Subscription price flexibility?

Bulldoze

One thing I've always been confused by is the fact mmo's seem to be transfixed with the sub price of £8.99 (uk)

Studios never want to change from this figure and I don't see why! How come they don't try and undercut their competitors like in other areas of business?

The amount of games that launched with  the 8.99 sub model and converted to b2p or f2p. How come they didn't try lower their sub before doing such drastic transitions..

Will we ever see a game launch with  a lower sub price than 8.99? 

Say hypothetically if a game launched that was F2P but with  a sub option for say £4 a month. The cost is so trivial I could imagine a lot of people subbing, and the amount of subs would be higher due to how cheap it is. I'm just curious why no one has tried this method yet, it seems it's either 8.99 or B2P/F2P and no inbetween

centkin

Well, if a box price for a game is say $60 and the subscription rate is $15 and there is a free month with the box price then you are looking at someone having to play for FIVE months for the subscription amount to equal an extra sale.

At half that, you would be looking at NINE months.  I think the real question comes down to, "How many people are still playing nine months or even five months later?"

The sub price these days has become a much smaller part of the equation. 

----

What you said would be interesting actually if it were refundable.

Lets say you had a game that had a modified buy to play model where you had the game, but the subscription was $5 per month(even smaller than you said) and that subscription would be applicable to the next expansion.  The game would have expansions every six months and those expansions would cost $30 LESS however much you paid in subscription fees.  This would remove the whole "lets stop our sub for 3 months before the next expansion" thing.  If an expansion was running late, subscription fees would end once $30 was banked.

laokoko

Probably because those f2p games are mostly supported by whales who pay like 500$ a month.

And those that only have money for 4-5$.  There are things in the cashshop which coast 4-5$ already.

Kyleran

Makes more sense to bump it up to $20 and try to get as much money up front before they all leave.

Mendel

Originally posted by Bulldoze

The amount of games that launched with  the 8.99 sub model and converted to b2p or f2p. How come they didn't try lower their sub before doing such drastic transitions..

Odd concept here.  Changing the payment method and business model is primarily an attempt to increase revenue.  Lowering a subscription cost is primarily an attempt to increase the customer base.  Both have the ability to increase revenue, one off the existing customers, the other by expanding that base.

The advantage that the f2p model is a perceived lower cost to play, and in quite a few cases, actually is cheaper for the individual customer (it generally takes some discipline on the customer's part).  The result: going f2p will often increase the number of players.  Additionally, a micro-transition payment system, properly designed, frequently outperforms the subscription model from the company's perspective.  There's a two fold opportunity for the company to achieve its goal of increased revenues with the f2p model.

Reducing the subscription cost seems to take the same strategy, but the only avenue to increase revenue is via a surge of population.  Generally, acquiring customers from other companies is difficult.  People are busy paying Blizzard for the opportunity to play WoW.  Your game needs to be as popular as the competitor, and be perceived as a better experience than the competing products to siphon those customers.  The traditional business strategies for acquiring customers from a competitor needs a heavy investment; for quality of product, for service provided by the business, and for a heavy marketing campaign.  There are a lot of factors other than price that go into the choice of product.

When the costs are not significantly different, the customer will choose their favorite.  The difference between a piece of gum that costs $0.25 and one that costs $0.50 isn't great enough to entice a customer to choose the $0.25 piece alone, especially if the more expensive gum also tastes better.

The summary answer to why they don't simply lower the subscription cost is that there is a bigger risk of lowering the revenue and not attracting an offsetting increase of customers.

Pepeq

If the game were worthy of your money, you wouldn't hesitate to spend whatever they asked.  The problem is, it's not worthy of your money, but since you are bored, you'd be willing to waste X amount of money on it.  So they reduce the price of the game into your price range.  You go YAY!.  You play it a while and then realize it really isn't worth X amount of money after all, but if they reduced it even further, it would be worth the price.  They once again lower their price and once again you go YAY only this time you say to yourself, man if I only just waited, I could have played this game for next to nothing.  Does that really sound like a game worth playing?

rojoArcueid

If i remember correctly FFXIV offers more than one subscription price option per single month instead of 3-6 month bundles. I think the only difference between the $15 and the cheaper option is fewer character slots per server.

 

Someone will correct me if im missing something here. Their subscription options are better than the trend everyone seems to follow. Here in NJ a sub is $16/month because of taxes. I would take FFXIV cheaper solution any day to keep a subscription for more than 1 month.

rojoArcueid

Originally posted by Pepeq

If the game were worthy of your money, you wouldn't hesitate to spend whatever they asked.  

companies who try to use that logic in order to charge more can shut down for all i care. No matter how good a game is i wouldnt touch it if its overpriced.