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

charognard

charognard
well i d can pay, but it s impossible. Subscription games need to inform player base at the beggining of the project. You can't make this without loosing mass players, even they can pay...

But, as someone say in this post, you can help them by buying for 5-10$/ mounths some cosmetics in the shop...
 
Last edited:

Dozer.k.a.o.

D
Absolutlely yes, if we have contents and quality in change, seriously, people is concern about lag of content, and how ED can be played in the long run, but nobody wants to pay for it, also i don´t understand how in this century people wants to play alone, really meeting people in diverse situations it what makes this game a complete experience.

But this only will work if you feel that you are paying for something, until now i tryed some mmorpg games and i got bored very soon because i didn´t know what they were doing with my money.
 

LtCasey

LtCasey
The best Way should be b2p. Guildwars 1 and2 is a very good example for this.
And to be honest, we have not Seen much on how Events and some little quests will be injected. So we should stay easy, wait for the next Beta phase, and Gamma or Release candidate. DB will Know best, how to handle and care for his baby.

Cheers
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Nope! Over £100 spent on this game which makes it officially the most expensive game i have every played.

No chance I would have kicked that in if it had not been free to play (after buying the package)

Its not going to happen so the following is purely hypothetical, but if a sub model DID happen I would be expecting a refund as the product would have been missold.
 
Last edited:

Thygrrr

Thygrrr
Robert Maynard said:
.... so much for the apparent desire to keep the player-base together....
Click to expand...

Normal players get transferred into premium instances as soon as a premium player enters their island. Should be transparent to either side (faster, even - it is likely the p2p player has to hand off / synchronize the sim state fewer times this way than when only p2p players join.)
 

Robert Maynard

Volunteer Moderator
Robert Maynard
Thygrrr said:
Normal players get transferred into premium instances as soon as a premium player enters their island. Should be transparent to either side (faster, even - it is likely the p2p player has to hand off / synchronize the sim state fewer times this way than when only p2p players join.)
Click to expand...

So only one of the sixteen players in a wing would need to pay the subscription for all to benefit? That does not make commercial sense.
 

Thygrrr

Thygrrr
Robert Maynard said:
So only one of the sixteen players in a wing would need to pay the subscription for all to benefit? That does not make commercial sense.
Click to expand...

It does, 10 EUR per month are more than enough to pay for the server time.

That is the beauty of my concept. (For reference, look to the game "realm of the mad god" where paying players can invite non payers into their premium experience).
 

Cheapchips

Cheapchips
No from me. I think it's a poor business model for a game entering the market. Subs are a barrier to entry for new players and put off lapsed players dipping into new content and expansions.

P2p instancing with cloud based galaxy still sounds like a great sustainable way to grow and maintain the game.

Given xblive essentially worked this way for most games I dont see how it's a fundimentally broken approach. Want it to improve performance over it's current state though.
 

deusx_ophc

deusx_ophc
well the key here is that FDEV haven taken a decision on this already in their "skunk work" phase. that very first model of ED they showed to the BBC soooo many moons ago, was based on p2p networking. and it makes a LOT of sense to go that way. specially for a game like ED with very fast moving objects and their relevant positions. all the console games do it, too. so why not ED?

because your testing experience of that p2p in a beta phase isn't very good?! not a very convincing argument. for me the networking aspect of ED has been getting better in every way (stability, lag, no. of human players, no. of NPCs, ghosting etc) since alpha 1.0. and the latest beta 3.03 proves to be nearly faultless even when home on my slowpoke line in rural germany.

here is the link showing the first ever video about ED and its kickstarter campaign. if you have not seen it, well worth a view ;)

there are also a number of reasons that others have mentioned, mainly you cannot change the payment method when you have already sold 150k copies of the game. another is that scalability of p2p is good. when ED is going gamma i would expect that number of players to double and full release, time will tell the numbers. FDEV just needs to call amazon to clusters. i am sure that is possible :p and as far as i know they have a new central connections for long-tail content anyways.

and for the record, i would pay anthing via any model to play the game as DB and his crew want to make it. but that decision has been made a long time ago and the decison taken is a wise one ^^
 
Last edited:

Thygrrr

Thygrrr
Almost no console game that supports more than 4 players uses peer to peer architecture.

Every single one that does has cheaters, lag, and overall highly dissatisfied players.
 

Arindor

Arindor
LukeP said:
1) no problem with monthly fee IF there would be substantial multiplayer component fleshed out. Living universe for players to interact with.

2) so far this is single-player game with rudimentary multi, so sub will be a killer.

3) Yes there is this problem of those not interested in multiplayer experience, and just stick with space trucking (seems to be quite a few here) ... It seems there are user tiers already, why just not acknowldge it as fact - especially that space truck sim is almost done, and multi seems to be not very developed. Different strokes for different folks. For me without substantial MP-interaction, it is already getting boring. If multiplayer-related stuff require more development time - well sub is way to support that. Just make it an option to general F2P model, like say , SOE "all access" program.
Click to expand...

With regard to points 2 and 3:

2) Subs would definitely kill the MP aspect off and prevent those who want to be part of this evolving galaxy.
3) I like to see ED not as a PvP sim, but a sci-fi space sim which parallels the daily grind we all suffer on planet earth. I agree that there's no reason why people can't create private groups for pewpewpew but, on the flip-side, I understand why some players are irritated with the same element who miss the point of ED and bring it into open play. Receiving a message via comms asking for "PvP" is immersion breaking IMO, being scanned and asked by a pirate to drop loot, then choosing to boil said pirate in his ship (or flee) is awesome.

ED isn't pewpewpew, there are other games for that. With such a large area to traverse, PvP will be rare. Besides, most of us '84ers probably prefer to play ED just as much as we did with the original and are not bothered about this multiplayer malarkey. I play in open, and have never come across another human player out on the far reaches of the pill, and it doesn't bother me one bit.
 
Last edited:

foxpur

foxpur
It seems pretty simplae at this point...

-It is NOT legal for FDEV to go to a Subscription model for the game.
-To make a Subscription sub-layer would mean a select few players would have access to a, as you unwritten for and untested, separate server based system just to apply a new Subscription service changing the primary sales structure to the entire core of the game... opening them up to SEVERAL lawsuits for misrepresentation and fraud.

See... I don't really see how this is something FDEV really can make profitable.
 

[VR] Mad Mike

[VR] Mad Mike
Thygrrr said:
Almost no console game that supports more than 4 players uses peer to peer architecture.

Every single one that does has cheaters, lag, and overall highly dissatisfied players.
Click to expand...

sorry but that is simply not true!. Hardly any xbox 360 games used servers.

I am not 100% certain on this but AFAIK even the new COD on PC uses mostly P2P as well.. (I do stand to be corrected on this one!) but certainly many other COD games were P2P and I played many hrs of lag free gaming on those.

cheaters in online games are scum of the gaming community..... and sadly they are NOT limited just to P2P.

The trick is not stopping them completely, that is a fools errand and you will spend a lot of time, effort and money... the trick is to when they are caught, perma ban their account to offline so they have to pay for a new game if they want to go online again. I am pretty sure the P2P networking code as well as the main universe server can have checks in place, even if only carried out randomly.

edit, yes, according to total biscuit the new COD is P2P and yet he still loves it!. (a real rarity for him and the COD games)

Also server based online is no guarantee of a smooth experience. I spent months having issues with BF4 (on PC) and whilst the rubber banding etc etc is reduced, its still far from perfect. This is NOT P2P, its running on servers
 
Last edited:

Lanatir

Lanatir
I would rather pay monthly to keep griefers and gankers OUT of my game then to pay monthly to assure that they are there.
 

deusx_ophc

deusx_ophc
Thygrrr said:
Almost no console game that supports more than 4 players uses peer to peer architecture.

Every single one that does has cheaters, lag, and overall highly dissatisfied players.
Click to expand...

well there are AAA games on all consoles that use p2p with 4+ that have players shouting LAG, HAX and are unhappy, sure =)

they are still hugely successful franchises. also ED has a max instance of 32 players, though i have never seen more than 15 at any one time.
 

Unknown Terror

Unknown Terror
I won't pay for a subscription and expansions it's a simple as that.

If they adopt the subscriptions, I expect expansions to be free, like Eve.

If they don't then I will pay for expansions.

You can't have both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom