To start, I'm sorry it's this long, but it covers multiple facets of monetization. Also, if the thread exists already, I apologize for starting another. I know this discussion feels like double-edged haggling, but it's one we've got to have, and have properly.
I've seen a wide variety of payment models on various different games. We know already that Ember will not be strictly Free to Play, because that places an uncomfortable restriction on the team and creates a rash that will continue to spread unless you constantly medicate it. And, bigger rashes require more medication; once it starts to spread, it's over.
Subscription models are valid, but when considering a player's choice to pay or not, price range is not the only thing we have to take into account. The psychology of spending money, of having something permanently or not, and foot in the door spending are just a few things to consider. There are people who won't spent more than $5-10 until they're emotionally invested. There are also people who will drop $60 on a game they're familiar with without a moment's hesitation.
Given the wide range of players, it might be a good idea to create a system that considers a breadth of personalities, and allows them to participate in every stage of funding. This isn't a launched game, a beta, early access, or even a compiled executable (or is it?). We need something new.
Many games offer Founders Packs, and some require a minimum purchase to be able to play the game at all. Games like Archeage, free to play with packs priced into the hundreds, can appeal to many people, but run the problem of having a cash shop rash because it is still free to play. Alternatively, Black Desert online requires you to purchase the minimum pack to play, with pricier options and a cash shop to boot. These models are applied to playable games, however, and Ember is not playable yet.
As Ember will be released in stages, perhaps the funding should as well.
Traditional subscription models run around $10-15 a month, with bulk discounts. In this case, I think Ember should consider subscription tiers, at $5, $10, and $15. It would be a monthly cost (with bulk renewal if need be), and if done manually each month, could be altered from month to month. Five dollars gets you an omniframe and a guarantee the accord/central government won't jail you for operating an illegal frame. Ten gets you a frame and, say, access to government transportation routes and crafting centers (printer slots), speeding up production and transportation. Fifteen could be something even more, maybe access to certain daily calldowns and field supplies. Maybe the Silver and Gold tiers could include some premium currency, Planetside 2 style.
Instead of starting at the traditional $15 and going up to insane prices, I'd argue for the low barrier of entry and a reasonable ceiling, so you reach the most people possible. A cosmetics shop can still be included, and a higher monthly subscription including premium currency also acts as a gateway to the cosmetics shop, encouraging willing players to browse more often and support the game more.
(As an addendum, a loyalty system could be included for subscriptions, with milestones and rewards along the way, similar to Troves).
(Edit 2: Subscription is a shaky place to be, and buy-to-play can fail in the long term. A premium subscription model with a low barrier of entry, and the inclusion of a free trial is an idea that could work. $0, 5, 10, 15 monthly and rewards corresponding).
Again, I know monetization is an icky topic, especially before it's been discussed at length by the team itself, but insight into what we're willing to do, and into any sort of system that enables everyone to contribute can help. We're all brainstorming right now to try and push as many polished ideas forward as possible. Why sift through rough ideas for the few good ones, when you can sift through a pile of polished ideas for the best ones?
________________________________________________________
Nobody likes to pay money, but if we want Ember to succeed we have to pitch in. And, on top of that, there needs to be an incentive.I've seen a wide variety of payment models on various different games. We know already that Ember will not be strictly Free to Play, because that places an uncomfortable restriction on the team and creates a rash that will continue to spread unless you constantly medicate it. And, bigger rashes require more medication; once it starts to spread, it's over.
Subscription models are valid, but when considering a player's choice to pay or not, price range is not the only thing we have to take into account. The psychology of spending money, of having something permanently or not, and foot in the door spending are just a few things to consider. There are people who won't spent more than $5-10 until they're emotionally invested. There are also people who will drop $60 on a game they're familiar with without a moment's hesitation.
Given the wide range of players, it might be a good idea to create a system that considers a breadth of personalities, and allows them to participate in every stage of funding. This isn't a launched game, a beta, early access, or even a compiled executable (or is it?). We need something new.
________________________________________________________
Many games offer Founders Packs, and some require a minimum purchase to be able to play the game at all. Games like Archeage, free to play with packs priced into the hundreds, can appeal to many people, but run the problem of having a cash shop rash because it is still free to play. Alternatively, Black Desert online requires you to purchase the minimum pack to play, with pricier options and a cash shop to boot. These models are applied to playable games, however, and Ember is not playable yet.
As Ember will be released in stages, perhaps the funding should as well.
________________________________________________________
Troves
________________________________________________________
Each month, allow the founder to add an amount to their Trove. They can pledge $5, $10, $15, and perhaps even $20. This is a monthly option, and is totaled over time, accumulating as the game develops (hence Troves). As we draw closer to launch, Troves can be finalized and converted to the equivalent of Founder's Packs. This system essentially allows the founder to buy founders packs in increments during the game's incremental development. The payments aggregate at launch, or open beta, and goodies are distributed according to how much was invested. This has a number of effects, both beneficial and not.Troves
________________________________________________________
Firstly, it gives the team semi-regular funding. With a low barrier of entry, and a moderate to high ceiling, it can encourage a range of budgets and personalities to participate in the growth of Ember. Monthly income can also reflect the quality of growth, and the playerbase's faith in the project's development. This can be an issue if faith or interest dwindles rapidly, but the release of playable milestones should do wonders for both.
Secondly, it allows for the inclusion of founder's packs later, without alienating early contributors. People who have been contributing high amounts consistently will have totals much higher than any reasonably conceived founder's pack, and can expect tremendous rewards, potentially exclusive to a select few players. A model like this would allow for a traditional $20, $40, $50/60, $100 set of Founder's Packs to be tailor made for two groups: people with low-mid contribution, and people who've arrived late.
Anyone who'd only put $20-30 into their Trove before it was sealed could put in the difference and upgrade to a pack, and anyone who arrived late could choose whichever pack they're most comfortable with, be it $20 or $100+.
With a low barrier to entry and an extremely high overall ceiling, it could be a system that fosters rapid growth and expansion for Ember. It's much easier to spend $400 over the course of a year or two than it is all at once. Troves, however, would eventually be sealed, and that raises the question of sustainability. What model do we choose? Pay-once, or Subscription?Anyone who'd only put $20-30 into their Trove before it was sealed could put in the difference and upgrade to a pack, and anyone who arrived late could choose whichever pack they're most comfortable with, be it $20 or $100+.
________________________________________________________
Pilot's Licences
________________________________________________________
Pilot's Licences
________________________________________________________
Traditional subscription models run around $10-15 a month, with bulk discounts. In this case, I think Ember should consider subscription tiers, at $5, $10, and $15. It would be a monthly cost (with bulk renewal if need be), and if done manually each month, could be altered from month to month. Five dollars gets you an omniframe and a guarantee the accord/central government won't jail you for operating an illegal frame. Ten gets you a frame and, say, access to government transportation routes and crafting centers (printer slots), speeding up production and transportation. Fifteen could be something even more, maybe access to certain daily calldowns and field supplies. Maybe the Silver and Gold tiers could include some premium currency, Planetside 2 style.
Instead of starting at the traditional $15 and going up to insane prices, I'd argue for the low barrier of entry and a reasonable ceiling, so you reach the most people possible. A cosmetics shop can still be included, and a higher monthly subscription including premium currency also acts as a gateway to the cosmetics shop, encouraging willing players to browse more often and support the game more.
(As an addendum, a loyalty system could be included for subscriptions, with milestones and rewards along the way, similar to Troves).
(Edit 2: Subscription is a shaky place to be, and buy-to-play can fail in the long term. A premium subscription model with a low barrier of entry, and the inclusion of a free trial is an idea that could work. $0, 5, 10, 15 monthly and rewards corresponding).
________________________________________________________
The Shop
________________________________________________________
Since we're on the topic, can we please keep the shop limited to a few specific things:The Shop
________________________________________________________
- Cosmetics
- Utility included in higher tiers of subscription
- Permanent unlocks (transportation, character slots, etc)
- Account utility (character renaming and/or, again, character slots)
________________________________________________________
Again, I know monetization is an icky topic, especially before it's been discussed at length by the team itself, but insight into what we're willing to do, and into any sort of system that enables everyone to contribute can help. We're all brainstorming right now to try and push as many polished ideas forward as possible. Why sift through rough ideas for the few good ones, when you can sift through a pile of polished ideas for the best ones?
Last edited:
