Adding a Boxcost

I know just how much Steven hates the concept of having both, a boxcost, as well as a subscription fee.

But adding a box cost puts a higher barrier of entry for multiboxers, botters and gold sellers. Keep in mind, this is NOT the main reason why I suggest adding a boxcost. The main reasons are as follows:

It also gives developers of a game we love, more financial freedom when it comes to creating content for the game, especially when starting out.

In compensation for adding a box cost, you could remove mount skins from the store. I personally feel like this shouldn't exist in the marketplace, as it takes away from the value of obtaining the original mount in game. If the marketplace skin for a mount looks a lot cooler, what is the point of obtaining the original one in game?

I think a boxcost of 25 or 30$, with one month of in game time, might be appropriate. What do you guys think?

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Songcaller

I won't lie, I would love a CD to put on my shelf next to my other MMOs, but beyond the whole concept of Show and Tell I have no other preferences lol.

Noaani

Too late.

Intrepid need to be seen to not go back on their word, and their word is no box cost.

Lincoln Hawk

There is only one game who can get away with box cost, sub fee and cash shop.

Xrael

noaani wrote: »

Too late.

Intrepid need to be seen to not go back on their word, and their word is no box cost.

But if the reason is justifiable, I think it might still be possible.

Noaani

CaptainChuck wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

Too late.

Intrepid need to be seen to not go back on their word, and their word is no box cost.

But if the reason is justifiable, I think it might still be possible.

Not without going back on their word, and that would be bad. I can't think of any reason that would justify Intrepid ruining their reputation before their game even launches.

Wandering Mist

Ok, this obsession with Multiboxers has officially gone too far. Just stop please. In addition a box cost isn't going to stop botters or goldsellers because guess what, they use HACKED ACCOUNTS to do it. Putting a box cost isn't going to do jack shit to stop them.

Xrael

noaani wrote: »

CaptainChuck wrote: »

noaani wrote: »

Too late.

Intrepid need to be seen to not go back on their word, and their word is no box cost.

But if the reason is justifiable, I think it might still be possible.

Not without going back on their word, and that would be bad. I can't think of any reason that would justify Intrepid ruining their reputation before their game even launches.

I know just how bad it might sound to go back on their word. But if they don't, its just going to spell more trouble for them.

Its important to have financial flexibility, especially when starting out. It gives you a lot more room to design different types of content.

Adding a box cost will also significantly reduce the no. of botters, multiboxers, gold sellers and the like.

It also gives the option to remove mount skins from the store. I personally feel like this shouldn't exist in the marketplace, as it takes away from the value of obtaining the original mount in game. If the marketplace skin for a mount looks a lot cooler, what is the point of obtaining the original one in game?

Songcaller

CaptainChuck wrote: »

I know just how bad it might sound to go back on their word. But if they don't, its just going to spell more trouble for them.

Its important to have financial flexibility, especially when starting out. It gives you a lot more room to design different types of content.

Adding a box cost will also significantly reduce the no. of botters, multiboxers, gold sellers and the like.

It also gives the option to remove mount skins from the store. I personally feel like this shouldn't exist in the marketplace, as it takes away from the value of obtaining the original mount in game.

Have you seen WoW? WoW has a box cost, also has box costs for expansions, botting, gold selling and multi-boxers are all inside WoW. A box cost will add more expense to you and me and won't stop anything. Why should normal players have to pay more because some people want to be abnormal?

Xrael

Wandering Mist wrote: »

Ok, this obsession with Multiboxers has officially gone too far. Just stop please. In addition a box cost isn't going to stop botters or goldsellers because guess what, they use HACKED ACCOUNTS to do it. Putting a box cost isn't going to do jack shit to stop them.

Its not only for multiboxers. Also, NO, multiboxers, botters and goldsellers do NOT use hacked accounts to do it as it would be too easy to ban them. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Also, I mentioned multiple other reasons in my post. Instead of being triggered, why don't you read my entire post?

Xrael

Neurath wrote: »

CaptainChuck wrote: »

I know just how bad it might sound to go back on their word. But if they don't, its just going to spell more trouble for them.

Its important to have financial flexibility, especially when starting out. It gives you a lot more room to design different types of content.

Adding a box cost will also significantly reduce the no. of botters, multiboxers, gold sellers and the like.

It also gives the option to remove mount skins from the store. I personally feel like this shouldn't exist in the marketplace, as it takes away from the value of obtaining the original mount in game.

Have you seen WoW? WoW has a box cost, also has box costs for expansions, botting, gold selling and multi-boxers are all inside WoW. A box cost will add more expense to you and me and won't stop anything. Why should normal players have to pay more because some people want to be abnormal?

WoW is different. Not only is it more expensive, due to the presence of EXPANSION costs, you can buy in game time in WoW with WoW tokens. That's why botting, gold selling and the like are so prevalent in WoW.

If WoW didn't have WoW tokens, you wouldn't see NEARLY the same amount of botters and gold-sellers.

Songcaller

WoW added Tokens in recent expansions. Ashes will have DLC/Expansions. So long as IS don't do tokens then Botters, Gold Sellers and Multi-Accounters won't have subsidies. It is enough not to lower the cost of play time for some compared to others. There doesn't need to be a Box Cost.

WMC51

Monthly sub is more of a wall than box cost. If they are willing to pay $100 a month the box cost doesn't mean anything to them.

Yoy can't stop people from having multiple accounts. I don't think any games have been successful. Reporting and in game GM presence is your only hope. Other than that its cat and mouse trying to catch botters using software cheats.

Xrael

WMC51 wrote: »

Monthly sub is more of a wall than box cost. If they are willing to pay $100 a month the box cost doesn't mean anything to them.

Yoy can't stop people from having multiple accounts. I don't think any games have been successful. Reporting and in game GM presence is your only hope. Other than that its cat and mouse trying to catch botters using software cheats.

It isn't just about people with multiple accounts. What about the other 2 reasons I mentioned?

BlackBrony

Steven mentioned about the box cost and the idea is player attraction.
Let's say I see a youtube video and I seem to like the game.
Woah, now I have to pay 60 USD to just try the game, and those 60 come with 30 days trial, so I'm basically paying 45 USD to try the game.
Nowadays with so many free games, asking gamers to pay 60 bucks just to try a game is a huge entry barrier. On the other hand you can pay 15, try the game, get your money's worth and if you don't like it you didn't lose money.

Xrael

BlackBrony wrote: »

Steven mentioned about the box cost and the idea is player attraction.
Let's say I see a youtube video and I seem to like the game.
Woah, now I have to pay 60 USD to just try the game, and those 60 come with 30 days trial, so I'm basically paying 45 USD to try the game.
Nowadays with so many free games, asking gamers to pay 60 bucks just to try a game is a huge entry barrier. On the other hand you can pay 15, try the game, get your money's worth and if you don't like it you didn't lose money.

Doesn't have to be 60$. I suggested 25 to 30$. This way its not super expensive for those who wish to try the game out. My main reasons for suggesting a box cost, was not multiboxing, but rather the other 2 reasons I mentioned in my post.

BloodNog

CaptainChuck wrote: »

WMC51 wrote: »

Monthly sub is more of a wall than box cost. If they are willing to pay $100 a month the box cost doesn't mean anything to them.

Yoy can't stop people from having multiple accounts. I don't think any games have been successful. Reporting and in game GM presence is your only hope. Other than that its cat and mouse trying to catch botters using software cheats.

It isn't just about people with multiple accounts. What about the other 2 reasons I mentioned?

Reporting and GMs is the solution for botters. If software doesn't catch them then it has to be done manually.

WMC51

CaptainChuck wrote: »

WMC51 wrote: »

Monthly sub is more of a wall than box cost. If they are willing to pay $100 a month the box cost doesn't mean anything to them.

Yoy can't stop people from having multiple accounts. I don't think any games have been successful. Reporting and in game GM presence is your only hope. Other than that its cat and mouse trying to catch botters using software cheats.

It isn't just about people with multiple accounts. What about the other 2 reasons I mentioned?

I think they actually make more off the skins than any box cost. I actually prefer non advantage micro transactions over box cost or monthly fees.

I have 3 kids so I can't go crazy on spending for pixies. Also my wife wants to play but we're on a tight budget so buying 2 copies would not be possible.

Take path of exile. 100% micro transactions. Now over time I've spent more than a box cost but when I could and on what I wanted. With having micro transactions I actually lowered the sub to 9.99 / month maybe even 4.99.

$30 a month plus expansion cost is why I quit WoW in the first place.

That being said I will no longer play games where you can buy gear, exp pots, etc.

BloodNog

CaptainChuck wrote: »

BlackBrony wrote: »

Steven mentioned about the box cost and the idea is player attraction.
Let's say I see a youtube video and I seem to like the game.
Woah, now I have to pay 60 USD to just try the game, and those 60 come with 30 days trial, so I'm basically paying 45 USD to try the game.
Nowadays with so many free games, asking gamers to pay 60 bucks just to try a game is a huge entry barrier. On the other hand you can pay 15, try the game, get your money's worth and if you don't like it you didn't lose money.

Doesn't have to be 60$. I suggested 25 to 30$. This way its not super expensive for those who wish to try the game out. My main reasons for suggesting a box cost, was not multiboxing, but rather the other 2 reasons I mentioned in my post.

They will pay the cost because they make enough money to cover it. Multibox botting exists in games with a box cost.

Genaro

Since multi-boxing is now prohibited, via launching multiple applications on a single computer and/or using any 3rd party program or macros, if they have active GMs monitoring the game now and then, it's kinda easy to deal with goldsellers. Just ban them. Not for a couple hours, not the character, ban the *account*. Simple. Same goes to botters. If it confirms that the person is using 3rd party programs to bot their characters, ban account without previous warning.

Although I'm not a fan of cash shop, even with cosmetics only (a long time trauma), I really think that having sub fee only will do more good than bad for the game, attracting many more players, since you don't have a box 'barrier'.

Surgemaster

Maybe there can be a patreon or something set up and if someone wants to give the game devs more money they can just drop it in there. everyone wins

Child Item