Single Price (for early purchasers) Instead of Subscription
- Thread starter Aerylac
- Start date
It's not about consistently getting new players, it's about keeping the current ones on the merits of the game alone (which I believe MO2 is more than capable of doing, with opportunities for dynamic and emergent player-to-player and player-to-environment gameplay as well as in-depth systems that cannot be covered even in a handful of playthroughs) instead of monetarily stringing them to keep playing.
Yeah, none of the games are as hardcore or similar as MO2, but I'm sure you are aware of the differences between the style and type of content in a game VS. the publishers'/developers' business model.
I would have put up Star Citizen and Escape from Tarkov as titles aiming to be hardcore but have a consistent playerbase on a non-subscription based system, but since only one of them has RPG stat elements and none are fantasy, I felt it would hit less close to home.
Don't get me wrong, coming from games such as Wurm Online/Unlimited, Runescape, Conan Exiles, Minecraft (Java Edition), and Rising World, I absolutely yearn for a more hardcore open world experience; coming from the same standpoint as you--and many loyal players of this franchise--I still see the subscription model as more gatekeeping than a method for maintaining a playerbase.
Think about it this way: "unprecedented times" has been the catch-all phrase for the past year and then some, when it has clearly happened handfuls of times over the course of history. Players like us, with jobs and livelihoods, are giving a consistent stream of small fees to help the studio stay afloat, but since they are an amalgamation of small monthly fees, they a) only come in every month, b) anything could happen to the incomes of said players and something such as what happened last year could sever that stream of revenue.
Ideally, for maximum preparedness and profit, the subscription costs would be steeper, but that isn't consumer friendly and will consequently turn many people away from paying. Instead, having a singular steeper up-front cost from multiple players will sort of "pre-pay" some of the fees that would have otherwise been paid in small monthly amounts later down the line.
Going back to the games I have listed both in this comment and the previous, they serve as substantial proof that subscriptions don't matter in keeping a playerbase active if the content of your game is good.
Mortal Online 2 has extensive depth, immersion, and gameplay opportunities mostly unseen in mainstream persistent multiplayer experiences.
Adding a subscription cost just to play the game will gatekeep it from many who are willing to pay and support development; that, I believe is a massive cut to profit from excluding an entire demographic.
Interesting thought.
Wurm Online has a skill cap on people who do F2P so maybe that can apply here as well. Maybe skills only max out to 20 and have limited attribute points until they buy the game, and cannot trade or interact with those who are full paid members of the game from the one-off price
Ah yeah! You're correct; I mentioned before, old games using the archaic sub system have resorted to having subs purchasable in-game, such as EVE Online.
Again more proof that catering to non-sub players is helping keep the playerbase in. Quite a valid point
I will have to say, though, that the subscription doesn't necessarily "have to happen" for the developers to profit--as aforementioned in my other replies, there are many examples of the one-off price making ludicrous amounts of funding that sets the studio up for further future development.
What this game needs is to get traction with the hardcore RPG community, which I find are sparse communication-wise.
New World and Star Citizen being good examples of that business model though some have an optional subscription on the side.
Last edited:
I would argue against that.
As mentioned in my other comments, Mortal Online 2's varied content as well as its deep and dynamic gameplay alone will keep it standing for years to come. You do not need to string people along with monetary obligation to keep a playerbase: lead with the carrot and not beat with the stick.
Why were Dark Souls, Minecraft, Escape from Tarkov, and Star Citizen so successful? For the games that do have a sub model, it's only optional and majority of players lean on paying for the one-off price. Look at the statistics.
Why have older games with the same business model opted for offering lifetime subs for an extra fee, or for offering sub times purchasable with in game currency?
You say the game will run after 10 years, when we already have examples of sub-based games that are nearing that age or older barely plateauing in player count and only staying consistent because of the options offered as alternatives to the subscription.
This game already attracts a particular kind of player, the kind that will keep coming back for more; whether to keep exploring the depths of its mechanics, or yearn for the dynamic gameplay experiences it offers.
If you or the devs who read this have faith in the game as I do, you wouldn't want to gatekeep it from the already niche audience it attracts and narrow the demographic further.
A lot of pro-subscription folks are echoing the same thing: it will keep the game running and active; when there is already a wealth of instances that games with the "opposite" kind of business model have well outlasted them.
I really don't think anyone could disagree that there is a large amount of players that are not able or willing to pay a sub.
But SV believes that the number of players that will/do sub the game is enough to keep them going and developing.
I think from their experience with the last game they should have a good idea of what to expect from subs. Only time will tell of coarse.
So, for the short term players should expect to pay a recurring sub if they want to play once the game enters EA and becomes persistent.
But SV believes that the number of players that will/do sub the game is enough to keep them going and developing.
I think from their experience with the last game they should have a good idea of what to expect from subs. Only time will tell of coarse.
So, for the short term players should expect to pay a recurring sub if they want to play once the game enters EA and becomes persistent.
Last edited:
Thing is, I WANT the gatekeeping as it weeds out casual players. Honestly, the sub often scales to local economies so it may not be as much of a burden as people think. I remember some people in MO1 only having to pay 3 or 4 dollars a month because of where they live, for instance.
A skill cap on F2p is how Mo1 did it. Terrible idea.
I get why people keep asking this question (F2P cash shops a way of life now) but really its not that hard to understand.
The sub will be 15 bucks a month. The sub will pay the development peeps. The sub will allow them to continue to create content such as all the other continents. The sub will allow them to have professional in-game staff for things like support and dynamic events. The sub allow them to keep developing the software tech and hardware. As sub is steady income and will keep people paying as long as they keeping adding content. Did I mention the Sub will allow them to pay their peeps?
As for Haven, it was stated that it will eventually have a time limit so you cannot stay there forever. Oh, and there will not be any sort of F2P. Oh, and there will only be 1 character per PAID account. Oh, and 15 bucks a month is cheap.
Did I miss anything?
The sub will be 15 bucks a month. The sub will pay the development peeps. The sub will allow them to continue to create content such as all the other continents. The sub will allow them to have professional in-game staff for things like support and dynamic events. The sub allow them to keep developing the software tech and hardware. As sub is steady income and will keep people paying as long as they keeping adding content. Did I mention the Sub will allow them to pay their peeps?
As for Haven, it was stated that it will eventually have a time limit so you cannot stay there forever. Oh, and there will not be any sort of F2P. Oh, and there will only be 1 character per PAID account. Oh, and 15 bucks a month is cheap.
Did I miss anything?
MO2 is an extremely expensive game to make. The graphics and textures are one of the best in the whole MMO market. The game mechanics are very complex for an MMO, making coding(programing) a huge challenge. They also have to nail down animation for some of the games mechanics to work.Good animations are very expensive.
They have to fit all that in a single, persistent server where hundreds of players can be on the same place at the same time. Mantaining this server is another huge challenge.
Games like fortnite are extremely cheap to make, have very simple mechanics, have multilpe servers, servers wipe at the end of the match so maintenance is easier etc, cheap graphics, animations have to only look good instead of having mechanichs tied with them etc...
Even games like Albion Online or Eve Online are not that expensive due to being able to use clustered servers very easily, plus having simple mechanics, very simple animations, etc...
To summarize, MO2 development is so expensive that they cant afford any other bussines model at the moment. Maybe in the far future it could change but not for now.
They have to fit all that in a single, persistent server where hundreds of players can be on the same place at the same time. Mantaining this server is another huge challenge.
Games like fortnite are extremely cheap to make, have very simple mechanics, have multilpe servers, servers wipe at the end of the match so maintenance is easier etc, cheap graphics, animations have to only look good instead of having mechanichs tied with them etc...
Even games like Albion Online or Eve Online are not that expensive due to being able to use clustered servers very easily, plus having simple mechanics, very simple animations, etc...
To summarize, MO2 development is so expensive that they cant afford any other bussines model at the moment. Maybe in the far future it could change but not for now.
Yeah, you missed on when I mentioned steep or tiered one-off/up-front prices proving to be ridiculously more profitable than exclusively having a sub-to-play model. Not sure how i can quote it here, still have to find it. I have listed examples in other replies.
For the record, I do not agree on going with a F2P cash shop model. It's atrocious for hardcore games like MO that take lots of time investment for progression, so having shortcuts on top of cosmetics is a surefire way to self-destruct into P2W.
When i stated the example of skill caps, i was merely entertaining the idea; fret not, I do not agree with F2P cash shops
Last edited:
Definitely leaving the subscription mandatory in the first 6-9 months after release is a viable option. However, down the line it should not be mandatory to play the game.
I'm well aware that this game's scope is larger in ratio to the relatively smaller team manning it. It's therefore why I've shown games like Star Citizen as examples because it illustrates that you do not need a consistent pay-to-play model for the dev team to grow or succeed.
Let's zone in on that a little more. Star Citizen and Escape from Tarkov are aimed to be hardcore RPGs with slightly less, but arguably nearly as ambitious as, Mortal Online 2. They have tiered price points depending on how much the consumer wishes to pay up front. Depending on the tier, the consumer gets mostly-non-consequential rewards such as inventory space, utilities, and cosmetics. The former has an optional subscription model that the consumer does not need to participate in order to play the game, but gets more exclusive non-consequential goodies like insider news, early access, and cosmetics.
Cloud Imperium, the studio, has grown exponentially since its inception of the game, and did not even start out with a mandatory subscription.
However, as mentioned, I understand that the game's scope and depth is slightly out of proportion with the current dev team's abilities. I would at least propose that subscribing only be mandatory early in launch, if it really comes down to that being the lifeline of their development plan.
Last edited:
yeah lol, I've only experienced that in Wurm and it's not much of an example-setter in itself
F2P is quite hard to work around and would rather have an expensive game I pay for once than some casualized F2P crap full of Chinese and Russian cheaters
Why would you want to weed out casual players? If anything, we would want more of them as the majority are literal money bags who spend a big price once on a game then leave, and easily get replaced by another casual who pays the lump sum, so on and so forth..
You can easily turn casual players off from this game already being pretty hardcore, and they'll very likely give up well past the refundable date, so the money stays with the devs. I speak from experience as 5 other friends and I have had jobs working 6 days a week so we had a huge phase of casual gaming despite us being hardcore RPG fans at our cores. Casuals are easily put off when a game is too deep, and run off at the first bottleneck (which, let's be honest, they will take quite a while to get to).
Gatekeeping players casual or otherwise is detrimental to a game's, and a studio's, growth since a consistent refreshing of new players paying $70 up front and giving up past the refund date/time is better than $14 a month. Besides, being in the general community of hardcore MMORPG players, you never really catch wind for much of anything, unless it gets covered by word of mouth through social media or something. We are often so headlong into whatever game we're currently invested in, and critiquing in the back of our heads how it could be better, when there's something like MO2 out there fulfilling all our inner thought critiques.
The need for a sub model is evidently a problem in itself although it isn't always.
The community gatekeeps, and therefore refuses to grow. Because of its small size, the game starts to have a need for a steady stream of income to make sure our devs are fed, so a subscription model is needed. This strings players along using obligation, but also breeds exclusivity and a touch of elitism sometimes.
Compare that to Tarkov, with their tiered single-pricing, or Star Citizen, where that isn't mandatory to play. These games' communities grow, and because of their growth, they profit.
Both are hardcore and ambitious in their own rights, but speaking from experience and as someone who doesn't work anymore (because *cough* fuck 2020) and has therefore much more time for games, they aren't as plagued by "filthy casuals" because they just tend to end up leaving past the refund time.
Subscription need to be permanent, they need a stream of income for as long as the game stays active.
This game cannot sustain on cosmetic items, making cosmetics for MO2 is very expensive and time consuming because of the game mechanic that allow players to taget parts of the body that are not covered by armor. And wearing a cosmetic skin would hide those gaps from the opponent unless they make a system for players to hide skins. But on skins alone MO2 cannot sustain itself.
For example, take a look at albion online, they made it "free to play" but progression is extremely slow unless players pay for a subscription, and free to play players cannot compete in crafting with the subs players making it pay to win. They had to keep subscription because they cant sustain with skins alone.And Albion Online is cheaper to mantain and develop.
However, the initial price could be eliminated after a year or two, and make the game purely subscription based instead of buy to play. That would be the best approach to attract more players. Casual players would still be gated due to the subscription...and casual players that pay would quit after they get murdered the first time and lose it all.
Last edited:
Fortnite is designed to be a casual game that can be played once week, with an expected constant flow of new players coming in and old players leaving, thus a one time payment is a viable payment method.
Mortal Online 2 is a very niche hardcore game that is anything but casual and take a lot of work to get into. The target audience is much, much smaller but extremly interested in this unique type of game and are expected to want to play it for a long time.
Many people going in and out - One time payment is suitable.
Few people coming in, but staying for a long time - Subscription is suitable.
Mortal Online 2 is a very niche hardcore game that is anything but casual and take a lot of work to get into. The target audience is much, much smaller but extremly interested in this unique type of game and are expected to want to play it for a long time.
Many people going in and out - One time payment is suitable.
Few people coming in, but staying for a long time - Subscription is suitable.
Casual players follow one of two paths for the most part. They either come into the game and play for a month during which time they need a lot of help, so they find someone willing to help. That helper gives of their time and experience only to have the person drift from the game anyway, for the helpers it is rinse and repeat constantly as long as a stream of new players are coming in. It is tiring and eventually most of those willing to help burn out. Now, if the new players are already more committed to the game due to the gatekeeping of having to sub then a higher percentage will stay in the game and those helping can continue without the frustration that casual players add to the mix.
The second path is even worse for the game, these players also need a lot of help, and usually get it, but then they encounter the learning curve or even just a murderer etc, and rage quit. Then go out talking and posting bad reviews about a game that they didn't take the time to understand and so poison peoples minds against even trying the game, (word of mouth as you mentioned.)
My support for the sub system is less about economics and more about in and out of game effects.
Yeah, the part you mentioned about bad reviews definitely hit home because many other games apart from my examples have fallen to the more vocal responses, which tended to be people who don't even really know what they're talking about so I feel ya.
As for the helpers taking their time, that's a risk helpers should expect, regardless of whether or not the subscription is there. Keep in mind, subscriptions can be cancelled any time. Again, economically, a filthy casual paying full one-price for a game and leaving after a month or so is more profitable VS. them leaving after the same month only having paid the small subscription fee.
However, I understand you are less motivated by the economics and more focused on the experience.
I hope this doesn't sound too harsh: taking the gamble to help a player without knowing if they'll quit is a risk in any hardcore game and is ultimately on the choice of the player helping, and how much time they choose to give to assist.
I feel like this comes a lot from many people expecting returns on their time investment with aiding new players, such as endearing the player to themselves, have them join a clan, have theirs ally with them and maybe tax them, or have any sort of advantage and earning in-game.
As someone who plays a lot of hardcore games, I used to be that guy; I've helped people on stuff like EVE and Arma 3, and have had them leave early to no avail, and asked myself, "Why even do this? What do I get out of it?"
Assistance is a voluntary and selfless act, it's a risk a person chooses to take and should not be held on a stick with expectations of getting something in return. That was a pretty hard pill to swallow, for me anyway.
But maybe you're not that guy like I was.
For that I have another proposition: just start a helper's guild that has different types of players who are willing to assist folks of varying playtimes.
Get a social incentive in-game to get newbs to play more for getting that help (maybe you give them free shit like a horse after they come back to you for playing in a month; maybe like "show me your best sword/bow and I will reward you for applying what I taught"). Going back to the varying play times, you can have people who are only willing to help players if they've already had X amount of hours in-game, or have a solid goal they want to set.
Maybe even--at some early levels--have them pay the guild a small amount of copper/cuprum, etc.
Social incentives work wonders for in-game obligations, just as much as monetarily stringing them along.
For a game to succeed, you don't want to stifle its growth, and it's the kind of gatekeeping selfishness that necessitates having a subscription model.
I'm sure you--like I have--helped many a filthy quitter in the past, but I've had enough of that to determine who to help and who not to invest in too much. Like being in many relationships, you start to build a better judgment of character, using that to your advantage will help decisions in the future.
See my other replies for examples.
The game already attracts a very particular type of audience that, as you mentioned, is expected to play the game for a long time just on the merit of it being a good game alone. If that's your point, it would not matter whether or not filthy quitters come and go: in a single-price model they will leave even upon paying for the game, but leaving behind more money than if they left paying only 1-2 monthly fees.
The core playerbase of hardcore fans will stay and invest their time, so why keep monetarily stringing them along?