Jump to content
ZaneyHD

game looks like ∞/10 so far, except..

Recommended Posts

I just edited my post. You know its 2017, what a company says and what a company does, are 2 different things.

You do reallse that France is not Sourh Korea, right? NCSoft and NEXON published games pretty much turned the MMO genre into a junkyard. Go play your Trash MMOs and leave DU for those who actually want a good game instead of Pay-2-Win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I just edited my post. You know its 2017, what a company says and what a company does, are 2 different things.

Yeah. Right. Whatever you say man. Please do tell me how they pay for updates, staff, technology, servers, content for this massive, persistent, single shard mmo. I'm curious how your business plan looks like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lets get real people.   :ph34r:

 

But seriously there are basically two options the way i see it.

 

     1.  They make a quality game, and we pay what it takes to keep a quality game going.

 

     2.  They don't, and we don't.

 

I'll take option number one every time.  It baffles me how anyone was ever convinced that option two was a good idea...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You do reallse that France is not Sourh Korea, right? NCSoft and NEXON publsshed games pretty much turn the MMO genre into a junkyeard. Go play your Trash MMOs and leave DU for hose who actually want a good game instead of Pay-2-Win.

So much ramblings I have no idea what this guy is trying to say

 

Yeah. Right. Whatever you say man. Please do tell me how they pay for updates, staff, technology, servers, content for this massive, persistent, single shard mmo. I'm curious how your business plan looks like

 

You dont have a clue how business is done these days. The pay 2 play model is getting replaced by the more profitable free 2 play one (or in this case buy 2 play). There are many reasons to that and I wont describe it all here. But it would just mean that the devs would set up a special currency shop and sell fancy stuff, from cosmetics to houses, ships , etc...

 

Im saying game developpement costs money and they will need as much as they can get to keep this massive game alive. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much ramblings I have no idea what this guy is trying to say

 

 

You dont have a clue how business is done these days. The pay 2 play model is getting replaced by the more profitable free 2 play one (or in this case buy 2 play). There are many reasons to that and I wont describe it all here. But it would just mean that the devs would set up a special currency shop and sell fancy stuff, from cosmetics to houses, ships , etc...

 

Im saying game developpement costs money and they will need as much as they can get to keep this massive game alive.

Ah please do tell me, as I obviously have no clue.

That road you described is the cancer of generic Korean mmos with p2w mechanics.

 

Please elaborate on how they will be able to keep the single shard servers with a completely new server tech alive with a persistent universe with a b2p model. As you are obviously a cunning businessman (unlike me) it should be no problem for you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people arguing about this?  Some people don't like to pay for games.  Of course, you have to pay for everything else in life, so why games should be free or super cheap is beyond me. I don't know where their logic comes from, but they have been steadfast in their belief.  But hopefully the Devs will stick to their guns on this one and maybe, finally, we can have a good game that continues to develop and improve over time and becomes a great game one day.    Just have to wait and see if the Devs can actually deliver first. 

 

I sure hope so, I'm getting REALLY tired of these B2P games that are all in EA and end up being abandoned; one after another after another after another.  Also getting really tired of being a server admin for these same games - such a pain in the ass.  Starting to wonder if the game companies aren't investing in renting game servers instead of their games themselves.  That seems to be where the real money is now-a-days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are we still responding to this post, lol 

 

The person who started the thread only posted once in the forum to complain about the subscription model and then completely disappeared. I think it's fair to assume they won't be back for the foreseeable future, if at all. Much like most of the people who start these threads and completely vanish. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah please do tell me, as I obviously have no clue.

That road you described is the cancer of generic Korean mmos with p2w mechanics.

 

Please elaborate on how they will be able to keep the single shard servers with a completely new server tech alive with a persistent universe with a b2p model. As you are obviously a cunning businessman (unlike me) it should be no problem for you

 

Dude are you fucking retarded the text that YOU quoted answers what you are asking in your reply. I talked about selling cosmetics/ships/houses, nothing close to pay 2 win. Also like somebody else said in another thread : this is a sand-box game, theres no such thing as winning. Winning is in your head if you manage to reach your personnal in-game goals.

 

Ill reformulate since you seem mentally challenged:

 

Step 1 : Sell the game at a reasonable price (AAA title price) that will provide a huge initial income for the devs to work from

 

Step 2 : Set up a special currency shop and sell cosmetics, excluding pay2win items to not alienate the customers

 

Step 3: Make more money than you would with a p2p models since its proved that players spend more on average in f2p/b2p games than they would if they had to pay a sub, and you also have a larger player base = more potential income, since subs turn away many players.

 

Step 4 : Keep the game alive and stay in business

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude are you fucking retarded the text that YOU quoted answers what you are asking in your reply. I talked about selling cosmetics/ships/houses, nothing close to pay 2 win. Also like somebody else said in another thread : this is a sand-box game, theres no such thing as winning. Winning is in your head if you manage to reach your personnal in-game goals.

 

Ill reformulate since you seem mentally challenged:

 

Step 1 : Sell the game at a reasonable price (AAA title price) that will provide a huge initial income for the devs to work from

 

Step 2 : Set up a special currency shop and sell cosmetics, excluding pay2win items to not alienate the customers

 

Step 3: Make more money than you would with a p2p models since its proved that players spend more on average in f2p/b2p games than they would if they had to pay a sub, and you also have a larger player base = more potential income, since subs turn away many players.

 

Step 4 : Keep the game alive and stay in business

Let's stay in the frame of the forum etiquette, shall we? Literally insulting your counterpart in a discussion will not make your statements any more credible, don't you think? Because when evading to alternative methods, it's more likely for people to see you as the mentally challenged.

 

I can absolutely see where your arguments are coming from. I was, at first, very disappointed of the seemingly poor marketing choices Novaquark had made. just what you said before was the same I had in mind as well. Almost all the subscription based games turn f2p at some point, and in general, I am in favor of b2p / f2p as well, since it definitely IS the better choice for 95% of games.

 

Sadly for you, nobody was willing to explain the foundation this communitie's opinion is based on, because we discussed it countless times before with no result, as Yamamushi said.

 

 

 

However, with time I, too, realized that there are exceptions. The games that are subscription based are different from the usual mainstream trend of games. Wonderful examples are, as you said, World of Warcraft, Final Fantasy 11 / 14 and Eve Online. All those games can survive because they provide a special service that the usual MMO-genre fails to deliver. They all deliver content on an exceptional scale, regular updates influenced by its playerbase's wishes and features that you can't find in a similar collection in different games. That's why these games' playerbase is loyal enough to return again and again and is willing to pay the subscription. 

Now if we look at Twerk's statements concerning the marketing philosophy of many eastern publishers, we can see why f2p works for these games, but wouldn't work for subscription based games. 

 

The policy of these publishers is to create cheap games, design them in a way that is easy to attract large masses of people by adding features that are well known in the genre and become genre standards (which for example tab-targeting was for many years), harvest the most out of it by creating a small, but efficiently paying group of fans and then leave the game as far as possible to itself while practivally generating money with few effort.

That's why f2p works these days, because people look for that.

What you misunderstand is that we have the problem that a f2p system is not the guarantee for attracting a large playerbase, but they attraction of a large playerbase through a game's features. And let's be realistic, we all here see that DU has tons of potential, but it's not the right game to attract a playerbase of millions in a short time. For that, DU is too unexplored, too new, too risky so to say. It does not deliver all the standard features an international community is looking for in an MMO, for example the absence of quests and NPCs. 

 

You see, Bleep_Bloop, you have it mixed up. Being able to attract a larger playerbase does not result from f2p, it's the other way around. F2p results from being able to attract a large playerbase, a larger one than you would see in a subscription game. Because why pay for one game if you can have many of the same features in another one for free? That's completely in your logic, as you said. 

But DU doesn't belong in that category. It relies on a smaller, but more loyal fanbase, similar to Wolrd of Warcraft. Imagine the millions of people that would rush in and start playing if WoW would go f2p tomorrow. But also imagine the small portion that would actually want to pay for a cash shop. And imagine all the people leaving WoW or simply not paying any longer then.

 

But in order to attract that fundamental playerbase, you need to make some compromises. Imagine if the game would actually be on cost of a AAA game. As Novaquark is a completely new studio, it can not guarantee a successful future of the game, so which larger mass of people would actually be willing to throw $60-ish at them when they can't promise anything? No, instead they decided to give you a free trial period. They decided you don't have to buy the game itself. They even chose to allow to sell the playtime for ingame money. 

 

So you have to see the advantages for you as the player from a subscription based game as well.

The devs are forced to continually improve and expand their game, or they will loose customers. They are also forced to deliver higher quality content than the regular publishers. And they are forced to act after the players' wishes. So you will get a game that is far more consistent than the average f2p, as developers can't just leave it to generate money. Additionaly, you can choose when to p(l)ay. You don't have to pay $156 at a fixed interval for as long as the game exists. Before you pay a regular b2p price for a game, you can play it for 3-4 months at minimum, presumably more since DACs can be bought with ingame money. And that's as long as many players will play it. In the end, the $/hr ratio in subscription based games is not rarely better than in b2p games. And that's also why subscriptions work.

 

 

 

Lets get real people. Its 2017  pay 2 play models just doesnt work anymore except for WoW cause people are used to it . This game will probably be buy 2 play with micro-transactions. Everyone who have bought game time/DACs or whatever they call it will most likely recieve in-game store currency to spend.

 

They might add an optional 'premium' sub to let people own houses or other permanent assets on the server. P2P models equals losing tons of potential buyers and I doubt this game can afford that.

 

The devs might work with subscription for a few months for the sake of not breaking their promises on day 1 and creating a negative pattern and losing the trust of their customers.

I also see that you've already realized that this game can't afford to lose customers, which contradicts a bit with your last post, but only because you didn't yet reach the final conclusion. Losing customers does not equal losing money in our times. things are a bit more complex, it's 2017 after all.

 

From that statement, you also seem to still be ill informed, which is why I can relate to you as I was in the same position for a longer time as well, as I already said. There is nothing "premium" in this game NQ could sell you. There are no permanent assets in this game due to its own nature.

 

What you ultimately failed to realize because of that, and that's the most important point of all, is that this game is so fundamentally structured to rely on a loyal fanbase that is willing to pay the subsciption and even appreciates it as you can see from the previous posts, that it doesn't even have the choice to go f2p/b2p without completely becoming another standard MMO in the long list of quick cashgrabs.

 

 

 

If you read until here, I respect you for your effort. Please don't think ill of the community, we are just all very tired of this ongoing discussion. There are so many reasons why there is just no other way for this game to become what it aims to be, that somewhere along the way trying to fit it into words we lost the motivation because people just turn around and go as soon as they notice they don't meet like-minded people here or it's not going their way.

But here's your chance for you to be better than that. I have given you a guideline for you to think about, and with time you might also learn to trust Novaquark with their choices, just like I did when I was in your position.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post croomar, you definitely nailed it there.

 

 

I talked about selling cosmetics/ships/houses, nothing close to pay 2 win.

 

Selling ships IS a P2W mechanic - so perhaps you should rethink your arguments. And watch your language ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are people arguing about this?  Some people don't like to pay for games.  Of course, you have to pay for everything else in life, so why games should be free or super cheap is beyond me. I don't know where their logic comes from, but they have been steadfast in their belief.  But hopefully the Devs will stick to their guns on this one and maybe, finally, we can have a good game that continues to develop and improve over time and becomes a great game one day.    Just have to wait and see if the Devs can actually deliver first. 

 

I sure hope so, I'm getting REALLY tired of these B2P games that are all in EA and end up being abandoned; one after another after another after another.  Also getting really tired of being a server admin for these same games - such a pain in the ass.  Starting to wonder if the game companies aren't investing in renting game servers instead of their games themselves.  That seems to be where the real money is now-a-days.

Because people are cheap shit. I like the fact many of them will be kept out with the subscription fee on the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice post croomar, you definitely nailed it there.

 

 

 

Selling ships IS a P2W mechanic - so perhaps you should rethink your arguments. And watch your language ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Like I said theres no such thing as winning in a sand-box game. Perhaps you should just quit the forums if you cant properly read such a short post before replying.

 

 

@Croomar Nice post, but I wouldnt say that WoW playerbase is loyal, they are just straight up addicted and cant quit thats why its working. As for EVE, it went F2P.

I get that DU requires a loyal playerbase, but for that the game first need to live up to its hype. If they dont charge a high enough price for the base game and dont get as much success as they expected at launch, then the subs alone wont run this game for long.

 

I still think that a loyal playerbase would spend more on average with a F2P model than a P2P one. I mean, some people here already gave the devs 500$ upfront, why wouldnt they keep spending after release?

 

F2P is more about not losing players than attracting new ones. Those players who love the game but think the sub is a tiny bit too much (call them cheap or w/e) who might spend.

 

Im not a fan of the way P2P forces devs to push out updates, which are at risk of being rushed and lacking. Id rather let them all the time they need to release well thought out content updates when THEY feel its worth releasing.

 

Ultimately if im wrong and DU does go for a P2P model, they better hold on to it. I would be pretty pissed if I pledged high enough to recieve game time currency, just to see it converted in some premium store currency.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said theres no such thing as winning in a sand-box game. Perhaps you should just quit the forums if you cant properly read such a short post before replying.

 

Since I guess where just throwing insults around. Perhaps you should just quit the forums if you can't understand that p2w dose not mean winning the entire game.

 

For example lets say we have two players Cybrex1,  and Cybrex2. They are identical other then the names.

 

Actually there is one difference Cybrex2 paid to have his health increased.

 

If Cybrex1 and Cybrex2 got into a fight who do you think would win? Cybrex2 of course, but that's not very fair to Cybrex1.

 

My point is Cybrex1 might quit the game because he can not win any fights without paying for perks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I guess where just throwing insults around. Perhaps you should just quit the forums if you can't understand that p2w dose not mean winning the entire game.

 

For example lets say we have two players Cybrex1,  and Cybrex2. They are identical other then the names.

 

Actually there is one difference Cybrex2 paid to have his health increased.

 

If Cybrex1 and Cybrex2 got into a fight who do you think would win? Cybrex2 of course, but that's not very fair to Cybrex1.

 

My point is Cybrex1 might quit the game because he can not win any fights without paying for perks.

 

For example lets say you actually read the fucking post before replying. I will repeat FOR THE THIRD TIME : Cosmetics, ships, houses, nothing close to pay2win. And of course when I say ships, i also mean cosmetics, and not OP turrets or defensive diamond platings.

 

My point is learn some basic reading comprehension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said theres no such thing as winning in a sand-box game. Perhaps you should just quit the forums if you cant properly read such a short post before replying.

 

Providing advantages in a sandbox game is a hotly debated topic, to the point where a good chunk of the playerbase is uncomfortable with the DAC marketplace period (even though the Quanta, resources, and ships you would trade DAC's for come from players). This is not Minecraft or 2nd life, PVP, strategy, conquering territory, and marketplace management are all going to be big features for this game's target audience. You can't casually tick those people off, those are exactly the kinds of players who make an emergent game-play environment interesting and exciting. Any premium currency transaction that allows players to buy an advantage not derived from the work of other players will have a toxic effect on the hardcore audience for the game. You can't mess with those players. They are the imperium, rebel alliance, ciminals and bounty hunters of the in-game universe, the biggest structers and coolest ships will be built by those players, not by the devs.

 

You suggest a AAA price with tacked-on freemium transactions. Lets take a quick look at some games that followed that model.

 

Halo 5 - only did well because its THE next Halo title. I played it, I liked it, but the kind of work and cost that goes into a Halo title is entirely different from what's going to go into an MMO. The infrastructure required to run multiplayer servers for an Xbox title is big, but almost all of the cost for developing the title was up-front. The player base size continually drops, and they just can't keep cranking out the kind of content that will keep a large group there paying and playing. This is the most successful example to date of a full-purchase price game with freemium transactions, and they stopped releasing new content a year and a half after it came out. Most players dropped the $60 for the game and earned their unlocks the hard way. An MMO can't survive if it stops making expansions after 18 months, and it would die shortly after release if they mimicked that model. That should be end of discussion.

 

Starwars Battlfront - This was a pretty game and it captured the feel of the starwars universe perfectly. It was a buggy mess on release, took forever to fix, and still stopped releasing new content about a year after release. The sequel has already been announced, meaning there is no chance the current Battlefront will get more content. Players will have to pay the $60 again only a year later, pay more money for the DLC, and probably end up paying more per year buying each sequel for this game than they would pay for a full premium MMO subscription.

 

$60 game with microtransactions isn't a new model that could support an MMO, its an extention of DLC and a way for developers to get a bit more money out you before you move onto the next $60 game. These aren't designed to be a player's primary hobby, they are just as expendable as the next AAA release.

 

If you charge people $60 for DU without charging a subscription, you'll get content for a year and a half tops and then nothing. The game will die, and we'll all have to pay $60 again for the next Call of Duity game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude are you fucking retarded the text that YOU quoted answers what you are asking in your reply. I talked about selling cosmetics/ships/houses

 

 

Like I said theres no such thing as winning in a sand-box game. Perhaps you should just quit the forums if you cant properly read such a short post before replying.

 

For example lets say you actually read the fucking post before replying. I will repeat FOR THE THIRD TIME : Cosmetics, ships, houses, nothing close to pay2win. And of course when I say ships, i also mean cosmetics, and not OP turrets or defensive diamond platings.

 

My point is learn some basic reading comprehension.

 

My point is: learn some basic writing skills....writing stuff like: "selling ships" CLEARLY means you want to buy SHIPS. And NOT some senseless, stupid skin. You COULD write that there to avoid misunderstandings

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Croomar Nice post, but I wouldnt say that WoW playerbase is loyal, they are just straight up addicted and cant quit thats why its working.

 

 

People play wow because they like it and because they're familiar with it. Someone doesn't necessarely need to have some kind of sickness if has a different opinion than yours.

 

As for EVE, it went F2P.

 

Freemium, skill points cap is a big deal. 

 

 If they dont charge a high enough price for the base game and dont get as much success as they expected at launch, then the subs alone wont run this game for long.

 

The base game is free, there'll probably a free trial period so you can try the game before paying your first subscription. So they'll make money only if the game will be good enough, for people to play and pay for it for a long period of time. Doesn't get more honest than that. 

 

I still think that a loyal playerbase would spend more on average with a F2P model than a P2P one. I mean, some people here already gave the devs 500$ upfront, why wouldnt they keep spending after release?

 

F2P model that earns more than P2P? No way. Why Wildstar tried so hard to be P2P? Why TESO? Why Blizzard doesn't make WOW F2P if it gets more money? F2P earns more than P2P only when the game is so dead that noone is playing it, at that point F2P can get you some players at least. That said, people pay for P2W stuff mostly, there's no game out there that survives only with cosmetic stuff.

F2P is more about not losing players than attracting new ones. Those players who love the game but think the sub is a tiny bit too much (call them cheap or w/e) who might spend.

 

F2P is about acquiring more players thanks to the "free" bait, they're not loyal and they'll leave soon. P2P is the opposite, it discourage people (like you) but has more loyal players (that is what the game needs, since the character progression is very long). If they think is too much they can buy the sub in game when they can't afford it with real money or play something else (they wouldn't have spent much anyway). 

Im not a fan of the way P2P forces devs to push out updates, which are at risk of being rushed and lacking. Id rather let them all the time they need to release well thought out content updates when THEY feel its worth releasing.

 

P2P doesn't force devs actually. They're free to choose the expansion theme and the stuff they put in it. They can do an expansion about graphical improvements or character customization, or something else that it's hard to sell as an expansion (you can't really add new dungeons, classes and skills in a game like DU, right?) They don't have to sell the boxes, they don't have a timeline, they're just supposed to the best they can. So, I don't really get it, to me P2P seems a lot more comfortable for them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

''My point is: learn some basic writing skills....writing stuff like: "selling ships" CLEARLY means you want to buy SHIPS. And NOT some senseless, stupid skin. You COULD write that there to avoid misunderstandings''

 

Thats your assumptions that ships provide an advantage. You would be surprised how much people are willing to pay for 'some senseless, stupid skins' . Yeah maybe I could write it a 4th time just to see you fail to undertsand again

 

@Shynras Are you sure the base game will be free? Never seen such a thing before. Also money is money, as long as its flowing in their bank accounts the devs wont care if its loyal or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi everyone,

 

@Bleep_Bloop:

Please keep a respectful tone when debating with other members of the community.

"Are you fucking retarded" or "read the fucking post" are not an acceptable way to discuss on the forum.

If you haven't already read our forum rules, please read it there: https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php?/topic/8-forum-rules/

Continuing with this kind of behavior may lead to removal of your messages, and, in the last resort, to a ban. 

We value the freedom of speech, as long as you are respectful while discussing with others.

We can understand that discussing with people not agreeing with your point of view could be irritating, but it's not a valid excuse to start employing rude/insulting words.

 

Thanks in advance for your comprehension.

 

Now to answer to your point of view: 

 

- Some members of the Novaquark team have worked for years on F2P games.

The F2P model (or the B2P model, which is nothing more than the F2P model with an initial sale of the game at the beginning) isn't the shiny and perfect model often perceived from an external eye. This model has a lot of drawbacks, and the fact of diverting artists from doing content for all the players is not a minor one: while they work on cosmetics, they don't work on the global visual improvement of the game, and this has a real impact of development speed of the game, especially when the team behind it is still relatively small.

 

- Relying only on cosmetics on the long run is like playing casino a bit with the financing of the game. You can win a lot... but you can also loose a lot (regarding the ration "cost of making cosmetics"/"income brought by the said cosmetics"). Any financial manager having a good head on his/her shoulders would tell that, in order to properly budget the investments for a MMORPG in the coming months or years, the ideal situation is to be able to predict more or less the amount of income you will get during this period. With a model relying only on cosmetics, this part is a bit unpredictable, because all the income relies only on the artists shoulders and mishaps can happen. What if a batch of cosmetics doesn't appeal to the players who usually pay for them? What happens if a few key artists leave the studio (which can happen even in the best companies)? In that case, during this period (even if it's temporary) you might have a serious drop of income that could generate difficulties, and even if in the same time the game programmers deliver amazing gameplay features, it won't help, because they can't bring any income. The subscription model is a lot more resilient in this regard: if there is a period where the artist can't provide the same amount of content as usual, the programmers can still deliver new features and the players will still have new content for their subscription. The subscription model can also enable the different teams from the studio to alternate the type of content released: game features for one release, visual/graphic content for the following one, giving more time to each team for each content release (Side note: these are possibilities that only the subscription model make possible, but that doesn't mean all things mentioned above is necessarily how the content releases will be managed for Dual Universe after release).

 

- Saying subscription is "a monetization model from another age, very few games use it nowadays, so it's a proof that doesn't work anymore" is oversimplifying the situation. If we look at the bigger picture, as in many other sectors, a lot of investors (not all, fortunately) to make quick, easy money with minimal investment/effort and pressurized publishers to find an adapted solution to this request. In this situation, the Free to Play model is the most adapted one. With this model, you can't be (or a lot less) accountable for not having high-quality services, for not listening to your community, etc. This is the perfect model for short term ROI (Return On Investment). It makes big profit in the first years. However, in the case of MMORPGs, if no significant investment is made to update the game, the profit crumbles in a matter of a few years and cosmetics alone won't prevent that. That's fine for a lot of investors and publishers and that's fine too for a lot of players that don't spend more than a few months on the same game. But all players expectations aren't the same far from it.

 

- Among gamers who have played MMORPGs for a long time, both F2P and subscription-based ones, a lot have realized that the F2P/B2P model isn't the best answer for every time of games. A growing number of these gamers would now prefer to pay a subscription fee than having the inconvenient of a F2P/B2P Model. So yes, the Subscription Model may be not very common at the moment, but this model might make his comeback in the years to come, when enough people will be fed up of having F2P/B2P MMORPGs on the western market (as F2P model is originally born - and fully accepted - from the eastern market). 

 

- Funny thing: as we speak, former developers from EverQuest I, II and Next have launched a new project: Ashes of Creation, which seems the spiritual successor of EverQuest Next. It's a subscription-based MMORPG... 


Well in 48 hours, they founded their original goal of 750.000$ and are now at more 870.000$ with more than 4.500 backers. In 48 hours. Does it looks like the subscription model is dead/inappropriate? 

 

- Another point who is quite important and specifically tied to Dual Universe: our game will use cloud technology. To buy our own server cluster(s) at the beginning is absolutely unrealistic regarding the cost. That's why we are currently considering a partnership with a Cloud Computing Provider such as Amazon or Microsoft Azure. This means the game will have a cost per player, and going for anything else than a monetization model proportional to the number of players (hence the subscription model) is just taking significant risks in terms of financial viability (at least until we are in a position to buy our own server cluster(s)). So yes, unless we are in a case where we already own the server infrastructures, going for any other model other than the monthly subscription one while you don't know yet what size your gaming community will be (and how many gamers in it will be willing to pay for cosmetics), going F2P/B2P is not the safe road. It's the risky road. If all the points above didn't convince you, this one should.

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Thats your assumptions that ships provide an advantage. You would be surprised how much people are willing to pay for 'some senseless, stupid skins' . Yeah maybe I could write it a 4th time just to see you fail to undertsand again

 

@Shynras Are you sure the base game will be free? Never seen such a thing before. Also money is money, as long as its flowing in their bank accounts the devs wont care if its loyal or not.

 

Yes, it has been mentioned many times that we plan to make a free trial period, and we don't plan to make anyone pay for the game itself. It's in the FAQ of the kickstarter page, and it has been said many times on the forum.

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ NQ Yeah ive tried to stay calm but its like arguing with childs. They transform what I say and assume things then point the finger like I said something bad about the game. I say it might end up with a F2P model and these kids grab their pitch forks like I said this game would end up being garbage pay 2 win korean crap mmo. Like this guy who spent 500$ on a pledge and feel that hes entitled to wear the white knight armor and attack anyone who is skeptical about the outcome of the game. That guy is borderline trolling, he quoted something I said then asked a question which was answered by the text he quoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ugh!

 

Novaquark has told us which payment model they intend to use, and have ALSO said they will NOT be changing it.

 

This entire discussion has been re-rashed hundreds of times.

 

And BleepBloop brings NOTHING new to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@ NQ Yeah ive tried to stay calm but its like arguing with childs. They transform what I say and assume things then point the finger like I said something bad about the game. I say it might end up with a F2P model and these kids grab their pitch forks like I said this game would end up being garbage pay 2 win korean crap mmo. Like this guy who spent 500$ on a pledge and feel that hes entitled to wear the white knight armor and attack anyone who is skeptical about the outcome of the game. That guy is borderline trolling, he quoted something I said then asked a question which was answered by the text he quoted.

Your posts don't come off as skepticism, they are a proposal to change the pay model of the game. Calling us children doesn't change the fact that the existing community is invested in the currently established pay model.

 

When you propose to change an established system, the burden of proof is on you. You must demonstrate why the alternative model is an improvement on the current system. So far you have failed to demonstrate this in a convincing way in this thread, so you moved to another thread.

 

Dota 2 was the example you cited in that thread before it was locked, and that is a great example of this disconnect. Dota 2 had years of brand-recognition before it became its own actual game in the market. Its predecessor was a free mod that defined the MOBA genre. Dota 2 however is an entirely different genre, they can afford 90% of their players not paying anything to play in part because their cost per player is so much lower. Individual matchmaking does not require anywhere near the server infrastructure as an always-on MMO style game, and you picked what is by far one of the most successful games in the Moba genre. Other MOBAS require you to buy the game (Overwatch) or pay money for additional characters (Go Gigantic) because they cannot survive in the same market using a F2P model. Mobas also don't have the same kind of push for new content that MMO's have, so this is apples and oranges (two things so different that they can't be compared).

 

There has not been a single successful sandbox MMO to date. Even comparing DU to other MMO's as proof that it could be f2p would be a farce. They can't afford to take risks with their pay model when their entire endeavor is inherently risky.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again transforming what I said to point the finger and attack. I said the F2P model COULD happen and never said it SHOULD happen. Of course Id rather pay for a sub to keep the game alive, unless that business model kills the game. ffs english is not even my main language and here I am trying to explain the difference between could and should to some ignorant ****

 

Of course I cited the most successful moba, why would I try to prove my point by comparing to an unsuccessful one?

 

''There has not been a single successful sandbox MMO to date''   Please take a minute to wipe what you pull out of your *** to make it readable. Seriously losing faith in this community

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...