Cost of the game

This is a topic that developed in this thread, and as it was off topic to the thread, I wanted to post it here.

@Spoon said/asked: "In game terms, would you pay $150 for half the game play/features in SotA?
How many do you think would pay that?
Do you think such a price tag would hit the poor player base or the rich player base?"

Well, if you take 26,000 original backers, at $15/mo subscription, for 5 years, you get $23.4 million over 5 years. Right now, we have raised $5.9 million.

The way it's distributed right now, every person who purchased at Ancestor and above level are paying this much per month, for five years and 1 year respectively:

Ancestor - $4.58 - $22.92
Navigator - $6.25 - $31.25
Developer - $7.50 - $37.50
Citizen - $9.16 - $45.83
Edelman (digital) - $9.50 - $47.50
Edelman - $9.58 - $47.92
Knight - $13.33 - $66.67
Knight Marshal - $20.00 - $100.00
Lord - $26.66 - $133.33
Lord Marshal - $36.66 - $183.33
Baron - $53.33 - $266.67
Baron 2 - $61.66 - $308.33
Baron 3 - $63.33 - $316.67
Duke - $88.33 - $441.67
Lord of the Manor - $183.33 - $916.67
Lord of the Manor $200.00 - $1000.00

So you tell me, is the burden of the cost better made by distributing it equally or making the lion's share in the hands of the few? Which will develop a better game?

@Spoon's comment, "I'm saying if we tax the rich at a higher premium we can afford better features/infrastructure for all." does not hold true in the case outlined above.

An equal distribution of expense makes a bigger and better game for everyone.

 

Few things to note.

Kickstarter had 22,322 backers raising $1,919,275. Now assuming monetary distribution was equal and everyone just bought the vanilla copy of the game (no housing or fluffy l337 items), the game would have raised $892,880 and would not have even been kickstarted........it would have failed.

Backers who are prepared to put their hands in their pocket to assist further funding is required, it is required now and it will be required going forward for future episodes.

Would a subscription based model work these days? I would say the answer is no....the number of high profile MMOs that launch and change to a free to play model is shocking. When there is so much choice of games to play, people don't like purchasing a game for 'x' amount and then potentially choosing to play that or another subscription game. If you can play a games for 10 hours a week (40 hours a month), if you just play UO that 40 hours of fun costs you $10. Add FF14 to your machine and your now paying $20 for the 40 hours of fun........and it goes on. You also have to consider if a person is already playing time consuming MMOs, the chances are they will not really want to start another (unless it is seriously slick and shiney with amazing reviews) especially if it is going to cost them more money each month. Free to play in my view is the only way to go.

There are other ways to help funding by creating a voluntary subscription system, almost like a VIP access (discounts from addon-store, monthly rewards, vet reward etc).

 

Actually that's a bit off, the game was funded entitrely by backers without any housing...you have to include the ones that bought the further expansions and up until the housing level.

 

Not really, the point is surrounding pledge tiers and pointing out the relevance of making the more expensive tiers more attractive by offering things like housing. The basic pledge (adventurer) was $40, if that is all what all the backers had spent then the game would not have been funded.

 

There were many pledges that didn't include housing that with the 40 dollar pledges got the game funded. The housing ones added gravy to it and brought a lot of money in as well. The housing ones did not come into it until 450...I did a big post on it back after the kickstarter to break down the money earned, more overall was earned by non housing.

 

I'm not talking about housing, I'm talking about items that encouraged players to put more money into the game (housing is just an example). The fact still remains that if the game had gone down a route of a basic purchase model of $40 followed by a subscription fee.......the game technically would not have hit the required kickstarter amount.

 

I'll always be fond of the subscription model even though SoTA won't have it. I think $15 a month is cheap entertainment and well worth a subscription if I plan to play the mmo for years.

I'll just never be able to understand how someone can spend hundreds to thousands of dollars each year on games for xbox/PS/steam to play once, beat the game, and throw it to the side, but think $15 a month is outrageous

 

This has all been discussed before . There is a spreadsheet in Dev+ that shows the appropriations of each tier and the percentage per tier of donations. I cannot share it here but I will say that the higher levels have funded most of the game if you want to go individual/donation.
So what is the point of this thread? Pure speculation on what would have happened? Its a moot point if one thinks that there might be a subscription in the future.
"Shroud of the Avatar is a “buy-to-play” game that, once purchased, does not require a subscription to play! " -
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/portalarium/shroud-of-the-avatar-forsaken-virtues-0

 

Subscription games don't work these days because most players are quick, want a quick game and they're onto the next. Most people don't play any game beyond 3 months. If it takes longer than 40-80 hours to do the main questline, people get bored.

If you're going to use the present times as a reason subscriptions "don't work" you also have to factor in if anyone will even want to play the game longer than 3-6 months at most. Most don't. So the reason to stay in a game must be extremely compelling. Locking people out of game features is not compelling.

 

It's not speculation. The facts are in the numbers. The speculation part is if anyone will even play the game a full year. And if not, they are paying the premium price to play it.

If they had offered a tier where everyone could buy a house at a $50 range (an apartment or shared building), I'd bet you'd see a lot more people who backed it. More people = more revenue. There will always be the "10%" who back at a higher level. But if you distribute it over a larger base, you will make more money than relying on people with deep pockets.

 

Might be true for single player games. Certainly not true for online gaming, take games like Destiny, CoD, Counterstrike etc......I know people who spend 40 hours a week doing the same repetitive process.

 

For the record, I don't think SotA should be subscription based. But Runescape has been extremely successful at a true F2P model, no original cost of the game, and it's browser based. If you want more features, bank space, etc, you pay $5/mo. And people do it. They could have done the same, or similar, with Shroud - and had more housing. But they decided to limit housing and all the other things.

You're right, it's a moot point to discuss subscriptions. But the point being, and the only real point being, distributing a lower cost to a larger base is always better for a game development.

 

In what age group? Because I assure you, kids who did not grow up with Ultima Online, and are teens and young adults, will have no longevity.

 

Aye, I think they have and are missing out on large revenue by not have offered a low cost tier with apartment type housing. I think it would have and still would help to make a boatload more money to help fund the game.

 

Again, you are speculating. You do not know this as fact. " I'd bet you'd see a lot more people who backed it" - speculation.
"If it takes longer than 40-80 hours to do the main quest line, people get bored." - speculation
"Subscription games don't work these days because most players are quick, want a quick game and they're onto the next." - speculation
I am pretty sure that Portelarium has a business model and they know the target goals of the business they run. The fact is that they went to the kickstarter to get funding and people did willingly donate to the tiers they wanted. Some people on the avarage will pay less than the "$15" per month and some will pay more. Its all up to the individual choice of the person donating. I do not understand what your intent of this thread is? What are you trying to accomplish here? Do you want the Devs to put a subscription model in? Or are you ranting on what has already transpired and is in the past?

 

I see a lot of MMOs going free to play. Good luck getting that $15 a month over that time period for that number of players.

 

Personally, I played Ultima 1 through the last one... I can't remember the name. So, I've played them all plus 17 years of Ultima online... Granted, much of that time I didn't actually "play" the game. I would log in maybe once a week to check out my house and then log out.

Kids like Call of Duty these days. They don't really like to decorate an online home.

 

First off, I'm not ranting. I don't think my OP is a rant. It's an explanation about how distribution of payments leads to more money, not less. It illustrates how the big spenders do not contribute to the longevity of a game. It's nothing more than food for thought.

 

We don't know yet if Shroud has a good business model. It's too soon to tell. Every company has a business model. What worked in one generation may flop in the next. Just look at subscription based games.

The same can be said about games that hope to maintain a player base for more than a year. It was an age that has come and gone. I don't think there's any going back. Yes, that's speculation. But judging the young people I play Assassin's Creed Unity with (I'm in a Gold ranking Club), most don't have the patience to do anything other than kill everything as quick as they can, get bored, and leave the game after making their desired achievements. And this is not a subscription based game. It was a one time fee.

The attention span of people these days is getting shorter, and there have been studies about this. The folks who work in advertising know they have 5-10 seconds to catch someone's attention. And within those seconds are chopped up cutscenes that switch faster than they did 10, 20 or more years ago. And it's always changing.

 

What are you suggesting, exactly? I don't really understand the point you're trying to make.