Single Price (for early purchasers) Instead of Subscription

[Aerylac]

Subscription need to be permanent, they need a stream of income for as long as the game stays active.

This game cannot sustain on cosmetic items, making cosmetics for MO2 is very expensive and time consuming because of the game mechanic that allow players to taget parts of the body that are not covered by armor. And wearing a cosmetic skin would hide those gaps from the opponent unless they make a system for players to hide skins. But on skins alone MO2 cannot sustain itself.

For example, take a look at albion online, they made it "free to play" but progression is extremely slow unless players pay for a subscription, and free to play players cannot compete in crafting with the subs players making it pay to win. They had to keep subscription because they cant sustain with skins alone.And Albion Online is cheaper to mantain and develop.

However, the initial price could be eliminated after a year or two, and make the game purely subscription based instead of buy to play. That would be the best approach to attract more players. Casual players would still be gated due to the subscription...and casual players that pay would quit after they get murdered the first time and lose it all.

I can definitely agree to an initial price in the early days as long as the ones who've paid that price don't have to subscribe to pay.

Man, Albion Online. Where to begin?
Their biggest fault was transitioning to F2P, which is not only the worst idea for MO2, but a bad idea for any game transitioning from a subscription model.
They should have instead had tiered pricing levels, where different ones can get you respective cosmetics at varying degrees of prestige, and having an optional sub model on the side to get all of that for free. That, on top of stunting progression makes it abundantly clear how much they have had to resort to a Pay to Win scheme, which is quite sad.

As for the cosmetics being a problem:
- Armor pieces can have many varying aesthetics within the same shape and hitbox/collision meshes, leaving desired gaps that skilled players can still aim for
- Hitboxes/collisions varying too much from the intent and design philosophy of the game overall are only ever a concern with user/player-generated content
- more to the previous point, the studio's artists know what restrictions and shapes they have to work around

If you Google individual pieces of medieval--and especially early Renaissance--armor, such as breastplates (just the breastplate, not the hip guards) and pauldrons, there are nearly endless aesthetic variations that still conform within the same shape language and silhouette box that you can still aim for the same openings they leave no matter how different one looks from the other.


However, besides my point, SV is still taking a strong reluctant stance against cash shops so having custom skins might not be an option, anyway but I still hope they see this.

 

[Rorry]

Yeah, the part you mentioned about bad reviews definitely hit home because many other games apart from my examples have fallen to the more vocal responses, which tended to be people who don't even really know what they're talking about so I feel ya.

As for the helpers taking their time, that's a risk helpers should expect, regardless of whether or not the subscription is there. Keep in mind, subscriptions can be cancelled any time. Again, economically, a filthy casual paying full one-price for a game and leaving after a month or so is more profitable VS. them leaving after the same month only having paid the small subscription fee.

However, I understand you are less motivated by the economics and more focused on the experience.
I hope this doesn't sound too harsh: taking the gamble to help a player without knowing if they'll quit is a risk in any hardcore game and is ultimately on the choice of the player helping, and how much time they choose to give to assist.

I feel like this comes a lot from many people expecting returns on their time investment with aiding new players, such as endearing the player to themselves, have them join a clan, have theirs ally with them and maybe tax them, or have any sort of advantage and earning in-game.
As someone who plays a lot of hardcore games, I used to be that guy; I've helped people on stuff like EVE and Arma 3, and have had them leave early to no avail, and asked myself, "Why even do this? What do I get out of it?"
Assistance is a voluntary and selfless act, it's a risk a person chooses to take and should not be held on a stick with expectations of getting something in return. That was a pretty hard pill to swallow, for me anyway.

But maybe you're not that guy like I was.
For that I have another proposition: just start a helper's guild that has different types of players who are willing to assist folks of varying playtimes.
Get a social incentive in-game to get newbs to play more for getting that help (maybe you give them free shit like a horse after they come back to you for playing in a month; maybe like "show me your best sword/bow and I will reward you for applying what I taught"). Going back to the varying play times, you can have people who are only willing to help players if they've already had X amount of hours in-game, or have a solid goal they want to set.
Maybe even--at some early levels--have them pay the guild a small amount of copper/cuprum, etc.

Social incentives work wonders for in-game obligations, just as much as monetarily stringing them along.

For a game to succeed, you don't want to stifle its growth, and it's the kind of gatekeeping selfishness that necessitates having a subscription model.
I'm sure you--like I have--helped many a filthy quitter in the past, but I've had enough of that to determine who to help and who not to invest in too much. Like being in many relationships, you start to build a better judgment of character, using that to your advantage will help decisions in the future.

Thing is that we saw what happens when toomany people stop helping new players or when there aren't enough people helping during the several years of death spiral in MO1. It is sort of a paradox. The game needs new players to survive, but too many new players are detrimental to its success. Without help they are grief fodder and the bad reviews swamp steam and warn away other people till the population is stale veterans repeating the same campaigns against each other in between massacre ing any newb who does brave the game. There were guilds who only helped at first, but they burned out. After that guilds helped in order to recruit. We will see what happens after release and how it turns out.

 

[Rorry]

I can definitely agree to an initial price in the early days as long as the ones who've paid that price don't have to subscribe to pay.

Man, Albion Online. Where to begin?
Their biggest fault was transitioning to F2P, which is not only the worst idea for MO2, but a bad idea for any game transitioning from a subscription model.
They should have instead had tiered pricing levels, where different ones can get you respective cosmetics at varying degrees of prestige, and having an optional sub model on the side to get all of that for free. That, on top of stunting progression makes it abundantly clear how much they have had to resort to a Pay to Win scheme, which is quite sad.

As for the cosmetics being a problem:
- Armor pieces can have many varying aesthetics within the same shape and hitbox/collision meshes, leaving desired gaps that skilled players can still aim for
- Hitboxes/collisions varying too much from the intent and design philosophy of the game overall are only ever a concern with user/player-generated content
- more to the previous point, the studio's artists know what restrictions and shapes they have to work around

If you Google individual pieces of medieval--and especially early Renaissance--armor, such as breastplates (just the breastplate, not the hip guards) and pauldrons, there are nearly endless aesthetic variations that still conform within the same shape language and silhouette box that you can still aim for the same openings they leave no matter how different one looks from the other.


However, besides my point, SV is still taking a strong reluctant stance against cash shops so having custom skins might not be an option, anyway but I still hope they see this.

They don't have the artists to handle a skin shop, I think. They bought an awful lot of the art for the game ready made.

 

[Aerylac]

Thing is that we saw what happens when toomany people stop helping new players or when there aren't enough people helping during the several years of death spiral in MO1. It is sort of a paradox. The game needs new players to survive, but too many new players are detrimental to its success. Without help they are grief fodder and the bad reviews swamp steam and warn away other people till the population is stale veterans repeating the same campaigns against each other in between massacre ing any newb who does brave the game. There were guilds who only helped at first, but they burned out. After that guilds helped in order to recruit. We will see what happens after release and how it turns out.

Yeah, I definitely understand the balance between having too many people getting early-ganked and having those people become more vocal and give the game negative reviews. I still believe in the hardcore RPG fanbase, since they always see this stuff and brush it off as filthy casuals just not having a good time; that and you can see the number of hours people put into the game when they post a review--it's what people like you and me look at when considering a potentially good hardcore MMORPG. Hardcore players do not need obligation to keep their attention span/focus glued to a game--specially when it's a smaller community, people like you and I know that in the bigger picture, playing the game and staying active keeps it alive.

I feel like with the advent of more newbies sticking around, there will be more social media coverage like YouTube tutorials and such, considering I've brought this to the attention of other more-known RPG content creators such as Click4Gaming and ESO, further helping the newbs to invest more time as they're given a better head-start.

But as you've said, we'll definitely see at launch. Worst case scenario, I've already agreed to someone else mentioning an initial box price being valid only in the early days of coming out, with the promise that said box price will cover later subscription models down the line.

 

[Aerylac]

They don't have the artists to handle a skin shop, I think. They bought an awful lot of the art for the game ready made.

Hm, you might be right actually. A small team like this making a steady stream of content would not have the manpower or time for side cosmetics.
I would have proposed user-generated content that is dev-approved, but that's still yet to be seen if they have people to even hawk over that stuff to validate them to put in-game.

 

[MortalMan]

Played MO1 for a few years so feel I have some insight into this. I understand the argument the hardcore people here are making -- the cost to helping noobs, or the casuals give bad reviews, etc -- these are all reflective of the fact that the game is by construction not a forgiving experience for new players. I do however still believe that the game itself would be way more profitable for Starvault if it was f2p with cosmetic shop. Almost every game benefits from this kind of business model because the number of casuals that arrive and spend money is typically more than what you get with small community of subbers. (I don't buy the argument "oh they can't afford to make skins" -- if the monetary incentive is there they will hire artists) This is why there are hardly any MMOs that do sub model anymore, yet it used to be the norm over a decade ago. I also believe there has to be some way to improve the new player experience and still retain players without forcing them into a subscription fee. The problem with subs is it psychologically forces you to play a game you may not necessarily feel like playing at the game, to get "your money's worth." There's no reason why the game can't be adjusted to benefit both casuals and hardcore players. This may change the game to a dramatic degree -- but without trying, how do we know it's not possible and desireable to both parties? However, that said, I think Henrik is intentionally trying to create a game that matches his own vision which is similar to say Ultima Online. For that reason he is perfectly happy with NOT making tons of money if it means keeping his game "pure" to that vision. Maybe i'm wrong, but that's what I've seen over the years. I do not think StarVault will ever try to accommodate new players to the degree that would be necessary to make the game a success for both casual and hardcore players.

 

[ShadowPete]

Played MO1 for a few years so feel I have some insight into this. I understand the argument the hardcore people here are making -- the cost to helping noobs, or the casuals give bad reviews, etc -- these are all reflective of the fact that the game is by construction not a forgiving experience for new players. I do however still believe that the game itself would be way more profitable for Starvault if it was f2p with cosmetic shop. Almost every game benefits from this kind of business model because the number of casuals that arrive and spend money is typically more than what you get with small community of subbers. (I don't buy the argument "oh they can't afford to make skins" -- if the monetary incentive is there they will hire artists) This is why there are hardly any MMOs that do sub model anymore, yet it used to be the norm over a decade ago. I also believe there has to be some way to improve the new player experience and still retain players without forcing them into a subscription fee. The problem with subs is it psychologically forces you to play a game you may not necessarily feel like playing at the game, to get "your money's worth." There's no reason why the game can't be adjusted to benefit both casuals and hardcore players. This may change the game to a dramatic degree -- but without trying, how do we know it's not possible and desireable to both parties? However, that said, I think Henrik is intentionally trying to create a game that matches his own vision which is similar to say Ultima Online. For that reason he is perfectly happy with NOT making tons of money if it means keeping his game "pure" to that vision. Maybe i'm wrong, but that's what I've seen over the years. I do not think StarVault will ever try to accommodate new players to the degree that would be necessary to make the game a success for both casual and hardcore players.

Mortal Online cannot support itself with a free to play model. Atleast not for now or in its first or second year.

All sucessfull free to play games followed either one of these 3 paths

1- Had a huge and very sucessfull kickstarter campaign, obtaining millions of $$$ from backers. Then Offer cosmetic shop to keep supporting the game.

2- Had a very cheap development and a cheap maintenance, allowing the devs to support themself and the game with a cosmetic shop or a season pass that gives cosmetics, using cosmetic that are also cheap to create and to implement. (Think of games like Apex Legends)

3- Had 1 or 2 years as a buy to play model with subscription service, then after covering all the development cost and obtaining a healthy and consistent player base, then go free to play with an optional subscription model that generally reduce grinding and giving additional benefits making the game pay to win. (Albion and Eve Online went this path)


Mortal Online 2 cannot be in the the first or second path... Mortal Online is simply too complex and expensive to develop and maintain to be able to sustain itself Only with a cash shop.

Take a look at all sandbox games that offer similar features, Eve Online, Albion Online etc.... None of these types of games can survive only with a cosmetic shop because of the maintenance costs. Thats why these games usually follow path # 3. Now, Mortal Online 2 Can actually follow path # 3 and go f2p after a year or two, but cosmetic shops wont be enough to maintain the game, so they will need to keep an optional subscription model to reduce grind and give other benefits, making the game pay to win.

So, basically the only path for Mortal Online to go f2p is by becoming pay to win, and that is a horrible bussines model for the players. Mortal Online should never ever be free to play.

 

[Aerylac]

Mortal Online cannot support itself with a free to play model. Atleast not for now or in its first or second year.

All sucessfull free to play games followed either one of these 3 paths

1- Had a huge and very sucessfull kickstarter campaign, obtaining millions of $$$ from backers. Then Offer cosmetic shop to keep supporting the game.

2- Had a very cheap development and a cheap maintenance, allowing the devs to support themself and the game with a cosmetic shop or a season pass that gives cosmetics, using cosmetic that are also cheap to create and to implement. (Think of games like Apex Legends)

3- Had 1 or 2 years as a buy to play model with subscription service, then after covering all the development cost and obtaining a healthy and consistent player base, then go free to play with an optional subscription model that generally reduce grinding and giving additional benefits making the game pay to win. (Albion and Eve Online went this path)


Mortal Online 2 cannot be in the the first or second path... Mortal Online is simply too complex and expensive to develop and maintain to be able to sustain itself Only with a cash shop.

Take a look at all sandbox games that offer similar features, Eve Online, Albion Online etc.... None of these types of games can survive only with a cosmetic shop because of the maintenance costs. Thats why these games usually follow path # 3. Now, Mortal Online 2 Can actually follow path # 3 and go f2p after a year or two, but cosmetic shops wont be enough to maintain the game, so they will need to keep an optional subscription model to reduce grind and give other benefits, making the game pay to win.

So, basically the only path for Mortal Online to go f2p is by becoming pay to win, and that is a horrible bussines model for the players. Mortal Online should never ever be free to play.

it's already been agreed upon that F2P will kill MO2 but i do like this insight

 

[LivingshadeNL]

No subscription = more % of hackers, more gold farmers ruining the game , if you use a system like albion or eve : a system where ingame currency can be used to make real life money is just bad and ruined all those games (inflation,bots,cheaters from poor countrys trying to get money)i like how mo subscription worked with one exception , do not cap any of the movement skills to 60

 

[Woody]

In any business, cash flow is king. Giving your customers the option to not continue to pay for your continued services especially due to the niche nature of the game, is financial suicide.

This would only make senses in a game where there isn't ongoing costs e.g:

- No servers
- No regular content updates
- No requirement to pay support staff or in game staff.

As such, not going to happen.

 

[Kokolo]

I seriously cannot see how people expect cosmetics to be implemented in a game like this. MO is defined by people making everything in the game.

1) Cosmetics as transmogs
If someone is coming at me in a bridal dess skin, I cannot guess what type of armor / playstyle the player is using. Concealing information = advantage. If you then don't have cosmetics, you are at a loss because you are giving away information.

2) Cosmetics as consumables
Suppose you buy a "tiger stripe dye" item from a cash shop that you can then apply to your gear, making it look more unique. Congratulations, you have now spent real money on an in game item in a full loot PvP game that you will be robbed of or murdered for.

3) Cosmetics as character only skins
Suppose the said "tiger stripe dye" item is applied to the characher and only activates when said character is wearing the appropriate gear for it. This severely devalues the skills and efforts of crafters in the game because a more unique look can be purchased from the shop. Why not just have said skins then as craftalbe in game items?

4) Purchasable unique cash shop items
I hope no one is this stupid... This has the potential to make crafting useless. And crafting for some people (like me) IS the game.

No thanks. I would much rather pay a subscription and have access to all items that would otherwise be gated behind a cashshop. Crafting is the reason I play MMOs. I always abandoned other games once I reached the level cap and crafting became usless in those games so I had to raid. I only found out about this game a month ago and the thing that drew me to play it is the subscription only mode. I am a new player. I like this. A subscription is also a contract on their end. That they (SV) have to be invested in developing and maintaining the game or they will lose loyalty and revenue.

And just because a certain model worked for some other games doesn't mean it will work here. Life doesn't go like that. MO is VERY different from other games and it appeals to less people. In my opinion it doesn't have enough public interest to keep a steady long term income from single purchase sales. It has enough interest now that it is a new game. But after 3+ years, when new games come out? Can you guarantee it?

 

[Anabolic Man]

I think a subscription based model is good, but i think poor players should be able to pay the sucscription with gold. Lets say 600 Gold for a month. i talked to a lot of players which told me that they cant affort the game (Players from russia)

This would mean countless hours of grinding to pay the subscription. Nobody from Europe would grind several days, just prevent to pay the subscription of 15 Dollars, but this way the very poor players, students and more people from russia would play the game. Most players who like the game rather pay subscription becuase it supports the development.

The poor people without a jobs are keeping the games alive. And if it would cost 600 Gold, more then 80 % of the playerbase would still prefer to pay 15 Dollars instead of grinding several days. Most people earn 15-20 Bucks per Hour in Europe

In Albion you can pay the subscription with silver, but it so expencive, that 80 % of the players rather pay 10 Dollars. This business model is better. Look at their playerbase. The amount of Players from Russia is enormous. If a game have 20 k more active players, because of such a business decision, the company makes more money, as if you could only pay with dollars and exclude this countries. 20 K more players means at least 15 k Players that prefer to pay with cash. The smaller the playerbase the worse it is. If everybody see a very active game, more and more people will play.

Mention me a single player with a job who would not rather pay 15 Dollars, instead of grinding several days for the subscription. Plz make the game poor player friendly, because huge countries such as russia can not affort it and the potential is huge, because it such a big country! The people over there only earn 200-300 Dollars per month.

 

[Kovah Temsik]

Waiving the subscription fee for testing accounts would be a pretty neat idea IMO, but SV needs cash flow from MO2 and for them to get it a subscription model is their best bet.

 

[Shroxu]

eeewww i smell poor ppl

 

[Speznat]

I think a subscription based model is good, but i think poor players should be able to pay the sucscription with gold. Lets say 600 Gold for a month. i talked to a lot of players which told me that they cant affort the game (Players from russia)

This would mean countless hours of grinding to pay the subscription. Nobody from Europe would grind several days, just prevent to pay the subscription of 15 Dollars, but this way the very poor players, students and more people from russia would play the game. Most players who like the game rather pay subscription becuase it supports the development.

The poor people without a jobs are keeping the games alive. And if it would cost 600 Gold, more then 80 % of the playerbase would still prefer to pay 15 Dollars instead of grinding several days. Most people earn 15-20 Bucks per Hour in Europe

In Albion you can pay the subscription with silver, but it so expencive, that 80 % of the players rather pay 10 Dollars. This business model is better. Look at their playerbase. The amount of Players from Russia is enormous. If a game have 20 k more active players, because of such a business decision, the company makes more money, as if you could only pay with dollars and exclude this countries. 20 K more players means at least 15 k Players that prefer to pay with cash. The smaller the playerbase the worse it is. If everybody see a very active game, more and more people will play.

Mention me a single player with a job who would not rather pay 15 Dollars, instead of grinding several days for the subscription. Plz make the game poor player friendly, because huge countries such as russia can not affort it and the potential is huge, because it such a big country! The people over there only earn 200-300 Dollars per month.

If they can't afford the monthly pay than they can't afford the hardware to play anyway.
But i get your point.
Sub tokens would be good option. And it wouldn't hurt ingame economy and it would benefit star vault with more dev money.

 

[Kaemik]

It would be cool if they did something like a discounted sub if you pay now. Like release the subscription plan and then give a 10-20% discount if you pay in advance now. So no lifetime sub, but a hefty discount and if you know you'll be playing a long time you can pay for a lot of time up front.

 

[Breannor]

I dont think the problem is sub or not sub... I think the problem is 14$ per month is too high ...
It means 168$ per year so 3-4 AAA game.
I dont like cash shop even for cosmetics but on in other hand it will boost devs to create new cosmetics content at least ....

 

[Kokolo]

I dont think the problem is sub or not sub... I think the problem is 14$ per month is too high ...
It means 168$ per year so 3-4 AAA game.
I dont like cash shop even for cosmetics but on in other hand it will boost devs to create new cosmetics content at least ....

I will gladly cancel my Netflix for this. 15$ a month in a developed country isn't a lot of money (even for a poorer developed country like mine), and I believe that is SVs target demographic. It can be done with tokens for in game money as some people suggested. I do like that concept.

Cosmetics for this game I went over in an earlier post in this thread and I hate the idea. It's a crafting based game. You should be able to craft everything.

 

[Kebek]

Many of us will have multiple accounts so we'll be paying a lot more than $15.

Who are these people that have gaming desktops capable of running MO2 but can't spare even $15/month? These people are poor at handling their finances if they spent all that money on a gaming desktop but then have to struggle to find $15 to spare.

 

[Jackdstripper]

I don’t like unlimited free trials myself. Everyone will use them to scout, blue block, give murder counts to lower rep, log off gear/goods/gold(movable banks), boulder holding, log off inside palisades, spam city chat, and all sorts of cheap/greefy machanics.

Free trials should be limited in time and skills.

however I do think the sub fee should be reduced to under 10$. Game just isn’t worth a premium sub.