1 Instanced House Per Account

I have no doubt some people would flip out but, having said that, there are people who flip out over anything.

I think any sane and rational person, who owned a house would look at the instanced solution and be like, "OK, for $10 they have got a shared door with 1000 other people, in a building they can't choose, in a location they can't choose, which leads to a one bedroom apartment that looks a bit ordinary..." I think any sane and rational person, comparing that to their experience of choosing the lot, choosing the house, having far more room, etc, ought to be able to "get" the concept.

 

Again, this misses the entire point of what's been argued here.

 

First up, good to meet you. You reference playing UO a lot in your posts. So did I. From 1997. Great game. But, on this topic we are clearly at different sides of the park.

Instanced housing is clearly not meaningless as giving people a one-room starter place, which shows them the fun of collecting stuff and decorating, and then saying, "And, hey, when you're ready, you can actually own a REAL house in a city, town or village..." is actually a good incentive to helping people "get" what's possible. You put people in a basic room and give them a taste of what they can do, and it will convert more of them to wanting a real place, than if you don't do anything to help. And, on top of that, when the instanced house is never seen by others in the game... who exactly is it hurting?!?

 

Well, you can't say that.. Portalarium may find other ways to make things work with the non-instanced housing system currently in place (such as the potential housing rental system (shared or rented by the owners) or as future increments of non-instanced lots to relieve the pressure to an extent with expansions, etc.. - based on population, and to control demand from skyrocketing if that's the case - I believe this has been already mentioned by the company).

My personal point of view? I want this game to always be non-instanced housing... Why? Because I like non-instanced housing based on my gaming experience.. It is appealing and meaningful.. I can't say the same about instanced-housing..

For many reasons, it adds value and that value drives people to get involved/encouraged by that system...

Human nature? Perhaps...

A better system than instanced-housing? Most definetly..

Good night to you as well Gunga.

 

No I think you miss the point.

Right from kickstarter there was a view to avoid instanced housing in favour of the persistent model of housing (similar to UO) which creates a housing market.

It is true there is not enough housing for everyone, however it had been made clear that housing will expand based upon the player base and that more housing will be added each episode.

Why would anyone want a rentable 'instanced' house that is nothing more than a glorified walk in vault when they can actually rent part of or all of a persistent house?

This is the point you are missing.....the housing market will respond to those people who want to rent. If additional time was spent on the game I'd rather see time spent on making renting safe, easy and secure for all players rather than create needless mechanisms for an instanced room.

 

Yeah, but to also be honest about the community back in the day, if it was common knowledge that upwards of $500 were paid for a piece of property, the owner would generally be considered in a different light than those who worked for it. This system, the focus on housing and the fact that there are already owners, and people acting to defend and attack aspects of game development as said owners, is dredging up the same contempt that would have been garnered back in the day. This whole idea of instanced housing of some form is in response to poor elaboration on the final game systems in the face of heavy attention housing and its 'scarcity' is getting. One of the last things I want to see within a roleplaying game is another player's wallet size and there's been limited evidence that such things wont be apparent. The funding structure has already provided the wedge and we're not even in game yet.

 

I've addressed all of this. I'd rather work towards enticing gamers to pledge for SotA than discouraging people who want to own a house and don't have the cash to.

More housing in Episode 2? Wonderful, except by then you've already left a bad taste in potential backers mouths.

 

And, just out of curiosity because I really don't know the answer to this, where would they be storing all the stuff (eg: the throne of bones), that they've been accumulating, without a house (instanced or otherwise)?

 

The point of a sandbox game is to create an environment that will persist in real time, including housing. If you provide people with instanced housing, the value of persistent houses will decrease. It won't be fair for people who back the project for the housing in the first place. $11,000 lord of the manor tier for an instanced housing in SOTA? Who would want to invest in that? Might as well get me an instanced castle in Warlord of Draenor (WOW) this December for $60 or pre order Wild Star for a rocket house. Think about that for second. If you want instanced housing, you can play WOW, FF XIV, DC Universe Online. There are plenty of other games who does that.

And let's say that you're trying to tell us that it's not fair, because we all have different wallets? That's true. This world will never be fair. No one will give you what you want. If you want something, you go get it. Period. You just have to do the best with what's been given to you.

I joined the backers to enjoy a persistent world and enjoys adventures with friends. Some will have big houses, some will be sleeping in the streets. What matters the most is that we all have fun. Cheers

 

No, it really wouldn't. A persistent house, that everyone sees in the game world, in a specific location, with multiple rooms, is a bajillion times more desirable than an instanced, one room sort of thing.

So people who are in an instanced, one room sort of thing, would still desire a persistent house and be working towards getting one at some stage.

And those who wouldn't... well, they don't come into the equation, do they, as they'd never be involved in acquiring persistent housing, in the first place.

 

There have been posts by the devs that there will be banks and that players can expand their bank storage capacity. It is unclear whether the rent will be gold or actual money.

 

But but but! Bank boxes are instanced, and don't actually exist in the SotA world! Such a destructive effect on the game and ruiner of my immersion! All bank boxes should be actual boxes that take up space in the world and if there is no more floor/shelving in the bank, you are out of luck and your oversized Throne of Bone must forever sit in your backpack! [/snark]

 

You joke about that but some people do think that banks should not be global because it would break immersion and all of that. I don't care much either ways. I'd just tape multiple scraps of paper to the screen for each bank that I have an account at. I would like to see players be able to rent inn rooms at some point.

 

How can instanced housing be "tacky" if you never see it?

 

Considering they have already broken numerous promises, and considering they have said repeatedly they will consider input from actual players, I'd say surely they must be creative enough to resolve this issue instead of perpetuating it.

 

When Richard Garriott, himself, said there will not be, by game launch, I'd think we should take him at his word.

 

Nonsense. He has stated publicly, and I posted a link to it either in this, or another, forum. He said he fully expected every lot will be sold prior to game launch.

Whatever he said in Dev chat is not freely available to view by anyone. But he stated this publicly.

 

Since when do finite resources continue to generate revenue, for the actual game company, unless they are directly involved in trade?

The way things are set up now, whoever owns that lot will profit, not the company. They will sell virtual houses for real currency.

It's a recipe for disaster for anyone other than home owners.

To rely on a finite resource as major funding is a very bad business model.

 

I'd like to see a citation for that statement, please.

 

I think what people forget is that lots have not even been placed yet. Many towns have not even been created yet. Sections of the world might not even be on the world map yet!

Therefore, they can create as many lots as they need to in order to supply the number of lots sold. They can eventually nail it down much better right before launch. They can even designate locations in existing towns where last minute lots can be placed if needed, and we'd be none the wiser.

It's easy to sell every lot when you control what 'every' means.