Zero Energon Server

Whilst F2F is good fun, the P2W elements are hard to swallow. I believe it's safe to say this is the consensus of the community, even for those who are willing to pay up as there's always someone willing to pay more. (Personally, the idea of spending enough money to buy a bunch of AAA PC games for virtual dice rolls on new characters or endless raid grinding in a Streetfighter-lite mobile game is hilarious but people are obviously doing it.)

The necessity of introducing paywall barriers to progress in order to fund servers, development and profits in a F2P game is an ugly reality in a game where it's unlikely that users will pay for cosmetics.

I was wondering if there was an appetite in the community for a "Zero Energon Server". Users would pay a small monthly subscription to play on a server (or, you know, shard, world, whatever you want to call it) where all P2W elements (i.e. the existence of Energon) would be removed to allow players an even playing field. This side of the game would have to be completely separate from what would probably remain the core F2P server. Users would have to start a new account (perhaps with some token bonus for transferring an account over, such as a basic free roster to be able to immediately engage in AM/Away Missions/Base Defence etc.) to prevent buy and switch tactics.

Thoughts?

Comments

  • MustangjonMustangjon Posts: 1,146
    If people want to be f2p how are they gonna pay for a subscription? And if doing so say as you assume majority of playerbase jumps there. Then their revenue stream goes away. As well what is incentive on a f2p server to get new bots ect that's part of the microtransaction business model keep new stuff so people pay to keep up with the jones persay
  • SepSep Posts: 22
    People can stay on F2P server if they want- nobody is forcing a move.
    I wouldn't assume the majority of the user base would move. I imagine it will be much smaller than the F2P version.
    I did say you'd pay a subscription, so the revenue would still be there.
    The incentives are the same to get new bots on both servers, I don't see how this is an issue. New bots would be more valuable on the Energonless server, you may have to compensate with higher drop rates for everyone as there would be no need to drip crystal shards out to frustrate users into buying crystals.
  • AmanoAmano Posts: 318
    Won't happen... ever
  • Joker69Joker69 Posts: 345
    How is paying for a subscription f2p?
  • SepSep Posts: 22
    edited May 2017
    How is paying for a subscription f2p?

    It isn't...obviously.

    "Users would pay a small monthly subscription to play" "This side [the Zero Energon server] of the game would have to be completely separate from what would probably remain the core F2P server."
  • Alkaiser_93Alkaiser_93 Posts: 249
    Your idea it's too complex and basically what you suggest it's that Kabam should completly change their bussisness model, which they won't
  • SepSep Posts: 22
    I'm not suggesting they change their model at all, just add a new one.

    I know they won't, I just thought it was a nice idea. Apparently I'm wrong though. *shrug*
  • Alkaiser_93Alkaiser_93 Posts: 249
    Sep wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting they change their model at all, just add a new one
    I know they won't, I just thought it was a nice idea. Apparently I'm wrong though. *shrug*

    You're not wrong. Thing it's Kabam has already an established bussisness model and somehow, it turned out pretty good for them. Perhaps on a future release or a different game it'd be a great idea, though.
  • ZapperZapper Posts: 186
    In short: It's impossible to earn that much money with subscription based models. That's why everybody switched away from them.

    People tend to spend way more money on micro transactions then on subscriptions. Even most AAA games are switching to generating major money from in game micro transactions, so it's save to say, for now, the subscription model is a dead parrot.
  • TerminalTerminal Posts: 789
    The problem is, the game was designed with the monetisation model in mind, in most cases for mobile games the monetisation model comes first and the game is built around it.

    Changing the model would require a different kind of game. 0 energon would mean everyone has 4* max rank max everything and there's really nothing to do at that point. The purpose of all the events is to gain resources, if all the resources are free and unlimited most the game doesn't make sense, there's no grind anymore.
  • SepSep Posts: 22
    Resources wouldn't be unlimited, they'd be more limited. It would mean fewer people would have max rank anything, not the reverse.
  • TerminalTerminal Posts: 789
    So what do people get for paying? What's different to playing the current game without spending, just a better chance at arena rewards?
  • SepSep Posts: 22
    Everything except bog standard quests is affected by the P2W mechanics. They all rely on you competing with others.
  • tekkn1kaltekkn1kal Posts: 430
    Whether you agree or disagree with the guy's idea, I don't understand why everyone is having such a difficult time with the concept.

    He wants it to be "capped spending" i.e. it isn't free ... he understands they need to make money and have server costs and the like, but he wants to play in an environment where real life currency doesn't have the potential to gain you an advantage, only gives you the same access to the game that everyone has.

    Now, just for the sake of discussion, I would suggest that your idea should still have energon, just not the ability to buy it with cash. The energon model is actually completely fine and allows people to spend their in-game currency to upgrade, expand their roster, or buy items to compete in events they are too weak for otherwise. There is nothing particularly wrong with having energon, it is just the idea that you can spend cash on it that leaves a bad taste in many peoples' mouth.

    Anyways, like many have said, it will never happen, because it won't make Kabam more money than they are making with the current model, even if it is an alternative server option. They would probably stand to lose money in that venture, because I think a lot of people actually would hop over to that platform, and they'd make far less money there.
Sign In or Register to comment.