Sorry for the late reply. Life has been keeping me pretty busy.
Considering you pay 60 for the game AND pay a monthly fee, comparing RS to WoW isn't the same.
Increasing it by 1 dollar isn't much, but considering how much it would cost to buy all the expansions would make it for it.
Considering the graphics AND combat pale in comparison, comparing WoW to RS isn't the same. Yet RS tries to compete with them anyways. When RS gets its gears in place and presents comparable content and performance then we can discuss the validity of comparing pricing models.
And according to this page
, it costs $20 for the standard game and $50 for the the most recent expansion. All previous expansions are included in the subscription based on your base game purchase.
Honestly, the two games should not be compared as they are on different levels and are different types of games. The only reason they are compared is because WoW is a Big Name Game, a flagship which all other games are held against.
First things first, Jagex (just as any private company) is in no way required to share with us the reason. We're the players, not the board, not the shareholders, and not the CEO.
Right, so when your ISP, Fuel, or the host for RSBandB raises the costs, you don't wonder why? What if your hosting costs for RSBandB raised 89.8% next month?
You're right, they are not required
to give us a reason. There is no British law of commerce requiring the disclosure of a reason for increasing the cost of a good or service. However, it is common courtesy to give a reason or explanation, howeverso brief as it may be. Jagex said nothing
. No “Our costs have gone up” or “To provide for the awesome updates in the coming year”. Nothing
they gave us the reason that credit card prices and fees had gone up, understandably. They also said if you remained a member for 12 consecutive months they would drop the price back to $5 for you. This implies they did not want to increase the price, but the increased costs forced them to.
they gave no reason, only the hope of ambitious plans. There was no loyalty option for a decreased price. This increase, which was twice the amount of the previous at $2, was not liked by many, including some of us here
For the last fiscal year Jagex's profits were under 1 million pounds. The previous year they were just a hair under 10 million.
Actually, you are mistaken here. The article you cite is referring to 2013, although the post date is 2014. It is comparing 2013 data with 2012 data. From 2012 to 2013 they had a loss of 8,755,167, or a 90.26% decrease in profits.
Jagex has been working on and off on a digital/futuristic style game since 2007 when they first started on MechScape. This was canceled in late 2009 due to “the project costing tens of millions of pounds” From 2007-2009 Jagex's profit was consistently over 14m(average of 15.83m).
They then started on Stellar Dawn from 2010-2012; those years saw profits of 18.8m, 10.6m and 9.7m(average of 13.03m).
Transformers Universe was worked on from 2011 until late 2014, during those years their profits were 10.6, 9.7m, 0.9m and an unknown amount in 2014(average of less than 10m).
8Realms, a slightly different beast, was released in 2011 and ran until it's closure in mid 2012, having met only 10% of intended sales.
Since 2011 they have begun various other small ventures.
With Stellar Dawn being canceled for costing tens of millions and yet they still turned over a 15m profit during those years, I don't see how it's feasible for Transformers Universe to be the cause of a 8.7m decrease in profit.
Now doing any amount of profit is good but after you invest in something large like Transformers and it fails a corporation needs to recover those losses.
You know, it's funny you should say that. In 2012 they hiked the price to 7.95. They also ceased work on Stellar Dawn that year and began work on Transformers Universe the year prior. So this increase was to help fund this one botched project and the new one. Today we're facing another increase, a $1.54 one, and we also see a major project failing.
By this pattern, Jagex likes to charge the Runescape population
for their own(Jagex's)
failures. If the price increase was going to help fund future desired and needed improvements to, say, Runescape, I wouldn't mind. But history has shown that is not the case. Both of the recent price increases have come on the heels of a major project failure. If Jagex tries another large project it will either be the “Third times the charm” or “The third cry of wolf.”
So far each time they have increased the price they saw an average drop of 6% profits the first year. The first time they then saw an increase of 24% the next year. However the second time they saw a 90% decrease
(Note that this decrease was due to many things, some of which I already discussed).
So far we have only talked about non-Runescape events. What things might've happened in the recent years to spark such a decline? Let's see.
2011 was a relatively well received year. No huge controversial updates. The biggest updates of the year included Nex, the Clan improvements, and Bot Nuke day. Because Bot Nuke day did was released in October, it missed the 30th of September deadline for Financials and so would be counted on the 2012 report, not 2011.
2012 was a fun year, seeing the second price increase, the addition of the Squeal of Failtune, the Lodestone Network, Solomon's General Store and Evolution of Combat. All of these in conjunction with the Bot Nuke made for a whirlwind. The Bot Nuking is likely the cause for the price increase and possibly also the introduction of gambling and RWT(SOF & SGS). All of these together amounted to only a 8.56% decrease in profit that year. They kept their head, but drastically changed the face of the game.
2013 saw more EOC changes, 2007Scape, The World Wakes, Runescape 3, New Interface System(NIS), HTML5, Vorago, the concept of Prestige, Bonds, and of course a steady flow of posts about SOF and SGS. I could go into in-depth detail about each of these but I don't think it's necessary(I have previously spoken on many of them, you can visit my Informer page
to read them). Despite all these changes, they ended the year with only a 944,833 profit, a 90.3% decrease
from the year prior. Now it should be noted that since Bonds were added on the 25th and the Financial deadline is the 30th of September, they would have had no effect on this.
I'm not going to comment about STO. While Star Trek is good and I like STO in general, they have their own elephants to deal with.
I'm not going to quote your post because you make quite a few good statements. I'll just reply in general.
Updates arguably came out much faster previously and were of comparatively equal (arguably better) relative quality. We used to rely on 1-2 quests a month, now we're lucky to get one. They have over 500 employees now which is likely many times that of what they had in 2004. Their development time only seems to increase and their quality, while providing some good things, has been unimpressively hit and miss on the most important things in recent years. While gameplay and graphics have improved, playability and efficiency have degraded due to being left on the back burner. I can play games with better graphics than Runescape much smoother than Runescape. Although I rarely play at max settings on any game, if played on equivalent midgrade settings most other games would receive a 7 while Runescape would receive a 4 due to its lack of efficiency.
You make a good point about the investors. Jagex has to bring their bottomline up. We don't know what 2014's financials are but I highly doubt they are encouraging. We can only hope 2014 had a positive profit instead of even further negative.
Interestingly(though not surprising) is this: 2007-2010 were their most profitable years. They averaged 16.5m and had their highest to date in 2010 at 18.8m. During this time they for the most part focused on only one thing: Runescape. They did what they did and they did it well. The correlation with 2007-2010 being known as the Golden Years and the fact that they were the most profitable is no coincidence.References:
I am not a financial analyst as y'all know, just thought I should add that disclaimer.