1944 : For Free?

[RonanHayes]

This is another discussion thread, so I thought i would throw some ideas out there simply because it is becoming more and more evident that gamers who pirate games are talking a load of bollox.



They pirate the game to try it out

No Demo Available
DRM Enabled

They Pirate it because it's Single Player Only

The list of useless excuses are endless, going by our own polls there are alot of users here who pirate games and use the same excuses.

Well I don't buy that for a second any more, just a quick google of DemiGod shows that alot of people are pirating even though there is no DRM. So they can't exactly claim to be "Sticking it to the MAN", and it's also a feature rich Multiplayer Experience, from indie developers, published by an indie publisher....

Zeno Clash (you've probably seen it pushed on STEAM) is another indie game by a small time developer, who again is having their game torrented. They admit they have no demo and are hoping that those who pirate the game on the pretence that if they like it they will buy it (who are they kidding). Appealing to the pirates better judgement to support the indie team.

So here we have 2 indie games getting priated rather heavily, and it would appear that no matter who releases a game (DRM or Not), (Multiplayer or Not), (Demo or Not) ... people will still pirate the game.

So feel free to discuss what you feel is the best possible way to release 1944 so as to avoid Piracy.

[RonanHayes]

Free Model

So for arguement sake let's say we release a free client, that allows everyone access to play the game. The only way we could support development is to ensure that we receive enough advertising and/or donations to help push the game forward.

This could be achieved by releasing a free client with say Carentan full developed, then give a price tag for CAEN eg: €20,000. Then have an advertising / donation drive to try and raise the capital to complete CAEN. Those people who wish to support the game will do so, and we by-pass the piracy issue instantly.

Pros


It's free
Piracy would be non existent
Community would drive the game forward

Cons


Development would be slow
Development would rely on advertising/community donations
Development could halt at any given time


Pay Model

Next would be a pay model, now this would be the standard model that all games are sold on. Pay X amount and get the game. While it would really be a balancing act trying to get the right price bracket for the game. If we were to sell the game for €60 a pop and managed to get 1000 people to buy the game that's €60,000. Not enough to cover development but it's a nice lump of money.

On the other hand if we wer to charge €60 the game would be pirated and we would be supporting the game for those people who have not paid for it. So alternatively something along the lines of €5 or €10 may be a better route to go. It's a small sum of money and anyone who is willing to pirate the game really has no reason, it's less than the price of a Cinema Ticket, less than a round of drinks for a night out.. So perhaps having the lower price bracket would help....

Pros


We'll get something if the game sells
Development would be helped along by revenue
We could fully support the game


Cons


The game will be pirated
We will be supporting a game which is heavily pirated
Hard balance to strike between value and quality.


Transaction Model

So this would be a free client, which would be available to everyone. There would be no limit on the area of the maps you could goto, but we would limit the units you can play. Thus everyone could only be privates unless you pay to unlock the other classes.

We could give minutes every week that would allow people the ability to unlock the other classes. So for example if you play the game for 5 hours a week. You would get an hour to play as another class... thus tempting the players into unlocking the other classes.

Realistically everyone is going to feel as if we are screwing them. Even if the total price to unlock the entire game was only €25, everyone would still bitch and whinge that they have to pay to unlock the game. Christ everyone moaned about Criterion charging for some of their content after they spent a year giving away free upgrades.

Pros


Free Client meaning no reason to pirate
Money from those people who want to play as other classes

Cons


People hate micro transactions



Subcription Model

We charge people around €5 - €20 per year and they get the game. Simple and clean well proven by other MMO's. But still people have a reluctance to buy into these sort of systems for non MMO games. WOW is the exception to the rule...

Pros


Gradual flow of money
Allows to consistently develop the game
Allows us to support the game

Cons


Piracy will once again come into play here as people try and by pass the system.
It's a subscription model.

[Lucan]

I vote for $40-50 dollars (don't know how much that is in Euros, probably around 25), because thats a resonable price that most new games have. No matter what, there will always be pirating. I am against subscribtion strongly because, quite frankly, that's bullshit. No. I'll pay for a game once, for 50 or 60 dollars, but not constantly pay 15 bucks. 40 euros is too high because a large number of customers are in the U.S., and that's about 82$ over here, which is ridiculous for a game.

[Roby]

I like the idea of having the game be cheap, roughly 10-20 dollars, that would be the best way to attract the widest variety of buyers, especially those with a budget.

But I think the bit you said about releasing the game in intervals, ie. Caen then the Beaches, or whatever direction you wanted to go. In my opinion this would bring immense amounts of publicity, as long as the release dates in between each release are relatively small, ideally 6 months, but a year would be acceptable. This would keep the interest in the game, and it would essentially be a paid beta. Although there are probably many unforeseen consequences of doing it like this, It's an idea.

[Lucan]

I like the idea of having the game be cheap, roughly 10-20 dollars, that would be the best way to attract the widest variety of buyers, especially those with a budget.

But I think the bit you said about releasing the game in intervals, ie. Caen then the Beaches, or whatever direction you wanted to go. In my opinion this would bring immense amounts of publicity, as long as the release dates in between each release are relatively small, ideally 6 months, but a year would be acceptable. This would keep the interest in the game, and it would essentially be a paid beta. Although there are probably many unforeseen consequences of doing it like this, It's an idea.

I disagree with the release in segments. A complete game that takes a lot longer would be better than polished sections of a game. I can see where you're coming from with the lower price, however.

[Onearmy]

I'd say 30$ would be a good, average price. Most new games today are 50$, so I don't think people would be whining about that price.

And Ronan, unless the game is free, there will ALWAYS be pirating. Always cheap-asses wanting to take peoples work for free. (Unfortunately, sometimes I am one of those cheap asses) But I wouldn't pirate 1944, not after following it and knowing the time/work you put into this.

[Lt. Hanley]

I think you should stay with the pay model. I voted for 40 euros, as I feel it's a nice balance between affordability and revenue for you. Not too high, not too low.

I think the best way to try and combat piracy is having a "slice" of the game available for free, like you have mentioned in the past. Just have the Carentan area available for download with a wide variety of features that are found in the full version. I think this will allow people to get a good feel for the scope and depth of the game. Could people play only Carentan and never get the full version? Sure. But I would be willing to bet they would eventually get it. Kind of like the BF42 multiplayer demo when it came out. It was only Wake Island, but you got a really good feel of the game, and could spend hours playing just that map because every round was different. Similar to how a Carentan level would be.

[Katulobotomia]

I will buy this game, I've given money already for it. I will buy this game even if it costs 60 euros. I think this game should cost > 40 euros. I want to support game makers like Ronan, they are the future. I will not download this game.

Players: "I want this game for free or as low in price as I can."

Makers: "We want to charge for this game so that it makes the best profit."

So asking the buyers on what it would cost is not a very accurate measurement, since they always want to spend the least amount possible (this is where pirating comes in).

But logically this game should cost at least what the median is on today's games, or greater given that this game is much more complex and demanding than most games.

[RonanHayes]

I suppose I should be clear the models that I believe in:

1. Free, but pay for extras.
2. Buy the game and then buy expansions

So those are the two models I believe in, and the two that I would follow. So for example I would love to see a system where by we offer access to select private units only free of charge for everyone to play. (Limit it to 50 free slots per server.)

Those who have not paid for the game could jump onto a server and play provided they can find an open slot. If they wanted unlimited access to private units they would pay €5, then gradually increment up the payments until they reach €25. So the Maximum you pay whether you were to buy the game outright or gradually upgrade would be €25.

That would be the model I would love to follow because I think everyone who can manage to download 5 - 10 gb for a game can afford to pay out €5 to get access to all private units. Then depending on how much they get into it they can unlock other classes (Class could be ordered by rank or by type of unit).

Obviously I think the pay once method is a bit restrictive as you need to set your price correctly first time round to ensure you reach the maximum amount of users. Set it too high and you restrict your audience, set it too low and you run the risk of under selling yourself. But this is how people expect to play games.

1944 is not sold as an MMO so I can't see that model working (we simply won't be expanding to offer enough "quests").

I just want a healthy debate on the topic of paying for games and what are the tried and test ways of doing this and also what are alternative methods.

[sekon]

It would be nice if you could keep people from all over the world in mind when pricing this game.

To me the biggest disadvantage of micro transactions would be the accounting overhead. (It is rumoured that quiet a few companies have hit pay dirt by offering billing solutions to mobile phone operators)

There are quiet a few services that offer free access to what would require a sizeable investment (tor network for example) only with the help of volunteers. Sadly these are very hard to come by.

In my opinion you should release the expansion packs only only in the multi player mode (since you plan to control the hosting of the servers this should be no problem), write off some profits because of piracy and may be ask around for insurance cover (I have read about multi national companies taking insurance cover to mitigate the loss due to boot legging of physical goods).

FFS some open source contributors mint money by working as consultants/ offering support contracts.

So 1944 should not be free, as in free beer or in this case free champaign am I right??


-- stops listening to Self Esteem by Offspring--

[Giraffas]

I would pay 60 euro or more for this game, but ONLY this game, due to the fact that I know what this game has to offer. However, that is not the case for every buyer, so I voted for 40. I strongly oppose any MMO related form of payment, simply because it is much more expensive than just buying the game.

[Infinite XÆr0]

the game should sell for $40-50, (model 2 style) it also couldn't hurt to try to have it distributed through steam or something to try to keep piracy down. Or require steam to run it..

[Weazel]

I'm kind of torn. A 5-20 euro subscription fee on a yearly basis wouldn't be THAT bad at all. But then again, a one time payment just sounds a lot simpler, especially if you do what a few others mentioned and put it on Steam.

[RonanHayes]

So are you all against having an option of buying only what you play?


For arguement sake lets say that the total cost of the game was €25.

€0 : Slected Units
€5 : Infantry
€5 : Airborne (Includes FJ, 101st etc)
€5 : Tank Crews / Artillery
€5 : Naval / Airforce
€5 : High Command

So if you wanted to only play Airborne units (I know there is 1 member who would simply select FJ units :p ), You have the option to buy that unit pack.

Although say eventually you get bored of playing the Airborne units and decide to go ahead and buy another pack, you could upgrade by buying Infantry and Tank Crews. So now you have 3 packs to chose from and have only spent €15.

So after a few weeks playing and when you feel you've got your money's worth you decide to complete your upgrade and spend another €10 to get all the packs. Now you have spent €25 but you have controlled the content you get to play at and when you have played.

The maximum you could have spent is €25 even if you have jumped in head first and spent €25 in total or have gradually upgraded your account from Free to €25?

Micro-transactions done right! (Oh and I'm not saying 1944 is going down this route, but I want the community to have a discussion beyond saying all they are willing to spend is €40).



Regarding subscription models, I have no problem with these provided there is some form of basic free mode. What I don't get about WOW is that you can buy the game disk in stores (saves wasting bandwidth on downloading), but then you have to pay a monthly / yearly fee... That's a bit over kill for me, as buying the game in stores costs €40 here and while I assume you get X number of months free it's just a bit hard for me to take.

That said if you go to the WOW site you can download the client and get playing within hours / days ;) . Given WOW has enough quests and options to grind through I can see how it would work, but 1944 has a limited number of units, limited amount of RPG functionality and is persistent so eventually as the game ticks over it options become limited (since units die). So subsciption model would really suck for late adopters.

[EnragedPlatypus]

Tough decision for me. While I don't exactly like paying sub's for games I think it may be the best course of action. It seem's like it would be the easiest way of stopping piracy (I've never heard of anyone playing a sub based MMO without their account bein' payed for, unless they use a freeshard). Based off the suggested prices for the subscription (5-20 Euro's a year), I would be more than happy to pay that. Only way I can see myself paying a monthly fee of $15 is if you guys had some beefy content updates often.

That's just my thoughts though.

[Major_Elm]

I like the little Micro Trans. idea, where you can play the game for free, but its really limited.. like a really kick ass demo... then soon as you get bored and see that the game is kick ass, you can just pony up the €25 and have the full game. Or if you really just wanna be a tank commander, just have to spend €5.

I really like this idea!!

[Lucan]

I will buy this game, I've given money already for it. I will buy this game even if it costs 60 euros. I think this game should cost > 40 euros. I want to support game makers like Ronan, they are the future. I will not download this game.

Players: "I want this game for free or as low in price as I can."

Makers: "We want to charge for this game so that it makes the best profit."

So asking the buyers on what it would cost is not a very accurate measurement, since they always want to spend the least amount possible (this is where pirating comes in).

But logically this game should cost at least what the median is on today's games, or greater given that this game is much more complex and demanding than most games.

60 euroes is ridicolous. That's 120$ US dollars, and god knows how many Australian dollars. Very few people will buy a game for such a high price. Balance is required.

To Ronan: How about we keep it simple and say 25 euros, no gradual paying or monthly fees. There should be a demo, of course, but for the final game, it should be like: "Eithier buy it, or don't." It seems so much easier and gives pirates one less thing to whine about.

[Roby]

I like that idea ronan.

[Giraffas]

So are you all against having an option of buying only what you play?

Not really, but i have some concerns regarding it. I kind of picture this idea as being misunderstood for a "free to play, but those who pay have an advantage" game, which for me is the worst kind of game ever (even worse than WoW payment system). If there is absolutely no difference in game of "killing potential" between those who paid and those who didn't, then this idea is best.

[metsapeikko]

60 euroes is ridicolous. That's 120$ US dollars, and god knows how many Australian dollars. Very few people will buy a game for such a high price. Balance is required.

To Ronan: How about we keep it simple and say 25 euros, no gradual paying or monthly fees. There should be a demo, of course, but for the final game, it should be like: "Eithier buy it, or don't." It seems so much easier and gives pirates one less thing to whine about.

60€'s is basically a "standard" price for new games in finland. God, 70€ games arent even rare anymore.

And then people wonder why most of the gamers in finland just download the damn games instead of buying them. ArmA and RO had reasonable prices, about 40€'s, well, RO was even cheaper, 32€ and week before the official release date too!

[herrvondrachen]

I am not a fan of the subscription model, it was the reason I stopped playing WoW after a few months. I think that a free demo is a must but that limiting it to only being able to play a private is a little limiting because it may skew peoples perception of the game. I am also not the biggest fan of micropayments because then I just feel like I am being nickle and dimed to death. For example in Far Cry 2 I am not going to pay another $5-$10 for a few new guns, because the whole game only cost me $40. I've got nothing against buying expansion packs when they provide significant extra content and $10-$20 for a medium to large expansion pack is something I would spend.
That's my two bits.

[Marcel_D]

Honestly considering what this game will feature, and provided it turns it as you say it will I think you have the right to charge as much as you feel is right. But no one will agree with this, so I'd be willing to pay 40 euros which is over $60 Canadian. Monthly payments seem like a ridiculous concept to me but micro transactions provided the client is free seems very reasonable but possibly limiting since you could have how many people playing the game who only paid like $7.

[Guardian]

I would be fine paying 60€'s and have it all, then pay for expansion packs later. How will it work on servers? Will it be like " tanks only server' Tanks and HQ server"

[RonanHayes]

60 euroes is ridicolous. That's 120$ US dollars, and god knows how many Australian dollars. Very few people will buy a game for such a high price. Balance is required.

To Ronan: How about we keep it simple and say 25 euros, no gradual paying or monthly fees. There should be a demo, of course, but for the final game, it should be like: "Eithier buy it, or don't." It seems so much easier and gives pirates one less thing to whine about.

€60 = $80

€50 - €60 is the average price of a game in the euro zone. I paid €80 for GTA4. Even Valve have adjusted their price model so that the Euro Zone doesn't get the best out of the exchange rate.

Now this is probably one of the few times that you will see me say this but : "Fuckin Americans"

By this I mean the arguement about their weak currency rate in the current economic climate. They were more than happy to reap the benefits when the dollar was strong but now the euro is strong they are moaning about that. Now I could also say " Fuckin Brits" but I'm Irish and well there's history there like an english man saying "Fuckin Paddies" or "Fuckin Scots" it's common term here.

My point really is that markets determine currency exchange rates, not developers. I think $80 is reasonable in current markets, when the 360 first released some games were $70. PS3 also released with High 1st party release prices. Don't complain about exchange rates as eventually it will sway back in the favor of American's as they adapt to the markets.


Not really, but i have some concerns regarding it. I kind of picture this idea as being misunderstood for a "free to play, but those who pay have an advantage" game, which for me is the worst kind of game ever (even worse than WoW payment system). If there is absolutely no difference in game of "killing potential" between those who paid and those who didn't, then this idea is best.

I'm just trying to expand the discussion beyond price models. We have talked about Piracy and I want to talk further about what models limit piracy. As pointed out free is obviously best as who on earth would bother to pirate a free game.

So that is the best starting point for this disucssion, how do you make a game, sell it for nothing and still make enough money to continue developing it?

I'm putting forward my ideas but I'm sure other people have theirs. If I were to do this would make it 100% clear that 1944 is not about Kill ratios but rather about tactics and strategy. Just because all you can access is Infantry doesn't mean you don't have aerial or tank support... So yeah it would have to be very clear indeed as to what you are getting.


60€'s is basically a "standard" price for new games in finland. God, 70€ games arent even rare anymore.

And then people wonder why most of the gamers in finland just download the damn games instead of buying them. ArmA and RO had reasonable prices, about 40€'s, well, RO was even cheaper, 32€ and week before the official release date too!

RO was a budget release (no disrespect to those guys but they would have fallen in the AA / A bracket of games) Perhaps a larger publisher would have gotten them AAA status which would have upped their retail price, but given the limited shelf pressence it couldn't carry a AAA price tag.


I am not a fan of the subscription model, it was the reason I stopped playing WoW after a few months. I think that a free demo is a must but that limiting it to only being able to play a private is a little limiting because it may skew peoples perception of the game. I am also not the biggest fan of micropayments because then I just feel like I am being nickle and dimed to death. For example in Far Cry 2 I am not going to pay another $5-$10 for a few new guns, because the whole game only cost me $40. I've got nothing against buying expansion packs when they provide significant extra content and $10-$20 for a medium to large expansion pack is something I would spend.
That's my two bits.

That's more like it, now take what you have there and try and expand it further so that we can discuss models. Clearly stuff like Horse Armour or Guns should be freely distributed.

In a sence say that 1944 released a pack where you could drive 5 new vehicles. I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for that. But say we released Paris as a playable area, then surely it would justify €5 or €10 as an expansion to what is already there.


Honestly considering what this game will feature, and provided it turns it as you say it will I think you have the right to charge as much as you feel is right. But no one will agree with this, so I'd be willing to pay 40 euros which is over $60 Canadian. Monthly payments seem like a ridiculous concept to me but micro transactions provided the client is free seems very reasonable but possibly limiting since you could have how many people playing the game who only paid like $7.

Well one of my concerns is that the price tag can't remain up at €40 - €60 much longer for games. The experience is getting shorter, the development budgets are getting larger and piracy is increasing. There is now an entire generation who don't believe in paying for media.

So how do you sell a digital product in this day and age... you need to lower the barrier to entry and ensure that people can get easy access to it and at a level where they don't think of the price. €5 or $7 wouldn't phase 99% of people.

[ncthorn]

I would readily pay $40-$50 for the base game. Much higher than that and you will likely have trouble establishing yourself in the PC market. I would not be opposed after that to pay the equivalent of 5 to 7 euro to play on well monitored or official servers with serious players via a sort of subscription service. As long as the game is well supported, I see this as being a very viable solution.

[Marcel_D]

As long as the content is worth while I suppose people would pay for it. I'm sure you've all heard of PlayStation Home, the pointless mini-game based MMO that is funded solely on micro transactions (and advertising of course). I for one couldn't believe Sony had the balls to charge people for additional clothing/furniture. What the fuck is this, dress up time with Barbie? They're essentially charging for re-skins and a few static models. Sure they aren't charging much but the whole idea seems so hair brained to me.

On the other hand charging 5-10 euros for a city, level or entire division seems perfectly acceptable.

[Wundai]

Well one of my concerns is that the price tag can't remain up at €40 - €60 much longer for games. The experience is getting shorter, the development budgets are getting larger and piracy is increasing. There is now an entire generation who don't believe in paying for media.


True but that is mostly in my opinion because the quality of games has been reduced over the past decade.
I don't like bringing EA into this again, but publishers get bad names of bringing out games that just aren't worth 40 - 60 euros anymore.

On the other hand 1944 would be a completely different story since its a unique concept for a game not seen before, and when published right with good reviews/scores etc. people would be willing to pay at least in the price range of €50 euros for it, I know I would :)

[Fallschirmjäger]

I picked free and see tied for 2nd place,but im poor so picked it and like free things for shure.But then 5 pounds is pretty cheap too so that would be 2nd choice,as think thats 13.0240 NZD to me.

[EvilHobo]

Provided that the game features all that it promises I would pay a fair one-time fee. The 40-60 Euro range seems suitable.

[Althalus28]

Yeah, 40 Euro sounds about right, I'd prefer not having to unlock content, some of those less fortunate of us with bad internet connection won't be able to cope having to download 10 gig, that'll take me all week........

[sekon]

I am from "the other face of the planet" and games here cost about 20$$ (crysis and the like). And a majority think this is reasonable, but a good load of my friends (uni students mostly) think this is too high.

Shitty/older games are available for 5-10$$.

No wonder pricing is such a complicated subject.

[Giraffas]

I am from "the other face of the planet" and games here cost about 20$$ (crysis and the like). And a majority think this is reasonable, but a good load of my friends (uni students mostly) think this is too high.

Shitty/older games are available for 5-10$$.

No wonder pricing is such a complicated subject.

And I come from the face that is probably opposite to yours, where the games either cost nothing or are really expensive. A PC game such as 1944, if it costed 60 euro, would be about 3 times as expensive here, and that is one of the main reasons for piracy. 40 euro would have a price of 120 here in Brazil, which is already considered expensive (we are used to dollar conversion, usually games are about $80-90). Therefore, it would seem to me that not only here, but in many other countries the 60 euro price would be impractical. Also, in the same logic, Ronan's idea would be the best, but as previously stated, I have my concerns.

[Sgt So and So]

If I could interject, Ronan, I'd suggest a model akin to Mount & Blade.

You can download all the game files for free, but in order to get past a certain point (character level 6 in Mount & Blade) you need to purchase a code from Taleworlds and 'unlock' it through the portal menu.

The game itself is only $25-$30, and then expansions and updates could be done through the portal.

Also, as a deterrent from piracy, Steam is pretty damn effective.

[herrvondrachen]

That's more like it, now take what you have there and try and expand it further so that we can discuss models. Clearly stuff like Horse Armour or Guns should be freely distributed.

In a sence say that 1944 released a pack where you could drive 5 new vehicles. I wouldn't expect anyone to pay for that. But say we released Paris as a playable area, then surely it would justify €5 or €10 as an expansion to what is already there.

If the game was released as for example only the Normandy coast initially with the intention of releasing the rest of the intended map in stages/expansions you might solve your piracy problem to a large degree by being able to charge a lower price say $20-$30 or less and then releasing Paris and other sections of the map later and charging $5-$10 for the new areas depending on size and complexity. In this way the entry barrier is sufficiently low while allowing you to maximize your profits later by continually earning income from the sale of expansions. It would potentially allow you to charge more for the full game than if you were to sell it as one unit. As a single game you would have to force me at gunpoint to spend more than ~$50. If you were to sell it in increments you could charge $25 for the initial release and then ~$10 for the expansions, you make 5-10 expansions and boom you have made $75 to $125 per full game sold. And because the initial cost was low you will have sold more games even if only of the initial release. I used to work retail sales so I know some of the psycological tricks you can play on people to get them to part with their money. A sustained release cycle would likely also prolong the life of the game (maybe you could take it right to Berlin eventually:icon_wink:)

The only problem here is that the game might run out of steam if the release cycle is too long or there are too many expansions. If the cycle is too long then people get bored waiting (HL2 Ep 3.):sleeping2:. If there are too many (small) expansions then people might feel like they are getting ripped off, and it would make full entry into the game for late comers very expensive.

You are going to have to make some judgement calls as to which model would work best. My dad told me of a programmer years ago who wrote a sophsticated accounting program and wanted to sell it for $100. The other developers told him he was nuts and that he wouldn't make any money (they charged thousands of $$$ for thir stuff). He sold so many copies he made his money back right quick and could basically retire from that one project. The same tactic might work here as well, though I think fewer people play fps games than buy accounting software.

[75thDeadMan]

You have to be paid at the end of the day. I would offer a fairly open client that gives a lot of access for simple things, but restricts more complicated game play and charge for that. Or you a full pay and then have things like free weekends, etc.

[TheAssist]

Well I guess if you go for the micro subscription (MS), the most important thing to do, is making sure that people actually understand what you are offering.
My friends were playing a game that was based on MS, a fps, dunno the name anymore, you could earn virtual money by simply playing the game and then buy better weapons for a certain amount of time or pay real money to obtain them forever. Those weapons however were better, means even though noone had to pay for the game initially, many did, just to have an advantage. And since my friends didnt want to pay, they had no fun playing the game.
And then there are games, that offer MS, but you get the feeling that the publisher is scaming you that way (you pay way more then for a normal game, or the money you pay is not worth the content)

1944 is not going that way I know, but people need to understand that.
Other than that, I think that might just be a good way.
By the way. woud there be a problem if you offer the game as a MS model for those who aren't sure about buying it and as a full retail version on steam for 25 € so people see that they wont get scamed?

One thing I would'nt do is, releasing the game in parts. I mean one of the biggest selling points is the fact that you can play the whole normandy campaign, and lets face it, the firts thing people will do, is running to the beaches. I just think a small part of the game does not represent its whole glory.

Furthermore you can still include the donation thingy, we had this thread about donation banners, you could use them ingame, e.g. on a wall with a poster that says "We need you .... " ect, obviously you shouldnt spam those, but as long as it fits the mood.

[Lucan]

€60 = $80

€50 - €60 is the average price of a game in the euro zone. I paid €80 for GTA4. Even Valve have adjusted their price model so that the Euro Zone doesn't get the best out of the exchange rate.

.

Well look at that. Where did I read that a Euro was equal to two US dollars? No idea.

[James McKenzie-Smith]

If you want to reduce piracy, then I one method that I would suggest is to release all localised versions simultaneously. By way of explanation, many people in the USA will download a game released early in the UK, intending to pay for a full copy when it appears in America, but then will decide against it when they already have a version for free. Observe the number of torrents for ArmA2 in a couple of months... I expect that there will be many, many of them, because of an uneven release. Additionally, non-English speakers, or people who speak English as a second language, will not necessarily wait very long for localisation. Observe the problem with piracy in Russia; much is motivated by consumer impatience.

Of course, there are some who pirate just because they are bastards. Not much to be done about them, but take a look at torrent sites to see what titles get pirated, and then see how well seeded they are. Are budget games on the whole harder to download than AAA titles? If so, maybe the low pricepoint of an indie game published by a small, relatively unknown publisher will be enough to deter thieves, as they might dismiss a game costing 15-20 Euro as a budget game, not worthy of their piratical egos compared to the latest ripsnorter from Codemasters or EA or whatever. Of course, budget pricing means that you will earn less per game, but then, you might sell quite a few more to people who might have a hard time finding a free pirated download, and make up difference that way.

The above ideas should help a bit, but as you know, there are the incorrigible pirates who do it because it stokes their egos (How much more clever than you they are, they think; they cracked your game, and all you did was make it!) and people who want something for nothing. Sadly, the rest of us pay for the games they pirate, and realistically, there's little we can do besides limiting the damage caused on the periphery of the pirating world, by giving timely access to the game to everyone in all markets, and making the price low enough to make it both beneath the notice of some pirates, and within the price range of part-time pirate tightwads.

There you have it, the James McKenzie-Smith anti-pirate strategy. Wide release, at the lowest up-front price you can bear. Oh yeah, and online distribution from the biggest and best source you can find, like Steam.

[BulletFizz]

I would say a full price arond 40-50 is the way to go.

And yea there will always be piracy, but to fix it in the short term games really need a good multiplayer to sell well. Thay way people who piracy it cant play multiplayer like in CoD 4, who have sold relatively well. So a strong multiplayer is the way to go, to give much incentive to buy the game for people who pirate games much.

[smith1215]

$30 or $40 dollars

[Bunglo]

The way I see it, the cheaper a product is, the greater the chance more people will buy it. The average price of a PC game is $50 and most can beat your average game in less than 20 hours. So you basically payed $50 for 20 hours of entertainment, this is excludes online play and replay value. I'm sure many players feel they could have gotten a better value spending their money on something else.

When we add in both a high replay value and good multiplayer experience, the satisfaction rating goes way up as the once 20 hours or so of entertainment shoots up to a nearly unlimited amount that really depends on how much you play. So now you've payed $50 for an unmeasurable amount of entrainment.

Take a look at games such as CS:S or TF2, pay $20 for each (or buy HL2 for CS:S) and you'll find your self playing these games hours at a time over years and years. You may get tired of the games after a certain amount of time (that's the case for me when it comes to TF2 atm) but eventually you always find your self back playing the game.

If we can ship out the game with even 2/3rds of the things we plan on getting into the game, I think 1944 would be worth the €40. How ever, that's a good amount of money and not everyone has the extra cash to just shell out €40 for a game on the dime. If the game is sold for say €30, I feel the amount of gamers who buy the game will skyrocket. We could even go the route that many Valve games go, charge full price at $50 but then have sales for the game every so often at $20-$30. I know for a fact we would see our sales shoot up like crazy for those little weekend sales.

To be honest I feel the best way to "combat" piracy is to make the best game we can, hope people will like it enough to feel they get their moneys worth, and sale it at a decent price that gives both us, the developers a reasonable profit for out work, and the player a feeling of satisfaction that they made the right decision with their money.

[Giraffas]

Take a look at games such as CS:S or TF2, pay $20 for each (or buy HL2 for CS:S) and you'll find your self playing these games hours at a time over years and years.

If we can ship out the game with even 2/3rds of the things we plan on getting into the game, I think 1944 would be worth the €40.

To be honest I feel the best way to "combat" piracy is to make the best game we can (...)

Agree with all these statements: €40 is a fair price, €30 is optimum. I know that I would never have bought Red Orchestra if it was worth $50. BUT, there is one thing: the best way to combat piracy, in my opinion, is to make the best game with a multiplayer that is impossible/impractical to play online with a pirate copy.

[Baracca Chewbama]

I hate to disagree with the herd but I like the idea of "microtransactions" or splitting the game up and selling it individually in pieces. With the game being so huge with the map size, and every possible item and vehicle ever included in that war, i don't think anyone would complain if for example their first purchase was limited to land vehicles, or if they could only play as the Germans, or whatever method you choose until an upgrade down the line - of course the price would have to be cheaper i dunno, 20bux? then again i have no idea of the costs.

and hey, if u really wanted to do that u could focus on finishing all the assets for just one "transaction" and then use the money from that to do the rest. Could result in earlier release i'm just saying......

[DavidUpton]

Here's something (to back up what Bunglo said); Valve made more money during the Christmas special offers than they do with usual prices.

Just thought I would throw that out there.

[Redeemer]

... the best way to combat piracy, in my opinion, is to make the best game with a multiplayer that is impossible/impractical to play online with a pirate copy.
100% agree with that


Here's something (to back up what Bunglo said; Valve made more money during the Christmas special offers than they do with usual prices...

That being said, I see the way that VALVe sells games the best one to fight piracy. Steam (no hacker can beat genuineness verification not executing by client) + free weekends with sales following.

[EnragedPlatypus]

That being said, I see the way that VALVe sells games the best one to fight piracy. Steam (no hacker can beat genuineness verification not executing by client) + free weekends with sales following.

Also helps that Valve seems to be into the support of Indie game developers lately.

[Hell's High]

For the love of god, do NOT do the subscription or micro-transaction thing.

I'd pay between $40-60 dollars Canadian for this game, as it will be no small feat getting it finished and that is about the standard for good games around here.

With the once-and-only price thing, you could get a lot more support from popular platforms such as STEAM.

With micro transactions and subscriptions, you would have to go through with all of the trouble of creating, managing, and setting up the client downloaders and transaction departments and all of that shit.

If a gamer has a problem with not getting an area he payed for and such, you have to have people hired to constantly monitor and trouble shoot these problems. Bottom line, I don't think it'd be worth that ON TOP of general development, bug fixing, patching, and so on.


I'd say the one time pay thing would be the optimal course, but I don't have a degree in buisness or anything...

[ZBrisk]

Subscriptions work for MMOs because they (should) consistently update the game and maintain servers. Not for 1944 unless it's constantly expanded.

I'm not so opposed to the transaction idea if it's done right. Paying for small bits of the game is annoying, like herrvondrachen mentioned. But a big increment or two could work.

edit: Oh yeah, WWIIOL is a good example of different parts of a game feeling very different. There are some players who are dedicated ground pounders and some who are in it for the flight sim. Judging from the scale of this game, something similar will result. So the transaction method could be viable.


If I could interject, Ronan, I'd suggest a model akin to Mount & Blade.

You can download all the game files for free, but in order to get past a certain point (character level 6 in Mount & Blade) you need to purchase a code from Taleworlds and 'unlock' it through the portal menu.

This. Question is at what point should the player be limited? Possibilities include certain areas, certain weapons/classes, or online play. I'm thinking something along the lines of: A small portion of the game for free, 30$ or so for grunt stuff, and another 20$ for the more special things like heavy weapons and high command?

Fortunately we have Battlefield Heroes as a guinea pig for this model.

[Zengotten]

If the game is gonna turn out to be what its all cracked up to be than I think you should just sell the entire game retail for a fairly high price at least equivalent to $60, like you said this is not a normal game, it's an extremely authentic interactive history book (how much do history books cost?). If you go this way I think that you will gain a large amount of respect from gamers because the game will come across as authentic, official, and legit. Unlike EA games where the general consensus is that the company is mostly just pumping out games to make money and don't care how good the game is as long as it sells. If you bring yourself out to be making your game for a higher purpose like to honor the soldiers who fought in the war or to bring to people a true to life WWII learning experience you will gain somewhat of "untouchable" respect in regards to pirating, there will still be people trying to pirate the game but I think it would become more discouraged than lets say pirating an EA game.

As far as Pirating protection goes, you seemed very confident with your system that you had planned before, something about the .exe being unique to the computer, if you use a system like that that works really well I think that in combination with the respect gained form the people you will extremely discourage pirating your game.

Whatever system you put in place I think it needs to be simple, almost just as simple as selling the game retail for one price for everything. I think maybe just having a limited version of Carentan that is completely free to play online but you can only play as infantry in combination with selling the full game at > $60 would be a good idea. I think if you go with a system that is too complex like a micro transaction deal, people will just be like "WTF is this shit?", you will lose respect from the gamers, and you will fairly close off your market to the non-gamers who would be interested in this game, like teachers and veterans and a lot of adults who never got into gaming because they thought it was childish.

[Hell's High]

Zengotten speaks many truths. :chinese:

[Guardian]

I think he does too. I would defiantly pay $60+ for this game.

[TheAssist]

The problem with the full price is that this game is not AAA game with a big publisher to back it up and to make it public. What would you say if you see Battlefield 3, an overly hyped EA/Dice shooter everyone knows about and a game called "1944 operation Overlord" which you have never heard about, for the same price. You as a not informed customer would buy BF 3 (I bet you will).
Even if oyu sell the the game for 30 bucks, people will say "oh its just a budget game, nothing for me...". I guess thats the biggest problem. Personally I'd really say go for the micro transaction model and maybe a retail or at least full price download version at the same time. People can play the game for free at first, realize its not just a budget 08/15 game and will hopefully buy it (or parts of it).

I mean the system we have right now for computer games rift now isnt working to good, so why should 1944 do the same mistake, the whole point of the discussion was to find something new. I know everyone here would buy the game, but thats not enough, unless they sell it for 3499;95^^.

I just think publicity is the hardest thng to accomplish and thatswhy I understand why you want everything to be perfect, bfore you show the game.

[Zengotten]

I am fairly sure (I've read somewhere a long time ago, but I can't find the thread) that Ronan plans on massively publicizing the game before it releases with like weekly gameplay trailers and in depth demonstrations of all the features and all that, as long as he does this well this game is gonna be the talk of everyone and their mom, and if he decides to do a free version of Carentan with only access to infantry like I said before people will be able to play it and see the quality before they buy.

[Roby]

If the game delivers what Ronan has promised, advertising will be the least of his worries, keeping the servers up from massive fluctuation of players will be the problem. :scholar:

[Hell's High]

Again, Zengotten speaks many-a-truths ;)

@TheAssist
Honestly, if someone sees two boxes on the shelf and automatically choose BF3 without even looking is either a BF3 fan and wont like 1944, or is a terrible consumer.

[TheAssist]

Again, Zengotten speaks many-a-truths ;)

@TheAssist
Honestly, if someone sees two boxes on the shelf and automatically choose BF3 without even looking is either a BF3 fan and wont like 1944, or is a terrible consumer.

no its a normal customer. You guys know that all the commercial stuff costs money right? Doing Trailers and publishing them need people who do that and you need the magazines (online and print) to report about your game. But for them a exclusive interview wit a random Dice employee who talks about BF 3 is way more interestng than talking to noname indie developer about a game that none knows about. That story wont sell, no matter how good the game is going to be.
I mean look at what other games have promised and they couldnt stand up to the hype,so people wont believe it anyway.

I do think its a big problem and it wont be as easy as you think. And think about piracy, the reason this thread started. Again, the the standard model of selling games, isnt necessarily the best to avoid piracy. I would seriously consider the microtransaction thingy.

[DavidUpton]

no its a normal customer. You guys know that all the commercial stuff costs money right? Doing Trailers and publishing them need people who do that and you need the magazines (online and print) to report about your game. But for them a exclusive interview wit a random Dice employee who talks about BF 3 is way more interestng than talking to noname indie developer about a game that none knows about. That story wont sell, no matter how good the game is going to be.
I mean look at what other games have promised and they couldnt stand up to the hype,so people wont believe it anyway.


You are talking like 1944 is not going to be promoted in any way.

Also, I would like to point out that, technically, you don't have to spend money on promoting a game (although it is better to). First of all, there is word of mouth, which can be pretty damn effective. Secondly, trailers can be put on youtube, which costs nothing. Hearts of Iron 3, for example, have put all their trailers on youtube.

[TheAssist]

Hearts of Iron already has a certain popularity. I'm not saying that the game isnt promoted at all, but just think about it. By promoting a game with no money for big campaigns and 10 pages of exclusive tests on any of the big magazines, there will be only a small amount of people who will stumble across the game. Now how do make those people actually buy the game?
I dont think by putting a pricetag on it which says: 50 bucks or go fuck yourself.

And who says that the team has enough money to wait until the game is finished. You see, all that stuff thats planned isnt necessarily in the game right from the beginning. Maybe it a loooooooooooooooooooong beta phase like in mount and blade and there is always the possibilty of bankruptcy. I just think that another method gives you more flexability and makes it more resistant towards piracy.
You can just publish parts of the game and release more and more and people only have to pay for the parts they wanne play. If it sucks, they dont have to pay anything and if they like it, they can buy all the stuff available.
And after you have a fanbase you can start with some more promoting, since you now have the money to do so.

Just trying to be more creative than copying the standard system.

[Schrem [506th PIR]]

If theres no money left, the core team members, or most of them, will still work on it. Of course, hired animators, model artists etc. won't be in anymore but bankruptcy isn't a big deal for 1944. Ronan already spent a lot of private money and yet did still not give in. The development progress will just be slowed down.

And some little promotion work which will get us donators when we need them won't be THAT hard to get on the way too.

I'm confident :)

[Onearmy]

Ronan, depending on the type of pay model you go with, pay-to-play servers might be a reallly bad idea.

[Zengotten]

There are plenty of people that know about the game already and are waiting to see how it will turn out, there are threads in a lot of really popular forums that talk about the game and a lot of poeple have posted in them, there is a large amount of people out there that have heard about the game and don't believe it's possible, so they just sit out and do their thing, and the game is kind just sitting in the back of their head. If you finish the game and start releasing gameplay trailers and videos that explain and show all the features on Youtube or on your main site and those poeple hear about it and see that this game is the real deal, poeple will be talking about the game like crazy, simply because it's unlike any other game made and it is so far out of the standard for a normal game.

[Roby]

Well that's what we're trying to figure out zengotten :P

Does ronan, try to finish one part ie. Carentan and sell it with all the bells and whistles, whilst gaining popularity and money, but risking burning out due to slow update release?

or does he hold on for as long as possible until the game is nearly finished and charge the full 60?

in my opinion the best option would be a hybrid, but i don't have much knowledge of business or the game itself.

[ncthorn]

My opinion is to finish out the entire span of Operation Overlord and charge around $60 for that portion. Then allow for new, but substantial portions of France to be downloaded for a small fee (similar to TES IV DLC). Then sell parts of Belgium, the Ardennes, and The Battle of The Bulge along with the areas encompassed by Operation Market Garden as a retail expansion pack for as much as $40. This would essentially bring the game to a point where the map would encompass a good portion of northern and western France, most of Belgium, and the southern section of the Netherlands. At this point, a sufficient portion of the western Eurpopean campaign would be covered and developers would be free to move on to other theaters.

Dont forget the pay-to-play official moderated servers idea either.

Combine all this with an aggressive marketing campaign, and the game should work out very nicely.

[dominicus]

Variant A - Mixed Model (Flat purchase cost + subscription)

*Buy the game. This should be €25-€40 euros. As a PC gamer, I would never pay more than that.
*Receive around 3 month's worth of subscription with the retail purchase. From then on, I'd personally be willing to pay $20/€15 for 4 or 6 month intervals.

Benefits of this:
*You get money immediately. If you go for the lower price of €25, you're likely to sell a lot more copies.
*You can keep releasing content periodically because of a sustained cash flow.
*You can pay for dedicated servers. You guys will run some, right?

Downsides:
*Some PC gamers will be reluctant to a subscription-based model. I really don't know how to deal with them, but I don't blame them. Not sure how to go around this one, but, I think that it would help to have a less restricting subscription model.

For example, I would probably not pay for something every month. It would make me feel guilty. Similarly, paying for a year's worth would be way over-the-top. However, why not have several subscription options?


################################################

Variant B - Standard game, with periodic addons (herrvondrachen's idea)

*Buy the game for the full price
*Pay for new cities/areas?

Benefits:
*You can keep up the momentum/interest. This ensure a steady stream of customers.
*You will earn quite a bit of money. I would be VERRRRY reluctant to pay €60 or more upfront, but I wouldn't have much of a problem buying the periodic addons..

Downsides:
*If someone wants to get the game a year or two after it's been out, are they going to have to buy the full game + the addons, making the total cost 2-3 times higher than that of any other game?


P.S. Also, a big thing for me is how complicated it is to get into the game. If it involves a CD-check.. I'll be immeasurably annoyed. If it takes 5 minutes to get into the game, same thing. BF2142, for example, fails in both departments.

However, I don't really mind Steam. It's not very taxing on a system's resources, and I do acknowledge the need to authenticate the game EVERY TIME IT'S STARTED, for prevention of piracy. But CD-checks or Securom might be over the top. For example, I should not be required to uninstall Daemon-tools to have my game work.

But some people probably hate Steam, too. Maybe you can have your own little client software for the authentication and updating? I would be very interested in getting the game in this version.

[Oddvin]

I will buy 1944, no matter what model you go for. However i fucking hate subscriptions! Or at least the subscription prices out there now, so god damn expensive. Make subscriptions cheaper and more people would play, as well as you would get a good and consistent money flow.

[Specht]

I voted for 30 euros, which is pretty close to the standard price of a game here in brazil "R$ 99,90", that would be more around 35 euros though.

Free, in my opinion, is totally out of question, you guys deserve some money for all your work, even though it would be pirated, there would be a lot of people paying for it still.

My suggestion is to make some sort of online engine in which you could not play with the ones who have the original game if yours is pirated, I can't really go too deep on this matter because I don't know much about how to do it, but I tell you, this would decrease pirating a lot.

Oh yes, I hate subscriptions and micro transactions :D

[Xandros]

I have a checklist - and if a game meets the criteria of that checklist I won't buy it under any circumstances, even if it is a rich multiplayer experience with many intuitive features and is made by an indie developer. I'm not sorry to say this but its my money you want and I'm not a charity, conform to my ideals or fail to receive my wealth:

A) Has anything to do with Electronic Arts.
B) Requires a disc in the drive to play it at all.
C) Requires an account be created online to play it at all.
D) Has copy protection that installs anything on my system.

Am I lazy, and nitpicking? I don't care if I am. My PC. My money. My rules. Yea, 99.99% of games released on the PC are as such unplayable under my rules but I don't care. Gaming can take a nose dive as far as I'm concerned.

Edit:I will point out though; just because I won't buy a game does not automatically mean I will pirate it.

[Roby]

xandros, have you ever bought an online pc game then?

[Bunglo]

I have a checklist - and if a game meets the criteria of that checklist I won't buy it under any circumstances, even if it is a rich multiplayer experience with many intuitive features and is made by an indie developer. I'm not sorry to say this but its my money you want and I'm not a charity, conform to my ideals or fail to receive my wealth:

A) Has anything to do with Electronic Arts.
B) Requires a disc in the drive to play it at all.
C) Requires an account be created online to play it at all.
D) Has copy protection that installs anything on my system.

Am I lazy, and nitpicking? I don't care if I am. My PC. My money. My rules. Yea, 99.99% of games released on the PC are as such unplayable under my rules but I don't care. Gaming can take a nose dive as far as I'm concerned.

Edit:I will point out though; just because I won't buy a game does not automatically mean I will pirate it.

A) Just because a game has "something to do with" EA doesn't mean it will suck, have DRM such as securom (or any DRM for that matter), or any other possible complaint(s) others may have with EA. Although I'm assuming your reasoning behind this is because of the decisions EA has made but when comes down to it, this game not going to be EA's or any other company. It's going to be our game, released how we want it on our own terms.

If EA is willing to publish the game at a price we can afford and it will give us better exposure over using another company, I don't see any reason why not to go with them.

B) I believe we're going to make it so you can stream the game from either your DVD or HDD but I can't be 100% positive on this, you'll have to wait for Ronan to reply.

C) You'll have to wait for a reply from Ronan on this one as well but I can see why players would want this.

D) This will have to wait for an answer until the game is further into development. Obviously we will NOT be putting in something such as securom, I think I would quit the team if we did. Ronan has stated it will be something simple but tbh, you say you don't want to be forced to use the DVD (that's fine) but then you don't want any copy right protection installed onto your computer... are you suggesting we simply go with no copy protection at all?

Sins of a Solar Empire did this and the game did very well but a product key registered to an Impulse account (Impulse is similar to STEAM, so that would be DRM) is required to play multiplayer as well as to receive updates.

Obviously this was a little off topic but I wanted to address your points and get a little feedback as to why you have this criteria laid out. One last thing is that while yes, it is your money and your PC, it's also our game, you will simply own a copy of it (and I mean own in the literal sense of the word, I don't want to develop a game that gamers end up renting for $50.)

[Xandros]

xandros, have you ever bought an online pc game then?

If by online game you mean via digital distribution, like STEAM or Direct2Drive, then the answer is no. If you mean online games as in games where you can only play online and requires a paid subscription, such as World of Warcraft, the answer is also no.

The only instance of a game I've bought that borders on this was probably DEFCON, but that was back before I put my foot down and set up my list of criteria. DEFCON though, I bought a hard copy of that. It does have an online authentication system but provided you use a valid key you can play with it offline (e.g. on a computer that has no internet connection) indefinitely, and although it will never be able to validate the key online it'll still let you play the full game.

[JonReb]

I would personally pay $50-60 for this game (which I believe is 35-45 euros) and also pay something like $20 for expansion packs OR any subscription-based payment for access to expansions to the game.

However.. since you're talking about avoiding piracy..

Being supported solely by donations and advertisements is an interesting concept, which would void any piracy, but also seems very experimental and risky. The cons become a bit heavy since any lack of income will make development of this game very slow (therefore a less enjoyable game) which in turn might create even less donations, and even less attention (therefore probably even less advertisements).

Perhaps an addition to this type of system would be a "premium membership" which requires you to pay in a subscription based manner in order to have access to expansions and major additions to the game. Access to the content could be done through an online account system-- so for example you have to login to your online account in order to join "premium" servers or play "premium" singleplayer.

Again this is getting on the experimental and risky side, so it may not be the best idea IMHO.

[RonanHayes]

I have a checklist - and if a game meets the criteria of that checklist I won't buy it under any circumstances, even if it is a rich multiplayer experience with many intuitive features and is made by an indie developer. I'm not sorry to say this but its my money you want and I'm not a charity, conform to my ideals or fail to receive my wealth:

A) Has anything to do with Electronic Arts.
B) Requires a disc in the drive to play it at all.
C) Requires an account be created online to play it at all.
D) Has copy protection that installs anything on my system.

Am I lazy, and nitpicking? I don't care if I am. My PC. My money. My rules. Yea, 99.99% of games released on the PC are as such unplayable under my rules but I don't care. Gaming can take a nose dive as far as I'm concerned.

Edit:I will point out though; just because I won't buy a game does not automatically mean I will pirate it.

A) That's a very silly rule, just because EA publishes a product you should be able to spend 10 minutes doing research to find out what studio is behind the development of the game. Then using your research make a judgement call based on reviews, development and demos. Allowing you to experience alot of the good games that EA has released.

They are in this industry to make money, clearly not your money, but they make it by producing titles. Some good, some bad, but ultimately it's your money and you need to make your decision on what games you buy. I personally think you are ruling out alot of good games.

B) 1944 will not require a disc in the drive.

C) LAN & Online games will require an account that we will verify. We have said that we will allow you to have X amount of friends play on your LAN without the requirement for a license to the game. We do need to protect our product, and simply ignoring piracy won't prevent us from getting screwed. But we have no intention of fucking our user base, we will take an appropriate and logical approach to this problem.

D) The game will install onto your PC, any copy protection will be built directly into the game and will validate itself. It will not be part of a seperate hidden install.

[Onearmy]

How exactly would this copy protection work?

[Xandros]

A) That's a very silly rule

Not for my wallet it isn't.

If developers actually care that I'm not supporting them just because they chose EA as their publisher then maybe they should use a different publisher.

So I miss out on a lot of good games... Never mind. I'm getting too old for games now anyway so I couldn't give a fuck one way or another.

[Giraffas]

Well, I haven't bought any EA games since BF2, and I don't miss it at all. What they have done to games in general and what they haven't done to the modding community are the reasons for my "boycott", but that doesn't mean that I won't change my opinion. However, that is very unlikely...

[RonanHayes]

Not for my wallet it isn't.

If developers actually care that I'm not supporting them just because they chose EA as their publisher then maybe they should use a different publisher.

So I miss out on a lot of good games... Never mind. I'm getting too old for games now anyway so I couldn't give a fuck one way or another.

Do you pirate games? Do you pirate more than you would actually play? Be honest now, I'm not out to try and lynch anyone I merely want to know what we are up against here.

Personally I can't see the publisher arguement hold up. If 1944 was to be published by EA we would have an agreement in the contract regarding support, meaning that we would be forced to support the game for X months, X number of patches etc.

So if we as a developer make a bad game, then that's our fault, not EA's. If we release something which is buggy as hell again it's not EA's fault, that's our problem.

Now while I don't know the full story here, I notice BF2 came up. DICE developed BF2 and much like all the BF games was riddled with bugs, balance issues etc. This was not EA's fault, DICE would have an internal testing team and EA would have done some testing as well.

When it got to a point where all critical bugs were eliminated they would have released the product, hoping to catch all additional bugs in future releases. DICE would have supported the product as it was in their contract, when the contract ran out they would continue to support this game because it's their name on the line and brand loyalty is worth more than the expense of a few patches.

Ultimately the blame should be on DICE, if they released a sub-standard game and subsequently fucked over the community with patches. I simply can't see how EA fits into this equation. It's not as if EA would take the game from DICE and write all the patches for it.

What EA would control is the funding and you can hardly expect them to simply throw money down a bottomless pit. DICE agreed on a schedule and a budget, if they ran out of time, money etc then they should be better a timing and costing their projects. If EA pulled the project forward they should have stood by their original agreement and forced EA abide by the contract.

Ultimately though EA paid alot of money for BF2 and however the project was handled the blame cannot be put purely on EA because they are the publisher. While I don't know the full story there are two sides here and you can't simply blame EA and let the other party away with it.

Any other publisher would have done the same, and if you keep throwing money at developers we would rarely see a game get released. Instead would have far more DNF and 1944's on our hands (but our issue is not an over-run of money).

I must point out once again I don't know the situation behind BF2 and the above is a generalisation on how things could potentially have played out. Publisher - Developer politics are tough, but you can't simply slam EA as the baddy in all cases.

Infact alot of developers are singing their praises, on the same note it's your money and you have to make a judgement call. I just want you to understand that while you may have a bad image of EA, there is far more going on than EA wanting to release any and every game as quickly as possible. Even their own internal studios are prone to the same relationships as external dev studios...

What I would like to know is how many games would / do you pirate. If you do play a game and enjoy it do you honestly purchase it? Personally I find it hard to believe that someone who pirates a game, rushes out to buy it when they have experienced the game already.

[Giraffas]

I may be mistaken, but EA is more than just a publisher in Battlefield 2's case, given that DICE's full name is actually EA Digital Illusions CE. There are many (and I mean MANY) complaints as to how EA/DICE is handling the Battlefield community, and something that I can say with certainty is that EA's Battlefield community manager was hired and dismissed in 3 months time after the release of BF2, and after that no more support (that was far from satisfactory before) came from neither of these companies.

[DavidUpton]

I don't pirate.

[Zengotten]

Does anyone else besides me think that giving a game away for free to keep people from pirating it is a little stupid? If one is willing to give his game away for free in the first place then why would he make such a big deal about people pirating the game if he sold it? At least he'd be making money if he sold it as opposed to none at all if he gave it away.

[smith1215]

The last game I bought from EA was BF1942 and BFV (my old ones broke).

[Sgt So and So]

I do not pirate.

[Wundai]

Oh I pirate.

In the end I hope the game doesn't go away for free, agreeing with Zengotten + alot more work goes into this project than a mere "Mod", therefore even if I do pirate games occasionally, I think the games that deserve to be bought, should be bought :)

Thats how it is for me anyway, there have been those "maybe I should, maybe I shouldn't game titles" which I pirate first to see 1. if they are worth it 2. if my system can play them smoothly enough, and yes I admit, some of those I keep without paying for them,others when they are so awesome, I buy because they deserve it + it also helps when you can play the multiplayer side ;).

[Xandros]

Do you pirate games? Do you pirate more than you would actually play? Be honest now, I'm not out to try and lynch anyone I merely want to know what we are up against here.

Yes I pirate games. I buy games I like. I pirate games I don't like enough to buy or have some vendetta against the company that made them for whatever reason (e.g. due to the use of obtrusive copy protection).

[Digolgrin]

I say it should be freeware. Why, you may ask? Well, some of us wouldn't cough up a couple $ to get it. I don't care if development takes up to 2012, this is a game that's going to be in HIGH SCHOOLS and COLLEGES for Christ's sake! I do support your microtransactions idea, Ronan, but not enough to make me change my mind!

[Onearmy]

So, you're saying, that you want these dev's to sell over six long years of hard work, for free?! I'm sure you would be quite pissed off if you spent about three years working on a game, only to find out its going to be sold for free, and all your work you spent will be worth nothing.

I find that quite selfish. It could quite possibly turn out to be the game of the decade. Your saying you wont buy this if it costs money? Hah, funny. Good luck convincing others of that.

Some games certainly arn't worth their pricetag, but WHATEVER price is put on this game I will likely buy it.

Sure, we'd ALL want this to be free, but these days, not much is free. ESPECIALLY not games. I'd be willing to cough up $100 for 1944 if I had to.

Also, @Xandros, ......

But whatever, suit yourself mate.

[Digolgrin]

Actually they will get some income. Free with paid expansions of the theaters available, like Italy and (Mother) Russia for example. They'd also sell expansions containing weapons of war that WEREN'T in Normandy, like earlier Panzers and Hurricane MKIs and the like. Look at PAIN, a PS3 game. The community gives the ideas, the devs follow up on them eventually. That's what I'm thinking of when I say freeware.

[Baracca Chewbama]

I'm sure you would be quite pissed off if you spent about three years working on a game, only to find out its going to be sold for free.

Far be it for me to suggest what 1944 D-Day: Operation Overlord (the game) should be sold for. But let me point out that its actually pretty standard practice for modders to work on their 'labor of love' for over 3 years and then release the final product for free. Example: Black Mesa: Source and Neotokyo:Source. I'm pretty sure Counterstrike was even free, originally, until it got picked up by Valve.

Also, has it really been 6 years? No wonder things are so "relaxed" around here.

[Bunglo]

Actually they will get some income. Free with paid expansions of the theaters available, like Italy and (Mother) Russia for example. They'd also sell expansions containing weapons of war that WEREN'T in Normandy, like earlier Panzers and Hurricane MKIs and the like. Look at PAIN, a PS3 game. The community gives the ideas, the devs follow up on them eventually. That's what I'm thinking of when I say freeware.

If we went the free route (which is probably the worst route tbh), we would get our money from advertising and donations... that's not going to generate a lot of money and even worse is that we will have no idea on how much money we would be getting to push the development of the game.

Because of this unsteady funding, the development of the game becomes unstable having no idea of when another section of Normandy will be completed until we're already have 95% or so of the section done.

We can't sell expansions for money when the game itself isn't completely finished. We're also not going to just take all of these ideas from fans, especially when those ideas go against the research (such as weapons not in Normandy) and therefore the game itself.

I feel that if we offered the game for free we would come out with less money than if we simply went with the standard pay $40-$50 once and get the entire game, screw what the pirates do scenario. That would probably be the easiest for every one really so that's what I would like to do but we'll have to see how it all plays out.

[RonanHayes]

Also, has it really been 6 years? No wonder things are so "relaxed" around here.

No it's not been 6 years, but it will be by 2012.

[DavidUpton]

Far be it for me to suggest what 1944 D-Day: Operation Overlord (the game) should be sold for. But let me point out that its actually pretty standard practice for modders to work on their 'labor of love' for over 3 years and then release the final product for free. Example: Black Mesa: Source and Neotokyo:Source. I'm pretty sure Counterstrike was even free, originally, until it got picked up by Valve.

Also, has it really been 6 years? No wonder things are so "relaxed" around here.

I don't recall Ronan ever saying this was going to be a mod, or that this was ever a mod team...

[RonanHayes]

I believe he meant in general that mod teams spend all this time and effort trying to produce a mod.

Although the arguement could be said that after CounterStrike, TeamFortress, DOD etc. that alot of mod teams motive for development (especially on the source platform) is to get picked up by a development studio. Ultimately the odds are stacked heavily against them, but it's certainly a motive of alot of developers.

[DavidUpton]

Moving back to the topic of piracy quickly, have you thought about something like that was implemented in Operation Flashpoint? BIS made it so that pirated copies would degrade over time, eventually becoming unplayable (ie. not being able to hit a barn door, whilst being in the barn itself).

[Baracca Chewbama]

No it's not been 6 years, but it will be by 2012.

How long have you been in development Ronan? Thats amazing dedication, you must have a ton of secret progress.


I don't recall Ronan ever saying this was going to be a mod, or that this was ever a mod team...

Old posts on this forum say it was originally a HL2 mod (or Total Conversion, i don't know) and at one point there was a plan for a BF2 mod (or TC). But what does that have to do with my point?

My point being that, although I am not suggesting this as a good idea, for example the BM:S team is (re)creating an entire game from the ground up, they've been working on it for 4 years, and its going to be free upon release. Whether you call it a "mod" or "TC" or "indie game" the fact is that some game developers regard their projects as a labor of love and are willing to release them for free.

[Bunglo]

The HL2 and BF2 mods were only going to be used as promotional material for the full game. Kind of like a demo but it would reach a greater amount of people.

[Nafkorn]

well we have to do it like www.wwiionline.com CRS, Buy the Game may 30 USD get 2 Mounth free and 1 mounth coast 10+ USD that would be the best. WOW World of Warcraft was first for free then they changed it cause how want to play a free game if anybody can play it ? i invest my money and my time :) or the freeplayer should have a "max Rang" or samething :daisy:

my english sucks :P :book:

[Guardian]

I would really be against a subscription based game. I would rather pay 150$ USD at one time then pay for a subscription.

[smith1215]

I hate the subscription idea. I bought the game, it is mine.

[metsapeikko]

I hate the subcription idea as well.

[RonanHayes]

How long have you been in development Ronan? Thats amazing dedication, you must have a ton of secret progress.



Old posts on this forum say it was originally a HL2 mod (or Total Conversion, i don't know) and at one point there was a plan for a BF2 mod (or TC). But what does that have to do with my point?

My point being that, although I am not suggesting this as a good idea, for example the BM:S team is (re)creating an entire game from the ground up, they've been working on it for 4 years, and its going to be free upon release. Whether you call it a "mod" or "TC" or "indie game" the fact is that some game developers regard their projects as a labor of love and are willing to release them for free.

I have a bag of tricks ;)

It's also hard to believe but we have most of the weapons and vehicles for the game and any expansion pack modelled. Meaning all we need do is touch them up and get the best textures on them.


Well I suppose the issue with Black Mesa source is that they are using another companies IP. Hopefully Valve will pick it up and the team will be rewarded for their efforts. Obviously it's a labour of love and they have faced many of the typical struggles that mod / indie developers face. It's also benefited them greatly to be developing a recreation for an existing IP. This would help them draw in alot of developers to help out.

Unfortunately we have not been so fortunate, as 1944 is an unknown IP and to make matters worse it's a WW2 game. Alot of artists have moved away from WW2 as something that simply doesn't interest them. So where Modern Combat Games, Sci-Fi and Post Apoc projects have seen huge boosts. We are stuck in a position where very few developers want to touch a WW2 project.

That said getting reliable team members is something that all projects suffer from and casualties are expect during the course of development. Hopefully everything will pan out for all projects who stick it out a long time. If not, at very least everyone has participated in working with others, made a few friends etc.

I've met several of the 1944 team in person and will meet many more of them over the next year or two.



I hate the subcription idea as well.

Unfortunately I believe this may be the direction alot of games will be going.

An interesting report over at kotaku:

http://kotaku.com/5264139/indie-devs-turn-to-in+game-ads-after-piracy-strike

[Xandros]

Perhaps you should just do away with the LAN/offline aspect of the game and have it entirely online only. Okay so you'll piss off people who were dead set in playing the game offline but, if you were going to require people have an account and log in online anyway to play offline it doesn't really make much difference.

[Bunglo]

Okay so you'll piss off people who were dead set in playing the game offline but, if you were going to require people have an account and log in online anyway to play offline it doesn't really make much difference.

We're not planning on having that type of copyright protection and I don't want us to limit the user in any way when they feel like playing the game. They should have the choice of going online with others or playing offline with only the AI. Not to mention that there are still people with 56k or just slow internet in general... they would be left out of the game as well.

[Xandros]

Fair enough. Online authentication never worked for long to stop piracy anyway I guess.

[Hell's High]

I have an idea for anti piracy. You use the system of individual copy numbering, and if a repeat number is found your entire game turns into pedobear humping that little girl from Lazy Town while "You are a Pirate" from the same show blares. Fool proof I tell yah. ;P

[[BEF]-R!G4M0RT!Z]

I'd say about £30-£40 is the most I'd be willing to pay for a new PC game. Otherwise I'd just wait until it was sold cheaper.

[Onearmy]

I have an idea for anti piracy. You use the system of individual copy numbering, and if a repeat number is found your entire game turns into pedobear humping that little girl from Lazy Town while "You are a Pirate" from the same show blares. Fool proof I tell yah. ;P

That might promote piracy... Some perverts might actually want that instead of the real game :surprised:

[bidiot]

On average I'd pay 30-40 for PC so I don't see why this should be too different.

[Xeathos]

I like two options.
Firstly, the standard pay full payment all at once, Say, 40-50$ cnd or something around average game pricing.

Or how Ronan suggested , the pack options. That'd allow for a good general experience of the game, and it would also most likely push more people to spend that extra $5 when they see /hear all the pilots bragging about how good it is.. etc etc.






What I would like to know is how many games would / do you pirate. If you do play a game and enjoy it do you honestly purchase it? Personally I find it hard to believe that someone who pirates a game, rushes out to buy it when they have experienced the game already.

I pirate games. Yes.

If I play a game an enjoy it, I will probably buy it. This has happened more than once surprisingly.. (I know probably < 1% of people are like this but..

Example. Lets take, Rise and Fall: Civilizations at war. The game was fun for a while, (when I pirated it). Wasn't particularly new either.. SO, I enjoyed the SP of it, then went and bought full version for $25. It was fun online as well. Was a win situation.

Went back few months later, no more online. Was I still glad I bought it ? Yes. I enjoyed a couple months out of it. Good situation.

Another example could be COD:4. Yes , I bought it mainly for the multiplayer, but I wanted to have a general idea of how it played before I purchased it.. I REALLY like the try before you buy aspect.


This is another reason why I like the idea of having a base, free version of the game. It will give a chance for the "try before you buy" people such as my self to , try it out, decided if it's worth it, then buy it..

That way you eliminate:

people who buy it flat out and say its bullshit etc etc.
&
people who justify pirating it because there is no demo etc etc.

[Flyerborn]

I'd say about 40 - 50 dollars.. If you sold it for too much less maybe less than $30, people would start to think that it is a cheap knock off of an original game. Besides most new games sell for around $40 so itd make sense to make money off of it. Somehow maybe you could reduce pirating by providing registration keys that come with the game? Not sure if that would help but its worth a try.
Advertising is another thing. Spending too much would leave you with less to support the game, but spend too little and people would not know much about it.. Its somewhat of a balance, but hey, you already have a community and you dont even advertise (at least ive never seen any advertisements from you guys)

Youre doing an amazing job with this game, you should get something in return!

[Onearmy]

Well, heres an idea to prevent Piracy. Paradox Interactive does something similar.


Okay, every game comes with a certain number or so. You come to this website and enter that number to get your CD-key. If that number is entered more than... Say, 5 times, you can't get your CD-Key.

Also, to get new patches you would require your CD-key and download them from this site only.


Just an idea.... throwing it out there...

[stevetheturtle]

what is a microtransaction model ?

[Sgt So and So]

Microtransaction is where the base game is free or, say, $10, but in order to upgrade to tanks, or to airplanes, or to unlock other parts of the map, you'd have to pay small amounts of money for each. Hence, the term "microtransaction" was born.

Frankly, I'm not a big fan of it, but if it gets the job done.:icon_biggrin:

[Flyerborn]

The only thing i would be against is requireing cd key for everything, and if it shows up more than once it wont work. I have 2 computers, and if i wanted to install them on both then i would have to buy a new game? Maybe to a certain extent you'd need a cd key but definately not for everything. I hope.

[Lucan]

IMO it should just cost 40 euros and be done with it. No reason to change what works, and no reason to adopt what sucks (subscription or, less so, micro transaction.)

[stevetheturtle]

I defiantly think a regular model of 1 payment of probably 50 or 60 dollars would work best and reduce headaches.

[khbigjoe]

I really believe subscription is the way. Surely it will stop piracy, if you need to log in before playing then you cant play withut having paid?

I think thats the only way subscription would work too..having to be connected to the internet and logging in before playing. So you can either have a monthly payment type subscription or just a one off of £30 or something?

[khbigjoe]

Having said the above ^ ..I also think having a very limited version for free, which displays the potential of the other aspects is good. The game will be pretty damn good when its finished that I'm sure a limited version will be enough to tempt people into paying for a full version

I've done this a few times myself in the past with games I have tried out

[Lucan]

I really believe subscription is the way. Surely it will stop piracy, if you need to log in before playing then you cant play withut having paid?

I think thats the only way subscription would work too..having to be connected to the internet and logging in before playing. So you can either have a monthly payment type subscription or just a one off of £30 or something?

No. Fuck no. Subscription is the reason I never got into WWIIOL. If it had been a single payment of 50 or 60 dollars, hell yeah. If that was all it was, I bet you the community would the WWIIOL community would be far larger.

[khbigjoe]

What exactly is the problem with a subscription for a game like that though? Its not exactly expensive for something that provides hours of entertainment. It wouldn't really work for them either if it was a one off payment. They wouldnt have the same income which they rely on...plus you get decent updates now and then with new features.

Like I realised though, it would be best for a one off payment for 1944 seeing as its not purely online...but not just a regular dvd ..steam or some sort of subscription style log in to prevent piracy

[Guardian]

I have a couple of problems with it. Having to pay monthly is just a hassle and I would rather just pay a lot and be done with it and not have to worry about the time left in my subscription. And eventually after a while you would end up paying much more then if you bought it once. But this is a problem that will come later. The other thing is at the moment I am not old enough to get an job therefore I will eventually run out of money and just annoy my parents with having them have to pay every year or month. That's why I never have gotten in to subscription based games when otherwise I would have.

[Lucan]

I have a couple of problems with it. Having to pay monthly is just a hassle and I would rather just pay a lot and be done with it and not have to worry about the time left in my subscription. And eventually after a while you would end up paying much more then if you bought it once. But this is a problem that will come later. The other thing is at the moment I am not old enough to get an job therefore I will eventually run out of money and just annoy my parents with having them have to pay every year or month. That's why I never have gotten in to subscription based games when otherwise I would have.

This is my main problem with a subscription: paying more than you should have to pay, and aside from that it's just a hassle.

[Zengotten]

If this game is made subscription based I will consider not even playing it, it would be a huge downer for me.

Making it subscription based will probably close off the market to those people who aren't gamers in the first place like teachers, history buffs and other adults that Ronan would probably want to market the game to.

I think people are forgetting that this game isn't being made just for hardcore gamers, it's for other people too. putting it out retail is the best way to go, you pay for it and it's yours; it's a concept that everyone understands.

[khbigjoe]

Well I really don't see the hassle..it couldn't be easier. Plus you have options to pay for a year / quarter etc all in one go. My point is it clearly makes sense for a purely online game (ww2ol) where youre using their server etc so its not just the software.

This is off topic now anyway as Ive already said that it wouldnt make sense to subscribe to a single player game unless there was a monthly update with new content for example. Im in favour of having a limited version for free with the option of paying a normal price of a game to get everything forever.

My original subscription idea was really to combat piracy but its just a one off £30 payment and its yours forever

[Sgt So and So]

Just do it the way Relic does with Company of Heroes: you need to log into a server with a username/password in order to play the game WITHOUT a disc. It's not an attribute that one can get solely with a subscription model- you can do it with single-pay, too.

Also, it has offline mode, but it requires the disk in order to activate.

[khbigjoe]

you need to log into a server with a username/password in order to play the game WITHOUT a disc.

Yeah thats what I was thinking really

[Lucan]

Just do it the way Relic does with Company of Heroes: you need to log into a server with a username/password in order to play the game WITHOUT a disc. It's not an attribute that one can get solely with a subscription model- you can do it with single-pay, too.

Also, it has offline mode, but it requires the disk in order to activate.

That would be good, but what if you lost your CD key? That happened to me with Company of Heroes, and now I can't play it.

[Wundai]

Option 1: Don't lose the CD-Key
Option 2: Write it down somewhere
Option 3: (Hardcore 1944 gamer option only) Tattoo it on your arm.

[Onearmy]

Option 1: Don't lose the CD-Key
Option 2: Write it down somewhere
Option 3: (Hardcore 1944 gamer option only) Tattoo it on your arm.


Option 3 would be bad unless a CD-key can only be used once.

[Lucan]

Option 1: Don't lose the CD-Key
Option 2: Write it down somewhere
Option 3: (Hardcore 1944 gamer option only) Tattoo it on your arm.

Yes, those are all completely non-foolproof options that could easily be screwed up. The CD-key should only be required for the install. I'm good about not losing my CD keys- I usually keep all the boxes/manuals on a shelf in my library- but I still loose some. Not every body is this careful. IMO it would be a big mistake to make the CD key necessary for anything other than the install.

[Oddvin]

Yes, those are all completely non-foolproof options that could easily be screwed up. The CD-key should only be required for the install. I'm good about not losing my CD keys- I usually keep all the boxes/manuals on a shelf in my library- but I still loose some. Not every body is this careful. IMO it would be a big mistake to make the CD key necessary for anything other than the install.

I disagree, the cd key is the proof you have actually bought the game, and therefore it should be used for other things aswell as the install.

[Lucan]

I disagree, the cd key is the proof you have actually bought the game, and therefore it should be used for other things aswell as the install.

I know- the game should check to see if you entered a CD key during install- or, in the case of a legal download, to check for a code or something unique to each downloaded copy to allow you to play multiplayer. But you should not have to enter the CD key every time you start the game, unlike company of heroes.

[Redkid]

I think the Company of Heroes way is a superb way to do it. Keep a valid e-mail and you'll never loose it, and the account can be used to track stats, vehicle qualifications etc. Single purchase.

[Lucan]

I think the Company of Heroes way is a superb way to do it. Keep a valid e-mail and you'll never loose it, and the account can be used to track stats, vehicle qualifications etc. Single purchase.

A valid e-mail? What? How does that help? Do you mean there's an option like "I lost my CD key" and then you get a CD key emailed to you? Is the CD key emailed to you when you buy the game? What?

[Bunglo]

Getting off topic here guys...

[Sgt So and So]

A valid e-mail? What? How does that help? Do you mean there's an option like "I lost my CD key" and then you get a CD key emailed to you? Is the CD key emailed to you when you buy the game? What?

No, you sign up by giving your email address and the CD key, so the CD key is tied to that address. It's pretty much the same signup system as an MMO, except you don't pay monthly.

[khbigjoe]

No, you sign up by giving your email address and the CD key, so the CD key is tied to that address. It's pretty much the same signup system as an MMO, except you don't pay monthly.

That is exactly what I think is needed.

[Grabigel]

This game sounds too good to be free, and the community doesn't seem to be big enough, but I don't like the idea of the subscription' for the Whole game. Maybe subscriptions for premium servers would be a good idea, I don't know how this would work though. Until I see some game play, I'd only say $50, which is €25.

Meh.. I was close with the price haha.

[Zengotten]

Correction, $50 = €34.18

[Lagato]

First post from a long time lurker. (Even before I registered and I still can't believe I'm actually posting)

Anyway,

Ronin/Devs: Why don't you do the WoW method and sell it retail/steam then also require a low yearly fee? This will keep the low level trolls out.

Also, regarding the piracy concerns, why not pull the very effective FADE technique from ArmA or the recent "Batman Glider" technique from Eidos?

This has proven to be very difficult to crack. (As of this post, and as far as I am aware of, there is no exact method of getting past the glider hook.)

Source: http://www.aeropause.com/2009/09/eidos-laughs-at-batman-piracy-glitch/

[Althalus28]

They've hacked it already, i think the relic way is the way to go, without a doubt, where there is monthly fees, there is hatred, and if you do the whole batman things, hackers will just get better and better imo.

[Lagato]

They've hacked it already, i think the relic way is the way to go, without a doubt, where there is monthly fees, there is hatred, and if you do the whole batman things, hackers will just get better and better imo.

Source?

(I believe you, but I'd like to see it for myself)

[CCCP Red Trooper]

i say setting up an online account with a cd-key and email is by far the best idea i have heard and i say $35-$50 is probably the best price range to sell in America right now (unless your Infinity ward and you can charge whatever price you pretty much want and the mass flock of sheep will go right to it)

[Althalus28]

Source?

My mate downloaded it, its something to do with a fake positive trojan, if you want proof go on mininova and look up batman grapple/glide whatever cracks.

[LegTaste]

If you want to avoid piracy, the only effective method would be to not release the game at all.

Developers/publishers should just accept piracy is going to happen, and care enough about their potential customers to not implement extreme measures that could have a negative impact on those who legally purchase the game.

Really what is going to make you the much needed cash is perhaps finding a publisher, and getting the advertising (too early for that now i know). You could develop an uncrackable game (you cant) but without spreading the word the inability to pirate it is not going to make anywhere near as much as a game that everyone knows about.

I don't aim to offend but its a bit silly expecting to get a definitive answer about why people pirate games, everyone will have their reasons.

It doesn't make sense to say "well zeno clash/demigod had no drm, why are people downloading it" i personally dont see much logic in that.

Some people are just faced with the question "why pay when i don't have to?"

Some people are driven to it by DRM

Some people cant afford it, some people are cheap, some people will just not pay no matter what.

Some people do just want a a little taste before buying (or not), some people are inpatient.

And some people do indeed just talk bollocks.


And to get a bit more on topic,

I'd happily pay around £25, and i feel a good old CD key verification system for online play should do the job.

And by doing the job, i mean parting those with the "i dont pay for single player games" reasoning from their cash.


Since this is my first post, i will just say i feel that indie developers are the future of pc gaming.

[Fozzy The Bear]

I vote for the WWIIONLINE (subscription) setup. Yeah you have to pay per month, but the game is in constant process of fine tuning. If the devs implement something that ruins the game play, forum feedback lets them know what needs to be fixed, tweaked or thrown out. What's not to love about that?

[CCCP Red Trooper]

I vote for the WWIIONLINE (subscription) setup. Yeah you have to pay per month, but the game is in constant process of fine tuning. If the devs implement something that ruins the game play, forum feedback lets them know what needs to be fixed, tweaked or thrown out. What's not to love about that?

The fact that not every gamer out there can purchase online subscriptions (i.e. they might not have a paypal or a card) and the possibility the subscription being a lot more expensive of a 1 time buy isn't that appealing.

[exdeath]

Some (many) gamers not pay for a game that has online subscriptions, no matter how good the game is or how cheap those subscriptions are.

[Soldier of Fortune]

Considered the huge amounts of work put in this game, I think it's right to pay a couple of bucks. The quality of this game compared to others, well, you can't even compare, because big game producers focus on mainstream games and 1944 focusses on quality.

I'm waiting a long time for a historical accurate game like this, an a price tag around 40-60 euro's (Im living in the Netherlands) seems justified to me.
Is this great game released on DVD or isn't this decided yet?

[Black.]

Chose 30 as it probably works out to 60 Canadian, which is very fair.

Actually on second hand I probably should have chosen higher considering this is being made from scratch and is completely unique.

If I saw this game completed with everything promised in these forums and on the shelves somewhere or available for purchase and shipping online I would buy it for 150 dollars Canadian guaranteed.

[chip360]

Yeah, Free- okay... lol.
Would any of you devote 10-20 years of your life working with no pay?

[Pwn]

Good pay = quality production

[Flyerborn]

I'd be very willing to plop down a lot of cash for everything stated on these forums. This will be at least 6 years in the making and, yes people may pirate it, but you know, a lot of people on the forums say that theyre willing to pay for it, and every game is pirated, no matter what they do, except a few, and i hate subscription and transaction models.

Subscription - pay 1-2 a year (maybe $20 a year) but in the end, you end up paying maybe $120 for a game you could have bought for half as much in a store.

[Forrmonster]

Alright, I haven't really read the posts before me (cardinal sin, I know). However, I believe that a small fee for subscription would be acceptable. This way the team would get a gradual flow of money, but would continue development on the game itself. This would also mean patching and such.
I believe there was previous mention, and by previous I mean a couple years ago, that the game would be half free, half pay to play. I liked that idea, charge a small fee for the game itself, so people may play in a sandbox server, but charge a subcription fee for those that wanted in on a moderated and watched over server... as to avoid TKers and dumbasses.
I am for supporting this game with a decent sum of money, whatever that cost may be. This is /NOT/ a game I would pirate, as I would enjoy for the company to continue to produce more.

EDIT: I agree with the Flyerborn and his above posted statement. (By that I mean I agree with his first sentence.)

[RaggaDagga]

I think paying $30-$40 for the base game, where you would play as the standard infantryman. For a few bucks more, you would be able to take control of an air force unit, armored unit, or a naval unit

[david06]

Assuming the game delivers? Let's see, this $2000 computer has about $500 worth of peripherals on it (flightstick, rudder pedals, trackIR) so even if you wanted to charge for purchase and then require an ongoing subscription fee with DRM and the like I'd pay for it.

If the company is producing excellent software, then I want them to be making as much money as possible, that way they can continue development, bring new titles and attract the best talent. The guys churning out well-hyped garbage should be the ones scraping by or folding.

If this turns out to be a decent WW2 combined arms sim, then you guys charge whatever you need to in order to profit. Whoever does not understand this is either a juvenille or a pirate. There are plenty of working adults and former military guys that will pay for the real deal.

[Vash]

I feel that a price of $40-70 US would be fair and still draw a decent amount of revenue. I don't think a monthly fee should be mandatory but I recall a mention somewhere of possibly having a second set of better maintained dedicated servers available only to players who pay a monthly fee, say $7-10 US, depending on how much the initial price is. (As with other subscription-based games, you could offer bundles, like 3 months or 12 months for a slightly discounted price.) This would bring a small trickle of revenue and provide a place for the more serious players who truly care about supporting the 1944 team to play (Obviously the free servers would still be available to them if they wanted to play with a friend who doesnt pay).

I have been following these forums since about 2006 and am still amazed every day at what this game is shaping up to be. Honestly, I would pay almost any price for this game, not only because it's going to be amazing but because of how hard the developers have worked on it and how much they value the community and its input.

Regarding pirating, I don't think it's possible to make a game that will not be pirated unless it is absolutely free. With that said, I believe that one of the best ways to minimize pirating is to create a game whose multiplayer content is just as appealing as its single player experience, if not more so. 1944 seems to be a game that, though the single player will be incredible, will be best enjoyed online. No matter how good AI is, it's still AI, and nothing beats being able to communicate and coordinate with your teammates. All that must be done then is to protect your servers to keep players who have pirated the game out.

I am not a huge fan of expansions/downloadable content. I feel like paying for a piece of a game which you have already purchased is sort of being ripped off. I understand the need to generate more funds before continuing the development of the game, but releasing the software before the key places have been fully developed is always a disappointing. I would rather wait a few more months, or a year if necessary, for all of the main places to be completed to the developers' satisfaction. (By main places I mean places such as Cherbourg, Carentan, beginning of the battle for Caen, the beaches of course, and any other chokepoints in the area involved in the first 2-4 weeks of the invasion.) Assuming all of this was available from the initial release I would probably not hesitate to then purchase further expansions, such as maybe Paris as you mentioned, or finishing the battle for Normandy by finishing Caen or maybe getting into Operation Cobra.

Also, if you wanted to do a pay-to-unlock method, which I don't really like, I would suggest allowing free users the ability to rank up to PFC or Corporal so that they can get the feeling of ranking up and want to continue once they reach their limit.

[Wundai]

Sigh... I've been away a month or so maybe longer and this 1944 for free discussion is STILL going.

I remember last time I checked Ronan put a stop to it?

[Flyerborn]

Well you have to remember that you need a price that is good for regular consumers. I think that they should sell in retail stores but that's just me. Anyway you need a price that the "average Joe" (probably your most profitable person) won't have to think too much about. Probably $50 would be a good set price. It doesn't break the bank and right now with economy the way it is that's probably your best bet. If you think about subscription model what is the average joe going to think about? Constant payment, kind of like a phone bill, and we all know how much people hate that. So I believe one price at one time over and done with. If you produce and sell enough product you'll soon be able to outweigh the money you spent developing the game.

And in the US you'll notice that most things are the price of a common dollar bill. $19.95, $49.95, $99.95 ect. All made so a person at most doesn't have to think too hard about buying it. It's just about handing them one BIG bill and a couple 1's rather than having them fork over several rather large bill. This may be a bit in the marketing category but that's just my view on the matter.

[Corey]

I really really like the mini transaction model a lot.

To me it's brilliant, and how any game should be (if the game is structured in an unlockable new things way). You will gain much much more interest with the free client, probably even a lot just from word of mouth on the internet, assuming advertising is a much harder endeavor with a small development team, and likely more money.
- Like you said, no reason to pirate (and unlocking character classes illegally would be much easier to control / difficult to do I'd think)
- This will result in a lot more people playing the game than would otherwise.
- This in turn will likely give you more money from players who would have otherwise not purchased the game straight up, or only want to to purchase certain classes and not spend the full amount, as well as the same amount of money from players who already want experience the full game as you would with a traditional $50ish dollar game purchase option.
- No other game does it but you could even set up a virtual market place (think people buying warcraft accounts) whereupon a retired player could sell his unlocked classes to another player with both parties knowing they won't be frauded (the retired player could also come back and pick up the game again (it's free why not?) and then decide to pay again for unlocks)

[Corey]

Even putting a $5 dollar client download in stores in addition to the free online client would be a good deal, and a good promotional thing.

[Lemontree]

I myself am used to the fact that I pay 50 Euros upwards for a game. I'd suggest that price.

[smith1215]

$30 to $50 is good.

[Lucan]

I think anywhere in the range of 35 to 45 Euros would be good. Micro transaction, fuck no. Subscription, fuck no. Please, stick with a straight up payment.

[Z.agge]

I agree with Lucan. Casual price and no fancy subscriptions or transactions.

[btraill]

I think any mature and dedicated follower wouldn't have a problem with a moderate one-time fee. (40 euros'ish')

[Guardian]

I would as I would be out of money.( Well by time the game comes out Ill have a job and be able to drive) but until then I would get to pay for a month then be done.

[bwc153]

Im not sure if this is mentioned, but a 20-30 euro price would be adequate, and just to make sure the game doesn't get pirated you could use FADE

FADE is a software that degrades the game slowly over time if it detects it as pirated, or if one modifies the core files of the game. Its used to great effect for ARMA 2, but on that the only bad thing is that many pirates are too stupid to notice the FADE warning whenever they try to join a server, indicating FADE has been activated. Due to that, they end up thinking the game sucks because they don't realise FADE degraded their game. A solution would be a big popup or something on the main menu, or slowed loading times with the loading picture having a FADE warning on there.

[FFA702]

Personaly,i would go for the 20-30 euro price for the full game.Subribtion model is bullshit i wont pay X ammount of money a week to play your game.I wanth to buy it and play it,like any god popular game.

[Lucan]

Personally, I believe that a price of 20-30 Euros is the best for this. If I have to pay X amount of money every Y unit of time, I will be quite upset. I want to buy the game and be done with the payment, like any other good game.

I agree with this.

(BONUS: I translated it into Enlgish for you guys.)

[smith1215]

I agree with this.

(BONUS: I translated it into Enlgish for you guys.)

Ah, I understand it now ;)

[Baracca Chewbama]

i think we can all agree that the 1944 d-day should not be free - all the heros that have "donated" their thousands, all the artist who have made incredible models of tanks, houses, boats, all the Ronan who have directed this epic task... it would be a crime against humanity for all this money and work to have no reward, in a free to play game. i dont know what the correct price is but i think we can all agree that.

[FFA702]

I dunno,i would like to pay for it but i wanth the engine source.....

[Baracca Chewbama]

wow but the engine source is going to be totally unique, i dont know if they can release that. its going to be 25% some commercial engine maybe CryEngine 2 or 3 and 75% their own customized code that allows the game to have tens of thousands of units and millions of miles of terrain and AI that runs the whole war (probably millions of soldiers and civilians). they cant just give that insane power of engine to just anyone who buys the game, that is ridiculous. hopefully there is something like ARMA2 where u can build your own scenarios, like a level editor, but the engine source is going to be worth millions of dollars when it is complete in 2012

i feel jealous of the people who got to buy stock and options in 1944d-day several years ago because there investment are going to be mile-high in 2012.

[Dave61218]

Rather just see one payment for the game.

[Baracca Chewbama]

really? because the amount that went into it deserves more benefit IMHO

[Lucan]

really? because the amount that went into it deserves more benefit IMHO

By one payment, we mean a single payment of somewhere between 35 and 45 euros, which is a fair number. A subscription model is complete bullshit IMO.

[smith1215]

I will play $49.99 for the game! Seems fair considering the re-playablity and what not.

[Guardian]

I would pay $80 to $90 if It came in a cool collectors addition think box with maps and a huge manual and stuff! But I think I read somewhere that there not going to have actual CDs.

[Z.agge]

I agree with Guardian. I'd be willing to pay about $50 if the game will be sold the original way or if I download it via Steam etc. but I would certainly buy some kind of Collectors Edition box with everything cool inside for about $75 to $100. You should really think about that... I think it would have really much potential!

[smith1215]

lol What game was it where you got a helmet for pre-ordering or something lol? Halo? It would be cool if you got a german helment as the Collector's pack.

[monstercam]

with modern warfare 2 you got nightvision goggles with the special edition or whatever

[Guardian]

I wouldn't even need that, just some cool stuff in the box. Nothing that cost to much to make or is work. That stuff would just end up on my desk in the way.

[TheSavior111]

Whatever it costs just release the game ASAP i had a fucking dream that i had a coma that ended on may 12 2012 and when i woke up i went directly to the store but it was destroyed but i found a copy and when i got out some kind of futuristic police tried to arrest me and started running and people started shooting at them then i hid,installed the game and the dream ended that was weird really weird.

[Lucan]

You need psychiatric help.

[Baracca Chewbama]

tTheSavior you clearly are suffering a tense paranoiac attack and maybe sleep apnea , yyou should get to a medic ASAP buddy! lol