I had hoped Ember would be Free to Play...

[polarity]

I think it's perfectly reasonable to expect people to pay something just to play the game. I also think it's just as reasonable to expect people who continue to play it to pay more.

However, subscriptions are not the way to go about this. When you're paying a subscription you are made to feel you have to play as much as possible, in order to get your money's worth. You are also pushed into paying for several months at a time, in order to get a discount, instead of being able to pay for just the time you want to be playing.

I think that having a cost for expansions would be fair, so long as they were made free after a certain time, or a certain number of sales.

A big issue that's seen when talking about charging for games is entitlement. Players need to realise that the game is going to need money, or it is not going to exist. They can call it pay to win all they want, they can complain about being locked out of parts of the game, or having to wait or grind to get what other players already have because they paid. Just because the game is less pleasant if you do not contribute anything, does not make that wrong. You do not pay, you are not entitled. If you then go on to act like an entitled brat, then quite frankly, you can go to hell.

So without expansions, and other than with expansions, how do you make sure that players who play for longer end up paying more? Well you start with what long term players are more likely to need, like character slots and inventory space, or the ability to learn more than a couple of trade skills (or you get a 'space' to fill with skills so you can initially choose between learning lots at a low level, or a couple at a high level).

 

[Deso]

I might pay, but please resonable price. 60 Euro for example for me is too much high.

If game ofc will be on steam, if not... Idk...

 

[Col. Kernel]

That opinion is shared by many that pay 2 Win isn't welcomed, but it isn't fair either to lump all pay to win as bad.

Yeah it is. It's a sad statement on the state of society when people don't recognize cheating in a game. And that's exactly what P2W is, legalized cheating.

P2W is simply buying your way past the obstacles you're supposed to overcome, and it tempts the game designer to make those obstacles much harder to overcome in order to generate more revenue. P2W ruins game balance, not just for the payer, but for the "F2P" player in order to pressure the "F2P" player to spend money.

B2P puts financial pressure on the dev to crank out content in a hurry. This can lead to problems with the content since the test cycle is abbreviated. I'm not a huge fan of it, either, but I'd rather see it than P2W.

Can a game be absolutely pay to win free? I don't believe and i don't believe all of them ruin game experience, example are the basic form of currency or exp booster is pay to win and many if not all games have them. Another would be premium tanks or prime warframe packages. All of which also don't ruin it but improve the gameplay for many players.

In conclusion, it is easy to agree with everyone but if we look at things objectively, we should not completely reject an idea all the way because it still has the potential to benefit the game overall.

 

[Wyntyr]

Ok...what about buy to play...an in game cash shop (not for p2w items)...and...a sub for being on a separate server away from "barrens chat"?

 

[Col. Kernel]

However, subscriptions are not the way to go about this. When you're paying a subscription you are made to feel you have to play as much as possible, in order to get your money's worth.

If a sub makes it feel like you're obligated to play, yeah, that's wrong. That's like saying paying for a buffet obligates you eat until you hurt.

You are also pushed into paying for several months at a time, in order to get a discount, instead of being able to pay for just the time you want to be playing.

If by "pushed" you mean offered a discount price, I don't see anything wrong with that. Let's say someone plays 20 hours a month consistently. If they're offered a 3 month sub for $45 ($15/month instead of $20) that saves them money. That reduces they're cost to play from $1/hour to 75¢/hour.

An MMO does NOT have to consume your life, although most MMO designers (consciously or not) design in the intermittent rewards that promote addiction and addictive behavior. It's up to the player to be an adult and decide when enough is enough. And if you can't take the temptation, find another hobby. Case in point, my spouse is easily addicted to gambling. They know they have self imposed restrictions of 1 ticket a week limit on lotto and they do NOT go into casinos, ever.

 

[Col. Kernel]

Ok...what about buy to play...an in game cash shop (not for p2w items)...and...a sub for being on a separate server away from "barrens chat"?

I'm all for a mixed model (Sub + cash shop - P2W) but why put subs on a separate server? MMOs benefit from having a large player base, so I'm usually opposed to splitting that player base unless there's a very, very good reason for it.

Edit:
What is Barrens Chat and why would you want to be segregated from it? I'm assuming this is a WoW reference since I've never played that.

 

[NitroMidgets]

Subscriptions require customer satisfaction so it would really require a complete game at launch with lots of hours of game play. Sort of puts the emphasis on Mark and crew to have a large and engaging game.
That's not a bad thing.
If it is buy once then it at least gets money into the company to pay for more expansions with paid add ons later. That too isn't bad. It still requires new content to keep things going and customer satisfaction otherwise bad reviews may prevent more new customers.
The final decision is up to the company but I would be OK with either. As long as the monthly subscription or buy in price wasn't over the top like so many of the so called AAA games are becoming. Shit they are over priced and nothing more then AAA betas.
P2W really only becomes a big issue if there is PVP. Which Mark has said he learned his lesson and won't be trying to mix PVE and PVP ever again.

 

[Heron]

I don't feel like I have to play 24/7 just because I have a subscription. I also don't feel I have to pay for several months at a time, I only recognise that this lets me pay less money for the same amount of time I would've bought anyway.

And as for splitting the playerbase, that's the opposite of what I would want. I want there to be one single server where everyone plays, with the possible exception of something like public test servers and the like.

Edit

Which Mark has said he learned his lesson and won't be trying to mix PVE and PVP ever again.

Uh oh. That doesn't sound good.

 

[Col. Kernel]

Subscriptions require customer satisfaction so it would really require a complete game at launch with lots of hours of game play. Sort of puts the emphasis on Mark and crew to have a large and engaging game.
That's not a bad thing.

On that we are agreed.

If it is buy once then it at least gets money into the company to pay for more expansions with paid add ons later. That too isn't bad. It still requires new content to keep things going and customer satisfaction otherwise bad reviews may prevent more new customers.
The final decision is up to the company but I would be OK with either. As long as the monthly subscription or buy in price wasn't over the top like so many of the so called AAA games are becoming. Shit they are over priced and nothing more then AAA betas.

The investors typically press for an "early" release because they are greedy bastages. Most 1.0 releases suck pond scum. It is rare to buy a new game, MMO or stand alone, and not have it update as soon as you install it.

But MMOs are notorious for having bad releases due to the code being so much more complex.

P2W really only becomes a big issue if there is PVP.

I disagree for reasons stated above and quoted here for your convenience

"P2W is simply buying your way past the obstacles you're supposed to overcome, and it tempts the game designer to make those obstacles much harder to overcome in order to generate more revenue. P2W ruins game balance, not just for the payer, but for the "F2P" player in order to pressure the "F2P" player to spend money."

Which Mark has said he learned his lesson and won't be trying to mix PVE and PVP ever again.

Smart man.

 

[Biz]

Buy to play worked wonders for GW1 for some 7 or so years, and as far as I know that game is still alive, 11 or so years later.

 

[Grummz]

I'm much closer the GW1 or GW2 model in thought: Buy the game, play for free, buy the expansion when they are released - sell cosmetics in between. I misspoke about purchasing additional zones. I mean a new galaxy at an expansion level, not individual planets.

Open world online shooter servers are much more expensive to run than regular open world online rpg, because of all the physics calculations. We're going to have to come up with some clever ways to mitigate this for an Indie open world online game that does not charge a sub.

 

[Dzzel]

I'm much closer the GW1 or GW2 model in thought: Buy the game, play for free, buy the expansion when they are released - sell cosmetics in between. I misspoke about purchasing additional zones. I mean a new galaxy at an expansion level, not individual planets.

how many planets are you aiming in the first galaxy in basic build of the game when it launch (if you had time to think about that)
and will we have the abilily to explore the sol systeem's like in mass effect univers ( like flying around with a exploration ship, to move from planet-to-planet)

 

[Wyntyr]

Edit: What is Barrens Chat and why would you want to be segregated from it? I'm assuming this is a WoW reference since I've never played that.

It is a WoW term...mostly meaning all the conversations going on in the chat that you can't get away from (politics/religion/gold farmers/12 year olds/lfg this/wtb that/etc.). I haven't played that game myself but know many who have and the term has never brought any of them joy when used. So the idea would be to pay a sub to have access to a separate server of the game. The game is no different and the separation is more for a player that doesn't want to be on the standard servers for whatever reason.

 

[Btabc]

I'm much closer the GW1 or GW2 model in thought: Buy the game, play for free, buy the expansion when they are released - sell cosmetics in between. I misspoke about purchasing additional zones. I mean a new galaxy at an expansion level, not individual planets.

MMO shooter servers are much more expensive to run than regular MMO shooters, because of all the physics calculations. We're going to have to come up with some clever ways to mitigate this for an Indie MMO that does not charge a sub.

OK now THIS is acceptable (in my opinion). Having a "F2P" initial areas with expansions (new areas/galaxies) being offered for a price (one time only hopefully). That I could do and more than likely WOULD do.

 

[Col. Kernel]

It is a WoW term...mostly meaning all the conversations going on in the chat that you can't get away from (politics/religion/gold farmers/12 year olds/lfg this/wtb that/etc.). I haven't played that game myself but know many who have and the term has never brought any of them joy when used. So the idea would be to pay a sub to have access to a separate server of the game. The game is no different and the separation is more for a player that doesn't want to be on the standard servers for whatever reason.

Thanks!

 

[RaZoR]

I'm much closer the GW1 or GW2 model in thought: Buy the game, play for free, buy the expansion when they are released - sell cosmetics in between. I misspoke about purchasing additional zones. I mean a new galaxy at an expansion level, not individual planets.

How about a loyalty/rewards discount on purchases and gameplay.
The more money you input combined with hours played. Generating a 5 - 10% added discount on purchasing each expansion, but only if a 100 hours of gameplay is achieved.
That way new members can purchase all expansions at full price, and have hard core members recieve a discount.

 

[DBug]

I'm in full support of a B2P model or a hybrid F2P-B2P setup.

Subscription models are dated and will orphan the game very quickly after launch. Wildstar and ESO learned that lesson the hard way and immediately saw improvements in their playerbase and income after ditching required subscription services. If your goal is to have a large and supportive playerbase, P2P is perhaps the proven worst route to go unless you have a mass of undying wallet warriors like Blizzard or Square Enix does.

However, an optional subscription model (aka, Elite/Premium/Etc) like those used by Battlefield, Call of Doggy, Tera, Blade & Soul, and others would work better for players who want to show monetary support for the game without hurting players won't otherwise would have no means/desire of offering further monetary support outside of the initial box price.

There's several tools that can be invested in that will allow the game to acquire monetary support without having to lock out good content from non-paying customers. These are just some of the more popular ones.

 

[EndlessWaves]

The concept of premium tanks generating more cash would garner pay to win votes till you realize said vehicles are weak if not suboptimal for their level of play(even breaking even or losing silver under poor play), or even premium shells costing fortunes just to kill one enemy. However people still buy them for competitive reasons and because these novelty items are only novelty to the respective game, you can't find another game that made you pay real money for items that have a higher chance to inflict damage, like we aren't even talking guarantees but better. These are items that generate the most money and even wargaming allows the conversion of in-game currency(silver) to buy premium ammo now.

Premium shells are a poor example. Their use is widely criticised in game, were notably nerfed a while back and are still part of the problem of excess armour penetration that's now caused Wargaming to work on a game rebalance to make heavily armoured tanks fun to play again. I'm sure that partly stems from their decision to make them available with in-game credits rather than just real money, but they've definitely been an issue.

Premium tanks are a much better example and they have worked well. World of tanks consists of 10-15 minute battles with a metagame for unlocking tanks to use in those battles. Tanks come in 10 tiers which each line going from tier 1 to 10 with a couple of dozen lines in game. Tiers are matched to similar tiers and Gameplay shifts slowly between tiers.

Premium tanks are off to the side. They do have a tier but they're not part of a line so they can't unlock anything directly. They're also matched in exactly the same way as normal tanks, so buying one doesn't allow you to dominate normal tanks. Top of the tree premium tanks are not sold, they stop at a couple of tiers below the strongest tanks in the game.

Their only tangible benefit is that they make more in-game credits which allows faster unlock of other tanks.

Wargaming's choice of premiums has often been focused on min/max tanks. So for example the three most played premiums right now are the T34, AMX Chasseur de Chars and Superpershing. The first one has the biggest and best turreted gun in it's tier, the second has ludicrous amounts of horsepower and the third is by far the best armoured medium tank. However, the first two are also big and fragile while the third has the weakest gun of it's tier.

While there's not much discussion of this in the community, these extreme characteristics may help players feel they've bought something with character rather than just a credit generating machine. But equally other combinations like the overall best armour or the best fixed gun are on non-premium tanks. Premium tanks are also in a minority, with older premiums being retired from sale.

Premium tanks in world of tanks feel like a very useful supplement to gameplay, not a better version of something already in game or an area of the game locked off behind a paywall.

One other advantage World of Tanks has is no in-game trading. All of a player's assets come from that player's effort alone. If you want a help a friend then you play alongside them to improve their chances of victory and teach them how to play better, rather than sending them a million credits in the mail. This combined with the fact that your 10th tank line is no easier to unlock than your 2nd means that the developers have a nice, stable, well-defined progress rate to price their buyables towards.

A big issue that's seen when talking about charging for games is entitlement. Players need to realise that the game is going to need money, or it is not going to exist. They can call it pay to win all they want, they can complain about being locked out of parts of the game, or having to wait or grind to get what other players already have because they paid. Just because the game is less pleasant if you do not contribute anything, does not make that wrong.

That's fine, but you also have to be aware that not everyone is going to pay for everything.

I remember one free to play game where there was a splashy pop-up after every mission saying you could have got X amount more if you were subscribed. Subscribing naturally got rid of it. However, the game also offered one-off payment items but buying them wouldn't get rid of the pop-up. When I was considering buying some of those one-off payment items and learned of this fact I decided against my purchase. I'd have been happy about the reduced rewards without subscription, but as paying customer I wouldn't have been happy about being badgered to spend money on something I wasn't interested in.

If you're going to have multiple pathways to put money into the game then you have to make the 'free' versions of everything fair and enjoyable because many of your paying customers will be experiencing those versions. If you're expecting everyone to put money into everything then a fixed monthly subscription with everyone equal is a nicer route from a player perspective.


I always thought the idea of a low level subscription (1-2 currency per month) would be quite an interesting one but I've never come across a game that used it. Low enough that you can keep it going to dip in an out of the game without it significantly impacting the other games you can afford. For a game under active development it would presumably have to be in addition to periodic expansion packs or in-game baubles. From a developer perspective I guess it doesn't have much to offer over the guild wars model and you lose all the extra cash from those who decide the game isn't for them.

 

[EvilKitten]

I think the best route to take would be to have a small up front cost for the initial game and then use fundraisers/kickstarters to fund new area's. That way those players who cannot afford to pay a lot are not cut out of new content, and it also provides a method for the players to vote with their pocketbook on what content should be made. It also means that we as a playerbase would know just how much cost is going into making a particular bit of cont.

The other thing is that not all players can spend equally. Allowing for a fundraiser campaign means that player can pay what they can, some players might be happy to fork over 100 bucks, some might only be able to afford 5 bucks. Those cosmetics you want to sell could of course be awarded to those who help out more.

 

[phoenix]

I don't want to be a $60 game, but it will on the higher end of the Indie spectrum because of cost to build. No subscription fees, and we'll sell cosmetics, name changes, etc. as well as unlocking new zones. Or maybe we crowdfund the new playable areas instead. Still all up in the air, but those are general thoughts.

Allow me to throw you an additional idea in the mix.

People buy premium currency (such as Red Beans in FF) to buy cosmetic items. You can unlock zones with real money. Now if you are going to implement an exchange market (such as Red Bean exhange in FF) where we can exchange premium currency with non-premium currency (such as Crystite, The good stuff™) then we can unlock new zones with said premium currency at a slightly higher price(to promote new purchases with real $$$). People willing to spend extra cash on Ember will buy the unlock, people not willing to spend any more on ember could buy up premium currency from other players and unlock the zone tat way. This premium currency at the exchange will never lose it's value. In order to limit the P2W aspect of selling premium currency to buy the best gear on the market and making a profit out of the market you could impose a tax on the seller. After selling your premium currency the amount of non premium currency you get gets reduced by ~10%.