Kirtis

All what you said is true with but one "but": it must be implemented in DU and it should work as intended... For the time being the "dead" EvE has thousands of players that are logging into it each day, play it and are pretty much alive and DU is a lot of fantasies, a bit of promises from developer and a wagon of speculations it may happen that even 25v25 will be impossible due to various reasons or we can see 25 000 v 25 000 batles and it will work out somehow though it did not work in other games - but may be NQ are really that good and they'll make revolution in game industry. We can only speculate, guess and argue now and none of this can be proven yet. Not until the game will be ready for a full load like open beta at least. Eventually people have different expectations and goals in game. For example I don't care if there will be 5v5 or 500v500 fights. Those huge battles might be interesting to participate once or even see a video report from safe distance. But they are not the thing that "makes my watch tick". I am more interested if I'll be able to walk in a city without lag when there'll be multiple constructs and several players online... will I be able to to fly around a big space station or a fleet of them and some smaller spaceships without having lags and loosing control of my ship... will I be able to do things that are interesting to me without facing bugs, lag and so on.... Others might be interested in other thing and all in all the game success will depend on how many people will see something in this game that will attract them and how good those functions will really work.

I won't argue that group of organized people can make a difference. More than that - I already wrote that even one skilled leader who has experience of building an organisation can be very successful in a new environment as he already knows what usually works in gamer communities and what does not. And if one skilled leader (or a group of leaders) leaves one game and forms an alliance in a new game - there is a big chance that he'll succeed. And if he'll use the same tag as in a previous game, it can be seen as a transfer of alliance. But if you'll check the rosters you'll see that these are two different organizations that have only the tag and few people in common. All I doubt about is moving Alliance as a unit to a different game. Those alliances, that you mention are usually quite diverse communities of people who often do not communicate and don't even know each other directly. They are actually a union of great number of way smaller groups that have some agreements (and often disagreements) on their leadership (diplomatic officer) level. They are not an empires united by loyalty to one leader or even a group of leaders. They just have some common goals for the time being regarding the territory in a taken game or some other things regarding the game they are playing. But once you'll tell these people event to move to a different location within the game or to do something that they did not plan to do when they joined an alliance there is big chance that they'll tell you to put your orders where sun does not shine And that's the reason I don't believe in transfer of alliance from one game to another. And discussions about "big alliances with preparation ongoing to establish a presence in DU" are pointless right now because no one can tell when there'll even be a chance for these alliances to try an attempt of "establishing presence in DU". It might be that these alliances won't exist even in EvE by the time DU will be released there might be changes in EvE that will be so good that people won't be even interesting in moving somewhere else at that time. And a whole bunch of reasons why even me and you (who are interested in DU) won't actually play it eventually - with all honesty we know almost nothing about the game yet. All we have is a raw idea which sounds good and atractive for the time being but noone knows yet when it will be implemented and how good the implementation will look in practice.

Moving group of players from one project to another isn't as easy as it sounds. Even if an alliance is strong and well organised in one game there is no guarantee that it will be possible to move people to another project. Why? Because there will always be those who'll tell that they don't like something in a new project or they like something more in the old one. I have seen so called "multi-game communities" that claim having organisation on several different projects simultaneously... but all I have seen were different groups of players on different projects, just having some contacts and "old friends" visiting each other from time to time. But I don't believe in moving multi-thousand Alliance from one game to another - usually those big alliances have quite a problem when they need to move from one location to another within the same game - that's where drama starts and alliances split into fractions and peaces. And you tell me about big alliance coming from established game where players spent years, got used to it into a new project which is ambitious in goals but did not reach even official release? You are either not serious or you are overly optimistic about these ideas - reality might disappoint you badly. I think that there might be leaders of organisations on DU who had experience in leading guilds, alliances or what ever types of groups of players in other projects and who'll use their experience in building strong organisation in this new game. But it will be built here, not moved from somewhere else. Returning back to topic as someone already wrote before we only have an information on the fact that DU developers are aware of problems during multiplayer activities. They think they have a way to solve these problems... It sounds intriguing for me and this is the main reason I am following the progress of DU development. As soon as there will be a chance to test what they have achieved and as soon as they will prove that they are able to achieve what they have set as a goal before them, I'll be glad to join other players and test how it works. If it works well and the game is fun, then I'll be glad to subscribe and become a customer. Until then it's... well Intriguing as I said, but that's it for now. It might become a big thing if it succeed and it can be forgotten quite soon if it won't show up good (or at least promising) results in like couple years from now (as people won't be following just promises for too long and let's not forget that some have even invested in promises - these might not be so quick on stopping following, but that might become a bigger problem later on :-) ). All in all I wish all the best to this project, I hope it will deliver what has been promised as it would be fun to have such a game... but guessing of how "it will be" is way too early right now. And arguing about these things... well I'll leave it to others to find the right name for such process

And again you are one of those, who entered discussion without reading it trough but can't blame you on that now as the discussion became lengthy and it's not easy to read it through. As I am "wasting time" on discussion about game, which is not even released yet, I can afford some time to remind you that I wrote before: I am intending to pay monthly subscription for the DU game (when it will be released and if developers will actually deliver the game the way they introduced it) , I can afford it and actually I am subscribing other games right now. On other hand I am able to understand that that people are different and I know those who would really appreciate an option to pay per time spend in game. And I want as many players in game as possible. And yes, I don't see any game as a goal of my life. Game is game - a way to spend free time. When I play, I play it seriously, pay attention to details and even waste time on forums reading through lengthy threads of discussions and participating in them . But never the less game does not become main purpose of my life and achievements there are valuable and important to me only as long as they don't interfere with my real life.

Even when you are paying not by hour, but just a plain monthly subscription, you still have time limits for the in game time. For example I spend certain amount of time sleeping, then I have certain amount of hours I need to work, some extra time I need to make food, eat, clean home, spend time with family, friends and so on. And all in all I am left with some spare time which I can spend in game. I am limited on that time, though these limitations come not from monetization model, but from my obligations in other areas. Eventually I adjust my ingame ambitions and plans to the time I am able to waste on the game. The amount of time may differ and is different for different people. But we all are limited. The difference is only how active we are outside the game. If you are unemployed, don't have family and spend all day in game except time you need to sleep and eat... does not mean that you can't benefit from cooperation with person, who has work and family and spends only couple hours a day in game or comes online only on weekends. He/she still can gather some raw materials, or come with interesting design solutions and have an important part in creation of big constructs as part of the team and contribute quite a meaningfully. So no, I don't agree with your argument. Other point regarding "experience"... as far as it has been announced and is included into official DU wiki, learning of the skills does not depend on time spent in game it actually takes certain time to train, but you can do any activities meanwhile or even get offline: "learning doesn't stop when a player disconnects from the game." https://dualuniverse.gamepedia.com/Skills#cite_note-2

"Emergent gameplay" generated by AI will never ever get even close to what emerges in contact with a real person. And even if that person has less time to spend in game than me I would never neglect his potential to have an impact on community and me. There are some conversations with people that happened in games years ago... we met once and never spoke again... but either they said something interesting, or we did some extremely fun things... and I still remember it now. Who knows how long did they play... who cares... all that matters is that their presence made an impact on me... and sometimes (I'd even say... often) you don't need much time for that. Even stupid actions of some players might become a legend - mind a "LEEROY JENKINS" from WoW - who knows if that guy ever played anything after his infamous adventure in a virtual dungeon. But these few minutes recorded years ago became "something". Some players don't even know where all this came from, but they'll understand what you mean if you'll say "don't leeroy on that boss", or you'll get all your team in a good mood if you'll shout "LEEROY!!!" before attack Yes, I know how fun is to have a dedicated group of friends and play with them. But even the most dedicated and nice team will get dull and you'll get bored if you won't see new faces in a long time. So no, I won't agree with you, wizardoftrash, noone is worth loosing and everyone is valuable - even those whom I don't like... and those who hate me are needed too

Just in order to show how situational your arguments are: - Car can be insured for a limited time (at least in my country that is) and if the person does not use car - he has an option not to renew insurance for a certain period - I know elder person who does not insure his car during the winter as he does not drive then. And yes, taking into account all the year it's better price to buy insurance for the whole year, than to renew it monthly. But if you consider keeping it in garage for 3 or even 5 months, other payment models might save some money. - I have a lot of different payment plans for the phone where I am able to choose from not using data transfers to unlimited data transfer and I choose the one which fits my needs most. I can pay nothing for data if i choose to use that service not. - where I live most of the gyms offer flexible payment plans - you can pay per visit, you can buy 5, 10 visits, you can buy monthly ticket or even a ticket for the year. The last one will be the most cost effective in long term again, as everywhere, but If I am just a visitor to this city and need just a few sessions in a gym, I have such an option. - I have a lot of different options from different ISPs varying in data transfer speeds, data amounts and even technology itself, and the ISP i use and am happy about the price and service, is not acceptable for my colleague, who's not a gamer and he almost does not use internet, so he's satisfied with way cheaper plan from another ISP, thus way more limited than mine. Who are those "us", and how many are those "most" who probably won't want someone (question is who are that or those "you" as well) Most probably in all fairness it should have been written: "I (not us and not most of us, but plain and simply... I) did not like your (whose?) idea and I think, that I would not enjoy spending time with you in this game." That would sound more honest and fair And I am very glad, that you are not the one who chooses who's welcome and who's not in the game. All those who try to push their gaming habits, attitude toward the play style, schedule of playing and other things on others are wrong from the start. Project, which is multiplayer indeed, benefits from all and everyone. Even the person who logs into the game once a month for one hour can make very meaningful input into community if he spends that time wisely. Not everyone has ambitions to build virtual empires. Some players are satisfied just by relaxing, chatting with friends, making some role play stuff, or just joking out and making fun for themselves and others. And quite often those who don't spend much time in game bring more value to the community than those ho play day and night, get exhausted and end up claiming who's welcome and who's unwelcome in the game

You got me . I am not interested in PvP. And I manage to play as PvE even in a hardcore PvP projects like EvE online, Archage or several others. And I played there for years, paying subscription. Does it make my money I paid to these projects less valuable than money paid by hardcore PvPers? Guess not. Being able to see further than narrow needs of my own and understand why other players like different things than I do makes my opinion less valuable and worth considering? I honestly hope that developers do not share your opinion on that as they would bee doomed then And there's so much to discuss about game mechanics... about game which is in pre-alpha (sarcasm)

Again you do assumptions without even reading what the discussion was bout... where did you take "would use it if it were cheaper" argument? I'ts all your immagination as neither me nor TS wrote about it. If you would read carefully, you would see, that paying per hour is actually more expensive as you get less ingame time for the same money. But sometimes it's better to pay more per hour, while using those hours more effectively. You don't like analogies with EvE online, but never the less I'll use example from there - you can play that game for ~15 € per month if you buy a subscription (less if you pay for several months in bulk), but it will cost you about 20€ if you use PLEX to pay for it. The trick is that you can sell PLEX in game for the internal currency (or buy it if you wish so) and some people end up paying more, just because it fits their needs more. If there would not be that option, some people, who use in game currency to pay for the subscription would not play that game at all, and those who do pay using cash and sell extra PLEX to fund their ingame activities would loose the option to exchange their RL cash for the ingame currency legally - they would need to spend more time grinding and earning in game currency thus get away from things they like more and probably consider leaving game too. All in all developer would loose potential sales and profit. Flexibility and wider variety of the options help to meet the needs and expectations of wider audience and in a multiplayer you need it as wide as possible.

No, I am not founder and I wrote already why - seen many projects that had great ideas and promised a lot, but failed badly while trying to implement those ideas. I like Ideas of NQ and I am ready to subscribe to DU if they'll deliver what they promise, but not until I'll see the working game worth of the money. And yes, I am paying subscription for the games that are worth it in my opinion - I have active subscription for two different projects at the very moment. And no, I don't need some pay per hour myself, as I do play games quite regularly and monthly subscription is good enough for me. But never the less I understand that world does not spin around me alone and other people have different needs that I do, so the more options there will be, the bigger community we'll have, the better project it will become. I don't mind even meeting some beggars in game - it's way better than empty server with few but proud and arrogant "founders - backers" (no offence - I met really nice and friendly founders here on forum and this is not about you guys ) Regarding the EvE online.. even the NQ developers do not hesitate to admit, that they are planing to use a lot of ideas from this game and this is normal as that project proved to be successful. So unless you want to hide behind ignorance wall there's nothing wrong in using examples from that project.

Exactly And in case of developer it's "get paid or don't get paid". So which is better? To get paid once in a longer period of time... or not to get paid at all? When CCCP introduced their PLEX system there were also whole flame of arguments that "this is beginning of P2W", "the game is dying", "you ruined the Idea of fair game" "Noone will be paying subscription and you'll loose more than earn". But you know what - CCP had courage to introduce innovative method and they benefited from it - a lot. But they only gave a decent option to players - nothing more. It sounded strange, it wasn't common neither for eastern, nor for the western market... but now it works fine in both... though methods and prices vary.

The last time I read introduction of DU it was positioning as "Global", not as "Western". So you want to say, that money from the eastern market are not worth to be earned? I would do some research if I would you and would find out how much the "eastern gaming market" is worth before making any statements

And you deleted my second sentence which proves you are wrong

Once again: this is not about "can pay" and "can't pay". I know people for example, who "can pay". But they are busy during the week days and they can play only on weekends. And in case of monthly subscription they are loosing most of their subscription for vain. Another example - I know a person who works such a way that he needs to travel a lot - sometimes couple weeks he works in home town and couple weeks he's out. And while he's on the trip he usually has no chance to play the game or use his subscription. And these people could be very loyal players and they "CAN PAY", but they want to pay fair price.

But when people pay for the time they are online - developer gets money. Alternative in that case will be no income at all. Which is worse for developer?

I tried to write as simple as possible, but it seems that people just see what they want to see, not what's written... I DO NOT SUGGEST TO GIVE GAME FOR FREE OR TO GIVE IT CHEEPER TO ANYONE. All I say - it would be beneficial both for the developer and for the players to have an option to buy a subscription based on time they intend to spend in game. What I see now is the same if you would come to a food store for the milk and you'd be given the only option - to buy a 200 liter barrel of milk. And if you'd say, that you need only 1 liter bottle, there comes a "smartie" and says: "if I would have money only for 1 liter of milk I would not drink milk, neither go to food store until I would afford to buy a barrel". Yes, guys, your arguments are that stupid. It's not about afford or not afford... expensive or cheep... There are simply people who don't need full month subscription. They can afford it, but they count their money and they don't want to buy a barrel, when actually they need half of it or even 1/200... Or lets put it another way: they agree to pay for a 200 liter barrel, but they ask: " can I pay for all these 200 liters in advance, but let me come to you and take 1 liter or even 0.5 liter at a time of fresh milk, when I need it instead of taking all the barrel at once and throwing most of it out as it will get spoiled in few days (in one month as we talk about monthly subscription). Yes, you can get stubborn and say: "either full barrel at once or no milk for you", but in that case this person won't buy from you and everyone looses - you sold nothing and he got no milk... And I am sure, that most players will be fine with monthly subscription even if they won't play a lot. There has been a case in my own life that I was playing subscription based game for a while and paying by credit card and then I moved to another project, but few months later I noticed that the old project kept charging my credit card monthly, though I did not play it. I noticed it only several months later and it wasn't a big deal for me. Yea, I could start arguing, and could prove that I did not use their product, I could require refund, but I just forgot it and moved on. But this is me - other people count their money better that I do and they would not let such thing to happen. And these players, even if they'll be just a small fraction of all the player base, can still bring in some extra income to the project if they'll get heard and offered service on the terms acceptable for them.

Hiding in your proud self confidence (which you most probably did not much to earn, just have been born in better environment) you don't even try to read what is written. I did not write about human rights and did not say, that someone should play game, which is commercial product without paying. All I wrote was that sometimes these few dollars or euros, which you (and me) are trowing out without care, are being earned way harder by others and they don't want to pay full price if they don't have time to play the game a lot because they are " improving their situation, not wasting time in some VR". If you are so confident in yourself, try to buy a ticket to some Eastern Europe country and see by yourself what these people do for 300 euros - I bet you have never ever worked in you life that well and that hard. And when you'll be there, see that, try to teach them how to "improve" . And there are whole areas where these 300 per month are the top of "improving" as most of their neighbors don't have job at all. But if they would have an option to pay a decent fee for the time they have to spend in game, they might consider that option and that would bring additional funds to game developer - otherwise these funds won't reach him at all. I know it because my father, retired man, lives in one of such small towns and knows locals, knows how hard they try to "improve", but often my father, ends up helping them though he's retired and gets only retirement pension. And this is not the worst country regarding level of the life. There are places even worse than that. And once again - this is not about "have a pity on these poor people and give them game for free" - they don't want your pity - they just count their money bit more than me and you do... and they want to pay the price according to the time spent in game.

I think CaptainTwerkmotor didn't actually get the idea which was proposed by topic starter AKA Captain_Hilts as he wrote it in a bit strange way and decided that Captain_Hilts means to ask price of 60 $ for 2 months of game, when actualy Captain_Hilts means that person pays the same 10$, but gets limited game time which he can consume within longer period of time. So let me rephrase this the way it seems more "readable" for me: Option 1. For $10 you get Unlimited hours . 1 month to use it until it expires. Totally you'll pay 10$x12 months = $120/yr (this is the baseline Novaquark has already announced) Option 2. For $10 you get 300 hours of game (online) time. You have 2 month to spend those 300 hours, and they will expire after those 2 moths no matter if you played less than that. Totally you'll pay 10$x6 installements(2 months each) = $60/yr. The maximum time you'll be able to spend in game for those money will be 1800hr/yr. Option 3. For $10 you get 150 hours of game (online) time. You have 4 month to spend those 150 hours, and they will expire after those 4 moths no matter if you played less than that. Totally you'll pay 10$x3 installements(4 months each) = $30/yr. The maximum time you'll be able to spend in game for those money will be 450hr/yr Option 4. For $10 you get 50hours of game (online) time. You have 6 month to spend those 50 hours, and they will expire after those 6 moths no matter if you played less than that. Totally you'll pay 10$x2 installements(6 months each) = $20/yr. The maximum time you'll be able to spend in game for those money will be 100hr/yr I understand those who say, that developer needs to pay for server maintenance 24/7. But when the players do not actually play (stay online) server is less loaded, community managers do not get additional (new petitions); and players who are actually playing during that time, get less lag, get their petitions resolved faster and generally get better service thus are more satisfied and eager to use the service. On other hand game developer is motivating additional customer to pay for their service - yes, he pays less, but still he pays 20$ though he would consider it not worth of paying if he could play only 100 hours per year and needed to pay full price of 120 $. And people, please understand, that players are living all over the world, not only in USA or rich Western Europe. Therefore what seems irrelevant to you might be quite important to others. I know that some people in my country are working for as low as 300 euro per month and consider themselves lucky to have this job as there are no other options in small towns they live in. Well, they have option - to move to bigger cities, or even immigrate to your country and take away your job for twice ot three times lower salary than you would ever consider fair which you won't be happy about I suppose . And with all the due respect to your achievements and great input in development of your local economy (which I honestly doubt is true for those who enjoy flexing out how much they waste on coffee and so on) these people often work harder, longer and in way less comfortable environment than you do, still they want to enjoy some games during their free time. They want it for a fair price. And I see nothing wrong if they will get limited access for a smaller fee. It is well known fact, that for example WoW is using different monetisation system in China, than it's in NA and Europe. Players pay per online game time there and everyone is happy - both players and localisators of the game.

Great answer Lord_Void and really exemplary behavior. I want this game to succeed... I want it a lot actually. But honestly, I have seen a lot of great ideas generated by game developers and still those ideas either have not been implemented or there were not enough technical capabilities to implement them. I am not IT specialist, neither engineer and I can't judge if the plans of NQ are valid and achievable. Therefore I fully understand skepticism of topic starter - I am bit skeptic myself. But people like Lord_Void make me want this game to succeed even more as it would be pleasure to play the same game with such a nice person. While people like vylqun make totally different, opposite impression. If you are irritated by people who know less than you, did not read all the dev. blogs/logs and so on... just avoid threads like this... that will be way more useful for them, game community and... yourself too. If you can't/don't want / don't know how to help these people, then don't do anything - others who want/know/like helping (like Lord_Void ) will do it without frustration and everything will be fine.

Real sandbox (and this game is being introduced as one) makes no difference between "veteran" and newbro - as long as you have time to play and brought some shovel you'll be given plenty of sand to play with. If you play longer, may be you'll have better skills how to build nice looking sand castle and you'll have made more friends who are helping you to protect your creations from bully who likes to destroy stuff - or you might make more enemies over time if you have chosen to be that above mentioned bully :-) but otherwise it does not mater if you are veteran or not. Talking about recognition of veterans, casual and hardcore players and stuff like that is all good and nice but reality is that if the game is too hardcore and rewards veterans for their time spend, then it will become more and more niche game over time with smaller player base. If it's too easy and too casual it will never keep the attention of players and motivate to stay in game for a long time. So eventually all that matters are social skills of the player it self: if he manages to make friends and have fun together with them then they'll probably create all they need from a truckload of sand, several shovels and couple of buckets. If you can't create your own content and don't have friends who can help you with that then any game will get boring, dull and pointless sooner or later.

Information disclosed by developers of EvE online which is one of the most hardcore PvP games, with full destruction/loot upon kill and possibility of PvP all over the universe (including high security sectors, just with harsher consequences for attacker) showed that only 13,8 % of players (bit more, than one in each ten) are involved in PvP during their ordinary game session (you can see the report http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/68738/1/activity.16.png ) All other players do trade, PvE missions, exploration and so on, sometimes unintentionally getting caught by PvP as they are jumped by pirates. So we can assume that those who intentionally go for PvP are even less than 10 %. And you want to have even more PvP oriented game? Then it will be just pure shooter without any economy and any production/construction at all as noone will waste their time on other things if they’ll be jumped over from each corner and won’t have any security anywhere. And yes, player base will be limited to those 10-14 % who are interested in PvP – the rest will go for other games where they can do other things too.

From what I have read in devblogs I got impression that though the monetization model has not been decided yet, still the subscription of some kind is the way the developers are mostly inclined to go to. And I have read a lot of responses from potential players who tell, that they don’t like the idea about implementation of subscription as they have limited time to spend in game, therefore they would waste their money if they’ll be paying for whole month and will have time to play only few hours a day or even few days a month at all. Therefore the best solution IMO would be to give them option to buy the time they actually play – they would not feel wasting their money on game that they do not play and still they would have ability to subscribe. Other thing is that if the person buy only few hours of game time and it will cost him just small amount it might be problematic to sell it as transaction cost remains the same as if he pay for a monthly subscription, thus at some point it’s not cost effective to sell small installments of game time. I see the solution in making it possible to pay the same amount as the full month of game time would cost (or what ever the lowest subscription plan will be chosen) but make it possible for player to choose if he wants to pay for the full month, or he wants to play at a certain time and pay only for that time. It can be done that if the person decides to pay for the time he actually plays, he would pay at higher rate than it would be if he just choose ordinary monthly subscription, but still he could use his time more effectively. For example person has time to play game only on weekends Saturday-Sunday. This is prime time in game and server loads are the highest at that time, so it makes sense, that the rate that he’ll need to pay at will be double – he’ll get just 15 days of game time for the same price that would cost an ordinary subscription for 30 days. But still he would be able to play game for almost 2 month (on weekends only though). In my opinion that would make both game developer and the player satisfied. Other thing, speaking about the server load and price for the time on it – even in a global server where everyone play in virtually same shard there are prime time when the server load is highest and there is lover load at a certain time. For instance experience of EvE Online (which is well known to developers of DU as I have seen) shows that the prime time on a global server is from around 15:00 untill 21:00 GMT. And the lowest load is from the early morning untill about 11-12 at GMT as this is the time when European players are at work/school and NA players are sleeping/waking up/going to work, so naturally there is a gap in a load. Taking that into account it might make sense if you would implement option to pay for the actual time in game, to diversify the rate according to the time when the player is playing: if he plays at weekend and during the prime time he pays higher rate and if he plays when the server is less loaded, he pays at bit lower rate. That would make players to feel that they are being billed more fair and in some cases may be it would even distribute the load on servers. This diversification in payment models would require come additional coding and so on, but I think that for the developer who tries to implement the most modern technologies anyway it should not be big challenge. And the happy customers making wider auditory of subscribers should really cover the cost of development of this system.