Sign in to follow this  
Keaggan

Hungercast Episode 2 Question

Recommended Posts

Question: Episode 2

Micro-transactions have been widely known to kill the enjoyment of video games, especially competitive games. Crowfall currently has micro-transactions mostly dealing with the EK, and are primarily being used to help fund the project. Our question is: Should ArtCraft Entertainment share in this type of micro-transactions practice at launch? Should it only be cosmetic items? What are your thoughts?

 

We will highlight some of the top comments during episode 2 of Hungercast. 

Edited by Keaggan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way I look at how ACE is doing the micro transactions is that as long as it gives no in game character benefit and stays as cosmetics, which I have no problem with, I think that there will be no problem with the stuff for the EKs. Look at how Path of Exiles has done it with the plethora of skins and quality of life add-ons that you can get that don't give any actual benefit besides making your character look cool and tabs that allocate items better. Cause when it comes to the types of land pieces that you can get through the shop will eventually be able to be crafted in game anyways so it will be just a matter of how much time do you or your community want to put into building a EK. Or a person being able to add things to ones EK. Some things I wouldn't want to see if able to purchase would be Tomes because I believe they would break a portion of the economy in game since I could see many players asking in return for their time from say a guild would be a type of tome or material.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Question for Episode 2 suggests that ACE has microtransactions already designed which are NOT cosmetic and would be game-altering aka P2W.  Isn't this a false premise? Are there currently any microtransactions which would effect game-play in the Campaign Worlds?

I think your topic is a good one and will generate interesting debate as P2W topics always do.  My concern and the reason I'm posting this is that your Episode Question (specifically "halt the practice of microtransactions at launch" suggests ACE currently plans for Crowfall to be P2W at launch through micro-transactions.  That could paint a false premise and turn off many people from the suggested implication alone.

My feelings on the subject are micro-transactions are fine and very positive for developer revenue generation.  Micro-transactions should only be cosmetic and never provide an in-game benefit else the game is P2W.  I detest P2W games and am critical of them whenever the opportunity is presented.

The only concern I have with the current micro-transaction system relates to Pricing FAQ #9:

9. CAN I TRADE VIP MEMBERSHIP TICKETS TO OTHER PLAYERS?

Yes. This means that people who purchase the game but don’t want to pay a monthly subscription can still become VIP members by providing goods and services to other players.

One year bundles of VIP, purchased at a discount, may not be traded.

The reason I am not happy with this is that a whale can buy a truckload of monthly VIP tickets using $ and then trade those tickets for resources/gear/goods/services in Campaign Worlds.  Thus with $ they can buy rather than play the game. An economy will develop as has occurred in other games around this trading ability.  This sounds to me exactly like Archeage's Apex system where whales swipe for Apex, sell the Apex for gold which can then be used to buy from the Auction House/Marketplace. We all know AA is P2W and it lost many customers due to being so.  I don't like that someone can swipe their credit card and earn something that requires a risk/reward system (in Campaign Worlds) to obtain.  It cheapens that system and the game.

Blizzard in WoW provides a micro-transaction to purchase a monthly subscription which can, in turn, be put on the Auction House.  Yet the best gear is dropped by raid bosses and is character bound.  The best goods/services can't be created and traded, it is earned through gameplay.  That eliminates any P2W concerns.

I'm really hoping that I misunderstood this FAQ or am missing some key piece of information because this is a critical customer retention issue for me and as a backer I'm very concerned.   ACE needs to change this approach to VIP ticket trading or Crowfall could be labeled P2W and I really believed that ACE was committed to NO P2W.  One way to address the goal in the FAQ would be to design the VIP ticket in such a way that way so that it binds the goods/services traded for it to EKs only. I don't know if that's feasible but it would mirror the spirit of how the VIP Membership was designed.  

Thanks,

Ake

Edited by Akede
saved before finishing =P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its fine. Lots of the items being sold can be crafted in-game...parcels, buildings, etc...

We will probably be able to get the other stuff like mounts, shrines, statues somewhere in the CW as well. (Shrines and the Merchant pack pigs seem to be the only things I think give in-game benefits.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Should ArtCraft Entertainment share in this type of micro-transactions practice at launch?

Absolutely.  The EK's are just a giant cosmetic housing instance.  Sure you can buy a house in the shop with 4 (totally made up number) vendor stalls and put stuff up for sale. That doesn't mean that someone can't make those houses, or similar, or more smaller ones and get the same effect.  I think the EK economy will grow rather stale.  I think a lot of people's preference will be to join CWs that have limited to no imports as to avoid the issues that @Akede raises above. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Destrin good point about the limited to no imports into a CW.  I'd like to see ACE clarify in the FAQ that VIP Membership tickets cannot be traded/sold(crow to crow in game) in a CW but only in an EK.  That would address my concern. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@keegan, I'm not going to argue this out in Discord as I see little mileage/value but please consider some of the views being expressed as they are quite polarizing...

Player A. "I want P2W...i have a job and disposable income. Dont work at walmart if you wanna win..."

Player B: "Or how about have games that aren't trying to force you to either make it a job, or use your existing job to enjoy it."

Player C. "I think it's naive to suggest that the only reason someone doesn't want to pay to win is that they are in a sub-optimal economic situation.  Consider that some people value sweat equity/hard work as a more important element in gaming than how many zeros you have in your 401K balance.  Why should the CFO of a Fortune 500 company have an advantage in a game she plays with a first year college student who waits tables part time?  She should be entitled to win because she has more disposable income?  The college student may be more skilled and a much better player but won't stand a chance against the gear the CFO bought."

Player D. "So a filthy casual, who happens to be a millionaire, should have an in-game advantage over the guy who practices daily with the intention of going eSports pro in a year?"

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Akede said:

@keegan, I'm not going to argue this out in Discord as I see little mileage/value but please consider some of the views being expressed as they are quite polarizing...

Player A. "I want P2W...i have a job and disposable income. Dont work at walmart if you wanna win..."

Player B: "Or how about have games that aren't trying to force you to either make it a job, or use your existing job to enjoy it."

Player C. "I think it's naive to suggest that the only reason someone doesn't want to pay to win is that they are in a sub-optimal economic situation.  Consider that some people value sweat equity/hard work as a more important element in gaming than how many zeros you have in your 401K balance.  Why should the CFO of a Fortune 500 company have an advantage in a game she plays with a first year college student who waits tables part time?  She should be entitled to win because she has more disposable income?  The college student may be more skilled and a much better player but won't stand a chance against the gear the CFO bought."

Player D. "So a filthy casual, who happens to be a millionaire, should have an in-game advantage over the guy who practices daily with the intention of going eSports pro in a year?"

 

 

Player A:  That makes no sense.

Player B:  This is very important.  Games are supposed to be fun not work.

Player C: There are 56 female CFOs of Fortune 500 company's.  We could always ask them if and why they deserve an advantage. 

Playet D: What ESports games have P2W?

 

P2W does devalue the sense of accomplishment.  I think CF is taking things in the right direction and giving a little bit to everyone.  Unless you can fully fund CF for the entirety of its life the Dev's have to have some incentive to generate income.  Everyone has their own view doesn't need to be an arguement.  The problem I see is that you think you're right and those who don't share your opinion are wrong.

Edit: I agree with you, unfortunately any game with tradable resources that can give an advantage can be P2W with or without the Dev's.  They have done a good job mitigating.

Edited by Mr.Kurtz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.