New idea for Gold subscribers.

[Ludwigp]

Hello.
Dear Jorb,Admins,Moderators,Players, forum sitters and comrades.

When I were sitting close to my PC i just thought where could anyone find an game like Heaven, it going forward, we still gets every update an hat and hat, andd hat nothing more, maybe is it a time to give something more than hats, like look of buildings no bonuses just look, some of people are tired to play every year as viking, slavic, germanic warrior, maybe you should give something like Chinese look of buildings, it would be appiled as skin without change color, like chanigng walls, buildings, suits, you dont have to change lore, those peoples can be sailors from far far east and soo.... Chinese are traveling nation.... it would be good for lore, also arabic are no shit too but it would be harder, soo now ,,chinese'' is trendy and on top, Samurais too, it would be optional only for gold and silvers subs - they would have a little more variety to roleplay, it is nothing wrong right? and they will get more than only hats, of course it will take long to make building, walls skins, couple clothes set, but isnt it worth for players who really love this game and want to stay in this universe ? It wont give bonuses, just look - but the looks make it how the hearth beats, thank you

[Nightdawg]

Keep in mind that jorb is the only person working on the models and textures and all of the game assets(?), so this would take a really long time to implement. I like the idea, but don't get your hopes up.

But tbh I'd rather see this than dandelion/mushroom/bird reskins.

[ctopolon4]

make hat visible only for owner, and that will not broke the game lore

[Fostik]

make hat visible only for owner, and that will not broke the game lore

Not sure that post like this post could be taken in serious by anyone from community, but I'll explain.
Every time you making proposals in C&I or anywhere else, you always calling to ruin current mechanic, but not offer anything instead.
Say, now most of community enjoys hats as self-expression, and by buying it, they imply that everyone will see their hats. Hats is currenly most wanted thing in the game, hats is the main source of income for devs.
Removing hats visibility will lead to decrease of purchases, as well as devaluation of all already bought hats, with all burning asses consequences.
Please, think at least few minutes before you post.

[Zentetsuken]

hot take:

it's time to remove gold and silver subs

it's incredibly dishonest to ask 100 - 200 dollars for what a yearly silver/gold sub rewards
it will take away the obligation to make weekly hats which is something jorb has complained about many times
no more worrying about weekly hat design = more time to make meaningful content and bugfixes and mechanic upgrades
it will give an opportunity to switch cosmetics to achievement rewards
it will reduce RMT
did I mention that it's incredibly dishonest to ask 100 - 200 dollars for what a yearly silver/gold sub rewards?

[MagicManICT]

I'm going to say it's a pretty up front payment with nothing dishonest about it. Might be considered money grubbing a bit (or a lot), but if it's the best way to generate income so you can afford to continue producing your art.... I can think of other games that give a whole lot less for a whole lot more money.

[Zentetsuken]

Might be considered money grubbing a bit (or a lot)

I think at some point the amount being asked can become so exorbitant that it feels dishonest and downright disgusting.

They do describe the process of buying a sub as "throwing money at them," but fail to make a comparison between what might be a more reasonable (but still expensive) price for a bronze yearly sub and a gold sub that offers all the same perks but all the hats they make at seemingly random intervals. I really can't think of another game I've ever heard of that asks for money in exchange for stuff "we might feel like doing but there is no set schedule so the amount you get is literally up to how productive we feel like being."

At the very, very, very least, games that have vague equivalencies like expensive seasons passes actually give the customer a very clear idea of all the things they will receive and have access to over the year as development and seasonal content rolls out.
Even other game that allow you to buy in to beta tests with "starter packs" that allow the user to spend very high amounts of money actually give you a list of all the bonus dickwavey items and titles and bonuses you recieve upfront.

I can think of other games that give a whole lot less for a whole lot more money.

I'd like to hear them because I can't



The store page should not have tiers. It should have a "buy a yearly sub to receive the sub perks" at current bronze price or lower, with the same time intervals, followed by a big fat "donate" button.

Remove tiered subs.

[MagicManICT]

I think at some point the amount being asked can become so exorbitant that it feels dishonest and downright disgusting.

I know not all countries are "rich" like US, Canada, France, Germany, Japan, etc etc. A base sub is $7/ month USD. For the silver and gold you get, on average, about two and four hats per month, respectively. (Actually a little less because some weeks don't see an update.) There are those folks who do just want to "throw money at the devs" because they have it and they want to support the game. Otherwise, for the value, there are the hats added in, and with what they're put on the store at, you're getting a decent deal by having those levels of subscription.

The only reason I call it "grubbing for money" is that jorb has expressed that it's not his favorite thing to do, but it does generate some income.

The store page should not have tiers. It should have a "buy a yearly sub to receive the sub perks" at current bronze price or lower, with the same time intervals, followed by a big fat "donate" button.

Why? There is no dishonesty on the store page other than in your mind. No matter what legal system you look at, pricing and rewards are up front. There is no moral quandary on providing an extra, purely cosmetic service for a fee.... if anything, the few 'subscriber' and 'account verification' rewards are intellectually dishonest because they give in game advantages over others (those that don't pay). I believe this is referred to "pay to win" in other games?

I know some people don't care for the hats. I'm one of them... but then, I pretty much disdain such microtransactions in any game for anything other than "achievement" purposes--see Path of Exile and the league and challenge rewards for an example. I've had my say on why I don't like it and will summarize it if people want, but otherwise don't feel a need to repeat myself.

As far as games that give you 'less' value, World of Warcraft is one of the first ones that come to mind. You get an equivalent game with Everquest and Everyquest 2 or EVE Online, and there are many other f2p MMORPGs out there. Elder Scrolls is a 'buy once' model and the subs add a similar 'bonus tier' to Haven hats. What's the server and connection costs for a single player these days? A couple dollars per month? You pay $40 or $60 for each expansion for WoW already, so you can't really argue that sub costs pay for the expansions. They're pretty much "server maintenance and tech support" fees. Then you get into the real "f2p" model games--some end up charging you $40 US (or more) for something even slightly close to what ESOs model gives or what would otherwise be a monthly sub on one of the subscription MMOs.

But I think you know all of this and are just stuck in your own argument.

[Zentetsuken]

did you just compare haven and hearth to wow and then tell me that I'm stuck in my own argument?

[MagicManICT]

No, I didn't just "compare Haven & Hearth to WoW." you wanted examples of games with 'less value' for the money. WoW and the Final Fantasy MMOs are pretty much the only ones charging a monthly subscription anymore as the only way of playing, and WoW has the added cost of needing to buy a new expansion every year or two. I really don't want to make a 10 page write-up for this discussion on all the ways how the subscription monetization model is outdated for MMO style games. I really don't know what games others in the community are and aren't familiar with, so I went the "easy" route of games almost everyone knows about. I believe such papers already exists through professional game dev sites, anyway, if you really are curious about a formal economic discussion on the matter.