How can you reasonably make that argument? I need help to understand your view since unless you are 10 I think you can understand that a service provider who has monthly costs cannot survive without monthly income for long.

I understand many including myself purchased lifetime subscription but frankly it was not nearly enough and if it had been sold at the amount that was enough no one would have bought it since it probably would have been like $100!

So the question is what should be done? If we don't pay there is no dogfight then we all lose out. He can put in ads but really I would rather pay. I don't see any other option.

However there is an important point should be made on the same premise:
This fee that he is charging had better be the solution. I agree with the players who are upset that they were sold a product for life only to have that product taken away. Yes that was a mistake so let it be the last. No lifetime subscriptions and make this amount correct or I doubt anyone care when they hear the cry for help next time.

If I may add to Whip's comments:

I fully support Echoboom in this repricing. We've been telling Zup (in fragmented threads around the forum) that his pricing scheme has been way too lean and lenient. Finally, it comes to a head when he cannot sustain enough servers for the number of players at their various low and nil prices charged.

From my perspective, this is an Echoboom mistake in pricing (too low, too free, without adequate and accurate analysis of how this would scale up with players and servers). That's ok, it's very common for companies to mis-plan like that. Some justify it as teasing out the market with an intent to increase prices later. I doubt if that was the intent. It's just a plain ol' Whoops, I believe.

So what happens? Well, companies re-price. If we were all on penny subscriptions, the monthlies would hike up. But many of us were on a single lifetime fee, $5.00 and permanent access. Hard to raise the price of a perma-fee since it's already paid. Some companies just increase the price of new subscriptions. Zup could have done that way back when, but it's a little late now, and he needs to tap the current subscribers. A little unusual, but ok with me, as I believe the 5 bucks I paid a couple years ago was WAY too much of a bargain.

The net of it for me is, it was a bargain before, and it's priced fairly now, but only if the lag improves significantly. Based on my games today, that's NOT the case! But I think we have to be patient.

Manfred

It's not that I don't believe the game needs to make money. I have bought in before. My issue lies with what happened to all the funds that were provided with the last couple of updates? Now I understand that once my money has been paid, that doesn't make me a shareholder or give me license, but I do feel that if I am paying into a thing, the return should be better than when I first invested or I look like an idiot. Business 101 for a consumer.

That hasn't been my experience thus far. The game, even after large buy ins from multiple sources, is in appreciably worse shape now than when I first started. I have no rights to tell Zup how to appropriate my funds, but I also don't feel it necessary to continue to pay for something that is currently is in rough shape. There are plenty that will invest and I support that, however, there is still an option for as little as I play to play for free until I begin to see improvements. Just the way I currently feel about it. Does that make me the bad guy? Perhaps it does, but I have little faith that if I pay in it will end up improving the game. I have no rights to dictate the flow of spending of the funds here, but I do control the spending of my own funds. I need more than just a word to secure that the money is not going to develop a pipedream, but will develop what we already have. Just my thoughts and opinions.

Nope, doesn't make you a bad guy. I'm paying in only because I've been playing more. If I were in my somewhat idle and tinkering mode, I would stay free and play one game at a time.

This is why I think Z should increase the wait time for free game play*. Occasional players wouldn't be impacted, but the frequent game-after-game types would either ante up (and help fund servers in the newer smarter pricing scheme) or stop playing frequently (and not clog up the servers without paying more).

Manfred

EDIT: * and fix that loophole bug that Jeff was describing

Weather[*M]an wrote: It's not that I don't believe the game needs to make money. I have bought in before. My issue lies with what happened to all the funds that were provided with the last couple of updates? Now I understand that once my money has been paid, that doesn't make me a shareholder or give me license, but I do feel that if I am paying into a thing, the return should be better than when I first invested or I look like an idiot. Business 101 for a consumer.

That hasn't been my experience thus far. The game, even after large buy ins from multiple sources, is in appreciably worse shape now than when I first started. I have no rights to tell Zup how to appropriate my funds, but I also don't feel it necessary to continue to pay for something that is currently is in rough shape. There are plenty that will invest and I support that, however, there is still an option for as little as I play to play for free until I begin to see improvements. Just the way I currently feel about it. Does that make me the bad guy? Perhaps it does, but I have little faith that if I pay in it will end up improving the game. I have no rights to dictate the flow of spending of the funds here, but I do control the spending of my own funds. I need more than just a word to secure that the money is not going to develop a pipedream, but will develop what we already have. Just my thoughts and opinions.

Just let's have faith in Zuperman and give him at least the support he is looking from us.

It's not that everyone has to pay but then you have to wait.Its your choice.

My only request is to those who can afford must pay so that the zuperman can buy more servers and I don't think he'll mind for free players as long his server financial commitment is met.

Those who have paid will definitely like to play with full players in all servers to make the game more entertaining but first preference to enter the game will be given to those who have paid.

I paid because its fun, still, even with the lag. if it fails i'm out a couple of bucks. Worth it to me. Am I foolish? Possibly, but I cant think of another source of entertainment that lasts a month for $2.

Give the free players a limited access playtime, and then after that pay or go away.