Subscription model for better multiplayer experience... Would you pay for it ?

TiberiuS

TiberiuS
I wouldn't be so sure about really randomized starting points. At the far end of the galaxy there aren't any stations AT ALL. The farther away from the core systems the less probable is a colonialization. Maybe far away systems get colonialized over time (evolving galaxy) when there's a planet people can live on or when there are a lot of rare ressources to harvest.

A randomized starting position within the "core systems" where the factions are is possible.
 

JosiahD

JosiahD
I'm not sure where I stand subscription, but not necessarily against it. But I gather from the OP that the sub would be to enable a central server for MP. Now looking at this from the perspective of a player from Australia (ie me! lol), a central server (UK based presumably) would force me to play with a high latency - in my experience this is a significant disadvantage in any form of PvP. Right now the peer to peer approach seems to be working fine my end, but that in part could be due to timezone differences too. Regardless of subscription or not, the switch to a central server would definitely degrade my experience in open, so I'd prefer to persevere with the peer to peer model for now.
 

Mobius

Mobius
this question has been proposed many times over the past 2 years, each time the majority all say NO!.
the subscription model is pretty much dying off as even past MMO games that had a subscription model have all gone to micro transactions.
......
just to name a few mmo games that went free to play online.
Star Trek Online
Star Wars the old republic
Warhammer
lord of the rings
champions online
DC universe online
 

S.H.A.D.O

S
Would I pay it? Yes.

I have to admit that I didn't really like the idea of it being P2P based and would have preferred a more traditional client/server system but yeah, I would pay if it had happened.
 

myngos211

M
Hell no! But that goes for all games. Games should be priced to include any and all network related costs. The more sold, the more money to expand.
 

Maxx Peck

Maxx Peck
I see a lot of 'I'm not paying subscription for games out of principle' posts and I wonder if such a playerbase would reconsider if the subscription model was more flexible and shook the cash cow connotations. For instance paying for the amount you play: 0 hours, $0. 1-5 hours, $0,50. 6-10 hours, $1 and have an absolute maximum of $5 for something like 30+ hours.

If I look at myself I wouldn't mind paying anywhere between $1 and $10 for dedicated servers and a stronger emphasis on the MMO aspect of the game. But I've come to terms that this is not likely to happen and seek the fun within the boundaries of what this game does offer.

EDIT:
It would still violate the law. They would have to change the packaging and company contract with the sponsors, as well as prepare for legal battle hell.
Click to expand...

Kinda missing the point, I was more or less interested if those who are against paying subscriptions out of principal could be persuaded to reconsider that stance if the model was more flexible than the sub model we know. And not whether or not it would break laws if it was applied to E: D.
 
Last edited:

foxpur

foxpur
Maxx Peck said:
I see a lot of 'I'm not paying subscription for games out of principle' posts and I wonder if such a playerbase would reconsider if the subscription model was more flexible and shook the cash cow connotations. For instance paying for the amount you play: 0 hours, $0. 1-5 hours, $0,50. 6-10 hours, $1 and have an absolute maximum of $5 for something like 30+ hours.
Click to expand...

It would still violate the law. They would have to change the packaging and company contract with the sponsors, as well as prepare for legal battle hell.
 

Gedemon

Gedemon
Jim Panse said:
"Would you pay a monthly fee if there would be a change at the networking system ?"
Click to expand...
No.

First because I believe that the current hybrid network code will improve without requiring "a change to the networking system".

Second because if it finally doesn't improve, I want to be able to play in private mode without paying a monthly fee.
 

cmdr awesome

cmdr awesome
More players might actually help in some ways. It would mean there is a greater chance of players being geographically close to you for low latency P2P. The FD servers run the economy so a little lag there is more tolerable, and they are probably an autoscaling ec2 cluster anyway.

As for ongoing costs, FD will have done their sums. Amazon servers are very efficient at scaling to demand and each copy sold will most likely only need a few pounds worth of server time over its lifetime.

Remember that DB was a world class expert at squeezing every last drop off function out of specific hardware while most of us were in short trousers! If he says subscription isn't necessary (and he has), then I'm not going to argue.
 
Last edited:

Armour

A
P2P traffic is being treated more and more like brown smelly stuff by ISPs. Either they want our traffic routed via "cache servers" for economic reasons, or because they are being persuaded to by spooks with access to those "cache servers", or both. Either option stinks.

I don't pay to get access to a cached version of the internet. ISPs should not be able to make wild claims about available bandwidth when their users will only see that speed whilst accessing their own servers because of "fair use" policies (which are unfair and minimise the use from the customer POV whilst maximising the use to the ISP so they can oversubscribe in ever higher numbers).

If more software (including multiplayer games) relied on P2P traffic to operate, then ISPs would be forced to support it properly, and stop trying to trap us behind their chinese firewalls, completely disregarding net neutrality because greed/terrorists/children/(fill in your own reason).

So for those reasons, I'm all for the current P2P model used by this game.
 
Last edited:

Jim Panse

Jim Panse
good ideas

Rinxo said:
I would pay double the price if this was going for a "proper" sandbox mmo setup.
And by proper i mean:

1. Select a server to play in
2. Create a character
3. Persistent, non-instanced world
4. Base building, housing
5. Grouping with friends made easy, sharing quests, trading credits, trading items... you know all that good stuff.
6, Make a real impact in the game economy
7. Crafting
8. Auction house?
9. Open pvp (maybe faction wars, GvG, whatever really)

etc etc

Also i would love to see every single player on my screen and not get matchmaked (<-is this even a word?) every time i jump to a new system.
I know this creates problems though. High populated areas and especially the starting ones will be pretty much inaccessible due to the high load of players. Imagine having to wait 30 mins to dock to a station...


Peace
Click to expand...

The population will shift and spread out to other systems. New and many more hot spots will grow. Docking time would be fun... like in the real world. first come, first serve. dont wanna wait ? move to other stations or systems. More Stations in crowded systems... so many possabilities !!! FD > please act :)

Base building and housing would be awesome too....
 

inkmmo

inkmmo
MorkFromOrk said:
Why is it a common mistake to think something paid for might be better? In the case of networking here it would be interesting to see your explanation as to why the current "free" model would be better than a subscription server based model for multiplayer.

Sure it is possible to take money and make a bad product but I would argue that in most areas of life, for a given similarity, paid is better than free.

It is completely your right to dislike threads that discuss ways for FD to make more money. Shall we also expect to see you direct your distaste at threads discussing expansion packs and vanity items? Also, if free is better, why is it OK for FD to charge for ED at all?

It's just a balance. If there is a cost it should be justified. At this stage it is extremely difficult to justify an exclusive switch from the current pay model to the subscription model. However if a certain type of content or an optional playing model that allowed multiplayer without the P2P limitations could be funded this way without impacting existing customers, then why shouldn't it be considered? We have paid for what was promised. None of us have paid for what has not been promised (expansion pass being an exception).
Click to expand...

First of all, ED is buy to play so it is not free at all. Just because you don't pay subscription it doesn't mean it is free. If you or anyone else do not understand this simple statement - I feel so sorry for you all.

Free to play game require absolutely no money spending on gamers behalf. Not initial, not ever. Go, sign up, download game and play. In free to play game you should spend money only if you want to. With buy to play model - YOU HAVE TO!

Why we don't like pay to play games? Because they tend to have bad reputation in recent years. If pay to play is better way to fund the game and have better experience, how in the world it is possible for games like:

Lord of the Rings Online
Star Trek Online
Age of Conan Online
Dungeons and Dragons Online
EverQuest 1 & 2
Star Wars The Old Republic
Champions Online
Rift
Lineage 1&2
Tera
Aion
...

and many many others have been pay to play and flipped into free to play market. How is this possible if the service is better? How is it possible when they have huge legacy behind it in form of movies, TV shows, games and even comics?

Well, it was not better in the first place! They played on a card that there will be a subscription and players will run in circles and they got comfy with it. Players didn't like their game and start leaving. The only way they could prevent death of the title is to go free to play market and there - there they need to work day and night to make it playable. Fun fact - Star Wars The Old Republic got it's first expansion as a free to play game and got more playable with it.

On the other hand, there are games like Guild Wars that are buy to play model and still players play those games. They still got their service as per usual and their price never drop! You can still buy Guild Wars 1 and all it's expansions and still play it as usual.

So stating that pay to play is better is wrong. Stating free to play is better is also wrong. Game needs to be good to begin with and since we have been disappointed so many times in the past by this "premium subscription model". I really find buy to play fairest of them all.
 

MorkFromOrk

Banned
MorkFromOrk
inkmmo said:
First of all, ED is buy to play so it is not free at all. Just because you don't pay subscription it doesn't mean it is free. If you or anyone else do not understand this simple statement - I feel so sorry for you all.

Free to play game require absolutely no money spending on gamers behalf. Not initial, not ever. Go, sign up, download game and play. In free to play game you should spend money only if you want to. With buy to play model - YOU HAVE TO!

Why we don't like pay to play games? Because they tend to have bad reputation in recent years. If pay to play is better way to fund the game and have better experience, how in the world it is possible for games like:

Lord of the Rings Online
Star Trek Online
Age of Conan Online
Dungeons and Dragons Online
EverQuest 1 & 2
Star Wars The Old Republic
Champions Online
Rift
Lineage 1&2
Tera
Aion
...

and many many others have been pay to play and flipped into free to play market. How is this possible if the service is better? How is it possible when they have huge legacy behind it in form of movies, TV shows, games and even comics?

Well, it was not better in the first place! They played on a card that there will be a subscription and players will run in circles and they got comfy with it. Players didn't like their game and start leaving. The only way they could prevent death of the title is to go free to play market and there - there they need to work day and night to make it playable. Fun fact - Star Wars The Old Republic got it's first expansion as a free to play game and got more playable with it.

On the other hand, there are games like Guild Wars that are buy to play model and still players play those games. They still got their service as per usual and their price never drop! You can still buy Guild Wars 1 and all it's expansions and still play it as usual.

So stating that pay to play is better is wrong. Stating free to play is better is also wrong. Game needs to be good to begin with and since we have been disappointed so many times in the past by this "premium subscription model". I really find buy to play fairest of them all.
Click to expand...

Was that aimed at me? You quoted me but since I put "free" and referenced ED being paid for I'm not sure if I'm the 'you' that you took aim at.
 

DocMoriarty

D
I would pay if it were a real MMO as opposed to the peer to peer approach and of course if there would be a choice between PVP and PVE servers or no PVP servers at all.
 

Cryptonomica

Cryptonomica
While I don't necessarily have a problem with subscriptions, I wouldn't pay for one just so Frontier could supply some kind of "improved" multiplayer in Elite. It's the aspect of Elite that I'm least interested in, and I think too much focus on that would detract from lots of other areas of the galaxy that need iteration. Pretty much don't want to see Elite become EVE Online.
 

Dandalf

Dandalf
I would pay. I want Frontier to be able to afford to continue development for years to come, delivering on all their promises!
 

Xenith

Xenith
These days I'm not particularly fond of the subscription model. It is not good value for money if you don't get a lot of time to play, or want to play something else for a while. Personally, I would be disappointed if FD tried to milk us like that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom