In the End we will have no say in the matter and shouldn`t have any say in it for that matter even. VR will do what is best for them and the industrie and we all regardless the pricing will all be happy. VR have years of experience on their sheets and will do what is right for them and the industrie.
We might all have a feel to some of the costs they or the industrie might have but we truely do not know what is actually going in and out in any company unless provided to us. And its none of our buisness anyways. They will do what is right regardless!
Aradune said:Retsof said:I wonder what the profit difference of choosing to sell the game plus monthly subscription (most old mmos) vs the newer trend of free/ discount priced game plus monthly sub (like FF14 for example). The initial income from selling the box would help keep the team going ... but long term benefits from teaming up with Steam etc. has the potential to dramatically increase the consumer base if there is a low/no box price. A decade ago it would be a no-brainer. Now, many want to see and test before they commit with their money. I'm sure someone has ran the statistics ...
Hoping that a. someone does indeed have the data and 2. that they share it with us :)
I had a study of the SWTOR failure and also posted my own complementary analysis some 3 years ago . Unfortunately I can't find it anymore . The data partly relied on EA released data and partly on reasonable estimates by analysts . Reasonable meaning here "not off by more than a factor 2 or 3" . I will try to find it again on the Net .
From memory the result was that the game sales (in boxes or DL) were marginal for the profitability even if the game was sold for a pretty high price (~ 50$) and SWTOR did rather well in copies sold .
What was fundamental was the rate of attrition (e.g the percentage of subscribers lost / month during the first 6 months) . I believe that it can be proven that this result can be generalised to any game based on the model "one time entry fee + monthly subscription" . The reason why the attrition rate during the first 6 months is the strongest factor for profitability (and NOT the number of copies sold) is that an early lost subscriber is generally lost for the life duration of the game so that the lost profit is huge (order of magnitude is equal to monthly fee * game life duration in months) .
From this analysis follows that a good business model which is not F2P would be "low to 0 game cost + lowest early attrition rate possible" . If it is easy to do the former, the latter is part of the magics which makes why one games succeeds and another fails . Certainly the free period for the first few levels is an excellent idea to minimize the attrition rate but it requires a strong confidence of the publisher that the game concept and the technical quality are very good at release .
As I was the first to use the term "niche product" on this thread and it seemed to be sometimes misunderstood , I'd like to add a few words to this issue .
I have been working for several years as VP for strategical marketing in a large company and am quite used to the "niche" concept .
It says nothing about the number of customers and even less about profitability . It is a measure of differentiation on a given market .
And differentiation is not about subjective personal opinions - it is an objective measure . The whole strategical marketing builds on that .
Porsche is a niche product on the automobile market but it doesn't mean anything negative about Porsche company or about its profitability . It just means that Porsche is a strongly differentiated product .
Now it is possible to measure the differentiation of Pantheon and I already did so here some time ago in a post about players' motivations in MMO .
Indeed, there are studies about players' motivations (social, achievment, exploration etc) and their segmentations by age, gender, education etc (I linked one such study in the post mentionned above) .
So now I take Pantheon's tenets and "filter" them by the known motivations segments to determine how strong the differentiation (or focus on well defined customer segments what is the same thing) of Pantheon is .
The answer is that it is strong . As a bonus one has also the profile of a "typical or average customer" - mature , with a higher than average MMO female proportion , educated , American or European .
This answer stands as long as the tenets don't change and from it follows that Pantheon is a niche product . The fact that you observe an increasing interest is in no contradiction - it just means that the previous estimates of the niche size were simply too low . But even then it is still smaller than the MOBA or even the general MMORPG market .
Now I can understand the communication . Not everybody is fluent with marketing and I have often met people (especially from the finance sphere) for whom "niche" is equivalent to a "small market low quality product" what is rather negative . It always made me smile because it is completely upside down - a niche product is almost always a high quality, high price product . Actually it is a well known fact that for luxury goods (example of niche products) a high price is a positive factor . Indeed a luxury goods customer equates price with quality so that if the price was low, he would suspect that the quality is low too .
However as it seems that you want to avoid the possible negative implications of the word "niche" , I will stop using it too .
After all the important thing is not how one calls the Pantheon product - important is not to mislead oneself to thinking that it is not a niche (e.g strongly differentiated) product.
And of course the financial success will be there with a high probability only if the targeted market segment is hit :)
Interesting debates.
I also agree with Kilsin, Pantheon is not a niche product. Look at Dark Souls for instance, it has had a wide market appeal and it's appeal is being 'exceptionally hard'. Albeit, this is more for new players to the series than those who played 1 and 2 before 3. Bloodborne is a spin off of the DS type game play, focusing on even faster combat. Now we are seeing an increase in "Dark Souls esk" games pop up that are using similiar combat mechanics and difficulty measures. It came down to a wide variety of players just not knowing what they liked outside of the scope they were used to.
Pantheon is not niche because at heart, it's just an mmo that requires 2+ people to do any real exploration and leveling while making you run back naked to collect your stuff if you die. That is hardly a foreign concept to muds/mmos. If anything it is harkening back to the days where community meant something and with the rising popularity of Rogue-Like games, I don't see this concept being a negative issue. Pricing out members of the community because they do not have a disposable income but will be purchasing more than 3 games per household (not my reason for voicing this), does not reflect the/a primary goal of fostering community. Obviously however, the developers need to be pricing the game so as to fairly compensate their employees and foster future content as well as their company.
I also don't think this game warrants more of a subscription fee than the industry standard. I'd pay $15 a month, whether it was through an annual purchase (my typical choice) or a monthly sub. Eve Online, which if considered niche at 30k-45k players, I would argue it being more niche than Pantheon due to it's punishing learning curve and largely PVP focused gameplay has a sub rate of $14.99. I'll be frank here, I don't think Pantheon should be charging more than Eve given what I have seen.
Now let me clarify on "from what I have seen", I have been more and more impressed with the game as it has progressed from when I first saw it on Kickstarter and was not only unimpressed, but unsure. Could this truly be a worthy successor to EQ1? I wasn't convinced, it looked like a carbon copy at first, produced solely to "relive the glory days". The only reason why I am here now is because of Brad's AMA and the answers he provided to the community. I am here because of his leadership on the project and his acknoledgements, game goals, and what he stated will happen based off of what has happened with his previous projects, what he has learned and what he has won and lost. Also, I was pretty darn impressed by the live streams.
From a business perspective I do not see $20 or $25 a month being viable for a wide variety of appeal ouside of the hardcore fans (who will always be willing to support in large volume, I've spent about $400 in Star Citizen to date). While many of those currently here on the forums will pay this, most people would be expecting leaps and bounds over the current market leaders for that price. Myself included.
Kilsin said:Fulton said:Aradune said:But while perhaps 1-2 years ago, when the idea of a group oriented game that wasn't F2P was an oddity (and even closed some doors for us), it's mid-2017 now.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or are your years wrong ("it's mid-2017 now"), or is VR living in the future? :) And does that change the reply on early testing from 2018 back to 2017?
Or option #3, am I just still living in the past. ;)
I believe it was a typo and Brad intended to say mid-2016 and testing early 2017, he wasn't feeling very well and still soldiered on with the AMA so I am impressed that he only made a few slip ups! lol ;)
Lol, yes a little brain fart and a typo there -- yes, it is mid-2016 -- I am neither delusional (ha! at least hopefully not) nor in possession of a TARDIS.
Aradune said:Kilsin said:Fulton said:Aradune said:But while perhaps 1-2 years ago, when the idea of a group oriented game that wasn't F2P was an oddity (and even closed some doors for us), it's mid-2017 now.
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, or are your years wrong ("it's mid-2017 now"), or is VR living in the future? :) And does that change the reply on early testing from 2018 back to 2017?
Or option #3, am I just still living in the past. ;)
I believe it was a typo and Brad intended to say mid-2016 and testing early 2017, he wasn't feeling very well and still soldiered on with the AMA so I am impressed that he only made a few slip ups! lol ;)
Lol, yes a little brain fart and a typo there -- yes, it is mid-2016 -- I am neither delusional (ha! at least hopefully not) nor in possession of a TARDIS.
Haha, I'm still impressed man, you did a really good job while feeling lousy and I think if anyone on the team has access to a TARDIS it would be Corey, if we work together I reckon we could get him to talk and tell us where he hides it! ;)
zewtastic said:I'm not buying you are any kind of business owner based on what you used for criteria.
A $15 price point, which has been used for almost 20 years can make no sense given the costs to cloth and feed content creators and support game costs given no other financial revenue streams.
Costs for ALL aspects of game design, development, creation, support, ongoing content engineering and more have gone up dramatically in the last 20 years, so unless you expect to get the content, graphics and performance of a 1999 game you should expect to pay more.
Either that or those teams in 1999 were driving around in Rolls Royces back in the day from making $15/month.
Dalinsia is a business man. I know this for a fact and he does very well. His thoughts are based on what is current throughout the industry. There are no games that cost $20+ a month that I am aware of. I can also state that when subscription costs go up there is a serious backlash that happens. This has happened on the EQ side of things in the early days and games I have played sense 1997. The cost equation for $20 may not seem high but the added cost of network access has to be put into the problem. Granted the costs are going up on all fronts so it will be an interesting piece of financial magic that has to be performed.
I am sure the VR team will figure out this formula for a long term solution. Most of these games that do not field that piece do not last long at all.
Ox
zewtastic said:I'm not buying you are any kind of business owner based on what you used for criteria.
A $15 price point, which has been used for almost 20 years can make no sense given the costs to cloth and feed content creators and support game costs given no other financial revenue streams.
Costs for ALL aspects of game design, development, creation, support, ongoing content engineering and more have gone up dramatically in the last 20 years, so unless you expect to get the content, graphics and performance of a 1999 game you should expect to pay more.
Either that or those teams in 1999 were driving around in Rolls Royces back in the day from making $15/month.
Could you please provide some more info for, well, all of your claims here?
I'll grant that building art assets in the game takes longer than it used to due to the detail levels that are being utilized. But there are exponentially better tools to do it now. The tools once used to cost in excess of $10,000 per seat, and now can be had with studio licenses allowing many seats for about the same price. Those tools allow for a very fluid and easily managed workflow to create the gameworld that once required multiple people to simply handle the hand-off of art assets from one person in the pipeline to the next, let alone the fact that every rock, hill and tree was a specific manipulation in an out-of-engine platform that then required transition into the game platform itself, something no longer (entirely) necessary. The art staff is paid less, on average, than they once were as well. Where a 3d artist/modeler 15 years ago was considered a pretty leading edge artist paid a reasonable fee, kids fresh out of college these days are paid what is literally below the national poverty level and often expected to work 10+ hours a day, 6 or 7 days a week. (I'm not suggesting this is VR policy at all, and I would have nothing to base that on. But the industry trend, and the influence of Hollywood on CA labor laws is well documented.
Animation is largely done in days thru MoCap now rather than months of tedious manual model manipulation. The costs for this have and continue to plummet.
Server hardware no longer requires heavy capital investment. Studios very often lean heavily on cloud computing, storage and access to allow very small incremental increases in capacity needs with very minimal in-house datacenter expenditures or associated on-going maintenance. THe ability to pay the fraction of a server's costs to spin up a new cloud virtual and tear it down again streamline budgets exceptionally well.
I will absolutely grant you that the overall budget of a given game is much MUCH larger than it once was, with a $30million budget now not being remotely outside the question. But the total sales has risen as quickly as the budgets. The risk for a studio to break even his still there. The initial investment is larger. But the possible payout is MUCH higher than ever before. For that part of the equation, if you're filing bankruptcy it doesnt really matter if you're clearing a $5mil debt of a $55mil debt...
The discussion of how much to charge is a business decision and I suppose people will pay what is asked of them if they want to play this game.
A suggestion I do have is, rather than have a premium server, how about have premium service? Say you can opt to pay $2 or $3 more per month, and as long as you have been active at that rate for 12 months, you gain access to the last expansion earlier and without having to buy it? That would be cool for people who are on a budget and want to know what they are spending each month rather than having to pony up the extra cash each time an expansion comes out. Access a week or two early is just an added bonus and gives devs a little bit more time to iron out issues before it hits the bulk population.
bigdogchris said:The discussion of how much to charge is a business decision and I suppose people will pay what is asked of them if they want to play this game.
A suggestion I do have is, rather than have a premium server, how about have premium service? Say you can opt to pay $2 or $3 more per month, and as long as you have been active at that rate for 12 months, you gain access to the last expansion earlier and without having to buy it? That would be cool for people who are on a budget and want to know what they are spending each month rather than having to pony up the extra cash each time an expansion comes out. Access a week or two early is just an added bonus and gives devs a little bit more time to iron out issues before it hits the bulk population.
This is a fantastic idea. Even without any early access, the option to pay more per month knowing that you have access to any new content released is something I would be fully onboard with.
Feyshtey said:bigdogchris said:The discussion of how much to charge is a business decision and I suppose people will pay what is asked of them if they want to play this game.
A suggestion I do have is, rather than have a premium server, how about have premium service? Say you can opt to pay $2 or $3 more per month, and as long as you have been active at that rate for 12 months, you gain access to the last expansion earlier and without having to buy it? That would be cool for people who are on a budget and want to know what they are spending each month rather than having to pony up the extra cash each time an expansion comes out. Access a week or two early is just an added bonus and gives devs a little bit more time to iron out issues before it hits the bulk population.
This is a fantastic idea. Even without any early access, the option to pay more per month knowing that you have access to any new content released is something I would be fully onboard with.
I would tend to agree. Allow the option to pay a "premium subscription" that would allow an individual to contribute more that would allow for free expansions. However, I feel that if Pantheon follows the typical massive expansion installment route, this would still end up being more expensive than buying the expansion outright.
Albeit, I take issue with being able to access the content earlier than planned. For a few reasons,
1) coding the system to only allow those who payed to play early, which I view as pay to win in order to get an early edge on other players.
2) It would inevitably force any and all hardcore players to pay for premium subscriptions in order to access the content as a guild - Given my experience as an active raider - regardless of whether or not there are old EQ style raids, this will remain fact as there most undoubtedly will be harder than normal content for the not so casual team/guild based players.
3) Expansion beta testing should be done prior to reaching paying customers, especially if those customers are paying a premium.
I'll be frank, it seems as though people just want to pay more to receive something more than the rest of the population. Which begs the question, what becomes the subscription that nets you the actual game? If that was NOT the case, then the devs can easily setup a donation system where as people who want to spend more can give more while being awarded titles and other non-advantageous recognition.
To conclude, I don't see why we need to have a premium subscription that gives more content to those who are "more dedicated on the basis that they have a bigger wallet." Even Star Citizen, which allows people to spend up to $2500 on one ship, will have those ships in game for people to purchase with in game money after a month or two.
Rogue said:Feyshtey said:bigdogchris said:The discussion of how much to charge is a business decision and I suppose people will pay what is asked of them if they want to play this game.
A suggestion I do have is, rather than have a premium server, how about have premium service? Say you can opt to pay $2 or $3 more per month, and as long as you have been active at that rate for 12 months, you gain access to the last expansion earlier and without having to buy it? That would be cool for people who are on a budget and want to know what they are spending each month rather than having to pony up the extra cash each time an expansion comes out. Access a week or two early is just an added bonus and gives devs a little bit more time to iron out issues before it hits the bulk population.
This is a fantastic idea. Even without any early access, the option to pay more per month knowing that you have access to any new content released is something I would be fully onboard with.
I would tend to agree. Allow the option to pay a "premium subscription" that would allow an individual to contribute more that would allow for free expansions. However, I feel that if Pantheon follows the typical massive expansion installment route, this would still end up being more expensive than buying the expansion outright.
Gaining access to expansions (early) would just be one perk. Of course not every expansion will be released the same time apart from another.
If I'm playing the game a massive amount, which I tend to do in MMOs, I'm fine playing around $50 a month. I spend far more than that on a single night out for a few hours of entertainment. MMOs are so undervalued, it's pretty silly. However, the caveat is that the game has to really be excellent. EQ1 from launch through PoP, no problem. WoW through BC, no problem. EQ2 around EoF, no problem. Vanguard if it had been completed properly, no problem. The rest of the recent offerings, not so much.
I hope you do a Legends server that offers a little more fun for a higher monthly rate. But, no matter what, the game has to be great, so nobody is going to sub very long, even at $15.
It makes sense to make the base subscription at a rate that other MMO games charge at too. Conversely, the level of customer service that the online gaming industry provides is pretty poor in my opinion, but you get what you pay for.
It would be nice if we had the option of a premium server like Stormhammer in EQ. It was worth it to be able to type: /who gm and get help within the current play session. It was worth it to have GM events three times in every twenty-four hour period.
Ezumin said:It makes sense to make the base subscription at a rate that other MMO games charge at too. Conversely, the level of customer service that the online gaming industry provides is pretty poor in my opinion, but you get what you pay for.
It would be nice if we had the option of a premium server like Stormhammer in EQ. It was worth it to be able to type: /who gm and get help within the current play session. It was worth it to have GM events three times in every twenty-four hour period.
I know of no MMO style game that runs on purely subscription only today.
All that have subscription also have extensive cash shops and generally many pay for convienience options, not to mention PVP MMOs which thrive from their P2W gambling schemes.
For Pantheon to survive on purely a 1999 subscription plan is quite the reach.
zewtastic said:Ezumin said:It makes sense to make the base subscription at a rate that other MMO games charge at too. Conversely, the level of customer service that the online gaming industry provides is pretty poor in my opinion, but you get what you pay for.
It would be nice if we had the option of a premium server like Stormhammer in EQ. It was worth it to be able to type: /who gm and get help within the current play session. It was worth it to have GM events three times in every twenty-four hour period.
I know of no MMO style game that runs on purely subscription only today.
All that have subscription also have extensive cash shops and generally many pay for convienience options, not to mention PVP MMOs which thrive from their P2W gambling schemes.
For Pantheon to survive on purely a 1999 subscription plan is quite the reach.
The crowd here that has funded this proejct is largely composed of those that want to harken back to the games that were the impetice of the MMO genre. We are desperatly seeking the benefts of the the market we started from. They are an audience that understands and embraces the philosophy of paying for a product that they can expect a certain standard from, and they are motivated largely from the demonstratably destructive impacts of the micro transaction methodology that is predominant in so many games today.
Your position is that because games have succeeded by deviating from that paradigm proves that the micro transaction mocel is the only one that works. And yet you dismiss that the downside of that paradigm is exactly why this audience rebels against it.
I acknowldge that what you desire is exactly why games like WoW and EQ2 have attracted the maximum enrollment. I reject that this is the model that produces the best games desired by an admittedly smaller proportion of the MMO market that is her here, now, supporting VR. I also reject the stnace that this market is incapable of supporting a smaller but loyal and viable fanbase.
There is a certain irony here, if you can but see it!
The very target audience which allows VR to entertain a monthly subscription model....
... is the same audience that is fairly much anti-supplementary charges (cash-shop etc).
Thus, though the target audience contains a core who would want to be able to offer more monetary support...
.... VR cannot tap into this without alienating most of the potential player base.
I certainly hope there is a way to break this impasse!
PS It is never a good idea to ask goivernment to legislate on anything. If you have ever been to a corporate meeting, you will know that once you have more than a dozen people round the table, nothing can get done properly.... not even the lunch order. Imagine now that we are talking over 300 people with almost no skill, very little understanding of the problem and each with an overinflated sense of self-importance that would make even a Hollywood star blush? Hardly a recipe for anything other than disaster!
Aradune said:Retsof said:I wonder what the profit difference of choosing to sell the game plus monthly subscription (most old mmos) vs the newer trend of free/ discount priced game plus monthly sub (like FF14 for example). The initial income from selling the box would help keep the team going ... but long term benefits from teaming up with Steam etc. has the potential to dramatically increase the consumer base if there is a low/no box price. A decade ago it would be a no-brainer. Now, many want to see and test before they commit with their money. I'm sure someone has ran the statistics ...
Hoping that a. someone does indeed have the data and 2. that they share it with us :)
We do feel, in general, that we need to be pretty far into external beta testing before we charge, and that is because we are a 'new' studio with a 'new' game and something to prove. And not just something to prove in general, but with Pantheon we are trying to start this renaissance, this revolution, and there will always be some skeptics... and those skeptics talk with their friends, who then talk to their friends, and so on...
This goes hand-in-hand with our plan to make the first X levels totally free to play. As I've posted here many times before, we feel the 'onboarding' process, in which we introduce a challenging, social, group-oriented game to someone totally unfamiliar with such a thing is done and done well. We cannot afford to chase away players new to social MMOs before they've have had the chance to experience that magic that makes this genre so much more deeper and compelling. No, not everyone who is used to single player more casual MMOs is going to love Pantheon, but I do truly believe a significant portion of them will end up loving the kind of game Pantheon is. And the possibility of losing those precious people before they're acclimated frankly keeps me up late at night.
Thanks for the replies and good info. Sorry for the late response. I've been neck deep in bo3 zombies for a while.
After reading many of the responses here is my take on the subject:
Industry standard monthly subscription will be necessary for largest MMO subscribing demographic reach, any increase in price even by a single dollar will be exponential loss of potential users.
One time purchase of the game is a great idea; Steam gaming model is for users who jump game to game every 2-4 weeks, what our community calls 'flavors of the month' these users will not hold fast to a long term MMO, especially one that punishes them.
Optional Premium Subscription model would be a great idea if paired with benefits ex; 'premium server' where boxing characters is not allowed and there is no in-game shop (if one is added), free or reduced cost expansions, additional bank/bag/character slots, etc.
An in-game shop is a hotly contested subject, however if one looks at current industry standard this is the location for the largest and fastest return on investment for a business and cannot be flatly ruled out. Purchasing skins or visual effects, pets, and items of the sort will always have a place in a game, however purchasing items or experience modifiers would be a relatively upsetting feature for parts of the population. Im sure many of us would personally love to see a game make it without an in-game shop, but from a business perspective I understand its necessity and will not argue that path if it is chosen, I'll even purchase some of the items to support the team.
I need to take some more time to read through the full discussion here, but I wanted to chime in and state that I think the concept of a premium server is a terrible idea. For a game that is heavily dependent upon social interaction and group play, player-base division must be kept at an absolute minimum. I hope that if there are multiple servers (in contrast to a megaserver), that they will be as few as possible.
As for the pricing of the subscription, the standard of $14.99 seems reasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to a premium subscription of something around $19.99 for a few additional character slots (given that the standard subscription includes a reasonable amount, nothing as ridiculous as some other games that limit base subscriptions to something like 2 characters). I actually like that type of idea more than offering additional character slots for a one-time purchase, as it would mean more revenue long-term.
I don't see anything wrong with a donation option, either. When I have the capacity to do so, it'd be nice to have a way to at least give enough to buy a round of drinks or some coffee or whatever to show appreciation :)
Rominian said: Evoras brings up an excellent point, and one that I consider the central conundrum here. How does VR exploit someone like me, who, if I like the game, (and so far It looks great) would be willing and able to spend more than the standard $14.99 a month?
They never stop crowdfunding - have pledge packages for upcoming expansions. Alpha/Beta. Same with the design an item, quest, mob etc. at the high level tiers.
Or as you said, just have a /Donate Now box as well.
There is a best amount of montly subscription fee for the game.
This is the one where the multiplication "monthly fee" x "number of people willing to pay this amount" has the highest value. Maybe to keep the world living the decission should lead to a higher number of people playing, even if the revenue is lower, but this only if neccessary.
With permium features for a higher fee I would be very cautious. But the idea above to pay for the next expansion while paying 2 or 3 $ more per month is one thing, which for sure would be ok.
A cash shop should never be implemented in the game. Only out of the game stuff like t-shirts would be a good idea. And maybe some game services like name change and server transfer (In another thread there was discussed that this services should not allow players to find new victims to betray them)
One idea which came to my mind from time to time is the following:
Don't charge a strict fee per month. Charge the people for the time they are using the game. There have do be done some calculation to achiev the same amount as with the above multiplication, but it would be a pretty fair model.
People who play more have to pay more (until they reach a upper limit) and if you are on holidays you have a cheaper fee for that month. Maybe there should be a lower limit fee which you have to pay even if you don't play a minute, but this has to thought on.
If all is calculated correct, what gaming economy specialists have to do, then an average player pays the standard monthly fee, a very causual gamer will pay a lower fee and a hardcore gamer will pay a higher fee. In the end VR has the same income but the players would be charged fair for the time playing the game.
Not sure if there are other reasons e. g. that hardcore players are not willing to pay more, the fee is not as easy to charge (not so easy in advance like the standard fee), etc., which are against this kind of subscription model?
Interesting suggestion Landbert. Charge like the electric utility (by the amount of resources used) not like the cable company or streaming service (fixed monthly fee, whether you binge watch all month or never connect). Probably too costly to track / handle disputes - but wouldn't it be curious to see world firsts listed along with that guild's monthly charges, a kind of cost per raid boss. Never going to happen - but it would make for fascinating statistics.