Compromise: Just Charge $5 For Now. Once 2.0 is Out, Then Charge $12

[Betelgeuzah]

You don't have to look far to get a better value for a MMORPG.

Even with the game being free, this is still the case. Yet the people are here.

You need to consider that the standards you and other people have for this product do not hold up to the industry standards. This isn't about what the general majority considers as a product worth paying for. The subscription fee only affects those that are of the mindset that this game has more value than other f2p MMO's out there, which is not accurate when it comes to the general population.

If the people here had the standards of the general population, nobody would be playing this game. F2p MMO's offer more, better, for less investment.

It may mainly come down to the brand value, which is what you're also getting. It has a strong influence beyond the actual quality of the game.

[Ava]

If the people here had the standards of the general population, nobody would be playing this game. F2p MMO's offer more, better, for less investment.

It may mainly come down to the brand value, which is what you're also getting. It has a strong influence beyond the actual quality of the game.

This is not true. People like you fail to see that different people have different standards thus wanting different things. There is no "standard of the general population". Everyone in this thread has different standards and if this thread teaches us anything, it's that Square has a lot of different people to please. Nobody is right or wrong, but what people do is up to them. This game does not meet my standards for a $12.99/mo subscription. But it may yours, and that's fine.

[Betelgeuzah]

There is no "standard of the general population".

There is the standard where the majority of people, MMO, FF or gamers in general, do not think this game has enough value for them in it's current, buy to play state. This is the standard of the general population.

What people like you fail to see is that the people that play this game have already so drastically different standards from the general population that you can not, and should not act like people here are getting "half the product" even when that would be the case for the general population. It is an agreement between the company and the customers, and those who end up paying are getting exactly one hundred percent of the product that they demand for. Otherwise they would not be paying the subscription fee.

It's not an universal fact that people are getting "half the product" here. It is entirely subjective what every one of us here considers a full product. Square-Enix has already clarified what they meant by the comment that came from the inside, so both parties have an agreement. Now it's all up to the person in question to decide.

[Ava]

There is the standard where the majority of people, MMO, FF or gamers in general, do not think this game has enough value for them in it's current, buy to play state. This is the standard of the general population.

What people like you fail to see is that the people that play this game have already so drastically different standards from the general population that you can not, and should not act like people here are getting "half the product" even when that would be the case for the general population. It is an agreement between the company and the customers, and those who end up paying are getting exactly one hundred percent of the product that they demand for. Otherwise they would not be paying the subscription fee.

It's not an universal fact that people are getting "half the product" here. It is entirely subjective what every one of us here considers a full product. Square-Enix has already clarified what they meant by the comment that came from the inside, so both parties have an agreement. Now it's all up to the person in question to decide.

Not going to argue opinions. You have yours I have mine. Conversations on this forum go nowhere.

[Starlord]

It's less about the price itself and more about the price for what you're getting. It's true 12.99 is cheaper than most MMORPGs, but also consider you're getting less than half the product. I like FFXIV, and I wish the best for its future, but as a casual player I'd rather pay for something that offers more. You don't have to look far to get a better value for a MMORPG. If I reactivate WoW right now for a year I pay about $6.35 per month since I plan on buying D3 (which is free with a year of WoW) and it comes with a free mount, which runs $20 on the cash shop.

Don't Feel like its half a game, what are you talking about?who are you to tell me im getting half a product?

[Betelgeuzah]

Not going to argue opinions. You have yours I have mine. Conversations on this forum go nowhere.

Heh, there was no opinion anywhere in that post.

The general population doesn't think this game has enough value as-is.

All people here think this game does have enough value as-is. A portion of those people think the game has enough value as a p2p title as well.

For those people, the game is not "half the product". Whatever your opinion is or mine has nothing to do with it.

[Starlord]

There is the standard where the majority of people, MMO, FF or gamers in general, do not think this game has enough value for them in it's current, buy to play state. This is the standard of the general population.

What people like you fail to see is that the people that play this game have already so drastically different standards from the general population that you can not, and should not act like people here are getting "half the product" even when that would be the case for the general population. It is an agreement between the company and the customers, and those who end up paying are getting exactly one hundred percent of the product that they demand for. Otherwise they would not be paying the subscription fee.

It's not an universal fact that people are getting "half the product" here. It is entirely subjective what every one of us here considers a full product. Square-Enix has already clarified what they meant by the comment that came from the inside, so both parties have an agreement. Now it's all up to the person in question to decide.

Yeah, I bet if SE didn't say where the game was at, this thread wouldn't have existed along with the other 100 threads that were made along with it. They took Yoshida's Words and twisted it to make it sound like something else.

[Wynn]

The whole reduce price to retain people suggestion relies on many assumptions. Of the top of my head:

1. That SE needs everyone to stay at this point in time.
2. That enough people would stay or come back to exceed what they would bring in with $13 if they halved the sub fee.
3. That the reduced asking point would actually cover the costs generated per player that sticks around.
4. That the negative PR for turning on subs now would outweigh the negative PR for increasing price after charging so little a year from now.

Frankly, nobody knows the facts in any of these cases.

[AamesxDavid]

I've said this before, but there's a distinction between 1.0 and 2.0. I support the full price for 2.0, and even the thread title reflects that. After all, if you think going from free to full price for 1.0 is no problem, going from a discounted 1.0 to a full price 2.0 should be even easier to accept. When you look at it that way, it's actually supports the case to offer a discount rather than not.

Honestly, I don't find 2.0 relevant at all for the discussion. Yes, I realize that it's the new benchmark of what FFXIV is supposed to be since it's the reboot and all, but again, if improvements warrant price changes, every patch should make the previous version discounted. And it seems like you're justifying what is essentially a really huge patch to say that because this particular improvement is so big, the price should reflect that change. And I simply don't agree with that.

The price you are willing to pay for something should be based on your level of enjoyment, and nothing else. You're not going to be doubly enjoying the game because it's called 2.0, so there's no reason to charge half the price in the mean time.

And if you insist on making this personal (and there's no reason you should... the truth is in the logic of the request; how much I play has nothing to do with it)

The amount of money you're willing to pay to play the game is personal, regardless of how much you try to justify it with how many other people feel the same way. I'm making it personal to try and separate the two different points you are trying to argue as a single thing: if the game is worth the full subscription price, and if it makes more sense for SE to charge half for no other reason than the fact that they would make more money.

I really don't play enough that $12/month is worth it to me, but I honestly would give a discounted rate serious consideration. That's why I've taken up this argument.

Case in point: this is argument #1. It's your personal reason. Now, normally, I wouldn't buy this reason for the simple fact that you've been around so long, and you're here on the forums arguing about it.. you must care more than your discounted rate would imply. But I've seen enough of your posts that I can accept the unusual balance of these two seemingly conflicted views. So, the question remains: is this reason good enough for SE to change their price? Well, no, not really. If it's worth the price to you, then it is, and if not, oh well. A single individual doesn't hurt SE's bottom line so much. What it really comes down to is this:

I'm not saying they shouldn't charge, and if they decide to stick with the $12.99/month rate that's fine with me. But I think there's a better way that would work in everyone's interest.

This is argument #2. It has nothing to do with argument #1. Not in a logically-following way, at least. But it's basically the argument of how many people feel as you do, and how SE can benefit from finding some kind of middle ground. And that's arguable, but it's also provable. If anything, request a real poll be done instead of asking for a discount because of some random poll on a single website which wasn't even worded in such a way as to get real information from it said people like to pay less.

But here's a nice summary of what ruins the whole thread for me:

I've said this before, but there's a distinction between 1.0 and 2.0. I support the full price for 2.0, and even the thread title reflects that.

Let me get this straight: until 2.0 comes out, this should be a democracy, and the people should choose their price for the benefit of all. But once 2.0 hits, no one cares how much you enjoy the game, or if the number of subscribers would make up for the difference in price, you pay what they say you pay.

Come on. You obviously don't really care about what kind of business sense it makes for SE to charge less if you're in favour of full price at 2.0. You're just using the launch of a big revision as an excuse to say that what we have now is worth less. At least, that's the way it looks when you frame it like you have been. It's inconsistent, and that undermines any point you could make about how much should be charged for the next year.

[Rentahamster]

Yeah, I bet if SE didn't say where the game was at, this thread wouldn't have existed

Yes. I still would have made it. The same cost/benefit analysis done by all consumers happens once there is an actual price affixed to any given product. This game is no different. The genesis for this thread was the announcement of billing + the BG interview, not what you assume it is.

They took Yoshida's Words and twisted it to make it sound like something else.

Nope. Yoshida said what he said. I didn't take anything out of context. You'll notice that I didn't even use that particular quote of his at all in my OP.

Also notice that I referred specifically to the Blue Gartr interview and the SE official answer about how they are approaching the situation of the perception that customers are playing full price for an incomplete game.