Adding more $10,000 Buy 2 King slots?

Slapshot1188

They are currently floating the idea of adding more of the $10,000 king slots (as well as more lower ones) on their elite donor forum...
Not saying it is a done deal but it was floated by Caspien:

Would you prefer more player Kings or Duchies? Assume there were 6 player-run Kingdoms and 12 player-run Duchies within your kingdom.
Note the link will give an error unless you have elite donor forum access.

Good idea or bad idea?

IceAge

Good idea or bad idea?

Are you ironic ?

When a game asks for 10k $ for some .. in-game rewards, there is always one answer ..

B.A.D

Asheram

A $10k investment should net you some royalties on profits.

botrytis

SO - Pay 2 win game, eh?

Wizardry

I hope they are not using the term DONOR because last i checked a donor does not receive anything in return.Point is that NOBODY would just outright donate money ,this is ALWAYS in every single game a "for sale" item,a cash shop sale,you know the idea that everyone was adamantly against at one point then became a "ok we will allow cosmetic" and now is just blown out of portion.

All i can say is having been around many years,it amazes me how moral standards have dropped in a very short period of time.Just in the last 2 years we have gone from gaming "fun" to gaming buy instant levels,buy castles buy gear,well i guess to be fair SOE and Smedley started all this with EQ2 but he was in it alone until everyone else jumped on the bandwagon.

Soe has actually always been the ones others copy,even Blizzard copied them,SOE started the $15 sub fee that i remember for a standardize fee but of course older muds were charging some retarded prices but for different reasons.

ste2000

Slapshot1188 said:

Good idea or bad idea?

Be honest....... that's a rhetoric question

Slapshot1188

ste2000 said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Good idea or bad idea?

Be honest....... that's a rhetoric question

Only on the surface...

If you look deep they seemingly underestimated development time by a HUGE amount. 
http://forums.mmorpg.com/discussion/460330/coe-to-release-in-2019

From my viewpoint, based on Caspien's comments, this now looks like it's moving from a Dec 2017 launch (KS ETA) to a 2019 launch.  They need to fund that.  

Lokero

Asheram said:

A $10k investment should net you some royalties on profits.

If you are dumb enough to hand over $10k without any promise of investment returns, then you don't deserve any royalties.

Slapshot1188

Lokero said:

Asheram said:

A $10k investment should net you some royalties on profits.

If you are dumb enough to hand over $10k without any promise of investment returns, then you don't deserve any royalties.

I think their thread was an attempt to get a feeling for any potential backlash.  After all, when one pays for a limited "KING" slot and then more are added, some folks might feel mislead.

Again, not a done deal yet... but it's a concept being floated.

filmoret

What exactly are they getting?  It says kingship but if its just a nice head slot item then who cares.

cheyane

Are there really that many morons that will contribute that much for a title or an in game nothing?

Gdemami

cheyane said:

Are there really that many morons that will contribute that much for a title or an in game nothing?

If being wealthy makes you a moron, what does being poor make of you?

Slapshot1188

filmoret said:

What exactly are they getting?  It says kingship but if its just a nice head slot item then who cares.

Oh no... it's far, far more.  here are some old notes related to titles and land.  Some of this may have changed:

Land:

• All the land belong to some kingdom or another.
• There is no unowned land (example, all the land inside the United States belongs to the U.S., even if there is nobody that has a title of ownership to it).
• A Kingdom is divided in Duchies, and Duchies divided in Counties.
• Anyone can own land.
• People will be able to buy or lease land from a Count.
• Bought land is inherited.
• Owned land: you can do anything with it. Leased land: you can do anything your landlord say you can, otherwise it's a crime. Unowned land: anything you do with it is a crime but someone has to enforce it.

Titles:

• Kings, Duke, Count, Baron. Child titles in between: Prince, Marquis, Viscount, Knights. Baron is the only title not inherited.
• Count duties: land distribution, tax collection, keeping a standing military.
• Barons manage castle/strongholds for the Count.
• Town/villages are managed by a Mayor.

Note: all this was said by Caspian in IRC.

https://chroniclesofelyria.com/forum/topic/412/titles-and-lands-what-we-know-so-far#post5843

SpottyGekko

I'm a bit confused about this concept of "selling" titles and land in CoE.

In RL medieval times, the person who could gather the most support (i.e. military might) was the person who became "king". That king then distributed lands and titles as a reward to all those that supported him and pledged loyalty (vassals). He also had the ability to revoke those titles and grants. Without the support of his vassals, a king was a powerless nobody with big ambitions...

If CoE is going to be realistic, then the "pre-paid  kings" will have nothing but a pretender's claim on launch day. Once they've won over sufficient support from other players, they will then have the required muscle to proclaim themselves king of a realm and rule it.

But if they don't muster enough support ingame, their $10K title will mean nothing in game terms.  

However, I suspect that CoE will have certain mechanisms that overrule the "king by might" process of RL. How else can the devs dispense titles and power to players based purely on their willingness to pay cold hard cash in advance ?

Albatroes

Are they still using this crowd funding to make a prototype or whatever to pitch to real investors like they said they were in September?

filmoret

Sounds very interresting.  Hope they can get it right.  Then gain might end up being so complex noone wants to touch it.

goboygo

Asheram said:

A $10k investment should net you some royalties on profits.

They might name a random merchant after you......

YashaX

MisterZebub said:

I'll never understand the kind of person that would drop this kind of money on virtual entertainment. Especially so when said virtual entertainment has yet to be proven to exist.

However, at the same time last time I checked, I'm not in charge of how others decide to spend their money. So if this game dies on the vine and these people foolishly threw away this money on a pipe dream, its not my problem. Then again if these people help this game to be completed and it turns out to be something I actually want to play, then I will have benefited from their risk. So either way I personally lose nothing.

So frankly for me this can only be a good thing. And if these risk takers actually get rewards in game, well in my not so humble opinion, they deserve it. Either way I win.

I think the collective faux outrage, click-bait, hashtag warrior, internet moronity needs to take a giant step back and look at the big picture. The money being pumped into crowd funded games, even the insane amount being thrown at games like Star Citizen, are literally a drop in the bucket when compared to the amount being spent daily on virtual shiny bullshit in every genre of game from single player, to shitty little mobile games. This manufactured fear that crowd funding failures will somehow destroy gaming is absolute bullshit. There is far more than enough money to go around and I personally would like to see people spend it on dreams that may become a reality I too can enjoy, than just dump it into carbon copy pieces of shit games whose only innovation are new ways of milking money out of their customers.

The issue is not people donating money to fund games. What is problematic is the trend of selling outright power to fund the development of multiplayer games. 

Iselin

YashaX said:

The issue is not people donating money to fund games. What is problematic is the trend of selling outright power to fund the development of multiplayer games. 

Amen to that.

I also find it amazing that people with enough basic intelligence to operate a keyboard and find their way onto the internet try to whitewash that fact with the canned "yeah but you can lose it" or "yeah but you can earn it in game."

It's as if games didn't already exist with cash shop conveniences that have in-game grind counterparts, and we haven't already experienced what those in-game grinds are like when they're in direct competition with the cash shop.

And if someone has shown himself willing to drop $10 K on this game and they get something substantial for it, how far do you really think a developer will be willing to go with game mechanics that take it away from him? Last I heard, pissing off your high rollers and whales is not smart business.

Gdemami

YashaX said:

The issue is not people donating money to fund games. What is problematic is the trend of selling outright power to fund the development of multiplayer games. 

Just because you disagree with it or dislike it does not make it an issue.

Selling power is all fine as long as people are paying for it.

Slapshot1188

Gdemami said:

Selling power is all fine as long as people are paying for it.

Only if you believe P2W is fine.

IceAge

filmoret said:

What exactly are they getting?  It says kingship but if its just a nice head slot item then who cares.

Ships .. of course !



Wait , wrong thread ...

seeyouspacec0wboy

If a player can purchase things in the game with real money that affect their position in any way I'm out. ESPECIALLY when it's at a price point that most people playing the game could never match.

Why cant games just come out without gimmicks anymore? Purchasing superior placement in the game, p2w cash shop stuff, paying to get into the game early, buying actual pixels for games that haven't come out yet. The list goes on.

Why cant a game just...come out? 

Kyleran

Slapshot1188 said:

Gdemami said:

Selling power is all fine as long as people are paying for it.

Only if you believe P2W is fine.

Or have little impact on your personal game play.

danwest58

But you all find that paying for each of your lives acceptable why not allow more P2W instead of a fair everyone pays sub just like if you want to go to the Gym.  Either have a Gym Membership or you dont get to use the equipment.  

This is exactly why I will not play SOTA because this business model is unacceptable.  Yes why would someone invest 10K for nothing true but you could just say HEY invest 10K and you get your 10K paid back plus interest when the game launches.  Its a win win and does not cause a in game Wallet war.  Yea you might get an in game title as Donor, or Master Donor.  99.99999% of the player base will give 2 shits about a title for Donors of the 10K ilk and getting a return on investment.

They care more about the game being a Wallet War.  

Gdemami

Slapshot1188 said:
Only if you believe P2W is fine.

It does not matter what I believe in, that is how this world works - people always pay for getting better, getting power and there is nothing wrong with that.

If they haven't we would be still living on trees...