But only if the developer delivers a signed contract to each of its fans stating that it will deliver content commensurate with the quality of the game's release on a weekly basis, and a major expansion on a yearly basis. And this contract would be enforceable by law, to where if the developer fails in any of the above stipulations, it would have to refund every cent ever paid to it by its players with interest at the prevailing rate.
I dunno, shoulda been a maybe option. Part of me says yes, but its also a no cause paying the $15 a month as it is has started to feel like too much these days.
once this happens, then its a slippery slope to justifying $25 month, or $29, etc. Honeslty P2P games should be $12.99 per month tops.
I'd say way less that $13 per month.
We know from quarterly reports that the cost of things like bandwidth and server rent have dropped so low that they're just about $1 per person per month, and probably even less than that.
The numbers just don't add up for a sub for me when it comes to paying for future development either. If the box price of $60 represents 5 years (60 months) of work, then how can a company possibly justify $15 a month after that, much less $19 like the OP suggests. Even if they are taking a loss on the box, it still doesn't make sense. A normal game costs $60 and that might represent 3 years of work. Even then, that's like $2 a month in subscription to keep the same proportion. Add in the bandwidth and a tidy profit and companies should definitely be able to do quite well at $5 per month.
I really like B2P as a model because it forces the companies to come up with content, but I also think P2P has merit because it doesn't divide the playerbase. I just don't think you can justify these big subscription numbers anymore. I think companies want to try to beat WoW and take over the billion dollar industry, instead of competing at a lower price point and making money that way.
For $19 a month in subscriptions, I'd expect a company to come up with at least two, if not three vanilla WoWs worth of content per year. If our imaginary company is going to promise that, then sure. If not, then no way am I paying.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it."-Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
I was willing to pay $15 a month for a game I really liked eight years ago, so I'd certainly be willing to pay $19 a month now for one. You don't even need to add qualifiers like all the expansions being free forever.
Comments
Yes.
But only if the developer delivers a signed contract to each of its fans stating that it will deliver content commensurate with the quality of the game's release on a weekly basis, and a major expansion on a yearly basis. And this contract would be enforceable by law, to where if the developer fails in any of the above stipulations, it would have to refund every cent ever paid to it by its players with interest at the prevailing rate.
Otherwise, their promises are probably BS.
Are you team Azeroth, team Tyria, or team Jacob?
once this happens, then its a slippery slope to justifying $25 month, or $29, etc. Honeslty P2P games should be $12.99 per month tops.
I dunno, shoulda been a maybe option. Part of me says yes, but its also a no cause paying the $15 a month as it is has started to feel like too much these days.
I'd say way less that $13 per month.
We know from quarterly reports that the cost of things like bandwidth and server rent have dropped so low that they're just about $1 per person per month, and probably even less than that.
The numbers just don't add up for a sub for me when it comes to paying for future development either. If the box price of $60 represents 5 years (60 months) of work, then how can a company possibly justify $15 a month after that, much less $19 like the OP suggests. Even if they are taking a loss on the box, it still doesn't make sense. A normal game costs $60 and that might represent 3 years of work. Even then, that's like $2 a month in subscription to keep the same proportion. Add in the bandwidth and a tidy profit and companies should definitely be able to do quite well at $5 per month.
I really like B2P as a model because it forces the companies to come up with content, but I also think P2P has merit because it doesn't divide the playerbase. I just don't think you can justify these big subscription numbers anymore. I think companies want to try to beat WoW and take over the billion dollar industry, instead of competing at a lower price point and making money that way.
For $19 a month in subscriptions, I'd expect a company to come up with at least two, if not three vanilla WoWs worth of content per year. If our imaginary company is going to promise that, then sure. If not, then no way am I paying.
"Gamers will no longer buy the argument that every MMO requires a subscription fee to offset server and bandwidth costs. It's not true you know it, and they know it." -Jeff Strain, co-founder of ArenaNet, 2007
$14.99 was already too much to begin with, and very hard to justify, so $19 is right out.
Online games with a subscription fee should be more like ... $5. Expansions or not.
I was willing to pay $15 a month for a game I really liked eight years ago, so I'd certainly be willing to pay $19 a month now for one. You don't even need to add qualifiers like all the expansions being free forever.