$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

Noaani

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.

Ironhope

As long as the game is good (no P2W, everything they promised from nodes to ships to sieges is there and fun, gameplay in general is enjoyable, admins are active in keeping things in check), 20$ a month sounds reasonable.

SirChancelot

Vhaeyne wrote: »

.

Cyberpunk 2077 was 60$ at the start of the year when I bought it new day one. Right now, it is 24-30$ on Amazon new, depending on what system you want it for.

Imagine if a 2021 Tesla car was 60k new, but a 2020 Tesla car was 24-30k new? That is a massive value loss that no one in their right mind would let happen. Yet for some reason the video game industry just lets this happen year after year.

The video game industry is getting screwed, and you ask for more?

Time isn't the only factor. the game flopped, so the price dropped. You can go to GameStop and find a 6-year-old Mario game that was $60 new and it will still be $50 used because it was a good game and people love it.

$180 is the noticeable amount of money. That's the cost of three video games just to 'play' one video game. Raising the price from 15 to $20 increases that annual cost of four video games a year.

Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.

Songcaller

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Time isn't the only factor. the game flopped, so the price dropped. You can go to GameStop and find a 6-year-old Mario game that was $60 new and it will still be $50 used because it was a good game and people love it.

$180 is the noticeable amount of money. That's the cost of three video games just to 'play' one video game. Raising the price from 15 to $20 increases that annual cost of four video games a year.

Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.

Other MMOs have given discounts on Yearly Subscription Payments. I would hope Ashes does the same.

Ironhope

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.

Better than it being a p2w and the game being ruined for everyone (those who play/would play and those who don't).

SirChancelot

Ironhope wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.

Better than it being a p2w and the game being ruined for everyone (those who play/would play and those who don't).

I agree but that's a different argument.

SirChancelot

Neurath wrote: »

SirChancelot11 wrote: »

Time isn't the only factor. the game flopped, so the price dropped. You can go to GameStop and find a 6-year-old Mario game that was $60 new and it will still be $50 used because it was a good game and people love it.

$180 is the noticeable amount of money. That's the cost of three video games just to 'play' one video game. Raising the price from 15 to $20 increases that annual cost of four video games a year.

Could I afford raising it to $20? Sure. But I know there are people that couldn't and this would increase the barrier of entry to the game.

Other MMOs have given discounts on Yearly Subscription Payments. I would hope Ashes does the same.

True
And I hope so too
But people still say wow is $14.99 not $12.99

Conrad

JONTA wrote: »

Vhaeyne wrote: »

JONTA wrote: »

M8 the USA is in a worse state I know as I have friends there so this is not just a UK problem it's world wide open your eyes..

What is a fair amount to you may seem to much to others ..

What are you talking about? New games are still 60$ a box for a stand-alone game or 15$ a month for a live service... I have more buying power for video games than I have ever had in my life, as those costs for games have remained fixed at a very low rate.

Cyberpunk 2077 was 60$ at the start of the year when I bought it new day one. Right now, it is 24-30$ on Amazon new, depending on what system you want it for.

Imagine if a 2021 Tesla car was 60k new, but a 2020 Tesla car was 24-30k new? That is a massive value loss that no one in their right mind would let happen. Yet for some reason the video game industry just lets this happen year after year.

The video game industry is getting screwed, and you ask for more?

Oh god can of worms £50 for a one off is not £50 then a £10 every month on top of that to play the game.

Yes the car analogy some people will still have no option than to go buy go a cheaper second hand car . Why ???? Because that 24/30k is out of there price range.

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 .

Simple fact that extra couple of dollars, Pounds, which may not seem a lot to you may be the deciding factor to others. You need numbers to make this game work and succeed and if by lowering your profit a bit you get those numbers surely it's better than going in above the price point of the completion..

This ^

Conrad

Doesn't matter if the game is p2w or not or doesn't have box price. What matters is the monthly sub. People are so used to the box price, they will ignore it and instead look at the sub price. If they see a more expensive monthly sub, many won't bother with the game. Monthly sub adds up far more than a mere box price

Heruwolf

The way this game is planning to be financially structured is that there is no box cost. Stephen's own words were that he only wanted the sub-cost so that the barrier to entry is low so that more people can get into the game. I have concerns with that, but I'm sure they have been talked about inside of Intrepid plenty. Those concerns are mostly that the barrier to entry will be too low and we will run into an issue of too many people and having to start up too many servers. Inevitably afterwards some servers will need to be shut down and merged to other servers, which I know they are already thinking about how to accomplish that in case it needs to happen, but that is going to be a VERY chaotic situation if it ever does have to happen.

We also wouldn't want the barrier to entry to be too high. So for those who believe it should be higher, or are willing for it to be higher, I would ask what would that accomplish? If as a player you feel like the game deserves more money, give it more money in the cosmetic store. If you believe it deserves less money... don't play? At the end of the day, this is a business, and they need to make money to pay its developers and to continue making more content for us to enjoy.

MMO's in particular are not cheap projects and Stephen is taking a massive risk trying to make this as his first game. Luckily, he has the money to do it and so far it seems he has the support from some high-quality devs as well.

Ironhope

Conrad wrote: »

Doesn't matter if the game is p2w or not or doesn't have box price. What matters is the monthly sub. People are so used to the box price, they will ignore it and instead look at the sub price. If they see a more expensive monthly sub, many won't bother with the game. Monthly sub adds up far more than a mere box price

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

Songcaller

Ironhope wrote: »

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

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

Ravel

Noaani wrote: »

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.

Yes, but that heavily depends on whether the assumption that it only will be a deciding factor for a few people will turn out to be correct. Difficult to predict, but I hope Intrepid will be able to hit the sweet spot by asking for just the right amount of money.

sockmnkey

more money more problems

JustVine

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.

Square Enix has buckets of money. If Intrepid had SE's budget I am sure Steven would love giving out the game for free on launch. IS should have such a thing down the road once profitability has been established.

Asking an indie dev to release their game for free to be 'pro consumer' like a giant corporation that's been around for decades and has comparative globs of money is the same bs logic that leads to companies demanding free labor during internships. 'You are untrustable and we are doing you the favor giving you the 'opportunity' to earn money down the road while having extremely high standards and demands of you because Karen does things super well with her decades of experience and is willing to work for less due to her super successful savings fund.'

These kinds of unreasonable demands and expectations set by big companies are exactly why it is so risky for smaller creative studios to actually take chances.

Songcaller

I wouldn't want the game for free after launch. I want decent expansions and a decent experience. Amazon had tons of money and New World is not my cup of tea. Also, New World has made so many changes its little like it was first promised. I'd rather take faith and direction over changes of direction and lost promises.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

I'd rather take faith and direction over changes of direction and lost promises.

I'd rather take change of direction if it is determined that the previously promised direction was misinformed.

New World changing their direction wasn't the problem. The original idea they had for the game would be dead by now. The problem was they changed things in a way that made the game make no sense.

There are some things that have needed to change in Ashes from what we have been told (sieges not deleveling a node, as an example that has changed, family summons as an example of something still to change). This is what Intrepid need to do.

Them sticking to something they know is not the best way to do it just because they said they would do it is not good for anyone.

Songcaller

You've mentioned issues that relate to additions made after kickstarter. When I backed there was no node issues, there was no family teleport. There wasn't even Apoc when I backed. The devs have made weird decisions, but, those decisions were on them and not the community. I don't consider bug fixes to be a change in direction, or community requested additions that merge with the original designs. What I have an issue with is steven saying 'We don't want feedback related to changes outside the origional scope of the game' and brushing aside the dev threads which turn the promised features on their heads.

Noaani

Neurath wrote: »

You've mentioned issues that relate to additions made after kickstarter.

I'm going to assume you are ok with Intrepid accounting for inflation.

If all we do is adjust for inflation, $15 in 2017 is already worth $16.80.

By the time the game is released, that $15 from 2017 will likely be damn close to $20.

Songcaller

Yeah, I'm not too worried about the actual sub cost. In my mind, I will either love the game and stick with the game, or, I will use the free game time and never re-sub. So much can change between now and launch that I simply don't want to consider all the variables lol.

Child Item