$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

Gizban

A No.1 with fries and a drink at MCD or BK, after tax, is a few bucks shy of $20.

Yuyukoyay

15 is the price it should be and stay. If not then 10.

Reason being is it's a game. Games require players to play. We want more people to play even those who are poor. If the game is so expensive it gets in the way of life for the poor. Then the game will suffer due to lack of players.

It's also never wise to base things like this on a minority. Averages don't mean crap either considering the disparity between rich and poor in America right now is higher than any country has ever had it in history. It's too big to base data off of it. This disparity will make the game completely unaffordable in other countries.

Most families these days have like 50 bucks of disposable income simply because the job decided not to pay them what they are owed. Most jobs don't pay a living wage. Just some imaginary wage from the 80's most likely. This majority will be the ones you want to play the game because it leads to the most money.

However, money has said to be a secondary issue. So even more reason to tune it to the majority than the minority. 15 bucks is the sweet spot. It still may cause some people to turn down the game over others though. 15 bucks a month per person is plenty to develop a game off of when you already paid most of the big costs upfront. Especially a world wide game.

If half the world bought it that is already quite a couple billion. That's not going to happen, but they aren't going to run out any time soon. If it is successful. Which it might be. I got enough faith that it will.

Vhaeyne

McMackMuck wrote: »

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?

Personally, I am all for a higher monthly sub because of inflation.

The 15$ sub games had in the year 2000 would be 24$ and some change in 2021.

As long as the product is worth paying for, people will buy it.

maouw

Maybe related, how would people feel if there was an annual (or biennial?) update to the sub price?

Vhaeyne

maouw wrote: »

Maybe related, how would people feel if there was an annual (or biennial?) update to the sub price?

I think that is perfectly fair. In the long term, some of these services do get screwed by inflation if they stick to a flat rate.

beaushinkle

Edited response out because I totally misread lol

daveywavey

maouw wrote: »

Maybe related, how would people feel if there was an annual (or biennial?) update to the sub price?

Assuming you're basing it off the inflation rate, which country's inflation rate would you use? Or would you just set it at something like 1.5% every year, regardless of global inflation rates?

Lailesh1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States

In 1950 in the USA, the median income of folks 15 year olds or older, who have non-zero income was $2,570. In 1980 that number grew to $12,530. 1990: $20,293. 2000: $28,343. 2004 (circa WoW release): $30,513. 2016: $38,869.

Folks are objectively getting paid higher salaries than before, on average.[/quote]

Gz In the USA, you know not all PPL live in the USA? Not Overall give it more Money, bzw all get expensiver that it not rlly see that you get more money, becouse you have to pay more?

beaushinkle

Lailesh1 wrote: »

Gz In the USA, you know not all PPL live in the USA? Not Overall give it more Money, bzw all get expensiver that it not rlly see that you get more money, becouse you have to pay more?

There are definitely areas of the world for which income didn't inflate. That said, you said "Do you get more salary too? Mostly not,"

First, the "you" there might be from the US, but maybe not. If it is from the US, that should be amended to 'mostly so'. If you're just talking about folks in general, from the world at large, salaries have also been inflating. See https://www.statista.com/statistics/612444/real-salary-forecast-by-country-2016/
https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=AV_AN_WAGE

Some examples from around the world for 2004 -> 2020 in case you don't want to click links (everything converted to USD for ease of discussion):

Australia: 48k => 55k
Chile: 19k => 27k
Greece: 33k => 27k
Ireland: 41k => 49k
Japan: 37k => 39k
Mexico: 17k => 16k
Netherlands: 54k => 59k
Portugal: 28k => 28k
Sweden: 36k => 47k
USA: 58k => 69k

Note - the above salaries are all listed in 2020 dollars. This means that the figures listed are already inflation adjusted. Inflation is real, ya'll.

There are definitely particular areas in the world that have been stagnant. There are places like Greece that have had a really tough time. There are citizens living in areas that have seen growth who haven't gotten to participate in that growth. It can be frustrating for those folks having their wages stay constant, but seeing prices (rent, bills, commodities) rise. It would be extremely frustrating having some guy on the internet come in and tell those folks that wages are going up anyway. Still, for the median global citizen, salaries have gone up.

Second, if you want to talk about income vs the cost of things you want to buy, you're talking about buying power! If you're saying that income went up, but prices went up, then buying power stayed flat, but you're still staying that income, went up, which is the claim I challenged.

mcstackerson

I'm fine with paying more but $15 has been the standard for a while. I think the cash shop is there to help offset the effects of inflation.

McShave

I would pay $30 a month to get rid of cosmetic cash shop

Mountain King

It's never going to go above $15. I wouldn't stress yourself thinking about.

Conrad

If I'm gonna have to pay more than 10 quid, which is the price more most of not all monthly subs then I'm going to be pissed.

Vhaeyne

Mountain King wrote: »

It's never going to go above $15. I wouldn't stress yourself thinking about.

"Never" is a strong word for this topic. A lot can change economically between now, release and the life of the game.

truelyyy

I think $180 a year is plenty enough for now.

McMackMuck

Ashes doesn't exist in a vacuum, but which games would you compare it with when deciding whether the sub cost is value for money?

If the sub cost for Ashes is the same as other contemporaries then we can clearly look at the game experiences on offer for £15/month and decide which we like the best - this looks like it would put Ashes well ahead IMHO and would probably draw a large influx of players.
This is the scenario that many are expecting, I believe.

If the decision later became "$more per month" to play a great game or "$less per month" to play a poor alternative then we begin to deal with the slightly uncomfortable issue of 'what is value for money?'.

Price expectation plays a part.
Why $15/month? because other games charge that amount for (what we hope will be) inferior games.
There are all sorts of entertainment expenses that cost more - netflix premium, mobile phone contracts, gym membership, fast food outlets, coffee shops, etc.
If we paid $30/month for something that we enjoy do we consider ourselves mad for spending "so much"?
My answer: Only if we have been mentally conditioned with a price expectation.

I'm hoping that Ashes remains at the $15 rate for as long as possible, with it's economy of scale costs being reduced by high sub numbers. I want Steven to do well out of Ashes to reward him for putting his money where his heart is; a valuable lesson for other studios, which could actually improve how the gaming industry works long term.

There was also mention of discounted 12 month subs, which would help those able to commit upfront and stabilize Intrepid's income.

daveywavey

McMackMuck wrote: »

If the decision later became "$more per month" to play a great game or "$less per month" to play a poor alternative then we begin to deal with the slightly uncomfortable issue of 'what is value for money?'.

Well, we've been told that the game is fully financed to its completion by Steven's financial input, so the quality of the game shouldn't be affected by the sub fees, as it'll already be completed by that point. Expansions and updates, possibly, but they won't be enough to make a great game a poor alternative.

JustVine

daveywavey wrote: »

McMackMuck wrote: »

If the decision later became "$more per month" to play a great game or "$less per month" to play a poor alternative then we begin to deal with the slightly uncomfortable issue of 'what is value for money?'.

Well, we've been told that the game is fully financed to its completion by Steven's financial input, so the quality of the game shouldn't be affected by the sub fees, as it'll already be completed by that point. Expansions and updates, possibly, but they won't be enough to make a great game a poor alternative.

Bug fixing, design/balance issues and data analysis to identify those issues, continued content building, live gms, marketing to ensure the population is as big as possible to make certain game mechanics actually work long term, outreach and accessibility development, server costs, salaries to retain high quality staff that can easily resolve the above challenges... It's not a small machine to feed Davey Wavey. The quality of the game is absolutely effected long term without those things and if you can't pay for them long term you are going to start having problems retaining the population, which means less subs, which means less money to address issues, which creates a feedback loop.

This is a reason I think they would be better served by being headquartered in a different state or city that share Steven's values and desires for staff amenities but has less cost of living issues. But they already moved once so I doubt that can happen any time in the near future.

daveywavey

JustVine wrote: »

daveywavey wrote: »

Well, we've been told that the game is fully financed to its completion by Steven's financial input, so the quality of the game shouldn't be affected by the sub fees, as it'll already be completed by that point. Expansions and updates, possibly, but they won't be enough to make a great game a poor alternative.

Bug fixing, design/balance issues and data analysis to identify those issues, continued content building, live gms, marketing to ensure the population is as big as possible to make certain game mechanics actually work long term, outreach and accessibility development, server costs, salaries to retain high quality staff that can easily resolve the above challenges... It's not a small machine to feed Davey Wavey. The quality of the game is absolutely effected long term without those things and if you can't pay for them long term you are going to start having problems retaining the population, which means less subs, which means less money to address issues, which creates a feedback loop.

This is a reason I think they would be better served by being headquartered in a different state or city that share Steven's values and desires for staff amenities but has less cost of living issues. But they already moved once so I doubt that can happen any time in the near future.

Yeah, I work in software. I'm well aware of the procedures involved. The point still stands: Since the game is already fully financed, the game on release being great or poor won't be affected by the subs that haven't yet even started to be paid. The value of the sub won't affect the game's release.

And if, as you say, you're trying to retain your players, you're not going to want to overprice it.

DeeBee

I would be willing to go up to 20 per month IF i feel it's worth my money and i thoroughy i enjoy the content , however i do understand that not everyone is willing or able to pay that amount monthly and would not think it's a wise move to make on intrepids part.

Child Item