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

from Elemental Forums

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
29,988 views 54 replies
Reply #1 from Elemental Forums Top

No.  The only subscription based games that work are MMOs.  Elemental is not an MMO.  Even when it gets its multiplayer content enabled it still won't be an MMO.

 

You should never have to pay for patches that fix bugs.  Ever.

DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from Elemental Forums Top

No way.

Reply #4 from Elemental Forums Top

Bad idea. Like Kravick said, you shouldn't have to pay for bug fixes, balancing, etc. Significant new content is deserving of a one time fee, but the expansion/DLC route has this covered quite well. Could you imagine if people had to pay again within the next month for fixes to the game? There would be exponentially more complaining going on. (And rightfully so.)

Reply #5 from Elemental Forums Top

Uh no.

Reply #6 from Elemental Forums Top

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.

Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top

That's the same slippery slope as DLC, which leads to let companies develop the barest of bone of a game, and making gamers pay for the rest of the content in little bits.

I don't fear this from Stardock, which is probably the most dedicaced and honest company in the video game world, but your idea simply sucks.

Reply #9 from Stardock Forums Top

I see your point, but I think this would work against Elemental. I am waiting for Stardock to clean up the game, for free. Then I will look for feedback on these forums, and others, to see if that plan actually works at which point I will presumably purchase the game. MMOs, while they do offer constant updates and content for the sub price, I will never call what they do "free", they're also hosting thousands sometimes millions of customers on their servers and providing, hopefully, quality communication and access between all their players in a persistent enviroment that never goes to sleep. Elemental doesn't offer any of these things even if the intention, and maybe down the road, the reality is Stardock actually delivers on these free fixes and content updates they are talking about.

I've also heard of an expansion in the works already, or at least its on a board some place, so if you want more updates, buy the expansions and others who want the same will do the same.

I have issues with the way Elemental released, but I don't think that Stardock is going to renig on their free approach anytime soon. You're asking to pay for something fans are saying is a reason to purchase the game even in its current state, because it will be supported for free.

Reply #10 from Elemental Forums Top

No way, sorry. I buy a game, I want all bugs to be fixed.

 

If you're such nice guys as Stardock and add new stuff for free, that's just a good reason for me to buy your games without looking at any reviews or demo versions, and recommend you to my friends.

After a year you bring out an add-on pack - I will buy it without even thinking about it. A further add-on? Will buy it again.

 

Limit me to a year or somesuch? I refuse to even think about it. Add moronic DRM? I'll never buy your game. CD-check, okay, but what we see these days... and what we see here at Stardock is a complete lack of DRM, which I appreciate very much.

 

Ciao,

Klaus

Reply #11 from Elemental Forums Top

I understand that may work for some companies, but it isn't something I could support.  I don't have an issue with paying for a sizable expansion, however subscription based is an entirely different animal.

 

:thumbsdown:

Reply #12 from Elemental Forums Top

The first problem with your solution is already "what would they charge up-front"?

Assuming that you would buy programming time equalling a game and one or two expansions they would also have to take quite a hefty amount of cash on day one. An amount of that I'm not sure I would pay for a new game I haven't played and learned to appreciate so far.

And a one time payment it would have to be for a non-MMO. Else you could just buy one monthly subscription and say goodbye and thanks for the game or you would have to be online and have an active monthly subscription if you want to play ... lets say even one and a half or two years after the games release. For an MMO I'm reluctantly willing to do that, but a single-player TBS game? No way.

Blizzards compulsory BattleNet system is as far as I'm willing to go. And only under protest. But a fee on top of that? No.

Rabenhoff

 

EDIT: And I also don't thinkt that a "suscribe for a year up-front" system and payment would increase a) a companies incentives to actively work in that year or b) deliver a bug-free product on day one. The only thing that would hold up the system and provide an incentive would be the companies reputation. Something very unsure in the short-memeory business of computer games. Everybody e.g. seems to hate EA, but are they doing worse because of this?

 

 

Reply #13 from Elemental Forums Top

Congratulations on thinking of literally the worst idea that has ever come across the stardock forums. It was really hard with these other winners here but you managed to edge everyone out. Here's your award!

Reply #14 from Elemental Forums Top

To maintain bug and balance patches independently of a stream of additional features would require the source tree being constantly branched out on a monthly basis and each individual branch to be maintained separately. Fixing a long standing bug in the main trunk might not be easy to resolve in earlier branches without a lot of manual leg work. That and each branch would have to be tested individually to ensure no regressions. That's a crap ton more work to be done by a limited staff.

The only way to avoid the above situation would be for all content to be independent of the engine. Maps, quests, etc. Given maps should hopefully, and eventually be completely random.... that doesn't leave much.

Reply #15 from Stardock Forums Top

Subscriptions for this are a terrible idea.  Paying for new content is what expansion packs are for.

I bought this game new, even after having read the reviews and understanding that it really wasn't done yet, because I have faith in Stardock that it'll be up to snuff eventually so I might as well get it now.

If it were subscription, I'd wait six months first, if I bought it at all.

Reply #16 from Elemental Forums Top

Terrible idea. We've already been told we would receive FREE content and potentially some paid expansions later on. Why would you want to pay for the free stuff? I think Brad and the decision makers have a better idea of what they can and cannot do with their money =p

Reply #17 from Elemental Forums Top

Borderlands has done better on this, really. They put out a $10 content pack. People liked it, so they put out another one. They're up to the fourth one now, and people keep on buying.

When DLC is done right, it gets what you're talking about without actually going to the "subscription" area (which is fraught with customer unpopularity). If people want more content, they buy it.

Reply #18 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting solidsmooky, reply 13
Congratulations on thinking of literally the worst idea that has ever come across the stardock forums. It was really hard with these other winners here but you managed to edge everyone out. Here's your award!

 

This is not really called for.

Reply #20 from Stardock Forums Top

Quoting Spyndel, reply 18



Quoting solidsmooky,
reply 13
Congratulations on thinking of literally the worst idea that has ever come across the stardock forums. It was really hard with these other winners here but you managed to edge everyone out. Here's your award!


 

This is not really called for.

Yeah that was over the top rude.

Reply #21 from Elemental Forums Top

i wouldnt touch it if it were subscription. end of story.

Reply #22 from Elemental Forums Top

I can see the basis being sound for the idea, but the customers won't go for it (clearly!).

 

Reply #23 from Elemental Forums Top

In response to the OP...

Hogwash

Blasphemy!

Where's my iron maiden, drag out the rack!

 

 

Seriously.   Pay to play a single player experience?  No. 

The model you describe promotes lazy developing and "we'll shove it out the droor broken and fix it later" attitudes even more.  On top of that you'd be hooked in a subscription that may or may not (most likely not) be worth the value of the dollar you are paying into it.  Imagine having a totally screwed UI and the developer changes a blue colored button to a green colored button and calls that a fix and posts it up as your paid update.  Meanwhile, the button still opens the wrong window.  You scream, "HEY, YOU DIDNT WORK ON THE UI!"  They reply, "No, your wrong, we did and it's working as intended."

Basically, you'd be screwed.  They worked on the UI.  And don't say developers would't do that because Cryptic just happens to do stuff exactly like that in STO.

Another thing I HATE is that MUST be continuously online to play crap for strategy games ... what a bogus idea.  Settlers7, Starcraft 2, RUSE are all going to use that model.  That's ridiculous.  It would be like buying a car for 20,000 bucks but ANYTIME the dealership wanted they could say .. Sorry, you can't use that car today.  OR worse .. sorry we dont support that car any longer you cant drive it anymore.   How retarted do you have to be to buy into that kind of crap? 

 

Subscriptions and pay to play are not the magic bullet to getting good games.  What they really is poisoned candy for the nieve. 

 

 

Reply #24 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting solidsmooky, reply 13
Congratulations on thinking of literally the worst idea that has ever come across the stardock forums. It was really hard with these other winners here but you managed to edge everyone out. Here's your award!

I also love you

Reply #25 from Elemental Forums Top

Quoting hannahb, reply 23
In response to the OP...

Hogwash

Blasphemy!

Where's my iron maiden, drag out the rack!

 

 

Seriously.   Pay to play a single player experience?  No. 

The model you describe promotes lazy developing and "we'll shove it out the droor broken and fix it later" attitudes even more.  On top of that you'd be hooked in a subscription that may or may not (most likely not) be worth the value of the dollar you are paying into it.  Imagine having a totally screwed UI and the developer changes a blue colored button to a green colored button and calls that a fix and posts it up as your paid update.  Meanwhile, the button still opens the wrong window.  You scream, "HEY, YOU DIDNT WORK ON THE UI!"  They reply, "No, your wrong, we did and it's working as intended."

Basically, you'd be screwed.  They worked on the UI.  And don't say developers would't do that because Cryptic just happens to do stuff exactly like that in STO.

Another thing I HATE is that MUST be continuously online to play crap for strategy games ... what a bogus idea.  Settlers7, Starcraft 2, RUSE are all going to use that model.  That's ridiculous.  It would be like buying a car for 20,000 bucks but ANYTIME the dealership wanted they could say .. Sorry, you can't use that car today.  OR worse .. sorry we dont support that car any longer you cant drive it anymore.   How retarted do you have to be to buy into that kind of crap? 

 

Subscriptions and pay to play are not the magic bullet to getting good games.  What they really is poisoned candy for the nieve. 

 

 

I think I did not explain myself properly. I am not saying pay for getting bugs fixed, and I also didn't say pay for the right of playing. I mean playing for the right to get updates for the game with new content. But yes, maybe DLC is something similar that would also work.