No free to play option?

123468

Comments

  • TobimasterTobimaster Member UncommonPosts: 2
    Ledrir said:
    I have heard that there is no free to play option and I am a little concerned about this.  I realize that some people see this as a cover charge that keeps out the trouble makers.  Maybe that is true, however I wonder how many people will pay $15 without some way of trying the game out to see if they like it.

    What if the free to play players were used in a way that strengthens the game?  I do not know what the max player limit for a server is but lets say its a little over 3000.  However, during some parts of the day the server will have less than 2000 players on it?  CSE could allow free to play players to log in to any server that has less than 2000 currently playing on it.  If the population goes over 2000 then no new free to play players can log on.  If the server goes over 2500 then the game forces free to players on over 3 hours to log out.

    This would help in two ways.  It would give people a chance to try the game out for free to see if they like it.  It would also help to prop up populations on any server that is currently below its desired player size.


    @Ledrir If they would to this free/premium model the free people would get the feel of being ranked down in the game and would hate premium users because of that. Also more players would not pay anymore and many servers will be low populated while the free users start hating CSE for not adding more servers.
  • ShinimasShinimas Member UncommonPosts: 64
    I remember them saying that it might be lower than the usual 60 upfront, 15 a month. The game will certainly be extremely niche if it charges the premium price, so maybe there's some truth to that, unless they're satisfied with staying very small.
  • RobokappRobokapp Dublin, OHMember RarePosts: 5,897
    Shinimas said:
    I remember them saying that it might be lower than the usual 60 upfront, 15 a month. The game will certainly be extremely niche if it charges the premium price, so maybe there's some truth to that, unless they're satisfied with staying very small.
    If they're very good they'll come.

    image

  • FlyinDutchman87FlyinDutchman87 London MIlls, ILMember UncommonPosts: 288
    Robokapp said:

    If they're very good they'll come.

    /Agree

    Honestly it's nearly 15$ to even get a decent pizza anymore, I think the lack of success of P2P games has more to do with the games than it does with the price.  
  • ScorchienScorchien Hatboro, PAMember EpicPosts: 3,947
    Zubeii said:
    There will be an Open Beta to try the game before you buy it. There will also be a trial account you can use a month or so after the game launches.

    Also, I am getting tired of people putting all the blame on WAR on MJ. EA is not breathing down his neck this time.
      LmFAO , breathing down his neck FFS , sympathizers are so bad ... EA gave him plenty of time and money to get the job done and still a year after launch he still couldnt deliver before he was erhmmm  relieved of his job ... He bit off more than he could chew ,Promised more than he could deliver, refused to listen to the community in CB1 and 2 ... Failed miserably and was dismissed , the team he left behind also still couldnt deliver on content and bug fixes 4 years later .... 

       I seriously have doubts he delivers  all he is promoting with CU ( waiting to see classes etc  being dropped)

               That being said , i do actually hope he can succeed , the vision  is great , BUTY we have seen that many times by many devs fall short ..

         But props to them for not promoting the F2P
  • francis_baudfrancis_baud Member RarePosts: 208
    Scorchien said:
    [...] That being said , i do actually hope he can succeed , the vision  is great , BUTY we have seen that many times by many devs fall short ..

    But props to them for not promoting the F2P
    I have also seen many studios that failed to deliver on their promises or simply canceled the game. Frequently those games were crowdfunded projects. I think that the lack of funding and the inclination to rush the development to cash in more quickly were the 2 principal causes of the debacle.

    In the case of CU however, from what I've understood they've got enough money (from the crowdfunding, the investor and Mark's own money) to continue the development for a long time and they're willing to take the time it takes and hire more developers to make a great game.

    I'm pretty confident that they'll deliver on their promises and create a truly awesome game of very high quality, something we've not seen in a long time.
  • ILLISETILLISET Member CommonPosts: 2
    I would much rather have a monthly charge than not have a monthly charge.  The quality of MMO is always so much better when they have subscription requirements. Plus,l it will keep the Pleb's out.
  • NanfoodleNanfoodle Member EpicPosts: 7,600
    AngryElf said:
    Helps deter gold spammers, unless of course they're using stolen CC#s.  Should still keep the RMTs lower than typical F2P. 
    That wont keep out gold spammers. I have seen some games where they have bypassed having an account and just hacked the chat system. I know myself its unlikely I would playing this game without at least a trial. If people go bonkers on their reviews, I will drop cash without trying it. So maybe I will buy it without a trial.... maybe.



  • Loke666Loke666 KalmarMember EpicPosts: 20,780
    ILLISET said:
    I would much rather have a monthly charge than not have a monthly charge.  The quality of MMO is always so much better when they have subscription requirements. Plus,l it will keep the Pleb's out.
    That isn't exactly true, we seen a lot of doubtful P2P games during the years and even Wow had far too long between updates at certain times.

    A good game can charge monthly fees and it might be an advantage since more then a few of CUs potential playerbase are tired of cash shop heavy F2P scams but it is not the payment model that is the deciding factor.

    With P2P we do expect a far better support and frequent updates and that they need to deliver. If they do the game have potential even if I doubt it top 1M players. But we do need some games that focus smaller and offer a great experience for a particular playerbase instead of a broad general mediocrity. 
  • ShinimasShinimas Member UncommonPosts: 64
    Loke666 said:
    ILLISET said:
    I would much rather have a monthly charge than not have a monthly charge.  The quality of MMO is always so much better when they have subscription requirements. Plus,l it will keep the Pleb's out.
    That isn't exactly true, we seen a lot of doubtful P2P games during the years and even Wow had far too long between updates at certain times.

    A good game can charge monthly fees and it might be an advantage since more then a few of CUs potential playerbase are tired of cash shop heavy F2P scams but it is not the payment model that is the deciding factor.

    With P2P we do expect a far better support and frequent updates and that they need to deliver. If they do the game have potential even if I doubt it top 1M players. But we do need some games that focus smaller and offer a great experience for a particular playerbase instead of a broad general mediocrity. 
    If it reaches 1 million concurrent subscribers it will be a huge success. Even 100k isn't very likely 6 months into release.
  • codecorsaircodecorsair Member CommonPosts: 1
    edited December 2016
    Looks like this topic is still going on... I haven't read every page so I'm not sure if this has been said or not...

    Camelot Unchained will have an Open Beta period prior to launch that will be available for the public to try the game out for free before we launch.

    In addition, we have talked about doing free trials though that is not confirmed at this time but it is something that is very possible.

    ~JB
    Post edited by codecorsair on
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAMember EpicPosts: 7,613
    Shinimas said:
    I remember them saying that it might be lower than the usual 60 upfront, 15 a month. The game will certainly be extremely niche if it charges the premium price, so maybe there's some truth to that, unless they're satisfied with staying very small.

    do you remember that?
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • NixishNixish The Woodlands, TXMember UncommonPosts: 185
    Maybe I've grown old and stubborn, but I havent given a F2P game a go in years. 

    An MMO with a monthly sub model tends to improve the game to retain and grow the population. F2P developers tend to churn out as much eye candy or power grabs as possible while leaving the core game stagnant.

    I simply do not trust companies that use the F2P model. I also have a disdain for a lot of the people who play them. They tend to be a younger more impatient crowd.

    Yeah yeah, theres a lot of generalizations in here based on my experience. I will stick with my gut and only play sub model games.
  • KanethKaneth Member UncommonPosts: 2,263
    ILLISET said:
    I would much rather have a monthly charge than not have a monthly charge.  The quality of MMO is always so much better when they have subscription requirements. Plus,l it will keep the Pleb's out.
    This has been proven false time and time again for years now. Very few games can succeed in the monthly sub foray, especially games that are niche games. CU will most likely be a mostly niche game. I really want CU to succeed, but I worry about the sub keeping many potential players away. There are far too many B2P games out there, and many outside of the mmorpg.com forums seemingly are tired of "renting the game" on a monthly basis.
  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaMember EpicPosts: 12,975
    Kaneth said:
    ILLISET said:
    I would much rather have a monthly charge than not have a monthly charge.  The quality of MMO is always so much better when they have subscription requirements. Plus,l it will keep the Pleb's out.
    This has been proven false time and time again for years now. Very few games can succeed in the monthly sub foray, especially games that are niche games. CU will most likely be a mostly niche game. I really want CU to succeed, but I worry about the sub keeping many potential players away. There are far too many B2P games out there, and many outside of the mmorpg.com forums seemingly are tired of "renting the game" on a monthly basis.
    3 things 
    1 My top 5 list of all time and still to this day are all subscription,so i beg to differ.
    2 Games cannot cut it now in the sub market because they are crap games,simple as that,how could you possibly ask a sub fee for a crap game,of course it doesn't work.
    3 f2p is NEVER a fair system,it relies on populating  it's game where it normally would have a low pop and just die,so it is more a marketing ploy than anything good for the game itself.

    Biggest problem right now is not even clones or monetary system,it is a market flooded with a boatload of crappy low budget developers.
    You put crappy ingredients into the mix,you end up with food nobody wants to eat.However present it well,market it well and a bunch of dumb asses will surely at least buy it to find out it is not worth eating.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member RarePosts: 4,325
    edited January 1
    Thane said:
    I think that $60 package includes beta access.  There is a $35 package which includes one month sub.
    the 60$ offer included beta 1 access, which is either running already, or soon to start.
    the 35$ offer has beta 2 which will start after 1, obviously :)

    atm the game is in it's base state tho, personally i am eagerly waiting for beta 2 :proud: 

    The game also has a B2P with no subscription option. OK technically its $1 a year after 36 months but you get the drift.

    Games cost significant money to develop and set-up. Paying money upfront gives developers the money early when they need it.

    Servers cost a lot less than they did. Fundamentally $15 a month (or whatever) will either be paying off debt - if they didn't get enough money upfront - or it will be profit. Evidence? Buy a lifetime package and there is no sub! (The $1 is to cover KS stuff not servers.)

    Subs however turn a lot of people off. People get the idea that the game "cost $60" and they feel that "$15" is way more than is needed to run the servers. So they don't buy the game. And no amounts of "I spend $x on a cup of coffee" posts will change that.

    CU, imo, would have more chance if it dumped the monthly sub and introduced a "hire purchase" model. Game costs $275 say (Warrior 2.0 + Lifetime). You can pay $275 upfront in one go or $80 followed by 12 monthly payments of $20 for a total cost of $320. (Or whatever).

    No suggestion of the game only costing $60. No suggestion of paying $15 just to pad a companies profits. And if they sell lots of copies and get lots of money they have options: get rich!, reduce the price, make extra content, maybe refund some money to backers. (You would go down this route hoping to sell many more copies thereby making even more money of course).

    Fundamentally such a move would shift the narrative. CU would no longer be a "subscription" game - with all the negatives attached - but a B2P, play forever game (with an option of spreading the purchase price!)

    After all its only $275 the cost of ........ 





    Post edited by gervaise1 on
  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member RarePosts: 4,325
    Realizer said:
    Scorchien said:
    <snip>
    DAoC was made in 1999 .. lol .. you realize those hopes of yours dont project forward to todays market ... Its no where near enough ...
     You do realize that gaming salaries haven't gone up much from 1999 right? The average dev was making about $45K a year, the same holds true now, some of them make upwards of $70k but that's only at AAA companies, and it's also rare. Project managers make more of course, but they always did. Again too many gamers don't understand how money equates to a game. It depends on who you're paying and the quality of work that pay gets you. If you're paying $70k plus a year but your devs suck, you'll go no where, similarly if you pay $40k a year and your devs are amazing, you'll have a great game.

    Edit: Ive said this before, but it seems to me many gamers talk as if these companies are putting cash into a vending machine and a game pops out. That's not how it works, individual coders work together to create a game, the money goes to putting food on their families table, not some imaginary game creation robot.
    The devs do indeed need to be paid.

    On top of the salaries companies also have to pay taxes (various), medical, pension, dental plus cover the costs of the chairs, desks, pcs, software licences, travel and so forth. On top of whatever the average is in <<select state>>. (It was $70k in Fairfax when MJ was involved in DAoC). And then there is rent, electricity, trash, sanitation costs and so on.

    Which is why you see $10k a month / $100k a year numbers used. Not because its accurate but because it better reflects total costs - which are probably higher; using $10k/$100k though keeps the sums simple.
  • KanethKaneth Member UncommonPosts: 2,263
    Wizardry said:
    Kaneth said:
    ILLISET said:
    I would much rather have a monthly charge than not have a monthly charge.  The quality of MMO is always so much better when they have subscription requirements. Plus,l it will keep the Pleb's out.
    This has been proven false time and time again for years now. Very few games can succeed in the monthly sub foray, especially games that are niche games. CU will most likely be a mostly niche game. I really want CU to succeed, but I worry about the sub keeping many potential players away. There are far too many B2P games out there, and many outside of the mmorpg.com forums seemingly are tired of "renting the game" on a monthly basis.
    3 things 
    1 My top 5 list of all time and still to this day are all subscription,so i beg to differ.
    2 Games cannot cut it now in the sub market because they are crap games,simple as that,how could you possibly ask a sub fee for a crap game,of course it doesn't work.
    3 f2p is NEVER a fair system,it relies on populating  it's game where it normally would have a low pop and just die,so it is more a marketing ploy than anything good for the game itself.

    Biggest problem right now is not even clones or monetary system,it is a market flooded with a boatload of crappy low budget developers.
    You put crappy ingredients into the mix,you end up with food nobody wants to eat.However present it well,market it well and a bunch of dumb asses will surely at least buy it to find out it is not worth eating.
    1) Your top 5 list is personal and anecdotal. Subs are becoming a thing of the past, and I would wager your top 5 games are most likely games of yesteryear.

    2) Again, completely personal. There are very popular games that are B2P with free online gameplay. While I will agree many games couldn't cut it as sub based because they were lacking, in the past, there would still be plenty to keep the game going. Market saturation is probably the biggest contributor to the decline of subs. Why pay monthly when you can play dozens of other games for just the box price?

    3) On the flip side, CU is a pvp based game. In order to work, the game will need numbers. The first few months the game will be flooded with those who want the RvR style pvp system from DAoC and those who missed out on the glory days of DAoC and want to experience it. Once the shine wears off, then the true success of the game will be determined. If CU can keep numbers with a sub, that's awesome. I plan on being there. If the game doesn't justify the sub fee, many will leave and the game will suffer for it.

    Your final point is just common sense though. Build a mediocre game and it won't do well. How many games have come out recently and ran away with everyone's box price? The market being flooded with low budget crap games doesn't really affect the success of a good game. A good game that is B2P or F2P will do well and have a healthy population. A good game that is P2P can have healthy numbers, but they also inherently will be missing on a segment of the population that just doesn't feel that a sub in this day and age is justified.

    Regardless, I really hope CU can recapture some of the magic that was DAoC back in the heyday. 
  • GladDogGladDog Pottstown, PAMember RarePosts: 839
    A free trial or a level limited demo is all a game needs.  If you can't in good conscience buy a game, or decide it is worth subbing for, by the time you have played the game to level 20, then it is a game you should stay away from.

    F2P has way too many problems, and is merely a method to keep a game going that people don't feel is worth the price of a subscription.  Subbing is easier for players to deal with, and as was stated earlier in this thread, subs make a game much easier for the developers to budget for.


    The world is going to the dogs, which is just how I planned it!


  • ShinimasShinimas Member UncommonPosts: 64
    I think it's guaranteed CU will die in about 2 years if it stays sub-based. It's not like they can afford to run the game when there are like 500 people playing it. You guys are saying that F2P "merely keeps the game going", would you rather it just died, then? But they are committed, so whatever.
  • Agent_JosephAgent_Joseph Member UncommonPosts: 1,253
    i prefer playing in company  with employed peoples who can pay monthly 15$ 

    only EVE is real MMO...but I am impressive with TSW

  • kitaradkitarad RomeMember EpicPosts: 3,622
    Shinimas said:
    I think it's guaranteed CU will die in about 2 years if it stays sub-based. It's not like they can afford to run the game when there are like 500 people playing it. You guys are saying that F2P "merely keeps the game going", would you rather it just died, then? But they are committed, so whatever.
    The game is like 15 years old and it has a small loyal subscriber base that has been supporting it all these years. If it went F2P it will lose that base then it will truly die.

  • ShinimasShinimas Member UncommonPosts: 64
    kitarad said:
    Shinimas said:
    I think it's guaranteed CU will die in about 2 years if it stays sub-based. It's not like they can afford to run the game when there are like 500 people playing it. You guys are saying that F2P "merely keeps the game going", would you rather it just died, then? But they are committed, so whatever.
    The game is like 15 years old and it has a small loyal subscriber base that has been supporting it all these years. If it went F2P it will lose that base then it will truly die.
    Not sure what you're talking about. What 15 years?
    It will lose half of the 500 loyal subs and gain 10k more instantly, plus become way more attractive to new blood in the long term because there's no barrier to entry. Quite a few games manage to be saved from the brink like that, e.g. SWTOR. Especially if the game looks like it's from 2010 and has basically no marketing behind it. How many average players would come across it, look at it and go "yeah, I'm okay dropping 60 bucks on it"?
    I mean, it doesn't matter at this point. It's not about niche vs mass appeal, but survival vs closing in two years. If people are okay with waiting for 5-6 years just to play it for 1-2 years before it flops, sure.
  • numaticnumatic FLMember UncommonPosts: 641
    I don't know what complaining is even going to accomplish. Mark has said a hundred times over that he is vehemently opposed to FtP. It will not happen. The only possibility I think it could happen is that some time down the road if the game is near death he would sell it to someone else and they could make it FtP. Mark has stated time and again he would be happy with 10K subs instead of an extra 100K FtP people walking around and bogging down the servers. If you don't want to sub then go play another game. It's really that simple.
  • nursonurso Member UncommonPosts: 47
    numatic said:
    The only possibility I think it could happen is that some time down the road if the game is near death he would sell it to someone else and they could make it FtP.
    As far as I remember Mark said that he would rather close the game and release the source code than selling the game to a F2P publisher.
Sign In or Register to comment.