World Re-sets in other MMO

[ven]

I will not play this game if I pay for each account.

I don't know, it seems like a fair option to me.

It is not, as far as we have players that cannot afford the monthly sub. In simple words, low online will cause the subscribing people to leave, since it is only the people that generate some content after you have reached in-game goals.
So, "no" to anything that may affect the online in a bad way. Having a world with single characters will not lead to higher online. There will be no fights happening, no trades either.

It's always the question of whom the game is made for, old players or new players. I'm sure pleasing old players and building a solid environment for new players on the mid-term are mutually exclusive options. I actually think the opposite of you, and for me fewer alts would lead to more interaction and more subscriptions, but that's a risky decision either way. This community would never accept a no-alt policy, but, then again, we're only important because the playerbase is small. Limiting alts would necessarily need active promotion like in the examples people gave before, that's obvious. I honestly don't think the devs will ever implement such a feature.

[LadyGoo]

I honestly don't think the devs will ever implement such a feature.

Yeah, since the similar measure from the last world has led to the dramatic population decay right afther the first month.

[Kaios]

It is not, as far as we have players that cannot afford the monthly sub. In simple words, low online will cause the subscribing people to leave, since it is only the people that generate some content after you have reached in-game goals.
So, "no" to anything that may affect the online in a bad way. Having a world with single characters will not lead to higher online. There will be no fights happening, no trades either.

Well that's why I said a better option might be to charge for character slots on an account rather than multiple accounts. At least this way if you want multiple characters you can simply create another account for one, if you want that character on an account with a subscription or verification you either buy those for the second account or buy a second character slot for the first. That seems fair to me.

Either way though I'm in agreement that it's unlikely they'll ever implement anything of the sort.

[Garfy]

Just going to say consider this.

I know 2 people who have had their games added on Steam. Neither were particularly huge or successful games and neither took longer than a year to make. Although they're not allowed to state exact sales and such, according to steamspy, one has made over $100,000 (in about 2 months no less) and the other close to $1 million (before steams cut and taxes obviously).

It only costs $100 to make use of Steam Greenlight and you are pretty much guaranteed 10,000 sales if your game is greenlit.

[riker88]

I don't like the idea of World Resets, I like the idea of a persistent world that lasts forever. However I do like level caps mainly for reason of the family risk game analogy mentioned In the first post.

[Granger]

I will not play this game if I pay for each account.

I don't know, it seems like a fair option to me.

It is not, as far as we have players that cannot afford the monthly sub.

Please apply your argument to anything else (cinema, restaurant,...) and you'll quickly realise that it won't hold water. That there are people who can't (or won't) afford a subscription may be bad for them, but this didn't mean it must be bad for the game.

[boreial]

On the subject of subs limiting alts I believe in the 1 character per account. with 1 week (168 hours including off-line time) of free game time after that it must at least be verified $15.00 to continue using that character.

[LadyGoo]

Then we will face the last world situation with the stale world.
This game needs larger population to work. More people will make more villages, projects, interactions, politics, pvp and etc.
You cannot do that by creating a paywall. And the devs have seen that their game is not good enough for everyone to pay 10 dollars per month. It is a lot of money in the current economical situation for a lot of people.

[Enjoyment]

pay 10 dollars per month. It is a lot of money in the current economical situation for a lot of people.

And here comes the Steam with regional prices...

[Garfy]

Then we will face the last world situation with the stale world.
This game needs larger population to work. More people will make more villages, projects, interactions, politics, pvp and etc.
You cannot do that by creating a paywall. And the devs have seen that their game is not good enough for everyone to pay 10 dollars per month. It is a lot of money in the current economical situation for a lot of people.

$10 is nothing, but I wont pay it because I do not believe the current development efforts justify a monthly fee. Updates are tiny, too infrequent (has been almost a month since the last update) and rarely have anything of substance in them.
Even ignoring this, the current state of the game is such that a subscription fee is pointless. There is so little actual content in the game that once you get everything set up (which is probably no longer than a month) you just stop actively playing. You get your bots set up to farm and use curios, but you don't actually play. Unless you're something like a raider (most people aren't) you're treating the game like an idle game. You might have it open for the sake of making your numbers bigger, but you're not actually playing it.

Both of these things make me look at the game and wonder why the game has a $10 subscription fee attached to it. There are games with millions of players and hundreds of developers that only ask $15 a month for a sub fee, and in return they offer much more for your money (constant sizeable updates for starters).
I know there are only two developers and they want to make money on the work they've put into the game, but outside of fans who want to support the game, no one is going to pay a subscription fee when it offers so little in return.