Good analysis, gLitterbug, that is basically what we think also. A better game will never come out of the mass market, it will be a smaller company in a niche market segment who will create that hit.
you obviously don't fully understand how much money this would cost the company, how do you expect a completely new mmorpg to become 5 times better then world of warcraft just because you tell them?
you should know better then that, i personaly will never EVER pay more then 15 dollar a month, and a really good mmorpg is something like WoW, and not 5 times better.
Originally posted by poopypants The MMOGs that we have today are nothing compared to what they will be like in near future. There will still be the little cheapies, the $10-$20 ones, but the really cool ones are gonna cost.IMO MMOGs are far more profound and meaningful than any other type of entertainment and deserve to be at the top of the gaming food chain. The main reason why we don't have really good MMOGs is NOT because developers don't want to make them, but because gamers don't want to pay for them! I'll be perfectly honest with ya--I think that poor people and cheapskates have held this industry back for far too long! If you can't, or refuse to, pay for a high quality MMOG then you'll just have to play the cheapies. Those of us who can afford to play the latest state-of-the-art MMOG will happily do so. Fortunately the PS3 will be out in the fall and while there might not be any MMOGs available at the start, there will be shortly thereafter. The average game will cost $70. plus whatever Sony's online service cost is plus you'll have to have at least cable broadband internet service, but OMFG will they be awesome!I predict that the MMOGs for PS3 will decimate PC MMOGs for a long time to come. In fact, the PS3 is 10x more powerful than the best PC rig out there! Now, wouldn't it be a shame to play something as junky and inferior as WoW or EVE on such a powerful machine?
right, so what you say is that over a while ps3 will suddenly come out and burn WoW down and every other mmorpg on the internet? how much will the ps3 cost, and how many people are going to pay so much more money every month for a game thats on the ps3 instead of the computer?! and you said the ps3 is 10x more power then the best pc on earth? right, can you make a game on a ps3? can you model in 3d on a ps3? do you really believe the ps3 will suddenly come out and burn down the entire internet and that everyone on earth will play it?
i think that the future of the mmorpgs on the internet will be good, because its allot cheaper and allot of people dont want a ps3, now dont think that the world will change because you want.
So you have player created content and then charge them more?! It's a psychological marketing ploy to trick a potential customer that what they are buying into must be of higher quality simply because you are paying more for it. If a game comes out that has a $40 monthly fee, they would be a sitting duck when another game comes out, almost the same, which only has a $20 monthly fee or none at all. Then the general gaming public will ask, and rightly so, why does game A have a $40 monthly fee and yet game B is so much cheaper when they are almost the same?
What would you get for that extra $20 or $40 that justifies paying that much more? It's nothing to do with being a cheapskate or being poor, that's a bigots view. It is do with perceived value, does that make Guild Wars and Anarchy Online the worst games out there because you don't pay for them?
"A better game will never come out of the mass market, it will be a smaller company in a niche market segment who will create that hit."
I agree, which kind of contradicts the argument about raising monthly fees since surely a smaller company would have less developers/initial cost and also running costs would be lower too.
What would happen in this $60/mth game (I could pay it as I'm sure most readers can, but would we pay it though, I wouldn't) if there were rollbacks, server crashes etc? You could have the best software and servers, but they can still crash and cause problems. Are you going to compensate everyone?
I think poopypants needs a reality check or is just delusional. mmorpgs are made to make money. The mass market consists of a lot of casual gamers. Anyone who makes mmorpgs loves casual gamers, they play less for longer (and so pay more), less likely to give your game a bad name, in fact usually do they opposite. This $60/mth a game would be under so much scrutiny that anything negative would make anyone think twice about renewing and would probably not be played by most casual gamers due to the extortionate cost. People would want to get their money's worth and so would steamroll through your content, and so we are back to player made content. Compare NWN2 to DDO, I dare you.
Okay then, let's say this game is released. Would subsequent games charge even more, after all that would make them somehow "better" (according to the OP's logic)?
"Hey this game MUST be good, after all they are charging me $60 for it!",
"Check out this game, they are charging $120 a month!"
Originally posted by Hashman So you have player created content and then charge them more?! It's a psychological marketing ploy to trick a potential customer that what they are buying into must be of higher quality simply because you are paying more for it. If a game comes out that has a $40 monthly fee, they would be a sitting duck when another game comes out, almost the same, which only has a $20 monthly fee or none at all. Then the general gaming public will ask, and rightly so, why does game A have a $40 monthly fee and yet game B is so much cheaper when they are almost the same? What would you get for that extra $20 or $40 that justifies paying that much more? It's nothing to do with being a cheapskate or being poor, that's a bigots view. It is do with perceived value, does that make Guild Wars and Anarchy Online the worst games out there because you don't pay for them?"A better game will never come out of the mass market, it will be a smaller company in a niche market segment who will create that hit."I agree, which kind of contradicts the argument about raising monthly fees since surely a smaller company would have less developers/initial cost and also running costs would be lower too.What would happen in this $60/mth game (I could pay it as I'm sure most readers can, but would we pay it though, I wouldn't) if there were rollbacks, server crashes etc? You could have the best software and servers, but they can still crash and cause problems. Are you going to compensate everyone? I think poopypants needs a reality check or is just delusional. mmorpgs are made to make money. The mass market consists of a lot of casual gamers. Anyone who makes mmorpgs loves casual gamers, they play less for longer (and so pay more), less likely to give your game a bad name, in fact usually do they opposite. This $60/mth a game would be under so much scrutiny that anything negative would make anyone think twice about renewing and would probably not be played by most casual gamers due to the extortionate cost. People would want to get their money's worth and so would steamroll through your content, and so we are back to player made content. Compare NWN2 to DDO, I dare you.Okay then, let's say this game is released. Would subsequent games charge even more, after all that would make them somehow "better" (according to the OP's logic)? "Hey this game MUST be good, after all they are charging me $60 for it!","Check out this game, they are charging $120 a month!""Whoa $120?! that must be twice as good!"The word mug springs to mind.
exactly, why paying so idiotic much money for the same game but then on a ps3? why not turn ye good'ol computer on and play the same game but then 10 times cheaper?
just the idea that when ps3 comes out and that it will burn down all the mmorpgs just because its a ps3 and not a computer, makes me sick. there is a good future in the world of mmorpgs, and when the ps3 suddenly comes out, it wont beat world of warcraft with pacman but then on a ps3, trust me.
back in october 2005 when i still played runescape, allot of people were so excited when they heard of xbox360, and allot of people thought that litteraly everyone will leave runescape and will go pay for an xbox360 and then waste their time playing with the xbox360 instead wasting their time playing runescape, but when you visit runescape there still are players, right?
Odd that you didn't give an option for those of us who simply disagree. No, I wouldn't pay more than $15-20 a month, no matter how good the game is, and further, I disagree that cost is the primary reason MMOs tend to suck. I think lack of innovation is a much bigger part of the problem. Give me an MMO that's new and different, and I won't even mind if the graphics are ten years behind, because the game had a tiny art team.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Hashman, in case you were talking about me with your first line about the player created content and increased fee, then understand that I didn't take the 60$ (which was just taken out of the blue by someone anyways I guess) as a basis for anything. Nor that the increased fee stems from the want to make more profit, but because it might be needed to maintain that business model. Which as I stated would have to be calculated yet. Feel free to do that and tell me what the fee would need to be, any random guess even from a businessman in the field of mmos would probably be off and useless. Hard precise calculation on that part would be the only way to come to a reasonable result there.
In the case of user created content I have to note that it is more a bonus for the developer and the players, maybe even just for marketing the game, rather than something that you could save half your development costs/team from. You would still need the quality management and believe me that would need more than an hour daily from one of the artists that you have working on the game art for that. Also you could not at any time actually rely on user content being submitted, so you still have to create enough content to get away if there is no user content coming in at all. That would be something that needs testing, as you can not calculate that beforehand.
So what the business model that I roughed out above is, is nothing more than the customers paying the ongoing costs not only for servers but also the wages for developers etc. The base cost of the development that went into the game would need to be recuperated mostly from selling the game boxes or a signup fee. Unless you factor it into the monthly fee, whatever seems to be the better choice depending on the numbers calculated for that. So the difference between working like that and something big companies do with WoW or EQ2 or whatever means that you never actually reach a release date, but a date of opening for play. Your whole developer team will work on the game instead of getting drawn off to work on an expansion or a sequel. As such it might turn out that a higher monthly fee is needed, which if the case would probably define if the business model works. It might work out no matter if it was 10$ a month or even up to 100$, as there are people out there just like poopypants that do not mind paying for a quality product that is worth the money or people who simply enjoy the thought of being in an exclusive game that is not open to anyone but the rich.
What you are right about is that throwing double the amount of monthly fee at game companies just like that doesn't automatically mean it improves. I have to say though that I want a developer who brought me a good game to earn good money and I'm not jealous about it the least if they make millions. After all I wouldn't mind making millions in case I ever get into game development either. As soon as I feel ripped off it is bad though, but even tough I quit WoW long ago I didn't feel ripped off for paying whatever I paid. It was worth it and when it stopped being then I quit and thats it. I got multiple times the time out of the game than any single player games I could've bought for the concentrated cost of it.
I know you complain mostly about the point that poopypants thinks more money equals to a better product, but I don't think he has any evil intent but is just a victim of wishful thinking in some things he says.
One thing that I'm not sure how you meant it exactly is about the smaller development team costing less. When I said a game like that would be not done by a big company, I meant one that has a big name and is established in its business methods. What I did not mean is that it is necessarily a small company as in have few job positions to fill. The business model I talked about above would still need considerable production values to have enough content ready, as content development takes time and you can not roll out a whole new expansion -like update each month. At least not if you want to keep it good and interesting.
But as said multiple times already, it is not very useful arguing about the fee without knowing the whole of the business side. The thread is still very interesting as to see what the pain threshold for people is. Understandably of course that you are affraid of developers realizing it is higher than the usual fee so far, but don't worry that is something that regulates itself rather than gets set in stone by a guy in marketing.
This question is interesting because you are gonna get answers all over the board.
Older players are more likely to have more money and are more likely to enjoy a game with the kind of depth and development that $60 a month can pay for.
On the other hand, players under 18 (or so) probably cant afford or would not be willing to pay that much, in turn they probably care quite a bit less about the game development and depth - as long as it was fun.
I know Im generalizing but I think if you took an average it would be true for the most part.
Originally posted by gLitterbug What poopypants hints at with this post isn't even close to being dumb. The higher cost might not necessarily scare away trolls, but the type of game you create would probably. Being smaller and more focused and not appeal to a bunch as big as WoW's customers automatically gets you rid of a lot of the bad apples. So creating an mmo with a concept that is off the mass market, but can gather a large enough userbase who appreciates it and is ready to pay enough for it to keep things running would be the target. Assuming I had a company I would start off by creating a concept with more complex mechanisms and geared strongly toward a certain number of people. That might exclude me from getting millions of signups (at first), but as a small developer you wouldn't be able to handle an explosion in customers like that anyways. A thought that actually got confirmed today in the EVE interview I read. So tailoring the mmo to your targeted customer base, you can for example advertise without giving false statements in hope to lure in customers. (If you have a quality product that is, but that is what I assume in the first place.)So if you calculated through the business plan and you have your game and the amount of subscribers needed to maintain it, then you can over time slowly expand. There will be no shortage of subscribers if you have a quality product that has the appeal of an exclusive club which everyone wants to get into. Now add to this what Mylon said about player created content. Gamers interested in real roleplaying will go to great lengths creating something to give others joy if you let them. In that vein you would need to design a system to help people like that and in some way reward them for it.Continuing the thought of player created content, we can go as far as custom created 3d models of characters, houses, items etc. This area is a bit more tacky as it could break your game if not implementing some kind of quality control. So what would need to be done is hand out very strict guidelines for custom content and have submitted content run through some special employees hand who then puts it into the game if it adheres to the content specifications. As so often seen on the net, there are a lot of capable artists who create content for fun. Neverwinter Nights being a prime example. Even if you had strict guidelines there might be enough coming in to actually matter and the thought of being able to get your own stuff in the game would be one of the best advertising you could get as it would create quite the uproar itself wherever published. For whoever is not an artist but still wants his custom armor done I would have artists specifically assigned to that job, but of course that might mean the customer needs to pay for his armor with real life money. Looking at the urge people have to be special and what is going on with mmo money on ebay and the like, I wouldn't be affraid of a lack of customers using this service.
The business model that gLitterbug is adeptly describing here is called the "slow growth" model (i.e. start small and grow big over time), which is what CCP is doing with EVE online. Conversely, Blizzard has used what I call the "Grand opening" or explosive growth model for WoW.
Now, on to the matter of content creation. I've devoted a great deal of thought to this particular subject and I must admit that You have articulated my thoughts perfectly. PotBS has a custom content system that is very similar to the one you've discribed, the only difference, as I recall, is that the players vote on the content to determine what gets in and what gets the boot (honestly, I think I would rather have a team of several skilled artists making that determination, for the sake of continuity, if nothing else).
gLitterbug did you happen to read my post on the Mission Creation AI? I didn't give any details but I'd like to get your thoughts on that (hehe, I can't wait to see how close our ideas are on this). I think some sort of mission building AI would be an enormously powerful selling point.
I gotta get going, thanks for sharing your thoughts gLitterbug...two thumbs up!
Originally posted by daniellex55 This question is interesting because you are gonna get answers all over the board. Older players are more likely to have more money and are more likely to enjoy a game with the kind of depth and development that $60 a month can pay for. On the other hand, players under 18 (or so) probably cant afford or would not be willing to pay that much, in turn they probably care quite a bit less about the game development and depth - as long as it was fun. I know Im generalizing but I think if you took an average it would be true for the most part.
You're just wrong. Many kids have overindulgent parents and others have gainful employment. How often do you see kids with high-end cell phone plans? Price alone is not enough to exclude an age group from a game.
Most over-18's could probably find the money for a $60/month game. But at a certain age, your fiscal priorities change.... you move out of your parent's house, you get married, you get a mortgage and you have kids. I'm guessing that the OP has not yet reached this stage of life. It's not about being able to afford the "good things in life." It's about realizing that "the good things" involve a bit more than staring at a computer screen for 10 hours a day.
$20 a month MAX and it would have to be exceptional. I won't pay the $15 bucks for EVE because it is not worth it for me to sit there and twiddle my thumbs while waiting for the next station.
If gaming companies want more money let them E A R N it by making a great game and selling M O R E SUBSCRIPTIONS. Production of the game costs the same whether they sell 100,000 or 1 million subscriptions. If their game is not good enough to sell enough subscriptions at $10 or $15 a month then they deserve to go broke IMO.
Developers who create poor quality games appear to be trying to place the blame on the very ones they should be trying to curry favor with. Because the subscribers will not pay outrageous prices is not the reason there are not better games available. The fault lies squarely with the developers and no one else.
All one has to do is read these boards to know that many people are ALREADY paying more than most games are worth to them, so to raise the price will drastically cut the number of players no matter how dazzling the game may be.
What we need is a developer to come along with a GOOD game, and game play, that offers something to varying player styles, at a modest price. Such a game will have plenty of players and in turn plenty of cash rolling in monthly.
Business is a risk, period. Do good you succeed. Do poorly and you fall on your face. Everyone is not cut out to succeed unfortunately. Let the market set the price, which I believe it already has done. Most people (except for maybe the pooper) have bills and priorities in life. Games are just that, G A M E S and as such will never be high on the list of priorities for the masses no matter how enjoyable. Therefore they are relegated for all time to a price slot that is equal to their priority status.
Most people who become rich do so selling to the MASSES. Henry Ford did not market to the rich but to the poor man.
$60 a month is crazy at todays prices. Maybe wait fifty years then bring up the subject again.
your "poll" is skewed and intentionally inflated. Where are the $10, $15 and $20 subscription rates, all you do is list ridiculously inflated $40, $50 and $60 rates. NO subscription is worth $2 a DAY to play. Back in the 80s we had to get good at arcades to avoid that kind of expense then went to consoles to play at home to avoid just that kind of continual $0.25 drain. Few 'adults' have 4 to 15 hrs a day to play games, and are lucky to play 4 to 8 hrs a week considering RL demands, trying to rip them off at $60/month subscription will doom that game from the start. Quite a few are willing to pay $10 a month and will begrudge $12 to 15 for a great game. But $40 to $60... aparently you do not have house and car payments, utilities, insurance, savings, taxes nor a social life to take their share of your pay check. It was just that kind of greed from a company's developers that led to the downfall of SOE... along with lack of care about their customers!
I would pay $30-40 per month for a really top-notch game with all the bells and whistles, GM-led events, timer-scheduled events and an EVOLVING storyline (gameworld MUST change to some degree, lesser or greater, over time).
There is no doubt that current mmo prices will go up as inflation, greed and cost of living go up but this will happen slowly and gradually over time. Now for a mmo to jump from 15-20 to 60-100 a month over night there has to be some intensive revolutionary features added.
In short more quests, better graphics, storyline, more basic content won't cut it anymore. An mmo going for those prices would have to have advanced or better to ssay futuristic qualities to it.
For example:
The mmo comes with a headset, allowing you to be immersed in your world , beyond just 3D computer screen graphics we see today. Or a device sends signals to your brain... sensations like smelling and other stuff. Stuff like this we'd pay bigger money for, i mean if we could save the madien in distress and were rewarded by getting to pop her cherry and get to experience that at a more realistic degree then just seeing a porn video on screen, i'm pretty sure we'd be willing to pay way more for that.
I'm sure til then every "next gen" mmo will try to make a case and squeeze another dollar or two out of are pockets but truthfully they can barely justify the current prices let along a 5x or 10X increase.
I wish MMO's were no more than 10 dollars a month. Im married and my wife and I enjoy playing an MMO together. So it adds up when you double the price. Then if I want to throw in another MMO or two then it really goes up between the both of us. Of course we stick to one game at a time for that reason. I dont see prices going up to 40 dollars or more a month anytime soon, but if they do then there is no way I can play. I dont see how 5 million people would still be playing WOW. MMO's would probably turn into an all kiddie community where there parents foot the bill. Im a senior in college and most college students dont have that kind of money to throw around on a game. Well an MMO is more than "just a game", but the point still stands^^.
So the next best price-adjustment seems to be to provide double accounts for couples and multi-accounts for families and groups - all using the same IP for an account at a time. Say something from 20% to 60% off depending on the number of persons in such a user group.
What would you think of it? - Say if a family with 4 kids would have to pay 36$ for getting 6 accounts, but those accounts need to be online via the same IP if used parallel, would you pay 36$ for a game then, if the single account price would be 15$?- Or for a couple 24$ for 2 accounts?-
I often have multiple accounts. Usually between 1 and 4.
I have yet to see a convincing reason in this thread for actually paying more money.
I would prefer to see more value packs. Where I get 2 accounts per box for example.
An account and a trial account that is also subscribable as in City Of Heroes Deluxe for example. Any discounts for any reason gratefully received. It is difficult after the release of Guild Wars to honestly beleive that subscription fee's are in anyway needed at all.
I think the whole marketing format is outmoded.
SOE (Boo! Hiss!) are revising their subscription formats. It will be intresting to see what they come up with.
Originally posted by daniellex55 This question is interesting because you are gonna get answers all over the board. Older players are more likely to have more money and are more likely to enjoy a game with the kind of depth and development that $60 a month can pay for. On the other hand, players under 18 (or so) probably cant afford or would not be willing to pay that much, in turn they probably care quite a bit less about the game development and depth - as long as it was fun. I know Im generalizing but I think if you took an average it would be true for the most part.
You're just wrong. Many kids have overindulgent parents and others have gainful employment. How often do you see kids with high-end cell phone plans? Price alone is not enough to exclude an age group from a game.
Most over-18's could probably find the money for a $60/month game. But at a certain age, your fiscal priorities change.... you move out of your parent's house, you get married, you get a mortgage and you have kids. I'm guessing that the OP has not yet reached this stage of life. It's not about being able to afford the "good things in life." It's about realizing that "the good things" involve a bit more than staring at a computer screen for 10 hours a day.
That for me seems to hit the nail on the head.
Although theconcept of a limited subscription based game balanced out by it's high cost sounds reasonable to an 18 year old. You are targetting a very specific age group of dispensable income. Essentially rich unemployed 18-24 year olds only. Further divide this potential audience by game theme, fantasy or sci fi? divide them again by platform. Ps3 or PC?
Then recognise that you need to make a game with 4 times the accolade of any other market game.
And you might start to see why no serious professional or business entrpreneur has bothered with this model to date.
What would make a game 4 times better than anything currently on the market? is an intresting subject, but the "serious sales model" that this topic has been wrapped up in is totally laughable.
A MassiveMultiplayerOnline game specifically tailored to avoid the "mass" market.
Originally posted by Ragosch Originally posted by Elnator All of which, with a user base of 50,000 or more, will be recouped within 1 year of release due to recurring fees. Once a game reaches the 1.5 year mark with 50k users or more it has paid for its production costs. EQ2 cost about 25 million to make. In the first SIX months it had already recouped all of that and was into profit. Aha, in 6 month 25 million $ - lets check this economically - using real math. The monthly return in each of the 6 months need to be 4,313,719$ (calculating with 1% monthly interest) paid by 50,000 customers = 86.27$ monthly fee. You are tellling nonsense, sorry! Lets check the 1.5 year mark using 25 million production cost and 50k users during that time = monthly fee required 30.49$ after taxes - that doesnt hold true also. Ragosch
BZZT EQ2 had 250,000 - 300,000 users. By it's 7 month mark it had 500,000 users. Might want to pay more attention. I said 1.5 YEARS for 50k users. EQ2 had significatnly more than 50k users
250,000 * 15.00 = 3,750,000.00 per month
Box price: $50 250,000 * $50 = 12,500,000 In the first 30 days the game grossed 12,500,000+3,750,000 (it had 250,000 users on day 1 and didn't ever drop below that per 3rd party info. (MMORPGCHART.COM) So we'll go with just 250,000 users and 250,000 boxes (and ignore the fact that it probably sold more copies than there are active subscribers).
So in the first month EQ netted $16,250,000 and at least 3,750,000 each month after that. So by month 4 they were in the black.
Care to dispute it again?
What part of "I used to work in this industry" did you not grasp? I know what I'm talking about.
And running an MMO isn't exactly 'expensive' in the grand scheme of things. Given a team of 30 developers, bandwidth costs, etc, most MMO's only require about $5-10mil/yr in ongoing/recurring fees to run. Anything over that is raw profit.
So tell me, exactly why are you willing to spend 5x as much as you are now when, lets just use EQ2 as an example:
EQ2 last numbers we had from the New York Times was approximately 500,000 users. 500,000 x $15 = 7,500,000 / month 12 months = 90,000,000 Subtract ongoing recurring fees, lets be REALLY crazy and say it's $25mil a year. SOE is already netting 65,000,000 in profit.
All you're going to do by increasing how much you PAY them is increasing their spending money. They don't NEED any more profit. They already make 65 mil a year off you corn dogs.
And if you want to look at WOW, they net $75,000,000 a MONTH.
Please tell me why you want to pay these companies MORE??? I just don't get it.
oh and to cover the 50k users over 1.5 year arguement: 50,000 x $50 (box price) = 2,500,000. That's if ONLY 50,000 people bought the game and continued playing for 1 year. We know for a fact that doesn't happen so lets be fair and say 150,000 people bought the game: Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000,000 just in box sales (accounting for decreasing price)
Now 50,000 x $15 = $750,000 / month over 18 months is: 13,500,00 13,500,000 + 5,000,000 = 18,500,000 over an 18 month period. And that's if the game only sold 150k copies over that 1.5 years...
So, yes, absolutely most MMO's could be paid off within 18 months at only 50k users. EQ2 and WoW cost far more than any of the competition to develop. I think Ryzom was $11 mil or something like that. DAOC was under $15mil as well. Even SWG came in under $20mil and it had 70 freaking devs.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online. Sig image Pending Still in: A couple Betas
Originally posted by Joebert $20 a month MAX and it would have to be exceptional. I won't pay the $15 bucks for EVE because it is not worth it for me to sit there and twiddle my thumbs while waiting for the next station.
EVE is a good example of a game I'd stay subscribed to forever, if it only cost $4.95/month. It's a great game that I don't actually enjoy playing all that much.. In some cases, charging less would make more revenue. It can go either way. Whether charging more or less, it's a risk that might payoff, or might fail miserably, so they all charge the same amount.
If gaming companies want more money let them E A R N it by making a great game and selling M O R E SUBSCRIPTIONS. Production of the game costs the same whether they sell 100,000 or 1 million subscriptions. If their game is not good enough to sell enough subscriptions at $10 or $15 a month then they deserve to go broke IMO.
That's really the bottom line. If an MMO is good enough, they don't need to charge more to rake in tons of profit. If the game isn't good enough, charging more is only going to earn them even less.
The only thing I can see them charging more for, would be frequent live GM events, where the extra cost is to pay the salaries of the hired GMs. That would be expensive, too much so to afford at $15/month/player, but could be worth it to some. Probably not enough to pay off, though.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Originally posted by Iza_Dresan There is no doubt that current mmo prices will go up as inflation, greed and cost of living go up but this will happen slowly and gradually over time. Now for a mmo to jump from 15-20 to 60-100 a month over night there has to be some intensive revolutionary features added. In short more quests, better graphics, storyline, more basic content won't cut it anymore. An mmo going for those prices would have to have advanced or better to ssay futuristic qualities to it. For example: The mmo comes with a headset, allowing you to be immersed in your world , beyond just 3D computer screen graphics we see today. Or a device sends signals to your brain... sensations like smelling and other stuff. Stuff like this we'd pay bigger money for, i mean if we could save the madien in distress and were rewarded by getting to pop her cherry and get to experience that at a more realistic degree then just seeing a porn video on screen, i'm pretty sure we'd be willing to pay way more for that. I'm sure til then every "next gen" mmo will try to make a case and squeeze another dollar or two out of are pockets but truthfully they can barely justify the current prices let along a 5x or 10X increase.
Iza_Dresan I'm not suggesting that MMOG fees suddenly jump from $10 a month to $60. What I've been trying to suggest is that: IF MMOG developers invest massive amounts of money and manpower, and produce a very high quality MMOG as a direct result of that massive investment, would you be willing to reward them for their efforts by paying a higher monthly fee.
One of the features of a high quality MMOG will be the ablility to talk to others in game through your avatar (using a headset of course). You would have the option of changing the way your voice sounds via a synthesizer that's built right into the character creation interface...so if you what to play a female/male you could use the synthesizer to adjust the way your voice sounds to match your avatars' gender (i.e.making a big husky-ass man sound like a delicate little girl). You would rarely use your keyboard in a MMOG that had this feature...imagine having an appliance (crystal ball/fantasy or Wrist communicator/Sci-Fi) that would enable you to communicate with your friends/team mates whenever you want, even if your not logged in! They could actually see your avatar talking (and you theirs) on the screen of your wrist com.
NPC/pets/mobs will also communicate by talking (hehe, or grunting). I've written about this stuff in earlier post...check it out if you like.
These features and many, many more COULD be available to us by or before 2010. This probably won't happen though. Why? Because gamers and developers are locked in a vicious cycle in which both sides are unwilling to try anything new or put forth the effort to make better MMOGs possible. This disfunctional relationship has produced the junky MMOGs we see today.
Originally posted by Greyface Originally posted by daniellex55 This question is interesting because you are gonna get answers all over the board. Older players are more likely to have more money and are more likely to enjoy a game with the kind of depth and development that $60 a month can pay for. On the other hand, players under 18 (or so) probably cant afford or would not be willing to pay that much, in turn they probably care quite a bit less about the game development and depth - as long as it was fun. I know Im generalizing but I think if you took an average it would be true for the most part. You're just wrong. Many kids have overindulgent parents and others have gainful employment. How often do you see kids with high-end cell phone plans? Price alone is not enough to exclude an age group from a game. Most over-18's could probably find the money for a $60/month game. But at a certain age, your fiscal priorities change.... you move out of your parent's house, you get married, you get a mortgage and you have kids. I'm guessing that the OP has not yet reached this stage of life. It's not about being able to afford the "good things in life." It's about realizing that "the good things" involve a bit more than staring at a computer screen for 10 hours a day.
Thats your opinion.
Yes- there is a SMALL percentage of kids who are spoiled, and get what they want from their parents- no matter what the price is, a smaller percentage then the kids who dont live this way. If you had actually read what I stated in my post, you would see I never said "NO" kids would pay this, I said the average kid under 18 cant afford a game like this.
Comments
Good analysis, gLitterbug, that is basically what we think also. A better game will never come out of the mass market, it will be a smaller company in a niche market segment who will create that hit.
Ragosch
you obviously don't fully understand how much money this would cost the company, how do you expect a completely new mmorpg to become 5 times better then world of warcraft just because you tell them?
you should know better then that, i personaly will never EVER pay more then 15 dollar a month, and a really good mmorpg is something like WoW, and not 5 times better.
right, so what you say is that over a while ps3 will suddenly come out and burn WoW down and every other mmorpg on the internet? how much will the ps3 cost, and how many people are going to pay so much more money every month for a game thats on the ps3 instead of the computer?! and you said the ps3 is 10x more power then the best pc on earth? right, can you make a game on a ps3? can you model in 3d on a ps3? do you really believe the ps3 will suddenly come out and burn down the entire internet and that everyone on earth will play it?
i think that the future of the mmorpgs on the internet will be good, because its allot cheaper and allot of people dont want a ps3, now dont think that the world will change because you want.
~Alex007152~
So you have player created content and then charge them more?! It's a psychological marketing ploy to trick a potential customer that what they are buying into must be of higher quality simply because you are paying more for it. If a game comes out that has a $40 monthly fee, they would be a sitting duck when another game comes out, almost the same, which only has a $20 monthly fee or none at all. Then the general gaming public will ask, and rightly so, why does game A have a $40 monthly fee and yet game B is so much cheaper when they are almost the same?
What would you get for that extra $20 or $40 that justifies paying that much more? It's nothing to do with being a cheapskate or being poor, that's a bigots view. It is do with perceived value, does that make Guild Wars and Anarchy Online the worst games out there because you don't pay for them?
"A better game will never come out of the mass market, it will be a smaller company in a niche market segment who will create that hit."
I agree, which kind of contradicts the argument about raising monthly fees since surely a smaller company would have less developers/initial cost and also running costs would be lower too.
What would happen in this $60/mth game (I could pay it as I'm sure most readers can, but would we pay it though, I wouldn't) if there were rollbacks, server crashes etc? You could have the best software and servers, but they can still crash and cause problems. Are you going to compensate everyone?
I think poopypants needs a reality check or is just delusional. mmorpgs are made to make money. The mass market consists of a lot of casual gamers. Anyone who makes mmorpgs loves casual gamers, they play less for longer (and so pay more), less likely to give your game a bad name, in fact usually do they opposite. This $60/mth a game would be under so much scrutiny that anything negative would make anyone think twice about renewing and would probably not be played by most casual gamers due to the extortionate cost. People would want to get their money's worth and so would steamroll through your content, and so we are back to player made content. Compare NWN2 to DDO, I dare you.
Okay then, let's say this game is released. Would subsequent games charge even more, after all that would make them somehow "better" (according to the OP's logic)?
"Hey this game MUST be good, after all they are charging me $60 for it!",
"Check out this game, they are charging $120 a month!"
"Whoa $120?! that must be twice as good!"
The word mug springs to mind.
exactly, why paying so idiotic much money for the same game but then on a ps3?
why not turn ye good'ol computer on and play the same game but then 10 times cheaper?
just the idea that when ps3 comes out and that it will burn down all the mmorpgs just because its a ps3 and not a computer, makes me sick.
there is a good future in the world of mmorpgs, and when the ps3 suddenly comes out, it wont beat world of warcraft with pacman but then on a ps3, trust me.
back in october 2005 when i still played runescape, allot of people were so excited when they heard of xbox360, and allot of people thought that litteraly everyone will leave runescape and will go pay for an xbox360 and then waste their time playing with the xbox360 instead wasting their time playing runescape, but when you visit runescape there still are players, right?
~Alex007152~
Personally.. I would not want to pay no more than $10 a month for an mmo.
----------------------
Give me lights give me action. With a touch of a button!
Odd that you didn't give an option for those of us who simply disagree. No, I wouldn't pay more than $15-20 a month, no matter how good the game is, and further, I disagree that cost is the primary reason MMOs tend to suck. I think lack of innovation is a much bigger part of the problem. Give me an MMO that's new and different, and I won't even mind if the graphics are ten years behind, because the game had a tiny art team.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Hashman, in case you were talking about me with your first line about the player created content and increased fee, then understand that I didn't take the 60$ (which was just taken out of the blue by someone anyways I guess) as a basis for anything. Nor that the increased fee stems from the want to make more profit, but because it might be needed to maintain that business model. Which as I stated would have to be calculated yet. Feel free to do that and tell me what the fee would need to be, any random guess even from a businessman in the field of mmos would probably be off and useless. Hard precise calculation on that part would be the only way to come to a reasonable result there.
In the case of user created content I have to note that it is more a bonus for the developer and the players, maybe even just for marketing the game, rather than something that you could save half your development costs/team from. You would still need the quality management and believe me that would need more than an hour daily from one of the artists that you have working on the game art for that. Also you could not at any time actually rely on user content being submitted, so you still have to create enough content to get away if there is no user content coming in at all. That would be something that needs testing, as you can not calculate that beforehand.
So what the business model that I roughed out above is, is nothing more than the customers paying the ongoing costs not only for servers but also the wages for developers etc. The base cost of the development that went into the game would need to be recuperated mostly from selling the game boxes or a signup fee. Unless you factor it into the monthly fee, whatever seems to be the better choice depending on the numbers calculated for that. So the difference between working like that and something big companies do with WoW or EQ2 or whatever means that you never actually reach a release date, but a date of opening for play. Your whole developer team will work on the game instead of getting drawn off to work on an expansion or a sequel. As such it might turn out that a higher monthly fee is needed, which if the case would probably define if the business model works. It might work out no matter if it was 10$ a month or even up to 100$, as there are people out there just like poopypants that do not mind paying for a quality product that is worth the money or people who simply enjoy the thought of being in an exclusive game that is not open to anyone but the rich.
What you are right about is that throwing double the amount of monthly fee at game companies just like that doesn't automatically mean it improves. I have to say though that I want a developer who brought me a good game to earn good money and I'm not jealous about it the least if they make millions. After all I wouldn't mind making millions in case I ever get into game development either. As soon as I feel ripped off it is bad though, but even tough I quit WoW long ago I didn't feel ripped off for paying whatever I paid. It was worth it and when it stopped being then I quit and thats it. I got multiple times the time out of the game than any single player games I could've bought for the concentrated cost of it.
I know you complain mostly about the point that poopypants thinks more money equals to a better product, but I don't think he has any evil intent but is just a victim of wishful thinking in some things he says.
One thing that I'm not sure how you meant it exactly is about the smaller development team costing less. When I said a game like that would be not done by a big company, I meant one that has a big name and is established in its business methods. What I did not mean is that it is necessarily a small company as in have few job positions to fill. The business model I talked about above would still need considerable production values to have enough content ready, as content development takes time and you can not roll out a whole new expansion -like update each month. At least not if you want to keep it good and interesting.
But as said multiple times already, it is not very useful arguing about the fee without knowing the whole of the business side. The thread is still very interesting as to see what the pain threshold for people is. Understandably of course that you are affraid of developers realizing it is higher than the usual fee so far, but don't worry that is something that regulates itself rather than gets set in stone by a guy in marketing.
www.gLitterbug.org
This question is interesting because you are gonna get answers all over the board.
Older players are more likely to have more money and are more likely to enjoy a game with the kind of depth and development that $60 a month can pay for.
On the other hand, players under 18 (or so) probably cant afford or would not be willing to pay that much, in turn they probably care quite a bit less about the game development and depth - as long as it was fun.
I know Im generalizing but I think if you took an average it would be true for the most part.
The business model that gLitterbug is adeptly describing here is called the "slow growth" model (i.e. start small and grow big over time), which is what CCP is doing with EVE online. Conversely, Blizzard has used
what I call the "Grand opening" or explosive growth model for WoW.
Now, on to the matter of content creation. I've devoted a great deal of thought to this particular subject and I must admit that You have articulated my thoughts perfectly. PotBS has a custom content system that is very similar to the one you've discribed, the only difference, as I recall, is that the players vote on the content to determine what gets in and what gets the boot (honestly, I think I would rather have a team of several skilled artists making that determination, for the sake of continuity, if nothing else).
gLitterbug did you happen to read my post on the Mission Creation AI? I didn't give any details but I'd like to get your thoughts on that (hehe, I can't wait to see how close our ideas are on this
). I think some sort of mission building AI would be an enormously powerful selling point.
I gotta get going, thanks for sharing your thoughts gLitterbug...two thumbs up!
You're just wrong. Many kids have overindulgent parents and others have gainful employment. How often do you see kids with high-end cell phone plans? Price alone is not enough to exclude an age group from a game.
Most over-18's could probably find the money for a $60/month game. But at a certain age, your fiscal priorities change.... you move out of your parent's house, you get married, you get a mortgage and you have kids. I'm guessing that the OP has not yet reached this stage of life. It's not about being able to afford the "good things in life." It's about realizing that "the good things" involve a bit more than staring at a computer screen for 10 hours a day.
15 bux is waaay too much!
its a total rip off
but i do fork it over if im charging
it with my moms card
so i would say
i could pay up to 200 bux
a month
IF im using credit
$20 a month MAX and it would have to be exceptional. I won't pay the $15 bucks for EVE because it is not worth it for me to sit there and twiddle my thumbs while waiting for the next station.
If gaming companies want more money let them E A R N it by making a great game and selling M O R E SUBSCRIPTIONS. Production of the game costs the same whether they sell 100,000 or 1 million subscriptions. If their game is not good enough to sell enough subscriptions at $10 or $15 a month then they deserve to go broke IMO.
Developers who create poor quality games appear to be trying to place the blame on the very ones they should be trying to curry favor with. Because the subscribers will not pay outrageous prices is not the reason there are not better games available. The fault lies squarely with the developers and no one else.
All one has to do is read these boards to know that many people are ALREADY paying more than most games are worth to them, so to raise the price will drastically cut the number of players no matter how dazzling the game may be.
What we need is a developer to come along with a GOOD game, and game play, that offers something to varying player styles, at a modest price. Such a game will have plenty of players and in turn plenty of cash rolling in monthly.
Business is a risk, period. Do good you succeed. Do poorly and you fall on your face. Everyone is not cut out to succeed unfortunately. Let the market set the price, which I believe it already has done. Most people (except for maybe the pooper) have bills and priorities in life. Games are just that, G A M E S and as such will never be high on the list of priorities for the masses no matter how enjoyable. Therefore they are relegated for all time to a price slot that is equal to their priority status.
Most people who become rich do so selling to the MASSES. Henry Ford did not market to the rich but to the poor man.
$60 a month is crazy at todays prices. Maybe wait fifty years then bring up the subject again.
06.02.20
your "poll" is skewed and intentionally inflated. Where are the $10, $15 and $20 subscription rates, all you do is list ridiculously inflated $40, $50 and $60 rates. NO subscription is worth $2 a DAY to play. Back in the 80s we had to get good at arcades to avoid that kind of expense then went to consoles to play at home to avoid just that kind of continual $0.25 drain.
Few 'adults' have 4 to 15 hrs a day to play games, and are lucky to play 4 to 8 hrs a week considering RL demands, trying to rip them off at $60/month subscription will doom that game from the start.
Quite a few are willing to pay $10 a month and will begrudge $12 to 15 for a great game. But $40 to $60... aparently you do not have house and car payments, utilities, insurance, savings, taxes nor a social life to take their share of your pay check.
It was just that kind of greed from a company's developers that led to the downfall of SOE... along with lack of care about their customers!
I would pay $30-40 per month for a really top-notch game with all the bells and whistles, GM-led events, timer-scheduled events and an EVOLVING storyline (gameworld MUST change to some degree, lesser or greater, over time).
~ Ancient Membership ~
There is no doubt that current mmo prices will go up as inflation, greed and cost of living go up but this will happen slowly and gradually over time. Now for a mmo to jump from 15-20 to 60-100 a month over night there has to be some intensive revolutionary features added.
In short more quests, better graphics, storyline, more basic content won't cut it anymore. An mmo going for those prices would have to have advanced or better to ssay futuristic qualities to it.
For example:
The mmo comes with a headset, allowing you to be immersed in your world , beyond just 3D computer screen graphics we see today. Or a device sends signals to your brain... sensations like smelling and other stuff. Stuff like this we'd pay bigger money for, i mean if we could save the madien in distress and were rewarded by getting to pop her cherry and get to experience that at a more realistic degree then just seeing a porn video on screen, i'm pretty sure we'd be willing to pay way more for that.
I'm sure til then every "next gen" mmo will try to make a case and squeeze another dollar or two out of are pockets but truthfully they can barely justify the current prices let along a 5x or 10X increase.
I wish MMO's were no more than 10 dollars a month. Im married and my wife and I enjoy playing an MMO together. So it adds up when you double the price. Then if I want to throw in another MMO or two then it really goes up between the both of us. Of course we stick to one game at a time for that reason. I dont see prices going up to 40 dollars or more a month anytime soon, but if they do then there is no way I can play. I dont see how 5 million people would still be playing WOW. MMO's would probably turn into an all kiddie community where there parents foot the bill. Im a senior in college and most college students dont have that kind of money to throw around on a game. Well an MMO is more than "just a game", but the point still stands^^.
So the next best price-adjustment seems to be to provide double accounts for couples and multi-accounts for families and groups - all using the same IP for an account at a time. Say something from 20% to 60% off depending on the number of persons in such a user group.
What would you think of it? - Say if a family with 4 kids would have to pay 36$ for getting 6 accounts, but those accounts need to be online via the same IP if used parallel, would you pay 36$ for a game then, if the single account price would be 15$?- Or for a couple 24$ for 2 accounts?-
Ragosch
I often have multiple accounts. Usually between 1 and 4.
I have yet to see a convincing reason in this thread for actually paying more money.
I would prefer to see more value packs. Where I get 2 accounts per box for example.
An account and a trial account that is also subscribable as in City Of Heroes Deluxe for example. Any discounts for any reason gratefully received. It is difficult after the release of Guild Wars to honestly beleive that subscription fee's are in anyway needed at all.
I think the whole marketing format is outmoded.
SOE (Boo! Hiss!) are revising their subscription formats. It will be intresting to see what they come up with.
You're just wrong. Many kids have overindulgent parents and others have gainful employment. How often do you see kids with high-end cell phone plans? Price alone is not enough to exclude an age group from a game.
Most over-18's could probably find the money for a $60/month game. But at a certain age, your fiscal priorities change.... you move out of your parent's house, you get married, you get a mortgage and you have kids. I'm guessing that the OP has not yet reached this stage of life. It's not about being able to afford the "good things in life." It's about realizing that "the good things" involve a bit more than staring at a computer screen for 10 hours a day.
That for me seems to hit the nail on the head.
Although the concept of a limited subscription based game balanced out by it's high cost sounds reasonable to an 18 year old. You are targetting a very specific age group of dispensable income. Essentially rich unemployed 18-24 year olds only. Further divide this potential audience by game theme, fantasy or sci fi? divide them again by platform. Ps3 or PC?
Then recognise that you need to make a game with 4 times the accolade of any other market game.
And you might start to see why no serious professional or business entrpreneur has bothered with this model to date.
What would make a game 4 times better than anything currently on the market? is an intresting subject, but the "serious sales model" that this topic has been wrapped up in is totally laughable.
A MassiveMultiplayerOnline game specifically tailored to avoid the "mass" market.
ding dong. Hello...is anybody home?
BZZT
EQ2 had 250,000 - 300,000 users. By it's 7 month mark it had 500,000 users. Might want to pay more attention. I said 1.5 YEARS for 50k users. EQ2 had significatnly more than 50k users
250,000 * 15.00 = 3,750,000.00 per month
Box price: $50
250,000 * $50 = 12,500,000
In the first 30 days the game grossed 12,500,000+3,750,000 (it had 250,000 users on day 1 and didn't ever drop below that per 3rd party info. (MMORPGCHART.COM) So we'll go with just 250,000 users and 250,000 boxes (and ignore the fact that it probably sold more copies than there are active subscribers).
So in the first month EQ netted $16,250,000 and at least 3,750,000 each month after that.
So by month 4 they were in the black.
Care to dispute it again?
What part of "I used to work in this industry" did you not grasp? I know what I'm talking about.
And running an MMO isn't exactly 'expensive' in the grand scheme of things. Given a team of 30 developers, bandwidth costs, etc, most MMO's only require about $5-10mil/yr in ongoing/recurring fees to run. Anything over that is raw profit.
So tell me, exactly why are you willing to spend 5x as much as you are now when, lets just use EQ2 as an example:
EQ2 last numbers we had from the New York Times was approximately 500,000 users.
500,000 x $15 = 7,500,000 / month
12 months = 90,000,000
Subtract ongoing recurring fees, lets be REALLY crazy and say it's $25mil a year.
SOE is already netting 65,000,000 in profit.
All you're going to do by increasing how much you PAY them is increasing their spending money. They don't NEED any more profit. They already make 65 mil a year off you corn dogs.
And if you want to look at WOW, they net $75,000,000 a MONTH.
Please tell me why you want to pay these companies MORE??? I just don't get it.
oh and to cover the 50k users over 1.5 year arguement:
50,000 x $50 (box price) = 2,500,000. That's if ONLY 50,000 people bought the game and continued playing for 1 year. We know for a fact that doesn't happen so lets be fair and say 150,000 people bought the game: Probably somewhere in the neighborhood of $5,000,000 just in box sales (accounting for decreasing price)
Now 50,000 x $15 = $750,000 / month over 18 months is: 13,500,00
13,500,000 + 5,000,000 = 18,500,000 over an 18 month period. And that's if the game only sold 150k copies over that 1.5 years...
So, yes, absolutely most MMO's could be paid off within 18 months at only 50k users. EQ2 and WoW cost far more than any of the competition to develop. I think Ryzom was $11 mil or something like that. DAOC was under $15mil as well. Even SWG came in under $20mil and it had 70 freaking devs.
Currently Playing: Dungeons and Dragons Online.
Sig image Pending
Still in: A couple Betas
EVE is a good example of a game I'd stay subscribed to forever, if it only cost $4.95/month. It's a great game that I don't actually enjoy playing all that much.. In some cases, charging less would make more revenue. It can go either way. Whether charging more or less, it's a risk that might payoff, or might fail miserably, so they all charge the same amount.
That's really the bottom line. If an MMO is good enough, they don't need to charge more to rake in tons of profit. If the game isn't good enough, charging more is only going to earn them even less.
The only thing I can see them charging more for, would be frequent live GM events, where the extra cost is to pay the salaries of the hired GMs. That would be expensive, too much so to afford at $15/month/player, but could be worth it to some. Probably not enough to pay off, though.
When I want a single-player story, I'll play a single-player game. When I play an MMO, I want a massively multiplayer world.
Iza_Dresan I'm not suggesting that MMOG fees suddenly jump from $10 a month to $60. What I've been trying to suggest is that: IF MMOG developers invest massive amounts of money and manpower, and produce a very high quality MMOG as a direct result of that massive investment, would you be willing to reward them for their efforts by paying a higher monthly fee.
One of the features of a high quality MMOG will be the ablility to talk to others in game through your avatar (using a headset of course). You would have the option of changing the way your voice sounds via a synthesizer that's built right into the character creation interface...so if you what to play a female/male you could use the synthesizer to adjust the way your voice sounds to match your avatars' gender (i.e.making a big husky-ass man sound like a delicate little girl). You would rarely use your keyboard in a MMOG that had this feature...imagine having an appliance (crystal ball/fantasy or Wrist communicator/Sci-Fi) that would enable you to communicate with your friends/team mates whenever you want, even if your not logged in! They could actually see your avatar talking (and you theirs) on the screen of your wrist com.
NPC/pets/mobs will also communicate by talking (hehe, or grunting). I've written about this stuff in earlier post...check it out if you like.
These features and many, many more COULD be available to us by or before 2010. This probably won't happen though. Why? Because gamers and developers are locked in a vicious cycle in which both sides are unwilling to try anything new or put forth the effort to make better MMOGs possible. This disfunctional relationship has produced the junky MMOGs we see today.
$20 a month max but i chose 30-40 coz it was the lowest hehe
Elnator wrote:
Because he is planning to be one of those companies. See his posts elsewhere.
Thats your opinion.
Yes- there is a SMALL percentage of kids who are spoiled, and get what they want from their parents- no matter what the price is, a smaller percentage then the kids who dont live this way. If you had actually read what I stated in my post, you would see I never said "NO" kids would pay this, I said the average kid under 18 cant afford a game like this.
Read a post thoroughly before you discount it.