Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

Mark Jacobs and Company - Please do not REQUIRE monthly fees to play.

13468911

Comments

  • Chief021Chief021 Fairmont, WVPosts: 107Member
    Disagree with OP.  Give me all the content and a sub per month and I'm good.  I don't want to pay for extra items etc... Give me the whole game and keep it updated on a monthly to bi-monthly basis with some new content. 

    image

    A PS4 ESO guild accepting applications at http://lowlyknights.enjin.com

  • CaldrinCaldrin CwmbranPosts: 4,533Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by colddog04

    This reminds me of a poll that was taken by one of the community handlers for SWTOR about a year or so before release. The poll asked about what kind of payment model people would prefer. The answers were overwhelmingly in favor of a pay to play system.

     *snip*

     

    The reason SWTOR had to go f2p is because the game was just plain bad.. without going f2p the game would have just died..

    Even now that it is f2p I dont see it lasting as long as eq, eq2 or even SWG for that matter.. you cant polish a turd..

  • BowbowDAoCBowbowDAoC Granby, QCPosts: 470Member

    True, offer something good, and people wont bother the monthly fee.

    and on a side note, i recall MJ mentionned somewhere that the monthly fee could be lower than the majority of mmos outthere, he didnt specify numbers, but still.

    he could have around 9.99$ a month in mind, wich would be damn good, and under the 10$ a month psychological barrier.

    image

    Bowbow (kob hunter) Infecto (kob cave shammy) and Thurka (troll warrior) on Merlin/Midgard DAoC
    Thurka on WAR

    image

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,503Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Caldrin
    Originally posted by colddog04

    This reminds me of a poll that was taken by one of the community handlers for SWTOR about a year or so before release. The poll asked about what kind of payment model people would prefer. The answers were overwhelmingly in favor of a pay to play system.

     *snip*

     

    The reason SWTOR had to go f2p is because the game was just plain bad.. without going f2p the game would have just died..

    Even now that it is f2p I dont see it lasting as long as eq, eq2 or even SWG for that matter.. you cant polish a turd..

    That's certainly what all the people that prefer "pay to play only" say. They say all the games that went F2P are bad. The only games worth paying require a sub. yada yada yada.

     

    Of course that implies that this game is going to be so awesome it will easily be supported by the P2P subscribers. He appears to be targeting a niche audience (likely far smaller than those currently playing SWTOR) and he is spending so little on development that the audience could end up being too niche to support the game enough to make those subscribers content.

     

    Either way, the market is jam packed with competitors right now. When DAoC came out, there just wasn't the same level of competition. Fortunately, we'll probably (maybe) get to see what actually happens with this little game. And by little I mean woefully underfunded.

  • SinsaiSinsai Reno, NVPosts: 236Member Uncommon

    100% Diagree with OP.

     

    PLease MJ keep CU subscribtion based, period.

    If people aren't willing to pay they have  plenty of other choices out there.

    image

  • seafirexseafirex gatineau, QCPosts: 357Member Uncommon

    Here is another suggestion regarding price of box and monthly fee's.

    Currently you buy a game at around 60$ then you need to add monthly sub's that are around 15$ to 20$.

    Why not sell the box at 30$ and keep the monthly sub at 15$ or even lower it down to 10$.

    Like that even more people will come play the game. 

     

    Reason behind this is simple. You can't exange those games after you finish with it. Your activation code is one time use only.

    So basicaly if you stop playing or can't play anymore for what ever reason you still have to buy another box and monthly sub.

     

    So sorry OP but i can't be ok with your suggestion

  • WicoaWicoa LondonPosts: 1,602Member Uncommon

    I want the subscription model.

    All games I stick to long term are subscription only and I want regular development and a cash rich business running my main games and to know that all players are equal within the virtual world.

    If you cannot afford the monthly price of an mmorpg (even kids I know can with pocket money jobs) then you need to focus on real life not gaming on a computer screen, if you take that advice in the wrong way then go ahead and bury your head in every f2p on the market, there are plenty of them.

     

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,503Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Wicoa

    I want the subscription model.

    All games I stick to long term are subscription only.

    If you cannot afford the monthly price of an mmorpg (even kids I know can with pocket money jobs) then you need to focus on real life not gaming on a computer screen.

    Why is it that poeple think that the reason that games go F2P is because people can't afford the game? My opinion is that most people stop subbing to games not because they can't afford it, but because the game gets stale or they want to move on for any number of reasons.

     

    The "all you poor cheap bastards need to get a job argument" is just silly to me.

     

    Not that I don't understand why people prefer sub models. It makes sense to me why people like sub models. I just don't understand why people that like sub models like to shit on people that are more open to other options.

  • SovrathSovrath Boston Area, MAPosts: 18,462Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Stiler
     

     

    F2p has been huge in the eastern market for a while, and it's really picked up steam in the Western market.

    You say the Sub system isn't dying? Then can you explain why almost any big mmo released in the past few years has moved toward that model, and why many newer ones are going that route?

    SW:TOR

    Aion

    Lotro

    Tera

    Age of Conan

    The Secret World

    EQ2

    Rift

    etc.

     

    SOE itself is moving many of their games to f2p as a comapny, the upcoming dragon mmo from SOE is f2p,  the next Everquest game is likely going the free to play route,  Neverwinter Nights is free to play, and many more.

    From a buisiness standpoint f2p is where the market is shifting. The old monthly based sub system was fine back in ithose days, but the market is saturated with mmo's (mostly wow style clones, which are getting old imo) but the f2p model has it's advantages, and microtransaction can work without being "pay to win" and more focused on cosmetic items, server changes, name changes, fluff titles and other unique things that don't impact gameplay at all.

     

     

    Because they want more money and so far it's proven that the "f2p" system allows for a greater amount of money to be made. Having said this, Aion did not make the money that NC was hoping it would make so there's evidence there that "entirely f2p your way" might not  be the best way to go.

    These f2p games allow for a smaller contingent of people to pay more money as they are heavily invested in the game and don't mind paying for conveniences or cosmetics. It basically uncaps their spending limit as they would normally just pay the sub fee.

    All the while it encourages new players to join and possibly spend a small amount of money and then if they don't like they game they become part of the churn while other new players take their place.

    Part of the issue is that you then constantly have to be monetizing your game, adding different things, marketing those different things in the hopes that someone will buy it. A new hat, a new mount, some sort fo leveling bundle, etc. Some argue that these games start being less about their world and their game play elements and more about what can be created and sold on a continuing basis.

    It's all about what brings in the most money and f2p games allow for unfettered spending.

     

  • NegativeXNegativeX Denver, COPosts: 100Member

    Sadly, B2P will not work with the small niche market Mark is going after. And F2P or play to win models will kill CU before it's even started. Might work when you have 1+ million active players like GW2, but CU won't be anywhere near that.

    The DAoC community is a finicky bunch and I doubt anything but the traditional subscription model will appease us.

    But regardless, Mark has already stated a firm stance on the subscription model, so this discussion is a moot point.

    Camelot Unchained Fanpage

    https://simply-gaming.com/camelot/

  • GravargGravarg Harker Heights, TXPosts: 3,332Member Uncommon
    I'll take P2P over B2P or F2P anyday.  My two MMOs I play now are both subscription based.  I like P2P because it makes players that don't want to play it, not able to play it.  I can't count how many times I've been playing a F2P game, and someone logs in and is spewing "This game sux" rants and trolling.  All you can tell them is "then don't play".  In a sub game you can always tell them "well you're an idiot for paying to play a game that sucks then haha"
  • vakabielvakabiel marblehead, OHPosts: 12Member

    I disagree with this post for a few reasons... when you play a MMO you are purchasing the game itself and then the monthly sub is the continued fee for the service of allowing you to access that game.  It doesn't run on your local machine 100% and therefore requires cost by the provider in the way of bandwidth/servers/people to create new content that isn't an official release.  Once you pay your money for that retail box they don't stop paying the people making that game run day to day.

    There are plenty of F2P models out there that rely on the ~5% of the game population to stay in business and be active.  It might make sense for them but with such a niche of players in CU it doesn't and Mark has mentioned that several times.  I'm all for what allows this game to stay active and innovative.  People spend more than $15 a month on beer or fast food  but will complain about a MMO sub?

    Keep it as is please.  If you want to see a F2P done right check out League of Legends - they don't sell power.

  • sweetdigssweetdigs Washington, DCPosts: 196Member
    Originally posted by colddog04

    This reminds me of a poll that was taken by one of the community handlers for SWTOR about a year or so before release. The poll asked about what kind of payment model people would prefer. The answers were overwhelmingly in favor of a pay to play system.

     

    I have no clue if they actually took those types of public opinion polls into account when they decided to go with a pay to play model, but they did end up going pay to play.... only to end up going F2P about a year or so later. Perhaps they should have gone with what would have worked instead of what public internet opinion preferred.

     

    No, SWTOR should have been a better game.  That was the problem, not the pay model.  SWTOR was a massive flop and a horrible game.  It hasn't been any more successful as a F2P title.

  • BeansnBreadBeansnBread PshPosts: 5,503Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by sweetdigs
    Originally posted by colddog04

    This reminds me of a poll that was taken by one of the community handlers for SWTOR about a year or so before release. The poll asked about what kind of payment model people would prefer. The answers were overwhelmingly in favor of a pay to play system.

     

    I have no clue if they actually took those types of public opinion polls into account when they decided to go with a pay to play model, but they did end up going pay to play.... only to end up going F2P about a year or so later. Perhaps they should have gone with what would have worked instead of what public internet opinion preferred.

    No, SWTOR should have been a better game.  That was the problem, not the pay model.  SWTOR was a massive flop and a horrible game.  It hasn't been any more successful as a F2P title.

    So then do you agree that they should have gone with what would have worked better (a F2P model of some kind) instead of agreeing with what public internet opinion preferred? Or are you saying they should have just scrapped the whole 300 million dollar project?

     

    It is doing better than it was when it was P2P btw.

  • Plastic-MetalPlastic-Metal Highland Heights, KYPosts: 405Member

    It amazes me how people talk completely out of their arse on forums without any statistical validity.   IF I MAKE UP A STATISTIC, IT MUST BE TRUE - JUST DON'T ASK FOR THE REFERENCE.

    When I go into an open debate or hostile discussion, I typically back up my reasonings with statsitics and facts.. the only thing I've seen in this post is hearsay and opinions.

    At the end of the day, Camelot Unchained will be a multi-tiered subscription system and that's all that's important.

    My name is Plastic-Metal and my name is an oxymoron.

    image

  • doodphacedoodphace Vancouver, BCPosts: 1,815Member
    Originally posted by Stiler
    Originally posted by Tuktz

    Cracks me up when people think sub model is dying, cause it just ain't true.

     

    sure b2p and f2p is newer to mmos than sub, but that doesn't mean it's better.

     

    i was so used to subs for five years that I decide to try b2p and f2p for a few years, and went back to sub because I didn't like the direction cash shops etc.... We're going.

     

    if anything I think as more people are trying them, they're realizing why they like subs more in the first place lol

     

    i think they have their place in games where you need tons of players who don't have to know each other like in ps2' but not where strategy is super important like daoc and cu

     

    F2p has been huge in the eastern market for a while, and it's really picked up steam in the Western market.

    You say the Sub system isn't dying? Then can you explain why almost any big mmo released in the past few years has moved toward that model, and why many newer ones are going that route?

    SW:TOR

    Aion

    Lotro

    Tera

    Age of Conan

    The Secret World

    EQ2

    Rift

    etc.

     

    SOE itself is moving many of their games to f2p as a comapny, the upcoming dragon mmo from SOE is f2p,  the next Everquest game is likely going the free to play route,  Neverwinter Nights is free to play, and many more.

    From a buisiness standpoint f2p is where the market is shifting. The old monthly based sub system was fine back in ithose days, but the market is saturated with mmo's (mostly wow style clones, which are getting old imo) but the f2p model has it's advantages, and microtransaction can work without being "pay to win" and more focused on cosmetic items, server changes, name changes, fluff titles and other unique things that don't impact gameplay at all.

     

     

    Simple answer? They lack content....like it or not, many people play themepark's for endgame content. Not a single game listed that started with a sub and went F2P had anything close to WoW's enadgame at their launches.

    Want more proof that subscription isnt the issue? They all sold extreemly well, and kept players for a few months, then as people realised that there was nothing to do, they stopped playing.

    Trust me 10000%, if players stayed, they would still be P2P (a la Rift).

    Not to mention...EVE..a P2P game that has been incrasing its sub number sthroughout the years, still has more active player than any ftp game you listed.

    P2P is not dead.....whats dead is P2P games with minimal unpolished content...

  • TuktzTuktz Atlanta, GAPosts: 299Member

    It's also just basic business sense.

     

    A niche game is already relying upon a smaller segment of the mmo crowd.

     

    F2P and B2P rely upon big numbers of players, and a small portion of those making micro transactions

     

    How the heck would that be financially viable to take a small segment of the mmo crowd, and segment it down even further?

     

    I think the real thinking is that, it's already a niche segment of the mmo crowd that's willing to pay a sub for what they are looking for and can't find in other games.

     

    That's why it confuses me the small minority I see of people that "sound" like they want to play this game, but want it F2P or B2P. So you want a niche game catered to your individual wants/needs from an mmo, and you want it to be free?

     

    ^^^ LOL

    What's that saying, if it sounds too good to be true it probably isn't. With anything in the economy, I'd doubt you'd get personally catered services to your needs for free. If you want the free version, you get what the large majority of people out there get (theme park mmo's etc...).

    image
    MMO history - EVE GW2 SWTOR RIFT WAR COH/V EQ2 WOW DAOC
    Tuktz - http://www.heretic.shivtr.com/

  • AdeptusArbitratorAdeptusArbitrator CastlefordPosts: 35Member

    I pay more on my train faire to work daily than I do on a monthly subscription.

    People crying "I WON'T BUY IF IT HAS A SUB" are probably still living off pocket money. I want a subscription simply to maintain the community, they swiftly go down hill faster than a dive bomber the minute you make it 'accessable' to everybody, as elitist as it might sound. The Secret World's stellar band went downhill fast as soon as it went B2P.

    camelot-rp.enjin.com - A hub for roleplayers in Camelot Unchained!

  • Ice-QueenIce-Queen USA, GAPosts: 2,451Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by AdeptusArbitrator

    I pay more on my train faire to work daily than I do on a monthly subscription.

    People crying "I WON'T BUY IF IT HAS A SUB" are probably still living off pocket money. I want a subscription simply to maintain the community, they swiftly go down hill faster than a dive bomber the minute you make it 'accessable' to everybody, as elitist as it might sound. The Secret World's stellar band went downhill fast as soon as it went B2P.

    I agree.

     

    I'm glad MJ is going to charge a subscription fee. I'm glad he's sticking with his vision and not going after the millions of casuals.

    OP in case you haven't read, MJ and CSE aren't making an mmo for everyong, they're going for a niche crowd that wants a subscription fee. If you can't pay a sub fee, then move on. Why can't people just do this. Don't want to pay a sub, don't play that mmo, stick with your run of the mill B2P and F2P with hundreds of thousands of casual players along with the thousands of farming bots out there, they'll always be there because there with ya.

    image

    What happens when you log off your characters????.....
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFQhfhnjYMk
    Dark Age of Camelot

  • asmkm22asmkm22 Anchorage, AKPosts: 1,788Member
    Originally posted by Roguewiz

    Subscription is fine as long as they can release content quicker than once every blue moon (or every 2-3 years)

    whichever is shorter  :)

     

    I'm not asking for everquest content releases (6 months for an expansion), however something quicker than WoW

    I think WoW has a pretty great release cycle.  You get new major content patches about every 4 months, and an entirely new expansion about every 2.5 years.

    You make me like charity

  • xmentyxmenty SingaporePosts: 679Member

    @ OP , Please don't begged for the game to be a B2P or F2P.

    If you see the trend, PVP game will later be F2P or B2P.

    The moment they fk up and they definitely will.

    The game will be ghost town and for sub game it will hit them big time.

    Don't worry, there will be other games like this or better that cater to people for you.

     

    Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language :)

  • EllyaEllya leylandPosts: 99Member

    It's very simple, really.

    This game will be P2P. If that is a problem for you, then the game is not being made for you.

    No point whining about it, you are not the target audience, move along, nothing to see here.....

  • SpeelySpeely Seattle, WAPosts: 861Member
    In this medium, as in any, you get what you pay for. How is this a hard concept to grasp?

    Does anyone expect a F2P but not pay to win model to work for a niche mmo?

    There are so many elements of fail in that logic that I don't know where to start. I can understand armchair designers, because we all think we know how to design an awesome game. (Hah)

    But armchair economics? Let's take it easy, folks. Pay to play ensures support. Anyone who remembers Team Leads in DAoC knows that. Anyone who remembers what it's like to know no one else was paying to win knows that.

    How is everyone being on a level playing field worse than a f2p model where A) people can pay to win, or B) the developer makes no money?

    Sometimes I feel as if people expect an entire team of people to sustain a game over years and years, managing servers and providing content, while being both f2p AND not pay to win.

    Not to be rude, and all respect due, but that is pretty fucking petulant.

  • LatronusLatronus Lexington Park, MDPosts: 692Member
    Originally posted by doodphace
    Originally posted by Stiler
    Originally posted by Tuktz

    Cracks me up when people think sub model is dying, cause it just ain't true.

     

    sure b2p and f2p is newer to mmos than sub, but that doesn't mean it's better.

     

    i was so used to subs for five years that I decide to try b2p and f2p for a few years, and went back to sub because I didn't like the direction cash shops etc.... We're going.

     

    if anything I think as more people are trying them, they're realizing why they like subs more in the first place lol

     

    i think they have their place in games where you need tons of players who don't have to know each other like in ps2' but not where strategy is super important like daoc and cu

     

    F2p has been huge in the eastern market for a while, and it's really picked up steam in the Western market.

    You say the Sub system isn't dying? Then can you explain why almost any big mmo released in the past few years has moved toward that model, and why many newer ones are going that route?

    SW:TOR

    Aion

    Lotro

    Tera

    Age of Conan

    The Secret World

    EQ2

    Rift

    etc.

     

    SOE itself is moving many of their games to f2p as a comapny, the upcoming dragon mmo from SOE is f2p,  the next Everquest game is likely going the free to play route,  Neverwinter Nights is free to play, and many more.

    From a buisiness standpoint f2p is where the market is shifting. The old monthly based sub system was fine back in ithose days, but the market is saturated with mmo's (mostly wow style clones, which are getting old imo) but the f2p model has it's advantages, and microtransaction can work without being "pay to win" and more focused on cosmetic items, server changes, name changes, fluff titles and other unique things that don't impact gameplay at all.

     

     

    Simple answer? They lack content....like it or not, many people play themepark's for endgame content. Not a single game listed that started with a sub and went F2P had anything close to WoW's enadgame at their launches.

    Want more proof that subscription isnt the issue? They all sold extreemly well, and kept players for a few months, then as people realised that there was nothing to do, they stopped playing.

    Trust me 10000%, if players stayed, they would still be P2P (a la Rift).

    Not to mention...EVE..a P2P game that has been incrasing its sub number sthroughout the years, still has more active player than any ftp game you listed.

    P2P is not dead.....whats dead is P2P games with minimal unpolished content...

    NEWS FLASH... WoW didn't have anywhere near the endgame when it launched.  The simple truth is that the newer players that want a game to launch with something close to WoWs endgame will NEVER be happy.  You will not have a game launch with 8 years of content.  This arguement does not show why these games failed, it shows why a large chunk of current players FAIL. 

    They cannot understand the simplest of facts, a newly launched game will never have as much content as an 8 year old game.  The budget to do so would be larger than SWTORs.  Besides, how would this sound,"Investors, we have a great new game idea that will surely crush WoW.  We will need 3 years of initial game design, then an additional 8 years to design expansion packs.  Then, we will have closed beta followed by some sort of open beta and we will probably follow current industry standards and charge for open beta.  All we ask is for tons of money, probably over $100M, and plenty of patience while waiting 11 years to even have a chance at a return on investment."

    Yeah, that game would have a chance, but a snowball in hell would have a better chance.

    image
  • nfuhnfuh Seattle, WAPosts: 16Member Uncommon

    Not a fan of the lowest-bidder ideaology of the original message.

    Quality is worth paying for. If you want a beautiful sculpture made from marble you don't offer someone $5 to do it. The entire message of this original post seems backwards.

    Shouldn't the plea be "please make a game WORTH A SUB" rather than "please make a game WITHOUT A SUB"?

13468911
Sign In or Register to comment.