SegaPhoenix

Because subscription model is the best model. 

There are tons of threads on the forum about this topic, but they can be summed up with:
 
https://devblog.dualthegame.com/2016/04/08/monetization-player-happiness-and-economic-viability/

More important than the reasons already mentioned is the type of player or culture you're trying to foster when deciding on a payment model. I support NovaQuarks move for a subscription model for this reason and hope they never have to change it. 

Never worry, its trendy to complain about subscription models but NovaQuark seems to have a backbone. I think Sub model fits their vision and they won't be swayed so easy. 

Well said, I dont play overwatch seriously I just play a few rounds once in a while for fun. But I'd have never touched it at all if it had gone the F2P path.
 
It's quite enjoyable knowing I can just log on and dont feel any pressure to buy a bunch of stuff in order to think I'm getting the full experience of the game. Its a real wonder that people nowadays are willing to play half a game as long as they wrongly imagine they are only paying for the parts of the game they want to pay for.
 
Dual Universe will be great

After spending some time on the Dual Universe Facebook, kickstarter page and these forums I have noticed a lot of very negative feedback about the subscription price model. It actually got me down a bit seeing how many people were saying things like "sub game, I'm out." And i just wanted to say to people who may be feeling a little down about all the negative feedback(The NQ Dev and community manager as well):
 
Remember Overwatch.
 
For those that don't know Overwatch got a lot of flak when they announced that it would be $40 pc/$60 console. In fact I was able to find this post from 10 months ago simply by Googling Overwatch overpriced:
https://www.reddit.com/r/truegaming/comments/3rughx/so_overwatch_will_be_40_am_i_alone_in_thinking/
 
At the time I remember what felt like a HUGE amount of the player base saying very similar things about Overwatch that are now being said about DU. "Full price for an Arena pvp style game, I'm out." Players saying things like the devs were out of touch, that these types of pvp games are all f2p now,  it should be f2p and players can just buy heroes like every other game. The blizzard dev team knew that hero swapping was simply too important to the games concept to allow for a f2p and buy heroes style game. They knew that to have a good game they needed to sell all the heroes in a package so that teams weren't held back by a player who only owned two heroes and was getting counter picked. In short they priced the game the way it needed to be priced to make the game work. Overwatch has become extremely successful and has sold millions of copies.
 
I just wanted to say to the dev team if you make a good game people will buy it and pay a sub fee or whatever pay system. Just do what is best for the game and the vision you have for it. To the community and the dev team, if you are feeling a little down, like I was, about the amount of negative feedback just remember that other games have gone through similar problems and come out extremely successful.
 

I see you've had the opportunity to meet CaptainTwerk 

EVE is not instanced. In EVE the game is split up in to what are called "solar system servers".
 
Lets use the solar system "Jita" as an example. When the Jita solar system reaches its server limit the game literally stops people from entering through its stargate. You would not be able to enter Jita until someone inside ether logs off or leaves the system. 
 
Now if EVE was instanced, when Jita filled up the game would just spawn a new INSTANCE of that solar system and send all the new people trying to get in to that INSTANCE.
 
Please know what you are talking about before typing snarky responses. 
 
Edit: And to address the point of expansions in a procedural game. There are still tools that the devs will give us to build, destroy and explore. Expansions could add new tools and new ways of doing these things. Not saying i want to be charged to use them. I am just saying that it is one way that things can happen.
 

Not true. You can add expansions with out instancing. Expansions in sandbox games usually add new tools for the players to use and new things to do. A small example is when EVE online added new types of player controlled stations called citadels. They are new tools added in to the game to be used how the players see fit. No instancing needed. 

Subscriptions are the only way to go. I find it so funny when people say that subscription games have failed over the last ten years. The fact is that F2P games have also failed. They might bring in some fast cash due to big spenders, but very shortly after that the game dies. F2P and micro-transaction cash shops are a cancer to MMO gaming.
 
Games do not fail because of their monetization model. Games fail because they are poorly designed. Take SWTOR for an example.
 
SWTOR started as a subscription game, and was VERY successful in the first 6 months. But then the hype died and most of the original player base realized that it was just a bad knockoff of WoW. Subscriptions fell for the next 1.5-2 years. At which point EA had to step in to save the game with a cash shop and an optional F2P model. The fact is that if Bioware had been creative and made something that was different and held the player base, SWTOR would still be on a subscription model and doing well. EA and everyone else continues to blame the subscription model for SWTORs drop in players. But the reality is, players got bored and moved on. I know because i was one of them. 
 
DU has the ability do give us something truly unique and lasting. Immersive player driven content that is not scripted can provide YEARS of fun. EVE online is a great example of this.

Try reading. I didn't say i liked the idea. Was just saying that it was a possibility.
 
And no EVE is not instanced. The Jita solar system that i go to now is the same one that you can go to tomorrow. There is NEVER 2 versions or instances of a solar system.
 
"In massively multiplayer online games, an instance is a special area, typically a dungeon, that generates a new copy of the location for each group, or for certain number of players, that enters the area"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instance_dungeon

I just want to show my support for the subscription model. I am also in favor of removing DACS completely but I understand that's probably unpopular. 
 
Edit for clarification - DACS wrongfully encourage players to play to pay their sub so they can continue to play to pay their sub. Popular forum topics will be "I'm new, what should I do to make the most currency/hr so I can afford DACS". This mindset really sets up new/trial players for failure when they have unrealistic expectations on how much in game currency they can earn early on, grinding for that currency even if it isn't "fun" for them and training or investing in skills related to that grind that they may regret. 

I have the impression (don't get me wrong or correct me if I'm wrong) that an abstract fear may be a driving factor for you at this time - despite a lot of gameplay or technical terms not set in stone yet and for some time.
 
If you have your doubts, continue to monitor the game as more is developed and decide later on, I guess. Griefing is relative, I guess, given the single shard. I'd rather speak about "potential PVP encounters" or similar - again, you can lower the risks or avoid problems. Or find shelter with the right people or in the right places.
 
I'd say this certain potential or abstract risk is what drives people here - creating something with some challenges, something that will possibly last for quite a time physically or in the minds of people - rather than having a building simulator with no obstacles whatsoever. To give an abstract counter-example anyway.