Monetization Model for Last Epoch

[Gamermaniac888]

I realize this topic has previous threads so please forgive me for creating a new one. I’m excited thinking about the possibilities for Last Epoch and it’s development cycle. From what I’ve read most people agree that we should pay the initial license fee of $14.99 USD for the base game (and for future expansions) and then some form of MTX to support the game development going forward. Others have presently invested in “supporter packs” because they value the current game and it’s future potential. There’s a lot of debate concerning B2P and F2P; pros and cons, all interesting and valid. But why can’t Last Epoch be supported with a small nominal monthly fee and scrap the MTX model entirely??? See below possible models………….

Model A:
i) $14.99 USD for base game and $14.99 USD for each succeeding expansion.
ii) No MTX (all game cosmetics are achieved ONLY through game effort/play time invested and all storage space is pre-built into the game or is enlarged as one levels.
iii) A small monthly fee of $1 USD is charged to provide cash flow for the company.
iv) Level 1-20 is offered totally free (no initial base game fee or monthly fee) as a demo/trial period to introduce new players to the game to see if they like it.

Model B:
i) $19.99 USD for base game and free future expansions.
ii) No MTX (all game cosmetics are achieved ONLY through game effort/play time invested and all storage space is pre-built into the game or is enlarged as one levels.
iii) A small monthly fee of $2 USD is charged to provide cash flow for the company.
iv) Level 1-50 is offered for an initial base game fee but NO monthly fee, as a demo/trial period to introduce new players to the game to see if they like it. But storage tabs DO NOT increase and cosmetic drops are greatly reduced.

Eliminating MTX would level the playing field and any perceptions of unfairness, due to cosmetics applied to gear, etc; and the tiny monthly fee would provide excellent “residual income” cash flow to support the game development/company salaries, etc. A few dollars a month doesn’t seem like much but is a powerful economic model that gains strength over time.

What does everyone think?? Is this a crazy idea or something that could work??

[Jerle]

Guess why subscription based MMOs have been on a decline and more and more games are on the lootbox/mtx shop bandwagon.

[Telzen]

Not many people want to pay money just for the privilege to play a game they already paid for. It makes far more sense to let people buy cosmetic items if they want them, and those who don’t care about them can ignore them if they want.

[Dinaghar]

the question of monetization is always a very difficult question.
However, as a player who is actively looking at your project, I am inclined to this option.

1. $ 14.99 USD for base game and $ 14.99 USD for each succeeding expansion. so you will have money, and more importantly, an incentive to continue to develop the project.
2. buying only cosmetic items in the store for real money. which also does not leave you without money. besides, I was very upset that the classes are tied to the character’s gender. I treat games not as an opportunity to click all my enemies to death with the mouse, but as an opportunity to play the role I liked, and since I’m a man, I am much more accustomed to associate my character with a man.
   because I am ready to spend some of my money on the opportunity to change the gender of the character

[Sarno]

The primary issue of $1 and $2 payments is that they tend to evaporate.

Please understand that, in addition to Valve taking 30% of any purchases made through Steam, there will be payment processing fees charged by the company actually performing the transaction. A typical such fee would be $0.30 + 2.9%.

So for a $1 payment approximately a third of it would be consumed by payment processing fees. If the purchase was carried out through Steam, another third (approximately) is taken by Valve. That leaves us with a very small cut of the money supposedly paid to us.

If you look at Path of Exile’s store, you’ll see that the smallest price listed is $5. That’s very much intentional - it’s to ensure they receive a significant portion of any payments made.

[Hackaloken]

@Dinaghar

I was very upset that the classes are tied to the character’s gender.

It would definitely be nice to have both genders available for classes, and it’s a request we see often. However, with the size of our team it simply isn’t feasible. The player models have taken the longest of any of the models we have made, and unfortunately the ability to choose genders would double the modelling work of the characters themselves, as well as doubling the work for creating armour and animations.

The plan is $14.99 for the base game at release (with a free demo portion) and cosmetic only transactions in the store.

[Dinaghar]

Well, I really hope that you will realize the possibility of choosing a character’s gender, at least by the end of the development of the release version

[heavyharmonies]

My 2 cents:

1. Personally, I loathe subscribe-to-play games. That’s not what I signed up for when I backed, so I hope LE does NOT go that route (I’ve seen nothing that indicates they will, but just have to speak out against the OP’s proposition in that regard).

2. I think that PoE does it right with respect to funding via MTX’s and supporter packs, nothing that can be interpreted as pay-to-win.

3. Multi-gender, trans-gender, lack-of-gender character choices can be added down the line. Not critically important to the state of the game.

4. I agree that micropayments are not viable for the company as a primary funding model. As mentioned above, the smaller the payment, the greater cut the platform and/or payment processor take.

[Gamermaniac888]

I gave the $1 and $2 dollar quantity as an example, not a cast-in-stone charge; I didn’t realize there was the 30% transactional fee. The only reason I even posted this topic is too offer a steady residual income model to support the game’s development, etc. Paying for cosmetics is ok to support the game but there’s a “risk” of a large portion of gamers refusing to pay any more, beyond the base price of the game. I don’t know why a lot of gamers think games should be next to free when they potentially take millions of dollars to produce? Just my thoughts…….

[Jerle]

I understand where you are coming from. But we’ve seen a counter arguement to the risk of players not buying mtx in the success of POE. People do buy mtx and invest in the looks of their toons when they are invested (socially and emotionally) into a game.

Your opposition to the psyche of gamers today (re why they should expect quality games to be free) is also rather ideological. The competition has made free to play and mtx for revenue a norm and success model for many games looking for long term sustainability. So that is the reality EHG has to respond to and they cannot choose a business model that doesn’t take this reality into consideration.