Subscription model for better multiplayer experience... Would you pay for it ?
- Thread starter Jim Panse
- Start date
For a fully open multiplayer experience, allowing large fleet battles between formalized teams of players - hunting each other across solar systems? Yeah I'd pay a sub for that. Absolutely. You could even limit it to a dozen solar systems and have play outside those systems revert to standard open play. I'd love to see a couple of teams facing off against each other, 40 or 50 on each side, a screen of fighters with a smattering of cap-ships. That would be fun.
It needn't be mandatory either, I understand people's reluctance to pay sub fee's for a game. Those that want to play solo, open instanced, or group could continue to do so. Just add a 'premium open' or 'warzone' style option for those of us that would like it. If that's possible.
It needn't be mandatory either, I understand people's reluctance to pay sub fee's for a game. Those that want to play solo, open instanced, or group could continue to do so. Just add a 'premium open' or 'warzone' style option for those of us that would like it. If that's possible.
Last edited:
All that does is put the devs firmly into the pockets of very fickle pay to play subscribers. They have to write the game the subscribers want, and if they don't or when the next big thing comes along they suddenly have no money. Much better to budget to make a profit from sales than subscriptions and budget for a certain lifespan of support, plus they can make the game THEY want, not the game the subscribers want.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
They may not necessarily have the same opinion as to the perceived benefits.
Revenue from subscriptions can hardly be described as "constant". Skins, expansions, etc. are all optional to each player. As to "all those things would be available for free", do no subscription games sell things for RL money?
Indeed they do, exactly the reason that revenue from subscriptions cannot be considered to be constant. Also, being reliant on subscriptions for revenue to fund continued development could prove to be a risky model if the player-base chose to disagree with the development path of the game to such an extent that they chose to boycott the game (i.e. remove subs and therefore reduce revenue).
Yes, they do. People do that. Some gamers have been conditioned to pay continually to be allowed to play their chosen game - others have not and have no wish to change that.
This one made me break into laughter... Not a single thing there do I pay for, my internet is a side effect that here is a coffee shop downstairs, I don't own a tv, I don't watch sports, I listen to my music on a free service ( usually youtube), I am 1/3 paralyzed so my rehab is covered by social medicine (side note: If I was in Sweden still the internet is considered a housing requirement)
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Yup:
- Massive: the entire online player base affects the same galaxy (which is huge, by the way);
- Multi-player: Yes;
- Online: Yes.
No: it is not a cookie-cutter implementation of an MMO (or is it really MMORPG that people are referring to?) that players may have played previously.
MorkFromOrk
Banned
If FD release what they promised to backers then job is done.
If they subsequently release subscription only content then there would be no issues since the original play method is still in place.
No breaking of the contract.
Just saying. A subscription model need not remove free to play since many games with subscription also have a free play mode too.
P.S. ED is not free to play. You have to purchase to play, you just pay upfront.
If they subsequently release subscription only content then there would be no issues since the original play method is still in place.
No breaking of the contract.
Just saying. A subscription model need not remove free to play since many games with subscription also have a free play mode too.
P.S. ED is not free to play. You have to purchase to play, you just pay upfront.
Last edited:
Some aspects of the implementation are 'massive'. The size of the playable area, actions of the player-base affecting the market, etc. But... what are we up to now? A maximum of 24, 32 players per instance? And with all of the inherent problems associated with peer-to-peer. That aspect is not massive. Not even a little bit massive.
I'm not demanding that everyone be forced onto the same open virtual server as it is in EvE, but an optional sub to play on dedicated servers that open the instancing up a bit, to say 100 players, and a system for formal fleets, declarations of war, etc. That would be nice.
As it stands now, no I would not pay a subscription. This is a single player game, there is no social aspect whatsoever. Maybe someday someone will come out with the perfect space game, a sort of combination of EVE, Elite and Second life. Don't get me wrong, the original Elite was what got me into computer gaming and I love that I can play it again, it's just not a MMO and without major changes it never will be.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
What is the current number of players visible to each player for a game to be considered "massive"?
Ahem... AHEM!!!! Look at the picture here and understand it:
View attachment 957
As we can see from the chart, FREE TO PLAY games EARN MORE MONEY than pay to play (subscription based) games. Now, having E: D as buy to play game it is somewhere in between and already have a start up with cash since we obviously paid for the game.
Now could you please stop this nonsense talk about maintenance costs, company earning etc? Just because game is not subscription based doesn't mean it can't earn money! As I linked earlier the article, out of top 10 most profitable online games in the World, only World of Warcraft is on the list and it is not even the first on the list!
View attachment 957
As we can see from the chart, FREE TO PLAY games EARN MORE MONEY than pay to play (subscription based) games. Now, having E: D as buy to play game it is somewhere in between and already have a start up with cash since we obviously paid for the game.
Now could you please stop this nonsense talk about maintenance costs, company earning etc? Just because game is not subscription based doesn't mean it can't earn money! As I linked earlier the article, out of top 10 most profitable online games in the World, only World of Warcraft is on the list and it is not even the first on the list!
Last edited:
Tar Stone
Banned
Subscription gaming creates a very different beast from what we have with ED.
Forum threads can escalate into sizeable groups threatening to cancel subs if x feature isn't implemented. Inevitably these things end up in dev meetings solely for money reasons rather than merit.
Frankly it's about time someone had the balls to move away from client server. The costs can double overnight, maintenance costs a fortune, training new staff as it expands is a nightmare, generic know it all server techs are a pain to work with, outages cost you subscriptions, and the industry needs a few pioneers right now.
Forum threads can escalate into sizeable groups threatening to cancel subs if x feature isn't implemented. Inevitably these things end up in dev meetings solely for money reasons rather than merit.
Frankly it's about time someone had the balls to move away from client server. The costs can double overnight, maintenance costs a fortune, training new staff as it expands is a nightmare, generic know it all server techs are a pain to work with, outages cost you subscriptions, and the industry needs a few pioneers right now.
I wouldn't subscribe
To be extremely frank and honest, I would not pay a subscription to any game even 'Elite Dangerous'.
I did a trial of EVE and the monthly cost put me off continuing playing, some people may not mind splashing out £9.99 a month on a game (£119.88 over the year) or a one off payment of £89.99 for the year, but for me that is expensive gaming and come on Eve is not 'Elite' and will never be 'Elite'.
It has been made clear from the outset that Elite Dangerous will not be subscription based, it is what sold it for me to join the beta. It would also be a very bad business decision if FD even thought about it. What they could do however, is release a subscription only 'Clone' of the game for those that want to play it like that with costs along the lines of Eve. This though may require new servers & infrastructure to be in place before something like that would happen.
Currently I am playing ED over a Wi-Fi connection and don't notice any lag in game, it is nice and smooth and a joy to fly around the vastness of space. looking at the details it appears to be a mixture of P2P and servers, hopefully these little niggles that people are experiencing will over the next couple of weeks be ironed out.
To be extremely frank and honest, I would not pay a subscription to any game even 'Elite Dangerous'.
I did a trial of EVE and the monthly cost put me off continuing playing, some people may not mind splashing out £9.99 a month on a game (£119.88 over the year) or a one off payment of £89.99 for the year, but for me that is expensive gaming and come on Eve is not 'Elite' and will never be 'Elite'.
It has been made clear from the outset that Elite Dangerous will not be subscription based, it is what sold it for me to join the beta. It would also be a very bad business decision if FD even thought about it. What they could do however, is release a subscription only 'Clone' of the game for those that want to play it like that with costs along the lines of Eve. This though may require new servers & infrastructure to be in place before something like that would happen.
Currently I am playing ED over a Wi-Fi connection and don't notice any lag in game, it is nice and smooth and a joy to fly around the vastness of space. looking at the details it appears to be a mixture of P2P and servers, hopefully these little niggles that people are experiencing will over the next couple of weeks be ironed out.
Gosh well I guess you got me there I had not see that before, but I still say that it is not one.
Even though this thread started as a discussion on whether you would pay monthly or not apparently it sidetracked.
Most people argue that they don't want/can't pay a sub because no money, no time, no whatever.
However they are more than willing to pay for expansions, dlc, skins, microtransactions.
Am i the only one that can see a flaw in this argument?
Apparently this is not a discussion about the sub model per se but rather if you are willing to pay or not for extra stuff period.
Also to everyone who says that can't pay 5-10 Euro/dollars/we per month how can you buy an expansion?
Flawed arguments everywhere.
Either add something constructive to the thread or not at all
Peace
Most people argue that they don't want/can't pay a sub because no money, no time, no whatever.
However they are more than willing to pay for expansions, dlc, skins, microtransactions.
Am i the only one that can see a flaw in this argument?
Apparently this is not a discussion about the sub model per se but rather if you are willing to pay or not for extra stuff period.
Also to everyone who says that can't pay 5-10 Euro/dollars/we per month how can you buy an expansion?
Flawed arguments everywhere.
Either add something constructive to the thread or not at all
Peace
Yep, and we know your opinion as well.
You wan't SP
My opinion, I would not hold my breath for this not becoming pay to play.
If it states somewhere that this is never going to happen then fair enough, but I bet it don't
And when it happens it will be a better experience for most of us..
My opinion.
I would never pay a subscription for Elite, I have paid enough already. I have waited 20+ years for this game to appear, but I would stop playing if a subscription was introduced. I have played WOW, and EVE, and it just feels like your getting fleeced (especially as you have to pay £40.00 for the game to begin with, let alone the £100 I paid for Elite). Personally I think micro-transactions, subscriptions, and "free to play" games are killing the joy of playing videogames. I may be a consumer, but I don't have a bottomless pit of money to fund all these things.
Robert Maynard
Volunteer Moderator
Really? Are you sure about that? I know how I want to play the game - you can only guess.
Tar Stone
Banned
Nonsense.
There is a huge, vast difference between paying a subscription and buying expansions. They are chasm-like in their differences, polar opposites in fact, chalk and cheese and male and female and cats and dogs.
"Flawed argument" is generic forum speak, I think it's number 12 on the list of things to say when you are incapable of expressing yourself.
Subscription is a financial commitment.
DLC is optional.
There is a difference when you pay once for an expansion or skin via microtransaction and you own it all the time, while with subscription you are forced to rent it all the time and usually pay extra for expansions. So it is not flawed at all.
This thing with pay to play is the flawed one but I guess players are too biased to think otherwise.