What would justify a Fallout 1st style paid subscription to you in RDO?

[RyuNova]

23 hours ago, Ronin Ogami said:

 Please, Ryu. Give It. Up. This game ISN'T/IS NO WHERE NEAR at a good enough point to consider it.

 

I don't know if you skipped the entire topic after reading the title, don't know what has actually been said or have no idea what Fallout 76 is but you seem to have completely missed the point. Enough to slightly annoy me with that post but I will be civil.

 

First off, I do not want a subscription service in RDO. Ever. At all. Do not mistake me asking a hypothetical question as wanting one.

 

Secondly, as I said above this is a hypothetical scenario to make conversation, nothing more. It's for fun, if the idea of something like this gets you so worked up you can't think straight then perhaps you need to find a different pastime just for a while.

 

Thirdly I am basing this entire scenario off of what Bethesda (The makers of amazing Single Player games like Morrowind, Oblivion, Skyrim, FO3 and FO4) did with their quasi-MMO Online FO4 spin-off Fallout 76. They recently implimented Fallout 1st, a subscription to FO76 where you pay for perks. I posted the reward sheet above, its not something I made up to try and justify this topic.

 

You seem to think that R* would care about all the bugs currently plaguing RDO before they implemented it...again I refer you back to FO76 and FO1st. The game this ENTIRE topic is based upon.

 

Bethesda said that "Private Worlds" would be coming, they never said we would have to pay for them and to be honest...until FO76 Bethesda had a great track record where as R* did not. Do you honestly think that Take2 would pass up a chance to get even more money from people by implementing something people want?

 

But Again, i must insist that you don't mistake me making conversation as anything but. I know where this forum lies in the R* fan sphere.

10 minutes ago, ShadowlessDevil said:

No point in speculating because it wouldn't happen. 

 

No? Can you give me a valid and logical reason that not based on the feelings of a small group of players why R*/T2 would ignore the chance to make even more money? You do realise that the guy that runs Take2(Who own R*) said that he thinks Microtransactions were "underutilised" in GTAO? The game that's made billions of dollars did not have enough Microtransactions in it...and you think this is impossible.

Edited November 19, 2019 by RyuNova

[ALifeOfMisery]

15 minutes ago, RyuNova said:

You do realise that the guy that runs Take2(Who own R*) said that he thinks Microtransactions were "underutilised" in GTAO? The game that's made billions of dollars did not have enough Microtransactions in it...and you think this is impossible.

The full quotes, just to flesh out our dear overlord Strauss, speaking about GTA V/GTAO, the most profitable entertainment product in history:

 

"We are convinced that we are probably from an industry view undermonetizing on a per-user basis. There is wood to chop because I think we can do more, and we can do more without interfering with our strategy of being the most creative and our ethical approach, which is delighting consumers."

 

"You can't give stuff away for free in perpetuity; there's no business model in that,"

 

And my personal favourites:

 

"But we're not trying to optimize the monetization of everything we do to the nth degree. My concern is, if you do that, the consumer knows. They might not even know that they know, but they feel it."

 

"We're not going to grab the last nickel"

Edited November 19, 2019 by ALifeOfMisery

[Lonely-Martin]

^ I liked the freeloader crap too. Comedy gold that!

[RyuNova]

4 minutes ago, ALifeOfMisery said:

"We are convinced that we are probably from an industry view undermonetizing on a per-user basis. There is wood to chop because I think we can do more, and we can do more without interfering with our strategy of being the most creative and our ethical approach, which is delighting consumers."

 

Exactly. They know there is still stuff they can charge for and they will. They know that people want Invite Only sessions. They saw the popularity of Solo Public Sessions and of the Role Play community. Do people seriously think they won't try and monetise that?

 

You are not forced, with a knife pressed against you genitals, to subscribe to this and the Perks offered are not game breaking.

[Bakkerbaard]

59 minutes ago, ALifeOfMisery said:

I've got a feeling that what this is, is the empty lobby that the game purposely puts you in when doing the first mission for a new stranger, or a bounty where another player is blocking the spawn point of a target etc.

Looking out over Great Plains, watching two war parties duking it out, ruining all chances of peacefull hunting, I'm just gonna sit here in my fancy new chair and hope really hard.

You know, Oprah says that if you really, really want something it will come to you.

 

Between this and the state lottery I'll be back next week with some strong opinions on Oprah.

[ShadowlessDevil]

1 hour ago, RyuNova said:

 

 

 

No? Can you give me a valid and logical reason that not based on the feelings of a small group of players why R*/T2 would ignore the chance to make even more money? You do realise that the guy that runs Take2(Who own R*) said that he thinks Microtransactions were "underutilised" in GTAO? The game that's made billions of dollars did not have enough Microtransactions in it...and you think this is impossible.

In order to implement that, they would need to come up with Monthly content that is worth the amount players would pay. 15 Gold bars is a joke, I make that every 2 days. I'm aware what was said in an interview, if he really wanted to do such a thing why wasn't it implemented when the game came out?  Implementing it now wouldn't be a good idea, business wise. 

 

Do you seriously think people will pay money to get a new weapon or item a week earlier? I wouldn't because I know it will come out the week after. 

 

 

[TankGirl]

I pay a subscription for Elder Scroll Online but for me that was well worth it because I get free exclusives, discounts on new items, free DLC acsess and crowns which are used to make purchases. Also on Eso its a choice to PvP or not which is nice.

 

For me to do the same for Red Dead I would like much more mission content, the ability to buy homes, and the ability to create your own server. I play Ark and on that game we get to create our own server which does come with a monthly server fee but with RDO that fee could be part of subscription.  That would be nice because then can set server as a PvP or PvE. I just personally would not pay for a subscription for a game that I could not play as I please. If Rock Star implemented that along with free gold every month, exclusive items and discounts then I would not mind. Subscription would not be forced either, if people do not want it they do not need to buy it to play the game.  To keep it fair anything given for free to subscription members would not give them an advantage over other players who do not pay for it. Free items can be cosmetic like special outfits, holsters ect. That would work for me anyways. 

 

With that said though R would have to stay on top of new content and would they be able to do that to the point where people actually are willing to pay a sub fee? I dont know if they can.

Edited November 19, 2019 by TankGirl

[RyuNova]

40 minutes ago, ShadowlessDevil said:

Do you seriously think people will pay money to get a new weapon or item a week earlier? I wouldn't because I know it will come out the week after. 

 

 

Yes, lets go back six years. Did you honestly think that people would pay real world money to purchase fake money to buy toys in a video game? When you can earn that money in the game? Or lets go back even further, remember when Bethesda released the Horse Armour for Oblivion for three dollars and got utterly destroyed by gamers and the industry alike? And look where we are now, hundreds of dollars per cosmetic item.

 

All it takes is a little push...

[Leftover Pizza]

41 minutes ago, TankGirl said:

I pay a subscription for Elder Scroll Online but for me that was well worth it because I get free exclusives, discounts on new items, free DLC acsess and crowns which are used to make purchases. Also on Eso its a choice to PvP or not which is nice.

 

For me to do the same for Red Dead I would like much more mission content, the ability to buy homes, and the ability to create your own server. I play Ark and on that game we get to create our own server which does come with a monthly server fee but with RDO that fee could be part of subscription.  That would be nice because then can set server as a PvP or PvE. I just personally would not pay for a subscription for a game that I could not play as I please. If Rock Star implemented that along with free gold every month, exclusive items and discounts then I would not mind. Subscription would not be forced either, if people do not want it they do not need to buy it to play the game.  To keep it fair anything given for free to subscription members would not give them an advantage over other players who do not pay for it. Free items can be cosmetic like special outfits, holsters ect. That would work for me anyways. 

 

With that said though R would have to stay on top of new content and would they be able to do that to the point where people actually are willing to pay a sub fee? I dont know if they can.

 

They'd have to come up with new areas from time to time too, to not have the current world being worn out. I really don't think they'd ever go that way or keep the playable content fresh, character development too. They don't have many options to go all MMORPG with this game and they shouldn't either. 

I have never seen a successful multiplayer game, based on the single player version within the same game world as the single player version too. 

 

 

11 minutes ago, RyuNova said:

 

Yes, lets go back six years. Did you honestly think that people would pay real world money to purchase fake money to buy toys in a video game? When you can earn that money in the game? Or lets go back even further, remember when Bethesda released the Horse Armour for Oblivion for three dollars and got utterly destroyed by gamers and the industry alike? And look where we are now, hundreds of dollars per cosmetic item.

 

All it takes is a little push...

 

You can go even further back to mobile games, where microtransactions took a flight and netted the developers millions with minimum effort, while the same currencies could be earned over time too. We thank microtransactions in current online games to that concept. 

The difference with this and mobile games is, is that most mobile games are freemiums and Rockstar has us to pay for access to the free version, by buying the single player game. 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Leftover Pizza

[RyuNova]

7 minutes ago, Leftover Pizza said:

The difference with this and mobile games is, is that most mobile games are freemiums and Rockstar has us to pay for access to the free version, by buying the single player game. 

 

You have to buy stuff like WoW, TESO and FO76. Hell, WoW and TESO charge you for the DLC and then for the Premium Membership on top of the initial price and they have MILLIONS of subscribers.

 

I can see why people are against this and I agree but please, don't act like it's new and untested waters.

[Leftover Pizza]

5 minutes ago, RyuNova said:

 

You have to buy stuff like WoW, TESO and FO76. Hell, WoW and TESO charge you for the DLC and then for the Premium Membership on top of the initial price and they have MILLIONS of subscribers.

 

I can see why people are against this and I agree but please, don't act like it's new and untested waters.

 

WoW doesn't really do DLC. They release game expansions, which get updates (could be considered DLC) for free. You currently only pay for the last expansion and get all previous included. Over 15 years of runtime, that's a lot you don't have to pay for. I've stuck thousands in this game during the years I played. Worth it? Absolutely. 

 

Also, WoW and Teso don't really have a single player game which the Online version expands to, like GTAV and RDR2. I have no experience with FO.

 

Edited November 19, 2019 by Leftover Pizza

[Lonely-Martin]

28 minutes ago, ShadowlessDevil said:

In order to implement that, they would need to come up with Monthly content that is worth the amount players would pay.

All due respect to that though, R* launched online pretty bare and expected players to buy gold by adding the gold store to a beta test, lol. And they did. R* already know they don't need to offer too much.

 

1 hour ago, ShadowlessDevil said:

I'm aware what was said in an interview, if he really wanted to do such a thing why wasn't it implemented when the game came out?  Implementing it now wouldn't be a good idea, business wise. 

It's the job of the top brass to evolve and always look for the potential to increase revenue and shares. That's the issue I feel, we're at an age where anything can be pulled so they can add it later or at a premium. It'd be bad business to not explore any potential revenue that shows itself as the game goes on, whatever it is.

 

And GTA:O has shown they're very happy to reskin discarded or dropped story content/ideas for online too. (And break things or hamper balance with it, lol).

 

But I feel it'd have to show to be profitable for Fallout before it gets truly considered here, so here's hoping they just add them in hope to appeal to more for free and this becomes a non-issue. After all, more players means more potential gold sales.

[TankGirl]

7 hours ago, Leftover Pizza said:

 

They'd have to come up with new areas from time to time too, to not have the current world being worn out. I really don't think they'd ever go that way or keep the playable content fresh, character development too. They don't have many options to go all MMORPG with this game and they shouldn't either. 

I have never seen a successful multiplayer game, based on the single player version within the same game world as the single player version too. 

 

 

True. I was just saying what would be needed for me to consider to  pay for a sub to the game. I do not think R is capable or maybe they arnt even interested, who knows? Anyways I would just be happy if my camp would stop disappearing at this point.

[éX-Driver]

Translation: “how could rockstar strip away basic features from a full-priced game and increase the grind so that you’d be willing to fork over more money just to make the game work the way it should?”

 

why would you even make this topic?

[ALifeOfMisery]

4 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

 

why would you even make this topic?

To be fair to @RyuNova I think it's a relevent hypothetical question to ask after Bethesda introduced a premium subscription to FO 76.

 

It wouldn't come as a surprise to me if R* announced a premium subscription for RDO, far from it given their monitization of GTAO especially.

 

This topic was always going to be divisive, but that alone shouldn't inherently mean that the topic shouldn't have been created.

[RyuNova]

5 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

Translation: “how could rockstar strip away basic features from a full-priced game and increase the grind so that you’d be willing to fork over more money just to make the game work the way it should?”

 

 

Yes. Greedy money grubbing company wants to make even more from their product. More at five, sky is blue and fire is hot. I dont see why people are getting so worked up about this hypothetical situation. 

 

@ALifeOfMisery

 

Thank you.

[Bakkerbaard]

4 hours ago, ALifeOfMisery said:

It wouldn't come as a surprise to me if R* announced a premium subscription for RDO, far from it given their monitization of GTAO especially.

Actually, it would surprise me if they did.

From what I understand there's a fair, and as far as I'm concerned, justified backlash  about the Fallout thing, which they surely noticed.

And I think they'll kill Red Dead if they implenent it which I believe they understand.

I'm sure they'd be interested in squeezing all the money out of this game, but I'm guessing (blindly, I should add) the money they can milk out of a subscription doesn't measure up the money they can make by being fair(ish).

[Lonely-Martin]

9 hours ago, éX-Driver said:

Translation: “how could rockstar strip away basic features from a full-priced game and increase the grind so that you’d be willing to fork over more money just to make the game work the way it should?”

To be fair though, this thread is more a representation of how much R* do that anyway and how easy it is for us to expect more of these monitising methods. Most anything that 'works' in an online game like this these days is all stuff I expect these guys to try and find ways to charge players or offer paid shortcuts.

[RyuNova]

17 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

Actually, it would surprise me if they did.

From what I understand there's a fair, and as far as I'm concerned, justified backlash  about the Fallout thing, which they surely noticed.

And I think they'll kill Red Dead if they implenent it which I believe they understand.

I'm sure they'd be interested in squeezing all the money out of this game, but I'm guessing (blindly, I should add) the money they can milk out of a subscription doesn't measure up the money they can make by being fair(ish).

 

The issue is not with the subscription by itself. The issue is with the price, its content, the current state of FO76 and the fact that the most anticipated Update for the game was delayed and FO1st was paraded out in its place.

 

As much as people piss and moan about RDO its bug free compared to FO76 so if R* made it worth it and made it a fair price I could see it happening.

[ALifeOfMisery]

57 minutes ago, RyuNova said:

The issue is with the price, its content, the current state of FO76 and the fact that the most anticipated Update for the game was delayed and FO1st was paraded out in its place.

Exactly.

 

There would have been a backlash upon the announcement of FO 1st anyway, but the backlash was exacerbated because Bethesda decided to launch FO 1st while FO 76 is still a bug ridden mess, because the price of the subscription is higher than the price of the base game and because the update that was meant to fix said bugs while also fleshing out the world, adding NPC's etc. was delayed until after the subscription was implemented.

 

If Bethesda had gotten their ducks in a row, released the promised and anticipated DLC and priced FO 1st more conservatively, the backlash would possibly have been muted in comparison to what we've seen. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by ALifeOfMisery

[Lonely-Martin]

12 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

And I think they'll kill Red Dead if they implenent it which I believe they understand.

(Ended up as a bit of a ramble, apologies for that. TL:DR though. More a general response to all than aimed at you as others share your view too).

 

I don't see this killing RDRO, if it was added though. Not if it's just another option but doesn't force it or add items to change the balance. (I use that term very loosely, lol).

 

Reason being, I see this as no different than R* withholding content to recreate a theme DLC or dripfeed to us in hope to increase recurring spending in GTA, like the casino or DDH. That game only grew for it while many here really do object to that direction too. Plus we know private lobby options are there and they created them, so they're potentially withholding content/features to potentially release later again already.

 

The worse that'll happen is not many will buy into it, but as they're already ready to go, it wouldn't cost R* anything to find out. Plus we live in an era where many games are withholding content to improve recurring spending, we expect that now - The more casual masses have accepted this way that gaming is now, a service to milk, I mean increase persistent revenue and buy into long term for so many. This, GTA, Fortnite, Minecraft, this Fallout thing. It's not like we're United enough to 'Battlefront this bitch' lol. (Which I would rather do and see things better all round).

 

I mean, while a videogame has ways to earn currency/items, I'll never be a recurring spender. Which we know is a key target for T2 to improve.

 

To us, it's a game. To Strauss and his cronies, it's a business plan we know is in place for a fact thanks to them being a public company that loves to talk about gamers as though we're just numbers. Granted, we are, but they are so cold and clearly in a different world looking down, especially with the R* games and how little they appreciate us to offer proper customer support or communicate. 

 

Can only expect to be bitten by sharks after all, and we're surrounded by 'em, and these f*ckers smell blood, lol. Hence the bare beta with a gold store, and more. Anyway, as I said before, I can't argue with the objections to this type of thing, just see it as no different to what they already do and succeed so well with. Unfortunately.

[RyuNova]

37 minutes ago, ALifeOfMisery said:

If Bethesda had gotten their ducks in a row, released the promised and anticipated DLC and priced FO 1st more conservatively, the backlash would possibly have been muted in comparison to what we've seen. 

 

Thats what I think R* is doing. Waiting for the waters to calm and to see what the gamers find acceptable.

[Bakkerbaard]

@RyuNova

I never experienced much bugs beyond what is to be execpted for something like this really.

The only real problem that keeps happening is that I keep getting confronted by that RDO gets better with less people in it.

 

@Lonely-Martin

I keep overlooking that in this particular hypothesis one option would not exclude the other. 

Would there be a choice between either option this subscription nonsense is viable, yeah.

Still a slap in the face though.

 

I just get rather worked up by the idea, as I see my favourite (and currently only) hobby change into somekind of monster. It was to be expected ofcourse, as soon as videogames became mainstream and proved to be very lucerative, but sometimes an old man just hopes.

[RyuNova]

3 minutes ago, Bakkerbaard said:

I never experienced much bugs beyond what is to be execpted for something like this really.

 

 

I think the bug situation in RDO is vastly exaggerated as well. Yes, not being able to pitch your camp is bad but imagine if every time you logged off you lost everything in your inventory. Those are game breaking bugs.

[Leftover Pizza]

35 minutes ago, RyuNova said:

 

I think the bug situation in RDO is vastly exaggerated as well. Yes, not being able to pitch your camp is bad but imagine if every time you logged off you lost everything in your inventory. Those are game breaking bugs.

 

That depends. To be able to play the Trader role, you'll have to be able to utilise your camp AND you need animal spawns to get the job done. The lack of either element, or both of them, is pretty much game breaking. A role that only can be done right when in a low populated lobby, but an automated lobby merger is at play and prevents you from playing in a low populated lobby, is not a bug perse. It's a daft design. 

[RyuNova]

2 minutes ago, Leftover Pizza said:

That depends. To be able to play the Trader role, you'll have to be able to utilise your camp AND you need animal spawns to get the job done. The lack of either element, or both of them, is pretty much game breaking. A role that only can be done right when in a low populated lobby, but an automated lobby merger is at play and prevents you from playing in a low populated lobby, is not a bug perse. It's a daft design. 

 

Not to get into tit for tat but thats not a game breaking bug. Logging into to find your entire inventory and all your weapons have vanished is a game breaking bug.

[Leftover Pizza]

Just now, RyuNova said:

 

Not to get into tit for tat but thats not a game breaking bug. Logging into to find your entire inventory and all your weapons have vanished is a game breaking bug.

 

It broke the game enough for me to delete it. The example you give is not one of the issues here and shouldn't be a measurement for other issues in the game. The vanishing camps and wildlife is. Everyone can think of a good few things that are far more game breaking than the current camp/wildlife issues, but those are not at play here. 

[4eyedcoupe]

54 minutes ago, RyuNova said:

 

I think the bug situation in RDO is vastly exaggerated as well. Yes, not being able to pitch your camp is bad but imagine if every time you logged off you lost everything in your inventory. Those are game breaking bugs.

Right, Bugs in RDO are over exaggerated.  Imagine logging in one day to find that your 100+ day daily streak was reset for no reason.

 

 

OH Wait, that actually did happen

[Lonely-Martin]

1 hour ago, Bakkerbaard said:

 

 

@Lonely-Martin

I keep overlooking that in this particular hypothesis one option would not exclude the other. 

Would there be a choice between either option this subscription nonsense is viable, yeah.

Still a slap in the face though.

 

I just get rather worked up by the idea, as I see my favourite (and currently only) hobby change into somekind of monster. It was to be expected ofcourse, as soon as videogames became mainstream and proved to be very lucerative, but sometimes an old man just hopes.

Yeah, I do agree it does become a slap in the face too. And your second paragraph resonates with me very much too, though I had that phase during GTA:O and am just a more cynical sod for it I'm afraid to say.

 

I don't mean to bring folk down with my thoughts, and I truly hope to see this phase of gaming improve so much. Plus I'm not ever against companies looking to earn good money like this stuff can generate as it can hopefully lead to better and bigger games. Sometimes I just can't help myself, lol.

[TankGirl]

58 minutes ago, Leftover Pizza said:

 

It broke the game enough for me to delete it. The example you give is not one of the issues here and shouldn't be a measurement for other issues in the game. The vanishing camps and wildlife is. Everyone can think of a good few things that are far more game breaking than the current camp/wildlife issues, but those are not at play here. 

You are so right. That is all.