How much would you pay for PS?

[Pusianka]

Strangely enough, I perfectly agree with all that meister said. The money would mean a smaller fanbase, which was one of the weak points of SC(PT/CT). As in terms of Donations, I'll agree with knooger: "I'll play, I'll pay"(reminds me of: "Its done, when its done")

[CurdyMilk]

Other:  If the beta is good enough, I would easily pay for it.   If you are going to make people pay, there should be a free offline version to just run around a map so people know what they are getting into.  Otherwise people may think it is a waste of money without actually getting a taste.

[NeoSuperior]

Other:  If the beta is good enough, I would easily pay for it.   If you are going to make people pay, there should be a free offline version to just run around a map so people know what they are getting into.  Otherwise people may think it is a waste of money without actually getting a taste.

I can gurantee this will fail. Did you enjoy SCCT even a bit while running around without enemies (aside from finding easter eggs etc)?

Just seeing what spies and mercs can do is not nearly enough to convince someone to pay and play. You must test out the interaction between them, and that is impossible for offline mode.

[Cronky]

While it will be me repeating, what would you guys say to a limited, free version of the game? Perhaps only access to 1 map, or perhaps they could do something like limit graphical quality/resolution (HD textures/1920x1080 only available in full version), or something to that extent.

Paying a reasonable price afterwords would unlock those features that were limited before. (I'd estimate somewhere between 5-20 us dollars as reasonable)

It seems like a best of both worlds to me. Kind of like how Minecraft had the free alpha version on the site, but to get the full, constantly updated, beta version you needed to only pay 1 flat fee.

[NeoSuperior]

Hmpf. 1 map would not be enough, and limiting resolution..................... Are you SERIOUS?!


This money talk really scares me a bit... PS will have a REALLY hard time to get fans, even for free, as the number of people looking for it is not very big. If you make them pay for the complete game, I think like 30% will leave because they are "too lazy" for the buying procedure, another 20% will leave because they are angry that it was stated: "look here is PS, a remake of SvM from splinter cell PT/CT! AND IT'S FREE! It will be done when it's done and will be an AWESOME experience!".....
and then all of a sudden at the 6th year frvge comes out and says:

NOPE...CHUCK TESTA!

Although i still wonder what our "20 guests" are thinking about the matter... or are they all just spam bots?

[Cronky]

The ideas for what they could limit were just ideas. If the point was (and this is after beta) for the PS devs to make some money off of this, HOW could they do it? Yes, it was originally planned to be free (and may still end up being free), but it was stated by Frvge that they might look into some way to reimburse their time since it took a lot longer than they originally had expected.

You want it to be free, and that's fine, but that wont make much money for the devs unless there is something you would need to buy after the fact. Think of all the Free-to-play games out now. All have some means of giving you the option to pay for something that you otherwise don't have, or could only get if you worked on it for a while.

Is limiting resolution a good idea for free players? No, but it's a drastic idea that I think is within their ability. Other drastic things could include: Voice chat, HD textures, Controller support, etc etc.. Again, good ideas? Not really. Game breaking though? Also No.

Access to only 1 Map on the other hand? It seems a fair deal. You would not be restricted from playing with any gadgets, moves, or game types, but you are restricted to only 1 map. Is 1 map something that's set in stone? No, but it sounds reasonable considering the amount of maps that are planned as of right now (what... 2?)

[clown358]

I don't want to pay for this game because you said it will be for free. But I definitely give a donation about 5$ and depending on the game quality and the fun-factor it can rise up to 10-15$ just to honor the devs.

[Cronky]

Welcome to the forum clown!

That is going to be a hurdle they will have to deal with, if they plan on trying to get some money from this project. I would be surprised if the Beta costs anything, which is what we are all looking forward to. The finished game though I would assume is going to try and rake in some money for the like 6 years they've been spending on this.

That's far off though, as Beta isn't even a whisper on the wind with how many times I said the word in this post.

(How many months did I just delay it?)

[NeoSuperior]

In a game like PS, where everything is about details, things like limiting the resolution or other graphic aspects ARE GAME BREAKING. It's a fact. When i still had my old comp, i could play SC:DA only on 800x640 without FPS breakdowns... and as merc that was absolutly unplayable. You just couldn't fish out the spy in these black pixels, it just didn't work!

And i think you don't understand my point. Forcing the players to pay for the full game will be contraproductive in the long term. From the moment the game costs something, the number of players will either stagnate, or even fall. But with such a tiny community we have right now, that would burry PS faster than you think...

I think the "base game" or PS 1.0 (including 3 maps: lakehouse, that hospital, and pusianka's roka) should be released free. Then we build up a fanbase and then, only then, there will be extensions, like the "recreated pack", that among other things includes recreations of old CT maps (under different names of course  ;) ), which will be buyable for a small fee (not more than 5€).

[Cronky]

Wait, how did your map idea differ than mine? You just put 3 maps instead of 1. :P

I explained that I said 1 simply because there are next to no maps even planned. The point I'm making is that at one point something would have to be held back. I agree that holding back resolutions or graphical quality is a drastic measure to ensure money (or more likely crush yourself), but that it's simply another thing that's within their power to hold back. It's taken to an extreme, yes, but still something.

Plus how you put it, would there be a constant need to buy new Map packs as they became available? Because that is a good strategy also, as that ensures that as long as you create content people will potentially give money.

However, this whole time I was talking about a 1 time fee of a little more, but everything afterwards being free (like how Minecraft or TF2 works).

[NeoSuperior]

However, this whole time I was talking about a 1 time fee of a little more, but everything afterwards being free (like how Minecraft or TF2 works).

And the whole time i was talking about, that exactly THAT will backfire. The way you describe it requires a trusting fanbase, that "blindly" buys the game, because they know or at least (can) expect what it is. However in the case of PS, this will exclude almost everyone, who has not played PT/CT. And even not all of the PT/CT people will be guaranteed to buy it. It's also nothing for casual gamers and little CoD kiddies anyway.

But if it is free, then people that "looked around and stumbled on it" may be impressed of PS and join the fanbase. If they would have to pay for PS beforehand, they would not even take a look on it, and therefore not get into the fanbase.
You understand my point now?

[frvge]

Please note that while Cronky is in the "awesome" team (which basically means board moderator), he is not part of the Dev Team and is mostly trying to get the discussion going.

Thusfar really interesting :)

[Cronky]

Yeah... but on top of the little more of a fee there was a free version that was "limited" with what I was saying. This free version was the one that we just went on about with the 1 or 3 maps available...

While it will be me repeating, what would you guys say to a limited, free version of the game? Perhaps only access to 1 map, or perhaps they could do something like limit graphical quality/resolution (HD textures/1920x1080 only available in full version), or something to that extent.

Paying a reasonable price afterwords would unlock those features that were limited before. (I'd estimate somewhere between 5-20 us dollars as reasonable)

It seems like a best of both worlds to me. Kind of like how Minecraft had the free alpha version on the site, but to get the full, constantly updated, beta version you needed to only pay 1 flat fee.

I think we are getting mixed up on what each other are talking about. The only difference between our ideas is that you said 3 maps available from the start (assuming there will be a lot more at the time that a price comes out), and I said 1 (because I don't know of any other maps being developed beyond what the PS devs have made public).

Please note that while Cronky is in the "awesome" team (which basically means board moderator), he is not part of the Dev Team and is mostly trying to get the discussion going.

Thusfar really interesting :)

Too true. I don't claim to have any say about what the PS Devs will do with the game when it's completed. I just have a fancy green bar under my name.

[NeoSuperior]

When the time comes, i want all presently active members to have some badass bars too!


And Cronky, I think a "limited" game is OK, but in my opinion 1 map is not enough. I think 3 would be the right amount. Well there is still time and with luck we will have PS-? at the end of 2012 (before the world is supposed to end), but PS 1.0 will take it's time after that i think... oh right frvge, if you can answer it, is there at least an "existing chance" that a ?-version will be released at the end of 2012?

[Spekkio]

Link to wired.com article

http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2012/04/opinion-kohler-video-expensive/

Aptly titled "Video Games Can't Afford to Cost this Much."