Definitely don't do this, it will absolutely cause you to piss off potential customers beyond belief and may have the opposite effect of making them simply stop playing out of frustration, rather than making them want to pay so that they get protection from it.
Take great care to put yourself in the shoes of a player just trying out the game. They'll be very easy to lose very very quickly if you piss them off, and abruptly ending the experience like kicking them from the one thing they can do is a surefire way to aggravate them enough to uninstall and forget about the game entirely.

The others aren't great either, as they enable the same sort of 'helplessness' that free-to-play players of games like World of Tanks have. In WoT, anyone who isn't a paying player is gimped to the point where the game simply isn't fun because you'll only be cannon fodder for the tanks that paying players have access to.
The best things to limit would be things that only affect the player in a few circumstances. If I understand your post correctly, mortars are only enabled if you have a certain amount of points, right? Disabling mortars for free players, then, is less aggravating as they are already doing good and having a good time playing, and aren't being 'punished' by the game for not paying.

I think not being able to access single-player and hosting servers is a pretty big handicap already, much more gimping of the one thing they have access to is touchy.


"You are right, it is impossible to prove me wrong because you know I am right, BOB."
You only proved his point about you arguing as if you were a teenager claiming you knew everything.

I feel that is a bit too many core functions limited for free-to-play version, especially the basic rifle only one.
As for free play not able to host a server, why not change it to a limited slot server, as in for example maximum 10 people can join the server.
Also, I have to agree with TheGent on this one: kicking players off the server to make room will be a bad move.


You need to get your eyes checked. I can say the same about you where you argued with me based on one sentence I typed, and missed all my other valid reasoning, quit it.

I know it's not fun to get kicked out from a server, but if there's only one server that hosts a 50-player game, which has 80% free players, and a paid player wants to join, I'd most definitely want to let him join even if it means that it happens on expense of that free player who has been playing on the server the most.

I don't expect the PvP online gaming to grow substantially even with a free version, so I'm not really expecting to see a lot of kicking. Of course I could be wrong, but it's just how I see it at the moment. Kicking for server capacity maxing out in a coop setting among friends doesn't really make sense, unless you have 50 friends playing the same game which is rather improbable. Better yet than kicking would be queuing, so that free players may have to queue for their turn to play, if the capacity is full, turns consisting of single life of a soldier. That adds more implementation complexity though, it starts to sound like I should make the free PvP RWR as perhaps RWR 2, after a few years.

The free version that I presented fits very well for casual players, I wouldn't expect anyone to play the free version "seriously" and for unlimited time. If you get serious about the game, you should purchase it and enjoy every feature it has to offer. If you can't purchase, well, then your gaming time is up when you can't find the fun in the free version anymore.

I don't agree with the free players being helpless with the limitations that I presented. The weapons are pretty equal (at least they should be), having several weapons just creates more variety to gameplay and the free players shouldn't get it all, as you know, they are free players. The way I presented it, free players are privates while paid players can be whatever they choose to.

I 100% support you charging for this game.

I have only donated money to one free game - I gave $10 to ace of spades because the game was so fun. When hackers started wreaking the game I gave the dev another $20 for having the balls to pull the game for a while. Then I quit playing and only recently picked it back up. Here are the reasons I support paid games:

- Free encourages people to make a new account every time they hack and get caught and banned. Paying for a game, even the ridiculously low price you are asking, makes the player invested in the game.

- I never understood how players could ask a dev to keep their game free for the 'love' of making games. We all need money to survive. Would those same players like it if their parents gave up their jobs and started volunteering for free while their families suffered? The nerve of people to ask (sometimes demand) that a game stay free is such a foreign idea in my head - It's crazy, it doesn't compute.

- I love your game. I would have gladly paid double or triple what you are asking and still felt like I underpaid. You have created a really enjoyable gaming experience and deserve to be rewarded more than just the virtual high-five you would get if your game was free.

- Paying the dev for a great game encourages that dev to continue to improve the game and possibly create more games. Gamers cannot just be leeches on society. We must contribute as much as the dev.

- Donate buttons do not work. They don't. The people that ask for a donate button instead of paying for the game have no intention of donating.

Yes, but then there are the hackers with rich parents that spoil them. That's always bad.

_________________
Everything is MEEE! viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1132&p=6592#p6570

Proud to be a RwR forum moderator!

That's okay - more money for the dev if they want to keep buying new accounts. I paid $6.86 U.S. for this game. How cheap are people that they would argue over less than $7 for this game?

I have also in other game forums seen people complain that they don't have the money for the game they want. What did their computer cost, their internet, their power, their food, etc. Anyone can make the money for this game in less than an hour of odd jobs.

The dev could have done what every other game does - make a game and just show videos of it until people are begging to throw their money at the dev to get a copy. He charges far less than this game is worth, listens to the gamers, obviously put a lot of time into creating this game. Let the man be paid for his time. I think most indie devs make less than $10,000 a year. Shame on gamers for being so cheap with the people that create the games we crave.

Huh, it's been a while since I checked up on this. Well then, it's time to clear a few things up.



That would only truly matter if a service such as punkbuster was being used to track hackers in the game. In this case, the only way a hacker is going to be banned in RWR is for it to be manually reported to pasik. Besides, you can do a lot more to ban someone than just their account. You can ban their IP. Heck, if they have a dynamic IP you can block their entire range. That person will not be able to play again until they move to a new service provider, or would have to get a new range from their ISP.



No one is saying any of this. In fact, I myself am actually suggesting methods with which he can make more money, and garner a larger audience. In my opinion, he would be much better off using in-game advertisements, which don't necessarily have to be overbearing, which can match the $7 purchase price in a few months, as well as a donation system allowing for higher profits, and of course with the game being free a bunch more people will likely want to try it.



Oh boy. Because someone would like to see something be free means they must be a leech on society. Come now, if every issue were so simple and trivial that you could come to that sort of conclusion, there wouldn't be 5 pages of back-and-forth in this thread.



Statistics, please.
I donated. To RWR, to the music artist Pretty Lights, and to several other sites I deemed worthy. Heck, you yourself stated that you donated to Ace of Spades.

I didn't read through the whole 5 pages but for me it's fine like it is.
If you like the game, 5€ isn't too much. For myself the 5€ and donation is money I use to invest into something that has the potential to get big, pretty big.
The community is yet quite small but that will change, I'm pretty sure of that.
The demo version is quite obsolete but gives you an idea of the game mechanics. Since I don't care much (at all) about single player it wasn't very interesting for me.
If I wouldn't have the 5€ I would have maybe skipped on this one, since multiplayer is where the game REALLY shines.

As far as I know pasik will release a updated demo with multiplayer support so that everyone will be happy

i dont think you should make it free unless you dont need money,i meen look at minecraft 5 million, and it always cost money. maybe make it free once its released (Or Vice Versa) so if people want it earlier you have to pay

I registered just to say that i used to love this game... but once i saw a price tag i just saw pasik as i would anyone that begs for money, but if pasik would put up a donate button and i would see him as someone who would help an old lady cross the street that may get payment, but does it out of the kindness of their heart