Join the ongoing conversation on Discord: https://discord.gg/w6Tpkp2
To purchase your copy of the City of Titans Launcher, visit our store at https://store.missingworldsmedia.com/ A purchase of $50 or more will give you a link to download the Launcher for Windows or Mac based machines.
A number of MMOs have offered a "lifetime" subscription prior to launch, e.g. The Secret World and LotR. I believe both of those were 300 dollars. I was kind of surprised that wasn't an option for the Kickstarter.
Would people be interested in that as an option?
Unfortunately, we've been told that Kickstarter's policies do not allow offering lifetime subscriptions as a perk.
Ah, ok. Thanks for the info. Perhaps it will be an option later in the process.
They would be interested somewhere down the line but not at the initial release, after all, the game does have to support itself.
I too, would like a lifetime but I'll be content to a monthly subscription for awhile. ;)
Steve
___
"Listen, and understand. City of Titans is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely [i]will not stop, ever,[/i] until we are live!"
Warcabbit
I've seen other projects work around this for a sub-based game. Instead of making it "life-time", they gave the person at the appropriate backing level 3 years free, and then after that just charging about ~$1 a year from them.
But then, those people might have different financial needs going into their project than those at MWM. They didn't have to give a portion of their proceeds to another company besides Kickstarter/Paypal, as they were developing the engine in-house, and the company had already been around a short while working on smaller products, so they already had access to the tools they needed to start on a new one.
While I would be interested in something like a lifetime sub option if it becomes available in the future, I'm fine with it being not on the table at the moment as I'm fairly well destitute :P
I admit as a player lifetime subscriptions can be a convenience. But they are not good for game companies in the long run so I don't mind continuing to support the ones I really like financially.
Besides the main reason game companies usually offer lifetime subscriptions is to get quick infusions of upfront cash when the game first launches. There's no need for that in this case because that's exactly what the Kickstarter itself is doing for this game.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
As far as I understand it (and not being in the MMO development industry, that is admittedly "not far!"), but MMOs tend to make more money on micro-transactions than subscriptions and lifetime subscriptions, or free to play, has a tendency to up those micro-transactions considerably.
Of course, as I said, my understanding is limited to what developer friends tell me and I could be conflating that information.
Something I've not seen anybody do, but I don't understand why is to offer a modestly priced package at say $100-150 which grants you half price subs thereafter. This means you get some money up front but don't kill your income stream in perpetuity.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Lotro had a founder program. Basically, founders were people who bought the game (afaik) during open beta or before. They had their subscription rate locked at $10 per month, so long as they stayed subbed. The founder rate expired if their sub ever lapsed.
That particular implementation could have had a penalizing effect on returning players, however. Also, lifetime subs have potentially turned LOTRO into a paid expansion machine, with $40 expansions every year, with only 1-2 free releases per year (often one of which has been 'finishing' the expansion . . .)
I think there is room to innovate in the subscription market. That said, I think Path of Exile is THE ideal free to play game.
They also had a lifetime option. Free to play should be considered. I used to be biased against it, but it can be done well. Warframe is an example of a game that doesn't gate content behind pay walls. You pay for convenience more than anything.
RIFT also did the founders thing
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Well, I think charging for the box, at least, and having a subscription of some sort is still reasonable (Though I think $50 box and $15 base subs is less so). Personally, I hope that if the game comes ready, and they feel like a particular pricing model would better suit their game than what they envisioned during the kickstarter, they go with the best pricing model for them, and make up the difference for the backers with micro currency or whatever.
I got the lifetime option they offered before launch. $200 for no subscription ever. Since then, I have spent $45 on the game for one expansion before they went FTP. Now I am racking up Turbine Points every month without spending any money and can easily afford to purchase new content as it comes out. (Admittedly, I don't play much, if I leveled faster, I would have to spend something.) Lifetime subscription there has been great for me. Not so much for their take from me.
As much I would like a lifetime sub, I don't see how it can be good for the game. It seems a lot of companies seem to come out ahead by going to FTP route and making money through micro-transactions, but I don't see how that could possibly work for MWM. In order to do that, you must have the infrastructure to support hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of players with only a few buying items. Since MWM isn't a million dollar company (or even a "company" as traditionally understood) I don't see how they could afford to work on the game and support it until it became profitable (if it ever does).
Far easier to charge a subscription to be sure that everyone is helping to shoulder the load, IMO.
Unfortunate, but understandable.
As far as a game with "lifetime" subscriptions being self-sustaining, I'm confident that many Lifers would still be more than happy to to an occasional fund-drive, should it ever become necessary. :)
-S
Yea as much as I would love to have a lifer chance. I also don't want that to hurt them and then the game ends up having to go f2p because there isn't enough coming in from monthly subs to keep the game afloat properly. I wanna see this game grow and see new content and zones all the time. And not like CO where the new content is just a new vehicle on the game store >.> . One thing I loved about CoH was that each issue brought something big and new to the game. Look how many zones existed towards the end. I want to see that happen. Constant new zones and enemies and content. And if a lifer suby option hurts that. Then I would vote against it and just go monthly.
----------------------------------------
Owner and Big Sister of the Justice Girls -Champions Online-City of Titans-
Forum Breaker
Leader of the Ellysyn Dark Ensemble
I have to admit, the idea of paying for that kind of discount is kind of ingenious, since it gives the player something for sticking around, gets a lot of cash up front (cash is king in business and getting 200 bucks up multiplied however many times could be huge), and of course, encourages a player not to let their subscription lapse. (Although having a grace period would make the offer a lot less potentially harsh.)
I don't know if it would fit into the plans for Titans, but I'd definitely consider it, personally, if the option happens to come up someday.
Longtime City of Heroes player, longtime writer. :) Working in Nebraska.
COT: Mission tips writer, studying Cinema 4D animation program
From what I have seen "lifetime" subscriptions are offered by companies wanting an up-front money grab for games they don't consider to have much of a lifetime. It shows a definite lack of confidence on the part of the bean counters.
In direct contrast, MWM is very confident about their product and has no need for the quick cash grab. Besides, the more funding we give to them, the vaster and immersive the scope of "City of Titans"! :D
[center][color=purple][size=16][b][I][url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78N2SP6JFaI]Just a cat from another star![/url][/I][/b][/size][/color][/center]
As someone with a lifetime sub in CO, STO, and Secret World I have to say that I have mixed feelings about lifetime subs. I love the bonus store cash I get without having any more outlay of money (I have spent 10s of thousands of points on all three of those accounts during the time I've had a lifetime sub) so I got my money back and more...but the company is out the extra that I got and spent in the store.
This is not the same as for paying a sub and getting Game Store cash, since you have to keep paying.
Basically, $200 = 13.3 months at $15. So, on month 14 a lifetime sub starts to pull ahead of the game in the customer's favor. On month 26 they have paid half of what a monthly sub paid. And it goes further and further into my favor the longer that I keep the account.
Most of these games charge $10 for 1000 points, or there about. The moment I spent 40,000(~20,00 would have been given if I had a normal sub) points in any of these games I just paid off my lifetime sub, not counting the other goodies I get for having a subscription. I have spent more than that in all of those games.
So, Lifetime subscriptions are a great idea for the players...bad idea for the company.
See that's why I would vote against it if its going to hurt them. After a year or two I'm basically getting to play for free at the games fullest version. And that means thats money that the company doesn't see anymore. Money starts to dwindle. Then hours for the workers start getting cut. Less time to work on the game makes for less content and fixes. Eventually, all you do is release a new vehicle on the game store and call it new content. As is the games with lifer subbys are all f2p games and make money off the game store and the micro transactions. I'd rather keep paying monthly if it meant that we would keep getting chunks of new content and fixes and not just a new costume set after 4 months of nothing happening.
----------------------------------------
Owner and Big Sister of the Justice Girls -Champions Online-City of Titans-
Forum Breaker
Leader of the Ellysyn Dark Ensemble
The dynamic between Developers and Community is unique in City of Titans, and it behooves us to keep giving money to support this game well into its life, rather than trying to squeeze every personal benefit which can be derived rather than looking at the big picture and helping to do what's best for the game. Let's trust our Devs *not* to make the heinous business decisions which have destroyed player faith in the past. Let's reward them by giving them the benefit of the doubt and remember that our support of their hard work benefits both Devs and ourselves, as we are all players.
In my opinion, a lifetime subscription for CoT would be a grievous business error, garnering short-term returns but long-term deficits.
[center][color=purple][size=16][b][I][url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78N2SP6JFaI]Just a cat from another star![/url][/I][/b][/size][/color][/center]
All pretty good points presented here. I do want to mention one thing, people are viewing this when the player never lapses or continues to play the game well after a year. From my experience, the majority of people typically move on from the game to a different game (the 'new shiny') well prior to this. Thus, in effect, MWM would actually be making out on this in that case as these people have help subsidize the game early on and have never really 'earned' their subscription. I have a lifetime sub to CO and was paying for COH. I very rarely if ever play CO now so I think Cryptic probably made money off me. Lifetime subs also (as was said) provide a nice boost in cash flow early in a game's development when it is needed most normally. If MWM goes this route, I don't necessarily think it's a good thing or a bad thing. The upfront cash flow may help to add more content etc. at the start (which I think is key for a game's survival long term). Maybe they limit the number of lifetime subs or structure it like was mentioned earlier. That's my two coppers on this...
Limiting the number of lifetime subs would probably be *very* badly received in general
One thing I would point out as well, that most people haven't commented on, but is also along the same vein as "life time subscriptions" are the deductions in sub fee if you bulk buy 3/6/12 months in one go.
At the start of the games life, they do the same thing as the life time subscription.
They are there to get the money out of your wallet and into their pocket in as large a chunk as possible.
You are probably right Gangrel if it is a limited number. I was thinking more of offering it once (a one time availability) from X date to Y date. That way, it isn't a permanent option. That said, I was just throwing stuff out there. I do think that the up front large payment does have benefit for companies during the early development phase. Bulk buy discounts are another way of accomplishing that objective too. I guess my point is that it isn't quite a 'black or white' type of thing but something that MWM may want to think about...
Bulk buy and save some money I see a lot of. Shame though that I never see any game cards of that option. And also when I see those its by a reoccurring type. I would love to see those in game cards or in one time fees so that I could purchase them when I have the money and not worry that when the time comes to renew, I don't forget and it auto renews and I end up not having the money for it so I'm screwed and can't take care of things I needed that money for. Kickstarters getting a little discount though would be nice =P Just saying.
----------------------------------------
Owner and Big Sister of the Justice Girls -Champions Online-City of Titans-
Forum Breaker
Leader of the Ellysyn Dark Ensemble
The main reason that games go with the lifetime sub at the beginning is to defray development costs above and beyond the box price. This is not that same model. Development costs are being defrayed by people volunteering their time to the project. Most of the cost of a game comes from hiring your team. That is where the millions of dollars over the course of 3-5 years is incurred.
If you have 100 people (an average sized team for today's games market) each making 50,000 a year (it is a good average of the people working on these projects) for 5 years you end up with a paltry 2.5 million dollars.
If you add bigger budgets in areas like voice acting and such, you add a lot more money really quickly.
If all of your efforts are volunteered...
Then the kickstarter is their 'alternate revenue stream to defray start-up costs'.
I really, really hope they choose not to go the lifetime sub route. The main reason being I don't want to see this game hurt.
The other reason is I don't want a fourth lifetime sub under my belt.
Although I'm really not sold on lifetime subscriptions, either, I think that is where Amerikatt's "short-term returns but long-term deficits" gets to be somewhat misleading. It treats it like this is a case of you'll either put in the 200 dollars upfront and play for years or you'll pay 15 a month and also play for years.
Signing up for a lifetime subscription means a buyer is offering the two hundred up front. All at once, lump sum, early in the game's life. The other scenario is waiting month by month to see how the game's doing, and constantly deciding if you want to keep spending or if you're going to stop and wait for the next big thing to come out. Or get into solitaire or kick the can. Teens these days are still into hobbies popular in the early 1920’s right?
Per Innim wrote, "Basically, $200 = 13.3 months at $15."
15 a month. Okay I can buy that. For 14 months? Consider this - if I'm willing to put down 200, 250, or more for a lifetime subscription, you can be pretty sure I'm willing and able to buy myself a year's worth of time. And if we're using City of Heroes numbers, if I have the numbers right, it's listed at 12 months for $143.40 ($11.95 per month). By that math, 200 dollars is a bit over 16.7 months using the same rates as City of Heroes.
If the lifetime sub is 250, then we're talking nearly 21 months by the annual rate. And I could easily see it being 250 or a bit more. But that's 250 dollars up front for each person for a product that isn't even out yet to help get a stronger game. Opposing that, a customer who's putting down 15 a month - if they're going on a monthly basis, you have to think there is a very real chance that source of income could dry up at literally any point. Otherwise, why not pay more and get a longer term subscription?
And again, that’s money early on when people are most likely to give your game a try. And when the reviews for your base game are being done by the major game reviews out there. So maybe slightly better game, slightly better reviews?
You're also getting players who has an incentive to keep coming back to the game. So that’s potentially a few hundred gamers who’ve made a commitment to the game and are hopefully just a bit more likely to be around five or six years down the road, or when things get a bit rough for the game.
And finally, on the points issue, since it's already a given that in exchange for taking a chance on an unreleased game, you're going to get more than your money's worth for as long as the game's around, could they get away offering lifetimers a smaller per month amount of points? Say.. half of what subscribers get? Does that seem viable or am I mistaken? If they plan to stay around for years on end, even having to buy extra points every year or two, they still come out way ahead.
Just to, you know, play devil's advocate here and offer up a different viewpoint. I honestly prefer a slightly cheaper "pay a lump sum and get a lifetime discount as long as you don't let your subscription go inactive too long" option. (With an exclusive prestige bonus something thrown in.)
J
Longtime City of Heroes player, longtime writer. :) Working in Nebraska.
COT: Mission tips writer, studying Cinema 4D animation program
What if, instead of a lifetime membership, you got a nice discount buying a year at a time?
___
"Listen, and understand. City of Titans is out there. It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely [i]will not stop, ever,[/i] until we are live!"
Warcabbit
What if a limited number of lifetime memberships were auctioned off, players bidding against each other? Would that be the best way to set the price as high as players are willing to pay?
Captain of Phoenix Rising
You're out by a decimal point:
100 x 50,000 x 5 = 25,000,000
Add 25 or 30% on top of that for taxes and benefits, and you can see why so many commentators around the net are scoffing at the idea that $320,000 could make any kind of impact on the creation of an MMO. They just don't understand staffing costs.
Ah, but a man's reach should exceed his grasp, Or what's a heaven for? - Robert Browning
I expect this game and most MMO's would have an annual discount. That sounds a bit like saying "What if instead of giving the players what they want, we fix bugs instead? They both require programmers so pick one." I'm not sure you could really leverage something people expect out of a MMO as the reason not to offer the other.
Not that I could afford or really want it anyway. :)
Longtime City of Heroes player, longtime writer. :) Working in Nebraska.
COT: Mission tips writer, studying Cinema 4D animation program
Sure, we want to make money, but this isn't about money for us. Sure, we are eventually going to need money (especially in the current economy worldwide), but money is not the point.
We want a new home for this wonderful community. I know it sounds cheesy, but it's true.
If I could do this forever full time for just shelter and food, I would. Maybe I will; we'll see if the world lets me.
______________
IANAL, IMHO, WYSIWYG, YMMV, IIRC, AFAIK, ETC
[color=#ff0000]Composition Assistant Director, Composition Team[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
I'd favor an annual payment option (that provided a modest discount from the monthly rate) over a lifetime membership deal. It's a good compromise between "only having to worry about it once a year" and providing the company more money to keep the game going in the long run. I paid for CoH via annual payments from 2005 to 2012 and found it very easy and convenient.
CoH player from April 25, 2004 to November 30, 2012
[IMG=400x225]https://i.imgur.com/NHUthWM.jpeg[/IMG]
I think you hit the nail on the head at the point I was trying to make AmbiDreamer and I'm pretty much agree with everything say here. Also, I'm not necessarily saying they need the money to make money but to use that money to reinvest into the game and make it better, more complete, prettier, address server issues etc. that will invariably pop up once things are close to going live. For COH I always took the year discounted rate and I like the one time pay versus seeing that charge every month on my credit card.
Sorry, yes, I screwed up a decimal point. You get the point.
They scoff because they don't realize that the volunteers are in essence giving the company 250,000 each. Sure, that is sweat equity, but it is equity. if you have other sources donating the $25,000,000 for the employees and only need equipment, by far the smallest cost for starting up, then yes, the money for this kickstarter is more than enough.
I hope they stay away from lifetime options. To me, it's the death of a game from day one. The most successful MMOs use subscription or some pay for content concept - continuous cash flow. I would think this would be even more important on a venture like this. In my experience, the successful MMOs supply players with challenging or new end-game content or just new content. Some games are pay for content (like Guild Wars), subscription-based (many MMOs), or even a combination like City was until its death rattle of free-to-play with VIP option.
To-the-point, please no lifetime option or if you do I would agree with a reduced cost 1 or 2-year option for advanced payment.
"it's a long road to wisdom, but it's a short one to being ignored." The Lumineers
Hey Lothic, it is nice to see another forum name I remember. :)
Longtime City of Heroes player, longtime writer. :) Working in Nebraska.
COT: Mission tips writer, studying Cinema 4D animation program
I always liked the 1/3/6/12 month program myself. I do the 3 month at a time program over at Ryzom. I think it knocks off something like $5 or $6 over that 3 Month period, but it also guarantees them a 3 month subscription, although somewhat discounted, if I were ever to decide to unsub. I think they also do 6 and 12 month tiers as well.
Although it may seem like the only reason is up front cash grab (in a sense it is), it is also for sustainability so once someone has paid that extra time in advance, all parties are happy if that person decides to lapse later. No harm no foul on either side.
I think Lifetime is a bad idea. There is no good outcome for the game itself.
Lifelong comic book fan and City of Hero player here. I would can any lifetime subs idea concurring with those that say so above - but I was surprised there wasn't *something* along those lines for the bigger investors on Kickstarter. I mean, our SG, The Intrepids, have stumped up $3,000 for our own building. At that kind of level of commitment I would have thought something to help with the long term subs (if these have even been muted yet?) But lifelong subs at the $200 level just seems like lazy maths and I can't help wandering what anyone would have thought about lifelong subs being offered on CoH before they canned it? Would NCSoft have been obliged to return the subscription after making a small allowance of life expectancy? :-)
More the point, maybe, is that the Free To Play vs subs model that CoH/NCSoft introduced to CoH leading up to its demise along with many other 'market-based' decisions seem to have been some of that games worst and perhaps was part of CoH's undoing? Do any of the new CoT have direct knowledge of the decision making team on that game through that period?
Having played many other MMOs throughout and since CoH's demise the one MMO that seems to have perfected the balance of FTP vs subs is the excellent Star Wars The Old Republic. I was completely enjoying that game of Free to Play and then began spending so much (ie. enough) time on that I decided I might as well pay the small subs involved to cover some reasonably small 'lifestyle' improvements for me in the game, mainly so I could get unlimited Revives and because I was spending very close if not more than the monthly subs on game extras anyway.
In summary, for me, it's more about getting the balance right across the whole of the subscription model. I think the game would be better off not offering lifetime subs (for teh above reasons) but should look carefully at the complete balance of game features, extras, items, weapons and other smaller touches that can be safely siphoned off into the 'extras' department while optimising the average balance of payments into the account across the free to play users vs the real fans. And sorry if this is covered elsewhere but the other aspect of the subscription model is to what extent genuine fans would be happy subsidising the free-to-play mob anyway? My feeling on CoH in this respect was that too much of the premium content was aimed at power/lvl 50 users and not enough on continuing to develop and refine the game for new player/characters and mid-level characters.
I'm sure Sara (Quinn) and the team will get this right but my vote would go towards some kind of lifelong benefit (discounts) for big backers (and/or contributors), none for players who only want to do it because 'on balance' it might cheaper for them but that getting a perfect free to play (for introductory/casual gamers) balance vs lifelong fans/subscriber costs should be the real goal.
X marks the spot! OK, that's naff but I've been using it for ten years!
I'd love to see a founder's type option as in Rift and LoTRO. I was in on both, and able to play them longer during hard times than other games because of the lower sub price.
I really don't like the option of a lifetime sub as that cuts at the available cash reserve that every company should have just to defray surprise expenses (ie: if the server hamsters go on permanent strike, etc.) Though Minotaur's suggestion earlier of the 100-150 initial investment and half-sub fees thereafter would also be very nifty.
Though I have to say, if we lived in all the same city, and it was just ours, then we could play, the company(ies) could make games, and we could all be happy, groovy nerds all in one place without the need for money, just barter or whatnot. Someone should make this happen imo. =)
[color=blue]You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, "Why not?"
[i]George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)[/i][/color]
[url=http://www.namesakeradio.com]Come and listen to NameSake Radio![/url]
Not from what I'm seeing here.
http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/3/feature/7015/City-of-Heroes-Profitable-or-Not.html
Of course, free to play isn't nearly the same thing as offering a one time payment for a potential lifetime VIP service, either.
Longtime City of Heroes player, longtime writer. :) Working in Nebraska.
COT: Mission tips writer, studying Cinema 4D animation program
Let me ask this, "IF" there was an option for "Lifetime Membership" like there was for CO / STO and others, with the optional Cash Shop, the potential for additional purchases are still there, correct?
I'm sure that lifetime members wouldn't stay away from the cash shop, would they?
Though, with the way it's going to be at time of launch, from my understanding, which is one time purchase for the game with optional cash shop + sub, the lifetime membership wouldn't be a lot different than this, other than better perks, right? :-)
[I]"I do not believe in taking away the right of the citizen for sporting, for hunting and so forth or home defense. But I do believe an AK-47, a machine gun, is not a sporting weapon nor needed for home defense." -Ronald Reagan[/I]
The main question there might be if they get a monthly set of free points (and if the points build up even if you don't log in that week or month) and how many points they get. Which is why I wonder if a lifetime account would include the same number of points that VIP's get. Or any points at all.
It's a matter of numbers - the more points they get, the less need they have to spend them.
Longtime City of Heroes player, longtime writer. :) Working in Nebraska.
COT: Mission tips writer, studying Cinema 4D animation program
Exactly. On LOTRO, I have thousands of points, more than enough to buy any content I want to play, without buying any more expansions. And every month, I get more. They've lost a lot of money on me, since I still play and use their resources but don't spend any money.
The overwhelming consensus in this thread is that people do not want a lifetime subscription, because they don't want to take subscription income from the game.
However, there seems to be considerable interest in a Founder program, that gives perks or a subscription discount as long as one remains a subscriber. That will be something to consider down the road.
If there was a lifetime Sub available, I would definitely be interested. Either that or something that allowed a sub discount would be good.
We all have it in us to be a hero to someone,
Super powers are optional.....
Part of the Phoenix Rising Initiative.....
Proud to be a hero. Prouder still to be a member of [url=http://www.watchfire-online.info]Watchfire[/url]
Whether it's via multiple accounts (even if I scarcely use them) or tons of RMTs, *WHEN* this game launches, I'll do whatever I can (in addition to continuing to volunteer) to keep it hummin'
[img]https://i.imgur.com/26pBVBG.png[/img]
([i]Currently developing the Sapphire 7 Initiative[/i])