Would boundless be better off if it cost 1/2 as much to buy?

One of the biggest complaints I happen to see is that often times the games’ player population is too small.

The only way I can see this improving is either by adding more content (which dosent appear to be happening anytime soon), or by lowering the price.

In addition, it is possible that by having more players playing the game, there will also be more players paying for gleamclub, meaning such an idea could be more profitable for the game in the long run.

I’m aware this is sort of a touchy subject with the game, so I don’t want this thread turning into a massive argument about price, but rather a civil discussion about the idea.

I wouldn’t mind hearing the thoughts of @james, @lucadeltodecso or any other devs.



I think it’s very cheap for a MMO as there is no subscription. I paid like £150 to play World of Warcraft for a year. Boundless you can pay £32 to play forever.

I think I’ve paid 2p for every hour I’ve played so far lol, tell that to the old school arcade gamers shoving quarters into Pac-Man :joy:


I agree that its good value for money, but its hard to convince a new player who sees the current steam players as being <150 that it is.

(yes I know there’s also PS4 players, but a new player looking at the game might not know that)

1 Like

That’s a, no offense, poor argument. You are cherry picking, sir.

WoW has a massive dev team, regular updates and actual GM moderators. Totally different game.

Also the argument that we are all 2000 hours in holds no water and is pretty meaningless.

GTA costs almost nothing, has oodles of content.

A better comparison is Minecraft. $20 for years. People buy it instead of boundless.

Or portal knights. More content, more devs, free.

OP isn’t asking if you got your money’s worth. We all have. He’s talking about new players.


Basically this. While I think making it free would open up the floodgates to server instability and trolls making new accounts, I think a lower price point would do the game good.

1 Like

Ahh j understand what you’re saying, does the price tag deter potential players. How much does the game cost on PS4? Because it’s £32 on steam and more on Square Enix store so not sure what price PS4 matches.

But then again Boundless should cost more than Minecraft, because it’s an MMO ran by a small company (ie. different)

Also I don’t think we can honestly compare Boundless to the most successful game ever to exist :joy: (I’m guessing it is, surely it’s gotta be up there)

If Minecraft was 50 quid it would sell just as good.

Don’t get me wrong, I ain’t got any money IRL, but I think £32 is pretty decent for a game


I think for what we got 32 isn’t the best value for money. Sure it isn’t bad, but it isn’t great. I saw the trailers and the plans from devs and was sold, unfortunately a lot of that stuff still isn’t here…titans, races, warp wraith etc.

If they sold what we had now for 15 and then sold an expansion for the new players (existing players get it free) I’m sure it would be more attractive. I may be wrong, but the numbers we have online suggest a different approach is needed…unless we are just paying for “beta boundless” and the press push and promos come once everything is polished and content added lol


The lower the price, the more players play.


How do you run an mmo which has ongoing costs by selling the game cheap? If there is no required subscription and heaven forbid they add micro transactions that offer some benefit to play like an infinite hammer, how do they pay for the ongoing development and server costs? Are players looking for a cheap game going to willing to spend money on cubits or gleam club? Or are the players that are going to be supporting even more players by paying the ongoing costs?

I do not think Minecraft is a good comparison as it is not an mmo. If you do play it as multiplayer then someone is picking up the server costs. I think that lowering the cost to get more players is not a good solution unless they change the entire pricing model and either add a required subscription or micro transactions.


The idea being if its cheap there more likely to try it, and as a result buy gleam club.

In the long run the price of the game isnt what’s gonna pay for server costs, its gleam club. I think lowering the cost to play it will mean more people are likely to buy gleam club since the player base will be bigger, which will help support the game.

Plus more people to play with is good too.


Boundless may end up with more players if it cost half as much, but I don’t think it would be better. Quality of player is roughly inversely proportional to the cost to play, so we’d be seeing more trollish behaviour. Any extra money they make from additional sales may be heavily eaten into building systems to prevent trolling, or having to employ full time admins to adjudicate.

Irrespective of behaviour, more people into the game with it’s current player retention issues comes with the cost of more hovel-like beacons littering the landscape for a period of time if a player decides it’s not for them.

Personally, I think that until the developers get some of the changes that James has implied are coming like the one in test now that is causing a lot of angst, they might be better not drawing in too many players when the basic mechanics are in flux and certain mechanics, like creative mode, are not even available across platforms.


Fair point. I agree with you in that regard.

I suppose i’m just worried about the games long term longevity, with the costs to develop and run the servers vs what the game is earning, but I didn’t want to make a doom and gloom thread, so I instead made this one to offer a solution.

I do agree with you and I think James would too, that the game needs more players to be successful. How to make that happen, which seems to be your point, maybe letting them remove the fat and look at how the core mechanics actually work versus how they believed they would work and changing that as well as new content will draw in the players we know the game needs. I will say that we may not be happy with some of the changes, but I do believe they are being made to make the game more attractive overall to new players.


i think this game have a fair price

only thing it missing is well made advertisement campaign, with actual content and design, not old oort online shots and vids

players are looking for builder games but boundless is noowhere to be shown

i personally found this game at comments for other game… it was never shown in my steam quee or recomendations regardless im playing several same genre games…

I only bought it because of the fact that squeenix publishes it. Other games they publish but don’t develop off the top of my head: hitman, deus ex. Otherwise I would have never bought a random game by an indie studio for $40 preorder. And definitely not a $40 year old indie game.

If I were not a squeenix fanboy I wouldn’t have preordered - and definitely wouldn’t buy at this point (from the hypothetical perspective of someone who hasn’t played the game; not from my actual perspective)

Again, we have to look at this not as “did I get my money’s worth” since CLEARLY all of us have.

You have to look at this as “if I knew nothing about the game, would I buy a year old indie game for $40”

I still like my earlier suggestion from months ago. Keep the game price as is. Add a “basic” version for $20 that doesn’t allow alts and only allows one additional skill page, and sell an upgrade from basic to full version for $20. This is plenty for a new user to see if they like the game or not. Gives them a good 50 hours before they hit that wall, and you could easily enjoy the entire game with two skill pages and no alts.

Another idea: we could create a gofundme and raise 50,000c for boundless to support them lowering the price point. Wait, did I say “c”? I meant $/€ :blush:

1 Like

No vote from me. $40 is cheap for what this game offers.


what DK said, when i saw that Square Enix published it i bought it without further ado

1 Like

I agree with some form of limited trial or version for free or next to nothing. Either a cheaper version for 5-15$ that offers the full game with some kind of limitations (such as no alts/single two skill pages, I like that idea @DKPuncherello ) or free and time-limited or with no ability to place beacons or campfires.

1 Like

Free but time limited was a DISASTER, those words are taboo haha, even without the ability to place beacons. But maybe one day that could work as a “view only” free client to hook ppl.