$20 a month business model

Maybe one way to present the risky attempt to a increase the sub fee to 20 a month is to tell the players that the extra five dollars will all go to game expansions. game content, and improving the game. For every 100k subs that would six million per year if things go well and get one million subs that would be 60 million a year just for expansions.

Or you could use the cash shop and say all the money made for the next three days will used only for game development purposes and cap it at lets say 10 million or whatever amount you feel is right.

Thing is MMO companies can make net profit of hundeds of millions But when an expansion comes out it does not fell like a 20 million dollar expansion even 10 million definitely below ten million.. Seems like MMORPGs come out which is a huge initial investment then they just milk it until it dies expansions are more of the same and they do not deliver when it comes to very popular features that players have been asking for them to do for years.

But if the player were gauranteed the money they spent or contibuted to the game would go to for the sole purpose of new content and improve quality of life issues like new character models or better animations or choice of sounds for abilities then players would be more apt to support the game.

Reason people feel like 20 dollars is to much is because they already decided that in their mind that MMO companies are already making to much money and not really reinvesting it in game content.

I know Steve is a marketing expert so I will cut this post short and say if you just give players a chance to support and contribute to thier own game instead of well your pockets.(no offense intended) I think players would respond pretty well.

Plus you can even let them vote on things like expansion theme like undead theme, dragon theme, or demonic vs celestial expansions.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Amist

I would rather pay 20$ a month in order to secure regular game updates rather than have en team manage where the cosmetic money goes. Regardless the money is likely going to go towards the development of the game.

The most successful games in the industry are generally subscription-based due to the steady income the companies get and if they were to remove the sub they would have to increase the income elsewhere which usually leads to some form of pay-to-win aspect being implemented in the game

Plateau

(Here's a big ol' IN MY OPINION disclaimer. Everything thing in this comment is IMO. I welcome all other perspectives.)

Players don't like paying sub fees because other games, which can waste just as much time, are free. A mediocre sub-fee game cannot succeed, as long as there are tons of comparable free-to-play games that people can try for a couple months before getting bored. The exact price of the game is not as important.

If the game looks really good and is popular; if it seems significantly better than all the free-to-play games, then players will crave that heightened experience and fork over the $15 or $20 to try it. Then the if the game is actually good, players will stick around unless they literally can't afford it.

Personal anecdote: I don't like buying any games until I know it's fun because of reviews/streamers (or if my friends wanna play it together). So I'll usually wait for the discounts/sales and for the community to pass judgement. But I bought Monster Hunter: World on release (for PC), because I like the genre and that game looked like a humongous improvement in the series. I was not disappointed, so I'll probably get the expansion when it comes out too.

Basically, games cost more in terms of time and attention than they do in money. I don't wanna waste any money on a game that's not top-tier (according to my preferences). But I'll throw however much money it takes to play a game that looks right up my alley and solidly built.

Regard AoC, honestly, at this point, I think the competition between subscription games is low enough that the extra 5$ is meaningless. The hype of this new, non-themepark game is enough to set it apart from other subscription MMOs, so anyone who craves that kind of game won't care about the extra $5. Intrepid would be stupid to leave the price below $20. As long as the game is good, people will continue to pay $20 a month for it. If the game is not good, then it will live or die by the hands of it's competition (other sandbox MMOs), which aren't putting up much of a fight currently. The market is just so limited that a 33% difference in price isn't going to be enough to drive players away on it's own.

Plus, $20 subs-fees are kinda what people should expect after 15 years of inflation and the overall improvement of the genre.

Somehow I typed all that without realizing I'm just talking about supply and demand... There's some demand (the amount is irrelevant) and the supply of similar sandbox games is kinda crap right now. Every other sandbox MMO is struggling hard with various problems. So if Ashes turns out to be Actually Decent then it basically has a monopoly on the market and can charge whatever sub fee they want.

People would probably get pissed if it's above $25 a month though. Some people would still pay. People pay for Apple products after all.

Noaani

leonerdo wrote: »

(Here's a big ol' IN MY OPINION disclaimer. Everything thing in this comment is IMO. I welcome all other perspectives.)

I lol'd.

Personally, I'd be happy paying $25 a month, however, I don't see it happening.

Ashes isn't only competing against other subscription based MMO's. It isn't even only competing just against other MMO's.

While there are many of us that are simply looking for a good MMO and nothing else, a good portion of the games population are people that are looking for a good game - or even just people looking for good entertainment in general.

At $25 a month, the games population will be limited almost exclusively to people that specifically want a good subscription based MMO. At $15 a month, the game can include people wanting a good game to play, and people wanting good value general entertainment.

In all honesty, though it needs a few tweaks, I personally think the biggest competitor to Ashes will be Google Stadia rather than any MMO.

Damokles

Okay I decided to also say my opinion on the idea.
I would be totally fine to pay 20€ a month to pay for this game.
But only IF they then also included some things:
1. regular content updates and free expansions
2. no other shop items then cosmetic skins in the future (no exp pots, buff flasks, special unlimited and effective things to collect resources...looking at you GW2..., immidiate mail servants, etc)

They will have to compete with the big four: GW2 (you dont even have to buy the game anymore i believe, you have to buy the newest expansion i think), WoW (Who has not ever at least heard of WoW?), Elder Scrolls Online (I think the game is also free but you have to buy expansions), FFOnline (Subscription based, you have to buy expansions)

GW2 saved itself with the F2P aspect, the same goes for ESO. WoW and FF have both the cost of around 13€ per month, meaning that AoC really has to wow everyone so hard that they wont think of the price, if they ever go for 20.

The safest route would be what they said at the start: 13€, but I am hyped enough to go for 20 and see how it goes.

Wandering Mist

@damokles ESO costs $14.99 a month. FFXIV is free up to level 35 then $12.99 a month, and WoW is free up to level 20 then $14.99 a month. All of them require you to pay for all the expansion content, plus contain added services shops for things like boosts, race/gender changes, etc.

If Ashes did up the price to $20 a month it would be the most expensive subscription-based mmorpg, and would have to justify that price by offering something the other games didn't.

Damokles

@wanderingmist
ESO WAS subscription based^^

"The Elder Scrolls Online publisher Bethesda Softworks is transitioning the subscription-based massively multiplayer online role-playing game to a subscription-free model, the company announced today." ~2014/15

FFIV is free to play until lvl 35? Why was i asked to subscribe after my first free month was up and i was still level 15? (didnt actively play)
I also said that AoC would have to offer free expansions in my first post.

Wandering Mist

@damokles Ah yeah, you're right, I was looking at the wrong thing. So ESO is a mix of pay-to-play and subscription. You can either buy the base game (currently £7.49 on Steam) and then pay £8.99 a month to unlock all the DLC and some in-game bonuses, or just buy all the DLC separately.

FFXIV has a 1-month free trial with a level cap of 35. I think I need to go to bed, my brain isn't working properly right now.

Plateau

wanderingmist wrote: »

ESO costs[used to cost] $14.99 a month. FFXIV is free up to level 35 then $12.99 a month, and WoW is free up to level 20 then $14.99 a month. All of them require you to pay for all the expansion content, plus contain added services shops for things like boosts, race/gender changes, etc.

If Ashes did up the price to $20 a month it would be the most expensive subscription-based mmorpg, and would have to justify that price by offering something the other games didn't.

@wanderingmist @damokles I know all that of course (except about ESO). But I think Ashes is offering something very different by being a sandbox, player-driven MMO. Maybe I'm just over-valuing that difference. Maybe it does just come down to quality, not uniqueness. Otherwise there would be more people paying for EVE Online, right?

Even if that's the case though, I think damokles makes a good point. Ashes isn't supposed to have any box costs, and only cosmetics on the cash shop, so a $20 sub fee seems pretty reasonable compared to, for example, a $40 expansion + $13-15 subscription to play the current version of WoW or FFXIV.

Damokles

@leonerdo
You are totally right that AoC has the sandbox playerdriven economy going for it.
It reminds me of EvE Online, and if AoC does manage to catch its audience, then they have it made for themselves.
Another thing that i would actually accept would be the ability to buy ingame time with ingame currency, without the ability to convert this token back into gold. (Wow made it so that you can buy the token with real money and then sell it for money...) That would incentivise people to play the auctionhouse game

It would be enough, when the token instantly activated, when you buy it from the npc for example.

TheCouchNerd

I'd only really be fine with a very high sub cost if they removed the cosmetic shop entirely and made all cosmetics acquirable in-game through achievements, drops, etc. I think having a more standard sub fee and a cosmetic shop is the best in the end. They'll get plenty of revenue from the cash shop to fund rapid content patches and expansions. The sub fee should (hopefully) be enough to cover the rest.

Viymjr

As a braver of worlds KS backer I wont be paying any subs so I suppose I shouldn't really care about $20 per month, but I wouldn't want it to put people off playing Ashes. The $15 per month sub is in line with other MMO's and the cash shop can help support future expansions without having to charge for them. CCP with EVE Online followed this model successfully for well over a decade there is no reason Intrepid could not do the same.

Many people like buying the cosmetics and it does not impact the game in regards to P2W in anyway. There should still be plenty of opportunities to earn/achieve in game cosmetics. Would be a shame to remove the chance for players to customise by purchasing direct from Intrepid.

Azathoth

This is the first time someone has made a thread about Ashes sub being more than $15/mo and others have agreed

I hope $15/mo + cash shop will be enough. If they move to $20/mo after a year or two I think that would be okay too. Especially if they have all the most relevant bugs worked out and still havent introduced any F2P or P2W mechanics.

Wandering Mist

azathoth wrote: »

This is the first time someone has made a thread about Ashes sub being more than $15/mo and others have agreed

I hope $15/mo + cash shop will be enough. If they move to $20/mo after a year or two I think that would be okay too. Especially if they have all the most relevant bugs worked out and still havent introduced any F2P or P2W mechanics.

I wouldn't say I agree with making Ashes $20 a month. I'm just weighing up how this would affect the mmorpg market. $15 a month has been the standard for so long I'm not sure players would be willing to see a sudden increase, even if the game was worth the price.

Remember that one of the first things a brand new player will look at is the price tag and if the price is higher than every other game, regardless of how good that game is, they will probably be unwilling to buy it, especially if Ashes doesn't offer some kind of free trial to get players in.

It's all about psychology, which is why $60 has been the base price for AAA games for years despite inflation. Game developers even out this discrepancy by slowly offering less for $60 than you got 5-10 years ago. The consumer doesn't care as much about this because all they see at the very start is the price tag.

Damokles

@wanderingmist
I dont think that he specifically meant you, but rather all the others that generally are for that idea, with a few caveats.

tiltowait

I'm fine with a sub fee. But what about the system of selling in-game items that give a month of game time (plex/apex)? That ties in-game currency to real world money... maybe a good thing?

Viymjr

Anything that ties in game currency to real world money will open the door for P2W and no one wants that.

tiltowait

hmm, true. Well, I like new content and am happy with a monthly fee. And by new content, I'm not picky, I like the frequent updates like BDO does, where at any particular time there's some little event or other going on, sometimes tweaking game rules pushing the players to go do some particular activity because it's more profitable temporarily, or perhaps just a login goodie bag. My point being this type of update could be pretty cheap in dev-hours, but still fun. (NOT WoW's mini updates though, those completely suck).

OrcLuck

20 dollars a month is a premium price that I don't think you can justify without offering quite a lot of content.

Noaani

wanderingmist wrote: »

It's all about psychology

It really is.

Back in 1999, EQ cost $15 a month (iirc).

That is the most I can find for any game subscription, 20 years later. Inflation puts that 1999 $15 at $23 in 2019, yet games still charge $15.

This is why I accept (though strongly dislike) in game shops.

The psychology of the situation requires Intrepid to maintain a $15 per month access level, imo. That said, even though I am not keen on in game shops, I'd be happy to see a $20 - $25 subscription that offers nothing more than the $15 per month subscription other than adding some in game currency (embers, is it?) to the players account.

Wandering Mist

noaani wrote: »

wanderingmist wrote: »

It's all about psychology

It really is.

Back in 1999, EQ cost $15 a month (iirc).

That is the most I can find for any game subscription, 20 years later. Inflation puts that 1999 $15 at $23 in 2019, yet games still charge $15.

This is why I accept (though strongly dislike) in game shops.

The psychology of the situation requires Intrepid to maintain a $15 per month access level, imo. That said, even though I am not keen on in game shops, I'd be happy to see a $20 - $25 subscription that offers nothing more than the $15 per month subscription other than adding some in game currency (embers, is it?) to the players account.

Indeed. Not only that but once the game is launched at a set price, Intrepid would be fools to try and increase the price, no matter how popular the game is.

Child Item