I was wondering today what impact New World's pricing model may have to the wider MMO market given that it has no subscription, and what so far is a minimal cash shop.
Not all companies have the financial strength behind them like Amazon, so is it possible that they can disrupt the status quo with NW? Or will they fall into a more common F2P model as the game matures?
And no, I haven't played it, just keeping abreast with the genre.
New World will, sooner than later, have a huge cash shop. Yes, Amazon is the richest company in the world but they got that there not through giving things away for free. Amazon will get money out of the players, over time, one way or another. Their playerbase would quit en masse if they suddenly introduced a subscription model but most wouldn't care if a cash shop showed up. Those who love cash shops will spend money there and those who hate them won't....unless there are items that give you in-game benefits.
New World has a minimal cash right now because players would revolt if they went overboard at launch. They most certainly will, over time, increase the number of items in the cash shop and increase pay for convenience/progression items and ‘catch up’ type items. If you are bored, check out KiraTV on YouTube. He has extensively looked at New World and their revenue model over the past 6 months.
It is not possible for a game to exist and not be bringing in revenue. The cash shop model only works because of whales, and frankly, as a business why would you want to operate that way. Well, actually, I know why they would - more money. Because most companies money is more important than their own integrity. There is no such thing as free to play. Someone has to pay to stay in business.
Some people may point at Guild Wars at launch and talk about how their game did not charge a subscription fee. But ask yourself, how much has changed in that game? Do you know for certain the type of infrastructure needed to run that game vs a normal MMO? How fast do players consume content, requiring them to buy more expansions? They are generating revenue or have minimalized expenses somehow. Players are never going to trick a company into losing money. And now with GW2 they certainly have a cash shop. So no, a buy once and never again online game doesn't exist.
Many players are sick of cash shops because when you include them, the company has to design the game in a way to either require purchasing items or consider (the whales) will buy a lot and possibly drastically alter the balance of progression. As a player, can anyone give a good reason why you would want your gameplay designed around knowing players will be buying items from the in game store? Who would want that? The easiest thing to do is to just leave them out and go with a standard subscription so everyone is on level ground, no one has an advantage, and no one can buy an advantage. Why is that such a frowned upon model? People spend more on cofee in a couple days than you would for a month of enjoyment.
I have no knowledge of New World or it's history. But I'll guess that what Amazon is doing is similar to what many stores do. They offer something they call a "loss leader", which is something they sell below/at cost in order to get you to walk into the store. Then the other things you decide to buy while there make up the difference. Amazon is getting players to try out the game and hopefully like it enough to stay when the 'cost' goes up. Which in this case is either adding a sub, adding tons more stuff to their cash shop, or selling an 'expansion' every month.
As everyone points out, the business has to make a profit one say or another.
bigdogchris said:The easiest thing to do is to just leave them out and go with a standard subscription so everyone is on level ground, no one has an advantage, and no one can buy an advantage. Why is that such a frowned upon model? People spend more on cofee in a couple days than you would for a month of enjoyment.
Well said; absolutely agree with you. Whenever I feel guilty for spending some coin on coffee, I think about how much money I've saved elsewhere. My previous job was based in the CBD and I would get a coffee at least 2, if not 3 times a day!
It almost feels like there are three different models, and one of them seems to be falling way behind.
Subscription based
Free to play with a cash shop
Buy with a cash shop
Which one is falling behind? You got it, subscription based. Why? I don't really know but my suspicion is because the other two models make more money, that's what business is all about right? I don't think what Amazon is doing is anything new, it's just that it's such a big title that almost everyone knows about it. There are many other free to play games that make boatloads of money.
New World is nothing new. Guild Wars 2 and ESO started out the same. BDO is the same. B2P game models are nothing special.
It will do nothing to disrupt the big 2 subscription-based games.
It'll have the same cash shop garbage in it as BDO, ESO, and GW2 does in a couple months.
It'll end up falling by the wayside eventually. It's a PvP focused game with weak PvE. Those never last. You can't gank in the game because most people will run around with PvP turned off so they don't have to deal with the toxic PvPers. The coordinated siege warfare stuff will get old fast. Repetitive gameplay of that nature gets old quickly, unlike repetitive PvE content. There is always a losing side and people will get tired of the same people always winning and bail. Then you'll see a handful of top guilds owning everything and no warfare to speak of as the population of casual PvPers inevitably roll back into their old games.
New World will be a blip in the MMO landscape.
From what I saw on gameplay videos (I didn't play it, so it's just a guess and not a statement), New World lacks some kind of game soul or spirit. I doubt it will become THE MMO of the next years. If we think of our beloved Pantheon, I assume projects like Ashes of Creation are more dangerous because closer to the spirit of our project.
Adonhiram said:If we think of our beloved Pantheon, I assume projects like Ashes of Creation are more dangerous because closer to the spirit of our project.
This is actually the wrong attitude to have. A MMO similar to Pantheon which is a success is only good for Pantheon as it brings more players to the Genre and get them interested in the style of MMO that Pantheon is. Joppa himself said this in a PAX Virtual Panel he did back in Sept of 2020 (source) which included the Creative Director of Ashes of Creation - Steven Sharif, the Creative Director of Crowfall - J Todd Coleman (who also made Shadowbane back in the day) and John Smedley (who we should all know).
It's about an hour long segment... I don't have time atm to skim through it to find the exact quote from Joppa, but I'll try to find it later and update this post with an exact timestamp, but if you want to listen to the panel it was interesting.
Ranarius said:It almost feels like there are three different models, and one of them seems to be falling way behind.
Subscription based
Free to play with a cash shop
Buy with a cash shop
Which one is falling behind? You got it, subscription based. Why? I don't really know but my suspicion is because the other two models make more money, that's what business is all about right? I don't think what Amazon is doing is anything new, it's just that it's such a big title that almost everyone knows about it. There are many other free to play games that make boatloads of money.
Subscription based games are falling behind because a lot of people today find it liberating not to be bound to a game (after being required to spend countless hours attempting to use a product that they were paying for... whether they were playing or not). If they pay no subscription, they don't feel "obligated" to "get their money's worth" (even though it isn't that much money). It's more of a psychological effect... simliar to a person being more likely to purchase an item for $99.99 over a slightly superior item selling for $100.00, just because 99 is a double digit vaule compared to the tripple digit value. A F2P game "presents" itself as "Free" (although most people know that nothing is free), but people will still allow themselves to be pulled into those games because they are given the "choice" to not have to pay a subscription. When you play a subscription game, you will continue to pay that sub until you find a dif game to play or you cannot afford to pay the sub... regardless if you are playing that game or not. Think of some streaming services you may have, that you are paying a sub for, but you don't want to cancel it just because one day you may want to watch/listen to something on it... but you could go months without using it - or sometimes even forget you have it. That is the appeal of a F2P game. I'm fine with subs, but I can see why that game model suffers when facing the F2P with non-P2W cash shop platforms.
Darch said:Subscription based games are falling behind because a lot of people today find it liberating not to be bound to a game (after being required to spend countless hours attempting to use a product that they were paying for... whether they were playing or not). If they pay no subscription, they don't feel "obligated" to "get their money's worth" (even though it isn't that much money). It's more of a psychological effect... simliar to a person being more likely to purchase an item for $99.99 over a slightly superior item selling for $100.00, just because 99 is a double digit vaule compared to the tripple digit value. A F2P game "presents" itself as "Free" (although most people know that nothing is free), but people will still allow themselves to be pulled into those games because they are given the "choice" to not have to pay a subscription. When you play a subscription game, you will continue to pay that sub until you find a dif game to play or you cannot afford to pay the sub... regardless if you are playing that game or not. Think of some streaming services you may have, that you are paying a sub for, but you don't want to cancel it just because one day you may want to watch/listen to something on it... but you could go months without using it - or sometimes even forget you have it. That is the appeal of a F2P game. I'm fine with subs, but I can see why that game model suffers when facing the F2P with non-P2W cash shop platforms.
This may be the truth, yet for me I have the opposite reaction. I'll much rather pay a sub or outright purchase something than be nickel and dimed (or cents for us Aussies); the latter is an instant turn off. Though I have had friends who were in the "I don't buy games" camp yet have spent a few thousand on a single F2P.
Non subscription games will always have the bigger audience now, especially with the rise of the mobile market which has made in game transactions so standard. Thankfully not all companies care about only making as much profit as possible and as we see on these forums (or even AoC fans to a degree) there is a very large market whom crave for a subscription based system.
Darch said:more likely to purchase an item for $99.99 over a slightly superior item selling for $100.00, just because 99 is a double digit vaule compared to the tripple digit value.
The $X.99 was actually introduced back in the 1800s to minimize theft by employees. With whole dollar values it was easier for an employee to pocket a dollar or two whereas something selling for $X.99 (or other non whole dollar amount) would force the employee to give change.
That said, there is a definite psychological aspect to seeing something costing $999.99 as being a better value that something costing $1,000.00 or there abouts..mostly because the average person is an idiot.
@Vandraad, the late 1800s was actually when the dollar bill was created... items cost the gambit of change from $.01 to $.99. A gallon of molasses cost $.15, a dozen oranges cost $.50, and live stock (like calves) sold for $2.50, making for a purchase total of $3.15; I don't think they invented "change" to prevent employee theft as much as it was to simply place values on merchandise.
I'm not venturing an opinion about the 'preventing theft' theory either way.
But the whole $19.99 vs. $20 is pretty much based on the psychology that Vandraad pointed out.
Though I would personally attribute it's success to the average person not receiving training in critical thinking skills and how to recognize manipulation, rather than being an idiot.
Counterfleche said: [...] The latter would further expand the audience for the service and would also make the subscription appear to have more value for the money spent. For example, Disney + has some shows I would want to watch, but I might not think it has enough (or I would subscribe, binge watch Mandalorian, then cancel. Having an MMO bundled in would keep some customers subscribed because they have something else (gaming) of value while they wait for the next season.
This kind of dove-tails expands on thinking i had regarding what people said about VCR's back in the day how it changed how people watched televisoon, they called it "Phased watching" because you could record and watch later instead of being bound to a programming schedule. Also cut out ads. Consider the impact of "Binge-watching" and movies. Its almost as if a movie in its standard form with production values and constraints is no longer limited to a 2-3 hour frame. Rather, a "movie" could be an entire 8 hour "binge". Look at Squid Games as an example, or even a rediscovered "Breaking Bad". The point about The Mandalorian is a good one- getting the subscription just for the series then cancelling it but maybe holding on to see if there is anything else- like clone wars maybe? - and falling into that psychological trap of never unsubscribing unless dire economic needs force you to.
Daybreak tried that model of a one-stop-shop for games under their umbrella, but in order to do that they had to take ownership of those games away from the original producers.
The value from an MMO is more than from a streaming service, but it may be hard to convince the public that spends more for instance on Fortnite with an average of - what was it?- 250$ a year? in cash shop items? as opposed to "whales" that have been proven...not to exist or at least, not exceed the 250$ a year- AVERAGE.
If it can be somehow equated with Critical Role second campaign and the enjoyment of the time put in, along with the mentality of binge watching a 30-50 hour segmented "movie" but with the twist of having it go on beyond that time- with people
and make it addictive- heh. will keep the sub model successful. The only other factoid will be longevity. Dont look at the forward income stream, look at the end income stream, that doesnt end.
Darch said:@Vandraad, the late 1800s was actually when the dollar bill was created... items cost the gambit of change from $.01 to $.99. A gallon of molasses cost $.15, a dozen oranges cost $.50, and live stock (like calves) sold for $2.50, making for a purchase total of $3.15; I don't think they invented "change" to prevent employee theft as much as it was to simply place values on merchandise.
Sorry, I meant to say the 1900s and didn't catch the mistake. My argument still stands in that it $X.99 was done to limit theft.
Manouk said:The value from an MMO is more than from a streaming service, but it may be hard to convince the public that spends more for instance on Fortnite with an average of - what was it?- 250$ a year? in cash shop items? as opposed to "whales" that have been proven...not to exist or at least, not exceed the 250$ a year- AVERAGE.
For the average person it is far less than that. That ~$250 figures in the whales which dramatically raise the average, and yes they absolutely do exist.
I know people who have spent thousands on a single F2P.