CXL Pricing-Is Monte Cristo serious?

[zurrabear 20]

Well, I paid about $140/year to play World of Warcraft--which is why I wasn't here playing SC4 for a few years and missed out on all this. But WOW, being a massively multiplayer on-line game, provides a depth of gaming experience that is difficult to match...it's the Game of All Games, IMO. I love both games, but I think you get what you pay for if you want to get it right away instead of waiting for a community to develop around the game. The simple fact that the graphics suite in CXL appears to be far superior to SC4 is enough to make a lot of people play. For me, it will need to match the quality of WOW to pay that much to play, however.

[Legosim 14]

Cities XL is hanging by a thread for me, soon im not even going to bother clicking on anything cities XL or think about it so disapointing.  I just want to pay ONE price for a game, and maybe an add on or something. No way am I paying for online play, reason why i dont have xbox live

save the money for real life.... and legos

[Chptrk 86]

Originally posted by: Mctittles

Originally posted by: kingdiz_55

I seem to believe that MC is doing what EA is doing with is Sims and its Expansion Packs. To me, the only reason that MC is doing this is that they're not sure how many people are going to buy the game. With that said, they're charging the people that DID buy the game. It's always about the money...quote>

Another difference between what MC is doing and what EA does.  The Sims has been a top selling game for like...oh the last 10 years and Cities XL is just getting off the ground, in a niche market even.  Selling overpriced Sims expansions is like raising the price of cocaine.  People know they are getting screwed but cannot help but buy it.  Make a best selling game before you start screwing your customer MC!

quote>

Great comparison!

[Attila464 2]

Well ill probably spend the money i didn't spend on CXL on the STEX Disk and the LEX Disk from sc4 devotion and get enough custom content to last me another year or 2

[bixel 1,228]

Why so little to start with?

It took years and several upgrades for Eve online to really become a mega success...

Initial knee-jerk reactions

A lot of people look at the online fee and wonder what it is they are getting that is worth that much (myself included). Persistent data, cooperative building and trading, and a community... but this still does not seem to justify it because we are now in an era of free web-based online games that are free, but have micro transactions.. (Evony, Secret of Solstice, The West)

Yet CitiesXL is a much bigger game than these casual genres, so why do I compare CitiesXL to them, it is because right now - these online features have yet to come into its desired complexity, content, and uniqueness.

If all of this doesn't seem ready - why release it now? MC is not the multi-million dollar company Blizzard or EA is, they are financing everything themselves and they are pretty small. All this content and programming takes huge man hours to achieve, and people need to be paid eat and live.. this all costs huge amounts of money. MC is still generating sales for their City Life games... but the the development of this game is really eating away at their budget - which in tangent eats away at the time they have to get what is needed to have a playable game done. MC needs revenue and quickly - I've worked briefly with a lot of people in San Francisco and met many small developers, it would seem like but these guys literally live off of a huge gamble. They pay everything with credit - in hopes they can get a project finished quickly enough to pay off the debt of credit they accumulated during production. Remember - during development the company is not making any money - it only loses money (even if you factor in the small sales of previous games).

Why take a risk and make a game then?

If people with great ideas and dreams do not take these risks - then you wouldn't have great games. Its just that simple. Especially now when investors are becoming more control oriented over their investment - making demands and stifling new ideas in favor of whatever format sells most you have cookie cutter FPS shooters that are completely forgettable, MMOs based on the same formula as WoW and a gigantic series of the same game released over and over Madden 2010, NeedForSpeed, NBA, Halo4...

What does this boil down to?

A lot of prospecting players will argue - that is not worth the fee, where is the huge expansive world and mega gobs of content? It will come with time, MC is jump starting a very small engine, they are setting ground rules now (whether it seems justified or not) but they know that if they change these rules later it was have cataclysmic effects on their customers/players. The plan is - set the rules now, regardless of how harsh (or greedy it may appear) now. Those that do not want to pay on these rules, but still want to play get a fully playable solo game. I will most likely fall into this category because I really want to play the game and I want add content to it.

   Solo players get everything that regular community SC4 get, blog based web page featuring themselves and their City Journals - and additionally a 3d Avatar.

   MC needs to set up their online plan now... development on this game will be constant just like Eve and WoW. Some players may sign up for the online membership now, this will do only one thing - allow MC to more effectively make the game better. Solo players will be doing the same thing by playing the game and being an active community member. Most likely many players may not become online members until much later (perhaps a year). In the past I was really hesitant to pay for a online fee, I waited until the 3 expansion pack to Everquest (the 1st one, I know! Im old skool) to come out before I signed. I had a lot of fun and it was a great experience. But I waited for the online fee to justify it.

The main argument for or against

What is the point to this? The main thing to think about is to come to decision whether you will go sign up for the online membership and pay the fee or not. But if you decide not to do this - base your decision on these factors. Is the online value add considerably more than the solo? Do I really want online play anyway? Will I meet friends and be more actively involved in the community than before? If all of these answers are no, and yet you still enjoy the solo experience. Then please tell people CitiesXL is a great game - but I only participate on it in solo. If you still do not like the solo version, say the game is not for me - but maybe in the future I will consider it. Remember it wasn't until Expansion #3 until I got Everquest. The game is not a failure if people enjoy playing - the those people are not stupid or dumb for enjoying a game - after all it is just a game.

[crazychickensc12 84]

So basically I can't complain about paying for an online game since I play WoW...and have for 4 years so thats like $720 Dollars...WoW didn't know it was that much till now haha and I pay'd for transfers 2 accounts at some points so in total prolly $1000 over 4 years. So I'm not gonna whine about paying the 70-80 dollars for the game a year although I don't think its a good idea if it's a good city builder I won't mind at all. Nice things cost money....and Nothing is free anymore(Not even this site by the way..just be thankful there is no monthly fee)

[Mctittles 0]

bixel, I agree with you on some points, that's why I will be paying for the planet mode, because if MC is dedicated to making a great city builder MMO I think they need all the support they can get.

However, the reason I complain is I am afraid that I will soon be alone on a dying planet and I question the reasoning behind some of their decisions. I'd like this game to become popular so that means I'd also like a system where people would want to play.

The original system that we thought it would be sounded better for raising initual cash and setting the ground work for a mmo. That is to be able to buy a full single player experience with the option of playing online for a fee. However, now it seems you are not getting anywhere near a full single player experience so there goes the sales money from those people. With a bad start on the MMO part, those people will quickly stop playing to. So in the end you have nothing to go on and no money, and the game is no more.

[bixel 1,228]

maybe...but I am sure the support from the French and German community will be huge...I think this game will succeed.

[geek12 0]

I hope to God that it will. I want another city builder, i just don't want my hopes crushed by another poor game

[parrotti 11]

i agree with that

[alabardiere 0]

39 Dollars are 27 Euros not 39!!!!

[LordOscar 0]

Originally posted by: crazychickensc12

(...) So I'm not gonna whine about paying the 70-80 dollars for the game a year although I don't think its a good idea if it's a good city builder I won't mind at all. Nice things cost money....and Nothing is free anymore(Not even this site by the way..just be thankful there is no monthly fee)quote>

I have money. I have time. I like to build cities. But I won't rent a game telling me that small power plants produce 'some' electricity. Or for a 'simulation game' with only 2 management tools (income tax and company tax). Just have a look at the demo planets rankings: everyone is first with 21987 population. How unrealistic. Nothing random in here, not even population.

Let's face it. CXL is designed from the start for casual gamers. I want more for my money.

[SimFox 804]

Originally posted by: Mctittles

Another difference between what MC is doing and what EA does.  The Sims has been a top selling game for like...oh the last 10 years and Cities XL is just getting off the ground, in a niche market even.  Selling overpriced Sims expansions is like raising the price of cocaine.  People know they are getting screwed but cannot help but buy it.  Make a best selling game before you start screwing your customer MC!

quote>

How true!!

I think outrage at MC desire of making money is a bit odd, to say the least... What else do you guys expect them to do?

The real problem is, imho, in the way they have positioned themselves and expectations they have created in a community. That is what, much more then the game itself what ever it may be, that causes the backlash. So it is more than anything a failed marketing strategy.

Of course to lable it as such (failed) we have to wait couple of months and see how things will actually develop.

Yet all that doesn't really say anything about the game itself. This is largely relationship related issue...

[Attila464 2]

Originally posted by: SimFox

Originally posted by: Mctittles

Another difference between what MC is doing and what EA does.  The Sims has been a top selling game for like...oh the last 10 years and Cities XL is just getting off the ground, in a niche market even.  Selling overpriced Sims expansions is like raising the price of cocaine.  People know they are getting screwed but cannot help but buy it.  Make a best selling game before you start screwing your customer MC!

quote>

How true!!

I think outrage at MC desire of making money is a bit odd, to say the least... What else do you guys expect them to do?

The real problem is, imho, in the way they have positioned themselves and expectations they have created in a community. That is what, much more then the game itself what ever it may be, that causes the backlash. So it is more than anything a failed marketing strategy.

Of course to lable it as such (failed) we have to wait couple of months and see how things will actually develop.

Yet all that doesn't really say anything about the game itself. This is largely relationship related issue...

quote>

Ripping off Singleplayer and foricing you to pay 5 dollars a month is considered scam in my book not a "desire to make money." You are not getting the full game unless you pay 5 dollars a month even though you paid the 40 dollars for the game which should be considered the price of a full game and don't tell me a game without mass transit and region play is actually a full game and im being unreasonable.

I'm trying to raise a family and that 60+dollars a year could be more money going into my kids college savings, some of you might not have that have that problem so more power to you to buy the game and pay the 60+dollars a year and fund MC so they can hopefully make a good game in the future, but as it stands the Demo has serious UI and highway, road glitches. You can't even build on a slope for crying out loud. MC already dissapointed me once with City life, and its not going to happen again.

Im sure at the back of the box they will be advertising region play and mass transit and then at the bottom in small font it will say *must be subscribed to Planet offer 5.50/month.

[parrotti 11]

im in the same possition as Attila464 im also try to rais a family and i will all so not pay for the online version.

i think i will even not buy the game im not gonna pay 40$ for half of the game.

[Kryptowhite 9]

Well the price isn't really as much of an issue for me as I made it out to be. I didn't really intend to buy the game in the first place [don't have time for new games anymore] but I just thought the pricing put an end to any doubt I had that I didn't want this game. I'm sure the game will be worth it, and to some it will prove a good investment, but seeing as I wouldn't be playing this game a lot, its not worth the hefty price tag for me. It would be like buying a season ticket to a sports team and showing up for two games.

[SimFox 804]

Oh, Attila464, don't get me wrong!

I'm totally with you on this one. What I meant by my last message was that the real issue here is that MC sort of deceived the community.

They have went out of their way to indicate, or imply one thing and finally presented us with another.

So, although making money is a natural form of activity for business, such a silly approach to it is baffling.

True, nothing is free anymore. But this also and foremost applies to the money themselves.

In todays environment everyone would think far more carefully before parting with their cash. And this is where MC seemed to miscalculate. Sticking MMO label on something doesn't really make it MMO.

More than that. It creates impression of being cheated which only adds to the PR blunder the company had already committed with the community...

As a result... although the general tactics MC had chosen could be considered a valid one from a business stand point the whole execution seem to be very lousy and badly though through.

Particularly given that their CEO had specifically stressed in his interview that they are not gonna take anything away from the single player mode, just add extra stuff to the PO mode. Of course here also we are faced with trying to guess what exactly he meant. BTW some parts of that interview are eye brow rising, to say the least. Like, for instance, appeal for the lowest qualities of human nature... But well, that may be just realism. However, it is hard to get rid of feeling of something dirty being said and done.

In the end community holds most precious of commodities in their hand (particularly today) - cash. And wise allocation of this resource is a best way to express ones feeling about the game.

Bixel was very good in his description of the basic premise of the process in gaming industry. Yet, imho, his description failed t mention the negative (or unfavorable) outcomes. That being that people may simply not buy into the whole pay now and get things later offer. In that case there will nto be anything (like future development, bug fixes, expansions etc, etc) for those who had decided to believe MC and pay for both game and PO.

This puts anyone in an unfavorable position of an executioner who by saving his 5-10 bucks a month sort of pull off the plug on the future of this project.

On the other hand what credibility does MC have to ask community to pay today for some future delivery given resent development? Because that is exactly what they are doing now. They may be in a hard place now, but what were they thinking earlier? Why couldn't they simply be honest and straight forward with community? Because of fear of they financial backers?

BTW, Bixel, in the same interview I've mentioned above CEO speaks of their "partners" who, at least in part are picking the bill for CXL development. I just wonder if it is those "partners" whom we should thank for the way things are turning up?

The only way I can think of MC really keeping their word is if they actually have all that  promised stuff all done and specifically withheld.  But here again we are in a very ambiguous (morally) situation... Should we be happy that MC will keep the promise, or be outrage at "bait and switch" tactics at the game relase?

What do you do when you come across of really great offer for say digital camera somewhere on-line, just to realize that some things you expect to be there in the box, like battery, warranty, etc are not included in this "very special" offer, that you have to pay for them extra. Technically this isn't illegal, even if his initial advertising failed to stress it explicitly - at least if he informs you about those things missing prior to you actually paying Seller simply trying to maximize profit. But what would feel about such seller? Would you go on and buy some extended warranty or service contract from him? What if your purchase is something that would enable this seller to keep his promises to his previous customers. Should you for out your own cash to help out them?

In the end I believe that it is really wrong to force buyer of this game into all these considerations! The product should be worth it's price straight out of box and not on ground of something wonderful coming sometimes, may be...

[DuskTrooper 316]

SC4 FOREVERMORE!

*Trudges back to architecture studio*

[geek12 0]

I think, if anything, were feeling a bit disappointed. And i think you put it wel simfox when you said: "The only way I can think of MC really keeping they word is if they actually have all taht promised stuff all done and specifically withheld. But here again we are in a very ambiguous (morally) situation... Should be be happy that MC will keep the promise, or be outrage at "bait and switch" tactics at game relase?"

I don't know about you guys but i... I kinda enjoyed the demo and when i came here and started reading about the different things that were going on from PO pricing and no mass transit, i was very disappointing because it went against everything i had been told about the game.

[Attila464 2]

Originally posted by: SimFox

Oh, Attila464, don't get me wrong!

I'm totally with you on this one. What I meant by my last message was that the real issue here is that MC sort of deceived the community.

They have went out of their way to indicate, or imply one thing and finally presented us with another.

So, although making money is a natural form of activity for business, such a silly approach to it is baffling.

True, nothing is free anymore. But this also and foremost applies to the money themselves.

In todays environment everyone would think far more carefully before parting with their cash. And this is where MC seemed to miscalculate. Sticking MMO label on something doesn't really make it MMO.

More than that. It creates impression of being cheated which only adds to the PR blunder the company had already committed with the community...

As a result... although the general tactics MC had chosen could be considered a valid one from a business stand point the whole execution seem to be very lousy and badly though through.

Particularly given that their CEO had specifically stressed in his interview that they are not gonna take anything away from the single player mode, just add extra stuff to the PO mode. Of course here also we are faced with trying to guess what exactly he meant. BTW some parts of that interview are eye brow rising, to say the least. Like, for instance, appeal for the lowest qualities of human nature... But well, that may be just realism. However, it is hard to get rid of feeling of something dirty being said and done.

In the end community holds most precious of commodities in their hand (particularly today) - cash. And wise allocation of this resource is a best way to express ones feeling about the game.

Bixel was very good in his description of the basic premise of the process in gaming industry. Yet, imho, his description failed t mention the negative (or unfavorable) outcomes. That being that people may simply not buy into the whole pay now and get things later offer. In that case there will nto be anything (like future development, bug fixes, expansions etc, etc) for those who had decided to believe MC and pay for both game and PO.

This puts anyone in an unfavorable position of an executioner who by saving his 5-10 bucks a month sort of pull off the plug on the future of this project.

On the other hand what credibility does MC have to ask community to pay today for some future delivery given resent development? Because that is exactly what they are doing now. They may be in a hard place now, but what were they thinking earlier? Why couldn't they simply be honest and straight forward with community? Because of fear of they financial backers?

BTW, Bixel, in the same interview I've mentioned above CEO speaks of their "partners" who, at least in part are picking the bill for CXL development. I just wonder if it is those "partners" whom we should thank for the way things are turning up?

The only way I can think of MC really keeping they word is if they actually have all taht  promised stuff all done and specifically withheld.  But here again we are in a very ambiguous (morally) situation... Should be be happy that MC will keep the promise, or be outrage at "bait and switch" tactics at game relase?

What do you do when you come across of really great offer for say digital camera somewhere on-line, just to realize that some things you expect to be there in the box, like battery, warranty, etc are not included in this "very special" offer, that you have to pay for them extra. Technically this isn't illegal, even if his initial advertising failed to stress it explicitly - at least if he informs you about those things missing prior to you actually paying Seller simply trying to maximize profit. But what would feel about such seller? Would you go on and buy some extended warranty or service contract from him? What if your purchase is something that would enable this seller to keep his promises to his previous customers. Should you for out your own cash to help out them?

In the end I believe that it is really wrong to force buyer of this game into all these considerations! The product should be worth it's price straight out of box and not on ground of something wonderful coming sometimes, may be...

quote>

Very good reply Its just that i hate these "normal business tactics" in general i took marketing management when i was a kid in Highschool and this was the stuff they always told us NOT to do; lose the trust of the customer with false/ sketchy marketing.

[bixel 1,228]

good points Simfox, and while I will not say anything about whether there may be some let downs or make opinions on their markets schemes, lets just say I am getting the solo version of the game (for now).

[Huxleyhobbes 1]

Originally posted by: Feudal1

Are you guys actually serious? You're whining over paying $9 per month to access the online features? That's the equivalent of a couple of lunches at McDonalds. I just don't get this mentality that people want everything for free any more.quote>

I don't see anyone who wants anything for free. I see plenty of people who want the most basic elements of the genre including on the disc. Buying fancy extras like a different aesthetic theme is fine; the lack of mass transit options more comrepehensive than buses is just an insult, and after the debacle that was the demo, I for one have been irrevocably convinced that Cities XL would be a waste of my money. I'm more than happy to pay to play. I subscribe to WoW and have in the past played FFXI, City of Heroes, and EVE Online. I pay for XBox Live on my 360. I donate to Tarn Adams so he can keep making Dwarf Fortress, so you can pretty well tell that if something is worth the money I will pay for it. This is not only deceitful towards those who have been following CXL for awhile, it's also a complete ripoff.

Enhancing games through things like expansion packs and DLC is perfectly fine. MMOs are a sui generis and their pricing system is a necessity of their nature. With anything else, however, a system like this is a blatant attempt at moneygrubbing by forcing people to pay on an ongoing basis simply to have the full game.

Monte Cristo currently look a lot worse than EA ever have to me. I've never needed to subscribe to get the full experience from an EA game (and a game like Spore would be ripe for it) and often enough expansion packs actually do add enough to make them worth thinking about.

[cirugo 1,889]

Originally posted by: Huxleyhobbes

Originally posted by: Feudal1

Are you guys actually serious? You're whining over paying $9 per month to access the online features? That's the equivalent of a couple of lunches at McDonalds. I just don't get this mentality that people want everything for free any more.quote>

I don't see anyone who wants anything for free. I see plenty of people who want the most basic elements of the genre including on the disc. Buying fancy extras like a different aesthetic theme is fine; the lack of mass transit options more comrepehensive than buses is just an insult, and after the debacle that was the demo, I for one have been irrevocably convinced that Cities XL would be a waste of my money. I'm more than happy to pay to play. I subscribe to WoW and have in the past played FFXI, City of Heroes, and EVE Online. I pay for XBox Live on my 360. I donate to Tarn Adams so he can keep making Dwarf Fortress, so you can pretty well tell that if something is worth the money I will pay for it. This is not only deceitful towards those who have been following CXL for awhile, it's also a complete ripoff.

Enhancing games through things like expansion packs and DLC is perfectly fine. MMOs are a sui generis and their pricing system is a necessity of their nature. With anything else, however, a system like this is a blatant attempt at moneygrubbing by forcing people to pay on an ongoing basis simply to have the full game.

Monte Cristo currently look a lot worse than EA ever have to me. I've never needed to subscribe to get the full experience from an EA game (and a game like Spore would be ripe for it) and often enough expansion packs actually do add enough to make them worth thinking about.

quote>

I play MMOs too.

I'm not planning on paying for this though...I did pre-order it before I started reading about all of the standard stuff that was going to be left out.  Stupid of me but oh well. 

A game like this does not lend itself to the MMO model....why they are trying to smash this square peg into a round hole is beyond me because it's going to fail.  They could have had a single-player game that would have blown City Life (their horrid previous city builder) out of the water...instead they've come up with this weird hybrid thing...

[Mr_Maison 2,426]

Yeah, yeah ,yeah. Marketing and all that. What about the product that sells itself. In my book, if one have to SELL something with all kinds of schooling, and shrewd activity, it must not be that good. The truth should be enough to explain what a product is and the seller should be good at telling the consumer what the product is actually all about. Just basics. The product should come first. SC4 have no commercials for years and is still on shelves.

First you have an idea. Then you bring the idea into fruition. Then you sell it. But at the end of the day, the product should sell itself because someone put thier back into it and it came out good. So good word of mouth is 99% positive. In fact so good, I would complain, but still buy the extra parts left out of the box.

The real question is, is CXL worth any money at all? To an idividual who have hope for the upgrades that depend on massive subscription money from many customers? See with this, even for those who think it's worth money, the success of the PO offer will dictate the individual's gaming experience. The sad part is the individual have no control over this. Now what does this say for the single player who this genre really appeals to? This issue is beyond money, but the very dynamics of how this whole thing is presented.

A good product speaks for itself.

[MrGScoTT 3]

The development of this game has been like faint hit on my radar since it was announced. I can understand why others have followed its development closely. After Societies flopped, MC seemed ready to pounce on the niche city-building market. After looking at the details of the PO, I can say with confidence that I'll be skipping Cities XL. As many have already said, having to pay full price for the game and then have a paid subscription service for delivery of game elements that should be consider standard is unfair to the consumer.

[tnpf 5]

who the hell is going to play this game for an entire year anyway? I got the demo the other day and I think it has promise. You old fogies need to move on from sc4 and try something different.

[parrotti 11]

i still think its an upgrade of citylife,look on the pictures on the citylife site. looks like the same. i think.

[mrfisse 0]

I dont understand the deal with so many people here being so negativly surprised about this game. Especially thoose of you that have been following the game on the Cities XL site and been reading developer blogs etc. I mean most of the stuff there has just been so shallow, no development info has been released that gave the hint of any kind of depth to the game.

Just look at the videos they released.

An entire clip about curved roads (2009, WOW) - We are so awesome.

An entire clip about terrain generation (trees and smooth mountains... 2009, WOW) - We are so awesome.

An entire clip about realtime shadowing (we have a night/day cycle with realtime shadowing, yet again 2009, WOW) - We are so awesome.

And so it continues, nothing about gameplay or city managing depth, why? Because there is none.

I really want to like this game, ive been LONGING for a worthy City sim game to be passed the throne from Sim City 4.

But its just not gonna happen, not with this game atleast.

After playing the demo several hours i can just say its pathetic.

You have a finished "form" for a perfect City Sim game (sim city4), all you have to do is polish and evolve that product to perfection. That would win over the "nisched" crowd.

I dont say it have to be a copy of Sim City 4, not saying that you have to keep clinging on to Sim City 4 but like i said the form for the game is there, it was popular for reason.

Now instead it feels like they instead of making a clone of Sim City 4 they have made a clone of Sim City (rel date. 1989). The whole deal just made me so fkin sad, back to square 1 again (sim city 4, its a good square though).

Cons. (This is my personal oppinion)

- Aweful GUI, its cluttered, spaced up strangely and spread out to every corner on the screen. - Any designer would say "hey, this kinda sucks, lets start over".

- Childish gameplay, build 5 houses, build an industry rince and repeat.

- Dated and horrific graphics, textures are bland and lifeless, the entire city feels dead and yeah, lifeless. Peds are 2 times bigger than cars, Trees all look the same. No attention to details. When you zoom out to a "workable" distance the cars are all square gray boxes. I mean ... omg. The only thing you have been braging about during development is graphics and now when it comes to show they are aweful?

- Lack of game settings

- .... i was planing on making a mile long list (and trust my it can be made miles long) but i just get sad doing it. And bored...

Pros:

-Its pretty fast to uninstall.

[USA_Pride 49]

Originally posted by: MctittlesAnother difference between what MC is doing and what EA does.  The Sims has been a top selling game for like...oh the last 10 years and Cities XL is just getting off the ground, in a niche market even.  Selling overpriced Sims expansions is like raising the price of cocaine.  People know they are getting screwed but cannot help but buy it.  Make a best selling game before you start screwing your customer MC!quote>

LOL LOL LOL

Too funny and too true.

MC needs to get off the subscription idea ASAP.  Release additional features in reasonably priced expansion packs.  They're trying to have their cake ($40 pre-order) and eat it to ($7\mo subscription).  It's not going to work out well for them.

[yakaspat 0]

Originally posted by: kingdiz_55

I seem to believe that MC is doing what EA is doing with is Sims and its Expansion Packs. To me, the only reason that MC is doing this is that they're not sure how many people are going to buy the game. With that said, they're charging the people that DID buy the game. It's always about the money...quote>

I'd be okay if Monte Cristo did what EA has done with Sims3, actually.  My wife plays the Sims3 and loves it.  But, there is a huge difference between paying for bonus content by-the-piece and paying a flat monthly fee for essential game content.  If the single player game were fully functionable, like the Sims3 is sans bonus content, and you only were expected to pay a small amount for additional building sets, that would be reasonable.  With the Sims3, if you want another bedroom set of furniture, you pay a small amount (like 3 dollars) and then download the furniture set.  You don't pay a monthly fee of 10 dollars to unlock essential game content.  What MC has done would be the equivalent of the Sims3 missing all bedroom furniture in the single player game unless you pay a monthly charge!  That's a big difference than paying for additional bonus bedroom furniture sets.  Monte Cristo is taking a huge risk that is probably going to come back to bite them.  I refuse to pay monthly fees to play computer games, especially for what is essentially a single-player genre.