Old? Pretty sure it's just wisp of dust by now It's been a standardized monetization scheme on mobile gaming for close to 4 years now and has represented the majority of revenue for mobile gaming for about 3 years now. It may not be someone's personal preference, but it's undeniable that in the only majority that counts, those who pay to play the games, it's accepted practice. The "FHB" may as well be complaining about all them new fangled cars that destroyed the good old days of horse and buggy for all their relevance to mobile gaming in 2013. At any rate, for a multiplayer game like this, free is the only initial price point that gives them any chance of success. There isn't even room to argue on this one, even a $0.99 price point would spell certain death.
I don't think anyone was arguing that it's not a valid way to make money on the appstore to go full freemium. Heck no one even wished the dev ill will or anything. Not sure why anyone has to take such a heavy handed response when someone has a different opinion. I was a fan of Fishlabs, I wish them no ill will and infact want them to survive and do well. It was sad when they laid all those people off recently. Still, this freemium path is one I've mostly avoided in my game time on my iphone... but no doubt it could benefit them wildly or it could completely fail if no one buys the IAP. I think premium, premium w/IAP cheats, freemium disguised as premium, freemium, ... it's all a gamble. I don't envy the choices devs have to make for business reasons. It's like watching a painter start slapping together paintings in rapid mass production in hopes of making money.
Just started playing a few minuten and it started with the ussual do this - get a reward. Af first the waiting times dint Seem so bad but now i have to build a carrier and it takes 25 or so minutes. But yeah its your typical free to play game but i have yet to play against anyone so I hope that will be better.
I came here after the 25 minute carrier timer too lol. I'm glad I'm not the only one who didn't spend in game currency to hurry it. I'm also grateful I wasn't forced to hurry it either Does anyone know what kind of form combat takes?
From an iap point of view, there are the standard currency packs, and there a few different bundles with blueprints and artifacts. I can see you can buy artifacts with in game currency, I can only hope to get the Mk 2 blueprints through regular gameplay so I don't have to buy these bundles. There's an xp doubler for $1 which I assume is a mandatory purchase if you want to play the game seriously. There are also currency doublers that time out after a month, 3 months or 6 months. It all seems pretty standard to me, as long as I can get the Mk2 blueprints through regular play
My TWO cents Dear Fishlabs, I have been a big fan of your Galaxy on Fire series for quite some time now, and I have always wanted to see a "Galaxy on Fire 3". GoF1 and GoF2 will always have a place on my iDevice. I have been reading your articles about your financial hardships, and I certainly wouldn't mind supporting you because you're an awesome developer. Did you know that Galaxy on Fire 2 is probably the best space battle/exploration game in the entire AppStore? It is! Maxwell....what a guy! With that being said, it seems that your new said 'Galaxy on Fire Alliances' game has finally released in some regions in the AppStore as an open BETA. I live in the US, so I will have to wait for this. Now, concerning your FREEMIUM model choice for this game...there are things that are OK for me and there are things that I dislike entirely. I don't mind the game being FREE or including IAP currency. It's just that I HATE really large (over 300MB+) server-based games...I want to be able to play the game ANYTIME ANYWHERE (Offline), and the constant internet connection requirement is the deal-breaker for me (most games with the 'Alliances' moniker are like this anyway, as expected). I'll try the game nonetheless and probably throw a few dollars in just to support your cause---GoF3. It's all my personal opinion. Also, what does iOS 6.0 provide for this game that iOS 5.1.1 can't handle? For my iPad2, iOS 5.x.x is the optimal firmware. If I can play Asphalt 8, XCOM, and Infinity Blade on my device damn near flawlessly, why can't GoF Alliances do the same? It's best to support iOS at least from 5.x and up...ya know, like your legendary GoF games. I'll be using my friend's higher firmware iDevice to try this game out when I get the chance.
Game Impressions From the first 10 minutes of quick glances, it would seem to me that the IAP options would throw any competitive balance between players who spend and who do not spend even further off than in many other freemium games with a competitive online component. So for those hoping for a freemium games that retains a reasonably level playing field (such as Ravenmark: Mercenaries, where IAP only offer the player the possibility to have more matches going, not actually succeed any better in the matches themselves), my early impressions seems to suggest to look elsewhere. Not only can the player purchase long-time credit boosters, but also large sums of credits outright (and credits can be used to speed up production and progress, in the now traditional manner), plus bundles that contain both credits, artifacts that increase the speed, defense and strength of ships, and other advantages. This comes with a few disclaimers, of course. The first is that these are indeed very early impressions, and that hidden factors of player skill I've yet to discover might even out what the numbers suggest will always be a very uneven struggle. The second is that there might be an upper limit to the benefits that microtransactions can yield in the game, and that truly skilled and dedicated players might eventually hit some kind of cap where the real money spenders also end up (which would mean that the endgame might be even in spite of IAP). (Also, do note that this is in no way an argument against Fishlab's freemium model or an attempt to instigate a pricing discussion, and I do not begrudge them all the success, fame and wealth I hope Alliances earns them. This is an attempt at early analysis of whether Alliances is suited to those looking for competitive PvP.) The final disclaimer is that even if I am right, it might not matter, and perhaps Alliances was never meant as a competitive environment. What it is, is a well-realized mobile online universe, and in that sense it is a rather unique product for the platform. The hardcore mechanics intended by Fishlabs to make the experience different from other timer-based civ builders still seem to be hampered by the exstence of drastic IAP, but for the persuasive price of nothing or possibly a dollar for an xp doubler, this seems to be possibly the most advanced (and attractive) social freemium antfarm available. This is an MMO. Offline play is antithetical to the nature of the game, I'm afraid. You might as well criticize your browser for requiring an internet connection to access online webpages
Hehe! Well at the time after living in Iceland for about 3and a half year I had to move to Japan... and then I moved back to the States after being in Japan about 6 and a half years! TMI, I know!
Of course, I completely understand and accepted that fact. It is the nature of MMO....but have you ever imagined being able to play an MMO like let's saaaaay Order & Chaos (1GB+ size) offline without worrying about a constant internet connection? It would be quite...liberating to do so, well, at least for me. But anyways, MMOs are generally online only. My big gripe on MMOs for mobile devices are the file sizes that are entailed. Most mobile MMOs like this one (GoF) are below 100MB and provide a likely similar experience that this game contains give or take some graphical enhancements, but the game concept is virtually identical maybe with a few more twists/options, eg. nothing groundbreaking. In a perfect world, each city in the world would provide FREE citywide WiFi for all via sources from a worldwide cooperation of corporations/governments....the signal would spread throughout each city allowing instant access for everyone. Despite it being an utter fantasy, I'd much prefer it that way, which in turn would sway my harsh opinion on online-only situations. It's just a fantasy though.
Please tell me combat is more than just throwing numbers against numbers! I've played that game, 15 years ago, on internet browsers. Modern ios games of this genre have a tactical element to the combat. I'm assuming clash if clans does, battle nations certainly does, as does lords of darkness. The combat screen is very pretty, but if I'm not mistaken it's just window dressing.
Quite possibly, by its very simplicity and obviousness, one of the most genius line I've ever read here. Brilliant. Thanks. (And just in case, I genuinely do mean that, not sarcasm or the like, I simply love that line, it entertained me greatly)
I have yet to see anything in Alliances that would indicate that this is anything else but a (very, very polished) freemium timer-based social city/civ builder. What say the rest of ye, is there a hidden depth and hardcore mechanics further in and down and out? Sadly, I generally find the vaaaast majority of MMOs so lacking in actual gameplay mechanics that I would never want to play them if not for the fact that they are online, and the experience is shared (And to this day, Darkwind Online is perhaps the only MMO I've ever played which provides a gameplay experience, the social interaction notwithstanding, that I haven't found a single player counterpart to.) Perhaps that is why online requerements never bother me. I live in a world very close to the ideal WiFi fantasy you describe Yeah. Hence the "online" in "online webpages" in my post. While offline content in online games is a nice idea, it is also a niche idea. The standard is the opposite, and I suspect it will continue to be so. I was trying to boil down the principle to its simplest form. Never suspected it would make a nice quote, but thanks
Well, yes, of course. Naturally enough as another feature that I'm sure we all know about. But in the specific context of what was said and the use of the word "online" (which lets face it, the main use and function of any Internet explorer/interface/browser is to access online web pages), I just thought it was a very nice line. Anyway, it's not a thing, the line just entertained me greatly by its simplicity and accuracy. And I do find that kinda brilliant. @Ayjona, you're welcome. That's a line I'm pretty sure I'll find many uses for in the future. Edit. I dunno what kinda weird thing the reply/quote button was doing by crediting me with the original in this post but fixed now.
