It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
So... what number would make you happy? You don't like 10K subs? How about 50k?Anthur said:
A monthly sub and everything available in the game just like the old days
The only problem with this model is that it requires a very high population of players to stay viable because you put a low, fixed cap on how much a player can spend on the game.
The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.
The population over time declines - and only continues to decline - thus inevitably reaching a point where running a game costs more than the number of players remaining to sustain it.
The only variable is how fast you get to this point - 6 months, a year - or decades - but it is inevitable.
That's the same nonsense like EA saying that they can't develop great games anymore without loot boxes because the development costs are too high. Monster Hunter can. Others can too. WoW would still be a great success even without any cash shop.
Server costs are not that high anymore even. And when your population dwindles the game runs into financial issues independent from the payment system it uses.
Don't fall for what the marketing guys want you to believe. They just found out a long time ago that you can squeeze much more money out of your customers with a F2P/cash shop/loot box game than a subscription based game.
Why not just do math? Here's $2 million, now you tell me a story about how you're going to survive the year with a team of 18 people.
Yup. And players would also need to accept the reality of very infrequent additions and slow costumer support.Sovrath said:While I agree with the idea, if you only have 10k people and say you are charging 15.95 that's less than 2 million per year. They better have a very small team.Iselin said:It's not "literally" anything lol. It is 100% dependent on the developer's expectations and their definition of success and what's worth their time.The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.
DAoC has been a sub game for 17 years and continues that way despite a small population.
If success means you want 3 Ferraris then yeah, you probably won't get that with a small population and sub. But if you have reasonable expectations and plan around 10K subs it would be very possible.
It's not "literally" anything lol. It is 100% dependent on the developer's expectations and their definition of success and what's worth their time.The real problem is that is unsustainable - it is literally impossible to run a MMORPG on pure subscription for a long time.
That's the basic default build for each class. The other builds in the adviser (magicka DPS, Stamina DPS, Healer and Tank) do include armor and weapon skill recommendations.Sovrath said:I was excited for the leveling up guide but not that I've seen it, it seems only half baked.etharn said:Only thing I was excited for was outfit system.
Oh sure, it gives you skills to get but doesn't say much about armor/weapons. Which means, any player who doesn't already know something about the game could really screw themselves over.
I guess you either get fair pricing or you don't. If you're willing to pay any price for anything then yeah bud, you're bending over. If you're so wealthy that it doesn't matter to you one way or the other you're just bending over conspicuously with a smile on your face.Iselin said:Nah. It's an industry wide issue of preying on gamers with all manner of obfuscation. It simply came to a head with SWBF2 and Destiny 2 to such an extent that some who are normally oblivious to it noticed it and commented.Aeander said:Where is the rock you've been living under and can I move in because it must be really quiet?As much as I'd love to be a lemming on this subject and just jump onto the Internet hate for EA, the fact remains that Activision still has their paid loot crates, with very little backlask, so all that is really proven with this line of discussion is that the Internet says they don't like EA, a meme that pre-dates memes themselves. It hasn't proven that paid loot crates aren't acceptable, it's shown that anyone (even the largest AAA publisher in the world) can have paid loot crates.... unless you're EA.
Activision has faced huge, continued backlash for Destiny 2, especially for loot crates. The only real difference is that their bottom line hasn't been hit as hard (namely because the loot crates weren't revealed until the beta tests and their ramifications on the game were obfuscated).
Meh, the D2 stuff was a bit of a different bag, right? Like there was more nefarious stuff going on there. People were fine with the model as it was with Bright Engrams before they found out that Activision was directly and knowingly restricting their progress towards their next FREE Bright Engram.
Even with that, though, after some ruffled feathers, the seas are calm... ish.... once again, right? Destiny 2 still shows as one of the top 3 games of the year, as far as sales go, next to CODWW2 which also has paid loot crates for things that apparently impact the game.
That's mostly my point. When you compare the backlash against each of them, the reasoning is quite clear. It's not a loot crate issue, it's an EA issue.
That the games continue to sell well despite that is just an indication that the lemmings - the real lemmings - will just keep bending over and saying "Fuck it. I don't care if they're screwing me. It's new, it's shinny and by gosh I'm going to play it."
Why would you say they're bending over? By all indications they are getting fucking awesome stuff that is giving them a distinct advantage over everyone else.... at least that's what people have been saying.
To be completely fair, if I was a billionaire, I would probably spend thousands of dollars on games just to assert my real life authority over people in any game that would allow me to do that. So, in that regard, you'd be bending over for me.