Game & Turn pricing

I'm interested hearing people's thoughts on general pricing for PBM games and/or turn processing.

I've seen a few models over the years.  Each have their pros and cons as far as I was concerned.

The biggest con, in most cases, is the general cost to play PBM games.  I fully understand that the games have small player bases, so in order to make the venture worthwhile, the game has to come at a steep price.  Does this premium cost scare away 98% of would-be players?

Another con, for me, when the turn cost is high, is that it makes it very hard to want to continue to play when the game's victors have been decided - but the victory conditions have not yet been achieved.  In those games, it seems to be more of a war of attrition and a high-cost turn during that phase of the game is hard to accept.

What about monthly membership fees where you can play as many games as you want for one single price (high or low)?

Any thoughts on this?

I certainly agree that the cost to play is one of the biggest problems in PBM these days!  In the old days, the turn cost was used (in large part) to pay for actual expenses of printing and mailing of paper turns.  In the Internet days, that can be avoided entirely in most cases.  Yes, I think high turn costs would scare away what few new players we managed to get interested.

But turn costs, in general, are a big problem, IMO, and for at least the reason you mention.  That's why Talisman Games (my company) has gotten rid of turn costs altogether.  Instead we charge a SMALL flat-rate fee by the month to play all you want, in as many games as you want (and eventually in multiple kinds of games).  We don't have a large intrinsic cost for running the games, and we're not expecting to get rich this way, so small fees are perfectly acceptable and I hope will attract players because of the limited amount of investment they have to make to get (and stay) involved.

I haven't played a PB(e)M game in several years but I'm still interested in the idea at least. The last game I played (probably around 2008?) was one of the first I ever played (probably around 1989?)--MEPBM. I'd still play...but the costs on the website to play are $7.90 USD for a turn submitted using their software.

To me, that's just outrageous, and it's shocking to me in 2017 anyone pays that. And I don't consider myself a freeloader or cheap or whatever. Heck, I still buy CDs online from Amazon even though I know there are other alternatives. But in a game of modest length you're looking at $160 easy. I could buy three AAA gaming releases for that and play The Lord of the Rings Online game for free.

Again, I don't want to sound cheap, but today there are just too many alternatives to charge a premium. I like the MEPBM experience. I still do a Google search every couple years looking to see if anyone is running Blood Pit, a gladiatorial brawler game I enjoyed years ago. But honestly, I'm not willing to pay much at this point. I have Civ 6 and Total War: Warhammer sitting on my hard drive, bought during Steam sales for about $20 each. I'd pay to support a different kind of experience (and frankly, for the nostalgia)...but not enough for a dev to make a living at it.

Pricing is tricky. If you charge too much, only the die-hards will play, or the newbies will drop out as soon as their position in a game takes a wrong turn. If you make it free, people might not take the game seriously, or they'll "ghost" out of the game when their attention wanes, never having invested much into it.

I remember one game that went for the "boutique pricing" model, including $20 just to get the rulebook. High barrier to entry, but apparently the game has raving fans.

I quite like what they do over at Alamaze and Galac-tac (hi davin) -- monthly subscription. It allows players to invest in the game and neatly trims away that incentive to drop a failing position. I can see a much larger market for this model.

One thing to be aware of -- boardgamers pay $60 on up for new games. Often up into the triple-digits. And in many cases they play the game a couple of times at best. My neighbor bought Twilight Imperium and I believe we have played it 3 times to-date. If 4 board-gamers are willing to pay $20 each for a game they'll play 4 times -- that's $5 per session per player. And that's on a game people like and want to play again. But we pay it because it's worth it.

PBM games just need to frame things better. Charging people an escalating turn fee was always a hard-sell. You need to combine a good pitch ("a unique game experience that many find breathtaking") with a good pricing model (monthly subscriptions) and some sort of on-boarding pathway for new players -- maybe they get the first month free, or they get mentored through one game free with a veteran player who'll show them the ropes and cultivate them as new subscribers.

Hmmmm ... The main problems for me with current pricing models are:

1. Missed turns -- If I miss a turn, I need to either have "Safe" default actions OR be able to have "standing orders" of some kind in place.
2. Turn frequency -- Steep(-ish) costs are OK, as long as I'm not paying every week.

I'm looking at a couple more games, so I'll be in a better position to tell you how I feel once more companies after getting my hard-earned coin.

[quote='Vandermint' pid='136455' dateline='1502251883']
Again, I don't want to sound cheap, but today there are just too many alternatives to charge a premium.

I'd pay to support a different kind of experience (and frankly, for the nostalgia)...but not enough for a dev to make a living at it.
[/quote]

I think there are several interesting points in your reply, but these two stood out for me.

There are many alternatives, but none really have the same game depth as what PBM games deliver.  The reason is, IMO, that most people don't want to play games that are deep and immersive.  They want to play games that are bold and exciting with an immediate gratification.  AAA games cost millions to produce.  They can do it because they have millions of sales.  PBM games can't compete with that - nor should they try.

Devs, like myself, need to make a living (or at least a modest income) from producing a game otherwise it's not worth it.  But, that beings said, if we can't produce a game worthy of you investing your time and money, then we cannot expect to make a living from the games we build.

The difference between an indie developer and a AAA company - we can get by on a much smaller profit margin because we have a much smaller overhead.  In my case, 1 office plus 3 developers and 3 artists.

Some of us aren't big enough to make a living from it these days in any case.  In that case, we just do the development for fun and earn our living somewhere else.  Unfortunately, that has the disadvantage of being able to work on the game only as time permits, so development is much slower than a dedicated team.  So the trade-off looks like cost (scaring many players away) vs. development speed (not getting stuff done quickly enough for players to want to play).

[quote='Davin' pid='136466' dateline='1502294464']
Some of us aren't big enough to make a living from it these days in any case.  In that case, we just do the development for fun and earn our living somewhere else.  Unfortunately, that has the disadvantage of being able to work on the game only as time permits, so development is much slower than a dedicated team.  So the trade-off looks like cost (scaring many players away) vs. development speed (not getting stuff done quickly enough for players to want to play).
[/quote]

Davin,

Do you think it would be worth your while to develop some elements of your PBM games as supplements for tabletop RPGs or small-scale miniature war games? Perhaps a slim setting book for Galac-Tac, for instance, that you could distribute through one of the .pdf/ print on demand vendors such as drivethrurpg?

[quote='Davin' pid='136466' dateline='1502294464']
Some of us aren't big enough to make a living from it these days in any case.  In that case, we just do the development for fun and earn our living somewhere else.  Unfortunately, that has the disadvantage of being able to work on the game only as time permits, so development is much slower than a dedicated team.  So the trade-off looks like cost (scaring many players away) vs. development speed (not getting stuff done quickly enough for players to want to play).
[/quote]

I have been working on Cohorts in my spare time, in its various incarnations, for about 20 years.  Trouble was, the technology was evolving faster than I could produce the game.  I kept rebuilding and redesigning it as I was going.  About 2 years ago, I decided to make a go of it.  I stopped working to devote full time effort to making the game.  Even as a full time job, I couldn't produce the game fast enough, so I started hiring help.  Could I afford it?  Perhaps not.  But, I was at the point that I couldn't afford to not hire the help.

Whether it is a success or a failure - I have to get the game finished.  If I lose money (a lot of money) as a result - well, I have been having the best two years of my professional career.  After 35 years of building computer systems "their way", I'm finally getting to build one "my way" - and I'm having a blast doing it.

[quote='Participant-Observer' pid='136471' dateline='1502296198']
Do you think it would be worth your while to develop some elements of your PBM games as supplements for tabletop RPGs or small-scale miniature war games? Perhaps a slim setting book for Galac-Tac, for instance, that you could distribute through one of the .pdf/ print on demand vendors such as drivethrurpg?
[/quote]

I can't think of anything I can do with it without building an entire board game out of it, and that wouldn't work well.  Aside from the complexity of handling combat manually, and the size (100x100) of the board, the game relies heavily on hidden information which wouldn't work well on a tabletop.

I wouldn't mind coming up with an alternative design that would run well as a phone app, but I personally only have dumb phones and can't do much in that area.

[quote='Davin' pid='136476' dateline='1502298758']
I can't think of anything I can do with it without building an entire board game out of it, and that wouldn't work well.  Aside from the complexity of handling combat manually, and the size (100x100) of the board, the game relies heavily on hidden information which wouldn't work well on a tabletop.

I wouldn't mind coming up with an alternative design that would run well as a phone app, but I personally only have dumb phones and can't do much in that area.
[/quote]

If you ever decide you want to make it into an online board game (which is kind of what Cohorts is), I can give you some design tips on how to manage the hidden data.  It's not trivial, but it's definitely doable.

[quote='Angerak' pid='136478' dateline='1502298939']
If you ever decide you want to make it into an online board game (which is kind of what Cohorts is), I can give you some design tips on how to manage the hidden data.  It's not trivial, but it's definitely doable.
[/quote]

In Galac-Tac, all you'd see on the board would be the equivalent of topography.  Where everyone starts, where ships are, what you've discovered to date, and even where large combats are is only available to you personally.  Effectively, every piece of data in the game is hidden.

One of the things my GTac Assistant program does is accumulate all that personal information over time and display it to you all together on the screen at once.  I guess I could do something like that if every player had his own galaxy map that they updated themselves and kept hidden from all the other players.  Actually, Galac-Tac (especially in its old paper version) can print what's called a "wall map" where you could assemble a dozen or more sheets of paper (the original cut-and-paste) and hang it on the wall for you to mark up or stick push-pins in, and a number of people did just that.  Since there were seldom two people in the same household playing in the same galaxy it was usually pretty easy to keep secret from other players.  But if people are sitting around a table playing, I just can't see that as being a reasonable option.

We had a large discussion this afternoon at the office, talking about pricing schemes.

I can't say this is official, but our current plan is to sell a starter version of the game (gives players access to about 30% of the game) either for Free or for a very small fee. If we charge a small fee, we'll also give the person access to play 5 hotseat games. The hotseat games will also be limited play as well.

For the pay to play scenario, we are thinking of charging a small fee for the game plus one module (we're not sure on what the fee will be yet, but we're thinking between $5 and $15). This gives the player access to unlimited solo play. Hotseat and PBM mode will cost $5 (or something similar) per game.

We are expecting each new module to be between $5 and $15, depending on the amount of effort required to build the new module.

These numbers are not carved in stone, but this is basically what we're thinking about right now.

I quite like the pricing model that Alamaze uses.
Monthly subscription fee; which reduces the incentive to drop out of games not going well.
New player ramp-up intro games. Mentors provided to ease the learning curve.
Different levels of subscriptions so one can vary their activity level to match real life.
Those guys put a lot of thought into pricing and have done a great job.
However, this system might require a decently-sized player base to really carry off.
Games start quite often (can be almost daily), so you're never stuck waiting around for a new game,
while the subscription clock is ticking.
A newer game might require a different model.

[quote='BlueGolem' pid='136486' dateline='1502336479']
I quite like the pricing model that Alamaze uses.
Monthly subscription fee; which reduces the incentive to drop out of games not going well. 
[/quote]

Personally, I prefer a subscription model as well but the general consensus I've got back those that I’ve talked to is that they really dislike subscriptions.
 
I am curious though, why you feel that a subscription reduces the incentive to not drop out of games that are not going well. 

[quote='Angerak' pid='136487' dateline='1502361812']
I am curious though, why you feel that a subscription reduces the incentive to not drop out of games that are not going well. 
[/quote]

In my mind there are a couple of reasons...  First, the ongoing cost seems to be generally lower for a subscription than for a turn-based fee.  And second, a subscription (at least in my book) allows you to start another game while you fight to the bitter end (with sometimes potentially meaningful results) in the game that you're not expecting to win and continue to get some gratification (if not revenge) out of it.  The latter allows you to play the new game for the usual cost and therefore going down with style in the previous game is essentially free.

Perhaps the dislike of subscriptions is that if you're not playing continuously then you feel like you're wasting money paying for gaming while not playing.  This is true to a certain extent, but you do have options.  For one thing, you can usually stop subscribing if you're going to be out for months at a time.  For another, often the subscription fee for several months is less than what it would have been if you were paying by the turn for what you actually played, and thus missing a month or so of play now and again is still cheaper than if you were paying for individual turns.  It can also depend on the game -- if your position continues to operate in some background way while you're absent, then you're still getting some play-benefit for that time spent and the subscription isn't exactly wasted.  And, of course, you could simply continue to play and avoid that whole issue.

Some people may have other reasons for disliking subscriptions, such as how payments are made and the like, but that would be a different kind of question to be dealt with in other ways.

[quote='Davin' pid='136494' dateline='1502379452']
[quote='Angerak' pid='136487' dateline='1502361812']
I am curious though, why you feel that a subscription reduces the incentive to not drop out of games that are not going well. 
[/quote]

In my mind there are a couple of reasons...  First, the ongoing cost seems to be generally lower for a subscription than for a turn-based fee.  And second, a subscription (at least in my book) allows you to start another game while you fight to the bitter end (with sometimes potentially meaningful results) in the game that you're not expecting to win and continue to get some gratification (if not revenge) out of it.  The latter allows you to play the new game for the usual cost and therefore going down with style in the previous game is essentially free.
[/quote]

Under my current proposed model, you'd only pay a one-time-fee to play the game ($5-$15) with no turn costs.  You can play as many games as you like, paying the one-time-fee for each game.

This means I don't need to pay any monthly fee.  For the fee of $5-$15 I can play until the game comes to an end.  Missing turns don't cost you (other than poor performance in the game).  To me, no additional/monthly cost means a much better chance of keeping a player in the game until the end.  Not to mention, in the Veil of Entropy module, you want to stick around until the end to get to fight with/against Gods.  Even with a crappy position, you'd still get to unleash hell, fire and brimstone on the enemies that have been kicking you around all game long. :)

[quote='Angerak' pid='136510' dateline='1502396626']
Under my current proposed model, you'd only pay a one-time-fee to play the game ($5-$15) with no turn costs.  You can play as many games as you like, paying the one-time-fee for each game.
[/quote]
Sorry, I assumed that you'd have a subscription vs. a per-turn cost.  A one-time-per-game cost would certainly avoid the recurring costs that people might shy away from.