Single Price (for early purchasers) Instead of Subscription

[Aerylac]

So I'm getting a lot of mixed messaging with the support packages for MO2.
The website says that purchasing the $39 package will get me lifetime ownership of the game--but what does that mean in contrast to the "1 month subscription" that I get with it?
- Do people have to first purchase the game up-front to own it, and then subscribe to gain access and play?
- Is this game going to be exclusively subscription-based?
- (^counter to that) Will the game instead have a "premium" membership system where subscribers essentially have much more access to game content?
- Does obtaining this package give me access to further testing phases well past the current stressing period/is it required for it?

In my humble opinion, I will not be getting the game if it is exclusively subscription-based but may consider if it is for extra luxury/non-essential content only.


"Once your donation has been made and you have access to the Closed Beta, you own the game forever"
still confuses me.

I would very much prefer to pay one big sum (between 40$-90$) over a subscription based system.
AAA Games are already pretty steep for the consumer as it is, and gone are the days of when this used to be viable. However, I do see the need to support the development of the game over time. I am also aware about the devs' strong stances against having extra characters, as well as microtransactions, cosmetic-only or otherwise.

As much as I cringe at and dislike the game, Fortnite is an excellent instance of a profitable system where players instead voluntarily pay more to the game to get additional content on top of the already rich core gameplay and content within the title. If the aforementioned had an initial up-front price, players will very likely still purchase cosmetics not because it's required for the enjoyment of the experience, but adds to it.

I want so badly to support and love the game in the best way I can--since it has so much more potential than most early access titles, with a passionate and transparent team at its backbone--a subscription model is just not a sustainable option for myself as well as other consumers I know (including many people I've interacted with and friends I've made in the Stress Test period).

I propose that in return for helping test the game and giving feedback, folks/players who have participated in the Stress Test and henceforth get a one-off price for playing the game forever if they have donated with any of the packages (if that isn't already the case, ie. "owning" the game means no more subscription fees).
If not, a steeper up-front cost than the current low-end package would be fine ($40-$90).
While I cannot name examples off the top of my head, I've seen it drive sales and player activity further in certain games, and I feel it would do the same for Mortal Online 2.

That said, people who are still willing and able to pay subscription fees should also be rewarded in some way--maybe with exclusive vanity items, titles, extra bank space, etc. If this causes balance issues for the game, or detracts from its core vision, maybe instead have physical rewards or merch that comes with the subscription.

I don't claim to be economically adept, but simply voicing the preferences of myself and the many wholesome folks I've interacted with and ventured forth alongside in MO2. I believe that having a one-off price as an option alongside a subscription model where the game could be enjoyed equitably on both will be better for this in the long run.

 

[User_name]

Well, running a company with almost 30 employees without steady income is probably not a sustainable option for SV, hence they chose the subscription-based model. It's just 14$ a month, if you can afford a rig that runs the game you probably can afford that as well. One of the cheapest hobbies in $/hour

 

[Aerylac]

Well, running a company with almost 30 employees without steady income is probably not a sustainable option for SV, hence they chose the subscription-based model. It's just 14$ a month, if you can afford a rig that runs the game you probably can afford that as well. One of the cheapest hobbies in $/hour

Yes but that's assuming many things.

- the fact that one-off prices has driven sales with some games (like Star Citizen and their pledge tiers) hasn't been addressed here
- assuming that I myself afforded the rig that I play on, when it was a gift

- going with that last point, a PC isn't a continual $14/month lifetime subscription for as long as you use it. Once you buy it, it's yours.
if anything, this proves that the person who bought it for me can only afford whatever equivalence of playtime (in a 14/month setup) the price of my PC will get me.

 

[Amadman]

When they say you own the game that just means you do not have to pay the intial fee again. You will still need to pay subs.

Though there is a not currently available package listed that provides a life time sub to MO2.

But it is listed at $2500. Which is probably not the one off price you are looking for.

The first MO had a similar option that some took advantage of. From what I understand the people that paid for the high dollar life time sub also have lifetime access to mo2 as well. Though I could be mistaken.

 

[Aerylac]

When they say you own the game that just means you do not have to pay the intial fee again. You will still need to pay subs.

Though there is a not currently available package listed that provides a life time sub to MO2.

But it is listed at $2500. Which is probably not the one off price you are looking for.

The first MO had a similar option that some took advantage of. From what I understand the people that paid for the high dollar life time sub also have lifetime access to mo2 as well. Though I could be mistaken.

Thanks for understanding! I can definitely see why they would stick to subscription after the one-off was "taken advantage of" as you say. Makes it a lot trickier to get into but i feel like from their communications to the playerbase, the dev team are taking many lessons from back then into account and have learned a lot since then.

I still strongly stand by the one-off price, even if only as a reward for early testers and backers/donors, since there is already a tiered system associated with donations (again, much like Star Citizen).
I believe that a range between $40-$90 for the fixed price will drive more sales, and be more accessible to newer players (which is what you want for growth).

 

[Amadman]

Thanks for understanding! I can definitely see why they would stick to subscription after the one-off was "taken advantage of" as you say. Makes it a lot trickier to get into but i feel like from their communications to the playerbase, the dev team are taking many lessons from back then into account and have learned a lot since then.

I still strongly stand by the one-off price, even if only as a reward for early testers and backers/donors, since there is already a tiered system associated with donations (again, much like Star Citizen).
I believe that a range between $40-$90 for the fixed price will drive more sales, and be more accessible to newer players (which is what you want for growth).

Sorry, that must not have read the way I meant it too.

I just meant that some people took them up on the deal and paid the large one time payment early on and saved money over the long run. And may still be doing so if it does in fact continue into MO2.

I cant rember the actually price but i think it may have been a little less than the $2500 they look to be suggesting this time.

 

[KermyWormy]

This must be today's crap idea by another Johnny come lately. Every day there is at least one.

 

[Aerylac]

Sorry, that must not have read the way I meant it too.

I just meant that some people took them up on the deal and paid the large one time payment early on and saved money over the long run. And may still be doing so if it does in fact continue into MO2.

I cant rember the actually price but i think it may have been a little less than the $2500 they look to be suggesting this time.

Ah i see. Yeah, 2500$ is way too steep. I would still be down for a price in the 100s range but that's pushing it.
Still, if people and fans want this game to grow, a fairly steep but accessible one-off price should be an option; tiered or fixed.

 

[Aerylac]

This must be today's crap idea by another Johnny come lately. Every day there is at least one.

Thanks for the bump

 

[zosfero]

I'm glad that others like yourself have also found it strange that there isn't a one-time payment, really not a fan of the subscription-based system. I will also have to hold off from purchasing the game if there are seriously no alternative options.
I would be willing to pay for a subscription that gives me other content etc. Having paid once for the main game should suffice, but a pay-to-play system each month seems outlandish to me.

 

[Rorry]

A subscription based system is best for a living MMO where player interaction and politics is what carries the game. Having people buy the game and not sub would mean that people would tend to play a few days and then drop out for a while, then come back and play a few days. This would be detrimental to the game, perhaps to a fatal degree. It is an MMO, not a casual game. I like the way that the sub insures that everyone who is playing is somewhat invested in the world.

 

[Speznat]

I like the sub model.
That means that the game will run after 10 years too.
And it will get patched regulary every 2 weeks.


And will not end up being abandoned like 99% of the shitgames that have a onetime pay and forever play model.

 

[Wesley Snipes]

I'd be okay with dumping the box price and sticking to the sub fee.

 

[MolagAmur]

Most people that complain about subscription models are the ones who sink far more money into the game monthly than a subscription would cost you. Regardless, they have to get paid. A one time buy isn't going to keep the game running for long without adding a cash shop.

 

[Aerylac]

A subscription based system is best for a living MMO where player interaction and politics is what carries the game. Having people buy the game and not sub would mean that people would tend to play a few days and then drop out for a while, then come back and play a few days. This would be detrimental to the game, perhaps to a fatal degree. It is an MMO, not a casual game. I like the way that the sub insures that everyone who is playing is somewhat invested in the world.

It's not supposed to dumb it down, but to make it accessible. I know many games I can name off the top of my head with a continuing concurrent playerbase that a) has much less depth to explore with than MO2; b) have been modded and/or complained about due to not having said depth but are still being played.

MO2 already has so much content going for it if you're eyeing longevity, so "forcing" (more like obligating) the players to think about how active they want to be will turn more people off than bring more in.

The gameplay and content alone--plus adding to the fact you can only have one character--adds so much to the replayability and longevity of the game that you would not need to pull concurrent players by monetary strings. At this day and age, games have gone and grown past it: hopping back on titles like EVE and other older fantasy MMOs, they're starting to offer one-off packages for lifetime and sometimes even in-game methods of paying off a subscription just to keep their playerbase. Emergent gameplay and in-depth systems will keep people curious and thirsty for more; add onto that the skill-based combat where (in theory) a naked with 1H weapon and shield can eventually take down a goliath of a player in full plate. The politics, as you mentioned, and dynamics in NPC reputation and "street cred" with other players and player groups will have the ambitious rise and fall from power with the memories of their feats luring them back in for years to come.

A good game invests players by its merits, not by fiscal obligations.

I have experienced many MMOs in the past decade or so of gaming and I believe this title will do more than just deliver.

I myself have been quite reluctant on taking this stance, as the dangers of going mainstream and only being a one-hit wonder for a while (knock on wood) are well ingrained in past experiences. Looking at many successful titles with up-front single payment costs, though, (even some actual good F2P models) proves that the model works and is profitable.

Ultimately, the more this studio can profit, the more they can focus their passions into delivering a better product for us; I don't really even mind if it's going to be marginally steeper than market AAA average.

I'm mostly making this argument for myself, and echoing it for others who share similar sympathies with me, but who doesn't like seeing their favorite studio/game franchise gets to prosper and thrive with the points made here?

 

[Aerylac]

Most people that complain about subscription models are the ones who sink far more money into the game monthly than a subscription would cost you. Regardless, they have to get paid. A one time buy isn't going to keep the game running for long without adding a cash shop.

- Rust
- Mount and Blade*
- Minecraft*
- Runescape
- Elder Scrolls V: Skyrim**
- Stardew Valley
- For Honor (I couldn't believe it either, the fuckers are still going lmao)***
- The Witcher 3****


*Not exactly MMOs, but have relatively "hardcore" elements depending who plays them

**with the exception of the Creation Club being an actual cash shop, the game itself as a package with all the DLC (Special Edition) is still makin' it rain for Hodd Toward to this day, on all platforms it was available for during its launch. I am counting it here as being similar to an "MMO"RPG because of Skyrim Together, the latest and currently most stable multiplayer mod

***people tend to argue it's the accessibility keeping people but, the community has maintained a very consistent population due to its apparently added depth to the combat

****not multiplayer, but proof that depth of gameplay is better for longevity than sub based

 

[Rorry]

None of the listed games are similar to MO. MO won't be a good game if it's population is constantly a high percentage of new players. Thinking of the game consisting of stress test like conditions all the time with newbie churn is unappealing. Wehad that to a limited extent with MO1 beingfree to play. Understand, I like helping new players and I know that there will always be turnover, but without the subscription it will be too much.
So it would be a better idea in my thinking to keep the subscription model and drop the initial charge for the game as well as to introduce a free trial for a week on Haven.

 

[Eldrath]

free trial for a week on Haven.

That would be nice for farm bots.

 

[Amadman]

The sub pretty much has to happen to pay for the developers to continue development.

The one thing that many players have been pushing for though is some kind of sub token that can be purchased for cash and be a sellable in game item.

This would allow players to purchase the token with real money and sell it to other players in game for in game money.

SV still gets paid for every sub and players have an option to get subs from in game currency.

Though SV has yet to warm up to the idea.

 

[bbihah]

That would be nice for farm bots.

In havens current state? probably.


Limited free trial is probably the best bet for MO to get new players to look at it, other than word of mouth/recruiting.

Haven in the future shouldn't allow you to go to myrland with your bank, shouldn't have books, should just like now have limited unique resources on it and.... No money makers. Bandits shouldn't drop loads of money, they should drop newbie gear(sort of the kind you can buy now), animals only drop carcass, no trophies. Undeads only drop newbie gear and carcass.

This way the newbie area becomes at best for someone farming there a way to farm tons of newbie gear that you dont need when there is much better to be made yourself or bought at the upcoming broker in myrland, a ton of low end materials that you'll have little to no use for. But it would be good for the newbie experience and the health of the game.

You use tutors to get most skills that you need, once you are confident in the game, you've killed some bandits for half broken newbie armor and weapons, undeads for some half broken armor and maybe made your own low end armor, bone/cuprum weapons and low end bow you can then decide to graduate to myrland.


You can still farm gold in haven, but how much gold you think you can get from just carcass hauling in haven? Probably not a whole lot.
If there is an ultimate /played limit of how long you can be in haven, then that will really limit how much money you could farm there in "safety"