00 back in 1999, and it was $15.00 in 2006. So here's my question: why do gamers expect prices to stay exactly the same? Sort of like how games still cost $60 in 2017...they were about $50 even 20 years ago. Gamers complain about DLC and microtransactions but demand 'FREE' games (nothing is free) or $60 games (not keeping with inflation). Games today should be costing around $80 if the cost was keeping with inflation, subscription fees should be around $18 to $20 per month.
Yes we don't want to price the game out of the market, so charging more than $60 for the box would be risky. Leave that risk to some huge game studio. But I say the subscription fee could be raised so long as you explain to the customer they are getting a higher degree of service (actual GM presence). Also you are offering a game without microtransactions or P2W and that is very appealing to gamers. Some others have made a good point that being the first MMO to raise the fee in over a decade is risky...but then again do you really think you can offer superior service without charging more?
Ziegfried said:I think it's important to note that UO and EQ were largely frowned upon by gamers in general for having monthly fees, yet both ended up very successful. Eventually gamers saw the value in paying a subscription and WoW showed just how successful a game could get. The sub was $10.00 back in 1999, and it was $15.00 in 2006. So here's my question: why do gamers expect prices to stay exactly the same? Sort of like how games still cost $60 in 2017...they were about $50 even 20 years ago. Gamers complain about DLC and microtransactions but demand 'FREE' games (nothing is free) or $60 games (not keeping with inflation). Games today should be costing around $80 if the cost was keeping with inflation, subscription fees should be around $18 to $20 per month.
Yes we don't want to price the game out of the market, so charging more than $60 for the box would be risky. Leave that risk to some huge game studio. But I say the subscription fee could be raised so long as you explain to the customer they are getting a higher degree of service (actual GM presence). Also you are offering a game without microtransactions or P2W and that is very appealing to gamers. Some others have made a good point that being the first MMO to raise the fee in over a decade is risky...but then again do you really think you can offer superior service without charging more?
In 1999-2000 the price of storage was roughly $40-$50 per GB.
Today it's around $0.06.
In 1999-2000 the price of memory was roughly $3-$5 per MB.
Today it's around $0.00005 per MB.
In 1999-2000 the entire game engine had to be built from scratch. Every game had a proprietary engine.
Today there are multiple full blown game development platforms available as COTs applications, taking months or years off of development lifecycles.
In 1999-2000 every shard for an MMO was hosted on a cluster of physical servers, in a datacenter owned and operated by the game developer who was responsible for all hardware replacements due to failures, all patching, all monitoring, all security (physical and otherwise), and the on-going lifecycle management of upgrading equipment as it aged past supportability.
Today hundreds of servers can be spun up in a cloud provider for a fraction of the cost in capital investement to buy the equipment and maintain it / replace it over time. And most cloud services can include patching/monitoring/scanning/security as part of the paid service for a fraction of what it would cost to hire staff to do it at a studio-owned facility.
In 1999-2000 there were few programers or artists qualified or even interested in working on computer games. They were well compensated for their talents.
Today there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of schools with dedicated programs for digital art and game programming that are churning out eager youngsters willing to work for marginally above the poverty level in the US and abroad, and even work as unpaid interns 6-7 days a week, 12-14 hours a day. Not to mention the multiple free art and programming platforms and thousands of free online resources that allow a dedicated individual all the tools they need (except a computer) to break into the industry.
It's not a fair argument to say that the price of games should go up consistently, when the price of almost everything else in the industry consistently goes down. The exeption to this is perhaps the budgets for the games being notably higher. But this is offsite by the fact that the potential market base is exponentially larger, so the potential profit is as well.
Having said all that, I totally agree that paying a higher sub for a higher standard of engagement from the GM's is well worth it, and I'd totally pay for it. But that's a business decision, not a market-dictated necessity.
Fey are you sure the cost of making videogames has fallen? I've looked at the cost of making various MMOs and the development cost doesn't seem to be dropping, same goes for regular console titles. For example memory is cheaper but new games require a ton more memory. On the subject of lower labor costs I don't think most AAA game development companies pay their workers poverty level wages, in fact if you want good talent you end up paying a lot more than the market average. When you talk about unpaid interns do you really think that is the kind of staff VR is going to have? It is true server costs are lower and VR is using the Unity engine so yes there are cost reductions (good thing too or this project would have never happened). You seem to think games are cheaper to make than ever when all the statistics point the other direction unless you are talking indie games that use 16 bit graphics. I love those by the way, but that is not the kind of title Pantheon is going to be. Sure they are running lean by MMO standards but there is still a lot of expenses.
Modern games regularly cost over $50 million to make not even counting the big MMOs. Whether the argument is fair to increase to price of games depends on what has gone into developing said game, I can agree with what you said about that. MMOs are not known for being cheap to make though. Many of the newer MMOs are in the $100+ million range! Just to recoup the cost of development how many boxes would they need to sell at $60? How many subs at $15/month? Well over the amount that most MMORPGs get for subscribers...very few of them come anywhere near what WoW got. Even if the budget is extremely low such as $10 million that is still over 100,000 copies sold to cover development cost. Most game companies don't want to just cover costs either, they want to make a hefty profit.
Ziegfried said:Modern games regularly cost over $50 million to make not even counting the big MMOs. Whether the argument is fair to increase to price of games depends on what has gone into developing said game, I can agree with what you said about that. MMOs are not known for being cheap to make though. Many of the newer MMOs are in the $100+ million range! Just to recoup the cost of development how many boxes would they need to sell at $60? How many subs at $15/month? Well over the amount that most MMORPGs get for subscribers...very few of them come anywhere near what WoW got. Even if the budget is extremely low such as $10 million that is still over 100,000 copies sold to cover development cost. Most game companies don't want to just cover costs either, they want to make a hefty profit.
That all being true, and if the cost of development of all games has gone up so much, why is it that AAA titles are still being released at the $60 price point? Seems to me that's what I was paying many years ago. Also worth mentioning that AAA titles today have alot more on-going costs than before, like servers for multiplayer. Maybe DLC is how they pay for it? They also have the premium packages that includes extras, but I bet the majority of gamers still get the basic level.
Looking at the game list over at MMORPG.com, I'm surprised how few MMOs today are still following the subscription model. By far, most are F2P with cash shops. For some reason, that $15 figure is the magic number for subscriptions, going back many years. Going higher I'm afraid might price Pantheon out of the market.
I do, however want to make sure that they make enough money, not only to maintain the game but also to make a profit. I want them to be rewarded for their effort, and also that's will keep them in business for years, and keep the genre alive.
Mordac said: ... Going higher I'm afraid might price Pantheon out of the market. ...
Potentially being higher priced isn't going to be what reduces the target demographic below sustainability numbers. They might as well go higher, given the niche they're trying to fill. I'd be happy to pay a higher sub if it means they avoid a Pay2Win ItemsWithStats Cash Shop.
vjek said:Mordac said: ... Going higher I'm afraid might price Pantheon out of the market. ...Potentially being higher priced isn't going to be what reduces the target demographic below sustainability numbers. They might as well go higher, given the niche they're trying to fill. I'd be happy to pay a higher sub if it means they avoid a Pay2Win ItemsWithStats Cash Shop.
I would be fine paying more than $15/mo., especially if VR tells me that a higher subscription fee is what it costs to avoid a cash shop. I continue to think the no-cash-shop marketing argument is a good one. Tell customers that the higher subscription fee keeps microtransactions out of the game. I don't think there's a recent market precedent for this, but it seems like a straightforward value proposition that will make sense to much of the target audience.