Mankind Reborn and Money

BioXide

Founder

Staff member
Lead Developer
Management
Jun 1, 2017
447
Portland, Oregon
Guns of the Conclave
Rank: Princeps (R7)
Service Points: 999999
On a serious note, we have no plans on doing trial accounts or f2p, our monetization system won't offer pay2win aspects and it's all strictly cosmetics & roleplaying, it's still wip so when we have more details we'll discuss it further.
 

Shakespears

Game Writer

Staff member
Alpha Tester
Patron
Jun 14, 2017
747
Virginia, USA
Civil Protection Commission
Rank: Game Master
Service Points: 0
In an age where many people throw 100s to 1000s of dollars at games and even run monthly subscriptions too, a one time price to buy the game isn't unreasonable.

Remember, even though this is considered a "spiritual successor" to FOM, it's not FOM. The use of a much newer engine along and access via steam will generate a new player base over time. FOM almost always was being screwed over by Ojom since they tried to push minimal content for a price on a scrappy pay platform. Nexeons problem was never really introducing significant content that justified costs or retained interest.

Sure "free/trial" accounts could generate players but the only way you could make it fair to those who payed is to significantly limit/restrict/nerf them, which would give the "pay 2 win" atmosphere.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Egroeg

Egroeg

Helpful Citizen

Alpha Tester
Patron
Jun 10, 2017
178
Area 69, Antarctica
The Syndicate
Rank: Master (R6)
Service Points: 0
this is not fom
This
:lul:

On a serious note, we have no plans on doing trial accounts or f2p, our monetization system won't offer pay2win aspects and it's all strictly cosmetics & roleplaying, it's still wip so when we have more details we'll discuss it further.
I like it.

In an age where many people throw 100s to 1000s of dollars at games and even run monthly subscriptions too, a one time price to buy the game isn't unreasonable.
Exactery

Remember, even though this is considered a "spiritual successor" to FOM, it's not FOM. The use of a much newer engine along and access via steam will generate a new player base over time. FOM almost always was being screwed over by Ojom since they tried to push minimal content for a price on a scrappy pay platform. Nexeons problem was never really introducing significant content that justified costs or retained interest.
FOMv2 :kappa:
But I agree

Sure "free/trial" accounts could generate players but the only way you could make it fair to those who payed is to significantly limit/restrict/nerf them, which would give the "pay 2 win" atmosphere.
Pretty much what I been tryna' say.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shakespears

Spastique

Helpful Citizen

Alpha Tester
Patron
Oct 30, 2017
158
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
This
:lul:


I like it.



Exactery



FOMv2 :kappa:
But I agree



Pretty much what I been tryna' say.
Wow Egroll this is such a quality post, like I completely agree with everything you said there, absolutely brilliant mate
 
  • Like
Reactions: Akio and Egroeg

Hard Hat Harry

Helpful Citizen

Alpha Tester
Patron
Sep 8, 2017
176
The Syndicate
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
Why would a non-FoMer drop 30 bucks on a niche market game they're not even sure they'll like? Unless you plan on dramatically reducing the learning curve, this game will rack up bitchy reviews and will dry up with pay to play model. I'm not saying the bad reviews will come because your game is bad, don't take it that way (it looks tremendous so far) but Steam has plenty of morons who think they will hop on and wreck everyone then whine on reviews when things don't go their way.
 

BioXide

Founder

Staff member
Lead Developer
Management
Jun 1, 2017
447
Portland, Oregon
Guns of the Conclave
Rank: Princeps (R7)
Service Points: 999999
Why would a non-FoMer drop 30 bucks on a niche market game they're not even sure they'll like? Unless you plan on dramatically reducing the learning curve, this game will rack up bitchy reviews and will dry up with pay to play model. I'm not saying the bad reviews will come because your game is bad, don't take it that way (it looks tremendous so far) but Steam has plenty of morons who think they will hop on and wreck everyone then whine on reviews when things don't go their way.
F2P will bring a lot more negative reviews, I'm pretty sure a bunch of people are just going to troll the game heavily. Also it's not just "oh lets make the game f2p trial accs" you have to design the game around that. I don't want MR to have any trial accounts/f2p, the only way to play the game will be to buy it.
 

Spark

Citizen

Alpha Tester
Patron
Apr 6, 2018
52
Islamabad
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
F2P will bring a lot more negative reviews, I'm pretty sure a bunch of people are just going to troll the game heavily. Also it's not just "oh lets make the game f2p trial accs" you have to design the game around that. I don't want MR to have any trial accounts/f2p, the only way to play the game will be to buy it.
Sooo is this going to be b2p??
 

Necidious

Community Manager

Staff member
Management
Jun 1, 2017
702
Antwerp, BE
Oda Zaibatsu
Rank: President of the T.U.
Service Points: 2400
We understand it may be unfortunate or even disappointing for some, but we are indeed going for the Buy2Play business model. The underlying reason behind this decision was that we want to develop a game where the player comes first and not their wallets. More often than not, free-to-play games become products where the sole reason is to make revenue because that's precisely what they are. Developers invest tremendous amounts of resources creating their products, and it is not for the sake of providing free entertainment, but to make money and increase profits in any way possible.

At least by asking for a fixed price up front, we can alleviate this as an indie studio, and continue developing the game we all have wanted to play. Without us having to limit free accounts or offer paid accounts advantages over others, or do anything dubious just because it would sell.

In the end, the price will not be too high and can always be refunded by Steam within the two hour period. I think that's fair.
 
Last edited:

Hard Hat Harry

Helpful Citizen

Alpha Tester
Patron
Sep 8, 2017
176
The Syndicate
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
If I'm already donor plus, will I need to pay again to get the game?
 

CheSquattII

Dilettante

Contributor
Jul 31, 2017
83
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
this is not fom
No, but it's correct to draw a comparison and use fom as an example. Because there's not a wealth of examples of this sort of game existing. Fom is one of like, 3. You got Tabula Rosa, EVE, and FoM.
Which is why yall have such a following, because people see this as cousin to, or spiritual successor to FoM. talking about FoM's successes and failures is valuable, I am sure the Dev teams brings it up to each other more than just about anything else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jord

Grukan

Taxpayer

Jul 1, 2017
40
Civil Protection Commission
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
this is not fom
Currently it's only following is due to being billed as a "spiritual successor" so I think it's a fair comparison given your marketing so far.

In an age where many people throw 100s to 1000s of dollars at games and even run monthly subscriptions too, a one time price to buy the game isn't unreasonable.

Remember, even though this is considered a "spiritual successor" to FOM, it's not FOM. The use of a much newer engine along and access via steam will generate a new player base over time. FOM almost always was being screwed over by Ojom since they tried to push minimal content for a price on a scrappy pay platform. Nexeons problem was never really introducing significant content that justified costs or retained interest.

Sure "free/trial" accounts could generate players but the only way you could make it fair to those who payed is to significantly limit/restrict/nerf them, which would give the "pay 2 win" atmosphere.
When was the last time you dropped thousands of dollars on a game? I've done it repeatedly for years, and you're over simplifying the mindset of people that do it. I feel like there are a whole lot of people that were too poor for premium in FoM and for some reason think that's the only reason they were garbage at the game. They then are carrying that attitude over to MR.
Why would a non-FoMer drop 30 bucks on a niche market game they're not even sure they'll like? Unless you plan on dramatically reducing the learning curve, this game will rack up bitchy reviews and will dry up with pay to play model. I'm not saying the bad reviews will come because your game is bad, don't take it that way (it looks tremendous so far) but Steam has plenty of morons who think they will hop on and wreck everyone then whine on reviews when things don't go their way.
This exactly. You don't have the following to bank on people willing to pay to play and populate your game. Look how many games are on Steam now. What makes this one stand out? Why are people going to drop money up front on an unheard of game from a studio with no track record.
F2P will bring a lot more negative reviews, I'm pretty sure a bunch of people are just going to troll the game heavily. Also it's not just "oh lets make the game f2p trial accs" you have to design the game around that. I don't want MR to have any trial accounts/f2p, the only way to play the game will be to buy it.
I think you're letting your ego drive your decision on this. I really encourage you to reconsider and look at it objectively. Nobody here wants to play the game for 6 months then see the project die off due to lack of players.
We understand it may be unfortunate or even disappointing for some, but we are indeed going for the Buy2Play business model. The underlying reason behind this decision was that we want to develop a game where the player comes first and not their wallets. More often than not, free-to-play games become products where the sole reason is to make revenue because that's precisely what they are. Developers invest tremendous amounts of resources creating their products, and it is not for the sake of providing free entertainment, but to make money and increase profits in any way possible.

At least by asking for a fixed price up front, we can alleviate this as an indie studio, and continue developing the game we all have wanted to play. Without us having to limit free accounts or offer paid accounts advantages over others, or do anything dubious just because it would sell.

In the end, the price will not be too high and can always be refunded by Steam within the two hour period. I think that's fair.
It goes back to the 2 hour period not being enough time to get immersed in a game of this depth.

I really don't understand the opposition to a FoM like tiered system. It really wasn't pay2win. The game was bigger than the perks of being premium or owning MiB.

If anything the current model is the dubious one. A model that tries to cash in all up front and is unwilling to bank on the content of the game selling players on it? Is this another Starforge?
pay 2 win is bad
It's all about how it's implemented.
 

CheSquattII

Dilettante

Contributor
Jul 31, 2017
83
Terran Defense Corps
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
It seems like @BioXide has made up his mind. But some parting points.
1. I have like 230 steam games I payed around 15-60 bucks for. I play almost none of them. There's nothing about a game costing money that will actually make it fun, or make it retain people (or stop people from posting bad reviews.) The only thing worst than wasting 30 bucks is wasting 30 bucks and 100 hours.
2. There are innumerable examples of successful free to play games. A whole shit ton of broke 14 year olds are content, especially in a game like this. Having more randos running around will increase the game's retention. People sink money into f2p games like crazy, because they have a lot of risk-free time to get super invested in it.
3. Having a f2p option will attract people on that basis alone. Assume this game doesn't make the front page of steam ever (there are a lot more games like that than games that ever make it to the front page, especially indie games like this one.) Are people more likely to give a game made by a studio they have never heard of with an ambitious (read; usually poorly executed) concept a try for 30 bucks, or for free? If it's free the thought process is "sounds interesting, why not try it?" if it's 30 bucks it's "I'm not giving another 'open world' game 30 bucks before i even know what it is.'
4. You don't necessarily need to even make it free. But the line yall are walking is one that's been seen like, honestly dozens of times (how many times have you seen a game and thought 'oh kinda like FoM?') but has gone anywhere worth note probably once with eve, or twice if we wanna be generous and call FoM a game that 'went somewhere.' So people are gonna need to look at the game and think "I'm willing to risk X amount of money and my time for this game that is probably gonna be half done, buggy, and become vaporware, but has an off-chance of being super cool." (I'm not saying that's the product your making, I'm saying the track record for this sort of game is very bad and consumer attitudes are going to reflect that.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Royoun and Grukan

Hard Hat Harry

Helpful Citizen

Alpha Tester
Patron
Sep 8, 2017
176
The Syndicate
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
F2P will bring a lot more negative reviews, I'm pretty sure a bunch of people are just going to troll the game heavily. Also it's not just "oh lets make the game f2p trial accs" you have to design the game around that. I don't want MR to have any trial accounts/f2p, the only way to play the game will be to buy it.
Okay, but you didn't answer my original point. To express it better: Why would a person not familiar with this genre/project want to drop 30 dollars? Even with more bad reviews, people are more likely to give it a chance if they don't have to invest their money into it. Of course you'll have us gladly paying, but I am skeptical new people would want to join. Look at Fortnite for example. Might be the most popular game out there right now, and did you know it has a buy-to-play mode? Maybe not, since a lot of people don't pay any attention to it. Literally an optional buy to play and some cool looking armor/reskinned weapons or something that doesn't give anyone an advantage would make money off of that crowd who might be willing to spend money but not willing to invest 30.

Basically, as Che said, we need randos running around. No MMO project is going to have an entire population of serious players. If you're going to sell it, at least make it something like 5-10 bucks until the game gets a good rep.
 
Last edited:

Hoodwink

Dweller

Alpha Tester
Patron
Dec 17, 2017
21
Vancouver, BC
Civil Protection Commission
Rank: None
Service Points: 0
I think the trouble with this is finding the balance between enough monetary support to continue running the game and generate revenue, and keeping the game free of the problems associated with F2P (hackers, little kids, trolling, etc.)
I don't think a mandatory subscription service is the way to go, but I do support the Buy-To-Play method with microtransactions for purely cosmetic/other reasons. Like the "premium" account.
B2P ensures that the people who may want to come in and flame the community are turned off because then they actually have to spend money on it. I think $30 is a pretty fair number once there are solid, enjoyable gameplay mechanics to keep people around.

All that being said, I'm not completely opposed to a limited F2P option, much like WoW's "play until you're level 20" kind of deal. Enough to get the people who are going to stay hooked enough to buy the game, and limited enough in scope that toxic people are turned off and kneecapped as to how much damage they can do.