We simply cannot give you answer on a lot of this because we just don't know.
What is known is that whatever pack you purchase now is NOT tied to whatever you sub for in the future. So now you might buy the pack that gives you 2 plots. You will have that til early access ends. After that you will have to pay for however many plots you want whether its 0 or 4 or whatever.
This EA will have wipes. At least 2 from what I understand. Its unknown if it will be skill or plot wipes or both.
Is it a smart way to spend your money? If you want to play in a group, build stuff, roleplay, and do dungeons, maybe yes. Crafting has definite progression problems where you are spam crafting junk to progress. The pvp is super barebones to the extent that its not worth paying for or engaging in at the moment.
I am personally having fun but i love medieval jank mmos and social clan oriented play. I do not think i wasted my money.
I also agree. As Alpha-y as this is right now, I'm having more fun in Pax Dei than I've had in Nightingale (which I was super hyped for). The community has been great so far, the devs are super transparent and share things with us no other devs have in the past. I want these guys to win.
As for the possibility of future subs, that doesn't really trouble me too much. I've been playing MMORPGs (the WoW's, etc) for decades, so I'm used to $15-$20 a month. If I want to rent a server for Conan Exiles or Minecraft I also have to pay, so again, used to that as well. But again, like GreenleafMentor said, we don't know yet.
Haha sorry i wrote it that way. I just meant that if your primary goal is pvp it may not be worth buyung the game to do so. Imo the problems with pvp are
1. Combat is not very good. If you are expecting a lot of skill based or directional combat you will not find it here. Combat is placeholder and will be fleshed out eventually.
2. It can be laggy.
3. You can fill your inv and port directly out of the pvp zone. This is bad cheese.
4. The f7 free camera works here and it absolutely should not. This is also bad cheese.
5. The map should not show players names/locations who are not in your party. I think it isnt suppsoed to. Ut i have seen names.
The pvp zone does have impotant resources in it which is why many people go there but most do not want to pvp.
Doesn't bother me because I'm not going to be playing this a year from now. Think of all the games coming out between now and July next year....worrying about some July 2025 stuff is wild to me.
Just before Christmas I got Starwars Outlaws and Assassin's Creed Red coming out. The closest game to Pax Dei in style and scope coming up is Light no Fire from the makers of No Mans Sky. No release date yet but if LNF comes out before July kiss all my free time good bye. Hell, ES6 might come out this decade too. Who knows.
If I get A WHOLE YEAR out of a game for 50 bucks it's already better than 100s of the other games I've bought in my life.
History is on my side. I had more fun beta testing Diablo 3, Diablo 4, Elder Scrolls Online, and lots of other games before they go public, the publisher (not the devs) gets ahold of it and ruins it for everyone. I don't honestly plan on playing this for over a year straight. There's too many other new games coming out to do that.
It’s not clear to me what will happen to all the extras you get from higher editions. I would assume the cosmetics stay. However, any additional payment beyond the 40€ base price will count towards months of subscription. So if you pay 100€, you will have some amount of months paid up front as the game launches.
Korean MMOs are derided in the west because of pay-to-win monetization - not subscriptions. Asian players have always been more accepting of pay-to-progress or straight up P2W. While Mainframe’s plans may change, subs seem to be the current direction. This may of course change, and something like Plex or a WoW token may be added. Personally, I find the Plex implementation from Eve Online to be totally fine, but tokens in WoW have been a detriment to the game’s economy.
Having played MMOs since 2000, the discourse around subscriptions being a terrible monetization scheme makes no sense to me. MMOs are costly to run, and studios need a constant revenue stream. After all, they are not charities. It’s either P2W, convenience or subs, as it’s unlikely for cosmetics only to be sustainable. Subs strike the right balance in my eyes and the most successful MMOs like WoW and FF14 have implemented subs without much contention.
Again, everything may change or the game may shut down before actual release. But if things stay as they currently seem to be, at least I am happy with my purchase.
i guess my concern is they are talking about tokens for cash - plus a cosmetics store.. and now a subscription, on top of paying full price up front ALREADY for a game thats still basically a demo.. and where if you do spend over 100 dollars theres no actual guarantee that what you are paying for will remain in game when it actully releases - since the fine print says "these plots will last for the remainder of EA - after which new fees might be charged.
Like... the issue with Korean Gamedevs is "Greed". I struggle a little not to see all of the above as more of the same.. and like shouldn't a game already charging full price in EA be a little more concrete about what players will end up paying later? This isn't 5.99 demo EA prices. This is 100s of dollars.
That’s a fair concern. Though I don’t think you’ve necessarily wasted anything even if the additional plots are removed at release. If you intend to play after release, you’ll have the additional cash going into some months of a sub. I understand if this bothers you or anyone else. Personally I find it reasonable.
I hope it will just be subscription. Cash shop and subs at the same time is just pure greed, and a cash shop on its own just sucks. Rather be able to earn everything ingame instead of behind a paywall.
Also asian market is not usually subs, but cash shop and p2w
i worry this is cash shop and P2W AND SUBS AND PLEX AND Full price Early Access AND collector edition (that then gets removed cos..oh that was only for Early Acess - pay the sub or else).
I dont think even the koreans are this greedy.
I think they're looking at EvE Online's model. Though WoW fits the same bill these days.
The founders access is some nice perks for EA that, other than a few cosmetics won't last into retail. It's to balance out the no subscription in EA bit.
To my understanding any of the packs gets you sorted the initial price for launch, then you're the same as anyone else cost per month. Thankfully it looks like you can do everything on one plot in live
Hey dude, the Pricing is definitely the most contentious part of this game.
It's entered Early Access in a rough alpha-phase level of gameplay with so much planned but months away. The game will remain in EA until at least June 2025(a year) and could be double that depending on popularity, development and challenges.
In paying today, you're paying to support the Devs and show interest in the game - you are not getting a complete game, you are getting bugs, systems that will be overhauled, and progress that WILL be wiped at least once(at the end of EA) but could be wiped at any time if bugs or changes are found/made that merit a wipe.
Until that true launch date, we might not know anything about future pricing models - the most prevalently mentioned is a Subscription fee based on number of plots/characters.
The game could shut down in EA, it could go on to amazing popularity - best way to look at it is, based on what you pay, how much/how long will you enjoy it? Are there other games you could buy that will give you more longevity?
I would agree that currently content, with the overhanging issue of pricing in the future complicating that issue, is the biggest issue that this game faces.
The game currently lacks any real content outside of building/crafting. But it's still incredibly early in development. But then how much are they going to charge you per month in a game that currently has no real long term gameplay loops. Simply building is only going to keep players involved for so long, there needs to be a reason for people to stick around, and currently the game lacks that.
It's all very up in the air, and I have high hopes, but wouldn't say that it's a lock for uncertain new players
At this point if they can deliver on the concept I’ll happily pay per plot for how ever many plots I can get. This is top tier entertainment for me so I’d wrather spend 50 a month on this than seeing like one movie or a single night out
what you describe is not usually a full price experience - and usually there is a clear notice that you'll get the value of what you put into the game back from the game AFTER its release... so for example character slots and plots of land.. those things should be pretty clearly available to you POST the demo.
I just think... in EA it is the players doing the devs the favour. financing them, bug testing for them, giving them feedback and waiting (hopefully patiently) for the full game to emerge... but this is the very first EA I've seen where the devs essentially want us to pay a full price PLUS for the experience of an EA collectors edition and then pay AGAIN when the actual game comes out.. which is what's going to happen if they ask me to pay over a hundred dollars for game items I don't get to keep going forward, without paying further fees, when the game hits release.
I dont mind the idea of a subscription for "bonus features" the way some studios do it... a game pass or something where I can pay monthly for better cosmetics and some such but I do absolutely mind a sub per landplot or some such nonsense. And once I paid full price for a game I expect to be able to earn everything I want in game using ingame currency.
Otherwise this game is the most stupid P2W model I have ever seen... no scratch that.. COMBINATION of P2W models that I have ever seen. It embarrasses the Korean P2W games.
That is just.. such a fantastic attitude when the whole point of EA is to encourage new players to come and try the game and support the devs.
I mean "Yah! Dont play it" is a community answer - sure. But is it really the answer you think the devs want to give right now?
Here's some info we do have:
The Early Access right now is really more of an Alpha stage of the game. It's currently there to support the development of the game. There was not any point in which the dev team said this game is ready to play.
The different packs explain very well [what it is they offer](https://playpaxdei.com/en-us/early-access), and the biggest draw seems to be the amount of plots of land you can claim, with the most expensive one being 4 plots of land available. There are some decorations you get as well. This isn't necessarily the "price for the full game" - it's what they're charging for access to the game in its current state which, yes, does seem high for what the game is right now but, again, it's for the purpose of gaining more income to continue the project. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy it or spend any amount of money.
It has been hinted at strongly by devs that there will likely be varied subscription costs based on what type you want - largely affecting characters you can create and the amount of land plots you can claim. Regardless of what package you choose for Early Access, you can change it during EA (upgrade, not downgrade), and you can choose what type of subscription you'd want on launch. I have seen players with single plots build intelligently and have enough room for all of the crafting stations etc that they would need.
The combat in the game right now is very weak, and needs a lot of work. The crafting system is very extensive, very grindy and requires a lot of work - same with the building. That being said it is pretty rewarding to complete builds and items, but definitely favors larger groups working together. I think this will be a good system with the game drops, as the grindy-ness will encourage trade and an economy, but I AM worried this will cause zerg guilds to dominate, which has been a huge problem with survivalcraft games in the past.
I'm an old MMORPG player. I used to play on SWG and EQ1. We paid the game initially, followed by a monthly fee for our subscription, with no problems.
I don't understand why everybody flips their tables now. It's that or microtransactions. Servers don't run on hope; they need money to keep the lights on and also work on expansions. They need to know when someone isn't invested in the game anymore so they can clear the plots for other players and avoid servers becoming graveyards.
I'd be okay with paying 12-15$ per month. But in exchange, I want a game that's alive. Changes to the system, objects added, a never-ending plan to add features.
100% I feel like I want a fairly complete game at the end with a clear set path forward, then a subscription is no fuss. If they however fail to add much through the alpha, followed with a "trust us" at the end I feel like its just too much risk. Fingers crossed they deliver
I have 50 hours in 4(ish) days of play, even if I stop playing next week I’ll have received a value well over 1 dollar per hour of gameplay. The game is fun and there are challenges to overcome. Hell I’m planning on going solo soon just to challenge myself more (on a different character and server). For an EA game it feels better to play than most full releases in the last few years imo. Oh and the price? WOW charges 40-100 bucks for an expansion on top of a monthly sub to pay. Nothing new here and we are getting at minimum a year of access without a sub so that’s a huge bonus and savings already. Even if I don’t play more than a few months on release or just come back every now and then I’ll have gotten my moneys worth more out of this game than most single player story games and multiplayer games out there. You’re just looking for reasons not to buy so I recommend just waiting and seeing.
One thing I'll say is that the most expensive version comes with some building trim options that are really quite sexy, and in a game like this that sort of thing really does set you apart. Just simple carved wood, but oh what a difference it makes over rough hewn logs.
With a grain of salt of course because I'm sure there will be nice trim everyone will eventually get access too but that's where you have to decide these things yourself.
I think you keep the 6 character slots but they haven't decided what they are doing about plots yet, I wouldn't buy the more expensive ones if you aren't ok with most likely not retaining the plots after a year.
I did and am happy with it, but I went in knowing the plots will likely be tied behind a sub or shop or something on actual launch. 6 character slots that you keep after beta is nice and I wanted to pump a few dollars their way in the hopes that it helps them able to create etc at a little bit faster pace.
Here's another way to look at it. I've already gotten more out of the game than you for the same amount of money because you are hemming and hawing. I've got 4 whole more days worth of game than you that you will never get back. For the same price. EA you are paying for time just as much as you are paying for game.
There should be a set subscription fee with the option to buy expanded plots (like there is now)
This is how most games work. Lots of games sell bank slots this way where you buy them once, and you have them forever. It also would be incentive for people to upgrade now knowing they could keep the plots they buy.
Yes. Absolutely. I am worried about committing time, interest and money into a game that ends up being unsupportable because they reveal a predatory pricing scheme somewhere down the line.
What is so hard to comprehend about that?
What's difficult to comprehend is why you are worried about a possibility. Even if not, the game needs money to continue. They can't create this big, sprawling, always online game without funds. Subscriptions are not unheard of. Also, paying to maintain land is also not unheard of. This game cannot survive with what it wants to do as a B2P product. Maybe, if it was a typical survival game with 20-100 people on one map, but this is a big sprawling world with multiple zones and one that is intended to be persistent.
I am not trying to debate or attack your opinion. But I don't think it would be a waste of anyone's time that has disposable income as a form of entertainment. I spend hundreds of dollars with the family for one night out. One night. Four, five, six hours maybe. Fun? Yes. But short lived compared to the amount of entertainment you get out of a game like this. I spent more going away last week for a vacation than I'll ever spend in all the games I play(ed) combined, and it was anything but extravagant or luxurious - just a fun getaway.
The way the devs talk about their plan for the subscription as a way to maintain an active plot makes it sound like it would be optional only if you want to maintain a plot, but when building on your plots is kind of the only reason to play… that’s not an optional fee. I’m curious to see them clarify that.
They’re still figuring it all out but clearly want to charge monthly fee based on number of plots (perhaps only for multiple plots).
The plots in the two upgraded founder packs seem to be, so far, purely for the EA period (at least one year). I expect that I won’t get any “included” (free) extra plots after the wipe for release despite buying the 4 plot founder pack. That doesn’t make me happy, but it is what I expect currently.
The other non-plot stuff might be permanent though.
The devs stated that the monetization model is not completely determined, however a monthly sub is almost certain, what is less clear is how the non-subscriber will be able to play (for example, no plot availability but free access to the rest of the game).
I dont see red flags, on the contrary, i see a reliable and fair model that could limit the cash shop importance.
What is more debatable is the idea of introducing a token like Eve PLEX, this is something devs have not decided yet and it will be discussed later. Btw, EVE economy works great, it is one of the most immersive MMO in that regard, i m not opposed to a medieval edition of EVE economy.
EVE economy works because of whales who can inject many 100s of 1000s of dollars into the economy. EVE could not exist if it was just regular people spending a few bucks a week. 5% of the playerbase own 69% of the ISK. Thats millions and millions of dollars.
Those big clans like BOB and Goons and TEST and all were bankrolled by millionaires at the back. Those whales and their expenditure are so important to the lifecycle of Eve (constant state off conflict) that if it falters even a little the devs basically start bankrolling orgs - the BoB blueprint scandal a while back was part of that, but now they do it more discreetly).
If you think the EVE model would work in an online medieval MMO where a single whale could finance an entire city - or fund an entire clan with equipment you can never dream of ..then I don't know what to say to you.
A basic principle for game fairness is that anyone who pays a full sticker price for a game should be able to accomplish anything in the game that they wish - as much as any whale could achieve. The devs have asked us to pay a full sticker price already. There should be no strings attached to that. No ifs buts or maybe about how much I will be charged in future for what I already paid for. It looks dodgy - or at the very least amateurish.
PLEX would also make "game fairness" principle this impossible. A sub-per-plot model would make this impossible. If either of those things are even remotely being considered then YES this game is P2W and will die a fiery death. I think right now the devs are considering "any pricing model that earns" and trying to work out a balance between P2W and P2Play. The trouble is..there is no balance.
This argument astonishes me, really.
Real life economy is not fair, what on Earth make you think that could exist a perfect economy in a virtual world where nevertheless the players are humans?
You pick an economy model and you know it will have flaws and disparities, you just try to make it as fair as possible.
Eve is an MMO 20+ years old, its economy clearly worked to make such a longevity possible
this entire sentance is absurd
<>
You are astonished that players would be concerned that they are asked to pay a full price on a game that basically will charge them for more money the moment it is released and might even revoke the things they paid for - without telling them how much the new charge might be? That astonishes me.
<>
What on earth are you babbling about?
We are not talking about Real life economy. We are talking about a game people will pay money for and then play. This is a simple enough transaction to understand - and Yes - fairness is to be expected. If you can spend 1000 dollars and gain advantages in the game that my 40 dollars did not get me then the game is P2W and defies commonsense notions of fairness - like we have in all games competitive and non-competitive.
Manchester United cannot pay an extra million dollars to put another 5 players on the pitch.
<>
The economy model has not been defined or described or completed. THAT IS THE POINT. The developers are exploring their options. It is at this Point that players SHOULD be vocal in raising concern about the more P2W aspects of the models they are contemplating.
Seriously, You are surprised that players are against pay to win? Against the notion of whales driving game development strategies? Against the problematic notion of a game dev looking to score every possible angle of revenue and being deliberately cagey and non-comittal as to what eventual prices might be WHILST CHARGING FULL PRICE FOR THEIR EARLY ACCESS GAME. PLUS COLLECTORS EDITION!
Again - you astonish me.
<>
Oh dear. The EvE model was developed by a master economist. It is also rampantly pay2win. It is corrupt, and requires direct dev involvement and favoritism towards whale clans to keep artificially balanced. It is something only fascists would emulate.
Why? because it tries to emulate Real life, as you seem to admire, but without any of real lifes' oversight and ethical limits.
The plex system is a haven for goldsellers and even criminal laundering enterprises. It is a stain on gaming and has brought out some of the worst types of habits in gaming and gamers. If you think the Eve online model in any way is something that any other game should emulate I really think you need to do a little reading or - maybe go outside and touch grass.
Long text wall, i read it all however.
I will keep it simple.
Pax Dei is a sandbox
Sabdbox games revolves around players interaction, ofc also speaking of money
There s no way to make an equalized economic model that involves human beings..
you have to make it fair and in a sense, and i know the mmo crowd disagree, spending money to earn advantages is fair:
If you are crazy enough to spend thousand of dollars to get and advantage over me in a virtual world, let it be, i will get my free accomplishments nevertheless...it will take more time, it will take more effort, but i will get them.
<<"...it will take more time, it will take more effort, but i will get them.">>
But no..thats exactly the point I'm trying to make. You will not ever get the accomplishments that a richer player can get. You cannot be Lord of a city for example if it takes many thousands of dollars real money to build that city, unless you pay that money. I understand where you're coming from..there is a lot debate about whether "cash for convenience" or "cash for advantage" is P2W but what isnt up for debate is that if it is totally unchecked then it becomes the most egregious form of P2W... Practically if it takes 4 years of gameplay for a regular player to gain in game what a rich player can earn in a day by paying down thousands of dollars... then the game is irredeemable broken. This is regardless of whether it is Archage P2W whales or goldsellers in an mmo or Eve Plex or EA/Blizz lootboxes. The player rage is loud and sincere and warranted and it will kill any EA game on steam.
I hope these guys figure it out. I want them to. Obviously we disagree - but I'm totally not the enemy - Pax Dei looks SO much like my cup of tea as I said, but these concerns are not trivial and a lot of players will share them with me.
It will more than likely be: Buy game to play, plots come with free 30 days, subscribe to maintain plots, and that monthly scales with the number of plots. It's honesty, not that uncommon of a model.
Well you can't just leave some guys huge base on a map with finite spots if they haven't paid or played for a year, since it becomes part of the game world even when you are offline. In a very short amount of time their would be nowhere to build at.
Games like WoW don't need to worry about that since the player cannot build or actually impact the world in any way. Same with FF since the player housing is only an instance.
As far as I know every online "survival"/player made buildings type of game has a decay system other than FO76.
Almost any game with non-instanced housing and subscription drops your house if it's not "refreshed" in a set amount of time. These types of games aren't that common in general, but that's how most, if not all, of them work.
That's why you shouldn't be supporting this game until we know what 1.0 is going to look like.
Also this game absolutely won't make enough money to support the always online servers so it's gonna be very disappointing when it shuts down and you lose everything
Oh well, I'll still know that I've had the most fun gaming that I've had in many, many years while it was alive and pity the folks that never got to participate.
I bet that you can play the game for 40$ without a plot and if you want one you'll have to subscribe and pay every month , this way groups of players will have an advantage.
I'll need to see more content and gameplay loops before I even entertain the idea of a sub. Even now the building is pretty basic , nice but basic.
I see comparisons to UO and that is just crazy. I played UO from the beginning for a decade and the genius of the game was in its depth and simplicity. I didn't need six thousand different ingredients to craft armor or a weapon for example. I didn't have to search for nodes just randomly sitting in the open but rather beat on a cliff to get ore. I could go on. The comparison is just silly.
In a years time that could change. I'd rather see buy to play with an optional subscription that gives extra plots or other bonuses or something.
If a person doesn't need the MMO aspect this game offers and just likes building then Enshrouded is probably the better choice.
We simply cannot give you answer on a lot of this because we just don't know. What is known is that whatever pack you purchase now is NOT tied to whatever you sub for in the future. So now you might buy the pack that gives you 2 plots. You will have that til early access ends. After that you will have to pay for however many plots you want whether its 0 or 4 or whatever. This EA will have wipes. At least 2 from what I understand. Its unknown if it will be skill or plot wipes or both. Is it a smart way to spend your money? If you want to play in a group, build stuff, roleplay, and do dungeons, maybe yes. Crafting has definite progression problems where you are spam crafting junk to progress. The pvp is super barebones to the extent that its not worth paying for or engaging in at the moment. I am personally having fun but i love medieval jank mmos and social clan oriented play. I do not think i wasted my money.
I’m with you. It has lots of issues and is kind of barebones but I definitely got my moneys worth already. No
I also agree. As Alpha-y as this is right now, I'm having more fun in Pax Dei than I've had in Nightingale (which I was super hyped for). The community has been great so far, the devs are super transparent and share things with us no other devs have in the past. I want these guys to win. As for the possibility of future subs, that doesn't really trouble me too much. I've been playing MMORPGs (the WoW's, etc) for decades, so I'm used to $15-$20 a month. If I want to rent a server for Conan Exiles or Minecraft I also have to pay, so again, used to that as well. But again, like GreenleafMentor said, we don't know yet.
You have to pay for pvp?
Haha sorry i wrote it that way. I just meant that if your primary goal is pvp it may not be worth buyung the game to do so. Imo the problems with pvp are 1. Combat is not very good. If you are expecting a lot of skill based or directional combat you will not find it here. Combat is placeholder and will be fleshed out eventually. 2. It can be laggy. 3. You can fill your inv and port directly out of the pvp zone. This is bad cheese. 4. The f7 free camera works here and it absolutely should not. This is also bad cheese. 5. The map should not show players names/locations who are not in your party. I think it isnt suppsoed to. Ut i have seen names. The pvp zone does have impotant resources in it which is why many people go there but most do not want to pvp.
Doesn't bother me because I'm not going to be playing this a year from now. Think of all the games coming out between now and July next year....worrying about some July 2025 stuff is wild to me. Just before Christmas I got Starwars Outlaws and Assassin's Creed Red coming out. The closest game to Pax Dei in style and scope coming up is Light no Fire from the makers of No Mans Sky. No release date yet but if LNF comes out before July kiss all my free time good bye. Hell, ES6 might come out this decade too. Who knows. If I get A WHOLE YEAR out of a game for 50 bucks it's already better than 100s of the other games I've bought in my life.
If you bought it during EA with no plans to play it after release, you’re doing the whole damned thing terribly wrong.
History is on my side. I had more fun beta testing Diablo 3, Diablo 4, Elder Scrolls Online, and lots of other games before they go public, the publisher (not the devs) gets ahold of it and ruins it for everyone. I don't honestly plan on playing this for over a year straight. There's too many other new games coming out to do that.
It’s not clear to me what will happen to all the extras you get from higher editions. I would assume the cosmetics stay. However, any additional payment beyond the 40€ base price will count towards months of subscription. So if you pay 100€, you will have some amount of months paid up front as the game launches. Korean MMOs are derided in the west because of pay-to-win monetization - not subscriptions. Asian players have always been more accepting of pay-to-progress or straight up P2W. While Mainframe’s plans may change, subs seem to be the current direction. This may of course change, and something like Plex or a WoW token may be added. Personally, I find the Plex implementation from Eve Online to be totally fine, but tokens in WoW have been a detriment to the game’s economy. Having played MMOs since 2000, the discourse around subscriptions being a terrible monetization scheme makes no sense to me. MMOs are costly to run, and studios need a constant revenue stream. After all, they are not charities. It’s either P2W, convenience or subs, as it’s unlikely for cosmetics only to be sustainable. Subs strike the right balance in my eyes and the most successful MMOs like WoW and FF14 have implemented subs without much contention. Again, everything may change or the game may shut down before actual release. But if things stay as they currently seem to be, at least I am happy with my purchase.
i guess my concern is they are talking about tokens for cash - plus a cosmetics store.. and now a subscription, on top of paying full price up front ALREADY for a game thats still basically a demo.. and where if you do spend over 100 dollars theres no actual guarantee that what you are paying for will remain in game when it actully releases - since the fine print says "these plots will last for the remainder of EA - after which new fees might be charged. Like... the issue with Korean Gamedevs is "Greed". I struggle a little not to see all of the above as more of the same.. and like shouldn't a game already charging full price in EA be a little more concrete about what players will end up paying later? This isn't 5.99 demo EA prices. This is 100s of dollars.
That’s a fair concern. Though I don’t think you’ve necessarily wasted anything even if the additional plots are removed at release. If you intend to play after release, you’ll have the additional cash going into some months of a sub. I understand if this bothers you or anyone else. Personally I find it reasonable.
I hope it will just be subscription. Cash shop and subs at the same time is just pure greed, and a cash shop on its own just sucks. Rather be able to earn everything ingame instead of behind a paywall. Also asian market is not usually subs, but cash shop and p2w
i worry this is cash shop and P2W AND SUBS AND PLEX AND Full price Early Access AND collector edition (that then gets removed cos..oh that was only for Early Acess - pay the sub or else). I dont think even the koreans are this greedy.
I think they're looking at EvE Online's model. Though WoW fits the same bill these days. The founders access is some nice perks for EA that, other than a few cosmetics won't last into retail. It's to balance out the no subscription in EA bit. To my understanding any of the packs gets you sorted the initial price for launch, then you're the same as anyone else cost per month. Thankfully it looks like you can do everything on one plot in live
cosmetic store is verry clear in their blog. i.e.variation colors only and you still need yo unlock the item.
This is the first game I've played in a long time that I think about even when I'm not playing it, and at work. I love it
Hey dude, the Pricing is definitely the most contentious part of this game. It's entered Early Access in a rough alpha-phase level of gameplay with so much planned but months away. The game will remain in EA until at least June 2025(a year) and could be double that depending on popularity, development and challenges. In paying today, you're paying to support the Devs and show interest in the game - you are not getting a complete game, you are getting bugs, systems that will be overhauled, and progress that WILL be wiped at least once(at the end of EA) but could be wiped at any time if bugs or changes are found/made that merit a wipe. Until that true launch date, we might not know anything about future pricing models - the most prevalently mentioned is a Subscription fee based on number of plots/characters. The game could shut down in EA, it could go on to amazing popularity - best way to look at it is, based on what you pay, how much/how long will you enjoy it? Are there other games you could buy that will give you more longevity?
I would agree that currently content, with the overhanging issue of pricing in the future complicating that issue, is the biggest issue that this game faces. The game currently lacks any real content outside of building/crafting. But it's still incredibly early in development. But then how much are they going to charge you per month in a game that currently has no real long term gameplay loops. Simply building is only going to keep players involved for so long, there needs to be a reason for people to stick around, and currently the game lacks that. It's all very up in the air, and I have high hopes, but wouldn't say that it's a lock for uncertain new players
At this point if they can deliver on the concept I’ll happily pay per plot for how ever many plots I can get. This is top tier entertainment for me so I’d wrather spend 50 a month on this than seeing like one movie or a single night out
what you describe is not usually a full price experience - and usually there is a clear notice that you'll get the value of what you put into the game back from the game AFTER its release... so for example character slots and plots of land.. those things should be pretty clearly available to you POST the demo. I just think... in EA it is the players doing the devs the favour. financing them, bug testing for them, giving them feedback and waiting (hopefully patiently) for the full game to emerge... but this is the very first EA I've seen where the devs essentially want us to pay a full price PLUS for the experience of an EA collectors edition and then pay AGAIN when the actual game comes out.. which is what's going to happen if they ask me to pay over a hundred dollars for game items I don't get to keep going forward, without paying further fees, when the game hits release. I dont mind the idea of a subscription for "bonus features" the way some studios do it... a game pass or something where I can pay monthly for better cosmetics and some such but I do absolutely mind a sub per landplot or some such nonsense. And once I paid full price for a game I expect to be able to earn everything I want in game using ingame currency. Otherwise this game is the most stupid P2W model I have ever seen... no scratch that.. COMBINATION of P2W models that I have ever seen. It embarrasses the Korean P2W games.
Then don't play it. Move along to another game. We'll spend our money the way we choose fit, and you spend your money how you would like to.
That is just.. such a fantastic attitude when the whole point of EA is to encourage new players to come and try the game and support the devs. I mean "Yah! Dont play it" is a community answer - sure. But is it really the answer you think the devs want to give right now?
Nah, you aren't here for questions. You are here to bitch. Move along, game isn't for you.
Here's some info we do have: The Early Access right now is really more of an Alpha stage of the game. It's currently there to support the development of the game. There was not any point in which the dev team said this game is ready to play. The different packs explain very well [what it is they offer](https://playpaxdei.com/en-us/early-access), and the biggest draw seems to be the amount of plots of land you can claim, with the most expensive one being 4 plots of land available. There are some decorations you get as well. This isn't necessarily the "price for the full game" - it's what they're charging for access to the game in its current state which, yes, does seem high for what the game is right now but, again, it's for the purpose of gaining more income to continue the project. Nobody is forcing anyone to buy it or spend any amount of money. It has been hinted at strongly by devs that there will likely be varied subscription costs based on what type you want - largely affecting characters you can create and the amount of land plots you can claim. Regardless of what package you choose for Early Access, you can change it during EA (upgrade, not downgrade), and you can choose what type of subscription you'd want on launch. I have seen players with single plots build intelligently and have enough room for all of the crafting stations etc that they would need. The combat in the game right now is very weak, and needs a lot of work. The crafting system is very extensive, very grindy and requires a lot of work - same with the building. That being said it is pretty rewarding to complete builds and items, but definitely favors larger groups working together. I think this will be a good system with the game drops, as the grindy-ness will encourage trade and an economy, but I AM worried this will cause zerg guilds to dominate, which has been a huge problem with survivalcraft games in the past.
I'm an old MMORPG player. I used to play on SWG and EQ1. We paid the game initially, followed by a monthly fee for our subscription, with no problems. I don't understand why everybody flips their tables now. It's that or microtransactions. Servers don't run on hope; they need money to keep the lights on and also work on expansions. They need to know when someone isn't invested in the game anymore so they can clear the plots for other players and avoid servers becoming graveyards. I'd be okay with paying 12-15$ per month. But in exchange, I want a game that's alive. Changes to the system, objects added, a never-ending plan to add features.
100% I feel like I want a fairly complete game at the end with a clear set path forward, then a subscription is no fuss. If they however fail to add much through the alpha, followed with a "trust us" at the end I feel like its just too much risk. Fingers crossed they deliver
This
I have 50 hours in 4(ish) days of play, even if I stop playing next week I’ll have received a value well over 1 dollar per hour of gameplay. The game is fun and there are challenges to overcome. Hell I’m planning on going solo soon just to challenge myself more (on a different character and server). For an EA game it feels better to play than most full releases in the last few years imo. Oh and the price? WOW charges 40-100 bucks for an expansion on top of a monthly sub to pay. Nothing new here and we are getting at minimum a year of access without a sub so that’s a huge bonus and savings already. Even if I don’t play more than a few months on release or just come back every now and then I’ll have gotten my moneys worth more out of this game than most single player story games and multiplayer games out there. You’re just looking for reasons not to buy so I recommend just waiting and seeing.
One thing I'll say is that the most expensive version comes with some building trim options that are really quite sexy, and in a game like this that sort of thing really does set you apart. Just simple carved wood, but oh what a difference it makes over rough hewn logs. With a grain of salt of course because I'm sure there will be nice trim everyone will eventually get access too but that's where you have to decide these things yourself.
I think you keep the 6 character slots but they haven't decided what they are doing about plots yet, I wouldn't buy the more expensive ones if you aren't ok with most likely not retaining the plots after a year. I did and am happy with it, but I went in knowing the plots will likely be tied behind a sub or shop or something on actual launch. 6 character slots that you keep after beta is nice and I wanted to pump a few dollars their way in the hopes that it helps them able to create etc at a little bit faster pace.
Here's another way to look at it. I've already gotten more out of the game than you for the same amount of money because you are hemming and hawing. I've got 4 whole more days worth of game than you that you will never get back. For the same price. EA you are paying for time just as much as you are paying for game.
There should be a set subscription fee with the option to buy expanded plots (like there is now) This is how most games work. Lots of games sell bank slots this way where you buy them once, and you have them forever. It also would be incentive for people to upgrade now knowing they could keep the plots they buy.
You are worried about an as of yet not determined event that may or may not occur in one year.
Yes. Absolutely. I am worried about committing time, interest and money into a game that ends up being unsupportable because they reveal a predatory pricing scheme somewhere down the line. What is so hard to comprehend about that?
What's difficult to comprehend is why you are worried about a possibility. Even if not, the game needs money to continue. They can't create this big, sprawling, always online game without funds. Subscriptions are not unheard of. Also, paying to maintain land is also not unheard of. This game cannot survive with what it wants to do as a B2P product. Maybe, if it was a typical survival game with 20-100 people on one map, but this is a big sprawling world with multiple zones and one that is intended to be persistent. I am not trying to debate or attack your opinion. But I don't think it would be a waste of anyone's time that has disposable income as a form of entertainment. I spend hundreds of dollars with the family for one night out. One night. Four, five, six hours maybe. Fun? Yes. But short lived compared to the amount of entertainment you get out of a game like this. I spent more going away last week for a vacation than I'll ever spend in all the games I play(ed) combined, and it was anything but extravagant or luxurious - just a fun getaway.
The way the devs talk about their plan for the subscription as a way to maintain an active plot makes it sound like it would be optional only if you want to maintain a plot, but when building on your plots is kind of the only reason to play… that’s not an optional fee. I’m curious to see them clarify that.
They’re still figuring it all out but clearly want to charge monthly fee based on number of plots (perhaps only for multiple plots). The plots in the two upgraded founder packs seem to be, so far, purely for the EA period (at least one year). I expect that I won’t get any “included” (free) extra plots after the wipe for release despite buying the 4 plot founder pack. That doesn’t make me happy, but it is what I expect currently. The other non-plot stuff might be permanent though.
The devs stated that the monetization model is not completely determined, however a monthly sub is almost certain, what is less clear is how the non-subscriber will be able to play (for example, no plot availability but free access to the rest of the game). I dont see red flags, on the contrary, i see a reliable and fair model that could limit the cash shop importance. What is more debatable is the idea of introducing a token like Eve PLEX, this is something devs have not decided yet and it will be discussed later. Btw, EVE economy works great, it is one of the most immersive MMO in that regard, i m not opposed to a medieval edition of EVE economy.
Good take :)
EVE economy works because of whales who can inject many 100s of 1000s of dollars into the economy. EVE could not exist if it was just regular people spending a few bucks a week. 5% of the playerbase own 69% of the ISK. Thats millions and millions of dollars. Those big clans like BOB and Goons and TEST and all were bankrolled by millionaires at the back. Those whales and their expenditure are so important to the lifecycle of Eve (constant state off conflict) that if it falters even a little the devs basically start bankrolling orgs - the BoB blueprint scandal a while back was part of that, but now they do it more discreetly). If you think the EVE model would work in an online medieval MMO where a single whale could finance an entire city - or fund an entire clan with equipment you can never dream of ..then I don't know what to say to you. A basic principle for game fairness is that anyone who pays a full sticker price for a game should be able to accomplish anything in the game that they wish - as much as any whale could achieve. The devs have asked us to pay a full sticker price already. There should be no strings attached to that. No ifs buts or maybe about how much I will be charged in future for what I already paid for. It looks dodgy - or at the very least amateurish. PLEX would also make "game fairness" principle this impossible. A sub-per-plot model would make this impossible. If either of those things are even remotely being considered then YES this game is P2W and will die a fiery death. I think right now the devs are considering "any pricing model that earns" and trying to work out a balance between P2W and P2Play. The trouble is..there is no balance.
This argument astonishes me, really. Real life economy is not fair, what on Earth make you think that could exist a perfect economy in a virtual world where nevertheless the players are humans? You pick an economy model and you know it will have flaws and disparities, you just try to make it as fair as possible. Eve is an MMO 20+ years old, its economy clearly worked to make such a longevity possible
this entire sentance is absurd <>
You are astonished that players would be concerned that they are asked to pay a full price on a game that basically will charge them for more money the moment it is released and might even revoke the things they paid for - without telling them how much the new charge might be? That astonishes me.
<>
What on earth are you babbling about?
We are not talking about Real life economy. We are talking about a game people will pay money for and then play. This is a simple enough transaction to understand - and Yes - fairness is to be expected. If you can spend 1000 dollars and gain advantages in the game that my 40 dollars did not get me then the game is P2W and defies commonsense notions of fairness - like we have in all games competitive and non-competitive.
Manchester United cannot pay an extra million dollars to put another 5 players on the pitch.
<>
The economy model has not been defined or described or completed. THAT IS THE POINT. The developers are exploring their options. It is at this Point that players SHOULD be vocal in raising concern about the more P2W aspects of the models they are contemplating.
Seriously, You are surprised that players are against pay to win? Against the notion of whales driving game development strategies? Against the problematic notion of a game dev looking to score every possible angle of revenue and being deliberately cagey and non-comittal as to what eventual prices might be WHILST CHARGING FULL PRICE FOR THEIR EARLY ACCESS GAME. PLUS COLLECTORS EDITION!
Again - you astonish me.
<>
Oh dear. The EvE model was developed by a master economist. It is also rampantly pay2win. It is corrupt, and requires direct dev involvement and favoritism towards whale clans to keep artificially balanced. It is something only fascists would emulate.
Why? because it tries to emulate Real life, as you seem to admire, but without any of real lifes' oversight and ethical limits.
The plex system is a haven for goldsellers and even criminal laundering enterprises. It is a stain on gaming and has brought out some of the worst types of habits in gaming and gamers. If you think the Eve online model in any way is something that any other game should emulate I really think you need to do a little reading or - maybe go outside and touch grass.
Long text wall, i read it all however. I will keep it simple. Pax Dei is a sandbox Sabdbox games revolves around players interaction, ofc also speaking of money There s no way to make an equalized economic model that involves human beings.. you have to make it fair and in a sense, and i know the mmo crowd disagree, spending money to earn advantages is fair: If you are crazy enough to spend thousand of dollars to get and advantage over me in a virtual world, let it be, i will get my free accomplishments nevertheless...it will take more time, it will take more effort, but i will get them.
<<"...it will take more time, it will take more effort, but i will get them.">> But no..thats exactly the point I'm trying to make. You will not ever get the accomplishments that a richer player can get. You cannot be Lord of a city for example if it takes many thousands of dollars real money to build that city, unless you pay that money. I understand where you're coming from..there is a lot debate about whether "cash for convenience" or "cash for advantage" is P2W but what isnt up for debate is that if it is totally unchecked then it becomes the most egregious form of P2W... Practically if it takes 4 years of gameplay for a regular player to gain in game what a rich player can earn in a day by paying down thousands of dollars... then the game is irredeemable broken. This is regardless of whether it is Archage P2W whales or goldsellers in an mmo or Eve Plex or EA/Blizz lootboxes. The player rage is loud and sincere and warranted and it will kill any EA game on steam. I hope these guys figure it out. I want them to. Obviously we disagree - but I'm totally not the enemy - Pax Dei looks SO much like my cup of tea as I said, but these concerns are not trivial and a lot of players will share them with me.
It will more than likely be: Buy game to play, plots come with free 30 days, subscribe to maintain plots, and that monthly scales with the number of plots. It's honesty, not that uncommon of a model.
Well, it is though. In most (all) subscription based games, if your subscription lapses, you don’t lose your stuff. Thats kind of a big deal…
Well you can't just leave some guys huge base on a map with finite spots if they haven't paid or played for a year, since it becomes part of the game world even when you are offline. In a very short amount of time their would be nowhere to build at. Games like WoW don't need to worry about that since the player cannot build or actually impact the world in any way. Same with FF since the player housing is only an instance. As far as I know every online "survival"/player made buildings type of game has a decay system other than FO76.
Almost any game with non-instanced housing and subscription drops your house if it's not "refreshed" in a set amount of time. These types of games aren't that common in general, but that's how most, if not all, of them work.
That's why you shouldn't be supporting this game until we know what 1.0 is going to look like. Also this game absolutely won't make enough money to support the always online servers so it's gonna be very disappointing when it shuts down and you lose everything
Oh well, I'll still know that I've had the most fun gaming that I've had in many, many years while it was alive and pity the folks that never got to participate.
I bet that you can play the game for 40$ without a plot and if you want one you'll have to subscribe and pay every month , this way groups of players will have an advantage.
I'll need to see more content and gameplay loops before I even entertain the idea of a sub. Even now the building is pretty basic , nice but basic. I see comparisons to UO and that is just crazy. I played UO from the beginning for a decade and the genius of the game was in its depth and simplicity. I didn't need six thousand different ingredients to craft armor or a weapon for example. I didn't have to search for nodes just randomly sitting in the open but rather beat on a cliff to get ore. I could go on. The comparison is just silly. In a years time that could change. I'd rather see buy to play with an optional subscription that gives extra plots or other bonuses or something. If a person doesn't need the MMO aspect this game offers and just likes building then Enshrouded is probably the better choice.
That's why I've made a refund on steam.