Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Would a lower subscription price lead to more subscribers?
Quizzical
Member LegendaryPosts: 25,507
The simple, obvious answer from economics is "yes". But the real question is, would it lead to enough additional subscribers to offset the loss in revenue per subscriber and on net lead to more revenue? There are periodic threads around here where people argue that the answer to the second question is also "yes".
I've often argued that the answer to this is "no". If you're not willing to pay a $15/month subscription to a game, it's probably because you either don't like the game or can't pay at all. Either of those are pretty compelling reasons not to pay $10/month to play the game, either.
But you know what trumps theory? Reality. And now Perfect World Entertainment is running an experiment to determine the answer to precisely the question above. Champions Online is now 1/3 off: a monthly subscription now costs $10/month, not the usual $15/month. Longer subscription periods are likewise discounted, though a lifetime subscription is not.
There are caveats, though. The discounted price is this weekend only. It's available right now, even though I don't normally think of Thursday as being part of a weekend. I'm not sure when it will end. But if you lock in the lower subscription price today, you can keep it for as long as you stay subscribed. Current subscribers can switch to the new, lower rate, too, though you do have to edit your payment to get the reduced rate.
As with previous trial balloons, if this goes well in Champions Online, PWE will probably bring it to Star Trek Online and other games. Indeed, if a payment model works well in one game, it could spread to a lot of other games. See what happened with the rise of "free to play" and the conversion of formerly subscription games to that model.
And if the game's subscriber numbers don't budge? Then we can forever point to it as an example of why the people claiming that games should reduce subscription fees are wrong.
Comments
The obvious answer is "No".
You can't beat your competition with price, only quality of your product is what matters. People won't play your "bad" game because it's cheap, they will play it because it is better than others.
Econ 101.
Only speaking for myself the sub has never been the issue, it's the value I place on my time vrs what else I could be doing that pulls me away from most games.
I don't buy boxes anymore but I will pay a sub in any mmo I'm playing if I'm into playing it. It's not the cost of the sub that decides it. It's the fun factor in the game. I pay the sub because I want the full experience type of thing. Having a $10 or $5 sub wouldn't keep me around if the fun dries up.
And for reference my ideal payment model would be free to download. A basic version of the game you can play free and a sub to get everything unlocked with cosmetics in the cash shop.
Simple, both pricing model and quality of it matter greatly. Many games that are trying to get $10-15 monthly sub out there not worth even $5 and many games that are charging box fee + expansion fee + maximum sub fee without any 30 days free after purchase also dont worth it, especially if there is on top some cash shop attached.
The consumer is always in charge, it's buyers market and those trying to sell their product will see the numbers and go from there. Are they happy with those numbers? Are they losing $ and missing on a bigger market they could attract with different prices, decisions, decisions, decisions...
Agreed it is not just quality or price but both. I have really not seen any games worth 15$, IMHO, in a long long time yet I would have paid 5$ or 10$ for a few of them. Have to say for 10$ it has to be really good and really shiny.
Brenics ~ Just to point out I do believe Chris Roberts is going down as the man who cheated backers and took down crowdfunding for gaming.
I agree with Gdemami. To say the simple, obvious answer is "yes" to to completely ignore price comparison bias, audience size and whether or not MMO gamers are even price sensitive at that level.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
People play free games because they're free all the time. They wait for games to go f2p for every title that's launch in the last 5+ years. In almost ever example of a p2p switching to f2p they seem to show that lowering the price WILL bring people in.
People play a free game because it is better than other free game. Nothing has changed in that regard.
What did changed though, is the market and developers responding with new business/payment model - F2P.
2 different things.
I can tell you from countless A/B tests on this very subject, there is a huge difference between
$15 a month or free
and $15 a month or $10 a month
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
If people can't or won't spend 50 cents a day on a game itas pretty unlikely they will spend 30 cents a day on a game. (OMG Look I just save 20 cents daily I'm so subscribing to this game)
Lower subscription price will definitely bring more people but depending on how good the game is they will stay short term only.
The main issue is not the price alone. The main issue is both paying the same price as other games and not providing as much polish, and varied AND new/fresh content. If you just make the same game everyone is making and charge the same price everyone is charging then people will go back to the most popular one that everyone knows has the most content and polish for the same price.
EDIT: $15 a month is not a bad price for a sub, but none of the mmorpgs in the last few years are worth that price. And to people saying 50 cents a day. That excuse is too old, move on... If you waste your money on crap then good for you, nobody else has to do it.
I don't know about you, but the games I play do not let me plop down $.50 on the days I want to play vs the days I do not want to play. They all seem to want their money up front, so that is really a different between $15 and $10. In some households it is more like the difference between $45 and $30. Now if I look at the second example it is far more affordable. Start adding in more games and more people, then I as a consumer can afford to spend more to keep more happy at the lower price, thus in the long run the company will earn more of my money.
--> http://www.swtor.com/r/nBndbs <--
Several Unlocks and a few days game time to make the F2P considerably easier
In my honest opinion, PWE will get a definite spike in subs, and it will be more of a cash grab. I think some people just might jump at it.
Personally, the difference between 10 and 15 means nothing to me. If I really enjoy a game and meet some quality people I would pay far more than 15. I think 15/month is incredibly cheap, but I won't push myself to try something I didn't like the first time around just because it's a little cheaper.
No, I don't think it will help any. The price of the sub isn't the problem - the sub itself is. It's a guaranteed cost for no guarantee on the product. Once upon a time it was a good thing, but WoW burnt that bridge (at least for me) with the argument "That money just rents the servers!" when they brought out a cash shop to go with it. So no, subs are pretty much dead. Now if a company wants money, then can create content for it.
Neverwinter asked $45 (on sale) for a pack to play a Moon Elf elf variant complete with a mount, a petpet, cosmetic items, fashion, character slot, and a whole slew of goodies including another petpet. Much of it is for all characters on your account. For that cost in WoW terms, I would only have to buy it THREE MORE TIMES for the right to play between patch 5.4 and the release of WOD...PLUS PAYING THAT WHOLE AMOUNT AGAIN FOR THE CONTENT! That's $240 and includes no mounts, no petpets, no slew of goodies, no bags, nothing. That's the right to log in and get an expansion module. Thanks but no thanks!
Subs killed themselves. They had it good and we were content to pay them, but then they started reaching. They gave less and less even as the bandwidth that the first subs were made for started going for pennies. Not playing that game anymore.
Edit: Corrected an error.
well it shouldnt have even a cosmetic cash shop in the first place. The cost of a sub is enough to get every piece of content in game, but the greed is too much so im better off not wasting my time and money. Want to offer a nice cosmetic cash shop? drop the sub. Want to keep the sub? sell me flipping expansion then, not a mount or a pet or a skin for half the price of the expansion.....(Blizzard im looking at you, you know everyone follows your practices in the mmo industry, cut the crap).
Please do the math, Pretty much every subscription game has you pay for a month. On average there's 30 days in a month so if your paying 15 dollars a month your paying roughly 50 cents a day. Don't kid yourself in the end your basically saying I not gonna try this game it will cost 20 cents more a day per month or I will try this game because I'm saving 20 cents per day per month.
I personally can't think of any other entertainment one can get for 50 cents a day. Cable tv will cost you more per day, your cell phone will cost you more per day. etc
I think you missing one very important point in your theroy-crafting of reasons and results.
Is the perceived value worth the subscription?
I would say their sagging, or should I say flaccid, subscription numbers tends to point to the fact that the customer, or would that be consumer, doesnt see value in spending $15 a month on Champions Online. And in actuality neither does Perfect World. Otherwise they would spend money improving it value.
The big question is will lowering the subscription cost to $10 increase its value to cost enough to see big results?
In my opinion, No. Its still not worth $9.99 a month to sub to that game. And its not like $10 is even a big deal to me, I regularly throw down a $10 tip on a $30 meal if I get good service and food.
Now even though I dont like the direction WoW has gone in the last few years, and even less so with what Ive heard about WoD expansion. I would be subbed to that game if it was based at $9.99. I'd probably even buy my time in six month chunks if it was based off that.
So my point is; in the end all this is going to show is what people see Champions Onlines perceived value as. Sadly I think it isnt going to be enough to really inflate their sub numbers significantly. Im positive they'll see a short term "boom" but it wont last more than two or three months.
And if anyone is wondering what what my Champions Online perceived value threshold is? Its $7.99.
Whats yours?
"I understand that if I hear any more words come pouring out of your **** mouth, Ill have to eat every fucking chicken in this room."
^^^ What he said!
Star Citizen – The Extinction Level Event
4/13/15 > ELE has been updated look for 16-04-13.
http://www.dereksmart.org/2016/04/star-citizen-the-ele/
Enjoy and know the truth always comes to light!
It is a standard assumption of economics that the demand curve is shaped such that people will buy more of a given good at lower prices. There are some corner cases where this isn't the case in some price range, but I'd be very strongly skeptical of any claim that game subscriptions are such a corner case. Champions Online does what it set out to do in terms of game mechanics pretty well, so it's hardly the sort of game that literally no one would want to play.
But economics has a much harder time predicting just how much the quantity demanded at a given price will be outside of an observed market equilibrium, as is necessary say what the entire demand curve should look like. The standard prediction of economics is that you'd get more subscribers at a lower price, but it doesn't specify whether you'd get 1% more or twice as many; either scenario would satisfy the prediction that you get more subscribers at a lower price.
That difference is critical to a company considering changing prices. That's why my first paragraph stated as such, basically in an attempt at focusing the question more narrowly than fits neatly into a thread title. I'm not sure if you read that far; your post doesn't give any indication of it.
I'm not so sure of that. people will do a lot of crazy and stupid things if they think they are getting something cheap. Just check the news about every black Friday for God knows how long. People trampling other people, fighting and staying up to weird hours to be the first to get a few dollars off some item.
Go the grocery store and you will find marked down several days old spoiled meat people will still buy because its cheap and it might not be too far gone.
Market it right and people will pay to be kicked in the balls if they think they are getting a bargain. A lot of F2P ames are like that. Sure the games crap but the persons bored with nothing better to do with their time ( for free) and hell the games free so why not right?
No, it isn't. It is a common mistake of people who knows little about econ or business.
Demand is actually quite inelastic and any deviation in price - up or down, from product price point mostly always results in a loss of money.
Think of it this way:
If people accept 15 USD for MMO sub as standard price, what would you achieve with setting up sub at 10 USD? It won't make your product any more attractive since people have no issue paying even half more what you ask. Result? You lose money.