$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

Gelmir

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?

What are you probing here? Why would someone ask this kinda questions I wonder...

Ravel

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?

Noaani

Ravel wrote: »

But what do you think about this idea?

I don't think it would work.

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.

Ravel

Noaani wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

But what do you think about this idea?

I don't think it would work.

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?

Roulce

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.

insomnia

The higher the price, the higher the expectation/demands

mcstackerson

Ravel wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

But what do you think about this idea?

I don't think it would work.

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.

Noaani

mcstackerson wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

But what do you think about this idea?

I don't think it would work.

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.

McMackMuck

Gelmir wrote: »

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?

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.

Jonta

Ravel wrote: »

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.

Survahnii

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. ***

tautau

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?

Ravel

mcstackerson wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

But what do you think about this idea?

I don't think it would work.

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.

mcstackerson wrote: »

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.

Noaani

Ravel wrote: »

mcstackerson wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

Noaani wrote: »

Ravel wrote: »

But what do you think about this idea?

I don't think it would work.

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).

Atrushan

beaushinkle wrote: »

JustVine wrote: »

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.

RaiiRaiiNW

Not biggest fan of subscription based games but 10 or 15 seems fine more than that it's eh.

Ulfbrinter

mobtek wrote: »

$10-15 local currency is the sweet spot IMHO

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.

OliverTress

Hi all

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.

tautau

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.

Noaani

Ulfbrinter wrote: »

mobtek wrote: »

$10-15 local currency is the sweet spot IMHO

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.

Child Item