Games using subscription model in the future?

[AlTech]

Hi guys, 

I'm making an upcoming video game for Windows , Mac and linux.

It's currently in development and I'm wondering or not upon release if it should use a subscription model, traditional one time payment or both.

 

I've recently found that many games are way way too expensive to buy, and on top of that the shear number of them really hurts my wallet in the short term and potentially the long term.

I suspect that I might not be alone in thinking that video games need to evolve into using a subscription service just like software did a couple of years ago (for the most part).

 

Please let me know what you think using the Google Form below.
 

An example price per month would be like $3-6 and an example price for one time payment would be around $30-40.

 

Also feel free to discuss it in this thread, No hatred and nasty comments please!

 

Edit: Go to the google form instead of the strawpoll and also the price has been changed to $3/month and $20 respectively

 

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1Khvg3sdE28vk-5gcR9_BSu5zSo8EfCsTjXnlhEcWUes/viewform?usp=send_form

[terrytek]

Don't make it a subscription based game. People will hate you.

[minibois]

With a subscription, you have to keep in mind people will have to play it for a set amount of time minimum (or average among every player) so that you make your 40 bucks per customer.

So with a 3 dollar subscription, the average person would have to play for 13 months or so, while with 6 dollars it would be almost 7 months.

 

With a subscription, people expect you to update. Can't have the same game for so long, because people will stop the subscription. But with a one time payment, it really is, you get the money and even if they are done with the game a month later, you still have the money.

 

So it highly depends on what kind of game it will be

[TechNugget]

No. Subscription models for games would not go down well.
Only my opinion though.

[SkywardKkalox]

They will die eventually but don't expect them to die soon, take WoW for example.

[ShadowCaptain]

SNIP

 

 

Unless its some crazy massive constantly evolving and long life MMO or similar, do not use subscription models!

 

If its a traditional game, that takes a set amount of time to complete or a standard MP game then a single up front charge is THE best way to go

 

 

You COULD go down a micro-transatction route but for COSMETIC ITEMS ONLY

[minibois]

They will die eventually but don't expect them to die soon, take WoW for example.

But WoW is pretty much the only subscription MMO

[Jerakl]

The poll question doesn't make sense. I like one time payment.

[AlTech]

Unless its some crazy massive constantly evolving and long life MMO or similar, do not use subscription models!

 

If its a traditional game, that takes a set amount of time to complete or a standard MP game then a single up front charge is THE best way to go

 

 

You COULD go down a micro-transatction route but for COSMETIC ITEMS ONLY

Or go like Rockstar and make people a lot of money and then introduce micro-transactions.

 

JK 

 

What rockstar did with GTA V is unacceptable in terms of payment.

[Dabombinable]

Some games such as EVE Online already use the subscription model, with the year long subscription costing you the least amount overall. And as a bonus you can earn enough isk to buy plex, which extends your subscription only at the cost of time.

[SkywardKkalox]

But WoW is pretty much the only subscription MMO

And it still has a pretty healthy fanbase. That pay 15 euros per month to just play an MMO.

[AlTech]

Really guys?

 

Well I guess it comes from demographics because I asked some people on steam and they didn't hate it.

 

They said it could be an option.

 

 

I'll probably have both options available.

[Grrizz]

Personally I cant stand games that require subscriptions, in general the games industry seems to realise people don't like it and are moving away from it too with F2P and micro transactions (that are hopefully cosmetic only) being the new stand-in. You may want to reword your poll too, "yes" and "please have both options" are kind of the same answer to that question (or/and variants).

[Remilia]

Subscription is only going to work for a very small number of games, it's not something the industry needs at all.

It'll work for a game that gets frequently updates with content to keep the game fresh. That's why it used to be so popular with MMORPGs, they could be easily filled with lengthy content.

 

It's not a bad business model, it's just hard to justify, especially when you can get a similar result with a free-to-play model.

Personally I'd really like to see triple A games try out a model like CS:GO. An initial payment that is lower than the regular price, like $25-$35, and with micro transactions. I think something like that is actually necessary for certain games to succeed, take a look at Titanfall and Evolve, there's just not enough meat on those games to justify a full triple-A price.

[AlTech]

Subscription is only going to work for a very small number of games, it's not something the industry needs at all.

It'll work for a game that gets frequently updates with content to keep the game fresh. That's why it used to be so popular with MMORPGs, they could be easily filled with lengthy content.

 

It's not a bad business model, it's just hard to justify, especially when you can get a similar result with a free-to-play model.

Personally I'd really like to see triple A games try out a model like CS:GO. An initial payment that is lower than the regular price, like $25-$35, and with micro transactions. I think something like that is actually necessary for certain games to succeed, take a look at Titanfall and Evolve, there's just not enough meat on those games to justify a full triple-A price.

 

Subscription is only going to work for a very small number of games, it's not something the industry needs at all.

It'll work for a game that gets frequently updates with content to keep the game fresh. That's why it used to be so popular with MMORPGs, they could be easily filled with lengthy content.

 

It's not a bad business model, it's just hard to justify, especially when you can get a similar result with a free-to-play model.

Personally I'd really like to see triple A games try out a model like CS:GO. An initial payment that is lower than the regular price, like $25-$35, and with micro transactions. I think something like that is actually necessary for certain games to succeed, take a look at Titanfall and Evolve, there's just not enough meat on those games to justify a full triple-A price.

Alright cos I want to provide new content for it in updates somewhat frequently.

But should I make it cheap and then have micro-transactions which give experience/rank boost?

 

example - If i buy a house (in said game) i might get 100 XP normally but should I be able to pay to have 10-25% XP boost so I get 110-125 XP.

 

OR finally should I just release a base game at a cheap price (maybe around $15-20), get a base game and then have DLC which gives the player more cities and countries.

 

 

Lol and the people who made Titanfall (the big guys at the top anyway) used to work on Call of Duty until they were fired.

[Dabombinable]

Alright cos I want to provide new content for it in updates somewhat frequently.

But should I make it cheap and then have micro-transactions which give experience/rank boost?

 

example - If i buy a house (in said game) i might get 100 XP normally but should I be able to pay to have 10-25% XP boost so I get 110-125 XP.

 

OR finally should I just release a base game at a cheap price (maybe around $15-20), get a base game and then have DLC which gives the player more cities and countries.

 

 

Lol and the people who made Titanfall (the big guys at the top anyway) used to work on Call of Duty until they were fired.

Just don't make it so that people can pay to win.

[AlTech]

Just don't make it so that people can pay to win.

I won't do that! I find it really frustrating when I play GTA V and BF4 when people spend money on micro-transactions so they are better and win more often (In the case of GTA peeople buy more missiles and airplanes).

 

It's not going to be pay to win.

 

Notes:

-The boosts might be part of the in game casino where there is a random chance of getting a boost or not.

-If the above happens there will be no micro-transactions

-There will be DLC for a truly awesome and all new experience which compliments the base game.

[Psykomantis00]

If you make your game subscription based your family will starve. 

[AlTech]

If you make your game subscription based your family will starve. 

I'm considering just having a traditional payment method instead.

[Bsmith]

Don't make it a subscription based game. People will hate you.

 

yeah people don't like that.

-thinks of WoW-

actually... quite a few

-thinks of ESO-

nevermind, a subscription based game is less actractive to people.

[EChondo]

Hi Thunder,

 

I'm going to give you my opinion/suggestion and if you have any questions feel free to ask me.

 

I have played a fairly decent amount of MMO's/F2P games, stuff like Guild Wars 2, DC Universe, War Thunder, Warframe, ESO, and soon Blade & Soul in the Winter.

 

My friends and I play these games together and what makes us continue to play these games is if the payment model is fair. We've grown quite fond of Guild Wars 2 over the years, but with that game becoming stale we'll more than likely be switching over to Blade & Soul when it releases this Winter. Now if you don't know about these games, they are both MMO's, but GW2 is a one-time payment with a in-game cash shop consisting of fair convenience items and cosmetics only, while B&S is going to be F2P BUT will also have a similar cash shop and an optional premium membership will be available, however spending more will not make you more powerful than someone who doesn't pay. Their business model can be read here. Also their in-game currency can be converted to real currency for the cash shop so you technically never have to spend any money at all for this game. This is amazing for our group since we can sink hundreds of hours into this game without spending a dime, but we are also the type that will buy things from cash shops to support the devs, hell I might even get their membership if it's fair to me.

 

So what am I getting at here? Well to reiterate, make your payment model fair. From your survey some of the numbers being thrown around are $30-$40 for one-time payment or $3 for a subscription. I think $30-$40 can be a great price if the content we are getting is worth it. I think $3 a month is a great price for a subscription if the game is even remotely interesting.

 

So what do I propose? Well I don't know anything about your game, the direction you want to take the game, or the scope you have planned for this and how many people you have to throw at this game. However, I can suggest that I'd be interested based on price alone if you priced the game for $30 one-time payment and have a $5 OPTIONAL monthly membership for little bonus items or whatever you feel like giving to allow players to give you some more money every month as a tip of some sorts, also you can take on a cosmetic cash shop as well for a bit more income if that is something you're interested in. I know you don't like P2W items, which is great to hear, but don't completely dismiss a cash shop option if you can do it well and fair for everyone.

 

Again, this is just my suggestion and take it with as much grain of salt as you want! Best of luck with the game and hopefully whatever path you take will work out.

[Th3 Mans1ay3r]

Yeah no.