Elemental would sell better as a subscription game than as traditional product

OliverFA

Join Date 07/2006

Elemental would sell better as a subscription game than as traditional product

Well, that's just my point of view. But it is something that runs my mind after seeing/reading some things that happened lately.

It seems pretty clear (because Stardock has said it and because that was the way it worked with GalCiv2) that the way Stardock does things is publishing a game and then support it with updates (not just fixes) for some time. That's great. But it cannot go forever. No matter how much the company wants to support the game, after some time it will be puting money in the game with very small benefit, as most of the potential public will have bought it.

That's when expansions come into the picture. The customers that are happy, pay again to get more features. Some years ago, having an expansion was astonishing. Now many games have two expansions, and thanks to Internet, even three (like Europa Universalis III).

At the end, what we have is a business model in which the customer buys a product. Then, if he likes the product, he pays to get more features (the expansion) and this is repeated as long as there is some business.

But maybe it's time to acknowledge it and make more simple. Imagine that instead of buying a game, customers suscribe to this game and its updates. Let's say for the price of a retail game I get one year of updates, which is the normal support lifetime of an average game. During this time, I can download all the updates, install them in my computer and play them as many times as I want. I can even download the game again if I uninstall it, but I can only download updates up to the date when my subscription ended.

If I want more updates, then I subscribe to the game, and I get all the updates/expansions/wathever as long as my subscription is active. This requires a bit of change in the paradigm and mentality, but it's more flexible that the expansion system and better for both the company and the customer. The game could be improved for years, as long as there were enough subscribed players to it, and the company would not be forced to invent more and more expansions that sometimes are difficult to market. Instead of it, a continuous subscription system would be marketed.

For the normal retail customer it would be the same as now. The game when it's published and a few updates. For the subscription customer it would be a continuously expanding game, which would be alive as long as customers had interest in it. And once subscriptions lowered to a certain level, the game would be declared "finished".

elemental

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting OliverFA,

reply 6

I am not talking about bugfixes. I am talking about new content.

I am not saying you have to pay more. Just pay the same, but in a different way.

As I said, which is the normal support time for a game? One year? Two at most? After that time there are no updates at all. No new content. Well, imagine that paying the $50 the retail game costs you get a one year subscription. This means, you can download anytime the game and all the updates that came during the first year. Just like now. Subscribing for longer term would allow you download the content that came later, after that year.

Buying the expansion would be in fact the same as paying for the second year subscription, just in a different way.

I know what you are trying to suggest, and i dont want to rain on your parade, but i just disagree.
You're right about almost all games having no support after a year or so, but the point is, thats when sequels come out..

And frankly thats a good thing, it keeps the games moving forward, in a way.
If you just had the 1 same game being patched for 5 years, it'd still just be the same 1 game (with more features and bugfixes).
If you however have 3 different games during that same period, you'll get various improvements (especially with engine rewrites) that we eventually discover we cant live without.

Heck i can even make a really unrelated but still relevant example. World of Warcraft.. It has been updated so many times, so many expansions with full-game worth of content for so many years.. And what is the result? Its still WoW. Its still the same, but with more features.

Sequels arent a bad thing, they are a good thing, they urge devs to respond rapidly to the latest trends and demands in the gaming landscape.
Just look at Guild Wars 2.
Or 4x examples, just look at Civilization 4 compared to Civ2 or Civ3. (and hopefully Civ5 will further improve on the formula).

My point is, there's a limit to what can be done (and what will be done) with patches, even if the devs are sparred on by monthly checks in the bank.
A new actual game is the only way real progress will be made. The best example of that is how many mmo's completely fail, even while they have a subscription model. If the game sucks at release, people give up, the devs give up. They rearrang their teams, find a new financier, and start working on another project (hopefully improved).

Would Civilization 3 be better than Civilization 4 if it got patched hardcore for a year or two? No. The funding for complete engine rewrites and other junk you need to make real progress just isnt there, even with mmo-level prices (rare exception is eve online, who actually did that, kudos to them for that).
Would Galciv 1 be better than Galciv 2 if it was patched hardcore (even more than it already was) for 3 more years? No, not a chance. There's too many renovations that a new game can bring, that patches wont bring, ever.

I know what you mean, but it just wouldnt be as good as you think it would. You can patch a turd as much as you want, for as many years as you want, but its still a turd (Runescape, anyone?).
I'm not calling Elemental a turd, i think its a gem wrapped in used toiletpaper, which can be peeled off with patches.
But my point is, most games are turds, and endless patches wont help.

*cough* Spore *cough*
Another example. Three years worth of Spore patches wouldnt do any difference. However, a Spore 2 (which re-invents the fail-gameplay of the first game) would be something very interesting.

Successfully updated karma reason!

But bugfix-patches would have to be free for non-subscribers of course. Only new content through the subscription.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Zalusithix,

reply 30

Quoting surlybob,
reply 26
What you describe is pretty much every software developers wet dream. It's the next logical step from the "you aren't paying for the software, you are buying a license to use the software" SCAM that they've already rammed down the market's throat.A publisher's wet dream, perhaps, but I'd say it's a developer's nightmare. He wasn't trying to make a normal subscription service where there's 1 current version that gets all updates and then you get cut off at a random place in it's development after you unsubscribe. His would end up with all those random cut off points also getting bug fixes for free, and thus having to remain supported.

You have helped me a lot with this comment. Thanks

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Saeter,

reply 52

I don't think subscription for a game that is "constantly expanded" is a bad idea, IF it was much cheaper to buy initially. For example $20 to purchase and then $5 per month for access to continous expansions.

But bugfix-patches would have to be free for non-subscribers of course. Only new content through the subscription.

Yes. That's my idea. Of course for the idea to work it needs the publisher to really develop new content. Let's say, every 3 or 4 months. If customers pay for nothing then that doesn't work. But I have seen no product or service that works when it does not deliver what promised. Why would that idea be different?

I think that the person, who likes the game, not necessarily the hardcore fan, but just the person who likes it, will be happy to pay to see the game expanding. The publisher, on the other hand, con safely continue working on the game, because number of suscriptions are an indication of people's interest in the game. If subscriptions fall, then the decision would be made between stoping game expansion or try to do something more impressive to try to win people back.

Yes. As some people said there is the big issue about bugfixing "older" versions of people that discontinued the game. I think that could be solved. Let's say that people that don't continue the game get usual support, as in any other game. They get fixes for a year or so and then that's all. I don't see logical that they pretend the game to be fixed eternally. Plus it's not logical that a game had so many bugs so long in time.

Successfully updated karma reason!