Steam

[jakbruce2012]

Well, It's finally happening! I eagerly await the increase in player to player interaction that Hazeron used to have. There is so much space for so few players right now, I hope that Steam will warm the void just a bit.

It sounds like I should get to publishing a new set of ships, from tiny to huge in reasonable steps, with instructions on how to build and use them.

As far as the potential reset, I am impartial, although some things need fixing. With the tech system gone and designs saved offline the only time lost for me would be exploration, and construction. Experienced players will always have an advantage over new players, especially in the early game.
At a minimum the incorrect scan reports need to be fixed, and all old cities and ships should be removed.

I would suggest, if it doesn't exist yet and i'm missing it, a way to re-scan systems that have been rolled by new player spawns or database changes. Currently all of my previously scanned systems have incorrect data in the reports. Only my most recent system generates what the report says it should for quality.

Best of luck Haxus. I can't wait to see what this brings.

[pizzasgood]

* I am not sure on the business model you are going with once you are on Steam, but I would HEAVILY recommend using a buy to play business model with an optional model, if you wish, to support the game on a monthly basis. I WOULD NOT go with a strict subscription model pay style for Steam - it will not see success.

The perverse thing about applying the buy-to-play model to a server-heavy online game is that it penalizes successful games and rewards churn.  Once somebody buys the game, they've paid all they'll ever pay, so from then on they are only a burden.  The longer they play the game, the harder it is to keep the game alive.  To keep the game running without constant and rapid churn to pay the server fees, some amount of recurring per-player revenue is needed (not necessarily from a subscription, but it has to come from somewhere).

Perhaps phrasing the subscription more along the lines of a season pass would lessen the aversion factor?

[Vectorus]

I am deeply grateful to Haxus for reaffirming his commitment to as persistent a universe as possible. It reflects well on the game that the stories and creations of its players are treated with consideration - something which cannot be said for very many MMOs with their freewheeling metagames and meaningless cycles of obsolescence. I believe that the advantages of a reset would have been very short term. In the long term, they will be outweighed by the feeling of repeat custom of players who feel respected and cared for by the game itself. I am glad to hear that important improvements are in the pipeline even without the prospect of a dramatic rupture. As a poster above wrote, our goal must ultimately be not to produce "churn", but a steady base of committed subscribers sufficient to at least cover server costs. The vision for Hazeron has always been a compelling background universe in which individual stories of emotional weight can occur. That is better achieved by moderate numbers of long-term empires than by large numbers of bubble-and-bursts. 

On that subject, I do not understand the prejudice against subscriptions. Is it really so hard to sell a subscription game? The only MMOs I have played which were truly worth it, Star Wars Galaxies principally, worked on that model, and even today a subscription game immediately suggests to me honourable business practices and stable management. Is that not the reaction most people have? The major free-to-play games that I've tried, such as SW:TOR and Star Trek Online, have played rather fast-and-loose with both my money and the quality of the game. I'm not saying it cannot be done well, but I have never seen it done well. A buy-to-play model, I would imagine, prevents those of us who really want to support the project from doing so in a continuing way without buying useless copies on a regular basis, and also places Haxus in the position of covering regular costs with an irregular and unpredictable income.

[Haxus]

Current business model is buy to play. You buy time and play during that time. If you want more time to play, you buy more time, when you want to play.

While that may feel subscription-like, there are distinct differences.

The biggest difference is players never commit to recurring payments. Their credit card is never charged in that overhang period when their interest wanes and they stop playing. Some have suggested I am leaving money on the table for not supporting subscriptions, for this very reason. I think it might create a lot of returns.

Another big difference is that players can play spontaneously. They might travel or do other things for a while. They don't have to pay for time they are away. With a subscription, you pay for contiguous months of time, whether you play or not.

Subscriptions are typically annual in duration. With SoH, a player can buy just the number of months they want, when they want them.

I would not make the game cost more than $30

At present the cost is only $5 to get started. However, since most people do not stay for three months, I could offer a $30 package that includes the first three months for free. That might generate a much-needed chunk of cash to move forward with. Just a dip from the churn.

I have never charged for the actual SoH software. Here are some reasons.

• SoH has limited play value when played off line. A game with little solo play value cannot cost much, unless some on line play time is included.
  
• Free distribution of the software relieves me of concerns about software piracy.
  
• Potential players can install and run the software before it is purchased, to verify compatibility, and to see those ugly graphics.
  
• Free distribution results in less returns by people disappointed by the graphics.
  

Graphics graphics graphics. Sometimes it feels as though I am trying to sell books at a comic store.

[Vectorus]

Thank you for clarifying; I have always purchased monthly subscription periods for other games so I tend to conflate the models in my mind, but you are quite correct. In practical terms, it is both a generous and a flexible model which does not place straining commitments on you either. If Steam supports it, I see no need to change it for the present.

[Haxus]

as persistent a universe as possible

That is the foundation of SoH.

A flood of new players would bring welcome new blood to Hazeron. It would be unfair to all current players to cast aside what they have done, in the name of leveling the playing field for the new players, just as it would be unfair to the new players to reset the universe under similar circumstances in the future.

[Haxus]

incorrect scan reports need to be fixed

This has been fixed, pending the next server restart. Testing on the debug servers is complete.

There is a caveat, since the universe will not be reset. I will elaborate when the update is posted as it will be relevant then.

[Neils Iyssada]

Actually the vision someone has about the buy to play system depends a lot about his age and the money he can invest in games. When SoH went down, then became P2P, I left it because it was too much for me (I was a low-money student). Now that I earn my money, I find this system really nice ! I can pay only when I want to play, and I feel useful when I do it.
Even if it's more expensive than a one-time paid game when you play for a long time, it feels cheaper.

[Vectorus]

How do Steam sales work? Does Steam cover the difference, or does the dev provide the discount himself?

Offering larger blocks of time would likely allow Haxus to benefit more from sales.

Are our existing accounts and subscriptions safe? Will Steam ask for them to be terminated? Will Haxus still be free to credit playtime the way he sometimes does?

[Haxus]

On the topic of a universe reset, there is one thing I wanted to accomplish, the elimination of the old style cities and spacecraft.

That does not require a database reset. They are just records in the database that could be deleted. It would allow over 100k lines of code and some resource data to be deleted from the project. That's about 4 less 500 page books the compiler would have to read when compiling the software.

Is anyone opposed to the removal of that obsolete clunky hoary old mouse infested code?