Jump to content

EagleOne

Member
  • Content Count

    11
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Thank you for naming me a "dolt", I appreciate that. Well, I guess I am out of arguments here. One sure is certain, I would not be part of a community of people throwing at people flashy green and pink vulgarity, even if you monthly pay me for this! This has been way too much for me over this thread, I guess I should return to my own business. Cya.
  2. I took Rust as an example to put figures on income potentials, I never said that the game must be like Rust in its gameplay.
  3. Nobody ever spoke about F2P in this thread, this is out of topic.
  4. @Rmhenn I think you made a double paste so it was a bit confusing, but I think I got your point. Your point is valid on the premises that you could actually rent an already existing star system. Which would indeed be a flawed design. I will not get into the details here, I think it's up for the developers to make it in a proper manner. As for your scenario, it's more a story about having a player turtling on his private space, which is no different from having a prey that you lost track of because he jumped in hyperspace somewhere. There can be limitations actually involving gameplay. For example to change a rule you must obtain the votes from members in a time-frame of 48h countdown, or simply after 48h in a dictatorship, which creates awesome political events. So you cannot shield yourself on a single click if you are in danger. From what you thought to be a liability I found more incentive if done well. But it's not about technical details here, it's about alternatives to a P2P system.
  5. You know what will happen at the first moment most people will get kicked out of the game because of any playtime limitation? They will simply never come back. So instead of keeping them as long as possible in game, and trying to make them subscribe to additional services for their own community or clan, you just kick them out of the game. That's so sweet, it sounds very promising indeed, I can't wait this PLEX-like system. There might be a reason for why no indie company has ever done that before, or maybe you can quote me a successful story?
  6. NQ did not say definitely that they are going to stick on that. They said that they had their decision made after a meeting and an evaluation of pros and cons. I did read it all entirely. It appeared to me that the decision was still pending for feedback, and because we are said to give feedback anyway, let's try to be constructive at it. It seems to me that proposing renting of universe space for communities, in a model similar to server renting (with no server, got it?) is not only a commonly accepted and welcomed practice for gamers, it is also a successful business model, that can earn you millions of income per year as I explained previously. I see no obstacle for this to happen in DU, it can be properly made. The fact is that this monetization practice is battle-hardened since years, so I was very surprised I did not see it appear in the pros/cons. It also has the strong benefit that all developments made towards this kind of monetization system can actually ENHANCE the general gemeplay experience if made correctly. Self-moderated communities? Expanding universe? More tools for players to play with? Everyone would benefit a lot out of it. A paywall is sterile. My opinion as a player, is that I could not care less that this guy who is spending 30$ a month on top of the initial purchase price gets his whole solar system for him, his friends and people around his community. I would even find this very fair. I would probably go visit there and enjoy the game just like in any other place.
  7. The guy is awesome :-) However thank you for your detailed review of my arguments. Applying a paywall is not viable, or at least I think so, and I was proposing an alternative solution. You say 'no', but what do you propose exactly? There might be a reason for why no indie company has ever released a game on a subscription model... What could that be? For example I think that the cluster balancing technology in an XYZ space is awesome and could be sold and licenced for other purposes in B2B transactions. DU could also be a place to push the limits of some new technologies, and get a way to sell them on side channels. This is no different than selling your game engine, Valve has done that before. But who is Valve anyway?
  8. Let's just figure this out, from a marketing point of view, let's take real figures, shall we? Rust had actually the kind of success DU can expect and wish to have. I consider that anything below Rust-level of success is not what you can hope for a "10-years-to-go" project. We do not care about the number of players here. Rust has 10145 servers online according to https://rust-servers.net/servers/list/406/ Might have been better/worst before, I don't know. Average renting package go from 10$ to 20$ per month. Source: http://comparegamehosting.com/game/rust/ Let's say it is an average of 15$. 10145 x 15 = 152175 $ per month, 1,82 million $ a year. Make the package 20$ and it's 2,4 millions $ we are talking about now. Sounds to me like a perfect way to monetize the game and ensuring a large community around it. Add on top of that some cosmetics in shop and you are good to go. Fact is that the current marketing charts might show larger revenues on a pay to play model, but very few projects actually succeed. Look at the names of all those who failed on the paywall : Everquest II, Lord of the Rings Online, The Elder Scrolls Online, and Star Wars: The Old Republic... Source Silicion Angle. Those are not little names here. Those are AAA games made by large teams of battle-hardened developers. Star Wars failed man, look at that name, look at the genre... 200 millions dollars of development cost. (Wikipedia) Well, it is possible to make decent revenues out of a paywall on start, but on the long term the solution is not viable. I do not believe in a system where players get disconnected because they lack game time, and will find it is an happy experience that makes it worth waiting for the next play session... They will not propagate the word, and you need the word to spread. And if a word they spread, 'might not be that good.
  9. You guys all got this wrong. I should never have used the term 'server renting' at first, but it was what pictured best the idea. I admit it was confusing, especially with the digression on how the server renting market proved successful over many years (thus making similar models solutions that should be looked out). The goal is to permit players to rent their own space WITHIN the single shard universe, not on another server. For example to be allowed to rent a star system. Instead this solar system is administered by players who actually pay for this service, with their own rules and restrictions. Implementation should make it smooth for other players so that if it's a private rented space, you will simply not see it or things like that, all the details are not important here. The analogy with server renting is that NQ can actually use that money for renting their OWN servers and even make margin on it! Just like the server renting business model : you rent a private space, with special tools to manage it, and that's it! However here there is a trade-off : there is no division of the single shard because you simply do not rent a server. I said exactly this in the OP : "This solution is simply a model similar to server renting, privatization of in-game space" to which I added "get innovative on how to make that still realistic and immersive in the single shard and then rent those places in the universe just as you would have done for any dedicated server". Whenever people are paying to enlarge the universe, it generates traction for the game. I do not see that happen with a paywall upfront. There is too much competition in the same genre, and the single shard MMO feature, while it is a great technological prowess, is still just a feature. The game cannot sell on that feature, apply a paywall and hope for a massive success. That's my belief and that's why I am opposing that, because I wish this game a lot of success.
  10. You got me wrong Twrkmotor, it's about permitting players to rent their own private space within the universe. The business model is similar to server rental, but it is not what I proposed here.
  11. Hello there, I have recently been following the developments of DU, as a french entrepreneur in IT myself, and living in Paris, I feel very concerned by the developments of this game :-) So I was looking at the monetization problem and how Novaquark found out their solution from a comparison of detailed pros and cons. I agreed on most pros and cons, but some points might have been overlooked, and I wish the developers can change their mind about the P2P subscription model. First things first, I think that a P2P subscription is perfectly viable for Early Access. In general, my opinion is that players should never be given Early Access for free or for no extra-free over the finished product. I think that a lot of developers miss that point, the market is doing it wrong and the "standard" Early Access model we have today (pay once for all) is actually negatively impacting the sales and cashflows of the developers on the long run, as well as the reviews of the game from the public. Now, about running it long-term, I think that a P2P subscription model past the official release would be a drastic paywall that seems to contradict what I understand the developers want the project to be. If I got it well, the developers want this single shard universe to be propelled by the activity of thousands of players. The entire philosophy promised here revolves around that. I heard the interview in which it was hoped that ships would be able to sustain hundreds of people onboard as well as having projects such as the 'death star' that could involve hundreds of people as well. But how many of those projects or communities will you have, with a paywall upfront? You will probably need all the hands you can possibly need to make this community live for the expectations it hoped for, otherwise the deception might be huge, and even those having paid for several months will eventually leave the boat... My opinion is that the final product should be a single-purchase mid-to-high price with licence key, that solves most problems regarding cheaters and malicious users as explained in the Pros/Cons. A high price would kick the companies revenues on start and would give opportunity for occasional sales events in the future, all by maintaining interesting sales/revenues ratios. It is also perfectly fine to get paid for what you deliver, so it is not refraining people to purchase and join the game. After that, it seems to me that Novaquark might have overlooked another battle-hardened way of actually maintaining a steady amount of cash flow into the machine. And this was compatible with another of their modjo, which I am going to explain later. This solution is simply a model similar to server renting, privatization of in-game space. Game server renting has proved itself quite successful, even creating its own economy as a niche market. It all started with the Counter-Strike boom and nowadays we cannot count the legitimate amount of successful games where a lot of player-rented servers are available online, sometimes with the hosting capacity vastly surpassing the number of concurrent players, to the point players go on forums to advertise their server/community in hope of driving traffic in. So, another Novaquark's modjo for this game is that they want the most dedicated players to improve the game for the less dedicated players, and that is absolutely fine, the community loves that, both sides. So why not applying this to the monetization? Most players will want to create alliances, or even control their own solar system. Give them that: their own social space, entirely protected and governed by the rules of the administrator of this space. Give them tools to manage their clan, change the settings of their controlled area, kick/ban players or have password locks, or create events there. Get innovative on how to make that still realistic and immersive in the single shard and then rent those places in the universe just as you would have done for any dedicated server, except the trade-off is that the cluster server is operated by Novaquark to satisfy the computation power of everyone else and is not something people can actually connect to or decide to reboot/log-on. The server could even be not rented at all, with all the revenues kept for other purposes: it would not be cheating the customer and offers flexibility in the revenue allocation. Add on top of that the margin you require to pursue the developments and support, in-between sell hats in the shop, and it could actually turn out you have a steady amount of cash flowing in, all while ensuring you the largest community possible :-)
×
×
  • Create New...