$15 per month

I appreciate that this topic could get a little "emotional", but I figured it would be good to gauge opinion.

Inflation is always with us.

If by the time Ashes releases the sub cost was higher, say $20 per month, how would you feel?

How do you judge where your value-for-money vs. affordability threshold is?

Find more posts tagged with

Staff

Comments

Heruwolf

Neurath wrote: »

Ironhope wrote: »

FFXIV did a very smart thing with its free starter trial.

FFXIV also didn't charge consumers to test the game.

FFXIV also flopped on version 1...... just saying.

Songcaller

Heruwolf wrote: »

FFXIV also flopped on version 1...... just saying.

Yeah, testers who pay to test are often more diligent and the end products are often better. I'm a tester who paid much like most of us on the forum lol.

Heruwolf

I'd love to know where you got that data from. There are great games that exist that never asked people to pay to test them.

Songcaller

Well, I've closed beta tested a few MMOs and most of the time too many bugs, exploits, multiplication errors and duplication errors were found in the games after launch. I obviously didn't pay for those older betas though. One tester can't find all issues, especially the server capability issues.

I have no hard facts except my own experience. I've probably played some of those games you've implicated.

Heruwolf

Right. So in my experience, I've seen the exact opposite. Most "testers" who pay to test keep the exploits to themselves and abuse them to get ahead of everyone else once the game goes live. Anyways, no need to hi-jack this thread.

Songcaller

The good news remains that we have multiple tests to be involved in before launch. I've seen some 'testers' refuse to give feedback from the tests on discord but obviously I don't know if they did send feedback etc. Some people paid to get 'ahead' and to 'learn the game' but so far reports and changes have been quite numerous so I hope honour is maintained. Anyway mate, I've finished my work for today and will head to bed now. Peace.

Jonta

Noaani wrote: »

JONTA wrote: »

You asking me to feel sry for the video game industry just because they only going to make a few million in profit instead of tens of millions .

A few million when you have $40,000,000 of your own money invested is a loss.

This game needs to make tens of millions to break even. If it doesn't do that, Steven would be doing himself a disservice if he doesn't sell it to the highest bidder.

I'm not saying they need to increase the subscription fee in order for this to not happen, but I am saying that you aren't in a position to say it won't happen.

If you like Ashes as a concept, and still like it as a game once released, you should want Intrepid to make as much money off it as possible in order to insure the company remains independent.

While that little extra may indeed be a deciding factor to a few people, even if it is one in 20, Intrepid are still better off with the increase.

You may not be, but Intrepid would be.

M8 this aint personal , I dont care if he put 100 million quid of his own money in, if the game is good they will make a profit it's a plus to him . Isn't it better to take a bit longer to be in the red and have more people than take a year and put prospective players off ? Plus surly he isn't naïve and knows this is for the long haul not just a 2 year plan .

Edit ,, I don't care about Intrepid making money ( thats up to them) I care about the sub price same as many many people, your better off with a lower sub and more players than a higher sub and less players mmo's need community not just a niche crowd.
If you have ever played on a dyeing server you will understand this.

Saying that I understand they need to make a profit just don't price yourself out of the market.

God I sound harsh, guess we all want a good affordable game with lots of people to fill the world...

George_Black

More useless comments arguing that IF the price ends up being higher it would be unfair.

I wonder if these people would be ok being paid at their work with salaries from 20 years ago.

I bet none of these people became good enough at their field to name their price.
Sucks to suck I guess.

lll be ok IF the sub goes a tiny bit higher than $15.
Currently I am paying ff14 a sub and there is fucko to do in the game.
I did the same with ESO from time to time despite that they charged extra for chApteRS and the only content was singleplayer questlines.

Hell, most ** * ** *s posting here have active subscriptions on more than one mmo plus more than one streaming service, yet IF AoC was to charge $60 more A YEAR, for a game that aims to have:
10k server population
Active GMs
MORE servers than ZOS (na/eu and they both perform like crap)
Open world PvP
Open world PvE progress
Guild gameplay (none of the top mmos right now have guild gameplay. It's all Raid party gameplay)
Meaningful economy designs (crafting, gathering, transporting)
Meaningful housing (as opposed to ESO and FF14)
Naval content
Ambitious class/weapon design (with which personally I disagree)
... I can keep going but I finished pooping so Ima have to get going now...

ye.. these people believe that the world would not pay. Pathetic and laughable principles they have.

George_Black

Far out... give me a game worth justifying playing, let alone paying for, and take $5 more; with all the rubbish mmo-trynnabe singleplayer with vast but boring open worlds, and with the crap singleplayer/coop instanced mmorpgs.

MybroViajero

I think it also depends on the target audience of AoC and the public that is not their target but who out of curiosity wanted to enter AoC.
If that non-target audience is given the options to stay then the sub-fee would depend much less on their target audience.

When young people in the early 2000s paid for MMOs (especially WOW) it was not so easy to pay monthly, but now those same people have the possibility of paying for Netflix, HBO, Amazon, etc. Therefore if the cost of the sub-fee were raised they could pay it.

What I would rather like is that the public, who would have a hard time paying it (like us in our days of students with WOW), have that option to be able to enter AoC to learn and to know more about an MMO.

I think that generation Z has not been able to live a good MMO as in the golden ages and I'm not sure if this generation could adapt to the standards of the MMOs of that time but I consider that AoC carried out properly can instruct and teach what it could generate a good MMO.

Who will be the vast majority of players in AoC, Gen X , Millennials or Gen Z?

Noaani

JONTA wrote: »

Isn't it better to take a bit longer to be in the red and have more people than take a year and put prospective players off ?

No profit means no game. More profit means more money to spend on new content.

As such, I want Intrepid to make as much profit as possible.

If Ashes has 100 players paying $15, the game makes $1500 a month.

If even as high as 10% won't pay more (this is a high percent, all things considered), that would mean the game has 90 people paying $20, so the game makes $1800.

Cosmetic purchases would be minimally affected by this as well, as most people unwilling to pay more than $15 would be unwilling to spend much on cosmetics (as a general rule).

Again, I am not outright saying I think Intrepid should charge $20 a month for the game, I am saying it could well make sense for them to do so, and I would be totally behind them if they did.

Conrad

Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. It's more than certain the store will attract a lot of whales, even without p2w, so this thing about extra profit is pointless. Increasing sub price will hurt all players, having more cosmetics will just be the whale magnet. Like sure, the devs might deserve more money, but ffs, increasing sub price inadvertently will lock out a lot of the playerbase. This shit builds up fast and the bigger the difference between subs of games, the lower/higher chance ppl will sub. Ashes doesn't need more than 15$. If you want a solid playerbase, especially one that most likely won't leave, then you keep the general market price instead of increasing the price. Keeping the same sub price as other mmos guarantees success if you have a good game. Sure, you won't Rob FF14 of its playerbase, wrong type of players, but games like WoW? Probably will strip them bare lol

Noaani

Conrad wrote: »

Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. It's more than certain the store will attract a lot of whales, even without p2w, so this thing about extra profit is pointless.

Whales are more a thing in p2w games. They aren't as prevalent in cosmetic only games, nor do they spend nearly as much in them as they do in p2w games.

As to the point about the game having a store meaning it shouldn't need to charge more than $15 a month, what about the games out there that charge $15 a month, have a store and yet still charge a box price for the game and expansions?

Conrad

Noaani wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. It's more than certain the store will attract a lot of whales, even without p2w, so this thing about extra profit is pointless.

Whales are more a thing in p2w games. They aren't as prevalent in cosmetic only games, nor do they spend nearly as much in them as they do in p2w games.

As to the point about the game having a store meaning it shouldn't need to charge more than $15 a month, what about the games out there that charge $15 a month, have a store and yet still charge a box price for the game and expansions?

They do it out of greed as usual. They want to suck money out of us like leeches. A pretty normal thing in the industry now considering the shit games on the market for years now. Why do you think lootboxes exist?
Kerching

Noaani

Conrad wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. It's more than certain the store will attract a lot of whales, even without p2w, so this thing about extra profit is pointless.

Whales are more a thing in p2w games. They aren't as prevalent in cosmetic only games, nor do they spend nearly as much in them as they do in p2w games.

As to the point about the game having a store meaning it shouldn't need to charge more than $15 a month, what about the games out there that charge $15 a month, have a store and yet still charge a box price for the game and expansions?

They do it out of greed as usual. They want to suck money out of us like leeches. A pretty normal thing in the industry now considering the shit games on the market for years now. Why do you think lootboxes exist?
Kerching

They do it because companies need to make a profit.

What you consider "sucking money out of us like leeches", investors consider good revenue generation. In the same way we want to get the most enjoyment out of any time we put in to a game, investors want to get the most return out of any money they put in to it.

There is no such thing as not needing to maximize a revenue stream. That is as dumb a thing to think as saying you are not going to participate in something you think is fun, because you had enough fun already.

If you enjoy sieges, come across one about to happen and have the free time to join in, you are not going to refuse on the grounds that you have already had enough fun. You'll take all the fun you can get out of the game, as well you should.

Same with investors (in the case of Ashes, Steven). If there is money on the table, he isn't going to leave it because he just got some money earlier.

Even the notion of not having a box price is in an attempt to maximize the games revenue. Steven assumes that a large portion of people that try the game will stay and play - he has faith in the product.

As such, in order to maximize the games revenue, he needs as many people trying it out as possible. Having a low barrier to entry for the game achieves this.

If it is determined that the game will make more money if they charge $20 rather than $15, you had better believe that is both what they should do, and what they will do.

If even as many as 1 in 4 players decide that the extra $5 is too much and so leave the game, they actually still make more.

Conrad

Noaani wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. It's more than certain the store will attract a lot of whales, even without p2w, so this thing about extra profit is pointless.

Whales are more a thing in p2w games. They aren't as prevalent in cosmetic only games, nor do they spend nearly as much in them as they do in p2w games.

As to the point about the game having a store meaning it shouldn't need to charge more than $15 a month, what about the games out there that charge $15 a month, have a store and yet still charge a box price for the game and expansions?

They do it out of greed as usual. They want to suck money out of us like leeches. A pretty normal thing in the industry now considering the shit games on the market for years now. Why do you think lootboxes exist?
Kerching

They do it because companies need to make a profit.

What you consider "sucking money out of us like leeches", investors consider good revenue generation. In the same way we want to get the most enjoyment out of any time we put in to a game, investors want to get the most return out of any money they put in to it.

There is no such thing as not needing to maximize a revenue stream. That is as dumb a thing to think as saying you are not going to participate in something you think is fun, because you had enough fun already.

If you enjoy sieges, come across one about to happen and have the free time to join in, you are not going to refuse on the grounds that you have already had enough fun. You'll take all the fun you can get out of the game, as well you should.

Same with investors (in the case of Ashes, Steven). If there is money on the table, he isn't going to leave it because he just got some money earlier.

Even the notion of not having a box price is in an attempt to maximize the games revenue. Steven assumes that a large portion of people that try the game will stay and play - he has faith in the product.

As such, in order to maximize the games revenue, he needs as many people trying it out as possible. Having a low barrier to entry for the game achieves this.

If it is determined that the game will make more money if they charge $20 rather than $15, you had better believe that is both what they should do, and what they will do.

If even as many as 1 in 4 players decide that the extra $5 is too much and so leave the game, they actually still make more.

No, they add lootboxes not for profit, oh no, they already make profit. What they want is ppl addicted to gambling to spend their money on the games so they can earn that extra money on top of their already profitable setup. Companies make a lot of profit. Its not that they add all this scummy garbage lootboxes or increase sub prices for profit. Its for the extra money. The best route for the game is not maximumkney output, its the maximum amount of players. Except f2p, that hurts any game

Noaani

Conrad wrote: »

No, they add lootboxes not for profit, oh no, they already make profit. What they want is ppl addicted to gambling to spend their money on the games so they can earn that extra money on top of their already profitable setup. Companies make a lot of profit. Its not that they add all this scummy garbage lootboxes or increase sub prices for profit. Its for the extra money. The best route for the game is not maximumkney output, its the maximum amount of players. Except f2p, that hurts any game

I wasn't talking about loot boxes, which is why I didn't mention them.

However, you can't really say

they add lootboxes not for profit

And then say

so they can earn that extra money

That "extra money" is profit.

If that money is on the table - as in, if there is a way for that company to make more money than they are now - it is the role of the company to do so.

The best route for any game is to make as much money as it can. This makes it more viable for others to invest money in to other games (you don't invest in to product categories that don't have a history of good return), but also gives that company more money to invest back in to that game, or more money to give their staff a pay increase or bonus.

While more players is good, it is only good if that correlates to an increase in revenue.

A game that has 1,000,000 players and is making $15,000,000 a month in revenue (note, not profit) is in a much better place than a game that has 10,000,000 players and is making $15,000,000 a month in revenue.

Ravel

Noaani wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Conrad wrote: »

Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. It's more than certain the store will attract a lot of whales, even without p2w, so this thing about extra profit is pointless.

Whales are more a thing in p2w games. They aren't as prevalent in cosmetic only games, nor do they spend nearly as much in them as they do in p2w games.

As to the point about the game having a store meaning it shouldn't need to charge more than $15 a month, what about the games out there that charge $15 a month, have a store and yet still charge a box price for the game and expansions?

They do it out of greed as usual. They want to suck money out of us like leeches. A pretty normal thing in the industry now considering the shit games on the market for years now. Why do you think lootboxes exist?
Kerching

They do it because companies need to make a profit.

What you consider "sucking money out of us like leeches", investors consider good revenue generation. In the same way we want to get the most enjoyment out of any time we put in to a game, investors want to get the most return out of any money they put in to it.

There is no such thing as not needing to maximize a revenue stream. That is as dumb a thing to think as saying you are not going to participate in something you think is fun, because you had enough fun already.

If you enjoy sieges, come across one about to happen and have the free time to join in, you are not going to refuse on the grounds that you have already had enough fun. You'll take all the fun you can get out of the game, as well you should.

Same with investors (in the case of Ashes, Steven). If there is money on the table, he isn't going to leave it because he just got some money earlier.

Even the notion of not having a box price is in an attempt to maximize the games revenue. Steven assumes that a large portion of people that try the game will stay and play - he has faith in the product.

As such, in order to maximize the games revenue, he needs as many people trying it out as possible. Having a low barrier to entry for the game achieves this.

If it is determined that the game will make more money if they charge $20 rather than $15, you had better believe that is both what they should do, and what they will do.

If even as many as 1 in 4 players decide that the extra $5 is too much and so leave the game, they actually still make more.

Yes: if.

What others try to point out here is what happens to games when publisher and their investors expect a contineous increase of returns of investment and when more profit is never enough. No idea, whether that will happen to Intrepid Studios and their investors. And whether it will result in a money grab. Perhaps it will. Some people seem to be concerned about this.

The signs that this may happen are already there, but can still be interpreted differently.

Noaani

Ravel wrote: »

Yes: if.

What others try to point out here is what happens to games when publisher and their investors expect a contineous increase of returns of investment and when more profit is never enough. No idea, whether that will happen to Intrepid Studios and their investors. And whether it will result in a money grab. Perhaps it will. Some people seem to be concerned about this.

The signs that this may happen are already there, but can still be interpreted differently.

I'm not sure what the issue is.

Are you saying Intrepid shouldn't opt to take a perfectly reasonable path to increased revenue? What other industry out there is charging the same now as they were 20 years ago?

You can't just throw the slippery slope argument (which is essentially what you are saying here) at every single potential change that ever happens.

CROW3

I haven't seen anyone take this argument on from the IS business perspective yet. I may have missed it, since I didn't read every thread. Here's what the revenue stream would look like at scale with a fixed 500k player base for a 12/mo period taking out a 35% margin:

$12/mo sub --> $46.8M - (existing expenses + future investment)
$15/mo sub --> $58.5M - (existing expenses + future investment)
$20/mo sub --> $78.0M - (existing expenses + future investment)

Given that 'existing expenses' is also a fixed amount in the above outcomes, you can see where having net revenue to invest in additional support, design, art, development, and QA resources would help IS secure the future of the game. Also, when you think about DLCs or expansions, those happen when you have the right amount of dedicated v. free resources to handle new content.

There's a lot of chaos behind some of the fixed variables, but I'm just trying to show the overall differential from an investment perspective.

Child Item