10-20 bucks 3 maps and you get quality testers, money to support your project.
Look at mine-craft. They have made 7 million dollars and the game isn't even released yet.
I also think you should do a subscription based community so you can have enough money to , pay for active development, servers and bandwidth.
10 dollars a month is cheap and puts 120 dollars per user in your pocket.
1559 registered users x 10 is $15590 a month........ you can buy servers developers artist
Just my thoughts.
I am willing to bet if you made a poll most people would be willing to pay for advanced limited beta .
I disagree :P
Not donations
Early access / subscription.
Better than borrowing capital or lack of resources stagnating the development.
Congrats on your recent tech demo.
We will see about donations when we have something to offer.
Quote from: antidrip on December 09, 2010, 06:54:38 PM
Not donations
Early access / subscription.
Better than borrowing capital or lack of resources stagnating the development.
I don't think this will ever work, as far as the developers told everyone it will be a free game, and donations are only for those who choose to donate.
Most people are not poor and would be willing to actively support the game.
A free game with a donations based means this game will probably never be played by anyone but the developers and is a bad business model for anything but churchs.
You get what you pay for in life.
Just because this started as a free subscription based game doesn't mean it isn't commercially viable or something that could be turned into a serious enterprise.
I see 1500 users and that's without a single game demo or video hitting any major outlets.....
5-10 bucks x 2000 users means you would get a actual game to play before god dies.
Also if planned properly you could use it as a model to get investment funding.
Quote from: antidrip on December 09, 2010, 07:04:11 PM
Most people are not poor and would be willing to actively support the game.
A free game with a donations based means this game will probably never be played by anyone but the developers and is a bad business model for anything but churchs.
You get what you pay for in life.
Just because this started as a free subscription based game doesn't mean it isn't commercially viable or something that could be turned into a serious enterprise.
I see 1500 users and that's without a single game demo or video hitting any major outlets.....
5-10 bucks x 2000 users means you would get a actual game to play before god dies.
Also if planned properly you could use it as a model to get investment funding.
Except the fact that there is only 10-20 live people contributing to the forum, and I am not sure if anyone is donating. Donating is really difficult because the game isn't out yet and people can't really rate it properly.
I wouldn't mind forking out money to buy the game, maybe even like Minecraft does. It's discounted while in alpha (early supporters get a discount), and will go full price once "done". However, I dislike the idea of a subscripton model.
I'd rather not pay 10 dollars a month for a beta (it's not even a finished game). The devs get "paid" in the invaluable knowledge that the beta provides them. However, once the game is finalized, I wouldn't have a problem paying money for a one time purchase or something.
Quote from: antidrip on December 09, 2010, 07:04:11 PM
5-10 bucks x 2000 users means you would get a actual game to play before god dies.
Hahahahahaha, this is my favorite line in this thread thus far!
I do see where you're coming from. Though telling anyone that something that is "Free" now costs money is going to illicit a response like this. I'd gladly give say 20 bucks to see a Beta which would transfer to a full game quicker (by May or something. Right in time for my Birthday would be just fantastic).
Minecraft is a good example for the best case scenario, but then again they too have a way to draw a line between:
-What you get if you pay us
and
-What you get for free
Last time I checked you get a REALLY basic version (alpha?) that only works on the interwebs without paying, but that's still something. A majority of the features are there. That, and people pretty much didn't know about Minecraft until after their "Updating Beta" was released. Which I believe is the reason most people are paying as of now. (So like Frvge said about not having anything to give comes in to play)
PS doesn't (as far as I can see) have that kind of freedom. Minecraft has a secondary ability to let you "Craft" anything you want. Whether it be a castle, or a floating, stone dick in the sky. PS lets you kills Spies... or Mercs... depending on which team you're on. Subtle difference in open-ness.
A good thought though.
Subscription based on the other hand is a little much... there would have to be a serious hook for this game to get away with a subscription based play model. While the game is unique in the sense that there is only one game similar to it (the one it's based off of), the real key here is that after everything is done... there isn't going to be a LOT that can be added. Constantly that is, which is the point of paying a subscription.
If maps weren't going to be able to be made by anyone, then perhaps there would be a reason to pay a few dollars a month to play and constantly get maps/weapons/gadgets/Skins/Balance Tweaks.
Thinking differently... perhaps giving money could give you early access to "Newer Stuff". Like, they need people to test the new shotgun. It can only be used in servers that are updated to accept this new weapon. So everyone who has paid gets a little check mark in their account and can freely go into these servers. Then when all the kinks are out of it, it gets released to the "Public" (Free players).
Still, many people will say, "Nah. I'd rather just play it for free and get everything for free" (Which works with the above idea. All they have to do is wait longer). Also, "That would be a good way to piss a lot of their fans off". BUT... sometimes you have to make a shitty sounding decision to make people understand that it's actually good for them, or for the Devs. Giving free stuff away is fun and rewarding morally, but financially it can kick you in the genitals kinda hard.
Just my thoughts on this.
EDIT:
(Hrmm... that turned out longer than I expected... MEH. It's been a while since I've mindlessly dragged on for a long time.)
Quote from: Malice on December 09, 2010, 07:41:04 PM
I wouldn't mind forking out money to buy the game, maybe even like Minecraft does. It's discounted while in alpha (early supporters get a discount), and will go full price once "done". However, I dislike the idea of a subscripton model.
*likes this *
Don't let people pay you for things, they'll start feeling entitled and make like a billion more threads demanding updates.
SHHHHHHH. That was supposed to be a secret!
Quote from: B-3A Misty Lady on December 10, 2010, 06:05:48 PM
Don't let people pay you for things, they'll start feeling entitled and make like a billion more threads demanding updates.
So true...
@OP, the moment the devs start making money out of the project, they will have to pay EPIC Games for UDK's license.
Oh don't worry this thread is already dead, I think Frvge already said they are keeping it free? I could be wrong but I am sure he did mention something like that.
Game is free. We might have some other way of paying for the servers, but you can play for free.