Cash Cow?

What made UO a awesome game was you had to work for what you wanted. You had to rely on good Communities ETC ETC.
When I heard of SOTA I was real excited but then when I got here and started reading I seen it was a Cash Cow
How can the game be fun when people are paying real money for Instant Houses? Having to venture and make in game Monies was the fun part of UO and made a great game. Yes I understand you have to make money but why not offer certain clothes/mounts/helmets non magical that won't effect game play?
I really thought this would be the WOW Killer but all I see is a Cash Cow which is a bummer.

 

People are investing real money to see the game completed in the first place. If the project is cancelled, it will certainly be no fun for anyone.

As for your comment about WoW, it's like comparing apples and oranges. WoW doesn't run on linux or even OSX for that matter, this game will run on both. WoW has the dumb subscription fees, SoA won't (according to several interviews).

 

You have to look at it as that money being invested by players for housing pledges will go toward making SotA a better game for everyone. Houses will certainly be nice to have and will most likely provide some benefits to their owners, but I do not believe those benefits will be game-breaking. Other than this one aspect of the game, the rest of the rewards are physical or cosmetic and I don't see any significant gameplay advantage for a $10,000 pledger over a $33 pledger.

 

Houses will be available to purchase in game with in-game money. The deeds from kickstarter are just an incentive to invest $500 or more into the game. When the game launches, you will not be able to buy a house for $500. You'll have to use in-game money.

 

I believe they mentioned in several of the video interviews that you will need to spend real money to upkeep a house.

 

Can anyone give a link where they talk about house rent, if it's real money or ingame money? I posted this exact question on the forum, but it has never been answered.

 

I don't recall hearing anything about how rent would be paid, only that there will be rent. In the Markee Dragon interview RG did mention that he expected that good property would likely be worth real world dollars as it was in UO.

 

I don't understand how you thought this could be a WoW killer, it's not an MMO...

They are not buying houses, it is being offered as a reward for pledging large sums of money to help the project.

 

The reason this isn't like WoW is one of its biggest draws. Anyone that complains about the elite pledgors getting a house are just sour because they can't afford one so "it's not fair". Many people, like me, want their own personal stamp in this world and are willing to pay for it. $500.00 is a very fair amount for what you get. Unless you are a kid or a student, $500 should not much to ask for the years of being involved in this project. Most of the others realize that with in-game work they can get there too.

 

Exactly

 

Everyone Hold hands and Wish this game into existence,,,, What part of We don't want to be part of a conglomerate don't some people understand?

 

RG mentioned something like having an option to pay for monthly rent on a property with cash instead of in-game currency in the interview he had with warcry.
I haven't heard anything else regarding their future business model.

 

I bought one of the village land deeds, to me it was worth every penny, I supported the game and got something I wanted in the deal. Yes Richard did say that there would be rent on the property and I believe he mentioned that you would be able to pay for it with in game money also or you could pay with RL money for a nominal fee a month. Now eventually all the house space will go, and one of the easiest way of freeing up land space is by charging rent on it, if someone doesn't want to pay for the land with in game money or a RL payment then move over and let someone who does and will not complain about it . No one has their arm twisted to buy land, and the game will be as playable without a property, I just prefer to have one that is all.
The game will have to have some sort of return for investment and as much as I hear all these people saying I don't want to pay for a game to play it, then just remember that if you ever played UO then you paid a subscription, what has changed. I cant wait to get into the testing of this game and I for one would pay a subscription for a game that was continually supported. Roll on release date.

 

He said you could spend real money, but they have said that will be an option in addition to in-game gold for rent.

In other words, to my understanding, you can either invest time IN the game, earning the gold, OR, you can invest money you spent time earning outside the game. Both are needed for the game to be successful, and I actually hope that's how they are doing it, as it gives the player options for how they wish to spend their time.

 

This is how games should be made, with the players i have intentions to put more in,and buy a house or two because i believe in this project. Such an,open and honest pipeline of production makes this feel like a co.munity project rather than a high and mighty "AAA" game.

 

Even tho the OP did not argue very well his opinion, this thread yet again shows that the fund raising comes across wrong to the gaming community. It doesn't matter how well you argue why it's needed to have a cash shop etc. if the general perception and impression is negative.

 

I can hardly see how SotA can be labeled a cash cow when they will not even be charging a monthly fee to play.

 

Every game and this includes the mighty World of Warcraft has some form of cash purchase items from a shop, even UO did. Richard (LB) has said that people will have land available to buy in game with in game currency. Now I don't want to get drawn into an argument about games people perceive as Play2Win because that is a totally different argument all together than having limited land available for release prior to Alpha test.
Richard (LB) has already stated that the game will start of with basic equipment and that he wants all stuff to be player created. That means anything you might buy from a cash shop for Sota would be just decorative items. Unfortunately there are MMO's out there some of which operate a good cash shop which offers no Play2Win value and others that are just the opposite and its is the later that make some people believe that every game is like that, this is not true.
Sanctius I would like you to link a thread that's shows a viable argument as to why fund raising comes across wrong in the gaming community as Kick starter is a hugely successful way of raising money, take Star Citizen for example which has now surpassed $31 million funds raised, why? because its something the creator believed in and something that people want, just like Richard (LB) believes in his project and something that people who have funded this project want. Now I am willing to read any thread that you create and take into account any realistic comments you make, but speaking for the general gaming community without evidence showing what you say is right, does not make it so.
I have already stated I would pay subscription because I believe that continued support from the playing community is essential in keeping a project going for a long time, I use UO as sufficient argument for this point, I also like the idea of being able to get cosmetic gear for my character from a cash shop. This game will be more sandbox than theme park and end game raiding for the best armour and weapons in the game is not an issue for Sota, as said we will be crafting our own. So where really is the problem here concerning a shop for Sota I cant see one. Would it upset you Sanctius, that if you owned vendors in the game and they made you a lot of in game currency? I doubt it, but wouldn't that make yours a cash shop too? just for different currency.
I know that there is an argument against Play2in cash shops in a game but it cannot be used here.

 

@Brimor

Thanks for your thoughts.

Obviously every game and every gaming studio needs proper funding to deliver, regarless how their business model will be. Now, i'm not arguing on this thread if the cash shop is the right way to do it, but i am arguing that many people perceive it as a negative thing. It's certainly not a cash cow. I may have made an unaccurate generalization but oh well =) Literally only 1 of my friends have pledged top this game because they don't believe it can deliver. There are several forums with negative comments of the payment model but then again people do complain about everything and usually it's the vocal minority.

I also started a thread on these forums about my concerns and it sprung 10 page thread which does show that there is a lot of mixed feelings concerning this topic even among the backers and fans.

Now for me personally it's not about the money. I've stated in more than one post that i'm a huge advocate for sub-based business models because the whole experience is covered for everyone with the same price. It's the feeling i get how the SotA funding raising is marketed in and presented and i'm not the only one.

I pledged citizen during the initial KS campaign and in theory i already do own a vendor in game. I just think ingame gold and real life currency is not comparable in this case. Even if it would be, it has nothing to do with the topic discussed here.

 

@Sanctus

We both make the same point about Cash shops in a way that unfortunately people tar them all with the same brush. People really need to research the game that interest them and not drawing comparisons from the past, I am sure u will agree on that point there.
How can peoples perceptions be changed about Cash shops? I don't know because you will always get people who love them and people who hate them.
How can funding on kick starter be marketed as anything different to what it is? It is a good way for someone who wants to fund a game to make sure there is a viable market out there for them. No bells and whistles here is what I want, fund it if you want it too.
I appreciate your constructive reply to my post and its good to see another advocate of sub based games