DUST Search - Would you welcome a subscription fee?

All Channels

General Discussions

Would you welcome a subscription fee?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 221	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:00:00 - [1] - Quote I hope that this thread takes off because as more ppl comment on the issue we may be able to shed some light on the multiple controversial aspects of Dust. I know some ppl play this game only because it's f2p and they feel empowered and liberated by not having to spend their money if they don't have to. Others are in the opposite camp (me included): we don't want to play a poorly made game just because it's free (if a game is a chore to play, I don't want it). Here is where I am coming from: All f2p games that I know of have been cheaply made and are buggy as hell. They are usually made by small developers who can't compete with bigger companies. Here are some common signs of f2p: - usually PC games: there is a lot of theft and piracy in the PC world, so there is more incentive for develops to start out with f2p model rather than an expensive game that will be downloaded illegaly anyway. - lowered expectations: the game is of an inferior quality. Usually with a justification: what did you expect if it's f2p? - may have a following: some gamers think it's more honest when smaller developers get a piece of the market even if their product is inferior - Typically rotates around a core problem: at some level it must be p2w for the developer to make a living. If all weapons/features are exactly the same and there is no incentive to spend money, you can't get far on donations only. Some developers have a way around it - a f2p game that's balanced but extra content (like more maps) is available only to paying customers (however, this model has a lot more to do with subscription rather than f2p model). - f2p economy is distorted, hurting the game. developers have an incentive to skew the game in the direction where balance favors features available through microtransactions. The majority of f2p games at least at some level are GIMMICKS: it's like a casino you get an advantage for money that you have to keep coming back to by spending more money. here is an example: in Dust proto gear is vastly superior to lower tiers but ultimately not supposed to be sustainable for the majority of players through ISK (if you an AVERAGE player: you lose 1 suit per 1 suit you kill and rewads at the end of the game are too small to keep net neutral balance of ISK). Hence there is significant pressure to either spend real money to keep up or do something that breaks the game: redline sniping or MCC AFKing. Now here is something that I have been thinking about for a long time. Dust should be subscription based. If CCP spent more money hiring professional personnel with experience in FPS, we would all end up with a much better game. I think this would only happen if CCP knew they would make their money back (duh!). F2P is too unreliable a model to guarantee this (see all the reasons above). Most ppl who play this game want it because of the promise of a greater future and are turned off by the lame present. That greater brighter future is possible only if the developer is wiling to spend more money on development. All in all it makes sense to petition for a subscription fee based game model. Those of us who want the bare bones should be allowed to stay in the f2p mode; but there is gotta be a greater, better developed game available for ppl who want an console FPS game quality we have come to expect. I am willing to pay subscription for the latter. Your thoughts?
Darken-Sol BIG BAD W0LVES Eternal Syndicate 242	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:06:00 - [2] - Quote no. it would alienate me and cause me not to play. kind of like eve after my 21 day trial.
Kaminoikari Wrath of Omnipotent Beings 23	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:10:00 - [3] - Quote No. Aside from the fact that they have these merc packs which plenty of people buy, along with aurum sets, they make plenty of money off of it as is. Making DUST subscription based is probably one of the worst ideas ever seeing as how I'm pretty damn sure they make enough money from EVE to support this game, which is why they made it f2p. Then there's also the fact that this game is still in it's baby phase, they're working on it and since they've never done something like this they're looking for a lot of outside help to make it better instead of having kept it in closed developement for 5 years before releasing the probably incomplete game even then. And then there's ALSO their partnership with Sony. If they made it Pay to Play, then it would most likely violate their agreement with Sony assuming they don't change it over time; even if they did though, CCP would be at a loss for money as Sony would get at least 60-40 since the server is run through PSN. Also: >Pay to play + incomplete and very buggy game + small player base = Less player base, less money made Seems really stupid, eh?
KAGEHOSHI Horned Wolf Seraphim Initiative. CRONOS. 4268	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:11:00 - [4] - Quote I would stop playing Dust for sure, I would pay a 1 time $60 payment, but there is NO WAY I would ever pay subscription.
TEBOW BAGGINS Greatness Achieved Through Training EoN. 595	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:14:00 - [5] - Quote a much better game like what, BF3? or COD? both those games suck and BF3 is a shadow of it's once awesome self, the same as dust, hiring a bunch of FPS ppl will only get more sht nerfed. no i dont want to pay to watch a bunch of idiots nerf more stuff because they wanna make it like everything else
Another Heavy SOB TRUE TEA BAGGERS EoN. 126	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:18:00 - [6] - Quote I'm not a big fan of the idea, but I could be convinced if it means not buying boosters anymore. Although I cap multiple chars a week and get by on 3 day boosters. Honestly I think they already could afford to hire more developers, when you consider the number of EVE subscribers and the amount of player's who have spent literally hundreds of dollars on merc packs, or the new vet and elite packs. I could be wrong but it seems to me CCP is far from broke.
Allah's Snackbar Forty-Nine Fedayeen Minmatar Republic 83	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:18:00 - [7] - Quote Game play and game design trumps all. Dust fails at both - badly. If you we're to look at the debt incurred producing and the ongoing costs of supporting Dust only one thing props it up - EVE subscriptions. The crass bombardment of packs and options for micro transactions will only get you so far,there just doesn't seem the support for this game. A subscription for this game would end it all rather elegantly - as in elegantly dead.
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:44:00 - [8] - Quote I saw a lot of ppl say that CCP makes enough as is from EVE. this is irrelevant. Is not it obvious that you don't take money from profits received in EVE and just dump it in DUST w/o hope of making it back in teturns? CCP will put only as much money in DUST as it can possibly hope to get back in teturn. And as is with f2p they can't possibly hope to make much. I see also that a lot of ppl say that BF3 is an inferior game compared to DUST. I don't play BF3 because I did not like it but imo it's obvious to anyone who had a chance to play both that BF3 is light years ahead of DUST in terms of FPS mechanics and gun balance. And like it or not it's games like BF3 that hold the bench mark for what FPS should play like on consoles (aiming, better hit detection, gun balance).
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:47:00 - [9] - Quote TEBOW BAGGINS wrote: a much better game like what, BF3? or COD? both those games suck and BF3 is a shadow of it's once awesome self, the same as dust, hiring a bunch of FPS ppl will only get more sht nerfed. no i dont want to pay to watch a bunch of idiots nerf more stuff because they wanna make it like everything else You don't believe that BF 3 and COD are better games then DUST? Now I hate playing BF and COD though I have tried but they both are much better than DUST in its current sorry state. Those two games are complete and they manage to accomplish what they aim to. DUST had a lot of promise and then fell flat on its face. I think it's because it's underfunded. And it's not like CCP does not have enough money. As many rightfully pointed out CCP has raked up a pile of money from EVE. But you cant expect them to spend much of this money on a F2P game that will never pay off. If you search the forums a lot of ppl BRAG that they never have or will pay a dime to play DUST. So, what quality can you expect from a game like that? How can ppl complain about the quality of DUST if it's f2p toss away?
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 274	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:48:00 - [10] - Quote No, as it stands now this game is nowhere near good enough to warrant a subscription fee

Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:49:00 - [11] - Quote Darken-Sol wrote: no. it would alienate me and cause me not to play. kind of like eve after my 21 day trial. Ok. If you don't mind a my next question, please comment: How long do you think you might stick around and play DUST in its current state?
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:50:00 - [12] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: No, as it stands now this game is nowhere near good enough to warrant a subscription fee I agree but I think it's a circular argument. A f2p game will never offer enough quality to warrant subscription quality. But if CCP did make the effort / make investment to make subscription-worthy content, would you pay a fee to play it?
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 2623	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:52:00 - [13] - Quote Then CCP will have to retract all of its statements about how Dust is free to play during the past year of its development and then look like a company that has no clue what to even call their own game. On top of that, here are primary sources of income for CCP Games: 1. Eve Online Subscriptions (500,000+ and counting) 2. PLEX purchases (a huge ton of them thanks to New Eden economics) 3. AUR token purchases Then there are the secondary sources of income: 1. Mercenary packs (lots of them). The mere fact that CCP did away with the UVTs is a clear indication they are doing just fine money wise because the voice service is handled by a third party which cost money for the company. This is the same third party handling the Eve Voice service as well. Then there is the fact that Dust will always be updated. You're right to assume that the game looks like crap right now, but that's what people said about Eve Online back in 2003.
Karazantor Mannar Focused Warfare Gallente Federation 13	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:54:00 - [14] - Quote +1 Definitely the game should be sub based, unfortunately I suspect that horse has long bolted? The constant 'in your face' advertising of Aur is insulting and it is definitely borderline 'play to win'. It definitely reduces the perceived professionalism of the whole game, no doubt about that. It could easily be some cheap web browser based app on a phone. Having said that, I have purchased my share of Merc Packs for my 2 accounts. be interested to see what sort of revenue its bringing in via this means. I can't help but suspect that the devs might be thinking a stable revenue source (subs) might be easier to help them sleep at night.
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:55:00 - [15] - Quote Kaminoikari wrote: No. Aside from the fact that they have these merc packs which plenty of people buy, along with aurum sets, they make plenty of money off of it as is. Making DUST subscription based is probably one of the worst ideas ever seeing as how I'm pretty damn sure they make enough money from EVE to support this game, which is why they made it f2p. Then there's also the fact that this game is still in it's baby phase, they're working on it and since they've never done something like this they're looking for a lot of outside help to make it better instead of having kept it in closed developement for 5 years before releasing the probably incomplete game even then. And then there's ALSO their partnership with Sony. If they made it Pay to Play, then it would most likely violate their agreement with Sony assuming they don't change it over time; even if they did though, CCP would be at a loss for money as Sony would get at least 60-40 since the server is run through PSN. Also: >Pay to play + incomplete and very buggy game + small player base = Less player base, less money made Seems really stupid, eh? Ok, it seems you are making two separate points. Let me ask you a few questions to quality. 1. You seem to think that Dust in its current state is a completely acceptable game (given their vision and development strategy) and that it will continue to grow and become much better with time. Am I right? 2. To address the issue of sharing with Sony that you brought up. I think Sony takes their fair share from microtransactions. I don't think that percentage wise CCP would give more money to Sony even if they transitioned to subscription base. Regarding poor player base and buggy game - I am of the mind that the game will die very soon if it keeps going like that. IF they rehauled it and made it both better quality and more profitable for them through a supscription based model, this game could be rescued and would be more fun to play and stay afloat much longer. Do you disagree? And if so why?
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:56:00 - [16] - Quote Karazantor wrote: +1 Definitely the game should be sub based, unfortunately I suspect that horse has long bolted? The constant 'in your face' advertising of Aur is insulting and it is definitely borderline 'play to win'. It definitely reduces the perceived professionalism of the whole game, no doubt about that. It could easily be some cheap web browser based app on a phone. Having said that, I have purchased my share of Merc Packs for my 2 accounts. be interested to see what sort of revenue its bringing in via this means. I can't help but suspect that the devs might be thinking a stable revenue source (subs) might be easier to help them sleep at night. I wish you are right and they are reconsidering how they are running this game.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 2623	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:56:00 - [17] - Quote Karazantor wrote: +1 Definitely the game should be sub based, unfortunately I suspect that horse has long bolted? The constant 'in your face' advertising of Aur is insulting and it is definitely borderline 'play to win'. It definitely reduces the perceived professionalism of the whole game, no doubt about that. It could easily be some cheap web browser based app on a phone. Having said that, I have purchased my share of Merc Packs for my 2 accounts. be interested to see what sort of revenue its bringing in via this means. I can't help but suspect that the devs might be thinking a stable revenue source (subs) might be easier to help them sleep at night. Read my post above yours. CCP is doing just fine money wise.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 274	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:57:00 - [18] - Quote Ludvig Enraga wrote: Delta 749 wrote: No, as it stands now this game is nowhere near good enough to warrant a subscription fee I agree but I think it's a circular argument. A f2p game will never offer enough quality to warrant subscription quality. But if CCP did make the effort / make investment to make subscription-worthy content, would you pay a fee to play it? Still no I dont mind microtransactions or one time fees and pay those if I think what they offer is worth it but something needs to stand head and shoulders above its competition or offer a massive amount of content for me to consider paying a subscription fee
Galvan Nized Deep Space Republic 11	Posted - 2013.06.08 23:58:00 - [19] - Quote Torn on the idea Dust could not live ri ght now if it was pay to play. However, if their was a subscription fee I think a lot of the economic problems would be avoided. What I mean is that what I believe is holding CCP back from joining the economies of Dust and Eve is the difference in f2p and p2p. Think if you evened the monetary gain between the games (by increasing the amount of ISk we get in DUST) then you could play the free game and pay for Eve... even going so far as to farm ISK in DUST and sell it in Eve for real money. However if you link the 2 economieswith the discrepancies in cash flow Then people pour isk from Eve into Dust Floodingit and allowing for people to run prototype gear all the time everyday.
BobThe843CakeMan BurgezzE.T.F 406	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:00:00 - [20] - Quote i would quit if they made it a subscription based game. it is not good enough and many others would leave making the money they get off dust even less.

Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:01:00 - [21] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: Then CCP will have to retract all of its statements about how Dust is free to play during the past year of its development and then look like a company that has no clue what to even call their own game. On top of that, here are primary sources of income for CCP Games: 1. Eve Online Subscriptions (500,000+ and counting) 2. PLEX purchases (a huge ton of them thanks to New Eden economics) 3. AUR token purchases Then there are the secondary sources of income: 1. Mercenary packs (lots of them). The mere fact that CCP did away with the UVTs is a clear indication they are doing just fine money wise because the voice service is handled by a third party which cost money for the company. This is the same third party handling the Eve Voice service as well. Then there is the fact that Dust will always be updated. You're right to assume that the game looks like crap right now, but that's what people said about Eve Online back in 2003. 1. I don't think that CCP's ship is sinking money wise I think they made more money than they invested into DUST. But my piont is that they have half S'd profits from a terribly made game. And what they should have aimed for is a lot of profit from a quality game that would be very well marketable to the hightly motivated former MAG community and eve players (some of whom even went to the extent of buying a PS just to play DUST) 2. To your second point about dust will always be updated. After a year of Beta I feel faily confident that CCP will not be putting extra effort into the game. Sure there will be trickle updates that gain them trickle profits. But this will always be in the realm of backwater browser games where you turn out Walmart quality product just to get a couple of cents back. Microtransactions indeed.
Maken Tosch DUST University Ivy League 2623	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:02:00 - [22] - Quote PLEX in Eve Online bring in a sizable amount of money for CCP because of the flexibility it offers to players in terms of subscription payments. Every time I go online and open the market in Eve, I check the different regions of New Eden and see countless sell orders posted averaging about 500 million ISK a piece depending on market forces and each PLEX costed the seller about $15 a piece. It makes me wonder how much money CCP is really making out of all this. The fact that they were able to afford a Symphony Orchestra during the 2013 Fanfest is very telling. Hell, you can even donate to charity through PLEX for (insert cause) as well as purchase Fanfest Tickets with them.
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:05:00 - [23] - Quote Allah's Snackbar wrote: Game play and game design trumps all. Dust fails at both - badly. If you we're to look at the debt incurred producing and the ongoing costs of supporting Dust only one thing props it up - EVE subscriptions. The crass bombardment of packs and options for micro transactions will only get you so far,there just doesn't seem the support for this game. A subscription for this game would end it all rather elegantly - as in elegantly dead. I think it's ok to keep all the f2p stuff that's already in the game. I want none of that. So they can keep chugging along with what they already got. What I want is extra high quality stuff accessible only through subscription. - will it make the game less appealing to f2p crowd? - no they keep their own stuff - will it keep players that want a better game? I think so, I want a good FPS MMO that I can play for years - I for one have dumped probably over 1k $ in all the MMO's I played since early 2000s. - Can CCP make it profitable and find a way to make this transition. Will all their oops'es along the way, a thing like that is not likely incur more criticism than any of their misguided ventures.
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:08:00 - [24] - Quote Delta 749 wrote: Ludvig Enraga wrote: Delta 749 wrote: No, as it stands now this game is nowhere near good enough to warrant a subscription fee I agree but I think it's a circular argument. A f2p game will never offer enough quality to warrant subscription quality. But if CCP did make the effort / make investment to make subscription-worthy content, would you pay a fee to play it? Still no I dont mind microtransactions or one time fees and pay those if I think what they offer is worth it but something needs to stand head and shoulders above its competition or offer a massive amount of content for me to consider paying a subscription fee Yeah, thats exactly what I am saying: WoW type of content. CCP could make it happen because they have the universe already and a following to launch an MMO game with massive content. I don't really see a middle ground: their mictrotransaction micro-MMO is failing. I for one will not play this game much longer as it's just not fun to play - free or not.
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:11:00 - [25] - Quote BobThe843CakeMan wrote: i would quit if they made it a subscription based game. it is not good enough and many others would leave making the money they get off dust even less. But would you still quit it if they made it 'good enough'? That's exactly the core of my qustion. In order for this game to be good enough, it can not be f2p. f2p is just not a viable model for games that aim at being great. Hell, even at being good.
J'Jor Da'Wg KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 790	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:12:00 - [26] - Quote I would only do so if it was actually a quality game and feature complete. At that point, if it was reasonably priced, I would accept a $5.00-7.50 a month sub fee. However I would expect more frequent free DLC, game updates, and general enhancements than at the F2P level.
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:13:00 - [27] - Quote Maken Tosch wrote: PLEX in Eve Online bring in a sizable amount of money for CCP because of the flexibility it offers to players in terms of subscription payments. Every time I go online and open the market in Eve, I check the different regions of New Eden and see countless sell orders posted averaging about 500 million ISK a piece depending on market forces and each PLEX costed the seller about $15 a piece. It makes me wonder how much money CCP is really making out of all this. The fact that they were able to afford a Symphony Orchestra during the 2013 Fanfest is very telling. Hell, you can even donate to charity through PLEX for (insert cause) as well as purchase Fanfest Tickets with them. Plex is just a soft cushion for ppl not to pay subscription. I think you should count plex and subscription as the same source of income - they all buy the same thing: a month of playing the game.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 274	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:13:00 - [28] - Quote Ludvig Enraga wrote: Delta 749 wrote: Ludvig Enraga wrote: Delta 749 wrote: No, as it stands now this game is nowhere near good enough to warrant a subscription fee I agree but I think it's a circular argument. A f2p game will never offer enough quality to warrant subscription quality. But if CCP did make the effort / make investment to make subscription-worthy content, would you pay a fee to play it? Still no I dont mind microtransactions or one time fees and pay those if I think what they offer is worth it but something needs to stand head and shoulders above its competition or offer a massive amount of content for me to consider paying a subscription fee Yeah, thats exactly what I am saying: WoW type of content. CCP could make it happen because they have the universe already and a following to launch an MMO game with massive content. I don't really see a middle ground: their mictrotransaction micro-MMO is failing. I for one will not play this game much longer as it's just not fun to play - free or not. Well something else to consider is the amount of negative press shutting down the current version and relaunching with a subscription based model would generate What marketing they have done is heavily pimping this as free to play and a shift over would alienate those that are still kicking around only because its free to play and I imagine they would be left with a few hundred EVE players as the only ones remaining lowering potential profits especially if they manage to pay for their subscriptions purchasing time from other players in game, I know some people already do that EVE side
Ludvig Enraga KILL-EM-QUICK RISE of LEGION 222	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:14:00 - [29] - Quote J'Jor Da'Wg wrote: I would only do so if it was actually a quality game and feature complete. At that point, if it was reasonably priced, I would accept a $5.00-7.50 a month sub fee. However I would expect more frequent free DLC, game updates, and general enhancements than at the F2P level. This is exactly what I had in mind. Maybe 5 bucks a month. Over 1 year it would average at 60 - the cost of a well made shooter. The only difference is added incentive to keep adding more content in.
Delta 749 Kestrel Reconnaissance 274	Posted - 2013.06.09 00:15:00 - [30] - Quote Ludvig Enraga wrote: BobThe843CakeMan wrote: i would quit if they made it a subscription based game. it is not good enough and many others would leave making the money they get off dust even less. But would you still quit it if they made it 'good enough'? That's exactly the core of my qustion. In order for this game to be good enough, it can not be f2p. f2p is just not a viable model for games that aim at being great. Hell, even at being good. I would argue against that, there are many games out there across several genres that are entirely free to play and extremely high quality and feature complete



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online/DUST514, the EVE/DUST514 logo, EVE/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to OMG Labs to use EVE Online/DUST514 and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, OMG Labs. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.