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 $20 a month for the game, I am saying it could well make sense for them to do so, and I would be totally behind them if they did.
Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. 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$. If you want a solid playerbase, especially one that most likely won't leave, then you keep the general market price instead of increasing the price. Keeping the same sub price as other mmos guarantees success if you have a good game. Sure, you won't Rob FF14 of its playerbase, wrong type of players, but games like WoW? Probably will strip them bare lol
Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. 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 $15 a month, have a store and yet still charge a box price for the game and expansions?
Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. 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 $15 a month, have a store and yet still charge a box price for the game and expansions?
They do it out of greed as usual. They want to suck money out of us like leeches. A pretty normal thing in the industry now considering the shit games on the market for years now. Why do you think lootboxes exist?
Kerching
Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. 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 $5 is too much and so leave the game, they actually still make more.
Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. 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
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 $15,000,000 a month in revenue.
Already considering the fact that the game has cosmetics, the sub shouldn't be more than 15$. 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.
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.
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.
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.
The cosmetics there are going to play a big role.Having an average spending per monthly player would boost profits.
If 30% of the population is maintained buying cosmetics for 1 year at an average of $ 15 per month:
30%= $27M
That amount is 57.6% of the monthly sub at $ 12
That amount is 46.1% of the monthly sub at $ 15
That amount is 34.6% of the monthly sub at $ 20
$15-$20/mo
I’m skeptical about the cash shop, even for cosmetics only. It looks like a slippery slope. If the price went to $20 per month and had no cash shop, or included some cash shop currency for players accumulate and use towards some cash shop cosmetics, then I could see value added for that price. The devs seem aware of the cash shop concerns, and I’m hopeful they’ll remain true to their promises. Maybe it’s a bad idea, I’m just spitballing.
At the end of the day, if $20 is what it takes, and the game lives up, then consumers will have to decide. I can see it being a barrier to entry for some. Even if a person can afford the cost, will they justify it?
If you create greater barriers of entry for players you hurt the population of the game. Why are we even discussing this? People here are literally FOR creating barriers of entry right now more than against them.
Sure, profit is profit, but what's the use of short term profit when you want the game to have as many players as possible. 15$ and £10 is what guarantees the biggest player pop and probably highest population. Increasing the monthly sub beyond the baseline would only be profit driven and not pop health driven
I'd rather have less queues but full servers. If it takes more money to provide enough servers so queues are minimal I will be happy. If the queues can be mitigated with $15 a month I'd also be a happy camper. If I'm paying a sub I don't want to spend hours in queues - queues also drive people away and then the queues recede but the player base also has dropped which is why the queues are reduced. The balance is difficult to produce and maintain. I haven't heard anything official and my package game time calculation hasn't changed so I still believe its $15 a month for the sub.
@Conrad "15$ and £10 is what guarantees the biggest player pop and probably highest population."
FYI, just in case it's helpful.
I'm no expert on the US tax system, but as I understand it prices are (always? often? generally?) stated before state and federal taxes are applied. This can be confusing for foreigners, myself included. I'm in the UK, so I normally expect something stated as $15 USD to end up being approximately £15 GBP once local taxes are added.
@Conrad "15$ and £10 is what guarantees the biggest player pop and probably highest population."
FYI, just in case it's helpful.
I'm no expert on the US tax system, but as I understand it prices are (always? often? generally?) stated before state and federal taxes are applied. This can be confusing for foreigners, myself included. I'm in the UK, so I normally expect something stated as $15 USD to end up being approximately £15 GBP once local taxes are added.
Not sure where you got that from. 15$ is regional, not the baseline for all countries. £10 is the baseline here for mmos as well when its 15 #
People have started making a case that more people is better for the game.
Personally I really agree with that.
Its very important that the game feels alive and popular.
The more it feels alive and popular the more its going to attract people and the more its going to seep into popular culture making a name for itself and ensuring long-term stability and the opportunity for success.
So in the end, a smaller subscription fee might end up making the devs more money if it ends up attracting more people.
In rift i bought rex with ingame money that other people put in Auction House, but on topic, 15-20 euros per month is ok i guess, 15 being great 20 being on the pricy kinda side. For this side of europe at least :-(
Sure, profit is profit, but what's the use of short term profit when you want the game to have as many players as possible.
It isn't short term profit, that is why we are talking about subscription price and not adding a box cost.
Adding a box cost would have the effect you are talking about, an I creased subscription would not.
Most people don't have a problem with paying £50 for a game with the first month sub included then £10,,$15 a month. But that £20,,$20 a month even with the game free to download is still double the cost every month, and that is what people will see .
Any ways I 've put my points across and at the end of the day they will charge as they want and people with either sub or not..
Sure, profit is profit, but what's the use of short term profit when you want the game to have as many players as possible.
It isn't short term profit, that is why we are talking about subscription price and not adding a box cost.
Adding a box cost would have the effect you are talking about, an I creased subscription would not.
Most people don't have a problem with paying £50 for a game with the first month sub included then £10,,$15 a month. But that £20,,$20 a month even with the game free to download is still double the cost every month, and that is what people will see .
Any ways I 've put my points across and at the end of the day they will charge as they want and people with either sub or not..
Who said anything about £20?
We are talking about going from $15 to $20, an increase of 33%. Take what ever currency you pay in and increase it by 33%, and that is what we are talking about.
If you currently pay £10, then we are talking about £13.33. Not £20.
@Noaani I may have muddied the waters, but hopefully I can clear this up.
@JONTA
In the USA (and Canada) items are stated pre-tax. This means that everyone in the USA expects to pay a little more than $15 for a $15 item. This can be mind blowing to Europeans, who are used to seeing tax included in a stated price.
$15 USD is currently £10.88 GBP, but your bank often won't give you a competitive exchange rate so by the time you've paid a bank transaction fee and 20% VAT(*), $15 USD (pre-taxes) could cost ~£13.50 GBP (including taxes).
(*) I'm not sure where the name 'Value Added Tax' comes from - the taxman isn't adding any value, just making the item more expensive!
Following the same logic $20 USD (pre-taxes) could cost ~£18 GBP (including taxes).
I offer this by way of explanation for my previous post.
Yes, a small increase in the subscription price to a game to match inflation that the industry has been too scared to keep up with is absolutely the same thing as a 66 times price increase.
I mean, 33% is basically the same number as 6666.6%.
1
Options
Uncommon SenseMember, Braver of Worlds, Kickstarter, Alpha One
$15 was the base implemented some 2 decades ago. A rough inflation adjustment would be about $22. But consumers are conditioned to the $15 figure. However back then you bought the box that actually had stuff in it which usually had 1 month included and the $15 per month afterwards.
No cash shop cosmetics or other offerings... just a game.
So the question is would those same consumers pay for an empty box and $22 per month in current times...
The answer is probably no.
$15 is the expected gaming fee...
However Intrepid is not selling empty box and in modern times the cosmetics are to profitable to ignore from a business point of view.
So you get a game for $15 and optionally purchase ego vanity modifiers. The sales stats are in and it's just to profitable not to offer a cash shop...Such are the times.
Personally I'd prefer the $22 per month and no cash shop...but Unfortunately I am in the minority of old school MMO aficionados that prefer a fully fleshed out game at an honest pay to play fee.
If the game become as cool as we expect to be then none will complain about 5$ difference. I am ready to give my last 20$ if i really enjoy spending my time into Ashes. Ofcourse shop should be cosmetics only and no p2w.
Comments
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.
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
However, you can't really say And then say 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.
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.
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.
$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.
The cosmetics there are going to play a big role.Having an average spending per monthly player would boost profits.
If 30% of the population is maintained buying cosmetics for 1 year at an average of $ 15 per month:
30%= $27M
That amount is 57.6% of the monthly sub at $ 12
That amount is 46.1% of the monthly sub at $ 15
That amount is 34.6% of the monthly sub at $ 20
I’m skeptical about the cash shop, even for cosmetics only. It looks like a slippery slope. If the price went to $20 per month and had no cash shop, or included some cash shop currency for players accumulate and use towards some cash shop cosmetics, then I could see value added for that price. The devs seem aware of the cash shop concerns, and I’m hopeful they’ll remain true to their promises. Maybe it’s a bad idea, I’m just spitballing.
At the end of the day, if $20 is what it takes, and the game lives up, then consumers will have to decide. I can see it being a barrier to entry for some. Even if a person can afford the cost, will they justify it?
Sure, profit is profit, but what's the use of short term profit when you want the game to have as many players as possible. 15$ and £10 is what guarantees the biggest player pop and probably highest population. Increasing the monthly sub beyond the baseline would only be profit driven and not pop health driven
FYI, just in case it's helpful.
I'm no expert on the US tax system, but as I understand it prices are (always? often? generally?) stated before state and federal taxes are applied. This can be confusing for foreigners, myself included. I'm in the UK, so I normally expect something stated as $15 USD to end up being approximately £15 GBP once local taxes are added.
Not sure where you got that from. 15$ is regional, not the baseline for all countries. £10 is the baseline here for mmos as well when its 15 #
Personally I really agree with that.
Its very important that the game feels alive and popular.
The more it feels alive and popular the more its going to attract people and the more its going to seep into popular culture making a name for itself and ensuring long-term stability and the opportunity for success.
So in the end, a smaller subscription fee might end up making the devs more money if it ends up attracting more people.
In rift i bought rex with ingame money that other people put in Auction House, but on topic, 15-20 euros per month is ok i guess, 15 being great 20 being on the pricy kinda side. For this side of europe at least :-(
It isn't short term profit, that is why we are talking about subscription price and not adding a box cost.
Adding a box cost would have the effect you are talking about, an I creased subscription would not.
Most people don't have a problem with paying £50 for a game with the first month sub included then £10,,$15 a month. But that £20,,$20 a month even with the game free to download is still double the cost every month, and that is what people will see .
Any ways I 've put my points across and at the end of the day they will charge as they want and people with either sub or not..
Who said anything about £20?
We are talking about going from $15 to $20, an increase of 33%. Take what ever currency you pay in and increase it by 33%, and that is what we are talking about.
If you currently pay £10, then we are talking about £13.33. Not £20.
If I had more time, I would write a shorter post.
@JONTA
In the USA (and Canada) items are stated pre-tax. This means that everyone in the USA expects to pay a little more than $15 for a $15 item. This can be mind blowing to Europeans, who are used to seeing tax included in a stated price.
$15 USD is currently £10.88 GBP, but your bank often won't give you a competitive exchange rate so by the time you've paid a bank transaction fee and 20% VAT(*), $15 USD (pre-taxes) could cost ~£13.50 GBP (including taxes).
(*) I'm not sure where the name 'Value Added Tax' comes from - the taxman isn't adding any value, just making the item more expensive!
Following the same logic $20 USD (pre-taxes) could cost ~£18 GBP (including taxes).
I offer this by way of explanation for my previous post.
Yes, a small increase in the subscription price to a game to match inflation that the industry has been too scared to keep up with is absolutely the same thing as a 66 times price increase.
I mean, 33% is basically the same number as 6666.6%.
No cash shop cosmetics or other offerings... just a game.
So the question is would those same consumers pay for an empty box and $22 per month in current times...
The answer is probably no.
$15 is the expected gaming fee...
However Intrepid is not selling empty box and in modern times the cosmetics are to profitable to ignore from a business point of view.
So you get a game for $15 and optionally purchase ego vanity modifiers. The sales stats are in and it's just to profitable not to offer a cash shop...Such are the times.
Personally I'd prefer the $22 per month and no cash shop...but Unfortunately I am in the minority of old school MMO aficionados that prefer a fully fleshed out game at an honest pay to play fee.
Anything less than ground breaking and its going to be FTP in a year anyway.