Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Pricepoint is the real issue
As I have stated in the past Tera is not a horrible game, however, it is also not a great game.
Tera is a A, possibly a AA title, but what is is not is a AAA title.
Sadly Enmasse has chosen to set a pricepoint based on a AAA market. There are professionals called Costers, their whole job is to independently analysis markets, look at production and maintance costs, and determine the right pricepoint for a product.
Based on the fact many AAA titles are releasing this year, many AAA titles are going F2P, and many F2P titles as good if not better than Tera are coming to market, Tera's failure, or rather the failure of Enmasse's business managers is in setting an unrealistic pricepoint.
If you intend to sell an economy product you must charge an economy price. You can not sell us a KIA and charge us for a BMW, the market just won't accept it.
I am far from an expert Coster, but I do have many years experience on both sides of the industry.
IMO, Tera should be coming in around $25 standard, $35 deluxe, $45 CE, with a $6.99 subscription.
If Enmasse was realistic and had the experience to set a reasonable pricepoint, Tera would have a much greater chance of carving out a small slice of a very competitive and fickle market.
Problem is most game developers have these massive EGO's and think their game is the best game ever, hard to get men like that to ever be reasonable.
Comments
Well if you think the game should sell for $25 for the standard edition, with that reasoning some of these single player games that you finish after 20 hours of play or so should sell for about $0.99
But as far as sub is concerned I agree Tera is not a $15/month game but then again no games should be today since you dont need the $$ for bandwidth anymore..
The prices are fine actually. Cheaper than other MMO's that have come out. Heck the digital CE is all you need and guess what it is the price of a new PS3 game or Xbox game. I don't understand why people need to nitpick about pricing. If you do not like it do not buy it. Simple as that. For how big the game is your pricing is just way off.
SWTOR is considered a triple A MMORPG that they spent 200mil on. I'd rather play TERA any day. I'll get my moneys worth out of TERA, unlike other "triple A" mmos such as SWTOR.
Indeed, after SW:TOR's release and the price they asked for their digital deluxe edition, Tera's price is more than reasonable. Also the AA and AAA stuff is just an opinion really. I see no difference in quality between Tera and Rift for example.
I see TERA as a AAA MMORPG, but it's just a Korean MMO. Not everyone (myself included at times) appreciates that style.
To me AAA title just means it has a big company with lots of money behind it, i doesn't mean if the game will be good or bad. It just means it has shit tons of money. like they said SWTOR is AAA, was that good? Majority says no. Minecraft is a indies game and it beats many AA or AAA games out there. The label AAA doesn't mean the quality of the game, it means the amount of money behind the game.
Beside L2 went f2p and aion possibly going f2p (both ncsoft) what other title is? Rift isn't, WoW isn't, AoC and DCUO is like a VERY resticted f2p, if you want most of the game you need to pay anyways so its more like a trail.
I think players have even larger ego because many think they know better. You know these company have professional at marketing and stuff to know wtf they are doing than player how think they know what they are doing.
I dunno, to me does it seems to be about as good as Rift (I tried it out during the beta).
Having lower price might get more players, that is of course true but since Rift is doing fine I don't really see a big problem.
Besides, it is cheaper to translate someone else game than make a MMO from start so TERA wont really need that many players.
I'm playing in the European closed Beta and still more than happy with the box price I've payed and the subscription fee when it goes live. There's no doubt I'd be playing right now if I could.
I didn't play SW:TOR but I did play Rift and enjoyed that for a good number of months. I'm liking TERA at least as much as Rift at the same point. Still, maybe there are other people here who would pick up the game if it were cheaper, but it's difficult to tell when most of the comments on this forum are distictly polarised.
SW:TOR was $80 for regular, $160 for CE.
TERA in comparison is much cheaper and I would play TERA any day of the week over SW:TOR, nevermind TERA launched with hi-res textures and fully custimizable UI...SW:TOR however...didn't.
Also saying TERA is not a "great" game is entirely preferential, I just logged off after I got a message saying "you have been on for 15 hours" and I would go back on if I didn't need to sleep. My guildies are still on...lol.
my friend internet is acting up so he can't do anything so taking a break suck = o well guild pvp pratice soon woo =D and rushing SM is fun =X nothing like rushing the dungeon in 20mins killing only 2 bosses than sit around for 40mins =P
Lol I got my lancer to 20 today so decided to do the first dungeon. However, I hadn't picked up any of my aggro abilities yet. It was interesting haha. still cleared it all, pretty fun stuff.
That's true for every game in existence lol.
they had no problem charging £45 for that load of rot swtor..has far as games go this is better than that by miles..its more polished,graphics aint 5 yrs out of date,its open to explore,apart from start area..saying that.it is a standard mmo..but it is fun in my eyes..so i paid for it.
SWTOR Regular was 60, Digital Delux was 80, CE was 150. Also, if GW2 has proven anything, that just changing the price point of a game gives the game tons of attention alone without people even trying the game.
That's an awful lot of speculation, opinion and presumption for what basically boils down to you saying "TERA isn't worth the price for me and I wish it were cheaper".
There's this funny sort of attitude developing among a lot of gamers where, if they downplay a game enough, they can then make a bullet-proof argument about how its price should be lower.
Or, they seem to feel that if they can't have a 100% guarantee that they will like the game, that they shouldn't have to pay full price for it.
Folks, just as with any other product in any other market. If people feel it's worth the price to them, they'll buy it. If they don't, they won't buy it, or will cease to support it. Very simple.
You get your aggro skill at lvl 18 o.o should have picked it up its called challenging shout.
If GW2 has proven anything it is that they made a successful game, GW with the same price point and I have no doubt GW2 will be just as well done and successful.
I wouldn't go as far as saying they made a successful game since it isnt even out yet. Though it will sell well that's for sure even if the game doesn't meet expectations and thats all GW2 needs since it wont rely on a sub fee.
He ment the first game was successful, the game still is well populated. Heck I logged on for the first time in a few years last week, and was surprised at how many people still play that game. But it is a very solid game for what it is.
He's talking about GW, which sold over 6 million copies, and that was a while ago. I'm sure the number has risen since, with GW2 and everything. 6million x $30-ish is quite a lot of money, and that doesn't include expansions + excess stuff. His point is a pretty good one, I know quite a lot of people that bought GW, never played it more than a few hours, but still bought the expansions as well just to have them. Their logic is that, there's no sub fee...so why not. Don't quite understand that logic, but I liked the game and their money is not mine so *shrug* But it still goes to show how that model really appeals to people.
"Forums aren't for intelligent discussion; they're for blow-hards with unwavering opinions."
"If GW2 has proven anything it is that they made a successful game" - That means that GW2 being a successful game. GW2 is a game, not a company.
Again, then GW2 didn't prove anything in his statement. Saying GW2 has proven that they made a successful game means that GW2 is the successful game. A-Net is the company if that is what he meant to say.
Look at what I underlined, Its easy to see what he ment, and I wasn't the only one that saw it.
Doesn't change the fact that it is still an error on his part in referring a company by it's game.
True it is an error as i should have said the makers of GW2 but my point still stands,that Arenanet made a successful game so this attention you speak off isnt just blind imo.
And as far as refering to a company by its game how many different games are in Arenanets stable that you couldnt figure out who I was refering to?