I know that the sub priceing has not been set yet. But what do all you folks think about a lifetime subscription like they had with lotro. I believe they had a lifetime sub for 200.00 per account. Something in line with that but probably more money due to the economy being different than it was back then
Isaya said:I know that the sub priceing has not been set yet. But what do all you folks think about a lifetime subscription like they had with lotro. I believe they had a lifetime sub for 200.00 per account. Something in line with that but probably more money due to the economy being different than it was back then
It's not a good idea. It sort of backfired on LotRO, when their regular subscribers declined and all they were left with were a bunch of "freeloaders" they had to change to be free to play. It hurts the game in the long run.
They did have one, though they eventually stopped selling it. (I own one, though I haven't played in a few years).
As a player I like the concept of lifetime subscriptions *if* I can look at a game and think that I'll still be playing it 2-3 years later. That's enough to where the sub pays for itself, essentially.
However I think one reason these aren't more popular is that while they bring in a fair chunk of money up front, it doesn't last after that initial 2-3 years.
Liav said:You can get a lifetime subscription right now for $10000 or $1000/mo for 12 months.
$200 for a lifetime sub is way too cheap. It wouldn't be worthit for any less than $1000 imo, which is a little over 5 years worth of subscription time.
Yeah that's the kicker. It's a great infusion of cash in the short run but in the long run the devs lose out big time.
Isaya said:I know that the sub priceing has not been set yet. But what do all you folks think about a lifetime subscription like they had with lotro. I believe they had a lifetime sub for 200.00 per account. Something in line with that but probably more money due to the economy being different than it was back then
You do realize that at $14.95, a 'lifetime subscription' at $200 only covers 13 months. Hardly a lifetime when you consider many people play the same game for a decade or longer.
Yeah, I agree with most here. That is not a good idea for the financing of the game itself. To be honest, it probably indicates that the devs are having a hardtime making ends meet. (I'm not talking about the $10,000 pledge version, in which that is just a reward for supporting the game's development the number of people doing that isn't going to break the bank later.)
What we don't know is the percentage of people who buy lifetime subs and play more than a month or two. That's almost pure profit. I have two lfietime subs to LOTRO, and probably haven't played 6 months between them. LOTRO won on that one. I would venture a guess that most lifetime subs are profit.
hackerssuck said:What we don't know is the percentage of people who buy lifetime subs and play more than a month or two. That's almost pure profit. I have two lfietime subs to LOTRO, and probably haven't played 6 months between them. LOTRO won on that one. I would venture a guess that most lifetime subs are profit.
They won short term maybe, but Pantheon is planning for the long term. Offering something like this would tell me they have little hope of long term success, and are just looking to grab as much as they can before it crashes. Terrible idea IMO.
I hope to never see this for less than the 10K plegde moving forward, and I'm one who plans to play for years :).
I am not saying that lifetime subs should be 200.00. Just that was what the one in lotro was. Also I think the lifetime subs were not "freeloader" just that they took advantage of a bargain at the time. Also I think I will need brain surgery before I will pay 10000.00 for a lifetime sub anywhere. Even to a game as awesome as Pantheon will be.
I was only putting the question out there. Would you call the people "freeloaders" wh took advantage of the lifetime sub for 250.00 that was offered earlier in the kickstarter? Not me
Not that it changes much, but the LOTRO lifetime sub was originally $300. On occasion it would be on sale for $200, which is when I got mine. I proceeded to play for another 6 years. Great deal for me, not so much for Turbine.
I understand why they had it there. They needed some front loaded funding to get the game going. In my opinion Pantheon has far exceeded this with the pledge system and has no need for lifetime subs.
hackerssuck said:What we don't know is the percentage of people who buy lifetime subs and play more than a month or two. That's almost pure profit. I have two lfietime subs to LOTRO, and probably haven't played 6 months between them. LOTRO won on that one. I would venture a guess that most lifetime subs are profit.
That's not really how it works. MMOs have essentially fixed costs: servers, bandwidth, staff salaries. These remain roughly the same regardless of the number of people playing, barring changes in development team size or server configuration. Even if you paid for a lifetime sub and don't play, what you paid only covered a little over a year of subs, so after that the publisher has no additional income, yet you can still play whenever you feel like going back. This is why money needs to keep coming in, and why you need either a recurring payment (subscription) model, or a microtransactions model. I hope VR never comes to the point where they feel the need to sell lifetime subs for as low as that, because that will probably mean the game is in its death throes and they desperately need a quick cash injection.
As a player I like the idea but the only way I see it making sense for VR is either a very high price or if they barely have enough cash to launch and a bunch of lifetime subscriptions from their core base will give them time to keep the game going and hope for an influx of regular subscribers. Or will give them cash for an advertising push with the same objective.
They don't need our opinions on how to handle the economics of launching a game so all that I have to say that will be of any use to them is that I would seriously consider a lifetime subscription.
Any of us can get a lifetime subscription now for $10,000 and that includes pre-alpha testing and many other perks. Assuming similar pricing to other MMOs a year's subscription is likely to be around $100. This is not a predicition or a hope it is simply ballpark to other games right now. I think we all can do the math - there are reasons to want that pledge level but it hardly makes sense to use it to get a lifetime subscription.
daemonios said:hackerssuck said:What we don't know is the percentage of people who buy lifetime subs and play more than a month or two. That's almost pure profit. I have two lfietime subs to LOTRO, and probably haven't played 6 months between them. LOTRO won on that one. I would venture a guess that most lifetime subs are profit.
That's not really how it works. MMOs have essentially fixed costs: servers, bandwidth, staff salaries. These remain roughly the same regardless of the number of people playing, barring changes in development team size or server configuration. Even if you paid for a lifetime sub and don't play, what you paid only covered a little over a year of subs, so after that the publisher has no additional income, yet you can still play whenever you feel like going back. This is why money needs to keep coming in, and why you need either a recurring payment (subscription) model, or a microtransactions model. I hope VR never comes to the point where they feel the need to sell lifetime subs for as low as that, because that will probably mean the game is in its death throes and they desperately need a quick cash injection.
I think the only cost that's truly fixed and the one that takes the largest percentage of the budget is staff salaries. Everything else is scaled depending on use. There's no longer a need for physical equipment or getting extra bandwith in the building (San Diego had a hard time with EQ sucking up so much bandwith in the beginning iirc) Cloud storage and servers are added and removed depending on need in a smidgen of the time it took to set one up 20 years ago at a fraction of the cost.
So then, a lifetime sub should cost $1000+ about 7 years or more of subs, nothing less, certainly not $200.
I am in favor of annual subs at a slightly reduced rate like EQ had. E.g. 12x15=180. Perhaps $150-160 for a year in advance or $250-275 for 2 years in advance. Not a big difference but big enough to make it worth it.
Iksar said:Isaya said:I know that the sub priceing has not been set yet. But what do all you folks think about a lifetime subscription like they had with lotro. I believe they had a lifetime sub for 200.00 per account. Something in line with that but probably more money due to the economy being different than it was back then
It's not a good idea. It sort of backfired on LotRO, when their regular subscribers declined and all they were left with were a bunch of "freeloaders" they had to change to be free to play. It hurts the game in the long run.
They already have it with kickstarter pledges.
$10,000 is over 50 years of subscription access. I think they will be OK charging that much. The other attached tangible rewards are not going to cost anything near that so they are just fine with it.
What you want to avoid is like the $200 lifetime subscriptions.
I agree with bigdogchris, it has to be a large amount of money like $10,000. Durp is on the right track also with the reduced rates for longer subscriptions. The idea of giving a $200 lifetime subscription is terrible since that is barely 1 year! Even if the price for a lifetime subscription was $1,000 it would potentially hurt in the long run since there are a few MMORPGs that last over 10 years. Most MMOs today are free to play cash shops so at this stage VR needs to be able to show gamers the subscription is worth it. Many people who play "free to play" end up spending far more than those who play subscription MMOs but I don't know if VR is going to go that direction in their marketing to show what a rip off "free to play" actually is.
Isaya said:I know that the sub priceing has not been set yet. But what do all you folks think about a lifetime subscription like they had with lotro. I believe they had a lifetime sub for 200.00 per account. Something in line with that but probably more money due to the economy being different than it was back then
VR is ahead of you on that one. I pledged Originator in the summer of 2014..EARLY. There was at that time a lifetime sub that was part of the pledges THEN. As time went on the pledges and what they would give were changed, as the team revisited the pledges and determined what would be available for future pledges and what would not. I haven't changed my pledge at all. I still will receive what I was promised back then. I presume that there are a few of us that will still receive the lifetime, but its not something that can be applied for now under the original cheaper costing pledges as that has been changed.
Cana
hackerssuck said:What we don't know is the percentage of people who buy lifetime subs and play more than a month or two. That's almost pure profit. I have two lfietime subs to LOTRO, and probably haven't played 6 months between them. LOTRO won on that one. I would venture a guess that most lifetime subs are profit.
I have a lifetime with Lotro, quit 9 years ago, came back about 2 months ago, and then left again recently as I am all hyped up about Pantheon. :)
Cana
Ziegfried said:I agree with bigdogchris, it has to be a large amount of money like $10,000. Durp is on the right track also with the reduced rates for longer subscriptions. The idea of giving a $200 lifetime subscription is terrible since that is barely 1 year! Even if the price for a lifetime subscription was $1,000 it would potentially hurt in the long run since there are a few MMORPGs that last over 10 years. Most MMOs today are free to play cash shops so at this stage VR needs to be able to show gamers the subscription is worth it. Many people who play "free to play" end up spending far more than those who play subscription MMOs but I don't know if VR is going to go that direction in their marketing to show what a rip off "free to play" actually is.
Yes there is no such thing as "free to play" when you end up spending an arm and a leg in the cash shops, for things that you would normally earn in a game yourself without spending real money. Cash shops are RMT that benefit those "free to play" games. I always wondered why people didn't get that. Fifteen bucks a month is the CHEAPEST form of entertainment out there, cheaper than going to a movie and most especially a night out at a bar. I'm no great mathematician, but I can keep track of my money and where it goes. No I don't want a sparkly Barbie horse, you can keep that. :P
Cana