…in the which Tesh realizes that there actually is a price point on the demand curve where he would only very slightly grudgingly buy into the subscription model. (Hint: it’s an unholy intersection of microtransactions and subscriptions. Also, I’ll always prefer the idea of buying content over buying time, so this isn’t a radical shift in my mindset, just a way to find middle ground.)
*gasp*!!!
The discussion over at the Elder Game blog has gotten a bit long and winded, and a bit off topic, but it’s my experience that the best discussions often wind up running such tangents. It might be best to wander over there for reference, despite Eric (the original post’s author) having somewhat disavowed the discussion at this point.
To set the stage for those coming to this blog late (this is a review for veteran readers), I have a handful of problems with the sub model.
First and foremost, the flat $15/month rate doesn’t offer enough value to me, since I have a life, a job and a family, meaning severely constrained gaming time. I’ve always recognized that there are those who play 40 hours a week or more to whom the $15 is a pittance for the value derived, but my max 8 hrs./month doesn’t offer nearly the same cost/benefit yield. This is purely a number analysis, and this is the core of where I’m willing to compromise.
Second, I don’t like buffet style monetization when MMOs offer such a wide variety of play options. A well designed MMO will allow for players to play in completely different ways, so to my mind, it makes sense to offer more granular and customizable monetization. There’s definitely an argument to be made for the “club” mentality where everyone just pays the same and it’s up to them what they do (it’s easier bookkeeping, for one), but I do think that going forward, smart shoppers will want more control over what they are spending their money on. If I never raid, for instance, I don’t want to pay for that content. Likewise, a raider may not want to pay for the crafting suite because they never touch it.
Third, this is all assuming that the “service” sales is the way to go. I’m not convinced of that. Far more honest to me is the company that sells content, and who tries to maintain a good player/dev relationship by continually providing top notch content, not selling access to existing content. Then again, I’m the sort that buys a stationary bike rather than a gym membership, because I like actually having something as a result of spending money, rather than just having had access to something. Thing is, there are different customer mentalities, so there should be different monetization options. MMO games don’t provide me with a useful service like phone service providers, so I’m not inclined to pay for access each month. I can buy games that I have perpetual access to for the same money.
Fourth, I’m convinced that the subscription model has deleterious effects on game design. The monetization model will inevitably have an effect on any product, and subs are designed to hook people and keep them playing. This leads directly to grind in modern DIKU MMO design. To be fair, I’m a fan of the Final Fantasy games, where grind is also overemployed, but the difference there is that I can grind on my own time, since there is no charge per unit of time that I play the game. I have paid for the content, and I can play through it at my leisure. That’s a critical distinction. Subs don’t necessarily “cause” grind (Atlantica Online has it too; grindy DIKU design is just in some devs’ DNA, apparently), but they certainly have a terribly self-reinforcing relationship with it, and it has and will continue to warp expectations and design for the MMO genre.
As much as I dislike the sub-grind reinforcement death spiral, I can admit that I do like some Zen mindless grinding now and then. That’s why I can tolerate stretches in any FF game where I need to grind to take care of a particularly nasty boss. (And I like the option to do so, honestly. I loved the intelligent pacing in Chrono Cross that eliminated such a metagaming impulse, but most RPG games aren’t designed nearly so well-balanced, so grind becomes a great fudge factor when the devs can’t or won’t balance the challenge and pacing well.) It’s why I love Final Fantasy Tactics, Valkyrie Profile and Star Ocean games. They are just fun to play, even if it might be considered “grinding”.
It’s that admission that I can tolerate grind (cleverly disguised as fun gameplay), combined with the idea that came up in the Elder Game thread that gave the maligned subscription model an inroad to my wallet. It’s still a very constrained chink in the armor, but it’s there. In a more demanding economy, with Blizzard squashing the genre, it’s a chink that a savvy company could take advantage of, much in the same spirit that Chris over on ihaspc has admitted that private server rental might be a way for Blizzard into his wallet.
And that’s ultimately the point. A wider potential customer base will inevitably mean that the flat $15 isn’t good enough to satisfy all of the demand that’s out there. That’s the heart of market segmentation; different people have different needs and wants, and a company that tries to shoehorn everyone into the same “one size fits all” sales will inevitably be leaving money on the table.
So, with that lengthy prelude, what’s the magic key to my wallet for the sub model?
Microsubscriptions.
Give me the ability to tailor my subscription. Let me reduce the price by voluntarily reducing options. This is already the case in the “free trial” that most companies offer. They let players play for a short amount of time, with a constrained feature set. Microsubs are somewhere between a free trial and a full subscription, and most of all, they are customizable. Again, that’s the heart of market segmentation; let the customer determine the price point by tailoring their experience, and they are a LOT more willing to pony up the cash.
We see it all the time in other service industries. Cell phone plans offer a wide variety of usage options, and the mix and match plans are even better. Cable TV is packaged in bundles with optional riders. Car leases can even offer options sometimes.
Bottom line, when the customer feels that they are in control, the provider/customer relationship is much stronger, and that wallet opens up a lot easier. The provider still sets the price for the services, but doing so in a granular fashion allows not only for greater customer control, but better feedback for what options are well-received and more valuable. (This means better focus for further development.)
These are much the same arguements for a microtransaction model, honestly, just framed in a slightly different light. The Puzzle Pirates MT model sells access to certain elements of the game. Some are based on calendar time, some are based on usage time. (Like the difference between buying a “month” of cell phone service or buying a “1000 minutes card”.) Those are still time based, and the granularity in PP is based on “days”, not minutes, but again, they give a lot more control to the player.
Specifically with a World of Warcraft model, a “microsub suite” of options would go a long way to prying open my wallet. To wit:
Flatline $15/month: Everything and everything unlocked, experience is solely based on player’s time commitment per month.
$5/month: You may play any class (or any race), but only that class (or race). (Either Hunters only or Tauren Only, for example.) $10/month would mean access to two classes (or races), in other words. (And $15/month for three would be the same cost as access to all, so you may as well do a full sub at that point.)
$5/month: Full and complete access to all content, classes and races contained only in Vanilla WoW. (No expansions.)
Do you see what I’m getting at there? Gradate the access, gradate the price. It’s a little blurry around the edges when expansions come into play, since expansion-based things like Inscription get pushed through the whole game. A new game trying to take advantage of this sort of granularity would need to decide what things get pushed into live use throughout the whole game, and which things get isolated in expansions, but if it’s known ahead of time, it should be easy enough to compartmentalize. Those aspects can even be introduced as teasers to upsell players on the bigger service package.
You can also add riders, like remote browser-based access to the Auction House, or remote access to the chat system (apparently EQ did something like this with an instant messenging service, so the tech is there, but it could be monetized as a rider). Some of these could even be standalone modules, say for a businessman who loves the AH, but doesn’t have time to play the full browser. He could buy the AH module and wheel and deal from his Blackberry, and then jump back into the game at a later date if he felt like raiding with friends.
Speaking of raiding, if I never wanted to raid, perhaps I’d not have to pay for that content. That’s another level of granularity that could be shuffled into the options package.
This, of course, could also allow for prepaid minutes or days, like the Puzzle Pirates model. A 30-day “license” for WoW could be sold that could still monetize time, but at a much more user-friendly pace. A savvy customer could only play on Saturdays, for example, and stretch a 30-day license for 7 months or so. They aren’t using the system during the week, so why pay for it? This is exactly what I’ve done in Puzzle Pirates, as my Captain’s Badge only lasts for 30 days, but I’ve stretched it over more than a year by only playing when I have time to make it worth the investment. Three Rings got the same amount of money from me as from a player who uses their Captain’s Badge over thirty consecutive days. Yes, it’s spread out and makes their bookkeeping a bit more to keep track of, but ultimately, they at least got money from me, where Blizzard still hasn’t.
This model won’t be the best for some players, no. Of course not. The flat rate isn’t best for me. That’s the whole point; different service monetization for different demand.
Put in clear terms, I’d happily pay for a perpetual license to play WoW offline. I’d pay $5/month for access to Vanilla WoW alone, or access to all expansions with a Druid only limitation. I might even pay $1/month as a rider for remote access AH access, or $2/month for that module alone.
Argue the price points a little if you feel so inclined, but the heart of this microsub idea is that giving the customer choices, even if you’re going to stay completely subscription (or time-based, going with the “minute card/PP badge” model) geared, giving the customer options will break up that price curve and segment your market. Do that carefully, and you can be making MORE money than with a flat $15 sub price. You’ll also be making players happier since they have one more way that they are in charge, and the greater number of (happy) players will make for a stronger community. And again, the feedback that comes from players voting with their wallets can also be valuable for future development and budget planning.
The economy is busted, and the market is maturing. It’s time for MMO publishers and devs to get their act together and keep pace.
The only issue (possible) I see with all of this is the complexity. You know I am in the same boat and mindset as you when it comes to the sub model. I could see the average person looking at all the options as a new player, not understanding how it fits “them”, and making poor choices.
The best cell phone plan is (and the “type” escapes me) the plan that you use your phone at your own leisure for the month under normal use, and the software calculates *which* set plan you fit in based on the *cheapest* plan available from your usage.
Add that in with a ceiling price for the full time subbers and you have a winner. Time would be the easiest way though. One month, I go WoW crazy and play 40 hours, and I get a $10 billing on my CC. Next month, I am super busy and only play 4 hours, and get a $1 bill.
Now since WoW bills at the beginning of the month (and just using WoW as an example) the first month you pay $15, as a “retainer”, and every subsequent month they deduct based off of use and you have to top it up to the $15 mark each month (ie: you start at $15 payment, soak up $3, so have to top it up back to $15, so if you cancel or bounce your CC they still have a “Deposit”).
Those might work too.
Yes, I’m making the assumption that this would be aimed at savvy, careful shoppers. That’s not necessarily a safe assumption… but at the same time, the principle of opening new market segments means that you’ll wind up with some shoppers who don’t get it and others who do. I’m not sure there’s a good way around that. Some of the responsibility has to be on the shoulders of the consumer.
I’m also of the mind that offering more options is a good thing in general, and people will rise to the occasion when it’s their money on the line. That, and those who can’t be bothered to figure it out will still have the $15 flatline.
We could definitely look to cell phone programs for things that have worked. (And things that have failed, for that matter.)
I see what you’re getting at but I’m not sure you’re using analogies that will reassure anyone.
The last time I switched my cellphone plan, it took two hours of standing in a store, and 3 ‘trained professionals’ to get the job done. I daresay most people don’t have warm and fuzzy feelings about cell phone or cable tv plans.
The idea that really struck me as working is the “30 day access” plan, where a day gets knocked off my total only when I log in. That seems relatively simple to me, and would go a long way towards making subs palatable to a lot more people.
I wonder though, do game publishers have an incentive to open things up? Would micro-subscriptions bring in enough new business to offset the technical development (to build the granular access systems) and the customer support (to explain things) costs?
I’m not trying to reassure anyone. I’m pointing out tried and profitable market segmentation techniques that are one tool for competing in a WoW-saturated market. Yes, some customer service is abysmal, but that’s something that has to be addressed anyway, whatever model you’re using. Last I heard, even Blizzard had some trouble with that.
Smart devs and publishers should have incentive to open things up. That’s why market segmentation works; it’s profitable to pick up those outliers. It may be trouble for an entrenched game, for tech reasons, but any new development should be planning this sort of thing already. Wizard 101 is dabbling in this, and Puzzle Pirates has been for years now. Nobody yet has taken it to this level of tweaking, but that’s all the more reason to do so; the first to blaze that trail sets the bar that others will be measured against. (Which could come back to bite them, sure, but it’s also a good marketing position.)
The “sell 30 login days of time” thing that Puzzle Pirate Badges embody has worked very well for them, so yes, it would be a nice, quick marketable solution with little tech overhead. It’s a halfway measure, but it’s proven to work, and should more than pay for itself. I’d actually prefer something more granular, like login hours, but “days” is a reasonable compromise.
I do suspect that the fear is that existing subbers at the flat rate would downshift, reducing net profits. It’s not an unfounded fear for an established game, but I tend to think that the increased market share from new customers sitting on the sidelines would more than make up for it.
Then there’s the perception problem; so many people are so mindlessly set in their ways of “subscription=quality game” or “that’s just how it works” that it would be difficult to present anything like WoW shifting to such a model as smart business, whether or not it actually is. People hate change, especially if it threatens their perceptions. *shrug*
“I’m not trying to reassure anyone. ”
Granted, I said “you” but I meant it in a broader sense. The first game company that says “Our payment model is similar to that of a cell phone carrier” … well, that’s going to be a challenge for the marketing department.
Aye, you’d want to just present it as a set of options with some snazzy marketspeak. (“Build Your Billing” or something.) It’s about options, not about mimicking cellphones. That’s just how I’m framing the discussion, not how it should be marketed.
I think it is an economic truism that no matter what, the way a company charges for its product will affect how they design that product.
A buffet restaurant has an interest in putting cheaper, more filling foods in a priority position so you’ll fill up. But a restaurant that charges individually for items has an interest in making each item so good you buy more of them. The same logic holds for an MMO.
This is also why I advise against customers buying lifetime memberships. Imagine everyone bought such a thing. What incentive would the developer have to keep making content? They already got all the money from you they could ever get. Their financial motive is zero.
-Michael
Muckbeast – Game Design and Online Worlds
http://www.muckbeast.com
The core of the issue is competition. Cell phone plans changed for the better because there was equal footing on products and services. I remember when cell phones were per minute billing, at 50 cents a minute. If you talked for 10 minutes, 2 seconds you were charged for 11. Now they have every billing option under the sun available as they all offer the exact same service. Per second billing. Unlimited flat rate calling, free calls to a limited number of persons. Start up fledgling companies brought these to the market to compete with the big guns, and the big guns were then forces to follow suit to keep up with the competition. We are already seeing this happen in the MMO sphere but the difference still remains the actual – or perceived – quality of the titles and services.
It took 10 years in the cell phone industry to get where we are today, during which technology also improved massively allowing for the changes. We are probably that far away before we have 6-7 top quality titles to compete with each other.
If the industry doesn’t destroy itself first.
I think the idea has merit but using WOW as the example detracts from the idea. When a game is as popular as WOW, there is no incentive for them to build such a complex pricing model. However, offering something besides the all or nothing scheme could help the smaller population games.
If I could do just my DS from AOC for like $5 a month, I would do it. If I could have a max level character for harvesting and crafting in EQ2 for a reduced price I’d seriously consider it or would have prior to ROM. If I could continue to do training but not exit a ship hanger in EVE for $5 I’d keep it around whereas right now I’m on the verge of cutting it loose again. Some versus the all or nothing might have saved Tabula Rasa.
I think micro-transactions and more creative/customizable plans could me a mecca for smaller games.
It does seem like all of this could get way out of control!
@Saylah: I’m with you. For a reasonable fee based off of my usage I would be subbed to WAR, EVE, LOTRO and maybe even EQ2 for fun. It’s not that 15 a month is a barrier to me because I can’t afford it – I am lucky enough to have a stable well paying job. I just can’t do it out of principle on the basis of “value” for my dime. If I am going to just throw money away it might as well be for charity.
What I always wonder is how many people are out there like me? Doesn’t it make sense for all of those companies to get some of my dollars instead of none of them?
@Adele: it sure could
that’s why I think it is important in any payment system to have the “all you can eat” unlimited option to keep things simple and uncomplicated, while having several a la carte options to maximize revenue streams.
@Saylah:
*shrug* I use WoW as an example for the same reason that I use it as an example in other things I write; it’s a common shorthand way to refer to concepts a lot of people know. It’s perhaps not the best example, since yes, there would be trouble shoehorning some design decisions into WoW, but I do think that even they could benefit from trying to break up the way they address the demand curve. If anything, it’s that very popularity is a good reason to look at trying to monetize it further. People who aren’t playing but who want to are sitting out, with money to spend, unwilling to enter at Blizzard’s price point.
Market segmentation isn’t just for the struggling little guys, it can help any business who uses it well. It would just benefit the little guys most right now *because* WoW isn’t doing it. They can carve out a niche that WoW doesn’t touch.
…imagine what the genre would be like if WoW *did* enter those market niches. WoW would be even more pervasive. (Which could indeed be a problem, but it also points back to the prototypical pro-WoW argument that they “expanded the market”… if Blizzard found success breaking their monetization up this way, it mightn’t be seen as some sort of brainless non-sub option by the slavering fanboy hordes. Or the slavering Horde, whatever.)
@Adele, Chris beat me to it; I’m not calling for the $15 flat rate to give way to options, I’m calling for peaceful coexistence so as to capture as many customers as possible.
@Saylah and Chris, yes, the heart of this discussion is my desire to get adequate value for my expenditure. I’m not against paying Blizzard for work that I consider to be fairly well done. (Or any other company, to extend the argument. I could write the same sort of proposal for WAR or SWTOR… indeed, I have already written about what I’d like to see from SWTOR’s monetization.) I’m just not on board with the buffet model, and as long as that’s the only way to play, I’m sitting this round out, despite being perfectly willing to pay for WoW… just on my terms.
Chris, you have a good point on the competition concept. I do believe that part of the problem with that is that there are games that offer great fun (Wizard101 and Atlantica Online are easy examples) that just don’t have the buzz that WoW (or even WAR) does. Judging objective quality of games is a finicky thing at best, but when the bandwagon effect generates bottleglass-thick rose colored glasses, and social inertia suggests that “that’s just the way things are, anything different isn’t as good”, we’re in muddy waters. I’ve argued before that Puzzle Pirates, W101 and AO are at least as good as WoW for what they do, but try telling that to the fanboy brigade.
…maybe that’s another reason why I use WoW as my example, Saylah; framing the discussion in such familiar terms means I’m hoping to slip past that reflexive “it’s not WoW, it’s not good” mentality.
I understand but I think some people would immediately scoff and find no advantage to Blizzard bothering. Personally, I’m not so sure we need more players playing WOW. For all the good things, I feel it has stifled the industry/genre in ways that will keep it crippled for years – nope, no more people flocking to WOW please.
Oh, I agree that WoW has stifled a lot of things, and that pushing it into new market niches could well be a bad move for the genre. I do still think that they are leaving money on the table, though, which this is meant to conceptually illustrate. The argument then goes something like “if *Blizzard* is leaving money on the table, who will pick it up and how”?
I’ve never been too fussed with those who immediately scoff, though. It’s their loss.
[...] not unlike the discussion in the Microsubscriptions article, where I wrote about offering monetization options. Adele piped up with an implied [...]
I immediately compared this in my mind with the way they charge me for internet use. You have to sign up to a plan which has a certain download limit on it, but where you do that on the company’s website it says “if you only use the internet for checking your emails, get this 1GB plan. If you like to surf the web and download the occasional song, get this 5GB plan. If you like to watch a lot of streamed movies, get this 20GB plan.” And they always give you the option to “double your data” that month for a certain amount and you can do that at any time during the month.
So, if you only play the game one or two evenings a week, get Plan A. If you play the game all weekend but not during the week, get Plan B. And if you think you will play as much as you are able to, every weeknight and all weekend, get our Unlimited Plan. It makes sense to me, surely as long as you do not have tons of options it wouldn’t be too confusing. Limiting by class or race would certainly confuse newcomers to the game though. Especially class, they might want to try them all and they might change their mind but not want to give up their old character etc.
As long as there’s a buffet option for those who don’t want to decide, I see little harm in offering other sensible options. If someone gets confused by something this simple, heaven help them in the game itself.
Then again, I’m odd, since I do actually research things before I buy them. I know that’s not exactly the norm in our consumer-based culture.