You've just lost a potention customer.

[pikatore]

3 Euros a month... TO TEST AN ALPHA??!?!

And 10 Euros per month for something like this?

Look, I appreciate that Eskil has been a one-man-band through all this, but that was his choice.

And he really isn't helping himself by running only one dedicated host per physical server.

Sorry. I'm sure Love sounds like a great game and all, but when you put what it's offering down on the table next to other games, a subscription service for a game like this sounds absolutely ridiculous.

I want to pay money for what a game is worth, not for sympathy for the developer.

Until that changes, I'm out.

And before the rest of the board community hits me hard for this, what I'm thinking is exactly going through the minds of plenty of people here and elsewhere. And you all know it.

Later.

[Martin]

I'm not sure I do know it, Love is a totally unique game and a lot of people are very excited about that.

I don't play MMOs, so I also never pay subscriptions for games, I agree that paying for an alpha is a bit steep but I can deal with it. I think Love is probably worth it.

[DrPayne]

I completely agree with OP. Charging a fee for an incomplete game is completely ridiculous. What a letdown.

[Martin]

I agree it's rather steep charging for an alpha, but maybe eskil has no food? :P

[johnmatthais]

Originally Posted by Martin

I'm not sure I do know it, Love is a totally unique game and a lot of people are very excited about that.

I don't play MMOs, so I also never pay subscriptions for games, I agree that paying for an alpha is a bit steep but I can deal with it. I think Love is probably worth it.

I'm going to be honest and tell you right now dude. LOVE to me sounds like a persistent-world, sandbox FPS with PvE instead of PvP. In this game, not only are you losing what a lot of people play FPSs strictly for, but it's not even quite a massive game.

What keeps me here is that I want to see it succeed. The game itself is a step in the right direction for games everywhere, and the artistic look of the game is totally astounding. It's so amazing that every one of the screenshots comes out like a painting.

But here I am to warn you, if you have NEVER paid for a subscription game in your life and aren't willing to shell out $15 a month for even the most content laden MMO when some are even FPS games with twitch-based combat (Huxley [not sub I know], PlanetSide, Darkfall, Global Agenda, etc) then this probably isn't worth the offering for you and once you've played it, you may not stick around long. It's going to have much less content than any of those games have. For this part of my speech, let me put it this way: Would you pay $15 a month for a persistent-world version of a game like Savage?

I really do want to see this game succeed. I want to play this game and enjoy every minute playing it. I personally will even pay for the game, but I'm also an avid MMO supporter and an avid Indie developer/musician/director/etc supporter. I clearly understand that this game probably isn't worth the money to most and am still going to pay for it, simply because I want to see it succeed and I want it to be a lesson to developers everywhere that new ideas can, in fact, be incredible.

I also, at some point in time, want to see Eskil or someone else expand on this and make a truly amazing MMORPG out of it.

[Ledah]

I can understand charging monthly for the game. Eskil said more than once that this game will have higher server costs per player than your everyday mmo, so it's understandable.

Also, 3€ for a month isn't much, and I can afford it without much hassle. What bugs me is the principle behind it. Alpha/beta testing a game, to be well done, is a bit of a chore. That's why companies have QA teams that have salaries instead of having the testers pay for the privilege. So what I see here are two options:

1) I'm paying so I get the chance to help him.

2) I'm paying to play an incomplete alpha build, on a somewhat more honest version of the release of games such as Vanguard or Age of Conan.

I guess like previous posters I'll be buying 1 month and check it out. Unless it's really good and worth 3€ each month in play value, I'm not paying to help get it in shape so I can pay even more later to play it. Now... if someone who pays and helps with testing gets some sort of cut on retail price... things might change.

[johnmatthais]

Did Eskil ever say anything about retail price? And I'm sure if you've sat here and helped him and paid for it throughout alpha, granted there is a retail price, I'm sure he won't make you pay it. That seems a bit absurd. There has to be SOME advantage to playing alpha and bug reporting. Every other company uses the free play, or in the case of QA teams, the pay, as motivation to bug test for them. I'm sure Eskil would give us some sort of benefit if we support him in such a way.

[Daniel]

I'd be more than happy to pay the ~$5 USD for a month in the alpha, to see if I enjoy the game, and then continue paying for there. We're not even sure how long the beta will last, so being able to play early AND have a lower price seems like a steal to me.

[johnmatthais]

There's also always the chance that the alpha is actually really refined and not as bug-laden as we would all think.

[Colten]

Thats not even expensive. I really dont see what youre complaining about. Also, I dont believe hes lost many 'potention' customers (I believe you meant potential)

[Onyx]

In US that's about 15 dollars, the same as most monthly fees for mmos.

[Colten]

15 USD for post-alpha
5 USD for pre-alpha

[JSUMAN]

I think there are two things to keep in mind. First, charging for the alpha has a purpose besides generating revenue. It's to limit the number of testers. Charging a fee is possibly the most fair way to do that.

Second, I don't really think I would call LOVE a shooter from what I've seen. It looks more like an action/adventure like the first Legend of Zelda. It seems to be more about building your city, exploring the world, and playing with devices then shooting stuff. Look at how it is presented. No gun on screen. An art style the blurs and distorts edges, some that would be terrible in a twitch shooter. An anamorphic aspect ratio. Everything about the presentation seems to be separating it from shooters, even though it is in first person.

[johnmatthais]

Originally Posted by JSUMAN

I think there are two things to keep in mind. First, charging for the alpha has a purpose besides generating revenue. It's to limit the number of testers. Charging a fee is possibly the most fair way to do that.

Second, I don't really think I would call LOVE a shooter from what I've seen. It looks more like an action/adventure like the first Legend of Zelda. It seems to be more about building your city, exploring the world, and playing with devices then shooting stuff. Look at how it is presented. No gun on screen. An art style the blurs and distorts edges, some that would be terrible in a twitch shooter. An anamorphic aspect ratio. Everything about the presentation seems to be separating it from shooters, even though it is in first person.

This is true. I never said it was a twitch-shooter though. Just that it mainly seemed to focus on building and defending your city. You did say it a bit better than I did though. Thanks. =]

[Martin]

Originally Posted by johnmatthais

I'm going to be honest and tell you right now dude. LOVE to me sounds like a persistent-world, sandbox FPS with PvE instead of PvP. In this game, not only are you losing what a lot of people play FPSs strictly for, but it's not even quite a massive game.

True, but then there are plenty of FPS games about, I'm not going to be playing as a fighter much in love, if I want some FPS goodness I'll go stick some people to walls with crossbows in sourceforts or something

Originally Posted by johnmatthais

But here I am to warn you, if you have NEVER paid for a subscription game in your life and aren't willing to shell out $15 a month for even the most content laden MMO when some are even FPS games with twitch-based combat (Huxley, PlanetSide, Darkfall, Global Agenda, etc) then this probably isn't worth the offering for you and once you've played it, you may not stick around long. It's going to have much less content than any of those games have. For this part of my speech, let me put it this way: Would you pay $15 a month for a persistent-world version of a game like Savage?

you're judging the worth of a game by the amount of content? Maybe that's a good way for some people to judge, it's not how I judge games. Out of all those games listed above planetside is the one I've ever come closest to getting a subscription, simply because individual players can have a big impact on the world, and there is none of this silly instancing that other MMOs use to convert their multi million player game into a 40 man multiplayer game. Love doesn't have as much original content as any of these other games, but it has some unique gameplay, and small enough servers that I can actually get to *know* people socially.

Originally Posted by johnmatthais

I also, at some point in time, want to see Eskil or someone else expand on this and make a truly amazing MMORPG out of it.

Maybe love isn't the game for you, it already is an amazing game, but it's not an rpg, it's something unique (I guess rpg might be the closest genre to subscribe it to). The non MMOness is something Eskil said he picked to keep games small and personal, everyone on a 100 man server can at least vaguely get to know everyone else.