Forums » General Pantheon Discussion

Subscription Concerns

    • 363 posts
    November 19, 2018 4:59 PM PST

    To the original posts point. Subscription models still work in this market. World of Warcraft has proven that point and there is no debating it. The FTP market was hatched out of the mobile market and then attached to the failing MMO market to salvage the investments made to create WoW killers that didn't deliver. Every other game since then is just following that trend. Doesn't make it good idea for players. It just shows what desperate lemmings will do for entertainment given no other options.

    • 1095 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:01 PM PST

    I think this game will go FTP eventually. I accept it and I want to pay to win. XP potions please.

    • 3 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:09 PM PST

    Kalok said:

    Tolin said:

    As someone who currently works in FTP mobile games, was part of LOTRO's release team, and worked on DDO during its switch to FTP, I can assure you that from a financial standpoint going FTP is the superior route.  LOTRO's revenue was tripled and DDO's revenue increased 10x after the switch to FTP.  The reason is because when the FTP economy is built right (tuned correctly and there's ample spend opportunities), you have a small number of people spending insane amounts of money.  I've worked on some mobile games where individual players have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.  These people more than make up for all of the players who decide not to spend anything.

    There are ways to successfully make AAA games FTP without making them P2W.  Fortnite is a good example of that.  On the flip side, what's nice about the subscription model is the revenue stream is a little more predictable.  If you're able to amass an audience like WoW or Netflix, having that huge of a predictable revenue stream is great (even Netflix lets you try the service before committing to their subscription though).  At least on mobile, one of the things we're exploring right now is how to integrate robust subscriptions into existing F2P games in a way that uncaps spend by utilizing microtransactions, but at the same creating a predictable stream of revenue for a portion of our total revenue to reduce risk.  Some mobile games have already done this, but with only minor success.

    If the VR team does decide to strictly go for a subscription model, in my opinion they would be doing it because they are so passionate about the game that they want to make sure they are creating a great community that really wants to be there for the long term and feel like they can fund the business on the expected audience, but I have no idea.  The way you think about the game design changes drastically when you change the business model, and maybe they just want to maintain that integrity.

    Personally, I don't care what games you worked on.  While, yes, you have an impressive resume, F2P is a bad idea for Pantheon and MMOs in general in my opinion.  There are, literally, dozens of F2P games out there.  This is not that game.  This is "OUR game".  One for the old-school gamer.

     

    Apologies.  Didn't mean to make it sound like I wanted Pantheon to be F2P.  I was merely expressing my opinion on the type of business model which would likely be more successful from a financial standpoint, which I believe is the OP's concern.  I'm an old school EQ fan like most of you.  From a player's perspective I would prefer to see the game be subscription-based.  However, the game is not ours, it's VR's, and they need to make money to keep the business going so we can all play until the end of time.  Will be curious to see what happens down the road.

    • 1095 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:20 PM PST

    Tolin said:

    Kalok said:

    Tolin said:

    As someone who currently works in FTP mobile games, was part of LOTRO's release team, and worked on DDO during its switch to FTP, I can assure you that from a financial standpoint going FTP is the superior route.  LOTRO's revenue was tripled and DDO's revenue increased 10x after the switch to FTP.  The reason is because when the FTP economy is built right (tuned correctly and there's ample spend opportunities), you have a small number of people spending insane amounts of money.  I've worked on some mobile games where individual players have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.  These people more than make up for all of the players who decide not to spend anything.

    There are ways to successfully make AAA games FTP without making them P2W.  Fortnite is a good example of that.  On the flip side, what's nice about the subscription model is the revenue stream is a little more predictable.  If you're able to amass an audience like WoW or Netflix, having that huge of a predictable revenue stream is great (even Netflix lets you try the service before committing to their subscription though).  At least on mobile, one of the things we're exploring right now is how to integrate robust subscriptions into existing F2P games in a way that uncaps spend by utilizing microtransactions, but at the same creating a predictable stream of revenue for a portion of our total revenue to reduce risk.  Some mobile games have already done this, but with only minor success.

    If the VR team does decide to strictly go for a subscription model, in my opinion they would be doing it because they are so passionate about the game that they want to make sure they are creating a great community that really wants to be there for the long term and feel like they can fund the business on the expected audience, but I have no idea.  The way you think about the game design changes drastically when you change the business model, and maybe they just want to maintain that integrity.

    Personally, I don't care what games you worked on.  While, yes, you have an impressive resume, F2P is a bad idea for Pantheon and MMOs in general in my opinion.  There are, literally, dozens of F2P games out there.  This is not that game.  This is "OUR game".  One for the old-school gamer.

     

    Apologies.  Didn't mean to make it sound like I wanted Pantheon to be F2P.  I was merely expressing my opinion on the type of business model which would likely be more successful from a financial standpoint, which I believe is the OP's concern.  I'm an old school EQ fan like most of you.  From a player's perspective I would prefer to see the game be subscription-based.  However, the game is not ours, it's VR's, and they need to make money to keep the business going so we can all play until the end of time.  Will be curious to see what happens down the road.

    Don't worry about Kalok, he is always salty. Express your opinion.

    • 1247 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:40 PM PST

    @Aich Opinions are fine, though I must say that I wholeheartedly agree with Kalok.

    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:43 PM PST

    Aich said:

    Tolin said:

    Kalok said:

    Tolin said:

    As someone who currently works in FTP mobile games, was part of LOTRO's release team, and worked on DDO during its switch to FTP, I can assure you that from a financial standpoint going FTP is the superior route.  LOTRO's revenue was tripled and DDO's revenue increased 10x after the switch to FTP.  The reason is because when the FTP economy is built right (tuned correctly and there's ample spend opportunities), you have a small number of people spending insane amounts of money.  I've worked on some mobile games where individual players have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.  These people more than make up for all of the players who decide not to spend anything.

    There are ways to successfully make AAA games FTP without making them P2W.  Fortnite is a good example of that.  On the flip side, what's nice about the subscription model is the revenue stream is a little more predictable.  If you're able to amass an audience like WoW or Netflix, having that huge of a predictable revenue stream is great (even Netflix lets you try the service before committing to their subscription though).  At least on mobile, one of the things we're exploring right now is how to integrate robust subscriptions into existing F2P games in a way that uncaps spend by utilizing microtransactions, but at the same creating a predictable stream of revenue for a portion of our total revenue to reduce risk.  Some mobile games have already done this, but with only minor success.

    If the VR team does decide to strictly go for a subscription model, in my opinion they would be doing it because they are so passionate about the game that they want to make sure they are creating a great community that really wants to be there for the long term and feel like they can fund the business on the expected audience, but I have no idea.  The way you think about the game design changes drastically when you change the business model, and maybe they just want to maintain that integrity.

    Personally, I don't care what games you worked on.  While, yes, you have an impressive resume, F2P is a bad idea for Pantheon and MMOs in general in my opinion.  There are, literally, dozens of F2P games out there.  This is not that game.  This is "OUR game".  One for the old-school gamer.

     

    Apologies.  Didn't mean to make it sound like I wanted Pantheon to be F2P.  I was merely expressing my opinion on the type of business model which would likely be more successful from a financial standpoint, which I believe is the OP's concern.  I'm an old school EQ fan like most of you.  From a player's perspective I would prefer to see the game be subscription-based.  However, the game is not ours, it's VR's, and they need to make money to keep the business going so we can all play until the end of time.  Will be curious to see what happens down the road.

    Don't worry about Kalok, he is always salty. Express your opinion.

    Nope.  I'm only salty when people say really dumb things.  There is no need to make Pantheon F2P, and in fact, it would kill it st birth.

    That being said, VR has said multiple times that they ALSO dislike the F2P idea.

    • 1247 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:48 PM PST

    @Kalok Couldn’t agree with you more and great point! - f2p would eventually ruin Pantheon. Heck, it’s 2018.  

    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:50 PM PST

    Tolin said:

    Kalok said:

    Tolin said:

    As someone who currently works in FTP mobile games, was part of LOTRO's release team, and worked on DDO during its switch to FTP, I can assure you that from a financial standpoint going FTP is the superior route.  LOTRO's revenue was tripled and DDO's revenue increased 10x after the switch to FTP.  The reason is because when the FTP economy is built right (tuned correctly and there's ample spend opportunities), you have a small number of people spending insane amounts of money.  I've worked on some mobile games where individual players have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars.  These people more than make up for all of the players who decide not to spend anything.

    There are ways to successfully make AAA games FTP without making them P2W.  Fortnite is a good example of that.  On the flip side, what's nice about the subscription model is the revenue stream is a little more predictable.  If you're able to amass an audience like WoW or Netflix, having that huge of a predictable revenue stream is great (even Netflix lets you try the service before committing to their subscription though).  At least on mobile, one of the things we're exploring right now is how to integrate robust subscriptions into existing F2P games in a way that uncaps spend by utilizing microtransactions, but at the same creating a predictable stream of revenue for a portion of our total revenue to reduce risk.  Some mobile games have already done this, but with only minor success.

    If the VR team does decide to strictly go for a subscription model, in my opinion they would be doing it because they are so passionate about the game that they want to make sure they are creating a great community that really wants to be there for the long term and feel like they can fund the business on the expected audience, but I have no idea.  The way you think about the game design changes drastically when you change the business model, and maybe they just want to maintain that integrity.

    Personally, I don't care what games you worked on.  While, yes, you have an impressive resume, F2P is a bad idea for Pantheon and MMOs in general in my opinion.  There are, literally, dozens of F2P games out there.  This is not that game.  This is "OUR game".  One for the old-school gamer.

     

    Apologies.  Didn't mean to make it sound like I wanted Pantheon to be F2P.  I was merely expressing my opinion on the type of business model which would likely be more successful from a financial standpoint, which I believe is the OP's concern.  I'm an old school EQ fan like most of you.  From a player's perspective I would prefer to see the game be subscription-based.  However, the game is not ours, it's VR's, and they need to make money to keep the business going so we can all play until the end of time.  Will be curious to see what happens down the road.

    I can dig it.  Your post came across like you were saying, "I am an industry expert becaause of my development experience (which you are, kudos for that, it's a tough industry to succeed in) and the only way for Pantheon to succeed is to be F2P.  Sub models will kill it."

     

    In my opinion, F2P, and the necessary "pay cash to do/buy things" support model make a rather large segregation between the "haves" and the "have nots" based on their income.  "Hey looke!  I can go places and enjoy things that you can't because I could afford to buy this bitchen new armor and weapons.  SUcks to be poor."  The other model for F2P is advertising.  I don't want to see a bilboard for Pepsi/Bacardi/Dominos smack dab in the middle of AVP when you're runnign through or a big Chevrolet banner hanging off of a wall in Thronefast.

    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:51 PM PST

    I know that I am in the minority with this statement, but I would be willing to pay $24.99 for a monthly sub.  That being said, I also know there's alot of people that don't have the same disposable income that I have and $14.99 seems fair.

    • 1019 posts
    November 19, 2018 5:52 PM PST

    It works well for Amazon Prime, it works well for Netflix, it works well for a lot of services that offer quality goods for a fair price.  Thats what Pantheon is going to be and offer.

    • 2419 posts
    November 19, 2018 6:00 PM PST

    Kalok said:

    I know that I am in the minority with this statement, but I would be willing to pay $24.99 for a monthly sub.  That being said, I also know there's alot of people that don't have the same disposable income that I have and $14.99 seems fair.

    I do find it quite funny subscriptions have been $14.99 for well over a decade.  If you take a subscription in 2000 at $14.99, looking at the cumulative effect of inflation over 18 years that $14.99 is more akin to $22.00 in 2018.  Frankly VR is doing a disservice to themselves keeping with $14.99 as their rate.  I'm a huge proponent of paying more for something that is worth it.  If Pantheon becomes the game I hope it will be, $14.99 is a steal.  But, as you mentioned, some of us have more disposable income than others...but I'm not against weeding out some of the playerbase based on that.

    • 1860 posts
    November 19, 2018 6:05 PM PST

    Funny because I played both of those games (ddo and lotro) from release when they were subscription based and for a short time after they went ftp and witnessed the downfall.  The games turned into garbage from a players point of view after they went ftp.  

    Hopefully VR won't ever sell out and continues to care about their game and its community.  

     


    This post was edited by philo at November 19, 2018 9:09 PM PST
    • 1019 posts
    November 19, 2018 6:15 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    ...some of us have more disposable income than others...but I'm not against weeding out some of the playerbase based on that.

    I would not be opposed to weeding out some of the playerbase.  And I'm wholeheartedly agains F2P model because it will bring in a "different" crowd.

    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2018 6:26 PM PST

    Vandraad said:

    Kalok said:

    I know that I am in the minority with this statement, but I would be willing to pay $24.99 for a monthly sub.  That being said, I also know there's alot of people that don't have the same disposable income that I have and $14.99 seems fair.

    I do find it quite funny subscriptions have been $14.99 for well over a decade.  If you take a subscription in 2000 at $14.99, looking at the cumulative effect of inflation over 18 years that $14.99 is more akin to $22.00 in 2018.  Frankly VR is doing a disservice to themselves keeping with $14.99 as their rate.  I'm a huge proponent of paying more for something that is worth it.  If Pantheon becomes the game I hope it will be, $14.99 is a steal.  But, as you mentioned, some of us have more disposable income than others...but I'm not against weeding out some of the playerbase based on that.

    One reason that they can afford to do that is because when EQ and Vanguard ere $14.99 it was supporting a physical infrastructure in their data centers.  Pantheon is using cloud bassed systems, don't even get me sstarted on that (as an IT professional I have a certain opinion of "teh clowdz"), so it allows them to save on the cost and upkeep of a physical infrastructure and support staff.

    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2018 6:30 PM PST

    Kalok said:

    One reason that they can afford to do that is because when EQ and Vanguard ere $14.99 it was supporting a physical infrastructure in their data centers.  Pantheon is using cloud bassed systems, don't even get me sstarted on that (as an IT professional I have a certain opinion of "teh clowdz"), so it allows them to save on the cost and upkeep of a physical infrastructure and support staff.

    Yes, I am quoting myself.  I wanted to clarify something.  I am not 100% against "teh clowdz" despite my mocking tone.  I am against the people that think that it is the "be all-end all" of infrstructure.  It's just a buzz word that means "hosted on someone else's computers".  That being said, I don't think VR chose it because they thought it was something "magical".

    • 363 posts
    November 19, 2018 6:38 PM PST

    A $14.99 sub fee is fair considering the average household income hasn't risen to meet the cost of living in well over a decade either so it kind of balances out. Sadly MMO's are a reflection of income stagnation and not the inflation of the real world.

    • 643 posts
    November 19, 2018 6:46 PM PST

    Reichsritter said:

    This game is not trying to appeal to everyone. This game is specifically made for a niche audience. Not being yet another shitty F2P game with countless microtransactions and megatransactions is an inherent part of what makes Pantheon... Pantheon. If Pantheon were to switch to a F2P model I, and many others, would completely lose interest in the game. Full stop. That would be it.

    Free to play is an evil economic model. Pure evil. You said yourself you don't like F2P games but you are "concerned" about the game not going F2P even though this has been known since the start. That makes no sense whatsoever. At this point I consider anyone suggesting free to play to be malicious. Concern trolling is what this reads like.

     

    I attest that if this ever hinted at free-to-play I will instantly stop all interest in the game and walk away for good.

    I watched the whole debate over EQ and I watched microtransactions pervade the game and ruinously undermine the integrity of the game.

    I will never play this as a FTP or micro$ game.  And if it ever switches over to that (like EQ1 did) I will be really disappointed I wasted my prior time on it.

     

     

    • 1281 posts
    November 19, 2018 6:55 PM PST

    fazool said:

    Reichsritter said:

    This game is not trying to appeal to everyone. This game is specifically made for a niche audience. Not being yet another shitty F2P game with countless microtransactions and megatransactions is an inherent part of what makes Pantheon... Pantheon. If Pantheon were to switch to a F2P model I, and many others, would completely lose interest in the game. Full stop. That would be it.

    Free to play is an evil economic model. Pure evil. You said yourself you don't like F2P games but you are "concerned" about the game not going F2P even though this has been known since the start. That makes no sense whatsoever. At this point I consider anyone suggesting free to play to be malicious. Concern trolling is what this reads like.

     

    I attest that if this ever hinted at free-to-play I will instantly stop all interest in the game and walk away for good.

    I watched the whole debate over EQ and I watched microtransactions pervade the game and ruinously undermine the integrity of the game.

    I will never play this as a FTP or micro$ game.  And if it ever switches over to that (like EQ1 did) I will be really disappointed I wasted my prior time on it.

     

     

    I'm with you.  I'll be gone so fast they won't see my tail lights.

    • 1247 posts
    November 19, 2018 7:39 PM PST

    Me as well. I’ve had enough of the crap. Subscription it is and if it ever changes then I’m gone.


    This post was edited by Syrif at November 19, 2018 7:40 PM PST
    • 1399 posts
    November 19, 2018 7:56 PM PST

    I think Brads blog post might be a bit relevant to answer the OP.

    Want went wrong? WoW? 'WoW-Killers' or a general lack of guts?

    • 612 posts
    November 19, 2018 8:08 PM PST

    Thestus said: There is on title in particular (due to NDAs I can't call it out by name - but it launched in 2014) that tried a sub model and struggled.  After a year, the switched to a FTP model and they are now a massive success.

    I just wanted to respond to this particular point from the origional post in this thread. Since the worry seems to revolve around the idea that if Pantheon uses a Sub model, they may struggle and be forced to switch to FTP.

    One of the main differences between Pantheon and other modern MMO's is the funding model. Most MMO's are backed by a publisher company with tons of money invested (like 500 million+). That publisher needs to make their investment back, and they have a time table for how quickly they want that money. If the Subscription model isn't making them that money back in their time table... well they panic. If the game were only considering their 'upkeep' costs, they are still making money, but since it will then take years to earn back the initial investment; the game is actually 'failing' in the eyes of that Publisher who put all the money in. It's basically a 'debt' that needs to be repaid.

    As you explained in your example, that game was likely not paying off their 'debt' fast enough, and needed to bring in some huge money in a hurry. So they switched to FTP and the money flowed in, and they were then able to recover their investment and the game was then deemed a 'success'.

    Now, if we look at VR and Pantheon, their investment capital has come largely from crowd funding. Yes they may have some outside equity investors, but the vast majority of the millions put into the making of the game has come from the crowd funding. This means that this money isn't needing to be 'recovered' before the game is considered a success and profitible. As long as the Subscription system is able to pay for the 'upkeep' costs (ie Server costs, bandwidth, paying the employee's, etc) and still make some profit on top, they are a success.

    This is also why VR is able to take the time to make sure the game is great, and finished before they set a launch date. They don't have a Debtor breathing down their neck saying "We want to start making our money back" and forcing them to launch the game before it's ready.

    So I don't think we need to worry about the Subscription model causing VR to struggle.

    • 801 posts
    November 19, 2018 8:11 PM PST

    Changing a system that worked well for 20 yrs for some games, really should stay in. Many of us older players are fine with this system. FTP attracts all kinds of garbage.

    • 80 posts
    November 19, 2018 8:41 PM PST

    I picked up WOW and I can see why they a reason why they are so successful and can keep the monthly subscrption. The lore of that game is crystal clear. It starts off asking you to pick a side of a war. All the other games lore is built into the game as an after thought. In WOW you are playing a story and everything else is to help enhance your story. Now add many many options to enjoy some downtime and you have longevity.

    The one thing I'm worried about with Pantheon is the Lore, it doesn't seem to be the forefront of the game. Although community and grouping can pick up the slack if I must be honest. Gaming now is very anti-social oriented. 


    This post was edited by Makinelly at November 19, 2018 8:43 PM PST
    • 264 posts
    November 19, 2018 10:55 PM PST

    Thestus said:

    Hello all, 

    I'm a long-time EQ player and, like many others, am very excited about Pantheon: RotF 

    My largest concern thus far was to hear of the plans for a subsciption model.  Personally, I'm a fan of the subscription model, but I'm not sure it still works in today's market.  It worked for former games, but with MMORPGs that have come out in the last 5 years or so, it's not working.  There is on title in particular (due to NDAs I can't call it out by name - but it launched in 2014) that tried a sub model and struggled.  After a year, the switched to a FTP model and they are now a massive success.  

    Please don't get me wrong - I want Pantheon to succeed.  I want to see them crush it ... I'm just wondering what went into the decision to go with a sub model, because - at least in my experience - it no longer works.  

     

    Cheers, 

    Thestus

     

     Free to play works really well for certain games, Path of Exile comes to my mind as FTP done right. But we are talking about an MMORPG here. Every single MMORPG that went FTP was failing...losing massive amounts of subscribers or never attracted enough subscribers in the first place. The teams for many of these MMO titles were rather large compared VR and weren't making enough money compared to projections. When an MMO goes free to play the first thing that crosses my mind is that it has failed and that is how a lot of MMO players see it not just myself.

     The two biggest MMORPGs right now WoW and FFXIV are subscription based btw. Those are the two most successful MMOs on the market right now, though WoW is slowly fading. When people tell me $15 per month is too much money I can only laugh, I remember paying a $10 subscription for EQ with my allowance as a teen and paying $15 for WoW with money from my part time job in college. The real question here is this: have the recent batch of MMORPGs offered a good value for that subscription fee? My answer to that is no. It boils down to being a good value for the customer. Yes part of that value of a sub is not having to look at ads or deal with pay to win cash shop stuff but the real value of that sub is supposed to be having better customer service and steady updates for the game.

     Today's MMO market is a hot mess in my opinion. None of the MMOs play like RPGs anymore and they are all heavily instanced, they play like lobby games. Many do not deserve the title "MMO" nor "RPG" in my view. Lobby games should not be charging a subscription.

    • 77 posts
    November 20, 2018 1:03 AM PST

    Vandraad said:

    I do find it quite funny subscriptions have been $14.99 for well over a decade.  If you take a subscription in 2000 at $14.99, looking at the cumulative effect of inflation over 18 years that $14.99 is more akin to $22.00 in 2018.  Frankly VR is doing a disservice to themselves keeping with $14.99 as their rate.  I'm a huge proponent of paying more for something that is worth it.  If Pantheon becomes the game I hope it will be, $14.99 is a steal.  But, as you mentioned, some of us have more disposable income than others...but I'm not against weeding out some of the playerbase based on that.

    Could always have a minimum amount to pay for the sub and if you want you can pay more, like on certain music websites. That way those who want to give more to the devs can. No p2w stuff involved though.