Originally posted by jerlot65 As for the highlighted portion that pretty much gets to my point about comparing just how much $15 is valued at in todays market. Essentially people could give up two or three fancy starbucks and go for two or three cheaper coffees a month they could easily pay for an MMO for free.
So with $15 worth so little to people why would lowering the price to say $9 a month make enough difference? How many of those people you told about an MMO and turned it down because of the $15 a month would change their minds if you said $9 month? Will since lowering the price just cut your revenue by a 1/3 that price decrease better have a huge impact. But with that $6 change just wouldnt be enough to warrant it.
I don't necessarily like the "You can give up X amount of Product Z" to offset the monthly subscription of an MMO because it implicitly shows that those people find $15 value justified in some Starbucks coffee and not so much in a month of MMO play. You are arguing two different products that have two different functions along the same $15 line. If I want coffee, I'll go get some coffee, if I'm looking for an MMO, I'll go pursue MMO's, if I desire both, I'm getting both, that's a given. So you have to argue assuming we are merely talking about people with the same demand, the ones that actually want to play an MMO.
I think the point is that if you can't afford everything, like most people in life, you make decisions based on your budget.
Clearly, the truth is that if one wants a coffee they get a coffee and they want an mmo they play an mmo. In my younger days, when money was very tight, I would often make decisions such as "do I go out to lunch or do I save it for the movies this weekend".
That's very real no matter where you are on the financial spectrum.
The prices of "$15.00" per month are less than it was when it was first reduced due to inflation. So you have already been experience a lower cost. However, games are going up in their development costs. Thats' why we are in the mess we are in now.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
To make that same $15,000 / month, if the price was only $10 / month, a company would need
x players @ $10 / month = $15,000 / month of revenue
For those who might be algebra shy, X comes to 1500 players, or 500 more players than they had previously. How many companies feel that they can achieve a 50% increase in paying customers if they cut the price by a third? I'm guessing that not are willing to take that gamble. And losing money is a corporate no-no that costs executives their jobs. (and they don't get to roll around in rooms with the monthly earnings dumped in a big pile anymore).
I'm really rather surprised that the 'standard charge' is still $15. In 2004 (the year WoW began), the average US movie theater ticket price was $6.21 per person. In 2011, the average price was $7.93 per person. which is about a 27%-28% increase. Given a similar rate of inflation, that $15.00 should have been about $19.15 per month (in 2011). The industry standard subscription charge simply hasn't kept up with the inflation rates of similar entertainment industries.
I'm pretty certain that the move to micro-transaction based fee schedules is fueled in part to help keep up with inflation rates in costs, salaries and other overheads. In addition, since the customer doesn't have a history of micro-transaction costs, they have no way to accurately judge the actual increased cost they are paying for their game. And psychologically, the customer is more likely to stomach an increase of 75% for that service they want 3 times a month because the base price is only $2 or $3. Big percentages applied to small numbers are much less noticeable than the same percentage applied to a larger number.
There's even more to this story. There is some amount of costs associated with every paying customer. That amount may reduce with economies of scale, but from what I've read, there are costs that are pretty fixed per user assuming a certain level of service.
I am choosing a completely arbitrary number for this example, it may be more or less. If that fixed cost were $8 per user, the profit on a $15 sub is $7 per month. For 1000 subs it's $7000. If the sub price were reduced to $10 per month, the per user cost would remain the same and the profit per $10 sub is $3 per month. For 1000 subs it's $3000.
This means the game would actually need to pick up 133% MORE subs to reach the same economic viability as the $15 sub rate. Dropping the sub cost from $15 to $10 is almost certainly not going to increase the subscription base by 133%. In fact, subscription games would probably be better off raising the sub price to $19 monthly, as the profit in that case would be $11 per sub or $11,000 for 1000 subs. In that case, they would need about 64% of the sub numbers they need at $15 to generate the same profit.
Edit: These sort of "real" numbers are what make or break businesses. They aren't able to offer goods and services at arbitrary prices because they feel like it. Everything has a cost of business attached to it and they need to not only make up the cost of business, but also generate adequate revenue per user to make the endeavor worthwhile. Investors are not interested in tying up millions of dollars to break even after the 5+ year development cycle.
What I said was console gamers are not the same as mmorpg gamers. I wouldn't expect them to understand why people pay subscriptions toward a game they already purchased because in their mind, they bought the game, its theirs, why do they ahve to keep paying money to play it? I then explained why such a thought process was flawed.
Why is it flawed? Let's assume, for a moment, that indeed MMORPGs have higher server cost (which you claim, but i don't see any evidence that it is so, except your opinion. Show me a report of server costs between D3, Battlefield 3, and WOW, and i will believe you).
Why i should i pay for when the cost is higher? I pay for fun, for value. I don't pay for something just because it is expensive to make.
TOR has very high development cost. I am not going to pay more for that game just because it is expensive.
Now you may prefer to pay more because you want to compensate devs just because you feel sorry for them. But don't assume everyone needs to have the same preference.
It is no flaw to decide i don't want to pay for something no matter how much it costs. It is just a preference that .. that something is not worth it.
I never said anything about you paying for developmental costs. I merely commented on maintenance costs(server costs, etc)
I don't have to show server cost reports between D3, BF3, and WoW. Common sense says WoW will have the higher server costs. More players. Bigger world. Open and Persistent world at that. Way way way more content/places/objects/players in the game to render/load = higher server costs than some small little lobby game like BF3 or D3.
Originally posted by bcbully The western devs are behind the times. Still stealing from people with digital box fees. Wushu is 9$ a month, and no box fee. If your game is good people will sub. No need for a 50-60 upfront processing fee.
It so good, Wushu has to merge servers, lol.
Anyway, LOTRO had Founders sub rates at $10 a month, but that was 7 years ago. My guess is that there's a lot of pressure on the $15 price point right now, which is why you see the 'double dip' models emerging...games that charge a sub and have cash shops. No game company wants to make the leap to $20 price point.
console gamers =/= mmorpg gamers. completely different species so i wouldn't expect a console gamer to understand the concept of playing a sub to an mmo. i mean its not like their console games that they bought constantly get updated with new content and have extreme server costs to maintain.
What does server cost and new content has to do with a sub. There are plenty games with those things don't charge a sub.
D3, anyone? B2P games and F2P games?
And what is a MMORPG gamer? I play console games, pc games, iOS games, and some MMORPG. Do i count? I certainly do not play MMORPG exclusive, nor i care about the label.
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
I view it this way, those who play almost exclusively MMORPG's, and in many cases, only one MMORPG at a time are "purists" while those who mix and match their MMO gaming and include other genre's / hardware such as consoles are "tourists" to the space.
Each has decidedly different preferences in the design and delivery models, and of course no one definition applies to everyone, but in broad sweeping terms this view is pretty consistent.
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
in summary, monthly sub pricing is whatever the market will bear
Personally, I think WOW's domination of the P2P market space is what has held the prices stable for so long, no one dare(or even desires to) vary much from what Blizzard charges.
If Titan had been a sub only game and charged 17.99 you would have quickly seen everyone gravitate upwards to that point. But under the current state of the market there's no telling where the sub model will go, or if it will even survive.
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
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
I view it this way, those who play almost exclusively MMORPG's, and in many cases, only one MMORPG at a time are "purists" while those who mix and match their MMO gaming and include other genre's / hardware such as consoles are "tourists" to the space.
Each has decidedly different preferences in the design and delivery models, and of course no one definition applies to everyone, but in broad sweeping terms this view is pretty consistent.
Those seems reasonable definitions and semantics.
I wonder how many MMO purists are there. Personally i know of no one who a) only play MMORPG exclusively, and b) only play ONE MMORPG at a time.
Granted my experience is not statistics. But in this age of almost an unlimited availability of different genre of games and F2P MMORPGs, it is very hard for me to believe MMO "purists" are anything but a very very minute percentage of the gaming population.
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
I view it this way, those who play almost exclusively MMORPG's, and in many cases, only one MMORPG at a time are "purists" while those who mix and match their MMO gaming and include other genre's / hardware such as consoles are "tourists" to the space.
Each has decidedly different preferences in the design and delivery models, and of course no one definition applies to everyone, but in broad sweeping terms this view is pretty consistent.
Those seems reasonable definitions and semantics.
I wonder how many MMO purists are there. Personally i know of no one who a) only play MMORPG exclusively, and b) only play ONE MMORPG at a time.
Granted my experience is not statistics. But in this age of almost an unlimited availability of different genre of games and F2P MMORPGs, it is very hard for me to believe MMO "purists" are anything but a very very minute percentage of the gaming population.
Basically its how i said it. All mmorpg gamers are console gamers, but not all console gamers are mmorpg gamers.
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
I view it this way, those who play almost exclusively MMORPG's, and in many cases, only one MMORPG at a time are "purists" while those who mix and match their MMO gaming and include other genre's / hardware such as consoles are "tourists" to the space.
Each has decidedly different preferences in the design and delivery models, and of course no one definition applies to everyone, but in broad sweeping terms this view is pretty consistent.
Those seems reasonable definitions and semantics.
I wonder how many MMO purists are there. Personally i know of no one who a) only play MMORPG exclusively, and b) only play ONE MMORPG at a time.
Granted my experience is not statistics. But in this age of almost an unlimited availability of different genre of games and F2P MMORPGs, it is very hard for me to believe MMO "purists" are anything but a very very minute percentage of the gaming population.
Basically its how i said it. All mmorpg gamers are console gamers, but not all console gamers are mmorpg gamers.
uhm, no. I play MMORPGs, MMOs, RPGs (Skyrim, Dragon Age, etc), and I loathe console games. Never play them.
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
I view it this way, those who play almost exclusively MMORPG's, and in many cases, only one MMORPG at a time are "purists" while those who mix and match their MMO gaming and include other genre's / hardware such as consoles are "tourists" to the space.
Each has decidedly different preferences in the design and delivery models, and of course no one definition applies to everyone, but in broad sweeping terms this view is pretty consistent.
Those seems reasonable definitions and semantics.
I wonder how many MMO purists are there. Personally i know of no one who a) only play MMORPG exclusively, and b) only play ONE MMORPG at a time.
Granted my experience is not statistics. But in this age of almost an unlimited availability of different genre of games and F2P MMORPGs, it is very hard for me to believe MMO "purists" are anything but a very very minute percentage of the gaming population.
Basically its how i said it. All mmorpg gamers are console gamers, but not all console gamers are mmorpg gamers.
uhm, no. I play MMORPGs, MMOs, RPGs (Skyrim, Dragon Age, etc), and I loathe console games. Never play them.
You're an idiot. Skyrim/Dragon Age, etc are console games.
Then let me elaborate...I also play Don't Starve, Kerbal Space Program, and Minecraft (before it went to console). I play Daggerfall on a dos emulator, I play Morrowind, I play SimCity4, I play Civilization 4, I play Silent Hunter (4 & 5)....
PC games. So let us see if you can admit you were wrong. But somehow I doubt it.
But i am curious about your definition. Lots of people play WOW, and also Splinter Cell, CoD, Halo on their consoles too. What are they? Hybrids?
I view it this way, those who play almost exclusively MMORPG's, and in many cases, only one MMORPG at a time are "purists" while those who mix and match their MMO gaming and include other genre's / hardware such as consoles are "tourists" to the space.
Each has decidedly different preferences in the design and delivery models, and of course no one definition applies to everyone, but in broad sweeping terms this view is pretty consistent.
Those seems reasonable definitions and semantics.
I wonder how many MMO purists are there. Personally i know of no one who a) only play MMORPG exclusively, and b) only play ONE MMORPG at a time.
Granted my experience is not statistics. But in this age of almost an unlimited availability of different genre of games and F2P MMORPGs, it is very hard for me to believe MMO "purists" are anything but a very very minute percentage of the gaming population.
Basically its how i said it. All mmorpg gamers are console gamers, but not all console gamers are mmorpg gamers.
uhm, no. I play MMORPGs, MMOs, RPGs (Skyrim, Dragon Age, etc), and I loathe console games. Never play them.
You're an idiot. Skyrim/Dragon Age, etc are console games.
Then let me elaborate...I also play Don't Starve, Kerbal Space Program, and Minecraft (before it went to console). I play Daggerfall on a dos emulator, I play Morrowind, I play SimCity4, I play Civilization 4, I play Silent Hunter (4 & 5)....
PC games. So let us see if you can admit you were wrong. But somehow I doubt it.
All of those are console games. PC is just another console really. Won't be long till you see games like Skyrim/Oblivion also released on ps4/xbox1. You already see it happen more and more, console games releasing on PC, PC games releasing on console(diablo 3, mmorpgs, etc)
Consoles are a subset of pc's is a more accurate statement. Civ 4 on console, technically possible but realistically unwanted by console audience (daggerfall on console?) personally I gave up on consoles 15 years ago as I found the games too simplistic in comparison to pc games on offer, or i just grew out of them. pc only here (turn based strategy, mmorgs, retro and the occasional flutter with games like skyrim)
I note with interest that my son plays his Xbox less and less and pc more - he also seems to be growing out of them.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Originally posted by Bladestrom Consoles are a subset of pc's is a more accurate statement. Civ 4 on console, technically possible but realistically unwanted by console audience (daggerfall on console?) personally I gave up on consoles 15 years ago as I found the games too simplistic in comparison to pc games on offer, or i just grew out of them. pc only here (turn based strategy, mmorgs, retro and the occasional flutter with games like skyrim)
I note with interest that my son plays his Xbox less and less and pc more - he also seems to be growing out of them.
Daggerfall on dos box is interesting. It doesn't hold up well, haha. My memories of playing it are far more enjoyable than actually playing it again.
Originally posted by Kyleran Originally posted by NadiaOriginally posted by eric_w66EQ1 used to be $9.99 (or was it 9.89?) It was a big deal when it was increased to 14.99.
4 years ago, Tentonhammer did an article on the history of sub pricinghttp://www.tentonhammer.com/node/75692in summary, monthly sub pricing is whatever the market will bearPersonally, I think WOW's domination of the P2P market space is what has held the prices stable for so long, no one dare(or even desires to) vary much from what Blizzard charges.
If Titan had been a sub only game and charged 17.99 you would have quickly seen everyone gravitate upwards to that point. But under the current state of the market there's no telling where the sub model will go, or if it will even survive.
But technically if other MMO's wanted to truly compete against WoW, shouldn't they have undercutted them in sub fees like $13 or $14 a month? I guess the issue regarding MMO's is that even if its the same genre of game, it isn't always a similar experience and that's a hard thing to compare or quantify, but you would hope too if an MMO company was releasing a game to "compete" on the same market that they would "assume" their game is of similar quality unless they were rushed/forced to release earlier than they wanted (which is the case for some companies as well).
And if the sub model would truly die, would we notice a slow decline to death or perhaps an abrupt stop to the whole model all together? I could see it going either way seeing as some games made huge shifts away from pure sub models.
And if the sub model would truly die, would we notice a slow decline to death or perhaps an abrupt stop to the whole model all together? I could see it going either way seeing as some games made huge shifts away from pure sub models.
It is always a slow decline, because there are always some niche market segment that will hold onto the old ways (and willing to pay for it) for a while.
Comments
I think the point is that if you can't afford everything, like most people in life, you make decisions based on your budget.
Clearly, the truth is that if one wants a coffee they get a coffee and they want an mmo they play an mmo. In my younger days, when money was very tight, I would often make decisions such as "do I go out to lunch or do I save it for the movies this weekend".
That's very real no matter where you are on the financial spectrum.
The prices of "$15.00" per month are less than it was when it was first reduced due to inflation. So you have already been experience a lower cost. However, games are going up in their development costs. Thats' why we are in the mess we are in now.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
There's even more to this story. There is some amount of costs associated with every paying customer. That amount may reduce with economies of scale, but from what I've read, there are costs that are pretty fixed per user assuming a certain level of service.
I am choosing a completely arbitrary number for this example, it may be more or less. If that fixed cost were $8 per user, the profit on a $15 sub is $7 per month. For 1000 subs it's $7000. If the sub price were reduced to $10 per month, the per user cost would remain the same and the profit per $10 sub is $3 per month. For 1000 subs it's $3000.
This means the game would actually need to pick up 133% MORE subs to reach the same economic viability as the $15 sub rate. Dropping the sub cost from $15 to $10 is almost certainly not going to increase the subscription base by 133%. In fact, subscription games would probably be better off raising the sub price to $19 monthly, as the profit in that case would be $11 per sub or $11,000 for 1000 subs. In that case, they would need about 64% of the sub numbers they need at $15 to generate the same profit.
Edit: These sort of "real" numbers are what make or break businesses. They aren't able to offer goods and services at arbitrary prices because they feel like it. Everything has a cost of business attached to it and they need to not only make up the cost of business, but also generate adequate revenue per user to make the endeavor worthwhile. Investors are not interested in tying up millions of dollars to break even after the 5+ year development cycle.
I never said anything about you paying for developmental costs. I merely commented on maintenance costs(server costs, etc)
I don't have to show server cost reports between D3, BF3, and WoW. Common sense says WoW will have the higher server costs. More players. Bigger world. Open and Persistent world at that. Way way way more content/places/objects/players in the game to render/load = higher server costs than some small little lobby game like BF3 or D3.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
It so good, Wushu has to merge servers, lol.
Anyway, LOTRO had Founders sub rates at $10 a month, but that was 7 years ago. My guess is that there's a lot of pressure on the $15 price point right now, which is why you see the 'double dip' models emerging...games that charge a sub and have cash shops. No game company wants to make the leap to $20 price point.
4 years ago, Tentonhammer did an article on the history of sub pricing
http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/75692
in summary, monthly sub pricing is whatever the market will bear
EQ2 fan sites
I view it this way, those who play almost exclusively MMORPG's, and in many cases, only one MMORPG at a time are "purists" while those who mix and match their MMO gaming and include other genre's / hardware such as consoles are "tourists" to the space.
Each has decidedly different preferences in the design and delivery models, and of course no one definition applies to everyone, but in broad sweeping terms this view is pretty consistent.
"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
Personally, I think WOW's domination of the P2P market space is what has held the prices stable for so long, no one dare(or even desires to) vary much from what Blizzard charges.
If Titan had been a sub only game and charged 17.99 you would have quickly seen everyone gravitate upwards to that point. But under the current state of the market there's no telling where the sub model will go, or if it will even survive.
"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
Those seems reasonable definitions and semantics.
I wonder how many MMO purists are there. Personally i know of no one who a) only play MMORPG exclusively, and b) only play ONE MMORPG at a time.
Granted my experience is not statistics. But in this age of almost an unlimited availability of different genre of games and F2P MMORPGs, it is very hard for me to believe MMO "purists" are anything but a very very minute percentage of the gaming population.
Basically its how i said it. All mmorpg gamers are console gamers, but not all console gamers are mmorpg gamers.
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
uhm, no. I play MMORPGs, MMOs, RPGs (Skyrim, Dragon Age, etc), and I loathe console games. Never play them.
Then let me elaborate...I also play Don't Starve, Kerbal Space Program, and Minecraft (before it went to console). I play Daggerfall on a dos emulator, I play Morrowind, I play SimCity4, I play Civilization 4, I play Silent Hunter (4 & 5)....
PC games. So let us see if you can admit you were wrong. But somehow I doubt it.
All of those are console games. PC is just another console really. Won't be long till you see games like Skyrim/Oblivion also released on ps4/xbox1. You already see it happen more and more, console games releasing on PC, PC games releasing on console(diablo 3, mmorpgs, etc)
Be the Ultimate Ninja! Play Billy Vs. SNAKEMAN today!
I note with interest that my son plays his Xbox less and less and pc more - he also seems to be growing out of them.
rpg/mmorg history: Dun Darach>Bloodwych>Bards Tale 1-3>Eye of the beholder > Might and Magic 2,3,5 > FFVII> Baldur's Gate 1, 2 > Planescape Torment >Morrowind > WOW > oblivion > LOTR > Guild Wars (1900hrs elementalist) Vanguard. > GW2(1000 elementalist), Wildstar
Now playing GW2, AOW 3, ESO, LOTR, Elite D
Daggerfall on dos box is interesting. It doesn't hold up well, haha. My memories of playing it are far more enjoyable than actually playing it again.
Personally, I think WOW's domination of the P2P market space is what has held the prices stable for so long, no one dare(or even desires to) vary much from what Blizzard charges.
If Titan had been a sub only game and charged 17.99 you would have quickly seen everyone gravitate upwards to that point. But under the current state of the market there's no telling where the sub model will go, or if it will even survive.
But technically if other MMO's wanted to truly compete against WoW, shouldn't they have undercutted them in sub fees like $13 or $14 a month? I guess the issue regarding MMO's is that even if its the same genre of game, it isn't always a similar experience and that's a hard thing to compare or quantify, but you would hope too if an MMO company was releasing a game to "compete" on the same market that they would "assume" their game is of similar quality unless they were rushed/forced to release earlier than they wanted (which is the case for some companies as well).
And if the sub model would truly die, would we notice a slow decline to death or perhaps an abrupt stop to the whole model all together? I could see it going either way seeing as some games made huge shifts away from pure sub models.
It is always a slow decline, because there are always some niche market segment that will hold onto the old ways (and willing to pay for it) for a while.