Dumbest title for a forum post ever. If you charge $1 a month to play a game, it is not f2p. That is like asking if it would be worth it to charge $2 for a free meal at a soup kitchen.
A better title might perhaps be, "Would you pay $1/mo. for a decent MMO". I still don't get the idea though, some make money on cash shops, some on monthly, some cost more...this is pretty vague, really vague.
I still think the future holds f2p with advertising. Immersion players are like the 1%ers and a coke ad in chat every 10 minutes could be big money to game developers. As with billboards in arenas, cities, etc.
I think even the F2P games should have one server that is Subscription based to play on it. Even if it is the exact same game the payment of a subscription fee gets a totally different type of player base that is usually more mature and friendly. You will still have some other undesirable players, but not nearly as many as you see in F2P games.
Perhaps if a person opted to play a F2P game but they attached a Subscription fee to there specific server, they could give a 50% Discount to everything in the Cash Shops since they already get the Fee. This way they still make more even beyond the subscription fee.
Went with IDK, because honestly it depends on the game... some games I wouldn't play even if they were free*, others I'm happy with the current ~$15 a month, for the very rare game that really appeals to me I would be happy to pay even more.
Edit: Some games I do think are overpriced at $15 a month, and it is high time the MMO industry adopted more pricing levels. $1 is probably a bit low though.
Also, don't forget that for most people there is a bigger difference between $0 and $1 than there is between $1 and $10, or even $100... people are hesitant to 'buy in' initially, but once they have spent something it is much easier to get them to spend more; it's one reason why shops have specials
*Note: by free I mean actually free, not the typical so called 'free to play'.
I think its time for sub.prices to drop down to 10 dollars a month. If a game like Wizard 101 can do it so can't other games. The fee is just outdated and its just stuck even though 10 dollars a month is fine for any game. But why should game companies change it if people are willing to pay it. The 15 a month fee in 99/2000 i can understand. The mmo technology was all new. But going into 2016 and its still the same price just doesn't make sense to me. Everything in technology improved and got cheaper but the mmo fee.
Actually it was $10 a month in 1999, ($9.89 for EQ to be exact) it went up to 12.99 with AC, and then 14.99 became the standard shortly thereafter.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire: Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
I wanted to vote no, because $1 wouldn't be enough to fund a game. But for all I know, it may take off and end up with 5 Billion plus subscribers worldwide each paying the cash equivalent of $1 a month for 10+ years. My goal is to hit 20,000 subscribers paying $10 for 5 years, and I would be happy (but not satisfied).
Pardon any spelling errors
Konfess your cyns and some maybe forgiven Boy: Why can't I talk to Him? Mom: We don't talk to Priests. As if it could exist, without being payed for. F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing. Even telemarketers wouldn't think that. It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
I can't vote because I know $1 isn't going to sustain the maintenance costs of the game.
Alot of you forget that the largest market for MMO's is in china and korea. You can't expect players there to pay $20 a month or buy $50 horse armors. They can pay $1 a month which will at least cover the cost of hosting the game servers and make a very small dent in development costs (assuming 20kish players join). Also I think it would be nice to have global game servers like the good ole days when guilds contained players from several countries.
If you are going to charge for a game, you need to charge enough to pay for all the expenses. You are not going to get significantly more people at a price of $1 than you would at a price of $5 or $10. You will likely get more than you would at $15, but not 15x more.
The difference with F2P, or a cost of $0, is that you will get both more players, and have a lower cost of acquisition (which if you are not advertising, just results in more players). Even with an optional sub (say $15) you would likely make more. With a lower 5/10 optional sub, you might do better (depending on game).
The expenses do not increase as a multiple of the amount of players you have. In fact, the cost of making the game is the same if you have 10 or 10 million. The cost of maintaining new content is also constant. If you build a 50 mile by 50 mile map, it cost the same regardless if 5 or 50 people actually go there. The cost of hosting the game gets cheaper per player when you have more players. (I'm looking at $5 per month for 100 players vs $0.50 per month for 20,000)
Its going to cost more to make the game than to keep it alive. Also, every expense is always up front and usually has a contract. You need enough time to enter into service agreements for servers and bandwidth and these agreements may have you stuck for 6 months. This means that subscriptions work better because you get the money up front and you can upgrade service asap . With a F2P cash shop the players would come before the money, meaning there will be big delays where service capacity doesn't match actual demand because you are still waiting on those new players to buy things in your shop. The entire time players are rage-quitting because of lag and you are powerless to do anything about it until all of those credit card transactions hit the bank account.
I can't vote because I know $1 isn't going to sustain the maintenance costs of the game.
Alot of you forget that the largest market for MMO's is in china and korea. You can't expect players there to pay $20 a month or buy $50 horse armors. They can pay $1 a month which will at least cover the cost of hosting the game servers and make a very small dent in development costs (assuming 20kish players join). Also I think it would be nice to have global game servers like the good ole days when guilds contained players from several countries.
If you are going to charge for a game, you need to charge enough to pay for all the expenses. You are not going to get significantly more people at a price of $1 than you would at a price of $5 or $10. You will likely get more than you would at $15, but not 15x more.
The difference with F2P, or a cost of $0, is that you will get both more players, and have a lower cost of acquisition (which if you are not advertising, just results in more players). Even with an optional sub (say $15) you would likely make more. With a lower 5/10 optional sub, you might do better (depending on game).
The expenses do not increase as a multiple of the amount of players you have. In fact, the cost of making the game is the same if you have 10 or 10 million. The cost of maintaining new content is also constant. If you build a 50 mile by 50 mile map, it cost the same regardless if 5 or 50 people actually go there. The cost of hosting the game gets cheaper per player when you have more players. (I'm looking at $5 per month for 100 players vs $0.50 per month for 20,000)
Its going to cost more to make the game than to keep it alive. Also, every expense is always up front and usually has a contract. You need enough time to enter into service agreements for servers and bandwidth and these agreements may have you stuck for 6 months. This means that subscriptions work better because you get the money up front and you can upgrade service asap . With a F2P cash shop the players would come before the money, meaning there will be big delays where service capacity doesn't match actual demand because you are still waiting on those new players to buy things in your shop. The entire time players are rage-quitting because of lag and you are powerless to do anything about it until all of those credit card transactions hit the bank account.
It is true that P2P gets the money upfront. F2P is often slow to monetize (3-6m per customer for equivalency). This is why it is often better to launch as P2P, then convert to F2P after a year or so. It also helps to make the game better, so that it will be able to sustain as F2P. If a company does not have enough cash for this, then they need to do 'whatever' is necessary to survive, in the hope of making it long enough to fix any problems that this causes along the way.
A game is either worth money or it isn't. I don't usually care about the cost unless it's a "whaling" game.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
The premise of this poll is flawed. It makes the assumption that the reason people don't like P2P games is because of the cost. That is only one piece of a much larger puzzle. You can't boil people's decisions about a game down to a dollar amount.
For some of us, a monthly cost can be too high. A $1, I could do. A $5, if I really like it. Right now, a $15, is just too much for my current finances. (More like a lack of finances, but whatever.)
I am not the whale you're looking for, move along... You are right that money is only one piece of the puzzle, but sometimes it's a big piece.
Along those lines, how many games do you have subscriptions for? One, two, more? At $15/month it stacks up really fast. Back when I had a decent income, I had 2 or 3 of those at a time. If they had been less, let's say $5 each, I'd have probably kept around a dozen subscribed, even if I wasn't playing much on some of them.
In short, there are a lot of factors involved, and money is a biggie for plenty of people, but few of them would raise a fuss over $1/month, especially if they know it's going to server operating costs.
"With a F2P cash shop the players would come before the money, meaning there will be big delays where service capacity doesn't match actual demand because you are still waiting on those new players to buy things in your shop. The entire time players are rage-quitting because of lag and you are powerless to do anything about it until all of those credit card transactions hit the bank account."
Um, nobody is going to pay your $1 if the game is not even complete and a lag-fest. If you're looking for people to pay before the game is complete, try a kickstarter.
Otherwise, f2p or regular sub are tried and true monetization models. People are going to raise eyebrows at a game charging $1 a month to play (with good reason, you're saying that the initial people will not even be playing a stable/complete game because you're planning on using their dollars to finish it).
Personally I think $10 is a good price point for today's MMO's with subs. But the game has to be a really good game. Can't launch with tons of bugs still in place hoping to fix them down the line. Doesn't have to have the top of the line graphics for me as long as it has a good lore or story line for me to get into.
On another point if a person can't afford a sub fee, then this is probably not the best hobby to have. Computers and gaming are an expensive hobby in the long run. So if less than what you would pay for one fast food meal today is to much you should really do some looking at where your money is going.
No, because I don't like cash shop driven games. If you only charge $1/mo you aren't going to make enough to cover costs and it will end up being a cash shop driven game.
I think this would be an excellent subscription model. Patreon already does something similar where you can pay $1 or whatever per month/per content. Why not with MMO's? It's a step above F2P, which weeds out a certain demographic, which can be good or bad depending on what you want. $2 a month would be better, with deals where you buy x months (3, 6, 12, etc.) and get it down to $1 a month or whatever. Lots of people say they would pay a lot, but I think they're a vocal minority. I paid $15 a month for WoW back in the day, but that was when I played everyday for hours. Subscriptions for <$10 should be a thing.
I'd happily pay the $15 standard sub fee for a good mmorpg and even more. I've quit most around the time they go f2p because of core things I want change vastly when its a f2p. Infact a sub actually interests me more if it has active subscribers because it suggests that if so many are willing to pay a sub there has to be some good points while a f2p I'm more likely to pass over without even looking at it or just looking at who the developer or publisher is.
Those not willing to pay even $1 are those who the gaming community doesn't even need. I can understand someone struggling financially but if you can't scrape up $1 for a month of enjoyment than you better look at your own finances and quit gaming all together. For those who can afford it and won't pay still they are simply cheapskates who don't believe someone who creates something and maintains it has a right to profit from it. These are more likely to be those who pirate everything and even when something is found to be great still won't buy a legit copy to support those who made it.
I think this is where P2P go wrong these days.. The sub fee is just to high for many people these days. Taking it back down to 9.95 or even lower would be fine especially for games that are a hybrid of f2p or b2p with a sub option.
I view low fee pay to play as basically an anti-spam tool. It probably carries little incentive for development or investment though.
I've never seen "micro transactions" that were in any way micro. Going by the pricing, there were pretty normal if not fairly pricey transactions. Even cosmetics which were a data entry item that sometimes cost more than standard fair at a restaurant.
Given the time commitment of mmos, there's strong incentive to bill for access. However, consumers play compulsively because they want it to be a good deal, often to the point of burnout. That in turn incentivizes developers to create repetitive content that is more like doing chores than an escapist fantasy, and to accept and design around rapid turnover of clients.
A good transaction model might cater to different player categories. Winning means different things to different players afterall.
Game development is an entertainment industry though, and media companies compete for eyeballs. One thing that advertizers are gravitating to in an age of on-demand content is the live event. It would make sense to make mmo type games have a basic level of access, but make access to events or player competitions require an entry fee. If they want to get really devious, it could be a form of gambling where winners get prizes and the house keeps their take. Gambling is just as addictive as false accomplishment in skinner boxes, so it could be a real winner.
There are other kinds of live events for which virtual worlds might work really well, especially if VR enters the fold. I can picture concerts, or 4D streamed video content. It's pretty tricky to pirate a film if you need a specialized engine to display it, especially if that engine is proprietary and requires some sort of sub. Imagine if there was a virtual world with a Netflix or HBO partnership. They've got the capital to make it happen. If that were popular with consumers, you can also count on seeing [Popular Softdrink TM] ads funding non-subscriber participation in such events. It's also possible to give a lot of perks to whales this way.
Unfortunately, none of that really drives the development of better games, just more revenue and incorporation of the ever adaptive entertainment industry.
Comments
A better title might perhaps be, "Would you pay $1/mo. for a decent MMO". I still don't get the idea though, some make money on cash shops, some on monthly, some cost more...this is pretty vague, really vague.
I still think the future holds f2p with advertising. Immersion players are like the 1%ers and a coke ad in chat every 10 minutes could be big money to game developers. As with billboards in arenas, cities, etc.
I apologize, saw p2p. My bad. Its an ok question.
Perhaps if a person opted to play a F2P game but they attached a Subscription fee to there specific server, they could give a 50% Discount to everything in the Cash Shops since they already get the Fee. This way they still make more even beyond the subscription fee.
Edit: Some games I do think are overpriced at $15 a month, and it is high time the MMO industry adopted more pricing levels. $1 is probably a bit low though.
Also, don't forget that for most people there is a bigger difference between $0 and $1 than there is between $1 and $10, or even $100... people are hesitant to 'buy in' initially, but once they have spent something it is much easier to get them to spend more; it's one reason why shops have specials
*Note: by free I mean actually free, not the typical so called 'free to play'.
'Sandbox MMO' is a PTSD trigger word for anyone who has the experience to know that anonymous players invariably use a 'sandbox' in the same manner a housecat does.
When your head is stuck in the sand, your ass becomes the only recognizable part of you.
No game is more fun than the one you can't play, and no game is more boring than one which you've become familiar.
How to become a millionaire:
Start with a billion dollars and make an MMO.
Boy: Why can't I talk to Him?
Mom: We don't talk to Priests.
As if it could exist, without being payed for.
F2P means you get what you paid for. Pay nothing, get nothing.
Even telemarketers wouldn't think that.
It costs money to play. Therefore P2W.
In fact, the cost of making the game is the same if you have 10 or 10 million.
The cost of maintaining new content is also constant. If you build a 50 mile by 50 mile map, it cost the same regardless if 5 or 50 people actually go there.
The cost of hosting the game gets cheaper per player when you have more players.
(I'm looking at $5 per month for 100 players vs $0.50 per month for 20,000)
Its going to cost more to make the game than to keep it alive.
Also, every expense is always up front and usually has a contract. You need enough time to enter into service agreements for servers and bandwidth and these agreements may have you stuck for 6 months. This means that subscriptions work better because you get the money up front and you can upgrade service asap .
With a F2P cash shop the players would come before the money, meaning there will be big delays where service capacity doesn't match actual demand because you are still waiting on those new players to buy things in your shop. The entire time players are rage-quitting because of lag and you are powerless to do anything about it until all of those credit card transactions hit the bank account.
To find an intelligent person in a PUG is not that rare, but to find a PUG made up of "all" intelligent people is one of the rarest phenomenons in the known universe.
If a game isn't "good" - then I'm extremely cheap. Not only do I not want to pay anything - I don't even want to spend time playing it.
However, if a game is truly great - I'll pay pretty much anything within reason.
I can't reject or accept a payment model out of principle. That's not rational in my opinion.
I am not the whale you're looking for, move along...
You are right that money is only one piece of the puzzle, but sometimes it's a big piece.
Along those lines, how many games do you have subscriptions for? One, two, more? At $15/month it stacks up really fast. Back when I had a decent income, I had 2 or 3 of those at a time. If they had been less, let's say $5 each, I'd have probably kept around a dozen subscribed, even if I wasn't playing much on some of them.
In short, there are a lot of factors involved, and money is a biggie for plenty of people, but few of them would raise a fuss over $1/month, especially if they know it's going to server operating costs.
Lost my mind, now trying to lose yours...
Um, nobody is going to pay your $1 if the game is not even complete and a lag-fest. If you're looking for people to pay before the game is complete, try a kickstarter.
Otherwise, f2p or regular sub are tried and true monetization models. People are going to raise eyebrows at a game charging $1 a month to play (with good reason, you're saying that the initial people will not even be playing a stable/complete game because you're planning on using their dollars to finish it).
On another point if a person can't afford a sub fee, then this is probably not the best hobby to have. Computers and gaming are an expensive hobby in the long run. So if less than what you would pay for one fast food meal today is to much you should really do some looking at where your money is going.
It's a step above F2P, which weeds out a certain demographic, which can be good or bad depending on what you want.
$2 a month would be better, with deals where you buy x months (3, 6, 12, etc.) and get it down to $1 a month or whatever.
Lots of people say they would pay a lot, but I think they're a vocal minority. I paid $15 a month for WoW back in the day, but that was when I played everyday for hours. Subscriptions for <$10 should be a thing.
?played: Nearly everything.
?waiting: *Darkfall*, Hero''s Journey
Those not willing to pay even $1 are those who the gaming community doesn't even need. I can understand someone struggling financially but if you can't scrape up $1 for a month of enjoyment than you better look at your own finances and quit gaming all together. For those who can afford it and won't pay still they are simply cheapskates who don't believe someone who creates something and maintains it has a right to profit from it. These are more likely to be those who pirate everything and even when something is found to be great still won't buy a legit copy to support those who made it.
I've never seen "micro transactions" that were in any way micro. Going by the pricing, there were pretty normal if not fairly pricey transactions. Even cosmetics which were a data entry item that sometimes cost more than standard fair at a restaurant.
Given the time commitment of mmos, there's strong incentive to bill for access. However, consumers play compulsively because they want it to be a good deal, often to the point of burnout. That in turn incentivizes developers to create repetitive content that is more like doing chores than an escapist fantasy, and to accept and design around rapid turnover of clients.
A good transaction model might cater to different player categories. Winning means different things to different players afterall.
Game development is an entertainment industry though, and media companies compete for eyeballs. One thing that advertizers are gravitating to in an age of on-demand content is the live event. It would make sense to make mmo type games have a basic level of access, but make access to events or player competitions require an entry fee. If they want to get really devious, it could be a form of gambling where winners get prizes and the house keeps their take. Gambling is just as addictive as false accomplishment in skinner boxes, so it could be a real winner.
There are other kinds of live events for which virtual worlds might work really well, especially if VR enters the fold. I can picture concerts, or 4D streamed video content. It's pretty tricky to pirate a film if you need a specialized engine to display it, especially if that engine is proprietary and requires some sort of sub. Imagine if there was a virtual world with a Netflix or HBO partnership. They've got the capital to make it happen. If that were popular with consumers, you can also count on seeing [Popular Softdrink TM] ads funding non-subscriber participation in such events. It's also possible to give a lot of perks to whales this way.
Unfortunately, none of that really drives the development of better games, just more revenue and incorporation of the ever adaptive entertainment industry.