Thank you for the info. I hope a solution can be worked out soon.
2 Likes
So for the game to become self-sustaining, I’d assume we would need to increase the amount of monthly coin from our side right?
I dont know if that’s an answerable question cause I honestly have no idea what I’m talking about to be honest lol
But to be blunt, this game is a one of a kind imo.
I’d be happy to do whatever was necessary including spending coins, to achieve stability so who decides to play can continue playing until our consoles die. I bet theres more that would agree 
4 Likes
Unfortunately we don’t have any visibility on the PlayStation side, so I have no idea how much income is coming in from that.
6 Likes
Then I shall spend coin and hope for the best
Cant hurt I suppose 
[Would’ve anyways 
]
3 Likes
Sprays won’t be a thing for a new player and most likely the one main character won’t affect a new player either. It is mostly that few weeks of play that a new player needs to get through at least from the 2 new players that I have gifted the game to and had to help them out here and there. It’s things like the beacons and a few others things that were issues, adding swords and shields won’t solve that…
Most of these may not be able to be answered, but Is owning the IP an option? Is there something we as players can do to help with the monthly costs? Wouldn’t pushing out the single-player and allowing the players to create their own version of the MMO universe an option to self-sustaining?
In the absence of a real marketing push to up the player count, one option to consider here: better monetization of those of us who may fall into the Whale category.
The big one that I think could easily work, and wouldn’t be unfair I think if done in the way I suggest here: allow players to sponsor the special exoworld types, T7s and particularly the color cycling ones (and Gleambow ones, once that is ready). This could be priced where you could make a pretty good profit off one and there are at least a few of us who’d be happy to throw some cash at it. At $100 for a 3 to 5 day world, I’d probably do a few a month. Groups could also pool together for them. A win-win if they were only allowed to be public worlds, these planets have things in short supply, and at that price point they wouldn’t I think be spammed to the point of breaking the game economy. But let’s face it - I think most of us would rather the game economy take a dip from an influx of goods than to lose the public servers.
Thank you again for posting!
7 Likes
In a bid to help Turbulenz keep developing, we also agreed to forgo any of the income from planet rental, so that money goes straight to them. I have no idea what that brings in each month, but it doesn’t go towards covering server costs.
10 Likes
Imma agree hard with this
1 Like
Venturing a guess here only a percentage of the sales go towards Square.
1 Like
It’s an interesting idea; on the assumption that any changes would require dev time, I don’t know whether something like this is possible or not. Currently server costs are in the low thousands of dollars per month, so in theory it wouldn’t take a huge amount to make it self-sustaining.
9 Likes
At the moment revenue received from Steam from game sales or in-game items sales comes to us (after tax, Steam cut, etc).
EDIT: We agreed to a provision that after running costs of the game were accounted for each month, the next chunk of income would go to Turbulenz to help cover dev salaries, before we would make any actual inroads into the recoupment of our investment. Unfortunately that’s really been a moot point for a while.
10 Likes
Thank you for doing that. 
What if the money from my suggestion could be put to that though? Right now, it is $40 for a month on a 40 person planet. I’m thinking go $100-150 for 3-5 days for that. This would probably be a question for Turbulenz then, but couldn’t there be a price point where they could make up at least a part of the shortfall (I know you can’t come out and say it but seem to be alluding strongly to it) between current income and costs, and where we’d still be buying them? Not to be crass, but I know I’m not the only one here with spare cash I’m willing to spend on this game. I think a way to monetize those of us that are able to do that would be better than something like a monthly subscription model that would hit everyone and cost us those who can’t afford it.
Edit: Sorry, just saw your other reply, thanks!! 
Edit again: And, I think my suggestion would bring some players back - some don’t like that this stuff is so rare and, like with Rift exos, gets picked over before they get a chance. If you let me sponsor a color-cycling exo right now, just watch that player count shoot up. 
5 Likes
Possibly; I think the question is really what needs to be done in order to get to the point where it is sustainable without needing this kind of level of donation/payment each month, though. The challenge is how to ultimately fund additional development - but the question of the “what needs to be done” has been discussed a great deal… and I don’t really think it’s a quick/simple change.
10 Likes
It would seem to me giving the game the ability to allow players to create and link servers (which I believe was said to be in development) would allow the game to be self-sustaining and alleviate the monthly server costs. I think crowd-funding or even donations would not be a long term solution where as player maintained servers may be a better option at this point.
That of course would require an upfront development cost but maybe it’s a means to alleviate some pressure off of server costs.
1 Like
Dunno. For me the fact that everything (player owned and official servers) is linked together through one MMO is a very distinctive feature of Boundless.
6 Likes
There are other monetization opportunities here that, while they’d cause some grumping, haven’t been utilized - portal fueling, for example. Plenty of us would pay for some premium fuel rather than buy/grind Oort. I think the combination of that, my previous idea about the special exos, and perhaps other things could provide reliable profit each month to keep servers up and development going. Heck, this is something I hate in other games, and goes into the P2W territory (not that we HAVE a win state in Boundless, but still…), even a purchase that could insta-complete any current crafting… really, if it can keep the game going, I’m all for it. Others will disagree with these ideas but if we’re looking at the alternative of the servers going down, I think anything beats that.
On getting the base back up to where you had enough customers doing that, I truly believe a little could go a long way here on the communication and marketing front. Showing players the passion that we see in those posts from 2018 in @majorvex’s link there.
9 Likes
This wouldn’t help unless you remove current Worlds. Those costs will still exist. It doesn’t need to be either or. I don’t think removing the MMO would fix everything, since that appeals to a lot of players. I think it’s more complex than focusing on one mode of play.
Side note: I’ve made several suggestions on how to improve NPE, as have many others. Many new players I’ve helped were getting frustrated and overwhelmed at having to create/place beacons and not finding other players.
6 Likes
What about a scaled down public universe,
Combined with an “offline” playability?
So optional online I guess?
If it takes coin to make these happen then as @bucfanpaka said, we’d love to help.
2 Likes
I totally agree here the MMO is what makes the game so great to me.
I think there is a fine line to P2W being brought up here and this is going to scare some people off. I actually had 2 friends say they didn’t want me to gift them the game as they felt it was too P2W as it is. They said some players could just buy 20 sovereigns and have access to everything they wanted whereas some players couldn’t afford that. While I know that having 20 sovereigns isn’t really a P2W, but it’s hard to argue it isn’t, and introducing even more things that players get a real benefit from when purchasing something extra on top of the already pretty high prices seems to be a bit offputting.
EDIT: On top of this… it is hard to offer something players want and get benefit from that is purchasable that won’t be considered P2W… but I don’t think it should not be considered at this point.
I too have pointed out MANY ways to improves the NPE and I greatly appreciate your input and previous posts on it.
3 Likes
The counterargument that I’d give to that: still need to put the time and tools into it. Also, from my observations most worlds are open to the public, I think the best ones out there for high tiers are ones I and others put out there to help the community.
As long as they didn’t go true loot box, given how precarious things sound for the public servers right now, I’d rather give alternative monetization options a try before pulling the plug. My Oort and timer suggestions more P2W and controversial, but like on the exos, if they are kept open to all then it is fair game - if we’re really talking just needing to hit the low thousands mark, that plus bringing back the player base some might be enough.
On the other side though, possible lowering the price of cubits might encourage more to buy them. I think they’re a little too pricy now for the plots you can get for them, even for me, I’d rather just grind them. I’d be curious to see how many really do buy them, and how much. I think I bought some like one time when I was in a hurry, that was it. Rentals, on the other hand, are endlessly addictive.
Edit: Could also do a premium Gleam Club that could do things like cut crafting times, increase Oort value (not totally fuel but increase longevity). To clarify again: not ideal, there would be complaining, but I think they need to do whatever possible, and it sounds like an ad push isn’t coming, so other than monthly subs I don’t see income alternatives here to keep it solvent.
4 Likes