$30 for a game is really nothing in today's market. Even if you're also paying a monthly $15 sub.
Think about the fact that there are millions of gamers paying $60+ for a game they either beat or burn out on in under a month.
As for the tiered sub idea, the only tiered structure I would support is one in which you pay a slightly higher monthly rate and get to auto-download any new expansions rather than paying for them individualy. I support no payment model that changes gameplay or in-game content access based on how much you pay per month. No special access to GM events, no access to "free" weapon upgrades, no special 40slot backpacks. Nothing. Play the exact same game everyone else plays, get the same benefits for playing the same way.
Krixus said:No you're stupid!
This is the exact nonsense we're talking about. You'll go see a movie tonight for $15 that lasts 90 minutes, but you won't pay an additional $15 (from $15->$30) for something you might spend 50 or 100 or more hours a month playing? How many people buy single player games once a month on steam and play them for 8 hours and are done?
If the game is worth $30 a month then people will pay it. Just like you pay $5 for a caramel macchiato.
I mean, besides that disgusting oversimplification of comparing a movie viewing to playing a video game (all youre doing is cost of activity/time spent on that activity which A: ignores way more factors in the cost benefit decision, and B: is comparing apples to oranges anyway. The idea that the way to examine "is the cost worth it" based solely or even primarily on how long will I use it is absurd. Even using your own movie example, you dont get charged different ticket prices based on the cost of the movie) thats one pretty agressive stance youve got there.
Honestly its a moot point to argue actual numeric prices anyway (especially since the cost benefit analysis happens on the producer side of this as well, not just on our side as consumers). The discussion should focus on pro/cons of different models, not what price is right (as that is a personal cost/benefit decision made by the individual).
Feyshtey said:As for the tiered sub idea, the only tiered structure I would support is one in which you pay a slightly higher monthly rate and get to auto-download any new expansions rather than paying for them individualy. I support no payment model that changes gameplay or in-game content access based on how much you pay per month. No special access to GM events, no access to "free" weapon upgrades, no special 40slot backpacks. Nothing. Play the exact same game everyone else plays, get the same benefits for playing the same way.
THIS is how you discuss different payment plans, and in this case I agree whole heartedly with the points made. Offering different benefits for different amounts paid is no different than having a cash store where someone goes in and buys the benefit directly. The only difference is that the tierd subscription method automates the purchasing of the benefit. Thus, I agree that tiered subscriptions with benefits for each tier, should be out. Tiered subscription plans in the sense of "buy more months up front at a discount", yeah, those im OK with. Pay per month vs pay for 3 months vs pay for a year etc.
To those who say "you are stupid" or "your idea is stupid"
You may be entirely correct (pledging didn't increase my IQ I doubt if it did for anyone else) but please keep in mind that apart from being rude attacks like this hurt your argument.
The person being attacked is likely to respond negatively and not even consider any points you have to make, even though your position may be better than his or hers.
Neutrals are likely to read your post and assume that if you have to resort to language like this either your position must be weak or you aren't one of the more mature people here, therefore your positions aren't as worthy of careful consideration.
This may not be logical - a position is valid or not regardless of how ...temperately ... it is expressed, but it is human nature.
So I won't urge people to be nice - they will be or will not be as they choose. But I urge them to consider that intemperate language has only one guaranteed result - it weakens the impact of their own argument.
Every day that I read these forums, it's interesting to see what people say they want. There are a couple of distinct groups developing here, each claiming that Pantheon will be made their way and only their way. One group claims that without certain features, they will not play the game. Then, the other side claims that if those features are added, they will not play.
In the end, these statements are mostly exaggerations, that serve no helpful purpose, or half the audience will actually not play.
I believe the Pantheon is going to make a lot of choices in the middle, to please as many of us they can. They will probably give each group as much as they can. But, in the end, VR will build the game they think is the best.
It will be interesting to see who plays the game and who does not; to see who was just being a forum drama queen and who actually follows through with their claimed actions.
Buy the game. Pay a sub. Buy the expansions. No cash shop. No P2W. No F2P for any period of time. F2P, or making an account for free, encourages gold spammers because they aren't affected at all if they're banned. They'll just create new accounts over and over again. Perm bans for anyone involved in RMT. Perm bans for gold spammers. Pantheon will have a significant following for many, many years if they stick to their guns regarding the game's vision. And people who don't want to pay a sub can play something else? Plenty of games have required subs and done well. In fact, the best games I can think of all required subs... The worst games I can think of were all F2P and had cash shops.
Kaen said:Buy the game. Pay a sub. Buy the expansions. No cash shop. No P2W. No F2P for any period of time. F2P, or making an account for free, encourages gold spammers because they aren't affected at all if they're banned. They'll just create new accounts over and over again. Perm bans for anyone involved in RMT. Perm bans for gold spammers. Pantheon will have a significant following for many, many years if they stick to their guns regarding the game's vision. And people who don't want to pay a sub can play something else? Plenty of games have required subs and done well. In fact, the best games I can think of all required subs... The worst games I can think of were all F2P and had cash shops.
From the FAQ:
1.9 Will there be a trial of the game for me to play before I buy it?
Yes, a new player will be able to download and play Pantheon to a certain level for free, with a minimum of impediments. It's important to us that players, especially those who might not be familiar with classically-spirited MMOs, be given a chance to acclimate and truly enjoy the game. That said, some restrictions on these free characters may have to be made in order to avoid them being used by farmers, griefers, etc.
So, it looks like there will be FREE trial accounts.
When MMO studios don't compromise at all it gets a lot uglier.
I have little doubt that most of the people who say "do it my way on this one issue or I won't play even if you are perfect on every *other* issue" are either just letting emotions have their way or think - incorrectly - that the threatened loss of one supporter will tilt the decision.
Just read through the Daybreak forums. Every day, someone is threatening to quit unless their complaint of the day is immediately removed from the game. It never happens. I used to just respond, "See you in game tomorrow."
if you are going to threaten, at least go through with it, instead of being an obnoxious wind bag.
Jazznblues said:@Aethor "There is no world large enough for us and for them."
This is exactly the mentality that I don't want to see in Pantheon. For Pantheon to thrive, even to exist for several years it needs to be inclusive. It needs to welcome all gamers not just the "old-school" MMORPG players.
Painting a demographic with one colour is erroneous, and often such over generalisations really are an individual wanting to promote their knowledge and confidence in an area where there are insufficient facts to support a rational debate. It also limits your beliefs and leads to poor choices.
In effect by over generalising you are creating an artificial barrier which will impede new players joining Pantheon. "Hey have you played Pantheon?" "Nah I hear it's full of elitists." is a possible conversation, an over generalisation in reply to an over generalisation.
Inclusiveness is only good when it's good. To be specific, it's good when you include things or people that are different in nature and/or origin, but with the same quality level as what we want.
It can also be good to include several different quality levels - as long as each of them is at least on the minimum acceptable level.
It is NOT good when you start including things, or people, that are below the threshold, that would drag the rest of the world down.
I can accept, and indeed I think it's good, that both hardcore and casual players are in the same game.
I cannot accept people who want items to be sold for real money as an official feature of the game.
Think of it as putting together a dinner. You can put fancy stuff and normal stuff, foreign and domestic, on the same table, and it works and adds to variety. But as soon as you put rotten or spoiled food on the table... the whole feeling is gone.
Cash shops are not a bad thing. Vanity items do not affect gameplay in the slightest. The only argument people can give is that it impacts immersion. Immersion is different for everyone. You know what impacts immersion for me, running through a zone and seeing 4 rangers with names similar to leggolas.
You know, ultimately, what's worse than a cash shop??
The game company not having enough money to properly develop and test expansions and extra content, ultimately leading to the game dying because people have moved on.
People on these forums say they are committed to playing long term, but it's all blowing smoke. You have zero idea how the game will actually be on release, if it will meet or exceed your expectations, and you also, more importantly have zero idea what future games will come out. You can't sit here and say you'll be here for 10 years.
Just keep an open mind, 1 issue with the game that you disagree with is not going to ruin the game. Trust that the developers are going to make the eight choices for this game... I mean that's what you did when you pledged, you out your trust in the developers. Stop belittling others because they have an idea or opinion that differs from what you think
It's disgusting.
dorotea said:When MMO studios don't compromise at all it gets a lot uglier.
I have little doubt that most of the people who say "do it my way on this one issue or I won't play even if you are perfect on every *other* issue" are either just letting emotions have their way or think - incorrectly - that the threatened loss of one supporter will tilt the decision.
My opinion about compromise has little if anything to do with player opinion, and is instead associated entirely with the core principles the developer means to achieve. Once they start compromising design goals to achieve greater subscription numbers the principles they state as their goal are automatically suspect.
I can respect a game company that sticks to their design goals if they are determined to meet a specific target audiences desires. I cannot respect a game company whose design goals are to placate as many players as possible.
Beefcake said:Every day that I read these forums, it's interesting to see what people say they want. There are a couple of distinct groups developing here, each claiming that Pantheon will be made their way and only their way. One group claims that without certain features, they will not play the game. Then, the other side claims that if those features are added, they will not play.
In the end, these statements are mostly exaggerations, that serve no helpful purpose, or half the audience will actually not play.
I believe the Pantheon is going to make a lot of choices in the middle, to please as many of us they can. They will probably give each group as much as they can. But, in the end, VR will build the game they think is the best.
It will be interesting to see who plays the game and who does not; to see who was just being a forum drama queen and who actually follows through with their claimed actions.
I do not want to downplay your statement here, as most of it is completely correct and well thought out. I do however want to say, we must have some dialog as it delvelops into ideas, and concepts either for this beginning phases or for later development ideas. It is a tough one to follow along. Id like someone to redo EQ but make it so i can host my own server. It wont happen but the idea is there.
Porygon said:Cash shops are not a bad thing. Vanity items do not affect gameplay in the slightest. The only argument people can give is that it impacts immersion. Immersion is different for everyone. You know what impacts immersion for me, running through a zone and seeing 4 rangers with names similar to leggolas.
You know, ultimately, what's worse than a cash shop??
The game company not having enough money to properly develop and test expansions and extra content, ultimately leading to the game dying because people have moved on.
People on these forums say they are committed to playing long term, but it's all blowing smoke. You have zero idea how the game will actually be on release, if it will meet or exceed your expectations, and you also, more importantly have zero idea what future games will come out. You can't sit here and say you'll be here for 10 years.
Just keep an open mind, 1 issue with the game that you disagree with is not going to ruin the game. Trust that the developers are going to make the eight choices for this game... I mean that's what you did when you pledged, you out your trust in the developers. Stop belittling others because they have an idea or opinion that differs from what you think
It's disgusting.
I am not sure how long you been doing online gaming for but cash shops is the worst ever idea for gaming online. The new gen of players are too freely open minded to open up thier bank accounts and pay for unfinished content. Sure we will add in other ideas, make you pay for it but never fully finish the game for you.
Devs start focusing on the end all money makers and that is the cash shops, not the content. I am pretty sure brad has already said the same things as i have. Being that both of us are around the same time computer gaming came alive.
Just saying, we dont need this anymore.
Crazzie said:Beefcake said:Every day that I read these forums, it's interesting to see what people say they want. There are a couple of distinct groups developing here, each claiming that Pantheon will be made their way and only their way. One group claims that without certain features, they will not play the game. Then, the other side claims that if those features are added, they will not play.
In the end, these statements are mostly exaggerations, that serve no helpful purpose, or half the audience will actually not play.
I believe the Pantheon is going to make a lot of choices in the middle, to please as many of us they can. They will probably give each group as much as they can. But, in the end, VR will build the game they think is the best.
It will be interesting to see who plays the game and who does not; to see who was just being a forum drama queen and who actually follows through with their claimed actions.
I do not want to downplay your statement here, as most of it is completely correct and well thought out. I do however want to say, we must have some dialog as it delvelops into ideas, and concepts either for this beginning phases or for later development ideas. It is a tough one to follow along. Id like someone to redo EQ but make it so i can host my own server. It wont happen but the idea is there.
Off topic, but I've noticed a trend on game forums supporting certain games, and I think people that are part of those communities tend to adapt the way they discuss all games accordingly
F2P, P2W, Cash Shop/Lockbox games that are perpetually broken/unbalanced (usually trying to balance unseparated PvP and PvE) never have healthy communication between developers and players, and the players tend to resort to hyperbole and threats after months or even years of begging for bugfixes or balance
"All my guild mates quit because... (bugs/nerfs/new features)"
"I can't damage a bunny since this nerf!"
"If you don't fix this I will quit/never spend money in this game again!"
"My friends list is empty now!"
"This whole new thing is just a cash grab!"
These games typically have horribly broken economies and revolving doors on their developer cubicles, and the players generally speak of their in-game time as if it were a job where their only goal is to earn money
The players all feel cheated and the only fun comes from finding ways to cheat the game
I have much hope, based on what I have seen so far from VR and this community, that Pantheon will avoid the pitfalls that seem to always lead to becoming just another broken game, but I also understand when I see some members of this community going nuclear where that comes from
The more healthy interaction VR devs have with the player community, the more it will reassure them that we are in good hands here
Edited a typo
One thing to consider is that a lot of people make the proclamations of "I will quit if X!" but without taking the time to thoroughly understand something that has been communicated. I have seen it far too often where people jump to conclusions when they see certain trigger words (check out the lootbox thread as an example). I appreciate VR interacting with the community but sometimes the reactions that come as a result of those efforts are overly harsh and unwarranted. I have been working on an idea that it is directly related to this topic, and have seen firsthand how the "sticker shock" of certain keywords can trigger quick reactions. After taking the time to explain things in further detail, however, a happy medium is usually found. Please check out fantheonmmo.com and review the "Anti-RMT-Sheriff" thread in the general forum section to see the idea that I am referencing. I have been actively seeking out critique from folks in the community and am particularly interested in feedback from anybody who has a strong stance (for, or against) on anything related to cash shops, P2W, cosmetic vendors, etc. I believe there is a way for VR to leverage some of the core advantages that these type of systems were designed to offer, while also drastically minimizing any risk/consequence.
DakmorKavu said:Krixus said:No you're stupid!
This is the exact nonsense we're talking about. You'll go see a movie tonight for $15 that lasts 90 minutes, but you won't pay an additional $15 (from $15->$30) for something you might spend 50 or 100 or more hours a month playing? How many people buy single player games once a month on steam and play them for 8 hours and are done?
If the game is worth $30 a month then people will pay it. Just like you pay $5 for a caramel macchiato.
I mean, besides that disgusting oversimplification of comparing a movie viewing to playing a video game (all youre doing is cost of activity/time spent on that activity which A: ignores way more factors in the cost benefit decision, and B: is comparing apples to oranges anyway. The idea that the way to examine "is the cost worth it" based solely or even primarily on how long will I use it is absurd. Even using your own movie example, you dont get charged different ticket prices based on the cost of the movie) thats one pretty agressive stance youve got there.
Honestly its a moot point to argue actual numeric prices anyway (especially since the cost benefit analysis happens on the producer side of this as well, not just on our side as consumers). The discussion should focus on pro/cons of different models, not what price is right (as that is a personal cost/benefit decision made by the individual).
lmfao! What an absurd stance. You don't buy things based on what you will get out of it? If other factors are considered equal, you're seriously saying it shouldn't be an impact on your decision to buy a video game if game A is $60 and lasts 8 hours and game B is $60 and lasts 80 hours? Are you kidding me? You don't buy a car based on reliability? ooooooookay
Ok folks, we have discussed this multiple times and given an official answer, we will not be charging more than the typical industry standard monthly fee and since this cannot be discussed without personal insults and derogatory comments, it will now be closed.
Please do not create another thread on this topic as it serves no purpose, our stance has been made clear.