A View From The Road: The Perfect Subscription
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
This model makes sense to me for games which are expected to foster a long-lasting multiplayer community: after all, someone has to pay to keep those servers running and having continued subscription fees come in from sporadic newcomers would help to maintain a lengthy online lifespan(the opposite of what many EA products seem to be demonstrating nowadays).
However, I don't see this spreading to any impressive extent, myself. It basically caters only to those games which have a half-and-half ratio between the emphasis on single-player and multiplayer gameplay. If it's all multiplayer (like an MMO), then the entry price will be insignificant compared to the ongoing revenues, like it should be. If it's all single-player, then it doesn't make much sense to charge an ongoing fee for something which is, in essence, a self-contained product. Ergo, it really only works for those games which have real aspirations for a dedicated and sizable online fan-base: a state which a good number of games do achieve, but I don't believe enough to make this work for most people.
To put it more simply, this is perfect for Blizzard: the original StarCraft has shown (and continues to show) that their fans will stick with their products until Judgment Day. Back it up a bit, though, and think of how many other ten-year-old games are still out there with a fan-base large enough to fill up a full match at your whim in the present. How about five years? How many games can you think of where you can wait around for less than, say, two minutes for a match to gather enough participants to play to your satisfaction? I'm guessing you can count them with one hand tied behind your back.
While I'm all for getting games for cheap, I think that the little guys who try to adopt this model will only get hurt in the long run, finding that their multiplayer scenes, while perhaps unique and quirky, are insufficient to garner the kind of fanaticism that keeps players coming, meaning that most would simply buy the "trial" multiplayer experience and opt out of upgrading or subscribing.
However, I don't see this spreading to any impressive extent, myself. It basically caters only to those games which have a half-and-half ratio between the emphasis on single-player and multiplayer gameplay. If it's all multiplayer (like an MMO), then the entry price will be insignificant compared to the ongoing revenues, like it should be. If it's all single-player, then it doesn't make much sense to charge an ongoing fee for something which is, in essence, a self-contained product. Ergo, it really only works for those games which have real aspirations for a dedicated and sizable online fan-base: a state which a good number of games do achieve, but I don't believe enough to make this work for most people.
To put it more simply, this is perfect for Blizzard: the original StarCraft has shown (and continues to show) that their fans will stick with their products until Judgment Day. Back it up a bit, though, and think of how many other ten-year-old games are still out there with a fan-base large enough to fill up a full match at your whim in the present. How about five years? How many games can you think of where you can wait around for less than, say, two minutes for a match to gather enough participants to play to your satisfaction? I'm guessing you can count them with one hand tied behind your back.
While I'm all for getting games for cheap, I think that the little guys who try to adopt this model will only get hurt in the long run, finding that their multiplayer scenes, while perhaps unique and quirky, are insufficient to garner the kind of fanaticism that keeps players coming, meaning that most would simply buy the "trial" multiplayer experience and opt out of upgrading or subscribing.
The model seems good to me, but I think it could have different prices for th full lifetime version, depindg if you bought the cheapest one or the "full" version. Like, for example, the ful game+ lifetime subscription costs $ 100, the full one year version, $ 40 and you pay $60 to upgrade to lifetime, and the cheapest one costing like $20 and a &80 fee to upgrade to lifetime.
So either way it would be $100 for the lifetime version, no matter how you aquired it. Seems fairer to me.
So either way it would be $100 for the lifetime version, no matter how you aquired it. Seems fairer to me.
Ok... I see a lot of people moaning about this and that thing and about the prices being high and all that.
Lets study it for a minute. Game prices on the PC hasn't gone up in over a decade. They have been staying steady at between 50-60$. That is unheard of in any industry. With the average inflation going from index 172.2 to index 217.6 from 2000-2010 (1982-1984 chained = 100). While prices in general rose by about 25% games rose by roughly: Nothing (ok maybe slightly but nowhere near the average). So I think we should stop moaning so much about prices.
Now another thing. As I understand it the model of Russia does not in fact make people who choose the cheaper models pay more if they wish to get the full version of the game. In the original article the number mentioned was "about 30 euro). This number is close to being the exact extra price needed to buy the full game if you bought the cheaper options (Slightly more for the more expensive option and somewhat less for the cheaper one). This makes me think that the actual number is going to be: The amount of money extra you should have spent to get the full version. Whatever has already been spent on subscriptions would not be taken into account I imagine. I think that would get a bit loopy (like figuring out taxes or something). Anyway, my point is this: lets not make this sound like more then it is.
And now on to the three expansion model. It is not the end of the world. It is not (necessarily) a big money griping scheme. You get roughly 30 levels of single player per expansion (and the base game), you get new unites with each expansion, you do not strictly speaking need the expansions to get the full game AND as I understand it the expansions are going to come out at decent intervals. It is no different then a game getting expansions. They just planed them in advance and personally I like it that way. That way the story doesn't have to be crowbarred in. Its something big development companies like Blizzard can afford to do because they know they will be bought.
ok now I got those things cleared up (or at least invited someone else to clear them up better) lets move on to the model. It is a quite good model actually. It is kinda like the opposite of a collectors Edition. Instead of some extra fluff you get less then the complete game but the ability to experience it fully. Then if you need extra time you can buy the subscription and if you like it enough you could get the full game. Someone earlier said that you make more of a profit if you make 1$ in profit of 100,000 than if you made 0,01$ of 1,000,000 people. this is true but you would make even more money if you made 1$ of 100,000 people AND 0,01$ of 900,000 especially if 50,000 of those decided to pay the last 99 cents.
So is this a good model. Well yes for companies like Valve, Bioware or Blizzard who all have huge droves of drooling fans ready to buy anything they come out with (myself included). It is also a good idea if you make really good games. It will not be a good model for bad games or for games selling themselves on the single player parts (or if they don't have any multiplayer parts at all). I am sure that for the latter group the model can be modified to work but again if the game is bad or buggy the model will end up being a lose. It is unlikely that it will be picked up industry-wide and the reason is that the model basically works as profit sharing and companies don't like to share.
Let me explain: Company A, B and C are putting out new games. Lets call them a, b and c. Each of them have this new model to them so a gamer goes out and buys a limited copy of each of them. Now each of the companies has made money for 1/3 of a game. The gamer decides he likes a best and decides to pay the rest of the price. Now company A has earned the profit of a full game while company B and C has earned 1/3. Now lets stop and discuss quality for a moment. If it turns out that of the next 10000 gamers 5000 of them buy a full version of game "a" because it is just better. This won't sit well with company B and C and ultimately they will have lost money to company A for using the new model. So that is the first problem. Now lets move on to hurdle number 2 lets say company C has spent huge sums of money on advertisement. For them a model where the player can test the quality of their game is not a good idea. They want people to buy the game outright based on the advertisement material alone. So company C does not use the new model and opts to use the standard one-game-one-price model. So now the gamer has a choice between 2 test-copies of games and one full game with a huge advertisement campaign behind it. now the astute and thrifty gamer would look at the hyped up game and consider that it would be cheaper later in the year and he will turn to the test-games. The average gamer (namely me.... yes I respond to hype. I am so ashamed) will have a hard time not going directly for the hyped up game. So now game c gets the lions share at 5000 out of 10000. Game a (which is still the "best") gets maybe 3333 and game b gets 1667. So by sticking with the old model Company C has gotten a bigger share of the market. Sure they had to spend more money on advertisement but they doubled their market share.
Now this is all speculation and guesswork with very little fact to it, but we all know the power of hype. Now the model has 2 big things going for it that might make companies look more favourably on it. It is good for consumers and they will remember you for that, and it will probably make some of the piracy into income (maybe not profits but it will limit the "lose"). So if some companies pick it up and start showing some positive numbers it is possible that the rest of the industry (or parts there-off) will be pressured into adopting the model. I however am sceptical.
Lets study it for a minute. Game prices on the PC hasn't gone up in over a decade. They have been staying steady at between 50-60$. That is unheard of in any industry. With the average inflation going from index 172.2 to index 217.6 from 2000-2010 (1982-1984 chained = 100). While prices in general rose by about 25% games rose by roughly: Nothing (ok maybe slightly but nowhere near the average). So I think we should stop moaning so much about prices.
Now another thing. As I understand it the model of Russia does not in fact make people who choose the cheaper models pay more if they wish to get the full version of the game. In the original article the number mentioned was "about 30 euro). This number is close to being the exact extra price needed to buy the full game if you bought the cheaper options (Slightly more for the more expensive option and somewhat less for the cheaper one). This makes me think that the actual number is going to be: The amount of money extra you should have spent to get the full version. Whatever has already been spent on subscriptions would not be taken into account I imagine. I think that would get a bit loopy (like figuring out taxes or something). Anyway, my point is this: lets not make this sound like more then it is.
And now on to the three expansion model. It is not the end of the world. It is not (necessarily) a big money griping scheme. You get roughly 30 levels of single player per expansion (and the base game), you get new unites with each expansion, you do not strictly speaking need the expansions to get the full game AND as I understand it the expansions are going to come out at decent intervals. It is no different then a game getting expansions. They just planed them in advance and personally I like it that way. That way the story doesn't have to be crowbarred in. Its something big development companies like Blizzard can afford to do because they know they will be bought.
ok now I got those things cleared up (or at least invited someone else to clear them up better) lets move on to the model. It is a quite good model actually. It is kinda like the opposite of a collectors Edition. Instead of some extra fluff you get less then the complete game but the ability to experience it fully. Then if you need extra time you can buy the subscription and if you like it enough you could get the full game. Someone earlier said that you make more of a profit if you make 1$ in profit of 100,000 than if you made 0,01$ of 1,000,000 people. this is true but you would make even more money if you made 1$ of 100,000 people AND 0,01$ of 900,000 especially if 50,000 of those decided to pay the last 99 cents.
So is this a good model. Well yes for companies like Valve, Bioware or Blizzard who all have huge droves of drooling fans ready to buy anything they come out with (myself included). It is also a good idea if you make really good games. It will not be a good model for bad games or for games selling themselves on the single player parts (or if they don't have any multiplayer parts at all). I am sure that for the latter group the model can be modified to work but again if the game is bad or buggy the model will end up being a lose. It is unlikely that it will be picked up industry-wide and the reason is that the model basically works as profit sharing and companies don't like to share.
Let me explain: Company A, B and C are putting out new games. Lets call them a, b and c. Each of them have this new model to them so a gamer goes out and buys a limited copy of each of them. Now each of the companies has made money for 1/3 of a game. The gamer decides he likes a best and decides to pay the rest of the price. Now company A has earned the profit of a full game while company B and C has earned 1/3. Now lets stop and discuss quality for a moment. If it turns out that of the next 10000 gamers 5000 of them buy a full version of game "a" because it is just better. This won't sit well with company B and C and ultimately they will have lost money to company A for using the new model. So that is the first problem. Now lets move on to hurdle number 2 lets say company C has spent huge sums of money on advertisement. For them a model where the player can test the quality of their game is not a good idea. They want people to buy the game outright based on the advertisement material alone. So company C does not use the new model and opts to use the standard one-game-one-price model. So now the gamer has a choice between 2 test-copies of games and one full game with a huge advertisement campaign behind it. now the astute and thrifty gamer would look at the hyped up game and consider that it would be cheaper later in the year and he will turn to the test-games. The average gamer (namely me.... yes I respond to hype. I am so ashamed) will have a hard time not going directly for the hyped up game. So now game c gets the lions share at 5000 out of 10000. Game a (which is still the "best") gets maybe 3333 and game b gets 1667. So by sticking with the old model Company C has gotten a bigger share of the market. Sure they had to spend more money on advertisement but they doubled their market share.
Now this is all speculation and guesswork with very little fact to it, but we all know the power of hype. Now the model has 2 big things going for it that might make companies look more favourably on it. It is good for consumers and they will remember you for that, and it will probably make some of the piracy into income (maybe not profits but it will limit the "lose"). So if some companies pick it up and start showing some positive numbers it is possible that the rest of the industry (or parts there-off) will be pressured into adopting the model. I however am sceptical.
I have nothing against expansions. What I object to is leaving the ability to play all three races as part of a complete singleplayer campaign out of the full product. It's basically just cutting out what could already be put in rather than thinking up new content, which is what expansions are supposed to be about. And I'm well aware Blizzard has tried to justify it by claiming that they're crafting an epic story which is too big to fit in one game, but I don't buy it. It seems that Blizzard are determined to gradually siphon out what we can expect to get in a full-priced game, to force countless extra payments for things that were once considered standard.sir.rutthed said:
The model is genius, can't say I've ever actually wasted money on a game I didn't like though. No wait I actually bought DBZ Ultimate Battle 22 for the PS1, game made no fucking sense.
I've already pre ordered my $100 collector's edition at Gamestop, now I just need to hoard my money so I have enough to pay for it.
I've already pre ordered my $100 collector's edition at Gamestop, now I just need to hoard my money so I have enough to pay for it.
Downside of this would be for the company. if their game sucks they won't even get full retail price. Lawl.
Yes this is a GREAT idea. In fact that is the best thing about Dungeons and Dragons Online. There are many options. Play for free to get a taste, pay a sub to see what everything is like. Pay a bit of cash to get some features, pay the equivalent of a couple of months sub price to "own" certain features you think are important to gameplay even if you stop paying the subscription.
$50-60 is simply too much to take a chance on a new game, even with Blizzard behind it. $10-20 makes it an impulse buy.
$50-60 is simply too much to take a chance on a new game, even with Blizzard behind it. $10-20 makes it an impulse buy.
When are developers going to learn that free weekends on Steam are the way to go?
Hell, I'm even thinking about buying MW2 now...
Hell, I'm even thinking about buying MW2 now...
I'm reticent to just say I like this model, but I won't flat out say no to it either. The reason people get uppity about subscriptions is because paying little payments over time means you pay more in the long run. If they can make it so that you pay the same amount in the long run, it doesn't matter how the money gets paid. The subscription model, as we're calling it, will appeal to more casual gamers, yes. But I think it will leave the more experienced gamer who knows what they're buying out in the cold.
I usually ignore multiplayer in games, so a full priced game for much much less than usual is a good idea to me.
I think you need to go back to (Gaming) History class. A new game was NEVER below $50. Ever. Back in the 8-/16-bit days, a new game would run you anywhere from $70-80. Then when the PSX rolled along the prices dropped to $50 for a new game. Mind you that we're talking about the A-list games. Sure a few minor B-list games might have slipped by with a day one price tag of around $40 or maybe lower, but those aren't the games people clamor for.jasoncyrus said:
Also, a new game only costs as much as $100 if you're talking about the collector's edition of said game, which doesn't even count since it's an optional price tag. If you don't want the extra goodies and/or think the price is too high, then buy the basic game at the normal price.
I'm with you on this one.jasoncyrus said:
At the end of the day, all of these varieties of pricing make me automatically suspicious.
I feel like at least one of them will take advantage of the poor guy who changes his mind twenty times - and their mother. Potentially a single mother. And if people suffer as a result of a product or how it's sold, I immediately want to take my funds elsewhere.
So I'll vote with my feet. Blizzard has enough supporters without me buying in on it.