$15 a month is fine with me. If you can't afford $15 a month, you need to stop playing video games and get a second job.
I thought we had got past this idea..
So ... you can afford $15 so how about $30. As others have said $15 is old. I can afford it and a lot more. You? Great. Actually a lot of these games with "low" population like WS couldn't get by on $30 so we should be looking at $50 perhaps (that OK?) or even $100. I can afford it so lets go for it yes? What $100 is to much? Well you know what you need to do? Get a proper job. At some value everyone says "to much" and someone else can say "get a proper job".
What a "fair" subscription - or upfront (b2p) price for that matter is, since a "lifetime sub" is just a form of b2p - has nothing to do with what you can afford.
The economics of many products - not just games - come down to "mass market appeal". There are some fixed costs and some running costs. If you can spread these costs between a lot of people then the cost per person can be very low. Or even "zero" if a % has been included in the box price and enough millions have been sold.
As something becomes less "mass market" and seeks to deliver a "less popular" experience then the number of people amongst which costs can be spread falls. And publishers can push the box price up - or offer a lifetime sub. Think of CU; $60 for the game say but $180 will get you a lifetime sub i.e. $120 is all they (hope) envisage they will need per person for years. $120 is $5/month for 2 years or $1/month for 10 years! And CU is a niche game. Hardly surprising that The Division, Destiny etc. can manage without a "further payment" - i.e. sub but I put it that way to emphasise that if the game has a box price you will be paying something to the running of the game.
And as others have said there is also no "fair" either. And a price that represents (perceived) value to one person may not represent value to someone else. There comes a point however were one feels that some games are price gouging.
I've spent $0.00 for any new game in the last 5 years, 3 months and 22 days..
Did those months have 30 or 31 days? Or was there a February in there? And if so, then how many leap years?
He spends money on games... he just uses fuzzy logic when defining just what spending money is.
Using his logic, anyone playing WoW (exclusively) after the initial purchase (assuming vanilla time period) hasn't spent any money on a new game for over 10 years.
Kind of takes the wind out of his sails once you realize he's gilding the lily... a lot.
As other say it depends on the quality of the game but it also depends on what else you need to buy to play it.
I think that the perfect model would be 2 free weeks, no boxes you need to buy, no cashshop, 1 free servertransfer (assuming you don't use megaserver tech) and 20-25 bucks a month. 2 weeks is enough to judge if the game is worth playing and it also forces the devs to make the game fun or people wont pay.
Limited trials never works, people do remember AoCs Tortage trial at launch, the rest of the game was a buggy mess while all work had been done to make the start island relatively well running and almost totally voice acted.
Also, charging for the box and additional expansions will turn off many players. It is better to have a higher fee that will earn the company more if the game is fun enough to keep the players for a while.
And I do understand why most companies wouldn't like this idea since it only would earn them a lot money if they can keep the players, short time it is better to trick people paying for the box for a cheap crappy game or to force them to buy loads of stuff in the cashshop early before they get that the game isn't very good.
Mark Jacobs talked about this the other day on the comment section of a random article on MassilvelyOP. He thinks sooner or later some company will try to do that: charge a higher subscription price, no cash shop, everything in game like in the good old days. The subscription price has been the same for more than a decade, it even makes sense to rise it, but not if the company tries to double or triple dip and nickels and dimes you.
I think that's not going to work. People actually like having options. When you go with the limited option route then you're limiting your audience to only those who like that option.
I really think ESO has the very best payment model at this point. It is truly buy to play, but if you're the sub type you can play all the content and they give you enough of a game cash stipend that you can buy all you want without having to pay extra cash. Not only that but everything but the base game is available through that game cash. I both buy the xpacs and subscribe. Options. They let me pay how I want.
TOR is another payment model I like. While the F2P route can be expensive if you only want to play that way, the sub route requires little to nothing extra unlike EQ2 and LotRO where they want you to sub, buy xpacs, and use their cash shop. Squeeze 'em harder Mr. Panks! Squeeze 'em harder!
I know I will likely never go play a subscription locked game long term ever again. The idea of renting my game and then having that investment in time and money go away when I stop shoveling them money just doesn't appeal to me at all.
I will agree that ESO probably has the best payment model at the moment. B2P + DLC is very clear on exactly what you get, you aren't locked out of core gameplay at any point, you just don't get access to some content if you don't buy the DLCs. The sub seems to be a bit pointless but it is convenient I guess. This payment model also appeals to the console crowd.
On TOR and LotRO, I'm the opposite. I feel TOR has one of the worst payment models ever. The F2P option is horrific, you either have to accept a shitty play experience if you are free or accept getting ripped off if you want a complete experience. If you go sub, sure, you get everything but the game has so few updates that the sub is pretty much wasted. Just all round low value for money.
LotRO, on the other hand, is F2P done right. If you have a sub, you get everything you could ever need due to monthly store bonuses, you just need to buy the xpacs when they release. If you are f2p, you need to pay a small amount to unlock backbacks / coin unlocks etc (but at a fraction of the price of tor) but after that, you're basically just buying content unlocks. LotRO basically feels like TESO - pay an upfront cost to unlock the game (storage, gold, character slots, classes), then pick and choose DLCs (zones / instances etc) that you actually want to play.
Currently Playing: WAR RoR - Spitt rr7X Black Orc | Scrotling rr6X Squig Herder | Scabrous rr4X Shaman
Comments
So ... you can afford $15 so how about $30. As others have said $15 is old. I can afford it and a lot more. You? Great. Actually a lot of these games with "low" population like WS couldn't get by on $30 so we should be looking at $50 perhaps (that OK?) or even $100. I can afford it so lets go for it yes? What $100 is to much? Well you know what you need to do? Get a proper job. At some value everyone says "to much" and someone else can say "get a proper job".
What a "fair" subscription - or upfront (b2p) price for that matter is, since a "lifetime sub" is just a form of b2p - has nothing to do with what you can afford.
The economics of many products - not just games - come down to "mass market appeal". There are some fixed costs and some running costs. If you can spread these costs between a lot of people then the cost per person can be very low. Or even "zero" if a % has been included in the box price and enough millions have been sold.
As something becomes less "mass market" and seeks to deliver a "less popular" experience then the number of people amongst which costs can be spread falls. And publishers can push the box price up - or offer a lifetime sub. Think of CU; $60 for the game say but $180 will get you a lifetime sub i.e. $120 is all they (hope) envisage they will need per person for years. $120 is $5/month for 2 years or $1/month for 10 years! And CU is a niche game. Hardly surprising that The Division, Destiny etc. can manage without a "further payment" - i.e. sub but I put it that way to emphasise that if the game has a box price you will be paying something to the running of the game.
And as others have said there is also no "fair" either. And a price that represents (perceived) value to one person may not represent value to someone else. There comes a point however were one feels that some games are price gouging.
Using his logic, anyone playing WoW (exclusively) after the initial purchase (assuming vanilla time period) hasn't spent any money on a new game for over 10 years.
Kind of takes the wind out of his sails once you realize he's gilding the lily... a lot.
On TOR and LotRO, I'm the opposite. I feel TOR has one of the worst payment models ever. The F2P option is horrific, you either have to accept a shitty play experience if you are free or accept getting ripped off if you want a complete experience. If you go sub, sure, you get everything but the game has so few updates that the sub is pretty much wasted. Just all round low value for money.
LotRO, on the other hand, is F2P done right. If you have a sub, you get everything you could ever need due to monthly store bonuses, you just need to buy the xpacs when they release. If you are f2p, you need to pay a small amount to unlock backbacks / coin unlocks etc (but at a fraction of the price of tor) but after that, you're basically just buying content unlocks. LotRO basically feels like TESO - pay an upfront cost to unlock the game (storage, gold, character slots, classes), then pick and choose DLCs (zones / instances etc) that you actually want to play.
i prefer pay to win with buy to play/ free to play like gw2