Hellgate: London Subscriptions Set, Explained

1up is reporting on a letter directly from Bill Roper to Hellgate: London fans on what the subscription fee is all about. The letter, reprinted by the site Hellgate Guru, suggests that the premium content unlocked by the subscription fee is meant to give players options on how to play the game. " Hellgate: London is completely free to play online, out of the box. Anyone who buys the game can not only play through the fully randomized, storyline-driven gameplay offline, but they can also go online and share that experience with millions of players from around the world. We're excited to be able to bring gamers an amazing, free online experience that is included with their single player game ... Gamers also want choices, and we have so many great ideas for Hellgate: London, and the concept is so extendable, that we know we can keep adding to this game for a long time. We want to continue moving Hellgate: London forward in some really exciting directions, and to support ongoing development we've created a subscription service to give players access to new content as we go along. This commitment to our gamers was also a part of our plans for Hellgate: London from the very beginning."

orly?

[aichpvee]

I'll believe it when I see it. I don't even know what this game is, but the idea of paying a subscription fee for content that will be available "as we go along" has got to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard, from a customer point of view. Even paying per addon is better than this, because at least then you'll know what you're getting and when. Though just waiting for the expansion pack is the only real safe bet.

Maybe they'll surprise me and put out regular content updates, but I wouldn't count on it.

The terrible future of gaming

[coldcell]

Is this really where we're going? Paying a subscription to ensure we'll get the latest stuff? Doesn't that just serve to piss the folks who don't pay/can't afford it off, seeing other players in their game running around with way more glitz than they can ever quest for? I'm all for providing more content, but a monthly price for unreviewed, unguaranteed content seems way off base.

I can see in a few years we'll have subscription sets to whole development houses/publishers - "My Ubi-key gets me the latest titles as soon as they're out!". 90% of them are terrible games that get rushed out of the door, and you end up paying for more than you use, but that's the ideal scenario right? For them, yes.

The great games IMO are the ones that are solid from the outset and where extra content is easy to make by the fans. Then you have a review system to easily sort away the crap stuff. Some of the best fun I've had has been on custom maps/levels/mods from the community.

It all stinks of lack of confidence in their product to me. Why do I need monthly expansion packs? Didn't you make the game rich enough for me? I have titles (and I'm sure we all do) that are still massively fun today. If the company feels they have more to offer, MAKE A NEW GAME instead of giving the player a world with a financially tinged divide in it's player base. It seems the only need here for a subscription-based update system is to secure funding for the devs, which means their dev house isn't giving them confidence/funding for the extra goodies they want to produce until they see substantial investment and response. I don't think signing up a drip-feed from clients' wallets is the way to do that.

I'll give them the benefit of the doubt.

[Judinous]

This is the team that created Diablo II for Blizzard back in the day, so I'll give them a chance to prove that this can work. If done correctly, it could draw in fans from many different gaming demographics. Personally, I've come to expect a monthly subscription with my online games, so as long as they are able to provide a good reason to pay, I will gladly do so. The game itself looks solid from what I've seen of it so far. Similar business models are quite common among Asian MMOs. Distributing the game for free, or for a one-time purchase, while making the bulk of their money through in-game "purchases" has proved to be a very effective strategy for many other games. It also helps to squelch the RMT market when similar services are provided by the company itself. A monthly subscription plan can work just as well, as long as they make it worth the customer's money each month.

Re:The terrible future of gaming

[tibike77]

In Guild Wars, you buy the expansions (and if you play GW, you'll probably buy them).
Expansions come once a year or so, and cost as much as a full game.

In this game (that supposedly is basically Diablo 3 in future-day London with a 1st person view, as opposed to isometric), you get the game the same way you'd get any other single-players game (yeah, unlike GW, this one is offline too, just like Diablo 1&2)... and instead of waiting ONE year for "new stuff", you pay a subscription fee and get all "new stuff" delivered as soon as it's implemented.

Now, how often this "new stuff" will come to you, they don't exactly say, but they almost imply a weekly release schedule for new content, if not daily.
Add to that the fact you DO get a fully functional MMO subscription to go with it (you get a "basic" one FOR FREE), and I don't see why you'd have anything to complain about.

Re:The terrible future of gaming

[Jugalator]

Is this really where we're going? Paying a subscription to ensure we'll get the latest stuff?

The closest game to HGL is Diablo II, and the only free content updates we got there was basically Patch 1.10 and the more minor Patch 1.11. The developers of that game that now works on Hellgate has claimed the want to make more "Patch 1.10"'s, and that's why they're doing this.

I'm all for providing more content, but a monthly price for unreviewed, unguaranteed content seems way off base.

Then don't pay the fees and watch from the sidelines what kind of content appears. You'll still be able to play and finish the campaign, and you can even play together with players who are subscribers just fine. It's the same world. The only limit would be that you can't go to subscriber-only areas, but that's what you were suspicious of would be worth your money anyway, so it shouldn't be a problem until you've decided either way which way would be the best balance between gameplay and RL economy for you.

Re:orly?

[Krilomir]

"but the idea of paying a subscription fee for content that will be available "as we go along" has got to be the stupidest idea I've ever heard"

I take it you've never heard of World of Warcraft then?

Except that wow patches are free for everyone (even non-subscribers), and you are actually paying for access to their online world. Besides, you are still paying for expansions on top of the subscription.