Green Monster Games - Curt Schilling

Eh, I have no problem with the fee if it"s justified by timely patches (WoW is too slow) and good content updates.

I say just make it enticing enough to make people only play your game. Hit that casual market hard with tons of fun solo and small group content, lots of side things to do, etc. If you look at it, WoW isn"t currently offering those casual players all that much beyond endless badge farming and repetitive dailies once they hit 70. Most seem to create alts because the leveling content is more fun.

Grave said:

Eh, I have no problem with the fee if it"s justified by timely patches (WoW is too slow) and good content updates.

I say just make it enticing enough to make people only play your game. Hit that casual market hard with tons of fun solo and small group content, lots of side things to do, etc. If you look at it, WoW isn"t currently offering those casual players all that much beyond endless badge farming and repetitive dailies once they hit 70. Most seem to create alts because the leveling content is more fun.

Click to expand...

I don"t think anyone here has a problem with paying a fee, but we aren"t the mass market, and they don"t like to pay fees. I just don"t see a reason to not have some sort of free client in the future. It seems to me that the potential player base would just be exponentially expanded.

Just make a really awesome trial server. Free unlimited access and level cap of 15.

Trial server would only consist of a few zones, one of which is an awesome solo instance that shows off their scripted encounters. Give em a taste of how the game plays, let them play there as long as they want, and then if they want to purchase the game and pay a fee, they get a free transfer off the trial server to a live server.

No gold spamming retards on our live servers, and allows them to tailor the content to make it enticing to someone who is unsure of the game.

Sure it doesn"t answer the basic problem you bring up, that most people don"t want to pay the fees, but I think it would sway more than a few people in that direction.

EVE"s "free" play is clever; it harnesses the RMT market to actually do something nice for players.

How does it work exactly? I didn"t even know about it.

Grave said:

How does it work exactly? I didn"t even know about it.

Click to expand...

Well, you can buy timecards with cash at the usual rate at different retailers, like 15 bucks for a one-month timecard with a unique code on it that you enter. Then, CCP makes a barter forum and secure web interface (scam-proof, and you can use it even if your account is inactive) for folks to legally buy and sell time codes with isk (in-game currency.)

So if you want to pay for your account with isk, you can just buy time codes at the going rate from someone who wants to buy 15 bucks worth of your isk. It"s convenient for both parties, and CCP doesn"t mind, since even if you aren"t paying cash to them for your subscription, someone is paying it for you.

(Meanwhile, they are pretty heavy-handed about policing ebayed currency - they ban the seller and just delete it from the buyer"s wallet -- so people are definitely encouraged to do it their way.)

Not just that it encourages people to do it their way, people just prefer and trust more official setup then the black market way of doing it. I"m sure the amount of isk you can buy for is greater then you can get from trading in time card, but its less hassle, no risk, and perfectly legitimate.


And I disagree with the argument that people here don"t object to the monthly fee. For one or two games that might be true, but I think there"s very few people who maintain subscriptions more then that, ignoring bulk deals like sony station.


Is it finally time that timed payment is viable? pay $15 for 100 hours play time, doesn"t expire, so you can play as much or as little as you want?

Faille said:

Not just that it encourages people to do it their way, people just prefer and trust more official setup then the black market way of doing it. I"m sure the amount of isk you can buy for is greater then you can get from trading in time card, but its less hassle, no risk, and perfectly legitimate.


And I disagree with the argument that people here don"t object to the monthly fee. For one or two games that might be true, but I think there"s very few people who maintain subscriptions more then that, ignoring bulk deals like sony station.


Is it finally time that timed payment is viable? pay $15 for 100 hours play time, doesn"t expire, so you can play as much or as little as you want?

Click to expand...

Well, I think anyone here is far more likely to be willing to pay a sub fee than your average joe. We"ve all been doing it for almost a decade or even longer now, it"s expected. Of course, when you get into 2-3 MMO"s, that"s a different story all together.

All these other ways to get around sub fees are just don"t seem worth it. I think ads have proven to be a viable income generator, so why not just go for it and put out a free client and a pay client. All this other stuff seems more complicated and they don"t even completely eliminate a fee. If people are willing to watch a 10-20 second commercial just to watch a 2 minute video clip, I don"t think anyone would have a problem with the same thing for hours of game time. For those who really don"t want that hassle though, charge the normal fee that virtually every other MMO charges and everyone wins.

The only alternate payment scheme that I"ve read about that I"ve liked is the idea of premium content (I think discussed in one of SOE"s new offerings). Basically only paying for the content you play. Take WoW, as an example, Blizz could charge $9.99/m for the basic game (no Arenas/BG or Raid). It could then offer three premium subscrptions: Arena/BG ($2.99), Raid ($2.99) or both Arenas/Raid ($4.99).

Nothing like that will ever happen. You aren"t going to attract raiders that will play for $13 who won"t play for $15. Same for PvPers. No one is going to say "$13 sounds good but $15 is just too much!".

It creates far more headaches than it"s worth.

Flat fees, access to all content. Net neutrality plzthx.

Twobit Whore said:

Nothing like that will ever happen. You aren"t going to attract raiders that will play for $13 who won"t play for $15. Same for PvPers. No one is going to say "$13 sounds good but $15 is just too much!".

It creates far more headaches than it"s worth.

Flat fees, access to all content. Net neutrality plzthx.

Click to expand...

Can"t swear to the accuracy, but heard an analyst say GTA4 has earned over $500 million so far. Not a MMO, but damn that is some serious money.

Anyone here going to Comicon? While I was hoping for us to unveil the whole shebang, I am pretty sure that just won"t happen However I"d like to say hello to anyone that happens to post here and is stopping by.

I"ll come by and say hello. Should I rock my emo rage fatigues or business casual?

Blackulaa said:

I"ll come by and say hello. Should I rock my emo rage fatigues or business casual?

Click to expand...

Emo rage all the way. And please don"t forget to post your pic with Curt. On a side note, any update on the status of the new site Mr. Schilling?

tad10 said:

Blizz could charge $9.99/m for the basic game (no Arenas/BG or Raid). It could then offer three premium subscrptions: Arena/BG ($2.99), Raid ($2.99) or both Arenas/Raid ($4.99).

Click to expand...

For me that makes sense, but I would include BG"s as part of the basic fee, and instead leave Arena and Raid as premium options. My reasoning is both raiding and arenas require preparation and effort on the player"s part to pursue them. Be it creating a team or joining a raiding guild. You"re not likely to find yourself in a 25 man raid out of the blue, for example. BG"s on the other hand are accessible to players throughout most of the game and are quite easy to do when you please so it would be better to include them as part of the core game.

The premium content should really be for things that the player has to decide if he wants to participate in them or not. If I want to play Arena I just purchase the premium content pack for it. Likewise, if raiding is important to me. At least, that"s how I view it as a player.

I"m sure marketing-wise it would be better to include BG"s with Arenas, thus forcing me to pay more even if I"m only eligible for part of what I"m paying. Similarly I can see them luring people into buying the raid pack with the 10 man instances as part of the raid pack, when there"s a vast difference between 10-man and 25-man.

Honestly, the more micro they go the better. That way I could pay for 10 man content, but not feel like I"m being cheated into paying for 25-man, 40-man content, which I know I won"t be doing. Because once you start giving people the option to pay less, yet force them to pay more through "clever" marketing then you"re more likely to piss people off. At that point you"re better off with a flat fee.

I don"t understand why Blizzard, as a company, would embrace different payment options like that. Consider:

- It makes no difference to Blizzard"s bottom line whether you play BGs, arenas, raids, or just go farm gold. The only things they care about is whether you"re subscribed and perhaps whether you"re logged on using their server resources.

- As a result, if a person whowould havepaid $15/month for the full game isinsteadpaying $10/month for some subset of content, Blizzard is strictly losing money. If you, Maleficence, are a current WoW subscriber, and they implement these options, they are going to be losing money on your subscription, even though you might be pleased with it.

- Blizzard"s product loses some value to subscribers under this model, since MMORPGs are massively multiplayer; in general, the more people who are there, the more fun it is (better BG/arena matchups and less waiting, more competition, more people participating in the community.)

- Blizzard also has to do extra work to manage people"s subscriptions and manage their access to different content. There are some game design questions here and there that would need to be answered about how to restrict people"s access.

- In return for these three drawbacks, Blizzard gets $10/month (e.g.) partial subscriptions from some subset of people who wouldn"t pay $15/month for the full game.

I don"t think that the category of people described who would spring for partial subscriptions really is large enough for it to make business sense.

There is also an added question of "fairness" that might discourage some people. A lot of folks, like TBW above, have an old-fashioned feeling, that games ought to start players on as close-to-a-level playing field as possible. Although RMT and the mainstreaming of MMOs has killed a lot of this feeling -- a lot of people would say it"s a silly and misleading idea to begin with -- others really still don"t like the idea of people unlocking in-game things by paying more or less money.

Fog said:

I don"t understand why Blizzard, as a company, would embrace different payment options like that.

Click to expand...

Honestly, I can"t really see much benefit for them either given their status and current market share. It would benefit me, as given my play habit I"d end up paying less, but the difference is obviously not big enough that I can"t afford the current fee.

It might make sense for a new MMO though. They might try to entice customers with a lower price-point while still offering a similar feature set, while offering the possibility of a more complete feature set for a higher (but still comparable to other MMOs) price. However, as one of your points stated, the cost to the company remains the same whether the player is using arena/bg/instance/zone to play in, bandwidth, server-time are all still being used, and lowering the price reduces the margins.

Maleficence said:

It might make sense for a new MMO though. They might try to entice customers with a lower price-point while still offering a similar feature set, while offering the possibility of a more complete feature set for a higher (but still comparable to other MMOs) price.

Click to expand...

Maybe, but I think that MMORPGs are really in their infancy, and as a result the difference between the good ones and bad ones in terms of quality is so huge that nobody is making decisions based on price. In my (limited) experience, people play the good games, and they play what their friends are playing, whether it happens to cost $5, $10, or $15/month. Payment options are a really ancillary concern.

Regarding your suggestion specifically, you wonder if they wouldn"t do better just charging everyone for the "premium" feature set if they"re going to bother implementing the "premium" features in the first place.

As many Korean "free play" MMORPGs have discovered, you can sell items and gold to players in MMOs easily, since it takes near-zero effort to make new items and gold for them to buy. Selling content and features is, I suspect, murkier in a business sense.