No free to play option?

123457

Comments

  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member EpicPosts: 4,453
    edited January 3
    i prefer playing in company  with employed peoples who can pay monthly 15$ 
    They had better build in some pretty sophisticated spyware for your needs then.

    Got to keep those who have taken early retirement out; and teens who may not yet be in a job; and those who are just born with money; pensioners; people playing whilst the baby is taking a nap .... 

    And lets not forget those who take up the Lifetime option. They won't be paying $15 a month either.
    Post edited by gervaise1 on
  • nursonurso Member UncommonPosts: 47
    edited January 3
    A monthly subscription fee is sufficient for a low population of whiny teenagers ;)
    Post edited by nurso on
  • kitaradkitarad RomeMember EpicPosts: 3,740
    Shinimas said:
    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.
    I don't know how I got the impression you were referring to Dark Age of Camelot I apologize but I think Mark Jacobs is right to go with subbed. Even their older game is stilled subbed so I think he prefers loyal subbers to people who don't support a game with a measly $15 a month.

  • ShinimasShinimas Member UncommonPosts: 64
    kitarad said:
    I don't know how I got the impression you were referring to Dark Age of Camelot I apologize but I think Mark Jacobs is right to go with subbed. Even their older game is stilled subbed so I think he prefers loyal subbers to people who don't support a game with a measly $15 a month.
    Well, DAoC is still alive but WAR was a disaster. He certainly prefers to have a sub based game, so do I. We will see if it survives.
  • numaticnumatic FLMember UncommonPosts: 641
    nurso said:
    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.
    And we all know game devs keep their word lol. As much as I like to believe him, if someone offered him a hefty sum to buy the game and the loyal playerbase left was pleading to keep the game on, i think he might change his tune.
  • ShinimasShinimas Member UncommonPosts: 64
    numatic said:
    nurso said:
    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.
    And we all know game devs keep their word lol. As much as I like to believe him, if someone offered him a hefty sum to buy the game and the loyal playerbase left was pleading to keep the game on, i think he might change his tune.
    Honestly, it's hard to say in his case. This whole project seems personal to him. He had enough money to retire, but decided to take a pretty big risk (he is investing a lot of his own funds) and start his own business again. Maybe it's the case of being unable to sit idly, maybe it's an ego thing and he just wants to be a boss again, maybe it's a designer in him that wishes to create something, I don't know. It looks like he wants to stick with his ideas until the bitter end, for better or for worse. Not saying that he wouldn't want to make money off of this, who wouldn't, but it might not be a priority in this case.
  • GladDogGladDog Pottstown, PAMember RarePosts: 849
    A game like this won't need WoW numbers to stay alive.  Heck, current EQ2 numbers would likely keep the game well in the black for years.  It is an indy title with a small dev team.  As long as they can get 20k subs they will probably be just fine.  But this game has a good following, I am pretty sure they will get and maintain over 50k subs for quite a while.  

    Since they don't report to a CEO that has to give ridiculous returns on everything that happens in the company, they will likely make plenty of money to keep everyone on the team happy and cranking out expansions and updates for a good while.


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


  • tatertoadtatertoad USAMember UncommonPosts: 23
    I am on board with the sub.  Would suit me fine if it's $20 or even $30/mo if it's good.
  • kenoneil18kenoneil18 calgary, ABMember UncommonPosts: 1

    I c tht u have no f2p I have online games since thy came out .I  find f2p is a better way to to find out if u like the game. my idea would b to make a server just strictly for f2p thy way thy can see if thy the game. other wise I will not play the game as I have no idea wht it's like the games loss not mine


  • MMOredfalconMMOredfalcon Mitchell, ONMember UncommonPosts: 166

    I c tht u have no f2p I have online games since thy came out .I  find f2p is a better way to to find out if u like the game. my idea would b to make a server just strictly for f2p thy way thy can see if thy the game. other wise I will not play the game as I have no idea wht it's like the games loss not mine


    I am sure the game will definitely feel the blow without you playing. Not the 15/month part...it's just a game in itself trying to figure out wth you just typed!
  • DahkohtDahkoht Pelham, ALMember UncommonPosts: 479
    Backed it at said before at Warrior Forever level , will be buying friends some copies too. I take MJ at his word and assurance of no F2P. If that ever happens it'd be the day I stopped subbing also as others have noted.
  • KyleranKyleran Paradise City, FLMember LegendaryPosts: 26,864
    Perhaps a more interesting question is will the game have any mechanics which support players buying and playing more than one account?

    Recall the original DAOC permitted buff botting and it definitely netted them addtional, subs, I had 3 paid subs at any one time.

    Later in the product's life they moved away from permitting buff botting (I have no problem with it of course), but additionally there's the issue of multiboxing in general.

    Probably has already been addressed, but tossing it out here in case not.

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    On hiatus from EVE Online since Dec 2016 - CCP continues to wander aimlessly

    In my day MMORPG's were so hard we fought our way through dungeons in the snow, uphill both ways.

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™
    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon




  • LokeroLokero Member RarePosts: 963
    Kyleran said:
    Perhaps a more interesting question is will the game have any mechanics which support players buying and playing more than one account?

    Recall the original DAOC permitted buff botting and it definitely netted them addtional, subs, I had 3 paid subs at any one time.

    Later in the product's life they moved away from permitting buff botting (I have no problem with it of course), but additionally there's the issue of multiboxing in general.

    Probably has already been addressed, but tossing it out here in case not.
    I haven't seen very many studios who care about people "multi-boxing in general" -- it's the ones who are using 3rd party programs and "bots" that generally get targeted.
    Without cheat programs, a multi-box is effectively no different than another player in the game.

    More on point, I don't know if there are mechanics that actually would encourage people to do so.  I have no clue how things like buffs and the "veil", or whatever it's called,(scout-bots?) and all that will actually work, in practice.
  • KajidourdenKajidourden Panama City, FLMember RarePosts: 1,483
    At minimum every game should be B2P unless they're just desperate. 
  • goboygogoboygo Member RarePosts: 1,740
    LOLZ    But its my constitutional right as a gamer with NO MONEY
  • MoiraeMoirae New Orleans, LAMember RarePosts: 3,238
    goboygo said:
    LOLZ    But its my constitutional right as a gamer with NO MONEY
    Then a job might do you some good. Because just a meal at McDonalds is going to cost around $10. If you can't afford $15 a month for a game, you have bigger problems and shouldn't be playing
  • gervaise1gervaise1 .Member EpicPosts: 4,453
    At minimum every game should be B2P unless they're just desperate. 
    For all intents and purposes there is currently. Just buy a "lifetime" add-on. (OK its not B2P in the sense that you mean).
  • DomiagoDomiago Atlantic City, NJMember UncommonPosts: 37
    I'm thinking about the Warrior 2.0 Forever Tier. $275 helps support the devs and yields a 3 yr. paid sub with a $1/yr after that. That's less than $8 a month, which is kinda hard to beat especially since you get some added perks with the tier bundle. As soon as I have the loot I'm in.

    image

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaMember EpicPosts: 13,188
    edited April 15
    I actually was about to head to the gym when i saw this title and it made me laugh.

    I assume the OP doesn't know this is a crowd funded game,if it was f2p,nobody would fund it lol.

    Personally i look for finished games of quality,this project cannot lay claim to either.

    I think the lil guy MANY years ago "SPANKY" already saw this coming......

    Post edited by Wizardry on

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

  • Viper482Viper482 Somewhere, FLMember RarePosts: 1,729
    I put up $100 to help fund this game and will happily pay a sub. You can pay a freaking sub or go play one of the hundred f2p pieces of crap out right now.
  • meddyckmeddyck USAMember UncommonPosts: 1,223
    I would have preferred a B2P payment model like you see for many (most?) PvP only games i.e. FPS. But if the game is good and the monthly sub is lower than the standard $14.95/month like MJ has suggested, then the sub fee shouldn't be too big an obstacle to having good server populations for the first few years.

    Camelot Unchained Backer
    DAOC [retired]: R11 Cleric R11 Druid R11 Minstrel R9 Eldritch R6 Sorc R6 Scout R5 Healer

  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Chicago, ILMember EpicPosts: 6,214
    Having a sub at the start seems pretty normal.  The game will be riding on the hype and most people will at least give it a try for awhile and many may purchase a year or more in advance.  If numbers dip he can always go b2p or f2p later.  

    "Change is the only constant."


  • PhryPhry OxfordshireMember EpicPosts: 9,026
    When it comes to MMO's with a focus on PVP i really prefer P2P as the subscription model, that way everyone is on the same level playing field, nobody can engage in wallet warrior tactics, that in itself is well worth the subscription, and for those who complain that things are not given to them for free, because, reasons blah blah blah, TANSTAAFL, the sooner the F2P model collapses and dies the better it will be for gaming in general imo O.o
    Marcus-
  • ChildoftheShadowsChildoftheShadows Member UncommonPosts: 92
    I think subs are fine as long as you allow a method to aquire game time through PLEX systems. That's my preferred method. I would love to see a limited free trial that users can then use the time to earn the game money to buy a sub.
  • Octagon7711Octagon7711 Chicago, ILMember EpicPosts: 6,214

    AngryElf said:

    Helps deter gold spammers, unless of course they're using stolen CC#s.  Should still keep the RMTs lower than typical F2P. 


    Having a sub has never stopped gold sellers, look at WoW, when ESO was sub only they had tons of gold sellers and bots.  WoW constantly  sues gold sellers yet you can still buy gold.  Most people don't realise how much money they make, the good ones don't need to use stolen cc#s, look at a gold seller being interviewed.  

    "Change is the only constant."


Sign In or Register to comment.