Jump to content
Netherspark

What makes this game worth $13/£10 per month?

Recommended Posts

I would be okay with a system of payment that isn't so constricted by time. I would never be willing to pay on a monthly basis. The constraint of only being able to get online for a month is suffocating. So why not replace that model with a similar one that is essentially buying hours to play the game, so that it is still a subscription, but instead of being pressured to play the game as much as possible, one could decide that the game in it's current state just doesn't suit them and would rather wait a while and save the hours they bought until a later time when the person actually wants to play. 

 

I personally find this beneficial in that it gives the player freedom to play when they want to play and not be "forced" into playing the game. This was something I absolutely hated about the free trial for EVE Online. It was timed. The game still gets a constant stream of income, since the player will eventually run out of hours and have to pay for more.

 

Just like in EVE Online your character(s) will gain skill while you are offline... your character will require 24/7 support for this to work. I realize there aren't actual changes being made to your character while you are offline and rather changes are applied when the character logs on...

 

However, time is time... whether I watch the clock all day long or simply glance at it after sundown. Nothing in this world is free... the servers run 24/7 so you can log on whenever you feel like it. Something has to keep them alive during the interim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't have a job to pay a sub fee, you should be looking for one and not playing games to start with. Lol. Minimum wage in some states is $15 an hour, so go out and get a job!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be okay with a system of payment that isn't so constricted by time. I would never be willing to pay on a monthly basis. The constraint of only being able to get online for a month is suffocating. So why not replace that model with a similar one that is essentially buying hours to play the game, so that it is still a subscription, but instead of being pressured to play the game as much as possible, one could decide that the game in it's current state just doesn't suit them and would rather wait a while and save the hours they bought until a later time when the person actually wants to play. 

 

I personally find this beneficial in that it gives the player freedom to play when they want to play and not be "forced" into playing the game. This was something I absolutely hated about the free trial for EVE Online. It was timed. The game still gets a constant stream of income, since the player will eventually run out of hours and have to pay for more.

 

 

Try pay rent on only the hours you are at home, see why it can't happen. Cause the costs on storing you information and shipping them around the world won't stop when you are offline you egotistic freeloader.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cloud Servers = Not your average free-2-play toaster of a server tech.

 

Average toaster server = used by Korean F2P trash because it's cheap and has no real upkeep costs.

 

Clou Servers (revolutionary idea for MMOs) = They cost.

 

 

 

 

 

So much wrong in these assumptions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just like in EVE Online your character(s) will gain skill while you are offline... your character will require 24/7 support for this to work. I realize there aren't actual changes being made to your character while you are offline and rather changes are applied when the character logs on...

 

However, time is time... whether I watch the clock all day long or simply glance at it after sundown. Nothing in this world is free... the servers run 24/7 so you can log on whenever you feel like it. Something has to keep them alive during the interim.

Great point I hadnt thought of. Imagine having to be on to level. Makes a time based system impractical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Eve online is going f2p in november..... (http://www.ign.com/articles/2016/08/31/eve-online-going-free-to-play-after-13-years)

 

How low have the mighty fallen, stripped of their weapons, they lie dead.  

way to twist it. lol EVE isnt going full f2p. i you actually read up on it they are going to a similar model that Runescape has used for 15 years. which is give you limtied access to everything for free but have to pay if you want full access to the game. It really isnt F2P so much as it is a unlimited trial.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

way to twist it. lol EVE isnt going full f2p. i you actually read up on it they are going to a similar model that Runescape has used for 15 years. which is give you limtied access to everything for free but have to pay if you want full access to the game. It really isnt F2P so much as it is a unlimited trial.

THEY called it f2p and not extended trial, which is what it actually is as you are correctly pointing out, and that's what matters, it means that they wanted to cather to a different marketing sector other than "sub lovers" and felt the need to inflate their playerbase, you don't do that unless you think that your playerbase is seriously decreasing.

 

Now eve online is a venerably old game and sub or not, it's in the end phase of it's life cycle, nothing lasts forever afterall, especially games, but the fact that it changed marketing itself drastically after fourteen years of success shows that the scenery is changed and that advertising as a subscription game is no longer percieved as viable.

 

Subscription is a relic, that much is fact and it doesn't change just becouse subscription is the best model to date (which is arguable in itself but beside the point), even blizzard, one of the last three great holdouts doesn't use it for any new games. Now subscription, at its peak of glory at least, is the model that racks up most money for the devenlopers and publishers with the least amount of work, we can all agree on that much i think,  and we all know how greedy big publishers are, so why are subscription games something that you look on as more of a reference than an actual game?  

 

On a side point i find it very fun that you all bash (correctly) f2p and b2p models for having microtransactions and providing advantage for money but when it comes to plex systems and selling max levels charachters which are clearly microtransactions everyone turns a blind eye, it's very hypocritical of you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Selling characters is not acceptable, plex is a financial system to allow f2p people a path.

 

Novaquark does not have a big greedy publisher pushing their game. Its directly from the Developer to us consumers.

 

Free to play is great for boosting numbers if thats what your game needs, but do you really want to turn the game into something thats all about hooking you in, sucking your wallet, and then hoping you get bored and stop consuming server space? F2P is all about pressuring you into purchases.

 

heres something to consider: http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-04-09-only-2-2-percent-of-free-to-play-users-ever-pay-report

2.2% of the playerbase keeps a free to play game alive the rest are a number.

 

Personally I like to know everyone im playing with is on an equal playing field. and not behind any form of paywalls.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

THEY called it f2p and not extended trial, which is what it actually is as you are correctly pointing out, and that's what matters, it means that they wanted to cather to a different marketing sector other than "sub lovers" and felt the need to inflate their playerbase, you don't do that unless you think that your playerbase is seriously decreasing.

 

Now eve online is a venerably old game and sub or not, it's in the end phase of it's life cycle, nothing lasts forever afterall, especially games, but the fact that it changed marketing itself drastically after fourteen years of success shows that the scenery is changed and that advertising as a subscription game is no longer percieved as viable.

 

Subscription is a relic, that much is fact and it doesn't change just becouse subscription is the best model to date (which is arguable in itself but beside the point), even blizzard, one of the last three great holdouts doesn't use it for any new games. Now subscription, at its peak of glory at least, is the model that racks up most money for the devenlopers and publishers with the least amount of work, we can all agree on that much i think, and we all know how greedy big publishers are, so why are subscription games something that you look on as more of a reference than an actual game?

 

On a side point i find it very fun that you all bash (correctly) f2p and b2p models for having microtransactions and providing advantage for money but when it comes to plex systems and selling max levels charachters which are clearly microtransactions everyone turns a blind eye, it's very hypocritical of you all.

All Eve is doing is giving new players more time to get sucked into a game. One that is notorious for its rediculous learning curve. Any that stay long eneough to get hooked will have to switch to P2P, in turn increasing eves numbers. Eve is old, true, but not dead yet. It is regurally updated and still has a strong core of players. Their problem is, the older the game gets, the further behind new players are (something DU will evemtually have to face). They even considered a second shard so new players could start fresh without being 10 years behind in training. This wasnt favored so they went to skill injectors, which has a lot of controversy as well.

 

Please enlighten me to which MMO like WOW or Eve blizzard has put out and has been successful as either. Seriously, because I havent heard of any. Sure there are countless MMO gakes that pop up F2P, but none are as successful or last as long as their P2P counterparts.

 

I dont see how P2P makes a publisher greedy, when it cost to run servers and maintain the games. How is pushing out free expansions like Eve does greedy. If you ask me its the F2P (and even B2P) games that charge ypu for dlc, that in reality is just the other half the game. All while ignoring fixing glaring issues with the game or even adding any new real content.

 

If you dont like it, dont play. Afterall it is NQs choice. Personally, being as vested as I am in it now I would try it regardless. But if they fell away from a P2P model I would begin loosing interest because I understand how it would affect them as a company. Afterall they are a company, I think its fair for them to charge you the cost of a movie each month for up to 720 hours of play a month.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1)  All Eve is doing is giving new players more time to get sucked into a game. One that is notorious for its rediculous learning curve. Any that stay long eneough to get hooked will have to switch to P2P, in turn increasing eves numbers. Eve is old, true, but not dead yet. It is regurally updated and still has a strong core of players. Their problem is, the older the game gets, the further behind new players are (something DU will evemtually have to face). They even considered a second shard so new players could start fresh without being 10 years behind in training. This wasnt favored so they went to skill injectors, which has a lot of controversy as well.

 

2) Please enlighten me to which MMO like WOW or Eve blizzard has put out and has been successful as either. Seriously, because I havent heard of any. Sure there are countless MMO gakes that pop up F2P, but none are as successful or last as long as their P2P counterparts.

 

3) I dont see how P2P makes a publisher greedy, when it cost to run servers and maintain the games. How is pushing out free expansions like Eve does greedy. If you ask me its the F2P (and even B2P) games that charge ypu for dlc, that in reality is just the other half the game. All while ignoring fixing glaring issues with the game or even adding any new real content.

 

4) If you dont like it, dont play. Afterall it is NQs choice. Personally, being as vested as I am in it now I would try it regardless. But if they fell away from a P2P model I would begin loosing interest because I understand how it would affect them as a company. Afterall they are a company, I think its fair for them to charge you the cost of a movie each month for up to 720 hours of play a month.

1) that's obiviously true, i was just pointing out that you usually don't do a 360 in marketing unless you feel you're losing grip, anyway it's completely unrelated but perhaps adding shards for newer players is an horrible solution, you end up with universes cycling like they do in ogame which is simply horrible as you end up with a ton of super powerful players holing up in their secluded universe while everyone who got completely stomped on moves on another server and tries to win the race, if anything would've killed eve that would have.

 

2) blizzard released overwatch and hots wich while not mmo are still online games with expasive servers, besides  you need to stop bringing f2p into everything, beside the fact there are f2p games that work fine and that you're lumping everything under the korean mmorpg model i never called for the game to be f2p, b2p is a common and very viable alternative that works very well for a ton of games. 

 

3) You're misreading me completely there and i apologize if i failed to specify what i meant, i did not say that p2p publishers are greedy nor i meant to, i said, or at least meant to, that the fact that publishers, as in "major publishers" like activision, ubisoft, ea, who are notriously greedy,  are not milking the hell out of subscription based market even if technically the subscription model is the one that brings the highest revenue per player to the publishers means that they think that such a market is neither competitive nor profitable, it was an argumentation to reinforce the point that there's no market for new P2P games, i wasn't accusing p2p publishers in any way.

 

4)"If you don't like it don't play it." is a point that while true, has absolutely no place in a forum of all things, a public forum is a place for discussion, if you just shut up people  there's no point to having anything more than a main site with a news feed, it is NQ choice and theirs alone (unless they decide to involve external investors) but everyone has the right to state their opinions about it.

 

At the end it'll probably take half a decade to find out if they can really make subscriptions work, fingers crossed that they make it to launch (They should, I'm not doubting them and i sincerely hope they do make it, even if just to see if it was you or me who had a point, but nothing is for granted, there are tons of things that could go wrong.), if it ends like i think it will i only hope that it'll serve of lesson to other devs, if it works i'l cheer them on from afar.

 

On a side note you sound like the only things you are willing to play are p2p games, if that's so you're losing out on a ton of nice things out there, like in everything there's the good and there's the bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only hard care numbers that I know of for a f2p game finances is Robocraft - after their change to a crate base reward system the number of players who dropped money on the game doubled -- to 5% of the active player base.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) that's obiviously true, i was just pointing out that you usually don't do a 360 in marketing unless you feel you're losing grip, anyway it's completely unrelated but perhaps adding shards for newer players is an horrible solution, you end up with universes cycling like they do in ogame which is simply horrible as you end up with a ton of super powerful players holing up in their secluded universe while everyone who got completely stomped on moves on another server and tries to win the race, if anything would've killed eve that would have.

 

2) blizzard released overwatch and hots wich while not mmo are still online games with expasive servers, besides  you need to stop bringing f2p into everything, beside the fact there are f2p games that work fine and that you're lumping everything under the korean mmorpg model i never called for the game to be f2p, b2p is a common and very viable alternative that works very well for a ton of games. 

 

3) You're misreading me completely there and i apologize if i failed to specify what i meant, i did not say that p2p publishers are greedy nor i meant to, i said, or at least meant to, that the fact that publishers, as in "major publishers" like activision, ubisoft, ea, who are notriously greedy,  are not milking the hell out of subscription based market even if technically the subscription model is the one that brings the highest revenue per player to the publishers means that they think that such a market is neither competitive nor profitable, it was an argumentation to reinforce the point that there's no market for new P2P games, i wasn't accusing p2p publishers in any way.

 

4)"If you don't like it don't play it." is a point that while true, has absolutely no place in a forum of all things, a public forum is a place for discussion, if you just shut up people  there's no point to having anything more than a main site with a news feed, it is NQ choice and theirs alone (unless they decide to involve external investors) but everyone has the right to state their opinions about it.

 

At the end it'll probably take half a decade to find out if they can really make subscriptions work, fingers crossed that they make it to launch (They should, I'm not doubting them and i sincerely hope they do make it, even if just to see if it was you or me who had a point, but nothing is for granted, there are tons of things that could go wrong.), if it ends like i think it will i only hope that it'll serve of lesson to other devs, if it works i'l cheer them on from afar.

 

On a side note you sound like the only things you are willing to play are p2p games, if that's so you're losing out on a ton of nice things out there, like in everything there's the good and there's the bad.

 

1. I wouldn't call it a 360 in marketing. But all they have done is give new players more time to learn and get hooked into a game that has a notoriously difficult learning curve.  Anyone who wishes to truely play the game would have to go P2P

 

2. I dont disagree that some F2P games work fine. But most dont involve any real game development.  Overwatch is nothing like WOW or Eve, if you knew anything about how the servers run for them you would understand. My 9 year old computer could handle the instancing for a few Overwatch games at a time. Not to mention how horribly implemented Overwatch is. Not saying it isnt a good game, I play it often, but it is not on the level of what WOW or Eve is. 

 

4. It has a point when the devs have fully explained their reasoning and at least 2 of these threads pop up a week. 

 

Any game running a half decade is a successful game. Most games are beyond their lifecycle if they run 5 years. But Id expect for DU just to be taking off at 5 years. 

 

I am not against B2P or F2P, both do well for certain types of games. As I said, Overwatch works well as B2P because they have very low server cost. League has been a successful F2P game, but look at how much the devs have dedicated to develop the game further. But you have to look at what the game is doing and its running cost. Anything with a high server and maintenance cost cant run for long off a B2P  model. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

half a decade from now, now not from launch, launch is estimated late 2018 on kickstarter which will inevitably drag into 2019 like launches always do, i was thinking about late 2020/2021, if it holds until 2024 there's obiviously no need to even check anymore.

 

regarding the thread spam issue honestly i do not mean to question the forum mods but by now it should be clear that it isn't going to stop at least until the game launches so they probably should make a post with the dev's responses to the critics and sticky it, leaving it as it is just clutters the forums for no good reason and maybe people after seeing their own criticism posted over and over again will just drop a like instead of making another whole thread, sad as it is most people do not use the search function in forums, they never did and they never will, so a sticky is the only way to cut down on the reposts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you don't want to pay the monthly subscription I suggest an alternative.  go to the kickstarter page, and back the ruby level.

Exactly this. They have to pay for the servers and Developers. Right now is the time to get in on the ground floor of the Kickstarter and have a lifetime sub.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But they will also need to add content over time. The universe has to grow, more materials and secrets have to be added from time to time. And don´t forget the server wide events which will grow to a whole new level with DU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Citizen has cleared that up. People will be spending real money on newer models of ships in-game. Same deal with people who buy iPhone 6, then the next year they buy iPhone 6S, next year they buy iPhone 6XXL and so on.

 

Make what you wish out of it.

Sorry to keep arguing with you :), but SC has been pretty clear that they will stop selling ships for money before beta ends. Expected price for the game is $60. I don't think they plan a subscription fee (but less sure of that).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth a sub to me because i want to play it.   :ph34r:

 

You get to charge a monthly subscription when there is simply nothing else out there that compares to your game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to keep arguing with you :), but SC has been pretty clear that they will stop selling ships for money before beta ends. Expected price for the game is $60. I don't think they plan a subscription fee (but less sure of that).

Wrongo Bongo Banana Nose, there will be expansion costs for SQ42. The PU will continue to be free but they will have expansion campaigns to make money off of, think the expansions to ESO, Guild Wars 2 ect.

 

Also its good to see ya here Daph.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wrongo Bongo Banana Nose, there will be expansion costs for SQ42. The PU will continue to be free but they will have expansion campaigns to make money off of, think the expansions to ESO, Guild Wars 2 ect.

 

Also its good to see ya here Daph.

Hi Vandal.

 

Yes.. SC is an old school game company at heart and they'll keep releasing games and charging for them.

 

As for DU, if it's worth playing it will be worth paying a sub fee for. I pay about $18 per month for my space station in Second Life. I assume the $10 figure given for DU is low since it doesn't match the published DAC price of 18 Euros, but 20ish $... something in that range is fine.

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...