Monetization

[a.out]

Absolutely Not. What You See Is What You Get is a fundamental core principle of MO, as part of its goal to provide maximum immersion. A Sword made of a certain metal needs to look exactly like that so that anyone looking at it immediately recognizes it as such. Decisions might be based on what people wear. I won't have this game tainted by silly "cosmetics".

P2P is the only way.

 

[barcode]

Absolutely Not. What You See Is What You Get is a fundamental core principle of MO, as part of its goal to provide maximum immersion. A Sword made of a certain metal needs to look exactly like that so that anyone looking at it immediately recognizes it as such. Decisions might be based on what people wear. I won't have this game tainted by silly "cosmetics".

P2P is the only way.

agreed, tho various back adornments and loin cloths are purely cosmetic and could be done as a microtransaction. possibilities are fairly limited. Also clothing could be done this way as well, just something for the look with no stats on it as well as item decorations (reskinning the look of items in your inventory) but i'm not sure there is much appeal for things that cant be seen by other players. with the necessity of being able to identify the other player's gear, it makes for extremely limited use cases for cosmetics.

I like the idea, it gets people engaged in the ecosystem and can generate a wide variety of content but its simply not a good fit for the game. also nobody would trust SV with banking information for royalties on player made cosmetics. if microtransactions are needed, reroll tokens and 'plex' equivalents are likely the best bet.

-barcode

 

[Avenoma]

...but that's politics, and I loathe politics. Talk about that enough on Twitter.

Aye, my bad from talking about that on your thread about a serious issue. MB
I'd like to see a cash shop with UI assistance tools, unfortunately, developers cant make tools for everyone that has a disadvantage like me. I need shapes and colors to focus on while running through 'high pickables' areas, rather than words. It make me want to rage quit, when Im running through the jungle having to read the same 3 genus and classification or whatever, over and over, scouring for something I hadnt seen yet.

I dont expect anyone to make that option for me. That will clutter EVERYONEs UI with options that people DONT need. Id like to purchase a UI plugin I guess, that takes out the normal nomenclature of the game and replaces it with a colored shape of simple dimensions. Just a blue triangle or a line of 3 dots across the crosshair point.
Id also like to see a full on instanced real life money - cash cave for books...At least the normal everyday books. Not the 50g (important) books. The ones that Im too lazy, late at night, to go pick 1000 flowers just to buy, for.

 

[Oneirodynia]

Absolutely Not. What You See Is What You Get is a fundamental core principle of MO, as part of its goal to provide maximum immersion. A Sword made of a certain metal needs to look exactly like that so that anyone looking at it immediately recognizes it as such. Decisions might be based on what people wear. I won't have this game tainted by silly "cosmetics".

P2P is the only way.

Then hope that I'm wrong, or you'll have an "untainted" game without a sustainable population.

That said, I think they could work around the issue you're speaking about. Subtle accents to armor doesn't change what that armor is, just adds a bit of flare. It depends a lot on how it's incorporated and whether or not the flare blurs what you're up against.

agreed, tho various back adornments and loin cloths are purely cosmetic and could be done as a microtransaction. possibilities are fairly limited. Also clothing could be done this way as well, just something for the look with no stats on it as well as item decorations (reskinning the look of items in your inventory) but i'm not sure there is much appeal for things that cant be seen by other players. with the necessity of being able to identify the other player's gear, it makes for extremely limited use cases for cosmetics.

I like the idea, it gets people engaged in the ecosystem and can generate a wide variety of content but its simply not a good fit for the game. also nobody would trust SV with banking information for royalties on player made cosmetics. if microtransactions are needed, reroll tokens and 'plex' equivalents are likely the best bet.

-barcode

Yeah, I think there's ways around the issue being discussed. That and, like I said previously, decor.

As for nobody trusting SV with their banking information, if there's an issue there...then why would anyone trust them with their credit card information???

Aye, my bad from talking about that on your thread about a serious issue. MB
I'd like to see a cash shop with UI assistance tools, unfortunately, developers cant make tools for everyone that has a disadvantage like me. I need shapes and colors to focus on while running through 'high pickables' areas, rather than words. It make me want to rage quit, when Im running through the jungle having to read the same 3 genus and classification or whatever, over and over, scouring for something I hadnt seen yet.

I dont expect anyone to make that option for me. That will clutter EVERYONEs UI with options that people DONT need. Id like to purchase a UI plugin I guess, that takes out the normal nomenclature of the game and replaces it with a colored shape of simple dimensions. Just a blue triangle or a line of 3 dots across the crosshair point.
Id also like to see a full on instanced real life money - cash cave for books...At least the normal everyday books. Not the 50g (important) books. The ones that Im too lazy, late at night, to go pick 1000 flowers just to buy, for.

Absolutely no worries,

Yeah, I think things like that would probably sell pretty well too. I'm not sure about the legalities on selling accessibility options like that, but that's certainly a possible path to take.

 

[a.out]

Then hope that I'm wrong

No need. I know that you're wrong.

Also, those subtle changes of how that armour looks is part of the game too, and rightfully so. They specifically stated, that in order to reach full efficiency with a given weapon or piece of armor, you only need 70 skill points, anything above that will increase other qualities such as durability and ... decorations.

There simply is no other payment method better suited for MO's vision than a monthly subscription for various reasons. You simply gonna have to deal with it.

 

[Oneirodynia]

No need. I know that you're wrong.

Also, those subtle changes of how that armour looks is part of the game too, and rightfully so. They specifically stated, that in order to reach full efficiency with a given weapon or piece of armor, you only need 70 skill points, anything above that will increase other qualities such as durability and ... decorations.

There simply is no other payment method better suited for MO's vision than a monthly subscription for various reasons. You simply gonna have to deal with it.

I am dealing with it, by voicing my opinion and not buying in...........just like I did with ESO when they announced the subscription, until they dropped that subscription.

If MOII can manage to make it work, awesome!

I'll just live vicariously through whomever decides to stream it on Twitch. I have extreme doubts though, especially when they already tried a free-to-play system for the predecessor. As I said, development teams rarely do that sort of thing out of the kindness of their hearts, it's a business move when things aren't going according to plan. Combine that with many much more popular IPs going free-to-play, purchase-to-play, etc alongside people interested in MOII asking why there's little to no hype surrounding the game, that's my educated guess.

Hype dies when people realize it's going to be subscription-based.

Speaking from my own personal reaction and observations. When ESO, the person not the game, asked everyone on Twitter why there wasn't any hype around the game and people weren't talking about it, I couldn't fathom a reason either...and VERY nearly bought into the game before I realized that it was going to have a mandatory subscription.

So,

You have a game that looks absolutely fantastic but is an IP that most people are entirely unfamiliar with from a dev team that, even in this thread, has been implied aren't the most trustworthy out there looking to sell a subscription-based game in today's gaming climate, which has turned against subscription-based models, after their predecessor failed and they had to try and salvage it with a free-to-play system.

You can tell me I'm wrong, and maybe I am this time...but I highly doubt it.

 

[Eldrath]

All the ways F2P games usually earn money did not work well for Mortal Online 1. I´m fairly certain that they will allow some form of trial in the future, but full free to play does not combine well with the core design of Mortal.

Something that works for themeparks and shooters does not necessary translate well to a sandbox MMO. I think a subscription based game is fair.

ESO to me was boring as hell and I would have never touched if it wasn´t part of my humble bundle. F2P works much better for big games since they can generate the number to attracts whales and kids.

MO on the other hand with a niche design, 18+ settings and a rought community will not attract the masses. I don´t think there are many finacially sucessful f2p games.

 

[Oneirodynia]

All the ways F2P games usually earn money did not work well for Mortal Online 1. I´m fairly certain that they will allow some form of trial in the future, but full free to play does not combine well with the core design of Mortal.

Something that works for themeparks and shooters does not necessary translate well to a sandbox MMO. I think a subscription based game is fair.

ESO to me was boring as hell and I would have never touched if it wasn´t part of my humble bundle. F2P works much better for big games since they can generate the number to attracts whales and kids.

MO on the other hand with a niche design, 18+ settings and a rought community will not attract the masses. I don´t think there are many finacially sucessful f2p games.

Yeah, we've been discussing that previously.

I'm not suggesting free-to-play though, purchase-to-play with a vanity shop is more akin to what I'm suggesting. Still potential issues to iron out, like some of what's been expressed previously by others, but not nearly as many that you'd get with free-to-play. That initial buy-in cost goes a long way.

That said, I really don't see this as a niche game when you have a very robust role playing community on Twitch itching for worlds like this to jump into. People think adult oriented games won't garner large demographics, but that's absurd...the gaming community has aged.

It's not a kids environment anymore...people are still locked in that mindset, especially those at the top, despite the obvious. There's three entire generations of adults who grew up gaming now, are making careers off gaming now, so that mindset is horribly flawed.

 

[Eldrath]

Yeah, we've been discussing that previously.

I'm not suggesting free-to-play though, purchase-to-play with a vanity shop is more akin to what I'm suggesting. Still potential issues to iron out, like some of what's been expressed previously by others, but not nearly as many that you'd get with free-to-play. That initial buy-in cost goes a long way.

That said, I really don't see this as a niche game when you have a very robust role playing community on Twitch itching for worlds like this to jump into. People think adult oriented games won't garner large demographics, but that's absurd...the gaming community has aged.

It's not a kids environment anymore...people are still locked in that mindset, especially those at the top, despite the obvious. There's three entire generations of adults who grew up gaming now, are making careers off gaming now, so that mindset is horribly flawed.

Yes, based on your assumption that this is not a niche game I can understand your argument.

I disagree with that assumption and will leave it to reality to prove either of us right.

 

[barcode]

All the ways F2P games usually earn money did not work well for Mortal Online 1. I´m fairly certain that they will allow some form of trial in the future, but full free to play does not combine well with the core design of Mortal.

Something that works for themeparks and shooters does not necessary translate well to a sandbox MMO. I think a subscription based game is fair.

ESO to me was boring as hell and I would have never touched if it wasn´t part of my humble bundle. F2P works much better for big games since they can generate the number to attracts whales and kids.

MO on the other hand with a niche design, 18+ settings and a rought community will not attract the masses. I don´t think there are many finacially sucessful f2p games.

its pretty clear this guy's not gonna get it. reminds me of the people crying when mo1 offered f2p trial accounts that they werent the same as subbed accounts, then you find out the people complaining are existing on some extremely liberal social programs in germany and simply didnt have the funds for it. i dont want to think its pricing people out but $15 for the number of hours i'll be spending in game isnt a bad deal to me, and for the majority of adults in first world countries who can afford a machine good enough to actually play the game, the price isnt a serious issue.

we all want the game to do well and to have a solid base of funding to keep churning out content but cosmetics really isnt the way.

-barcode

 

[Oneirodynia]

Yes, based on your assumption that this is not a niche game I can understand your argument.

I disagree with that assumption and will leave it to reality to prove either of us right.

I mean, it'll certainly remain niche with the current path...I don't disagree with that.

its pretty clear this guy's not gonna get it. reminds me of the people crying when mo1 offered f2p trial accounts that they werent the same as subbed accounts, then you find out the people complaining are existing on some extremely liberal social programs in germany and simply didnt have the funds for it. i dont want to think its pricing people out but $15 for the number of hours i'll be spending in game isnt a bad deal to me, and for the majority of adults in first world countries who can afford a machine good enough to actually play the game, the price isnt a serious issue.

we all want the game to do well and to have a solid base of funding to keep churning out content but cosmetics really isnt the way.

-barcode

Well, I certainly agree with, "we all want the game to do well."

It can't accomplish that if everyone invested continues asking, "Why is no one talking about this game???"

Like I said, I could be wrong...we'll see.

 

[Dimandius]

While a subscription may seem illogical to a newcomer to Mortal (that's how I first saw it, more than 8 years ago while I was busy collecting undead heads on my Thur-Khur for the first time), it starts to shine only once you have played for a while and have actually managed to comprehend the many intricacies that the game and its community have to offer.

First, you have to look at what this game actually represents. it's a fantasy world, but one much more realistic and much more immersive than most out there. How is that accomplished? The game is a sandbox, it lets the people in the box create their own toys, their own "quests" and their own stories. As a matter of fact, players are the greatest creators and contributors of content in this game. The game is also about player skill, not character skill, so it rewards those who experiment, who invest time and resources into finding the best recipes, the best builds, the best locations to build a base or hunt, etc.

What does this mean? It means that players need to feel that they have a level playing field. That basically anyone is able to start out in this game and improve, with the only requirement for that being their own commitment. Anyone could become the next Master Blacksmith, forging the best greatblades in the realm. Or anyone could become the next great Alchemist, discovering new and improved potion recipes. Anyone could become the next great warchief. Anyone could also try to be a common thief, but only few will succeed to be a Master Thief, like GrayFox - a name that has crossed the boundary of reality and has transcended the realm of legends!

What else do you need in a game where most of the content is created by its own players? You need it to be stable, but you also need it to be reactive to any exploits that players may eventually uncover and start to abuse. You need to be able to take an unbiased approach to any feedback, to test out any imperfections and be even more thorough in order to prevent the remedy from being worse than the original condition.

The subscription fee solves these problems nicely:
1. it provides a level playing field, where the occupation or income level of players outside the game do not affect their success in-game;
2. it provides the developers with a steady income that allows them to continue to tackle difficult mechanics in order to clean them up entirely and proceed with creating deep new systems for more meaningful player content to follow;
3. it discourages developers from spending their limited resources on items that are unnecessary and have a purely cosmetical value, in order for the game to stay afloat.

You also have to take into account the player base. The games mentioned as successful examples of F2P models are (pretty much without exception) mainstream games, widely accepted by a variety of players. Mortal's community, while its active part has both grown and shrunk over the years, and has featured some internal variety, for the most part is a unique subgroup when compared to the general gaming public. Polls in the MO1 forums have shown that median player age is actually significantly higher than that of other MMO's. Also, people in this subgroup generally have a very specific demand, they are looking for this game in particular, so their demand is, in economic terms, relatively inelastic when related to price, i.e. most people in this subgroup would not look elsewhere if faced with a higher subscription price, simply because substitutes for Mortal are hard to come across.

While it can be debated what level of subscription fee is suitable for a game like this, or whether a free trial (e.g. playing for free on the Starter Island, until given player feels ready to embark on their real adventure) can actually help the game in the long run, it is pretty safe to assume, based on the evidence collected so far, that a subscription model is the way to go forward. And this is evidenced by both the developers' insistence on this model, and the community's support for it over the years.

While this model is not without risks (e.g. a low player base that is insufficient to support the continuing development of the game), it would be the developers' responsibility to make meaningful marketing and other expenses in order to obtain a good return on this investment, but from then on, it would be their craftsmanship and the community's own content creation that will drive even more growth.

For us long-time players, I believe that we have proved time and again that we are in favor of this model. And for all serious newcomers out there, I'm pretty sure that they will see the value in this, as well, once they have managed to get their teeth into the universe that is Mortal Online.

 

[Worladge]

Как работающий студент скажу, что это очень сложно 15 долларов, даже уже 10 долларов довольно сложно с учетом того, что я живу в России и для России это довольно высокая цена. К сожалению, долго играть в эту замечательную игру не удастся.
Я также скажу, что буду стараться играть, но, к сожалению, очень мало и поэтому редко с интервалами. Но если они сделают региональную цену, то довольно много российских игроков согласятся играть и наслаждаться этим чудесным миром.

 

[Raziel]

This game is not meant to cater to a huge playerbase and it never will be. The people willing to play this sort of games will be willing to pay for it a small sum per month.

To play such a game you need to dedicate a decent amount of time to it and it’s impossible to play this as a casual. So a dedicated player will be ok with using a small amount of money for a major part of his free time.

The examples you cite have all failed and had to go free to play. But they were all hoping for a subscription based game like WOW they were just not good enough to maintain players entertained. And tbh if someone can’t afford 15 dollars per month for a game he’ll have to play tons of hours... well he should worry about other things than playing games.

Maybe they’ll make some kind of an unlimited time trial like they did for the first one. But I don’t know anyone that played in such a manner for very long. And since now we have only 1 character per account I can see people using alt accounts with free trials just to grief in towns. I hope they won’t do this anymore.

But they should definitely make a shop were you can buy cosmetics that would greatly help them grow. Things such as being able to upload a symbol for your company for a certain amount of dollars.

 

[Speznat]

This game is not meant to cater to a huge playerbase and it never will be. The people willing to play this sort of games will be willing to pay for it a small sum per month.

To play such a game you need to dedicate a decent amount of time to it and it’s impossible to play this as a casual. So a dedicated player will be ok with using a small amount of money for a major part of his free time.

The examples you cite have all failed and had to go free to play. But they were all hoping for a subscription based game like WOW they were just not good enough to maintain players entertained. And tbh if someone can’t afford 15 dollars per month for a game he’ll have to play tons of hours... well he should worry about other things than playing games.

Maybe they’ll make some kind of an unlimited time trial like they did for the first one. But I don’t know anyone that played in such a manner for very long. And since now we have only 1 character per account I can see people using alt accounts with free trials just to grief in towns. I hope they won’t do this anymore.

But they should definitely make a shop were you can buy cosmetics that would greatly help them grow. Things such as being able to upload a symbol for your company for a certain amount of dollars.

If he can't afford 15 dollar to play than he also can't afford the hardware to play.

 

[Kokolo]

I am a new player. And the fact it is subscription based is what drew me in. No microtransactions and content gated behind an extra playwall? And I get to craft everything in the game!? Sign me up.

 

[Weathermore]

This is not a popular opinion, but the original Mortal Online had a certain number of average subscriptions over its lifespan. StarVault has those numbers. They also have the numbers that determine what will make the game successful or not. Likely these numbers were run, and the skill points were allotted so that each 'heavy user' would buy between 2 and 4 accounts. This change was made for profit, not to stabilize the game or 'make the economy' better, as will be the argument against it.


I believe this number was around 1,000 active players on average, so creating MO 2 and pushing people to multiple accounts will increase their revenue 3x at max. And they've survived at the lower level for 10 years. Overall, I highly doubt they change the subscription model after all they've done to push people to pay for multiple accounts when compared for the first game.

Overall, where I think this game is going to struggle with subscription model, is that it pinholes players into one particular play style with their points. So you're going to be paying $15 a month just to bust up rocks, and not craft. You're going to be paying monthly just to be a mounted archer, and have to spend a month to revamp character just to experience a new playstyle. This isn't going to bring a lot of player retention, as when they get bored, they aren't going to spend 3 months to build a new character, and many non-power users won't have the resolve to buy another account just to have a different playstyle. This is where the model falls apart, in my opinion.

Overall, I think the monthly fee is needed. There are only so many cosmetics you can have in a full loot game like this, as anything that you mentioned would either be an entire permanent reskin, or would be destroyable. I think that having a PLEX type mechanic would be a good call here, it did wonders for Eve, possibly bringing that game from the brink of death. The other thing they could ultimately do is allow multiple character slots per account at the price increase of another subscription, same account, but the way that logins through steam are handled would have to change (and I personally think they are using the Steam login mechanic due to the massive data breech on their servers that happened a few years back).

The issue is not so much the monthly fee, it's what you receive in exchange for said monthly fee.

 

[a.out]

Hype dies when people realize it's going to be subscription-based.

You still don't get it. MO hype is generated and kept up by exactly those things that the mainstream deems unviable.

 

[Grack]

I'll start off by saying that I've never played the original Mortal Online...or even heard of it, for that matter.

With that out of the way, and correct me if I'm wrong here but, what in the world are you thinking by making this a subscription-based monetization system in today's gaming culture? Bethesda couldn't even make that succeed with the Elder Scrolls Online, an overwhelmingly popular intellectual property...though the reasons for this were multifaceted. You're crippling your playerbase, and likely your profits, by making this a subscription-required game...especially for a game like this, which has plenty of revenue potential with optional cosmetics. That's taking aside the hardships of the pandemic that have vastly strained people's wallets.

Planetside 2 cast aside the subscription model of their predecessor and went entirely free-to-play. Despite their horrendous launch and perpetual complications, it still manages to pull in enough revenue to justify continued updates of a fairly significant scale nine years later. They should have had an initial purchasing cost, as it would have deterred cheating and gave them a financial buffer from the fudged launch, but that's another matter entirely. Either way, they're free to play and their monetization revolves around mostly cosmetics.

Warframe is another game that does exceptionally well through the sale of cosmetics.

ESO managed to salvage themselves by dropping the subscription requirement, though they went in an entirely different predatory direction through the perpetual sale of expansions...which is frustrating, but it can't be argued that it didn't work. There's likely a fair way to do this if they were to adopt something akin to Warframe's economy, where players can sell in-game items to other players for currency that can then be used to buy what would usually require actual cash. I'd farm in ESO to buy an expansion, without hesitation...and there would still be those who couldn't invest the time and, instead, chose to buy the cash-related currency to then trade for what I've harvested. All you have to do is get the scarcity levels right and a healthy economy established.

I truly believe the team should seriously reconsider how they're going to monetize this. You could easily do this cosmetically and have an initial purchasing price of $60 or so...with a cash-shop that provides items like, for example, a darker sort of mossy cobblestone to build with, fancy horse armor, fancy mount colors, unique furniture options, tattoos, piercings, hair styles, weapon styles, armor styles, the works.

So long as this is paired with an equally robust customization systems separate from the cash-only cosmetic shop, it's entirely fair and doesn't leave people with the impression that they're missing out if they're not paying in. I'm not going to care about the fact that I can't get a cool piercing in the cash-shop if I can get something neat in the base customization system... Alternatively, I'd care even less if I could farm materials in-game to trade for the currency that allows me to then buy this item from the cash-shop...because you can bet your backside that I'd be out there farming these materials to trade with someone who didn't have the time to invest, but wanted god knows how many stacks of whatever resource was a bit difficult to get without the time investment.

This sort of thing can work...

Initial Purchasing cost of $60 or so (Both to deter cheating and as a nice financial foundation) alongside a purely cosmetic cash-shop with an in-game economy that allows players to farm for those who don't have the time but have the money to purchase some special form of currency for cash-related cosmetics. You could even do what many games are doing by commissioning the work out. Had Planetside 2 launched right alongside the Player Studio, they would have been monumentally better off...and Warframe's creator-driven content certainly sells well. Individuals have made a career off this new trend and they've been itching to do fantasy work alongside the much more common Science Fiction work they already do. This reduces your costs in creating content and allows the team to focus more on foundational features and advancements in the overall game itself.

Don't make a subscription mandatory in today's gaming climate....this is certainly just my opinion, but I strongly feel it's a massive mistake. It's also one that's hard to come back from when the most hype for a new game is at launch.

Regardless, game looks awesome. The customization of weapons is...well, amazing and ripe for even more monetization in the aforementioned rant.

EVE Online is a sub based game, probably a more fair comparison as well considering it is also a persistent based sandbox mmo, the games you have given as an example are not. Much like EVE, Mortals survival depends on peoples investment into the game and the living world where players create the lore and history has they go. If the game is good people will pay to be apart of it. There is nothing quite like MO out there and it has massive potential, people won't just pay for an account they will likely make a second steam profile and buy another copy

 

[Olympeus]

I plan to play MO2 precisely because it has a Sub and NO cash shop.

The sub-model vs the cash shop model are two different game designs, and two different player experiences. I don’t enjoy both types, I only enjoy one.

As a consumer/gamer, if the sub-model game design doesn’t appeal to you, then just take your business elsewhere. Virtually every MMORPG on the market has a cash shop for you to spend your money.

With 20+ years of MMORPGs on market and ~15 years of cash shop monetization the differences in game design and player experience are well known.

Introducing F2P and cash shop creates a different experience that is categorically inferior to what I am looking for.

Henrik has made it clear he is only interested in the sub-model for all the reasons that make the sub-model superior for like-minded individuals.

I’m sure Henrik considered the revenue implications before he started out, and petitioning Star Vault to change their business model out of concern for the financial well-being of their company seems like a transparent attempt to ask for cosmetics because you want cosmetics.

If the business model fails, it fails. At that point where SV may decide to go F2P and give you cosmetics.

I think we all want SV to be financially successful, and I hope they can be financially successful with the version of the game Henrik intends. Until that version fails I don’t think there is a point in asking for a F2P version with cosmetics since you say you also want the original version to be successful.