Jump to content
EagleOne

A possibly efficient alternative to the subscription model

Recommended Posts

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

@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 also can exist limitations actually involving gameplay. For example to change a rule you must obtain the votes from all members, with a 48h countdown, which creates an awesome galactic vote. So you cannot shield yourself on a single click if you are in danger.

 

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

 

But it's not about technical details here, it's about architecture.

 

But you yourself said that this would be in the style of rust and would grant the players who rented the systems special rights and rules, having people who did not buy it control the "administrative rights" through a vote would get nothing administrative done and would waste time.

 

Also, in my scenario, BobCorp's members consisted of only bob and his friends, so they still would have voted yes.

 

(I do apologize for the double pasting so I put in some lines in case it happens again)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

 

You realize that the developers would never implement this, right? They've explicitly stated on multiple occasions: their goal is to keep the gameplay community as undivided as possible. That's the reason there's only one Arkship. If you allow people to rent their own space, you instantly divide the community. Not to mention the fact that this essentially makes the game pay-to-win. Anyone with enough money can simply buy a couple of solar systems and ban anyone else from entering, thus having all those resources to themselves. Quite frankly, this plan has more holes in it than a slice of swiss.

 

On the note of one big payment, rather than monthly subscription......... THAT'S A BIGGER PAYWALL THAN MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION YOU DOLT!!!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

But you yourself said that this would be in the style of rust and would grant the players who rented the systems special rights and rules, having people who did not buy it control the "administrative rights" through a vote would get nothing administrative done and would waste time.

 

Also, in my scenario, BobCorp's members consisted of only bob and his friends, so they still would have voted yes.

 

(I do apologize for the double pasting so I put in some lines in case it happens again)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

I took Rust as an example to put figures on income potentials, I never said that the game must be like Rust in its gameplay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You realize that the developers would never implement this, right? They've explicitly stated on multiple occasions: their goal is to keep the gameplay community as undivided as possible. That's the reason there's only one Arkship. If you allow people to rent their own space, you instantly divide the community. Not to mention the fact that this essentially makes the game pay-to-win. Anyone with enough money can simply buy a couple of solar systems and ban anyone else from entering, thus having all those resources to themselves. Quite frankly, this plan has more holes in it than a slice of swiss.

 

On the note of one big payment, rather than monthly subscription......... THAT'S A BIGGER PAYWALL THAN MONTHLY SUBSCRIPTION YOU DOLT!!!!!!!!

 

Thank you for naming me a "dolt", I appreciate that.

 

Well, I guess I am out of arguments here.

 

One sure is certain, I would not be part of a community of people throwing at people flashy green and pink vulgarity, even if you monthly pay me for this!

 

This has been way too much for me over this thread, I guess I should return to my own business. Cya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thank you for naming me a "dolt", I appreciate that.

 

Well, I guess I am out of arguments here.

 

One sure is certain, I would not be part of a community of people throwing at people flashy green and pink vulgarity, even if you monthly pay me for this!

 

This has been way too much for me over this thread, I guess I should return to my own business. Cya.

200_s.gif

 

 

 

 

Bye Bye

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.

We all understood what you meant, it's just a really dumb idea that counteracts the very core concept of the game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A monthly subscription is a non-starter for me.  The only reason I became interested in this very technically innovative game is the possibility that I could evaluate & potentially even play, explore, test, build, & contribute to the game without always having to pay a monthly fee.

 

Monthly fees for games are an extravagance I simply cannot afford.  However if there is enough complexity within the game for me to offer some service to paying players, such as doing the grinding which they pay real dollars to avoid, or offering my services as a mercenary for someone who paid real dollars for an NPC faction to provide protection...  That sounds like something I'd be glad to work through, for the reward of building out my own little corner of a safe zone.

 

I really don't see an issue with a near-infinite procedural universe offering protective zones for pay.  I wouldn't go so far as to give paying players anything like administrative control, just a larger virtual space protected by the ark-defenses.

 

I am willing to pay for useless novelties that match my foibles within a game; I'm eager to pay for anything that actually provides me some freedom to build bigger projects safely removed from PvP.  I have no problem with doing extra grind that other players pay to avoid if it means I get to enjoy the same game features, even if my scale is limited by budget & lack of game-time.

 

I don't get to play often.  I don't have a lot to spend, certainly not every month.  That said, I am known to pay handsomely for content & resources that I want, when I can (occasionally) afford it.

 

Attacking the OP for proposing alternatives to subscription fees does not help to build a community centered around mutually beneficial innovation & sustainable game development.

 

Also:  Never pay for Early Access.  That rewards cut & run abandonware.  Developers need quality feedback from fault-tolerant alpha/beta testers;  You don't get that when people pay $50 up front (much less ongoing subscription fees) for incomplete projects that still need major revision.  You get a few flash-in-the-pan bumps from media coverage, then whining & stagnation.  Strictly limited alpha-access (to those who submit good bug reports & possess hardware you wish to support) & content-focused beta development have been crucial components behind most of the best games I have ever played.

 

Personalization & enlistment of other players are plenty of incentive for generous Kickstarter donations.  "Donate $80 & get 100 hours of (server allocated) contract services!"  You pay Novaquark, & the server NPCs reward other players for doing your combat/mining/building.  You get to cherry pick which types of grind you focus on, while other players get a lucrative contract for whatever play-style they're focused on.

 

Ultimately, if the in-game economy is actually complex enough to support multiple play-styles, it's complex enough to monetize grinding without penalizing free-to-players.  Everybody picks a specialty & those who can afford it can pay real dollars (or crap tons of in-game) to have other specialists take care of things they're not as good at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be totally dumb to let players PAY in order to get them a safe zone, a star system, whatever....That's just pay to win and against emergent gameplay.

 

DU HAS to be p2p because of the singleshard. Not only for upkeep but for updates. Buy game, play until update and then leave because you don't want to buy the expansion....doesn't work that well you know?

 

And there are DACs if you can't pay those 15 bucks

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.

Eagleone your missing Several points.

All those games you say failed covered development costs and made a profit. The fact that busy people move on to other games and other things is normal. Games wain that's normal. It happens to all types of games with all types of billing systems. No one has found the golden key to the metaverse. 

 

Secondly NQ can sell DAC in packs of 6, 12, 20, 24, etc the equivalent of a larger B2P price without any trouble. That is also the equivalent of renting the servers. 

 

Second life was the first to sell server space represented as rented sim space. The same model you recommend. While people still play Second Life its aged, It's not easy to up date to a much more modern system and some of us early builders never had enough room. We lost everything when the rent came due and we could not find the money. (10000 prims)

Renting servers is not a solution to permanent archiving of abandoned accounts. That's a totally different problem to any existing billing system. I've discussed it elsewhere. 

 

Likewise Planet Entropia nests its server payments and content creation costs in the form of rent for buildings, and the purchase of ammunition, and mining probes. Again some of the things you talk about. MindArk is doing nicely but it's dated and new content trickles in very slowly. 

 

The sales model you want does not guarantee longevity. No sales model does... Sadly. 

NQ has a staged plan. Four games in one deployed in stages:

Planetary survival with a SF theme.

First person Sim City! (That will be huge when the city building fans catch on. Yes we will need roads.)

PvP combat with large armies and player made bases, gravtanks and aircraft. 

Interplanetary and interstellar 4X  eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, eXterminate! Also first person. 

Each stage will get a flood of new people buying DAC.

 

If you can't afford DAC you can get in via one of the org sites and work for your DAC earning them in game from NQ or orgs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...