Jump to content
mish1609

Subscription should not be its pay model

Recommended Posts

The issue with not having a monthly is they often have to make a shop. Whales then dictate the direction and content of the game.

 

Relating question. If DU will be as player made as it sounds I wonder what can be offered to us as per expansion content or cosmetics. 

Easy one.

  • We have to use several premade stuff to build our constructs. They could offer cosmetic variants to them or even new ones, only available with the shop. As long as they would not be more powerful (noone likes pay to win) this would be interesting.
  • Keys to some ancient vaults found throughout the universe
  • All things cosmetic we could look at (clothes, armor, helmets, weapons, capes) - offer an appearance slot and you have a truckload of opportunities for your shop, your spacecraft has stylish flames trailing it? Your engines are yellow, red, violet, sparkling pink :lol:
  • Convenience items which let you mine slightly easier or in style, hover you around instead of running, bigger backpack, greater resource load?

If we collect ideas or look at other games shop, there will be plenty of options for any possible game without hurting the game balance. Yes some people will cry at every shop, but some will cry at everything, always, everywhere B)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No one likes pay to play i like the gameplay but the fact its going to be subscription based turns me off the game completely, ill be very sad if this stays-i wanna pay to keep a game not have to keep buying it :(

Well you're right, Wildstar tried the subscription stuff for a while until they realized it wasn't enough players willing to pay for their subscription  and they had to switch to free to play. The subscription model are usually successful if there isn't any real competition in the market.  Wildstar tried to push the subscription model in a market where there were plenty of free to play and pay to win MMOs. So most people just laughed at that idea and waited for Wildstar to get real. lol

.I think Dual Universe might end up having to change the subscription model as well because although this game is very ambitious, Dual Universe is stepping into a gaming Arena with heavy competition . DU may have some awesome features but it has competition and a lot of  it's competition  are two or more years of development ahead of it.  Games like Space Engineers, Star Made, Empyrion and plus Planet Nomad another new game just like Space Engineers and using the same engine as Empyrion is coming out in 2017 as well.  So Dual Universe is no where near the only show in town.  None of these games are subscription .  You just pay 20 to 25 dollars and you own the whole game not to mention if there is a steam sale and you get them for cheaper than that.

Space Engineers nor Empyrion may have Dual Universe's features YET but I would not be surprised if these games have similar features as DU by the time it's alpha comes out in 2017.  Every single one of these games are still in Alpha as well.  I think Dual Universe may need to rethink the subscription model because the competition is not using it. I think it will be hard to keep enough players interested enough to pay a monthly fee when they can pay a one time price and get a game that is close to the samething as DU.  I guess we will see what happens but  I believe after a few months of using the subscription model they will end up having to change.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well you're right, Wildstar tried the subscription stuff for a while until they realized it wasn't enough players willing to pay for their subscription  and they had to switch to free to play. The subscription model are usually successful if there isn't any real competition in the market.  Wildstar tried to push the subscription model in a market where there were plenty of free to play and pay to win MMOs. So most people just laughed at that idea and waited for Wildstar to get real. lol

.I think Dual Universe might end up having to change the subscription model as well because although this game is very ambitious, Dual Universe is stepping into a gaming Arena with heavy competition . DU may have some awesome features but it has competition and a lot of  it's competition  are two or more years of development ahead of it.  Games like Space Engineers, Star Made, Empyrion and plus Planet Nomad another new game just like Space Engineers and using the same engine as Empyrion is coming out in 2017 as well.  So Dual Universe is no where near the only show in town.  None of these games are subscription .  You just pay 20 to 25 dollars and you own the whole game not to mention if there is a steam sale and you get them for cheaper than that.

Space Engineers nor Empyrion may have Dual Universe's features YET but I would not be surprised if these games have similar features as DU by the time it's alpha comes out in 2017.  Every single one of these games are still in Alpha as well.  I think Dual Universe may need to rethink the subscription model because the competition is not using it. I think it will be hard to keep enough players interested enough to pay a monthly fee when they can pay a one time price and get a game that is close to the samething as DU.  I guess we will see what happens but  I believe after a few months of using the subscription model they will end up having to change.  

 

The difference is that none of those games can hold large amounts of players in a single server. I run a Space Engineers server and have played many of the other games mentioned. I know for many of us interested in this genre, we want to be able to build a group like the Star Wars Empire or Rebel Alliance or Battlestar Galactica or whatever else and actually play and fight against other groups of players or manage our empire. The sandbox theme is great.. but for many of us, it's more about the multiplayer sandbox. Sure you've got Eve, but honestly it's showing it's age. Sure you've got Star Citizen.. but they've already done the money grab and people are mad about that. If you watch the interview with Captain Shack, Dual Universe is not going to provide much content - they are going to provide the tools for the players to build the content. THAT has me super excited... and on a scale much larger than any other game has even proposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So... the game will be sub, right? I hope it will be sub, so we hopefully don't need to buy cosmetic shit :P

devblog says p2p with 2 to 4 week free trial. blog goes into why they chose. im still thinking the monthly will be between 5 and 10

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it is sub as well. The f2p model on most f2p games are more like Play to win and I wouldn't want to see that here for this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

devblog says p2p with 2 to 4 week free trial. blog goes into why they chose. im still thinking the monthly will be between 5 and 10

Good :D A stable sub model is technically the best for the game itself, allowing it a steady amount of income and you can avoid the annoyance of a ingame shop to earn money... but some don't get that.. *looks at blizzard*

 

 

 

I hope it is sub as well. The f2p model on most f2p games are more like Play to win and I wouldn't want to see that here for this game.

F2P don't automaticly mean P2W (Look at path of exile) more often than not it is more a case of P4C (or Pay for convenience).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope it is sub as well. The f2p model on most f2p games are more like Play to win and I wouldn't want to see that here for this game.

I would like to see them follow eso kinda.

alpha is clearly a closed alpha

id like to see a closed beta first then an early access open beta.

then 1 to 2 years of sub then maybe transition into a cosmetic shop if applicable with an optional paid membership that comes with benefits over the free version.

or follow a Runescape model where there is a clear line between free and members. as a free player maybe not have access to use of hyper drives and warp gates so they are locked into the starting system.

 

im for the sub model but just giving some other ideas based on my experiences

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 is far to little, a workeable sub for 1 month lies between 10€ - 15€.

Dependant on the player numbers.

 

(Wow during its top day could PROBABLY have sunk it's cost to 5 € per month and gotten a profit, but no reason to fix something that didn't need fixing)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good :D A stable sub model is technically the best for the game itself, allowing it a steady amount of income and you can avoid the annoyance of a ingame shop to earn money... but some don't get that.. *looks at blizzard*

 

 

 

F2P don't automaticly mean P2W (Look at path of exile) more often than not it is more a case of P4C (or Pay for convenience).

 

 

I would like to see them follow eso kinda.

alpha is clearly a closed alpha

id like to see a closed beta first then an early access open beta.

then 1 to 2 years of sub then maybe transition into a cosmetic shop if applicable with an optional paid membership that comes with benefits over the free version.

or follow a Runescape model where there is a clear line between free and members. as a free player maybe not have access to use of hyper drives and warp gates so they are locked into the starting system.

 

im for the sub model but just giving some other ideas based on my experiences

I agree with both of you I did so most but then again i have been coming across more f2p games that aren't the p2w model.  They focus more on cosmetic stuff in the stores. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

5 is far to little, a workeable sub for 1 month lies between 10€ - 15€.

 

Why would 5 be to little ?

 

You have to remember that this is not the profit hungry Blizzard or others of the top end game developing companies that look only for profit.

 

True that NQ will be looking to cover itself and create money from the game, but i don't see why they would be required to stick to the 'norm' of 10-15. I would say that many only follow that suit because that is what WoW started off at and it's been able to grow into what it is now.

 

Of course I wouldn't know a thing about running a games development business so i'm only speculating, but if they could reduce the sub cost to below the average for a MMO then they will attract a few more people than if the price was similar to others.

 

At least i think so, if they can do it or not is another matter. It's not like i'm going to sub regardless :)

 

nora,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would 5 be to little ?

 

You have to remember that this is not the profit hungry Blizzard or others of the top end game developing companies that look only for profit.

 

True that NQ will be looking to cover itself and create money from the game, but i don't see why they would be required to stick to the 'norm' of 10-15. I would say that many only follow that suit because that is what WoW started off at and it's been able to grow into what it is now.

 

Of course I wouldn't know a thing about running a games development business so i'm only speculating, but if they could reduce the sub cost to below the average for a MMO then they will attract a few more people than if the price was similar to others.

 

At least i think so, if they can do it or not is another matter. It's not like i'm going to sub regardless :)

 

nora,

Back during my hayday of Runescape the monthly was 5. most subs were under 10 till WoW came about with its 15 dollars. Runescape had a few hundred servers as well. the reason the price went up was that jagex the company that ran runescape started hiring more people to run customer support, develop new quests and other types of content as well as upgrading the graphics a few times. Runescape prides it self in the ability to release new content on a very regular basis and the price now is still around 10. granted some of their needs for cash is supplemented with a cosmetic cash store and adds on the main page and f2p game window. For a game that is primarily only giving us a fictional universe with no content except what we as the players create. I read somewhere on the main site that NQ is a game studio with only 26 people who sole focus is this game. when this game goes live they will need to hire more people to assist with customer service and server maintenance.

 

 

 

 

 

 

edit: yeah blizzard is money hungry, that's pretty obvious with its now yearly expacs ontop of its 15 month sub. I mean each expac is the same cost of a new AAA game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

edit: yeah blizzard is money hungry, that's pretty obvious with its now yearly expacs ontop of its 15 month sub. I mean each expac is the same cost of a new AAA game

 

Well what do you expect when the parent company is Activision.... The people who bring you CoD, explains itself there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well what do you expect when the parent company is Activision.... The people who bring you CoD, explains itself there.

its not just activision though anymore. ubi does it too lol. I hate yearly entries. side question was activision always the parent company? anyways we digress I can find these answers myself later lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 10 years ago when the standard sub of 15$ a month came into action and wages were also lower.

 

We need to be pushing for 20$ a month.

Think a ticket to a amusement park is well over fifty dollars now, and they raise rates every couple of years by a little bit.

 

The price for maintaining servers and internet has gone up, yet we expect that the price of the game would remain the same at 15$ a month forever without increasing not even to cover cost of expense.

If you want to send a message to make sure everything is attainable within the game, then we should be pushing for a $20 a month subscription with no cosmetic shop, no convenience shop, no cash shop.

 

If you dont mind them making weapon skins, and clothing and selling it for 5-10$ per item. all right, do you think you'll spend less over the course of a year on just a sub, or with a cash shop - even if its just cosmetic.

 

If my cost comes out to more than 220 to 240 a year on potions, loot boxes, cosmetics, builder tools, or anything they want to sell. Not worth it, it becomes a burden on building a non toxic community.

I know they're considering a cosmetics shop, so just imagine that, paying 10 euro or dollars a month and then another 150 on cosmetic stuff. Of course sure, you'll "own" those items on your character, until they make something newer and cooler.

 

Why would we want to limit the developers in this way, instead of them spoon feeding us cosmetics and quality of life items, they could instead implement what they want when they want to. They could implement entire in game systems around character, weapon, and clothing design if they so chose to, but with a shop don't expect player freedom in any of those areas, buy the clothes wear the clothes, all characters will be the same height and proportions to make it easy to make clothes.

 

The exact opposite of what people believe is true in that a themepark should be pay to play and a sandbox should be free to play. Its backwards, themparks can get by on free to play because they have a complete encapsulated experience, and they can sell whatever to people. Its funny people will buy it, spending hundreds of dolalrs more to play for a few months than what they would spend over an entire year paying the max subscription amount.

 

A sandbox (or a self respecting game) needs to be pay to play, or buy once and done, so the developer can maintain the quality of player freedoms and ensure an ongoing evolution of the experience. The price for buy once and done for a game of this quality would be over 450 dollars and only a few people are going to pay that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Over 10 years ago when the standard sub of 15$ a month came into action and wages were also lower.

 

We need to be pushing for 20$ a month.

Think a ticket to a amusement park is well over fifty dollars now, and they raise rates every couple of years by a little bit.

 

The price for maintaining servers and internet has gone up, yet we expect that the price of the game would remain the same at 15$ a month forever without increasing not even to cover cost of expense.

If you want to send a message to make sure everything is attainable within the game, then we should be pushing for a $20 a month subscription with no cosmetic shop, no convenience shop, no cash shop.

 

If you dont mind them making weapon skins, and clothing and selling it for 5-10$ per item. all right, do you think you'll spend less over the course of a year on just a sub, or with a cash shop - even if its just cosmetic.

 

If my cost comes out to more than 220 to 240 a year on potions, loot boxes, cosmetics, builder tools, or anything they want to sell. Not worth it, it becomes a burden on building a non toxic community.

I know they're considering a cosmetics shop, so just imagine that, paying 10 euro or dollars a month and then another 150 on cosmetic stuff. Of course sure, you'll "own" those items on your character, until they make something newer and cooler.

 

Why would we want to limit the developers in this way, instead of them spoon feeding us cosmetics and quality of life items, they could instead implement what they want when they want to. They could implement entire in game systems around character, weapon, and clothing design if they so chose to, but with a shop don't expect player freedom in any of those areas, buy the clothes wear the clothes, all characters will be the same height and proportions to make it easy to make clothes.

 

The exact opposite of what people believe is true in that a themepark should be pay to play and a sandbox should be free to play. Its backwards, themparks can get by on free to play because they have a complete encapsulated experience, and they can sell whatever to people. Its funny people will buy it, spending hundreds of dolalrs more to play for a few months than what they would spend over an entire year paying the max subscription amount.

 

A sandbox (or a self respecting game) needs to be pay to play, or buy once and done, so the developer can maintain the quality of player freedoms and ensure an ongoing evolution of the experience. The price for buy once and done for a game of this quality would be over 450 dollars and only a few people are going to pay that.

Ehm... honestly I don't think that 20 would be neccecary (remember that even 15 is a stretch for people that don't have that much money and currently is 20 about... a 4th of my allowance xD (I am 19 and still have a partial allowance, yes, lets not go deeper on that)) 

 

BUt the point is... that 15 is honestly a good price for a game to have as a sub model and it is honestly quite high. And it don't work the exact same way as carnival tickets as GAMES in themselves has gotten cheaper  and cheaper with time since the software is cheaper and chaper to make. (of course, the cost to make the game has increased with time but they make up for that with wide spread sales)

 

The point is... that 15 is abit of the "soft spot" of a sub. It is a bit of money but still within range of alot of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't want to see the truth... That's why you are not anwsering THAT question ;)  

My goal is to get answer from the Devs, not " alpha members " and guess what ? They will never answer it, cause the didn't thought that we will find out what was behind those enormous space ship. 

They are just misleading customers to a complete different game. I really hope that they will not for the "early access"  that would be their final stop.

 

I don't see the link. Can you send it to me, please?

 

Over 10 years ago when the standard sub of 15$ a month came into action and wages were also lower.

 

We need to be pushing for 20$ a month.

Think a ticket to a amusement park is well over fifty dollars now, and they raise rates every couple of years by a little bit.

 

The price for maintaining servers and internet has gone up, yet we expect that the price of the game would remain the same at 15$ a month forever without increasing not even to cover cost of expense.

If you want to send a message to make sure everything is attainable within the game, then we should be pushing for a $20 a month subscription with no cosmetic shop, no convenience shop, no cash shop.

 

If you dont mind them making weapon skins, and clothing and selling it for 5-10$ per item. all right, do you think you'll spend less over the course of a year on just a sub, or with a cash shop - even if its just cosmetic.

 

If my cost comes out to more than 220 to 240 a year on potions, loot boxes, cosmetics, builder tools, or anything they want to sell. Not worth it, it becomes a burden on building a non toxic community.

I know they're considering a cosmetics shop, so just imagine that, paying 10 euro or dollars a month and then another 150 on cosmetic stuff. Of course sure, you'll "own" those items on your character, until they make something newer and cooler.

 

Why would we want to limit the developers in this way, instead of them spoon feeding us cosmetics and quality of life items, they could instead implement what they want when they want to. They could implement entire in game systems around character, weapon, and clothing design if they so chose to, but with a shop don't expect player freedom in any of those areas, buy the clothes wear the clothes, all characters will be the same height and proportions to make it easy to make clothes.

 

The exact opposite of what people believe is true in that a themepark should be pay to play and a sandbox should be free to play. Its backwards, themparks can get by on free to play because they have a complete encapsulated experience, and they can sell whatever to people. Its funny people will buy it, spending hundreds of dolalrs more to play for a few months than what they would spend over an entire year paying the max subscription amount.

 

A sandbox (or a self respecting game) needs to be pay to play, or buy once and done, so the developer can maintain the quality of player freedoms and ensure an ongoing evolution of the experience. The price for buy once and done for a game of this quality would be over 450 dollars and only a few people are going to pay that.

 

20$ every month? LOL

Who will play? You, the devs and another couple of people? Let's be realistic, 10$-15$ it's far enough.

Also I'm ok with buying the game + monthly sub since there were no promises like other games I backed, but I don't want to see a cash shop, not even a cosmetic one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see the link. Can you send it to me, please?

 

 

20$ every month? LOL

Who will play? You, the devs and another couple of people? Let's be realistic, 10$-15$ it's far enough.

Also I'm ok with buying the game + monthly sub since there were no promises like other games I backed, but I don't want to see a cash shop, not even a cosmetic one.

I agree... 15 per month is a good and stable subcost. Basicly that is what people are use to and go higher than that and trust me, people will complain. (We already see people wishing everything would be free and we don't need them to get more fuel like "THIS GAMING COMPANY THINK THEY ARE BETTER AND REQUIRE MORE MONEY!")

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've commented on this thread yet, but I am all for P2P.

 

The reason being is that every subscriber is on the same level playing field with one base price for everyone.

 

The moment you bring in "pay for convenience" you throw off the balance of the game. The same goes for "pay to win".

 

 

My two cents here is that many of the people who don't want a subscription model are people who otherwise don't have methods of paying for their subscription. Based on my own experience (back in the days of Everquest and Star Wars Galaxies) is that my dad wouldn't ever pay for a subscription for a game, and I feel that many people here might be relying on their parents to pay for their subscriptions too. 

 

It's a double edged sword, in that there is always going to be a group of people who can't or don't want to pay for a subscription, while on the other hand a subscription does keep out many of the negative elements that sandbox games draw in. The younger players would mostly be excluded, because of their inability to pay or parents who don't want to pay for them. It will also exclude the troll elements, because once you've paid for a subscription you'd be less willing to do something that might endanger your ability to continue playing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've commented on this thread yet, but I am all for P2P.

 

The reason being is that every subscriber is on the same level playing field with one base price for everyone.

 

The moment you bring in "pay for convenience" you throw off the balance of the game. The same goes for "pay to win".

 

 

My two cents here is that many of the people who don't want a subscription model are people who otherwise don't have methods of paying for their subscription. Based on my own experience (back in the days of Everquest and Star Wars Galaxies) is that my dad wouldn't ever pay for a subscription for a game, and I feel that many people here might be relying on their parents to pay for their subscriptions too. 

 

It's a double edged sword, in that there is always going to be a group of people who can't or don't want to pay for a subscription, while on the other hand a subscription does keep out many of the negative elements that sandbox games draw in. The younger players would mostly be excluded, because of their inability to pay or parents who don't want to pay for them. It will also exclude the troll elements, because once you've paid for a subscription you'd be less willing to do something that might endanger your ability to continue playing. 

I think this is why the devs choice p2p. its an unfortinate side effect of it that it excludes younger players. but i believe that if we are able to gift game time tokens then it will atleast solve some of this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is why the devs choice p2p. its an unfortinate side effect of it that it excludes younger players. but i believe that if we are able to gift game time tokens then it will atleast solve some of this

Trust me... it is MUCH better to not have younger players. Especially a game that likely will be very voice-chat related.

 

But I am very interested in this topic. I mean, as long as they DON'T have any form of cashshop (except "time" purchases) am I completely fine with Sub model.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me... it is MUCH better to not have younger players. Especially a game that likely will be very voice-chat related.

 

But I am very interested in this topic. I mean, as long as they DON'T have any form of cashshop (except "time" purchases) am I completely fine with Sub model.

reasons i use vent and team

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trust me... it is MUCH better to not have younger players. Especially a game that likely will be very voice-chat related.

 

But I am very interested in this topic. I mean, as long as they DON'T have any form of cashshop (except "time" purchases) am I completely fine with Sub model.

 

I wouldn't mind a cash shop if it only sold blueprints for cosmetic items.

 

That way you would still have to construct the blueprints, they could be tradeable in-game, and they would only be cosmetic without additional bonuses in-game. 

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...