Not this one in my opinion, F2P contributed to the destruction of EVE online as far as I am concerned. however skill injectors did more of that damage, along with other very questionable choices CCP made around that time and onward.
Albion is one I played that haves a decent F2P model thou.
check your inbox
Didn’t read the other replies but I can relate to this. In short, people’s attention to games and priorities in life change constantly. It is good to want to attract people but FOMO isn’t nice - to put it kindly. You reminded me of DRG (Deep Rock Galactic), a great game. They implemented seasons/battle pass style but with a catch, the stuff you don’t achieve is thrown back into the game in various ways. It keeps you motivated to play it when a season starts because then you can choose the stuff you want to unlock from the tree but if you don’t and you miss out on them, you still can get them randomly while playing. You can go back to the game knowing you missed nothing.
From DRG’s website:
Done this… no one really cares sadly. Gave them away on multiple social media accounts, forums, streams etc.
Boundless is not a streamable game. Nobody wants to watch another player placing blocks or gathering materials for several hours.
You need a great personality that people are attracted to where the game itself is secondary to the personality and socializing. Is there a Pokemane in the house?
You might get some traction with the PVE elements but not enough for multiple streams given it’s pretty basic compared to more action-oriented video games
I predict that none of those things will happen if the game goes free-to-play. Boundless already has fantastic ways for engaged players to further monetize (e.g., buying cubits for personalization, gleam club for quality of life improvements, and fuel for sovereign/creative worlds). We just need to a) continue to invest in increasing the value and desirability of those things, and b) add a BUNCH of new players.
Statista reported that 91.8 million hours of Minecraft was watched on Twitch in August. I think Boundless is way more interesting to watch than Minecraft.
Thanks for the post, Darkhog.
We don’t plan on putting the game on sale. Instead we plan on permanently reducing the price (by quite a lot).
As Tiggs mentioned, we’re making sure that we understand what happens if a bunch of new players show up. We don’t want to introduce any risk for live operating the game - so we are spending the week asking questions and learning.
Well, when put in that context, then yes. But I’d argue that alot of people do tune in because of the personality and the community surrounding that particular player. There is also something to be said about herd mentalities where people naturally want to watch a game that is very popular. There’s a sort of inherent “social proof”, if you will.
Eg; “There must be something to this game if it’s that popular”
But I guess the only way to find out is to have Boundless grow to something similar in size and we can get a definitive answer 
Challenge accepted!
Wooh loving the energy 
Wow. This dude came to play.
$14.99. I’m calling it now!
No, but I think Vinny or Joel may be into this.
Okay, my confidence in you just grew, please don’t mess it up.
I’ll raise you and go with $9.99 strike price
I think a permanent price reduction is a much better bet than periodic sales. That being said, when boundless left early access ($95 base price!!) And went to its current base price, we observed a significant increase in toxic players who were less self invested in positively engaging with the community… griefers. Im not saying the base price shouldn’t be lowered, but that player moderation should be improved to match player growth that will inevitably be accompanied by an increase in toxic players.
I’d say $5.99 even though you can get it online already at $1.99. How legit that $1.99 is may be something @monty1 and team may want to look at.
Seems you needed better moderators or more of them.
Does the game even have mods? Also, there definitely need to be ways to appeal bans and warnings, because one form of griefing I saw in other online games were malicious reports (especially prevalent in games where AI does some of the moderation tasks) leading to unjust suspensions and sometimes permanent bans. There’s a need for checks and balances so it won’t happen here and to have the banned/restricted user be able to appeal at least few times and have the situation reviewed by different person each time to make extra sure the doing the reviewing mod in question isn’t in cahoots with the false flagger (which happened in the past, for example with Runescape).
Yes, and yes. The devs were extremely hesitant to ban any paying customers for any reason, and it would take an extremely air-tight case to get someone banned. I wouldn’t even consider the community leaders as proper moderators outside of this forum. I once built a massive case with statements from dozens of players and screenshots etc about a toxic player who was very disruptive and abusive at the time and the devs did nothing with it for months… an empowered moderation team is needed now, as well as prior to a price reduction.
Not sure if it is still the case today since I no longer have access to those reports, but it was definitely a problem here in the forums for a long while as well.
I am sure she will handle things along with myself as needed 