What would you pay for a BZII subscription game?

[AcneVulgaris]

If a game were available that had similar gameplay, got frequent map and asset updates, and was built with serious consideration of community input:

What would you pay for the initial purchase, which would include 3 months of access?

What would you pay monthly to continue playing?

For my part, when BZ2 dropped in 2000, I would have happily paid 60 bucks for the initial purchase and $15 bucks a month for access, but I was kind of a fanatic.

[Zenophas]

We must build a turtle fence.

[Zero Angel]

It would have to have *serious* quality for me to pay 15 dollars a month, the 60 dollar initial purchase is no problem though. I would say that the best way to do it is like the way it's done in Company of Heroes, the original game includes a long campaign and two starting factions, the first expansion contains more campaigns and 2 more factions, and the second expansion contains more campaigns, unlocks, and game modes. Each game update includes all of the assets for all 3 expansions so that players with any expansion of the game can play with each other but they just can't use the stuff from a given expansion if they haven't purchased/unlocked it.

[Psychedelic Rhino]

I JUST ran into that with Simraceway, when I purchased their unmounted wheel. The controller/wheel is awesome, one of the most satisfying purchases I've made in a while, so I was kind of excited to play their online game. The catch is you have to purchase the cars. Boy was I disappointed. The graphics are very dated and the game uses Dx9. So you're paying for a car model that looks like it was done in 2004. Thank goodness the wheel works great with any driving game.

I would pay a monthly fee for a game I loved to play, but it would have to be visually impressive and virtually bug free.

[APCs r Evil]

Probably the same as you, AV. Well... Back in the day.

These days my money has more important things to do.

[Ded10c]

I dislike subscriptions unless they are a) cheap and b) for a very, very good game that I can play for months on end without getting bored of.

[MrTwosheds]

Well so far I have not "paid to play". I haven't bought a new game for years, because of all the frequent disappointments the industry is prone to serve up. The pay to play model should supply the client software for free, that way there won't be any piracy issues, but they will have to deliver quality if they want to make money. If they deliver a quality game, then profitability is practically guaranteed as they will have an almost unlimited new player base, unrestricted by things like availability/production of CD's.
And charge less than $15, the less you charge the more players you will get. Think big.

[Zero Angel]

Additionally, you could offer a limited F2P demo mode that might include the first few campaign missions (to get players interested in the story -- for example, up to the ISDF/Scion split on the mainline campaign), and perhaps a few quality multiplayer maps like the quality of Quarry, Dunes, and maybe River 4. This way everyone would stick around longer due to the replayability of the primary maps and thus more likely to get a subscription to get the full experience, the good quality of the initial maps would convince people not to give up so easily and keep them around longer so they would be more tempted to spring for a full subscription.

A subscription model typically means active and frequent asset development (if not, people will simply walk away after awhile), so it means keeping some developers on full time to develop art assets (ie: textures) and maps.

It should also possess good social networking components, including tournaments, friend lists, ability to form parties, player stats, etc.

[AcneVulgaris]

Looks like the answer is "nothing".

Since what I had in mind would involve running authoritative servers to fight cheating, with the associated cost, I guess that's a non starter.

Thanks for the input.

[Zero Angel]

Maybe, maybe not. Servers to fight cheating would be a 'value added' service that would maintain the level of quality that might convince people to invest into the purchase of expansions or DLC. I would say that it might be wise to considering offering a low initial cost (like $45 for 2 months -- keeping the price competitive with games that people "buy once, keep forever") and then $15/mo after that. That way you have somewhat of an initial funding influx to recoup most of your costs and then can split the remaining costs to royalties, administration, server maintenance and content development.

[Commando]

Depending on the features, I could see myself paying a subscription. Especially if it received regular updates, the servers were reliably up, and it supported MMO-style worlds. What type of setup do you have in mind?

[Commando]

The F2P model may work, where you buy addon content. But said addon content would have to add value to the original game. For example, new factions or vehicle insignias.

I think Team Fortress 2 has been successful in this department. If you don't purchase anything, you get limited storage, and you can't trade weapons with other players. You can receive weapons from others, but you can't give anything away. You can also purchase weapons, if you are impatient. One of their new features, which is annoying but seems to be popular, is their crates. You randomly receive a locked crate. You can only make use of said crate by purchasing a key for $2.50. From said crate, you get a weapon that counts your kills, and based on kills, the weapons rank up. The stats for the weapons don't change, but the weapon name does. If you are very lucky, you get a rare hat with an effect that all can see. I'm not saying you should do this for your idea, just pointing out the free 2 play may be a good model, if you can supply good addon content that is worth purchasing.

[AcneVulgaris]

Free to play seems like the only way to survive anymore, but I really hate the idea of spending so much effort devising ways to get people to pay.... effort that could go into improving the actual game.

I had not planned on doing a true MMO, as I just don't see how I could get the combat to be hot and heavy that way. It would be limited to 32 players in a session, but with kills, wins, and other stats collected for rankings. I've toyed with the idea of having a conquest mode where each bzII style map represented a persistent conquered area, so that each match would be part of a grander game that might take weeks to play out.

Was just pondering it, nothing serious at this point. I have 2 other games to get done before I can think about it seriously. It would be a 2 year + quite a bit of cash investment, and I think it would have limited appeal, like BZ did, because of its complexity. I'm finding that the people that enjoy such complexity don't tend to want to spend much money, so it just might not be a good idea. Battlefield gameplay seems to be the sweet spot, and I've got to admit, Battlefield is really fun, once you get used to vehicles just popping into existence. I just really miss the intensity of commanding in BZ. It's still the best game I've ever played, warts and all.

[Commando]

When I said MMORPG, I meant in terms of persistent worlds and possibly environmental hazards. Obviously quests wouldn't fit in with a bz2-styled game.

[Commando]

A mix between BF3 and bz2 would definitely be awesome. Pilots just seem too simple, not sure how to describe it. They just feel like an after though as there is no way to crouch, lean, or go prone. Sure your pilot crouches when you switch to sniper rifle, but that doesn't really count.