Lets talk game shop? You pay real money for virtual products.. so where do YOU assign value?
Do you prefer Free to Play or Subscription Model?
Would you pay to level faster?
Would you pay to win (stronger gear usually)?
Would you pay to customize (your powers work the same, and you pay for animations/FX to fit your character)
Would you pay for additional character slots?
Would you pay for costumes?
- -
What would you NOT pay for?
To enter this part of town you must pay for the expansion?
To use this power set you must buy access to it?
To create missions you must buy a separate architect?
- -
The following is my opinion:
Personally I want Free to Play, Pay to customize. My character can perform the same as any other.. but if I want to really get unique with how it looks then I gotta pay. This means color, shape, animations, fx, costumes, all of that is fair game for me.. likely costing about $50 for my main character (not including the things in the Supergroup, and other mechanics available). And (this may be just me) because the performance is largely NOT affected here I would hope this leads NO exchange for game experience for things that cost $.. force people to pay or keep the "boring" animations.. don't let them collect "Titanite" to buy it in the game store. The only unlock able purchase would be for alts and all things unlocked in the cash shop would be account wide. Retconning and color changes would cost money but they'd be extremely mice transactions. 10 retcons for a dollar ($0.10 a piece) and Color changes are a quarter… that kind of thing.
I do not believe in paying for content (missions) whether they be player generated content or dev generated content. I do not believe in pay to win where you can get stronger.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Prefer Pay to Play. I see nothing wrong with paying for a real expansion (not just an update). I hate pay to customize, as that's always way expensive for such a little thing, and really terrible in a game based around alts.
F2P has the habit of bringing in the worst people and most of the time, I find it's the ones who P2P who pay more money to F2P, with a lot of F2Pers seeing it purely as a game they can play for free, never pay a cent to, and then complain about anything they do have to pay for.
If you sub, it then makes sense to say something more akin to "Willing to pay for this, not for this." I don't mine purchasing costume sets, though if I'm subbing, I want to continue to get some with just updates.
I'm the opposite, sell me a box, charge me a sub, I don't (largely) care about colours and animations.
I will buy powersets and badges from the cash shop, I can't wait to buy Titanite, regardless of what it does.
I loved those card things you could get in CoH with random rewards.
It would cost more to collect those nickel and dime donations than it's worth. Microtransactions should (imho) still be pocket money transactions (I'm looking at you, overpriced Neverwinter shop) but if you're going to devote a few hundred dollars worth of time to creating something, you need to price it so it makes its money back and goes on to make a profit. I'd be surprised if it was practical to sell items for less than a couple of dollars each.
I'm with you on not paying for some stuff, I wouldn't want to end up paying other players like D3.
If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev
Note D3 is getting rid of that.
My pet hate - the feeling of nickel and diming in NW. Example - (and far from the worst) they're bringing in a mini game where you can earn rewards from playing on their web interface with up to 4 of each character's pets, but you can only have 3 pets unless you spend $3.50 to unlock a 4th slot on each character.
[color=#ff0000]Tech Team and Forum Moderator[/color]
[img]http://missingworldsmedia.com/images/favicon.ico[/img]
Level faster: should NOT be an option.
If you EVER give Players a means or method to "skip" content, THEY WILL. It was proven with the Imperius Task Force. It was proven with Architect Entertainment. It was proven with Death From Below.
JUST SAY NO.
Pay to win (stronger gear): MUST [b]NOT[/b] be an option.
Doing this simply creates a HAVES vs HAVE NOTS dynamic which can stratify and fragment the community, and pretty much ALWAYS poisons any PvP community the game might have once had, creating a death spiral of attrition.
JUST SAY NO.
Pay to customize: fair game.
Customization of animations and effects fall into the "nice to have, but not needed to play" category, and thus are ripe for placing a value onto them for sales.
Additional character slots: fair game.
This is a worthwhile use of a cash shopping system, since it exchanges fair value for the Player (more alts) in exchange for a service.
Additional costume slots: fair game.
Same point as character slots.
Restricting content to paying customers: conditional acceptance.
It would be "fair" to limit expansions of zones to subscribing customers first, with the expectation that such regions will be opened up to non-subscribers later on, essentially letting the subscribers "get there first" for the privilege of being subscribed. Creating zones that the Free To Play community can NEVER access should be frowned upon except in very limited circumstances (such as a "hangout" zone akin to the Tiki Bar in Pocket D) where all that is being restricted is a social venue and possibly a NPC Service (or few), as opposed to having a Content Restriction where certain Content is gated behind being able to enter the zone.
Player Content Creation: conditional acceptance.
Making something akin to Architect Entertainment a "perk" of being a subscriber, but something that must be "bought" by a Free to Play seems fair to me.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
FTR I agree with everything you say Redlynne.
I want to PAY for Development. They develop a new map. Ok.. I choose to buy if I wanna use it. They develop a new costume set. I choose to buy if I wanna use it. This will keep the developers creating parts of the game players WANT to use.
That being said.. paying for content sucks. Mostly because I do not alt and if the content isn't added to endgame then I feel like I'm paying for something I wont use. I understand that I will "miss out" on playing content.. but if its not endgame I wont use/buy it.
I would not pay to use a mission architect.. it's already free labor.. i'm not going to pay for my own work.
Oh and while I'm on the subject.. I will NOT pay for "chance boxes" that offer a chance to get something I do not want. As a "pay for what you get" principle from above.. I will completely AVOID paying games that use this. I have enough addictions .. don't need to add gambling to my list
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Redlynne beat me to it. He pretty much echoes all my sentiments.
But I didn't see the "pay for powersets" addressed yet...
On the one hand, I'd like to think that all players should have the same choices when creating characters.
On the other hand, it's a development hog that deserves compensation.
Paying for [b]special[/b] powersets is not a new concept, and most players should be familiar with it. I had no problem with it when CoH did it. If it was a powerset that I wasn't interested in, then I didn't feel bad about not spending the money. If it was something I wanted, well, I'll be honest, I'd wait for it to go on sale, lol. I never was a "gotta have it NAO" kinda gal. Remember, though, that CoH would release a few powesets for free as well.
I'm spoiled so I want to pay for a sub and then collects my plunder every month. Said plunder to include but not be limited to:
Enough character slots to play one of each AT. Yes, if you add new ATs this means I get more slots. If I can't control the altitis then I'll pay for more slots.
At least a basic version of everything on the CC. I want to be able to make WHATEVER I want from chicks with bat wings to guys in powered armor. You want to charge me for the uber-sexy version? I'm ok with that.
All the powersets. Sorry but I'm going to be sticky here. If you want a F2P model where you have to purchase each set then that's fine with me. However I want subscribers to get the whole boat with their sub...not the boat with no oars. It's a form of 'thank you' for the monthly sub even when nothing new is coming out.
All the zones. Same as with powersets.
Features, of course. If you want to keep the gold peddlers out by prohibiting certain features for F2P or whatever? I'm good with that. However the first time I hear 'we have this GREAT new Base Builder...that you have to pay $5.00 in addition to your sub' I'm gone unless it has a LOT of cool features.
I have NO problem paying for added zones and other extensions to the game but it had better have some bling to it. If I pay $50.00 for a game with 5 zones and they want to charge $20.00 for a new zone later I'll scream shenanigans.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
I want to give my loyalty to an excellent game and to be rewarded for that loyalty. I never spent a cent in the CoX shop after Freedom came out, but I did subscribe continuously for 7 years. I want such a subscription to enable me to get all the stuff without having to spend any additional money, aside perhaps from major expansions, like CoV or GR.
Spurn all ye kindle.
/em sexy suave voice
Impish Kat. [i]Dahling ...[/i] we both know there is not a single thing *I* could beat you to. ^_~
Mmmm ... pretty kitty ...
In this particular case, for new powersets, I'd once again recommend a "staged" eligibility, where subscribers who have been subscribed for X months or more already get the powersets for free (encouraging subscription loyalty! $cha-ching$!), subscriptions that have been in place for 1 to X months can buy the powersets at a discount (50% off?), and Free to Play can pay full price for access to the new powersets. Point being, stay subscribed long enough (ie. be a loyal customer) and you get new powersets "for free" with your subscription.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
I think the game would make more money with a "No subscriptions" model, and frankly I don't know how happy I'd be to pay for a subscription and STILL need to use micro-transactions.
In this economy (even after putting $ into the kickstarter) I don't want to pay for access to the game and then realize I still don't get what I want. So I emplore you.. IF you go with a free to play model.. don't take subscriptions. It makes me suspicious about what I'm paying for and also gives me incentive to stop playing to save IRL money.
The first time I was dissatisfied with Champions Online it was a no-brainer to stop paying them.. then all my friends and others who enjoyed playing with me (we were a small tight knit group) also didn't really feel the incentive to pay and play.
When I bought a $50 freeform slot later (after returning to the game under false promises) I would at least spend time with my friends logged in because it didn't cost me to do so. IF the game was fun or engaging to me I would have even done more than log in and change my uniform and actually PLAY the game.
Granted eventually I stopped logging in anyway.. this would have happened MUCH sooner if I had to actually PAY to get into the game.
Oh.. one more thing.. I refuse to pay to test your game too.. if you have test server feedback and want my participation.. it better be free.
- -
On a more positive note.. if there are things that I (as a single character player with no alts) like and support but do not need for my character I would love your system to allow me to gift items to my friends/supergroup members without giving them my credit card number.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I agree on the free test server thing. I will NEVER prepay for a game release. That's like buying a car from the newspaper that's not done being built. I'll test it for days but a 'pre-release' cost? I smell fish there no matter how many times it shows up on Steam.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
P2P is not expensive for anyone. It's 50cents a day. Playing like 2 hours a month just gave you the same value as a console game you quit playing after you beat it.
How about this? You can either pay for the game, no subscription, and have a shop that only sells things like vanity gear, and utility stuff like more bank slots, etc etc. Nothing that gives you an unfair advantages at all.
Or, you could go free to play, offer vanity stuff like I said above, but also have the option to subscribe which offers exclusive things like veteran rewards vanity stuff and other things like that. Maybe add other incentives that make it worth while, without breaking the game.
I'm not a fan of subscriptions though, I don't have time to devote enough time to a single game to make a subscription worth it, so make subscribing optional for perks and currency for buying things in the store each month too. Perhaps even store discounts, things like that, special subscriber only sales for vanity stuff, etc etc.
So, what is enough time to devote to a single game to make a sub worth it?
I can spend 5-7.50 dollars to see a movie. I do this about 1+ times a month. That's just 1/3 the cost for 2 hours of entertainment.
Let's go to the arcade! 25-50cents to play a game for 1-5minutes.
Caramel Machiato. 5 dollars easy, for something that takes me less than an hour to drink.
Going out to drink? Yeah. That can rack up the costs.
Console game? 60 dollars for 2-5 hours of entertainment. But you can sell it back? That's what 5-10 off the cost?
Going out for fast food? Just three meals in one month period is less than an hours worth of enjoyment and is 15 dollars a month.
So, how exactly is 15 dollars a month (less if people buy subscription in multiple months at a time) at all expensive? More so when the reason companies found F2P so profitable were people were gullible enough to get brought in with the notion of "Yay free game!" then spend more on a month to obtain those cash shop items, and they still think 15 dollars a month for a game they play (that works out to 50cents a day) is...expensive? o.O
So true. F2P is the P.T. Barnum of the MMO world. "This way to the egress!"
Spurn all ye kindle.
The problem is the consistency of revenue stream. Subscriptions ought to give you a fairly stable revenue stream, while microtransactions can spike and crater and be very inconsistent over time. That has implications for in-house resource allocations. Personally, I prefer the "staged release" model, where the subscribers get stuff first, as a reward for their loyalty, and the after a delay that same stuff gets made available to Freebie Players through a Cash Shop, allowing them to "catch up" without being subscribed. It is then possible to "rig the game" such that subscribing gets the same rewards for cheaper and faster than remaining a Freebie Player over the longer haul.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
This was cited (if i remember correctly) as the reason as to why Exteel was closed down.
"Free to Play" games have always been a hybrid of subscription option and a free game.. usually this means pay to win because they want subscribers to use the game store as well as the free players.
IF there is a subscription I should not need to ever use the game store.
"games closing" is not an option here. It's developed by volunteers. The thing about selling digital products is.. it takes alot of time to create code but VERY little time to maintain it.. this is why so many games were subscription models.. to recapture revenue over time. That is not an issue with City of Titans. As of yet, I have not heard of developer debt to regain profit of the project (or much financial news at all tbh). I want to support this game with my wallet.. but I want to pay for what I get.
My suggestion? Have an initial payment for access to the game and have an in-game store. Do not have subscriptions.
Charge me $50 for a game key and keep the store active. The math of a subscription model means I'm paying every month for access to something that cost the developers no revenue and only time and work. This is the reality of a volunteer developed game.. and this is the reason I want to pay directly for the development that exists. You develop a new cast animation set I want.. I'll buy it. You come up with a new FX set I want.. I'll buy it. But I really am iffy about buying access to the server if there is nothing more than maintenance being performed. I left Champions Online for this reason and they were paying their developers for their time.. I can't see myself doing more for volunteer efforts. Let my money go for the betterment of the game is all I'm saying.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I just don't want to see the cash shop become the Pay to Win shop.
When CoH charged extra for costumes, I didn't mind.
When they went F2P and added special powersets to the shop, I didn't mind.
HOWEVER, when they started adding special [i]enhancements[/i] to the shop, I took notice.
Adding ATIOs to the shop was the equivalent to adding "uber" gear to be purchased. This was a break from the established concept that you could create anything you wanted, gearwise, in the game. Everyone had equal opportunity in game. Adding those to the shop gave anyone with a fat wallet a leg up in terms of opportunity. That didn't sit well with me, especially as a subscriber.
It's run by volunteers NOW. I have no reason to doubt that after more than two year's of work the Devs will be compensated for their time. Subs are a more stable revenue stream as was mentioned above. An up-front fee plus Store means that after the initial surge of purchases, the major income will be from the Store. This means the Store will have to offer some pretty cool swag to keep players interested.
Plus, there is no way that a part-time volunteer set of Developers can even dream of keeping up with player demands for new content. It'll have to be multiple people working full-time and that means steady income is required.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
I understand that there are plans for this to go from a crowd-funded volunteer effort to a full game studio. This is the reason I paid for the kickstarter.. to give these developers the tools they need to create a game.
But when it comes to paying for access to the game and it's components, money equals speech. In consumer capitalism you buy what you like and things that supply what you're demanding do well. If they release an expansion I don't care for, I don't want to buy it. If this is free to play I have that option and can still log in and interact with the community. If the game is pay to play then I have to choose whether or not I want to even participate anymore.
I'm a fair person. I've played other games for years. They were pay to play and I paid happily BECAUSE they kept developing things I wanted. If the development stops for 3 years do YOU still want to pay for access to the game even tho that money is not being invested in the game? You'd be paying for nothing. If you want a virtual re-sale model (a product you make once and resell to as many people as possible) AND you have no initial development revenue to recapture.. then Free to Play is more than fair to compensate the developers. They don't (yet) have a company breathing down their necks to recapture lost revenue. I work with virtual venture capital.. I have seen both models. When I have clients that charge subscriptions to a resale product they lose almost all revenue for that original product in short time because it gets harder to find new people to do the same old thing. The best virtual products i've seen *Droid applications mostly* are from companies who give expandable content and charge for those expansions. This creates internal pressure for quality content releases and keeps a big emphasis on customer experience. The companies I've seen who have one idea and want to sell it with a subscription model tend to say "F*** it.. they'll forget to cancel".. until they DON'T forget to cancel.. then they're trying to quick-release the next POS that has very little actual value to the customer.
Again, we all want the game to succeed at both its philosophical goals and its financial goals. I think a free to play game is the way to get there. There is already a large amount of consumer skepticism about the product. This is much easier to change when you're not charging people just to try out this new studio using a new model of business structure. Being honest and communicative has long been an issue with MMORPGs specifically Cryptic Studios (who lives up to their name) who initially developed City of Heroes. I want this game to have the best chance of not just existence, but effecting true change by showing that it can thrive.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Buy a box for $50. Play for free with the option to sub for extra goodies that don't mean that much. Pay $15 for BIG expansions that only happen every few years.
The Guild Wars Model.
[B]Revenge is motivation enough. At least it's honest...[/B]
Roleplayer; Esteemed Villain
[img]http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/5.jpg[/img]
Yeah but that's the thing, when you buy a cash shop item, you always have that item, I don't like the idea of having to pay to play a game that I already paid for. Spending 15 dollars just to have the right to play a game for 30 days, is not a very sound investment, unless you get a lot of game play out of it, so if I don't get a lot of time out of the game during that time, I feel like I wasted my money more than I already did. Yeah it's 15 dollars, but I still want to feel like I got value out of it, cash shop items I can always say I have that item. Unless of course you played Aion, recently they took away all of the veteran and pre order and special edition in game items people bought for no reason and the devs on the forums told us to just repurchase them on the shop, which I found unacceptable.
It's not about the amount itself, but feeling like it was money well spent.
Lets talk game shop? You pay real money for virtual products.. so where do YOU assign value?
Do you prefer Free to Play or Subscription Model?
Would you pay to level faster? probably not.
Would you pay to win (stronger gear usually)? If there is an in game currency pay to win then there should be pay to win with real currency option. Market already create haves and have nots, pay to win may be a step I nthe direction of given something to those have not billions of currency players. Plus it bring extra money to the game in support of it. Pay to win whether or not real currency or in game currency through a market is the same about. Some people have billion of influence to buy the gear they want other will not. There are guides for markets, there are guides more guides than in game market, to make real money in real life. If there is a mechanic to give easy street to one set of player then it's only fair to give easy street to the other set of players instead of allowing one set to get easy street and the others kicked to the curb as if they don't exist or even matter beyond their subscription money.
Would you pay to customize (your powers work the same, and you pay for animations/FX to fit your character)- probably
Would you pay for additional character slots?- depends on the extent of the customization and power chocies. If plentiful, then more ideas which means more characters to build which means more slots needed. If power combinations are limiting then no need to buy these as then ideas will run out before slots.
Would you pay for costumes?- Some and some no. The ones that catch interest, sure. The other ones with no use, no.
- -
What would you NOT pay for?
To enter this part of town you must pay for the expansion?-depends on the price and the exent of the expansion. For another zone that is the same as the old ones, probably wouldn't bother. But something with new features, new mobs, new types of missions, sure.
To use this power set you must buy access to it?- depends on the power. Sure.
To create missions you must buy a separate architect? For a NW type mission creator, yeah, in a heart beat. For the COX type mission creator with the same response of being buried beneath farms and rating system that favored farms, no. I don't have anything against farmers but see no point in me buying something to create missions when it's simply is going to be buried beneath hordes of farms with 5 star ratings. AKA wouldn't pay to build farm missions. For free, maybe.
Pay to Customise (visuals) = yes (but Im not paying $5 (AUD) of real money to unlock a hat/wings/aura/etc for one character. All visual unlocks should be Account wide and costed at less than $1 per item with 'Sets' also available.
Character/Costume Slots = Pay (maybe also unlock with Vet Rewards over time)
Pay to Gear-Up = nope
Pay for Random = I must admit I loved the 'Collector Cards' that CoH had in late game. These can/should include almost everything you can buy from the store and be balance (so if I draw a Character Slot card the rest of my cards will have basic stuff - for example purposes only).
Pay to Level = hell no. Double XP weekend/nights/etc sure, once in a blue moon. Double-XP 'boosts' maybe from the Collector Cards or even random drops from enemies??? Not sure on this last bit...
Pay for Content (missions) = No
Pay for Powers/Clas/Spec = No - BUT lock them for the first 2 months so Subs only can get them. Or offer them to be paid for if you dont want to wait the 2 months.
Also what about F2P locked in leveling? F2P = only reach max level 35 when Max Level is 50 for Subs???
The Phoenix Rising Initiative Rules Lawyer
AIon doing that was poor form and just bad, yes, I agree, unacceptable.
However, you do get value out of the 15 dollars a month, and I've proved already it's not that expensive. And I'm someone who was okay with sub game with a cash shop. I don't mind paying for some new costume options as long as free ones are being put in.
For 15 dollars, I just took examples of many popular things to do with 15 dollars that gave you less than 2 hours worth of value, and outside of some few exceptions, It shouldn't be hard to log in for 2-6 hours a month on an MMO, and in fact, 15 dollars for that amount of time already exceeds in value most console games which are 50-60 dollars and you get 4 hours of value and then shelve the game or sell it for a 10 dollar return.
Yeah, but I ALREADY purchased the game, why the heck would I want to have to pay a subscription to be allowed to play a game I already paid money for?
I spent 60 bucks, hell lets say I got the special edition, 70 bucks minimum. Now you're telling me I should be okay with spending 15 dollars a month just to be allowed to play and if I don't, that means the game is being useless and wasting hard drive space?
I don't know..... Just thinking about it leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Especially when there's so many great free to play options out there, this game would have to give me INCENTIVE to want to subscribe. But it never will because it's stubbornly sticking to old methods and it's got a low budget.
Now everquest next, THAT I would sub to, have you seen what they're doing with it? It looks fantastic.
I'd rather just support COT through a micro transaction here and there, when it suits my fancy. Unless this game proves to be better than all the other free to play options, I would never subscribe.
Yeah it's only 15 bucks, but I can squeeze out so much more value from it than 30 days of being allowed to play a game I already bought. Case in point, steam sales, right now, lets open that baby up....
Sleeping dogs, 5 bucks, skyrim 7.50, the walking dead 6.42, outlast 7 bucks. There's humble bundles too, I was able to get battlefield 3 and dead space and 4 other games for a measely 6 bucks.
Plus all the awesome free to play games on steam, like planet side 2, freaking LOVE that game.
[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUo1PgKksgw][img]http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/bUo1PgKksgw/maxresdefault.jpg[/img][/url].
Sorry but, Gabe's got your number on the value of a dollar. *shrugs*
My thought...don't play MMOs then >_> Seriously, you just said "But I spent money on the game, shouldn't have to spend more money each month to play" then said "I'll do that for EQN"
The sub goes to paying to keep the servers up AND additional content by paying for the devs to create it. Don't need 1million players to be profitable. They just need a decent size player base and devs that actually care for/like the game they're working on (which the CoH devs seemed to, even if the players didn't always agree with what they thought the game needed in terms of how levels and content played out).
I often find those who prefer the F2P system are players who don't want to pay for the game and don't really want to spend any money on the game. I saw it in CoH when it went F2P, I see it in TERA, TOR and CO. The F2P goes on and on about how they love the game, but they have no desire to actually support it.
TOR's a great example...they downloaded the game then said "What? I don't need sprint. I don't need these other items. I don't need XP Boosts." They went on and on about how they wanted those options, but they didn't want to pay for them "What? Pay for something? In a F2P game? I just want to get the game free and play it. I don't want to put money towards it." Is something I've heard often.
Even TOR devs said it was the active subbers who were paying out money to the cash shops, not the F2Pers.
Those who sub to a MMO actually want to see their game succeed.
And your valued Steam games? Yeah, they don't generally get new content for free or free updates with a paid expansion. Yay! Bought a game for 5 dollars! Beat it in two hours! Whoot! What new game do I want to play now?!
And those Steam games are usually what? Non multiplayer or 2-4 multiplayer? :p Not the same as an MMO which even in the lousiest of MMOs tends to have a dedicated community (if it's a big enough fanbase to support it is a different story).
Again, the biggest problem is stability. With a store you will get burst income which is great. It's also paying for something you already spent money to create. Say it costs $100.00 in resources (WAY pulling numbers out of the air here btw) to design a Black Witches' Hat for the CC. The game company pays that up-front and recoups nothing until someone buys one. Tough to budget for long-reach projects that way. But with 100k subs the can expect $1,000,000.00 a month (allowing for those of us that will buy a year's worth in advance) or the equivalent. Now they know that they can budget 25% overhead, 25% salaries, 25% development or whatever.
In order to make that work they would either have to charge more for the box (scaring off many potential buyers), charge for ALL the extra stuff (pissing off the loyalists who have stuck with it this long...and maybe other players too) or release less stuff to save on costs (none of us want that).
I'm ok with sub + store for some things but I'd rather pay and forget it.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
Name one game, ONE game that still uses a subscription method besides wow? And even that you can play to level 20 for free. If I don't like subs don't play? Well you know what? I stopped and so did well, most other people. Look around you man, very few people actually want to pay a subscription any more. As for the steam games, are you serious? Unless you use the carrying and torch glitch to speed run, you can't beat skyrim in 2 hours. I mean heck, I got over 300 hours of game play on fallout newvegas, and I still haven't even seen every single thing the game has in it.
You make it sound like mmo's are just an endless fountain of content, they're not, you repeat things and missions all the time, that's why they started adding in things like daily quests in wow and pvp in the first place, keep things interesting.
Besides I said I was willing to buy the base game and support it through purchasing bonus things, not pay to win mind you. Look at league of legends, it uses a microtransaction system alone and makes tons and tons of money, same with DOTA 2, and you can technically play those games without spending a dime and it doesn't really take away from the experience. Do I NEED swag to enhance the game? No, but sometimes when I got a little extra cash I'll support a game to customize my look more.
Valve can afford to hold tournaments with million dollar rewards, they didn't need a subscription base, they don't to even charge for the base game, and they run servers to host thousands and thousands of matches every hour and update the game frequently.
Guild wars 2 only charges you for the base game, and has no subscription, with microtransactions, and it's doing great for itself.
I personally spend money on micro transactions for f2p games I like. I've done it with league, dota 2, planet side 2, swtor, rift and tera.
I'm not even saying the game has to be totally f2p, I just don't think it's wise to make the game subscription based, especially when the game will give new players absolutely NO reason to want to subscribe with all the f2p options that were made with a higher budget.
Also, LOTS of steam games are multiplayer, hundreds of them man, a lot of free to play games as well.
You should try to do a bit of research, no offense. :p
As I was saying before too, I got dead space 3 and battlefield 3, I can get countless hours of entertainment from battlefield 3, I've already put 120 hours into it, that's a lot of bang for my buck.
The proof is in the pudding, major game devs are moving away from subs, more are proving you can make a profit without it, if people enjoy a game, they will support it with a good, none pay to win shop.
It's an antiquated business model that very few people want any more, face the facts.
Eve Online is an example that springs to mind. Sure, there is an alternative method of keeping your subscription active (buying game time that other players have put on the market, to give you a subscription status), but there is NO "no subscription and still play" option for it.
Also The Elder Scrolls Online and Wildstar Online are also going to (at least start with) a subscription only setup (Wildstar Online is also going
Yeah, but my point remains valid, they're a minority.
Plus with ESO, they're using real time combat, my subscription would go towards maintaining servers to support a more advanced engine for an mmo.
You guys would have to do some serious convincing that COT, a game that doesn't even have a million dollar budget that plans to use a super antiquated game design, would be worth me paying a subscription.
Not just me, but the general market.
Unless of course you think a few thousand (generous numbers probably) people paying a sub will be enough to not only keep the game running, but actually be enough to update the game at more than half a snails pace.
I look at it this way, sub only, lets say, 2k people do this, you might make 30k a month, MAYBE. Reality check, a nice sports bar, a SINGLE one, could put your monthly profits to SHAME.
Now, lets say, 10k people on board because of no sub, maybe even totally f2p. Lets say you use option sub with members benifits, base cost for the game, microtransactions. Lets say the same amount subscribe, so 30k, then lets say just 20 precent of those people spend 5 dollars a month on in game items. You'd be making roughly 10k, off of the free to play players that individually, spent a third that the sub players did, while 80% of them spent absolutely nothing.
See what I'm getting at?
You're not gonna draw the people in who didn't want to spend money, and that's MORE people paying players have to interact with who can in turn encourage people to spend money.
Again, you're forgetting the whole reason we're here. Many of us are here because we like many things about CoX. We all admit, the game had serious issues. We're trying to fix those. However we're also trying to keep the aspects of the game we liked. Even with all of the bumps and butthurt over bad decisions by Devs and management, CoX had a fairly steady player base of 150k subscribers. I got no idea how many players were registered after they went F2P but at the rate content started coming out I'd say they did pretty well
So why not a hybrid model like CoX had? Those that are willing to sub get all the bling included. On the months that we get nothing new, we don't grouse because when stuff DOES come out we're covered. Those that want F2P can buy the game and play for free monthly, unlocking extra bling with microtransactions. There...everyone is happy.
I can understand why you don't want to pay a sub. If I thought I could get the same game without paying a sub then I would...but I don't. If you want to go F2P then so be it. However stop trying to sell us on your method of thinking as if it's the only way out there. You're quoting numbers that don't really mean anything and using them as proof of your argument. For all any of us know CoT will launch with the same 150k players that lamented when CoX crashed...or it could be just the 5k who donated to the Kickstarter. None of us know.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
Eve Online, ESO, WS, and Final Fantasy XIV. So there's a 4th for ya. ;)
And to go with something Comicsluvr said in another thread. Some people like to grief. You know what limits griefers? Having to pay to do it :p
Also, I think you greatly underestimate how many people will give CoT a chance. If it can be a decent MMO, I think the very fact that it's created by volunteers hoping to not only finish it, but be the start of their own game studio if successful, will be a big hype for them, and one gamers will likely jump in on to see just how well this game made up by gamers who had to risk success by volunteering will do.
Let's also look at some past Sub only, turned to F2P. TOR failed not because of being a subscription model. It failed because it's unique selling point was individual storylines for the classes. Which yes, was great! Sadly, it's only a small part of the leveling process. The rest of the leveling process was running the same content over and over with no alternate paths.
It's one thing to run some of the same quests over, it's another when you're basically running THE SAME ones 4 times over on each side.
Not to mention, no sidekicking or mission sharing. Want to run that low level flashpoint (TOR version of Taskforce) with a high level friend? The high level friend didn't exemp down so you gained xp. It basically became a "yay! Free loot!"
I'd say it was that lack of mission sharing/exempting that hurt TERA Online as well (and it's crafting system). To games that could've been great, but I couldn't run with my friends unless I totally set aside my characters when they weren't on.
In the case of TERA I had 5 characters. One I soloed, one to duo with each friend, and one to run with all three at once. Sadly that was an utter failure as 3 out of 4 of us on? That just meant a new combination to run THAT!
I don't mind the soloable content, but when people play together, they do want to keep getting xp. :p
Isn't any talk about not having a subscription model a moot point, given that some of the Kickstarter pledge rewards were months of subscription? Seems to me a done deal that CoT will have a subscription model. Also that the game will require an initial purchase, based on the $50 pledge reward of a full copy of the game.
Now, what options there may be for F2P after buying the game, that seems to be the only aspect that is still up in the air.
Spurn all ye kindle.
All kickstarter products came with a disclaimer about the possibility of things not actually happening. It's not a store. It's a crowd-funded model to support a commercial project/product. I bought a costume texture.. but if the game is never released as a MMORPG theres a chance I won't get that.. and that is a very real possibility.
- -
Comparing a static server to Everquest Next is apples and oranges.
This game will likely have a "server reset" where servers all go back to homeostasis.
This will not be AT ALL happening in Everquest Next. Their servers are a perpetual world of permanent change. I am willing to pay for access to that because the product is in continual change.
What will be different in Titan City if the developers do not implement it from launch day to close day? Largely nothing.
- -
Nothing would make me happier than if CoT used a permanent change perpetual world server. I would gladly pay (and likely pay ALOT) for access. But I am wanting to pay for what I get. They created the world.. ok I'll be willing to pay a "entry fee" like they did in guild wars. But I am not going to support a recurring payment structure for a static product.
- -
Brand X wrote:
I often find those who prefer the F2P system are players who don't want to pay for the game and don't really want to spend any money on the game. I saw it in CoH when it went F2P, I see it in TERA, TOR and CO. The F2P goes on and on about how they love the game, but they have no desire to actually support it.
This myth has been flatly disproven by economics.[/quote]
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Maybe for some MMOs, not all. TOR devs themselves said it was the subs paying the most into the cash shop, unless that's changed in the last few months.
Well you're still not selling me on the subscription only model. Because you're trying to convince me that purposely alienated people, is a good thing. Besides don't think you if there was an option to subscribe, the people who intended to any way would? Are you saying if it was optional you wouldn't subscribe?
Besides if this is subscribe only, it will mean that I could never convince my RL friends or my online friends to play it, so ONCE AGAIN, I'll have absolutely no one to play the game with.
So I'll be supporting a game where my opinion doesn't matter and I get to only play it with you guys..... yeaaaaaaaaaaaah that sounds so fun......
If the game never comes about, yes, we stand to lose our investments. In that case, all discussion of design ends up being kinda pointless anyway. But if the project is completed, they are obligated to give us the rewards promised. Here's a quote from the KS FAQ (http://www.kickstarter.com/help/faq/kickstarter%20basics):
"Is a creator legally obligated to fulfill the promises of their project?
Yes. Kickstarter's Terms of Use require creators to fulfill all rewards of their project or refund any backer whose reward they do not or cannot fulfill."
If they don't go with a sub model after promising us sub rewards, they will be in rather a pickle.
Just from my own anecdotal experience I agree with you here. I can't claim this is necessarily representative of the whole, but most of the people I knew in CoX who went F2P when they had the chance (and raved about it) then inexplicably spent MORE per month on the store than the monthly subscription fee.
Spurn all ye kindle.
Subscription has it's ups and downs, and so do free to play.
Free to play, well it allows many people to try it for free, now the issue is if free to play gives too much, then people will not subscribe very much, such as in COX, the population from what I hear was high in the 80,000 to up to hig has 150,000 people but yet the income stayed low. People wasn't spending there was no incentive to. On the flip side give too little free to play becomes meaningless. Now ain days, free to play is near standard expectation. Because people want to try before they buy and would like to play during those "slow months". Plus it is easier to convince friends to play a game, when they don't have to pay subscription, which even if they personally find it to not their cup of tea, may know others that would like it and pass it along.
Subscription plus side is that with subscription it means every single player pull their own weight at least $15 a month. No free loaders, no one playing the game for free not spending a dime but scratching their head when the financial reports come in and say the game is not bringing in good money. But at the same time many people play multiple games and if they have to pay 15 a pop that adds up and smaller games they otherwise would have checked out get left out. Especially now and days.
On a side, note, I can see how you feel that your opnion don't matter. Hell, truthfully, the same popular people opinion is usually given more weight and the rest can bugger off. Been like that in COX community for a while. Hopefully eventually, everyone opion matters, and people can feel like they can contribute without feeling tense. Subscription or not, when it seems like only certain people's opinion matter and the rest don't, then that is more damaging than whetehr pure free to play or pure subscriptions can ever do. At the same times though, patience. Some people are not used to dealing with differing opinions yet. Many are working on it. And some unfortunately will always say, "My way my opinion is worth more than everyone else and any other opinion is irrelevant". The issue come is when people listen to only those people then when things fall through, first thing cried out is NCSOFT shill undercover sabotage!" When it's reality it is themselves shooting themselves in the foot by being closed minded. Many good ideas within this community have been overlooked and ignored simply because the person wasn't popular. And one of the reasons the shut down seemed like a "surpise" to them. People been talking about the state of the game and NCSOFT habit of shutting down games at least since 2010. But it wasn't backed by the popular people and thus ignored. Now, that popular people have jumped on the bandwagon it's expected everyone feel the same way they do and act like they came across a new idea and enlightenment about NCSOFT or else they are NCSOFT shill.
Well how about this? I was suggesting a hybrid system that planet side 2 uses, but you can also combine it with cox's veteran rewards program.
You could even have a base cost for the game, like 40-50 bucks.
But if you decide to subscribe, it comes with monthly rewards and store discounts. The veteran rewards can be exclusives you can only get through subscribing and have levels of rewards the longer you subscribe. Also give a modest amount of in game credits each month, so not only are they getting weekly members only discounts on store items, they can just let their credits pile and use them on sales while letting the veteran reward swag fall on them.
I'd probbaly subscribe if they did that. I was subscribed to SWTOR when it went f2p for a few months. I only stopped playing it because my friends suddenly got bored with it.
There's lots of things you can give to subscribers that wont break that game, just a way for the devs for saying, thank you for supporting the game more.
You get the best of both worlds that way.
Indeed.
MWM has already stated that the intention is that there will a purchase price for the game and the option to pay a subscription or to play for free. The subscription will grant the subscriber an in-game currency / store credit stipend that has greater value than the cost of the subscription.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
Which then raises the question of "is the subscription the best "value for money" points wise? or can i get a better return in "points Vs dollars spent" by buying more points in bulk quantity?
If you look at how CoX did it, their "points value" included with the sub fee was also roughly 1/3rd of the subscription fee. But getting points that way was not the most "cost effective" method.... and although it unlocked quite a lot of restrictions the ONLY thing that was fully locked out to the non subscriber was the incarnate content.
Also, how would this work with multi month subscriptions? Would you get all of your points handed to you in one go, or would they be doled out on a month by month basis? (ie buy a years sub, but you get your "total points allocation" spread out over the course of the year....
Simplest way I can think of to run things (not necessarily the best, just the simplest) is that monthly subscriptions do not have any stipend to them whatsoever. In other words, subscriptions do not "pay out" store currency at all. Instead, the number of months you have been [b]subscribed continuously[/b] ... with no lapses ... ratchets up a discount in the game store by +10% per month ... up to a maximum of a 100% discount (at which point items in the game store are "free" to the subscriber). If your subscription lapses, for whatever reason, your account will ratchet down by -10% steps on your store discount immediately, and then by another -10% per month that you are continuously unsubscribed until reaching 0% discount.
Basic idea is a Loyalty Program whereby continuous subscribers, after 10 months, basically no longer need to worry about currency for the game store, because they have effectively "paid" for everything in the store with their 10+ month subscriptions already. As a Loyal Subscriber, you're given access to everything in the store, for free, as a reward. Note that this means that such a reward is available to "everyone" who is loyal to the game for almost a year, which is not "too long a time frame" so as to make it feel like something that is beyond the horizon of waiting for the patient.
Now, obviously, if you take that to its logical extreme and have an item in the store that can impact the in-game economy (such as reward packs or itemization you can trade or services you can trade, such as respec tokens) you're going to have a problem. But there are limitations that can be put on such things (Bind on Pickup being the most obvious example) if you stick to a "freebie" rule for loyal subscribers. Another alternative would be to limit the discount on such store offerings such that even subscribers need to pay additional real money for such items, but still get a decent/steep discount on them (up to half their normal discount, so up to 50% off maximum?). In other words, there would be ways to "finesse" such things ... even up to doing things like "get only 1 free every 20/44/68/92 hours" for store offerings that can be bought repeatedly (such as reward packs) so as to moderate how quickly such offerings might be able to flood the in game economy. That way, loyal subscribers have no upper limit on quantity of freebie offerings they can get, so long as they remain continuously subscribed over time, because those continuous subscriptions are "steady money" for MWM.
The net result of such a system would be that anything and everything in the game is available FOR FREE to subscribers, so long as they are patient enough to wait to get them for free (by paying their subscriptions continuously with no lapses), thus offering not only an incentive to subscribe, but also an incentive to stay subscribed for the long(er) haul. However, if patience is NOT a virtue, then store offerings can be purchased faster at the expense of (additional) real money. So long as the store offerings fall into the category of "nice to have" rather than being "necessary to win" you'll manage to avoid creating a "Pay To Win" model of gameplay.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
I REALLY like this idea Redlynne! Not only does it reward the loyal, but players who have to drop for some reason (going to do my two weeks Reserve...no time to play in March) can let it lapse a month and only have to lose a small amount of their discount. Hell, people gone 5 months still have 50% off and can get back their status after 5 months back. F2P people never have to worry as they can just use the Store.
I agree on the P2W warning though...definitely want to stay away from that.
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
Yeah, screw pay to win, that's why I quit mech warrior online.
In order to avoid something, you need to first know that the potential is there so as to [b]avoid[/b] blundering into it, even if only accidentally/unintentionally.
[center][img=44x100]https://i.imgur.com/sMUQ928.gif[/img]
[i]Verbogeny is one of many pleasurettes afforded a creatific thinkerizer.[/i][/center]
I hadn't heard this. Can you link to the announcement?
Anyhow.. sounds fair enough to me.
I do not believe fairness is the only gauge here. I have to view this as a consumer and say:
"this is a very new type of game studio and there are a lot more unknown variables."
"Hmm.. THere are a lot of free to play games.. I don't know about paying for this one from a studio I've know nothing about"
Consumer confidence about the product is very low. I look forward to that perception changing but you really shouldn't pretend that it's not a factor. I come from the finance world and there's just a lot about the pay to play model that does not sit well.. just my opinion.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
"quote "JayBezz I have to view this as a consumer and say:
"this is a very new type of game studio and there are a lot more unknown variables."
"Hmm.. THere are a lot of free to play games.. I don't know about paying for this one from a studio I've know nothing about"
Consumer confidence about the product is very low. I look forward to that perception changing but you really shouldn't pretend that it's not a factor. I come from the finance world and there's just a lot about the pay to play model that does not sit well.. just my opinion." end quote
That is a bingo. ... Or is it just Bingo?
I lack consumer confidence on the big companies.
What?
Consumer confidence is low? About City of Titans?
I went to the finance world once, it was terrible.
WTF do you win when you P2W?
I want a sub and a cash shop. What the cash shop sells is obviously up for debate but if it sells team insps, super insps, IO's, super IO's.. I do not have a problem with that. These were all things CoX had for sale and they enhanced my game when I felt like purchasing them.
If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev
I do recall that this was mentioned in the IRC chat. I do not recall if there is any KS or forum post that states as much so, no, I have nothing to link.
I have no doubt that MWM is going to be as fair as they can be. I also understand that fairness is highly subjective and that, in any event, the needle can't point entirely in the direction of the players. I don't think anyone here wants them to cut the line so close that they're forced to count pennies every month to be certain that they can cover the bills.
- - - - -
[font=Pristina][size=18][b]Hail Beard![/b][/size][/font]
Support [url=http://cityoftitans.com/comment/52149#comment-52149]trap clowns[/url] for CoT!
You and me both.
I didn't say pay to win. I in no way want pay to win. I said Pay to Play is a considerable barrier to the average consumer in the state of Online Games today. Just requiring an X-Box Live account has shifted my entire friend group over to PS4 (Not to Mention X-Box's Draconian idea to end used games).
I WORK in finance and have released numerous virtual products to the marketplace. Yes consumer confidence is low about the product and that's no fault of the developers .. SO many kickstarter products have been funded successfully and not seen daylight. And many have pointed out that 650K is not enough to create a fully funded AAA MMORPG.
MWM has plans to deal with these issues, and they are rightly not for the consumers ears. But skepticism is high and there's no sense pretending it doesn't exist.
Acknowledge the potential problem; find the best solution.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
Yep.
One solution that never solves problems is the solution of pretending it don't exist.
and many more have pointed out that a) yes it is and b) - oh wait, see a
Why would you pretend skepticism doesn't exist?
Anyway, it's not high, I checked and it's actually below average.
I've released tons of product.
My question of what you win when you pay to win was general. I mean what do you win? Seriously, someone tell me, it's clearly a burning question, what's the prize?
Pay to Play is not a considerable barrier to CoX players.
I'm not sure what the potential problem is here, some freeloaders want to play for free and not pay for anything because paying is paying to play and / or win (but not so much win).. is that the problem?
If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev
^THIS! The players of CoH who are looking for a "spiritual successor" to CoH P2P. :p
I'm very much in the "buy the box, then pay the sub camp"
I stretched a point to get powersets because.......well I have this thing for powersets.
But I really never cared for any of the f2p models, or microtransactions.
-joe
Repeat Offender
Tank Addict
Homeless.
I .. declare my freedom from unacceptable, stupid, nefarious, unworthy, despicable, extortionist subscription fees.Single player which is totally anti-social.. pay-to-win which is totally lame and turn my back on grinding which is artificially lengthening gameplay and crush evil with my brain control powers..
.. what.. it's a good oath.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
A person can play solo and be social. That is what chat channels are for. And a person can team and be anti-social by not saying a dang thing, not even a grunt, to the other players.
Being a CO player my biggest problem with the P2P model with no sub is that it's a slippery slope. At first you have your sub and everything but major expansions is free. Then you allow F2P and that's fine because they get a reduced version of the game for free but not all of the bling. Subbers still get it all. Then P2P creeps in and now even subbers have to pay for the things that used to be free for them.
Better to never start the trend IMHO.
Subbers get it all except major expansions.
F2P get a truncated version of the game and pay for what they want.
IMHO anything else is one bad marketing decision away from selling Auras for Zen and locking them per character instead of per account. Sorry for the CO reference but those players are mighty steamed...
I remember when Star Wars was cool...a long, long time ago...
I rather pay a monthly subscription. I rather the monthly payment be the main source of income the game allowing all players to have no advantage over others that have bought items.
I do see how buying custom skins, Fx, or animations would be a great way for people to feel as if the character is individual.
i would rather see players who have earned those additions because of completing tough objectives, obtaining high stats, or saved enough points, giving other players in game of how well of a Titan that Hero or Villian is or to scare the living shlt out of the enemy during PvP. (e.g. that guys has "Cape of Rape" RUUUNN!)
Even though F2P is a great idea it would only create an emphasis on a Cash Shop creating players who Bought their Skill instead of actually having.
Pvp is the heart and soul.
I Cannot Be Anymore Patient.
Champoins Online: "We take content away and sell it back to you. But you don't care" PWE is likely positioning to sell Champions Online off. It's just not a revenue generator (even if it is stable enough to substantiate its existence)
- -
Screw that. Go the guild wars 2 model. Charge me X amount to get access to the game and all its glory. Then add a cash shop based on the economics of gaming.
If you charge me for access to your game. Don't be surprised when I take absence from your game because I find your subscription price to no longer be worth it just to log in.
When you release a new piece of development that I am willing to use, by all means charge me for it. But mistake my loyalty for market stupidity. I am spending real cash and if there is no work being done by the devs to warrant X amount per month.. there will be many months where I simply do not play the game. And because there would (in this scenario) be a lot of time that I spend invested OUTSIDE of this game I will not likely spend $ for the cash shop in this game as I will only be able to access the items I bought (through the cash shop) when I'm willing to shell out for the monthly fee.
Crowd Control Enthusiast
I agree with Redlynnes model but..
If you charge me $10 a month to play, I'll likely just pay that and play and not buy $2 worth of something stupid/useful/whatever from the cash shop.
If you charge me $12 to play and it includes $2 shop spend, I'd be ok with that.
If you didn't allow me to save that money up and spend it on the expansion.. I'd not be ok with that.
I for one am happy to pay a sub and have a cash shop if it allows f2p a way in to the game. I don't see a sub as being a lot of money comparatively speaking and I see it as a way of keeping out the bottom feeders that have infested other f2p games.
If people won't pay enough to finance its creation, it is not worth creating.
/Segev
P2P! P2P! I've done the math!
5 Dollars for a Caramel Machiato! Less than 30mins enjoyment! Three of them a month equals 15 dollars!
15 Dollars for a months sub...50 cents a day!
Arcades...25-50cents for a few minutes of game time.
Basically, if 15 dollars a month is the sub cost, and one can play just a few hours a month, then they got their money's worth! If they play more than a few hours a month, it really just sells itself!
Though could go Wildstar's route of P2P with an option to for players to buy and sell game time in the auction house.
Pay for power kills F2P games, at least for me.
Experience penalties and content restriction do the same thing.
However ingame and irl swag are always awesome. (Costume pieces, Minis, etc.)
As are convenience items like portable bank and auction house access always rock.
As do extra character slots (As long as F2P players have a reasonable amount of slots to begin with 2-6 based on the impact of alts in the game. So 4-6 here)
Party favors and flavor emotes (Not essential emotes like cry or dance[Though some dances could be considered flavor as long as theirs a base dance]) are cool.
Good is not something you are, its something you do.
I think I prefer the "Buy the Box" model the devs are looking to go with. You pay money up front for 3 month's subscription, and you have to option of subbing or going Free 2 Play after that. This "paywall" will limit certain activities somewhat (goldselling - or at the very least the goldsellers will have to pay MWM to ban them) while providing some benefit to the consumer (they get 3 months of sub including all benefits like the store stipend and a taste of the goodies contained within).
If this game is as good as I hope it will be I'd gladly pay a Sub. As long as they make sure they have a constant stream of goodies flowing in the store that is. If not I'll F2P and pick something up every now and then if it catches my eye.
Besides - it's unclear if CoT will have enough items in the store at launch to really make a go at pure F2P - and personally - I don't want to be nickel and dimed for every little thing. That's why I generally avoid many F2P games.
No, and I'm not sure we will really NEED this stuff anyway - from the descriptions the devs are giving part of the fun of the game WILL BE levelling - there's not going to be this mad dash to max level to start the "real game"/raids or whatever.
No - not a fan of this. I don't mind getting stronger stats through systems available to everyone in-game (crafting, loot drops, accolades, etc.).
I'll just put these together because they are essentially the same thing. In short - yes I would pay for these items because I think it will be a necessity due to development times and costs (artists and animators aren't cheap) and due to the demand these will generate in a game like this. Not to mention the pick-and-choose nature of these items is perfect for a store. I think we all know that this kind of stuff will be a big money-maker for MWM, so as long as the costs aren't ridiculous (I'm looking at you Marvel Heroes) I'd gladly shell out some cash/stipend for this stuff.
I'd rather not see this - my worry would be fracturing the playerbase. Certain small zones that would not greatly affect the gameplay of the rest of the players? Maybe.
Hmm - I'm unsure - it could possibly help curb too much farming mish abuse, while the people really interested in creating their own stories would be willing to pay and use it. I'm open to other arguments. Hmm - how about a limited/scaled down architect for free but a full-featured one for a little cash? Not sure.
Basically - I like the ideas the devs have to the "Buy the Box" model they are proposing. I wouldn't mind paying for character customization items (slots, powers, "skins", etc.) and certain account-level stuff. "Pay to win" should not be in any game whatsoever - it's toxic to the game as a whole. I'm not really supportive of paying for access to public zones and wary of paying for missions - these would be less fun if only a few people have access to these. As for the Mission Builder - I can see some advantage to having a paywall but I am open to arguments against.
I am on the side of what DC Universe Online did. F2P with expansions in the marketplace with subscribers getting an all access pass. What I ABSOLUTELY do NOT approve us is a separate form of currency. "Oh this costs 299 credits.. I can only buy 500 at a time... So WUUUUUUUUUUUT do I do with the other 201 credits? let it sit there and do bugger all." Just have everything be an amount in currency. If you are 100% set in setting up a separate form of currency then at least make the amount to purchase adjustable. "Oh this costs 360 credits, then I'll pay $3.60 dollars for 360 credits and buy it." I have 17 station cash from DCUO saved up, 303 credits from Archeage chillin' out by the bungalow and plenty more scattered through other MMO's in-game currency model probably totaling up to $30, WHICH (I would like to add) COULD NET ME 6 PIZZAS FROM LITTLE CAESARS!
"You don't want to know what happens after I put on the goggles" - Chandra Nalaar