Yes, things change, mutate, and adapt and time goes on lol. In good ways and in not so great ways. You guys should stand up for what you believe in or are against. Respect.
Curious question for anyone (not sarcastic, not condescending, etc): If new games are desired, new content, new assets, QoL updates, better UIs, more customizations, ongoing general updatesâŠwhat method would be acceptable for gaming companies and devs to fund them? Where should the funds to pay the artists, animators, programmers, level designers, lore/story creators, advertising and so on come from?
People want great games with updates, but are resistant to most methods of funding them. The initial purchase price doesnât fund the on-going maintenance and development of games. What is acceptable? MTX? DLCs? A % fee taken from the sales of user created content? A fee to access to new content, perks, & customizations? Subscriptions for everything? (Iâm sure there are other things I havenât listed)
Iâm fine with many types of microtransactions, anything not going much into P2W territory - cosmetics and such. Though some could argue on this point (the P2W) I think Boundless hit it out of the park with Sovereigns. While not happy about not being able to choose the planet they orbit, love everything else about them. You ALWAYS get basically what you are buying on paper (or digital code I guess, haha) - a world of a certain type with certain biomes. Though the RNG on a smaller scale can be frustrating⊠and addictive. But I do not see them as a loot box type mechanic.
DLC, great with me too, though not quite as thrilled with day 1 stuff I suspect might have been part of the game otherwise. But expansion packs well after release are great IMO, give me incentive sometimes to come back to stuff.
Fine with subscriptions too.
Oh, and definitely fees from user-created stuff, benefits both creators and devs I think, more stuff for players, win-win all around.
For a single player game, I think DLC is fine. You pay for what options you want to play the game with and if you are good with the base game, then you do not have to spend any more money.
MMO games like Boundless do not really support a DLC model since we all are in the same universe. If DLC gives me the ability to craft a certain block then how does that block display to those that did not pay for the DLC? Can you sell items created using DLC to players that did not buy the DLC? If the content is something like a new mob, then are there planets with the DLC mob where players without the DLC have no access? I think in a MMO a reliable source of cash for development and to pay for the ongoing server costs is a subscription. Beyond that I agree with @bucfanpaka that you have to be careful with microtransactions to avoid the P2W. I will also agree that things like sovereigns and cosmetics in Boundless do stay on the right side of that line. However, there are always going to be players that think that anything you can get using real world money and not through in-game work is P2W. I personally think this ignores the fact that an MMO needs funds on an ongoing basis not only to continue development but to just keep the game running. That, it seems to me, is the problem with Boundless right now. There is not a reliable cash flow going to the organization that is paying to keep the game running.
I would keep a Sovereign (or a few) if I could choose the planet it rotates around and it included a free portal I could set up to connect to the known worlds. Even better if it was part of Gleam Club Plus/Pro so that I could pay one price (like a subscription) instead of trying to remember planet fuel, Gleam Club, portal fuel, etc.
I do wish Boundless had a store like MC or Roblox where people could buy/sell/trade assets/blueprints. Imagine if we could create/trade world themes like MC. That would be awesome.
The usual methods wouldâve been fine with me⊠The problem is that this game never generated the kind of mass appeal to make any of those viable. If they needed to raise $2mil from a half-million people, our contribution wouldâve been roughly $4 apiece and everyone would be happy. Sell an in-game outfit, sell a digital soundtrack, and youâre done.
But with the gameâs population persistently hovering in the thousands, no method ever wouldâve worked except all of us buying an Oortian backer package. And I think we can trace that problem back to the lack of initial content⊠and I think we can trace that problem back to the lack of initial funding. It was like trying to start a car with no battery. If they had the $$$ to develop a better core experience from Day One, Boundless wouldâve gone on a completely different trajectory.
Continuing with the car metaphor, consider their initial approach to funding - the old checklist that they used, where they committed to developing a feature only after they had raised the money to cover its cost. Imagine if Tesla never got any infusion of capital and they took the same approach. âGood news! Weâve raised $5000 this week, so it looks like weâll be adding steering wheels!â But they still havenât got enough for seats and doors?.. What kind of car is that?
If they had started the game on more stable footing, I bet this would be a whole different conversation.
I do think this creates some unnecessary confusion and angst among players. You end up having to remember too many things and they are paid for in different ways and places. A single subscription that functioned as gleam club and covered the cost of 1 planet being fueled and maybe even 1 free portal is steady income. Of course this does not help players like @bucfanpaka that manage a universe of sovereign planets. but if they had a way to link your sovereigns to your steam or PSN account so that you could essentially get invoiced, that might work.
I also think the game could have benefitted from player mods. If the developers needed to concentrate on mechanics, then allowing players to create items to fill their builds and create more items to craft and sell into the economy could have been really good for the game. Might have kept a few more players interested.
The thing is that all games donât have to be live-services which require new content, new assets, or any of what you mentioned.
I personally donât expect any of my future games to have anything beyond bug fixes. If they wanna do QoL updates, neat.
I look at âIt Takes Twoâ for a great example of a game I paid, installed, played, loved, uninstalled, and will be keeping fond memories of, to the point where there was no hesitation when I voted for it to be GotY. If you have a best friend or are in a couple, get this game. Gob-approved.
I look at Warcraft 3. It had bug fixes and QoL updates. I paid for an expansion pack which in of itself was the full ânew content, new assets, QoL updates, better UIs, etcâ package for the price of basically another game. The creation tools were the additional cherry on top that made me keep playing it for a decade. But it had no in-game store. No loot-boxes. No DLCs. No subscription.
I look at The Witcher 3. Free bug fixes, QoL updates and small additional quests⊠and 2 expansion packs overall doubling the size of the original full game.
Then I look at Boundless. A game I paid, installed, bought Gleam Club and Cubits again and again (to the point where I wouldnât be surprised if I spent more than 1000⏠on it), had A LOT of fun with, but became extremely frustrated with it because at the end of the day, the experience is incomplete, unfinished, and itâll stay like that until SE pulls the plug, and Boundless will always live in my memory as that unfinished product I had fun for a while but then became frustrating.
So of course, youâre going to tell me âthe 3 other games you mentioned are not MMOsâ and Iâll reply âdid Boundless really have to be an MMO?â
Think about how many people donât play because they wanna meet other players, but because they wanna build and relax (and letâs be honest, if you go in-game, youâre not going to cross path with a lot of players). Think about update 249, which was supposed to allow us to run dedicated serversâŠ
The fact is that most new games are now being released buggy, unfinished, as live-services / MMOs, with in-game stores, possibly with loot-boxes, with RPG-gotcha mechanics, often open-worlds, etc.
Something has been lost. Thatâs not a good âmutationâ or âevolutionâ.
The only hope remains within the developers who are able to stand against this, like the boss of Hazelight Studios (It Takes Two).
How were games funded 20 years ago? The problem we have today is that publishers are no longer wanting to spend on investment and are now stifling the creative process in the pursuit of profit over quality. An example being Grand Theft Auto V which has been out for almost 9 years with no single player expansions. GTA Online has created a revenue stream, via Shark Cards, that Take Two milk at the expense of any creative or meaningful content being released. Instead we are moving on to the third iteration of the same game instead of something new. To my mind, thereâs not a hope in hellâs chance that this has been a decision of the creative people. This is simply bean counters being the unimaginative snake oil salesmen that theyâve always been.
Loot boxes, NFTs, etc have and will continue to stifle creativity in the pursuit of cheap financial gain. And gaming will suffer as a result.
This is rampant & I agree itâs annoying. As long as there are buyers that accept it, I suppose it will continue. Game studios have no incentive to change if itâs âworkingâ for them.
Selling a copy of a single-player game was enough to fund other games in the past and I assume costs were much lower. Those games were developed, completed, and sold. You didnât expect a new map in Castlevania, you didnât expect new weapons in Mortal Kombat, etc.
Subscription models have been around for a long time and that seems to work well for a lot of MMOs as far as funding goes. Boundless as an MMO where people can play with family & friends is a good thing - I donât see a problem there. If people want a local, single-player version too, I think thatâs good too. Regardless, being this far into development with no updates to characters, cosmetics, creatures, weapons, etc is surprising. These days, games receive a bit of a player boost/hype/renewed interest with each update. Without that and without advertising, they donât exist.
This 100%. And this is where it probably comes down to a generational difference. Kids growing up now donât know anything other than paying for loot boxes, game currency, skins, etc. Itâs normal for them and will continue to be so. Itâs frustrating because you realise that anyone that has been playing games since the 80s isnât an immediate consideration with regards to these modern business models. We donât matter and will just look like moon howlers to kids. The big publishers will continue to exploit this so long as parents continue to fund kids wallets!
Of course, itâs not just kids that are gullible in this regard. (Hello, Star Citizen!)
The one positive trend I see is Game Pass - I know there are a lot of fears about monopolization on MSâ part, but IF IT STAYS AS IT IS (the way they are running it and current pricing) it actually IS a very good thing for gamers. 4 months = the cost of just one full priced big game these days. And part of it is related to this too -
This is a much safer bet, way to get more people playing than trying to go it alone for a small crew; strike a deal with a big company that can afford a few fails to get some gems that might otherwise be hidden on their service. This is why I pushed the Spartacus thing before. Iâve seen multiple complaints online that it is getting to where indies really need to hire the type of PR firms they canât afford and might not take them anyways to get the exposure they need. It is HARD to get that - yep, a few get lucky, small teams or a single person catching the eye of a big streamer or such then going viral, but thatâs the exception and seems more rare these days. See so many cool looking games flying under the radar, little attention on social media.
Get a deal to go on Game Pass day 1, guarantees a certain level of exposure, plus no risk to try for subscribers. Of course, youâll have to have a reputation already and/or a pretty good working product in works to pitch it and get that deal⊠so not an option for an unknown just starting up most likely. But if Turbulenz had Boundless in development right now, 100% no question to me - strike a deal for Game Pass exclusivity and launch on day 1, PC and Console. Lose a lot of players who try it, yep, but enough still stick that then we WOULD possibly be in the territory of microtransaction sales being enough to sustain more development (and MS might be willing to keep it on there and support it even if not, being a cross-platform unique offering that has strong âstickinessâ with the players who do stick with it).
I got a feeling that the lower player population than other games of its kind, may be why they donât prioritise it - If theyâre even still working on Boundless. From what Iâve seen on the forums, Iâm starting to doubt that they are. The silence speaks to âdrag out time to get as many sales/gleam club/etc. as possible.â as thereâs no positive reason to keep this silent.
Unless they come out of nowhere with a 2.0 update, of courseâŠBut thatâs probably wishful thinking right now. Yet it wouldnât be the first time; No Manâs Sky did that. But No Manâs Sky also had a spotlight the size of the sun, whereas Boundless really doesnât.
Absolutely. Sheâs had her house right next to me on Dzassak since she started, I think. Extremely nice, the few times Iâve spoken with her.
No it is not. They did not âbait usâ with one model and switch it to try to take advantage of us.
Thatâs attributing an intentional action to try to take advantage of people. This is the common context that a âbait and switchâ reference is used in. There is no data to show that view point or any technical justification for it. In fact, the technical reasons are clear on why they had to change that model out temporarily.
You could certainly argue that it was a bad decision and made no sense since people were used to using on character and ended up with another for the initial start. Also, they certainly could have communicated much better to everyone about why it happened until waiting for someone like me to ask the question.
I tried to post this on the other thread before it got closed, but Iâd like to put this out there anyway.
Given the fact that the universe has expanded so much with sovereign planets I donât think it would be a bad idea to have a way for builds that have contributed so much to the economy and community to stick around even after the original owner has gone.
Iâm thinking something like beacons and portals having their fuel topped up when footfall goes over a certain threshold. This would make some of the more beautiful large-scale builds persist as monuments to players of the past, and keep high-traffic malls and hubs around for those who rely on them.
Respect.
But I do not see them as a loot box type mechanic.
like OSRS
