Point 1, I wouldn't do that anyway. Point 2, Content is important if we aren't given tools to make our own fun, lack of things to do would mean no fun, at least to me. Point 3, Yes i would support a game, as long as i could see the devs cared about their game, it was fun to play as is and that there was clear scope for addition and improvement.
I concur with that mostly.
Point 1: How much I would pay depends on the games state of course and my own financial situation. But it isn't uncommon that (adult) mmo fans buy 2 or 3 accounts not just because they play them but because they want to support the game. Quite some of my guildies in EQ2 are running several accounts for that reason ... This is why the istaria model of family accounts you can add additional keys to makes so much sense in my opinion: it means you can individually close a keys abo or leave it AND play them in parallel if you want to. Much more convinient than having to create an account for each key individually telling you than you need another mail etc.
Point 2: I think the differentiation between "engine generated content" and "users ability to be busy or create content himself" is missing in the article too. Ryzom Ring for example, the user-mod-system for the MMO Ryzom was not exactly "content" itself but a mod system hosted by the company for instanced user generated quests and such. People loved it AND it ment a very polished quest generation engine for the GMs too. So the focus on content generation tools and handing them to players too if the world isn't interactive by itself (sandbox systems) is the point here, not pre-packaged content. If there is interactivity with the world or user-mod systems it is offering a lot of content and I pay for it for sure.
Simple example: the tiny MMO Wurm, it has an engine where you can literally shape the world. Take a shovel and start digging, it creates a hole. Put the soil somewhere else, it gives a hill. One day when I was with some people who had built a small village (the world is empty and there is decay, player have to built everything and keep it in repair) the leader suggested we get a road connection to the main traffic road some distance away. So we started building a road, travel was faster on those. When we hit a lake we started building right through it. That took a while filling enough soil into the lake so we had a narrow road through it...
But building around would have cost the same time and make a much longer way too. So we had a lot of "content" even if not in the general way. Wurm had city like ruins all over the world hidden somewhere, something Machu Pichu like in the mountains too - all remains of players. I just left Wurm finally as it had back than only male avatars and no animation. THAT was even too little for me. Meanwhile they've evolved a lot but I just have no more time to fill lakes with soil to built roads and I know I would be drawn back into that, shaping the world my way is just too intriguing.
Point 3: Slow but steady development is fine, I don't care about this a lot. Customer-oriented development is what I care about. I've been with Horizons/Istaria for 1.5 years and paid several more month I had quit playing because I wanted them to succeed. The problem with it for me turned out that the extreme grind of the game concept is totally unfit for my play style and the little spare time I have. I don't mind if you need to work to get your rewards. But thousands of kenaf plants harvesting to get your 10 levels to the next tiers which means thousands of xyz to rinse and repeat and there is mostly no market to sell it but engine pawns ... that is not work (work is meaningful), that is wasting my spare time. And I paid for Vanguard a long time too after I had given up already on playing (grind once more) as I wanted to support it, turn around the development direction to less RAID/grind oriented game play and more diplomacy and crafting oriented features. Didn't happen, so I cancelled the account.
What I believe MMOs quite often stumble inside is the trap of not defining specifically what auditory you want to focus at and if that auditory is big enough to sustain your game. Market research is the issue here. I look at MO for example and while I'm still fascinated by the idea to make UO 3D come alive again I experience the beta and think to myself "guys, have you never learned from failures of others or why do you decided on that feature???". At night it is pitch black - newbie players start at a pitch black spot outside of a city and on the way in they ... fall to death. If they make it as ghost to a priest who usually is outside of a city they face the same problem ... pitch black. If they started in well lit cities that would be a start but hey ... at night cities are literally crowded with thiefs standing at the vendors and bank. Thiefs are only hidden criminals (not attacked by guards) as long as they are not attacked by someone whom they snooped. Now if a player manages to realize in time he got stolen from, he needs thus to attack a thief before the guards attack and kill him. That means unfortunatelly that you need to run after the thief (no names over peoples heads, you need to click at them, pretty much everyone looks the same) and once you draw your weapons to attack ... you get a slow down malus. Awesome design huh? You bet. Of course it is amazingly clever game design to have a design where you reproduce the old UO thief problem where it plain isn't a good idea to walk to a vendor or banker and start doing something as long as someone stands close by. The auditory attracted to this type of game design is marginal, ask Felluca/Trammel vets. So Jon Wood, ask again, is it a matter of players not willing to play THEIR game or is it a matter of naive (sorry) game design?
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ... Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2 Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
Hmm, already answered this, but something came to mind.
Why would you pay a higher price for an MMO if 'the standard" was 14.99/month? What possible benefits could there be that would justify a few more bucks a month?
Well, let's look at how it might play out if there were tiers to the pricing and game experience.
1. 14.99 /month gets you a WoWlike game experience. A themepark, item-driven treadmill "RPG" loaded with kiddies and amateurs, and you have to join an elite guild to get good groupmates (which means you have to be fairly 1337 yourself, so you're hangin' with the kiddies for some months). There's no moderation to speak of so there's always foul language and random garbage in the chat channels. Crafting is present but basic to medium interesting. Additional content is generally for-pay too at higher rates - 19.99-29.99 or more.
2. 19.99/month gets you a more "mature" game experience (can't name a game atm, but I guess LOTRO would be the bottom of this range). You have a more mature, respectful game community with rapid moderation (LOTRO is a good example for this), you have good features like in-depth crafting, wide-ranging exploration, grouping / guilds is reasonably supported, and generally you feel like you're accomplishing something when you play. Bugs are openly discussed and scheduled for patching at regular intervals, and additonal content comes out regularly and is free or low-pay (9.99 -19.99).
3. 24.99/month gets you the premium game. There ain't no garbage in the chat channels, the game is rich, deep and exciting, you've got full grouping / clan abilities and content, you've got good player housing and possession management, and crafting is deep and varied. You could live in this game if you so chose And additional content is always free - you pay for this every month.
Putting it this way, what would most people choose to pony up for? For me, I would be choosing my games from the top or middle tier. 5 bucks a month more is the same as not buying 1 pizza every 3 months. 10/month is two pizzas every quarter year. That's got to be affordable for pretty much everyone.
Hmm, already answered this, but something came to mind. Why would you pay a higher price for an MMO if 'the standard" was 14.99/month? What possible benefits could there be that would justify a few more bucks a month? Well, let's look at how it might play out if there were tiers to the pricing and game experience. 1. 14.99 /month gets you a WoWlike game experience. A themepark, item-driven treadmill "RPG" loaded with kiddies and amateurs, and you have to join an elite guild to get good groupmates (which means you have to be fairly 1337 yourself, so you're hangin' with the kiddies for some months). There's no moderation to speak of so there's always foul language and random garbage in the chat channels. Crafting is present but basic to medium interesting. Additional content is generally for-pay too at higher rates - 19.99-29.99 or more. 2. 19.99/month gets you a more "mature" game experience (can't name a game atm, but I guess LOTRO would be the bottom of this range). You have a more mature, respectful game community with rapid moderation (LOTRO is a good example for this), you have good features like in-depth crafting, wide-ranging exploration, grouping / guilds is reasonably supported, and generally you feel like you're accomplishing something when you play. Bugs are openly discussed and scheduled for patching at regular intervals, and additonal content comes out regularly and is free or low-pay (9.99 -19.99). 3. 24.99/month gets you the premium game. There ain't no garbage in the chat channels, the game is rich, deep and exciting, you've got full grouping / clan abilities and content, you've got good player housing and possession management, and crafting is deep and varied. You could live in this game if you so chose And additional content is always free - you pay for this every month. Putting it this way, what would most people choose to pony up for? For me, I would be choosing my games from the top or middle tier. 5 bucks a month more is the same as not buying 1 pizza every 3 months. 10/month is two pizzas every quarter year. That's got to be affordable for pretty much everyone.
The reason Jon asked that question (I think, if not Jon can jump in and correct me) is not because of additional features as you get into. It's because there is this perception out there by game makers (and many in the gaming media) that such a sandbox game as being discussed here would not draw as big a crowd as the themepark games being pumped out. So, to offset what is assumed to be a smaller gaming crowd it is proposed an increase in sub fee so that it can be on par with the themeparks in subscription numbers.
That said I'd like to see a good faith clause added onto such a game. This clause would state that if the game maintains a playerbase of 100,000 subscriptions or more than they charge the industry standard of $14.99/month as their fears have been incorrect and the game is drawing a crowd on par with recently released themeparks after they have settled down. If the game has subscritptions of 99,999 or less then they can charge the$5 or $10 higher fee that they deemed necessary due do the assumption that this type of game wouldn't draw TP numbers.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
I've talked about this a few other places so I'll keep it short. Next big MMO will be a sandbox with a good themepark built into it. Games limit themselves by doing one or the other. It also will not be FFA PVP or will offer two server types one FFA PVP and one not. Games limit themselves by doing one or the other. If you got time on your hands the _long_ version of this post is here. I think its worth the read if you're interested in hearing my thoughts on what the next big MMO will look like with some ideas laid out for the features it will have.
I have been saying much the same thing for awhile now. What is needed to advance the genre to the next level is a true hybrid of game styles. Of course an animal such as that would require a lot more money to develop than the typical theme park or sandbox as it would be two in one. Investors would likely shy away from this increased expense in favour of the fast buck that todays games offer; get in, grab the profit and get out with no concern over what happens to the game after that.
The problem with this mentality among investors and publishers is that it is slowly but surely killing the genre and once the golden goose has flown they can wave goodbye to any further income from that direction. Theme parks have the ability to draw in the initial crop of players and to satisfy that quick fix feeling. Sanboxes however have longevity with the potential to continue for a very long time indeed providing they are supported and updated when needed, EvE being a case in point. The money men need to remove those short distance blinkers and take a wider, more long range view before the genre can evolve as it needs to.
I've talked about this a few other places so I'll keep it short. Next big MMO will be a sandbox with a good themepark built into it. Games limit themselves by doing one or the other. It also will not be FFA PVP or will offer two server types one FFA PVP and one not. Games limit themselves by doing one or the other. If you got time on your hands the _long_ version of this post is here. I think its worth the read if you're interested in hearing my thoughts on what the next big MMO will look like with some ideas laid out for the features it will have.
I have been saying much the same thing for awhile now. What is needed to advance the genre to the next level is a true hybrid of game styles. Of course an animal such as that would require a lot more money to develop than the typical theme park or sandbox as it would be two in one. Investors would likely shy away from this increased expense in favour of the fast buck that todays games offer; get in, grab the profit and get out with no concern over what happens to the game after that.
The problem with this mentality among investors and publishers is that it is slowly but surely killing the genre and once the golden goose has flown they can wave goodbye to any further income from that direction. Theme parks have the ability to draw in the initial crop of players and to satisfy that quick fix feeling. Sanboxes however have longevity with the potential to continue for a very long time indeed providing they are supported and updated when needed, EvE being a case in point. The money men need to remove those short distance blinkers and take a wider, more long range view before the genre can evolve as it needs to.
In your first you make some good points. But given that the typical AAA class MMO takes 3-4 years to develop already, most investors are unlikely to fund an even longer development time. But I must disagree that well designed theme parks are killing anything. WoW has been around for more than 5 years now, and has brought millions of new players into the market. Sand box games to this point have not demonstrated an appeal to the majority of the modern demographic. In all too many cases they become havens for gankers and griefers, which drives many players away. The Dev's then end up imposing more and more rules to protect their business model(one example of this is the evolution of Concord in Eve online). Its highly unlikely that a real sand box game is going to attract sufficient numbers (in the west) to produce a good ROI that can be shown to the investor types.
Would I pay a higher monthly price for a game? Yes, I would. I'm playing a game right now that offers me such incredible entertainment value that I would gladly play twice the current subscription fee. I'd rather pay $20 a month for a game and instead of comparing them to WoW, have them come up with this mission statement, right on their home page - or something to this effect:
"Yes, we charge $29.95 a month. Yes, you can play World of Warcraft for $15 a month. There's a difference with us - we offer no cash shop, period. All updates to the game will be free. (You may or may not want to include expansions here.) We'll give you a fair number of character slots, access to good (read: a real person on the phone) customer support, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as well as in game. You're paying more because we offer more - and we refuse to ever open a cash shop. No RMT's. Instant bans for those caught using hacks or bots, with a sensible appeal process for the inevitable mistakes made. In short, we're offering excellent customer service and a promise that we'll just raise the price for everyone if we have to cover operating costs as opposing to offering a different game experience to those that can pay more $$$ than their neighbor."
As I always like I say, when I play chess with my friends - richer or poorer - sometimes I have an advantage because I've played a lot of chess. My lifestyle allows, and allowed, for me to both have ample playtime and excellent partners. Now, should I allow a person who plays me to purchase, say, 3 extra pawns for $5 because he or she feels it "evens the field" between us? Allowing these kind of cash transactions kills the spirit of the game. Fallen Earth is a game I love to death - I've devoted many, many hours to playing and I am quite attached to my guild.
If they started offering paid services beyond, say, a server move IF they had multiple servers - I'd leave. In a heartbeat.
I'd pay $29.95 a month for peace of mind knowing that it won't ever be an issue with Icarus or Fallen Earth, honestly.
Someone mentioned that the Walmarts always do best - yes, mass market appeal does make McDonalds widely economically successful through the laws of volume economics and the rule of large numbers. That having been said, there will always be a niche for the really expensive steak restaurants and, indeed, even the mid-priced joints my wife and I go to when we eat out. We don't "do" McDonalds; we eat out at a few nice Thai places, a nice Greek place, etc. We've lived in this city a combined total of 30 years between the two of us, and we know it well. The restaurants we go to can charge a premium because their customers are willing to pay for things that McDonalds doesn't offer:
* lack of screaming kids (or... say... a more mature player base?)
* better customer service (say, GM's on staff 24 hours that respond to problems promptly? professionalism in the forums? freedom to complain if you are an unhappy paying customer without your threads being shut down?)
* better food (say, steak over that Big Mac)
So... yes. Even though McDonalds offers a burger for under a dollar, I still prefer to go down to this little place I know of where they grill the burgers with red wine and onions, and while they cost a lot more, they don't leave me with a stomach ache the next day, either.
Let people "grow up" on their F2P games and games with cash shops and then perhaps offer the more mature gamer with more disposable income a different experience - the premium $30 a month game -, as is done with *many* products in real life from service industry to retail.
1 - Higher Monthly fee - Well as some others have mentioned before, I think when a game starts to be on par with a service, such as mobile phone or other bills then perhaps I would think again. I know that I have been put off by Eve's £12ish a month, when WoW was just shy of £9. However I am aware that the content of the game and the level of exictement/enjoyment I got from it did not feel like that.
2 - Minimal Developer content - If the sandbox game/s can provide me with an environment and tools for create my own experience then I am all for it. Let me build my world, destroy it (or have it destroyed by others) and rebuild it anew all along side good friends and while fighting worthy opponents.
The Existential issues that arise from this topic are ones for each of us to spend time thinking about what we want from games in general. There is something to be said for being told where to go and what to kill however, I did my obligitory WoW stint. Do I want the responsibility for creating my own enjoyment? I think the answer is Yes, after a long time of having games that guide me along a pre-determined path.
3 - Slow Build - Hmm.. I suppose for me that is all to do with communication and the goals of the developers. If the developers are open and show a good link between community needs and what is being produced then I would be happy. I just want to know that improvements are on the way and those issues which hold back the open and fun sandbox experience I am after, are being dealt with.
Well thats just my opinion Big thanks to Mr Wood, was good to spend sometime thinking about it all.
I would pay more for a game developed more to my playstyle (along the old school sandbox lines) assuming it was delivered in good quality and well designed.
I agree, at launch content might be lacking, but if the core is solid and fun, I can wait for expansions to flesh out the world more.
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Monthy fee depends on lot on what I get out of the game.
I've had 3x SWG accounts for a few years, buiding up from 1 to 2 to 3... because I wanted more characters and wanted to experience new things without changing my existing characters. Thats $45.00/month already, and I am SURE I am not the only player who has multiple accounts on a MMO game. So, if a new Sandbox game came along, offered 6 character slots for $40.00.. and was fun to play.. I would probably be interested.
Personally, I am divided a bit on total player driven stories/economy vs. mixed instance stories. Some devs are better at making fun stories than players. Most player-driven economies are all about the mighty dollar.. like a 2nd job... not something I am looking for at this late stage in my life (wife, kids, full time professional job, other hobbies that does not involve a monitor). Sometimes, I would rathre play a prepared story line than wait for 8 other players to all decide to do the same thing at the same time. Player-driven content is player-dependant... and I am sure we've all experienced that shortage in our MMO experience. Certain things should be player driven... economy, crafting, housing.. but there are times where an instance quest is just more fun.
And yes, if a game slowly builds up, I am absolutely fine with being part of that process.. with being patient (imagine that), and exploring/mastering what the game offers.
New content does NOT always = more fun things to do. Some parts simply are of no interest. The core game is important... having variety is important.. having a way to interact with other players in a variety of ways (not just combat) is important.
Ultimately, MMO virtual worlds is not about the account fee, sandbox or quest, or having every system under the sun. The biggest qualification is... its is FUN? Do I enjoy the time I spend while online.
And honestly, I don't expect to be a long term subcriber of ANY MMO... its still a game, it still gets boring, interests change as you age and as your life shifts focus. So the 5 years it takes for a MMO Producer to make a game might be the same lifespan it has for MY account. $45/month x 12 months x 5 years = $2,700 investment. How many players like me are out there willing do do that... and how many does a MMO producer need to bother with the million dollar price tag to make & sustain the game.
The question really is.. which title/IP/Developer has deep enough pockets to take the risk to find out?
Would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
I used to be subscribed to EQ's Legends server. I believe it was 29.99. So, yes, I would. I also, am subscribed to DDO, and I use the shop. Again, yes, when I find a fun game I support it. Sadly, DDO is a much better game at lower-mid level than at high, but I digress.
Would we accept minimal developer content?
Hmm, No, I wouldn't accept this. Not sure, why you feel a sandbox shouldn't be an evolving world. Isn't EVE always upgrading? DAoC back in its prime released SI, and always had good update.
Would we accept a "slow build?"
Every MMO that is released is like this. The first few months the game struggles to find its real identity. Look at EQ2, DDO, AoC, Vanguard, WAR. All had massive changes for the better. There are two games that I can think of that were flawless, and didn't change much; WoW and LoTRO.
Would I pay a higher monthly price for a game? Yes, I would. I'm playing a game right now that offers me such incredible entertainment value that I would gladly play twice the current subscription fee. I'd rather pay $20 a month for a game and instead of comparing them to WoW, have them come up with this mission statement, right on their home page - or something to this effect: "Yes, we charge $29.95 a month. Yes, you can play World of Warcraft for $15 a month. There's a difference with us - we offer no cash shop, period. All updates to the game will be free. (You may or may not want to include expansions here.) We'll give you a fair number of character slots, access to good (read: a real person on the phone) customer support, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as well as in game. You're paying more because we offer more - and we refuse to ever open a cash shop. No RMT's. Instant bans for those caught using hacks or bots, with a sensible appeal process for the inevitable mistakes made. In short, we're offering excellent customer service and a promise that we'll just raise the price for everyone if we have to cover operating costs as opposing to offering a different game experience to those that can pay more $$$ than their neighbor."
Tbh, I don't think that's the right question, and here's why: sandbox games do not rely on linear content that must continuously be provided by the developers. In fact, you highlight this in your second point. Why should this cost more? Simple answer: it shouldn't. To make a sandbox game cost more than a linear, quest-based game, you have to be doing something very wrong.
Would we be okay with less developer content?
The funnest content I ever enjoyed in any game was the player-created Galactic Civil War of the original StarWars MMO. Professions had interdependent roles to claim territory, build bases, hold them, take out enemy bases etc.. There were land battles with hundreds of people, and massive space-battles with squadrons of starfighters on each side. Most of us were on ventrilo, and I tell ya, it felt like we were living the StarWars trilogy. Those that didn't get hooked on the original GCW really missed out on something special. The player-driven economy was also pivotal in equipping each side for battle. We needed guns, armour, medical kits for use in the field, mines, speeders, buffs and healing. Pretty much all the professions got in on the action, each playing its own complementary role.
So, yeah, I'd be totally cool with less developer content, if the devs gave us an immersive world, working game-mechanics, and all the tools we would need to generate our own enjoyable content. This was Koster's vision for SWG, by the way. Imo it was wrecked when the game was pushed out the door with numerous missing and broken tools. It needed to be less ambitious or have more time in incubation in order for it to be successful. Awesome vision, very poorly managed imo.
Would we be okay with a slow build?
Damn straight I would. What do we have now? Slow death, in most cases. Games release amidst great fanfare. Initial box-sales are huge due to all the hype, and then they start bleeding from an artery because they're broken and incomplete. No thanks. Start off with something smaller, functional, enjoyable, and user-generated; then grow baby grow--just like EVE seems to have done.
People point to the rise of WoW, and how quickly this happened. Why? It's been said numerous times by people who know MMOs better than me: polish, polish, polish. This damn game actually worked. People who were playing competitors' products were awe-struck by the polish of WoW. They switched games in a heart-beat, and I don't blame them. Then WoW had fantastic ad campaigns and trials to draw people in by the millions.
Here's the important point though that so many other games fail at: when people were drawn into WoW, they liked what they found. Why? Back to polish. Like I said before, this damn game actually worked. So, you have all the immersion and adventure of a global online community in a fun fantasy land without all the bugs, issues and customer service hassles of pretty much every other MMO on the market. That's a friggin gold mine is what that is, and the fact that it has linear quests isn't the issue. Remember: polish. That's what makes the MMO world go around...or not; there are more examples of the latter I'm afraid, and incidentally most of those are not sandbox games.
Would I pay a higher monthly price for a game? Yes, I would. I'm playing a game right now that offers me such incredible entertainment value that I would gladly play twice the current subscription fee. I'd rather pay $20 a month for a game and instead of comparing them to WoW, have them come up with this mission statement, right on their home page - or something to this effect: "Yes, we charge $29.95 a month. Yes, you can play World of Warcraft for $15 a month. There's a difference with us - we offer no cash shop, period. All updates to the game will be free. (You may or may not want to include expansions here.) We'll give you a fair number of character slots, access to good (read: a real person on the phone) customer support, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as well as in game. You're paying more because we offer more - and we refuse to ever open a cash shop. No RMT's. Instant bans for those caught using hacks or bots, with a sensible appeal process for the inevitable mistakes made. In short, we're offering excellent customer service and a promise that we'll just raise the price for everyone if we have to cover operating costs as opposing to offering a different game experience to those that can pay more $$$ than their neighbor."
Sign Me Up Now
See, I knew I couldn't be the only *adult* with disposable income waiting for this niche market to come along and sweep me off my feet...
We're out here, guys! We were the nerds playing D&D in High School and we're in our 30's now, most of us married and very gainfully employed with plenty of cash to blow. Give us a game we can call home, charge more, and keep the McDonalds of games (i.e., WoW) around for the newbies to get their feet wet until one day they, too, mature and want a more evolved gaming experience - even if it costs more.
I play two games now. Warhammer Online is definitely not a "mature" game but I enjoy the PvP experience it offers, so I play it. Fallen Earth is a game slanted towards a more mature, sandbox-style of gameplay, and I absolutely love that game. I just wish a company would come along and try that $30 a month model, offering more. I know I would have jumped at the chance. I'm sure it would be interesting to see the kind of community it generates alone.
As someone said before, I think EQ provided a "premium" service at one point. Maybe it will be one of the big companies that comes along to fill this niche market, not a small indie player. Who knows. All I know is that it exists to be filled, and marketing hates a vacuum.
Comments
I concur with that mostly.
Point 1: How much I would pay depends on the games state of course and my own financial situation. But it isn't uncommon that (adult) mmo fans buy 2 or 3 accounts not just because they play them but because they want to support the game. Quite some of my guildies in EQ2 are running several accounts for that reason ... This is why the istaria model of family accounts you can add additional keys to makes so much sense in my opinion: it means you can individually close a keys abo or leave it AND play them in parallel if you want to. Much more convinient than having to create an account for each key individually telling you than you need another mail etc.
Point 2: I think the differentiation between "engine generated content" and "users ability to be busy or create content himself" is missing in the article too. Ryzom Ring for example, the user-mod-system for the MMO Ryzom was not exactly "content" itself but a mod system hosted by the company for instanced user generated quests and such. People loved it AND it ment a very polished quest generation engine for the GMs too. So the focus on content generation tools and handing them to players too if the world isn't interactive by itself (sandbox systems) is the point here, not pre-packaged content. If there is interactivity with the world or user-mod systems it is offering a lot of content and I pay for it for sure.
Simple example: the tiny MMO Wurm, it has an engine where you can literally shape the world. Take a shovel and start digging, it creates a hole. Put the soil somewhere else, it gives a hill. One day when I was with some people who had built a small village (the world is empty and there is decay, player have to built everything and keep it in repair) the leader suggested we get a road connection to the main traffic road some distance away. So we started building a road, travel was faster on those. When we hit a lake we started building right through it. That took a while filling enough soil into the lake so we had a narrow road through it...
But building around would have cost the same time and make a much longer way too. So we had a lot of "content" even if not in the general way. Wurm had city like ruins all over the world hidden somewhere, something Machu Pichu like in the mountains too - all remains of players. I just left Wurm finally as it had back than only male avatars and no animation. THAT was even too little for me.
Meanwhile they've evolved a lot but I just have no more time to fill lakes with soil to built roads and I know I would be drawn back into that, shaping the world my way is just too intriguing.
Point 3: Slow but steady development is fine, I don't care about this a lot. Customer-oriented development is what I care about. I've been with Horizons/Istaria for 1.5 years and paid several more month I had quit playing because I wanted them to succeed. The problem with it for me turned out that the extreme grind of the game concept is totally unfit for my play style and the little spare time I have. I don't mind if you need to work to get your rewards. But thousands of kenaf plants harvesting to get your 10 levels to the next tiers which means thousands of xyz to rinse and repeat and there is mostly no market to sell it but engine pawns ... that is not work (work is meaningful), that is wasting my spare time. And I paid for Vanguard a long time too after I had given up already on playing (grind once more) as I wanted to support it, turn around the development direction to less RAID/grind oriented game play and more diplomacy and crafting oriented features. Didn't happen, so I cancelled the account.
What I believe MMOs quite often stumble inside is the trap of not defining specifically what auditory you want to focus at and if that auditory is big enough to sustain your game. Market research is the issue here. I look at MO for example and while I'm still fascinated by the idea to make UO 3D come alive again I experience the beta and think to myself "guys, have you never learned from failures of others or why do you decided on that feature???". At night it is pitch black - newbie players start at a pitch black spot outside of a city and on the way in they ... fall to death. If they make it as ghost to a priest who usually is outside of a city they face the same problem ... pitch black. If they started in well lit cities that would be a start but hey ... at night cities are literally crowded with thiefs standing at the vendors and bank. Thiefs are only hidden criminals (not attacked by guards) as long as they are not attacked by someone whom they snooped. Now if a player manages to realize in time he got stolen from, he needs thus to attack a thief before the guards attack and kill him. That means unfortunatelly that you need to run after the thief (no names over peoples heads, you need to click at them, pretty much everyone looks the same) and once you draw your weapons to attack ... you get a slow down malus. Awesome design huh? You bet. Of course it is amazingly clever game design to have a design where you reproduce the old UO thief problem where it plain isn't a good idea to walk to a vendor or banker and start doing something as long as someone stands close by. The auditory attracted to this type of game design is marginal, ask Felluca/Trammel vets. So Jon Wood, ask again, is it a matter of players not willing to play THEIR game or is it a matter of naive (sorry) game design?
Played: Pretty much any fantasy MMO, some did not even make it to release ...
Favorites: UO, EQ2, Vanguard, Wurm Online, Salem, ESO, Creativerse
Playing: ESO, Creativerse, Guild Wars 2
Anticipating: (sigh) ... maybe Ashes of Creation
I think Xsyon is going to answer the second and third question shortly. When the game is a success the answer will have been yes on both accounts.
--
Delanor
Hmm, already answered this, but something came to mind.
Why would you pay a higher price for an MMO if 'the standard" was 14.99/month? What possible benefits could there be that would justify a few more bucks a month?
Well, let's look at how it might play out if there were tiers to the pricing and game experience.
1. 14.99 /month gets you a WoWlike game experience. A themepark, item-driven treadmill "RPG" loaded with kiddies and amateurs, and you have to join an elite guild to get good groupmates (which means you have to be fairly 1337 yourself, so you're hangin' with the kiddies for some months). There's no moderation to speak of so there's always foul language and random garbage in the chat channels. Crafting is present but basic to medium interesting. Additional content is generally for-pay too at higher rates - 19.99-29.99 or more.
2. 19.99/month gets you a more "mature" game experience (can't name a game atm, but I guess LOTRO would be the bottom of this range). You have a more mature, respectful game community with rapid moderation (LOTRO is a good example for this), you have good features like in-depth crafting, wide-ranging exploration, grouping / guilds is reasonably supported, and generally you feel like you're accomplishing something when you play. Bugs are openly discussed and scheduled for patching at regular intervals, and additonal content comes out regularly and is free or low-pay (9.99 -19.99).
3. 24.99/month gets you the premium game. There ain't no garbage in the chat channels, the game is rich, deep and exciting, you've got full grouping / clan abilities and content, you've got good player housing and possession management, and crafting is deep and varied. You could live in this game if you so chose
And additional content is always free - you pay for this every month.
Putting it this way, what would most people choose to pony up for? For me, I would be choosing my games from the top or middle tier. 5 bucks a month more is the same as not buying 1 pizza every 3 months. 10/month is two pizzas every quarter year. That's got to be affordable for pretty much everyone.
The reason Jon asked that question (I think, if not Jon can jump in and correct me) is not because of additional features as you get into. It's because there is this perception out there by game makers (and many in the gaming media) that such a sandbox game as being discussed here would not draw as big a crowd as the themepark games being pumped out. So, to offset what is assumed to be a smaller gaming crowd it is proposed an increase in sub fee so that it can be on par with the themeparks in subscription numbers.
That said I'd like to see a good faith clause added onto such a game. This clause would state that if the game maintains a playerbase of 100,000 subscriptions or more than they charge the industry standard of $14.99/month as their fears have been incorrect and the game is drawing a crowd on par with recently released themeparks after they have settled down. If the game has subscritptions of 99,999 or less then they can charge the$5 or $10 higher fee that they deemed necessary due do the assumption that this type of game wouldn't draw TP numbers.
"Many nights, my friend... Many nights I've put a blade to your throat while you were sleeping. Glad I never killed you, Steve. You're alright..."
Chavez y Chavez
I have been saying much the same thing for awhile now. What is needed to advance the genre to the next level is a true hybrid of game styles. Of course an animal such as that would require a lot more money to develop than the typical theme park or sandbox as it would be two in one. Investors would likely shy away from this increased expense in favour of the fast buck that todays games offer; get in, grab the profit and get out with no concern over what happens to the game after that.
The problem with this mentality among investors and publishers is that it is slowly but surely killing the genre and once the golden goose has flown they can wave goodbye to any further income from that direction. Theme parks have the ability to draw in the initial crop of players and to satisfy that quick fix feeling. Sanboxes however have longevity with the potential to continue for a very long time indeed providing they are supported and updated when needed, EvE being a case in point. The money men need to remove those short distance blinkers and take a wider, more long range view before the genre can evolve as it needs to.
I have been saying much the same thing for awhile now. What is needed to advance the genre to the next level is a true hybrid of game styles. Of course an animal such as that would require a lot more money to develop than the typical theme park or sandbox as it would be two in one. Investors would likely shy away from this increased expense in favour of the fast buck that todays games offer; get in, grab the profit and get out with no concern over what happens to the game after that.
The problem with this mentality among investors and publishers is that it is slowly but surely killing the genre and once the golden goose has flown they can wave goodbye to any further income from that direction. Theme parks have the ability to draw in the initial crop of players and to satisfy that quick fix feeling. Sanboxes however have longevity with the potential to continue for a very long time indeed providing they are supported and updated when needed, EvE being a case in point. The money men need to remove those short distance blinkers and take a wider, more long range view before the genre can evolve as it needs to.
In your first you make some good points. But given that the typical AAA class MMO takes 3-4 years to develop already, most investors are unlikely to fund an even longer development time. But I must disagree that well designed theme parks are killing anything. WoW has been around for more than 5 years now, and has brought millions of new players into the market. Sand box games to this point have not demonstrated an appeal to the majority of the modern demographic. In all too many cases they become havens for gankers and griefers, which drives many players away. The Dev's then end up imposing more and more rules to protect their business model(one example of this is the evolution of Concord in Eve online). Its highly unlikely that a real sand box game is going to attract sufficient numbers (in the west) to produce a good ROI that can be shown to the investor types.
Would I pay a higher monthly price for a game? Yes, I would. I'm playing a game right now that offers me such incredible entertainment value that I would gladly play twice the current subscription fee. I'd rather pay $20 a month for a game and instead of comparing them to WoW, have them come up with this mission statement, right on their home page - or something to this effect:
"Yes, we charge $29.95 a month. Yes, you can play World of Warcraft for $15 a month. There's a difference with us - we offer no cash shop, period. All updates to the game will be free. (You may or may not want to include expansions here.) We'll give you a fair number of character slots, access to good (read: a real person on the phone) customer support, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, as well as in game. You're paying more because we offer more - and we refuse to ever open a cash shop. No RMT's. Instant bans for those caught using hacks or bots, with a sensible appeal process for the inevitable mistakes made. In short, we're offering excellent customer service and a promise that we'll just raise the price for everyone if we have to cover operating costs as opposing to offering a different game experience to those that can pay more $$$ than their neighbor."
As I always like I say, when I play chess with my friends - richer or poorer - sometimes I have an advantage because I've played a lot of chess. My lifestyle allows, and allowed, for me to both have ample playtime and excellent partners. Now, should I allow a person who plays me to purchase, say, 3 extra pawns for $5 because he or she feels it "evens the field" between us? Allowing these kind of cash transactions kills the spirit of the game. Fallen Earth is a game I love to death - I've devoted many, many hours to playing and I am quite attached to my guild.
If they started offering paid services beyond, say, a server move IF they had multiple servers - I'd leave. In a heartbeat.
I'd pay $29.95 a month for peace of mind knowing that it won't ever be an issue with Icarus or Fallen Earth, honestly.
Someone mentioned that the Walmarts always do best - yes, mass market appeal does make McDonalds widely economically successful through the laws of volume economics and the rule of large numbers. That having been said, there will always be a niche for the really expensive steak restaurants and, indeed, even the mid-priced joints my wife and I go to when we eat out. We don't "do" McDonalds; we eat out at a few nice Thai places, a nice Greek place, etc. We've lived in this city a combined total of 30 years between the two of us, and we know it well. The restaurants we go to can charge a premium because their customers are willing to pay for things that McDonalds doesn't offer:
* lack of screaming kids (or... say... a more mature player base?)
* better customer service (say, GM's on staff 24 hours that respond to problems promptly? professionalism in the forums? freedom to complain if you are an unhappy paying customer without your threads being shut down?)
* better food (say, steak over that Big Mac)
So... yes. Even though McDonalds offers a burger for under a dollar, I still prefer to go down to this little place I know of where they grill the burgers with red wine and onions, and while they cost a lot more, they don't leave me with a stomach ache the next day, either.
Let people "grow up" on their F2P games and games with cash shops and then perhaps offer the more mature gamer with more disposable income a different experience - the premium $30 a month game -, as is done with *many* products in real life from service industry to retail.
Well here is my little contribution
1 - Higher Monthly fee - Well as some others have mentioned before, I think when a game starts to be on par with a service, such as mobile phone or other bills then perhaps I would think again. I know that I have been put off by Eve's £12ish a month, when WoW was just shy of £9. However I am aware that the content of the game and the level of exictement/enjoyment I got from it did not feel like that.
2 - Minimal Developer content - If the sandbox game/s can provide me with an environment and tools for create my own experience then I am all for it. Let me build my world, destroy it (or have it destroyed by others) and rebuild it anew all along side good friends and while fighting worthy opponents.
The Existential issues that arise from this topic are ones for each of us to spend time thinking about what we want from games in general. There is something to be said for being told where to go and what to kill however, I did my obligitory WoW stint. Do I want the responsibility for creating my own enjoyment? I think the answer is Yes, after a long time of having games that guide me along a pre-determined path.
3 - Slow Build - Hmm.. I suppose for me that is all to do with communication and the goals of the developers. If the developers are open and show a good link between community needs and what is being produced then I would be happy. I just want to know that improvements are on the way and those issues which hold back the open and fun sandbox experience I am after, are being dealt with.
Well thats just my opinion
Big thanks to Mr Wood, was good to spend sometime thinking about it all. 
Take care all!
"So how does that make you feel?" :P
I would pay more for a game developed more to my playstyle (along the old school sandbox lines) assuming it was delivered in good quality and well designed.
I agree, at launch content might be lacking, but if the core is solid and fun, I can wait for expansions to flesh out the world more.
"True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde
"I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant
Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm
Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV
Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
"This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon
Monthy fee depends on lot on what I get out of the game.
I've had 3x SWG accounts for a few years, buiding up from 1 to 2 to 3... because I wanted more characters and wanted to experience new things without changing my existing characters. Thats $45.00/month already, and I am SURE I am not the only player who has multiple accounts on a MMO game. So, if a new Sandbox game came along, offered 6 character slots for $40.00.. and was fun to play.. I would probably be interested.
Personally, I am divided a bit on total player driven stories/economy vs. mixed instance stories. Some devs are better at making fun stories than players. Most player-driven economies are all about the mighty dollar.. like a 2nd job... not something I am looking for at this late stage in my life (wife, kids, full time professional job, other hobbies that does not involve a monitor). Sometimes, I would rathre play a prepared story line than wait for 8 other players to all decide to do the same thing at the same time. Player-driven content is player-dependant... and I am sure we've all experienced that shortage in our MMO experience. Certain things should be player driven... economy, crafting, housing.. but there are times where an instance quest is just more fun.
And yes, if a game slowly builds up, I am absolutely fine with being part of that process.. with being patient (imagine that), and exploring/mastering what the game offers.
New content does NOT always = more fun things to do. Some parts simply are of no interest. The core game is important... having variety is important.. having a way to interact with other players in a variety of ways (not just combat) is important.
Ultimately, MMO virtual worlds is not about the account fee, sandbox or quest, or having every system under the sun. The biggest qualification is... its is FUN? Do I enjoy the time I spend while online.
And honestly, I don't expect to be a long term subcriber of ANY MMO... its still a game, it still gets boring, interests change as you age and as your life shifts focus. So the 5 years it takes for a MMO Producer to make a game might be the same lifespan it has for MY account. $45/month x 12 months x 5 years = $2,700 investment. How many players like me are out there willing do do that... and how many does a MMO producer need to bother with the million dollar price tag to make & sustain the game.
The question really is.. which title/IP/Developer has deep enough pockets to take the risk to find out?
SWG/STO/(SWTOR)
Would we accept a higher monthly fee for "our game?"
I used to be subscribed to EQ's Legends server. I believe it was 29.99. So, yes, I would. I also, am subscribed to DDO, and I use the shop. Again, yes, when I find a fun game I support it. Sadly, DDO is a much better game at lower-mid level than at high, but I digress.
Would we accept minimal developer content?
Hmm, No, I wouldn't accept this. Not sure, why you feel a sandbox shouldn't be an evolving world. Isn't EVE always upgrading? DAoC back in its prime released SI, and always had good update.
Would we accept a "slow build?"
Every MMO that is released is like this. The first few months the game struggles to find its real identity. Look at EQ2, DDO, AoC, Vanguard, WAR. All had massive changes for the better. There are two games that I can think of that were flawless, and didn't change much; WoW and LoTRO.
Sign Me Up Now
Would we pay more for a sandbox game?
Tbh, I don't think that's the right question, and here's why: sandbox games do not rely on linear content that must continuously be provided by the developers. In fact, you highlight this in your second point. Why should this cost more? Simple answer: it shouldn't. To make a sandbox game cost more than a linear, quest-based game, you have to be doing something very wrong.
Would we be okay with less developer content?
The funnest content I ever enjoyed in any game was the player-created Galactic Civil War of the original StarWars MMO. Professions had interdependent roles to claim territory, build bases, hold them, take out enemy bases etc.. There were land battles with hundreds of people, and massive space-battles with squadrons of starfighters on each side. Most of us were on ventrilo, and I tell ya, it felt like we were living the StarWars trilogy. Those that didn't get hooked on the original GCW really missed out on something special. The player-driven economy was also pivotal in equipping each side for battle. We needed guns, armour, medical kits for use in the field, mines, speeders, buffs and healing. Pretty much all the professions got in on the action, each playing its own complementary role.
So, yeah, I'd be totally cool with less developer content, if the devs gave us an immersive world, working game-mechanics, and all the tools we would need to generate our own enjoyable content. This was Koster's vision for SWG, by the way. Imo it was wrecked when the game was pushed out the door with numerous missing and broken tools. It needed to be less ambitious or have more time in incubation in order for it to be successful. Awesome vision, very poorly managed imo.
Would we be okay with a slow build?
Damn straight I would. What do we have now? Slow death, in most cases. Games release amidst great fanfare. Initial box-sales are huge due to all the hype, and then they start bleeding from an artery because they're broken and incomplete. No thanks. Start off with something smaller, functional, enjoyable, and user-generated; then grow baby grow--just like EVE seems to have done.
People point to the rise of WoW, and how quickly this happened. Why? It's been said numerous times by people who know MMOs better than me: polish, polish, polish. This damn game actually worked. People who were playing competitors' products were awe-struck by the polish of WoW. They switched games in a heart-beat, and I don't blame them. Then WoW had fantastic ad campaigns and trials to draw people in by the millions.
Here's the important point though that so many other games fail at: when people were drawn into WoW, they liked what they found. Why? Back to polish. Like I said before, this damn game actually worked. So, you have all the immersion and adventure of a global online community in a fun fantasy land without all the bugs, issues and customer service hassles of pretty much every other MMO on the market. That's a friggin gold mine is what that is, and the fact that it has linear quests isn't the issue. Remember: polish. That's what makes the MMO world go around...or not; there are more examples of the latter I'm afraid, and incidentally most of those are not sandbox games.
Sign Me Up Now
See, I knew I couldn't be the only *adult* with disposable income waiting for this niche market to come along and sweep me off my feet...
We're out here, guys! We were the nerds playing D&D in High School and we're in our 30's now, most of us married and very gainfully employed with plenty of cash to blow. Give us a game we can call home, charge more, and keep the McDonalds of games (i.e., WoW) around for the newbies to get their feet wet until one day they, too, mature and want a more evolved gaming experience - even if it costs more.
I play two games now. Warhammer Online is definitely not a "mature" game but I enjoy the PvP experience it offers, so I play it. Fallen Earth is a game slanted towards a more mature, sandbox-style of gameplay, and I absolutely love that game. I just wish a company would come along and try that $30 a month model, offering more. I know I would have jumped at the chance. I'm sure it would be interesting to see the kind of community it generates alone.
As someone said before, I think EQ provided a "premium" service at one point. Maybe it will be one of the big companies that comes along to fill this niche market, not a small indie player. Who knows. All I know is that it exists to be filled, and marketing hates a vacuum.
I would never pay that much monthly, i can afford it but the game would have to be the holy grail of mmo witch wont happen.