P2P plan

[loskierek]

Still too much for too little, usually you pay for something that you can already see not for future investments. If they want kickstarter there are other ways to do it.

[Felkin]

Yea, initially I was happy to see that they didn't go for a p2w model, but now it's become clear that they shot themselves in the foot pretty hard.

The only way I can see this justified is by the math of how much they would make. Coles said he'd pay 40$ if it was a B2P, but consider this : say 500 people buy it for 40$. Thats 20k dollars and you can't expect many more sales in the near future, since the core playerbase is already here and not many new people roll in. 20k is absolutely nothing for so much work. Can only live off that for a few months in Sweden (remember, they're in Sweden, not Russia or smth, where shit is cheap af).

In that sence I can see this being the only possible model/price range to mathematicaly sustain themselves, but they probably overestimated just how much the community is willing to give for the game. Given that a majority are from eastern european countries, where such money is quite a lot, should have forseen that even if haven is as a good as it is, there is no way that many will pay such amounts for it. It's really a huge marketing overestimate.

Personally, I'm fine playing 10&/month, just because I'm waiting for blade&soul as the main project to hit the competitive scene in. Haven is just by far the most enjoyable product released atm (for my tastes atleast) so 10$ isin't that much. I've payed 15euros/month for MMOs before just fine.

But really the TL'DR is that they probably expected the playerbase to be more diehard than this.

[Felkin]

I just read all of Jorb's posts on the initial thread. I got the idea now :

Because of the way those 2 are, they don't consider the playerbase's "trust" as a factor.

We can all agree that a post should have been made weeks/months ago with asking for opinions on the model just to see how much backlash it would get. If it was like that, the playerbase would have been all "well this is a shit model and I won't pay! However, might you tune it down, I might still consider it".

What ended up happening is them just putting it all out and shocking the playerbase. Now the stigma is "well this is a shit model and I won't pay! Also, because you're such scum for not saying anything beforehand and don't seem to care about us one bit, I'm out and won't look back at this ever again. You lost all my trust!"

The difference is pretty clear. The 2nd situation causes a huge panic and the initial backlash becomes many times greater than if it had only been "Suggested". This is an implementation already in. It get's even worse when you take Jorb's comments into account. They are all the same "don't like it? Don't pay and leave, we don't care". This has been their attitude for as long as Haven has existed and is not really surprising. The difference is that in the past, it was about design decisions and the people who got put off by this would eventually come around OR only a small % of the core playerbase would leave. Jorb's "nofcksgiven" attitude towards design is actualy VERY welcome by our playerbase. It's exactly the design philosophy that made the game as great as it was and is the reason we have such a bonded playerbase.

However, this is not game design. This is monetization and monetization is a COMPLETELY seperate matter from game design. The people who will be put off by this are not only the people who are not that bonded with the game, but a lot of the CORE userbase too. The people who CARE the most, the people who MAKE this community.

Jorb/Loftar seem to be missing that a big part of what made haven a success has been the COMMUNITY itself as much as the game. I fckin love the shit out of this game (sorry for the words, mods), but I don't think I could last even a few weeks without knowing that there are a few hundred people playing in the same world. People to interact with it. Haven is a social experiment and BECAUSE it's a social experiment, the playerbase MUST stay. Even a portion of it.

This monetization could destroy any trust that the CORE playerbase has and kill off the population. If the game loses the population and goes down to <100 people online, we are donezo. The game will NOT be the same in any form, when there aren't many people left.

They don't care, because they don't really care about how much money they make. They care about their baby game, which they love so much. That is fine by itself. Better than fine even, it's a perfect design philosophy when making something beautiful.

HOWEVER, they don't really consider that by killing off the majority of the playerbase, they will kill off almost everyone and the game will wither away to the point where there won't a social experiment anymore and the COMMUNITY will suffer the greatest. At this point, it's the same case as when a genius is born and decides to just play video games all his life and not help humanity. The niche of sandboxes NEED this game and they don't care about it. They care about the GAME, not the COMMUNITY. It's selfish. It pisses me off to no end, since I was the same way, thinking that personal happiness > living to expectations put into me as a human being. I could just play video games all day, cause I love it, but because I got talent for some things, I know I would not be able to live with myself in 10 years, knowing that I didn't achieve anything notable. I've gotten into university this year and will start working towards this goal. Jorb and Loftar, on the other hand, don't feel this humanly function of achievement. They don't want to help the niche life, but just play around with their little toy known as Haven. It's so fckin annoying, because they HAVE the right to do it, but it's just not the right thing to do.

[KiT]

12 hours of Play Time refilled monthly

24 minutes per day is a fucking joke.

IMO 1 hour daily, with a 24-hour "bank" to store your playtime is the very minimum that would make the game actually playable in free2play. 2 hours/day on a verified account would actually make the game fully playable for casual players.

The only sustainable free 2 play model i can imagine right now is having a huge swarm of bots producing some shit to sell for pay2play tokens.

Anyways, i guess i'll go back to checking H&H everyonce in a few months hoping the game is now good.It never is ;_;

Also check dat join date

[Atamzsiktrop]

I mean u'd probably make a better use of your money buying DayZ Standalone. It will probably get more updates in the next 2 years than Hafen while you need to pay for it only once.
And we all now DayZ Standalone is pure trash and early access forever.

[eliminator]

[q

[agentgoblin]

Okay. Year 2015. 15$ for month playing. What happened with game?

Graphics? So laggy, I play AAA games without problems, but HaH show me 5-10 FPS. Too many objects in game? Why, then, Minecraft and Factorio work perfectly?
Stability? Oh, LOL, nope. Like five years ago.
Pathfinding? No.
Comfortable client? No.

Money for that? You know answer.

[kemil88]

Uhm...I am not sure if to pay a monthly subscribtion for a game with a very minimalistic graphics, developed by 2 dwarves with a shitty server that crash everytime that there are 1000 users online, or to pay the same ammount of money for a monthly subscribtion for FF14, a game with awesome graphics developed by a top company with awesome servers and gameplay...

[KoRbA]

$ 15? I'd rather throw money out the window than to pay for such a half-baked product. Especially since the developers until the last minute deceive me, the game will be completely free.

[powlius]

WoW costs 15 bucks, no?