Why the new P2P system is essentially worthless for devs

[Kubius]

But what do you presume your point to be? That there is a chance that the game is unmarketable, or too niche to turn a decent profit?

Chiming in here - there's a few things to say.

Firstly, it's a lot less niche than Amanlu and Jimrod think. Open world procedurally generated buildy-crafty survival is an entire genre right now, and that's part of the problem - you're competing with hardcore mode Minecraft (single time purchase for unlimited SP and MP play with modifications up the shekel), Rust, The Forest, that sort of stuff.

If you can make it accessible enough (for example, with a very well fleshed out official wiki) then H&H has the potential to get a lot bigger. But here's the caveat.

Right now, the F2P system of 12 hours a MONTH is useless. If you really want to play H&H you will NOT be able to get by on it, and thus word will spread that H&H is a pay to play game. Conversely, if it was weekly refreshing on Monday with 14h for free players, 24h to 28h for one time payers, and 70h for $5 or 7/mo subscribers (my most wanted suggestion) you would have extremely reasonable play-times, and H&H would become a free-to-play with a buy-to-play upgrade, and subscription for hardcore players.

Changes to monetization and time allotment HAVE to happen before you can even consider anything else. You can't take an "if you don't like it screw off" attitude anymore, because you're turning your playerbase into paying customers. I am well aware this has to happen, and in a way I'm happy it is (H&H deserves monies), but you need to be responsive to the community because they're the people who are paying you.

New H&H looks absolutely awesome and I want it to succeed, and I'd buy a one-time-purchase copy right off the bat without question if it was actually worth something, but you need to turn it into more of a pay slope than a pay brick wall.

[jimrod]

Ok, you don't like the game, it's too complicated, &c, so thus it does not in any way, shape or form bother you that it also happens to have a payment model you disapprove of, right?

You can play the old haven all you want for the low and affordable price of 15 clams.

just trying to help explain man. i personally am dropping the game. Thank you sincerely though for creating old HnH, it taught a lot of us that yoou dont need a bucnh of flashy shit to have an amazing and very addicting game with the right amount of depth and realism. I spend all of my free time outdoors in the forests doing essentially what HnH was all about, that is why i loved the game so. My time is better spent outside and money better saved for full games. Once again though, thank you. It seems at least a few developers have taken inspiration from Haven, which is good in my eyes because it was an important game in a way, for the reasons i have stated. Regardless of what happens and what people say, dont give up your journey, because you have come to far now for that.

[dank_memes]

While I'm happy Jorb posted in my thread, I'm a little disheartened he seems to have completely disregarded addressing anything to do with the original post

[trickdaemon]

While I'm happy Jorb posted in my thread, I'm a little disheartened he seems to have completely disregarded addressing anything to do with the original post

What else is new? We are emotionally ruled creatures, and he is clearly emotionally affected by his poor decisions and the consequences upon the community.

[Brickington]

$10 a month is not expensive.

Depends where you live

If you can afford a computer, internet, and the necessities to live, then $10 should not be expensive whatsoever.
The only possible excuse one could have is that they are either a student, or a greasy underage kid.

Or you're an underage kid who doesn't have other expenses and / or does not value his money.

[Antioch]

The problem is not monetizing the game it is that it was never announced that it would be monetized with the relaunch.

Yes, it was. Could have just been more obvious I guess.

Do you have a link to this? I only recall seeing posts about that the long term goal was to monetize the game. I have NEVER seen information that it would occur with this relaunch let alone the information about what payment model they were going to use.

[burgingham]

http://indiegamemag.com/igm-interviews-bjorn-johannessen-and-fredrik-tolf-haven-hearth-part-2/2/

They posted the interview link in the old Announcement forums too, but that is not available right now due to portation problems.

[Antioch]

http://indiegamemag.com/igm-interviews-bjorn-johannessen-and-fredrik-tolf-haven-hearth-part-2/2/

They posted the interview link in the old Announcement forums too, but that is not available right now due to portation problems.

We’re going to monetize Haven in one way or another, we haven’t really announced or decided on the exact forms of it, but it will be monetized in one way or another. We’re also going to most likely support some kind of free-to-play model. We’ll announce more as we get to it.

This is exactly as I said: A vague statement about the monetizing of the game (in a third party interview). This is very far away from announcing to people that the game is moving from f2p to subscription based.

This is just one of the most serious and easily preventable videogame PR blunders I have ever seen.

[burgingham]

P2P is one form of monetizazion. At that point they were still thinking about it, but we knew it would come in some fashion or another.

They also made an announcement linking that interview here.

[Antioch]

P2P is one form of monetizazion. At that point they were still thinking about it, but we knew it would come in some fashion or another.

They also made an announcement linking that interview here.

And this is exactly the kind of thinking that led to this trainwreck: Not acknowledging the importance of CLEAR AND SIMPLE communication.