vjek said:Regarding Lord of the Rings Online, From here:
" Lifetime subscriptions were offered to Founders at $199.00 USD. After release, the Lifetime Subscription was offered to others for $299. "
Also, Pantheon currently offers a lifetime game subscription reward with the 10k pledge.
Which is approximately 55 years at 15/mo. You're not pledging *FOR" the lifetime sub. You're pledging to get the game made an they throw in a lifetime sub, among other things. I didn't pledge $500 for a three month sub. I pledged to get the game developed. A three month sub just happens to be one of the "perks". I'd have pledged the $500 even if the three month sub hadn't been a perk.
Kalok said:Grimseethe said:LOTRO online did a $200 lifetime sub and they have regretted it ever since.
After 2-3 years of playing they make no more money and people play free forever.This is exactly why "lifetime subs" are usually considered the "last gasp" of a dying MMO. That one last cash grab before it shuts down.
Kalok said:vjek said:Regarding Lord of the Rings Online, From here:
" Lifetime subscriptions were offered to Founders at $199.00 USD. After release, the Lifetime Subscription was offered to others for $299. "
Also, Pantheon currently offers a lifetime game subscription reward with the 10k pledge.
Which is approximately 55 years at 15/mo. You're not pledging *FOR" the lifetime sub. You're pledging to get the game made an they throw in a lifetime sub, among other things. I didn't pledge $500 for a three month sub. I pledged to get the game developed. A three month sub just happens to be one of the "perks". I'd have pledged the $500 even if the three month sub hadn't been a perk.
You're kidding yourself if you think the pledge rewards don't play a HUGE role in the majority of people deciding if and how much to pledge. Companies crowdfunding their games know this, and they use the rewards as incentives to get people to pledge. When people complain about issues with the reward tiers, its as much about wanting the company to do well as it is wanting more for their money. There's no way I could afford a 3k pledge, but I think it should have a lifetime sub because VR would greatly benefit from more people being incentivized to pledge $3,000.
Also, as someone who bought a LOTRO lifetime sub for $200, the issue was it being criminally underpriced. And they paid for their miscalculation, but the LOTRO lifetime sub should in no way be used as a counter-argument for lifetime subscriptions.
zoltar said:Kalok said:vjek said:Regarding Lord of the Rings Online, From here:
" Lifetime subscriptions were offered to Founders at $199.00 USD. After release, the Lifetime Subscription was offered to others for $299. "
Also, Pantheon currently offers a lifetime game subscription reward with the 10k pledge.
Which is approximately 55 years at 15/mo. You're not pledging *FOR" the lifetime sub. You're pledging to get the game made an they throw in a lifetime sub, among other things. I didn't pledge $500 for a three month sub. I pledged to get the game developed. A three month sub just happens to be one of the "perks". I'd have pledged the $500 even if the three month sub hadn't been a perk.
You're kidding yourself if you think the pledge rewards don't play a HUGE role in the majority of people deciding if and how much to pledge. Companies crowdfunding their games know this, and they use the rewards as incentives to get people to pledge. When people complain about issues with the reward tiers, its as much about wanting the company to do well as it is wanting more for their money. There's no way I could afford a 3k pledge, but I think it should have a lifetime sub because VR would greatly benefit from more people being incentivized to pledge $3,000.
Also, as someone who bought a LOTRO lifetime sub for $200, the issue was it being criminally underpriced. And they paid for their miscalculation, but the LOTRO lifetime sub should in no way be used as a counter-argument for lifetime subscriptions.
Given that you have seen from multiple people on this thread that they'd have pledged regardless what the "rewards" were, myself included, I'd say that you're wrong for the most part.
That being said, no, they don't need to do a "lifetime sub" at $3,000. Especially when you consider that they are fully funded through release. They need money for ongoing maintenance, upkeep, and supporty for the game now more than they need large amounts of "seed money".
zoltar said: People may have pledged, but how much? The idea that pledges are pure charity and the rewards are inconsequential is laughable. Take all the rewards away and see how much people would be pledging. I would be surprised if it turned out to be a third of current pledges. Also they absolutely need funding to make the game. They would be crazy to trade $3000 now for $15 monthly. That's money that could go towards hiring more artists and animators (or more experienced ones). It would help get the game out faster and in a better shape. You make a mistake by thinking it's either or. Having more investment up front can lead to more revenue later on by attracting more players. Maybe they have enough to limp into a launch using current projections, but what if there are some setbacks? 16 years worth of subscription upfront is an amazing deal, especially when 16 years is very optimistic in terms of life expectancy for an MMO.
And then they would be out that "16 years worth of subs" to continue to support the game if they blew it all up front. That kind of short sightdness has killed multiple games.
dorotea said:As Kalok said, few of us think of our pledges as "buying" the perks, if for no other reason than the perks simply aren't nearly worth the amount pledged.
We pledge for other reasons, and the perks are a nice extra that encourages us to do such.
The perks were secondary or a second thought for me, I signed up in 2014 due to Brad McQuaid, Everquest, and Vanguard...did my pledge in 2014 and still have what I pledged for at that time. Haven't changed my pledge or upped it..and was promised the same "perks" as what I had signed up for. Bought the Lotro lifetime...as I was a tester for them back in 2007, and they were just starting out..perhaps a better move for Turbine should have been the lifetime, MUCH later on in the life of the game. Turbine sold to someone else and they are dealing with that situation now. As for Pantheon I will by sticking by them til I can no longer reach my keyboard. :)
Cana
Kalok, you do understand that the nature of an investment is that you plan on earning the money back, right? When VR gets funding from investors, they will have to pay it back eventually. So one way or another, VR is losing potential money from subscriptions in order to fund the game's development.
The funniest thing is that you talk about them "blowing" the money like they are a kid in a candy store. As if bringing in an extra developer or two to make more content and polish the game won't likely pay huge dividends and lead to MORE long term revenue. Brad himself has talked about how running out of money/time and putting out an unpolished product doomed Vanguard. But yeah, who cares about upfront funding.
zoltar said: Kalok, you do understand that the nature of an investment is that you plan on earning the money back, right? When VR gets funding from investors, they will have to pay it back eventually. They do this using the money they are getting from subscriptions. The funniest thing is that you talk about them "blowing" the money like they are a kid in a candy store. As if bringing in an extra developer or two to make more content and polish the game won't likely pay huge dividends and lead to MORE long term revenue. Brad himself has talked about how running out of money/time and putting out an unpolished product doomed Vanguard. But yeah, who cares about upfront funding. Lol. The logic you are using is so one dimensional.
Wow... Couldd one post be more wwrong?
1. A pledge isn't an investment. An investment is an investment. There are specificguidelines around investing. Crowdfunding is COMPLETELY different than invessting, both legally and financially. Try cancelling your pledge and tell me what you get for it. You will get nothing, not even yout money back. Are you "investing" in a child when you make a pledge to St. Jude's or Shriner's Hospitals? No. You're giving money to the organization so that they can aaccomplish their mission. Yes, I realize that there are some differences, given that both of those organizations are 501(c)(3) charities and you can get a tax dedution for it, but the point itself still stands.
2. I never said that they are blowing through money like "a kid in a candy shop". Show me where I did. The *POINT* behind what I said is that a one-time pledge of $x vs a continual sub of $y/mo has the chance of being blown up-front vs long term expenses. You should probably learn something about business before speaking on this point. A projecct's build-out costs vs the ongoing operational costs, including expendatures, is COMPLETELY different and is a different "bucket" if you will, accounting-wise. Operational revenue is completely different from start-up revenue.
You
Pantheon is not 100% crowd funded. Pantheon has recieved actual investments (edit: and still are seeking investments according to their website), which was what I was referring to. I was pretty clear about that when I said "funding from investors"... Anyway, my point was that these actual investments aren't free money and will siphon off revenue from the game just like a $3000 pledge with a lifetime sub would do.
Lets look at some actual numbers. Pantheon's initial kickstarter was asking for $800,000, which means that it could have been funded ENTIRELY by just 267 people making $3,000 pleges. They have also stated at one point that the game would be profitable/stable with sub numbers in the "tens of thousands". Lets be somewhat conservative and use a 30,000 figure. So fully funding their kickstarter with 3k lifetime subscriptions would have cost them less than one percent of their on-going revenue. And the actual number is likely far less than that because we're using a conservative estimate of the MINIMUM subscription numbers that the game needs. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing subscribers closer to the 6 figure range, which would make it only a small fraction of a percentage of the revenue.
If you think fully funding the crowdfunding campaing at a more or less negligible cost to ongoing revenue is a bad deal, you have no business lecturing anyone on how anything works.
zoltar said:Pantheon is not 100% crowd funded. Pantheon has recieved actual investments (edit: and still are seeking investments according to their website), which was what I was referring to. I was pretty clear about that when I said "funding from investors"... Anyway, my point was that these actual investments aren't free money and will siphon off revenue from the game just like a $3000 pledge with a lifetime sub would do.
Lets look at some actual numbers. Pantheon's initial kickstarter was asking for $800,000, which means that it could have been funded ENTIRELY by just 267 people making $3,000 pleges. They have also stated at one point that the game would be profitable/stable with sub numbers in the "tens of thousands". Lets be somewhat conservative and use a 30,000 figure. So fully funding their kickstarter with 3k lifetime subscriptions would have cost them less than one percent of their on-going revenue. And the actual number is likely far less than that because we're using a conservative estimate of the MINIMUM subscription numbers that the game needs. I wouldn't be surprised if we end up seeing subscribers more in the 6 figure range, which would make it only a small fraction of a percentage of the revenue.
If you think fully funding the crowdfunding campaing at a more or less negligible cost to ongoing revenue is a bad deal, you have no business lecturing anyone on how anything works.
I know it's not 100% crowdfunded. File that under "Thank you Captain Ovbious." The INVESTORS are looking for a return on their cash, that's why they need to be "accredited investors". The crowdfunders ARE NOT accredited invetors. Therefore, they should NOT expect a "return on investment", which is what you CLAIMED was the purpose behind the $3,000 through $10,000 pledges. Those PLEDGES are *NOT* investors. They are the same pledgers as the $50 and $150 pledgers. If you don't know what the difference is, it's time for you to stop posting about this because you're just making yourself look silly. The initial crowsd funding is for DEVELOPMENT (aka project) costs, NOT for continued revenue and operating costs. THAT is what the sub fees, and any additional investments, are for.
The original Kickstarter has NOTHING to do with the current invesemtne/pledge.sub stuff. That was shut down several years ago and that money is long gone towards the initial development costs. In addition, that campaign did *NOT* meet its funding goals, so yeah, there's that too. If you think that $3,000 pledges from 267 people would fund development costss AND ongoing revenue, operating costs, and development costs foor the lifetime of the game, you should probably share whatever it is that you're smoking. If the rumors are true, there are multiple hundred VIPs, possibly as high as 1,000. The MINIMUM pledge for that is $1,000. Assuming mid-range, and assuming that none of the VIPs are "leftovers" from the Kickstarter campaign, that would be around 500 VIPs at $3,000 have ALREADY pledged by the VIPs alone. I am choosing the mid-range for both the number and the amount, which obviously could differ but gives a good starting reference. This ALREADY blows you theory out of the water as they STILL neeeded additional development funds beyond that; and they haven't even gotten to the operational costs of the game yet. In addition, the $3,000 pledge does not offer a lifetime sub to the game, so after one year, those people will need to start paying a monthly sub.
I *HOPE* we see subscriber rates in the 6 to 7 figure range. That will make the game much more enjoyable. However, that still has NOTHING to do with what a waste lifetime subs are and how they do nothing but drag a game down as that is revenue that is off of the table long-term. Companyt valuation, especially when looking for investors, is about revenue over time, which would be less by handing out lifetime subs. You can't book that as recurring revenue. It is a one-time cash infusion. Companies like Autonomy and Enron tried to play that sort of revenue shell game and Enron was sued out of existence and the former heads of Autonomy are in the process of crimminal proceedings. HP, who bought Autonomy, had to write down $8.8 BILLION due to intentionally mis-booked revenue and a lack of due dilligence checking,
I stand by my statement that lifetime subs are the last gasp of a failing MMO for the most part. They are typically offered by a company that does not expect to be around before the lifetime of the sub switches from "free money" to "losing money". As with anything, there are exceptions, but that does not make it any less valid.
zoltar said: You need to go back and re-read because I never implied that pledgers were either intending to or entitled to making anything back from pledging monetarily speaking. The closest you can get is when I called a pledge an "investment/gift", which is clearly using the colloquial meaning of investment. But "gift" obviously implies that there is no expectation of monetary return. If a parent talks about investing in their child's education, do you think there's necessarily a formal contract for the child to pay it back with interest? So onto the other nonsense. First off, the Kickstarter failed, so VR didn't get anything from it. Also, I guarantee you that VIP pledges are heavily skewed towards the 1k pledge. I never said that the Kickstarter goal would have fully funded the game through it's entire lifetime. When I said "it" could have been fully funded by 267 3k pledges, I was referring to the Kickstarter itself, not the entire game. Of course it's likely that they would have done additional fundraising, but the Kickstarter goal is a good ballpark for what VR considered to be a major, primary phase of their funding. And getting that for a fraction of a percentage of their eventual revenue would have been a HUGE win any way you slice it. Your analysis where you downplay initial funding and WILDLY overestimate the potential impact of lifetime subs from $3000 pledgers is so one-dimensional and basic that it's embarrassing.
I'm done discussing this with you. Your complete lack of understanding of how opeerating a business, especially one that creates a product from scratch, and how to operate that business over time, makes it impossible for you to see why you're wrong. ESPECIALLY noted by the fact that you keep going back to the Kickstarter, which was cancelled over two years ago.
Good day, and good luck.
The Kickstarter goal is relevant just to get a ballpark for a major investment for the purpse of evaluating the cost of funding via lifetime subs vs. traditional investment. You aren't going to get an 800k investment for a fraction of a percentage of your indie MMO company. If you think they'll get a better deal through traditional invesment, you have no room to lecture anyone about business.
In other words, an $800,000 investment at a cost of 267 subs (out of 30,000 subs, i.e. 0.9% of revenue) would be valuing VR as an 89 BILLION DOLLAR COMPANY. Who the hell thinks VR is worth anywhere near 89 BILLION dollars?
Folks, the thread will be closed if you continue arguing over opinions. We have made an official statement on this so bickering over opinions despite what I posted is only going to cause unrest within the community.
Please take a breath, relax and read your post again before hitting send. Is it helpful to the development team? Am I going to change this person's mind or am I wasting my time? Will I give Kilsin a headache moderating my post? Has VR already made their stance clear?
All important questions you should ask yourself before posting on these forums! :)
$3000 invested at 5% is $150 a year without touching the principal. I doubt that there will not be a $150/year or less option for subbing. 5% is a very easy ROI. Plus they get the interest starting before they get started collecting the $15.
This is rather moot for this game, but a business, generally, would be poorly run not to take this with the caveat that perhaps they get people to pay more by not offering it. (For example, if they were to get 1/2 as many $6k supporters, because that is the lowest lifetime sub offer, they would get some of the other half to be lower sub rates and thus make more money - by however much that other half spends.)
So if you want a lifetime sub to this game, take $3 grand. Invest it at 5% and use the interest to pay the sub. For your efforts of having to write a check a year, you will get 3 grand (the principal) when the game finally shutters, whether a year a decade or a century.
Kilsin said:Folks, the thread will be closed if you continue arguing over opinions. We have made an official statement on this so bickering over opinions despite what I posted is only going to cause unrest within the community.
Please take a breath, relax and read your post again before hitting send. Is it helpful to the development team? Am I going to change this person's mind or am I wasting my time? Will I give Kilsin a headache moderating my post? Has VR already made their stance clear?
All important questions you should ask yourself before posting on these forums! :)
Thanks, Kilsin. I've been around since February 2014, same as Cana, though I rarely post (I'm a reader...). Yes, a lifetime sub was available back then. It isn't offered anymore. VR needs to have a continuing influx of money to continue development. It's that simple.
Unfortunately, there is allways someone loosing in the form of lifetime sub.
-If the game is great, and the player would have subbed it anyway, the company making the game is loosing.
-If the game is bad and the player wouldn't have subbed for long, the player is loosing.
This is hardly a win win situation, as someone is either paying little for great benefit, or much for nothing.