I must say, I am really enjoying this game after a couple of days of playing... I am troubled however by what seems like a pointless money grab ($10/month + $25 starter set) for a game which seems like it should have been sold as a 'stand alone' client with a multi-player server. I just think of games like HOMM and CIV which allow me to pay one price for everything, play offline in single player mode and connect to the internet for lobby games. These game (new) cost me around $50 out the door. Its your game and your pricing model- But as an 'outsider' looking in and longtime gamer from the days of using wooden keyboards- I will not be kicking any money in although I think the game seems quite cool. I would easily pay a one time fee of $40 or so to have everything and no recurring "club fee"- A place where everyone is on an even playing field. Again, I am not knocking the game. I want to play and enjoy this game but sadly am probably done due to the price model. I hope you guys are successful because we NEED more TB tactics games and I enjoy the cards (although it was weird at first) but to purchase the starter pack and pay a sub for a year I have spent $145 on a browser game that could 'turn off' tomorrow. The strategy games I am used to all have online multi-player, a single player client and can be purchased IN FULL for a one time fee of $50 or under... Hell, I still play Civ 4 online and off and that was purchased for $20 (expansions included) So...Thats my feedback for you guys. Great idea, cool game but very, very expensive and seemingly "pay to win" which is too bad =( I will be keeping a close eye and if ever there is an offline version available for purchase OR the price is vastly lowered - I will be back. -Thanks.
To be clear, I am liking your post because the comparison to 'games you buy' is fair. I however do not think the game is particularly pay-to-win. Just don't spend money on it—you have the complete experience, except you have to play a few more scenarios to get the same amount of loot.
Yea, I don't see Card Hunter as pay-to-win either. You cannot really buy any advantage in the game, all you buy is extra loot, which basically means you buy time. Anyone can get all the same items for free if they just play a bit longer. It's not a perfect system but devs need to get paid somehow. I would like to see the monthly fee lowered a bit though, or maybe have some kind of a lifetime subscription deal. One thing I would also like to see is an ability to buy the Club Reward for some small amount of pizza. This way you wouldn't have to pay for monthly fees, but you could buy that occasional good item. One issue with making Card Hunter stand alone is that people wouldn't pay top dollar for it. It looks like a Flash game so buyers expect it to be cheap. Nobody would pay $40-$50 for it when there are "real" games that are same prize or cheaper.
I would bet you that if you made an "Advanced Edition" 50$ price point that included, say, a lifetime club membership and access to all treasure hunts forever (so that you basically have everything gameic you can buy, just not figurines or extra epic chests), people would buy it. Maybe not a lot of people but definitely not too few. And it wouldn't be a bad deal for Blue Manchu probably. A lot of people are turned off by subscription models and decide to pay nothing, but a significant subset of those people are happy to fork over a set amount once in order to 'own the game.'
Yes, could be. But for example most MMO's prefer to use the monthly subscription fee because they can milk more money from active players. A person playing World of Warcraft for years, will spend hundreds of dollars for subscription fees. If that player was given a lifetime subscription option, Blizzard would make much less money. Card Hunter uses the same strategy. Monthly fee is relatively low but it all adds up. They also use the common trick of not talking about how much it costs in dollars, and using imaginary "pizza" instead as currency. All this is smoke and mirrors to hide the real costs, which will very quickly go over that $50. We can of course speculate on what the best payment model would be, but BM has considered all the other options and decided that the current system gives them the most revenue. They probably have statistical data etc. on the subject that we don't have.
Yes- Thats kind of what I was getting at. I certainly am not opposed to subscription games either (I prefer them) but thats more with MMORPG's. In fact, I still sub to WOW after years of playing and feel it has value- I also play GW2 and would not pay a sub for it either (it wouldnt be worth it imho) but the "buy-to-play" with cosmetic shop with GW2 is perfect and well worth the money even occasionally dropping extra into the cash shop. I just do not really see this game in the same light as an MMO. I see this more like Dominions 3 (stellar game), HOMM, CIV and the like. It has a single player mode which is great for learning the game (no need to be online and it should be yours to play forever if your system can run it) with a MP lobby where the 'real competitive games' happen. Like you said- I would gladly whip out my CC right now to BUY this game for $40 (all inclusive) or even more if there was a 'lifetime' sub option or something. But other than that I wont be spending anything nor playing. The people who said this is not "P2W" may or may not be right (I dont know) but with a model like this things can change on a dime even if it isnt currently P2W. There are plenty of White Whales out there. I was talked into playing another F2P game which "was not P2W" and it isnt a model a like. Seems like you end up buying the game 'piecemeal' and even if you dont "need" the stuff, your game is lacking without- Once everything is put together you are paying huge money for a game that does not merit the dev/server costs. -Again. Just my opinion. I like the game alot. I would play it as a boardgame. But even as a board game with a REAL PHYSICAL GAMEBOARD which I could keep, anything over $80 would be really high (I am a strategy Boardgamer and am familiar with what is out there at what price points) so paying $145 for a digital boardgame you are renting for a year (to have eveything for that year) is mdness to me. No offense meant here at all- Just my opinion (right or wrong its not going to change) which I wanted to share. EDIT/ADD- I hope this posting didnt come off as just being negative- I am honestly trying to give my opinion here. I really liked the game which is why I am taking the time to even write this. Normally I would just have uninstalled/never logged in again. I think games like this are lacking these days and I WANT to support indies (especially those who are making the type of games I enjoy) So... Let me add a suggestion which MAY work out great (or maybe not...) Why not sell this game in a stand alone offline client that cannot connect to the multiplayer server and is totally separate from the current online version. Allow a "hot seat" option (hot seat is usually lacking and I LOVE playing with my family on 1 PC), maybe a LAN option (or not) and the ability to set up different profiles on the single player campaign. Include EVERYTHING and then sell additional adventure packs via DLC as they are added to the online version of the game. Sell an additional Client (or platinum client)with MOD Tools. I can see making some incredible Maps and adventures and it seems easily implemented - Or making my own pieces. -Just a suggestion that would allow the game to go on as envisioned but possibly allow for an additional revenue stream with very little work needed... And it would make me happy =D -Anyhow, thanks and I hope I didnt come off as trolling or being a jerk.
A monthly subscription turns me off because then I have to make uses of my time to play it. Otherwise I would be losing out the benefit. This go against the idea of its-on-a-browser-play-whenever-you-want type of game. I would definitely buy a lifetime subscription if it is available.
I totally get it that the $10/month club membership turns many people off. If you think of it as spend per year it seems excessive expenditure for a single strategy game. Thinking about it some more, this is what I honestly come up with. Let's say I like to play pool/billiards. Around here renting a table for an hour or two costs about $10. For the same price, I get to play a couple of hours of pool instead of a month of Card Hunter. Let's say I go to the pool hall once a week with a friend. We each pay for a session each time. Nobody but nobody would bat an eye for a hobby expenditure like this, about four times as much in the same period as I'd need to pay for Card Hunter. I feel this is the same. The pool hall has bought the tables, pays the rent and the employees who run it. I get to play in a comfy environment. I'm happy to pay for the privilege. Blue Manchu has paid for the development of the game, pays the server cost and the employees who run it. I get to play in a comfy environment. I'm equally happy to pay for the privilege. Except with Card Hunter, I get a much better deal. Instead of $10/hour I pay $10/month. I play 2-4 hours almost every day. Really, the price is a trivial compensation for a lot of ongoing fun and pleasure. I value my leisure time enough to be ready to pay a reasonable compensation to those who facilitate the enjoyable spending of it. Nobody says: but you pay $500/year and you don't even get to own the pool table and take it home! Why should it be any different for another kind of game? Digital does not mean insubstantial. Not with a game as great as Card Hunter.
No...Its more like this. I pay $15/month for entry into an Amusement Park . I have always payed around $15 to get into Parks that have Roller Coaster rides, games of chance, waterslides and street performances. Now there is a pool hall that just opened up and wants $10/month to use its pool tables. I cannot justify how having a couple pool tables should only cost 1/3 less than an amusement park. It isnt the $10 that is the problem- Its the VALUE I get for that $10 as compared to what I get elsewhere for the same (or similar price) I already sub to a game and have no problem with this. I totally see how I get my moneys worth...Not so much here (put simply)
Sure, I get that. Funnily enough, for me it's reversed. An MMO doesn't have anything I want. Card Hunter has many such things. For me, the $15/month for an MMO would be a lot worse deal than $10/month for Card Hunter. Pay more for less fun? No thanks. Our boats are not buoyed by the same fluid.
you are totally missing the entire point I am making. Thats fine- I am suggesting an alternate way to tap a revenue stream for people who currently will not pay anything. I guess this is a bad thing. I was not trying to debate the price. The reason I brought it up concerning value was that a full fledged MMO (regardless of ones interpretation of 'fun') requires teams of people, massive servers and infrastructure and thus a payment model with a sub of $15 is justified to me. A game like this needn't even be online and there are many , many, many strategy games (I listed only 3 but could present pages of games) that I can buy once and play forever (the full game) offline and they ALSO have an online component with lobby games. I brought up Civ as an example of a 'similar' type game. If you are fine with this and feel that $10/month plus a $25 starter pack is a bargain. More power to you. I do not. I can purchase a strategy game over at GOG right now for $5.99 and go online and play in a lobby as often as I wish. I am not saying I would only pay $5.99 for this game (I said $40) but that would probably be close to my limit and I am certain many others feel as I do regardless of if they take the time to post about it.
It's really a matter of charity, isn't it? None of us needs to give money to game developers. So we give money to the developers of the games we love, and we tell whatever narratives we need to justify our spending decisions. I'm kind of with Jarmo on the preference side of things, even though that's allegedly irrelevant. In the end I think all that matters to me is that I spend my gaming budget on the projects and teams I like.
I understand your pricing concerns and suggestions and am not trying to attack your ideas. I'm sure also the devs appreciate your reasoned feedback. I just wanted to highlight another way of thinking about a subscription price for a game like this. By the way, Card Hunter really is free to play. The club membership only means some more loot, but it's still the same loot and none of it is needed either to get a satisfying single player experience or to be competitive in multiplayer. The 11 extra treasure hunts which are for sale do not alter the campaign or provide über items, they just offer more optional stuff for those who wish to get more of the same fun. The single player campaign which lasts a lot longer than most current $50 games is playable in full without paying a dime, as is the multiplayer. Unlike a game like Civ, a loot chase game pretty much needs to be online. If the loot drops come from anywhere else than the company server, they can and absolutely will be hacked. Diablo II is a notorious case of this. Duplicated/hacked money/items kills both the single player and multiplayer. If you can cheat the best items, most will even when it will actually ruin their fun. Because of these factors, I don't feel the price comparision you make is really equivalent. I did not originally set out to argue this but your latest post made me think about it and these are the conclusions I drew. Blue Manchu have talked in interviews also about their thinking in pricing the game. As I recall they debated releasing it also with the pricing model you suggest. The issue is complex so I won't try to paraphrase it from memory but if you're interested in their reasoning, you could give it a listen.
Here's Rock, Paper, Shotgun's Alec Meer on the pricing of Card Hunter (brand new, published 30 minutes ago, last paragraph): "Where Card Hunter gets it both right and most wrong is that it gives away so damn much singleplayer (and multiplayer too) game for free. A better value prospect you probably won’t find this year, but I worry (going purely on the limited online chatter about Card Hunter) that this may have held it back from being the commercial success it absolutely deserves to be. Why spend on new adventure modules and character skins when there’s so much to do for no-pennies? All credit to anyone who so consciously avoids the grabby-greed of free-to-play, but I hope it didn’t hurt them."
