Planned Global Skins

wedtm said:

We are currently working on a feature to enable skins that are uploaded to the Registry, and will allow you to have your skin automatically be loaded in on any server you join. In addition to this, you will be able to use your skin as an avatar on any site that uses the Registry's API for your user account (with your permission, of course).

A player will also be able to have multiple skins uploaded, and switch between them at will either via the Registry, or in-game.

We are initially planning on limiting the number of skins you can have to 3. Each skin will need to be sent to our CDN provider, which will store a copy in over 30 different geographical locations. This is to ensure that no matter what server is downloading your skin, it will come from a server that is close to them, and fast. Because of this, we can't offer unlimited skin storage.

My question to the community is this, should we allow people to purchase more skin slots? If so what do you think an acceptable one-time fee would be? Take into account that not only is there an on-going storage cost, but there is also bandwidth costs associated with the transfer of the skin. Should we simply limit it to the 3 per account and not allow any additional skins?

Any and all input is welcome on this topic!

Click to expand...

I say limit it to three no matter what. The game can already be payed for, and in the future when the game is required for pay, this'll be considered shady business practice, and that'll escalate to a massive scale, considering how Evolve's DLC/Vanity micro-transactions were received. You need to be extremely careful when it comes to this stuff. Personally, I'm fine with it, but there're a lot of people who'll use this as an excuse to put the game down as a whole, and try to bring about bad attention.

Criss said:

I think I'd like to point something out quick. Skins serve no purpose in gameplay. If players were charged for extra skin slots, they would get no in-game benefits. This is purely cosmetic.

From a player standpoint, just the fact that Schine is willing to save multiple skins is great IMO. I hated having to upload a new one on Minecrafts website each time I wanted to change my skin. And hopefully this simplifies the process for StarMade because frankly even I have difficulty getting skins to work properly.

Click to expand...

Is it great? Sure. But Evolve's day 1 Vanity DLC/transactions also did not affect gameplay at all, yet still caused a shit storm. There is a massive blacklash for any form of DLC or paid additional content these days, because people are sick of seeing it entirely, regardless of what it affects.

I'mma have to go with a no for paid extra slots. It does have no affect gameplay wise, but I don't really see why you would need more than 3. Plus having to pay a little bit on top of having to buy the game someday will annoy some people, regardless of effect or pricing due to the principal of it.

I dunno, I could be wrong, but this kind of thing is when you have to consider what other companies are doing and have done, which is over saturate the market with micro-transaction bullshit. For things like pricing and whatnot, you need to look beyond just the Starmade community and at the entire gaming community. A red leaf may be red, but not everyone will see it as red.

One solution could be something along the lines of 'refer to a friend'.
Basically, the registry allows one to 'invite' a friend via email. If a registry account is then created under that email, and the account is upgraded, the referee gets 1 additional skin slot. One cannot 'invite' emails which were already used to create registry accounts.
Maybe also allow granting unused skillslots permanently to another registry account?
This way one pays for the slot by having a friend buy the game.
But 3 skin-slots should suffice for almost anyone, so somehow obtaining more slots is not necessary.

I agree with cyber, dont ask people to pay for it. If someone needs more than 3, its minimal effort to go to the registry and swap out an existing one for the new one.

If it´s only for skin slots I personally don´t really care.
I would rather ask another question: "Is there someone who would buy it?" and "Who are those who would buy it?".

I guess that max. 5% of all players will use more than 3 skins regularly and at this point nobody knows if that 5% will pay to get more slots or simply switch them.

At this point I guess that the negative PR through microtransactions outweigh the additional funds gained from it. IF this game will be a huge success with 100.000 regular players this can be a possible step but for now I don´t think this is a good idea at all.

About the question of pricing:

What´s the product?
A small service for lazy people.

What does it cost you?
Really hard to say this one. I don´t know how much work it is to implement and keep it running.
Since skins are pretty small the costs for each player isn´t that high.

How much money do you need to get some kind of profit of it?
3$ is in my opinion a minimum to every microtransaction. If it´s less you´ll don´t get anything from it. If it´s too high everyone thinks that it´s insane especially if the service is pretty small. (Just a friendly reminder that Blizzard wants 20$ to automatically transfer a few mb of WoW character data to another server. The microtransactions are one of the reasons I stopped playing it.)

My personal oppinion:
I personally woud go with 4$ for 1 slot and 10$ for 3 slots. One problem is that starmade is really cheap at the moment so it would be cheaper to buy another copy of starmade instead of adding 3 skin slots. This is a problem which can only be solved by increasing the amount of slots you get for the microtransaction.

Maybe 4$ for 3 slots and 10$ for 10 slots? I can´t even imagine to ever use 13 skin slots. You see the problem.

I don't see it being a problem if you paid 2 dollars for one more skin slot.


The things that got people mad were things they didn't already have that they had to pay for. In this case you already have 3 by default and a few more dollars for one or two more slots shouldn't cause any more harm.

Microtransactions in Starmade? Thats greasy.
In a game market already super saturated by microtransactions, There is no quicker way to piss off players than adding in microtransactions.
Instead of paying, You could tie skin slot unlocks to game progress, a form of achievment system.
IE; Get 1,000 kills, Unlock a skin slot.

killerdude8 said:

Microtransactions in Starmade? Thats greasy.
In a game market already super saturated by microtransactions, There is no quicker way to piss off players than adding in microtransactions.
Instead of paying, You could tie skin slot unlocks to game progress, a form of achievment system.
IE; Get 1,000 kills, Unlock a skin slot.

Click to expand...

the issue is of funding the space required to store those skins, that would not solve the issue.

therimmer96 said:

the issue is of funding the space required to store those skins, that would not solve the issue.

Click to expand...

Could it not be stored client side?

killerdude8 said:

Could it not be stored client side?

Click to expand...

Thats what we have now. They want to host the skins so that we don't have to move them across game installations

I see no reason that cosmetic or extra storage DLC/transactions would be bad.
Just no pay2win type dlc. Scheme needs dem shekels to stay motivated

wedtm said:

We are initially planning on limiting the number of skins you can have to 3. Each skin will need to be sent to our CDN provider, which will store a copy in over 30 different geographical locations. This is to ensure that no matter what server is downloading your skin, it will come from a server that is close to them, and fast. Because of this, we can't offer unlimited skin storage.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand the CDN being in 30 different geographies. If I only play in Chicago City, why would my texture be stored in 29 other places/cities/countries? Did you mean that I send my skin to 1 location which then makes a copy in 1 out of 30 locations so that it is more local?

wedtm said:

My question to the community is this, should we allow people to purchase more skin slots? If so what do you think an acceptable one-time fee would be? Take into account that not only is there an on-going storage cost, but there is also bandwidth costs associated with the transfer of the skin. Should we simply limit it to the 3 per account and not allow any additional skins?

Click to expand...

This is a feature I would not need. I've seen similar game features go through micro-transaction stores for $3, but that's too much in my opinion. How much demand are you expecting for this feature?

This is a bit off topic:

Honestly I don't see an issue with selling extra skin slots. Im mean who is gonna use more than 3? Not sure but if they really want to pay Schine then let em. I do understand where everyone is coming from with this "super saturated by microtransactions" Market. People really don't like them. But as long as you don't gain any benefit from it, its fine by me. Id say like 2 USD for a skin slot.

Another option to avoid some of the microtransaction backlash would be to hide the option a littlebit. It should still be easily accessible, but maybe simply have the link to do so in the footer of the page displaying the skins? That way people not interested in having more skin slots will most likely not know you can buy more, thus avoiding any negative backlash from those for adding the option.
From what I witnessed, the more microtransactions are advertised the more negative backlash they recieve. Although you might want to get a second opinion on this.

wedtm said:

There would be hundreds of thousands of fake accounts created simply to get the additional skin slots.

Click to expand...

(I'm late here, but just to validate this point)
There's an awesome website I know of that gives you an email for ten minutes for free. You can never get the same email when the time expires, and it allows you to use it as many times as you would like. It even works with most websites (facebook apparently doesn't play nicely with it)

In my opinion, as long as i am informed WHY there is an additional payment for a game which i am allready paying to play it and the reason is good, i am going to pay the fee for getting something extra.

Important is, like the other ones pointed out: This shouldn't be game-changing, and in this case it isn't.

Just tell people why:
"We have a limit because this are ongoing costs and if you want to overcome this limit please help us to support it."