It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
I have been reading through a few posts this afternoon and it got me thinking. The upfront investment, even on a cash shop based game, is becoming more of a goal for developers. Guild Wars 2, the most recent AAA title of this kind, is a $60 dollar purchase.
(By the way, before continuing on, I am actively playing GW2 and have nothing against the game).
What scares me about this is - there is the possibility that developers will begin to build games BASED on the knowledge that initial sales could be high, but with low retention. Something akin to the SWTOR experience, but doing it on purpose to make a quick years worth of profits.
Now I don't think people are always intentionally cynical, but I could see some big name developers changing their mindset to "MMO's last about 1 year, so lets build high box price, cash shop, quick turn around games". This scares me - community and good games are built over years, in my opinion.
I think I would be thrilled to see a game launch that had no box price, but simply some monthly fee from the get go.
Comments
The cost of entry has been an issue from back in the paying per hour days of AOL/TSN. It's often a natural overreaction to think games will try to get away with something. But is it really getting away with something or trying to give the least amount of game for the development costs? The problem with those cheapskate SOBs who want to avoid paying is that eventually they will get what they pay for.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
Launching with no box price wouldn't work because if you had to still pay the sub fee, you'd be paying only $15.00 or whatever for the sub and when the content is completed within a month, which appears to be the new average, the developer wouldn't have made much. I think developers already have it in their head that their games are short. I don't get to play too often and I beat SWTOR, DCUO, TSW and others within a month. And by beat, I mean reaching the end game content (but I refuse to repeat if over and over lol).
So with that said, it would be nice, but very few devs (or the ones in charge perhaps) care about longevity.
Aye - this is what scares me - the trend is already happening. Developers may start assuming their games won't have longevity - and that is a very bad thing IMHO.
I am not so much arguing that people are trying to get away with something. I am more concerned that it will become the "norm" for an MMO to sell much like a non MMO. That is to say, to have box sales account for most of profit and have the game only standing for a year or two. I don't want to see this happen.
And my point is not that they shouldn't exist - but it concerns me that the model for developers can lead to an assumption that a "successful MMO" only needs to last for 12 months or some such figure, as profit is mostly driven by box sales.
Was just going to make the same response.
EQ did not cost $19.99 when it came out.
WoW(vanilla) was a $50-$60 cost at release as well.
Your premise is flawed because your data is flawed OP.
Games have been at the $50-$60 pricepoint for quite awhile. The industry has really seen no change in that pricepoint since it's inception, or at a minimum since EQ, and AC1 released. I don't recall the UO release price but I'm pretty sure it was <$50.
Einherjar_LC says: WTB the true successor to UO or Asheron's Call pst!
Where are you getting your data from? I am pulling mine from memory - I am still scouring the web right now, as I don't know for sure the prices.
Thoughts on where we could find this?
What you're saying is that you want to walk into a store and pick up a box that takes up space in a retail store who could be using that space to actually sell something for a profit.
Then when you get home you want to install the game onto your system, go through the registration process and then be told you need to pay $15.00 in order to play.
That box price includes the first months subscription payment. It also includes the cost of ordering, shipping, inventorying, displaying and storing (+ profit) for the store where you pick that box up at.
No - box price doesn't mean I literally want a box. Charge all you want for the physical copy. I download games, and so does a large portion of the world.
When I said box price, I mean the initial price of purchasing the software, whether or not it has a subscription.
The initial purchase price includes the first months subscription. You want to play for free.
Oh my good grief. I don't know if english isn't your first language, or if you are intentionally riling me up, but let me break this down for you:
I am merely posing the question that perhaps initial purchase price of some games is a bad concept due to the short term existance it could create in the MMORPG space. I don't a free box, I don't want to play for free.
Thank you. This is useful data. I will edit the other post and give credit were credit is due.
Now, a bit more back on topic... does the "high box sale focus" cause problems for MMORPGs, or do you think developers will still build for the long run?
I have to imagine Blizzard built WoW hoping it would last for years if not decades. Do you think SWTOR was built with the same mentality? Do you think games in the next few years will be?
*when I say games, I mean specifically MMO games.
The why don't you want to pay for the 'box'. You want to play for free.
Ok - I am 99% confident at this point your flaming me, but i'll try one more time here to explain this:
I am suggesting, that high box sales, such as 2 million copies of a $60 dollar game, may promote a dis-interest in longevity from developers. Meaning, that development companies may lean toward writing games that have very high appeal for purchase, with the intent to operate those games for one or two years.
I am proposing that this is a bad thing, because it could create an industry standard life-time of an MMO that few don't follow. Furthermore, I am proposing that perhaps a subscription based model, with no box cost, would promote the opposite (i.e. would promote longevity). In this system, the first month would obviously not be free.
How much of that $60.00 do you think the developers actually get for their product in the box; that first months subscription? By the time they get their cut it /might/ be $15.00. Publishers, advertisers and retailers want their piece of that $60.00 pie.
If you don't want to pay that much then wait 'til it drops to $40.00 or $20.00. I do.
EQ2 vent there after a while, if you played the trial you could just sub.
But yes, the model do work since most income a P2P game have is from monthly fees anyways.
Oh, and that have already happened. Star trek online had all sorts of scams before launch including tricking loads of people to get lifetime subs. Cryptic/Atari made the game in 18 months and didnt even bother to include any story whatsoever for one of the races (klingons).
But frankly do all MMOs get a free week trial a while after launch, anyone complaining that they couldnt try any game before buying it have themselves to blame since they had to buy the game at launchdate.
Still, your model would work fine for a fun game.
Yeah, that is just crap. Few devs would make a game they didnt thought would work great long term. Do you actually think a company would dare such a gamble?
Because it might work once, particularly if the game is a sequel to a popular game but it would kill off your company totally. If you totally screw your players over whatever you sell next will fail harder than K-Feds rap career.
What has changed is the sheer number of box sales that are possible. EverQuet was considered a MASSIVE success and it didn't see anywhere remotely near what SWTOR and GW2 launches did. When you can aim for multiple millions of up front box sales - you can start to play a different game.
And to another poster - its the same gamble as trying to make a longevity based game - in both cases you are aiming to make a profit - one way is more of a short term game with quick turn around, the other is a long term approach, but both could provide profitable.
Just to clarify - I am not suggesting that developers would purposefully be screwing over gamers.
I am suggesting that the MMO sub genre might trend toward the same financial model of, say, Xbox games. In that model, box sales turn the profit, and you expect the game to be played for a "short" time (where short is subjective, anywhere from 1 month to a few years).