Stand Alone Server

[jock2]

I'm sure this has been mention before but I really think this is both the best business model and potentially the best outcome for gaming.

The ability to create a stand-alone version of haven and hearth would appeal to every person who does not like the idea of pvp or simply wants a more relaxing time of playing the game. It also removes the ever ending idea that you can't "catch up", the begging to start a new world.

Having a discussion with a few friends about it. We all find the game insanely fun and have played on and off for years but we ourselves have thrown money at trading, hours at crafting curios and building towns also feel "behind" all the time.

The game is regularly botted and macroed, clients made to remove some of the less savoury elements this creates an imbalance in play styles, competition is always fierce and in favour of these people using bots. This takes away a lot of the relaxing elements of haven and hearth.

I would love to see haven and hearth provide a stand-alone server, similar to Wurm unlimited or Life is feudal has.

I think many people would be happy to pay a fair amount of money for this.

We discussed the idea of the server-client software and the prices we would be willing to push to $100 server client and perhaps the requirement to buy the game client for $15-$30.

For My group alone each of us would by the server-client and the game client. Bringing in several thousand dollars, I have no doubt this would be compounded with many others that would do the same.

This could also free up a lot of extra funding and time for the developers, moving to quarterly updated for larger content drops and improvements. Lower the requirements for fresh worlds, access to a large portion of ideas from player created mods. Including a HUGE amount of severing bugs found, system imbalances pointed out from "legacy" or older code.


I am sure you have a reason for not doing this or have considered this but i hope this suggestion reaches you and brings the idea back to the for front.

Common mentions
Would cost Jorb income.

google wal mart and microsoft are not in competition with steams PC market last i checked.

if this game had only a select few people to play with, then whats the point? this game was designed as an MMO and would need to be changed dramatically to offer a fun experience for small group play.

stardew valley is not an MMO. it can get away with one time payments. its also nothing like haven and hearth so i dont understand the comparison. there is much more to haven than farming and chit chatting with NPCs. why compare it to that harvest moon ripoff?

haven and hearth gets constant updates, that means the staff need to constantly work, that means they need constant income to eat ect. your one time payment plan would divide the fanbase, whats to stop someone from buying a private server, and giving all free players the benefits of paid accounts? just invite everyone and boom. massive money loss for jorbtar. their work goes unpaid and unappreciated.

Answer

I'm confused,

Steam offers a platform to release games on the pc market, meaning it facilities it. Google is a monopoly that facilities the use of the internet, the same as Microsoft facilities the use of a computer.

Please elaborate on the many differences beyond pvp that HH has over SV or HM.

Mining?
Farming?
Fishing?
Building?
Skilling?

It has hunting, exploration. it's similar to way more depths. HH is better in every aspect, hence the fact it would trump the market.
HS/SV has some garbage NPC stuff.

Money:

SV made $21m in a year as a single payment.

Let's say the current online player base (250) each year bought:

verified accounts: $3750
Subscription gold 365days : $52500
1 of each support the patch: $22500
12 subs tokens :$18750
50 sketchbooks: $7500

A yearly income of about £105000

the game would need to make 200x that to hit one year of stardew valley.

It would also murder the ingame economy of selling tokens etc.

[/u]

BEFORE your respond to this thread ask yourself, would you buy the stand alone?

[jock2]

I would also like to point out that if this was released via steam and marketed correctly it could trump any of the similar games competition.

It is often compared to a multiplayer stardew valley.

A note from: https://www.pcgamer.com/stardew-valley- ... -insights/ (last year)

"Stardew Valley probably earned about $24 million last year. Steam Spy thinks that it earned $9.2 million in March after it released on February 26. Stardew may have sold 1.5 million more copies than Mafia III. Not bad for a one-man project."

[synaris]

read this thread. viewtopic.php?f=40&t=44710

moron...

also fuck steam. its monopoly needs to die. it practically rules PC gaming now....

[Granger]

We discussed the idea of the server-client software and the prices we would be willing to push to $100 server client and perhaps the requirement to buy the game client for $15-$30.

For My group alone each of us would by the server-client and the game client. Bringing in several thousand dollars, I have no doubt this would be compounded with many others that would do the same.

As the numbers you quoted are one-time payments this 'several thousand dollars' would also be a one-time thing. Unlikely to happen, as it would be a bad business decision (and a maintenance nightmare).

I think it would be more likely for the devs to be bribeable through a monthly payment (in at least a medium 3-digit size) into running a private server instance - still fully under control of the devs, with only the list of accounts being able to log into it under the control of the one who's paying - on which the normal user rules (subscription based boni) still apply.

But even this would lead to fragmentation of the userbase, thus is unlikely to happen before the current amount of concurrent users has climbed some orders of magnitude.

[jock2]

EH?

What has this to do with a standalone version?

it's completely correct in an MMO world. I should make this clear i love pvp in games, regularly take part in them but H&H's pvp is garbage. Sadly that's the truth, it consists of very few things other than dumpster someone weaker than you.

For me, H&H is a far better small group game than an MMO.

Steam wins because of convenience, it's a smart model and great tools.

If steam should go, so should google. Microsoft, wall mart etc.

The purpose of this isn't about separating PVP and PvE it's taking a mechanically brilliant game that is in the wrong market for itself. It has a much large potential market as a stand-alone. It's style and development of characters, quality and progression offer people a real deep connection to the game.

This is simply removing the ability for someone random to inflict their will upon the other player. allow players to select the people they want to play with and create/play a style they want.

[jock2]

We discussed the idea of the server-client software and the prices we would be willing to push to $100 server client and perhaps the requirement to buy the game client for $15-$30.

For My group alone each of us would by the server-client and the game client. Bringing in several thousand dollars, I have no doubt this would be compounded with many others that would do the same.

As the numbers you quoted are one-time payments this 'several thousand dollars' would also be a one-time thing. Unlikely to happen, as it would be a bad business decision (and a maintenance nightmare).

I think it would be more likely for the devs to be bribeable through a monthly payment (in at least a medium 3-digit size) into running a private server instance - still fully under control of the devs, with only the list of accounts being able to log into it under the control of the one who's paying - on which the normal user rules (subscription based boni) still apply.

But even this would lead to fragmentation of the userbase, this is unlikely to happen before the current amount of concurrent users has climbed some orders of magnitude.

Stardew Valley is a 1-time payment, has very similar yet less progressive gameplay. It made millions.

The MMO version does not need to be removed.

Not to be that guy but the game will never be a HUGE large player base, its just unrealistic at this point. If anything this would create a larger following of the game and build a larger community for it.

[synaris]

google wal mart and microsoft are not in competition with steams PC market last i checked.

if this game had only a select few people to play with, then whats the point? this game was designed as an MMO and would need to be changed dramatically to offer a fun experience for small group play.

stardew valley is not an MMO. it can get away with one time payments. its also nothing like haven and hearth so i dont understand the comparison. there is much more to haven than farming and chit chatting with NPCs. why compare it to that harvest moon ripoff?

haven and hearth gets constant updates, that means the staff need to constantly work, that means they need constant income to eat ect. your one time payment plan would divide the fanbase, whats to stop someone from buying a private server, and giving all free players the benefits of paid accounts? just invite everyone and boom. massive money loss for jorbtar. their work goes unpaid and unappreciated.

[jock2]

I'm confused,

Steam offers a platform to release games on the pc market, meaning it facilities it. Google is a monopoly that facilities the use of the internet, the same as Microsoft facilities the use of a computer.

Please elaborate on the many differences beyond pvp that HH has over SV or HM.

Mining?
Farming?
Fishing?
Building?
Skilling?

It has hunting, exploration. it's similar to way more depths. HH is better in every aspect, hence the fact it would trump the market.
HS/SV has some garbage NPC stuff.

Money:

SV made $21m in a year as a single payment.

Let's say the current online player base (250) each year bought:

verified accounts: $3750
Subscription gold 365days : $52500
1 of each support the patch: $22500
12 subs tokens :$18750
50 sketchbooks: $7500

A yearly income of about £105000

the game would need to make 200x that to hit one year of stardew valley.

It would also murder the ingame economy of selling tokens etc.

[Granger]

Let's say the current online player base (250)

As long as you confuse concurrent online with active accounts your math will be off enough to disqualify any argument you build on it.

[jock2]

Let's say the current online player base (250)

As long as you confuse concurrent online with active accounts your math will be off enough to disqualify any argument you build on it.

200x off?

it would need to be 200x the numbers i have estimated to be more valuable than stardew sales.

do i also need to adjust for people who don't pat a thing?

if that's your only counter argument i think its weak, null and void.