Well, I’d be more measured, but overall, yeah, same.
Although, from what I understand, the game is being kept afloat by Square Enix. That’d be who actually pays for the game, but I might be dead wrong.
you’re probably right with Square keeping them affloat, that’s one of the main perks of being with a good publisher to begin with, they take care of marketing, PR, QA and all that stuff which cost so damn much to begin with, and they act as a safety net in case stuff gets dire, and that’s without mentioning the backing Sony made on this game back in 2015, they’re not alone and that’s what makes me far less anxious, because I know there are competent industry leader guiding them and funding them
"also… the Key Word here is GOOD publisher… because a bad one would’ve already shut the down the project due to it not being “financially viable” anymore
1 Like
I wish they were allowed to tell us more about their deal with SE. I think it would reassure a lot of us.
To be completely honest here… this is the main reason why I don’t invest myself more into the game… I always have this constant annoying feeling of uneasiness due to the playerbase being very small, I’ve seen games I truly loved and even adored being shut down due to the population not being enough or simply due to the fact that the game was constantly leeching money out of their own studio, without any actual return on investment… having the devs come in here and reassure us in some way or another would actually do wonders for me personally, but here I am, unable to truly get back into it because I don’t want to get too emotionally attached to the game only for it to be… well… you get the picture… it’s just annoying to be left in doubt like that, especially when you’re like me who saw way too many games being abandoned… and let’s say that Battalion 1944 being abandoned by the actual dev team is not really helping me to be reassured tbh…
2 Likes
Gonna be honest, after all the money I spent on Boundless, if one day we get the surprise-announcement that the game is about the shut down, I’ll be super pissed-off.
By now, I’m sure the devs have heard about the community’s overall anxiety regarding the lack of marketing and how small playerbase.
I would assume that they have a solid plan in place.
I hope.
So how about them gleam club ideas 
1 Like
I really liked the grapple/spark link coloring idea!
What about beacon flame color change?
Or a 25% increase in portal time for oortshards? So if 900 shards gets you 10 days for your portal, with the plus membership you’d get 12 days 12 hrs worth instead or whatever that works out to be in hours? (Might not work very well for beacon expire time if unsubbed from GC+ though)
I had subbed ESO+ for a few years straight, in the end all I got was a game that broke worse and worse each update…
2 Likes
Now with additions to gleam club would obviously come a price increase. Currently I believe $50 gets you a year of gleam club and that includes benefits such as auto refueling beacons, unlimited tinting and appearance changes also color letting and emojis? I think that all of them.
Now if additional benefits were added would that be worth for example $114/ per year membership cost?
Even other benefits instead. Perhaps if this did come to the point where the developers wanted to ask you what benefit you think should be added, what would be a good benefit in your eyes?
1 Like
The things I would pay extra for:
- My own planet (if connected to the universe & usable by other players)
- Some portals that don’t require me to put oort shards into
- Character customizations
- Transportation - car, wings, plane, drone, speed skates, fast spittermobile, anything
- Exclusive weapons/recipes (ie: gem/lucent fist, etc)
- A pet
- Auras on anything - bodypaint, weapon, hat, etc
I personally would not pay to remove cool-downs, gates, increase inventory/storage, partial benefits, etc.
5 Likes
I think that, as a previous user says, dividing the community by a subscription that goes beyond the aesthetic advantages can be something so damaging in the game that many would choose to leave it because they feel that everything is more difficult because they do not pay more. I will always support them to take steps to earn income and keep the game going, but never at the cost of dividing users into progression benefits for who pays and who doesn’t.
And ultimately, it’s just my opinion, respect for those who want to pay for all the things they implement, but ethically I see something wrong and many will see it the same. No one wants subscriptions with progression benefits or games with micropayments that also cost base money.
PS: I am native Spanish and my English is somewhat weak, but I hope it is clear.
1 Like
On PS4 there should still be fewer users connected because, as you say, it is not a popular game and has never had a significant reduction on this platform. People do not pay 40$ for an unknown game, I only see that it dropped in price on Steam but never on PS4 and that makes people never buy it.
1 Like
probably because of sony really… Steam is extremely easy to do sales on, barely any permission required, just ask steam basically. On sony’s platform tho… a bit more complicated since it needs to be approved by them when you make the request, while in steam it’s as easy as configuring it in advance and notifying steam when you wanna do these
I convinced several friends of mine to try Boundless because I know they’d like to, but since there’s never a discount, they never buy it, although the PS4 license is managed by SE as its main publisher, WS should request that they apply a discount on some occasions. A discount not only makes more people buy it, but also gives the product greater visibility.
Sorry to distort the main theme of this post as it is for another purpose but I see it as a good point to add to the idea of new micropayments.
1 Like
And Sony is known to not so easily give up on games, they keep pumping money into projects when most companies would’ve shut them down eons ago, look at MediaMolecule’s Dreams (FYI: they are actually in Guildford too, even in the same street as Wonderstruck!)
Of course I have no idea if they are still pumping money into this but if they do that money will not stop so quickly…
Some might not wanna hear this but am hoping it’s after I’m gone 
A week later I don’t mind tho 
1 Like
Like the idea of an upgraded version of GC
but making cosmetics cheaper hmmm should not be included.
More xp. Mwa why? You can lvl pretty quickly.
A permanent tax epic makes a lot of sense.
Would like it if we got exclusive GC cosmetics.
Understand the craft bag but don’t see the need for it rather have a “gather bag” 
more helpfull.
The fact is GC now doesn’t have a huge “appeal” to get. So it needs more benefits.
Only supporters an lazy people have it now. (Yes i am lazy and i know it don’t want to run around and fuel my beacons).
Maybe something like “reduced portal fuel” or a “portal FF (portal gets a little extra fuel every its used with a limit of course).
Like the idea of custom tattoos… @Jiivita
1 Like
I’ll admit I’m both and it was laziness that initially prompted me to grab gleam club, lol.
Personally I’m really not at all convinced that there is any issue with the games financial viability… if there was then i feel you would already be seeing drastic measures being taken. They seem to be following a set development path that the publishers have agreed to fund alongside whatever sales of the game has made and will make plus gleam club subscriptions… nothing about the way they are progressing development even gives a hint of desperation to me.
Are people simply jumping to conclusions based on the number of players in game each day? Or is it the fact that the game is not living up to their expectations? Are people afraid because of the general tone of some forum posts and then assume that these forum posts reflect how the majority of players feel? Or does someone actually have some hard evidence that the game is failing?
I dont ask these questions to inflame or insult anyone… I genuinely would like to know the answers and have any claims made be backed up with solid facts and evidence.
I’ve got to be honest I really dont like the purchasable advantages suggested by the OP (no offense OP, it’s just that monetizing in game advantages to this extent is not my cuppa tea). If they began to stoop to these methods of generating income then I would be starting to worry about the future of the game, and feeling the hints of desperation.
Private worlds surely will not be free? I dont even picture them being available to run offline in single player mode… I suspect it will be something that a player must “rent” and pay a recurring subscription for. I have a feeling once this feature eventually reaches the game this will be another income stream that has undoubtedly been part of their development plan form the start, the same development planthey would have to of presented to the publishers in order to get published. I dont have any evidence of this of course… it just seems to me the logical course of action, a course of action that was determined many many moons ago. They are not just making decisions on the fly, their is a calculated and detailed approach to developing this game with milestones that will need to be reached.
I do like the purely cosmetic suggestions that people are making though. I would happily support purely cosmetic upgrades.
4 Likes
I would like to see exclusive and cool looking new horns, customizations, etc, and when they add new races, maybe exclusive gleam club races. This would be more for looking nice than anything else.
2 Likes
Absolutley agree with this, it’s amazing the amount of money people are prepared to fork over in other games just for an appearance change, just to look unique.
2 Likes
Add the things… add all the things… free things and things you have to pay for a like… craftable items, unique items, all forms of customization and anything that would add depth to the game