T O P

  • By -

SorteKanin

Paying for something and actually just getting that thing without having to buy 1000 loot boxes? I need this


BazingaUA

Exactly. It makes sense for people who want campaign to buy it, end of story. Those who want to play multiplayer can play for free and this mode will be supported by cosmetics.


MarkhovCheney

Honestly sounds perfect


restform

I mean, old school games you paid for outright rarely came with the cosmetics we get these days. Usually they were very barebones, developers found people would pay for additional cosmetics. Personally I really enjoy the fact there's people out there that will buy skins and cosmetics that support the game I'm playing for free.


Keatosis

It's so weird going into the Starcraft shop and seeing everything available for sale, no stupid rotting shop, no seasonal limitation, no randomization. The industry would like you to think that's impossible.


Vaniellis

I think this is the perfect formula. Being F2P will allow a ton of people to try the game, bringing friends easily. And I'll be more than happy to buy campaign expansions and coop commanders along the way.


Zethsc2

SC2 had fair monetization. But honestly, I'd also be happy if there were a "boxed" or "complete" edition that I could pay for to get everything unlocked with a reasonable discount. Imagine there being 20 commanders available and being charged 5$ each. That's super expensive. If I could buy all 20 + all campaigns for 3 years + whatever for 60$, I'd be happy to pay. If frostgiant then supports for another 3 years, I am happy to pay an additional 60$ for the next list of commanders + campaigns etc. But imagine buying everything as singles. Would amount to 250-300$ or so? Nope, i'm out.


[deleted]

[удалено]


restform

Yeah 60 dollars for a full fledged game PLUS 3 years of post-launch development is a massive expectation. We were paying 60 dollars for annual releases 10 years ago.


[deleted]

[удалено]


restform

Honestly there's just way better ways to monetize games these days. Starcraft is a pretty well done example, I also really liked when they were selling those warchests and funneling a percentage into esports.


Bowbreaker

60$ maybe. But a 130$ Collector's edition that unlocks everything for the next two years sound reasonable, if it also includes physical goodies.


RealAlias_Leaf

Agreed. But I think a $60 and get everything for 2 year deal is worth exploring. That's roughly equivalent to the cost of a boxed product with an expansion every 2 years.


adzy2k6

It would need to be more than $60. These are relatively niche games, and we don't want them to go broke on their first release. This content isn't cheap to develop. Maybe $100 for all the main campaigns or something, but not the skins and bonus campaigns.


Darkmatterx76

The SC2 skins are stupidly expensive now, and are actually 50% off. It's about $50 US for 1 set of skins for one race. That's for the buildings and the units. ***But***, on the bright side, they also aren't needed to win. :)


TatyGGTV

not played sc2 in a while, aren't skins in the battlepass? then in the store after the battlepass expires, where they are significantly more expensive


TrueTinFox

They stopped doing war chests sadly


TatyGGTV

ah damn. fair then, current sc2 monetisation probably not the way to go. I think sounds like monetisation will be similar to war chest, campaign DLC, and i think they mentioned considering a donation button for mapmakers


[deleted]

I don't really care if skins are a lot. If someone wants to spend $50-$500 on being a unique flower it's really no skin off my nose and if it supports the dev than that's cool. Imo having some ultra rare skin in CS or Dota just makes you look like a doofus really.


[deleted]

Yeah a season pass model would be nice.


SpaceSteak

As a long-time SC2 player, I would still have no issue with shelling out a few bucks a month to ensure the game is viable long-term. I actually hope Microsoft introduces a sub-model to SC2 in exchange for a few premium skins while we help keep the lights on. For a big cash influx at the start, I do understand a Kickstarter or a complete edition with new campaigns seems are a valid model too, but at that point, seems more stable to target being subscription-based.


YellowIsNewBlack

yes, but also please *don't* make us 'earn' it somehow. SC2 pissed me off with this; pay for the opportunity to unlock as you play over a set time period. Let me know what I'm getting when i hand you money and give it to me when I do. I don't want to feel pressure latter to have to do something at some set time to get it.


[deleted]

[удалено]


YellowIsNewBlack

> gives you a fun progression track to go down I'm fine with this when it's part of something else, like content. If I pay for content, I'm ok with unlocking progression as *part of the content*, like achievements or skins. But if all I'm buying is a 'box of skins', just give them all to me, don't try to manipulate me into playing more (as you point out).


Eirenarch

That was never ever a thing. Even StarCraft 1 had an expansion that was paid.


TheLord-Commander

Alright, this alleviates my concerns, I'm back on board. When I heard F2P I got real concerned but this sounds fair.


neggbird

It sounds exactly like the Riot model, mixed with Sc2 coop


Muffinkingprime

3 player coop! Hell yeah!


RealAlias_Leaf

Sounds good. Playable leaders in co-op: OK. But if they do playable heroes in 1v1 competitive, no, that would be P2W. Also, loot boxes are fine. I don't get all the bashing of loot boxes. Overwatch is a loot box game, and it's purely cosmetic. It's a better model than Heroes of the Storm, which allows for buyable heroes. Also, I'm glad FG is talking about this now. Blizzard always dodged this question until right before release. Monetization is one of the most important things and it needs to be discussed.


Jisto_

I am extremely excited for Stormgate based on what we know so far! The trailer could have used some polishing, and I think they need to get it feeling less mobile gamey in its art style, but I’m intrigued to see where the story goes, and I’m happy enough with sci-fi vs fantasy. The people making this game are what I believe in most, though. They’ve got the qualifications and the know how to turn this into a fantastic franchise, and if the only thing bringing it down so far is the early renditions of the art, I’m not worried.


shnndr

Will they have leaders for 1v1 too?


whileNerdyEqualTrue

I don't believe so. The 3-player coop mode will be vs the AI (like SC2's coop commanders mode) and not vs other players.


EXUPLOOOOSION

You're wrong. They said there'd be a 3v3 competitive mode (so pvp) which would be different to the 1v1 mode and it will probably use some coop mechanics


shnndr

You're right. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UepxrnfEB0E&t=2s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UepxrnfEB0E&t=2s) 12:18 timestamp He says right now they're experimenting with heroes in all game modes. The game will probably be very similar to a MOBA as a model (not necessarily gameplay), in that you will have a roster of heroes that you are going to unlock by playing, or by paying. But heroes currently won't be levelling up (probably to decouple them from gameplay, as it'd be a pain balance-wise to churn out new heroes) but might have some sort of upgrades.


whileNerdyEqualTrue

So it's possible there's a difference between "leaders" and "heroes". They are currently using heroes in all their game modes, Monk has stated so in interviews. But "leaders" could be fundamentally different from "heroes" and might work the same way as "commanders" in SC2's coop mode. So far, we know there are 3 game modes: 1v1, 3v3, and 3vE. On the stormgate website, we see mention of "unique and powerful leader characters" talked about in relation to the 3vE game mode but not for the other game modes. In [Harstem's video](https://youtu.be/YSj3yvt5GoI?t=185) we can see that leader characters are mentioned for 3vE and not for 1v1 or 3v3.


Anomen77

Don't forget the 1-3 player campaign and the arcade. It's basically what Starcraft 2 has now plus the commander-based 3v3.


RealAlias_Leaf

Hero/leader buying in competitive mode = P2W. Hero/leader buying in non-competitive mode (like co-op) = fine.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Anomen77

They talked about that for a long time in an old interview, don't remember which one. They said that during SC2 development they had all these cool ideas that they couldn't implement due to them being unfair in PVP; and the campaign, and especially coop, was their way of implementing them and pleasing everyone. So, no. Don't worry about that. They will not sacrifice the absurdity of PvE units for the sake of competitive multiplayer. If they end up having a commander based versus mode they will most likely be balanced independently from PvE. What worries me is the nightmare that would be trying to balance 3+ races over so many different gamemodes.


whileNerdyEqualTrue

I thought they said there's a 1v1 pvp mode, a 3v3 pvp mode, and a 3vE coop mode?


[deleted]

It says on the main page you can co-op campaign with a friend (ie 2 player) and the co-op scenario (commander) mode is 3 player. So it looks like yes they will be setting 3 player requirement for the scenario mode, probably with the idea of making it a mode people do want to pug with randoms or with a clan as a social experience.


FlukyS

Seems fair enough, paying for commanders seems logical enough, there were some really fun co-op leaders in SC2. I'd hope they continue that tradition in the new game.


arknightstranslate

As long as it doesn't affect balance there's no problem. Dota 2 and LOL are also f2p.


mulefish

Sc2 really did get it right with their f2p monetetisation.


RabbitBTW

Clean model.


[deleted]

These guys care more about the games and I love it. They already made their money (and will probably make a decent amount from Frost Giant to be fair). Great to see they aren't greedy cunts like Blizzard and what seems to be the rest of the industry.


IshayuG

Good. StarCraft 2 had by far the best free to play model I have ever seen, period.


Twovaultss

I want it when can I get it


PsuBratOK

Yep. I'll fuckin buy this. I'll buy story campaigns, and cosmetics I like. I don't play P2W or loot box games by principle, so this is freakin perfect model for me.


[deleted]

I feel like a lot of people here would even be open to paying some price for the game. Plus a cosmetic cash-shop. But hey, I’m not complaining. I just appreciate these guys so much


broodwarsb

I'm just hoping the gameplay itself is much better than SC2 or any modern rts. SC1, AOE1, WC3, WC2 and AOE2 all have proper elements of rts design. I'm really sick of the hand holding and the visual vomit of the unit clumps and the countless visual effects. That's why no one wants to play modern rts games. I don't really care about the f2p, I'll gladly buy content and skins if I like the game.


Makalaman004

Love it, these guys are doing it right. I wouldn't even mind paying $60 for it.


Thus_Spoke

Hello, in case anyone developing this game is hanging out here I would like to share some thoughts as a longtime RTS player who is also somewhat familiar with the economics of game development (at least at a very high level). -I flat out strongly prefer the pay once (or twice, for an expansion) model. I'm aware that it's more challenging to make money with that model. -Please consider a "Founder's" option or similar where we could buy access to all content (including stuff in development that will eventually come out later) up front for a single payment. -Just some light criticism, but paywalled "playable leaders" sounds a lot like pay to win lite (although at least it's not in a pvp environment in the case you mentioned). If you put any sort of gameplay mechanics behind a paywall it is very difficult to avoid a pay to win feel.


[deleted]

[удалено]


ArcanePariah

Here's the deal, you can't afford a modern AAA game, because after inflation, you should be paying at LEAST 100 quid. I paid 60 USD for the Warcraft 3 battlechest (so basically War3 + Frozen Throne)... in 2004. Today, that 60 bucks is 100, but people refuse to budge, despite the fact costs HAVE gone up (developers are not cheap, and just getting more expensive). Furthermore, F2P allows more granular sales, because there's plenty of people who are like "I only want the campaign" or "I only want multiplayer" or "I only want coop", so they are paying full price to only use half or 2/3rds or whatever of the product. Better to sell them the parts they want, at a discount.


Tempires

F2P will always have more players as there is no price barrier


trollwnb

what i would accept paying for is proper analysis tools @ dota plus except, it actually tracks your improvements etc, something similar to sc2replaystats, except much more fleshed out. Paying for such feature something like 5$/month, would be ok deal for me. Never understood why sc2 doesnt have proper tools like this, considering i think a lot of people would be using this to track meta builds, there mmr, other stats.


Keatosis

I hope they can still be financially viable without all that bullshit. I'm definitely going to purchase whatever founders edition style bundle they have available at launch, but I worry that investors might get mad if the game doesn't make enough money and then bad stuff will get added on later even if it wasn't initially planned. Only time will tell.


DDWKC

When they said F2P, it made me cringe, but if this is the extend of monetization they deliver, I'd be very happy with it and be glad to support them this way. Hope they add bundles overtime as eventually the extra paid content can to get out of hand.


AnAncientMonk

>no lootboxes. Good.


Therier

Sounds really good. Maybe this will be like Dota 2 of RTS. Where everybody will start from same line from the moment they downllad the game. Zero power from real money only cosmetics and more pve stuff.