This game should be a subscriptioned based game

I know for a lot of people it wouldn't be very popular to have a monthly subscription for this game like World of Warcraft, but if it did this game could be so much more awesome. The biggest attraction for me with this game when I first bought it was your decisions mattering just like the game said. The choices you make will decide the fates of those around you. That was really exciting for me. The game started out awesome, and then after the people I saved started dying I realized I didn't have the freedom I was led to believe. The reality is for something like that developers need lots of writers, programmers, and voice actors. In other words money, and lots of it. I don't know about you guys but I'd sure be willing to pay 10 - 15 bucks a month for a game that let me make choices, real choices that altered the game.

Think about it. If they had that setup Lee could have met up with Luke and the group from season 2. Or maybe you ditched Kenny in Season 1. Or Duck could still be around.

I don't really think they will do that but maybe if the community got behind something like this they would.

«13

Comments

  • I guess you like playing a game where your decisions don't mean jack.

    TWD_25 posted: »

    No.

  • edited November 2014

    this being subscription based would have no effect on the choices if they want choices to really matter they need to spend 6 months+ on each episode to get every possible outcome which would be bad because people already complain about 2 month waits just imagine what people would be like with 6 everyone would lose interest

  • edited November 2014

    na... The reason it takes long is not enough people working on it. It's not like they would need to develop a new game engine. The voice actors would just need to do some more recordings, and the writers add more story for the alternate versions.

    Example: Telltale has 180 employee's. Blizzard that develops Warcraft has around 5,000

    Jewfreeus posted: »

    this being subscription based would have no effect on the choices if they want choices to really matter they need to spend 6 months+ on each

  • edited November 2014

    Alt text

    Get it?

    Alt text

    Got it?

    Alt text

    Good.

  • I just don't like the idea of having to cough up x number of dollars a month for a game, that I won't get to play each month...

  • Then why do you guys bitch and complain when someone you like in the game dies? You obviously don't want to have the ability to change those things. Why complain then?

    Green613 posted: »

    Get it? Got it? Good.

  • edited November 2014

    that can be done without it being subscription based no need for telltale to become money whores like blizzard

    Kennyftw posted: »

    na... The reason it takes long is not enough people working on it. It's not like they would need to develop a new game engine. The voice

  • edited November 2014

    Honestly, I didn't read about anything you had to say, I stopped when you said "subscription based game" because that is an awful idea that nothing can make good.

    EDIT: Also, I can complain however much I want, I bought the game already did I not? Then I withhold the full right to complain.

    Kennyftw posted: »

    Then why do you guys bitch and complain when someone you like in the game dies? You obviously don't want to have the ability to change those things. Why complain then?

  • You CAN complain but you don't want anything to be done about it. If you want characters to be able to live the only way that happens is if telltale has more money to invest into the game. The most efficient way to guarantee that is via subscription. It also means they can release much more content in the game. Imagine instead of a couple hours of game play from each chapter there is like 10 - 12 hours of gameplay + lots of alternate choice gameplay.

    Green613 posted: »

    Honestly, I didn't read about anything you had to say, I stopped when you said "subscription based game" because that is an awful idea that

  • Yeah because programmers love working for free. Call blizzard what you like, World of Warcraft is the most successful game of all time. After 10 years they still have nearly 10 million subscribers.

    Jewfreeus posted: »

    that can be done without it being subscription based no need for telltale to become money whores like blizzard

  • You CAN complain but you don't want anything to be done about it.

    Uh no, there's literally no point in complaining if I didn't want something done.

    If you want characters to be able to live the only way that happens is if telltale has more money to invest into the game.

    Again, wrong if Telltale wanted to make a story with branching story lines, they would.

    The most efficient way to guarantee that is via subscription.

    The only thing this is efficient at doing, is raping my wallet. I tend to avoid subscription based games, because I have enough bills as it is, and I don't want my TWD fix to become one of them.

    It also means they can release much more content in the game.

    Again, if they wanted to do it they would, Telltale is making shitloads of money right now, TFTBL and GoT both hit top sellers on steam in the last week, BOTH and only on steam, not mentioning all the other consoles people have bought from and will in the future.

    Imagine instead of a couple hours of game play from each chapter there is like 10 - 12 hours of gameplay + lots of alternate choice gameplay.

    That would be nice, but I'm just repeating myself at this point. IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT, THEY WOULD.

    Kennyftw posted: »

    You CAN complain but you don't want anything to be done about it. If you want characters to be able to live the only way that happens is if

  • you can't compare an mmo to a episodic series they are two completely different things a subscription based thing won't change nothing it will just make telltale lose fans and last time i checked world of warcraft have lost subscribers they are around 6-7 million either way world of warcraft is frowned upon where i am from so i don't really care what people have to say about it

    and telltale aren't working for free we are paying $25-$30 for their whole games unless you pirate them like a scrub

    Kennyftw posted: »

    Yeah because programmers love working for free. Call blizzard what you like, World of Warcraft is the most successful game of all time. After 10 years they still have nearly 10 million subscribers.

  • edited November 2014

    WoW was and is subscription based because one they are expected to create a fully functioning world AND add content to it every so often, and two they fully expected it to last over 10 years. If this were an open ended world, maybe, even then I wouldn't really be sold. Subscription games really need to bring a lot to the table to be worth it.

    A more reasonable solution would just be to make the game $60 like most games these days. They'd get their money, and I'd say paying twice what we originally did gives us the right to some real choices in terms of gameplay. Just curious, would people be willing to support this had the OP said "one time payment of $60 for more impactful choices"?

  • Why the heck would I want that? To pay money a month I always hated that, you're basically just renting a game

  • Subscription based games stink. I'd rather just pay one time and have it permanently and not pay once a month and basically just renting the game like firewall said.

  • 10 - 15 bucks a month

    Alt text

  • Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

    This isn't a World Of Warcraft 'waste your life and get fat' game. This is The Walking Dead 'cry your heart out and be depressed for days' game.

  • edited November 2014

    He likes being able to actually play the game.

    Subscription based games work for games where story is in the background, but do you have any idea how utterly convoluted the storyboard would get if it were modeled how you want it? Do you have any idea how long it would take to put out each episode?

    Adding more people to the team in a story driven game like this doesn't always make things easier. Adding manpower is a good thing to do if you're looking for polish, but not so good for generating globs of story driven content. Larger teams still need to operate as teams, and communication becomes an issue with more people and you end up with a different kind of oddity. For example, the Mass Effect 3 ending had its own team working on it separate from the team working on the rest of the game. That's why it feels so disjointed. The cut scenes in FFX had a separate team working on them while the rest of the game was being made, which is why the characters look WAY more Asian and why some of the locations they cut to are off from the regular models.

    So no, unfortunately, this is not a good idea.

    Kennyftw posted: »

    I guess you like playing a game where your decisions don't mean jack.

  • Even tho I don't agree with the OP, I don't think we should insult Blizzard/WoW.

  • ^^^^^^^

    This guy's name is what i think about this.

  • If it's not broken, then don't fix it.

  • It is used in many occasions mi friend.

    papai46 posted: »

    ^^^^^^^ This guy's name is what i think about this.

  • edited November 2014
    1. It's not multiplayer
    2. It's not open world
    3. It doesn't need servers for hosting

    You don't subscribe just so they "put more work into it."

  • Subscription is not the type of business model that would successfully work for a single-player episodic series

    Just because a model works for one type of game does not mean it will work for another, especially one that is not even relatively close to being the same genre at all

  • How would you make a story based game into a subscription based game. They just aren't comparable.

    This doesn't make any sense to me.

  • This is the worst idea ever.

  • Im just gonna say no i do wanna go to detail but to sum it up i wouldnt pay that much just for some choices to matter, the games decent as it is but it still could be improved but not in this type of way u speak of

  • Or months....

    Luke...

    Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm This isn't a World Of Warcraft 'waste your life and get fat' game. This is The Walking Dead 'cry your heart out and be depressed for days' game.

  • That's low bruh :P

    Or months.... Luke...

  • :P

    Shhh...

    Green613 posted: »

    That's low bruh :P

  • I just don't understand this idea at all. I'm not trying to be mean about it or anything.

    How would you make TWDG into WOW.

    Its like trying to make ice cream out of cheese and ice. Sure they're made out of the same things, but they're not comparable.

    This is the worst idea ever.

  • I don't know it's a horrible idea.

    He wants more choices and hours of gameplay...It's not suppose to be like that...

    If something isn't broken, don't fix it.

    CrazyGeorge posted: »

    I just don't understand this idea at all. I'm not trying to be mean about it or anything. How would you make TWDG into WOW. Its like

  • Personally what he could of suggested is instead of having the show only have five episodes a season. They could just releasing them until people get either bored or tired of the game. Each episode is about a hour long, about seven fifty.

    If i was running TTG, i would be trying to put out a new episode asap, to get those fan boy dollars. When you have a gold mine, it is your responsibility to mine it, or else it doesn't help anyone. I personally suggest they hire a new team just for TWD, that way they can keep releasing episodes every other month or so.

    I don't know it's a horrible idea. He wants more choices and hours of gameplay...It's not suppose to be like that... If something isn't broken, don't fix it.

  • I don't like that either.

    I just rather keep this system, it's good.

    CrazyGeorge posted: »

    Personally what he could of suggested is instead of having the show only have five episodes a season. They could just releasing them until

  • Also, couldn't you just increase the prices of individual episodes, instead of adding subscription fees? Ergo, making this idea moot?

  • Why even increase the price?

    Telltale doesn't want to do open world or tons of multi-hour gameplay.

    Deltino posted: »

    Also, couldn't you just increase the prices of individual episodes, instead of adding subscription fees? Ergo, making this idea moot?

  • DeltinoDeltino Moderator
    edited November 2014

    I'm just pointing out that, why should you even do subscriptions, when you could theoretically get the same exact outcome with a price change instead?

    Not only does this whole idea not make any sense, it's also completely unecessary

    Why even increase the price? Telltale doesn't want to do open world or tons of multi-hour gameplay.

Sign in to comment in this discussion.