Originally posted by Mike-McQueen I was starting to feel like the right game could charge more now, say $19.99 or 24.99 and get away with it. But the right game would have to be great (no cash shop please god!)
The right game could get away with it but it wouldn't get that many subs and the graphics would have to be on par with Crysis 3 or better.
The graphics is almost irrelevant, imo.
If that really were the case then they could charge $24.99 a month for Minecraft.
It's interesting though that there are really only two mmo's in the last decade that have had any sort of staying power. EVE Online and WoW. All the other big triple A releases have floundered within two to three years or less. EVE Online has the sci-fi and sandbox niches cornered. WoW is extremely polished and offers the best 'classic' mmo expierence. They both charge $15 bucks a month.
However, all of the big titles of the last half decade that promised to be wow killers, WAR, AoC, SWTOR etc. etc etc the list goes on, people don't feel like a $15 dollar a month investment is worth it. I think it's something worth thinking about. All these big budget newcomers could seriously upend the market paradigm and the historical trend of failed mmo's by charging $10 or $5.
I do not believe f2p is the answer, too many quality of life benifits are cut due to on going cost, such as customer service, in-game gms, and hack/bot security. I also feel that the basic ideal of serving you customer is lost. Too often in this model the customer is not right or has no recourse. In addition, when someone is subbed to a game, there is an vested intrest in the well being of the game
That being said sub prices have to drop. There are just too many mmorpgs on the market that are worth playing to be paying 15$ per month for one. I'm currently subbed to TSW and WoW with DF:UW right around the corner. 40+ per month no matter what I can afford is too much for gaming. In all honesty I feel guilty paying 30 per month on subs, but I want the option of playing when I get the urge.
What do you think? If the standard sub was 5$ per month with the AAA services included, would you have a problem subbing, to one or multiple games?
I have a few thoughts on this topic. The 1st is, each game needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Every game has it's inherant value or, how much are people willing to pay to continue to play a game? It's differentfrom one game to the next game. Look at Anarchy Online. IMO, it is the biggest example of how to abuse a playerbase. This old tired wornout game on a good day might be worth $5.00/mo to play but still charges $15.00/mo. On top of that, they have a P2W cash shop. Funcom isn't interested in getting new players. They want to find new ways to get more moeny from current players. A game can charge what it's worth. In your argument, my example fits. But what about Rift? I think they've earned their 10 to 15 bucks. The game my not be your preference, but the developer works hard to earn the fee.
The 2nd thought and to take the 1st thought one step further, the revenue model has to fit the game. Not every MMO needs a sub fee structure to work. GW2 can work with its cash shop. But the B2P model won't work for all MMOs. And to say other revenue models are outdated and need to go away is foolish. GW2's cash shop model transplanted as is into a game with a player run economy would equal disaster. I don't think it's a good idea to make sweeping generalizations about what single revenue model or structure works. I'd also include the payment amount as well.
I have always supported the sub fee based model. Frankly, it's not so much that I am a fan of Sub Fees. I am just against MTs. So the reality is that, I am all for any kind of revenue model that keeps the virtual world as isolated as possible from my real world. I want equal opportunity in a game. There are very few games that continue to offer that and I don't think any AAA titles do anymore. But it's still what I prefer and on that same note, if the game is worth it, I'd even pay more to keep it that way.
Lastly, While it's true that competition can be good for consumers, it also assumes similar products of similar quality are offered. This is severly lacking in this genre at the moment. But it is not the publisher's responsibility to keep costs within your personal buget based on the number of games you'd like to play. What if there were more hihg quality games to choose from than what you could possibly afford per month regardless of thier cost? What would you do then? You'd still have to limit your choices.
If you're going to cite supply and demand, you should be aware that the traditional short-run supply curves assume high per-unit costs, and do not work for computer software such as MMORPGs. It's not a failure of economics more broadly; it just needs a different model--one that is rather more complicated and has more difficulty in predicting prices.
I do not believe f2p is the answer, too many quality of life benifits are cut due to on going cost, such as customer service, in-game gms, and hack/bot security. I also feel that the basic ideal of serving you customer is lost. Too often in this model the customer is not right or has no recourse. In addition, when someone is subbed to a game, there is an vested intrest in the well being of the game
That being said sub prices have to drop. There are just too many mmorpgs on the market that are worth playing to be paying 15$ per month for one. I'm currently subbed to TSW and WoW with DF:UW right around the corner. 40+ per month no matter what I can afford is too much for gaming. In all honesty I feel guilty paying 30 per month on subs, but I want the option of playing when I get the urge.
What do you think? If the standard sub was 5$ per month with the AAA services included, would you have a problem subbing, to one or multiple games?
I have a few thoughts on this topic. The 1st is, each game needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Every game has it's inherant value or, how much are people willing to pay to continue to play a game? It's differentfrom one game to the next game. Look at Anarchy Online. IMO, it is the biggest example of how to abuse a playerbase. This old tired wornout game on a good day might be worth $5.00/mo to play but still charges $15.00/mo. On top of that, they have a P2W cash shop. Funcom isn't interested in getting new players. They want to find new ways to get more moeny from current players. A game can charge what it's worth. In your argument, my example fits. But what about Rift? I think they've earned their 10 to 15 bucks. The game my not be your preference, but the developer works hard to earn the fee.
The 2nd thought and to take the 1st thought one step further, the revenue model has to fit the game. Not every MMO needs a sub fee structure to work. GW2 can work with its cash shop. But the B2P model won't work for all MMOs. And to say other revenue models are outdated and need to go away is foolish. GW2's cash shop model transplanted as is into a game with a player run economy would equal disaster. I don't think it's a good idea to make sweeping generalizations about what single revenue model or structure works. I'd also include the payment amount as well.
I have always supported the sub fee based model. Frankly, it's not so much that I am a fan of Sub Fees. I am just against MTs. So the reality is that, I am all for any kind of revenue model that keeps the virtual world as isolated as possible from my real world. I want equal opportunity in a game. There are very few games that continue to offer that and I don't think any AAA titles do anymore. But it's still what I prefer and on that same note, if the game is worth it, I'd even pay more to keep it that way.
Lastly, While it's true that competition can be good for consumers, it also assumes similar products of similar quality are offered. This is severly lacking in this genre at the moment. But it is not the publisher's responsibility to keep costs within your personal buget based on the number of games you'd like to play. What if there were more hihg quality games to choose from than what you could possibly afford per month regardless of thier cost? What would you do then? You'd still have to limit your choices.
Great post as usual. I agree and have agreed with your 1st and 2nd points. They 3rd however, at this point, I feel there is a tremendous amount of parity between titles. For any number of reasons I don't feel there is one game that is that much better than the others. This is the perspective that my OP is coming from.
Originally posted by Quizzical If you're going to cite supply and demand, you should be aware that the traditional short-run supply curves assume high per-unit costs, and do not work for computer software such as MMORPGs. It's not a failure of economics more broadly; it just needs a different model--one that is rather more complicated and has more difficulty in predicting prices.
You know I think the next thread should be "Design your own payment model!"
I'm glad I live in a country (Norway) where just about no one would have problems paying that, even for multible subs. I wish more games had this model, F2P is always horrible.
The problem with today's gamers, is that they want everything for free. MMOs are among the cheapest forms for entertainment, measured in cost per hour, at least, and you have to be really poor if you can't afford it.
Originally posted by Quizzical If you're going to cite supply and demand, you should be aware that the traditional short-run supply curves assume high per-unit costs, and do not work for computer software such as MMORPGs. It's not a failure of economics more broadly; it just needs a different model--one that is rather more complicated and has more difficulty in predicting prices.
That's probably because MMOs are more of a service then a product. That seems to be something that escapes many.
I'm glad I live in a country (Norway) where just about no one would have problems paying that, even for multible subs. I wish more games had this model, F2P is always horrible.
The problem with today's gamers, is that they want everything for free. MMOs are among the cheapest forms for entertainment, measured in cost per hour, at least, and you have to be really poor if you can't afford it.
Thanks for you input. Next time read the OP and not just the title. I have been guilty of it too.
Originally posted by Quizzical If you're going to cite supply and demand, you should be aware that the traditional short-run supply curves assume high per-unit costs, and do not work for computer software such as MMORPGs. It's not a failure of economics more broadly; it just needs a different model--one that is rather more complicated and has more difficulty in predicting prices.
That's probably because MMOs are more of a service then a product. That seems to be something that escapes many.
Originally posted by Quizzical If you're going to cite supply and demand, you should be aware that the traditional short-run supply curves assume high per-unit costs, and do not work for computer software such as MMORPGs. It's not a failure of economics more broadly; it just needs a different model--one that is rather more complicated and has more difficulty in predicting prices.
That's probably because MMOs are more of a service then a product. That seems to be something that escapes many.
and escaping more as time goes on
It's not a goods versus services type of thing. Making computer software of any sort has enormous fixed costs, and then very small per unit costs. The difference in costs between selling a million copies of a game versus a thousand copies of the game aren't that big. That's untrue of most services; if you want to provide a thousand haircuts, it costs about ten times as much as to provide a hundred haircuts.
The current sub cost has nothing to assessing a game. The issue is the model itself. Whether it is $10 or $15 it matters not. The difference is laughable. Few subs have changed much over 10 years. This does not reflect inflation at all so we should actually be seeing higher sub costs but target audiences tend to be young on average and are broke because they would rather play games than get a real job for the most part.
Companies HAVE effectively raised subs though. It is called cash shops. The reason another layer of income exists is because subs simply cannot be raised due to expectations and the problem subs already sufferred from: the requirements for online purchasing power and the limitations that comes with block time rentals. People want the ability to play how they want and not pay more than what they play. Leaving for a week makes you feel like you are paying for not playing. This is worse when you want to take months away from a game. Even a sub of $5 will still cause this issue and then the cash shop will have a far greater impact on the game to make up for the difference.
F2P is nothing more then a sub + cash shop with the sub taken entirely out. You are still stuck with all the draw backs the cash shop model brings ... which are proving to be plenty. The impact on a game's development is directly affected by F2P which many players hate.
The problem today is that there isn't a more friendly model for payment that solves the issues of both sub and F2P. I've suggested friendlier pay as you go models as it would perserve some of the benefits of the sub model. Cash Shops are here to stay though and sadly SOE already has committed to their own model for EQNext and likely all their games. Hell some games could even attempt a higher sub in order to limit the cash shop impact. Premium games have not been attempted and there WILL be a market for it some day.
While I can appreciate the desire to have what you want when you want it, it is highly unlikely that sub prices will actually drop. Most are discounted if you sub for a longer period ($99/yr = $8.50/mo) because it provides continuous and stable cash flow to the company and that has value.
If you want to reinvent the model, that's great. But it's just not going to happen that companies will take 1/2 to 1/3 of the price they are getting now.
PAYG models of payment are only effective for the most casual gamer. Playing it to the scale of numbers I see quoted, with people in excess of a hundred hours in GW2 in the first month after launch would be not be feasible to many.
It is effectively an argument of Economies of Scale. If you're a large consumer of the mmo you sub to, the fee is preferential because every hour played drives the actual cost per hour down. However if you're an ultra casual gamer, playing less than 30 hours a month lets say, you would benefit from the model. Paying as you go will actually be more benficial to the company than most players.
It is the nature of any business to milk any product it produces for as much as it can for as long as it can at a price point netting the highest return. This is done without necessarily catering to “everyone.” A cheaper product would bring more customers for less profit returned because of the service baggage that comes with them. This holds true in the MMORPG market too. We love to hear big numbers for subscriptions or total accounts without considering how the dollars really play out. They have done the studies. Bad games can be made with good business sense just like film sequels rather than originals. If it was more profitable to offer a cheaper subscription service than $15 per month vs. just going free to play for their product or game then they would have done so...
The reason there are micotransactions in sub games are exactly that reason Vard. They SHOULD go up due to inflation, as the gaming industry isn't magically exempt from the effects of taht, but because it is the industry standard they would likely catch more flak for raising it up to 20/month instead of 15/month with a cash shop.
Is the difference between $0.50 per day and $0.17 per day really a significant one to you?
"It's the principal of the thing!"
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
It isn't a matter of signifigance to me no, as I'll glady pay sub fees or buy from cash shops if I feel I've enjoyed a game enough to give back to the business. But for some people it is, whether they have the money or not to spend. It is a matter of their particular pattern of consumption.
If you want to speak about exactly what the OP is talking about, no I wouldn't have a problem subbing to a game for that cheap if it provided content development, stable servers and the other things you should expect from the service. However it seems that might make a difference to the OP as he stated he feels guilty paying 30 dollars a month as it is. We all value our time differently so it's irrelevant if YOU think there is no difference between 50 and 17 cents.
As an aside, I can't find the article at the moment, but studies show $5 appears to be the point where people start to consider the merit of their spending, while $4.99 is something most people will pay without a second thought. So in that sense it could be beneficial, but again, that will be situational to each developer.
It isn't a matter of signifigance to me no, as I'll glady pay sub fees or buy from cash shops if I feel I've enjoyed a game enough to give back to the business. But for some people it is, whether they have the money or not to spend. It is a matter of their particular pattern of consumption.
If you want to speak about exactly what the OP is talking about, no I wouldn't have a problem subbing to a game for that cheap if it provided content development, stable servers and the other things you should expect from the service. However it seems that might make a difference to the OP as he stated he feels guilty paying 30 dollars a month as it is. We all value our time differently so it's irrelevant if YOU think there is no difference between 50 and 17 cents.
As an aside, I can't find the article at the moment, but studies show $5 appears to be the point where people start to consider the merit of their spending, while $4.99 is something most people will pay without a second thought. So in that sense it could be beneficial, but again, that will be situational to each developer.
This is kinda what I'm looking at. For example I haven't played tera, I probably would for a $5 sub. Who knows, I may even still be subbed to swtor. I probably wouldn't notice or care if 5 bucks was still being deducted.
I'd like to see an increase in sub prices. Increase the barrier to entry, whilst increasing potential post launch development with additional funds. If someone could make the case that ( assuming its a quality game) the standard 15$ sub rate wasn't buying what I think it does I might reconsider my stance. Until then I'll just keep hoping SoE throws a larger than normal sub price onto their next installment.
Perhaps I'm a fool to still believe you get what you pay for.
I'd like to see an increase in sub prices. Increase the barrier to entry, whilst increasing potential post launch development with additional funds. If someone could make the case that ( assuming its a quality game) the standard 15$ sub rate wasn't buying what I think it does I might reconsider my stance. Until then I'll just keep hoping SoE throws a larger than normal sub price onto their next installment.
Perhaps I'm a fool to still believe you get what you pay for.
this is the thing. If EQNext cost $20 bucks per and was the true "Next Game" that I'd be playing for years, no problem take 20, take 25.
As things stand now I don't think there is a game out there that could warrent the kind of sub.
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
Comments
If that really were the case then they could charge $24.99 a month for Minecraft.
It's interesting though that there are really only two mmo's in the last decade that have had any sort of staying power. EVE Online and WoW. All the other big triple A releases have floundered within two to three years or less. EVE Online has the sci-fi and sandbox niches cornered. WoW is extremely polished and offers the best 'classic' mmo expierence. They both charge $15 bucks a month.
However, all of the big titles of the last half decade that promised to be wow killers, WAR, AoC, SWTOR etc. etc etc the list goes on, people don't feel like a $15 dollar a month investment is worth it. I think it's something worth thinking about. All these big budget newcomers could seriously upend the market paradigm and the historical trend of failed mmo's by charging $10 or $5.
I have a few thoughts on this topic. The 1st is, each game needs to be taken on a case by case basis. Every game has it's inherant value or, how much are people willing to pay to continue to play a game? It's differentfrom one game to the next game. Look at Anarchy Online. IMO, it is the biggest example of how to abuse a playerbase. This old tired wornout game on a good day might be worth $5.00/mo to play but still charges $15.00/mo. On top of that, they have a P2W cash shop. Funcom isn't interested in getting new players. They want to find new ways to get more moeny from current players. A game can charge what it's worth. In your argument, my example fits. But what about Rift? I think they've earned their 10 to 15 bucks. The game my not be your preference, but the developer works hard to earn the fee.
The 2nd thought and to take the 1st thought one step further, the revenue model has to fit the game. Not every MMO needs a sub fee structure to work. GW2 can work with its cash shop. But the B2P model won't work for all MMOs. And to say other revenue models are outdated and need to go away is foolish. GW2's cash shop model transplanted as is into a game with a player run economy would equal disaster. I don't think it's a good idea to make sweeping generalizations about what single revenue model or structure works. I'd also include the payment amount as well.
I have always supported the sub fee based model. Frankly, it's not so much that I am a fan of Sub Fees. I am just against MTs. So the reality is that, I am all for any kind of revenue model that keeps the virtual world as isolated as possible from my real world. I want equal opportunity in a game. There are very few games that continue to offer that and I don't think any AAA titles do anymore. But it's still what I prefer and on that same note, if the game is worth it, I'd even pay more to keep it that way.
Lastly, While it's true that competition can be good for consumers, it also assumes similar products of similar quality are offered. This is severly lacking in this genre at the moment. But it is not the publisher's responsibility to keep costs within your personal buget based on the number of games you'd like to play. What if there were more hihg quality games to choose from than what you could possibly afford per month regardless of thier cost? What would you do then? You'd still have to limit your choices.
Great post as usual. I agree and have agreed with your 1st and 2nd points. They 3rd however, at this point, I feel there is a tremendous amount of parity between titles. For any number of reasons I don't feel there is one game that is that much better than the others. This is the perspective that my OP is coming from.
You know I think the next thread should be "Design your own payment model!"
I agree the supply of medicore games is greater than the demand for mediocre games.
The solution is to supply something there is an excess of demand for: a good MMORPG
$15 per month too much? Lol...
I'm glad I live in a country (Norway) where just about no one would have problems paying that, even for multible subs. I wish more games had this model, F2P is always horrible.
The problem with today's gamers, is that they want everything for free. MMOs are among the cheapest forms for entertainment, measured in cost per hour, at least, and you have to be really poor if you can't afford it.
That's probably because MMOs are more of a service then a product. That seems to be something that escapes many.
Thanks for you input. Next time read the OP and not just the title. I have been guilty of it too.
and escaping more as time goes on
It's not a goods versus services type of thing. Making computer software of any sort has enormous fixed costs, and then very small per unit costs. The difference in costs between selling a million copies of a game versus a thousand copies of the game aren't that big. That's untrue of most services; if you want to provide a thousand haircuts, it costs about ten times as much as to provide a hundred haircuts.
The current sub cost has nothing to assessing a game. The issue is the model itself. Whether it is $10 or $15 it matters not. The difference is laughable. Few subs have changed much over 10 years. This does not reflect inflation at all so we should actually be seeing higher sub costs but target audiences tend to be young on average and are broke because they would rather play games than get a real job for the most part.
Companies HAVE effectively raised subs though. It is called cash shops. The reason another layer of income exists is because subs simply cannot be raised due to expectations and the problem subs already sufferred from: the requirements for online purchasing power and the limitations that comes with block time rentals. People want the ability to play how they want and not pay more than what they play. Leaving for a week makes you feel like you are paying for not playing. This is worse when you want to take months away from a game. Even a sub of $5 will still cause this issue and then the cash shop will have a far greater impact on the game to make up for the difference.
F2P is nothing more then a sub + cash shop with the sub taken entirely out. You are still stuck with all the draw backs the cash shop model brings ... which are proving to be plenty. The impact on a game's development is directly affected by F2P which many players hate.
The problem today is that there isn't a more friendly model for payment that solves the issues of both sub and F2P. I've suggested friendlier pay as you go models as it would perserve some of the benefits of the sub model. Cash Shops are here to stay though and sadly SOE already has committed to their own model for EQNext and likely all their games. Hell some games could even attempt a higher sub in order to limit the cash shop impact. Premium games have not been attempted and there WILL be a market for it some day.
You stay sassy!
While I can appreciate the desire to have what you want when you want it, it is highly unlikely that sub prices will actually drop. Most are discounted if you sub for a longer period ($99/yr = $8.50/mo) because it provides continuous and stable cash flow to the company and that has value.
If you want to reinvent the model, that's great. But it's just not going to happen that companies will take 1/2 to 1/3 of the price they are getting now.
PAYG models of payment are only effective for the most casual gamer. Playing it to the scale of numbers I see quoted, with people in excess of a hundred hours in GW2 in the first month after launch would be not be feasible to many.
It is effectively an argument of Economies of Scale. If you're a large consumer of the mmo you sub to, the fee is preferential because every hour played drives the actual cost per hour down. However if you're an ultra casual gamer, playing less than 30 hours a month lets say, you would benefit from the model. Paying as you go will actually be more benficial to the company than most players.
It is the nature of any business to milk any product it produces for as much as it can for as long as it can at a price point netting the highest return. This is done without necessarily catering to “everyone.” A cheaper product would bring more customers for less profit returned because of the service baggage that comes with them. This holds true in the MMORPG market too. We love to hear big numbers for subscriptions or total accounts without considering how the dollars really play out. They have done the studies. Bad games can be made with good business sense just like film sequels rather than originals. If it was more profitable to offer a cheaper subscription service than $15 per month vs. just going free to play for their product or game then they would have done so...
Is the difference between $0.50 per day and $0.17 per day really a significant one to you?
"It's the principal of the thing!"
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.
THIS.
That's also one of reasons why microtransactions in mmorpg's are bad for me.
-------------------------
As for OP - subs will not drop. Some of them might rise actually and rest will be replaced by f2p or freemium.
It isn't a matter of signifigance to me no, as I'll glady pay sub fees or buy from cash shops if I feel I've enjoyed a game enough to give back to the business. But for some people it is, whether they have the money or not to spend. It is a matter of their particular pattern of consumption.
If you want to speak about exactly what the OP is talking about, no I wouldn't have a problem subbing to a game for that cheap if it provided content development, stable servers and the other things you should expect from the service. However it seems that might make a difference to the OP as he stated he feels guilty paying 30 dollars a month as it is. We all value our time differently so it's irrelevant if YOU think there is no difference between 50 and 17 cents.
As an aside, I can't find the article at the moment, but studies show $5 appears to be the point where people start to consider the merit of their spending, while $4.99 is something most people will pay without a second thought. So in that sense it could be beneficial, but again, that will be situational to each developer.
This is kinda what I'm looking at. For example I haven't played tera, I probably would for a $5 sub. Who knows, I may even still be subbed to swtor. I probably wouldn't notice or care if 5 bucks was still being deducted.
I'd like to see an increase in sub prices. Increase the barrier to entry, whilst increasing potential post launch development with additional funds. If someone could make the case that ( assuming its a quality game) the standard 15$ sub rate wasn't buying what I think it does I might reconsider my stance. Until then I'll just keep hoping SoE throws a larger than normal sub price onto their next installment.
Perhaps I'm a fool to still believe you get what you pay for.
As things stand now I don't think there is a game out there that could warrent the kind of sub.
ugh
My tooth hurts
Self-pity imprisons us in the walls of our own self-absorption. The whole world shrinks down to the size of our problem, and the more we dwell on it, the smaller we are and the larger the problem seems to grow.