So, listening to the round table today, on the subject of revenue model, it seems that VR are going for a model I have long pushed here.
Free client, robust trial, ongoing sub. No cash shop.
I have always though that cash shops are toxic (I sub even in cash shop driven games, but even then they fundamentally change the game for I think for the absolute worse), and I have always though 'B2P' has it arse about face in it's approach... F2P with a client fee as a barrier to entry, just a bit weird.
So, yeah. Give the client for free, let people see what they are playing and decide if it suits them, and then charge a fair sub if they like it.
Transparent, no fuss, no P2W rubbish, no cash shop creep and intrusive and cynical constant manipulation to spend money in general.
It's a long way from market, but let's hope this philosophy carries to launch.
Shoot! I thought they were going to do something innovative.
Yeah? Are there a glut of games that have offered a free client, robust trial, and a sub, with no cash shop, from day one as their revenue model?
I will check them out if you list a few for me.
But you are right. It IS about getting people through the door. This is why you remove the barrier to entry of a client. I see only good in that.
Play before you pay from launch day should be lauded and supported as a pro customer thing.
Tell me, because maybe we can have a proper discussion about this, what kind of model is perfect for you? What would you have preferred to see for Pantheon?
Originally posted by azzamasin Evolve or die, subs are dead!
World of Warcraft, Eve Online.
WoW, Eve, FFXIV, FFXI, DAoC, ESO... And many more that have gone F2P still maintain a subscription option (LoTRO, several of SOE's games, TERA Online, TSW, etc) - because it's still viable, and many people still prefer it to the nickel and dime approach of cash shops.
It amazes me how people, like azzamasin in their post, can make such remarks as "subs are dead", when there are numerous examples that they aren't. It's textbook willful ignorance in action.
It's like someone arguing that the ocean isn't wet, as they walk out of it, drenched head to toe.
I know the hardcore F2P'ers really want to believe that "P2P is dead!", but you're just wrong. Several years ago now, many predicted P2P was dying/going away. Here you are, years later, still making the same claim. You were wrong back then. You're wrong now. So long as there are people who prefer a flat monthly fee, to a nickel-and-dime Cash Shop, P2P/Subs will continue to exist. Thoughtlessly repeating the same mantra, "P2P is dead!", over and over doesn't make it so. Might as well get that through your heads and move on.
All very true, guys like Azz ignore it when it's pointed out that pretty much all Western 'F2P' games depend on the sub. It has happened already in this thread. It doesn't suit their narrative, so they tune it out and just repeat the mantra afresh.
So, listening to the round table today, on the subject of revenue model, it seems that VR are going for a model I have long pushed here.
Free client, robust trial, ongoing sub. No cash shop.
I have always though that cash shops are toxic (I sub even in cash shop driven games, but even then they fundamentally change the game for I think for the absolute worse), and I have always though 'B2P' has it arse about face in it's approach... F2P with a client fee as a barrier to entry, just a bit weird.
So, yeah. Give the client for free, let people see what they are playing and decide if it suits them, and then charge a fair sub if they like it.
Transparent, no fuss, no P2W rubbish, no cash shop creep and intrusive and cynical constant manipulation to spend money in general.
It's a long way from market, but let's hope this philosophy carries to launch.
Shoot! I thought they were going to do something innovative.
Yeah? Are there a glut of games that have offered a free client, robust trial, and a sub, with no cash shop, from day one as their revenue model?
I will check them out if you list a few for me.
But you are right. It IS about getting people through the door. This is why you remove the barrier to entry of a client. I see only good in that.
Play before you pay from launch day should be lauded and supported as a pro customer thing.
Tell me, because maybe we can have a proper discussion about this, what kind of model is perfect for you? What would you have preferred to see for Pantheon?
In all honesty, a hybrid model provides the greatest amount of value, in my opinion. I've played/play and have subbed to SWTOR, Rift, and LOTRO and they all provide very compelling reasons to subscribe. I think that one of the biggest reasons they work really well right now is that they bridge the gap between the 30-something MMO vets and their kids. I've got 4 boys at home, and one of the main reasons I subscribed to SWTOR was so I could play less time and still keep pace with them while we were initially progressing through the game. After 3 months or so, I unsubscribed, but went back for the expansion, re-subbed, and then unsubbed after a couple months again. In between subscriptions, I simply play F2P.
WoW, on the other hand, only one of my kids really plays, because he monopolizes the time in my WoW account. So what game do I think has a better chance of keeping their attention long-term? Probably SWTOR. It provides flexibility.
The thread is about the recording and the game's proposed payment model. Other discussions about crowdfunding and related topics in the history of Pantheon don't belong in here. Those have already been discussed in other threads and every thread in here doesn't need a rehash of those. You can search for those discussions if curious. Now, keep to the thread topic. I've removed derails.
To give feedback on moderation, contact mikeb@mmorpg.com
It feels ironic this is what used to be the go-to model for all games of the genre. Practically speaking, its just the traditional sub model, but instead of limiting the trail by time (14 days), its limited by content availability.
I like the system however. In fact, I regard it as the ideal system for an MMORPG.
As for Pantheon itself, I still keep on wondering whether the game will ever come to existence or not.
Again the problem is sustainability over time as player numbers decline - that's when this model becomes a lot less ideal if subscriptions fall so low that the games operational costs cant be covered.
Pantheon doesnt have a big team and I do not think they ever will.
Lets pretend for a second that they do a 14.99 a month sub fee and they get / average 10,000 subs month to month. And possibly 2-4 thousand concurrent players in game.
150,000 a month
Lets now pretend that their team expands to 20 members.
Brad pays himself 10,000 a month. Very generous at 120k a year for such a project. Sounds about right though.
The other 19 employees get 5,000 a month. Very generous at 60k for such a project. Sounds a bit high IMO. Probably closer to 3,000 averaged out.
That is 105,000 toward paying employees leaving 45,000 a month for bandwidth ( which bandwidth is cheaper than ever ) , server(s) and any other bills... Bills that I do not think would come close to totaling 45,000 for this game. In the end they would be turning a profit.
The possible problem occurs when you have a ginormous team that takes several hundred thousand to pay every month.
I don't know of a single experienced AAA Dev that is not making 6 figures so your math is way off
Also 120k for brad would be a joke.
Be more realistic - devs are making at least 120k, brad is making 300k - if you don't pay your devs well other companies will, and theybeill leave quickly.
45k a month for hosting is not enough, there's a lot more to it than servers and bandwidth, what about CDN costs, support, marketing, etc ...
MMOs are very expensive to run.
For some reason my reply was deleted in the cleanup.
Then you dont know many developers. You can easily take a look around at pay averages on many websites and see the average for a dev is around 60k. I am sure there are some out there that do make more but the majority do not. You are also throwing around titles like " AAA " as if that means anything.
I am sure Brad could get 300k or more from a major studio but they arent a major studio now are they. He also said that they would be fine with 10,000 subs awhile back so there is another hole in your theory.
You are way way way off base here.
They will be just fine going with the decision of a free client and a sub fee. They know they will be a niche game.
So, listening to the round table today, on the subject of revenue model, it seems that VR are going for a model I have long pushed here.
Free client, robust trial, ongoing sub. No cash shop.
I have always though that cash shops are toxic (I sub even in cash shop driven games, but even then they fundamentally change the game for I think for the absolute worse), and I have always though 'B2P' has it arse about face in it's approach... F2P with a client fee as a barrier to entry, just a bit weird.
So, yeah. Give the client for free, let people see what they are playing and decide if it suits them, and then charge a fair sub if they like it.
Transparent, no fuss, no P2W rubbish, no cash shop creep and intrusive and cynical constant manipulation to spend money in general.
It's a long way from market, but let's hope this philosophy carries to launch.
Shoot! I thought they were going to do something innovative.
Yeah? Are there a glut of games that have offered a free client, robust trial, and a sub, with no cash shop, from day one as their revenue model?
I will check them out if you list a few for me.
But you are right. It IS about getting people through the door. This is why you remove the barrier to entry of a client. I see only good in that.
Play before you pay from launch day should be lauded and supported as a pro customer thing.
Tell me, because maybe we can have a proper discussion about this, what kind of model is perfect for you? What would you have preferred to see for Pantheon?
In all honesty, a hybrid model provides the greatest amount of value, in my opinion.
Did you find any of those games that have launched with a free client, robust trial, and an ongoing sub with no cash shop from day one for me yet btw? Because, I have to admit, your 'innovative' jibe did encourage me to have a little look for myself... I have tried to find other MMORPGS that have offered this but haven't come up with much. On the other hand, I did find a ton of hybrid games... It was just a bit confused why you took a crack at Pantheon's proposed model for not being innovative enough, but you seem to want something that's the standard.
I do get why you personally like the hybrid model, but for me it's inclusion of the cash shop is just too high a price to pay. I personally feel that the hybrid model with cash shops is toxic to core game design, community, and to the customer experience (which I will explain if needed).
I honestly want to pay into and support things that I enjoy, and so hitching a ride on other's contributions (as in F2P) doesn't appeal to me really. A smaller paying population is preferable to a huge mostly non paying one to me as well. Just personal views.
So, listening to the round table today, on the subject of revenue model, it seems that VR are going for a model I have long pushed here.
Free client, robust trial, ongoing sub. No cash shop.
I have always though that cash shops are toxic (I sub even in cash shop driven games, but even then they fundamentally change the game for I think for the absolute worse), and I have always though 'B2P' has it arse about face in it's approach... F2P with a client fee as a barrier to entry, just a bit weird.
So, yeah. Give the client for free, let people see what they are playing and decide if it suits them, and then charge a fair sub if they like it.
Transparent, no fuss, no P2W rubbish, no cash shop creep and intrusive and cynical constant manipulation to spend money in general.
It's a long way from market, but let's hope this philosophy carries to launch.
Shoot! I thought they were going to do something innovative.
Yeah? Are there a glut of games that have offered a free client, robust trial, and a sub, with no cash shop, from day one as their revenue model?
I will check them out if you list a few for me.
But you are right. It IS about getting people through the door. This is why you remove the barrier to entry of a client. I see only good in that.
Play before you pay from launch day should be lauded and supported as a pro customer thing.
Tell me, because maybe we can have a proper discussion about this, what kind of model is perfect for you? What would you have preferred to see for Pantheon?
In all honesty, a hybrid model provides the greatest amount of value, in my opinion.
Did you find any of those games that have launched with a free client, robust trial, and an ongoing sub with no cash shop from day one for me yet btw? Because, I have to admit, your 'innovative' jibe did encourage me to have a little look for myself... I have tried to find other MMORPGS that have offered this but haven't come up with much. On the other hand, I did find a ton of hybrid games... It was just a bit confused why you took a crack at Pantheon's proposed model for not being innovative enough, but you seem to want something that's the standard.
I do get why you personally like the hybrid model, but for me it's inclusion of the cash shop is just too high a price to pay. I personally feel that the hybrid model with cash shops is toxic to core game design, community, and to the customer experience (which I will explain if needed).
I honestly want to pay into and support things that I enjoy, and so hitching a ride on other's contributions (as in F2P) doesn't appeal to me really. A smaller paying population is preferable to a huge mostly non paying one to me as well. Just personal views.
Trust me, your views aren't unique to you. I know there are quite a few people who prefer this model. Being a long-term WoW subscriber, I have not problem with the P2P model, myself. I just know that it's becoming less viable as a solution for funding a game on a long-term basis. That's all I was saying. Not knocking your views at all.
So, listening to the round table today, on the subject of revenue model, it seems that VR are going for a model I have long pushed here.
Free client, robust trial, ongoing sub. No cash shop.
I have always though that cash shops are toxic (I sub even in cash shop driven games, but even then they fundamentally change the game for I think for the absolute worse), and I have always though 'B2P' has it arse about face in it's approach... F2P with a client fee as a barrier to entry, just a bit weird.
So, yeah. Give the client for free, let people see what they are playing and decide if it suits them, and then charge a fair sub if they like it.
Transparent, no fuss, no P2W rubbish, no cash shop creep and intrusive and cynical constant manipulation to spend money in general.
It's a long way from market, but let's hope this philosophy carries to launch.
Shoot! I thought they were going to do something innovative.
Yeah? Are there a glut of games that have offered a free client, robust trial, and a sub, with no cash shop, from day one as their revenue model?
I will check them out if you list a few for me.
But you are right. It IS about getting people through the door. This is why you remove the barrier to entry of a client. I see only good in that.
Play before you pay from launch day should be lauded and supported as a pro customer thing.
Tell me, because maybe we can have a proper discussion about this, what kind of model is perfect for you? What would you have preferred to see for Pantheon?
In all honesty, a hybrid model provides the greatest amount of value, in my opinion.
Did you find any of those games that have launched with a free client, robust trial, and an ongoing sub with no cash shop from day one for me yet btw? Because, I have to admit, your 'innovative' jibe did encourage me to have a little look for myself... I have tried to find other MMORPGS that have offered this but haven't come up with much. On the other hand, I did find a ton of hybrid games... It was just a bit confused why you took a crack at Pantheon's proposed model for not being innovative enough, but you seem to want something that's the standard.
I do get why you personally like the hybrid model, but for me it's inclusion of the cash shop is just too high a price to pay. I personally feel that the hybrid model with cash shops is toxic to core game design, community, and to the customer experience (which I will explain if needed).
I honestly want to pay into and support things that I enjoy, and so hitching a ride on other's contributions (as in F2P) doesn't appeal to me really. A smaller paying population is preferable to a huge mostly non paying one to me as well. Just personal views.
Trust me, your views aren't unique to you. I know there are quite a few people who prefer this model. Being a long-term WoW subscriber, I have not problem with the P2P model, myself. I just know that it's becoming less viable as a solution for funding a game on a long-term basis. That's all I was saying. Not knocking your views at all.
It's cool, I don't mind my views being challenged, it's what healthy discussion is for.
I didn't say my views are unique, but I am struggling to find a MMORPG that launched with a free client, robust trial, subs, and no cash shop from day one. I am just talking about your comment on lack of innovation. The combination of factors that VR are offering seems pretty unique to me, though it's not like I know everything about everything. If you can point out to a game that offers the same thing I will happily go and look at it to see how it's doing.
I also directly challenge the echo chamber received wisdom of your last statement. How do you know this? As has been pointed out several times in this thread, the sub has (and continues to) supported numerous games for over a decade. The proof that it can do so is right there. IMO, this myth that it cannot support a game now is just out out there to promote the use of cash shops by those that profit from them.
So, listening to the round table today, on the subject of revenue model, it seems that VR are going for a model I have long pushed here.
Free client, robust trial, ongoing sub. No cash shop.
I have always though that cash shops are toxic (I sub even in cash shop driven games, but even then they fundamentally change the game for I think for the absolute worse), and I have always though 'B2P' has it arse about face in it's approach... F2P with a client fee as a barrier to entry, just a bit weird.
So, yeah. Give the client for free, let people see what they are playing and decide if it suits them, and then charge a fair sub if they like it.
Transparent, no fuss, no P2W rubbish, no cash shop creep and intrusive and cynical constant manipulation to spend money in general.
It's a long way from market, but let's hope this philosophy carries to launch.
Shoot! I thought they were going to do something innovative.
Yeah? Are there a glut of games that have offered a free client, robust trial, and a sub, with no cash shop, from day one as their revenue model?
I will check them out if you list a few for me.
But you are right. It IS about getting people through the door. This is why you remove the barrier to entry of a client. I see only good in that.
Play before you pay from launch day should be lauded and supported as a pro customer thing.
Tell me, because maybe we can have a proper discussion about this, what kind of model is perfect for you? What would you have preferred to see for Pantheon?
In all honesty, a hybrid model provides the greatest amount of value, in my opinion.
Did you find any of those games that have launched with a free client, robust trial, and an ongoing sub with no cash shop from day one for me yet btw? Because, I have to admit, your 'innovative' jibe did encourage me to have a little look for myself... I have tried to find other MMORPGS that have offered this but haven't come up with much. On the other hand, I did find a ton of hybrid games... It was just a bit confused why you took a crack at Pantheon's proposed model for not being innovative enough, but you seem to want something that's the standard.
I do get why you personally like the hybrid model, but for me it's inclusion of the cash shop is just too high a price to pay. I personally feel that the hybrid model with cash shops is toxic to core game design, community, and to the customer experience (which I will explain if needed).
I honestly want to pay into and support things that I enjoy, and so hitching a ride on other's contributions (as in F2P) doesn't appeal to me really. A smaller paying population is preferable to a huge mostly non paying one to me as well. Just personal views.
Trust me, your views aren't unique to you. I know there are quite a few people who prefer this model. Being a long-term WoW subscriber, I have not problem with the P2P model, myself. I just know that it's becoming less viable as a solution for funding a game on a long-term basis. That's all I was saying. Not knocking your views at all.
It's cool, I don't mind my views being challenged, it's what healthy discussion is for.
I didn't say my views are unique, but I am struggling to find a MMORPG that launched with a free client, robust trial, subs, and no cash shop from day one. I am just talking about your comment on lack of innovation. The combination of factors that VR are offering seems pretty unique to me, though it's not like I know everything about everything. If you can point out to a game that offers the same thing I will happily go and look at it to see how it's doing.
I also directly challenge the echo chamber received wisdom of your last statement. How do you know this? As has been pointed out several times in this thread, the sub has (and continues to) supported numerous games for over a decade. The proof that it can do so is right there. IMO, this myth that it cannot support a game now is just out out there to promote the use of cash shops by those that profit from them.
Here's some good data from Superdata Research which shows the gradual but steadily increasing drop-off of subscriptions over the past 3 years:
Actually, it's interesting to note that in the most recent data, the F2P market has been cut in half versus just 2013, so I'm not sure what that means, either. It could elude to an overall shrinkage of the MMORPG market itself. Either that or they re-classified "Free-to-play" into mobile and MMO F2P, since the 2014 infographic specifies MMO, but the other chart doesn't. I can only assuming that it's the same measure, though. Even with that decline, the F2P MMO market is showing almost double the revenues as that of subscriptions.
So, listening to the round table today, on the subject of revenue model, it seems that VR are going for a model I have long pushed here.
Free client, robust trial, ongoing sub. No cash shop.
I have always though that cash shops are toxic (I sub even in cash shop driven games, but even then they fundamentally change the game for I think for the absolute worse), and I have always though 'B2P' has it arse about face in it's approach... F2P with a client fee as a barrier to entry, just a bit weird.
So, yeah. Give the client for free, let people see what they are playing and decide if it suits them, and then charge a fair sub if they like it.
Transparent, no fuss, no P2W rubbish, no cash shop creep and intrusive and cynical constant manipulation to spend money in general.
It's a long way from market, but let's hope this philosophy carries to launch.
Shoot! I thought they were going to do something innovative.
Yeah? Are there a glut of games that have offered a free client, robust trial, and a sub, with no cash shop, from day one as their revenue model?
I will check them out if you list a few for me.
But you are right. It IS about getting people through the door. This is why you remove the barrier to entry of a client. I see only good in that.
Play before you pay from launch day should be lauded and supported as a pro customer thing.
Tell me, because maybe we can have a proper discussion about this, what kind of model is perfect for you? What would you have preferred to see for Pantheon?
In all honesty, a hybrid model provides the greatest amount of value, in my opinion.
Did you find any of those games that have launched with a free client, robust trial, and an ongoing sub with no cash shop from day one for me yet btw? Because, I have to admit, your 'innovative' jibe did encourage me to have a little look for myself... I have tried to find other MMORPGS that have offered this but haven't come up with much. On the other hand, I did find a ton of hybrid games... It was just a bit confused why you took a crack at Pantheon's proposed model for not being innovative enough, but you seem to want something that's the standard.
I do get why you personally like the hybrid model, but for me it's inclusion of the cash shop is just too high a price to pay. I personally feel that the hybrid model with cash shops is toxic to core game design, community, and to the customer experience (which I will explain if needed).
I honestly want to pay into and support things that I enjoy, and so hitching a ride on other's contributions (as in F2P) doesn't appeal to me really. A smaller paying population is preferable to a huge mostly non paying one to me as well. Just personal views.
Trust me, your views aren't unique to you. I know there are quite a few people who prefer this model. Being a long-term WoW subscriber, I have not problem with the P2P model, myself. I just know that it's becoming less viable as a solution for funding a game on a long-term basis. That's all I was saying. Not knocking your views at all.
It's cool, I don't mind my views being challenged, it's what healthy discussion is for.
I didn't say my views are unique, but I am struggling to find a MMORPG that launched with a free client, robust trial, subs, and no cash shop from day one. I am just talking about your comment on lack of innovation. The combination of factors that VR are offering seems pretty unique to me, though it's not like I know everything about everything. If you can point out to a game that offers the same thing I will happily go and look at it to see how it's doing.
I also directly challenge the echo chamber received wisdom of your last statement. How do you know this? As has been pointed out several times in this thread, the sub has (and continues to) supported numerous games for over a decade. The proof that it can do so is right there. IMO, this myth that it cannot support a game now is just out out there to promote the use of cash shops by those that profit from them.
Here's some good data from Superdata Research which shows the gradual but steadily increasing drop-off of subscriptions over the past 3 years:
Actually, it's interesting to note that in the most recent data, the F2P market has been cut in half versus just 2013, so I'm not sure what that means, either. It could elude to an overall shrinkage of the MMORPG market itself. Either that or they re-classified "Free-to-play" into mobile and MMO F2P, since the 2014 infographic specifies MMO, but the other chart doesn't. I can only assuming that it's the same measure, though. Even with that decline, the F2P MMO market is showing almost double the revenues as that of subscriptions.
But that isn't good data for what you are asserting..? That graph includes, it seems, F2P MMORPGs as seperate from subs, while we all know that subs form a huge part of the F2P model here in the West. Subs underpin F2P here and represent a huge part of the income of these games. The graph should really label these games as 'hybrids' to give a truer representation of how well pure cash shop driven games are doing in this market.
This graph seems to simply ignore all those that sub in hybrid games, that which it calls 'F2P', which would make it a really bad source of data for measuring the demand for and use of the sub in the modern market.
Anyhow, that aside, this isn't proof that subs cannot sustain an MMORPG, it is just a graph that people fell for the smoke and mirrors of cash shops.
Like I asked, where did you get the idea that subs alone can't work? This data in no way supports that. From the same industry that was selling you on the idea of F2P?
Oh... And I assume that you cannot find another MMORPG that has offered the same free client, robust trial, sub, no cash shop from day 1 model as VR are offering with this game? You seem to keep avoiding answering the request directly
Shall we just agree that it is actually pretty innovative and your opening jibe was off the mark? We will put it down to reflex ingrained MMORPG.com cynical snarking maybe :P
Originally posted by mbd1968 I like this try before you by method, more games should do it this way.
Indeed. More gamers should be pushing for transparency in the market.
More trials and less hiding behind lockboxes and fake currencies designed to obfuscate the cost of things and divorce the consumer from the fact that they are spending real cash.
Originally posted by azzamasin Evolve or die, subs are dead!
World of Warcraft, Eve Online.
Best MMOs are P2P.
WoW, Eve, FFXIV, FFXI, DAoC, ESO... And many more that have gone F2P still maintain a subscription option (LoTRO, several of SOE's games, TERA Online, TSW, etc) - because it's still viable, and many people still prefer it to the nickel and dime approach of cash shops.
It amazes me how people, like azzamasin in their post, can make such remarks as "subs are dead", when there are numerous examples that they aren't. It's textbook willful ignorance in action.
It's like someone arguing that the ocean isn't wet, as they walk out of it, drenched head to toe.
I know the hardcore F2P'ers really want to believe that "P2P is dead!", but you're just wrong. Several years ago now, many predicted P2P was dying/going away. Here you are, years later, still making the same claim. You were wrong back then. You're wrong now. So long as there are people who prefer a flat monthly fee, to a nickel-and-dime Cash Shop, P2P/Subs will continue to exist. Thoughtlessly repeating the same mantra, "P2P is dead!", over and over doesn't make it so. Might as well get that through your heads and move on.
People feel that way for a very good reason. I think their proposed system sounds great for my taste, but I have little hope it will stay as such. I don't say that as a F2P supporter, I prefer subs and do sub to even F2P games. I say that because of the evidence we have at hand, two games do not prove the sustainability of Subscription only products, especially when both of those models use extra forms of monetizing. Cash shop for WOW, Plex for EVE. That alone makes them a moot point on the topic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by mystik13 Game looks promising but don't like subscription model, the lack of flexibility and obligation of a sub are a deal breaker. I hope devs have a plan b.
I think this is just one of those things that you either buy into or don't - the cash shop F2P thing. I really don't care if they are selling mounts and ornaments for money, but I'd much rather just pay a monthly fee and just get everything, and I mean everything, no holds barred. I find it insulting that items drop in EQ1 that I can't equip unless I pay $12 to unlock a slot. I subscribe to EQ1 and yet I can't use things in game without being nickeled and dimed to death. That's EQ1.
Thankfully Pantheon will be a pure sub model where I know that I am buying in to the entire experience without worrying that I am being "monetized" at every step. Couple that with a free download and limited trial? Wow... try, like, buy. I can't find any way to criticize that model.
Modern games aren't built for longevity. They play like games rather than virtual worlds. They lack depth and progression is fast. Most can be completed in their entirety in under 3 months. After that the bulk of the subs are just the hardcore players grinding one aspect of the game or another.
Free to play is a way of life for these games now. They launch with b2p+subs because the initial appeal. They maintain this model until box subs are down, then switch to a f2p model. At this point, the plan for games to move to F2P is a calculated decision that takes place even before launch. There is no reason to believe a themepark game will retain the players that a niche MMO will.
Luckily, Pantheon will be a niche MMO, so these statistics don't apply unless a bunch of rival EQ-like games start popping up on the market. Highly unlikely!
Modern games aren't built for longevity. They play like games rather than virtual worlds. They lack depth and progression is fast. Most can be completed in their entirety in under 3 months. After that the bulk of the subs are just the hardcore players grinding one aspect of the game or another.
Free to play is a way of life for these games now. They launch with b2p+subs because the initial appeal. They maintain this model until box subs are down, then switch to a f2p model. At this point, the plan for games to move to F2P is a calculated decision that takes place even before launch. There is no reason to believe a themepark game will retain the players that a niche MMO will.
Luckily, Pantheon will be a niche MMO, so these statistics don't apply unless a bunch of rival EQ-like games start popping up on the market. Highly unlikely!
The way i look at it is, if a large majority of those interested in playing Pantheon are signing up for the long haul, they can pull it off. That's what makes it risky, you don't know what people will do. IF people simply treat it as another detour on their journey through every virtual realm that exists, it has no chance at sustaining such a model. For instance, what happens when a majority reach cap, do they move on like they always do? OR do they form a real community? That's what it depends on.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Modern games aren't built for longevity. They play like games rather than virtual worlds. They lack depth and progression is fast. Most can be completed in their entirety in under 3 months. After that the bulk of the subs are just the hardcore players grinding one aspect of the game or another.
Free to play is a way of life for these games now. They launch with b2p+subs because the initial appeal. They maintain this model until box subs are down, then switch to a f2p model. At this point, the plan for games to move to F2P is a calculated decision that takes place even before launch. There is no reason to believe a themepark game will retain the players that a niche MMO will.
Luckily, Pantheon will be a niche MMO, so these statistics don't apply unless a bunch of rival EQ-like games start popping up on the market. Highly unlikely!
The way i look at it is, if a large majority of those interested in playing Pantheon are signing up for the long haul, they can pull it off. That's what makes it risky, you don't know what people will do. IF people simply treat it as another detour on their journey through every virtual realm that exists, it has no chance at sustaining such a model. For instance, what happens when a majority reach cap, do they move on like they always do? OR do they form a real community? That's what it depends on.
A good way to do this is sell discounted yearly subs. Maybe you play all year maybe you don't. But by the time the next expansion hits you're all in and they have been paid year round for your server access. For sure there will be people that blow through the available content in days/weeks. If it was good for them they will come back for the next hit.
I just hope that Pantheon isn't designing around the people that consume an expansion in a week, or cry for "end game". The bloody journey is the game.
So, listening to the round table today, on the subject of revenue model, it seems that VR are going for a model I have long pushed here.
Free client, robust trial, ongoing sub. No cash shop.
I have always though that cash shops are toxic (I sub even in cash shop driven games, but even then they fundamentally change the game for I think for the absolute worse), and I have always though 'B2P' has it arse about face in it's approach... F2P with a client fee as a barrier to entry, just a bit weird.
So, yeah. Give the client for free, let people see what they are playing and decide if it suits them, and then charge a fair sub if they like it.
Transparent, no fuss, no P2W rubbish, no cash shop creep and intrusive and cynical constant manipulation to spend money in general.
It's a long way from market, but let's hope this philosophy carries to launch.
Modern games aren't built for longevity. They play like games rather than virtual worlds. They lack depth and progression is fast. Most can be completed in their entirety in under 3 months. After that the bulk of the subs are just the hardcore players grinding one aspect of the game or another.
Free to play is a way of life for these games now. They launch with b2p+subs because the initial appeal. They maintain this model until box subs are down, then switch to a f2p model. At this point, the plan for games to move to F2P is a calculated decision that takes place even before launch. There is no reason to believe a themepark game will retain the players that a niche MMO will.
Luckily, Pantheon will be a niche MMO, so these statistics don't apply unless a bunch of rival EQ-like games start popping up on the market. Highly unlikely!
The way i look at it is, if a large majority of those interested in playing Pantheon are signing up for the long haul, they can pull it off. That's what makes it risky, you don't know what people will do. IF people simply treat it as another detour on their journey through every virtual realm that exists, it has no chance at sustaining such a model. For instance, what happens when a majority reach cap, do they move on like they always do? OR do they form a real community? That's what it depends on.
A good way to do this is sell discounted yearly subs. Maybe you play all year maybe you don't. But by the time the next expansion hits you're all in and they have been paid year round for your server access. For sure there will be people that blow through the available content in days/weeks. If it was good for them they will come back for the next hit.
I just hope that Pantheon isn't designing around the people that consume an expansion in a week, or cry for "end game". The bloody journey is the game.
Exactly, those types will never serve as good long term customers, you want people that are going to set themselves up in the world and live a virtual life in it. RPers, hardcore guilds, Some forms of PVPers, and social butterflies. This is the type of market you need to fill to pull such a plan off.
My problem is uncertainty. I don't like to play a game when such things are not for certain. As an example, I liked ESO, however was unconvinced they were dedicated to a sub only model, waited til late fall of last year, and finally believed they may actually have been serious about that commitment, low and behold just a few short months later, I had to stop playing. AT least until a time after the changes take place and I see what they do... I don't feel comfortable putting a bunch of time or effort into a character in the face of major upcoming changes to a games core philosophy. Having played SWG from 03-05 will have that an effect on a gamer I suppose .
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Originally posted by azzamasin Game is doomed to fail due to a subscription. I am sorry that you like subscription but that business model is so archaic you need to adapt and companies need to understand that people like you (the OP) are a dying breed and will and can never support a game for long. Evolve or die, subs are dead!
Not really, WoW, Eve and FFXIV for example say hi.
Subs are not dead, the reason so many subscription games failed is they were all designed with short shelf life systems, flash and show, that keeps you hooked for a short time but then devolves into short form repetitive content.
Games with a subscription model can survive but they need content beyond just "Repeat short form instances for slowly incrementing currency and occasional loot drop".
Everquests nexts early tech demos were ironically showcasing a system that would sustain a subscription model (Even if the execution they showed may not have). You need long form content, and by that I mean content that will last, not artificially gated with binary fail mechanics or over inflated boss tuning, but actual content that can survive a long game, open PVP is not the answer in and of its self (though for a sub set of players it is, and that is why games have multiple server models) Archage for example can prove that point.
But the subscription is not dead, the games that are being brought to market with a sub model are simply not designed to take advantage of it.
Your little evolve or die statement shows a rather lackluster understanding of the actual problems the MMO market faces currently, which is a player base with an ever shortening attention span, higher demands for presentation of content (Which inflates the development time) combined with an willingness to engage in any activity that requires a significant time investment. The challenge is making long form content that is delivered in small portions, once an MMO maker cracks this they will have a game that can maintain a subscription.
The problem is, its rarely viable for them to do so, and that is why I think the MMO its self is in danger of becoming a feature of other games rather than a genre in its self.
Modern games aren't built for longevity. They play like games rather than virtual worlds. They lack depth and progression is fast. Most can be completed in their entirety in under 3 months. After that the bulk of the subs are just the hardcore players grinding one aspect of the game or another.
Free to play is a way of life for these games now. They launch with b2p+subs because the initial appeal. They maintain this model until box subs are down, then switch to a f2p model. At this point, the plan for games to move to F2P is a calculated decision that takes place even before launch. There is no reason to believe a themepark game will retain the players that a niche MMO will.
Luckily, Pantheon will be a niche MMO, so these statistics don't apply unless a bunch of rival EQ-like games start popping up on the market. Highly unlikely!
The way i look at it is, if a large majority of those interested in playing Pantheon are signing up for the long haul, they can pull it off. That's what makes it risky, you don't know what people will do. IF people simply treat it as another detour on their journey through every virtual realm that exists, it has no chance at sustaining such a model. For instance, what happens when a majority reach cap, do they move on like they always do? OR do they form a real community? That's what it depends on.
A good way to do this is sell discounted yearly subs. Maybe you play all year maybe you don't. But by the time the next expansion hits you're all in and they have been paid year round for your server access. For sure there will be people that blow through the available content in days/weeks. If it was good for them they will come back for the next hit.
I just hope that Pantheon isn't designing around the people that consume an expansion in a week, or cry for "end game". The bloody journey is the game.
Exactly, those types will never serve as good long term customers, you want people that are going to set themselves up in the world and live a virtual life in it. RPers, hardcore guilds, Some forms of PVPers, and social butterflies. This is the type of market you need to fill to pull such a plan off.
My problem is uncertainty. I don't like to play a game when such things are not for certain. As an example, I liked ESO, however was unconvinced they were dedicated to a sub only model, waited til late fall of last year, and finally believed they may actually have been serious about that commitment, low and behold just a few short months later, I had to stop playing. AT least until a time after the changes take place and I see what they do... I don't feel comfortable putting a bunch of time or effort into a character in the face of major upcoming changes to a games core philosophy. Having played SWG from 03-05 will have that an effect on a gamer I suppose .
Subscription model is sound for Pantheon permitted they follow the plan they've laid out.
The philosophy for Pantheon regarding progression is one of a harder, slower and far broader nature than themepark games. The average game today entails a very straight forward leveling system which takes a matter of weeks to complete followed by collecting that one final set of high level gear which is then used to run the high level dungeons followed by raids.
Just the few details we know of Pantheon forecast a harder game where solo progression is limited. Slower due to not only being harder, but having many other hurdles like the achievement system which is tied in to your class progression (you ability to continue gaining experience). Also broader in that there is a lot of horizontal progression planned like discovering and learning new spells, abilities and specializations as well as acquiring armor and weapons, much of which won't be achieved by conventional methods (no free sets of quest gear, and many skills and spells won't come from a class trainer). Without easy mode quest progression and welfare gear which generally expedite the leveling process, you have to actually work your way up through all the low and mid level content. Beyond collecting normal items, there are also specific sets of gear that will enable particular skill sets, enhance specializations and yet others items to protect you from the elements (climate system). What they've described thus far is more akin to a survival game than a themepark MMO. On top of all this, various types of events and quests are planned... and oh ya, there will be raiding too.
Permitted all this content manages to make it in game, it won't be the sort of thing you complete in a few months, let alone a few weeks.
I prefer a subscription based - no cash shop model. I would have liked to seen a box or digital purchase on top of it, but I understand for this game it may help get people to trial it.
Comments
Yeah? Are there a glut of games that have offered a free client, robust trial, and a sub, with no cash shop, from day one as their revenue model?
I will check them out if you list a few for me.
But you are right. It IS about getting people through the door. This is why you remove the barrier to entry of a client. I see only good in that.
Play before you pay from launch day should be lauded and supported as a pro customer thing.
Tell me, because maybe we can have a proper discussion about this, what kind of model is perfect for you? What would you have preferred to see for Pantheon?
All very true, guys like Azz ignore it when it's pointed out that pretty much all Western 'F2P' games depend on the sub. It has happened already in this thread. It doesn't suit their narrative, so they tune it out and just repeat the mantra afresh.
In all honesty, a hybrid model provides the greatest amount of value, in my opinion. I've played/play and have subbed to SWTOR, Rift, and LOTRO and they all provide very compelling reasons to subscribe. I think that one of the biggest reasons they work really well right now is that they bridge the gap between the 30-something MMO vets and their kids. I've got 4 boys at home, and one of the main reasons I subscribed to SWTOR was so I could play less time and still keep pace with them while we were initially progressing through the game. After 3 months or so, I unsubscribed, but went back for the expansion, re-subbed, and then unsubbed after a couple months again. In between subscriptions, I simply play F2P.
WoW, on the other hand, only one of my kids really plays, because he monopolizes the time in my WoW account. So what game do I think has a better chance of keeping their attention long-term? Probably SWTOR. It provides flexibility.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
To give feedback on moderation, contact mikeb@mmorpg.com
For some reason my reply was deleted in the cleanup.
Then you dont know many developers. You can easily take a look around at pay averages on many websites and see the average for a dev is around 60k. I am sure there are some out there that do make more but the majority do not. You are also throwing around titles like " AAA " as if that means anything.
I am sure Brad could get 300k or more from a major studio but they arent a major studio now are they. He also said that they would be fine with 10,000 subs awhile back so there is another hole in your theory.
You are way way way off base here.
They will be just fine going with the decision of a free client and a sub fee. They know they will be a niche game.
Did you find any of those games that have launched with a free client, robust trial, and an ongoing sub with no cash shop from day one for me yet btw? Because, I have to admit, your 'innovative' jibe did encourage me to have a little look for myself... I have tried to find other MMORPGS that have offered this but haven't come up with much. On the other hand, I did find a ton of hybrid games... It was just a bit confused why you took a crack at Pantheon's proposed model for not being innovative enough, but you seem to want something that's the standard.
I do get why you personally like the hybrid model, but for me it's inclusion of the cash shop is just too high a price to pay. I personally feel that the hybrid model with cash shops is toxic to core game design, community, and to the customer experience (which I will explain if needed).
I honestly want to pay into and support things that I enjoy, and so hitching a ride on other's contributions (as in F2P) doesn't appeal to me really. A smaller paying population is preferable to a huge mostly non paying one to me as well. Just personal views.
Trust me, your views aren't unique to you. I know there are quite a few people who prefer this model. Being a long-term WoW subscriber, I have not problem with the P2P model, myself. I just know that it's becoming less viable as a solution for funding a game on a long-term basis. That's all I was saying. Not knocking your views at all.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
It's cool, I don't mind my views being challenged, it's what healthy discussion is for.
I didn't say my views are unique, but I am struggling to find a MMORPG that launched with a free client, robust trial, subs, and no cash shop from day one. I am just talking about your comment on lack of innovation. The combination of factors that VR are offering seems pretty unique to me, though it's not like I know everything about everything. If you can point out to a game that offers the same thing I will happily go and look at it to see how it's doing.
I also directly challenge the echo chamber received wisdom of your last statement. How do you know this? As has been pointed out several times in this thread, the sub has (and continues to) supported numerous games for over a decade. The proof that it can do so is right there. IMO, this myth that it cannot support a game now is just out out there to promote the use of cash shops by those that profit from them.
Here's some good data from Superdata Research which shows the gradual but steadily increasing drop-off of subscriptions over the past 3 years:
So, here is this year
and you can find data from 2012-2013 here
Actually, it's interesting to note that in the most recent data, the F2P market has been cut in half versus just 2013, so I'm not sure what that means, either. It could elude to an overall shrinkage of the MMORPG market itself. Either that or they re-classified "Free-to-play" into mobile and MMO F2P, since the 2014 infographic specifies MMO, but the other chart doesn't. I can only assuming that it's the same measure, though. Even with that decline, the F2P MMO market is showing almost double the revenues as that of subscriptions.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
But that isn't good data for what you are asserting..? That graph includes, it seems, F2P MMORPGs as seperate from subs, while we all know that subs form a huge part of the F2P model here in the West. Subs underpin F2P here and represent a huge part of the income of these games. The graph should really label these games as 'hybrids' to give a truer representation of how well pure cash shop driven games are doing in this market.
This graph seems to simply ignore all those that sub in hybrid games, that which it calls 'F2P', which would make it a really bad source of data for measuring the demand for and use of the sub in the modern market.
Anyhow, that aside, this isn't proof that subs cannot sustain an MMORPG, it is just a graph that people fell for the smoke and mirrors of cash shops.
Like I asked, where did you get the idea that subs alone can't work? This data in no way supports that. From the same industry that was selling you on the idea of F2P?
Oh... And I assume that you cannot find another MMORPG that has offered the same free client, robust trial, sub, no cash shop from day 1 model as VR are offering with this game? You seem to keep avoiding answering the request directly
Shall we just agree that it is actually pretty innovative and your opening jibe was off the mark? We will put it down to reflex ingrained MMORPG.com cynical snarking maybe :P
Indeed. More gamers should be pushing for transparency in the market.
More trials and less hiding behind lockboxes and fake currencies designed to obfuscate the cost of things and divorce the consumer from the fact that they are spending real cash.
People feel that way for a very good reason. I think their proposed system sounds great for my taste, but I have little hope it will stay as such. I don't say that as a F2P supporter, I prefer subs and do sub to even F2P games. I say that because of the evidence we have at hand, two games do not prove the sustainability of Subscription only products, especially when both of those models use extra forms of monetizing. Cash shop for WOW, Plex for EVE. That alone makes them a moot point on the topic.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
I think this is just one of those things that you either buy into or don't - the cash shop F2P thing. I really don't care if they are selling mounts and ornaments for money, but I'd much rather just pay a monthly fee and just get everything, and I mean everything, no holds barred. I find it insulting that items drop in EQ1 that I can't equip unless I pay $12 to unlock a slot. I subscribe to EQ1 and yet I can't use things in game without being nickeled and dimed to death. That's EQ1.
Thankfully Pantheon will be a pure sub model where I know that I am buying in to the entire experience without worrying that I am being "monetized" at every step. Couple that with a free download and limited trial? Wow... try, like, buy. I can't find any way to criticize that model.
Modern games aren't built for longevity. They play like games rather than virtual worlds. They lack depth and progression is fast. Most can be completed in their entirety in under 3 months. After that the bulk of the subs are just the hardcore players grinding one aspect of the game or another.
Free to play is a way of life for these games now. They launch with b2p+subs because the initial appeal. They maintain this model until box subs are down, then switch to a f2p model. At this point, the plan for games to move to F2P is a calculated decision that takes place even before launch. There is no reason to believe a themepark game will retain the players that a niche MMO will.
Luckily, Pantheon will be a niche MMO, so these statistics don't apply unless a bunch of rival EQ-like games start popping up on the market. Highly unlikely!
The way i look at it is, if a large majority of those interested in playing Pantheon are signing up for the long haul, they can pull it off. That's what makes it risky, you don't know what people will do. IF people simply treat it as another detour on their journey through every virtual realm that exists, it has no chance at sustaining such a model. For instance, what happens when a majority reach cap, do they move on like they always do? OR do they form a real community? That's what it depends on.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
A good way to do this is sell discounted yearly subs. Maybe you play all year maybe you don't. But by the time the next expansion hits you're all in and they have been paid year round for your server access. For sure there will be people that blow through the available content in days/weeks. If it was good for them they will come back for the next hit.
I just hope that Pantheon isn't designing around the people that consume an expansion in a week, or cry for "end game". The bloody journey is the game.
Agree with this model fully
Exactly, those types will never serve as good long term customers, you want people that are going to set themselves up in the world and live a virtual life in it. RPers, hardcore guilds, Some forms of PVPers, and social butterflies. This is the type of market you need to fill to pull such a plan off.
My problem is uncertainty. I don't like to play a game when such things are not for certain. As an example, I liked ESO, however was unconvinced they were dedicated to a sub only model, waited til late fall of last year, and finally believed they may actually have been serious about that commitment, low and behold just a few short months later, I had to stop playing. AT least until a time after the changes take place and I see what they do... I don't feel comfortable putting a bunch of time or effort into a character in the face of major upcoming changes to a games core philosophy. Having played SWG from 03-05 will have that an effect on a gamer I suppose
.
For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson
Not really, WoW, Eve and FFXIV for example say hi.
Subs are not dead, the reason so many subscription games failed is they were all designed with short shelf life systems, flash and show, that keeps you hooked for a short time but then devolves into short form repetitive content.
Games with a subscription model can survive but they need content beyond just "Repeat short form instances for slowly incrementing currency and occasional loot drop".
Everquests nexts early tech demos were ironically showcasing a system that would sustain a subscription model (Even if the execution they showed may not have). You need long form content, and by that I mean content that will last, not artificially gated with binary fail mechanics or over inflated boss tuning, but actual content that can survive a long game, open PVP is not the answer in and of its self (though for a sub set of players it is, and that is why games have multiple server models) Archage for example can prove that point.
But the subscription is not dead, the games that are being brought to market with a sub model are simply not designed to take advantage of it.
Your little evolve or die statement shows a rather lackluster understanding of the actual problems the MMO market faces currently, which is a player base with an ever shortening attention span, higher demands for presentation of content (Which inflates the development time) combined with an willingness to engage in any activity that requires a significant time investment. The challenge is making long form content that is delivered in small portions, once an MMO maker cracks this they will have a game that can maintain a subscription.
The problem is, its rarely viable for them to do so, and that is why I think the MMO its self is in danger of becoming a feature of other games rather than a genre in its self.
Subscription model is sound for Pantheon permitted they follow the plan they've laid out.
The philosophy for Pantheon regarding progression is one of a harder, slower and far broader nature than themepark games. The average game today entails a very straight forward leveling system which takes a matter of weeks to complete followed by collecting that one final set of high level gear which is then used to run the high level dungeons followed by raids.
Just the few details we know of Pantheon forecast a harder game where solo progression is limited. Slower due to not only being harder, but having many other hurdles like the achievement system which is tied in to your class progression (you ability to continue gaining experience). Also broader in that there is a lot of horizontal progression planned like discovering and learning new spells, abilities and specializations as well as acquiring armor and weapons, much of which won't be achieved by conventional methods (no free sets of quest gear, and many skills and spells won't come from a class trainer). Without easy mode quest progression and welfare gear which generally expedite the leveling process, you have to actually work your way up through all the low and mid level content. Beyond collecting normal items, there are also specific sets of gear that will enable particular skill sets, enhance specializations and yet others items to protect you from the elements (climate system). What they've described thus far is more akin to a survival game than a themepark MMO. On top of all this, various types of events and quests are planned... and oh ya, there will be raiding too.
Permitted all this content manages to make it in game, it won't be the sort of thing you complete in a few months, let alone a few weeks.