Gamehackery: What Does the Subscription Boom Mean to Gamers?

It's not a coincidence that the new microsoft office (Office 365) and the recently announced Adobe Creative Suite (including Photoshop) are being offered as subscriptions (rather than products).

Everything is coming up subscriptions. You can subscribe to coffee, to tea, to cloud data services and to toilet paper.

No, seriously. You can subscribe to toilet paper.

So, it's no fluke that DDI was a subscription service. Don't expect that to change. From a pure business point of view, the subscription model is the most important development in the gaming industry in the past ten years.

View attachment 57483

Smoothing Out the Boom and Bust

The big advantage of a subscription program is that it creates dependable revenue streams for the company. It may not be more than they would get selling products, but it's a lot easier to plan for and manage.

They may lose some subscribers, or gain some, each month, but even those changes will follow on fairly predictable trajectories.

It also means you have an ongoing relationship with that customer -- making it easier to continue to offer them additional products.

A Subscription is a Relationship

A purchase can be fairly anonymous. A fistful of lawnmower money may buy a players handbook, but it doesn't forge a connection between the purchaser and the company that produce the book.

A subscription, though.... that's a relationship. It builds a connection between company and customer that the company can use to offer additional products and services.

It's also a data mine that just won't quit. The company has your name, your address; they can build a history of your purchases and study what you're interested in. In the case of DDI, they're able to track what classes are being created, what rules are accessed in the DDI most often, and can get a pretty good idea of how many active games are going by studying the number of characters that are incrementally leveled up in a given month.

What Will We Subscribe For?

Assuming that we don't expect Charmin and Mountain Dew deliveries from our favorite game companies, what sort of things are gamers willing to pay an ongoing subscription for?

To date, the DDI has proven that we're willing to pay for digital tools. Character Builders, Online databases of game rules and data, etc.

Over at Paizo, though, is a towering demonstration of the power of good content to drive subscriptions. Paizo, by the way, will let you subscribe to just about anything they're producing -- including their monthly card decks (mostly item cards, with play support cards like chase decks and critical hit decks mixed in).

And that's not all. We've seen dungeon-a-day and adventure-a-week. New magazines are appearing. Subscribe to Obsidian Portal or one of the other campaign managers to track your game.


Fiddling with Knobs and Dials

So, the real alchemy that the brains behind the businesses we support is trying to strike the right balance of price and service for their subscription models.

For example, there's a limit to what we might be willing to pay to Wizards for DDI. From their point of view, any single individual's price point is not particularly interesting. They need to take a guess at what the numbers of their subscribers will be at each price point.

So, at the moment the price is $9.99. They've hit upon that price because they believe that more than half of the people who would pay $4.99 would also play $9.99, but less than half of those that would pay $9.99 are willing to pay 14.99.

Of course, they set that price during the 4e heyday, and now they're in the last trimester (we hope) of birthing their new version. But outside of the tabletop world, ideas about subscription services have changed. The Freemium/Free-to-Play model is becoming more and more expected across industries where a product's market position isn't so strong that there's no need for it.

"I want to Buy it, not Rent it"

Sure you do. And I don't blame you. But you're fighting a losing battle.

In typical subscription programs -- along the magazine model -- you get your content in the mail each month and it's yours to keep. But when we start looking at RPG Tools as a Service -- like DDI or Fantasy Grounds -- when your subscription ends you no longer have access to that data.

A subscription for a service offers so many benefits to the company (steady revenue, durable connections to customers, and awesome data) that it's critical for a company to propel you over those concerns. Maybe it's better price, or better services, or both. You can expect that companies with the necessary support structure to handle a subscription program of some sort to move in that direction.

What's more, as more and more products and services are available by subscription, fewer customers will balk at this sort of scheme. We will become used to subscribing to Microsoft Office, to Photoshop. It won't be unusual to have a subscription to underpants.

Other Models

Here are a couple of other example subscription services that make interesting models for potential RPG/Gaming services:

• Bespoke Post - Once a month subscribers are offered a "Box of Awesome". Past boxes have included wine decanter kits, a himalayan salt block, and high-end shaving kits. Subscribers can opt out of a monthly box if you're not interested.
• Freemium Services - like Dropbox or Evernote. Or Free-to-play games. (next week's column will look at micro transactions, so stay tuned)
• Quarterly - A wide variety of quarterly subscritions to themed boxes of odds and ends curated by interesting folks like Veronika Belmont (Tekzilla, The Sword and Laser)

You've Got Mail

So, you tell me -- what's important for you in a service you'll subscribe to? Are you more interested in tools or content? What subscriptions do you maintain at the moment (besides your EN World subscription, right?)

 

[dd.stevenson]

I know this thread is supposed to be about RPG subscriptions, but... What in God's name is the upside of subscribing to Microsoft Office? Sounds to me like that is just a fancy way to say, "We are charging more for the same."

Agreed--in this case, the subscription service model is pretty blatant rent-seeking behavior.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, the only things I subscribe to are magazines- so far, only physical ones*- and cable (no premium channels). I do have a smartphone and a hotspot, each with a data plan, but I'll be changing that when my contract rolls over. By going back to a feature phone...if they're still available. (If my employment ever demands I use a smartphone, that will be a different story.)

I just have not seen much of anything worth renting when I could buy instead.






* in fact, I have dropped every magazine subscription tht has gone purely digital.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I just did a quick proof-read of everything I just wrote here, and I realize that it may come off as a bit critical. So, let me preface this by saying thank-you for posting this article and I enjoyed reading it.

Believe it or not, I own many pairs of Big Boy Pants and can totally handle criticism -- especially when it's as thoughtful and well argued as yours. I appreciate it very much.

I think you missed an opportunity here to point out that this relationship, like all relationships, is a two-way street. In exchange for the expectation of future income, the compay commits themselves in the eyes of their customers to the future delivery of goods/services.

Which means that, from the company's point of view, alterations to subscription-based relationships are fraught with peril. The most obvious cases are the huge drop in goodwill that WotC suffered when they ended the print runs of Dungeon and Dragon, and what they seem to be flirting with again as DDI moves into its sunset phase. More subtle, but I suspect more important, is the fact that sensible business managers approach changes to subscription delivery models with trepidation and an if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it mindset that stifles all but the most pedestrian innovations. (For example, see Paizo's extreme reluctance to offer a PDF only subscription to their APs.)

Excellent point. I think that it's interesting that these pressures have not prevented Wotc from making dramatic changes to the services they provide. The most significant example of that was the change from the downloadable character builder to the online one. That was one feature that was in the "it ain't broke" column -- at least from the customer point of view -- but by making the transition they were able to deliver a version that made many improvements. There was (and still is) plenty of rage over that change, like any change, but it was a move IMO that was the right way to go.

I'm objecting to the bolded part because you seem to have conflated the subscription/one-time purchase question with the service/product question. In fact, they are orthogonal. In principle, I can subscribe to a service or a product, just as I can one-time purchase a service or a product.

In light of this, it's worth noting that EVERY SINGLE ONE of the advantages you mention--steady revenue, durable connections, and data--are advantages of the subscription model, rather than being unique to the subscription service model as you claim. Of course, a case could be made that the service industry has an advantage in each of these categories, but again, this isn't really linked to the subscription question in any way that I can see.

Right again. Certainly the first two advantages are equivalent. The data mining you can get by studying the way an online service is used is a lot easier to gather and study than the data you can gather from a content subscription's membership. If Paizo wants to find out which articles in the Adventure Paths are being used the most, they don't have a good way to get that data without asking for it. But if Wotc wants to know which character classes are being used the most, all they need to do is write a query of their user data. Paizo can probably gather something similar by studying traffic statistics for their online version of their PRD, but that's actually studying the data the get from the service they provide (the free online version of the rules) rather than the content.

-rg

 

[delericho]

(For example, see Paizo's extreme reluctance to offer a PDF only subscription to their APs.)

I'm a bit surprised by this (their reluctance), but I suppose it makes sense.

If they offer a PDF-only version, it's quite likely that many of their subscribers will go that route, and many will just as steadfastly refuse. Problem is, that may mean that the cost for printing the physical product becomes prohibitive (because the print run is that much smaller, leading to a much higher unit cost), and if they take the next logical step and go digita-only, they may lose enough subscribers (which, incidentally, would include me) they may no longer have enough subscribers to pay for the creation of the material itself.

Yeah, it's a tricky one.

 

[Mike Eagling]

and if they take the next logical step and go digita-only, they may lose enough subscribers (which, incidentally, would include me)

I'm glad I'm not the only Luddite here!

My consumption of PDFs has increased considerably since owning an iPad but I wouldn't want them to replace the physical books.

 

[dd.stevenson]

Excellent point. I think that it's interesting that these pressures have not prevented Wotc from making dramatic changes to the services they provide. The most significant example of that was the change from the downloadable character builder to the online one. That was one feature that was in the "it ain't broke" column -- at least from the customer point of view -- but by making the transition they were able to deliver a version that made many improvements. There was (and still is) plenty of rage over that change, like any change, but it was a move IMO that was the right way to go.

We can't know for sure, but I've an inkling that the offline character generator did very much fall in the "broken" column from the viewpoint of the management at the time.

Right again. Certainly the first two advantages are equivalent. The data mining you can get by studying the way an online service is used is a lot easier to gather and study than the data you can gather from a content subscription's membership. If Paizo wants to find out which articles in the Adventure Paths are being used the most, they don't have a good way to get that data without asking for it. But if Wotc wants to know which character classes are being used the most, all they need to do is write a query of their user data. Paizo can probably gather something similar by studying traffic statistics for their online version of their PRD, but that's actually studying the data the get from the service they provide (the free online version of the rules) rather than the content.

That's a very fair point. So--to recap--we have identified superior data collection as the key advantage to subscription services vs. product subscriptions. Now let me pose a question: do you believe that's really all there is to it? Do you believe that companies are keen to convert product lines into services, solely in order to collect better data about their customers?

I don't. That's because there is another benefit to taking a fairly tangible product (a piece of software, a book, etc.) and marketing it as an intangible service: marketing goods as services allows companies to provide less value to customers, while charging more money for the privilege. (I was going to spend a little bit of time mucking about for a cite to back this point up, but on reflection that's not really necessary: you as much as cede this point in the "I want to Buy it, not Rent it" section of your article.)

And that's why I view the end of the article as a bait-and-switch: it takes the advantages of the subscription model (steady income and strong customer connections) and shoehorns them into arguments in favor of subscription services, which are in actuality only a very specific type of subscription. And then ends asking the audience what it would take to get them to swallow the bitter pill of purchasing a fairly tangible product on a service basis.

Personally, my answer to this question is going to be pretty simple: I won't ever be interested in purchasing a tabletop rpg on a service basis, thank you very much, but I can think of plenty of honest-to-goodness services that would add value to my game table. Things like adventure and setting content, organized play, and improved networking tools to help meet more gamers interested in my style of game will always be worth paying for--at least in my book. Additionally, I currently pay 10 bucks a month to roll20, since I live out in the boonies and I'm happy to support the product that pretty much single-handledly enables my pursuit of this hobby. I strongly prefer to buy this service in a system-agnostic format, though.

 

[Hussar]

True. I explained why I think that is unlikely to be the case for rpg products for most consumers..

The license itself isn't really the issue. You can't copyright game rules to begin with (a thorny issue that I'm sure ENW's lawyers have more to say about than I do). But no, the license doesn't make it free.

Pathfinder, though, hosts the PRD. They make their non-core books open. For WotC, it can be argued that they weren't all on the same page, or that they didn't intend for their game to be available to everyone so easily, but with PF it's very clear that they do. They want the game to be freely available online, which is effectively a form of advertising for their setting, adventures, and those who want hardcover references/collectibles. There's a very strong contrast between that and DDI. Paizo's mentality is to show us what they have first, and then ask us to pay for it. If you want one product, buy that. You want the pdf, buy it (at a reasonable price, no less). If you want everything, buy a subscription. WotC's approach has been, you pay us first (for DDI or a book), then you'll find out what you're getting for your money.

Hopefully, they've heard loud and clear that they need to re-embrace open gaming, because if they don't get that, there are certainly more steps that could be taken in the subscription model direction in the future.

I'd point out that Paizo, because it uses the SRD, has pretty much zero choice about making its books OGL. OTOH, Golarian is not OGL is it? You cannot put up any Paizo adventure path for free, even with an S15 because the modules are all closed content. At least, that's my understanding, and I'm freely admitting I could be wrong.

But the mechanics? They didn't really have a whole lot of choice considering a very, very large block of their mechanics are already OGL.

 

[Ahnehnois]

But the mechanics? They didn't really have a whole lot of choice considering a very, very large block of their mechanics are already OGL.

I'm not a lawyer, but I would think that most of their supplements, which are new material not directly derived from SRD stuff, could be closed if they wanted them to be, and that they could be doing something similar to DDI if they wanted to.

 

[Nytmare]

I've been mulling over this the past couple of days and I think the issue regarding rented software, at least for me, is the fact that in general and at least in the past, you rented things whose cost was otherwise prohibitive. If I can't afford to buy my own washing machine and dryer, I can go to a laundromat where a secondary individual or group has invested in, provides, and maintains the machines. If I don't want to, or cannot buy a car, or a house, or any other big ticket item, the "natural" solution that arose from our economic system was that a person who could afford it could step in and provide it in exchange for money, goods, or services. Granted a lot of it has to do with the fact that that's the system I was born into and grew up in, but to me that system seems (for all intents and purposes) fair and ethical.

This (relatively) new trend however manipulates and twists things around. Now, a company takes a product they create (usually already a niche product) and exaggerates its cost by no longer offering to sell it to anyone. Then they cut out the middle man and rent out the now priceless product themselves, and they have the added benefit of having total control over the prices being set cause there's no one to compete with.

To me, a cell phones and internet services are entirely different. I can't buy my own cell towers, and satellites, and construct my own networks. Although I'm sure that the corporations love it, that isn't being purposefully denied to me as another avenue for them to milk money out of me.

I guess that, more than anything, I'm sad that there aren't more people who are as appalled at the system as I am.

 

[Nagol]

I've been mulling over this the past couple of days and I think the issue regarding rented software, at least for me, is the fact that in general and at least in the past, you rented things whose cost was otherwise prohibitive. If I can't afford to buy my own washing machine and dryer, I can go to a laundromat where a secondary individual or group has invested in, provides, and maintains the machines. If I don't want to, or cannot buy a car, or a house, or any other big ticket item, the "natural" solution that arose from our economic system was that a person who could afford it could step in and provide it in exchange for money, goods, or services. Granted a lot of it has to do with the fact that that's the system I was born into and grew up in, but to me that system seems (for all intents and purposes) fair and ethical.

This (relatively) new trend however manipulates and twists things around. Now, a company takes a product they create (usually already a niche product) and exaggerates its cost by no longer offering to sell it to anyone. Then they cut out the middle man and rent out the now priceless product themselves, and they have the added benefit of having total control over the prices being set cause there's no one to compete with.

To me, a cell phones and internet services are entirely different. I can't buy my own cell towers, and satellites, and construct my own networks. Although I'm sure that the corporations love it, that isn't being purposefully denied to me as another avenue for them to milk money out of me.

I guess that, more than anything, I'm sad that there aren't more people who are as appalled at the system as I am.

There is a natural price control mechanism -- others can build competing products.

That said, the license/rental model does offer more comprehensive control over how the product is used -- only on this system by these people for this period. Copyright has all these limits and contraints on the woebegone creator don't you know -- fair use, first sale doctrine, lack of obsolescence, etc. that the licensing/rental model negates.