What is with all the people complaining? People have had to buy CE too. All the CE in the market is bought. It's a little bonus for people who like to pay.

a subcription isn't a single payment e.g WoW or a magazine

If every expansion mission will be unlockable only with purchase, you will have to buy it all over again in order to gain acces to new expansion missions. It will become your subscription to expansion missions. Therfore to enjoy everything the game has to offer you will have to buy 'subscription' to expansion missions.

+1 to Knightrails and Blitzwingoo

To bad that staff will rush here sooner or lated and lock this thread like last one where someone pointed out that SK is labeled as free to play on Steam.

And yes, choice of words is really unfair towards possible customers. But well thats how marketing works, full of lies and small fonted texts.

Its very convinend to just state that game is free to play only if there is no subscription. It can lead to such hilarious situations, imagine SK where it cost 10CE to ride elevator and you get 10ME every 24 hours and your mist tank can store only 10ME. Its still free to play, lol, since there is no subscription, you can enjoy whole game for your 10ME every 24 hous, 10 minutes a day but still no subscription.

Thebronzeking has a good point there. All games with a base game aren't called subscription games, so neither should this one be. Even if I don't entirely agree with it, they're not lying. And well, as someone pointed out elsewhere, it's actually been this way for quite awhile, since the plasmahead bombhead mask and similar items were introduced, it just never mattered to anyone before because the items were just cosmetic or 1* things.

So they don't have to change anything at all.

The word subscription can mean regular payments when talking about games.
While it is technically true that Spiral Knights don't need a "subscription", it does require some sort of payment in order to access everything in the game.

This is very very misleading and I believe OOO should change it.

Atleast say "Spiral Knights is free to play, no regular payments are required to enjoy everything the game has to offer."

EDIT:
@Aedium
It is very false that one can enjoy EVERYTHING in the game without payment. But the wording can go both ways, as the word "subscription" can be interpreted differently.

Also, it's not misleading, it says exactly what it means. The problem is with people misinterpreting the statement and expecting it to imply they will never have to pay money to get all the content.

What you described is exactly what misleading means.

If you want to argue "subscription" can be interpreted differently, then I can argue "everything" can be interpreted differently, just as much. Technically, then, they've been lying since release. I have no access to the Banhammer, the GM commands, secret areas in the Jelly Farms, the Cat masks, etc etc.

"Well, you're just being unreasonable". I'd argue the same to you - this kind of marketing and sales are not unique to Spiral Knights. I cannot name any other F2P MO game that does not require some form of payment to ultimately achieve "everything". Your expectation of "everything" in unfounded.

Even with League of Legends, which is touted as having the best model (which I agree with), a player has to pay to get things like skins and what not. Sure, they are cosmetic, but those fall into the territory of "everything", no?

Now, if you want to argue "everything" from a purely game play perspective - then fine. That would mean we can also set the subscription definition to simply "a reoccurring payment or promise of payment over a period of time". And if such is the case, then OOO is not misleading you.

But as soon as OOO makes the ingame trade/gift client or makes an alternate way to get it... this will continue to be true, why change now what it says while it is this way?

Also, that is the Steam definition, and in Steam you can trade/gift the DLC, so still everything is free.

Noun

1. a sum of money given or pledged as a contribution, payment, investment, etc.

Source: Dictionary.com

So yes, paying for a DLC can be classified as paying a subscription for it using this definition. Therefore, OOO is currently misrepresenting their game.

Edit:

You should also note that the order in which definitions are listed is usually determined by the most general and common usage of the word.

Again, that's one definition of the word, not the entire definition taken as a whole.

Im sorry but im starting to think of you as low as Tammy..........

I said change it to the definition that OOO means, which is only 1 definition, which why its misleading.

misleading means that it can make people think of a different meaning than the intended meaning.

"Spiral Knights is free to play, no subscription is required to enjoy everything the game has to offer."
That statement is false no matter how you twist the meaning of words, because I, as a non-steam user, will have to pay in order to access the DLC contents.

As low as Tammy, nice. I'm not trolling, in the least, have not insulted or judged anyone. How does my having a different opinion than yours on this one matter, I might add, lower your thinking of me? I thought we were actually having a good discussion here not based on name calling or nitpicking of grammar and mispelled words.

Because "payed" isn't a word. Subscribe and Subscription are also two different words with definitions that can completely vary from each other. The word that OOO chose to use is "subscription", and with the vague statement they made I'm going to use the most general and common usage of the word which is the definition I provided above. Why the OP felt the need to create a thread about this, I don't know because honestly it's not that important. We're going to have to pay for new content that's actually well made, no matter what. It doesn't really matter how they describe their game at this point.

You can buy expansion with CE from other players who have bought it on steam and are willing to trade. The problem is that most F2P don't have CE to spend like that.

Yeah, old news folks. I posted this a few days ago... but not quite so rudely.

http://forums.spiralknights.com/en/node/45548

It is incorrect, in that there is no congruence between "subscribed" and "paid", as you've just pointed out. Saying you "subscribed $10 for that DLC" is saying "I pledged, with a signed agreement, to give or pay $10 as a contribution, gift, or investment for that DLC"... which is totally different than just "paying $10 for DLC". Subscribe carries with it the notion of some form of agreement, and as stated, could be for a gift or just contribution.

It the entire "a square is rectangle, but a rectangle is not a square". Payment can be part of a subscription, but a subscription is not always a payment.

EDIT: Ultimately though, this is all semantics and pointless. My argument is, in context, the word subscription is very apt (With, once again, the context being online games). It illustrates the point that there is no need for a monthly payment, in order to access everything the game has to offer.

My point was that it was incorrect English because you were substituting two verbs that don't have congruent meanings. It was not that you couldn't ever use the phrase "I subscribed x". :P

@Skenderbeu
"You can buy expansion with CE from other players who have bought it on steam and are willing to trade. The problem is that most F2P don't have CE to spend like that."

Did you ever read any of complaint topic? Did you ever read any of posts? Not having enough CE is NOT THE PROBLEM.

The problem is that we are being forced to use third party app STEAM. With newest update, some third party application with SK client gained MORE functionality than OFFICIAL SK client on main site.

There are dozens of players who are willing to spend CE but they dont have a chance. All players who use official client, all players from kongregate. We are either forced to spend $$$ or install third party application.

"OOO better fix this"

...Or what? Yeah, it sucks that they put on a paid DLC package, but when you word it like that, it's pretty indicative that you're allowing your own personal feelings about the situation overshadow your actual intent. Plain and simply, it makes you look whiny as opposed to stating a formal concern.

Even then, I'm fairly certain that Steam is already aware of the situation, if only because they're the primary distributor of said DLC, and are also one of the largest unitary platforms for Spiral Knights players to begin with - and please note, I'm not saying they are THE largest, I am saying they are one of the largest. I'm well aware that there are people who use other means to purchase CE or game-related content for SK, but that's not what I'm discussing here. Essentially, to say this is an oversight on OOO's part is also to say that it's an oversight on Valve's part, and while that is entirely possible, Valve's usually pretty thorough with their quality checks.

If you'd like a comparison, take the game "DC Universe", which is also listed as Free-To-Play under Steam's category listings for the games they have. While the game was initially not designed for a F2P business model (I was one of the first subscribed players for it before they screwed me out of 50 dollars), the current model they have is the following - the core game, what was released in the very beginning, is entirely free to play. There's no "subscription fees" required to play the game like there was a year or so ago. However, they did the same thing that Spiral Knights is doing now - the DLC, things that expand upon the core experience, is obtainable via purchase. On top of that, the game also supports subscriptions called a "Legendary Subscription" that unlocks all content released since launch date, including all DLC packages, costumes, and the like. Yet the game is still considered "free to play" simply because the core game IS free to play, and the same principle is applied in this case.

Spiral Knights, for all intents and purposes, is also free to play based on the game as it was released at launch day. Now, for clarity's sake, we will consider the day it launched on Steam as it's launch day, just so this way there's no misconstrued definition of what I mean. Can you go into the Clockworks in the same way you could on launch? Yes. Do you get access to the basic gameplay mechanics, such as dungeon crawling, PvP, and the free market system they've implemented? Yes. Are you able to play with others without having to pay a subscription fee within the BASE model of the game? Yes. Therefore, the game's definition does fall under free to play, even if it does hurt your ego, your pride, or your wallets.

However, don't take this post as me advocating for OOO in any way. If we were to argue the ethical concepts as opposed to business terminology, it's pretty safe to assume that I would be arguing against the Expansion Packs with the way they were presented. To be fair, I do believe the content was fun and would play similar things in the future, but if it's handled in anything remotely similar to how this particular mission pack was handled (i.e., changing the method of payment less than 3 days before launch just for starters), then I probably will be one of the people contemplating the idea of leaving. But to say that Spiral Knights should lose its identity as a free-to-play core game is just ignorant to say, if only because it indicates the lack of research you've done into other games Steam has under a "free-to-play" tag. Spiral Knights is not the first game to have this sort of concept, and it certainly will not be the last. But I do hope that they've learned a fair amount from this PR-wise and will be much clearer in the future with what they intend to do with Mission Expansions.

But I was arguing the original topic on the validity of SK's statement, though that ended up focusing on one particular word. Though I will concede that people can have different interpretations of the same word, in that same vein, I think the majority of people associate Subscriptions with recurring payments and therefore OOO is justified as still phrasing it this way.
It's been a long time since I was 13 (youngest age without parental consent) so I am sure I am incapable of thinking that way anymore. But if this becomes a legal issue then it will be educated adults deciding on the meanings of words, not a panel of 13 year olds.
I do not think it's possible to phrase everything in a way that makes sense to absolutely everyone. If that were the case then nothing would get done and OOO would spend far too long antagonizing over every word they put out so as to not confuse everyone. The OP's words (and tone) put off a feeling of anger with an ultimatum and feelings may be influencing that interpretation. At this point though I think I'm going to agree to disagree and end it amicably. Thanks for the debate :)

People, you so have missed the boat.

The elevator pass is actually the closest thing ever to a subscription as it changes the core mechanism of the game itself.
Unlimited elevator access for 30 days for $6.
All of the rage surrounding "subscriptions" should have happened when this happened.

The DLC model, although loathed by some, has been embraced in large by the internet player base in SOOOOO many games and is not going to go away no matter how much HWFO (Hand Waving Freak-Outery) happens.

Missions were added for free, gave us lots of free goodies, made it easier to get nearly every recipe up to 4* and we will likely continue to get new missions, new content and yet more free stuff to take us all the way to Vanguard.

Nick and OOO have said they are looking at ways for F2P players to get access in game. Give them time to do that.
I think they well understand that some players are unhappy.

Bottom line - it's still a fun game to play and they keep adding and expanding the world and background story.

@Typical-Guy: But you're missing our point. It doesn't say "you can access everything without paying". It says "you can access everything without a subscription". They mean two different things, in the context of online games.

Granted, it is all just marketing. They aren't going to put "Access mostly everything without subscription or payments, but some parts you have to pay for". No, that'd just be absurd. Their point is that the game is free to play, without any kind of subscription attached to it.

You're making an assertion, without backing it up. You can sit here and say things like "but the message can be misleading to the average new player from Steam." - but do you have any proof? Do you know of anyone who was personally confused or distraught by the message? Can you even explain how one would be confused by the message?

The burden of proof is on you, my friend.

My argument is that it is not misleading because the statement is very clear that it refers to a 'subscription' and that a 'subscription' refers to a very specific thing in online games (in which the average Steam user is likely to know).

All you've done is go "No, you're wrong, and you're just saying the same stuff". That isn't an argument - that's dismissal without any basis other than having a different opinion than my own.

Overlooked? I responded to what they said, because they actually had an argument to begin with. If the best you can do is "what he said!" then, yes, by all means please leave until you can actually think for yourself.

EDIT: And you've still failed to back yourself up.