unknownsystemerror wrote: » Diamaht wrote: » Forget $12.99. For an extra $24 a year, lets all just agree to pay the same amount, and Intrepid just agree to do their best for that amount. Calm down. They are not doing that. The sub is 14.99 usd monthly. That gets you everything. There is no bag space for a higher sub, no craft bag like ESO, no content you miss out on, expansions or dlc, whatever your past mmo decided to call it. What the broke bois have failed to understand is that Intrepid has decided to be magnanimous and give CERTAIN regions determined by them at a much later date a cheaper option. It is not a region, it is a single server. Those that are say from South America (sorry to call you poor, just an example) and constantly whine about how $15 is more than they make in a month working in the coca fields, will have a cheaper option to sub for that single, locked server. They can't play on a regular server, they can only play on the broke bois server. They can't access the other servers in SA, they can't try to be the infamous gold bot sellers from other games and make money that way. They are segregated into their own little niche, that no one has to deal with unless they also want to pay that "harmonized" price. Intrepid is not a charity, they will look to see where there is sufficient demand that even a reduced price can sustain. And if it dies, it dies.
Diamaht wrote: » Forget $12.99. For an extra $24 a year, lets all just agree to pay the same amount, and Intrepid just agree to do their best for that amount.
TheDarkSorcerer wrote: » Depraved wrote: » TheDarkSorcerer wrote: » Depraved wrote: » patrick68794 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Gunghar wrote: » We already know that a fee of 14,99 USD/month will be required to play. I want to bring an idea already explored in another MMORPG: XIV. XIV got 2 different subscription fees: 14,99 USD and one 2 dollars cheaper at 12,99 USD. I think Ashes of Creation could get inspiration from that. For sure, the restriction for the cheaper one would have to fit the game. In Final Fantasy, the “entry” subscription limits how many characters you can create on a Data Center. There’s maybe a way it could be done but ashes way. XIV is a game that had a big success. I know there are harmonized prices in some regions. I also admit that could be problematic. They could just not have the “entry” mode on harmonized regions. Finally, I believe it would make the game more accessible with the economy going bad everywhere. The restrictions must make the difference between the “normal” fee and “entry” one. I don’t think it would be bad for Intrepid to have 2 fees modes. They’re always the post launch cosmetic sell. Also, it could mean more players that can’t afford the full fee trying the game. As for included game time from different Kickstarter and Shop package, it’s already using the 14,99 fees per each included month. It’s not a problem on that side. What do you think? Should Intrepid goes that way? let me tell you a little secret, the only purpose of the 12.99 package is so that people buy the 14.99 package That makes zero sense. If someone is going to sub to the game then they're going to sub to the game. Having that $13 option isn't going to make anyone that wasn't already going to sub just decide "I wasn't really interested in this game but since they have two sub options so I might as well go ahead and get the more expensive one" lol especially in a game where you can play and max every single class, including crafting and gathering, on a single character like FFXIV. oh it does make sense. its called marketing and sales. i dont really wanna explain why but dont tell me you haven't seen services or subs where you have 1 price, then for a lil more you get a bunch of extras? it makes the buyer thing he is getting a much better deal just for a lil more. even coke does this with their bottles xD some might even add a premium option as a third price. Having tiers on subs has nothing to do with "makes the buyer thing he is getting a much better deal". I'm surprised that you of all people is saying that. i had the impression that you worked in marketing / sales. maybe I was wrong. I do. https://www.andreasaranasen.com/
Depraved wrote: » TheDarkSorcerer wrote: » Depraved wrote: » patrick68794 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Gunghar wrote: » We already know that a fee of 14,99 USD/month will be required to play. I want to bring an idea already explored in another MMORPG: XIV. XIV got 2 different subscription fees: 14,99 USD and one 2 dollars cheaper at 12,99 USD. I think Ashes of Creation could get inspiration from that. For sure, the restriction for the cheaper one would have to fit the game. In Final Fantasy, the “entry” subscription limits how many characters you can create on a Data Center. There’s maybe a way it could be done but ashes way. XIV is a game that had a big success. I know there are harmonized prices in some regions. I also admit that could be problematic. They could just not have the “entry” mode on harmonized regions. Finally, I believe it would make the game more accessible with the economy going bad everywhere. The restrictions must make the difference between the “normal” fee and “entry” one. I don’t think it would be bad for Intrepid to have 2 fees modes. They’re always the post launch cosmetic sell. Also, it could mean more players that can’t afford the full fee trying the game. As for included game time from different Kickstarter and Shop package, it’s already using the 14,99 fees per each included month. It’s not a problem on that side. What do you think? Should Intrepid goes that way? let me tell you a little secret, the only purpose of the 12.99 package is so that people buy the 14.99 package That makes zero sense. If someone is going to sub to the game then they're going to sub to the game. Having that $13 option isn't going to make anyone that wasn't already going to sub just decide "I wasn't really interested in this game but since they have two sub options so I might as well go ahead and get the more expensive one" lol especially in a game where you can play and max every single class, including crafting and gathering, on a single character like FFXIV. oh it does make sense. its called marketing and sales. i dont really wanna explain why but dont tell me you haven't seen services or subs where you have 1 price, then for a lil more you get a bunch of extras? it makes the buyer thing he is getting a much better deal just for a lil more. even coke does this with their bottles xD some might even add a premium option as a third price. Having tiers on subs has nothing to do with "makes the buyer thing he is getting a much better deal". I'm surprised that you of all people is saying that. i had the impression that you worked in marketing / sales. maybe I was wrong.
TheDarkSorcerer wrote: » Depraved wrote: » patrick68794 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Gunghar wrote: » We already know that a fee of 14,99 USD/month will be required to play. I want to bring an idea already explored in another MMORPG: XIV. XIV got 2 different subscription fees: 14,99 USD and one 2 dollars cheaper at 12,99 USD. I think Ashes of Creation could get inspiration from that. For sure, the restriction for the cheaper one would have to fit the game. In Final Fantasy, the “entry” subscription limits how many characters you can create on a Data Center. There’s maybe a way it could be done but ashes way. XIV is a game that had a big success. I know there are harmonized prices in some regions. I also admit that could be problematic. They could just not have the “entry” mode on harmonized regions. Finally, I believe it would make the game more accessible with the economy going bad everywhere. The restrictions must make the difference between the “normal” fee and “entry” one. I don’t think it would be bad for Intrepid to have 2 fees modes. They’re always the post launch cosmetic sell. Also, it could mean more players that can’t afford the full fee trying the game. As for included game time from different Kickstarter and Shop package, it’s already using the 14,99 fees per each included month. It’s not a problem on that side. What do you think? Should Intrepid goes that way? let me tell you a little secret, the only purpose of the 12.99 package is so that people buy the 14.99 package That makes zero sense. If someone is going to sub to the game then they're going to sub to the game. Having that $13 option isn't going to make anyone that wasn't already going to sub just decide "I wasn't really interested in this game but since they have two sub options so I might as well go ahead and get the more expensive one" lol especially in a game where you can play and max every single class, including crafting and gathering, on a single character like FFXIV. oh it does make sense. its called marketing and sales. i dont really wanna explain why but dont tell me you haven't seen services or subs where you have 1 price, then for a lil more you get a bunch of extras? it makes the buyer thing he is getting a much better deal just for a lil more. even coke does this with their bottles xD some might even add a premium option as a third price. Having tiers on subs has nothing to do with "makes the buyer thing he is getting a much better deal".
Depraved wrote: » patrick68794 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Gunghar wrote: » We already know that a fee of 14,99 USD/month will be required to play. I want to bring an idea already explored in another MMORPG: XIV. XIV got 2 different subscription fees: 14,99 USD and one 2 dollars cheaper at 12,99 USD. I think Ashes of Creation could get inspiration from that. For sure, the restriction for the cheaper one would have to fit the game. In Final Fantasy, the “entry” subscription limits how many characters you can create on a Data Center. There’s maybe a way it could be done but ashes way. XIV is a game that had a big success. I know there are harmonized prices in some regions. I also admit that could be problematic. They could just not have the “entry” mode on harmonized regions. Finally, I believe it would make the game more accessible with the economy going bad everywhere. The restrictions must make the difference between the “normal” fee and “entry” one. I don’t think it would be bad for Intrepid to have 2 fees modes. They’re always the post launch cosmetic sell. Also, it could mean more players that can’t afford the full fee trying the game. As for included game time from different Kickstarter and Shop package, it’s already using the 14,99 fees per each included month. It’s not a problem on that side. What do you think? Should Intrepid goes that way? let me tell you a little secret, the only purpose of the 12.99 package is so that people buy the 14.99 package That makes zero sense. If someone is going to sub to the game then they're going to sub to the game. Having that $13 option isn't going to make anyone that wasn't already going to sub just decide "I wasn't really interested in this game but since they have two sub options so I might as well go ahead and get the more expensive one" lol especially in a game where you can play and max every single class, including crafting and gathering, on a single character like FFXIV. oh it does make sense. its called marketing and sales. i dont really wanna explain why but dont tell me you haven't seen services or subs where you have 1 price, then for a lil more you get a bunch of extras? it makes the buyer thing he is getting a much better deal just for a lil more. even coke does this with their bottles xD some might even add a premium option as a third price.
patrick68794 wrote: » Depraved wrote: » Gunghar wrote: » We already know that a fee of 14,99 USD/month will be required to play. I want to bring an idea already explored in another MMORPG: XIV. XIV got 2 different subscription fees: 14,99 USD and one 2 dollars cheaper at 12,99 USD. I think Ashes of Creation could get inspiration from that. For sure, the restriction for the cheaper one would have to fit the game. In Final Fantasy, the “entry” subscription limits how many characters you can create on a Data Center. There’s maybe a way it could be done but ashes way. XIV is a game that had a big success. I know there are harmonized prices in some regions. I also admit that could be problematic. They could just not have the “entry” mode on harmonized regions. Finally, I believe it would make the game more accessible with the economy going bad everywhere. The restrictions must make the difference between the “normal” fee and “entry” one. I don’t think it would be bad for Intrepid to have 2 fees modes. They’re always the post launch cosmetic sell. Also, it could mean more players that can’t afford the full fee trying the game. As for included game time from different Kickstarter and Shop package, it’s already using the 14,99 fees per each included month. It’s not a problem on that side. What do you think? Should Intrepid goes that way? let me tell you a little secret, the only purpose of the 12.99 package is so that people buy the 14.99 package That makes zero sense. If someone is going to sub to the game then they're going to sub to the game. Having that $13 option isn't going to make anyone that wasn't already going to sub just decide "I wasn't really interested in this game but since they have two sub options so I might as well go ahead and get the more expensive one" lol especially in a game where you can play and max every single class, including crafting and gathering, on a single character like FFXIV.
Depraved wrote: » Gunghar wrote: » We already know that a fee of 14,99 USD/month will be required to play. I want to bring an idea already explored in another MMORPG: XIV. XIV got 2 different subscription fees: 14,99 USD and one 2 dollars cheaper at 12,99 USD. I think Ashes of Creation could get inspiration from that. For sure, the restriction for the cheaper one would have to fit the game. In Final Fantasy, the “entry” subscription limits how many characters you can create on a Data Center. There’s maybe a way it could be done but ashes way. XIV is a game that had a big success. I know there are harmonized prices in some regions. I also admit that could be problematic. They could just not have the “entry” mode on harmonized regions. Finally, I believe it would make the game more accessible with the economy going bad everywhere. The restrictions must make the difference between the “normal” fee and “entry” one. I don’t think it would be bad for Intrepid to have 2 fees modes. They’re always the post launch cosmetic sell. Also, it could mean more players that can’t afford the full fee trying the game. As for included game time from different Kickstarter and Shop package, it’s already using the 14,99 fees per each included month. It’s not a problem on that side. What do you think? Should Intrepid goes that way? let me tell you a little secret, the only purpose of the 12.99 package is so that people buy the 14.99 package
Gunghar wrote: » We already know that a fee of 14,99 USD/month will be required to play. I want to bring an idea already explored in another MMORPG: XIV. XIV got 2 different subscription fees: 14,99 USD and one 2 dollars cheaper at 12,99 USD. I think Ashes of Creation could get inspiration from that. For sure, the restriction for the cheaper one would have to fit the game. In Final Fantasy, the “entry” subscription limits how many characters you can create on a Data Center. There’s maybe a way it could be done but ashes way. XIV is a game that had a big success. I know there are harmonized prices in some regions. I also admit that could be problematic. They could just not have the “entry” mode on harmonized regions. Finally, I believe it would make the game more accessible with the economy going bad everywhere. The restrictions must make the difference between the “normal” fee and “entry” one. I don’t think it would be bad for Intrepid to have 2 fees modes. They’re always the post launch cosmetic sell. Also, it could mean more players that can’t afford the full fee trying the game. As for included game time from different Kickstarter and Shop package, it’s already using the 14,99 fees per each included month. It’s not a problem on that side. What do you think? Should Intrepid goes that way?
TRULYRULY wrote: » As the game industry moves towards being dominated by the game subscription model (game pass), people will probably stop buying games and instead pay $20+ per month for a Netflix-like experience with their game library. So Ashes will need to compete with the value that Microsoft or Sony can provide with a similar subscription price. Intrepid will almost certainly need to offer a free or near-free entry point to draw in players, or just put the game on game pass or one of its equivalents in the future. I don't see how they compete otherwise in a future where Microsoft is releasing multiple AAA games on game pass each quarter for around $20 per month. How many subs do we really want to be paying?
Depraved wrote: » TRULYRULY wrote: » As the game industry moves towards being dominated by the game subscription model (game pass), people will probably stop buying games and instead pay $20+ per month for a Netflix-like experience with their game library. So Ashes will need to compete with the value that Microsoft or Sony can provide with a similar subscription price. Intrepid will almost certainly need to offer a free or near-free entry point to draw in players, or just put the game on game pass or one of its equivalents in the future. I don't see how they compete otherwise in a future where Microsoft is releasing multiple AAA games on game pass each quarter for around $20 per month. How many subs do we really want to be paying? woah people pay for the game pass? i thought they just did the trick to pay 1 USD for 3 months xDDD anyways, different audiences, with some overlaps.
TRULYRULY wrote: » Depraved wrote: » TRULYRULY wrote: » As the game industry moves towards being dominated by the game subscription model (game pass), people will probably stop buying games and instead pay $20+ per month for a Netflix-like experience with their game library. So Ashes will need to compete with the value that Microsoft or Sony can provide with a similar subscription price. Intrepid will almost certainly need to offer a free or near-free entry point to draw in players, or just put the game on game pass or one of its equivalents in the future. I don't see how they compete otherwise in a future where Microsoft is releasing multiple AAA games on game pass each quarter for around $20 per month. How many subs do we really want to be paying? woah people pay for the game pass? i thought they just did the trick to pay 1 USD for 3 months xDDD anyways, different audiences, with some overlaps. Well, the audience is gamers and their dollars and subscription fatigue is a thing. When all content is locked behind some sub or another, the customers will have to pick and choose their subscriptions. People will either limit their monthly subs to just the essentials (Netflix, gamepass, PS Plus) or adopt behaviors like unsubbing during content droughts and juggling them that way. Don't want to get too offtopic though, just wanted to add a different perspective to the discussion
Smaashley wrote: » 180$ USD a year. It's better be a fucking good game
Undead Canuck wrote: » Only partway completed and it already is a f%^$#ing good game.
nanfoodle wrote: » Since we on this topic. I would love to see a family plan for more then 1 person subbed on the same credit card.
