Jump to content

Removal of monthly fee with a solution.


Cirtex

Recommended Posts

So I read the Kickstarter and I adored everything. Up until I read "monthly fee" and that really annoys me. As a kid with parents who are on a tight budget, I don't wanna be left out on such a project. A monthly fee will detour SO many players. But what I reccomend is setting a base purchase price like any other game. And then use micro-transactions to also help fund it. And the only thing these micro transactions will have are cosmetics, like gun skins, avatar suits, and other things. It's also important to allow players to be able to progress and gain these things themselves. Like through an NPC market people can purchase cosmetics, they would be EXTREAMLY expensive though. But I thing it would be a smarter choice to put a normal 15-30$ price tag on it then use micro transactions for cosmetics that can be applied to things. This would really help! Look at other games that use it look at Team Fortress 2! It makes millions of dollars in key sales ALONE. And the game is completely F2P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The whole point of the subscription is to pay for server costs and to pay the developers to keep developing the game,  This game is going to cost a lot of money for upkeep and development. As stated it's only going to be 10-15 a month,  basically the cost of a happy meal at mcdonalds or any other fast food place.  It's honestly quite a small price to pay for one of the most unique games coming out within the next year or so.  It was already discussed that it will be subscription based for a reason and I do not see it changing any time soon, if at all - ever.  This isn't one of those games that the devs will release, grab some money and then ditch.  They plan on developing this game for many many years,  quite possibly 10+ years if the community stays active and supportive.  Saying all of such things, maybe if you get good enough after a couple months of playing,  there is the chance you may not even have to pay to play anymore as there will be the opportunity to buy subscriptions with in-game money from other players who are willing to sell time.  

If you're old enough to get a job then i recommend doing so - so that you're able to play the game with everyone.  Hell,  knock on a few neighbors doors in the winter time and offer to shovel their driveway for 20 bucks,  or even mow a lawn in the summer.. There's plenty of ways you can grab a few bucks to pay for such a cheap game.

 

Cheers,

     Tumeden

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This really make me angry. if you cant afford pay 14€ you propably cant afford electircity that your PC is using while you play. You want  players that supported game on Kickstarter with large amouts of money to also pay for server maintenance  and game development? Btw there is a way to play for free ... in short you can buy monthly subsciption with in game money 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Perhaps there should be a sticky on this topic.  An official post as to why they chose the subscription model, why it's the correct decision, and how a player could potentially play the game entirely for free.

 

I know NQ has made official statements over and over, but perhaps a sticky that transcends all boards would be beneficial.  What I mean by this, is I know that other forums I have visited have the ability to make a "global" sticky, where it shows up in every section of the forums.

 

Although it's annoying to have to answer the same gripes over and over, there is no need to belittle them.  Best to just let someone else with more patience answer the question.

 

 

 

 

As an aside, if you haven't figured it out yet... as Tumeden put it keeps the servers running.  Now, depending on how many lifetime subs they sell... they may lose a large margin of that dedicated cash flow which is disappointing.  Furthermore, having a subscription model helps with keeping the integrity of the game as well.  If we were to delve into a b2p with micro transactions, it would most likely negatively impact the integrity of the game.  This could happen through multiple avenues, depending on which microtransaction pathway was taken.  If it were purely cosmetics, then people could potentially be flying around as unicorns.  On the same line, if they added pets there would be unnecessary clutter.  (Now, you're probably thinking they already added pets... however, this was in a limited fashion and it looks like they won't be selling pets later).  On a different pathway, if they followed a system similar to Star Citizen and sold blueprints... obviously the game would be completely different.  It is no doubt that Star Citizen would be a completely different game if they didn't sell ships, and that is disregarding the hit in funding they would take if they didn't.  Granted, the argument there is SC is "supposed" to be 90% NPCs.  But does that really matter?  I'm not saying CIG has done anything wrong, just that it would be a different game with a different atmosphere otherwise.

 

tldr; the atmosphere of the game could take negative hits depending on the funding model.  One of the major reasons I backed DU is because it has subscription models.

 

*sorry for any typos or grammatical errors, typed this up in a jiffy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...