Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Subscription & You

    • 147 posts
    August 15, 2016 4:56 PM PDT

    What would you be able or willing to pay for a monthly subscription for Pantheon.

    I dont think sub rates for MMO games went over $15.00 a month, that should be a base. All sub revenue model games also offered discounts for buying longer subscriptions, that is always posable. There would be expansions that you may want to buy for new content, consider that also.

    For me it would be $25.00 a month and be adjusted down by length of the subscription.  

    Thats a fair price for the enterainment value to me anyway.

     


    This post was edited by Obliquity at August 16, 2016 11:34 AM PDT
    • 409 posts
    August 15, 2016 6:05 PM PDT

    I reckon they should have a base subscription as you say.  But I'd be willing to pay extra; like a voluntary subscription (with no extra entitlements/benefits).
    I'd be willing to go up to $60 a month.. after that I don't think I could afford it really or rather my lifestyle would be affected at that point.. so I'd rather not go past that.. but if I had to I would.

    • 393 posts
    August 15, 2016 7:16 PM PDT

    I'd likely max out around $30 a month. I'd be flexible depending on the overall experience though.

    • 1399 posts
    August 15, 2016 10:52 PM PDT

    My wife will insist on an account so she can play with me when she rarely logs in.. so any amount I'm going to need to double $20 each would be tops. And that might be pushing it

    • 839 posts
    August 16, 2016 12:34 AM PDT

    My closed eyes expectations for most MMO subs is to be $15-$20 but given the nische i understand that more may be required especially as things get ironed out in the 1st year and there is a lot of "patch up" work going on (hopefully not too much though!).  With our curerent US to AUD (Australian) exchange $60 = about $90 so that is way outta the ballpark i would think but your willingness for that level of contribution is pretty bloody awesome mate!  I would say fair call at about $25 while there is a extra work to be done early on but to be honest i just dont know of the upkeep costs for this kind of thing. 

     I guess they have to find the balance to make it afffordable enough for the average punters but at the same time keepign it high enough to pay wages / upkeep servers / marketing bills & keep investors happy based on initial launch interest. It will be a tricky balancing act as affordable but profitable fees in small business always are, but with mature players there is likely to be the capactity to pay a bit extra. I would expect that they will want to try and be as inclusive as possible of all gaming walks of life regarding ranging financial situations (especially at the beginning when they are trying to entice people to move from the FTP levels to full subs) and I guess probably will do best to have it sitting between $15-$20.

    The wonderful thing this game has going for it regarding growing numbers is as new players join they are going to actively want to enlist their RL friends and family as the game is best played with groups, so even if the initial numbers are lower the population themselves will be seeking to entice their friends into the world so their experience is better as well, there may be a initial difficult period at launch with a nische market but with loyal soldiers trying to grow their local player population to benefit their own enjoyability this will be in the favour of VR!  Maybe a free month of sub gametime to those who have been reccomended by a current sub'd player could be a good organic marketing tool.


    This post was edited by Hokanu at August 16, 2016 12:34 AM PDT
    • 563 posts
    August 16, 2016 12:52 AM PDT

    I think having the sub at around $15-20 USD would be the best, I can see a lot of people not wanting to pay more and Pantheon may miss out on a lot of subs if it was higher.

    Like Nimryl said, it would be nice to maybe have the option to pay more (not for anything extra, just to help support the game and the developers more). Maybe I have more money one month and feel like giving a bit more to help support.


    This post was edited by Rachael at August 16, 2016 12:53 AM PDT
    • 105 posts
    August 16, 2016 3:08 AM PDT

    £20 a month to start with, if as the game progressed they needed to up that in order to to keep it running then as long as the game is as good as we hope it will be I would happily pay more.

    • 763 posts
    August 16, 2016 3:50 AM PDT

    1. Is there likely to be a 'Box + 1 month sub' entry to the game?

    If the game is likely to be 'free until level 10' it seems unlikely that they will charge for the 'box'.

    so, NO

    2. How much will a monthly Sub be?

    I would imagine it will be between:

    20-25 USD                 (US dollars)

    15-20 GBP                 (Pounds Sterling)

    20,000-25,000 AUD    (thats right isnt it?)

    200-250 CAD             (will need a Canuck to check that)

    3. I imagine a '3-month block', '6-month block' or '1 year monthsly Direct-Debit' option willl be available.

    Also imagine 'pay for whole year in advance' for less $$$ than if you pay monthly will be available.

    • 9115 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:01 AM PDT

    As much as I love the reasons behind this discussion, we have had it before and our answer has not changed, we will be opting for somewhere around the regular subscription fee price that you would typically expect with any AAA MMORPG for many reasons, but one of the most important is, what could we reasonably charge over another AAA game that has spent $500,000,000 on their title?

    Fictional Example: If ESO spends half a billion dollars on their MMORPG and we spend 10 million (for arguments sake a made up number) how can we justify charging our community and anyone that plays our game more money than the industry standard, what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

    The answer is more complicated than you think but it is not something we are considering at this time, we have publicly stated that we will be sticking to a relatively normal and expected monthly subscription fee for Pantheon, there has been talk within the community of charging for a premium server(s) but this is something we are not completely sold on either as it splits the community up and again, there would need to be a reason to charge more for certain servers. :)

    I just wanted to jump in and let you know this before the thread became as long as the last one! You are free to discuss this as much as you like but keeping in mind what our answer is on the subject. ;)

    • 9115 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:01 AM PDT

    Evoras said:

    1. Is there likely to be a 'Box + 1 month sub' entry to the game?

    If the game is likely to be 'free until level 10' it seems unlikely that they will charge for the 'box'.

    so, NO

    2. How much will a monthly Sub be?

    I would imagine it will be between:

    20-25 USD                 (US dollars)

    15-20 GBP                 (Pounds Sterling)

    20,000-25,000 AUD    (thats right isnt it?)

    200-250 CAD             (will need a Canuck to check that)

    3. I imagine a '3-month block', '6-month block' or '1 year monthsly Direct-Debit' option willl be available.

    Also imagine 'pay for whole year in advance' for less $$$ than if you pay monthly will be available.

    Your conversion rates look accurate to me lol ;)

    • 432 posts
    August 16, 2016 8:29 AM PDT

    Kilsin said:


    Fictional Example: If ESO spends half a billion dollars on their MMORPG and we spend 10 million (for arguments sake a made up number) how can we justify charging our community and anyone that plays our game more money than the industry standard, what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

     

    Well there is a rationnal answer on this one and it is that niche products and mass products can be compared neither in quality nor in price because they adress 2 different marketing segments .

    The former focuses on specific needs while the latter focuses on market share .

    For that reason and by definition, the unit cost (and the unit selling price derived from it) is always much lower for the latter than for the former .

    What Pantheon promises that TESO didn't ? It's written in Pantheon tenets .

    So if Pantheon delivers what it promises and hits the customers it is aiming for, then it is (for THESE customers) worth much more than TESO regardless whether TESO invested 1 million or 1 billion .

     

    As a matter of fact EQ is proving the point in a much more dramatic way - the live server is F2P while you have to pay to play on a progression server. Yet it is the SAME game ! The overwhelming success of the progression servers at least for the first expansions shows that there is a very large number of players who are ready to pay for a content 17 years old because it gives them a quality that the new live content doesn't give anymore . You have here the apparent paradox you mentionned in its full glory .

    There is money invested in the live servers , in the expansions and development yet the old content that needs hundreds time less investment is sold infinitely (because 15/0 = infinity) more than the new content . This is what success in delivering a niche product and being right about the niche customers always does for you :)

    Of course if what is initially thought as niche product degenerates during development in a wanna be mass product targeting customers well beyond the initial target (because some people always say "Ah we should add that because category X likes things like that. And we should remove that because category Y hates things like that .") then then the failure is practically sure .

     

    What stays is the classical psychological barriers even if they are much weaker for a niche product than for a mass product .

    Actually I am paying 29.97 $ for 3 months on Lotro . I am doing it more to help the game than because it is necessary but it is under the magical 10$/month limit .

    For Pantheon I could go to 59,99 $ for 3 months which stays below the other less magical limit 20$/month .

    I am pretty sure that when the marketing people and investors will start to study (argue :)) this issue they will finish with the same ball park : 15 - 25 for 1 month and 40 - 70 for 3 months .

    • 793 posts
    August 16, 2016 8:38 AM PDT

    Count me in the $15-$20 range.

    That said, if my time to play is sufficient, and the game provides me entertainment, I would be willing to pay slightly more. Sadly, I sometimes have to go a week or 2 where I do not have the time to log in, and then that factors into whether I am getting enough playtime out of my investment. While that is my problem, I am sure there are many others where cost vs entertainment fully comes into play, and tie that into monetary responsibilites and budget constraints, and you are left with finding that magic spot where you can serve the customers who love what you produce, but are restricted by costs, and those who would send you their first born child. :)

     

    • 510 posts
    August 16, 2016 9:49 AM PDT

    To really answer this question we need to get a little Shakespearian in thought.  To thine own self be true.

    Those "other" AAA companies have a game.  Their target audience is "anyone with mom and dads credit card".  Thusly, they create a game that is WAY too simplistic for any of us.  However it also targets these kids using mom and dads credit cards.  Their target audience is around 25 million users.  At $15 a pop on a monthy basis?  That's a lot of potato chips.

     

    THIS endeavor is an MMORPG for the older kids (I just turned 49).  It seems the target audience for this title is for people who actually enjoy a challenge and a game that is WAY more in-depth than what is out there now.  Sadly, the target audience is also WAY smaller in number.  I won't speculate ont he actual total.  All I know is when we were getting ready to release EQ2 I was invited to the beta and began playin in late July/Early August of 2004.  It was the exact same time I was invited to the WoW beta.  So I co-beta'd both titles.  I played a Hunter in WoW and leveled him up 1 level.  I then logged out and played a Ranger in EQ2 etc.  I took both to 25 then swapped over to a wizard/Illusionist and did the same thing.  At the end of the beta (besides the work I actually did as a TESTER) I determined that EQ2 was a LOT more in-depth and more akin to what I wanted to see in a game.  It was difficult - but doable.  I loved it and chose to go with that title over WoW.  All my friends at work decided to go the other way.  This was about a 35 to 1 split in our little group.

    They lasted about 4 years and I lasted 12.  It is true that eventually whomever was in charge over at Sony decided that EQ2 needed to be just like WoW in simplicity and the game became NOT EQ2 in any way.  I kept my sub and would log in for about 2 or 3 weeks at a time before logging off for a month or two.  Still, the numbers didn't lie.  The target audience for WoW was far greater than EQ2.  BUT.  It is important for us to not view this as WoW beating EQ2.  There was no competition.  It is important to realize that the real goal for the company is "Did you make the targetted financial goal?".

    When a compnay decides to make the investment of building a title like this they have a targetted goal of financial return (ROI, or return on investment).  When getting ready to launch they need as many subs as possible to show the investors that there is great interest in the title and that projected goals created by  subs x time x price per unit will in fact, match or exceed those goals.  So we get to debates like this one.  We need to inflate those numbers as high as possible to keep the game going and keep the company  productive.  How do we do it?

     

    More subs?  In order to do so we have to make the title more simple to play.  I hate saying that.  I hated WoW - not just because it was too easy but because EQ2 to become more easy.  On the other hand - that is a very lucrative target audience.  They have a lot of cash to burn.

    Price per unit?  That is what we are discussing here.  Not just the initial BUY price (which helps with the initial development of the title) but the price per month to play.  Again, there seems to be an accepted cost of around $15 USD per month.  If we charge more, then the overall number of subs will drop.  It becomes some very fuzzy math when you start trying to predict certain aspects of the target audience.  I think that after 15 years of mass market appeal for gaming that the audience really would be OK with a little inflation.  At the same time we need to take into account certain levels of psychological aspects.  Therefore I would say increase the price to $19.99 (hey - it's STILL less than $20 a month, right?), but be prepared to drop it back down to $17.99 if neccessary to "bargain" price some of the targetted audience back to the game.

    time? - Ah - there it is.  THIS is determined by one thing only.  The amount of time that a game lasts is entirely dependant upon the DevTeam.  How well they do and how well they KEEP on doing it will determine hol long this title lasts.  With any luck, this will be the last game I ever play.  I would like to see these guys break all kinds of longevity records.

     

    TLDR?  $19.99

    • 116 posts
    August 16, 2016 10:55 AM PDT

    Personally, I am comfortable buying "the box" and a monthly sub of up to 20.00 a month. It would be great to get a price break per month if we subbed for lets say 6 mos. or a year.

    • 147 posts
    August 16, 2016 11:36 AM PDT

    Kilsin said:

     what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

    A better product and customer support : )

    • 383 posts
    August 16, 2016 12:57 PM PDT

    Deadshade/Nephretiti, I think you're both spot on with your posts, thank you both for taking the time to write them.

    I would add something even simpler.... ESO is not anything like EQ1. From what I can find on the web, there isn't one game out right now that is appealing to the same people that are looking for a game like EQ1. If there was I bet that almost everyone one of us on these forums would be playing it, as I know for sure my wife and I certainly would be.

    They all seem to me like solo chat rooms(that no one uses to chat) that provide a means to zerg to max level and provide no means to form a real community or attachment to the game.

    With that said, my wife and I aren't rich, though we are well off and we would be willing to pay a rather large sum of money a month that would be unreasonable to most just to have an option of a game like this. That's if the dev team holds true to it's tenants.

    • 112 posts
    August 16, 2016 1:11 PM PDT

    Obliquity said:

    Kilsin said:

     what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

    A better product and customer support : )

    well said and a good point. target audience is as important as market.

    better quality = people willing to pay for it.

    people that want the Mcdonalds experience, sate my immediate hunger, give it to me NOW - cant justify spending more than $1 on a burger. people that want/know quality, will readily spend much more than that for something better.

     

    • 147 posts
    August 16, 2016 2:06 PM PDT

    werzul said:

    Obliquity said:

    Kilsin said:

     what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

    A better product and customer support : )

    well said and a good point. target audience is as important as market.

    better quality = people willing to pay for it.

    people that want the Mcdonalds experience, sate my immediate hunger, give it to me NOW - cant justify spending more than $1 on a burger. people that want/know quality, will readily spend much more than that for something better.

     

     

    Like the old saying " You get what you pay for" : )

    • 781 posts
    August 16, 2016 2:10 PM PDT

    Kilsin said:

    As much as I love the reasons behind this discussion, we have had it before and our answer has not changed, we will be opting for somewhere around the regular subscription fee price that you would typically expect with any AAA MMORPG for many reasons, but one of the most important is, what could we reasonably charge over another AAA game that has spent $500,000,000 on their title?

    Fictional Example: If ESO spends half a billion dollars on their MMORPG and we spend 10 million (for arguments sake a made up number) how can we justify charging our community and anyone that plays our game more money than the industry standard, what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

    The answer is more complicated than you think but it is not something we are considering at this time, we have publicly stated that we will be sticking to a relatively normal and expected monthly subscription fee for Pantheon, there has been talk within the community of charging for a premium server(s) but this is something we are not completely sold on either as it splits the community up and again, there would need to be a reason to charge more for certain servers. :)

    I just wanted to jump in and let you know this before the thread became as long as the last one! You are free to discuss this as much as you like but keeping in mind what our answer is on the subject. ;)

     

    Awesome response Kilsin.  Very well said.

    • 363 posts
    August 16, 2016 3:41 PM PDT

    I would pay $15 to$20 a month for a sub, no more. I kinda wish the team wasn't going the route of "free until level 10," but I also understand that it might entice more players to try the game and discover that (GASP) challenging gameplay can be rewarding and fun. Whatever the sub amount, I sincerely hope that the level of fun/immersiveness far outweighs what I pay, just as EQ1 did.

    • 999 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:20 PM PDT

    I think a tiered approach with a donation option is best.  Perhaps have the month to month a bit lower than what suggest below, but still keep the accepted 14.99/month with the paid subscription of a year in advance.  I'd also have some method to collect extra donations similar to what the forums are doing now in addition to the monthly sub for those with more expendable income.  Perhaps there could still be a few pledge rewards offered for expansions to help design items, questlines, etc.  Why does the crowdfunding need to stop at launch?  I'm sure there are plenty of people who would be willing to support the game post-launch as long as it stayed true to the tenants.

    I'd do the subscriptions something similar to the following:

    1. $24.99/month

    2  $22.99/3 month

    3.  $19.99/6 month

    4.  $14.99/year

    And, @Evoras, I've had the same questions on how Pantheon will charge for box (download) and have 10 levels F2P as long as the F2P stays as originally proposed and isn't a separate trial island or something.

    • 9115 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:53 PM PDT

    Deadshade said:

    Kilsin said:


    Fictional Example: If ESO spends half a billion dollars on their MMORPG and we spend 10 million (for arguments sake a made up number) how can we justify charging our community and anyone that plays our game more money than the industry standard, what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

     

    Well there is a rationnal answer on this one and it is that niche products and mass products can be compared neither in quality nor in price because they adress 2 different marketing segments .

    The former focuses on specific needs while the latter focuses on market share .

    For that reason and by definition, the unit cost (and the unit selling price derived from it) is always much lower for the latter than for the former .

    What Pantheon promises that TESO didn't ? It's written in Pantheon tenets .

    So if Pantheon delivers what it promises and hits the customers it is aiming for, then it is (for THESE customers) worth much more than TESO regardless whether TESO invested 1 million or 1 billion .

     

    As a matter of fact EQ is proving the point in a much more dramatic way - the live server is F2P while you have to pay to play on a progression server. Yet it is the SAME game ! The overwhelming success of the progression servers at least for the first expansions shows that there is a very large number of players who are ready to pay for a content 17 years old because it gives them a quality that the new live content doesn't give anymore . You have here the apparent paradox you mentionned in its full glory .

    There is money invested in the live servers , in the expansions and development yet the old content that needs hundreds time less investment is sold infinitely (because 15/0 = infinity) more than the new content . This is what success in delivering a niche product and being right about the niche customers always does for you :)

    Of course if what is initially thought as niche product degenerates during development in a wanna be mass product targeting customers well beyond the initial target (because some people always say "Ah we should add that because category X likes things like that. And we should remove that because category Y hates things like that .") then then the failure is practically sure .

     

    What stays is the classical psychological barriers even if they are much weaker for a niche product than for a mass product .

    Actually I am paying 29.97 $ for 3 months on Lotro . I am doing it more to help the game than because it is necessary but it is under the magical 10$/month limit .

    For Pantheon I could go to 59,99 $ for 3 months which stays below the other less magical limit 20$/month .

    I am pretty sure that when the marketing people and investors will start to study (argue :)) this issue they will finish with the same ball park : 15 - 25 for 1 month and 40 - 70 for 3 months .

    Two points to think about, though:

    1) We are not a niche product.

    2) "The answer is more complicated than you think but it is not something we are considering at this time".

    • 9115 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:55 PM PDT

    Obliquity said:

    Kilsin said:

     what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

    A better product and customer support : )

    That is completely dependent on the customer's opinion of each game/service and will vary from person to person. ;)

    • 9115 posts
    August 16, 2016 4:57 PM PDT

    Obliquity said:

    werzul said:

    Obliquity said:

    Kilsin said:

     what can we offer over ESO that would allow us to charge more?

    A better product and customer support : )

    well said and a good point. target audience is as important as market.

    better quality = people willing to pay for it.

    people that want the Mcdonalds experience, sate my immediate hunger, give it to me NOW - cant justify spending more than $1 on a burger. people that want/know quality, will readily spend much more than that for something better.

     

     

    Like the old saying " You get what you pay for" : )

    But that is my point exactly, what can we give in our game over a half a billion dollar game that allows us to charge more?

    The answer is more complicated than you think... ;)

    • 2138 posts
    August 16, 2016 5:00 PM PDT

     

     

    I like the 14.99-19.99 range.

    I have the disposable income to pay a bit more. Who knows, pantheon may be the trendsetter and put the premium back into freemium

    What does the model look like for GOTY type sales? or premium packaged sales with trinkets? (Game alone is 60.00- OR- you could buy game and a pip-boy/girl for 60.00 + OR- you could buy Game and cloth map AND a signed lore book by the devs for 60,000.00 you know what I mean)