Hello all,
I'm a long-time EQ player and, like many others, am very excited about Pantheon: RotF
My largest concern thus far was to hear of the plans for a subsciption model. Personally, I'm a fan of the subscription model, but I'm not sure it still works in today's market. It worked for former games, but with MMORPGs that have come out in the last 5 years or so, it's not working. There is on title in particular (due to NDAs I can't call it out by name - but it launched in 2014) that tried a sub model and struggled. After a year, the switched to a FTP model and they are now a massive success.
Please don't get me wrong - I want Pantheon to succeed. I want to see them crush it ... I'm just wondering what went into the decision to go with a sub model, because - at least in my experience - it no longer works.
Cheers,
Thestus
FTP has been a failure for almost every game in the genre.
FTP games require other sources of revenue because they need many multi millions of dollars coming in to pay developers, support teams, server operations, infrastructure, etc.
So anything that claims to be "free" really isn't.
They get their money from advertising or pay-for-features and pay-to-win sales and microtransactions.
Those exact things are one of the downfalls of the genre.
Brad has made it perfectly clear PRF will be a traditional subscription game. Those of us (small orphaned customer base) are willing to pay per month to play and avoid all the other evils of a FTP game.
As I stated, my personal preference is a subscription-based system. I too am more than willing to pay per month.
My fear is that the majority won't. I'm only pointing out something I saw happen with my own eyes (internally - not as an outside observer). And yes, I understand what FTP means (micro-transactions, in-game store, etc). Is that preferred? No. Not to me. I'm just concerned that a subscription won't produce the necessary funds for a successful MMORPG.
I knew posting this would result in some passionate responses. But like I said, it's a conern. I posted anyway because I care, and in my experience I've seen a product fail with a sub model and be saved by FTP (and if you're wondering, I was a huge proponent for the sub-model then too).
All I'm really asking is what thought process and/or research went into this desicion.
Cheers,
Thestus
People pay for Amazon Prime, and Netflix, and Hulu, and a host of other entertainment services. Hell, you have to pay a monthly subscription to most Adobe products now like photoshop, and they arent alone in the software industry by a long stretch. Subscriptions are commonly used in a host of places, and people are accustomed to them. WoW is subscription based and probably still the largest MMO in the US market.
Yes, you might have more people playing a FTP MMO, but it doesnt inherently mean you make more money, and in most people's minds FTP is counterproductive to a healthy player base and to a gameplay longevity.
The mass public likes free-to-play games, because it allows the poorer people to play at a baseline. It also allows the rich folk to buy their way to success.
Luckily, this is not a mass market game.
I really hope VR never brings in micro transactions. I have seen it destroy the economy of too many games, especially EQ2, my favorite.
I think those passionate about MMOs are more than willing to pay a monthly fee. Those are they people I want to play with.
There are a number of benefits provided by a subscription model.
1) VR is basing a lot of Pantheon around reputation mattering.
If accounts are free it is more likely that players will not care about reputation because they may not have anything invested financially. A subscription model allows reputation to matter. I have seen games go from having a strong, tight-knit community under a subscription model to turning into a cesspool of immaturity, griefing and disregard for your fellow player once they went free to play.
2)Subscription models are most profitable if you plan on being around long term.
Those games that have come out in the last 5 years (it's more like 10) that don't use a subscription model don't weight longevity heavily in their goals. Most recent games want to make money as fast as possible and don't have the foresight to consider what the game might look like in 5 or 10 or more years down the line.
3) Earning devotion from the player base is valuable.
Those other ftp and ptw games have to make the most money they can asap because people are not dedicated to those games. Those players don't expect to play a game for years and are quick to try the next new thing. Having a devoted following is important.
4) Providing a level playing field for players is very important to some of us.
When free to play online games first started to enter the market in the early 2000's the general consensus was that if you paid money to earn perks that you could alternatively earn in game with time/skill it simply meant you were bad at the game. As time has progressed it has become more accepted to buy your way to power. Some players, like myself, will not give money to games that allows players to buy an advantage.
I have played a couple games heavily when they used the subscription model and quit shortly after they went free to play. ( DDO and LotRO). Also, see #1 above about the changes in the community when going from one payment model to the other.
As someone who currently works in FTP mobile games, was part of LOTRO's release team, and worked on DDO during its switch to FTP, I can assure you that from a financial standpoint going FTP is the superior route. LOTRO's revenue was tripled and DDO's revenue increased 10x after the switch to FTP. The reason is because when the FTP economy is built right (tuned correctly and there's ample spend opportunities), you have a small number of people spending insane amounts of money. I've worked on some mobile games where individual players have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. These people more than make up for all of the players who decide not to spend anything.
There are ways to successfully make AAA games FTP without making them P2W. Fortnite is a good example of that. On the flip side, what's nice about the subscription model is the revenue stream is a little more predictable. If you're able to amass an audience like WoW or Netflix, having that huge of a predictable revenue stream is great (even Netflix lets you try the service before committing to their subscription though). At least on mobile, one of the things we're exploring right now is how to integrate robust subscriptions into existing F2P games in a way that uncaps spend by utilizing microtransactions, but at the same creating a predictable stream of revenue for a portion of our total revenue to reduce risk. Some mobile games have already done this, but with only minor success.
If the VR team does decide to strictly go for a subscription model, in my opinion they would be doing it because they are so passionate about the game that they want to make sure they are creating a great community that really wants to be there for the long term and feel like they can fund the business on the expected audience, but I have no idea. The way you think about the game design changes drastically when you change the business model, and maybe they just want to maintain that integrity.
Feyshtey said:People pay for Amazon Prime, and Netflix, and Hulu, and a host of other entertainment services. Hell, you have to pay a monthly subscription to most Adobe products now like photoshop, and they arent alone in the software industry by a long stretch. Subscriptions are commonly used in a host of places, and people are accustomed to them. WoW is subscription based and probably still the largest MMO in the US market.
Yes, you might have more people playing a FTP MMO, but it doesnt inherently mean you make more money, and in most people's minds FTP is counterproductive to a healthy player base and to a gameplay longevity.
Couldn't agree more. If you dont rack monthly for thoses, it's for the internet, smartphone, movies, parking, whatever...
We are in a monthly subbed life, and while when I was young there were a lot of retenue about using your credit card on internet, it became really prevalent.
FTP means a minority of your playerbase must pay for the other, and the more buyable content you design the more cash you gain, making companies greedy.
This comes up every so often. Subs is the way to go to keep integrity, I feel.
I am willing to pay 50-60 a month sub for a quality old school MMO. if they end up charging 25-35 a month thats fine, too (adjusted for inflation)
However I would also pay for outside game stuff like mugs, keychains, cool enamel anchor pins, etc.
Thestus said:Hello all,
I'm a long-time EQ player and, like many others, am very excited about Pantheon: RotF
My largest concern thus far was to hear of the plans for a subsciption model. Personally, I'm a fan of the subscription model, but I'm not sure it still works in today's market. It worked for former games, but with MMORPGs that have come out in the last 5 years or so, it's not working. There is on title in particular (due to NDAs I can't call it out by name - but it launched in 2014) that tried a sub model and struggled. After a year, the switched to a FTP model and they are now a massive success.
Please don't get me wrong - I want Pantheon to succeed. I want to see them crush it ... I'm just wondering what went into the decision to go with a sub model, because - at least in my experience - it no longer works.
Cheers,
Thestus
I think you're way off and I don't know what we're supposed to say. This game is a sub model game. That has been a part of the foundation of this project since the beginning. The reason games transition from sub to FTP is because they suck.
Sadly a subsription model is the best way all around. As soon as you go down a FTP, cash stores or some other variation things get bad. I believe 15$ a month is a doable amount. Even in this terrible economy where most people don't even make that an hour.
As an idea, to give people who were on a lower income level an opportunity to play, perhaps offer a monthly subscription range that had a fixed time cap per day to play for a lower pricet. This could be attached to their account and when the player reached a login timer amount their account would be locked until they paid the next month or bought more time. This is just an idea I thought of right now so don't kill the messenger.
Example; using a 30 day month.
15$ a month - gets the player 24hours a day. They can play as much as they want. 720 hours a month.
10$ a month - 12hours a day or until time runs out. They can 360 hours a month.
5$ a month - 6hours a day or until time runs out. 180 hours a month.
Terrible idea?
Like many here I am for Sub model. I’d also be happy to pay 30+ per month as long as the servers run well, gold seller are squelched and support is responsive when needed. There may be a niche audience for this game but I feel a lot of us are willing to pay what we have so long been waiting for.
Yes happy to pay a sub so they know how much cash is coming in so they can run the company knowing they have predictable cash flow. There is a reason some of the oldest games still going are sub based.
One significant downside to the Free-to-Play model is that is removes from the playerbase any leverage they may have with the developers. We all know that games go through revisions over time as new content is added and old content re-adjusted. This is most applicable to MMOs. Those games with subscriptions give a good bit of power to the players in that they can, literally, speak with their wallets in response to developer decisions they either like or dislike. It has been shown over the years that developers who make terrible decisions quickly see subscriptions rates plummet as unhappy players decide that the paying for a service they dislike is not in their best interest. I've personally witnessed game decisions/designs revoked solely due to valid player outrage where those players, many hundreds if not thousands, said they would walk away. Money talks.
The flip side is that the developers are less likely to listen to players who are not paying for the game. Why should they listen? I play (terribly) games like World of Tanks/Warplanes/Warships and never pay for premium accounts. I really do get to play for free. If I have serious critiques on the game would any developer care one bit about my opinion when they earn nothing from me? Doubtful. They do listen to people who do pay. Every business pays attention to paying customers to some degree.
This game is not trying to appeal to everyone. This game is specifically made for a niche audience. Not being yet another shitty F2P game with countless microtransactions and megatransactions is an inherent part of what makes Pantheon... Pantheon. If Pantheon were to switch to a F2P model I, and many others, would completely lose interest in the game. Full stop. That would be it.
Free to play is an evil economic model. Pure evil. You said yourself you don't like F2P games but you are "concerned" about the game not going F2P even though this has been known since the start. That makes no sense whatsoever. At this point I consider anyone suggesting free to play to be malicious. Concern trolling is what this reads like.
Reichsritter said:This game is not trying to appeal to everyone. This game is specifically made for a niche audience. Not being yet another shitty F2P game with countless microtransactions and megatransactions is an inherent part of what makes Pantheon... Pantheon. If Pantheon were to switch to a F2P model I, and many others, would completely lose interest in the game. Full stop. That would be it.
Quoted for truth.
I'm a little surprised this type of conversation is still going on at this point in development.
I guess we have to find something to pass the time.
L
Tolin said:As someone who currently works in FTP mobile games, was part of LOTRO's release team, and worked on DDO during its switch to FTP, I can assure you that from a financial standpoint going FTP is the superior route. LOTRO's revenue was tripled and DDO's revenue increased 10x after the switch to FTP. The reason is because when the FTP economy is built right (tuned correctly and there's ample spend opportunities), you have a small number of people spending insane amounts of money. I've worked on some mobile games where individual players have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. These people more than make up for all of the players who decide not to spend anything.
There are ways to successfully make AAA games FTP without making them P2W. Fortnite is a good example of that. On the flip side, what's nice about the subscription model is the revenue stream is a little more predictable. If you're able to amass an audience like WoW or Netflix, having that huge of a predictable revenue stream is great (even Netflix lets you try the service before committing to their subscription though). At least on mobile, one of the things we're exploring right now is how to integrate robust subscriptions into existing F2P games in a way that uncaps spend by utilizing microtransactions, but at the same creating a predictable stream of revenue for a portion of our total revenue to reduce risk. Some mobile games have already done this, but with only minor success.
If the VR team does decide to strictly go for a subscription model, in my opinion they would be doing it because they are so passionate about the game that they want to make sure they are creating a great community that really wants to be there for the long term and feel like they can fund the business on the expected audience, but I have no idea. The way you think about the game design changes drastically when you change the business model, and maybe they just want to maintain that integrity.
From a profit side, FTP is great. From a player perspective, it’s a disaster.
FTP ruins the community, but the developers make bank.
Luckily, VR cares about its players.
Tolin said:As someone who currently works in FTP mobile games, was part of LOTRO's release team, and worked on DDO during its switch to FTP, I can assure you that from a financial standpoint going FTP is the superior route. LOTRO's revenue was tripled and DDO's revenue increased 10x after the switch to FTP. The reason is because when the FTP economy is built right (tuned correctly and there's ample spend opportunities), you have a small number of people spending insane amounts of money. I've worked on some mobile games where individual players have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars. These people more than make up for all of the players who decide not to spend anything.
There are ways to successfully make AAA games FTP without making them P2W. Fortnite is a good example of that. On the flip side, what's nice about the subscription model is the revenue stream is a little more predictable. If you're able to amass an audience like WoW or Netflix, having that huge of a predictable revenue stream is great (even Netflix lets you try the service before committing to their subscription though). At least on mobile, one of the things we're exploring right now is how to integrate robust subscriptions into existing F2P games in a way that uncaps spend by utilizing microtransactions, but at the same creating a predictable stream of revenue for a portion of our total revenue to reduce risk. Some mobile games have already done this, but with only minor success.
If the VR team does decide to strictly go for a subscription model, in my opinion they would be doing it because they are so passionate about the game that they want to make sure they are creating a great community that really wants to be there for the long term and feel like they can fund the business on the expected audience, but I have no idea. The way you think about the game design changes drastically when you change the business model, and maybe they just want to maintain that integrity.
Personally, I don't care what games you worked on. While, yes, you have an impressive resume, F2P is a bad idea for Pantheon and MMOs in general in my opinion. There are, literally, dozens of F2P games out there. This is not that game. This is "OUR game". One for the old-school gamer.