Cost

Not arguing that, I was just saying what they were thinking. The game needs money to be developed... plain and simple.

 

That is an interesting thought when you actually think about it. I would be interested to see what players decide to sell there cash shop items for in game. This will basically set the gold to dollar ratio. I don't think it will be anywhere close to UO. UO is over inflated with gold from hacks, bugs, botters and 15 years of game play.

 

This is interesting because even while I am a founder and have backed this game from the beginning, I had similar thoughts and feelings as you for several months. And that's before they even added the houses and plots into the add-on store!

Finally I decided that housing would not be necessary to have a fulfilling game experience. Yes they are featuring it like crazy, but I believe the reasons for this current focus are:

1. Because these are the first systems they developed, and are at a level of quality that they are ready to be showcased at this stage.
2. Because this 'unnecessary' feature can make backers willing and able to provide funding, and feel like they have a piece of the game already while helping fund the game's development.

These changes in my way of thinking changed my perspective, eliminating the bitterness. I truly feel spending the initial $45 will provide a very rewarding gaming experience for the cost. And the bulk of the game - if not all, once it is completed, will be experienced by these players. I truly believe this, and I think most people feel this is true. I hope this helps.

 

I would like to point out that voicing a concern is not the same thing as complaining and shouldn't be viewed as something we shouldn't do. This dog piling isn't really helping anyone.

 

" The rent is too damn high!" Is a complaint,
" How an i going to pay the rent if i only get 30 hours at work this week." Is a concern.

 

/dogpiles on rune_74

 

At this point a whatever is in order I guess.

 

I think I've heard it all now.
Lets see now...
Dont smoke
Dont Drink
Don't to recreational drugs
Use 1 tank of gas a month
Don't have cable TV
Rarely go to the stores for anything beyond food shopping (which is why I use a tank of gas a month)


Just saying

 

It was a good idea. I actually upped my initial donation to the game as high as I could within in my budget.

 

I agree, that was uncalled for and I apologize, I think I was just getting frustrated. I needed to take a step away for a little bit.

 

The question is how long will these lots last? The devs have made it very clear that there is a limited amount of housing in the game

 

And how many didn't pledge cause houses are rare and cost a lot of money?

They that cant afford to use that kind of money and still want the house experience might not pledge at all.

I believe the house system is negative for the funding of SotA since the masses of small funders is lacking in this game and can be found in a game like Star Citizen where everyone can get a "house" (ship) and dont have to pay a small fortune for it.

1. Developers need to remove the option of having more then 1 house.

2. Developers need to distribute cheap houses (instanced) that everyone can afford.

 

I kind of like pointless instanced housing. at least in a limited area

 

So are you saying that everyone should be given what was meant to be 'limited' housing?
I ride my bike rather than waste money on a tank of gas a month, that might help..

 

I dont want a Lamborghini I would be happy with a Kia.....
your implied example of real life similarities is flawed.
In the original post well a couple down from it really I stated they could have cheaper instanced housing for those that could not afford as much. The purists could still have their non instanced houses and be happy while the person that does not play as much or have as much cash flow would likely be very happy with an instanced house.

 

If they don't pledge because of the high cost of housing, then they shouldn't play this game until they see how much fun it is for the millions that do play it after it comes out. Then they'll come back and regret not backing it back when they could have paid just $550 for a rent-free lot..

 

The problem is they just don't care if we are happy with an instanced house, it would mean that others could enjoy housing(albeit not at the persistent level) who shouldn't without spending a ton of money.

 

You do realize the game was successful on kickstarter without any of the levels that provided housing? Yes it did add to the overall amount the game made, but the majority of the money did not come from housing tiers.

 

And for the 10 house granting levels, Citizen, Edelmann, Edelman Digital, Knight, Lord, Baron 1, Baron 2, Baron 3, Duke, and Lord of the Manor, that's 10 houses in game, and $31,095 in contributions. To make up for $31,095 at the $45 Adventurer level, you'd need to attact 691 players, and add 691 houses to the landscape instead of 10, which which starts getting us to UO style Urban Sprawl very quickly, which Richard Garriott specifically wanted to avoid so a to not ruin his Perfect Role Playing Game.

I have to say, I have to agree with RG completely.

 

I would like and support this idea if the instanced housing was limited. Such as, limited storage, not able to place crafting stations, and smaller then all houses that are place-able on actual lots.

I say those because it still makes having an actual house more desirable and doesn't have a huge negative effect on game play.