This is possibly one of the most intelligent ideas i have seen from a game company recently. The game plays great as just a jump in and go shooter, but for those who would like further content progression in terms of AvA i would definitely say go with the monthly package for the game.

I can't wait until they release more information on AvA!!

Originally posted by leumasx7

The Best way to take advantage of this would be. Play 1 or 2 of your favorite classes to level 30, Get a good agency. with NO SUBSCRIPTION. Then when you accomplish those things, then your ready to subscribe for all the good agency and end time content, Which you will get 1 month to experience for free. Then Subscribe, and enjoy the rest of the good content.

 

Also,  might of not included it, but i thought the real max is level 40. So Subscribing will prob allow that 10 extra levels.

I think max level is at least 50.

Aryas

Originally posted by Consensus

guys this pricing system is a rip off compared to guildwars, some of the above comments are pretty ignorant.

this game is as much (or less) a mmo as guildwars. basically the same type of game but with fun shooter combat, but much worse/little PvE.

and while its great you can play without subscription its still a joke they are asking for subscription for other features. AvA is same as GvG in guildwars (guilds are called agency's, only difference). when it says 60 vs 60 notice thats in 6 squads so its really 6 concurrent games of 10 vs 10. I think 10 vs 10 is largest game size, not complaining thats what they went for. but its no way massive, even guildwars had larger pvp battles.

the game is fun. but if areanet/NC soft managed to have no sub at all with guildwars, gobal agenda should definately be able to manage it. well anyway fair play they are indy company and I wish them luck, don't think i'll be buying though.

edit: although I've talked to alot of the dev team and played with them and they are really nice guys maybe I will buy, but no way am I subbing ;)

Man, every time I see your creepy little avatar I know I'm about to read a post I totally disagree with.

The comparison with GuildWars is irrelevant. Value in a game is a matter of perception. Having played both I could equally turn around and say GW was crap and would never have attracted paying subscribers, but that would still only be my opinion.

The thread isn't about the game - which is obviously a matter of personal taste - it's about pricing model, which is clearly something new - fact.

And before some gimp says "It's been done before in a blah blah blah MMO" that no-ones cares about, I'm sure it has but this is a big, fresh release not some 2-bit operation for a target audience of zero so comments like that are equally worthless.

Aryas

What actually makes this game the least bit interesting requires membership, yet the features included for membership isn't interesting enough to pay $13/mo for it. I guess it depends if you can create and design your own bases, hopefully with the ability to create elaborate fortresses. Even with all of what I asked for would only be worth about $9.99/mo for me. As the game stands now, I'd only pay $5/mo for it. Also, a box price of $49? Single-player FPS games charge around that price and also offer multi-player for free. Granted you can't customize and level up anything, but so what.

Originally posted by nate1980

What actually makes this game the least bit interesting requires membership, yet the features included for membership isn't interesting enough to pay $13/mo for it. I guess it depends if you can create and design your own bases, hopefully with the ability to create elaborate fortresses. Even with all of what I asked for would only be worth about $9.99/mo for me. As the game stands now, I'd only pay $5/mo for it. Also, a box price of $49? Single-player FPS games charge around that price and also offer multi-player for free. Granted you can't customize and level up anything, but so what.

I'm not 100% sure if you are saying you like or dislike the pricing plan.  On the one hand you are saying the content isn't worth $13/mo which is fine, thats your opinion (but have you played it to make that assertion?).  Then you said it would only be worth $9.99/mo (which is the price set for a 6mo sub) then you said only $5, so im confused on that bit.

More importantly though, is the $49 price comparison to a single player game.  The non-subbed multiplayer is still free (after initial purchase obviously) with gameplay options on the same level as other f2p shooters with the added bonus of being able to level and customize a character.  You still get PVE, you still get pickup style pvp matches (same as other shooters).

While I am still interested in GA after reading up on the game more I have to say the non-subscription mode only continues to inteerest me because I cannot consider GA a real MMO.

Looking at it as a shooter with no subscription still looks fun, but I don't see this game surviving long term unless they make it f2p only or make the monthly fee on the level of XBL (~$5 a month). People seem willing to pay for XBL just to play the latest shooter, but I don't think the MMO crowd will continue to sub when there are always new subless shooters to play online.

My original enthusiam with the f2p model is waning.

Originally posted by epicor

Originally posted by nate1980

What actually makes this game the least bit interesting requires membership, yet the features included for membership isn't interesting enough to pay $13/mo for it. I guess it depends if you can create and design your own bases, hopefully with the ability to create elaborate fortresses. Even with all of what I asked for would only be worth about $9.99/mo for me. As the game stands now, I'd only pay $5/mo for it. Also, a box price of $49? Single-player FPS games charge around that price and also offer multi-player for free. Granted you can't customize and level up anything, but so what.

 

I'm not 100% sure if you are saying you like or dislike the pricing plan.  On the one hand you are saying the content isn't worth $13/mo which is fine, thats your opinion (but have you played it to make that assertion?).  Then you said it would only be worth $9.99/mo (which is the price set for a 6mo sub) then you said only $5, so im confused on that bit.

More importantly though, is the $49 price comparison to a single player game.  The non-subbed multiplayer is still free (after initial purchase obviously) with gameplay options on the same level as other f2p shooters with the added bonus of being able to level and customize a character.  You still get PVE, you still get pickup style pvp matches (same as other shooters).

Let me clarify then. I'm talking about value. Having a free + paid membership pricing scheme is fine, it's not that, it's the value. Sure, value is subjective, but value can be quantified to some extent. For example, does a game with more quality features have more value than a game with less quality features? I'd say so.

I've never been one to subscribe for more than 1 month at a time, because a wise person doesn't lock himself into a game that probably won't hold his interest for that period of time. How long to subscribe is also subjective, because some people enjoy things for a longer period of time than others. I'm the type that loves variety, so playing the same thing for months is boring, unless that game is super entertaining.

So what we're really looking at here is a shooter, with a persistent multi-player format, and leveling. In a single-player FPS game, the box costs around $49, and with that price comes a game that's your standard fair FPS game for the most part, with a good story, complete with great cutscenes and dialogue. I don't know for certain, but I doubt this games PvE will match the single player experience of say F.E.A.R. FPS games usually have a multi-player component, where you can play matches.

So far, we have a FPS MMORPG that is likely offering a inferior PvE experience, with the a similar multi-player experience, for the same price as a superior product. The part that makes this game truely unique, aside from leveling, are the features offered in the membership plan, which costs $13/mo. Again, value is subjective here, but if I'm going to pay a subscription, I compare it to other things that require subscriptions that are in the same market, such as MMORPG's. Bottom line is that I don't think this game is worth the subscription fee they are charging based on the features I see offered. I don't need to play the game to come up with these conclusions.

Playing the game will only tell me if those features I read on paper are fun, but fun is subjective and can be found in any game. So if I find a game fun that has more features, what makes Global Agenda worth that subscription fee? So to increase the value of the fun offered in Global Agenda, their company either needs to offer more quality features or lower their subscription price where the value overrides the amount of fun/features found in other games. In my opinion, without playing it, I'd say this game is worth no more than $5/mo, unless you can actually build and customize fortresses, then the game is worth $9.99/mo in my opinion.

I hope that clarifies my post and explains my reasoning.

Well first, im sure the game it self is a great game and seems to me that it would be more fun than most of the other games like wow and gw that ive played.  Now for the priceing of the game is different.  Seeing that I my self and my family all stoped playing wow due to couldnt afford it along with the prices of internet and electricity and other bills, so our wow accounts are now gone.  GW we still have seeing it doesnt coast any extra money a month to play the game unless u want the expansions, wich worked out great for us, but just didnt have the other type of game play that I love which is fps style.  Well now GA has both and I would really like to play the game as does my oldest son.  Problem is the economy here just isnt that great and makes it tougher for families to pay all bills and even have extras unless your 1 of the 20% that are in the upper bracket of the income.  Seeing that I spent the last 1yr and 7months over in Afghanistan which made it hard on my family to have any thing extra like games or any other stuff, I would say paying for this would be next to not happening.  Now that makes this game less appealing because we were looking forward to the AvA aspect of the game and now cannot have that unless we pay a monthly fee.  I will say the pricing is nicer than all the other games, even though if I remember right FFXI had a $12.99 month fee but was $1 per extra char you wanted.  Either way the pricing I will say isnt bad but why not just make it open play, just make it that if you pay a monthly fee you get better benefits.  As in if your a nonpay to play you can create a Agency but cant customize but with a few options.  Now if your a member you get the full benefits of all the different options kinda like in CoV where you could add teleports and even healing spots and other stuff.  Also could make it so if your a nonpayer then when in a AvA you dont get any extras just your basic items and cant recieve any achievements.  Theres others that can be done that will make the game appealing to both sides (p2p and f2p) if they would just ask ppl for opions on different things and aspects.  Bottom line, Id say that the pricing is better then the other mmo games but still its p2p and alot of ppl are going away from p2p games and theres other ways to make their money and still offer a f2p and p2p game that would appeal for both types of ppl.

 Definitely has my interest! If it comes up in steam I'll check it out. 

Cool.

This new payment method gets my approval. Not only can people play a great game by just buying the game and not having to worry about a subscription, but if they want to take their gameplay experience to the next level they can opt for a subscription and enjoy all of the content available and with relatively cheap prices ($20 a year if you go with the 6 month subscription). Don't want to pay your subscription anymore? Fine, you don't have to and can enjoy a fun FPS game. This is going to break the mold on subscription games as we know it.

The life span of MMOs is getting longer and as more and more MMOs are released they will be much more overlap between them, so much so that producers may have to consider some sort of free model just to have their worlds populated.

Although there maybe still a long while to go till we have 3 or 4 top notch MMOs vying for our subs to their world, but the day will come when it becomes a buyers market hehe ;-) They pay us to play their games!

This sounds good. Hope the actual game is as innovative as the pricing plan.

Originally posted by SH4D0WZ0MB1E

This new payment method gets my approval. Not only can people play a great game by just buying the game and not having to worry about a subscription, but if they want to take their gameplay experience to the next level they can opt for a subscription and enjoy all of the content available and with relatively cheap prices ($20 a year if you go with the 6 month subscription). Don't want to pay your subscription anymore? Fine, you don't have to and can enjoy a fun FPS game. This is going to break the mold on subscription games as we know it.

Actually, for a year membership it would be $119.88.  They were meaning that if you pay for a 6 month membership it would coast you $9.99 for a month instead of the normal $12.99 but still is better than the normal "even if you pay for 6month you pay full price" type of payments.

I was thinking along the same lines (though I do like the idea in general).  Perhaps they could be worked in as a sort of grunt shock troop who isn't expected to live long.  Above there was a post about the max lvl being 40 so perhaps this would be a natural part of them dieing fast and being used by commanders this way.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

It's an interesting design. In a heavy PvP game, it's important to have a lot of players on at a time, so having a F2P aspect will probably help quite a lot with that. However, how much of the PvP will be missed by non-paying players? If the campaign isn't available, then you are cutting down on the very resource you need - lots of players.

It might be a good idea to allow freebies to play in a limited amount of campaign (maybe something like 5 hours a week), to bolster the numbers fighting.

I was thinking along the same lines (though I do like the idea in general). Perhaps they could be worked in as a sort of grunt shock troop who isn't expected to live long. Above there was a post about the max lvl being 40 so perhaps this would be a natural part of them dieing fast and being used by commanders this way.

EPIC FAIL!!!

Last time a company tried this same plan the game went under and the company went under.

And it was called Hellgate London.

But hopefully they aren't making the same mistakes they did cause most of the forum members warned them when going to be F2P and P2P and stuff and how they where doing it wasn't going to work and we told them they are gonna close down and what not.

Interesting to say the least, I think I'll probably be buying the game now. I can't quite tell if the subscription content will be worth it though.

Originally posted by Limbox

Actually, for a year membership it would be $119.88.  They were meaning that if you pay for a 6 month membership it would coast you $9.99 for a month instead of the normal $12.99 but still is better than the normal "even if you pay for 6month you pay full price" type of payments.

Oops my bad. I guess reading a post on 4 hours of sleep within a 48 hour period has it's side effects on some comprehension. But I'll agree that buying a "bulk" subscription at a lower price is a good idea and different from other subscription models I've seen.

And as people have suggest that non-paying players be allowed to play the free content, but for a limited amount of time per week and at weaker state than normal players. While that would be cool, I doubt that they would implement that. It would upset those that are paying for a subscription that people who aren't paying for one get the same content, and if everyone is going to be allowed to play the subscription based content, it might lead to less subscriptions from people who are just paying to see what the other content is about and not that "serious" about it.