I thought this was going to be a free add-on (or patch)?

I don't think that the changes in M.A.N. are enough to warrant any money. As I said in my feedback form, the interface is very awkward, and doesn't offer many features. It is different in a game like Laser Squadron Nemesis, where the entire game is it's network component, but here you have the retail version as well.

I'd rather browse forums and hook up with people on irc, than use the chat feature on M.A.N. (was there even a player profile? I didn't see one, but heck, I didn't even know how to join the Common chat, at first).

What do you think?

I don't like the idea of a subscription fee either. They'd be far better charging a small "upgrade fee" for it.

That depends on how much ongoing support they give it. If it's just a one-shot multiplayer upgrade that they release and then forget about, a one-time fee would probably be best.

If they keep patching it and adding new features/maps/etc. though, those things aren't free. Depending on the costs and how much money the initial sales bring in, there might simply not be enough money to support the game without charging for it.

Personally, I'm not fond of the thought of paying an ongoing fee to play a game either, but I recognize that if they have no choice, then they have no choice.

i've enver liked having to pay for something mroe than once (eg after paying for a game). But a system that might work is a small fee to download new maps, maybe a 2-3 day trial period where you download a new map then try it out vs ai. then if u want to be able to use it online u have to pay for the map.

Not a good idea, you split the community by doing that sort of thing.

I believe I'd never ever download another map if that were the case. No matter what the cost may be.

I have to agree that I am not going to get involved in a subscription service for a game i have already bought. I don't mind paying for expansions if the content is there but changes to MA that would require monthly fees does not elicit loyalty in me to the comapny. I appreciate there efforts and love the game and would hate to lose out on playing it.

This is completely not true. The costs to run a game like this are very minimal. Look at Epic and the number of servers the provide FREE of charge for UT 2004. Not too mention the free map packs and services Epic will continue to provide. I guarantee they are eating a ton of bandwidth costs, man power, etc in comparison to provide their services and doing so at the cost of a 1 time purchase of the game. MMORPG with 100,000s of active people playing constantly are the only games that can justify a monthly fee.

The real sad part is that this game should have been designed with NO SERVER BACKEND....talk about a rediculous move. It could have easily been made to play head to head with friend...either playing at the same time or through a built in email system tied to the gamer's email address. I know of at least 6 people that enjoyed the beta and refuse to pay a montly fee to play a game of this type. All of the people that I knew in the beta would have glady paid a one time upgrade/purchase....but a montly fee...no way!

I really think they missed the mark...

One point: Developers like Epic with such capital can affort to support the community like this on no charge. Their goal is to make UT2004 so widespread that everyone buys it.

Wargaming.net is a small company, and as such cannot affort to eat such effort without being paid for it. Their goal is to excell as an independant developer in an environment not condusive to the little guy.

So the question you have to ask yourself as someone new to the game is whether this game is different enough to warrant trying it out for a month or two on a small monthly fee. If you don't like it it won't have cost you much. If you do, you'll be able to try out one of the most well done games for a cheap price. It will take months before you would have had to pay the full purchase price of the game.

The question for people that have already bought the game is different, but that is discussed on a different forum.

Well said, Mael.

First, my friends and I are sold on "the game"... it is a great game... no 2 ways about it. But, knowing that, none of us are willing to pay a monthly fee for a game in this genre and I doubt we are alone. Monthly fees for gaming are as bad as politics to many. 4 of the 6 of us play MMORPG's and understand the very high costs associated with running such large services....why... 5 of 6 of us are programmers or IT administrators of one sort or another and work with networks and computers for a living...we understand what goes into differnet types of programs, games and networks which is probably making us more dissappointed than some in respect to the online service which could have been completely backend free.



Again, I have to disagree...the backend to support the amount of players and data that this game generates....could not possibly be more than a couple servers and the bandwidth required to move the this type of game information around is minimal...so in both cases I think they are trying to milk the "subscribtion" wave that is going in software industry....which many do not buy into.



Totally agree...but wargamers has to acknowledge that they are in a market that has been very defined by other companies already and to think that people will pay them extra becuase they are a small company is silly.

The question is very simple: would you like that MA/MAN have new version, maps, units, tournaments, campaigns, race etc. or do you prefer that this game was last turn-based strategic game from this company?
If you like this game, you can pay, if you don't like pay, you can search other games without payment (it's your choice).

Sounds like you've made your choice and I respect that. I don't agree, but I respect your choice.



Very true. If this was the only factor I'd fully agree with you. There are other factors as well though, related to man hours. If Wargaming.net follows the precedent in support they have set for themselves (and they have said they will), they will be dedicating a lot of time to improving this project. And with such a small company, each hour spent by an employee is precious, as that is an hour not spent on the next project coming up.

So far, the MA team has added countless features requested by players, regularly patched the game with feature improvements as well as bug fixes, and spent time to make sure every person has been able to play the game with every computer hardware set. In another thread I listed the many things the MA team has also done for the clan effort, in which I listed 9 major efforts that cost them time not working on the next project.

Normally, I wouldn't spend so much time defending a game like this. I have never posted on any forum of a game before even. But I have found a game advanced for its time in its concept and design, and looks, with more thought put into it than most of the games that flood the shelves today. It has all been done by a small developer without the power of EA or Sony backing it, which is quite amazing to me.

I am a programmer that has previously worked in the game industry. I worked for a small independant developer that soon went out of business because we couldn't find a company that would publish us. It would be to sad if this was always the case, since there are those like Wargaming.net that have a level of innovation unmatched by the big guns.

Of course none of these reasons may be enough to justify paying for this game, but I hope it gives people more understanding why the MA devs are doing what they're doing. I know for a fact that they are not trying to rip anyone off, they are trying to thrive in the best way they know how.

Like I said, look at the game and its benefits and make your decision. I doubt too many people will make a decision based on whether this will help keep innovation in the game industry, but who knows...

The whole purpose of my post was not an attack on this company or espcially the game, but rather a concern that their great product may not get as much support as it deserves due to what at least my friends and I think is a pricing problem. My personal beefs aside, there is a bell curve in most of life, and the PC gaming market certainly has its own curve regarding pricing, and to break away from that curve successfully usually requires some serious momentum and with this genre, I just don't see it. Like you said:



Paying a subscription for this game/genre comes to that in my mind and I think it will for at least some. That is all I really wanted to get across in my posts

ABOVE POST --- > VITA

--->> session must have timed out

But Tiger, many of us HAVE paid.

... and you have game and play it. As far as I remember VaNO said that all players who purchase this game will have some month for online battles without payment and it was written in licence's agreement of the game at the beginning.

Exactly, some months. So I paid for a game and bought into a future subscription service. That was not what I wanted, and had I known at the time would have reconsidered my investment.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they ever said that regular ol' MA multiplayer would be subscription, just MAN. This being the case, if you don't want to pay the fee, just go back kicking my butt without the built-in chat room

Last I heard, MA players will get three months free subscription. Forgive me if I'm wrong on that front.