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

[Kryusien]

But I guess the creator has had enough of that route. And I guess it's for the best. Personally I had hoped it would look to Warframe for its Free to Play ideas.

Y'know... give the player all the equipment they need, but make it all look generic. Then have it so you have to buy cosmetics with actual money and make them look great so players would pay for it (heck... even the color palettes cost money and the one you got was VERY limited).

I kinda hope it doesn't go the Destiny route, where you have to pay full game price for all the expansions.

Well... one can hope, right?

 

[TankHunter678]

Pay an initial cost, with a supplementary cash shop where you can buy extra cosmetics. This means that there is a larger initial sum from sales to fund further development. Instead of trying to rely on just tricking players to buy from the cash shop via restrictions.

 

[Heron]

I'm completely fine with paying a subscription fee for a game that's worth it. I'm fine with the buy to play model too of course, but I'd be concerned with how well that's going to provide income in the long term.

 

[NitroMidgets]

I'd be OK with a buy in when the game releases with in game microtransactions for cosmetics or other non-game altering things.

 

[spiralofhope]

Confirmed via an earlier Q&A that Mark does not want a completely free-to-play model because it restricts creativity with the constant need for monetization.

 

[Red]

As many of of have seen over the years the f2p model does not really work unless it's a popular franchise, most f2p games these days usually dont start getting a decent player base until much later in their lifecycle, that can easily kill off a game as you can't always rely on your ingame shop for cosmetics as a lot of people who play f2p games strictly spend no money on them.

The next is the subscription based game, and in many ways this fails even more so than the F2P model, as the majority of gamers hate paying month to month for a game as it eventually gets the the point to where you have spent more on it than a regular $60 game. An upfront payment for the game is arguably the best way to go and i hope they do it that way as it would help pay for development ect. anyone who played firefall at all to the end saw the massive amounts of layoffs due to them not being able to afford to keep people on, there were a lot of cases where the teams werent even being paid, all due to how they no longer had a steady stream of cash coming from the ingame market

 

[Kryusien]

I'd prefer to buy the game up front, then buy things like... I dunno... a Bumblebee for $50 and such. And I still remember posts on the FF forums where people were spending tons of money on cosmetics, vehicles, etc...

Let's hope this time the store is full of stuff to satisfy some of these hardcore collectors... and that those things are cheaper to make to allow Ember to make a profit.

Well... back to being eaten by Reaper Leviathans...

 

[NitroMidgets]

This game may not follow any set rule of thumb for gaming since it is making use of fans of the original concept almost like an incubator for forward momentum.

 

[Luisedgm]

The free to play crowd is usually not the kind of players that can support a niche MMO
niche MMOs need loyal members prepared to spend
f2p MMOs appeal to the biggest crowd possible in hopes a tiny percent of them will buy something and leave

 

[Dxpress]

I'm totally okay with a buy-to-play model, but I can't stand subscription models. They just feel like another bill to pay and you end up spending way more money on a game than you want.

 

[Grummz]

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.

 

[Btabc]

I'm not one that will pay for a subscription, but if it were something like Warframe and what FF USED to be (premium items were real cash stuff) then I'd be ok with that. For example: Warframe gives you the bare basics and you can decide to switch through gear, sell items to free up space or use real cash to expand your inventory so you can keep the weapons, frames and pets that you want while getting new stuff. I would go along with this in a heart beat. Also if it DID require some sort of real world cash, it should be a little easier to pay for, again like WF and their multiple methods of payment (I do not have a credit card). Please... do not go with a subscription.




Edit... dangit lol, Grummz got to it and answered my entire question (while I was writing/typing it) except for a few minor things on my part!

 

[Btabc]

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.

This sort of reminds me of a game that my cousin plays called Wizard101?! There are multiple routes to pay, either sub or buying the different areas (new zones) using $20 game cards. It's an interesting concept which has a initial area that's the F2P portion, but if you want to progress you have to pay. Is this similar to what you're thinking?

 

[spiralofhope]

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.

Unlocking new zones? You do that and I will hunt you down and delete your twitter.

 

[Kryusien]

Maybe for those who don't have a ton of money to buy customization we can have all sorts of decals that can be bought for small amounts of money.

Then maybe for more substantial items (such as maybe a selection vehicles that's faster and more durable than the one you get for free) you can charge a LOT more (because those are harder to make). And maybe somewhere in between you can pay for paint schemes and the various options you can get with them (such as camo or stripes).

Nice to see the devs looking at posts like this. Maybe they can get more ideas to fund the game.

 

[Red]

as well as unlocking new zones.

I have to say i certainly hope not, what would be the point of having the so called horizontal progression where you can go anywhere from the start ect. when MAJOR things like that are gated behind a pay wall, i could understand if we are talking expansion large things where we are talking multiple zones with dungeons and quests and the lot but just for another area i think that's a little much

 

[GreatKhan]

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.

Dont mind buying a good game/expansions if reasonably priced. Promotes continued development to expand the zones. Would be nice to have ''free'' previews on new zones/expansions where you can play but wont be able to generate any items from until purchased. First zone purchased costing more to help with build cost.

No subscription fees is my biggest thing. Doesn't promote any further development of the game.

Selling cosmetics is nice. What I would like is if Ember sells the basic model/skin of items and allows the users to pay each time for color customization. (rather than 100 different named battleframe colors). Same with the lvgs/mgvs (feel r5 just copy pasta'd a few models and changed the color).

edit
Paywall.. Just sell ''redbeans'' or whatever they will be called on the forum. Allow exchange in game with other users and use those to unlock the zones. Dont need to hand out redbeans with every purchase.

 

[Rocket]

I have to say i certainly hope not, what would be the point of having the so called horizontal progression where you can go anywhere from the start ect. when MAJOR things like that are gated behind a pay wall, ...

I have to agree with this. You cannot have a "sandbox" game, where you can go anywhere at any time, if your locked out of areas by a paywall. That ain't no sandbox.

That's choosing between playing at the beach and playing in the dirt. Only beach sand belongs in a sandbox. Not the dirt.

EDIT: The only thing I can see that would change this belief, is if limited area's were free to play on an otherwise not free to play game. As a backer of any game I play, that's cool. That would be no different to a demo.

 

[Silv3r Shadow]

I like the buy once part of the game, and selling cosmetics etc etc. I'm kinda put off from the frase 'F2P', To many there's a question which is, "is it pay to win?" And having a stable upfront cost will benefit revenue for the game. Everyone loves cosmetics and customising their character, I'm one of those who must have and own every cosmetics plus exclusives

 

[Col. Kernel]

@Red

I'm totally okay with a buy-to-play model, but I can't stand subscription models. They just feel like another bill to pay and you end up spending way more money on a game than you want.

Then you haven't done the math.

Assuming $20/month you can play for hundreds of hours. Or you can take your SO/Spouse to a movie, with no popcorn or drink. Or you can go to a semi nice place for dinner, if you're cheap and don't tip. I can't take my grandkids to Amazing Jake's for 4 hours for $20.

Subscription MMOs are some of the best entertainment value around per dollar spent. Buying the game pays for the development, paying a sub keeps the servers running.