Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Deliver me a $25 sub MMO?
Kopogero
Member UncommonPosts: 1,685
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....
#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....
Comments
playing: Dragon Age
Waiting: for FF14, Mass Effect
Want to try: Fallen Earth
playing: Dragon Age
Waiting: for FF14, Mass Effect
Want to try: Fallen Earth
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
playing: Dragon Age
Waiting: for FF14, Mass Effect
Want to try: Fallen Earth
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. . .
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
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.
This have been a good conversation
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.
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?
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
All time classic MY NEW FAVORITE POST! (Keep laying those bricks)
"I should point out that no other company has shipped out a beta on a disc before this." - Official Mortal Online Lead Community Moderator
Proudly wearing the Harbinger badge since Dec 23, 2017.
Coined the phrase "Role-Playing a Development Team" January 2018
"Oddly Slap is the main reason I stay in these forums." - Mystichaze April 9th 2018
I would also pay more for something worth it but odds are that the extra money isnt gona equal more/or better/stable content.
A regular company would simply move on to the next game / expansion.
This have been a good conversation
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.
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.