What would you be willing to pay for Naval Action MMO?

[Thundershield]

I'll support the game regardless of payment plans.

 

But I do hope that the devs will go the Guild Wars 2 route, which in my opinion is the best MMO currently on the market, with a perfect payment plan.

 

For those don't know, or haven't played it; GW2 Is pay once, play forever. But it gives you the option of buying additional cosmetic, toys and boost items. You cannot buy anything that will give you an advantage towards other players in the slightest.

For NA, I imagine this would mean you could purchase unique decorations for your ship, unique ships and such things, which I'm perfectly fine with.

[nebsif]

Okay I'm gonna propose something completely different.

 

Advertisements! Captain Morgan commercials 24/7. Yeah? No? no.

 

 

Okay.

 

Doritos ads each time you die!!! plus for each Doritos logo you put on each of your sails you get +1% reload speed !!

Actually why not take it further? Those sails are like billboards of canvas, you could stick other brand names there like KFC and McDonalds, each with a bonus of their own or say, put 3x McDonalds logos and get to use the Red-Yellow hull paint scheme for free!

 

If I had photoshop installed id quickly make a preview..

 

(ps I want a share of the income for coming up with this)

[PegasusUK]

I am old school, so I dont mind paying for the game and then pay for a subscription to help maintain the servers, paying the devs wages and contributing to producing further content/DLC/expansion.  Something the freeloaders wouldnt understand.

[Caball]

 

Whatever - but not a monthly fee.

Pay to play is and was the best model for mmos its the free model that invite hacker scamer botter how dont care for there accounts

[Dino.707]

I like my yacht, so please don't take it away when the game is released (it might be the only yacht I ever own)

[ObiQuiet]

I'd be interested to know if there is industry data that shows a pay-per-month model keeps an MMO world healthier over time than the other models.   "Healthier" might mean, among other things, better long-term support from the development shop, more committed players with less turn over, a steadier stream of new content, a steadier revenue stream for the business, etc.

 

BTW, this kind of poll is a reasonable way to determine price sensitivity among a target market segment, which is a valuable piece of data for any product.   (We're the focus group.)

[StandingCow]

I think maybe there is a happy median here... for all the current game modes the initial purchase would be enough (with the exception of cosmetic purchases).  But maybe to participate in the open world part of the game there would be a monthly fee. 

 

I don't really see how we would have very good open world servers if all the money the devs brought in was just from initial purchases?  This IS a niche game so it isn't making a ton.

[BlouBulle]

A monthly sub is a bit unfair for those who have already spent $$$.

 

I say premium ships are fine if inferior and so are cosmetic changes, the 5 things that ruin WoT are:

Gold Ammo
Superior Premiums (JT 88, Lowe, E25)

Easier to make $$ in Prems (should be harder)

Camo costs $$ if you want to keep forever

People that whine about Arty because they want to be able to sit behind a rock and take no damage the entire game and ruin the gameplay.

[Joe]

Purchase plus a monthly would support the game and keep it bringing in money. I don't mind about 40 to 50 bucks for a game plus 15ish bucks a month, it's not that much for the time spent in a game. Think about going out to see one movie and dinner, that's 75 bucks in one night for maybe 6 hours of fun.

An initial purchase comes with a month so that's more than 6 hours right there. For those of you with no life that's potentially 14 hours a day of play broken up by short trips to the bathroom and moms making you a samich. For college students that's 6 to 12 hours a day depending on what day of the week it is and how sober you are.

Finally I found the wording a bit skewed, it was a push poll but still interesting.

[-KM-]

I think a mix between GW2 model and League of Legend would be good. Pay once play forever + Pay for expansions (more content) in combination with microtransactions for cosmetics. 

 

League of Legends is a prime example how much people are willing to pay just for just looks. In NA it could be specially designed flags, ship painting (black pearl edition of a ship anyone?)

 

It is important hat the developers gets money over time aswell to keep improving and maintaining the game. However pay to winmight put a lot fo players off. Letting people pay for looks however wont really put anyone off and I am sure there is enough people who will in the end pay way more for that special flag or original ship look than they ever would for an XP boost. 

[Naxos]

Assuming the game costs 30$/€ , and game labs sells 10.000 copies, not unrealistic once it will get hyped on steam

 

Would be 300.000€/$ , not too bad for a small crew of devs

 

A monthly payment/subscription would be horrible

[Cuthbert Collingwood]

 

Whatever - but not a monthly fee. Don't even think about it.

Trouble with monthly fees is that from what I'm seeing they tend to fail. WOW and EVE are the only really succesful subscription models and everything else usually ends up free to play with premium subscription accts (Pay To Win IMO) or Pay To Win purchases.  Worth noting here that The Elder Scrolls Online is going Free To Play in March.

 

Where I do see a more attractive model is in the like of Guild Wars 2 or {ath Of Exile where micro transactions are very much cosmetic and not pay to win. Also I have not problems paying for a major DLC expansion if it gives me serious extra content and is fairly priced and comes on  the back of an initially finished and complete game.

 

If a developer gives me reasonably priced affordable extras that are not Pay To Win I will buy them to support the game and enhance my experience as I am well aware the game has to have an income stream especially with an online game where that online infra structure needs to be maintained, servers cost money etc....

[Dagann]

I don't know Guild Wars 2.

Is the game popular compared to other mmo ?

 

I'll support the game regardless of payment plans.

 

But I do hope that the devs will go the Guild Wars 2 route, which in my opinion is the best MMO currently on the market, with a perfect payment plan.

 

For those don't know, or haven't played it; GW2 Is pay once, play forever. But it gives you the option of buying additional cosmetic, toys and boost items. You cannot buy anything that will give you an advantage towards other players in the slightest.

For NA, I imagine this would mean you could purchase unique decorations for your ship, unique ships and such things, which I'm perfectly fine with.

What kind of boost can you buy in Guild Wars 2 ?

[Kpt Beowulf aka Kpt Ahab]

There have been discussions about all kinds of different payment models, including Free-to-Play, Pay-to-Play, Monthly subscription, Pay-once-player-forever, etc, etc.

 

Also, @admin has said: "payment model will be similar to Guild Wars 2." (link | blogpost of Guild Wars 2 payment model).

So, the payment model for the game has already been decided.

 

 

Yet, this says nothing about the payment model people in the community would prefer, nor does it say anything about how much you would be willing to pay.

 

So, here is a poll where you can indicate your preference for a payment model and the amount of money you would be willing to spend.

Also, there is another somewhat related thread on DLC, which you may find intersting: What would you pay money for?

 

Cheers,

Brigand

 

P.S.

@admin: if you think this poll is out-of-line, please delete it.

Basic question here is maybe what kind of player does NA want in the game. Is it the grinding average arcade gamer that wants fast action and a "balanced" game or the player that looks for immersive simulation based gameplay.

 

 

You can´t design a game for all types. As NA is advertising this game it looks as if they address the 2nd of the above mentioned type - that´s me too btw. 

 

Having said that the proposal made by Brigand sounds fair as you can look up a ready game with all the high standard content in a Demo and decide afterwards if that´s suiting your needs or not. IF you want to play the game you buy the box for let´s say 60-80€ and you have the game and all the content - no gimmick stuff or pay-to-win shit of any kind, just skills and personal preferences of roles you want to play.

 

Whenever there are extensions, as in other games, you pay for them or you leave it. That provides on one hand that the the developers make money from good basic content and from further additions in the intended frame of the game layout.

 

Coming from War Thunder I am convinced that you CAN´T make the Jack Of All Trades game that suits everyone - it will turning into a horror.

 

If this title decides to ventilate premium content that influences the core of authentic ships and stuff I´m out as I stopped paying for War Thunder from the launch of 1.37 on. And Game Labs has to make now clear what this game will be as the Alpha now is flooded by a large amount of idiots that by far are not interested in high standard gameplay but another version of WoT or WT.

[SYN_Bloody-Bandy]

Just off the top of my head, would there be any negative fallout if the devs sold player access to different parts of the in-game world? 

 

So, give all players access to North Atlantic, but then for a small fee (and as released) open up Mediterrean, Carribean, South Atlantic, Baltic, etc. one by one or in logical combinations.  That way they could release the world in pieces rather than trying to get it all done at the same time (and suffering with little detail, at least in the beggining).

 

It would serve to initially concentrate players in managed areas, improve the chance of open-ocean encounters etc.  BUT would be a blow to those who want to explore the world all at once, though they certainly could be the first to explore the regions as they were opened/unlocked.

 

It is just a quick idea, and would prefer not to get flamed for presenting it.

[Prater]

Again, we are missing an option:

 

Premium ships that are not pay to win but instead unlock special or unique ships.  Why can no one entertain the option that no ship is any more special than another, but each has different roles, advantages, disadvantages and purposes.  No ship is pay to win unless it is hugely overpowered and given unrealistic characteristics.  You take that ST and I'll sink you with a Constitution solo if you don't know how to sail it.  Take that Bellona, and I'll do the same thing if you don't know how to play properly.  Each ship has special characteristics that when used right becomes a force to be reckoned with.

[Brigand]

Again, we are missing an option:

 

Premium ships that are not pay to win but instead unlock special or unique ships.  Why can no one entertain the option that no ship is any more special than another, but each has different roles, advantages, disadvantages and purposes.  No ship is pay to win unless it is hugely overpowered and given unrealistic characteristics.  You take that ST and I'll sink you with a Constitution solo if you don't know how to sail it.  Take that Bellona, and I'll do the same thing if you don't know how to play properly.  Each ship has special characteristics that when used right becomes a force to be reckoned with.

Hmm, the thing is, if -and I quote- "Each ship has special characteristics that when used right becomes a force to be reckoned with." than adding ships that are only available as premium content would constitute pay to win.

I realise there could be a huge discussion on this... You could argue for adding ships that are either explicitly underpowered (my guess is that would not be a hugely popular item to buy) or you could introduce new ships with the exact same stats as some ship already in the game, in which case they are a cosmetic change only (an option you can already vote for).

If you argue for adding premium ships which are neither of the two options above, you automatically create a pay-to-win item, as you open up tactical options for those who are willing to pay extra.

~Brigand

[Prater]

How is it pay to win, when the ships we already have could easily defeat the ships you buy, if used right?

 

An example:  A small or medium (equivalent to 6th rate) Xebec is not going to beat the Constitution in most circumstances and even a Surprise because its hull is weaker.  That is a unique ship that you could premium.  Just because you buy it doesn't mean you win, and if not used correctly, you will lose to anything your size or larger.  A daring lynx, yacht or cutter captain could possibly even defeat it.

 

No ship means you automatically win unless it is OP.  Pay to win = OP and unhistorical in my opinion.  Pay to win means that standard ships don't have a chance, whereas what I am suggesting, they are just as good, just different roles.

 

The yacht isn't pay to win.  It has disadvantages, such as lower crew than the lynx.

[Henry d'Esterre Darby]

People think that being able to buy any ship is "pay to win", when really, it's just "pay to bypass economy/grinding".  Prater, I like your definition far better - you can dislike that people can use cash to bypass the grind, but calling it pay to win when the ship they're buying is no different in overall capabilities than any other ship you can get by grinding, even if it is unique, is not pay to win.  Being able to use real money to buy cannonballs that do double damage, or cannon that have twice the range and penetration than any other cannon in their class, or a ship that is bigger than Victory and has more cannon with a heavier weight of throw, when no other ship with similar characteristics exist, that's more in the "pay to win" line.

[Prater]

I also think that just because you buy a premium ship, doesn't mean you get that ship in game automatically. It should mean that you unlock the ship type. You still have to buy/build it with in game resources.

[Lord Hood]

I am not opposed to premium ships as you have stated it is not a guaranteed pay to win ship. Take World of Tanks as an example, the Lowe is a premium tank but I would definitely not classify it as a pay to win tank. I do believe that if you gain instant access to the ship it detracts from the skill required in game which can of course be a hindrance in a fleet action so if other requirements in terms of commanding experience and then building the ship (especially if an inexperienced Captain is called to escort a ship and then costs the merchantmen his goods) could be implemented then I would not see an issue with premium content as it wouldn't then detract from the skill based gameplay.

[SchurkjeBoefje]

If the game shapes up to be all that it could be and more, I wouldn't mind paying a monthly fee on top of the initial purchase price.

 

 

But if the game takes a wildly different course, things change. It really depends how the game will turn out....

 

 

 

Though no F2P and P2W elements, please. F2P attracts droves of dimwits who probably won't 'get it' what this game is supposed to be about and P2W is just the devil's stepchild alltogether. 

[Admiral Murl]

It's already been said but i'll just reiterate that we don't know what we would be buying, yet. I can't accurately or even loosely say how much i'd be willing to pay because i've got no clue what the game is going to be like upon release.

 

With that out of the way - I've read a lot of discussions on these forums about what the game intends to be and it all does sound like the perfect game for me. Buying the game for a flat price with the addition of a monthly subcription will be fine with me. I'd rather see subscription than F2P. I don't like scrubs that just want to cause trouble and ruin the game for other people. F2P will bring that.

 

But there are soo many variables to consider. I for one was very excited for ArcheAge. The developers and the publisher for that game that purchased the rights for western release screwed that game up. It could have been a great game and the game concepts and mechanics were fun and balanced. Yet, exploits, hackers, and developer ineptitude trashed the game and subsequently it's subscriber base. That is just one variable to consider.

 

My feelings are is if this game works like eve - An economy that functions, no hacks/cheats/exploits, ship losses are complete losses, fair and balanced, contintuous development on the vanilla launch, and a fun overall game that IS immersive - Then i'd be willing to subscribe to such a game for a long time and pay a purchase price for the title. I don't want my hand held, no themepark, no rewards for children and bad sailors - I want a tough, realistic, and challenging immersive world that forces me to earn my stripes.

 

To add something about Eve because i've read a few times on these forums about how toxic the community is. I agree, the community is toxic. However, it wasn't always that way and if you joined eve post 2009 then you missed the glory days. I played that game for a very long time. I love it! The community drove me out after it became too much to handle on a daily basis. It wasn't always that way.

 

I believe many eve alliances will join this game. There are already some of us here. In fact, that's who brought this game to my attention. So expect that toxic croud to be here too. Maybe not in abundance but give it time and you'll see.

 

Now that i've voted I see that the majority says "Buy Once Play Forever".... well that sounds great for us. It's not great for the longevity of the game. I'd much rather play for free but I know the developers won't continue to support the game if we don't as well. Subscription is the way to go. With a sub the developers know exactly what they have to work with on a monthly basis and can plan accordingly. They can continue to improve the game which will keep us all engaged for longer and attract new captains.

[One-Eyed Willy]

1) Buy once, Play forever

2) Buy: $ 56.00 - $ 65.00

3) Only cosmetic changes (no effect on gameplay whatsoever, but looks cool)

 

 

Regarding the price; If the game is as fantastic as my hopes for it are, then it is definately worth a $60 price tag.

[Dagann]

I'm ok with a monthly subscription or micro-transactions (for cosmetic), as long as the devs earn a non-stop income to maintain and improve the game.

I guess the buy once and buy cosmetics stuff without monthly fee would bring more player than buy once and pay a monthly fee.

The same way, a f2p with a store for cosmetic stuffs would attract many more players.

 

I just hope the game will generat a constant income growth (while preserving the game spirit) so that the NA dev team size increases and produces more and better game contents.