Private Server still planned?

Well they need to make money somehow. Since they don’t Charge a monthly fee it’d only be fair to only let rented servers connect to the main universe imo.


Highly speculative for the final game … maybe - maybe not … i’d recomment the devs to set a fee because a lot of pay-once or free games died because no money is there to make improvements …

EDIT: See question appeal #25 (I already asked for their target)

They have confirmed lots of times it will be a pay once game


Okay, i remember they said it a long time ago and that they are not “100% sure”. Can you find a quote of this ? I’ve searched some weeks ago but did not found something relaible … maybe i missed something.

Japp, a regular fee would be quite bad cuz of the statement about the buy-to-play status of the game. To be only able to rent servers instead of making them free to host from home would be a good way to finance the game, hosting and development.

There you go @Heurazio

1 Like

May '15 ?! 10 Months old … in my eyes this is not reliable but thanks for your effort.

I really don’t like to start a discussion at this point because on the official page (FAQ) it’s declered as “Pay once and you’ll get access to the game and all public servers”.

i just wanted to say that i’d be okay if they set a fee (~7-15€ per month) to make this game better. i saw some really promising MMOs that don’t make well with “pay-once” (e.g. Guild Wars 2) because they don’t had the money to improve the game over time or add new content. On the other hand a lot of games with monthly fees made really well and had a huge success (WoW, Ultima Online)

Of course there are games with monthly fees (in the beginning) that made horribly bad (FF14 Online, LOTRO) but they all had huge drawbacks in the beginning and a really bad start (played both and was disappointed as ■■■■)

over all I’d prefere a game with fees that has great content, regular updates, and new content over a game without fees and no new content or endgame at all.

maybe it would be possible to waive the fee for EA backers (or high tier backers) if B< becomes popular and kicks WoW off the throne :smiley:

For such a huge aspect of the game, 10 months is plenty reliable. It’s not as if they would change their mind every week without asking the community for input first. For someone who demands answers from the devs on a weekly basis, you should take that this was answered in May as a win.

I can hardly fathom the backlash this would cause in the gaming community. What ever payment structure is chosen, it should be applied the same to all players. And let’s be realistic, b< will never knock WoW off its throne. That’s not the goal. The goal is to found a whole new kingdom with a throne of its own.


i know it’s bad habit to repeat … but because you seem to insist … The tier system has been thrown away …
Without asking the community … and this was a “huge aspect of the game” too :smiley:

Why should i take that as a win ? if (and we all know i am) i’m a person who damands answers on a weekly basis … this is much more a big loss too me that there has been no more communication about this till now (again … 10 months).

To be honest … i know this is not the best way to get more informations from the dev if every word they say will be placed on the gold level but i like to get reliable informations and a frequent flow of informations. i have no problem IF they change their mind (the opposite is the case - when showing that something is/was a bad idea i’m happy if they change the road … but maybe the passengers could be informed that the next stop is somewhere else!).

Yes and No … While there have been changes in the backer-tiers already this would be totally legit in my opinion to say that all EA backers get the game without fees (or with a discount [e.g. 50%]) because they bought it this way. If the game will be a success noone will ever care that 10k EA backers don’t pay monthly fees. If the game will fail and dies noone will ever pay monthly fees at all and there won’t be a lost too.

On the other side … should we stick to everything they originally planed like the tier-system ?! No … When we are able to adjust one thing, we can adjust everything (also the payment-system). A lot of other MMOs made this (pay-to-play in the beginning and free-to-play later because they don’t had success). But if a game is not worth paying in the beginning noone will pay for it later … LOTRO is now free and I do not know anyone who is still playing.

I’m not that sure about this as you maybe are … there are two possible cases i could imagine

1: B< becomes the next Minecraft or WoW (as you say on it’s own throne) and there are millions of players (someone already thought about this :smiley: ). This might be offbeat but noone thought that WoW or Minecraft would ever had success (WoW was “the next ultima online clone” and Mincraft was “toys”) but both succeded.

2: B< will have a hard start and die like so many other MMOs out there (LOTRO, Star Trek Online. Guild Wars 2, FF14 Online, TES:O, Rift … and so one…)

While i’m a fan of this game i tend to read the silence from the devs as “there is something really big in the shrubbery” and that this game will be a game-changer. While i’m also a pragmatic human i read the lack of information (since months now - even on direct demand) as “we do not know exactly where we want to go”. the second interpretation is the one that worries me :frowning:

I request a lot i know, but as you see i’m an active member of the community and i want to make this game the best possible (for us all) …

only if you have an idea tested, you know how good it really is
(and EA is acceptance test)

All my care may dissolve in air if the devs would start sharing information and stop the silence. I don’t request that they reveal everything. But they could reveal changes by itself and not only when prompted (like happend with the tier-system).

@Havok40k PS : Feel free to split my last two answers and merg them to “Relase Schedule” because i think this is off-topic at this place.


Well firstly I don’t think it’s appropriate to compare monetization and progression mechanics in the same way.

Secondly, Ben says right there that it’s not always best to quote him. In fact, it’s likely the sort of speculative over reactions like this post and many like it that have lead to the devs being more tight lipped about what they are willing to share with us. Other possibilities include “we just want to surprise you about something” or “we’re working on boring backend compatibility stuff and there is nothing interesting and finished enough to show you, like the C++ thing we shared days (not months) ago.” In the mean time, they have still been dropping concept art to placate the hunger for content.

Lastly, I want to point out that constantly answering to the communities every whim is costly. Every hour spent by a developer to put together an info packet, a live stream, a Q&A is an hour not spent developing. Every forum post defending their decision to take x approach instead of y approach is keystrokes not committed to the furthering of the game. We should be thankful for every snippet of insight we get as it is time somebody took out of doing their job to sate your hunger for menial details that may or may not have changed over the 10 months that they last addressed it. Perhaps you would like to suggest they hire a community manager whose sole purpose is to interact with the community? Sounds expensive.


You are right with this. I’ve gone far over the point what i really wanted to say. To make a cut here “I’d be fine if we need to pay a fee”. This opinion might be unpopular but i stated out why …

Now the rest :smiley:

Surprises are a double-edged sword, maybe they work out well, maybe the community tear it in pieces (last seen on Blocks and the Battery update where the devs face ~90% rejection with a surprise that was meant well).

Oh but this is a really interesting one. For me it was a pleasure to read the status update and c++ article. This is something that shows they are working and they know what they do.
under the motto: any news are good news

Maybe i need to be more direct on this one … i tried to make this clear several times but perhaps my language mastery (bad :smiley: ) prevents native speaker to understand me.
I LIKE TO SEE GAMEPLAY-CONCEPTS NOT CONCEPT-ART … I’d be fine if we had lester :lester: a lot longer and in different colors :smiley: Concept art, models or any sort of “art” can be replaced without great efforts (only the time required to make a new one) but a gameplay-mechanism that is in-place is hart to remove or replace because there are a lot of dependencies (keyword “costs in software testing” or if you prefere a NASA-Article (page 2) [it’s about bugs but in this case bad-gameplay is worse than a bug]). Why risk the game with bad game-play decisions if they have the chance to clear it up in the beginning befor implementation or before the final version ? (that’s what “object-orientated-analysis/design” and “agile-development” is called: evaluate your customers needs => prototype => test => change your prototype => test => change => …)

Programming is NOT assembly line work. This is one of the most important things to know. There are times where you are highly productiv and there are times when you spend a lot of time / budged on “thinking” about things (software-design, software-achitecture). And within this phases of “thinking” and “team communication” it would be a good idea to write some words and ideas down (this should be done anyway … solid specification). And if you already wrote something down you can format them and publish them … no magic and not a lot of time lost.

I’d do it for free … but again … the language mastery :smiley: i spend my skill-points on other things :smiley:

EDIT: @Havok40k … man … every time we talk this is going this way … really don’t wanted to open up this topic again :smiley: (especially because there is a better place to talk about such things) :smiley:


My biggest problem with the whole “i want to be able to host private servers” are

  1. the game is a god damn MMORPG, and as such i believe there are things you couldnt do alone
  2. Tell me honestly, how many do you think would rent a hosted server from them if they could host their own? 1%? 2%? They need a way to make money, they are after all a making a BUY TO PLAY GAME

Also the “its too old information” not really. you should pretty much just go with what they say unless they change it. also if you want proof

Taken from the official site “Personal world rental”. Should be good enough right?

also “can you find proof for it being buy to play?” Dude… there is a line between being kept up to date and radical scepticism. right now you are basically saying “anything not said RIGHT THIS MOMENT is outdated information”

They arent just going to change the fundamental selling point that the game is buy to play, they would never freaking get away with it. But if you are willing to pay, its a win win. You can pay for renting servers then :smile:


Agreed - just because you have not had an update on certain aspects of development in 10 months, there is absolutely no reason to assume that that information has changed at all. Especially when it is being used as a selling point on their main website.

To put it in a different light… I haven’t caught a number 12 bus in 10 months… the sign at the bus stop still says 12 and the schedule still shows the times for the number 12… I’m not instantly assuming that the number 12 no longer stops here.

Ok, basic example, but you get the idea. Unless we have been told otherwise, the information that has been provided (no matter how recently or not) should be taken as the most up-to-date until it is superseded with new information.

From what I can ascertain, the devs are still working frantically to get everything transferred over to the C++ code base, so that we can all enjoy a smoother, faster, more resilient gaming experience (across both PC and PS4 platforms). Until that is done for all the current functionality, I would imagine no new features would be introduced until they are happy that it is robust enough going forwards.

Don’t get me wrong, I too am eager for new information about upcoming features and gameplay and the next release (whenever that is), but I’m not going to constantly harass the devs to give me an answer to something that may or may not have changed in the last 10 months.

I think this is meant as “buy once and play forever” not “pay” to play (which would infer a monthly subscription). I can only see Pay to Play being applicable on private rented servers, where there is an additional overhead to the core game.

My assumptions on this would be:-

  1. Privately run servers (as opposed to privately rented servers) are a possibility, but would be much further down the development road and definitely not for 1.0 release.
  2. Unknown, but I guess they will try and make it hostable on as broad a range of hardware as possible. I would personally say >2GB ram though.
  3. I would assume so - they did mention that server admins can control who can place beacons etc, so a whitelist would certainly be on the cards also (but I would imagine this would only be on privately run servers, not privately hosted).
  4. I would say No to privately run servers (because of possible modding etc) but definitely Yes to privately hosted servers.
  5. Assume Yes for privately run servers.
  6. Again, Yes for privately run servers.
  7. For privately run servers … a definite No (especially if 5 & 6 apply!).

These are my assumptions only, so don’t quote me on it!

1 Like

i know, i was quoting him without using the inbuild quote system.

1 Like

Yeah to clear this up again … thanks that you all pointed this out. i already quoted the FAQ side in the really beginning … maybe it was unclear that i already accapted this.

EDIT: Yes you are right, i was lazy with the wording :smiley: buy2play not pay2play


People would rent official worlds for the same reason people still pay on the official WoW server and pay a monthly fee instead of playing on one of the private servers for free: To be connected to the main universe.
I´m also pretty sure that ,if they don´t allow/include a private server hosting plugin, someone will just crack B< and make one (if Blizzard cant make a sufficient protection I highly doubt that the small dev team of B< can make one)


because they have to pay to play the game on main server, you see? how many do you think would pay monthly fee for wow if they got everything they get now for free?

Sorry, completely useless comparison.

  1. WoW is A subscription game
  2. It is one of the most played MMORPG’s and one of the most wanted on the market

So while people MIGHT be able to crack it, the question is how desirable would it be to do?

I honestly cant see why anybody would rent a server connected to the main server if the rules forced the servers to be the same and they had to buy it anyways. The only reason I see for people wanting their own server is so they can have “safe zones” if it is forexample a family which wants to play or a school or a company or what do i know. which would be gained through private servers.

I guess a medium+ sized guild might want to rent their own server - maybe denoting guild status … “we outgrew where we were, so now we have our own guild world”. Guaranteed there will be quite a few that do it.


Damnit, i was writing a long example but it deleted it so you will get a short version

Im afraid that guilds can just rent a server and blacklist everybody else. so they basically have an entire world to farm materials with no competition and then bring them to the real servers and destroy the economy.

For a comparison i made this

So i still think in most cases private servers will be the most used since it basically gives more freedom and is Free, which means that they will lose a big source of income.

1 Like

And that deffinetly solves the beacon problem, if you own a world you have close to infinite amounts of building space.