Reactions to store reactions

[painhertz]

Granted I won't bitch if it's cheaper or you get more time, i just bought my first month. least i can do for the last 5 years of "free" entertainment i've gotten.

[AggressivelyNormal]

I'd personally pay a lot more to play haven, but I feel like some of the changes to this release will negatively affect my play. I'm a very social player, in the sense that I'm a trader, and I feel as though a any barrier (pay wall, nabs not finding their friends) will lead to trading happening less often, which is like 90% of the game for me. Also, I very much support a dev getting money for their work, anybody who feels entitled enough to call you greedy for not giving them free shit is an asshole. That said, I feel as though the current setup just compounds the problem of certain players being a lot more powerful than others - irrespective of botting, putting a cap on the amount of time I can play on just my alt accounts (forager, miner, farmer, excessive number of warrior alts) puts me at HUGE disadvantage compared to the people willing to pay to sustain like 5 accounts. It makes hermiting either a lot harder, or more expensive.

Even so, it's Lofter's game guys, being so entitled is unattractive. Even so, I would've liked to hear about the business model prior to launch.

[Bodomfreak]

I don't see that as an obligation painhertz. The game was free and players were delivering a free service of testing. The new game is certainly worth money but the way they went about it was just wrong. With just a few more features it would be worth the 10 bucks a month.

[shubla]

I could pay for this, but not yet. Its still very buggy and server is crashed most of the time. Maybe after few months when it works and i get something else with my money than frustating "server has crashed"

[Cece]

I am forced to drop this game because all 10 of my friends aren't able to suscribe monthly, and im also at my 8th(?) hour finding 1 of my 10 friends... this is extremely tiring i just can't believe you wouldn't let people start in the same area..

perhaps they could have two servers, one free channel and a premium channel like what runescape is doing.

the premium server would have much better lp rates than the current ones and a better experience in general, since players in this channel are p2p players but it requires you to suscribe / pay tokens to progress. perhaps players that are paying could get advantages such as starting at the same zone, so it gives you more incentive to pay for the game.

[burgingham]

I'm perfectly happy with the variety of pay models and much like Loftar, am stunned at the amount of anger. they clearly said well over a year ago that it would be monetized. Now, did i expect it monetized from launch? No. I figured it would be a few weeks or a few months before that. I, for one, look forward to a game NOT overrun by bots and angry children out to ruin everyone elses fun. I look forward to those of you who after 5 years of an amazing free game are willing to support the Developers, to those that aren't? Hope to maybe see you in other games.

#

Also having slight issues with combining pay to play and pay to get in game transactions, but I guess it isn't a complete dealbreaker in this case.

[painhertz]

I don't see that as an obligation painhertz. The game was free and players were delivering a free service of testing. The new game is certainly worth money but the way they went about it was just wrong. With just a few more features it would be worth the 10 bucks a month.

You have no idea of what features await any more than anyone else does. The most advanced person has like, a house so far. lol The entire game is still a mystery.

[dank_memes]

In the end, whether a lot of people end up supporting you or not is a question of worth. Some people have and will always donate to finance the development of indie games, but the moment you switch to a subscription or buy-to-play model, you can no longer expect to work on charity alone.

There's a big difference between donations and subscriptions. Donations are done on a "charity" system; people like the efforts of a certain dev, so they'll give them some money as a form of encouragement. They enjoy what the devs have done and appreciate their efforts, so to acknowledge that and ensure the development of the game gets taken further, they send a bit of money their way. This is usually done out of goodwill.

Subscriptions, however, should be treated as a simple mercantile trade. You're delivering a product with a certain worth, and must ensure that said product is appropriately priced for the worth it offers. Very few people will spend $100 a year on a game simply because they want to make the developers feel good and hope for the game to eventually get better (unless they're very very rich.) They spend that money because they want to be delivered entertainment.

At that point, it doesn't matter how many years you've worked on the game, or where you're planning to take the game in 5 or 10 years. The only thing which truly matters is whether your game is good.

And Haven & Hearth is okay. I've had some good fun playing it, and wouldn't mind continuing to play it if it remained free, or even consider shelling out for a one-time fee so that I could keep playing it with my friends. But is it worth $6-10 a month, especially when compared to other equally expensive MMOs on the market? Probably not.

[Audiosmurf]

In the end, whether a lot of people end up supporting you or not is a question of worth. Some people have and will always donate to finance the development of indie games, but the moment you switch to a subscription or buy-to-play model, you can no longer expect to work on charity alone.

There's a big difference between donations and subscriptions. Donations are done on a "charity" system; people like the efforts of a certain dev, so they'll give them some money as a form of encouragement. They enjoy what the devs have done and appreciate their efforts, so to acknowledge that and ensure the development of the game gets taken further, they send a bit of money their way. This is usually done out of goodwill.

Subscriptions, however, should be treated as a simple mercantile trade. You're delivering a product with a certain worth, and must ensure that said product is appropriately priced for the worth it offers. Very few people will spend $100 a year on a game simply because they want to make the developers feel good and hope for the game to eventually get better (unless they're very very rich.) They spend that money because they want to be delivered entertainment.

At that point, it doesn't matter how many years you've worked on the game, or where you're planning to take the game in 5 or 10 years. The only thing which truly matters is whether your game is good.

And Haven & Hearth is okay. I've had some good fun playing it, and wouldn't mind continuing to play it if it remained free, or even consider shelling out for a one-time fee so that I could keep playing it with my friends. But is it worth $15 a month, especially when compared to other equally or less expensive MMOs on the market? Probably not.

$10 a month. Not $15, has never been $15 despite every mong on this forum saying $15

[dank_memes]

$10 a month. Not $15, has never been $15 despite every mong on this forum saying $15

http://www.havenandhearth.com/portal/store
Buying a month of game time will cost you $15. Buying twelve will cost you $9/month. I doubt most people will be buying their membership in increments of 12 months, however - I'm fairly unlikely to know which city I'll be residing in twelve months from now, much less what videogames (if any) I'll be playing.

Anyway, in the grand scheme of things this is fairly inconsequential. I don't feel like H&H would be worth $100 a year, nor $150.