www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
Monday, July 07, 2008
How much game do you need to support a monthly fee?
I'm still happily playing the Football Manager Live beta, but I'm painfully aware that it is very much a niche game. On my beta server there is a large number of players inactive, for example in the league I'm in 13 out of 19 players haven't been online in the last 10 days. When FML gets released, there will be a core of very enthusiastic fans, but the average computer gamer will just look at the game shortly and then give up, because the complexity is high, and the graphics are low. In the particular business model of FML that means he downloads the game for free, doesn't get a free trial, so he pays for 1 month of fee, and gives up before the end of the month. So I was wondering whether a different business model wouldn't have been more appropriate, like a higher cost of buying the game, no monthly fees for a basic version in which the stats are condensed into easier to understand aggregate values, and a monthly fee for a luxury version for the hardcore fans who want all the details.
That got me wondering for what people are willing to pay a monthly fee, and for what they wouldn't. Playing Diablo 1 or 2 on Battle.net has no monthly fee, and if Blizzard isn't changing their business model, Diablo 3 will still be playable online in multiplayer mode with all your friends for free. Is it really such a huge difference between World of Warcraft and Diablo multiplayer that the one would require a monthly fee and the other wouldn't support one? And if WoW still supports a monthly fee, what about the less popular MMOs? Would Hellgate London been better off without its partial monthly fee subscription model for fans? Would Tabula Rasa have sold better if it had been free-to-play with microtransactions? Would Guild Wars have sold 5 million copies if it had a monthly fee?
I don't think the monthly fee subscription model is ideal for every game. There are some games I just wouldn't pay a monthly fee for, even if they are nominally MMORPGs. Although I'm not so poor that I couldn't afford it, I refused to pay 2 Euro more per month for Age of Conan than World of Warcraft costs (WoW is 12.99€ per month including taxes, AoC is 12.99€ excluding taxes, 14.94€ including taxes, for month-by-month subscription in both cases.). But I donated $20 voluntarily for Kingdom of Loathing, and not just because that gives in-game items. And then there are certainly games I wouldn't pay for, but other people would, or vice versa, so the rules on how much game you need to support a monthly fee aren't universal.
So what do you think? What are you willing to pay a monthly fee for, and where do you balk at the cost? Are there specific features which you think justify a monthly fee?
- posted by Tobold @ 8:40 AM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
For a good WoW replacement - some game I *knew* would be a very good replacement, I'd pay 250€ for the start and 40€ per month without hesitation.
Probably more if I 'knew' that the game is good.
So much for me ;)
But what if I do not know?
Hard to say.
50€ starting costs are nothing .. so I'd pay them if there is a chance that it is good.
Since I only play one MMO at a a time I can say, that the monthly fee doesn't really matter.
As long as the game is good and my friends play it I'd pay very high fees.
But if it isn't (AoC!) .. I don'T pla ythe game so I do not pay 1€ .. obviously ..
For me it is really that Black&White.
Probably more if I 'knew' that the game is good.
So much for me ;)
But what if I do not know?
Hard to say.
50€ starting costs are nothing .. so I'd pay them if there is a chance that it is good.
Since I only play one MMO at a a time I can say, that the monthly fee doesn't really matter.
As long as the game is good and my friends play it I'd pay very high fees.
But if it isn't (AoC!) .. I don'T pla ythe game so I do not pay 1€ .. obviously ..
For me it is really that Black&White.
# posted by 
: 7/7/08 08:59
: 7/7/08 08:59
Tobold have you played hattrick? (hattrick.org), it's a web based football manager game. I'm curious as to how football manager live compares?
I once played a week or two of hattick but I couldnt get my head around how slow it plays. You played games at set times and if you coudnt beonline, then its your problem and the AI could handle it.
That coupled with fictional players just didnt allow me to feel like a manager,
In FM live you can play tons of games a day you play with real life players, whoom you´ve seen our heard about. You play with a very developed (albeit not perfeect) match engine which shows you the matches in glorious 2d sprites (looking very commodore amiga ;-) ).
to me they don´t compare all that much.
about Tobolds question. Im very intrigues to see how SI handle the whole payment scheme. They are veering towards monthly payments, but theres definately room for adds i.e. via selling stadium names etc. Commercials and adds are already a big part of football so it wouldnt feel that ackward...
I guess we´ll see.
That coupled with fictional players just didnt allow me to feel like a manager,
In FM live you can play tons of games a day you play with real life players, whoom you´ve seen our heard about. You play with a very developed (albeit not perfeect) match engine which shows you the matches in glorious 2d sprites (looking very commodore amiga ;-) ).
to me they don´t compare all that much.
about Tobolds question. Im very intrigues to see how SI handle the whole payment scheme. They are veering towards monthly payments, but theres definately room for adds i.e. via selling stadium names etc. Commercials and adds are already a big part of football so it wouldnt feel that ackward...
I guess we´ll see.
# posted by : 7/7/08 09:23
: 7/7/08 09:23
Personally, I think that the willingness to pay a subscription is less about the game itself and more about the player and the time he's willing to spend with the game. Ideally, an MMO would support all of the different models and offer the cheapest option depending on the time the player has spent.
First, free-to-play for the trial period. Then microtransactions (read: per-hour billing). If the sum of the microtransactions would exceed the cost of a game time card, then the game would automatically suggest "upgrading". If the billing was delayed like with credit cards, the suggestion could be phrased like this: "Hey, I see that you've played for x hours this month. Your bill for this month would be $y. Instead of that, would you like to buy a game time card for $z and play the rest of the month for no extra cost?"
Next, there would be the limited-time subscription. "Hey, I see that you've bought x game time cards in y months. Would you like to upgrade to a subscription and save $z?"
Finally, there would be the lifetime subscription. "Hey, I see that you've been subscribing for x months. Would you like to purchase a lifetime subscription instead and receive $y as a rebate?"
First, free-to-play for the trial period. Then microtransactions (read: per-hour billing). If the sum of the microtransactions would exceed the cost of a game time card, then the game would automatically suggest "upgrading". If the billing was delayed like with credit cards, the suggestion could be phrased like this: "Hey, I see that you've played for x hours this month. Your bill for this month would be $y. Instead of that, would you like to buy a game time card for $z and play the rest of the month for no extra cost?"
Next, there would be the limited-time subscription. "Hey, I see that you've bought x game time cards in y months. Would you like to upgrade to a subscription and save $z?"
Finally, there would be the lifetime subscription. "Hey, I see that you've been subscribing for x months. Would you like to purchase a lifetime subscription instead and receive $y as a rebate?"
€1-€5 per month: Occasional fun-game. Best example: Battlefield Heroes. I'm in the mood to run around occasionally egoshooting with long-term enhancement of my character.
€6-€10: Second MMO. I am bored of the first-line MMO? I log into this game and play around a bit. LOTRO lifetime subscription is the perfect example. Whenever I am bored or burned out of WOW - log into LOTRO, play 2-3 hours, have fun. In the last months I played more LOTRO than WOW as we are out of content as it is. Raid group is halfway through Black Temple, raid barriers are getting higher and higher, less fun for me.
€10-€15: Main MMO, where I plan to play hundreds of hours with a couple of characters. But I'd play only one game where I pay that much.
€6-€10: Second MMO. I am bored of the first-line MMO? I log into this game and play around a bit. LOTRO lifetime subscription is the perfect example. Whenever I am bored or burned out of WOW - log into LOTRO, play 2-3 hours, have fun. In the last months I played more LOTRO than WOW as we are out of content as it is. Raid group is halfway through Black Temple, raid barriers are getting higher and higher, less fun for me.
€10-€15: Main MMO, where I plan to play hundreds of hours with a couple of characters. But I'd play only one game where I pay that much.
MMO's that are worthy of a subscription to me, are those that provide a true massive multiplayer experience, that is a game unrivaled by the experienced provided by simliar multiplayer but non MMO titles.
For instance, why play Planetside for $15/mo when you can get near or close enough of that experience with many of the large scale FPS titles that support up to 50 or so players per server and a richer experience in some ways.
For RPG type games I notice this is more defined by MMO's that have a seamless world, no instancing of common zones, rich large scale interaction with other players. They offer and do better what a multiplayer game can't.
Persistance with value and meaning is another factor. You can improve your character just as well in Diablo and you can in WoW, but can you ever make a reputation for yourself in Diablo among the random millions of players? Not likely. Is there any persistance in your PvP fights, will anyone ever remember you, come looking for you, etc..
Micro-transaction games to me are for those inbetween a true MMO and a standard retail boxed fee multiplayer game. Probably more defined by a limited experience and less importance placed on persistance. EA's Battlefield Hero's being a good example.
For instance, why play Planetside for $15/mo when you can get near or close enough of that experience with many of the large scale FPS titles that support up to 50 or so players per server and a richer experience in some ways.
For RPG type games I notice this is more defined by MMO's that have a seamless world, no instancing of common zones, rich large scale interaction with other players. They offer and do better what a multiplayer game can't.
Persistance with value and meaning is another factor. You can improve your character just as well in Diablo and you can in WoW, but can you ever make a reputation for yourself in Diablo among the random millions of players? Not likely. Is there any persistance in your PvP fights, will anyone ever remember you, come looking for you, etc..
Micro-transaction games to me are for those inbetween a true MMO and a standard retail boxed fee multiplayer game. Probably more defined by a limited experience and less importance placed on persistance. EA's Battlefield Hero's being a good example.
# posted by : 7/7/08 11:07
: 7/7/08 11:07
I decided to stop playing games with monthly fees. That's my current policy, with one exception, Hattrick that was already mentioned above. I felt paying monthly fees took control of my free time and I found myself playing because I've paid for it and not because I really wanted to.
The gaming started to feel like an after-work project. Hell, if wanted more project work, I could have just done overtime and get paid. Another factor was that I didn't really have proper timeslot to play during weekends and all the gaming time had to be used after working days. It really started to feel stupid and numb.
Hattrick is an exception and I pay annually, not monthly. ;-) I feel the very small fee Hattrick is justified, because it is voluntary and the time used in the game does correlate much with the success of your team.
I still play Guild Wars *very* occasionally and will probably continue to GW2 someday. The reasons keeping me away from WOW, EVE or other time consuming games is that it's hard pay monthly fees and play at your own pace.
The gaming started to feel like an after-work project. Hell, if wanted more project work, I could have just done overtime and get paid. Another factor was that I didn't really have proper timeslot to play during weekends and all the gaming time had to be used after working days. It really started to feel stupid and numb.
Hattrick is an exception and I pay annually, not monthly. ;-) I feel the very small fee Hattrick is justified, because it is voluntary and the time used in the game does correlate much with the success of your team.
I still play Guild Wars *very* occasionally and will probably continue to GW2 someday. The reasons keeping me away from WOW, EVE or other time consuming games is that it's hard pay monthly fees and play at your own pace.
Using the subscription model as the only means to get the money for operation and development worked well for both the company and the players when there were few MMORPG games around and people basically stuck with one game.
With a lots of games to choose from and perhaps less time to dedicate to each and more people in the family playing, the model starts to break apart.
That is not to say that the subscription model should be thrown out and be replaced by a microtransaction model. Rather the game companies should look at providing different options to the customers.
For some the current subscription model works fine.
If you look to some Asian countries and games there the payment model is sometimes more felxible, allowing a couple of different options (subscription, hour rate etc).
With a lots of games to choose from and perhaps less time to dedicate to each and more people in the family playing, the model starts to break apart.
That is not to say that the subscription model should be thrown out and be replaced by a microtransaction model. Rather the game companies should look at providing different options to the customers.
For some the current subscription model works fine.
If you look to some Asian countries and games there the payment model is sometimes more felxible, allowing a couple of different options (subscription, hour rate etc).
# posted by : 7/7/08 11:59
: 7/7/08 11:59
Subscription-based revenue model is extremely lucrative for the provider -- as long as the customers are willing to keep paying, there's little incentive to change that.
From a customer's point of view, a subscription is justified if he's interested in playing their game of choice exclusively for several months, putting many hours into it, so that he feels he's getting his money's worth. This need is reflected in current "grindy" mainstream MMO design.
But as the customers become more jaded with thier "main" game, and other providers become more eager to get people to try their games, I think the economics of MMOs will shift. I think the likeliest scenario in the West is "umbrella" subscriptions through a middleman provider that licenses usage rights from games' owners (not just MMOs either), and gives the user access to the whole package. This is similar to how premium TV channels operate: you pay for access and get to see any films or shows they've lincensed. Big AAA games like WoW and WAR will probably hold out as separate commerical entities for a while, but for the rest gaming networks are the way of the future.
As much as they are talked about, I don't think micro-transations are a viable revenue model for western MMOs, especially those that are operated globally across multiple countries. The reason is that micro-transactions raise the legal issue of virtual property, which is still largely unexplored. The provider of a large MT-based game will get bombarded with lawsuits, and deploying the game across multiple jurisdictions will be a nightmare. A small, cheap, country-locked game can get away with MTs relatively unchallenged, but a money-laden juggernaut like WoW will be faced with tough legal challenges.
By contrast, a subscription model is safe and easy to employ: you simply pay money for service. There's no virtual property involved, since everything in the game is considered intellectual propery of the provider.
From a customer's point of view, a subscription is justified if he's interested in playing their game of choice exclusively for several months, putting many hours into it, so that he feels he's getting his money's worth. This need is reflected in current "grindy" mainstream MMO design.
But as the customers become more jaded with thier "main" game, and other providers become more eager to get people to try their games, I think the economics of MMOs will shift. I think the likeliest scenario in the West is "umbrella" subscriptions through a middleman provider that licenses usage rights from games' owners (not just MMOs either), and gives the user access to the whole package. This is similar to how premium TV channels operate: you pay for access and get to see any films or shows they've lincensed. Big AAA games like WoW and WAR will probably hold out as separate commerical entities for a while, but for the rest gaming networks are the way of the future.
As much as they are talked about, I don't think micro-transations are a viable revenue model for western MMOs, especially those that are operated globally across multiple countries. The reason is that micro-transactions raise the legal issue of virtual property, which is still largely unexplored. The provider of a large MT-based game will get bombarded with lawsuits, and deploying the game across multiple jurisdictions will be a nightmare. A small, cheap, country-locked game can get away with MTs relatively unchallenged, but a money-laden juggernaut like WoW will be faced with tough legal challenges.
By contrast, a subscription model is safe and easy to employ: you simply pay money for service. There's no virtual property involved, since everything in the game is considered intellectual propery of the provider.
# posted by : 7/7/08 12:07
: 7/7/08 12:07
Tobold have you played hattrick? (hattrick.org), it's a web based football manager game. I'm curious as to how football manager live compares?
I haven't played it, but read reviews and looked at videos of hattrick on YouTube. So as far as I could make out hattrick.org is a free browser game, which is completely text-based, thus no 2D matches unless you use third-party programs that transform the text into a 2D football match. And it appears that hattrick is a lot slower than Football Manager Live, with even signing up and getting your first team taking several days, because you can only play real teams in real leagues. FML uses real players, but artificial teams and leagues, based on a questionary about your preferred playing times.
I haven't played it, but read reviews and looked at videos of hattrick on YouTube. So as far as I could make out hattrick.org is a free browser game, which is completely text-based, thus no 2D matches unless you use third-party programs that transform the text into a 2D football match. And it appears that hattrick is a lot slower than Football Manager Live, with even signing up and getting your first team taking several days, because you can only play real teams in real leagues. FML uses real players, but artificial teams and leagues, based on a questionary about your preferred playing times.
Is it really such a huge difference between World of Warcraft and Diablo multiplayer that the one would require a monthly fee and the other wouldn't support one?
Yes. Diablo runs on the Battle.Net system, where the Blizzard server is a chat and matchmaking service, the actual game play is hosted by a player. WoW is run entirely on Blizzard hosted servers with players using a client to connect. Its the expense of the WoW servers and the bandwidth that makes a monthly feed "required".
Yes. Diablo runs on the Battle.Net system, where the Blizzard server is a chat and matchmaking service, the actual game play is hosted by a player. WoW is run entirely on Blizzard hosted servers with players using a client to connect. Its the expense of the WoW servers and the bandwidth that makes a monthly feed "required".
guildwars would have never been able to charge for it that's why.
It's not an MMo it's a chat server with pseudo matching in town areas. You don't randomly meet people along the way that you group with and have fun, you run into a 'town' shout wanna do this or do that bit of the quest/story/game/dungeon and group up for it. It's a glorified version of Diablo2.
Compare it to a persistent virtual game where you can come accross someone at any time doing anything, it's the difference between fully instanced game that takes very very little server load to a fully free MMORPG.
It's not an MMo it's a chat server with pseudo matching in town areas. You don't randomly meet people along the way that you group with and have fun, you run into a 'town' shout wanna do this or do that bit of the quest/story/game/dungeon and group up for it. It's a glorified version of Diablo2.
Compare it to a persistent virtual game where you can come accross someone at any time doing anything, it's the difference between fully instanced game that takes very very little server load to a fully free MMORPG.
MMO = timesink. Which means one at at time. If something as good a wow was at launch comes out I'd dump wow in a heartbeat.
Battle.net and WoW are, as mentioned, completely different beasts. For those, it all comes down to how much money is required to maintain the customer expectation.
Diablo: customer expects static game out of the box and online matchmaking system to play with others.
WoW: customer expects online-only experience and constant evolution of content. And persistent worlds. ;)
Pricing a product in a space as liquid as MMO's is incredibly difficult. I do not envy the jobs of the guys who must figure out how to price anything but a cookie-cutter MMO or one-player game.
If I were Blizzard, I would be very tempted to find a way to charge for Diablo 3 on a monthly basis, even if it's a small fee. It's so hard to pass that up. Whether they take that bait will be an interesting 1/0 fact in the months to come.
Diablo: customer expects static game out of the box and online matchmaking system to play with others.
WoW: customer expects online-only experience and constant evolution of content. And persistent worlds. ;)
Pricing a product in a space as liquid as MMO's is incredibly difficult. I do not envy the jobs of the guys who must figure out how to price anything but a cookie-cutter MMO or one-player game.
If I were Blizzard, I would be very tempted to find a way to charge for Diablo 3 on a monthly basis, even if it's a small fee. It's so hard to pass that up. Whether they take that bait will be an interesting 1/0 fact in the months to come.
# posted by : 7/7/08 16:10
: 7/7/08 16:10
if I'm going to have to subscribe to something it had better add content at or close to the rate at which it is charging me. Wow doesnt do this. Lotro does. Will WAR? Who can say yet.
I consider monthly fees a psychological hurdle, as I find it much easier justifying a one-off payment (even if its >100 €) as I might then play the game at anytime. Monthly fees, regardless of the amount, are "lost" if I am not playing, therefore I must be absolutely convinced that I will be playing the game.
Due to this although I buy more games than I have time to play, I am only subscribing to one game with monthly fees. For the time being this is WoW, which I still enjoy playing together with my wife. Having only limited time at our hands, I will only consider switching the game with monthly fees, therefore the next game I subscribe to will have to replace WoW.
Due to this although I buy more games than I have time to play, I am only subscribing to one game with monthly fees. For the time being this is WoW, which I still enjoy playing together with my wife. Having only limited time at our hands, I will only consider switching the game with monthly fees, therefore the next game I subscribe to will have to replace WoW.
# posted by : 8/7/08 10:23
: 8/7/08 10:23
thats interesting because for me its an even higher hurdle. I just don't buy boxes anymore because I play an mmo. I can't mentally justify the expense when I pay 180 dollars a year. So the industry is probably losing more in box sales on me than wow gets in monthly fees.
Post a Comment
<< Home
