Kilsin said:Two points to think about, though:
1) We are not a niche product.
2) "The answer is more complicated than you think but it is not something we are considering at this time".
On #1, I hope thats not the case. Any game that is marketed to the audience outside mainstream norms (i.e convenience features) is niche. And, Pantheon as originally proposed is niche - appealing to the gamers who want challenging mechanics that no longer have a home.
I get wanting to bring in a wider audience than EQ/VG vets, but that doesn't make the product any less niche, and, I don't think it would be wise to begin advertising it as such or you may begin to lose the very core audience you intended to grab in the first place.
I think it would be better to explain why XYZ mechanic is being used (and is a good thing) and it makes the product niche, or refreshingly different, than the opposite.
OakKnower said:Uhm....
Can we get a universal definition of niche please?
Also, todays niche could be tomorrow's AAA.
A few definitions fit:
Merriam-Webster:
d : a specialized market
Dictionary.com:
3. a distinct segment of a market.
5. pertaining to or intended for a market niche; having specific appeal: niche advertising.
Or in this case, Pantheon would be niche because it returns to a challenging, social, group-focused MMORPG - a return to the journey and virtual world versus the mainstream AAA solo quest hub/cash grab/lobby games.
And, you very well could be right (and I hope) that due to Pantheon's massive success, triple AAA companies change their focus from the garbage Mainstream MMOs today and return to quality challenging and social MMORPGs.
I find alignment there. Thanks for the effort Raidan! I have been of the assumption (and continue to be under that assumption) that Pantheon is a game that hearkens back to the first days of MMOs in most regards. I think companies saw a potential (one of many) in the medium and allowed the explosion of popularity to occur without particular critical thought about all possible directions the MMO could have evolved. I'm hoping that with technology as it is today only enhances Pantheon's vision rather than quashing that very special place.
Edit: Nervously waiting for Kilsin to clarify his meaning.
there has been talk within the community of charging for a premium server(s) but this is something we are not completely sold on either as it splits the community up and again, there would need to be a reason to charge more for certain servers. :)
Not sure what has been said about the server type so far, but would this be done in a way so that there is a premium server that players use and stay on forever, or are the servers going to be the tye where you can switch between them at will, and there will be a premium server that those players can go onto that will be reserved for the people who pay for it.
For example with the first one, FFXIV or BDO, where you pick a server that your character stays on for good, or for the second one, Wizard101 or Neverwinter, where you can switch servers at will to play alongside whoever you want, and they act more like instances or channels.
What would you be able or willing to pay for a monthly subscription for Pantheon.
/mic tap
Going to need more data.
For example, if the game launches and craters, as VG did, probably nothing.
If the game is amazing - $50/month is not out of the question.
To keep away the FTP kiddies, $50/month gladly.
If you told me in Mar 1999 (when I started paying to play EQ @ $15/month), that over 17 years later people would whine that MMO's should be $15/month (or FTP) I would not have believed you, yet here it is.
People playing these other so-called MMOs such as AA and BDO are paying large amounts, hundreds a month on their P2W addictions. I find it difficult to think people will struggle with $30+/month.
You can drop $15-20 in just 2 hours for a movie and snacks easily.
I easily spend $40 for the luxury of 4-5 hours of losing golf balls at my local muni.
People spend $70-100+ for cable/satellite TV per month and will watch that less than they will play a good MMO.
People easily spend 100's, even thousands monthly and yearly on their hobbies, collecting and other such past times. $30+/month for a game you might spend more time on than all of those other hobbies seems an easy sale.
Spending a few grand on a super game rig and then whining about games being too expensive is like putting kmart tires on your ferrari.
Sometimes you get out what you put in. Games made on the cheap have a tendancy to reflect that. Pay for quality, pay for content.
Don't build the race car and then skimp on the quality of your fuel.
I have pledged already, as I am sure most of you also have done. So I am financially commited to more than this current sub-group of $15/month posters probably are. Those of us putting our money where our mouths are do not want to see what may well be the last great gasp of a Brad-esqe MMO sputter out because of cheap people and millennial trolls that grew up thinking everything should be free for me.
/mic drop
For me I would like to see the monthly cost to be in the $15-$20 a month range. All expansions should be in the $30 to $50 range to purchase depending on the size of the expansion. No $100 collector editions.
Also after the 1st year I would like to see a optional secondary $20 a month sub that once each month you get a virtual or physical package from VR. The package would contain something different each month such as 2 or 3 pieces of concept art, a 1/2 hour long in depth dev diary, a 1/2 hour video of footage from inside the VR studio's, a small figurine model of a in game monster or npc. or a couple of pages that can be inserted into a binder from VR that gives more indepth back ground info on each monster in game. This way we can create our very own Pantheon "Monster Manual".
I think this idea would generate much more income for VR then by selling bloated "collector" editions of the game and expansions.
Raidan said:Kilsin said:Two points to think about, though:
1) We are not a niche product.
2) "The answer is more complicated than you think but it is not something we are considering at this time".On #1, I hope thats not the case. Any game that is marketed to the audience outside mainstream norms (i.e convenience features) is niche. And, Pantheon as originally proposed is niche - appealing to the gamers who want challenging mechanics that no longer have a home.
Pantheon targeting a niche playerbase was the biggest selling point for me, very concerned if theyre changing direction.
Kilsin said:Obliquity said:werzul said:Obliquity said:Kilsin said:what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?
A better product and customer support : )
well said and a good point. target audience is as important as market.
better quality = people willing to pay for it.
people that want the Mcdonalds experience, sate my immediate hunger, give it to me NOW - cant justify spending more than $1 on a burger. people that want/know quality, will readily spend much more than that for something better.
Like the old saying " You get what you pay for" : )
But that is my point exactly, what can we give in our game over a half a billion dollar game that allows us to charge more?
The answer is more complicated than you think... ;)
I run my small business and people are willing to pay more for better service/product vs the bigger companies, not that complicated.
Obliquity said:Raidan said:Kilsin said:Two points to think about, though:
1) We are not a niche product.
2) "The answer is more complicated than you think but it is not something we are considering at this time".On #1, I hope thats not the case. Any game that is marketed to the audience outside mainstream norms (i.e convenience features) is niche. And, Pantheon as originally proposed is niche - appealing to the gamers who want challenging mechanics that no longer have a home.
Pantheon targeting a niche playerbase was the biggest selling point for me, very concerned if theyre changing direction.
I'm thinking Kilsin meant there are more people who are interested in this type of game then just a very niche audience, or maybe a lot of people just don't know this is what they want :)
I wonder what the profit difference of choosing to sell the game plus monthly subscription (most old mmos) vs the newer trend of free/ discount priced game plus monthly sub (like FF14 for example). The initial income from selling the box would help keep the team going ... but long term benefits from teaming up with Steam etc. has the potential to dramatically increase the consumer base if there is a low/no box price. A decade ago it would be a no-brainer. Now, many want to see and test before they commit with their money. I'm sure someone has ran the statistics ...
Kilsin said:As much as I love the reasons behind this discussion, we have had it before and our answer has not changed, we will be opting for somewhere around the regular subscription fee price that you would typically expect with any AAA MMORPG for many reasons, but one of the most important is, what could we reasonably charge over another AAA game that has spent $500,000,000 on their title?
Fictional Example: If ESO spends half a billion dollars on their MMORPG and we spend 10 million (for arguments sake a made up number) how can we justify charging our community and anyone that plays our game more money than the industry standard, what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?
The answer is more complicated than you think but it is not something we are considering at this time, we have publicly stated that we will be sticking to a relatively normal and expected monthly subscription fee for Pantheon, there has been talk within the community of charging for a premium server(s) but this is something we are not completely sold on either as it splits the community up and again, there would need to be a reason to charge more for certain servers. :)
I just wanted to jump in and let you know this before the thread became as long as the last one! You are free to discuss this as much as you like but keeping in mind what our answer is on the subject. ;)
Spot on Ben, but then we don't want to rule-out (or commit to, lol) servers with higher sub rates that offer more of 'something'. It's still a matter of debate (whether to have special servers whose sub rates are higher than 'industry standard'), although more focus to the debate will take place during beta. But yes, in genreral our sub cost will be the 'industry strandard' which seems to be $14.99/month and has been for some time.
I know we've had threads about what the 'something' could be, but I would urge everyone to continue to try to quantify it (assuming you agree with the presmise in general in the first place)
Retsof said:I wonder what the profit difference of choosing to sell the game plus monthly subscription (most old mmos) vs the newer trend of free/ discount priced game plus monthly sub (like FF14 for example). The initial income from selling the box would help keep the team going ... but long term benefits from teaming up with Steam etc. has the potential to dramatically increase the consumer base if there is a low/no box price. A decade ago it would be a no-brainer. Now, many want to see and test before they commit with their money. I'm sure someone has ran the statistics ...
In the 'olde days' of channel marketing (e.g. placing boxes into the 'channel' or stores) it would take several months for the publisher and developer to see that money so plans had to be made as to where the revenue to keep the team going during these 'dark months' would come from. And even though we don't plan on having channel marketing (outside of perhaps offering a deluxe version of the game in a box), we are creating our financial models such that we do have money to keep the team intact during this period.
Dullahan said:Ya, that "not a niche" thing scares me. I'd love it if there was mainstream appeal to a game like pantheon, but there isn't. Unless something has changed behind closed doors at Visionary Realms, Pantheon is a niche product.
Btw, while we remain not necessarily a 'mainstream' title, we have also stopped the use of the word 'niche' as well, as we believe our target audience, based on the data and analysis we do have, is quite larger than what most would consider 'niche'.
Velrak said:For me I would like to see the monthly cost to be in the $15-$20 a month range. All expansions should be in the $30 to $50 range to purchase depending on the size of the expansion. No $100 collector editions.
Also after the 1st year I would like to see a optional secondary $20 a month sub that once each month you get a virtual or physical package from VR. The package would contain something different each month such as 2 or 3 pieces of concept art, a 1/2 hour long in depth dev diary, a 1/2 hour video of footage from inside the VR studio's, a small figurine model of a in game monster or npc. or a couple of pages that can be inserted into a binder from VR that gives more indepth back ground info on each monster in game. This way we can create our very own Pantheon "Monster Manual".
I think this idea would generate much more income for VR then by selling bloated "collector" editions of the game and expansions.
Interesting ideas indeed. How often we will launch expansions and how we will charge for them remains a bit up in the air at the moment. I like the 'option' of paying more for a deluxe or collectors version that included something special for us collector types.
zewtastic said:What would you be able or willing to pay for a monthly subscription for Pantheon.
/mic tap
Going to need more data.
For example, if the game launches and craters, as VG did, probably nothing.
If the game is amazing - $50/month is not out of the question.
To keep away the FTP kiddies, $50/month gladly.
If you told me in Mar 1999 (when I started paying to play EQ @ $15/month), that over 17 years later people would whine that MMO's should be $15/month (or FTP) I would not have believed you, yet here it is.
People playing these other so-called MMOs such as AA and BDO are paying large amounts, hundreds a month on their P2W addictions. I find it difficult to think people will struggle with $30+/month.
You can drop $15-20 in just 2 hours for a movie and snacks easily.
I easily spend $40 for the luxury of 4-5 hours of losing golf balls at my local muni.
People spend $70-100+ for cable/satellite TV per month and will watch that less than they will play a good MMO.
People easily spend 100's, even thousands monthly and yearly on their hobbies, collecting and other such past times. $30+/month for a game you might spend more time on than all of those other hobbies seems an easy sale.
Spending a few grand on a super game rig and then whining about games being too expensive is like putting kmart tires on your ferrari.
Sometimes you get out what you put in. Games made on the cheap have a tendancy to reflect that. Pay for quality, pay for content.
Don't build the race car and then skimp on the quality of your fuel.
I have pledged already, as I am sure most of you also have done. So I am financially commited to more than this current sub-group of $15/month posters probably are. Those of us putting our money where our mouths are do not want to see what may well be the last great gasp of a Brad-esqe MMO sputter out because of cheap people and millennial trolls that grew up thinking everything should be free for me.
/mic drop
I agree that I could sit here and compellingly argue that charging more than industry standard is something we could logically justify. Certainly, as you cite, there are other entertainment options out there, like going to the movie theater, that not only cost more than an MMO but also provide much shorter periods of entertainment. That said, I think we've something we have to prove, that Pantheon is going to be fun, and fun long term (months and even years). VR is a small company and Pantheon will be our first MMO (or, really, first 'anything'). Because of that I don't think it would be wise to charge more than what is 'industry standard'. Perhaps some servers that offer something 'more' would have a higher sub, but we need to figure out what that 'more' is and make sure it ressonates with a large enough portion of our target audience. Now if we were EA, or Microsoft, or Activision, etc., maybe we could change the industry and successfully raise the 'sub standard'-- but we are not (yet anyway :)
Aradune said:In the 'olde days' of channel marketing (e.g. placing boxes into the 'channel' or stores) it would take several months for the publisher and developer to see that money so plans had to be made as to where the revenue to keep the team going during these 'dark months' would come from. And even though we don't plan on having channel marketing (outside of perhaps offering a deluxe version of the game in a box), we are creating our financial models such that we do have money to keep the team intact during this period.
I'm really hoping there is some sort of physical copy of the game that I will be able to buy and put on my shelf! I wouldn't want there to be any in-game benefit or items from it, but something like an art book and soundtrack would be very nice!
Rachael said:Aradune said:In the 'olde days' of channel marketing (e.g. placing boxes into the 'channel' or stores) it would take several months for the publisher and developer to see that money so plans had to be made as to where the revenue to keep the team going during these 'dark months' would come from. And even though we don't plan on having channel marketing (outside of perhaps offering a deluxe version of the game in a box), we are creating our financial models such that we do have money to keep the team intact during this period.
I'm really hoping there is some sort of physical copy of the game that I will be able to buy and put on my shelf! I wouldn't want there to be any in-game benefit or items from it, but something like an art book and soundtrack would be very nice!
While I can't commit to anything like that, I too really hope we'll be able to do something like that as well. And I have my 'gamer' and 'collector' hats on when I say that, not necessarily my 'developer' or 'business man' hats. I like having something tangible. If a great movie or music CD comes out I will not only stream/dload it the midnight it's available, but I will also purchase the blu-ray box from Amazon so that I possess something tangible... something I can collect. In fact, I've started to buy the UHD versions even though I don't have a 4k TV yet, because that day in the future where I can actually afford a nice 4k box I want to have content for it immediately.
And I bet I'm not the only person who does this -- some of us have that collector bug and some of us like to have something tangible representing a movie or music CD that really resonated with us (and some of us have both 'problems' lol). I wonder, however, if it's generational, e.g. if younger people feel that same urge or if that urge is somehow manifested elsewhere....
BTW, I still have almost every EQ box variant in my library, sitting right there next to my books. They mean something to me. Same with the Vanguard deluxe box I have with all of the teams' signatures.
Retsof said:I wonder what the profit difference of choosing to sell the game plus monthly subscription (most old mmos) vs the newer trend of free/ discount priced game plus monthly sub (like FF14 for example). The initial income from selling the box would help keep the team going ... but long term benefits from teaming up with Steam etc. has the potential to dramatically increase the consumer base if there is a low/no box price. A decade ago it would be a no-brainer. Now, many want to see and test before they commit with their money. I'm sure someone has ran the statistics ...
Hoping that a. someone does indeed have the data and 2. that they share it with us :)
We do feel, in general, that we need to be pretty far into external beta testing before we charge, and that is because we are a 'new' studio with a 'new' game and something to prove. And not just something to prove in general, but with Pantheon we are trying to start this renaissance, this revolution, and there will always be some skeptics... and those skeptics talk with their friends, who then talk to their friends, and so on...
This goes hand-in-hand with our plan to make the first X levels totally free to play. As I've posted here many times before, we feel the 'onboarding' process, in which we introduce a challenging, social, group-oriented game to someone totally unfamiliar with such a thing is done and done well. We cannot afford to chase away players new to social MMOs before they've have had the chance to experience that magic that makes this genre so much more deeper and compelling. No, not everyone who is used to single player more casual MMOs is going to love Pantheon, but I do truly believe a significant portion of them will end up loving the kind of game Pantheon is. And the possibility of losing those precious people before they're acclimated frankly keeps me up late at night.
Aradune said:Dullahan said:Ya, that "not a niche" thing scares me. I'd love it if there was mainstream appeal to a game like pantheon, but there isn't. Unless something has changed behind closed doors at Visionary Realms, Pantheon is a niche product.
Btw, while we remain not necessarily a 'mainstream' title, we have also stopped the use of the word 'niche' as well, as we believe our target audience, based on the data and analysis we do have, is quite larger than what most would consider 'niche'.
While you may have found that the audience for Pantheon is wider than originally anticipated, which is great, it still doesn't change the fact that Pantheon is a niche title in today's MMORPG universe, based off the core tenets.
And the data for the anticipated audience that you all have analyzed and observed is while marketing Pantheon as a niche title. What removing that title suggests to me, is the core tenets that were proposed for Pantheon which placed into into the "niche" category are subject to change based on the audience that is observed/analyzed/anticipated. That statement could be overly critical, but I've seen too many development cycles at this point.
With all that being said, if your marketing strategy is to remove the word "niche" then so be it. But, don't start using the words mainstream either or you're going to lose a segment of your audience as well.
*Edit @Zewtastic
While you do raise some good points, EQ was 9.99/month in 1999. Adjusted for inflation today, that would place it around 14.50/month. I do agree that there could be an audience that would pay more, but, I also think it would be unwise to not allow the 14.99 option, which, again, is why I'd argue a tiered approach with a donation option as I had proposed in my original post here would be the best approach. You'd get the best of both worlds.
Raidan said:Aradune said:Dullahan said:Ya, that "not a niche" thing scares me. I'd love it if there was mainstream appeal to a game like pantheon, but there isn't. Unless something has changed behind closed doors at Visionary Realms, Pantheon is a niche product.
Btw, while we remain not necessarily a 'mainstream' title, we have also stopped the use of the word 'niche' as well, as we believe our target audience, based on the data and analysis we do have, is quite larger than what most would consider 'niche'.
While you may have found that the audience for Pantheon is wider than originally anticipated, which is great, it still doesn't change the fact that Pantheon is a niche title in today's MMORPG universe, based off the core tenets.
And the data for the anticipated audience that you all have analyzed and observed is while marketing Pantheon as a niche title. What removing that title suggests to me, is the core tenets that were proposed for Pantheon which placed into into the "niche" category are subject to change based on the audience that is observed/analyzed/anticipated.
No my friend, most certainly not. Accusing us of removing 'core tenets' to make our target audience appear larger has not happened, will not happen, and is even borderline offensive. Rather, what's happening is that more and more online gamers in general are including themselves in the audience that is hotly anticipating Pantheon. What's happening is that the number of people who consider themselves 'online gamers' has and continues to grow rapidly. And, quite honestly, our messaging is resonating with more and more gamers in general, even younger ones who never experienced the first generation of these games. They like the idea of working cooperatively against the AI in a persistent world. But when they play Destiny or the Division they're just not finding this experience they seek -- still they log in and find themselves in 'shared' instances with other real people but with no real mechanism (or even reason) to get to know those people. Indeed, once the instance is complete those people are forgotten -- no bonds have formed, no friendships, no really anything truly social.
Combine that with the word of mouth amongst older MMO gamers where they are letting their friends know about Pantheon and getting more and more excited... this phenomenon is gaining momentum and it is observable in posts, coverage, general excitement, and in crowdfunding growth. In fact, the major turning point was likely our first stream in which the skeptics were silenced and their ability to talk down about Pantheon to their friends obliterated.
Notice I did not say we’re 'mainstream' – not in this post or any other. But while perhaps 1-2 years ago, when the idea of a group oriented game that wasn't F2P was an oddity (and even closed some doors for us), it's mid-2016 now. Publishers and investors are re-opening the doors, reaching out to us, and are very interested in Pantheon. And they’re interested before they’ve even had the chance to play Pantheon (usually they've seen at least the two twitch streams). And I'm pleased to announce that, once they do play it, they become even more excited. Numerous articles keep popping up talking about how F2P may actually not be the revenue model that best fits every genre, every platform, and every game (amazing revelation, eh?). Some are even talking about a 'post-F2P' era. In summary it would appear that Pantheon may no longer be truly niche, at least not anymore. The reality is that more and more people are getting excited about the game. And it’s not just interest in general that provides evidence -- crowdfunding, for example, is way up when compared to last year, or even six months ago. FB, twitter, you tube, etc. is coming alive. And like I said earlier, people in the industry are reaching out to us. The size of our audience is simply growing, and growing rapidly.
And all the while we've never removed a tenet, or dumbed down some aspect of the game, or diluted the Vision in any way. Rather, we've stuck to our guns and will continue to do so. In fact, changing our game into something else would likely remove it from the list of qualities that make it so unique and powerful in this changing and evolving genre. Pantheon would become 'just another modern MMO', thereby harming the traction we are now getting from both private investors as well as the more enlightened publishers who have begun to reach out to us (and not vice versa).
So yeah, whether this appeals to you or not, Pantheon is becoming something more than 'niche' and its target audience has the potential to be quite larger than anyone once thought, including us, and especially early on. So, heck no, we don't describe Pantheon to investors or publishers as something 'niche' and you'll probably notice us refraining from referring to it as such to the community as well.
The MMO Renaissance
The rebirth of the Massively Multiplayer Online game genre that will occur in
2018 when Visionary Realms releases Pantheon, which allows players
to rediscover true open worlds, challenge, interdependent group play and
shared experiences.
Aradune said:zewtastic said:What would you be able or willing to pay for a monthly subscription for Pantheon.
Now if we were EA, or Microsoft, or Activision, etc., maybe we could change the industry and successfully raise the 'sub standard'-- but we are not (yet anyway :)
0_o Ho HO! what are you saying here Aradune? are you saying that other games hosted on these mega platforms are "sub-standard games?!?" Regardless that the community tends to agree, you're in our wor...
oh wait.
carry on.
Yes, they are "sub-standard". Let Pantheon be a beacon, put the "premium" back in freemium. I remember reading something about mercedez benz once on this very kind of thing during an economic slump or "economy cars and lack thereof in their fleet.
I'll see what I can do about getting some data together on GOTY or "premium" type packages (with stuff along with the game disc)- I'll use gov't retail data and if possible some real world examples of the industry (asking nicely or just a public annual report from likes of Bethesda et al in the past 5 years).
Manouk said:Aradune said:zewtastic said:What would you be able or willing to pay for a monthly subscription for Pantheon.
Now if we were EA, or Microsoft, or Activision, etc., maybe we could change the industry and successfully raise the 'sub standard'-- but we are not (yet anyway :)
0_o Ho HO! what are you saying here Aradune? are you saying that other games hosted on these mega platforms are "sub-standard games?!?" Regardless that the community tends to agree, you're in our wor...
oh wait.
carry on.
Yes, they are "sub-standard". Let Pantheon be a beacon, put the "premium" back in freemium. I remember reading something about mercedez benz once on this very kind of thing during an economic slump or "economy cars and lack thereof in their fleet.
I'll see what I can do about getting some data together on GOTY or "premium" type packages (with stuff along with the game disc)- I'll use gov't retail data and if possible some real world examples of the industry (asking nicely or just a public annual report from likes of Bethesda et al in the past 5 years).
Thanks. And, honestly, I wasn't trying to be punny and say that the games from these large publishers are sub-standard, not at all.
kilsins's cash shop thread and this current 'we're not niche' has my conspiracy braincells swimming. i frankly doubt kilsin starts any threads without the express written consent of VR/brad mcquaid. VR doesnt seem to grasp that people will pay more for what they percieve as the better experience ('what do we offer that ESO doesnt?') < most of us thought you were offering a great deal that other modern/'mainstream' mmo's didnt offer, perhaps we were all wrong. this strikes me as people that dont view their product as above the McD's mmo's of the world. more and more getting the feeling this will be typical modern mmo tripe with a couple of oldschool mechanics, perhaps one or two 'unique' yet inconsequential features tacked on, but otherwise succumbing to all the modern pitfalls.
feel free to flame me into oblivion (at no risk to yourselves, as AoE's that damage you have been removed haha)