By default, I'd pay zero - an average game that's made in a week is probably not worth my time, much less my money (especially in a subscription format). However, if I were to try a couple of these games and I really liked them, then I'd be happy to pay $5 a month, and might even be willing to spring for $10 a month.
The idea is intriguing - perhaps it has some potential - but I have to admit I'm having some difficulty envisioning how it would work in practice. Let's say I'm a subscriber - can I only access each game for a week, or will I permanently have access to it (as long as I keep subscribing) and all the other games from past weeks? If I'm a new subscriber, do I get the games from the past when I wasn't a subscriber? Is the object to focus the community/fanbase around the current game that's coming out (or just came out), or on the body of work as a whole?
As
@Andar mentioned, development takes a lot of time... and I think his 100-for-1 estimate is actually
low in this context if you're starting from scratch on each 1-hour game. 100-for-1 is a pretty good ratio for a "decent" hobbyist game, but for a professional game that's worthy of paid subscriptions, I'd expect more than 100 hours to make (and test) a good hour of gameplay. Additionally, the first hour usually takes
much longer to make than the rest of the game (because you have to design mechanics, systems, balance, character designs, basic GUI, etc.); subsequent hours of content usually take less time since you've already done work on the "skeleton" (all those things I just mentioned). But if your model works around making lots of 1-hour games, then you have to individually create the skeleton unless you're copying the skeleton from another 1-hour game you've made.
Also worth considering is that the RPG is a notably
poor genre for 1-hour games. People generally like the RPG genre for its deep stories, abundant character development, expansive explorable worlds, menu-driven combat (read: slow combat), multitude of thoughtful out-of-combat mechanics (many of which often need tutorials), cutscenes, and slow, steady climb up a power curve. Granted, not every RPG has all of those, but how do you expect to include even most of them in a single hour of game time? One of my big goals in my game
timeblazer has been to "cut the crap" - to make every minute feel enjoyable and impactful by removing any boring, tedious play that doesn't move the player forward. No dungeons; no standard encounters (only bosses); no backtracking; no inventory management; no getting lost; no searching for plot flags. Even so, it's about a 90 minute run for an experienced player (and a 3 hour-ish run for a new player), and it just barely manages to feel complete. Earlier versions with less content had some players noting that even though the game was fun, they spent too much time learning for too little time playing.
Taking all of this together, here's what I would envision as the most likely version of success with this type of model:
- A mid-sized team of about 10 people, where each game is mainly developed by one person in a month (this would require at least 5 people devoted to strict "game dev"), artists split their time between projects (I'd imagine at least two character/battler artists on the team and at least one artist to make objects/tiles that absolutely need to be made), one or two musicians (you really don't want your games to share music), and one devoted QA/editor that tests each game multiple times and really tries to break it.
- Each game developer would have their own "series" of games, with each entry in the series sharing the same mechanics, world, maybe even its cast of characters and many of its basic enemies. That way, you could borrow the skeleton of previous entries, as well as many of its assets, to focus more on creating new content - and you wouldn't need to worry about sacrificing most of the hour of playtime explaining mechanics or trying to introduce characters and worldbuilding.
- Alternatively, all of the developers' series could share the same world, characters, and/or mechanics. I do think this has some advantages, but I'd actually recommend keeping each series separate in order to keep your audience wide (see below).
- Like you said, the games wouldn't need to be direct "sequels" and saves wouldn't need to carry over - they could be multiple unique mini-adventures in the same world, using the same mechanics, using subsets of the same pool of characters.
- The community would thus look forward to each new entry that comes out - not only as another game they could play, but as a continuation of getting to know the world and cast of characters that they love. Community hype will always be high because the next chapter is always just a few weeks away. Even if someone won't be playing any games for a few months, they'll want to stick around (and keep subscribing) to be a part of that collective experience.
- The first one or two games in each series should probably be free (for anyone, not just subscribers), so that people can try them out and decide that they want more (and subscribe).
- Assuming each dev has their own series (meaning each series would receive a new game about once per month), you could keep your audience very wide and essentially get away with forcing people to pay for some content they won't play by making sure that each dev's series has a very different style to it. If I come to your site, and I see one fantasy series that looks really cool and try it out, and indeed I love it, I'm going to subscribe to your site because I want to play more of that series. I'll try out the other series too, and maybe I'll love one, think one is alright, and dislike two because they're just not my style (maybe one is a horror RPG series). So I'll look forward to those two series and keep paying because I want the next entries in those two; I'll give the third a try if I have time, and I'll skip the other two but I'm still paying you the full cost each month, and I'm alright with that because I don't want to miss the two series that I love!
- Compare that to a single series with an entry every week, where if it's not my style, I'm never going to subscribe to your site.
- Also compare that to a model where none of the games are connected (each week is an entirely new game in an entirely new universe). It's cool that I get a new experience each week, but there's nothing "hooking" me to stay subscribed if I haven't been using the service much lately, or if you release a few bad games in a row and I'm feeling that maybe it's not worth my money anymore.
So, that's a very long and detailed first reaction to what I think is a very unique and interesting idea. I think there's some element of "Shooting the Moon" here because a pace like once-a-week would require a lot of resources and commitment, and because a subscription model is a higher barrier of entry than a simple purchase is. If you can get it right, though, you'll have something wonderful - both an always-expanding universe of creative content that people love, and a reliable revenue stream.
