Visionary Realms Wants to Know Where You Draw the Line on RMT, F2P & More - Pantheon: Rise of the Fa

SBFord

Visionary Realms Wants to Know Where You Draw the Line on RMT, F2P & More - Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen News

The Visionary Realms team has a new post on the Pantheon: Rise of the Fallen forum to assess the community's thoughts about a wide range of topics. Called

Read the full story here

SlyLoK

I think ESO and how they have their games is about what I like to see. Buy to play for base games , sub or purchase dlc separate , in game shop with non impact items.

I can always cancel my subscription but still be able to play and then when I can play more sub again for the extra content again.

Having said that a straight sub model is great too.

RexKushman

Buy to play with an optional sub and cosmetic micro-transactions is the best method as far as I'm concerned as It allows the most room for people to spend how they want without it effecting gameplay.

SavageHorizon

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

Scot

B2P, subscriptions, dlc is fine. Cosmetics are fine but once you have a cash shop the temptation is always going to be there to sell something game breaking. Early access should not be an issue, but many games are now allowing players to set themselves up in an unbeatable or at least hugely influential position.

RexKushman

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 

Scot

RexKushman said:

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 

Let them eat cosmetics.

Amathe

At least they are asking people in advance.

Scot

DMKano said:

Scot said:

RexKushman said:

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 

Let them eat cosmetics.

Unsustainable long term - unless the cosmetics provide some kind of boosts to character power (which means they are not really cosmetics anymore)

ESO seems to be getting by on subscriptions, cosmetics and animation outfits, inventory space. Maybe it won't be here in another decade but how long do we expect a MMO to last?

Iselin

DMKano said:

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

It's not "literally" anything lol. It is 100% dependent on the developer's expectations and their definition of success and what's worth their time.

DAoC has been a sub game for 17 years and continues that way despite a small population.

If success means you want 3 Ferraris then yeah, you probably won't get that with a small population and sub. But if you have reasonable expectations and plan around 10K subs it would be very possible.

Sovrath

Iselin said:

DMKano said:

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

It's not "literally" anything lol. It is 100% dependent on the developer's expectations and their definition of success and what's worth their time.

DAoC has been a sub game for 17 years and continues that way despite a small population.

If success means you want 3 Ferraris then yeah, you probably won't get that with a small population and sub. But if you have reasonable expectations and plan around 10K subs it would be very possible.

While I agree with the idea, if you only have 10k people and say you are charging 15.95 that's less than 2 million per year. They better have a very small team.

Iselin

Sovrath said:

Iselin said:

DMKano said:

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

It's not "literally" anything lol. It is 100% dependent on the developer's expectations and their definition of success and what's worth their time.

DAoC has been a sub game for 17 years and continues that way despite a small population.

If success means you want 3 Ferraris then yeah, you probably won't get that with a small population and sub. But if you have reasonable expectations and plan around 10K subs it would be very possible.

While I agree with the idea, if you only have 10k people and say you are charging 15.95 that's less than 2 million per year. They better have a very small team.

Yup. And players would also need to accept the reality of very infrequent additions and slow costumer support.

It's just that I have to laugh at the misconception expressed often in this forums is that you need to be humongous or you failed. Modest successes are also a thing.

CrazKanuk

Iselin said:

DMKano said:

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

It's not "literally" anything lol. It is 100% dependent on the developer's expectations and their definition of success and what's worth their time.

DAoC has been a sub game for 17 years and continues that way despite a small population.

If success means you want 3 Ferraris then yeah, you probably won't get that with a small population and sub. But if you have reasonable expectations and plan around 10K subs it would be very possible.

You could substitute literally for realistically. While I can appreciate your attention to linguistics, literally is probably more close to the actual truth than you think. Also, using anecdotal evidence isn't really indicative of the ACTUAL real world. You're talking about a project that had an established user base for many years and is, probably, at a point of sustaining, which could be one guy sitting in a server room watching a blinking light for all we know. For THAT type of game, you're right, it's sustainable. 

However, this is a new game with greater expectations for new content. Also, people tend to expect more for their money than they did when DAoC was new. Presently there are 18 people working at Visionary Realms (that we know of via LinkedIn). So even if VR never grew any more than what it is right now, I don't think that 10,000 subs could even sustain the group as it sits today. 

I feel like some people still have this idea in their heads cooked up from the early 90s when game developers were like rock stars and it was the cool thing to do. News Flash! Game Developers aren't driving around Ferrari's! In reality, they're probably worse off than the majority of software developers. I've hired on a handful of ex-game developers in the past and the reality is that the pay is shit (for the amount you work), your job security is almost always uncertain, and the hours are retarded. 

It really isn't that difficult, just do the math. Unless you're willing to find a staff of like 10 people who are willing to work more, take less pay, with zero benefits and, maybe, work remotely instead of having office space, 10,000 subscribers doesn't get you very far. So, it might not be literally, but, realistically, you need more that 10k subscribers.

Wellspring

I guess the real question is, where does Pantheon draw the line?

As for me,

Okay:
- box fee
- subscriptions
- expansions
- dlc
- account services (name/gender/race change, server transfer, etc)

Not Okay:
- micro transactions / cash shop (even if it's only "cosmetics")
- krono (the ability to buy items with subscription time and be able to resell them to other players in game)

Anthur

DMKano said:

RexKushman said:

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

The population over time declines - and only continues to decline - thus inevitably reaching a point where running a game costs more than the number of players remaining to sustain it.

The only variable is how fast you get to this point - 6 months, a year - or decades - but it is inevitable.

That's the same nonsense like EA saying that they can't develop great games anymore without loot boxes because the development costs are too high. Monster Hunter can. Others can too. WoW would still be a great success even without any cash shop.

Server costs are not that high anymore even. And when your population dwindles the game runs into financial issues independent from the payment system it uses.

Don't fall for what the marketing guys want you to believe. They just found out a long time ago that you can squeeze much more money out of your customers with a F2P/cash shop/loot box game than a subscription based game.

Daranar

This is very worrisome that they are asking this question. From the start this was supposed to be the 'savior' game that went back to buying the game, paying a sub fee, and buying expansions. Why are they asking opinions of a question that have been answered again and again on their forums and forums all around the net. Ugh don't let me down VR.

Mackaveli44

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

This right here ^^^^^ 1000000%

Mackaveli44

Daranar said:

This is very worrisome that they are asking this question. From the start this was supposed to be the 'savior' game that went back to buying the game, paying a sub fee, and buying expansions. Why are they asking opinions of a question that have been answered again and again on their forums and forums all around the net. Ugh don't let me down VR.

Why is it worrisome? They're just asking questions within their community. God forbid they ask questions!

Wizardry

VERY easy question to answer.

NO rmt that takes place in game,only outside of game.This saves me from getting into lame arguments over what is considered p2w or not,stay out of the game world and there is no arguments.
Personally i rather see no rmt at all EVER,i'd pay 20 buck sub fee if the game is worth it,and would go as high as 25 bucks a month if future content is free.Obviously if we don't see the effort in the game ongoing,we simply remove our subscription.

I don't like all the lame crap i see in these games,once you have free then you have rmt,and that is FACT.I also don't free players sitting in global chat talking nonsense.NO that doesn't mean add in cash shops for free players to have to buy something to chat,i don't want ANY freemium at all,there is NO such thing as free.

Now there is one area that i might be ok with seeing as it could add a layer of fun for players outside/inside the game and is even for everyone across the board nobody gets a one up in any fashion.
So what am i talking about,well sell the rights for players to design and name weapons and gear sets.You can even take it further,naming and design of mounts or anything else.NO that does NOT mean sell them in cash shop as i already made that clear,NO to anything Smedley like.Bottom line is anything sold as rmt should be flat across the board equal to everyone,everyone can earn the items in game.

CrazKanuk

Anthur said:

DMKano said:

RexKushman said:

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

The population over time declines - and only continues to decline - thus inevitably reaching a point where running a game costs more than the number of players remaining to sustain it.

The only variable is how fast you get to this point - 6 months, a year - or decades - but it is inevitable.

That's the same nonsense like EA saying that they can't develop great games anymore without loot boxes because the development costs are too high. Monster Hunter can. Others can too. WoW would still be a great success even without any cash shop.

Server costs are not that high anymore even. And when your population dwindles the game runs into financial issues independent from the payment system it uses.

Don't fall for what the marketing guys want you to believe. They just found out a long time ago that you can squeeze much more money out of your customers with a F2P/cash shop/loot box game than a subscription based game.

Why not just do math? Here's $2 million, now you tell me a story about how you're going to survive the year with a team of 18 people.

Iselin

CrazKanuk said:

Anthur said:

DMKano said:

RexKushman said:

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

The population over time declines - and only continues to decline - thus inevitably reaching a point where running a game costs more than the number of players remaining to sustain it.

The only variable is how fast you get to this point - 6 months, a year - or decades - but it is inevitable.

That's the same nonsense like EA saying that they can't develop great games anymore without loot boxes because the development costs are too high. Monster Hunter can. Others can too. WoW would still be a great success even without any cash shop.

Server costs are not that high anymore even. And when your population dwindles the game runs into financial issues independent from the payment system it uses.

Don't fall for what the marketing guys want you to believe. They just found out a long time ago that you can squeeze much more money out of your customers with a F2P/cash shop/loot box game than a subscription based game.

Why not just do math? Here's $2 million, now you tell me a story about how you're going to survive the year with a team of 18 people.

So... what number would make you happy? You don't like 10K subs? How about 50k?

I honestly don't get why you seem to be personally invested in subs not being viable.

We get why AAA studios no longer like them except as a way to supplement their loot boxes and other lucrative MTs but last I checked crowdfunded MMOs are ostensibly doing what they do to do it a different way.

So how many subs do you think your team of 18 needs to carry on and not fall prey to Kano's depression?

goozmania

No RMT at all, whatsoever. People should know how stacked you are by looking at your character, without inspecting... no visual item microtransactions, no mount microtransactions, no storage microtransactions, none... NO MICROTRANSACTIONS. I will give up on this game at the first sight of a single microtransaction.

Iselin

DMKano said:

Iselin said:

CrazKanuk said:

Anthur said:

DMKano said:

RexKushman said:

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

The population over time declines - and only continues to decline - thus inevitably reaching a point where running a game costs more than the number of players remaining to sustain it.

The only variable is how fast you get to this point - 6 months, a year - or decades - but it is inevitable.

That's the same nonsense like EA saying that they can't develop great games anymore without loot boxes because the development costs are too high. Monster Hunter can. Others can too. WoW would still be a great success even without any cash shop.

Server costs are not that high anymore even. And when your population dwindles the game runs into financial issues independent from the payment system it uses.

Don't fall for what the marketing guys want you to believe. They just found out a long time ago that you can squeeze much more money out of your customers with a F2P/cash shop/loot box game than a subscription based game.

Why not just do math? Here's $2 million, now you tell me a story about how you're going to survive the year with a team of 18 people.

So... what number would make you happy? You don't like 10K subs? How about 50k?

I honestly don't get why you seem to be personally invested in subs not being viable.

We get why AAA studios no longer like them except as a way to supplement their loot boxes and other lucrative MTs but last I checked crowdfunded MMOs are ostensibly doing what they do to do it a different way.

So how many subs do you think your team of 18 needs to carry on and not fall prey to Kano's depression?

lol please


Does 18 include operations staff?

Consider what is needed to make and run a successful MMO:

1. Game developers - game engine devs, world builders, animators, concept artists, vfx artists, game designers, sound devs, writers/content devs at minimum, QA/test team

2. Operations - DBA, Network engineers, System/Server engineers, Game/dev ops (patch/game code deployment on servers + automation/scripts), at least 1 project manager

3. Customer service - billing/payment fraud investigators, in-game GMs support, techincal support

3. Administration - Desktop/Workstation IT staff to maintain company PC/printers/phone, HR, legal


Now 18 people... good luck with that


Is anyone going to be able to take vacation ever - because it seems nobody will have a backup to do their job.

18 people was his number not mine.

Sovrath

Anthur said:

DMKano said:

RexKushman said:

SavageHorizon said:

A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days

The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game. 

The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.

The population over time declines - and only continues to decline - thus inevitably reaching a point where running a game costs more than the number of players remaining to sustain it.

The only variable is how fast you get to this point - 6 months, a year - or decades - but it is inevitable.

That's the same nonsense like EA saying that they can't develop great games anymore without loot boxes because the development costs are too high. Monster Hunter can. Others can too. WoW would still be a great success even without any cash shop.

Server costs are not that high anymore even. And when your population dwindles the game runs into financial issues independent from the payment system it uses.

Don't fall for what the marketing guys want you to believe. They just found out a long time ago that you can squeeze much more money out of your customers with a F2P/cash shop/loot box game than a subscription based game.

Unless you can point to actual numbers, I really wouldn't say things like this.

I realize people like Jim Sterling (and I am a fan though don't always agree with him) like to say things like this the truth is they have no actual numbers nor do they actually work in the business.

I mean, you say Server costs are not that high anymore, ok great, what does it cost for servers/services/maintenance "whatever" for a specific game? I understand at one point there was a connection fee for game companies per player to connect, is that still a thing?

Do you actually have numbers or are you just saying things that others have said on the interwebz?

Iselin

DMKano said:

Daranar said:

This is very worrisome that they are asking this question. From the start this was supposed to be the 'savior' game that went back to buying the game, paying a sub fee, and buying expansions. Why are they asking opinions of a question that have been answered again and again on their forums and forums all around the net. Ugh don't let me down VR.

On the contrary - this is telling me that they are being realistic about todays reality of running a MMORPG

A 100% pure sub model is only sustainable for a short time - and then they will need to introduce microtrans.

I am glad that they are talking about it now instead of bait and switching players afterwards.

You better tell Mark Jacobs quickly why he's wrong and you're right lol.

kitarad

I think it is good that they are asking these questions now and not blind siding anyone with decisions.