Cost

As shown above, it's the very first thing new people see.

Maybe when they have more to talk about this will change. But for the time being, this game is all about playing in a doll house.

 

I don't share your concern, to me its easy money for the devs to create a better game for all of us. As long as they don't sell more than 50% of the lots, I'm good. I personally don't feel slighted, you do. I am not deminishing your feelings, just expressing mine. When things go live and if you are correct, I'll grab the pitchfork and torches with you.

 

I agree but hopefully, once more is in a state to show off this will change. But you have to admit this is a feature that most games don't have so of course they'll show it off. They would be fools not to. Imo

 

Yeah that's exactly what we are saying, keep up the good posts, I'm sure it will work to attract new players.

PS: And for the record I do have a good job, the value to me is not worth the price. That does not mean I don't want one in the future.

 

While you have the right to freedom of expression and are more than welcomed to express those feelings in these forums ... many of us here foster a welcoming environment to all players ... it helps build a good gaming community and that is also a big draw for a lot of the player base here ... it also has the indirect benefit of encouraging people to join us by pledging and buying the game

 

Yea, I just get tired of reading threads based on speculations. And most speculations are leaning towards the negative. Seriously, where is the thread that people are talking about WAY too much housing? You won't find one, cause negative speculation is what makes for long threads.

 

Well, maybe because one is a fairy tale and the other one is true? Why would anyone talk about too much housing when we know that's not the case. Sound logic there.

 

I agree, unfortunately it comes with the territory of any public campaign (for gaming) built on limited resources ... it tends to bring real life issues into the mix ... which can get touchy

 

And you have a source that shows this is not the case? Where do you see that the players who do not donate/ buy into the game would have a very limited selection on housing? Please enlighten us.

 

It has been stated over and over again....that there will be housing available as well as those sold there is a thread here by Darkstar, but they would be limited. Housing has been limited to the amount since day one....but it is even more limited due to a fair percentage of them being pre sold. So....I'm not sure how I can enlighten you further.

It is a valid concern, and I don't think it is something to be pushed away as purely being negative. I like a lot of what I see with the game, this I don't see going well. If this really upsets you so much to see it then really all I can say is don't read it. I realize it's not a popular subject, especially with those that decide to spend the money.

I think it is important to bring up, as important as any other thing being speculated in these forums right now.

 

Players will have plenty of opportunity to buy and place ingame after the launch.

Let's call a spade a spade! the real reason why some people are getting upset is probably because they don't like the fact that some people can just click on the site "add city lot to basket" and just buy it whilst they may have to work in the game. we have already seen the "silver spoon" comment.

The game has to be funded from somewhere.

 

I'm not aware of any source that confirms this, but if a house costs minimum $200, then how much in-game gold does that equate to, 400 million? (400m is $200 in UO gold)

I don't believe this is a reasonable conclusion to jump to. I've made my pledges (and own housing), but am still concerned about this issue.

 

I've played a few persistant house games ie Vanguard/Isteria/UO and it seems to me eventually people can get what they want. I waited 2 years in UO to get my first house. In the meantime I just rented housing from my guild and lived on the road in inns etc.

I don't think it's going to be as bad of a thing as people seem to think. Housing is going to be available to everyone who really wants a house. Not everyone who plays this game will care about owning a house. I can see that in games I play nowadays. Isteria is a vast world of empty lots and so is Vanguard. I guess we all expect and hope this game has millions of players eventually. I hope so and expect a fairly large group of players 100,000+.

I really think it will be possible for everyone who wants a house to get one at some point in time. Just because some people buy housing for cash to have a house right away is not a negative thing toward anyone else. I do not have alot of money myself, but I am good at budgeting. I 'need' a house in my gameplay. It's why I quit most games because it doesn't offer housing, or the housing just sucks. This game offers housing that doesn't suck hence...I got my house.

Play as you like...if you want a house get one, you can...with money or saving in game...it's there...believe me...it won't be unavailable to anyone who wants it. Tell me how someone who really wants/needs a house cannot get one? We haven't even started playing the game yet...

 

Don't edit your post and make it seem like i was pointing at you about having or not having a job, that is not how i roll. The "job" is a metaphor for getting in game and earning gold to buy one.

 

One thing you leave out is that the developers intentionally limited housing, and limited it in quantities that made sense for each settlement size, villages, towns, and cities. A big reason for this was the experienced from Ultima Online, where large parts of the wilderness were wall to wall houses featuring urban sprawl. They didn't want to repeat this mistake. Knowing that housing would be at a premium, they wisely used what housing there was as a means of securing more development contributions.

Free markets are a very effective way to allocate scarce resources. In this case, the resource being maximized was contributions, while at the same time limiting the supply of the commodity being sold, houses, so as to not degrade the game design through urban sprawl.

 

The developers made a business decision. Richard Garriott reportedly is risking millions of his own dollars in addition to what has been raised through contributions and other funding sources. No one is entitled to anything. The game and it's features are either worth it for what you contributed, or it is not. If it is, be happy. If it is not, that is your decision.

 

It's not silly logic at all. If the price set is intended to raise as many development dollars as possible, and all the lots sell out quickly, that is a sign that the price was set too low. As it is, I think they set the price about right, since it took time to sell the available lots (assuming they've all sold out as of yet. I don't know for sure, since I am not in the market for in game housing).

 

The players complaining may not be taking an economical approach, but the developers most certainly are, which is why they set the price the way they did. They needed to raise development dollars, and sale of in game houses did just that.

 

The reality is that the price is right. If housing were more affordable than it is, they would run out of space a lot faster because everyone would be buying them up and then we'd have people complaining that they are sold out and should create more spaces because it isn't fair that the early people got them all before they had the chance. You simply cannot please everyone while trying to make things balanced.

 

You may think that, but I don't think Richard Garriott thinks that is necessary to develop his Perfect Role Playing Game, and he and his team are developing SotA. If he is wrong, and the game fails because everyone doesn't get a house, that will be on him.

I don't think he is wrong.