Jump to content
TeemuMilto

Issues with game development based on pledges

Recommended Posts

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php/topic/628-subscription-should-not-be-its-pay-model/

 

It was said that bounty system would not be added in the official release if the target 720000 wasn´t met. Now it seems that Novaquark is doing a crowdfunding game, and it will keep developing it after the official release. 

 

This in an antithesis to having a vision. I believe Novaquark has vision about Dual Universe and it is more interesting than Star Citizen, because it is more on the line of Space Engineers and physical world than role playing EA/Microsoft titles, although much uglier looking.

 

But how can the studio keep developing if they don´t try to release a complete game and make sure that it doesn´t fail before launch? Surely we shouldn´t be held responsible by paying beforehand. I believe that a goal to release a full game doesn´t mean that it isn´t developing anymore, but it forces the studio to make it work. Having a goal of partially completed game by official release is dubious.

 

Paradox games and its DLC´s never work out and there are Steam games like Godus, Stranded Deep, Rising World and Medieval Engineers, which have gotten stuck to the early access stage years ago and won´t develop anymore. Other games will work but they don´t have any vision, like Stellaris which tried to become Master or Orion 2.

 

Should I pay 500 € for a lifetime subscription so that I may get peace of mind from paying to play? A subscription is against my views too. It means that I can´t take a break, play when I feel like and that there is a higher threshold to play the game. I might like to have something better to do, especially if it mean loss of money. Do you really think paying for a game is critical expense in life, especially if its more than regular 60 € titles?

 

Edit 29.7.2017. In order to keep out the "trash" players who never pay anything, you do not need to lock, build walls and avoid free to play. You only need a high gameplay quality, which makes cheating unnecessary. This sort of subscription system means too little players to even afford company operations. 

 

Thanks and see you later in the game.

 

Edit: 18.8.       Reply to ‎17‎.‎7‎.‎2017 at 7:32 AM, Celestialdeath99:

Celestialdeath99: Minecraft´s funding scheme did work for Mojang. But they didn´t run any servers, they let private companies run them. On the other hand Minecraft (Dual Universe is inspired by Minecraft, EVE and Space Engineers) had such an awesome concept, that everybody wanted to buy the 15 € one-time payment and there were hundreds of millions of accounts. Dual Universe may not be that compelling game that it would have such rave support that would pay for the game and justify third-party promoters, license-paying server services etc. Perhaps Novark in France and this board should not base expensive monthly payments on the dream that it is going to be. If Novark doesn´t have any better idea maybe Dual Universe will not be that much greater than EVE either. I am still writing this because I love a game that is inspired by Minecraft, EVE and Space Engineers, which should not be a fringe game community, too few players, barely profitable, slow and limited version updates.

 

Edit 2nd Nov 2018: 

Pros:

1. There is a DAC, which you can gain by mining Quanta, and don´t need real-life money.

2. The game is free to download, including all content. (Isn´t this like Eve was?)

3. The monthly subscription starts from around 13 €

4. There is a free trial period. 

Cons: 

1. Paying for a monthly subscription is a very serious and scary feature which does not work with reasonable money policies, unless it is low enough. It is not like this game is going to rob kids´ money, is it? Don´t focus on the big 60 - 180 € packages alone. Also Novaquark´s single shard server needs there monthly payments more than a single payment. This is me being courageous like the French are.

Verdict: I am going to be a player who uses 13 € a month for a short time. Especially when comparing the five alternatives to Dual Universe,

I believe I can get a full game experience without going insane over all those offer packages. When the game does not offer anymore new, like a unique and strong atmosphere and creativity and limitless growth, I quit without using anymore money. I have found my moderation. So in 2020 is Awakening and I will be there.

Edited by TeemuMilto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎7‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 9:25 AM, TeemuMilto said:

But how can the studio keep developing if they don´t try to release a complete game and make sure that it doesn´t fail before launch? Surely we shouldn´t be held responsible by paying beforehand

 

I think you are missing the point of the Alpha and the Beta's on this. That is the sole purpose of the Alpha and Beta. To test stuff and make sure it is all working for the final release.

 

As for the subscription based payment, it makes sense. They will continuously have to pay for servers in order for players to play the game. A single fee per person would not even come close to covering the costs of running those servers. Therefore, if you want to play you will have to help keep the servers running and the developers paid by paying a subscription. It is perhaps the only way I can see this game being able to run for years, otherwise funding will die and so will the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11.7.2017 at 4:25 PM, TeemuMilto said:

https://board.dualthegame.com/index.php/topic/628-subscription-should-not-be-its-pay-model/

 

It was said that bounty system would not be added in the official release if the target 720000 wasn´t met. Now it seems that Novaquark is doing a crowdfunding game, and it will keep developing it after the official release. 

 

This in an antithesis to having a vision. I believe Novaquark has vision about Dual Universe and it is more interesting than Star Citizen, because it is more on the line of Space Engineers and physical world than role playing EA/Microsoft titles, although much uglier looking.

 

But how can the studio keep developing if they don´t try to release a complete game and make sure that it doesn´t fail before launch? Surely we shouldn´t be held responsible by paying beforehand. I believe that a goal to release a full game doesn´t mean that it isn´t developing anymore, but it forces the studio to make it work. Having a goal of partially completed game by official release is dubious.

 

Paradox games and its DLC´s never work out and there are Steam games like Godus, Stranded Deep, Rising World and Medieval Engineers, which have gotten stuck to the early access stage years ago and won´t develop anymore. Other games will work but they don´t have any vision, like Stellaris which tried to become Master or Orion 2.

 

Should I pay 500 € for a lifetime subscription so that I may get peace of mind from paying to play? A subscription is against my views too. It means that I can´t take a break, play when I feel like and that there is a higher threshold to play the game. I might like to have something better to do, especially if it mean loss of money. Do you really think paying for a game is critical expense in life, especially if its more than regular 60 € titles?

 

Thanks and see you later in the game.

 

So basically you're against the reasonable choice of NQ to avoid feature creep (as in some other games ....) - wrong opinion though, but that's fine if you feel that way.

 

They're not releasing a not-finished game - they release a finished game and make sure every mechanic in this game works properly. THEN they work on ADDITIONAL mechanics (like stargates, bounty hunting, FTL travel,...) to expand the game. In a persistent, player run sandbox you have to make sure your basic mechanics work properly and go from there.

Besides: those additional mechanics will be delivered via PATCHES and NOT DLCs - those are different things.

So to me this sounds reasonable - not sure why you're against that.

 

And the subscription drama again:

PC Gaming is a hobby as every other hobby there is. If you're not able to spend money on it (or you don't want to) then don't do it. 10-14€ per month isn't that much money either for us lucky people who live in first world countries. If you feel like you lose money every month because you don't play and spend such a little amount of money each month, you clearly have other problems in life.

I smoke and spend 100€ per month on that - I wouldn't do it when I didn't have the money for it.

I do go climbing in the mountains too so I need to get there by car, need equipment, drinks, chalk, .... That costs money too but I'm happy to pay it because I have a great time doing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/11/2017 at 7:25 AM, TeemuMilto said:

But how can the studio keep developing if they don´t try to release a complete game and make sure that it doesn´t fail before launch?

 

Hence why they are developing the game fully then launching it before adding in additional features. They are building a feature complete, stable game with a defined set of features, precisely to avoid getting stuck in development hell (like some other games *cough* *cough*).

 

On 7/11/2017 at 7:25 AM, TeemuMilto said:

Having a goal of partially completed game by official release is dubious.

 

They aren't going to release a partially complete game. They are releasing a complete game and then going to add more features in later. 

 

On 7/11/2017 at 7:25 AM, TeemuMilto said:

Paradox games and its DLC´s never work out

 

What are you talking about? They are incredibly popular and doing very, very well. 

 

On 7/11/2017 at 7:25 AM, TeemuMilto said:

Do you really think paying for a game is critical expense in life, especially if its more than regular 60 € titles?

 

If you can't afford to pay for a game, you can't play. If you don't think it's worth it, then you shouldn't play. Period. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how definition of Alpha/Beta dev cycles has changed the meaning in people minds once all those early alphas became a norm. If you are victim of steam, please go to Wikipedia and search for what that actually means. I know, it almost feel like traditional old school thing, testing game before is ready and let people in. Why NQ need that? 

 

2 reasons:

1. Very nature of the MMO game of this type. New server technology they have to stress test it and be absolutely sure it will run well on final release. In order to do that they have to bring people in.

2. Make people become a tester at the same time asking for money to help to fund the project and making no. 1 reality.

 

Everyone is free to skip that process, wait for final release and start game for free trial before making any decision. But many of us here love the project so much that even if you are not having a time to participate in testing you can donate to help this project. Access to Alpha/Beta in this case is just nice bonus to have :)

 

But the vision and plans for fully released game are clear and as I understand, many scepticism around monthly sub model, there is many pros and cons. But in this particular type of MMO it makes perfect sense and is nothing new. EVE was a success story and well tested well over a decade. Proved there is big audience willing to go for it. But people need more as always. Voxels and user generated content is the thing of this decade and we need more immerse experience of sci-fi MMO. EVE is on decline not because of the payment model. Because struggling to keep up with latest trends and at some point they would need to start from scratch in order to do so. This is where DU comes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, TeemuMilto said:

The servers should not depend on us paying, because it is just a game and especially not before the release

 

Then please do a calculation here and show us how you'd do it - please include the AWS server cost there too per month + any other expanses NQ has (paying devs, office, promo,....) - I'm all ears for your calculation

 

And btw: you don't have to pay a monthly sub for alpha/beta - it starts with release.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/07/2017 at 0:25 AM, TeemuMilto said:

 

Should I pay 500 € for a lifetime subscription so that I may get peace of mind from paying to play? A subscription is against my views too. It means that I can´t take a break, play when I feel like and that there is a higher threshold to play the game. I might like to have something better to do, especially if it mean loss of money. Do you really think paying for a game is critical expense in life, especially if its more than regular 60 € titles?

 

 

oh boy, i thought the people bitching about sub left awhile ago

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, UniversalG said:

oh boy, i thought the people bitching about sub left awhile ago

Yep, but they will continually rear their heads I imagine.  I never understood the "not paying for a game/development" trend that's popped up in the last few years.  

 

I personally want the best damn game I can possibly get, and (even though I have ruby) I will be purchasing a sub through dacs.  I can't imagine I'm alone in this.

 

I can't recall a single f2p or b2p (one time payment) game that I have enjoyed enough to continually play within the last 5 years.  

 

The fact of the the matter is, in order to make a good MMO you need a sub.  It's even better if f2p players can snag a sub for in game assets... win win.

 

As an aside:

It would be really nice if NQ could implement a DAC subscription for us... and perhaps that's already how subs will work. You get a DAC, rather than game time on your account.  I haven't paid too much attention, as that's a long ways out ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Hades said:

You get a DAC, rather than game time on your account.  I haven't paid too much attention, as that's a long ways out ;)

 

Interesting thought. 

I'm definitely buying a DAC now and again to keep the spice flowing but your idea is interesting. 

 

I would personally prefer it if my account was just activated for ever. But your idea would work too and it's definitely original. ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is always one of these games with beta games, oh well. I feel your heart TeemuMilto, but that's all I feel.

 

I like NQ so far, they seem to be closer and truer to development compared to most other crowd funded games, especially MMOs. I have the pain with game subs too, but I am confident I can earn DAC in-game, even if I play casually.

 

Keep it up NQ! Let the naysayers be naysayers, if anything has ever been true, it is that nothing is free in life, even life itself.

 

Have a great day everybody!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What most people forget is that we want to play this game for years. I personally lose interest in any f2p/,b2p quite fast (~6months tops). Because they don't offer the in depth xp as other titels offer (I played eve for 8years+)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get the real pledge-subscription issue. I pledged gold for example and that includes alpha, beta and 2 years worth of gameplay in DACs for release and forward. If i spend that money on other games i probably wouldn't stick to them for more than a few months, a year in many cases.

 

See it as a long-term investment instead. Investing in that the game will be able to develop into something great and run for a long time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I played Eve for 10+ years

i have EA games (Empyrion, 7 days to die, etc)

p2w games and sp games also

 

Games cost money to develop, that is a fact. I would rather spend mine on supporting a great idea and help it make it to market without the pressure from corporate sponsors... and I would keep on paying to keep the patches coming similar to how it was\ is done in Eve.

Why? Because the game stays vital and interesting by keeping the dev's on the project. If you don't like that idea there are alot of games out there where you will pay for the game once, and if development continues for the game you will pay a price for the DLC's that follow. That price is usually at 50% of the original purchase price. But those type of games don't have the same type of ... call it reality feel that Eve does and that DU is striving for.

To me that is worth the pledge to get it developed and worth the sub price to keep it going.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Soro said:

I played Eve for 10+ years

i have EA games (Empyrion, 7 days to die, etc)

p2w games and sp games also

 

Games cost money to develop, that is a fact. I would rather spend mine on supporting a great idea and help it make it to market without the pressure from corporate sponsors... and I would keep on paying to keep the patches coming similar to how it was\ is done in Eve.

Why? Because the game stays vital and interesting by keeping the dev's on the project. If you don't like that idea there are alot of games out there where you will pay for the game once, and if development continues for the game you will pay a price for the DLC's that follow. That price is usually at 50% of the original purchase price. But those type of games don't have the same type of ... call it reality feel that Eve does and that DU is striving for.

To me that is worth the pledge to get it developed and worth the sub price to keep it going.


Give this man a medal.

o7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lethys said:

What most people forget is that we want to play this game for years. I personally lose interest in any f2p/,b2p quite fast (~6months tops). Because they don't offer the in depth xp as other titels offer (I played eve for 8years+)

Was going to give you a like, but I handed all of mine out already, oops.

 

But exactly, I want to be playing DU for years and years; Especially if I'm starting to invest a lot in a founder pack alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I don't get the opposition to the sub model either. The game has to have money coming in somehow or it will shutdown. Period. If they aren't getting that money from subs then they have to sell something else. Sure, they can get a nice pool of money from initial sales if they were to go with a b2p model, but sales slow down and that pool would run out after a few years. Or they need to sell in game items or cosmetics, which either makes the game pay to win or cosmetics focused. Either way it's not very good. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine in a game that has a DAC/APEX/PLEX system, may technically may be enough to run the servers with all the players dumping such things in to make in-game cash. But exactly, they need money to keep the servers running, cool, the lights on, maintenance, to continue developing the game after release, and so much more.

 

While a Pay to Play model is going to be a curiosity in 2017, when virtually everybody has abandoned it, even WoW and EVE to some degree.. I do understand why they are thinking of doing it, I also really cannot complain if they do it.

 

BACK IN MY DAY, We walked up hill both ways, in the snow, with sharknados going 50 feet away, just to pay 30 USD a month to play an MMO. If they have it 10 a month, or 15, I'll be happy enough. However I think maybe it's time for this thread to die.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Necroposting ftw.

 

On 7/11/2017 at 4:25 PM, TeemuMilto said:

like a unique and strong atmosphere and creativity and limitless growth,

That's up to the players. Either to create that themselves or to find a Job/profession ingame which suits them well and where they can thrive.

 

None of this is NQs business - they only give US the tools

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...