Quick Question?

[Semigod]

....opinion..

The only honest model is the P2P model.

Personally i'm sick of the want everything for free generation. 

They want everything for free but in some twisted form of Irony they end up spending way more then they would in a P2P game.

 

Who invented the F2P model? The Koreans, and if there is one thing you can bet your ass on its that the Asian culture is driven by greed.

In the online media ( game wise ) there is this movement hellbent on bringing down the P2P model. 

 

How many P2P games went F2P and stuck to their word about not making the item mall p2w? None. 

Even Trion and ESO said the F2P isn't sustainable if people don't buy stuff...

 

Shocked i tell you... people needing to buy stuff so it can generate money? The playerbase goes up, that's true. 

A F2P game can only end with P2W items, if they didn't people wouldn't buy it. 

And the people crying for F2P are also the people who leave first. 

Because entitlement and stuff..

 

F2P is a cancer as is DLC. 

 

I for one would support if it was a P2P game with a subscription around 20/25 euro's. 

Because the price of subs haven't gone up in like the beginning of time. 

 

DAOC was 15euro's as was Wildstar 10 years later. 

 

 

TL;DR : F2P is a cancer and P2P should go along with the time and raise the price of the sub to 20/25 euros. 

[Markus_Wolf]

I am not against pay to play. However, I think for newcomers, a period of grace should be involved to see if they actually want to play.

Let me explain. Recently, I bought Evochron Legacy. The game was only $24. But the demo period was 90 hours.THe tutorial lasted at least 3 and a half hours. So ample game time of 90 hours to make your mind up. And this from a one man team. Someone who actually cared enough for you to see what he had developed.

I bought the game straight after the tutorial because it had me hooked. My hopes for DU are the same. That it will hook us all by the end of the demo if not before.

However, we are slightly ahead of the curve, and getting straight info from the devs that I suspect that it is a foregone conclusion :D

[Hylios]

I'm going to back Markus on this. A grace period at the beginning (not necessarily 90 hours) would get new players in to look at the game, and we'll get a lot more dedicated players. Also, it will generate fewer negative reviews as people who dislike the game won't buy it and feel cheated.

[KlatuSatori]

I am for P2P too but at ?10/month max. New games tend to cost ?40 flat fee so more than ?10/month is excessive, especially for people that are only able to play 20-30 hours a month due to life. Which leads to a thought - paying by the hour instead of the month. Say 100 hours of game time for ?40 for example (off the top of my head). Though there are all sorts of potential issues that could crop up with that, I'm sure.

 

Or you could combine monthly subscription with actual usage kind of like with phone tariffs. For example ?5 a month allows you to play 20 hours a month, ?30/month is unlimited, and more options in between, with options to top up your monthly allowance if you overused this month.

 

@BatGojko the paying with in-game currency idea comes from Eve Online and wouldn't lose the developer any money. The way it works is that players can buy game time from the dev for real money, which they can then either add to their account, or convert to an in-game item that represents game time (in Eve it is an item called a Pilot's Licence Extension or PLEX). You then put this item up on the in-game market for sale. So basically some players pay for other players' game time in exchange for in game currency.

[Semigod]

I am for P2P too but at ?10/month max. New games tend to cost ?40 flat fee so more than ?10/month is excessive, especially for people that are only able to play 20-30 hours a month due to life. Which leads to a thought - paying by the hour instead of the month. Say 100 hours of game time for ?40 for example (off the top of my head). Though there are all sorts of potential issues that could crop up with that, I'm sure.

 

Or you could combine monthly subscription with actual usage kind of like with phone tariffs. For example ?5 a month allows you to play 20 hours a month, ?30/month is unlimited, and more options in between, with options to top up your monthly allowance if you overused this month.

 

 

 

New games are around 60 dollars/Euros at launch, but those games provide what? 40 hours of gameplay? an mmo... done right = endless hours.

The fee you pay on a monthly basis also provides events, ingame support... future updates...   and it gives you the right be called a consumer...with rights.

 

The pay per hour seems fine in theory, but in practice I think this will be more expensive then the fixed fee. 

[Hylios]

I agree with Semigod on this, if only for selfish reasons. Right now I put in as much as 40 hours of gaming a week. That'd be impossibly expensive if we payed per hour!

[vylqun]

Another possiblity would be, instead for normal subscription, a combination of per hour and fixed price, like 5$ base + 30 cent per hour up to a maximum of 15$ per month.

[KlatuSatori]

@Hylios, it's not selfish. You represent a demographic of potential customers who can and do put in a lot of hours of gaming. Likewise I represent a demographic who don't have that much spare time.

 

30-40 hours of gameplay is the minimum I would expect from a game that cost ?40/?50/$60 at launch but those are also flexible hours. I can play those hours in two days, or in two years depending on the time I have available, and I can always revisit the game whenever I like at any time in the future.

 

Paying ?20/?25/$28 a month for a game that you only get to play for about 20 hours is not justifiable when you're on a tight budget and have to balance work, family and personal time.

 

And yet, it probably is a very fair price for someone like Hylios who plays nearly 200 hours a month.

 

So the more I think about it the more I think tariffs are the way to go. Here's an example pricing model.

 

?20/?25/$28 - 1 month unlimited access

?10/?12.50/$14 - 1 month access up to 50 hours playing time

?5/?6.25/$7 - 1 month access up to 20 hours playing time

Playing time top ups at ?0.50/?0.63/$0.70 per hour for if you run out before the end of the month.

 

You could argue that you may find you get more customers this way as people who would not or could not subscribe at ?20/month for whatever reason - be it time or money availability or a combination of both - may subscribe at ?5/month.

[Cybrex]

@Hylios, it's not selfish. You represent a demographic of potential customers who can and do put in a lot of hours of gaming. Likewise I represent a demographic who don't have that much spare time.

 

30-40 hours of gameplay is the minimum I would expect from a game that cost ?40/?50/$60 at launch but those are also flexible hours. I can play those hours in two days, or in two years depending on the time I have available, and I can always revisit the game whenever I like at any time in the future.

 

Paying ?20/?25/$28 a month for a game that you only get to play for about 20 hours is not justifiable when you're on a tight budget and have to balance work, family and personal time.

 

And yet, it probably is a very fair price for someone like Hylios who plays nearly 200 hours a month.

 

So the more I think about it the more I think tariffs are the way to go. Here's an example pricing model.

 

?20/?25/$28 - 1 month unlimited access

?10/?12.50/$14 - 1 month access up to 50 hours playing time

?5/?6.25/$7 - 1 month access up to 20 hours playing time

Playing time top ups at ?0.50/?0.63/$0.70 per hour for if you run out before the end of the month.

 

You could argue that you may find you get more customers this way as people who would not or could not subscribe at ?20/month for whatever reason - be it time or money availability or a combination of both - may subscribe at ?5/month.

 

Pretty good idea if you ask me.

[NQ-Nyzaltar]

Hi everyone, 

 

A DevBlog about Monetization Models is in the pipeline (not the next one, but the one after).

It will explain in details all the reasons why we chose the P2P model instead of the others (F2P and B2P) and they are many.

 

Here's a quick explanation about how we are planning to monetize the game:

We assume we will have two global types of players:

1) Those who have a lot of available time to play the game but not necessarily a lot of money to spend in games (example: students)

2) Those who haven't a lot of available time to play the game but have a bigger budget to spend in games (example: people already working and having a family)

 

Let's say category 1 players like the game gather a lot of in-game money... but they have a problem: the cost of the monthly subscription.

Let's say category 2 players like the game and pay the monthly subscription... but they have a problem: they haven't enough time to play to gather the amount of in-game money they need to enjoy their favorite activities.

 

We will provide the opportunity to buy monthly subscription coupons for real money.

These coupons could be sold on the markets in Dual Universe for in-game money.

 

This could solve 3 problems with one feature:

- Category 2 players will buy coupons and sell them to category 1 players: They will have very quickly all the in-game money they need for their activities. Their problem is solved.

- Category 1 players will be able to stay in-game without paying their subscription. Their problem is solved. We can see that as a reward for contributing very actively to game economy.

- On our side, we will have always as many subscriptions as the number of players, which should stabilize the ratio income/costs. It's just that some players will pay the subscription for others in a system where everybody wins something (time or money).

 

This Monetization model is already used by several big MMOs:

- EvE Online (PLEX system)

- World of Warcraft (Time Tokens)

- Wildstar (CREDD)

 

In our opinion, this is a good evolution for the subscription model.

Furthermore, while it can work for Theme Park MMOs, we think it works best with Sandbox MMOs.

And so, it might be the most appropriate for Dual Universe.

But we are very interested to know what you think of it!

 

P.S: there might be a cash shop in the future.

But if such a thing appears, it will only contain items with no impact on the gameplay (= cosmetic)

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

[Semigod]

 

 

This Monetization model is already used by several big MMOs:

- EvE Online (PLEX system)

- World of Warcraft (Time Tokens)

- Wildstar (CREDD)

 

In our opinion, this is a good evolution for the subscription model.

Furthermore, while it can work for Theme Park MMOs, we think it works best with Sandbox MMOs.

And so, it might be the most appropriate for Dual Universe.

But we are very interested to know what you think of it!

 

P.S: there might be a cash shop in the future.

But if such a thing appears, it will only contain items with no impact on the gameplay (= cosmetic)

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar.

 

When will people learn that cosmetic = gameplay. 

 

I'm an armor horder, that means I actually spend time in game finding nice pieces of armor even tho the stats are crap.

Its like a minigame. and i'm not the only person who does this. 

 

Every forum its the same discussion, cash shop is fine as long as its only cosmetic and doesn't effect gameplay. 

But it does effect it. A lot! 

 

I don't see anything wrong with the above system apart from having a cash shop added to this. For those of us who will pay a sub that's just being greedy. 

The only fair solution to this would be that the Cash shop is completely free for the people paying a sub. 

 

 

Also +1 for calling it C.R.E.D.D.  and not creed

[Cybrex]

When will people learn that cosmetic = gameplay. 

 

I'm an armor horder, that means I actually spend time in game finding nice pieces of armor even tho the stats are crap.

Its like a minigame. and i'm not the only person who does this. 

 

Every forum its the same discussion, cash shop is fine as long as its only cosmetic and doesn't effect gameplay. 

But it does effect it. A lot! 

 

I don't see anything wrong with the above system apart from having a cash shop added to this. For those of us who will pay a sub that's just being greedy. 

The only fair solution to this would be that the Cash shop is completely free for the people paying a sub. 

 

 

Also +1 for calling it C.R.E.D.D.  and not creed

 

Have you seen my new cowboy hat? Doesn't really do anything, but it makes me look like Clint Eastwood. 

 

No, "cosmetic items" do not affect "gameplay". If you want to be a "hoarder" that's between you and your wallet. Does it affect me? Nope. Not one bit. 

 

I'm also all for a cash shop on top of the pay-to-play model if it's purely cosmetic. Because, again. It does nothing to me, or you, or anyone else if they don't have that special glam item. If you're that worried about looking fabulous, go to a mall. 

[vylqun]

 

Every forum its the same discussion, cash shop is fine as long as its only cosmetic and doesn't effect gameplay. 

But it does effect it. A lot! 

 

 

different opinions about whats considered gameplay i guess, or rather the missing of a word, because whats meant by that is that it wont affect competive gameplay.

While collecting visual effects etc. might be considered some form of gameplay it wont have any impact in the accessibility of game content. That means just because you buy it, it wont make it easier for u to get anything or beat anything.

And thats whats important in the end. While you might feel it limiting for you that u cant buy certain designs/textures directly from the shop but rather by another player in the auction, that wont change how you can play the game, but if you can buy gear with stats in the cash shop that directly impacts what you can do ingame.

[NQ-Nyzaltar]

 

When will people learn that cosmetic = gameplay. 

 

I'm an armor horder, that means I actually spend time in game finding nice pieces of armor even tho the stats are crap.

Its like a minigame. and i'm not the only person who does this. 

 

Every forum its the same discussion, cash shop is fine as long as its only cosmetic and doesn't effect gameplay. 

But it does effect it. A lot! 

 

We don't agree with this analysis (cosmetic = gameplay) if the pieces of armor/outfit don't have any stat.

But let's admit it's the case (that cosmetic is considered as gameplay). Allow me to rephrase this sensitive topic. The important idea behind it is: if there is a cash shop with cosmetic items, there will be no gameplay advantage against other players for those who would buy such items. Example: A shiny outfit won't protect you more than a regular outfit.

 

 

I don't see anything wrong with the above system apart from having a cash shop added to this. For those of us who will pay a sub that's just being greedy. 

The only fair solution to this would be that the Cash shop is completely free for the people paying a sub. 

 

It's not decided yet if there will be a Cash Shop in the monetization plan. But if there is one in the future, please do not make hasty judgement before having all the info (at least wait until the scheduled DevBlog post on this topic before making one). There is no info about the subscription price yet. With DevBlog post about monetization, we plan to give an explanation about what type of cost we will have to run the game (you'll see it will be slightly different from a classic MMO). In short, we plan to give some transparency on this topic. So please, wait until then to start a constructive discussion on the topic.

 

P.S: making the Cash Shop free for the people paying a sub would defeat any purpose of the Cash Shop.

- If by "people paying the sub" you mean anyone having a sub active, then every player in the game will have the cash shop free.

- If by "people paying the sub" you mean anyone spending real money for a sub coupon or activate a sub, it will be a bit unfair for those who pay subs for several players compared to those who "just" pay their own sub + this would destroy the possibility to sell cosmetic items on the markets for in-game money (if the cash shop is entirely free/unlimited for some people, it will completely destroy the average value of the cosmetic items). However, it could be an idea to give one cosmetic item free each month for each sub payed (through coupon or directly) as a "thank you" for supporting the game. But that's just a possible idea for now. As said before, nothing about the cash shop possibility has been clearly defined yet (except the fact to avoid giving any gameplay advantage to those who buy items from it).

 

Edit: By the way, thanks a lot for all your feedback on this delicate topic.

We are taking into account each of your opinions!

 

 

Best Regards,

Nyzaltar

[KlatuSatori]

Here's a quick explanation about how we are planning to monetize the game:

We assume we will have two global types of players:

1) Those who have a lot of available time to play the game but not necessarily a lot of money to spend in games (example: students)

2) Those who haven't a lot of available time to play the game but have a bigger budget to spend in games (example: people already working and having a family)

 

Let's say category 1 players like the game gather a lot of in-game money... but they have a problem: the cost of the monthly subscription.

Let's say category 2 players like the game and pay the monthly subscription... but they have a problem: they haven't enough time to play to gather the amount of in-game money they need to enjoy their favorite activities.

There is type of player that is missed out in this analysis. Players who don't have a large disposable income and don't have a lot of spare time either. There are a lot of people that fall into this category. A median or lower salary, a spouse and two kids covers a lot of people. In my opinion these people are locked out by this system.

 

Let me say again: I support strongly a P2P model, and having means to convert between in-game currency and game time, but something new and more inclusive would be most welcome.

[Semigod]

Have you seen my new cowboy hat? Doesn't really do anything, but it makes me look like Clint Eastwood. 

 

No, "cosmetic items" do not affect "gameplay". If you want to be a "hoarder" that's between you and your wallet. Does it affect me? Nope. Not one bit. 

 

I'm also all for a cash shop on top of the pay-to-play model if it's purely cosmetic. Because, again. It does nothing to me, or you, or anyone else if they don't have that special glam item. If you're that worried about looking fabulous, go to a mall. 

 

@Ellegos : It doesn't effect me so your opinion isn't valid? That's pretty much where you're getting at. 

Looking good is part of the game... you know the role playing part.

 

@Vylgun : My post was merely stating that items/cosmetics are a form of gameplay.  Adding it to the cash shop because it doesn't effect gameplay is for me bollocks. 

Will I stamp my feet, take my ball an go home? No.  

Because regardless of how I feel about the whole ordeal, a game has to make money. 

 

I'm just the kind of person who says, if you need money raise the price of the sub. Don't add to a sub because well its just stupid. 

And it only exists to attract the whales and kids who have acces to the wallets of their parents. 

 

@NQ-Nyzaltar : "The important idea behind it is: if there is a cash shop with cosmetic items, there will be no gameplay advantage against other players for those who would buy such items. Example: A shiny outfit won't protect you more than a regular outfit. " 

 

In terms of gameplay advantage you are correct. 

 

"P.S: making the Cash Shop free for the people paying a sub would defeat any purpose of the Cash Shop. " 

 

this right here... I don't understand. It might just be me. From my understanding a cash shop is a way to earn money from those who are to cheap to pay for it monthly.

Or for those who just like to buy their way out. 

 

Another possibility is the system ESO and SWTOR uses.

People with active subscription get 400 crowns/ 2500 cartel points each month to buy stuff. 

 

Also, this is just one players opinion, not a rant. Just a view. 

Good talk!

[Cybrex]

 

@Ellegos : It doesn't effect me so your opinion isn't valid? That's pretty much where you're getting at. 

Looking good is part of the game... you know the role playing part.

 

Because my opinion doesn't agree with yours regarding vanity items, it invalidates it? There's a reason they're calling opinions. Differing perspectives. Don't harp to people declaring your opinion as just that, an opinion, and then dismiss someone else's differing perspective as simply "invalidating" yours because they don't agree. 

 

I understand where you're coming from on the cash shop, don't get me wrong, but having everything on a cash shop free to those who subscribe, invalidate it's purpose entirely. Why? Because in order to even access the game, you have to be a paying subscriber. This restricts cash shop usage to only those who are subscribed, which pretty much would make the cash shop moot if all of it was free... to paying subscribers.

 

Not trying to be a dick here, and I apologize if it seems that way.

[Semigod]

 

 

Not trying to be a dick here, and I apologize if it seems that way.

 

Hehe, no harm. this is just a healthy discussion!

Either way, it's to early to draw any conclusions.

[eagle777]

????? ???????? ??? ?????? ? ??????? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ? ??? ?? eve ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ? ????? ??????????? ? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? eve ?? ? ?????????? ??? ??? ????? ?????????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????????? ? eve ??? ???? ?? ??????? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ? eve

[eagle777]

?? ? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ? ???  ? ????? ??? ? ??? ?? ?????? ?????????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??????