Deliver me a $25 sub MMO?

Kopogero

Why so hard? Why nobody has tried this monetizing model after a decade+? What do I expect from such monetizing model...
#1 Strong security (Both with hacking, exploits as well as bots and minimizing P2W, like no cash shops)
#2 Strong endgame either sandbox, player driven or steady, reliable content released for a themepark
#3 Complete product with minimal bugs that get addressed quickly.

Paying $299 a year monthly or $249 for a yearly sub for a product I know I'll be investing most of my free time is awesome deal. We've seen F2P, B2P, hybrid, and all kinds of P2W or P2 advance models, but I have yet to see AAA product on a very high budget which can afford with this sub price.

MMORPG's are the only genre where the amount of features, content is limited to the amount of $ is invested in the game. So, $ does play a significant role in the quality of the product we will receive. We often see heavy content games with weak graphics or graphically amazing games with weak endgames.

This game would be receiving at least 27.5 mil annually from only 100k subs....

4Renziks

Sadly I fought tooth and nail a few years ago, but its over mmorpg entered mainstream and its pretty much never gonna recover.  The people who played back in the day dont play mmorpg anymore (or like me accepted what they become).  To me MMORPG were the pinnacle of my idea of gaming.  Your telling me there is a world i can live in , thats gaming evolution...but other people and developers disagree.  

madazz

I'd spend 25 if I enjoyed the game thoroughly. It would have to be something pretty high end though. Lots of content whether provided through theme park or sand park methods or both.

Tatercake

your daydreaming subs are thing of the past waste of money

4Renziks

Tatercake said:

your daydreaming subs are thing of the past waste of money

my co-worker has spent $2000+ on game of war..F2P is more expensive that P2P END.OF.STORY

VengeSunsoar

Only if you choose it to be. End of story. 

Octagon7711

Yea but that $2000 bought him more stuff then $25 a month could.

4Renziks

but if they had the choice to pay a sub instead and get everything why wouldnt they...are people that blind?

Sanisar

While subs certainly aren't a waste of money (money pays for games no matter where it comes from) I don't think how much a sub costs has very much influence on how good the game will be.  Bioware had an insane budget for SWTOR and look what that bought them.  This genre needs more companies who are willing to make less money and take a chance on fresh ideas and hopefully grow something big.  If a game succeeds it will be fine with 15 a month, if it fails 25 a month wasn't gonna save it.

Then you have the people who will start comparing the cost to netflix and hulu etc.

Then there are people that believe MMOs should be 'free' (yet somehow the get paid for hmm).

Then the game will probably have a cash shop as well because the community accepts that. . . 

observer

Why do people think offering more money is going to make a better game?  If that was true, WoW would still have over 7+ million subscribers.  Money is irrelevant to great design.

Slapshot1188

observer said:

Why do people think offering more money is going to make a better game?  If that was true, WoW would still have over 7+ million subscribers.  Money is irrelevant to great design.

Sure... that's why all cars are the same quality too.

Slapshot1188

@OP  I'd pay a lot more than $25/mo for a game that had continuously updated content and live (real) GMs to run events and monitor behaviors.  of course it would have to be FUN, but the cost would not in any way be an obstacle for me.

tawess

edit: i forgot to preface this with being my own personal opinion... not fact...

Death by a thousand cuts, each insignificant but they will still kill you.

While i am sure that a subscription game that aimed for a narrow market and had the budget set to they could make it.  I have a hard time seeing any publisher invest in that when a mobile game could probably out earn it, and cost but a fraction to develop. 

No it is not really about viability in terms of customers, it is about earning potential. And 25$ substantial, 99 cents 30-40 times a month... Will not feel as bad. 

Heck if anything i think we will see the B2P market develop as the premium format to F2P with subscriptions either going the way of the Dodo or evolve in to a different kind of service. Maybe we will see a resurgent of that style in 5-10 years time. But for now... It´s dead Jim. 

Czelaw

You can't get entitled people to pay for something that should be free....silly person.

goboygo

VengeSunsoar said:

Only if you choose it to be. End of story. 

Man I wish I lived in your bubble, end of story huh, nothing else to it.  Unfortunately my understanding of economics and system design don't allow me to see things in such a simplistic manor.

You believe all is well and good in the world of cash shops and MMO game play design because the gamer can decide how much he spends.  As if that's the goal of playing computer games now. 

" Wow, I heard people can even play games completely for free now !!  Isn't that the coolest !! "

Unbelievable.

Phaserlight

Slapshot1188 said:

observer said:

Why do people think offering more money is going to make a better game?  If that was true, WoW would still have over 7+ million subscribers.  Money is irrelevant to great design.

Sure... that's why all cars are the same quality too.

True, but are you really getting that much more with a $100,000 Lamborghini than you are with a $30,000 Tesla, or $18,000 Ford?  All three will get you from A to B safely (well, maybe not the Lamborghini).  Money isn't like a dial that you can just turn up the quality of game design with.  Sure, some things like art scale well, but all the art in the world won't save poor game design from generating a poor game.

At some point, the law of diminishing returns kicks in; a company might happily take your $25 per month, but the last $12.50 may not get you what the first $12.50 does, if you catch my drift.

I find it's better to sample a game and then judge whether or not it's worth your cash.  I believe in spending as little as possible, but I'm not under any illusions that, past a certain point, more money will automatically result in a better game.  For a subscription-based MMORPG, $7 per month feels like just about the right burn rate for me.

It's ironic that the OP rules out any type of P2W cash shop, because I'm sure there are some games out there where you could choose to spend $25 per month and hold a significant advantage over other players.  After all, maybe this is really the experience you are looking for?

Kopogero

It's just the fact that from 2001, I recall subbing in Ultima Online for $10...a month and now I'm into 2016 with 5 years straight without absolutely nothing that I find myself to spend my $ on. So, yes I can totally afford paying $25 and the fact there has been NOBODY with this monetizing model, while many rather make their games P2W with ridiculously priced items....

There is clearly a SPACE for this game to happen and when it does, we will see best what kind of impact it will make in the industry....until then I'll continue to count the years before I spend $ on a new game.

Howzr

4Renziks said:

Sadly I fought tooth and nail a few years ago, but its over mmorpg entered mainstream and its pretty much never gonna recover.  The people who played back in the day dont play mmorpg anymore (or like me accepted what they become).  To me MMORPG were the pinnacle of my idea of gaming.  Your telling me there is a world i can live in , thats gaming evolution...but other people and developers disagree.  

You hit the nail on the head, buddy. MMOs these days are really just single player RPGs with really complicated DRM. An MMO should be about becoming a citizen of a virtual world, where you matter, not because some scripted little quest says so, but because what you do makes a difference in the world, and being a citizen is the game.

DMKano said:

The cost of entry is why this model fails, also at $25 the players would expect higher value in return as this is more than the rest of the games. 

So high cost of entry and higher expectations - recipe for failure.

I think that Ninentdo is unto something with their new model which they are calling "free to start" - where you start for free and can pay in increments however once you spend the equivalent of what the total game costs - everything unlocks for you.

I think more MMO companies should take a hard look at the Nintendo "free to start" model as F2P is a misnomer in practice, and free to start closer to truth.

They already do that; it's called a free 14-day trial and then you pay in $14.99 subscription increments... 

Edit: unless what you're saying there is that F2P games are actually these free to start games, and F2P is the wrong terminology. That makes sense. 

zaberfangx

A higher sub model can work if the company not to greedy and not funding other ideas for new games away from the main game that people hoping to get better with more content and updates.

But people need to get pass the idea of games not full of content starting off. For a mmo to start off with content level on alot of the older mmo. The company will need alot funds and that comes from investor If the mmo cost about 500 mil to make to keep up with a content level and looks good to play. Then investor going want there investment back so the mmo company may lack content for few years or try to add cash shop to keep money coming in a faster rate befor people get bored and move on do to lack of content keep them busy with out a mass amount of grind. A sub model alone can't bring investment back that fast if the cost so high even the box cost if they don't sell the amount needed.

gervaise1

First why would anyone make "you" (the OP) a game for $25 a month. If all the company is going to get is a paltry $300 in a year. OK we know what you mean but the point is you are assuming "many" people will pay $25 a month.

1. What does $25 a month mean though?  A guaranteed $300 in the first year; or $600 perhaps, since not only might the company plan to recoup its investment over 2 years but - as you seem to be wanting added content every month or two or three - then that is going to be even more cost for the developers. Can you guarantee that you will play- correction pay - for two years? Let alone guarantee that others will? Of course you can't.

2. All games are limited by money not just sub games. If they make money they get "sequels" or expansions or new content.

3. Sales "numbers" suggest that games with a sub don't sell very well these days - which limits the money.

4. Now as others have said what a game cost -  even if it has AAA production values - doesn't mean it will be good; even if it is you might still dislike. Will you still pay $25 a month then? Course not. Or if subs drop and content slows to a crawl will you still keep paying?

5. People have choices. They can shift between games. They can play solo non-mmo games whilst chatting on social media. Not to mention a host of other entertainment options.

6. And consequently there is an argument that subs are bad for companies in the current market. You postulate a company that adds a steady stream of new content - that will cost the developer money. Funded in theory by your $25 a month. Others though might play a month, take 6 months off, play a month for $25, leave. Or maybe buy the game a year after launch and get all the extra content from day 1, leave after a month. See point 1, what does $25/month mean.

7. There has been a return - across many games now - to paid new content. How it used to be with e.g. EQ1, a paid expansion every 6 months. This cures the issue of subscriber hoppers and late adopters - makes it easier for companies to budget for content. Expansion X, costs Y, needs N sales to recoup the cost. If sales are poor that sends a clear message. With subs what - historically - has happened is poor content = lower subs = content holiday. So you - the subscriber - are expected to pick up the slack; the talk of regular extra content vanishes. However no pay no new content also means no new content no pay. Although Blizzard are still trying to defy gravity. 

Slapshot1188

DMKano said:

They already do that; it's called a free 14-day trial and then you pay in $14.99 subscription increments... 

Not quite - Nintendo's model is different:

Example lets say the game cost $50

You start for free - hence "free to start"
You spend $5 the first month, it unlocks some content
You spend $15 the second month - it unlocks more stuff for you
Then if you spend $20 more - get even more, and finally when you spend $10 more - your total spending is $50 - and you unlock the entire game for you.

It's a fixed total cost that's free to start and unlocks to 100% as you spend over time.

I like it because it's true to the name - as players don't expect the entire game to be FREE (as F2P implies) - so I can see MMO companies moving to something similar - if just so that it's closer to truth in what the F2P models ARE today - they are not intended to be "free"

And when you are done with your Nintendo RPG after a small amount of time you move on because there is nothing new.

The whole draw of the high sub (to me) is to enable continual content production and keep me engaged for more than a month or two.

Howzr

DMKano said:

They already do that; it's called a free 14-day trial and then you pay in $14.99 subscription increments... 

Not quite - Nintendo's model is different:

Example lets say the game cost $50

You start for free - hence "free to start"
You spend $5 the first month, it unlocks some content
You spend $15 the second month - it unlocks more stuff for you
Then if you spend $20 more - get even more, and finally when you spend $10 more - your total spending is $50 - and you unlock the entire game for you.

It's a fixed total cost that's free to start and unlocks to 100% as you spend over time.

I like it because it's true to the name - as players don't expect the entire game to be FREE (as F2P implies) - so I can see MMO companies moving to something similar - if just so that it's closer to truth in what the F2P models ARE today - they are not intended to be "free"

That sounds good in theory, but what happens when you've hit the pay cap? The revenue stream is over. Most MMOs are a going concern, and it used to be that your subscription went towards server maintenance, bug fixes, GMs and GM events, and additional features in major version updates. If you apply the free to start model described, how could they continue to provide good service without also running a cash shop and optional subscription? Then you just have a B2P game with a bunch of silly hats and weekly raid caps. 

senadin

Kopogero said:

Why so hard? Why nobody has tried this monetizing model after a decade+? What do I expect from such monetizing model...
#1 Strong security (Both with hacking, exploits as well as bots and minimizing P2W, like no cash shops)
#2 Strong endgame either sandbox, player driven or steady, reliable content released for a themepark
#3 Complete product with minimal bugs that get addressed quickly.

Paying $299 a year monthly or $249 for a yearly sub for a product I know I'll be investing most of my free time is awesome deal. We've seen F2P, B2P, hybrid, and all kinds of P2W or P2 advance models, but I have yet to see AAA product on a very high budget which can afford with this sub price.

MMORPG's are the only genre where the amount of features, content is limited to the amount of $ is invested in the game. So, $ does play a significant role in the quality of the product we will receive. We often see heavy content games with weak graphics or graphically amazing games with weak endgames.

This game would be receiving at least 27.5 mil annually from only 100k subs....

Everquest had this server, just like that, Legends server. People where paying 40$ a month, which in early 2000, was a LOT for a sub. They had a lot of perks and GM to run events and whatnot. Fancy superior loot was dropping for them first. I think the server lasted a year or two then folded.

I would also pay more for something worth it but odds are that the extra money isnt gona equal more/or better/stable content. 

tawess

Howzr said:

That sounds good in theory, but what happens when you've hit the pay cap? The revenue stream is over.  

It´s nintendo... they will just release a bunch of amiibo´s for it.. =P

A regular company would simply move on to the next game / expansion. 

rodarin

As bad as the MMO genre is right now no one is goign to pay 25 bux a months for one. Simply because it couldnt be THAT much better than wha there already is, or...nothing.

If it could be done Blizzard would ave tried it by now. The fact that they arent even willing to make another MMO should tell you all you need to know about the future of MMOs and what to expect from them.

Best to take what we have with the small pop server sandbox games get with some tight groups and call it a day. Hoping and dreaming for the next big MMO died when GW2 fell flat.

There are a few that are making huge promises but all also are trying to do something 'creative' which isnt necessary. Its sort of like watching these people sing the (US) National Anthem, just sing the frigging song stop trying to jazz it up. Same with MMOs just make a decent game stop trying to reinvent something that doesnt need reinventing.

Howzr

DMKano said:

Howzr said:

DMKano said:

They already do that; it's called a free 14-day trial and then you pay in $14.99 subscription increments... 

Not quite - Nintendo's model is different:

Example lets say the game cost $50

You start for free - hence "free to start"
You spend $5 the first month, it unlocks some content
You spend $15 the second month - it unlocks more stuff for you
Then if you spend $20 more - get even more, and finally when you spend $10 more - your total spending is $50 - and you unlock the entire game for you.

It's a fixed total cost that's free to start and unlocks to 100% as you spend over time.

I like it because it's true to the name - as players don't expect the entire game to be FREE (as F2P implies) - so I can see MMO companies moving to something similar - if just so that it's closer to truth in what the F2P models ARE today - they are not intended to be "free"

That sounds good in theory, but what happens when you've hit the pay cap? The revenue stream is over. Most MMOs are a going concern, and it used to be that your subscription went towards server maintenance, bug fixes, GMs and GM events, and additional features in major version updates. If you apply the free to start model described, how could they continue to provide good service without also running a cash shop and optional subscription? Then you just have a B2P game with a bunch of silly hats and weekly raid caps. 

Expansions would raise the pay cap agian.

Obviously the cash shop would be providing additional revenue streams the entire time.

I get what you're saying, I just don't see how it could really make anything better the way MMOs are. What milestone would be used for payments? You could either let players grind to max level, then pay to move on to the raiding treadmill with increments at each tier, or pay to grind to max in increments, etc. The problem is that the meaty bits of an MMO are generally in the end game, and the end game is not typical of where you spend the first 20-200 hours of gameplay. You can't just do away with either part of the game, because then you just have a mostly linear RPG with very finite content and low replay-ability and little need to be an MMO, or you have some raid-orientated treadmill of a game with constant paywalls at ever tier of progression...

For a successful implementation of that revenue model I think a developer would need to fundamentally reconsider progression and content in their game, which probably wouldn't be a bad thing at all given the stale state of the genre. It could be an interesting method. I prefer to pay for things upfront, and personally hate whipping out my wallet all the time.

On a side note, I hope it works out for Nintendo. I typically find their games fun, but generally look unappealing from the outside and since they never seem to go on sale I forgo many Nintendo titles.