congratulations for twisting the spirit of the conversation into something retarded. the basis is that people are bitching because johnny is supplying this game for free while it is in testing and is wanting to maybe turn a buck for his effort. all the crybabies are socialist pigs.

everyone else that is willing to pay is accepting of the capitalist ethos of getting paid for your work.

you are trying to discuss political theory, and i won't participate with you.

Lol?

I see nothing wrong with Johnny wanting to make a profit, heck; I've been trying to give out some suggestions. The problem I have is, is with the prices, and I think that's what most of the people who are against it are against. I've pointed out a country-running simulator game online (which actually has the trade in-game points/win the contest for cash, and they don't consider it gambling, or atleast I don't think they do) that charges less then what johnny is asking for while giving more then he has. At his prices, I'd be suprised if he gets playing members in the double digits.

Unless you plan on paying at the rates he has in mind, don't defend those prices unless you're going to pay them; unless you have a suggestion, those are always helpful.

Btw, have you seen the prices he's asking for? Might as well just go and shell out just a little more $ and play WoW.
Btw again, ad hominum attacks aren't really necessary you know.

@ Raz: I suppose you live in a socialist country, right? Where exactly is the country of Oklahoma?

i have seen the prices, and have stated my intention of paying for a silver membership, as i have already stated in this thread. reading comprehension ftw.

i didn't make an adhom attack, but i appreciate your vigor.

lol very i don't live in a socialist country at all, and if i had the money i probly would pay to play this game, but i can't seem to get a job in with the nations economy the way it is, believe me i have been trying for more than year now to get my second job

Herp a derp, this isn't an ad hominum attack.

it isn't an adhom.

an adhom attack is when i reject the idea that the game should be free by calling the people complaining "crybabies" and "socialist pigs."

i'm rejecting the free game idea because i think that johnny should be able to name a price, and those unwilling to play can go elsewhere. but if you'd actually read my first few posts in this thread, you might have been able to establish this.

my calling the people complaining about paying "crybabies" and socialist pigs" was just my personal viewpoint, and is an aside that doesn't hinge on the cost, or lack thereof, of playing the game.

feel free to look up the definition of ad hominum at your leisure.

how about this u split the ppl that pay and the ppl that dont, so the ppl that pay can do more things and get more updates. but the ppl who dont get few updates, and some features. the ppl that pay should be split from the map and have a bigger map, ppl that dont stay on this map with same features( to me it works out).

ad hominum: against the person.
1. Person A makes claim X. (such as saying that the prices are too high or that the game isn't worth it and they won't pay)
2. Person B makes an attack on person A. (you calling them a cry baby and a socialist pig because they think the prices are too high or because they think it should be free)
3. Therefore A's claim is false. (argument settled, they're a socialist crybaby, any argument they bring is worthless because they are a socialist crybaby that doesn't matter)

Herp a derp, calling all cry babies socialist or pigs is an ad hominum too.

except i gave a rational reason that the game shouldn't be free, argued that point, and then muckraked with name calling.

i never said that the people asking that the game remain free were wrong because of their views, as an ad hominem attack goes, and you have clearly misconstrued by taking my words out of context so that they fit your argument. reading comprehension ftw.

Just being an ass here, but is it that hard to spell people, you, and don't? Is capitalization dead? One other thing, are you supposed to begin a sentence with but?


On a completely different note, has anyone noticed that the threads have lost their zing over the last few weeks?

i don't use capitalization online because it's just faster to do away with it unless there is a specific reason for it. grammar and spelling actually mean shit to me though.

the zings haven't come because i was ignoring a lot of stuff falling out of people's mouths. and some people asked me to cool it. and you tossed a few nukes at me. :P

How do these sound?

- Silver will be $0.99, $2.69, $4.29, or $6.59 for one, three, six, or twelve months of access (respectively). This equals $0.99, $0.90, $0.72, or $0.55 per month.

- Gold will be $2.99, $7.99, $12.99, or $19.99 for one, three, six, or twelve months of access (respectively). The equals $2.99, $2.66, $2.17, or $1.67 per month.

The real question, is with current attendance, how does it sound to you?

The prices seem fair to me.

In the long run, it may lead to more players and more people willing to upgrade. So, I think I'm happy with them.

I'll just have to see how it goes. Hopefully we'll get a lot of the players who left back, too.

I still think you should keep one free and not delete the nation after 30 days. My oponion.
~Hath Said The King~

free nations will only be allowed to build contrucks, infantry, jets, and xsports

:P

Actually, in my country the United States of America, my capitalist nation is failing because of all of the socialism being brought into it and the limitations being made on the capitalist ideals here. So... You are wrong :]
~Hath Said The King of The Capitalist Kingdom of Hope~

Wow that sucks. And I really liked this game too :[. I wish he could find a way to keep it free.
~Hath Said The King~

capitalism also destroyed our economy...

it was intended as a joke. i hope johnny doesn't implement this.

I actually already said I was going to do that. In fact, it was in the text you quoted when you posted this. [/tng]

You don't actually expect people to read your threads do you?

But, in capitalism everyone has a fighting chance. You just have to work for what you want. If you want it to be handed to you then yes, you will get poorer. But if you work your ass off you will be at the top.
~Hath Said The King~

Oh, sorry XD.
~Hath Said The King~

No, Obama making the stimulas package and not helping anyone destroyed our econemy, war destroyed our econemy, social programs destroyed our econemy. Not capitalism.
~Hath Said The King~

You what capitalism created? The Great Depression. Fact that Americans started moving to the Soviet Union during the Great Depression because they had jobs over there really says something. You know what helped us get through the Great Depression besides WWII? FDR's "socialist" policies. You know what capitalism has done to the rain forests of Brazil? Cut alot of it down and cleared it out so Burger King and McDonalds can have a place to grow their beef without facing any restriction laws. You know what capitalism has done to the ecosystem? Helped spur on global warming because there weren't any gas emission laws nor were there any laws on protecting the forests. You know what else? Destroyed precious ecosystems, including plans on building on/in the Grand Canyon. Yes, the Grand Canyon would not look like what it is today if capitalists had their way. You know what unrestricted capitalism has done to the workers?. Given them less then $1 wages a day with little to no concern to their safety. You know what else is in unrestricted capitalism? Child labor. I don't know about you, but I'm glad there are restrictions business can do. Like keeping the workplace clean, specially in the meat industry.

Go read The Jungle.

Also, back on topic:
Those prices seem a lot more fair. I'd be interested in buying silver, and I think everyone whose expressed at buying silver earlier would most likely buy gold.

Just going off topic... Are we all aware that most "confirmed" socialistic nation's people pay close to 50% of their income to taxes? I don't disagree that socialistic tendencies have aided the under privileged. I also know that if we continue down this path, we will give up a lot of our freedoms.

hahahahahaha

the capitalism of haliburton raping our government over the cost of supplies in iraq and afghanistan killed our economy.

the capitalism of banks giving loans to people that had no hope of paying them, and ensured a form of endentured servant killed our economy.

the capitalism of flipping houses killed our economy.


wake up and smell the reality, man. obama inherited a shit pie, and everyone gets a slice.

the greed of the people spending money they didn't have (loans and credit cards) has a large effect on our economy.

Buying cars we couldn't afford.

Buying second houses...

You get the point. We, the people of this nation, put ourselves in debt. How can we expect our government not to go into debt when we can't keep from it?

Oh, and making loans that people can't pay back is as much the loan recipient's fault as the lender's.

Still not sure how any of this relates to the thread subject.

eh, when the loan is so packed with legal jargon that the loan looks like a good thing to the recipient, it's hard to fault them. yes, they should understand a contract they are signing, but the bank steamrolled a lot of people into loans by false presentation.

That, and most of us just blaze through anything we really don't want to read like user agreements...

like debit cards. they are property of the issuing bank and can be revoked at any time for any reason. but most people don't know that, because they never actually look at the back of their cards. or the fact that it has to be signed to be used. but most cashiers never enforce it because they don't know or are too lazy.

a society of gimme-gimme. and woe betide the person that holds up the instantaneous gratification of the almighty consumer.

i'm kinda happy that a lot of people are getting a wake-up call from reality, but it's shitty that our economy had to come a hair from imploding to get it done.

Just started the game, but if it's as good as it looks, $20/year is a decent price for full features. I'd be willing to stick around at those prices rather than the ones you posted before.

~Yulin

I think you got some solid ideas here.

I'm personally new to the browser based game genre, but here's another idea that may and may not work.

As others have stated, I don't know how much a server costs so you would have to figure out the actual charges.

When the full game is launched, I'm assuming there will be members who do not want to lose all the progress they have made in beta. Offer a separate map that costs small price(maybe something like ~$4) in which players can transfer all their land/data/progress/etc they have had in beta to the new map. It is not a long lasting revenue, but it could potentially be a large revenue at once that could determine the prices of membership if you decide to charge. It could have all the features, and anyone can buy into it after beta(though they would probably get hit hard vs higher developed countries). I think this sounds pretty good because it's not forcing people into paying for an account, but it lets people that dont want to lose anything to pay a small fee.

I completely understand needing to implement a subscription cost once you are comfortable and happy with the development of your war simulation game. I came here from an ad on facebook and I can say that in my opinion if you leave montly/yearly costs, whatever it may be you should think of perks (as suggested in previouis threads) that cost money. I'm playing on all three worlds right now because im learning the game, but once a cost is implemented im sure I could afford to at least play on one world... keep up your advertising and ideas and I'm sure this game could be a success.