PLEASE Don't make AoC subscription mandatory

As the title says, can we please not have a mandatory subscription based game? Instead, make it similar to ESO where paying for a subscription gives you premium features such as -
1: Extra stash space
2: Craft bag where all your resources for crafting and upgrades go with an unlimited amount being able to be put in
3: Access to DLC

Things like these will make players WANT to be subscribed to the game for the premium features. If it's a mandatory subscription JUST to be able to continue playing, there are a lot of players just like myself who simply will not play purely because we're being forced to pay if we want to continue playing. When I was a teenager, I had no income and because of this I missed out on playing WoW and I'm sure many others did too. Now that I'm an adult, I don't want to keep paying for a game just to play it, it just doesn't seem right. As much as I love what I've seen so far with AoC, I won't be playing it if a subscription becomes mandatory in order to be able to continue playing. Just give us extra features, I'd be happy to pay for that.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Ludullu

ShinobiX wrote: »

Things like these will make players WANT to be subscribed to the game for the premium features.

It makes them want to pay because it's literally p2w. And it'd be an even bigger p2w in Ashes, due to how it's designed.

Constant sub allows Intrepid to avoid p2w bullshit like that, which is better than any f2p+"optional" payment monetization.

ShinobiX

Ludullu wrote: »

ShinobiX wrote: »

Things like these will make players WANT to be subscribed to the game for the premium features.

It makes them want to pay because it's literally p2w. And it'd be an even bigger p2w in Ashes, due to how it's designed.

Constant sub allows Intrepid to avoid p2w bullshit like that, which is better than any f2p+"optional" payment monetization.

Actually the ideas (from another game) I posted is not P2W at all. You're not paying for power, bonus XP or anything like that. You're simply paying for things like extra stash space, access to DLC instead of full priced DLC, craft bag for resources... How is that P2W?

P2W means your paying for power, for items/gear which give you an advantage over others etc.

Imanek

You don’t find it fair to pay for a service that you play for entertainment?
So, if I summarize: do you work for free, since charging for goods and services is unfair?
Or do you think that Steven and Intrepid Studios don’t have business expenses, salaries to pay, and infrastructure costs every month?

A subscription remains a reasonable thing, be realistic... Today, in an Asian game and even some Western games, the first question asked before adding features is: how do we monetize our content to make customers pay as much as possible?
Yes, the game is free-to-play, but with so many barriers that premium becomes mandatory. And in most cases, you still need to pull out your credit card to stay competitive.

In case you missed it, World of Warcraft was a massive success. So massive that it was able to last for an incredibly long time, thanks to a box + subscription system that allowed them to have a financially strong company capable of offering more and more content.

So no, a subscription of around $10-15 for unlimited access to a game is definitely not excessive. Especially since they don’t charge for the base game, which economically isn’t great for a game planning for years ahead. With a well-stocked cosmetic shop—which I hope will be the case—they will have the means to develop Ashes of Creation beyond the first year.

Especially considering that for a console or single-player game, you have to spend around $60 for something short-lived.

Otherwise, there are plenty of free-to-play games, so have fun with those.

Noaani

ShinobiX wrote: »

Now that I'm an adult, I don't want to keep paying for a game just to play it, it just doesn't seem right.

I'm speaking to you here as an adult.

Imagine you offered up a service of some kind that had an ongoing cost to you of 2 dollars a month, and you charge people 5 dollars a month for access to this service that you are offering.

That additional 3 dollars is going to thinks like paying for your power and your food - we are assuming this is your only source of income.

Now imagine I come along and ask you to offer me that service for free, because I don't think it is right that you charge an ongoing fee for the service you offer.

It makes no sense at all for you to allow me to make use of the service you offer for free, and even less sense for you to offer that to the general public. Even if you have some people that are opting to pay for the service, you are still losing money every time someone comes along not wanting to pay - and there will be significantly more not wanting to pay than there will be those wanting to pay.

Now, you say that you would be happy to pay the same monthly fee if it were optional. If this is the case (I doubt it), then what difference is it to you? In both cases, you would be paying the same amount per month, and would be getting the same thing for that money (full access to the game).

The only reason you could have for wanting this is because you may want to continue to play the game without paying for it - or in other words, you would want to make Intrepid pay money in order for you to play Ashes.

While not every MMORPG has a subscription, not every MMO has the same server requirements. Ashes requirements are significantly more compute heavy than a game like GW2, and so that costs Intrepid more to keep the game up than those other games require.

It's just basic business. If you want Intrepid to be successful with Ashes, you want everyone to pay their fair share to keep the servers running - and that means you should want to pay your fair share as well.

Caww

this game may become too niche (oops.. did it again) to be fully robust without a subscription

Ludullu

ShinobiX wrote: »

Actually the ideas (from another game) I posted is not P2W at all. You're not paying for power, bonus XP or anything like that. You're simply paying for things like extra stash space, access to DLC instead of full priced DLC, craft bag for resources... How is that P2W?

They may not be p2w in those games (they still are btw, otherwise they wouldn't be selling them), but they definitely would be in Ashes.

Additional storage is a huge thing in Ashes. People have to literally spend in-game gold to get it and then spend time to upkeep it (citizenship tax). Even more so, if you have a freehold.

The ability to have more storage for irl money would be literally you spending irl money instead of in-game money. That's one of the most direct p2w situations.

There's already no additional cost for DLCs/expansions. If you put those behind a wall (you literally can't in Ashes btw) - you're creating p2w. And even if they COULD sell DLCs for extra money - they'd be called a scam, because they'd be going back on their monetization promises.

The game is built around specialized bags and limitations related to them. If you can get some powerful generalized bags for irl money - that's, once again, direct p2w. Gatherers can carry more on each run, so their gameplay output per hour is more profitable. This would also, at the same time, fuck them over way more, because they'd lose way more on death, which means that paying customers are getting royally fucked over by the product itself. And that's a horrible way to do business.

Right now it's fine, because everyone will pay the same price a month, so the rules apply to everyone in the same way. But in a f2p game, people that pay will have a worse game because of it, while some people (like zerg guilds or super hardcore ones) will win out even more.

So, once again, this does not work in Ashes. It cannot work.

Volgaris

Nope.

Unlimited inventory for a sub is P2W. Call it what you will, but being able to staff everything into my magical bag of hold to loot everything my sticky fingers can touch is basically cheating. In ESO it's not as big a deal. In Ashes it's a BIG deal. I assume you may not have a good understanding of what the game is trying to be. It's different than other MMORPGs. You should read up on the wiki on the PvP, Node wars, Vassals, ect. It'll probably become more clear why it does matter so much and how it would actually break the game. I can understand not wanting to sub. To compare it a game that normally takes 20 to 40 hours to beat and bought new it cost 60 dollars. Ashes won't have a box price at launch, so if you wait until your savings would be well ahead of a new game box price. If you already paid into Alpha you have like 6 months or something of sub time. But if you paid into alpha and don't want to sub, then I'm confused by your choices, they aren't logical.

It's crazy to see how far the mainstream gaming industry has shifted peoples perspective on monetization. I wish so of you could know the feeling of buying a game and owning it, unlocking the extra tracks, stages, fighters, or levels through your skill not your credit card. Taking your Marios Brothers 3 to your friends because you couldn't beat the Tubular level. The idea that some can think an unlimited inventory for real life money isn't P2W confounds me, I'm sad for the future gamers.

ShinobiX

Imanek wrote: »

You don’t find it fair to pay for a service that you play for entertainment?
So, if I summarize: do you work for free, since charging for goods and services is unfair?
Or do you think that Steven and Intrepid Studios don’t have business expenses, salaries to pay, and infrastructure costs every month?

A subscription remains a reasonable thing, be realistic... Today, in an Asian game and even some Western games, the first question asked before adding features is: how do we monetize our content to make customers pay as much as possible?
Yes, the game is free-to-play, but with so many barriers that premium becomes mandatory. And in most cases, you still need to pull out your credit card to stay competitive.

In case you missed it, World of Warcraft was a massive success. So massive that it was able to last for an incredibly long time, thanks to a box + subscription system that allowed them to have a financially strong company capable of offering more and more content.

So no, a subscription of around $10-15 for unlimited access to a game is definitely not excessive. Especially since they don’t charge for the base game, which economically isn’t great for a game planning for years ahead. With a well-stocked cosmetic shop—which I hope will be the case—they will have the means to develop Ashes of Creation beyond the first year.

Especially considering that for a console or single-player game, you have to spend around $60 for something short-lived.

Otherwise, there are plenty of free-to-play games, so have fun with those.

I come from an era where you buy a game at full price, you get the whole thing. I even stated I'd be willing to pay for a subscription that WASN'T MANDATORY. You completely missed what I said.

As for most Asian games and monetization that becomes mandatory, that can easily be replaced with cosmetics, which people are still more than happy to pay.

Yes, it WoW was a huge success, but hundreds and thousands, possibly even millions of players missed out or simply didn't want to pay for a subscription based game. So, they eventually added the option to earn currency in-game which allowed you to pay for the subscription because they realized how many outsiders wanted in, without the mandatory subscription.

Charge us for the full game, reap the benefit of the rewards as well as the rewards of an in-game cosmetic shop. Pay a mandatory subscription, on top of cosmetics, DLC and expansions? Hell no.

ShinobiX

Noaani wrote: »

ShinobiX wrote: »

Now that I'm an adult, I don't want to keep paying for a game just to play it, it just doesn't seem right.

I'm speaking to you here as an adult.

Imagine you offered up a service of some kind that had an ongoing cost to you of 2 dollars a month, and you charge people 5 dollars a month for access to this service that you are offering.

That additional 3 dollars is going to thinks like paying for your power and your food - we are assuming this is your only source of income.

Now imagine I come along and ask you to offer me that service for free, because I don't think it is right that you charge an ongoing fee for the service you offer.

It makes no sense at all for you to allow me to make use of the service you offer for free, and even less sense for you to offer that to the general public. Even if you have some people that are opting to pay for the service, you are still losing money every time someone comes along not wanting to pay - and there will be significantly more not wanting to pay than there will be those wanting to pay.

Now, you say that you would be happy to pay the same monthly fee if it were optional. If this is the case (I doubt it), then what difference is it to you? In both cases, you would be paying the same amount per month, and would be getting the same thing for that money (full access to the game).

The only reason you could have for wanting this is because you may want to continue to play the game without paying for it - or in other words, you would want to make Intrepid pay money in order for you to play Ashes.

While not every MMORPG has a subscription, not every MMO has the same server requirements. Ashes requirements are significantly more compute heavy than a game like GW2, and so that costs Intrepid more to keep the game up than those other games require.

It's just basic business. If you want Intrepid to be successful with Ashes, you want everyone to pay their fair share to keep the servers running - and that means you should want to pay your fair share as well.

You've completely missed the point where I stated I'd be happy to pay for a subscription as long as it wasn't mandatory to continue playing. I'll pay $100 or more for the base game, extra for DLC if I'm not subscribed. Where did I state that anything should be free?

Noaani

ShinobiX wrote: »

You've completely missed the point where I stated I'd be happy to pay for a subscription as long as it wasn't mandatory to continue playing.

No I didn't. I addressed it here, in the post you quoted.

Noaani wrote: »

Now, you say that you would be happy to pay the same monthly fee if it were optional. If this is the case (I doubt it), then what difference is it to you? In both cases, you would be paying the same amount per month, and would be getting the same thing for that money (full access to the game).

If you are going to start a discussion and then reply to people in said discussion, please read those posts you are replying to.

You say you will happily pay for the base game - but Intrepid isn't asking youto do that. Once it goes live, the subscription is the only thing they are asking for. They aren't asking for you to buy the game, and they aren't asking you to pay for additional content. They are only asking for that subscription fee, and giving you the option of paying for some cosmetics if you feel inclined.

I'm unsure what your issue is. For any given month, if you want to play Ashes, you pay for access to the servers in order to be able to do so. If you do not want to play Ashes for any given month, you simply have the option to not pay that month. There are no other costs.

Again, since Ashes is a product with actual ongoing costs per player to Intrepid (unlike, for example, a cars heated seats or top speed that are already built in to the car when you buy it), there is no real reason to be against Intrepid only asking you for a subscription, as their costs are recurring for each month you opt to play.

WIth a game that has the server requirements Ashes would have, no subscription fee would mean the game can only possibly last a few months.

Recurring costs to Intrepid mean they need to have recurring revenue in order to keep the game up.

daveywavey

Ludullu wrote: »

ShinobiX wrote: »

Actually the ideas (from another game) I posted is not P2W at all. You're not paying for power, bonus XP or anything like that. You're simply paying for things like extra stash space, access to DLC instead of full priced DLC, craft bag for resources... How is that P2W?

They may not be p2w in those games (they still are btw, otherwise they wouldn't be selling them), but they definitely would be in Ashes.

Yep, ESO+ is totally p2w. 10% more XP gained, 10% more gold gained, 10% more crafting XP, 10% more PvP Points, double the Bank Storage, a craft bag for storing infinite amounts of all resources, premium currency that can buy hard-to-get items, and those are just the perks I've picked out. There are more.
It's absolutely Pay To Win. And none of us want that in Ashes.

Saabynator

They poured a ton of money into the game, and plan on making a ton of new content, besides getting the game for free. I feel a sub is more than resonable. I dont think we had MMOs come out with this volume of content and features, in a... Well ever, maybe. So a sub should be just fine, just buy a pizza or less per month, and your good. BTW, ESO came out with a box price, AoC comes out with none.

TenTegn

Free to play games that have an optional subscription model for extras are games that fit the below. In my opinion.

Established game and have far less running cost. Small dev team and running on minimal staffing.
An older game with a drop in subscriptions and needs more players.
No longer investing in long term development. Especiall any real DLC.
If not there yet, headed towards pay 2 win.
Any sort of modorating of the game can be expected to be minimal.

All of what i dont want from a game.

Give me a good old fashioned subscription. Please.

SmileGurney

Please DO make AoC subscription mandatory, it helps with the game running costs AND limits the influence of gold sellers and similar refuse. I can only hope that use of virtual / pre-paid credit cards is also restricted.

nanfoodle

Many of the people here are here because of the promise not to be one of these games that take advantage of its players. Instead just a sub and everything that makes your char more powerful is only earn in game. Im one of that group.

Imanek

No, I don’t think I went off-topic… Maybe you come from an era where games were sold at a high price with a mandatory subscription, and I’m not questioning your advanced age at all. However, I am certainly questioning your credibility and consistency.

Because you said it yourself: the numbers speak for themselves. World of Warcraft never had to slash its prices to bargain-bin merchants like you claim. Dark Age of Camelot didn’t either—you had to pay for the base game, expansions at full price, and a monthly subscription. In return, we got high-quality games and expansions, an active player base, and well-developed content.

Yes, WoW changed its monetization model, but it also changed its content—shifting towards a more casual, fast-food gaming experience with decisions that did more harm than good. So it’s only natural that when you offer mediocre quality, repetitive content, and a dull gameplay loop, you end up slashing subscription fees just to keep players around.

But you? You’re an absolute enigma! You’re okay with paying a subscription for a couple of minor perks rather than paying one that gives you full access to the game’s content. That’s ridiculous… In the end, you pay nothing at all, and you’d rather settle for dull, uninspired games with uncertain content instead of investing in quality.

And I truly regret that Ashes of Creation isn’t charging both a base license fee and a subscription. In the long run, this represents a massive loss of revenue for a company that employs hundreds of people. I fear that this decision will ultimately water down a game with immense potential, simply due to budget constraints.

So, I won’t go any further in this discussion. There are thousands of bland games out there that will happily take your credit card for optional content. If you’re too stingy to pay for a game where you can easily spend hundreds of hours each month, then go ahead and enjoy those.

Apok

I know it sucks not being able to pay a sub fee I was there too growing up, but regardless this game was sold on a sub fee, and one thing I've noticed is that the community is a lot different when it comes to sub vs f2p games.

A f2p community isn't what people paid for and I don't think changing that would be a good idea. This is along the lines of flying mounts and fast travel, no point in really arguing it.

Dolyem

I would much rather have the monthly sub fee to deter gold farmers and botters from constantly making accounts. Key word "deter" not completely negate.

Alacrite

I totally understand that f2p users deserve to be appealed to. Your perspective on this matter is missing what I believe is honestly the entire point of AoC. Progression in the game is entirely tied to the player's action in-game. Not just there's, but the ENTIRE player base is what drives progression is every aspect of the game. It's weird to imagine when you are not use to playing a game with this sort play style, but if you played WoW Classic, you would come closer to understanding this.

There are other reasons too, but I believe this is the most important and it DOES factor into how the game feels when you're playing it, whether you are cognizant of it or not. I could elaborate how but I don't want to bog you down with text.

Since progression is entirely player-driven though, the game does need to cost money. We're not allowed to spend money for in-game progression, so we HAVE to spend money just to enter the game. It's the style of the game, so there's really no choice the way I see it.

Volgaris

Ashe's doesn't needs to appeal to F2P players, nor do they deserve it. There are plenty of players that will sub. If they move to a F2P model, sure you'd get a lot of players for a little bit, but after the 5 minute enthusiast quit, the game would be left with less players than if they just went with the sub model, and less money, and more bots.

Wow Classic launch doubled or tripled the subs for WoW. Players want a return to that system. The status quo of the current gaming industry (as a whole, with a few exceptions) is moving more and more towards a mobile gaming structure to cash in. But the games themselves are just reskins of previous successful game and blown out IPs like Hope Solos chocolate star fish. This attracts the crowd that needs instant gratification and rewards to stay focused and engaged. Leading to players plowing through content and devaluing any meaningful achievement. And the first step towards this is F2P, then cash shops, then P2W, then ads, then pay for no ads, then non skippable ads, then a kidney donation requirement.. All because people didn't want to spend 15 dollars a month to play a game.

If a MMORPG isn't worth 15 dollars a month to play than it's not worth playing at all.

Child Item