Sign in to follow this  
Kyoshu

Should Ark add a monthly Subscription?

Recommended Posts

As you know, many players dedicated thousand of hours into ark out of sheer love and enjoyment of this one of a kind game. However, at the end of the day, Wildcard is a business and like all good businesses, its goal is to make money. The money is used to support their employees who help create new content (very quickly too compared to many other mmo type games!), fix bugs, implement change, respond to tickets, and other background management/maintenance.

I'm an avid player of mmos and have played in many games with many different models of income for the devs from free to play with cash shop, subscription, buy to play with no subscription, to phone games that are free but have invasive in game ads. All of these are a way of helping the devs pay for maintenance and continuous updates in hopes of gaining players or at least, player retention. 

After 1000 hours put into ark over a span of about 3 years, I've seen ark grow from alpha to beta to full release. I took a year hiatus and when I came back recently on ark, I was quite pleased with the amount of new content, quality of life mechanics, graphics, and overall, a sense of completion in the game, at least compared to over a year ago when the game was much more unstable, laggy, and much less end game content (bosses didn't give you anything or unlock anything back then).

After perusing the forums and boards regarding ark, it seems that players are extremely frustrated at the lack of official servers. pve tame cap, and as usual, the many bugs, lag, trolls and delayed content. 

I  would like to propose the idea that ark become a monthly subscription based game in order to help lessen player grievances, expand their customer support service, aid in dev to player communications, and overall, give them the ability to work on the game to the best possible state without worrying about their bank accounts if not enough new players purchased the game. This would align the the idea of keeping with the dev's vision of having all content be accessible to all players, aka no cash shop phone game type of game play with gatcha lottery. After playing Final Fantasy 15 mmo, the subscription I paid for per month was more than worth it as the game was very well polished with consistent new content and improvements with very satisfactory and quick customer service. I was even happy to pay for the dlcs on top of that as well. The financial model of the game, IMHO, is the best model where the company met their bottom line while being a satisfactory game for all players.

Here is a basic summary of some pros and cons with subscription model in ark:

PROS:

1. Income could be directed to increasing the number and quality of stable servers

2. More staff for Wildcard to help divide tasks on both front end and back end development

3. More official server admins to help complete open tickets and resolve player issues quicker

4. More programmers to help release new content in a timely manner

5. More staff in helping maintain a consistent and professional PR with players (many people will avoid buying a game if it has "Mixed" reviews on steam, of which PC players are the biggest buyers of ark with steam being the largest advertising platform).

6. Wildcard will not be dependent on new players purchasing the game while ignoring long time players for income, thus they will be able to focus on the main grievances of most players, mostly bugs and performance issue.

 

Cons:

1. Overall number of players will decline (but some might see this as a good thing as it would mean less trolls, less crowded servers, etc.)

2. It's a monthly subscription and many MANY players will be vehemently vocal about the change from buy to play to pay to play. This will be the biggest issue imho.

3. Initial workload on the dev side of implementing either their own standalone auto draft payment system or purchasing third party system, such as steam, in managing their subscription model thus increasing overall workload thus delaying much needed content/fixes.

4. Possible player tickets that can't be resolved through devs but through a possible third party company.

 

In conclusion, I believe that a subscription based model will improve both the lives of the devs and the players. I believe that much of the gripe from players come from lack of customer service, content delays, lack of official servers, and unpolished core game mechanics/quality of life features (like improved building). Is ark worth more money on a monthly basis? IMHO, absolutely! If it was more polished with more robust customer service with fairly active admins on the servers, it would absolutely be worth every penny every month. Most people who play Final Fantasy 15 online are more than happy to pay for a subscription on top of a aesthetic cash shop and the quality of the game is fantastic! I believe ark is big enough with great devs who see through with their vision rather than just abandoning the game (looking at you Stomping Land). 

 

TLDR: More money invested = better product and service for players.

Edited by Kyoshu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kyoshu said:

As you know, many players dedicated thousand of hours into ark out of sheer love and enjoyment of this one of a kind game. However, at the end of the day, Wildcard is a business and like all good businesses, its goal is to make money. The money is used to support their employees who help create new content (very quickly too compared to many other mmo type games!), fix bugs, implement change, respond to tickets, and other background management/maintenance.

I'm an avid player of mmos and have played in many games with many different models of income for the devs from free to play with cash shop, subscription, buy to play with no subscription, to phone games that are free but have invasive in game ads. All of these are a way of helping the devs pay for maintenance and continuous updates in hopes of gaining players or at least, player retention. 

After 1000 hours put into ark over a span of about 3 years, I've seen ark grow from alpha to beta to full release. I took a year hiatus and when I came back recently on ark, I was quite pleased with the amount of new content, quality of life mechanics, graphics, and overall, a sense of completion in the game, at least compared to over a year ago when the game was much more unstable, laggy, and much less end game content (bosses didn't give you anything or unlock anything back then).

After perusing the forums and boards regarding ark, it seems that players are extremely frustrated at the lack of official servers. pve tame cap, and as usual, the many bugs, lag, trolls and delayed content. 

I  would like to propose the idea that ark become a monthly subscription based game in order to help lessen player grievances, expand their customer support service, aid in dev to player communications, and overall, give them the ability to work on the game to the best possible state without worrying about their bank accounts if not enough new players purchased the game. This would align the the idea of keeping with the dev's vision of having all content be accessible to all players, aka no cash shop phone game type of game play with gatcha lottery. After playing Final Fantasy 15 mmo, the subscription I paid for per month was more than worth it as the game was very well polished with consistent new content and improvements with very satisfactory and quick customer service. I was even happy to pay for the dlcs on top of that as well. The financial model of the game, IMHO, is the best model where the company met their bottom line while being a satisfactory game for all players.

Here is a basic summary of some pros and cons with subscription model in ark:

PROS:

1. Income could be directed to increasing the number and quality of stable servers

2. More staff for Wildcard to help divide tasks on both front end and back end development

3. More official server admins to help complete open tickets and resolve player issues quicker

4. More programmers to help release new content in a timely manner

5. More staff in helping maintain a consistent and professional PR with players (many people will avoid buying a game if it has "Mixed" reviews on steam, of which PC players are the biggest buyers of ark with steam being the largest advertising platform).

6. Wildcard will not be dependent on new players purchasing the game while ignoring long time players for income, thus they will be able to focus on the main grievances of most players, mostly bugs and performance issue.

 

Cons:

1. Overall number of players will decline (but some might see this as a good thing as it would mean less trolls, less crowded servers, etc.)

2. It's a monthly subscription and many MANY players will be vehemently vocal about the change from buy to play to pay to play. This will be the biggest issue imho.

3. Initial workload on the dev side of implementing either their own standalone auto draft payment system or purchasing third party system, such as steam, in managing their subscription model thus increasing overall workload thus delaying much needed content/fixes.

4. Possible player tickets that can't be resolved through devs but through a possible third party company.

 

In conclusion, I believe that a subscription based model will improve both the lives of the devs and the players. I believe that much of the gripe from players come from lack of customer service, content delays, lack of official servers, and unpolished core game mechanics/quality of life features (like improved building). Is ark worth more money on a monthly basis? IMHO, absolutely! If it was more polished with more robust customer service with fairly active admins on the servers, it would absolutely be worth every penny every month. Most people who play Final Fantasy 15 online are more than happy to pay for a subscription on top of a aesthetic cash shop and the quality of the game is fantastic! I believe ark is big enough with great devs who see through with their vision rather than just abandoning the game (looking at you Stomping Land). 

 

TLDR: More money invested = better product and service for players.

If you want a fair model, online playing should be a monthly subscriptions, but not for everyone.  Online players are complaining about servers. 

Local play should stay a "one time buy". I play local split-screen. I paid to play this game in local. Local players only need the base game and a PC/PS4/Xbox, no servers are need. We shouldn't pay as we already paid for the game and we don't really use servers. 

Online players complaining about servers should be the people who pay, if they want better servers. On Xbox&Playstation people are already paying monthly subscriptions to play online games so WC should see with Sony&Microsoft if they could have some of this money. I don't know for PC Gamers but as they are the ones that complain the more about servers, they should paid, as console players are already paying PS+, for example,  to play online. 

 

Monthly subscriptions money goes to servers and other online things. 

New content is added by DLC for online and local players. 

Like this, it would be a fair business. And if you forgot to pay your online subscription you can still play the local game so you don't "lose" the whole game access. 

The best thing would be to stay like now, but as people are complaining so much about servers, this could be a solution. 

 

Edited by DarkRaptor13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I understand that a gaming company is out to make money. I myself own a company and the goal is to make money. 

That being said if I sold something to a customer then came back later and said now to keep it and use it you need to pay me money each month I would not be in business for long... 

There are hundreds of servers out there with low population. Many that keep the trolls out because they don't like them either. Do you really think that charging a fee will stop the trolls? I play EVE Online and it has a monthly fee and its full of trolls. 

You want a good server without trolls? Come check out our server OFwG Builders Paradise. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DarkRaptor13 said:

If you want a fair model, online playing should be a monthly subscriptions, but not for everyone.  Online players are complaining about servers. 

Local play should stay a "one time buy". I play local split-screen. I paid to play this game in local. Local players only need the base game and a PC/PS4/Xbox, no servers are need. We shouldn't pay as we already paid for the game and we don't really use servers. 

Online players complaining about servers should be the people who pay, if they want better servers. On Xbox&Playstation people are already paying monthly subscriptions to play online games so WC should see with Sony&Microsoft if they could have some of this money. I don't know for PC Gamers but as they are the ones that complain the more about servers, they should paid, as console players are already paying PS+, for example,  to play online. 

 

Monthly subscriptions money goes to servers and other online things. 

New content is added by DLC for online and local players. 

Like this, it would be a fair business. And if you forgot to pay your online subscription you can still play the local game so you don't "lose" the whole game access. 

The best thing would be to stay like now, but as people are complaining so much about servers, this could be a solution. 

 

 

You bring up a great point actually! Since many people either play singleplayer or over LAN, they shouldn't have to pay any subscription. I think if you want to play on official servers, then you must pay a subscription. Unofficial, private, etc wouldn't be charged of course :)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, JackalopeHunt3r said:

So I understand that a gaming company is out to make money. I myself own a company and the goal is to make money. 

That being said if I sold something to a customer then came back later and said now to keep it and use it you need to pay me money each month I would not be in business for long... 

There are hundreds of servers out there with low population. Many that keep the trolls out because they don't like them either. Do you really think that charging a fee will stop the trolls? I play EVE Online and it has a monthly fee and its full of trolls. 

You want a good server without trolls? Come check out our server OFwG Builders Paradise. 

Trolls are in every game and are more of an annoyance really, but they're not too bad on ark. The fee isn't to stop trolls, it's to have better and more servers while having more admins as well to help with dinos getting stuck under the map, bugs, glitches and whatnot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No offense to any game designer or company but I have never seen a company run server with good admin. In the same privately run server can have bad admin.

I understand you pain, this is why i run my own server. If I am having an issue that needs an admin I can fix it. I try to do the same for players but with only 3 admin for the server there are lots of time that no one is on to help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other possible money source (inspired by other games):

Micro transactions: It shouldn't be a pay to win or changenthe way you play. But what about cross ark transfers on official servers ? you can freely transfer a set number of dino per day (1-3) but if you want to transfer more instead of waiting you could pay for it. More money for the Dev and a way to slow migrations between servers, isn't it good ? It doesn't change the whole game. 

The other possibility: Paid Skins Pack. People love skins, it doesn't change the game... when you buy it you have a skin blueprint. Skins are only usable (visible in the inventory)  by the player who bought it. A way to use Halloween, Christmas and other event skins, making them available the whole year. many company are selling skins pack and it's a good way to support the game, no ? 

Edited by DarkRaptor13

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it would be good if added as an option for Official. For instance, maintain the current servers, but also add in, say, 10 PvP and 10 PvE servers at the start that require a subscription but are overall higher quality (greater stability, able to handle higher loads, hopefully lower latencies). That way, people can still play for free, but they can also pay for a little bit nicer servers as well if they so desire

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your idea is good

11 minutes ago, PuffyPony said:

I think it would be good if added as an option for Official. For instance, maintain the current servers, but also add in, say, 10 PvP and 10 PvE servers at the start that require a subscription but are overall higher quality (greater stability, able to handle higher loads, hopefully lower latencies). That way, people can still play for free, but they can also pay for a little bit nicer servers as well if they so desire

 

Your idea is good but maybe it won't work (don't want to be rude, I had also the same idea as you) :/

Why would people pay to play in better servers if they already could in a free servers? The "premium" servers should really be a lot better and at the first problem with it, players will be complaining that they paid "premium" servers and it's not perfect... 

Then WC should put resources to take care of "premium" servers but not in normal servers. They won't take care of "free" servers because if they become as good as premium servers people will stop using premium servers and go back to free servers... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DarkRaptor13 said:

Other possible money source (inspired by other games):

Micro transactions: It shouldn't be a pay to win or changenthe way you play. But what about cross ark transfers on official servers ? you can freely transfer a set number of dino per day (1-3) but if you want to transfer more instead of waiting you could pay for it. More money for the Dev and a way to slow migrations between servers, isn't it good ? It doesn't change the whole game. 

The other possibility: Paid Skins Pack. People love skins, it doesn't change the game... when you buy it you have a skin blueprint. Skins are only usable (visible in the inventory)  by the player who bought it. A way to use Halloween, Christmas and other event skins, making them available the whole year. many company are selling skins pack and it's a good way to support the game, no ? 

No thank you.

I've played store games from STO to TOR to ESO and they all have 1 thing in common.  They start out saying "there's nothing that will be game breaking, you don't need anything out of the store, and this won't change anything" and the end result is completely different than what was promised, from P2W, to Pay to be a Collector, to the only way to progress your toon is a 125.00 ship, and "here gamble with our pixel lockboxes to see if you can give us the real cash v our programmed RNG" .

I'd MUCH rather pay a sub that EVER see a store again.  I have no problem paying for my usage as I run a complete cluster now so ARK is already costing me about 60.00 per/mo., but I just don't ever want to see a store, in anything, ever again, if they promise just "cosmetics", the moon, the game on a silver platter, or not.  WC puts in a store, I'd be done, and so would my servers.  Our entire guild left ESO when they announced lock-boxes and we didn't wait till they got there.  Been there, done that, got the ball cap and the T-shirt.

There was a reason why SOE let Star Wars Galaxies go down instead of taking the game to F2P with a store.  Even Smedley said that sandbox doesn't lend itself to a store and he said very directly, they talked about it before they came to the conclusion of "sunsetting" SWG.  You would really want to change ARK that much?

Devs, want to ruin your own game?  Cut your playerbase to nothing?  Get all that free bad publicity?  Have to develop your game for nothing but store "whales" to keep them happy or lose your company?   Easy, get a store.  IE; - the latest mess called TESO.

Edited by Esquire1980

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olivar said:

I think they should get rid of all official servers, and let people sort their own servers out.
Lot less drama.

Worked perfectly fine for over 15 years for Counterstrike, can work the same for Ark.

I totally agree with this one. Closing officials will save at least 150-200k dollars per year for development of game and solve #officialonly ppl whining about servers.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Esquire1980 said:

No thank you.

I've played store games from STO to TOR to ESO and they all have 1 thing in common.  They start out saying "there's nothing that will be game breaking, you don't need anything out of the store, and this won't change anything" and the end result is completely different than what was promised, from P2W, to Pay to be a Collector, to the only way to progress your toon is a 125.00 ship, and "here gamble with our pixel lockboxes to see if you can give us the real cash v our programmed RNG" .

I'd MUCH rather pay a sub that EVER see a store again.  I have no problem paying for my usage as I run a complete cluster now so ARK is already costing me about 60.00 per/mo., but I just don't ever want to see a store, in anything, ever again, if they promise just "cosmetics", the moon, the game on a silver platter, or not.  WC puts in a store, I'd be done, and so would my servers.  Our entire guild left ESO when they announced lock-boxes and we didn't wait till they got there.  Been there, done that, got the ball cap and the T-shirt.

There was a reason why SOE let Star Wars Galaxies go down instead of taking the game to F2P with a store.  Even Smedley said that sandbox doesn't lend itself to a store and he said very directly, they talked about it before they came to the conclusion of "sunsetting" SWG.  You would really want to change ARK that much?

Devs, want to ruin your own game?  Cut your playerbase to nothing?  Get all that free bad publicity?  Have to develop your game for nothing but store "whales" to keep them happy or lose your company?   Easy, get a store.  IE; - the latest mess called TESO.

I play on local, I bought the game but I won't pay a subscription to play local game the same way I'm already playing for free. 

I suggested Skins pack because it only visually changes the game. You really don't need them. I'm not sure I woukd buy them personnally. There already had "exclusive" skins for player who bought played the game before is official launch or bought the season pass, skins like that are not new. Does it change the game ? nope.

+ I suggest that those skills would be still unlockable without paying: during events "quests" or by unlocking some achievements. Skin are just a funny visually bonus, not a game changer. 

I know lot of companies are breaking their game with stores and I ABSOLUTELY don't want that WC becomes one of them. But there is some good example of game that don't. I was thinking more of a stores like the Minecraft skins for you character or like Rocket League (you can unlock skins or decorative objects, but it changes absolutely nothing to the way you play.) This way the game will get more money, getting better but the way you play would stay the same. 

If your problem is that you (not particularly you, but could be anyone) want all skins and decorative objects because you want the full "collection" it's your problem, because skin and decorative objects are not NEEDED or USEFUL in the game. It's just a visual bonus. 

 

A store COULD be good if it doesn't change the way people are playing the game. BUT you're right too, if the store could change the way people are playing, it would totally be a gamebreaker. I don't want a pay-to-win, that's the worst things in all kind of game and would kill the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Meshi said:

I totally agree with this one. Closing officials will save at least 150-200k dollars per year for development of game and solve #officialonly ppl whining about servers.

Good idea but don't forget consoles players please :( I think playstation don't already have a rent server option? (not sure about this sorry) 

Cross-consoles gaming should be allowed btw. 

Other way I totally love this idea ! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DarkRaptor13 said:

I play on local, I bought the game but I won't pay a subscription to play local game the same way I'm already playing for free. 

I suggested Skins pack because it only visually changes the game. You really don't need them. I'm not sure I woukd buy them personnally. There already had "exclusive" skins for player who bought played the game before is official launch or bought the season pass, skins like that are not new. Does it change the game ? nope.

+ I suggest that those skills would be still unlockable without paying: during events "quests" or by unlocking some achievements. Skin are just a funny visually bonus, not a game changer. 

I know lot of companies are breaking their game with stores and I ABSOLUTELY don't want that WC becomes one of them. But there is some good example of game that don't. I was thinking more of a stores like the Minecraft skins for you character or like Rocket League (you can unlock skins or decorative objects, but it changes absolutely nothing to the way you play.) This way the game will get more money, getting better but the way you play would stay the same. 

If your problem is that you (not particularly you, but could be anyone) want all skins and decorative objects because you want the full "collection" it's your problem, because skin and decorative objects are not NEEDED or USEFUL in the game. It's just a visual bonus. 

 

A store COULD be good if it doesn't change the way people are playing the game. BUT you're right too, if the store could change the way people are playing, it would totally be a gamebreaker. I don't want a pay-to-win, that's the worst things in all kind of game and would kill the game. 

Problem is with "cosmetic" stores that have skins/etc is ev1 doesn't play the game the way you or I do.  In a sandbox, collecting is a part of the game as well as PVP, PVE (kill NPCs), quests, building, etc, etc etc.  That's why devs put achievements/skins/etc in the game in the 1st place.  In Galaxies, collecting was a large part of the game and a reason for people to keep playing for 9 years and MANY did play that game for 9 years, I did myself and paid a sub the entire time I played.  Store devs know this all too well and that's why they sell "skins".  However, when people do not buy these "cosmetics", (as you said you probably wouldn't), the store quickly migrates to something that was never promised which includes P2W, Pay to Collect, Pay Walls, progress payments, buy inventory, and any and all of the other monetization schemes that are out today.  We have people screaming here, already, that DLCs are P2W due to the fact they include new systems, new armor, new methods of resourcing, etc etc etc.  A store?  Again, no thank you.

As far as it is right now, there is no store, no bought skins, no P2W, just buy the Season Pass or the DLCs and that seems to be a decent situation for players and devs.  The players seem to be playing, the devs seem to be developing and all is well at ARK inside of the majority that just play the game and do not complain.  As for the complaints, I've seen these devs take bug reports, some I've made as a matter of fact, act on them, and fix or at least try to fix the issue.  Is it fast enough for some, probably not, but they are working on these things and that's about all I can ask.  Which is a boat-load better than what I experienced with Fallout 4 which didn't care about the bugs or ANY of the store games that concentrate on the store and let the game flounder but....., there's a new download for the store every 2 weeks.  IE: (again) see TESO, TOR, STO, etc etc etc. 

F2P was the absolute worst thing that happened to this industry with development companies trying to find some way they can stay in business and provide a service to ev1 for free, that costs them cash.  I ran a SWGEMU server for 2 years so I have some idea of the costs for bandwidth, buying servers (I had 2), other hardware, even if you do get the development for free.  You may not like a sub and most don't now-a-days, but it was a system that worked and still works.  IE; see WoW.  Where the sub model doesn't work is where developers try and make a re-skinned WOW and pass it off as something new.  WC has not done this, and that may be some of the reason I've heard they've sold the large number of downloads/games and continue with new players still coming in.  I see it with my own cluster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DarkRaptor13 said:

Other possible money source (inspired by other games):

Micro transactions: It shouldn't be a pay to win or changenthe way you play. But what about cross ark transfers on official servers ? you can freely transfer a set number of dino per day (1-3) but if you want to transfer more instead of waiting you could pay for it. More money for the Dev and a way to slow migrations between servers, isn't it good ? It doesn't change the whole game. 

The other possibility: Paid Skins Pack. People love skins, it doesn't change the game... when you buy it you have a skin blueprint. Skins are only usable (visible in the inventory)  by the player who bought it. A way to use Halloween, Christmas and other event skins, making them available the whole year. many company are selling skins pack and it's a good way to support the game, no ? 

 

I don't think the devs would like the idea of microtransactions based on what they said about their vision on ark and how those types of practices turn "a good game bad." Although I do believe that the devs are missing out on a lot of profit on not having some skins be sold as a pack or purchased a la carte. They can use that money to put more of a social aspect in ark with skins, costumes, etc. In every mmo I've played, people go crazy over good skins and designs spending hundreds of dollars just for some skins. It's optional, doesn't affect gameplay much, and the gained income can be used to hire more support staff or programmers/graphic designers. 

 

Either way, it's not healthy model to simply rely on new game sales and dlc sales. A company that has to manage a continuous cost such as servers need to have continuous, background income to help balance those said costs. Subscription for official servers or a cosmetic cash shop will help immensely with that. Of course, this is assuming that the cash shop will not take priority over actual content/dlcs.

 

But then again, I'd still rather just pay a subscription than deal with cash shop shenanigans. 15 bucks a month is worth stable, multiple servers on top of the usual content push from devs. 

Edited by Kyoshu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Olivar said:

I think they should get rid of all official servers, and let people sort their own servers out.
Lot less drama.

Worked perfectly fine for over 15 years for Counterstrike, can work the same for Ark.

I believe that dedicated servers not from the devs work well with instance or quick play types of games where nothing is permanent and each "round" is maybe 15-30 min long. Then sure, by all means, I agree that the playerbase can support their own servers.

However, ark is a different beast where growth and expansion is expected to be permanent and consistent like major mmos. No one wants hundreds of hours lost nor have admins that abuse their power or are inactive. The best people to do this would be the company itself like how Blizzard has their own official servers for WoW where permanence is a driving factor in the game.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Esquire1980 said:

Problem is with "cosmetic" stores that have skins/etc is ev1 doesn't play the game the way you or I do.  In a sandbox, collecting is a part of the game as well as PVP, PVE (kill NPCs), quests, building, etc, etc etc.  That's why devs put achievements/skins/etc in the game in the 1st place.  In Galaxies, collecting was a large part of the game and a reason for people to keep playing for 9 years and MANY did play that game for 9 years, I did myself and paid a sub the entire time I played.  Store devs know this all too well and that's why they sell "skins".  However, when people do not buy these "cosmetics", (as you said you probably wouldn't), the store quickly migrates to something that was never promised which includes P2W, Pay to Collect, Pay Walls, progress payments, buy inventory, and any and all of the other monetization schemes that are out today.  We have people screaming here, already, that DLCs are P2W due to the fact they include new systems, new armor, new methods of resourcing, etc etc etc.  A store?  Again, no thank you.

As far as it is right now, there is no store, no bought skins, no P2W, just buy the Season Pass or the DLCs and that seems to be a decent situation for players and devs.  The players seem to be playing, the devs seem to be developing and all is well at ARK inside of the majority that just play the game and do not complain.  As for the complaints, I've seen these devs take bug reports, some I've made as a matter of fact, act on them, and fix or at least try to fix the issue.  Is it fast enough for some, probably not, but they are working on these things and that's about all I can ask.  Which is a boat-load better than what I experienced with Fallout 4 which didn't care about the bugs or ANY of the store games that concentrate on the store and let the game flounder but....., there's a new download for the store every 2 weeks.  IE: (again) see TESO, TOR, STO, etc etc etc. 

F2P was the absolute worst thing that happened to this industry with development companies trying to find some way they can stay in business and provide a service to ev1 for free, that costs them cash.  I ran a SWGEMU server for 2 years so I have some idea of the costs for bandwidth, buying servers (I had 2), other hardware, even if you do get the development for free.  You may not like a sub and most don't now-a-days, but it was a system that worked and still works.  IE; see WoW.  Where the sub model doesn't work is where developers try and make a re-skinned WOW and pass it off as something new.  WC has not done this, and that may be some of the reason I've heard they've sold the large number of downloads/games and continue with new players still coming in.  I see it with my own cluster.

I see your idea and I underdstand it. I suggested skins and other things because it's a good way to make money without changing anything else than the visual aspect of an armor or dinos. But yes, it could be dangerous if they start selling skins that provides a speed or health bonus or whetever that change something else than the visual aspect of items... 

To be honest, as I play mainly offline, I don't want to pay a subscription. I'm not using servers and I already paid the game. That would be like buying FIFA and paying to play offline against the IA on your own computer/console. I'm ok to pay the day I want to play online (actually already paying the PS+ subscriptions for online game) but the offline part of the game should stay free for people who bought the game. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope.....

1. We pay for the internet to go online and explore (the monthly fee for internet is not cheap either btw).

2. Above that we PS4 players pay for PS+ to play online! even though we already pay for the internet.

3. Pay a monthly fee to be online with other people on a map is a no go for me as you can see #1 & #2 above.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, DarkRaptor13 said:

Your idea is good

 

Your idea is good but maybe it won't work (don't want to be rude, I had also the same idea as you) :/

Why would people pay to play in better servers if they already could in a free servers? The "premium" servers should really be a lot better and at the first problem with it, players will be complaining that they paid "premium" servers and it's not perfect... 

Then WC should put resources to take care of "premium" servers but not in normal servers. They won't take care of "free" servers because if they become as good as premium servers people will stop using premium servers and go back to free servers... 

You can ask the same thing about rented servers or dedicated servers run from a second console. Especially given that Premium Official would likely have a larger population, it'd likely be cheaper than a Rental server. I think it'd be fairly popular, but it shouldn't replace the free option

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this