New store item idea

How about for 19.99$ you can own 1 additional house (still 1 per server limit) for 6 months. I think a lot of people are like me and want a house on another shard we play, but honestly aren't going to pay another 15$ for a second account. This is a way for BS to collect money they otherwise wouldn't, and to satisfy the players who want alt shard housing. Plus it's essentially another sub for them because people will keep buying it, or their alt house will drop. Anyone else like this idea? 

Comments

  • Hard pass. There’s enough blank plots on Siege Perilous, and this would undoubtedly triple the amount of hoarded land that impacts young Siege Perilous players. 
  • BilboBilbo Posts: 2,834
    edited November 2018
    No thank you.  EA will lose money because people will shut down house holding accounts.
  • Oh I can see the arguments and fights on this one.  Let me give you the prime reason why..  a bit more then Bilbo did. (he did cover the main reason in a nut shell)

    Your proposing a 20$ investment in a second house on another shard that will only stand for 6 months.....Where you hope you remember to buy another time allotment for this house IF you remember in time.  Ok here is where you should sit down and hold on....    We meaning players do this already.  They do the 90 (85) day refresh on a second account.  Nothing the Dev and the billing don't already know... mind you.   Granted its 12.99 per but you get the drift. 

    Now I will say EA is happy to get the 4 payments a year from the accounts that do this as the alterative is the player shutting down said accounts and possibly all accounts.  That would be bad for not only EA but BS as well.. EJ has cut into the budget as it is...

    I come from a time when this was not the issue.... I blame a EA bean counter for the lack of our old rights but hey we signed the tos  and they do have the rights to alter the game as they see fit.

  • XrisXris Posts: 128

    Oh I can see the arguments and fights on this one.  Let me give you the prime reason why..  a bit more then Bilbo did. (he did cover the main reason in a nut shell)

    Your proposing a 20$ investment in a second house on another shard that will only stand for 6 months.....Where you hope you remember to buy another time allotment for this house IF you remember in time.  Ok here is where you should sit down and hold on....    We meaning players do this already.  They do the 90 (85) day refresh on a second account.  Nothing the Dev and the billing don't already know... mind you.   Granted its 12.99 per but you get the drift. 

    Now I will say EA is happy to get the 4 payments a year from the accounts that do this as the alterative is the player shutting down said accounts and possibly all accounts.  That would be bad for not only EA but BS as well.. EJ has cut into the budget as it is...

    I come from a time when this was not the issue.... I blame a EA bean counter for the lack of our old rights but hey we signed the tos  and they do have the rights to alter the game as they see fit.

    Ya I didn't know people already do this, but it does make sense. I'll end up getting a second house for roughly the same price so I'm happy. Thanks for the info! 
  • I was not promoting the use of the on off bit!!!  It was an example what some do.  But yes its a better use of funds then a 20$ bit that would in danger any home you place on said account

    Its sad that there is no way to revert back to the one house per shard per account...  we have lost so many paying customers that its not a viable option.  Its true many would use it to lessen the payout to the game... and right now that would be a straw that camel might not be able to handle.

Sign In or Register to comment.