well however it should or shouldn't work, Alena made it clear when i said the same thing about the trophy shot poses. i personal dont like it but to be fair she gave a pretty good explanation as to what will be charged for as a feature and what wont, and that the game will be getting better not bigger. that much transparency is fair play from a game developer. It gave me a clearer idea of what to expect from future content. in a nutshell , revamped or overhauled is free, added or expanded we shall be paying (indirectly via membership fees for reserves and species).
for anyone interested this is the Alenas post from early February i think
"I've decided to take your post to express my position on this matter, but I will try to address not only yours sentiments but also similar ones of other people.
I get what you are coming from, "pure" features is not something we monetized a lot in the past as opposed to "pure" content, such as weapons, or equipment, or similar in-game items, and I understand that someone's first reaction to this could be surprise and yes, maybe even disappointment. There are two things I would like you to ask you to consider:
1) Why introduce paid features? After 7 years of live operations and constant stream of new and half-new content I am feeling that theHunter Classic has a quite sufficient amount of that, to put it mildly. And I think that the community shares my opinion on that one. Sure, we can always introduce new rifle, or a shotgun, or a piece of equipment, but: a) it's getting more and more difficult to come up with something that would be exciting enough; b) players who have everything are not that keen on buying their n-th rifle, and that's understandable. But we, as a company, still need to make money, every day and every month, for the ship to stay afloat. Salaries, servers and other company bills need to be paid. Otherwise theHunter Classic will seize to exist. When I said in one of the status updates that we are looking for the game to grow deeper, not wider, I meant that, as I feel that this is the only way for us to stay relevant and interesting for our community. But while we are doing it and in order to be able to afford doing it, we still need to produce a constant revenue stream, that's why we are looking into new premium features that would be interesting enough for players to invest money into using them as opposed to owning their 20th rifle.
2) What should cost money? Now to the point what is the meat on the bones (I liked your metaphor) and what should cost money. New reload animations, revamping bears or polishing deer animations is the meat on the bones, and this will never cost extra money. When we release a new animal or a new reserve, this never costs extra, in fact your membership didn't increase in price for many years, so you are now getting access to 10 reserves with 37 animals for the same price as when theHunter had half of that. This is meat on the bones and this is what our membership is about. When we bring out premium features - something you DO NOT need to play and enjoy game, something hat doesn't have a significant impact on the gameplay, something that serves as a little extra for those who care enough, this is what we feel should be available to be purchased. Think of it as a bit of fat on the meat on the bones - it makes it tastier and juicer, but it's not a must to enjoy the meat. Some people don't even like fat
Premium poses for your character to make your trophy shots more aesthetically pleasing - one of such examples, because you still have old basic functionality which works well (as we read above, some people think that the existing functionality is better than poses); filling barrels from the web / launcher, if we were to introduce those - same, because you do not need to use the feature to achieve the same result in game, it's a matter of convenience and saving time; overhauling the harvest screen and other game UI, improving the baiting system, adding new animals, reserves, events, competitions etc. - not the same, and we are offering this at no additional cost.