My preference would be to pay for actually played time, but I also know that will never happen, because the idea is not exactly new and it has not happened yet (afaik for a mmo).
Imagine, you pay 0.5 cent per minute (pre-paid or afterwards) and you play 2-4 hours a day that would be 0.60 to 1.20 a day and when you play all days of a year to would be 219 to 438 a year, as compared to 180 for a 15 per month fee or 240 for a 20 per month fee.
That sounds like a lot, but for most players it will be actually cheaper because normal players do not play 4 hours all days of the year. A lot of mmo players do not seem to play during the summer time at all, I observed in the time that I played.
The publisher would need to have everything in place for you to log in - server hardware, system bandwidth, that kind of thing. I mean, you want there to be a reasonable connection to a reasonably powerful server when you do decide to play, and the publisher needs to pay for that, even if you are not using it.
While I don't know the finances enough to know it is feasible or not, I could see something like a flat $5 a month subscription (which could be viewed as paying for a connection to the server), and a charge per minute on top of that - but that is about it.
I guess game publishers in general share your sentiment. Otherwise we would see it being used. But I also suspect they do assume no demand for it. So let me rephrase my question: "Would you like the concept?" As a player?
The verb, not the composer name.
1
Options
RoulceMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
Of course, there's the concern of it increasing; thankfully not an issue I need to worry about with lifetime subscription. However I completely understand people being concerned about membership model; keep in mind that it's a two decade plus model that is PROVEN to work; look at WoW (before their internal meltdown) and FFXIV. Both monthly subscription models that have worked.
I guess game publishers in general share your sentiment. Otherwise we would see it being used. But I also suspect they do assume no demand for it. So let me rephrase my question: "Would you like the concept?" As a player?
Do you think you would play as often if you knew you were being charge by the minute?
I think there is some issue with the psychology of it as it now has players question if playing the game at that moment is worth the money. With a monthly sub, you have this issue once a month but after that, you have already payed for the time so you might as well use it.
I guess game publishers in general share your sentiment. Otherwise we would see it being used. But I also suspect they do assume no demand for it. So let me rephrase my question: "Would you like the concept?" As a player?
Do you think you would play as often if you knew you were being charge by the minute?
I think there is some issue with the psychology of it as it now has players question if playing the game at that moment is worth the money. With a monthly sub, you have this issue once a month but after that, you have already payed for the time so you might as well use it.
This is in part why almost nothing in the entertainment world is on a model like this.
Most of the things that are on this kind of model are things that we need (or need at the time), such as parking.
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?
What are you probing here? Why would someone ask this kinda questions I wonder...
I asked the question for several reasons.
At a basic level I wanted to get a feel for the range of responses that people have.
At another level I wanted people to challenge their own very personal interpretation of what they consider value for money, what that same amount of money buys elsewhere in their lives etc. Where does the monthly sub expectation come from? what do other games give you for their monthly sub? etc.
At yet another level I wanted to do Intrepid a favor and ask a question which they might find difficult to approach, if they needed to (I'm not associated with Intrepid in any way beyond being a member of this forum).
Finally, I believed the issue would get a strong emotional response and provoke debate. Understanding ourselves and understanding (or at least respecting) others is a good thing.
My preference would be to pay for actually played time, but I also know that will never happen, because the idea is not exactly new and it has not happened yet (afaik for a mmo).
Imagine, you pay 0.5 cent per minute (pre-paid or afterwards) and you play 2-4 hours a day that would be 0.60 to 1.20 a day and when you play all days of a year to would be 219 to 438 a year, as compared to 180 for a 15 per month fee or 240 for a 20 per month fee.
That sounds like a lot, but for most players it will be actually cheaper because normal players do not play 4 hours all days of the year. A lot of mmo players do not seem to play during the summer time at all, I observed in the time that I played.
But what do you think about this idea?
Think you would find the world quite empty ,as it would be in the back of peoples minds constantly and they would probably spend more time clock watching than enjoying the content.
Haven't read each comment so I am not sure this is mentioned anywhere, but an MMO I played previously (Horizon: Empire of Istaria) briefly had a pay model that allowed you to pay 20$ for 30 days, and the 30 days only counted down when you actually played.
So if someone pays 20$ for a month, they could technically play for 3 months or longer by only logging in when they are able to play for a decent amount of time (i.e. break from work).
*** TLDR: 1 log in within 24 hours period would deduct from the 30 days allotted. I think this could be a great way to keep a high player base and still keep sub model to continue game development. ***
If I ask a lady out for drinks and a nice dinner, it can easily turn out to cost me $150. That is for maybe five hours of fun, thirty bucks an hour. If I pay $25 for a month of AOC and only average a couple hours a day, that's 60 hours of fun at about forty cents an hour. AOC is going to be inexpensive fun no matter how you price it, and the more you play the lower the price per hour, right?
I guess game publishers in general share your sentiment. Otherwise we would see it being used. But I also suspect they do assume no demand for it. So let me rephrase my question: "Would you like the concept?" As a player?
Do you think you would play as often if you knew you were being charge by the minute?
Perhaps even more, because now I skip a whole month when I know I will only be able to play one or two weeks.
I think there is some issue with the psychology of it as it now has players question if playing the game at that moment is worth the money. With a monthly sub, you have this issue once a month but after that, you have already payed for the time so you might as well use it.
The psychology is subject to how you frame it. If you frame it this way you will be right. Probably.
Personally I frame it thus: I pay an amount, but I can only play a fraction of the time that I have paid for.
Realistically I pay an amount per month having in mind not being able to play 24x7, but there are days or even weeks I will not be able to play for different reasons.
Moreover, one argument you forgot to mention (but perhaps was included in your thought proces) is that players are not used to play for what they pay (see what I did there?). And that might contribute in a behaviour you predict (playing less). That is a possibility, and I do not blame Intrepid not willing to take the risk involved in innovating the payment system of an mmo (I did it again ).
Maybe we need an old fashioned publisher for old fashioned mmo players who are that much rooted in traditional gameplay . Ok, I will stop now.
I guess game publishers in general share your sentiment. Otherwise we would see it being used. But I also suspect they do assume no demand for it. So let me rephrase my question: "Would you like the concept?" As a player?
Do you think you would play as often if you knew you were being charge by the minute?
Perhaps even more, because now I skip a whole month when I know I will only be able to play one or two weeks.
I honestly can't say I've ever come across someone in game that has done this.
Most players I know have had several week long breaks from the game (holidays, busy periods, or just stepping away a while). None of them have not payed for the months subscription though. That said, I don't know specifically of anyone that pays their subscription monthly rather than in 3 or 6 month chunks.
Honestly, the concept of that seems kind of weird to me.
I would consider that $15 to be worth it if I only actually played the game for a week out of that month (still good value per dollar for entertainment, imo).
1. Not everyone here is from the states, so both you and the user you are responding to are making a sweeping generalization.
2. This topic is extremely personal and complex. You are not taking into account: race, gender, location, cost of living, debt, and what expenses are more relevant to the person in question.
Come on beau, I know you can read the room better than that. Don't take that bait.
The original statement was "Do you get more salary too? Mostly not". I know that this was off-the-cuff, and that they probably weren't expecting to walk into an economist, but I have a sore spot for stuff like this. Do I let people say stuff like this, or do I point to objective evidence? I was hoping the response would be "my bad, I guess it's more like 'mostly so'". Since they haven't shown back up yet, that can still happen!
I was careful to say that what I linked to was specifically for the states, but the general trend is broader. If that's something contentious, more data can be pulled up. This is one of the things we have the most data about in general, and we have it by-race, by-gender, etc. Do you doubt, for instance, that women living in Brazil are making more money than they were in 2004?
I'm not sure what the reading-the-room bit is about, and now I'm really confused. Both you and Rae posted some heady analysis, so I figured that getting a little more technical was okay. But in general, if someone writes something factually incorrect about something incredibly relevant to the topic (they wrote that salaries don't generally inflate in a topic about updating the sub price to keep up with inflation), I guess I think I'm justified to link some resources.
Admittedly, I know that I lack grace and take the extremely direct approach 100% of the time. If you want to DM me with some advice as to how you think that could have been better handled, I'd be open to that!
I don't think he was stating that people were making the same now as they were a long time ago, but during times of inflation, it's not like companies raise wages so that people can afford more. I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying. You're still making the same as you would if there wasn't inflation, meaning people have to be more careful with their money. You can argue about salaries all you want, but not everyone is on salary, in fact the people who are on salaries are generally higher ups in companies, not grunt workers.
Then people would just do the YouTube method of paying via ARS so they pay pennies for something that is normally several to many dollars. USD/Euro/British Pound equivalence or into the bin it goes.
I have taken a look at this game and it's new approach to mmo's and it looks real good and I am very interested in playing it.
Just one problem, As a gamer not from the USA, even one that does own a PC that can play games like this, what a bad statement from someone that does not walk in my shoes.
I cannot afford to pay a subscription on a monthly basis or nay other basis due to the exchange rate between my country and the USA period.
I'll most likely will have to wait until the game becomes free to play or the cost model for the game changes.
That is unfortunate, but AOC is based in the United States where the profit motive determines business success and survival, so I doubt that there will be any way around paying a subscription for a long time.
Then people would just do the YouTube method of paying via ARS so they pay pennies for something that is normally several to many dollars. USD/Euro/British Pound equivalence or into the bin it goes.
While this may happen, Intrepid do have a plan of limiting players that pay in regional prices to only be able to log on to servers (likely just server) in that region.
So, in your scenario, if people did try to pay in ARS, they would be limited to playing on South American servers, with South American times for events, sieges and such.
The best ideas are often never used because businesses don't value what the customers want.
If you appeal to what the customers want then you will gain goodie points with them to care less about bad points about your game. A really bad downside to have in your game is the price to play it being too high for the lowest paid. Since every single time they turn the game on they will question why they are even still playing it no matter their experience in the actual game.
Games die because the majority don't like it. While no one is including mobile players in this number. It's a lot better to have it be cheap and them to question other systems. Than to question it every time they turn it on. xD
Who all was in this median income? If someone makes 1 trillion dollars a year and someone makes 25,000 a year what is the median income?
Median income of a nation is a fairly well documented metric.
Since that is the only mention of median in this thread until you said it, I have to assume that is what you are talking about.
Median income is a reasonable indicator of a number of things over time. When comparing the actual cost of a service 18 years ago to the actual costn of the same service today, median income for each year is the appropriate metric to look at.
The definition of "disposable income" is after taxes and deductions. Therefore it does not cover rent/mortgage and the plethora of ongoing cost of living expenses that cover "first world basics" (food, gas/electric, water/sewage, car/transport costs, local civic fees/taxes, home insurance, mobile, internet, etc.) that many have before they are left with the actual money they can afford to spend on Ashes.
A higher-average substitution is fine as long as the game is good. BUT keep in mind, if we get even a wiff of P2W, people are going to leave. In droves. Also for 20 dollars a month, the skins that are available in the store need not surpass the in-game ones.
1
Options
AtamaMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
A higher-average substitution is fine as long as the game is good. BUT keep in mind, if we get even a wiff of P2W, people are going to leave. In droves. Also for 20 dollars a month, the skins that are available in the store need not surpass the in-game ones.
How do you objectively quantify that though? To me some of the skins are amazing (and I bought a lot of them because of that), I think others are awful and I'd pay to not look like that. How can you say that one thing "surpasses" the other?
I believe that Steven has made the only fair compromise you can... That while the skins in the cash store are unique, there will be very close variants available in-game. I think that's the best anyone can do.
I'd say that if the game is good, i would be willing to play for years & years, so with that in mind i would not be wanting to pay more than £12 a month.
You get into £15 a month thats £180 a year plus the initial buying cost, plus the cash shop starts to become a costly hobby.
At the end of the day Steven needs to pay wages & make a profit, just don't be greedy.
I'd say that if the game is good, i would be willing to play for years & years, so with that in mind i would not be wanting to pay more than £12 a month.
You get into £15 a month thats £180 a year plus the initial buying cost, plus the cash shop starts to become a costly hobby.
At the end of the day Steven needs to pay wages & make a profit, just don't be greedy.
No initial buying cost for Ashes. That is Stevens gift to you.
Comments
What are you probing here? Why would someone ask this kinda questions I wonder...
Imagine, you pay 0.5 cent per minute (pre-paid or afterwards) and you play 2-4 hours a day that would be 0.60 to 1.20 a day and when you play all days of a year to would be 219 to 438 a year, as compared to 180 for a 15 per month fee or 240 for a 20 per month fee.
That sounds like a lot, but for most players it will be actually cheaper because normal players do not play 4 hours all days of the year. A lot of mmo players do not seem to play during the summer time at all, I observed in the time that I played.
But what do you think about this idea?
The publisher would need to have everything in place for you to log in - server hardware, system bandwidth, that kind of thing. I mean, you want there to be a reasonable connection to a reasonably powerful server when you do decide to play, and the publisher needs to pay for that, even if you are not using it.
While I don't know the finances enough to know it is feasible or not, I could see something like a flat $5 a month subscription (which could be viewed as paying for a connection to the server), and a charge per minute on top of that - but that is about it.
I guess game publishers in general share your sentiment. Otherwise we would see it being used. But I also suspect they do assume no demand for it. So let me rephrase my question: "Would you like the concept?" As a player?
Do you think you would play as often if you knew you were being charge by the minute?
I think there is some issue with the psychology of it as it now has players question if playing the game at that moment is worth the money. With a monthly sub, you have this issue once a month but after that, you have already payed for the time so you might as well use it.
This is in part why almost nothing in the entertainment world is on a model like this.
Most of the things that are on this kind of model are things that we need (or need at the time), such as parking.
I asked the question for several reasons.
At a basic level I wanted to get a feel for the range of responses that people have.
At another level I wanted people to challenge their own very personal interpretation of what they consider value for money, what that same amount of money buys elsewhere in their lives etc. Where does the monthly sub expectation come from? what do other games give you for their monthly sub? etc.
At yet another level I wanted to do Intrepid a favor and ask a question which they might find difficult to approach, if they needed to (I'm not associated with Intrepid in any way beyond being a member of this forum).
Finally, I believed the issue would get a strong emotional response and provoke debate. Understanding ourselves and understanding (or at least respecting) others is a good thing.
Think you would find the world quite empty ,as it would be in the back of peoples minds constantly and they would probably spend more time clock watching than enjoying the content.
So if someone pays 20$ for a month, they could technically play for 3 months or longer by only logging in when they are able to play for a decent amount of time (i.e. break from work).
*** TLDR: 1 log in within 24 hours period would deduct from the 30 days allotted. I think this could be a great way to keep a high player base and still keep sub model to continue game development. ***
Perhaps even more, because now I skip a whole month when I know I will only be able to play one or two weeks.
The psychology is subject to how you frame it. If you frame it this way you will be right. Probably.
Personally I frame it thus: I pay an amount, but I can only play a fraction of the time that I have paid for.
Realistically I pay an amount per month having in mind not being able to play 24x7, but there are days or even weeks I will not be able to play for different reasons.
Moreover, one argument you forgot to mention (but perhaps was included in your thought proces) is that players are not used to play for what they pay (see what I did there?). And that might contribute in a behaviour you predict (playing less). That is a possibility, and I do not blame Intrepid not willing to take the risk involved in innovating the payment system of an mmo (I did it again
Maybe we need an old fashioned publisher for old fashioned mmo players who are that much rooted in traditional gameplay
Most players I know have had several week long breaks from the game (holidays, busy periods, or just stepping away a while). None of them have not payed for the months subscription though. That said, I don't know specifically of anyone that pays their subscription monthly rather than in 3 or 6 month chunks.
Honestly, the concept of that seems kind of weird to me.
I would consider that $15 to be worth it if I only actually played the game for a week out of that month (still good value per dollar for entertainment, imo).
I don't think he was stating that people were making the same now as they were a long time ago, but during times of inflation, it's not like companies raise wages so that people can afford more. I'm pretty sure that's what he's saying. You're still making the same as you would if there wasn't inflation, meaning people have to be more careful with their money. You can argue about salaries all you want, but not everyone is on salary, in fact the people who are on salaries are generally higher ups in companies, not grunt workers.
Then people would just do the YouTube method of paying via ARS so they pay pennies for something that is normally several to many dollars. USD/Euro/British Pound equivalence or into the bin it goes.
I have taken a look at this game and it's new approach to mmo's and it looks real good and I am very interested in playing it.
Just one problem, As a gamer not from the USA, even one that does own a PC that can play games like this, what a bad statement from someone that does not walk in my shoes.
I cannot afford to pay a subscription on a monthly basis or nay other basis due to the exchange rate between my country and the USA period.
I'll most likely will have to wait until the game becomes free to play or the cost model for the game changes.
While this may happen, Intrepid do have a plan of limiting players that pay in regional prices to only be able to log on to servers (likely just server) in that region.
So, in your scenario, if people did try to pay in ARS, they would be limited to playing on South American servers, with South American times for events, sieges and such.
If you appeal to what the customers want then you will gain goodie points with them to care less about bad points about your game. A really bad downside to have in your game is the price to play it being too high for the lowest paid. Since every single time they turn the game on they will question why they are even still playing it no matter their experience in the actual game.
Games die because the majority don't like it. While no one is including mobile players in this number. It's a lot better to have it be cheap and them to question other systems. Than to question it every time they turn it on. xD
U.S. East
Median income of a nation is a fairly well documented metric.
Since that is the only mention of median in this thread until you said it, I have to assume that is what you are talking about.
Median income is a reasonable indicator of a number of things over time. When comparing the actual cost of a service 18 years ago to the actual costn of the same service today, median income for each year is the appropriate metric to look at.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/03/24/how-your-disposable-income-compares-to-other-peoples-around-the-world/
The definition of "disposable income" is after taxes and deductions. Therefore it does not cover rent/mortgage and the plethora of ongoing cost of living expenses that cover "first world basics" (food, gas/electric, water/sewage, car/transport costs, local civic fees/taxes, home insurance, mobile, internet, etc.) that many have before they are left with the actual money they can afford to spend on Ashes.
How do you objectively quantify that though? To me some of the skins are amazing (and I bought a lot of them because of that), I think others are awful and I'd pay to not look like that. How can you say that one thing "surpasses" the other?
I believe that Steven has made the only fair compromise you can... That while the skins in the cash store are unique, there will be very close variants available in-game. I think that's the best anyone can do.
Surely, you jest, sir?
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
You get into £15 a month thats £180 a year plus the initial buying cost, plus the cash shop starts to become a costly hobby.
At the end of the day Steven needs to pay wages & make a profit, just don't be greedy.
Very little
No initial buying cost for Ashes. That is Stevens gift to you.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.