How about a paid 4.0?


#251

4.X will likely be in early access when we first are able to play it.


#252

Ah, he was referring to 4.0.

Fair enough.


#253

Whats the point? Most people have gold anyway so whats the point? And people spend a lot of money on the stockpile so nelson gets plenty of income


#254

That’s false
Sure you see a lot of people with the stockpile and gold players. But what do you think that is as a percentage really?
It’s nowhere near 40% even


#255

People are understandably reluctant to spend money on another zombie survival game in Early Access, and the art style makes it look even more like a cheap unity game to those not familiar with Unturned. This means that if 4.0 is paid, Nelson will have to rely on 3.x players buying the game. On the other hand, Unturned has been in the top 10 in steam charts, and with a less ROBLOX art style, it might be seen as an alternative to less supported games.


#256

To be honest, I’ve always seen Unturned as a game with a high gate.

People who are in are in for good, while people who aren’t do not wish to come in.

This would not be different for 4.0, and with the whole argument about a shit community, it solves that pretty well.


#257

I believe the content a game provides have a better influence in sales.

I mean any game with high quality artstyle would quickly fail if people find it terrible and word got around about it.

Art style only gives people a starting perspective (Well yeah there are some people who would avoid block heads), something which is highly dependant on a person’s taste. When there’s alot of positive reviews and some good opinion in videos, you’ll know that Unturned (4.x) is successful regardless of the artstyle chosen.


#258

Exactly.

For example, No Man’s Sky had huge ambition. The hype train was massive, the game looking beautiful, and the gameplay appeared deep. Despite being $60 (as an indie game too) everbody wanted to get it. However upon release the game completely flopped because the gameplay wasn’t as good as everyone had hyped it out to be.

Even though it is now what it promised all those years ago, everyone remembers it for the shithole it was on release.

Basically, gameplay > graphics


#259

If 4.0 would become P2P, at least give current gold members a code to redeem so that they can get the game for free.


#260

Or if they still have to pay, give them some special item, perhaps the crimson berets could also carry over


#261

I honestly wouldn’t mind paying for 4.X after having bought gold years ago, but a discount or cosmetic would be nice.


#262

Not too sure about that, crimson/gold berets are very special since you must have played the “first” version of Unturned when it wasn’t even on Steam.

If you really want a “special” cosmetic I’d say that the best thing would be something similar to the EA bundle we got after the final release of Unturned last year.

Also, we shouldn’t get the Gold DLC in 4.0 just because we bought it for the current game, separate games, separate DLCs imo


#263

Honestly. I don’t think it would purify the community. Look at CS:GO for example it cost 14 bucks or so and still has one of the most toxic communities on steam. Even GTA 5 which is like 60 bucks has squeakers all over multiplayer even that it has 18 and more rating.


#264

Maybe if Unturned 4.x is paid, pre-existing gold members get the base game free but not the Unturned 4.x Gold Upgrade, which they can buy seperately.


#265

Wouldn’t Gold be redundant if 4.X were pay2play?


#266

The whole argument up until Mister1212 here assumed that if Unturned 4.0 is paid, there will not be a Gold DLC.

I’d like to keep it that way.


#267

Those are two games with drastically different gameplay and targeted playerbase.

As such, it would not be accurate to judge 4.0’s community off of that, even if those are supposedly “more mature”, given Unturned 4.0 will be a more hardcore survival-centric game.


#268

Why do people take this so seriously , just make an opinion that isn´t large and boom , there we go case closed.


#269

It’s because:

  • A) this is a really major debate, and both outcomes have profound effects with the future of 4.0

  • B) There is no compromise. That would be the disadvantages of both with the advantages of none.

  • C) You’re obviously new here, because we take things seriously. We’re part of an inner circle of the community and one of the loudest voices to Nelson when he takes a look at what the community wants. He is active more often on the SDG Forums vs other mediums. In addition many of us here are veterans or insiders of sorts with motivations that are not immediately obvious. The dynamics of this part of the community is very complex to say the least.

So, in conclusion, the “quick fix” you’re alluding to would most likely be a horrible idea in short sight of the actual issues involved.


#270

That reminds me, I haven’t been seeing you at the Tuesday Illuminati meetings.