Boundless is Dead. Long Live Boundless!

General
43

If this thread is about monetization… and I’m not sure it is reading through the comments.
But…
I think it’ll be easy to monetize the game with a better store selling cosmetics that are only available in the store.
Also it would be great to get the recipes available for purchase that were available for those early backer people.

Examples of recipes that could be sold immediately

Explorer Fist
Gold Fist(if you don’t have deluxe edition)
Wayfarer Totems
And then addition of new craftables nothing game breaking.

Also there are a few head pieces that aren’t available.

Chieftain head piece(one I will pay for in an instant)
The PlayStation exclusive bottle opener looking head.
I think there’s another that is pc exclusive.

There’s a backer mask that could be added for purchase as well.

And then from there add more. I’m sure many of us have great ideas of cosmetics they’ve always hoped for.

Then perhaps additional subscription on top of gleam club that adds to the plot bonus.
I’d be lying if I said I wasn’t jealous about some peoples 100% or more plot bonus.
Different tiers for increased plot bonuses.

But in the end there is one major flaw that needs to be addressed.
With more people means a scaling up of the universe. The problem is they never figured out how to scale it down with the loss of players. How do you decide which planets will get removed. Obviously if no one plots on a planet it can be removed. But what if there are a couple small builds. What then. Does a build have to be a great city for the planet to be safe? Just a few thing to think about.
:v::beers:

5 Likes
44

I think I need to better understand what people mean by PTW. I define pay to win as the game poking me with a sharp pointy stick to buy something simply to enjoy basic functionality of the game. I have never had a problem paying money for things that I feel are worth it. I currently have 6 sovereign planets and gleam club, so spending money is not something I am averse to. I do have a problem with psychologically coercive game mechanics, though. It is very unlikely that I will ever buy plots, for example, because plots should, in my opinion, be something that are easy to acquire in game. Building is basic game functionality, and you cannot do that without plots. Is the point of this thread that people should have to buy plots? Because I do not agree with that at all.

7 Likes
45

This is definitely the gacha style, what some call the “fruit machine” or similar terms. It’s not really P2W as much as just “pay for more”.

To try and sum it up succinctly - In P2W you aren’t just paying for more. You’re paying for more than somebody else. After that there’s a million little ways to define “winning” that very much depend on the game.

Gacha and P2W are probably both suited to this description. Just playing on different aspects of human nature, to a similar end.

As far as the point of the thread and what triggers this conversation - it’s certainly not about making contributors defend themselves. Since we’re on about it though, my personal contribution is currently in the neighborhood of … well … a few hundred bucks. Counting 3 years of gleam club, 450 - 500 USD so far.

I quit paying for gleam club when it became pretty clear the game was dead anyways. I’ll soon have it again probably - I’m happy to see some light here.

The OP is more about the fact that we’ve been kicking around, beating a dead horse for along time. And as soon as there’s a sign of life, it seems the outcries of “I better not have to pay” and "I’ll leave if I think it’s P2W and etc… seem to have gotten started again.

(EDIT: It didn’t entirely arise from that, but more of an entitled attitude and frustration with a poor ethos in general. Still, that’s where it went.)

Hopefully nobody is “coerced” into paying, subtly or directly. However the notion that trying to monetize in general is some sort of attack on the players - I don’t honestly know how that crept so widely into this community anyways.

And always the question. If you’re not a contributor (past a one time price which was free or under $5 for many people) then what the heck do you have to complain about? Some of the loudest complainers are clear that they got in on the cheap, or so long ago that a breakdown of $/hr makes the complaints seem pretty petty and ridiculous.

Also TBH I’m tired of “keeping the peace” in the face of people just fully talking trash. Other long standing issues are bubbling to the surface - and right now it seems like the thread is also a few people blowing off steam. Happily, in large part, that’s consisted of people popping up to say they’re supportive, understand the need for monetization, and whatnot.

It’s a refreshing change, as for quite some time the general tone has been a lot more sour grapes and hate on the game. Supporting a workable revenue model of any sort has just resulted in venom. It only changes when people push back.

46

I don’t think you have to do any of this, and frankly, some of these threads and comments posted by you are really the direct cause of a lot of these very hefty discussions (for better or for worse - I don’t think it’s just me who think this way). But nobody asked you to be the forum janitor, you chose that. :+1:

6 Likes
47

It becomes nonsense, it’s demotivating to read people who settle their accounts in public. You have all the imaginable ways to do it otherwise!!!

2 Likes
48

You’re not wrong. I’m not denying it, or minimizing it.

:man_shrugging:

For a long time I participated in “the dialogue”. Then it got nastier and nastier, but it was futile, and I left it alone. Stepped back and watched people who paid to “have their say” take out their issues on the devs, and as a result the community. Just basically mourned the game while some people were, as a said before, apparently “feeding on the despair”.

That time is past. If it takes a good push to get things moving in a more positive direction, I’m game.

A full swing isn’t instant though. It’s been a long time and honestly I think even some good people need to break some bad habits. For me, that includes being part of a self-destructive community, or sitting back while people wreck the things that brought us together.

People are used to just spewing into a void here. It’s no longer a void. Let’s get a handle on the spewing.

1 Like
49

I can’t articulate it this well because I might have brain damage, who knows, but yes this.

3 Likes
50

Man you’ve sometimes been hard to read. It’s true. Personally I’ve seen your perseverance and tempered my thoughts. Some people more or less.

When prompted directly, you definitely came up with a little more clarity, and some meaningful input. Clearly someone didn’t appreciate your style, but I doubt I’m the only one who appreciated the sentiment.

It’s been a while, but the forum is littered with my ranting, as well. Sometimes a person can get on a roll and go overboard but if you never speak out, there’s no way to be heard. And sometimes the hardest discussions bring the best things to light.

2 Likes
51

I’m hoping for substantially more cosmetics in the future, and though I’ve always thought it’s really cool that we can buy them with earned cubits I would absolutely be fine with the compromise of cosmetics going cash-only.

2 Likes
52

I’m going to put this here for discussion, from a thread that got locked.

What do you guys think about tokenizing world fuels, so that they’re tradable in game. This is a proven model, it helps shut down “gold farmers” and captures that revenue for the studio.

People who want to pay cash for random in-game purposes get coin, and people who can’t afford or commit to the $10/month get to maintain planets if they’re putting in the playtime.

Tokenization would be a solid fix for that. We would have market prices (ideally) and the transaction would be as safe for the players as any other in-game trade is. Something to think about, I guess, while we wait for the new dev team.

To be clear this is not a suggestion that people start trying to sell world fuel by codes, which is explicitly forbidden by policy and apparently, verbally by James. In the current model there’s not any channel to control the interaction, or stop scammers. Just because James isn’t running the game doesn’t mean that published policy has changed!

I wouldn’t expect any policy-level change on this either, until such time as there’s a dev team in place, to make the necessary changes to the game.

Somebody would have to give up their value first, and then just hope the other person comes through. History shows that works out poorly much of the time.

As a long term idea though, it seems like a good way to capture a good portion, if not all, of any “black market” money floating around out there.

Also not a new idea. Just something that came up a little too late for Wonderstruck.

1 Like
53

the space between our work and it’s product, alienation, atomisation… hmmm i’ve heard this somewhere :innocent:

54

I flagged that post as not all the profanity was blocked when I had viewed it.

This game forum is meant for ages of 7 and above and so family friendly…if this has changed then it’s up to @Tiggs etc to convey that and change the CoC.
There are plenty of places on the Internet where people can be an edgelord…maybe a voxel building gaming forum shouldn’t be one of these :man_shrugging:
A flagged post can also be edited and it will be un-flagged, though if it is flagged once more it will sent for a moderation review.
fyi I am an adult and have no issue with profanity, in the right context (used to run an off-licence and also can swear like a champ playing call of duty :+1:)

7 Likes
55

In a snap I was agreeable to this. Abuse of the flagging system has been bad here. Enough to desensitize me to it. I mean, on seeing a post flagged, I don’t even bother trying to figure out why. I honestly wasn’t sure if the profanity was the reason for the flagging, or the content. Due to things like obvious flagging a lot of the time to quiet someone or just for saying something unpopular. it’s gotten to the point that most of us just ignore that and move on.

I noticed this morning some uncensored profanity elsewhere too, ironically moments after reading this post. The profanity filter has always been pretty wonky here. In my background and environment such language is pretty normal, I probably honestly wouldn’t have noticed at all if not for all the little black boxes. Doesn’t matter though.

With that in mind, thanks for taking a moment to clarify. Rules are rules, and it’s wholly appropriate use of the system. If people were using it like that the whole time then someone who got flagged might concern themselves with cleaning up their posts, or wondering what’s actually wrong with them instead of everyone just ignoring it with a shrug because of a history of noise and abuse.

With all the things I’ve said over the last week, I’d be remiss not to point that out. We need some rules to interoperate, and that’s part of the whole reason that I started going on at all.

I went back and read the post. Unfiltered profanity. The same that the system has failed to flag on another thread this morning. it seems to find b-a-l-l anywhere but can’t find that? :rofl:

I also want to add that if no one will claim the flag or explain their reason for it - then when a mod reviews the post they also have to guess and may or may not realize the problem. I literally didn’t notice it on my first read through, or on a skim after the flagging. With a reason given (even in PM if necessary - not all offenses are so minor) they can also adjust the system that should be filtering the text.

Too much trashy behavior is being normalized, and not just here. Thanks for taking a moment to speak out. I’ve been doing more of that myself and while this is a small thing, we have to start somewhere.

1 Like
56

I’d go as far as saying that the need for scaling back is already a sign of failure - meaning the game should have a stable income that can compensate player fluctuation. But of course there’s technical ways of mitigating the problem. Like combining multiple planets to one server instance when there’s lower player numbers and moving them to separate instances again, when play numbers increase. :man_shrugging:

2 Likes
57

I’d say that’s a bit harsh. Even with regular updates. The player base will go up and down. It’s just the universe would have to do the same. Perhaps Biitula could crash into Beckon and they’d both explode. I wouldn’t be against that. Lol. I kid. :rofl:

5 Likes
58

I really didn’t mean it in harsh way. I just think that if Boundless is to become a success, it needs to have a solid player base and solid income and thus no need for scaling back.
Or let me put it this way: I don’t think Boundless can be financially successful if the player base fluctuates so much that the universe would need to adapt to it. But then again, I don’t have any actual numbers to back that up.

3 Likes
59

To some extent, sovs are an answer. Definitely only “some extent” though.

I posted a couple weeks ago about some public creatives. With a few of those there could be an entirely creative universe running parallel to the main because transport and other things are considerably easier on that side.

I think there will always be trust and/or commitment issues with sovereigns though. It’s a risk to build on someone’s planet. You can fuel it if they vanish, but they can randomly kick you off any time. If they don’t want the world or specifically want to delete it - that’s going to lead to drama. Then of course building on your own world means an ongoing financial commitment.

As for creatives, I feel like along with the people who really wanted private planets, we’ve lost many of them along the way. Some of those were the same players. Some people would like them for hacking at but in the model that exists, it’s still got connectivity requirements and that was a mixed bag. There’s been a fair amount of upset expressed about that I think it’s clear that more people were expecting to be able to have a standalone.

All of that OFC is just processing what I’ve read here and elsewhere, and my thoughts.

The gleam club piece is key. People have committed to years in advance, and it’s not (again my opinion) good to change the terms of that. ** VERY** worst case there, it might lead to some real problems. An activity requirement, specifically, is why many people purchase that. They could however split that out into different packages, which I’ve already advocated for.

Blueprinting could help, if they can do it - but with or without gleam club there’s a matter of a very small number of active beacons on a mostly dead world.

I don’t know how I feel about that. All things wax and wane. We’ve never had real player numbers to speculate on, except that one time that james just randomly stated a figure of some MAU (3k at the time).

Afair amount of this problem goes away, if Monumental can or will move the game to some private infrastructure. Things could be cheaper (and probably more stable) than AWS. But with the global nature of the game, moving everything to a single data center would be another kind of risk.

I have to agree, this is one of the hardest questions, at least from an outside perspective, I’m aware of. Perhaps a new “type” of planet, that has as tatus based on activity levels from the get. Again Blueprinting would help here but building on that planet would be an agreement that if activity gets below certain levels, everything gets reclaimed and packed up.

More data would be great, but I doubt if anyone has the interest or the time to dig that stuff up and make it public for users to speculate on.

Is there any public world which doesn’t have at least one GC beacon?
Less than 10?
Beacons but not built?

Traffic stats for mid to high level planets would be deceiving due to the travel constraints, but average hours played per player/planet would be cool to know. With some well known sovs out there, perhaps some of the (perm) high tier worlds are nothing but “bus stops” right now.

I think about this occasionally. Right now though, I don’t even have any “solid” suggestions - even ignoring whatever constraints the devs will have on direction.

It’s a puzzle.

Well, 50 planets is a lot. I think the problem has never been an absolute space requirement. Even in the heyday of Krasniy the devs were saying Biitula wasn’t at the original threshold for auto-expansion. It’s hard to keep people packed together though, and there’s always someone who won’t “play nice”.

Changes to the portaling system would help if the public universe was bottlenecking traffic. It’s clear that the current system is a compromise between reality and “immersivity” and a key balance point. Even just dropping the extra blinksec between a sov and it’s parent planet would help and cause probably little change to the overall balance of that.

1 Like
60

Keying back in on this, a tool to “cut and paste” regions together including player built structures would be pretty cool. I can’t imagine the dev work required though to partially generate a world blending/joining regions cut from other planets. Then we’ve also got the way the default color schemes work. That’s an interesting thought - but it sounds like a (technically) pretty hard path.

That’s also the sort of thing that could be wildly hard or easy with no way to even guess as a player/observer. It’s fun to guess, but useful advice or solid solutions there would depend on info that’s not really available to us.

61

I like what you’re saying about new planets being spawned being different.
Perhaps the 50 planets we have are permanent as I think the operation cost of the game as it is are quite manageable atm.
And all new planets have a chance to disappear if traffic on the planet is very low. How many hours in a month people are active on it. If it’s below a threshold and the universe is at a lower population then certain planets would be up for termination. Lowest activity planets go first.

1 Like
62

I mean in the end it’s as simple as the fact that the player base needs to cover AT LEAST the infrastructure AND development costs of the game for it to be viable to continue running. So it needs to get to a stable income stream. I guess I’m really just not open to the idea that planets disappear because James promised a permanent world and I like that. It’s probably also harder to get people to long term commit to something, if their work could disappear at any second because some numbers for their chosen planet looked bad (even with blueprints). But I’m quite confident that there can be technical solutions to the hardware requirements. 50 planets seen as 50 dedicated servers / instances may be too much for certain player numbers, but from a simple disk space requirement it shouldn’t be too much to keep around forever. I’m fairly certain they already got a system in place that can distribute worlds over servers for sovereigns, because I cannot imagine them having a dedicated instance (even cloud based) for each planet.

I really only meant the underlying hardware needed to “run” the worlds because that is what costs money. The planet data / region data itself is probably not large enough to be a problem.

Ofc that wouldn’t solve the fact that when player numbers are low, too many planets may feel too empty for some. But then we are at the point where it becomes increasingly difficult to continue paying a team of developers again :man_shrugging:

edit: So I guess it needs to stabilize is what I’m saying. It needs to get to a point where new planets spawning becomes a very very rare event. And the need for scaling back becomes non existent.