thank you,not for asking a subscription fee.

It was part of the commitment they made in the KickStarter description of the game.

It has been said sine that the system would be "similar" to Guild Wars 2 - Not microtransactions, but having some amount/level of a pay store

 

Well... I'll just hope for the best then. I'm sure they know what they're doing.

 

I'd prefer a $15 a month charge over microtransactions. As it stands, I think this game could be very profitable just based on people buying cosmetic add-ons a la GW2. Throw in assets players make and sell via an online store and you've got something like SOE is doing with EQ:Landmark.

I liked the interview where RG broke down what he thought was a "fair handshake" between developers and players. Not spamming your friends in an F2P environment; not forcing a hard stop in gameplay until you shell out some cash; giving good value for your money and charging appropriately for it. I have confidence that this game will be successful and be worthwhile. It's why I dumped a few hundred bucks into it.

 

They should do a cheap sub, like $5-8, which gives you a month early access to all updates (and perhaps some other perks). Not sure, just a brainstorm, it could be some completely different benefit for subbing, I just mean a small sub could help them. Maybe for an extra character slot?

Coincidentally, I find it funny a thread titles "thanks for not having a subscription fee" turned into a bunch of fans saying they don't mind a sub fee, haha.

 

The sub fee was one of the reasons I never tried UO. (That and the scathing reviews.)
But I'm way over that now. I feel that having a sub fee is the best alignment of my goals as a player and the goals of the company.

I would be very much OK with an optional sub fee once there is a critical mass of online content.

 

I don't think a sub fee is very smart these days.
I know that many people are willing to pay, but those people don't add up to enough for continued development. That sort or situation I think leads to declining cycle of those willing to pay.
Far more opportunity in the micro transactions model, I think, if done correctly.

I think it's important to monetize those things that people like to fiddle endlessly socially and visually and whatnot.

 

I also prefer sub over any kind of micro transaction system. I pay flat rate and i know i have the possibility to enjoy every single thing in the game. I'm actually really happy to see sub coming back to with Final Fantasy XIV and ESO. I believe if the game is good, the people will stay and pay monthly.

I know free to play or pay once to play can seduce players to try out the game easier but on my experiences (in F2P games), it also attract masses of the kind of players i'd rather avoid.

I can be ok with an item shop with cosmetic items but in case of SotA i feel it would take away something from the crafters.

I hope SotA model = box price + pay for expansions (+ character slots?) will work just fine.

 

I don't like the subscription-based business model at all. I like to play several games at once and I alternate between different genres depending on my mood. When one of the games is subscription-based it makes me feel obligated to play it because I am paying for it and I feel a need to get my money's worth.

That obligation really takes the fun out of the experience for me because now I am playing the game for the wrong reason.

I'd rather pay up front and be done with it this way I can play in a more leasurely fashion.

 

It does seem that the market is movinf toward Free to Play and microtransactions. Personally, I much prefer a subcscription model, if it is the for the right game, one that appeals to me in the long term. I only really have time for one game, really. Also, I detest microtransaction of any sort.

 

If it is a great game that I get addicted to then I have no problem paying a subscription fee. Much more so then having a bunch of nickel and diming which ruins the immersion and fun for me. I do fear that SotA maybe more nickel and dimeing that we expect. Regardless of that, a great game can rely on subscription fee as it gives players countless hours of entertainment. This movement to knock subscription fees is what baffles me. I guess you get what you pay for.

 

No subscription fee please. If a subscription fee would be like 15 dollars a month and I play for 2 years then it will cost me 360 dollars right?
Sorry, but I think that's insane and I simple can't effort that. I just like to buy the game and buy the expansion packs that I'll like.

And another thing, if you're busy in a period (for example: work) or want to play another game then it's ridiculous that you have to pay for months you're not playing.
I want to log in whenever I want and without losing stats and stuff.

 

I've played both F2P and subs, I prefer sub based games as long as some of the funds gathered are used to expand the game. But neither is a deal breaker for me. I kinda like what Bioware/EA did with SWTOR F2P or Sub. (Sub getting a few perks) This way people can play and enjoy the game on any budget. Just my 2 bits!

 

SotA is not an MMO, so no need for subscription fees. In fact, the communication between players and their own servers will be minimal which will cut down on costs for them drastically.

 

We actually talk a lot about Subscription fees vs. free to play gaming on our episode 5 podcast, and we all seemed to reach the same conclusion. Feel free to listen but our big issue with FTP is micro transactions. As long as they do not cause you to fall behind in a game then they are fine. Once you have to pay to get the final content or the better items, that's when it becomes an issue. I have no problem with having to buy a nicer house, or a better looking pet, or a special looking item of any kind as long as that item does not give the player an advantage over others (besides looking cool).

I wouldn't mind buying expansions, or paying a monthly subscription as long as they are priced right. For instance, $10-15 is fair per month but no more... as well an expansion should never cost more than what a subscription would have. For instance, I would not be happy if an expansion was released every 4 months at the cost of $60+. This would mean that it was like paying 15$ for a subscription anyways, and more than a subscription if it was over $60. It is easyier to pay $15 a month than to dish out $60 in one payment.

I know a lot of games out there that are FTP and free to download... You can do the whole game without paying a cent, but in most of those ones you do have some kind of advantage over others if you buy this weapon or purchase additional in game currency.

Regardless of what SOTA decides, I think they should rethink a way to trade money in game different from those of other games to try and prevent gold farmers who over populate and spam game chats. It is hard I know ... I have thought and thought about it ... but to no avail. I do hope they never offer the 10 day free trial like other games have ... that is how most gold spammers do it because they could care less if a trial account is banned.

 

What most people fail to understand is your computer is running the entire game including the server the Portalarium server only tells the game who should connect to who and syncs and authenticate data so most of the game world is actually ran locally so almost no server costs. Having a subscription fee would only hinder the game is rather pay once for each episode and be done with it. $50 once per year vs $15+ for 12 months. Why would I want to pay a subscription instead of just paying for extra content as I finish the old content.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

 

Personally I belive a game should be buy once to play and that up front cost should be set at a price to enable the company to make a profit and put money into the maintance of the service. If they cant manage that then they deserve to go bankrupt because they shouldn't be a company.

 

I prefer a subscription model, but I see the appeal of F2P to give more access to people who are on the fence. If you're going to go micro transaction I suggest checking out Rift. They have not been obtrusive with their model and it is more cosmetic and convenience than P2W. Some gear is available, but it is basically starter dungeon gear, which gives you no unfair advantage over others than simply saving time.

 

Well to put it this way, most games have made more money off free to play vs pay to play. Warhammer online has been debating it because they know they can get more players if they made it free to play. Lord of the rings online went f2p when their numbers went down and actually reported, because they went f2p and could do micro transactions for many items, they actually made more as a f2p then they ever did as a p2p. Star Trek Online tripled their amount of players and quadrupled their money as a f2p then they did as a p2p. Why? More people want to play free then pay to play. Becuase they can do this they enjoy the idea of doing microtransactions to unlock extra content or other items even if it is purely cosmetic and not game influencing at all. P2W is a horrible to idea, but F2P... It simply works..