Steam Economy, Micro-transactions, and a Paid Game

Unturned is not a game based on story unlike other games and the story probably wouldnt be the main focus of the game and therefore it will be shorter and people wont think they should pay for something they can watch online

I dont think the main focus of unturned will be a story and therefore it will get less attention from nelson and it will be shorter , i dont mean it will be bad but still quite short and i dont think people would pay for the story . Red dead redemption 2 is mostly based on a story (yes you can do all kinds of stuff but you are dragged by the story to other places) so people would pay for that . But that is just how i see things , i could be entierly wrong

This is a great post. Keep it up.
I don’t know why people are against vehicles and item skins. I would like to spray paint my car to have racing stripes or something. I think that the cosmetics should be in the base game as minor differentiation form the regular vehicle.
And for buildings, having a med chest, a gun chest and ect all different looking would be great as.

Welcome to the form. Also I don’t know what to do with trading cards sooo.

My issue with skins is that people can pay for something that potentially gives them an advantage. Vehicle skins should be restricted to decals and paint found ingame if it is a thing at all. With item skins, I’m fine with them in most cases since they don’t stand out as much as a vehicle and they don’t have a major effect on the weapon shape. For skins on placeable items, I don’t agree with them at all unless everybody has access to them. A few color patches here and there could help with organizing storage and these “skins” could possibly cost more resources but add a benefit. Tiered versions of certain placeables could be added. Medical storage would be set up to store medical supplies better, gun safes could have racks built in, and doors could be reinforced with more resources or have a strong window put in.

1 Like

Okay, here is how I would deal with the implementation of any of these ideas.

First I would create something that isn’t too flashy or weird (like a zombie face vehicle/shirt decal or gun camo) and make it somewhat easy to acquire through the game, similar to the zero kelvin kit.

Next I would watch how this addition affects the community. How do they react to it? Do they like it? Do they even use it?

If the community responds positively, I would add maybe 4-5 more that can be unlocked via achievements. Then I would see how many people actively seek out these achievements so I could figure out if the community even sees value in these cosmetic items.

Assuming they react well, I then introduce the idea of paid versions of these and later on, community curated ones as well.

1 Like

Null is disagreeance, neutral, and/or undecided. Some polls have both when it’s more relevant, but with official servers if there is not a paywall then it’s not relevant to the post (which is about revenue).

If a poll option was added, it’d be “I don’t support having official servers”, which is more likely to confuse people, but is basically “there are no official servers without some sort of paywall”. They may come eventually, for free, but at that point it is not relevant to the original topic.

The topic you linked already covers that opinion and harbors discussion around it, but the aspects of official servers it covers isn’t relevant to what this topic is doing.

The story is a substantial-ish part of U3, and is planned to be a more thought-out thing in U4.

Part of it is just that people don’t have much of a reference point, so everyone has to come up with their own. I added some images so people are a bit closer to the same page as to what they could expect, but polls can only do so much. It doesn’t cover all feedback, nor is it meant to.

Some people can just be opposed against one part of a much larger idea, but if they feel strongly enough about that one thing then it might not matter in the polls.

Typically, you collect a set and craft them together for a game badge. Crafting badges gives EXP towards leveling your Steam account.

First off, I really don’t think the example of Gold servers applies, because A) they’re community-run servers and are far from comparable to dedicated official servers, and B) there’s barely any of them around, with all the inconsistency of a typical server variety as far as runtime, mods/plugins, and config.

Official servers on the other hand, set a standard that is clearly desirable for a significant portion of the community - they are virtually guaranteed to be up, fully vanilla, and supposedly will deter hackers with paid access. That being said, use of either of these server types are not mutually exclusive, and people who want to buy the pass often seem perfectly content with rotating playtime between official and community servers.

As for your migration argument, I do find it a bit self-contradictory, since if the player was going to use a community server instead, there’d be no reason for the person to have bought the pass to begin with - unless they knew their friends were buying it as well. I personally don’t see this as an issue since the latter is the case for me, but this varies on an individual basis. A lot of people I know have said they’d also be content buying the pass regardless of whether or not their friends did, so I’d expect there to be enough people in the playerbase that the small number of official servers would be well occupied at any given time.

And on a final, more reflective note, while this wasn’t exactly an intended implication of the official server pass, I do like the idea that it’s far harder for a large pre-established group to organize on an official server. A huge complaint of U3’s servers currently is how easily groups dominate, and such a shift favouring solo players or small groups would likely be beneficial to the quality of the gameplay itself. Better still, official servers would be a great opportunity to meet and make new friends who are just as passionate about the game as you are - I speak from experience on this one.

How about an option to not see skins? Tick a box and you don’t see your own skins, or other players, just the normal item.

5 Likes

That is good but what if someone is using a camo skin on their gun or something like that and that skin is the only think keeping you from seeing them ?

…Then, assuming the skin isn’t something you loot in the game and then equip to a gun like a attatchement, and is instead something you buy on the steam shop thingy, it’s very very mildly pay to win (Not to a degree where I think camo skins shouldn’t be a thing because it isn’t going to make such a difference that it’s worth denying Nelson a fair bit of revenue)

4 Likes

No, the skins should be applied by a table or crafting station in the game. Also the skins should be saved onto the gun, so if the player dies, it will stay on the gun when picked up by a different player

1 Like

I am fine with all kinds of cosmetics as long as you are only able to use them in arena/BR game modes. But when it comes to survival mode I don’t want to see any kind of purchasable cosmetics being used.

1 Like

If cosmetics were ONLY in those gamemodes they would become pointless, as those gamemodes will be a small part of the game.

1 Like

I mean you could allow players to use cosmetics in hord mode and other game modes like that, I just don’t want to run into someone wearing a rainbow clownmask that spits out sprinkles in survival sinc I think that kills the imersion

1 Like

I doubt skins like that will make a return.

1 Like

This reply is Molt’s “opinion’d response to himself” post. I took the time to trim it down just for you. <3 It doesn’t include many of my actual concepts for stuff, but I meant to post this much earlier.

I don’t know. But if you want to avoid as many MTX (microtransactions) as possible (including aesthetic), then pay-to-play is the best option and quite sustainable. The main thing that sucks is that the last time it was mentioned the plan (at the time) was for the game to be free-to-play.

Opinions on making it P2P:

  1. $10 USD is a comfortable starting point for any early-access indie, and more reputable indie devs usually start closer to $15‒20 and increase the price over time to ~$35 USD. Price hikes are meant to match the amount of content and polish that has since been added.

  2. Some people don’t give games a second glance, but the game has a predecessor alongside any generated marketing material, so the game will sale even if we cannot crunch the numbers.

  3. Personally, I am fine with microtransactions regardless of whether or not a game costs money.

When people first began discussing if the game should be free-to-play or pay-to-play, a primary discussion point was about other benefits like deterring cheaters, a more mature audience, et cetera. In reality, for this topic, these aren’t the main reasons for any of these paywalls. However, they should still be mentioned in spite of me because it is important to respect the community, and develop a great game.
[/details]

These are only theoretical. Pay-to-play could:

  • Reduce the inclination to cheat.
    • This assumes that cheaters are less inclined to cheat in a game where they can lose something of value (such as money or cosmetics/skins).

  • Improve community maturity
    • This assumes that people who purchase games are more inclined to be serious. It does not assume anything about the actual age of the person, just that they treat their purchase more seriously.

  • Keep continuous interest in U3

Opinions on making it F2P: The predecessors have always been free, and obviously I’d like for as many people as possible to play the game. Of course, both P2P and F2P have their own stigmas that turn people away.

Should they exist?

If they’re realistic to have, then sure. However, I don’t believe it’s the most reliable source of income, and isn’t something that would be quick to generate revenue anytime soon (plus some of it goes straight back into maintaining servers).

Money? Subscription model?

As a F2P game, the servers should cost money. My opinion on that isn’t about deterring cheaters or toxicity, but being viable and realistic.

I’m not a huge fan of subscription-based models, and the most I’d really support being “subscription-based” is Twitch Prime partnership loot. That being said, for something like server access it may make more sense to be subscription-based.

As a one-time purchase, I’d say $5‒10 USD is probably the most realistic and should only provide server access, with additional benefits just put in other DLCs separately. As a subscription model, the premium pass should provide more than just server access, and be based around something that isn’t weirdly impacted when the subscription ends.

Features?

Most games don’t have staff on their official servers, but those games are also pay-to-play. If you have to pay for official servers specifically, it would make sense for it to provide an “enhanced” experience compared to other games’ versions (which could likely include moderation beyond an anti-cheat).

Perhaps those on the service could receive a special skin or cosmetic each month. And then other benefits could just temporarily go away until they resubscribe.

I don’t like the idea of wiping servers, but I do think it’s useful for official servers. The number of servers should scale to the amount of players actively using the pass. After every wipe, the number of servers can readjust to fit the number of active pass-holders.

Consistent ground rules for a consistent experience.

  1. Regular wipes. End of every month, first Friday… something consistent and predictable. Consistency in general makes the pass a safer purchase.

  2. Server sync for servers on the same game mode. Players should be able to easily hop between official servers with minimal limitations, so that survivors can continue their experience on a different server without losing too much progress.

    • If needed, official maps could have areas exclusively available to official servers that make this easier for players to perform.

    • Another “benefit” could be “stash space”, which would just be a glorified “vault” inventory while using server sync. Mainly just exist to make transferring items between servers easier, and could potentially be available on community servers and tie into Excursion lore.

  3. Always at least one server per official Survival map, as survival is the core experience. For something like Arena, a “map rotation” system should be implemented that official and community servers can use.

    • This would be useful for plenty of game modes like Arena, Horde, Escape, Blastlane, and community creations.

Early map access

One way to incentivize the DLC is to release maps a week or so early, but just onto the official servers. This has the added bonus of letting the map get feedback a week early before everyone has to deal with potential issues on the map.

The maps would also still be available on a PTR (preview branch), which anyone would still be available to everyone.

For the main branch of the game, for that first week only add the map files to the DLC so that non-DLC holders don’t have to randomly download files a week early.

It isn’t mentioned a lot, but I support the Gold DLC returning.

Changes to the DLC:

  1. Remove the multiple character slots.

    I’m not super concerned about green-skins, because I’ve never considered it that effective. Multiple character slots just feels like a flaw with the game, and should be redesigned entirely as a part of how the game saves character data.

  2. Gold Servers should be separated from this DLC.

  3. Some variety in customization options should still be available without any DLC, if it’d be useful to those with health problems.

“Gold Server” design suggestion

Rather than have “Gold Servers”, server owners have the ability to set prerequisites in order to join a server. This has been suggested before and, while I don’t agree with most of it, it would make sense if having a certain DLC was an option for something like this.

Effectively, “Gold Servers” become “community-ran servers that require the Gold DLC”. Same thing, but now servers can do stuff like requiring the premium server pass, or some other random potential DLC.

My main issue with the suggestions for a system like this, however, is that it more readily divides the community.

“Multiple Character Slots” design suggestion

Based on the discussion surrounding multiple character slots, I think it’s time to just make this more of a core feature of the base game.

Changes: Nobody has “multiple” character slots in multiplayer. One character, one server. That is, unless the server is specifically set up to allow for multiple character slots, in which case then you can have multiple character slots.

The Gold DLC could provide something like design presets instead, rather than a whole 'nother character slot. When hopping into a server for the first time, rather than go through the lengthy customization process DLC holders could just apply a desired preset.

For single-player, you could just have multiple saves per map. Basically the same as if a multiplayer server allowed multiple characters, but easier to select and manage. Instead of a separate menu for swapping characters out, you could so right before hopping into the server (which would be where you customize the look of your character too, per server).

“Sleepers” design suggestion

Adding “sleepers” would also just be an easy way to fix multiple characters or multiple accounts on the same server. When someone logs out, they fall asleep on the ground. People cannot use bodies as storage without risking it just being taken (either by murdering the “sleeper” or just looting the body directly).

It also increases longevity on the server, as there is still value on your character even when you’re not online. I think people would appreciate this suggestion regardless of what it’s implemented to solve.

[color=red]Character skin color[color]

Never had a huge issue with green-skins when it came to camouflage attempts. As far as immersion goes, I’ve never taken Unturned seriously enough to be annoyed by it, as I’ve just found it to be part of the game’s charm.

If it was to be restricted, then how would you limit it? Would you just make it a single color wheel/slider, and then have non-DLC people only be able to choose from one of eight or so buttons?

Tiered micro-DLCs

I’m fine with this idea. We have the Permanent Gold Upgrade, so the next “logical” step in tiers would be a Silver and Bronze DLC.

By making most of the benefits of Gold purely cosmetic, it is easier to implement this without it getting weird where people have to buy all three DLCs just to get every “feature”. Or, the Gold Upgrade just has all the more interesting features.

Here’s some potential perks that could be done:

  • Themed cosmetics and skins (i.e.: bronze pirates, silver ancient dynasty, gold professional assassins)
  • Colored name-tags in servers. If this can be disabled on servers, then all official servers should always keep it enabled
  • Increased character customization (hair styles, hair color, skin color, gestures, facial expressions…)
  • Increased UI customization (more colors, different official styles and layouts…)
  • Access to servers that require whatever specific DLC to join
  • Customize the “living quarters” (in U3’s case, that would be the barn that serves as the main menu)

Cosmetic Packs are basically micro-DLCs, and if there’s a “Bronze Upgrade” or “Silver Upgrade” in addition to the Gold Upgrade, then it doesn’t make much sense and the content should either be merged into a “mainline” tiered DLC, or put on U4’s equivalent to the Stockpile.

For something that would only give you cosmetics/skins, they should be cheap. Most micro-DLC like cosmetic packs go for $0.99 USD at most. Sometimes you see stuff for $0.49 USD or $1.49 USD.

But I’d rather just see this kind of stuff put elsewhere.

Yes, I do think the Steam Economy should be integrated. The stipulations would be:

  1. All accepted curated content must follow specific guidelines laid out for that type of content (more strict and defined than U3’s simple guidelines)

  2. Players can disable cosmetics client-side (they can choose to not anyone’s cosmetics/skins)

  3. Servers can disable cosmetics server-side (they can choose whether or cosmetics/skins exist on the server)

  4. Cosmetics/skins are applied via an in-game consumable or workbench, to individual items. They are not equipped from the main menu.

Elaborating on the fourth point:

  • You could have two separate Eaglefires, and they could have entirely different skins on them. Rather than one skin always being active, you have to manually apply it to each item.

  • Cosmetics no longer show up when the player is naked, and cosmetics must be applied to an item (like gun skins would be) and would only show up on that individual item, unless you applied it to more items.

I’m personally fine with the wide variety of weapon skins that people can create, including some of the “remodels” available in U3.

The modularity of weapons does make it harder to create skins, but the newer art style opens up more possibilities for interesting designs. Remodels shouldn’t be allowed, as it would too easily conflict with the modularity systems.

The main things people discuss are:

  • realistic skins
  • overly creative/colorful skins
  • immersion-breaking skins
  • “camouflage” skins

I’m relatively fine with all of them, although “camouflage” skins shouldn’t be purchasable as U4 has actual camouflage patterns, and stuff like that would be better as in-game consumable spray paint type-of-thing.

I’m fine with clothing cosmetics being implemented. Functionally, they should basically work the same as the textile variation system does, but purchasable and applicable.

The issues in U3 are:

  1. Cosmetics appear while the character is naked
  2. Cosmetics hide the character’s equipped clothing
  3. Some cosmetics can be mistaken for actual items (especially high-end military gear)

Resolving the issues

  1. By making cosmetics something you manually apply to individual clothing items, we resolve the first issue. Players would never appear with cosmetic clothing while naked.

  2. We set limits on what clothing cosmetics can do. My suggestion is to limit the applicability of cosmetics to specific clothing items instead of clothing slots. For example, a Feather Hoodie is tied specifically to the Hoodie clothing item, and cannot be applied to a T-Shirt, Shirt, or Parka.

    1. If you believe that being apply to apply a mostly-green cosmetic like the Turtle Shirt to a Purple Shirt item is “broken”, then another limitation could be placed on color (Turtle Shirt only works on a Green Shirt).

    2. Alternatively, you make it the “in-game consumable” used to apply skins/cosmetics is available in different colors, and players must use the corresponding consumable item.

    3. Or, rather than full textures being allowed, they could mostly just be graphics you apply (i.e., the elephant from the Elephant Hoodie, but not the black hoodie texture itself). You would then just apply that pattern to an in-game item, resulting in something like a Red Elephant Hoodie.

Why does this work for Rust?

The system works so well in Rust because that game has very few items, and isn’t trying to immerse players into a “real-life turned post-apocalyptic world” that would necessitate loot diversity at different locations like Unturned has.

For Unturned, that loot diversity has been a core part of the game. It makes something like adding cosmetics more difficult when they have to apply to specific items, rather than just overwrite a clothing slot. At the same time, there’s various ways that the current systems planned for the game (primarily, textile variation) can be adapted to also support skins/cosmetics.

People weren’t excited about the leaked camouflage vehicle skins in U3, and I’m personally not a huge fan of them either. However, I haven’t had an issue with the Santa’s Sleigh APC and the two Rally Car skins, and have been a supporter of the idea of something like a Twitch Prime reward that was just the Twitch logo on a purple vehicle as a skin.

I really don’t care if vehicle skins are in U4. If they are, I’d rather not see “remodels” as skins, and I think a “decal system” would probably be simpler to “balance” than full-on skins would, although I’m not greatly interested in that either.

This is fine. It’s a weird thing to think about, but for things like doors, storage, and even some of the “workbenches” it’s not really that intense. I’d entirely avoid allowing remodels, and just retextures.

If the game gives its content distinct enough models, and the textures don’t make it too difficult to identify the original placeable (at least, when close the interaction menu should specify what it is), then I’d be fine with them.

This one is weirder, and I’m not super sure how I feel about it.

Rust does it, and they’re essentially just decorative objects you can craft and place around. Mostly things like holiday lights/decor, wreaths, snowmen, and banners.

If U4 was to have it, I’d rather them be:

  1. all officially made
  2. primarily just event/holiday items that people could get just by playing the game

No issues with this, and I think that it’s nice for the game to celebrate various holidays and events. Not really a revenue stream though.

If DLCs were to be further incentivized with other “perks”, then, then I’d consider gift presents one of the ways to do so. For example, while I wouldn’t restrict gift presents exclusively to official servers, I would support people being able to obtain something like gift presents easier while on official servers or just being given a freebie at the start of every event if they had one of the mainline DLCs.

Which does raise some concerns regarding the strength of the economy, if some people can get stuff a bit quicker, so it’s worth considering what people can get for “free”/easier.

I like the idea of it, but just like with official servers, this isn’t something that’d be quick to implement nor something I foresee being easy to maintain.

If your server was hosted on a Server Realm, then I think it’d be good if there was a dedicated “Realm Management” menu exclusive to those with the subscription. I don’t think I’d paywall any server features behind Realms, unless there were “official server”-exclusive features, in which case I’d consider making them possible in Realms too.

These aren’t super relevant to the core economy, but:

Achievements

  1. If official servers ever become free-to-join, then achievements could potentially only be achievable on them. Potentially, they could also be alternatively available on Realms too.

  2. Some people really like rewards tied to achievements. Steam Economy items, customization options, whatever.

Trading Cards and Steam Badges

It’s worth clarifying on the following: If a game is F2P, then you have to spend money to be eligible for trading cards. If a game is P2P, you are immediately eligible to receive all trading cards.

Community Market, Item Store, and EconCrafting

U3’s Stockpile, Community Market, and economy crafting has been a bit of a ~derp~~ throughout its life, so I’d like to give my thoughts on what has and hasn’t worked well for the game.

  1. Only having “scrap materials” is not as good as having multiple resources. They could either be more “tiered” (i.e., TF2’s system), there could be different resources for different purposes (i.e., Rust’s system), or there could just be a variety of resources.

    Multiple resources, helps diversify the value of various items more, and crafting produces more inherently “valuable” items due to the different resource costs.

  2. “Scrap materials” should be marketable in U4 (but not U3). The issue in U3 is that there’s just such a high supply of them that it’d devalue everything that isn’t common if they were marketable.

  3. I support both time-limited and permanently-available skins on the Stockpile. I’d say that swapping out the item store monthly would be fine, or just every couple of updates. Some consistency to it would be nice though, so that people can more-or-less prepare each month for a when batches are accepted. More “themed” batches would also be interesting, beyond the holiday batches.

    • After a skin/cosmetic is removed from the Stockpile, some of them could be made available as a part of the “gift presents” that aren’t holiday-exclusive and are just random playtime drops.

    • The contents of these “gift presents” could rotate like the items in the Stockpile do, as to always keep them “recent” and prevent an over-saturation of specific items, or they could be actively retired/discontinued, updated with new contents, etc.

  4. Holiday-themed skins/cosmetics should only be available from the Stockpile during that event, rather than being available year-round.

6 Likes

We got him

2 Likes

@MoltonMontro The part of a more mature public could be solved only with the premium pass, since it is paid the servers would have more active members of the community, but I imagine that if the game had some small cosmetics that did not affect much the gameplay (like prints that I I suggested) would provide a good source of income, the free game would attract more people who would eventually buy, plus a free game get more popular quickly which would give more visibility giving benefits to Nelson, perhaps great partners? (companies etc), I plan to have the paid version, Nelson deserves after all the work, and I hope that with this money Nelson can devote more to the game, but if the game is fully paid I think microtransactions would be less accepted, but it’s just my opinion on this I would like you to have more topics for these discussions.

1 Like

This topic was automatically closed 28 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.