Glorious Alpha Two Testers!
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Phase I of Alpha Two testing will occur on weekends. Each weekend is scheduled to start on Fridays at 10 AM PT and end on Sundays at 10 PM PT. Find out more here.
Check out Alpha Two Announcements here to see the latest Alpha Two news and update notes.
Our quickest Alpha Two updates are in Discord. Testers with Alpha Two access can chat in Alpha Two channels by connecting your Discord and Intrepid accounts here.
Comments
<ul>
<li>
I think what most people who are against F2P are afraid of, is seeing it go down the P2W street. Games like <em>Black Desert</em> seriously dissapointed some people in that aspect, and dissapointment is not good for new games. Other disadvantages of F2P games: easy creation of extra accounts for RMT, botting and other game-breaking abuse. Developers who set up their game as F2P, have to brace themselves and ready their banhammers.
</li>
<li>
But if we look at subscription based games, we can see that such games need to live up to expectations. Initially, a lot of players will be deterred from playing a game that is more expensive from the start. F2P games have as 'advantage' that a large player base is willing to try it out right at release.
</li>
<li>
Then comes the upkeep cost, many MMO-players (and people in general) have to live lifes... School, work, other hobbies... Not even mentioning necessary longer breaks from a game. I've seen many friends leave sub-based MMO's because the amount they had to pay, was not in proportion with the amount they could play.
</li>
</ul>
Therefore, I'd like to add a <strong>suggestion</strong>.
I have no idea in how much community feedback is tolerated - (coming from games where any input is seen as meddling and in the best case ignored) - But could it be a solution, to instead of only having a subscription fee as a *solid* monthly price...
... to have a <em>price based on playtime</em>?
<ul>
<li>
<em>For example:</em>
With a monthly fee of $15 - average Joe who plays 1 hour in the week and 2 hours in the weekend, has on average 12 hours of playtime per month. This would be $1.25 / hr.
</li>
<li>
Professional gamer bro, let's call him Brad... plays 3 hours every weekday, and a whopping 12 hours over the weekend. Having 60 hours of playtime, he only pays $0.25/hr.
Seeing our Brad is probably not even close to what a real pro-player would achieve - it's understandable our average Joe doesn't find it fair that he is stuck with the $15 / month subscription fee - and he quits.
</li>
<li>
If he were able however, to pay at the rate of Brad, his playtime would only cost him $3.
For an average Joe, this seems quite the steal, maybe he would even treat himself to that $10 skin on the cash shop. It's still less than what he would be originally required to pay, isn't it?
</li>
</ul>
(Disclaimer: note, that all of this pricing serves as an example, rather than requested amounts.
And my sincere apologies if there's a mistake in the math.)
Now, I am aware this solution comes with a couple of problems.
<ol>
<li> 1) What about the first month?
Obviously, players would be only charged for playtime <em>after</em> a month has passed. This raises the instant concern that lots of scammers would be free to create an account, then refuse to pay (or simply delete their account and go *poof*).
- To discourage this, the former intended subscription fee could be payed upfront as a security, or so called 'pack' that permits access to the game. After this, only playtime would be charged.
</li>
<li> 2) What about pricing?
I'm pretty certain a golden middle way could be found by the developers, to make sure their pricing is both fair for the players and rewarding for them. I'm unable to give more accurate fees, my example served as nothing more than that - I simply think this could work out as a way to ensure less players feel demotivated by the monthly cost. Since, if they have no time to play at all, it feels less as an incentive to quit in general.
</li>
<li> 3) What about players who play more than 'Brad'? Won't it be more expensive?
Well, ideally it would be based on how much the average time gamers would spend on this game. As we know, for mmorpg's this tends to be A LOT. I feel that it could be nice, if there was still a set subscription pack outside of the charge/playtime option, for those that know they will be playing a lot and don't want to worry about overp(l)aying. Maybe even with an added bonus item for their set support?
</li>
If you made it all the way through here, thanks for reading!
I'd love to hear more suggestions and ideas.
Because, let's be honest, for a development team that promises us to be revolutionary in the world of MMORPG's in so many ways, it would be lovely if they could find a way around the basic Pay2Play vs Free2Play payment models. It's getting old ;)
Its a great idea, pay what you use style of system. however having a payment due after the month is a issue unless there is a tracker of how long you have been online and how much it costs people may be hit with a unexpected bill get turned off the game and leave without paying, and having everyone paying different amounts could be a nightmare.
i think that if you dont use X amount of the subscription time up, you get added time to your next subscription would be a safer model.
e.g. Harry only got to log on for a total of 3 days out of a 30 day period, he receives 2 bonus weeks next subscription.
Oh! I like that a lot!
It's true, that even with a security payment it would be a recurring issue when players don't pay the fee.
And having fully automatic charging is a trouble on it's own. I love using Paypal, but not all regions have access to it, and not all players will have it either.
<blockquote>
e.g. Harry only got to log on for a total of 3 days out of a 30 day period, he receives 2 bonus weeks next subscription.
</blockquote>
I definitely think that's a solution worth discussion by the dev team. It kinda connects to their referral system ~
Now it looks like you will get direct cashbacks from friends who spend, altough I'd like it to be more in a way of game-based currency to avoid abuse and tie in with the subscription. I think it feels very rewarding if you get to play longer for <em>free</em> if you either don't get to play up your subscription time, or get friends to play with you. Counts as an incentive to come back to make use of that time, instead of quitting to escape the high monthly cost.
Love to hear more about this! Since payment for a lot of players (including me) sometimes confirms the decision to play the game or not.
glad you like it, i have given alot of thought about the free-time/ pay what you use system's a fair bit in the past specially when i get swamped with work/studies and cant play for weeks/ months straight but have a active subscription.
the trouble that i keep coming up with in the free-time system is the balancing amount of "free" time given. there would have to be restrictions in place so that the free time system doesn't get abused.
on another note a "pause subscription" feature could be handy as well, like if you have a 3 month subscription but you will be away for a month of that you can pause the sub and pickup when you get back. you would only be able to do this x amount of times a year or x amount of time a year though other wise people would abuse the system.
If that pause function is easily accessible it would also make people able to pause it if they know they wont play for that week, though as you stated I also think there might be a need to a sort of cool-down for that pause function so people dont abuse it and the developers can actually make an income so the game progresses and gets better.
If we want a good game after all we have to be ready to give them money.
Also, I would say make it possible to trade the token or put a price on them by how many there is? You should also make it so you can buy the token for the same price of the month or like £5 extra , so if they have a lot of money in the real life then they can sell it also.
Also, I would say make it possible to trade the token or put a price on them by how many there is? You should also make it so you can buy the token for the same price of the month or like £5 extra , so if they have a lot of money in the real life then they can sell it also.
[/quote]
that could be seen as being pay 2 win, if you were able to sell game time for in-game currency - the devs have stated that this game will not be pay 2 win
I think a way around the set subscription fee would in the long run bring a company more money.
Like you said, if players only have the option to pay upfront for a full month, but they feel they won't get their value out of it, or their gameplay experience in that month is dissapointing, they will be way quicker to give up the game in general.
<blockquote>
"Our philosophy is that Subscription based games should not employ cash shops that offer a pay to win atmosphere."
</blockquote>
Atm, we know they are leaned towards Subscription, and however the cash shop is intended to not be P2W (please keep it this way) - their referral system kinda insinuates they will have a cash shop as to be able to reward players for bringing in friends. As I said before:
<blockquote>I’d like [the referral reward] to be more in a way of game-based currency to avoid abuse and tie in with the subscription.</blockquote>
<ul>
I think this is one of the only ways to really <strong>avoid</strong> the game to become P2W.
- Rewards will only be in a virtual currency that allows buying in cash shop / buying subscription.
- The virtual currency will not be sellable ingame, neither cash shop items or subscription.
<li> If players are able to get real-life money from referral rewards, this would be an incentive for bots and scammers to make a profit out of a game (where it's only the devs that should make a profit from their game). Also, if people are able to get rich ingame by being able to sell cash-shop items in the game, this would rapidly lead to P2W. This is were Black Desert Online went wrong; even though the selling of items from cash-shop was limited in amount of money that could be made, the intention to P2W was there and many people straight-out quit.</li>
<li> A last suggestion: make the referral system more 'friend' based, so you can see on your profile who actually subscribed through you and to easier stay in touch with these people. It would be nice to be able to <em>gift</em> your friends for example, a month of subscription, as a further incentive to keep them playing.
</li>
</ul>
The problem with the variable system is those who pay most will have to pay extreme charges.
eg. Lets say currently 100,000 pay £15/month uniform.
If half the players are really casual they might only play 8 hours a week.
The hard core players will quite probably be playing 40 hours a week.
So to get that 100,000 x £15...
50,000 casual would pay £5 each
50,000 hardcore would pay £25 each
There are some players that wont mind the high monthly fees, but it will turn many away.
Do you really want to turn away those players that are enamored with the game and give you the most money ?
Probably just as many as the casual who pay the full £15 as the hardcore with an equal system.
Swing and roundabouts. You annoy the casuals or you annoy the hardcore.
So I prefer to look at it as a universdal charge for infrastructure costs, wages and maintenance rather than my game time.
Many TOC specifically state they do not guarantee gameplay, access or service anyway.
Its a best effort system.
So are you paying for maintenance and complain when the servers are down ?
Or are you playing for your personal access ?
The other problem is a botfarm can create a 1000 bot network and use time division instead.
Limited individual bot time, but loads of bots to get round the limitation.
Perhaps a tiered subscription model would be better ?
160+ hrs/mnth - hard-time
120 hrs/mnth - full-time
80 hrs/mnth - part-time
40 hrs/mnth - casual-time
But then you have to ensure the most populated tier picks up the bill through economies of scale.
Then by default the higher tiers have to pay even more.
Frankly it becomes a complex management nightmare IMHO.
I would rather they just focused on making the game than juggling maintenance and upkeep costs.
My alternative was cheap subscription for maintenance only + optional donations for R&D game expansions and upgrades (ala permanent kickstart type).
This minimises the subscription but guarantees it is there for upkeep and constant ongoing costs.
R&D is future work, so as long as they dont proceed until the projected costs are donated, they always have the money there too.
Those with loads of money can happily invest in the kickstart for their personal benefit and ours.
Those who dont have the money still get to enjoy the game and make the numbers that an MMO demand.
I see it as a win for everyone. The more optional payments we make, the greater the game becomes.
If we cant afford it, then we have to wait for new content until we can.
in my experience f2p is the worse model, its done by greedy companies that only want to get a ton of people in so that they can exploit them in the cash shop and other p2w features. f2p is the system that games change to when they are dying and need to make money to stay alive, because everyones sick of the game.
I think GW2 had a pretty fair cash shop and they added some quality of life items like gathering tools.
Correct me if I am wrong but in WoW didn't you need to buy cash shop pets and mounts to complete achievements?
I don't care if its B2P or P2P just make sure the cash shop is fair and no pay 2 win.
in my experience f2p is the worse model, its done by greedy companies that only want to get a ton of people in so that they can exploit them in the cash shop and other p2w features. f2p is the system that games change to when they are dying and need to make money to stay alive, because everyones sick of the game.
[/quote]
Have to agree with all of that.
For example in Archage you can sell apex(subscription) to other players for gold. This is causing P2W but what if NPC sells subscription instead of players? Of course it will be too expensive but If there is a system like this, lot of people can play this game. You will work hard to gain gold and after that you will get your subscription. I think it will help the economy of game too. Because players who want to buy subscription with gold will gather lot of material and they will produce lot of product to earn lots of gold.
Other method is B2P .You guys sad "We want to keep adding new content to game."then take our money for each new expansions.
Please Think about all type of players.
I realy hate the f2p community.
I think with a p2p system you get a more adorabel community.
It is also way better to spend a set amount of money each mounth and than you get the full game and can play it in your time. No cash shop forcing.
It is nice to see that you truly profit from your expiriance as a gamer!
P2p ensure stable income for devs so they can have more focus on improving game instead of "putting food on the table",
Someone already suggested a good way to make subs fee low => by going on Kickstart for major upgrades, if people thinks it a worth they will surely invest meanwhile giving a larger pool of players able to enjoy the game. I also think you can make more profit in this way.
100 people x 10 fee = 1000 $ monthly
200 people x 5 fee + Kickstart found = 1000 + Kickstart found
Ofc it's not mathematic that cutting half the fee means double the players but you can do some Market analysis to see at what % this work for you.
It can be 150 people x 5 fee or even 250 people x 5 fee.
But if you keep high subs fee + cash shop + Kickstart = greedy.
Subscription model is the best tbh..... both sides are getting something in return.... Us(Players and community) an amazing game that we can play and a promise that all players stand on equal grounds. And you as a company to have some steady income, for maintaining and improving the game. Simply the best.
Also i would like to point out that the ppl who actually go around screaming that F2P or B2P models are better, are usually the ppll who play the game for a month and the leave for another game. While the ppl who actually play a game for a year or more(me included), pretty much understand that the Sub Model is the best.
Best of Luck! :)
No if you think having a sub is like having a job, then an Amazon Prime sub is like having a job, or netflex or a subscription to a magazine or a Gym. No a Sub is not a job, its just your grey matter telling you it is. No a job is having to get the kids on the bus at 830 then go to work and hear people cause problems everyday that you need to spend 8 hours or more fixing. That is a Job, if you dont want to log in you dont have to, you are not forced to log in with a sub. It's your perspective that causes you to think like that. I played Sub based MMOs and not logged on for 2 weeks while on vacation.
For example in Archage you can sell apex(subscription) to other players for gold. This is causing P2W but what if NPC sells subscription instead of players? Of course it will be too expensive but If there is a system like this, lot of people can play this game. You will work hard to gain gold and after that you will get your subscription. I think it will help the economy of game too. Because players who want to buy subscription with gold will gather lot of material and they will produce lot of product to earn lots of gold.
Other method is B2P .You guys sad “We want to keep adding new content to game.”then take our money for each new expansions.
Please Think about all type of players.
[/quote]
No we shouldnt think about all the possible players. That is what got MMORPGs into their current state where they all suck ass trying to make everyone happy. Sorry that you live in a country where its more expensive for you. Hopefully in time with the US economy changing it will not be as bad for you. I also have another idea for countries like yours. Sell Blocks of time as a sub, 40 hours of game time a month for have the cost but its done only in countries like yours. If you end up liking the game and want to play more you pay the full price. B2P/F2P kill too many MMORPGS BECAUSE they turn into games where people with fat wallets own the servers. The games then become no fun. I would be willing to sell blocks of time in some countries to help offset cost, but its still a subscription you pay monthly for that block of time. I would also say 1 or 2 months roll over its ok but would push you for the sub if you reach that block of time.
[/quote]
I think mostly its about securing the economy of the company so they can continue in making the game, keep up server etc. Its much easier to plan if you have that kinda system + Servers and everything is hopefully more reliable. IMO it haven't come to the "masterrace" state yet, some people just feel that f2p games have had some rough years, and not delivered what they promised.
I really don't mind a subscription model given a steady stream of updates. I want to support the game and see it grow, I feel like a subscription model allows me to do that oppose to just buying things from the cash shop.
They could always do things like a cosmetic shop like WoW has, with mounts and pets for those people that wanted to support the company more.
The model is already decided so this thread had become moot . But that comment about "sorry about ur country" / ""MMOs should cater to every1"
yea , it kinda hit home
SO
1. Yes MMOs shouldn't cater to every1 but that is decided by player habits. Not country. U just lock countries when u dont wanna sell there.
2. Know a sub game that was p2w? .. Yea. wht was Eve Online
3. The solution isnt to sell blocks of time or some other demo shit. Its to set different amounts for different countries.
P2W happens when devs dont understand their game. business models keep the company floating
free to play players actually help the economy growth ( not count bots ),without farmers the game gonna be rough for players who don't have much time to onl
I realy hate the f2p community.
I think with a p2p system you get a more adorabel community.
It is also way better to spend a set amount of money each mounth and than you get the full game and can play it in your time. No cash shop forcing.
It is nice to see that you truly profit from your expiriance as a gamer!
[/quote]
I already think the Ashes Community is pretty awesome !