That's a fair point, however WoW stayed at the ~$15.00/mo sub model, correct? I wonder how true that would be if it were a ~$30.00/mo model? If I, at 14, asked my dear ol' ma to spend $30.00 a month on a video game for me, she'd have laughed in my face.
I do concede your point, though.
Yea, if it's $30/month then they should probably give those VIP's a lifetime subscription.
I can do between $10-20/month. But anything more than that and I might not be a subscriber.
I get the idea of trying to support the game, but if it needs a consistent $30/month from people to stay alive and keep it fresh and updated, then it probably shouldn't be alive in the first place.
Games are suppose to be affordable for everyone. And with $30 a month you can just throw down the full year on a different game and buy an account that's already almost end game.
Tralyan said:That's a fair point, however WoW stayed at the ~$15.00/mo sub model, correct? I wonder how true that would be if it were a ~$30.00/mo model? If I, at 14, asked my dear ol' ma to spend $30.00 a month on a video game for me, she'd have laughed in my face.
I do concede your point, though.
It's also a different day and age online gaming wise since the heyday of EQ as well. Back then, the concept of paying to play a game you already bought was not as commonly known or expected as it is today. It's hard to speak for who will spend what... and I don't know that decisions to spend cash are always based purely on finances. Without delving too deeply into societal issues, more and more we are becoming a society that pays for our kids activities and entertainment, and less of a society that boots them out of the house and tells them to be back before it's dark.
In that light, a gaming sub is, I believe, more accepted by parents than it was 15 - 20 years ago... and more of them will pay for it without thinking the IDEA of a game subscription is outrageous. For example, I have two kids, and I don't think twice about funding their subs and mine. I play with them when we happen to be playing the same game.
More and more, it's the new normal.
Iksar said:Household income is pretty much the same it was back in 1999 yet the cost of almost everything in peoples lives has risen noticeably. Asking for much more now is likely to be harder for many than it was back then.
True statement. But priorities have shifted dramatically as well. Technology in general has become so integral to everyday life that paying into it has as well. I remember thinking how ridiculous the notion of paying $50 + $10/month was in 1999. Now I do that for my whole family, for games I rarely even log into, pay $150/month for cable, $15/month for netflix, $150/month for multiple cell phones, $100/month for internet... And that's just the stuff I have in my house. I know people that have twice that and more. 25 years ago any 50 year-old would laugh at you for suggesting any of these things be paid out every single month. Today 50 year olds do it as a matter of course. Its just the way the world works now, with more and more aspects of entertainment going to a subscription model. Kids don't even blink at it because it's the norm.
Iksar said:Household income is pretty much the same it was back in 1999 yet the cost of almost everything in peoples lives has risen noticeably. Asking for much more now is likely to be harder for many than it was back then.
It really is hard to say.
I've coached youth sports for 17 years (basketball). I spent almost all of that time coaching both CYO and AAU - with the AAU teams travelling all over the northeast - Pennsylvania, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Vermont... My sons both played soccer year round. Across those years it's safe to say I've seen thousands of kids on courts and fields. In each and every case, families are spending (literally) hundreds of dollars for their kids to participate on each team - with many kids playing on two and sometimes three different teams at the same time. That is NOT an exaggeration.
I have coached, as a head or assistant coach, over 40 teams over the span of those 17 years.
If there is one thing I can say unequivocally, it is this: Youth sports has become big business.
Your average tournament fee for 3-4 games is $500-$600 per team (or more). Some tournaments draw 150 - 200 teams (or more). Small tournaments are 30 - 40 teams. Every weekend in season for a particular sport there are DOZENS of tournaments you can choose to take your team to. This is happening all over the country.
We have had poor kids on our teams. We have had rich kids on our teams. I'm as sure as I can be that the same is true for all of the other programs out there. So what is my point? It's what I said before. Parents paying for their kids activities and entertainment... and they seem to be doing so regardless of their particular financial situation. I don't have any real data in front of me (analytics) that tell me what those parents will or won't pay for... but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they paid for activities in the house (games) as readily as they pay for activities out of the house.
@Wandidar - Oh god yeah. I remember playing little league when I was a kid and my mom being irritated with paying $100 a season. My sons have both played competitive travel hockey since they were 5, and that's $2000/season, not including 4 out of state tourneys, each approaching $1000 per tourney after hotels/flights/rental cars/fees/etc. And it's not like everyone is rich. One family the dad drives a snowplay/wrecker and the mom is a middle school teacher. Another family the dad is a HVAC installer and the mom stays at home. But we all find ways to finance the sport for our kids.
Feyshtey said:@Wandidar - Oh god yeah. I remember playing little league when I was a kid and my mom being irritated with paying $100 a season. My sons have both played competitive travel hockey since they were 5, and that's $2000/season, not including 4 out of state tourneys, each approaching $1000 per tourney after hotels/flights/rental cars/fees/etc. And it's not like everyone is rich. One family the dad drives a snowplay/wrecker and the mom is a middle school teacher. Another family the dad is a HVAC installer and the mom stays at home. But we all find ways to finance the sport for our kids.
Yup. Youth sports is DEFINITELY big money. There are some guys who have made a career (which, no joke, nets them low to mid 6 figure salaries) doing nothing but running tournaments. If you look at your average AAU basketball tournament... let's say the entry fee is $500 a team and they have 200 teams. They START with an income of $100,000 for a two day tournament. Then they charge admission, sell tee shirts, run concessions. I'm certain that brings in another boatload of cash.
Now look at their expenses. They rent gym space. SOMETIMES they pay refs, and SOMETIMES they don't. There is a very smart guy who runs tournaments all across the northeast who has "official clinics" at all of his tournaments - which means officials in the area he has the tournament come and get graded, etc... for high school. It's good for the tournaments becasue you have 3 officials on each court who are, in turn, being monitored and rated by one or two more. Typically good officiating in those games.
He runs, I think, 5 or 6 of those a summer. You do the math.
Wandidar said:Your average tournament fee for 3-4 games is $500-$600 per team (or more). Some tournaments draw 150 - 200 teams (or more). Small tournaments are 30 - 40 teams. Every weekend in season for a particular sport there are DOZENS of tournaments you can choose to take your team to. This is happening all over the country.
We have had poor kids on our teams. We have had rich kids on our teams. I'm as sure as I can be that the same is true for all of the other programs out there. So what is my point? It's what I said before. Parents paying for their kids activities and entertainment... and they seem to be doing so regardless of their particular financial situation. I don't have any real data in front of me (analytics) that tell me what those parents will or won't pay for... but it wouldn't surprise me at all if they paid for activities in the house (games) as readily as they pay for activities out of the house.
True, though I feel I hear just as many parents now as I remember when I was a kid that write off games as a waste of time in favor of kids going outside or otherwise doing the things they did as a kid. At my office there is a guy who won't let his kid play games for more than an hour unless he is involved in sports/outdoor activities (I suspect he is an extreme case though).
Crazy to me that people pay so much for sports when I look at financial numbers for the U.S. like 6 in 10 not having even $500 in savings.
Wandidar said:Yup. Youth sports is DEFINITELY big money. There are some guys who have made a career (which, no joke, nets them low to mid 6 figure salaries) doing nothing but running tournaments. If you look at your average AAU basketball tournament... let's say the entry fee is $500 a team and they have 200 teams. They START with an income of $100,000 for a two day tournament. Then they charge admission, sell tee shirts, run concessions. I'm certain that brings in another boatload of cash.
Now look at their expenses. They rent gym space. SOMETIMES they pay refs, and SOMETIMES they don't. There is a very smart guy who runs tournaments all across the northeast who has "official clinics" at all of his tournaments - which means officials in the area he has the tournament come and get graded, etc... for high school. It's good for the tournaments becasue you have 3 officials on each court who are, in turn, being monitored and rated by one or two more. Typically good officiating in those games.
He runs, I think, 5 or 6 of those a summer. You do the math.
Yup. Same with hockey. And then add in the stay to play racket they have with the hotels, where you have to stay in the hotel the tournament has arranged for you or they disallow the team to play in the playoffs if you get that far, and they jack up the hotel fees with a kickback to the tourney organizers.
And for the parent fees, you can't forget the equipment costs. My younger son is a goalie, so there's $200 a pop for catcher and blocker, $100 for the stick (which gets broken way too often), $600-$1000 for the leg pads, $400 for the helmet, $500 for skates ... on and on and on...
But back on topic, parents are willing to take out second mortgages for sports. I don't see them batting an eye for a $20+ monthly sub. Hell, it's a great thing to hold over the kid's head. "Bring that grade up or Pantheon sub gets canceled.".
Maybe the compromise is a tiered system? $15/mo for base access. $25 gets you extra perks. I just hate to see it get overly complicated. Any cash shop is a bad idea. It starts out with cosmetic stuff only. Next, it moves to minor 'quality of life' perks, but nothing game-breaking. Finally it becomes full-blown P2W. The playerbase should resist ANY kind of cash shop imo.
Mordac said:Maybe the compromise is a tiered system? $15/mo for base access. $25 gets you extra perks. I just hate to see it get overly complicated. Any cash shop is a bad idea. It starts out with cosmetic stuff only. Next, it moves to minor 'quality of life' perks, but nothing game-breaking. Finally it becomes full-blown P2W. The playerbase should resist ANY kind of cash shop imo.
Almost all of us agree that an in-game cash store would be terrible. Probably a similar number foam at the mouth at an overt pay-to-win system which a tiered subscription system would clearly be if you got in-game benefits for the extra money (and why pay more if you didn't?)
But think of what can be done with careful positioning and spin (not dishonesty - just wording things quite carefully).
1. I think it highly likely that a store that was on the website and not in the game would be less likely to arouse instant hostility. Most of us are used to subscription games having options to pay for things like server transfers, change of names, change of gender, change of race, and the like. People would object item by item for example saying that a name change or server change option allows bad people to hide their history but we wouldn't see the foam at the mouth reaction an in-game store would generate. If it had cosmetic items people would say that this is the first step to adding non-cosmetic items but overall the acceptance would still be higher than with an in-game store.
2. Tiered subscription is a bit harder to spin but far from impossible. You position the highest cost option as being the basic subscription plan. Anything cheaper is subscription-lite - a way to let people that can't afford the full game or want to try it out for a while on a less gimped basis than the free trial is likely to be. Perhaps the cheapest version has some restrictions on grouping or guild membership or chat but not as severe as the free trial. Perhaps mounts are a bit slower. Perhaps your name appears in a "cheap loser" typeface or color. Voila we don't have a pay-to-win expensive version we have an expanded beefed-up free trial as the cheaper version.
fancy said:Yea, if it's $30/month then they should probably give those VIP's a lifetime subscription.
I can do between $10-20/month. But anything more than that and I might not be a subscriber.
I get the idea of trying to support the game, but if it needs a consistent $30/month from people to stay alive and keep it fresh and updated, then it probably shouldn't be alive in the first place.
Games are suppose to be affordable for everyone. And with $30 a month you can just throw down the full year on a different game and buy an account that's already almost end game.
lol
That is horrible logic. Essentially if something costs beyond some arbitrary threshold you've made up, it shouldn't exist?
And all the while people drink and smoke and have a car payment they can't afford and spend $5/day on coffee. If the difference of $15/MONTH for something that you could spend 40+ hours a month doing is a deal breaker then there's probably somethinge else you're doing wrong. People spend $60 on the new Wolfenstein game and play it for 10 hours and are done. You go to the movies and spend $15 for 2 hours. etc, etc, etc. $15 for dozens and dozens of hours of value is small price compared to so many other things we spend money on.
Mordac said:Maybe the compromise is a tiered system? $15/mo for base access. $25 gets you extra perks. I just hate to see it get overly complicated. Any cash shop is a bad idea. It starts out with cosmetic stuff only. Next, it moves to minor 'quality of life' perks, but nothing game-breaking. Finally it becomes full-blown P2W. The playerbase should resist ANY kind of cash shop imo.
I suspect the best option is $15/mo for full access with the option to allow players to pay whatever amount they wish per month at will. The affluent that want to give more toward something they love are free to do so, at best give them very basic perks like priority when logging in (in the event of queues) and VIP priority for any GM tickets.
I was thinking a good way to go about it is to make the yearly...or longest... subscription equal to 15.99$ a month and have the price go up for shorter subscriptions, That way people can still feel like they have the option to pay the industry standard or they can pay more monthly if they just want to try it out for a short time. The game can still be advertised at 15.99$ a month (with an asterisk *) which I think is important to stay competitive with other games .
Krixus said:lol
That is horrible logic. Essentially if something costs beyond some arbitrary threshold you've made up, it shouldn't exist?
And all the while people drink and smoke and have a car payment they can't afford and spend $5/day on coffee. If the difference of $15/MONTH for something that you could spend 40+ hours a month doing is a deal breaker then there's probably somethinge else you're doing wrong. People spend $60 on the new Wolfenstein game and play it for 10 hours and are done. You go to the movies and spend $15 for 2 hours. etc, etc, etc. $15 for dozens and dozens of hours of value is small price compared to so many other things we spend money on.
You make perfect sense, except fancy didn't make up the $15 figure. It has precedence, it's been in place for as long as MMOs have been around. Looking at it logically you should consider spending more, considering the hours of entertainment you'll likely get from Patheon. But, does VR want to be the first to challenge this axiom of the gaming industry? Can they afford to be?
dorotea said:Almost all of us agree that an in-game cash store would be terrible. Probably a similar number foam at the mouth at an overt pay-to-win system which a tiered subscription system would clearly be if you got in-game benefits for the extra money (and why pay more if you didn't?)
I see your point, and hadn't considered the prospect of tiered subs becoming P2W. It becomes the same slippery slope you get with cash shops and 'cosmetic' items. Best to stick with one flat rate.
Mordac said:dorotea said:Almost all of us agree that an in-game cash store would be terrible. Probably a similar number foam at the mouth at an overt pay-to-win system which a tiered subscription system would clearly be if you got in-game benefits for the extra money (and why pay more if you didn't?)
I see your point, and hadn't considered the prospect of tiered subs becoming P2W. It becomes the same slippery slope you get with cash shops and 'cosmetic' items. Best to stick with one flat rate.
It really depends on what the tiered model gets you...
For example, if what you got at a higher monthly price point was expansions included, plus access to expansion testing, plus perhaps some paid, private area on forums (like the VIP area or whatever)... that's in no way P2W.
Here's the million-dollar question:
Is $14.99 a month enough to provide us with the game we all want to play? A game that is maintained, sufficiently regulated (GMs), and free from the modern crap we all hate like cash shops. Is this enough of a revenue stream to encourage expansions and continued game development?
Those who argue the sub should be more than $15 clearly don't think so. But let me ask you: Why not? If every other subscription game gets by with this, why not Pantheon?
I don't have empirical evidence, but my impression is that the vast majority of subscription-based games these days are not running only on a $15/month subscription - but they're augmenting that with web-based cash shops, selling services such as character renames and account transfers, and so on.
I think too often in this thread our viewpoints have been polarized. We like to say "No cash shops! No kronos! No this! No that!" At the same time we talk about subscription fees and how going over the magical $15 will cost us players. Number of players is certainly paramount. A large portion of operating costs for MMOs are fixed - meaning that there's a minimum income you need to keep the lights on. Over and above that, more income allows for ongoing development, although a portion of that income will go into scaling the world for the increased number of players.
Obviously, our hope should be that we enough players are paying monthly subs that no more is needed. But, thinking responsibly, financial reality may mean that we need to think about a middle ground. What if a small cash/services shop would be needed? What principles should govern that? What would we be able to live with, even it it wasn't the ideal solution?
Mordac said:Here's the million-dollar question:
Is $14.99 a month enough to provide us with the game we all want to play? A game that is maintained, sufficiently regulated (GMs), and free from the modern crap we all hate like cash shops. Is this enough of a revenue stream to encourage expansions and continued game development?
Those who argue the sub should be more than $15 clearly don't think so. But let me ask you: Why not? If every other subscription game gets by with this, why not Pantheon?
It should be. If Pantheon can muster even 300k subs at $15 a month that would be $4.5 million a month from subs. Lets say they only get 40% share of that (1.8 million), then figure something like 40 employees all making 100k a year ($8,333 a month) which takes out about 333k but lets take that to 400k for good measure. That still leaves 1.4 million dollars a month for servers/investors/whatever other costs there may be.
Nephele said:I don't have empirical evidence, but my impression is that the vast majority of subscription-based games these days are not running only on a $15/month subscription - but they're augmenting that with web-based cash shops, selling services such as character renames and account transfers, and so on.
Honestly, I think they just do that because they can. Blizzard realized they could get away with a cosmetic shop selling mounts and cosmetic pets etc and ran with it so most others followed because why not milk your customers if they are willing to spend $20 dollars on a mount skin or $5 dollars on a cosmetic dress. They certainly weren't hurting for money on $15 a month.
Wandidar said:Mordac said:dorotea said:Almost all of us agree that an in-game cash store would be terrible. Probably a similar number foam at the mouth at an overt pay-to-win system which a tiered subscription system would clearly be if you got in-game benefits for the extra money (and why pay more if you didn't?)
I see your point, and hadn't considered the prospect of tiered subs becoming P2W. It becomes the same slippery slope you get with cash shops and 'cosmetic' items. Best to stick with one flat rate.
It really depends on what the tiered model gets you...
For example, if what you got at a higher monthly price point was expansions included, plus access to expansion testing, plus perhaps some paid, private area on forums (like the VIP area or whatever)... that's in no way P2W.
I just want to see a flat monthly fee, anything above $20 would be shooting themselves in the foot. If they want to be competitive it has to be around $15, and no matter what the devs say from a business standpoint they have to be competitive, WoW and FF are going to be around for a long time so to price yourselves above those would be suicide. No matter how you feel about WoW they have done a lot of things very well, even buying game time with in-game gold (I have not paid with my "real" money since) kept the old guard of WoW players playing. Currently I still have 10 months paid up for WoW with in-game gold, and while I don't pay for my subscription I do buy expansions.
I saw people saying they would be happy to pay $50, short term that would be good, but if new content was slow it would be the first sub I drop, also for that amount I would expect free expansions.
Definitely no tier systems. There's a forum post already about this https://www.pantheonmmo.com/content/forums/topic/1629/premium-content