Jump to content
EagleOne

A possibly efficient alternative to the subscription model

Recommended Posts

Hello there,

 

I have recently been following the developments of DU, as a french entrepreneur in IT myself, and living in Paris, I feel very concerned by the developments of this game :-)

 

So I was looking at the monetization problem and how Novaquark found out their solution from a comparison of detailed pros and cons.

 

I agreed on most pros and cons, but some points might have been overlooked, and I wish the developers can change their mind about the P2P subscription model.

 

First things first, I think that a P2P subscription is perfectly viable for Early Access. In general, my opinion is that players should never be given Early Access for free or for no extra-free over the finished product. I think that a lot of developers miss that point, the market is doing it wrong and the "standard" Early Access model we have today (pay once for all) is actually negatively impacting the sales and cashflows of the developers on the long run, as well as the reviews of the game from the public.

 

Now, about running it long-term, I think that a P2P subscription model past the official release would be a drastic paywall that seems to contradict what I understand the developers want the project to be.

 

If I got it well, the developers want this single shard universe to be propelled by the activity of thousands of players. The entire philosophy promised here revolves around that. I heard the interview in which it was hoped that ships would be able to sustain hundreds of people onboard as well as having projects such as the 'death star' that could involve hundreds of people as well.

 

But how many of those projects or communities will you have, with a paywall upfront? You will probably need all the hands you can possibly need to make this community live for the expectations it hoped for, otherwise the deception might be huge, and even those having paid for several months will eventually leave the boat...

 

My opinion is that the final product should be a single-purchase mid-to-high price with licence key, that solves most problems regarding cheaters and malicious users as explained in the Pros/Cons. A high price would kick the companies revenues on start and would give opportunity for occasional sales events in the future, all by maintaining interesting sales/revenues ratios. It is also perfectly fine to get paid for what you deliver, so it is not refraining people to purchase and join the game.

 

After that, it seems to me that Novaquark might have overlooked another battle-hardened way of actually maintaining a steady amount of cash flow into the machine. And this was compatible with another of their modjo, which I am going to explain later. This solution is simply a model similar to server renting, privatization of in-game space.

 

Game server renting has proved itself quite successful, even creating its own economy as a niche market. It all started with the Counter-Strike boom and nowadays we cannot count the legitimate amount of successful games where a lot of player-rented servers are available online, sometimes with the hosting capacity vastly surpassing the number of concurrent players, to the point players go on forums to advertise their server/community in hope of driving traffic in.

 

So, another Novaquark's modjo for this game is that they want the most dedicated players to improve the game for the less dedicated players, and that is absolutely fine, the community loves that, both sides. So why not applying this to the monetization?

 

Most players will want to create alliances, or even control their own solar system. Give them that: their own social space, entirely protected and governed by the rules of the administrator of this space. Give them tools to manage their clan, change the settings of their controlled area, kick/ban players or have password locks, or create events there.

 

Get innovative on how to make that still realistic and immersive in the single shard and then rent those places in the universe just as you would have done for any dedicated server, except the trade-off is that the cluster server is operated by Novaquark to satisfy the computation power of everyone else and is not something people can actually connect to or decide to reboot/log-on. The server could even be not rented at all, with all the revenues kept for other purposes: it would not be cheating the customer and offers flexibility in the revenue allocation.

 

Add on top of that the margin you require to pursue the developments and support, in-between sell hats in the shop, and it could actually turn out you have a steady amount of cash flowing in, all while ensuring you the largest community possible :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there,

 

I have recently been following the developments of DU, as a french entrepreneur in IT myself, and living in Paris, I feel very concerned by the developments of this game :-)

 

So I was looking at the monetization problem and how Novaquark found out their solution from a comparison of detailed pros and cons.

 

I agreed on most pros and cons, but some points might have been overlooked, and I wish the developers can change their mind about the P2P subscription model.

 

First things first, I think that a P2P subscription is perfectly viable for Early Access. In general, my opinion is that players should never be given Early Access for free or for no extra-free over the finished product. I think that a lot of developers miss that point, the market is doing it wrong and the "standard" Early Access model we have today (pay once for all) is actually negatively impacting the sales and cashflows of the developers on the long run, as well as the reviews of the game from the public.

 

Now, about running it long-term, I think that a P2P subscription model past the official release would be a drastic paywall that seems to contradict what I understand the developers want the project to be.

 

If I got it well, the developers want this single shard universe to be propelled by the activity of thousands of players. The entire philosophy promised here revolves around that. I heard the interview in which it was hoped that ships would be able to sustain hundreds of people onboard as well as having projects such as the 'death star' that could involve hundreds of people as well.

 

But how many of those projects or communities will you have, with a paywall upfront? You will probably need all the hands you can possibly need to make this community live for the expectations it hoped for, otherwise the deception might be huge, and even those having paid for several months will eventually leave the boat...

 

My opinion is that the final product should be a single-purchase mid-to-high price with licence key, that solves most problems regarding cheaters and malicious users as explained in the Pros/Cons. A high price would kick the companies revenues on start and would give opportunity for occasional sales events in the future, all by maintaining interesting sales/revenues ratios. It is also perfectly fine to get paid for what you deliver, so it is not refraining people to purchase and join the game.

 

After that, it seems to me that Novaquark might have overlooked another battle-hardened way of actually maintaining a steady amount of cash flow into the machine. And this was compatible with another of their modjo, which I am going to explain later. This solution is simply server renting.

 

Game server renting has proved itself quite successful, even creating its own economy as a niche market. It all started with the Counter-Strike boom and nowadays we cannot count the legitimate amount of successful games where a lot of player-rented servers are available online, sometimes with the hosting capacity vastly surpassing the number of concurrent players, to the point players go on forums to advertise their server/community in hope of driving traffic in.

 

So, another Novaquark's modjo for this game is that they want the most dedicated players to improve the game for the less dedicated players, and that is absolutely fine, the community loves that, both sides. So why not applying this to the monetization?

 

Most players will want to create alliances, or even control their own solar system. Give them that: their own social space, entirely protected and governed by the rules of the administrator of this space. Give them tools to manage their clan, change the settings of their controlled area, kick/ban players or have password locks, or create events there.

 

Get innovative on how to make that still realistic and immersive and then rent those places in the universe just as you would have done for any dedicated server, except the trade-off is that the cluster server is operated by Novaquark to satisfy the computation power of everyone else and is not something people can actually connect to or decide to reboot/log-on. The server could even be not rented at all, with all the revenues kept for other purposes: it would not be cheating the customer and offers flexibility in the revenue allocation.

 

Add on top of that the margin you require to pursue the developments and support, in-between sell hats in the shop, and it could actually turn out you have a steady amount of cash flowing in, all while ensuring you the largest community possible :-)

Game server renting? How? Will guys who will run pay-2-win donations ask for JC Baillie to give them his server tech, the one he patented?

 

"CAn I haz free tech to makez my serverz and sell pay-2-winz ?"

 

 

No, noone will give you the tech they built and patented for free. The server renting from minecraft doesn't apply here. You can se up a Minecraft server on a toaster. It won't run with 1,000,000 players on it at max cap tho.

 

 

The devs are not making a WoW cloen ,they make a niche game that nobody has made so far. And you know what, while it's not monopoly, good luck on companies run by EA and Korean-MMO-F2P-crankmachines like NCsoft catching up to such a game.

 

 

DUAL is also not space engineers. DUAL is developed as an MMO, SE was developed as Minecraft in space and got out of hand.

 

 

 

Nice try though. You clearly don't understand why DUAL will be P2P and you and everyone else who claim "P2P IZ TOO EXPENSOV, PL0X MAKEZ GAMES FR33!" will pay a subscription to enjoy the things the game offer. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me wrong Twrkmotor, it's about permitting players to rent their own private space within the universe. The business model is similar to server rental, but it is not what I proposed here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me wrong Twrkmotor, it's about permitting players to rent their own private space within the universe. The business model is similar to server rental, but it is not what I proposed here.

 

dont bother reading him, he himself doesnt read others, and doesnt re read himself

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me wrong Twrkmotor, it's about permitting players to rent their own private space within the universe. The business model is similar to server rental, but it is not what I proposed here.

You DO understand the game is not built around different servers and it's a single-shard continuous world right? You mentioned Counter-Strike.

 

Tell me, while playing Counter-Strike, did you experience ever as you played on one map, being able to walk into another map, while playing the game, without going through a menu?

 

Of course you never did. 

 

Ergo, you are asking for the devs, to split their community on the main game, which defeats the point of the game to begin with. WoW, Lineage 2, they have server capacities because they are off-the-shelves server tech. JC Baillie built a server tech that enables many people to exist in the same world without fragmenting it into defferent servers. So, what you ask, is the devs to fragment their servers, AGAIN, defeating the purpose of the game and its selling point, the tech behind the game.

 

You want Space Second Life? It's simple, stay away from PvP areas, be an industrialist, buy PLEX, do whatever is you want to do. Don't ask for the devs to give you a way to rob them.

 

Counter-Strike makes money out of gambling, cause that's how it makes money with its loot box idea, different servers or not, they all buy loot boxes for real money from the cash shop. If it's not loot-boxes it's directly Pay-2-Win in an MMO game, which in the case of an MMO is CANCER, utilised by companies who make WoW clones.

 

I just have encyclopedic knowledge of things. You, apparently, not so much.

 

 

"Can I haz your techs to mak3 mon3y of ppls donations? l0lz" That's what your post is. And given how the game is beign made, NO, no you can't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are the most debated topics the ones that need no debate. NQ stated in no uncertain terms this will be a subscription model. I hope they don't give these threads any consideration, i'm starting to hope that every time they see one of these threads they just add $1 to the monthly sub cost. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No to the single purchase, not paying 799.99 USD for the complete value of buying the game with no subscription ever.

 

No to licencing the software from NQ, no to players renting their own servers or cloudspace and using it to establish areas all of their own.

definitely not giving said people Admin powers to segregate areas of the game off with hard coded kick's, bans, and other server side enforcement.

 

No because who would administrate the game client data, what would happen if a private node went down, player information would be lost.

No because NQ would make you sign a disclaimer stating you cant alter the Data on your shard and NQ would have to encrypt it with a complicated system to ensure data security so childish shard Admins dont spawn themselves resources somehow.

 

Also no because cash shop hats, no no no to cash shop.

Yes yes yes, subscription. Yes hello, welcome to dual universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No this is not minecraft this is an mmo stop with rented server that separate the player base like Moises when splitting the Red Sea,Stop with the idea that this is minecraft in space with LOTS of ppl.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You got me wrong Twrkmotor, it's about permitting players to rent their own private space within the universe. The business model is similar to server rental, but it is not what I proposed here.

 

Twrkmotor may got that point wrong, but I would agree 100% with the purple kitty on the fact that permitting players from running their own servers in an MMO - which is what DU strives to be, is going to COMPLETELY change what the game is about. It's not minecraft, it's not counter strike, it's not a short term 'action' game. It is a long term virtual immersion project in an MMO fashion. Heck, if done right, it is deserving of it's own genre based on the sheer fact that it's striving to do things not done before.

 

Also, to be fair, that is not the only point you made. Majority of your post was about how "pay to play is worse" than the alternative. Everyone can obviously have an opinion, but has it occurred to you that a lot of people are actually tired of 'pay to win (free to play)' gaming models that spam the MMO marketplace today, and lack customer support, originality, release broken unfinished expansions every week and dumb everything down to the lowest common denominator - primarily to support their funding models? 

 

Also what #9 said. No to cash shops. Would be the worst thing to happen to the game imho. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Mr Eagle
 

 

 

my opinion is that players should never be given Early Access for free or for no extra-free over the finished product. 

Agree !
 

 

 

final product should be a single-purchase

No, its not possible !   (plz read my article, i know its big but its a real study)

 

 

 

player-rented servers

Yes Novaquark, could offer this service, where a player could rent and run a private server, what is provided and managed for Novaquark, ruining on their cloud hardware. Maybe this is a viable idea, but later on, probably after the 3rd year after official launch, after all bugs were solved, game were well tested and other business variables were taken in count.

 

---

Few days ago i have wrote a big article about Monetization and posted at the end of this topic, plz read if you have not,

https://board.dualth...iability/page-8

Besides some player defend the P2P method, like its their favorite soccer team, (Like Mr. Twerkmotor), they can only look to themselves as player,
not as a businesses analyst. Since P2P is an obsolete and unfair method that not the most lucrative for the company nor customer focused.

"
(copied from my other post)
I'm not an economist, or an expert, but I'm a business graduated and had study the MMO market since Ultima Online and still work very close to games industry now days. My article is a MMO market based study of case,

I hope you guys can have a look specially at P2P part of my article where i demonstrate why subscription is and obsolete method and because Real World Money and currencies are not balanced

The (P2P) Methode unbalance the game, its not lore friend and break the immersion,

with a risk to become P2W if any kind of item (like a Plex) can be purchased with Real money and sold for game money inside the game

 

Just as example: if the subscription is based on $15 USD a player today would pay (and think):

 

UK (British) player .....:   $ 13.25 EUR  (Ah that's OK,  not real expensive I like the game and I can afford for it)

CA (Canadian) ...........:  $ 37.48 CAD  (Well if its just I playing its OK, sadly i think it will become hard to pay 2 subs, for me and my son)
BR (Brazilian)Player....:  $ 48.22 BRL  (PQP its half hundred! I love the game but Idk if i can maintain and so idk if worth to join this game)

SA (South African)......:  $ 202.54 ZAR (OMG ! i love game but impossible to pay monthly, even I can afford to buy items some times)

 

P2P is a huge pay-wall for families with more than one player, teens that need parents to pay, low budget college students, etc ...
"

and etc.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys all got this wrong.

 

I should never have used the term 'server renting' at first, but it was what pictured best the idea. I admit it was confusing, especially with the digression on how the server renting market proved successful over many years (thus making similar models solutions that should be looked out).

 

The goal is to permit players to rent their own space WITHIN the single shard universe, not on another server. For example to be allowed to rent a star system. Instead this solar system is administered by players who actually pay for this service, with their own rules and restrictions. Implementation should make it smooth for other players so that if it's a private rented space, you will simply not see it or things like that, all the details are not important here.

 

The analogy with server renting is that NQ can actually use that money for renting their OWN servers and even make margin on it!

 

Just like the server renting business model : you rent a private space, with special tools to manage it, and that's it! However here there is a trade-off : there is no division of the single shard because you simply do not rent a server.

 

I said exactly this in the OP : "This solution is simply a model similar to server renting, privatization of in-game space" to which I added "get innovative on how to make that still realistic and immersive in the single shard and then rent those places in the universe just as you would have done for any dedicated server".

 

Whenever people are paying to enlarge the universe, it generates traction for the game. I do not see that happen with a paywall upfront. There is too much competition in the same genre, and the single shard MMO feature, while it is a great technological prowess, is still just a feature. The game cannot sell on that feature, apply a paywall and hope for a massive success. That's my belief and that's why I am opposing that, because I wish this game a lot of success.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's just figure this out, from a marketing point of view, let's take real figures, shall we?

 

Rust had actually the kind of success DU can expect and wish to have. I consider that anything below Rust-level of success is not what you can hope for a "10-years-to-go" project.

 

We do not care about the number of players here. Rust has 10145 servers online according to https://rust-servers.net/servers/list/406/

 

Might have been better/worst before, I don't know.

 

Average renting package go from 10$ to 20$ per month. Source: http://comparegamehosting.com/game/rust/

 

Let's say it is an average of 15$.

 

10145 x 15 = 152175 $ per month, 1,82 million $ a year. Make the package 20$ and it's 2,4 millions $ we are talking about now.

 

Sounds to me like a perfect way to monetize the game and ensuring a large community around it.

 

Add on top of that some cosmetics in shop and you are good to go. Fact is that the current marketing charts might show larger revenues on a pay to play model, but very few projects actually succeed.

 

Look at the names of all those who failed on the paywall : Everquest II, Lord of the Rings Online, The Elder Scrolls Online, and Star Wars: The Old Republic... Source Silicion Angle. Those are not little names here. Those are AAA games made by large teams of battle-hardened developers. Star Wars failed man, look at that name, look at the genre... 200 millions dollars of development cost. (Wikipedia)

 

Well, it is possible to make decent revenues out of a paywall on start, but on the long term the solution is not viable. I do not believe in a system where players get disconnected because they lack game time, and will find it is an happy experience that makes it worth waiting for the next play session... They will not propagate the word, and you need the word to spread.

 

And if a word they spread, 'might not be that good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sorry if this is inappropriate, but this is the only way I have of responding to the suggestion of renting out private space for real world money in Dual Universe

 

 

 

 

 

 

The guy is awesome :-)

 

However thank you for your detailed review of my arguments.

 

Applying a paywall is not viable, or at least I think so, and I was proposing an alternative solution. You say 'no', but what do you propose exactly?

 

There might be a reason for why no indie company has ever released a game on a subscription model... What could that be?

 

For example I think that the cluster balancing technology in an XYZ space is awesome and could be sold and licenced for other purposes in B2B transactions. DU could also be a place to push the limits of some new technologies, and get a way to sell them on side channels. This is no different than selling your game engine, Valve has done that before. But who is Valve anyway?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You say 'no', but what do you propose exactly?

 

No one is proposing anything, its already been decided by NQ that its going to be subscription model and most of us either went "Oh, OK cool" Or "Dang, oh well" and moved on. but for some reason these threads keep coming up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The guy is awesome :-)

 

However thank you for your detailed review of my arguments.

 

Applying a paywall is not viable, or at least I think so, and I was proposing an alternative solution. You say 'no', but what do you propose exactly?

 

There might be a reason for why no indie company has ever released a game on a subscription model... What could that be?

 

For example I think that the cluster balancing technology in an XYZ space is awesome and could be sold and licenced for other purposes in B2B transactions. DU could also be a place to push the limits of some new technologies, and get a way to sell them on side channels. This is no different than selling your game engine, Valve has done that before. But who is Valve anyway?

PErhaps because all indie companies do the same mistake, try to copy off of WoW.

 

 

The DUAL devs develoepd a new tech for the servers and worked on the netcode for it BEFORE they started working on the gameplay and graphics. That's what I want to pay for a subscription and this is what you don't get. NovaQuark owns their server tech, because they want to build a niche market for themselves, the continuous single-shard MMO. 

 

 

YOU, want to break that single-shard continuous MMO into multiple shards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one is proposing anything, its already been decided by NQ that its going to be subscription model and most of us either went "Oh, OK cool" Or "Dang, oh well" and moved on. but for some reason these threads keep coming up. 

 

NQ did not say definitely that they are going to stick on that. They said that they had their decision made after a meeting and an evaluation of pros and cons. I did read it all entirely. It appeared to me that the decision was still pending for feedback, and because we are said to give feedback anyway, let's try to be constructive at it.

 

It seems to me that proposing renting of universe space for communities, in a model similar to server renting (with no server, got it?) is not only a commonly accepted and welcomed practice for gamers, it is also a successful business model, that can earn you millions of income per year as I explained previously. I see no obstacle for this to happen in DU, it can be properly made.

 

The fact is that this monetization practice is battle-hardened since years, so I was very surprised I did not see it appear in the pros/cons.

 

It also has the strong benefit that all developments made towards this kind of monetization system can actually ENHANCE the general gemeplay experience if made correctly. Self-moderated communities? Expanding universe? More tools for players to play with? Everyone would benefit a lot out of it. A paywall is sterile.

 

My opinion as a player, is that I could not care less that this guy who is spending 30$ a month on top of the initial purchase price gets his whole solar system for him, his friends and people around his community. I would even find this very fair. I would probably go visit there and enjoy the game just like in any other place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NQ did not say definitely that they are going to stick on that. They said that they had their decision made after a meeting and an evaluation of pros and cons. I did read it all entirely. It appeared to me that the decision was still pending for feedback, and because we are said to give feedback anyway, let's try to be constructive at it.

 

It seems to me that proposing renting of universe space for communities, in a model similar to server renting (with no server, got it?) is not only a commonly accepted and welcomed practice for gamers, it is also a successful business model, that can earn you millions of income per year as I explained previously. I see no obstacle for this to happen in DU, it can be properly made.

 

The fact is that this monetization practice is battle-hardened since years, so I was very surprised I did not see it appear in the pros/cons.

 

It also has the strong benefit that all developments made towards this kind of monetization system can actually ENHANCE the general gemeplay experience if made correctly. Self-moderated communities? Expanding universe? More tools for players to play with? Everyone would benefit a lot out of it. A paywall is sterile.

OH, it will be Sub based, it's a debate if there will be PLEX or not (the ability to buy game-time in-game with in-game money).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OH, it will be Sub based, it's a debate if there will be PLEX or not (the ability to buy game-time in-game with in-game money).

 

You know what will happen at the first moment most people will get kicked out of the game because of any playtime limitation?

 

They will simply never come back.

 

So instead of keeping them as long as possible in game, and trying to make them subscribe to additional services for their own community or clan, you just kick them out of the game. That's so sweet, it sounds very promising indeed, I can't wait this PLEX-like system.

 

There might be a reason for why no indie company has ever done that before, or maybe you can quote me a successful story?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what will happen at the first moment most people will get kicked out of the game because of any playtime limitation?

 

They will simply never come back.

 

So instead of keeping them as long as possible in game, and trying to make them subscribe to additional services for their own community or clan, you just kick them out of the game. That's so sweet, it sounds very promising indeed, I can't wait this PLEX-like system.

 

There might be a reason for why no indie company has ever done that before, or maybe you can quote me a successful story?

Sure they will, if the game has a compelling gameplay. 

 

 

Also, again, indie companies don't go for F2P games out of care for your wallet. They go F2P with a crack in game form and you pay to be able to bounce virtual boobs around. NQ, is not like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NQ did not say definitely that they are going to stick on that. They said that they had their decision made after a meeting and an evaluation of pros and cons. I did read it all entirely. It appeared to me that the decision was still pending for feedback, and because we are said to give feedback anyway, let's try to be constructive at it.

 

It seems to me that proposing renting of universe space for communities, in a model similar to server renting (with no server, got it?) is not only a commonly accepted and welcomed practice for gamers, it is also a successful business model, that can earn you millions of income per year as I explained previously. I see no obstacle for this to happen in DU, it can be properly made.

Alright, lets start this off,

 

This is not a good idea,

 

"Why?" you may ask, and I shall explain it to you.

 

The renting of universe space will be extremely harmful to the game for multiple reasons. First, lets start with a hypothetical. The egotistical rich mommy's boy Bob decides to start an organization, lets call it "BobCorp" for the time being. One day, Michael from the much larger "Mike Inc." decides that he wants declare war on BobCorp. Bob, being Bob, decides that he is not having it and goes to NovaQuark and "rents" his system. Now as you said in a previous post:

...

The goal is to permit players to rent their own space WITHIN the single shard universe, not on another server. For example to be allowed to rent a star system. Instead this solar system is administered by players who actually pay for this service, with their own rules and restrictions. Implementation should make it smooth for other players so that if it's a private rented space, you will simply not see it or things like that, all the details are not important here.

...

The bit that I am focusing on is this bit:

...administered by players who actually pay for this service, with their own rules and restrictions.

So, Bob, after buying his system, decides to exercise his ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS, and bans all of Mike Incs members from his system, now Mike and his minions cannot attack bob's system and bob continues on being a carebear. Mike responds buy enclosing all of Bob's territory like a warmongering amoeba. Bob, after seeing this becomes FURIOUS AND SPILLS HIS SPECIAL HOT CHOCOLATE THAT HIS MUMMY MADE HIM. He goes back to NovaQuark and rents out ALL of Mike Inc's systems and bans everyone except for him and some of his sniveling friends and they go through Mike Inc's systems, pillaging and looting everything while all mike can do is watch as his months worth of work burn in front of him, afterwards, Bob, having taken everything and destroyed all of Mike's work, waits for the month to end and cancels his renting of Mike's systems, because he is happy having his one system, and for his safety bans everyone except for him and his cronies from entering. 

 

THE END.

 

See how your plan could be used in the most ultimate form of Pay to Win?

 
Cheers!
 
rmhenn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Rmhenn I think you made a double paste so it was a bit confusing, but I think I got your point.

 

Your point is valid on the premises that you could actually rent an already existing star system. Which would indeed be a flawed design.

 

I will not get into the details here, I think it's up for the developers to make it in a proper manner.

 

As for your scenario, it's more a story about having a player turtling on his private space, which is no different from having a prey that you lost track of because he jumped in hyperspace somewhere.

 

There can be limitations actually involving gameplay. For example to change a rule you must obtain the votes from members in a time-frame of 48h countdown, or simply after 48h in a dictatorship, which creates awesome political events. So you cannot shield yourself on a single click if you are in danger.

 

From what you thought to be a liability I found more incentive if done well.

 

But it's not about technical details here, it's about alternatives to a P2P system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure they will, if the game has a compelling gameplay. 

 

 

Also, again, indie companies don't go for F2P games out of care for your wallet. They go F2P with a crack in game form and you pay to be able to bounce virtual boobs around. NQ, is not like that.

 

Nobody ever spoke about F2P in this thread, this is out of topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...