Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Plasmafogking

Please, no advantage for $$$

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, goose said:

I...sincerely hope this was sarcasm. But it's too early in the morning for me to tell, so on the off chance that it wasn't, let me point out Final Fantasy XIV and World of Warcraft?

Now I never really cared about FF, so don't really know much about that other than it being a long-standing franchise and that alone might make it able it get away with things other new games wont.

For WoW the reason is can live off subs is that it was a released originally at a time where this was the norm, and and the market for MMO's was rather small in general, means that it could get enough ppl in and that are still invested in their characters today too much to just let it go. And also we are talking about one of the biggest game companies with amble resources on stock already behind it

 

Therefore I would say for a game like CF, that is made by a new studio, and is a new franchise as well, in todays market, a forced sub yes would most likely spell the doom of the game

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Gummiel said:

Now I never really cared about FF, so don't really know much about that other than it being a long-standing franchise and that alone might make it able it get away with things other new games wont.

For WoW the reason is can live off subs is that it was a released originally at a time where this was the norm, and and the market for MMO's was rather small in general, means that it could get enough ppl in and that are still invested in their characters today too much to just let it go. And also we are talking about one of the biggest game companies with amble resources on stock already behind it

 

Therefore I would say for a game like CF, that is made by a new studio, and is a new franchise as well, in todays market, a forced sub yes would most likely spell the doom of the game

I mean, I don't actually disagree with that statement - what I take issue with is what I quoted: the assertion that "nothing kills games faster" than a monthly subscription.

Please, any source to back this up. o_o


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well that might be a bit exaggerated I would say that he put it true, but it is something that is very likely to kill a game, that do not either have a huge company behind it, or a long lasting franchise, which is why AFAIK it haven't been done in a VERY VERY long time.

As for it P2W of forced sub kills faster, is again something that can't really be quantified, since every single person seem to have a different opinion of what P2W exactly is, which I talked about as well on page 2 in this thread too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, goose said:

I mean, I don't actually disagree with that statement - what I take issue with is what I quoted: the assertion that "nothing kills games faster" than a monthly subscription.

Please, any source to back this up. o_o

Wildstar? Elder Scroll Online? Tera? AION? Any game which started with subscription model (except two exceptions of FF and WOW) had to go F2P to survive, because subscription model=death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Plasmafogking said:

Wildstar? Elder Scroll Online? Tera? AION? Any game which started with subscription model (except two exceptions of FF and WOW) had to go F2P to survive, because subscription model=death.

So..failure to imitate the longest-running MMO means that there is something wrong with the model.

Also, there is a difference between "killing the game" and "forcing the game to change its monetization model" that I feel is significant, here. ESO is doing gangbusters, and the other three aren't really what I would call dead, but for those three, it's semantics.

Maybe we should first clarify what we consider "dead" for an MMO if we're gonna have this debate, because ESO has multiple millions of players across three platforms and is still releasing regular content updates, and apparently that's an example of a dead game, here.

Edit: but if your argument is only "subscription-based models are not reliably viable long-term," then I will once again say I agree. Not the same thing, though...

Edited by goose

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_release_life_cycle#Pre-alpha <--this is where we are. If your complaint is that the game don't not works good, come back later.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goose said:

So..failure to imitate the longest-running MMO means that there is something wrong with the model.

Yes. If a model no longer sustainable for any game (except two), that should indicate that the model is dead.
 

1 hour ago, goose said:

Also, there is a difference between "killing the game" and "forcing the game to change its monetization model" that I feel is significant, here. ESO is doing gangbusters, and the other three aren't really what I would call dead, but for those three, it's semantics.

When was the last time you played one of them, saw any of them featured anywhere or getting any of them praised by anyone except for ESO? I have met and chatted with people who thought that AION and Wildstar actually closed down instead of going F2P.
ESO is the only exception and that is because of great improvement it got after going B2P. Everyone who have splayed this game said the same thing: dropping P2P model was the greatest improvement of that game.
 

 

1 hour ago, goose said:

Maybe we should first clarify what we consider "dead" for an MMO if we're gonna have this debate, because ESO has multiple millions of players across three platforms and is still releasing regular content updates, and apparently that's an example of a dead game, here.

And during P2P it had only several thousands of active players. Is this your argument for P2P game? Because dropping outdated horrific model and seeing a game improve tenfold is clearly an argument AGAINST P2P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, goose said:

I...sincerely hope this was sarcasm. But it's too early in the morning for me to tell, so on the off chance that it wasn't, let me point out Final Fantasy XIV and World of Warcraft?

You actually think the people who are willing to pay a sub for those games are part of the projected playerbase audience for Crowfall? lmao

It's 2018 bub, the MMO market has segmentation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Plasmafogking said:

Yes. If a model no longer sustainable for any game (except two), that should indicate that the model is dead.
 

When was the last time you played one of them, saw any of them featured anywhere or getting any of them praised by anyone except for ESO? I have met and chatted with people who thought that AION and Wildstar actually closed down instead of going F2P.
ESO is the only exception and that is because of great improvement it got after going B2P. Everyone who have splayed this game said the same thing: dropping P2P model was the greatest improvement of that game.
 

 

And during P2P it had only several thousands of active players. Is this your argument for P2P game? Because dropping outdated horrific model and seeing a game improve tenfold is clearly an argument AGAINST P2P.

I mean honestly, both of you are just wasting bytes posting here about this topic. You might as well go outside and shout at a tree. At least if you do that you'll get something for your effort, like I don't know perhaps you'll step in a pile of dog poorly made socks?

Edited by DocHollidaze
Used smaller words so the OP can understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

then only way i know to prevent bots and gold spam is to make sure every item is bound to the account/character that acquires it. problem i'm seeing now, in games, is account services; they get your user/pass and 'play the game for you' to boost, farm, etc.  Now this is much easier to find because of the ip log, however, i'm sure vpn can bypass some or all of that.

I'd prefer a system where no-lifes can get store items via an economy because it allows anyone the opportunity to get whatever they want. It also helps curb the 'p2w' because everyone has access to the store items. I still hate buying power or paywalls in a store.


etDenA9.png
Camaraderie ~ Loyalty ~ Honor ~ Maturity ~ Integrity ~ Duty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Plasmafogking said:

Wildstar? Elder Scroll Online? Tera? AION? Any game which started with subscription model (except two exceptions of FF and WOW) had to go F2P to survive, because subscription model=death.

Wildstar lost population cause of balance patches screwing with the pvpers that wanted to play. That game was mostly populated by pvpers and because their balance patches were more tailored to pve raiders, the decline in player population followed it up.

ESO, it didn't really pick up much a population to begin with cause it was competiting against a lot of other games at the time. As new stuff came out it pulled players from it. Plus the whole combat (dodging or avoiding damage) and questing system (the terrible compass garbage at the top of the screen) of ESO probably is why people tried it out and then left. It didn't feel fun enough to them so they quit.

Tera coming to the EU and NA markets was already setup for failure. If I am not mistaken it was a game that was already years in after a release in the Asian market. There for it was already behind the times by the time it hit EU and NA markets.

I can't comment much on AION other than it failed to get enough of a hype for it. People were already playing other MMOs and games by the time this thing hit the market.

You want to say that a subscription model means the death of a game. It doesn't necessarily mean that. What kills MMOs more often than a subscription model is how the developers behind the game fail to actually listen to their monthly regular customers. You don't make balance changes to certain classes that are so radical that it makes them dominate for the next 3-6 months (this happened to Rift and caused over half the players to leave) and then wonder why the game has a declining population. Poor game management is why these games start dying in population, servers get merged, and resources to support the game get tightened up.

Albion Online is another great example of a game that started out strong in full swing but has lost a lot of its presence in the market because of how Sandbox Interactive fails to communicate things with the players, fails to listen to them, and continues to make content and balance patches nobody wants cause they don't make the game better.

What I am tired of seeing is MMO devs that have a game which has pve and pvp content and they only balance for pve. It sours the experience for the other pvpers and if that's most of your game's players then say goodbye to a lot of that revenue. That's honestly one of the most common things I've seen to cause the decline in MMO populations. Balancing for PvE instead of PvP cause PvE can be tuned up to accommodate PvP a lot easier. This is only going to become more apparently as MMOs tailor more towards a pvp focused game design than pve.


OS_Sig3.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DocHollidaze said:

I mean honestly, both of you are just wasting bytes posting here about this topic. You might as well go outside and shout at a tree. At least if you do that you'll get something for your effort, like I don't know perhaps you'll step in a pile of dog poorly made socks?

Well, that's how discussions work: you present a viewpoint, you present arguments for that viewpoint, then your opposition does the same thing. People observing the discussion determine which viewpoint they want to stick with.
Or does nobody in your school taught you how public discussions work? I hope you are old enough to attend school.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Plasmafogking said:

Well, that's how discussions work: you present a viewpoint, you present arguments for that viewpoint, then your opposition does the same thing. People observing the discussion determine which viewpoint they want to stick with.
Or does nobody in your school taught you how public discussions work? I hope you are old enough to attend school.

I'm 36, co-own a business, and have a family. Old enough and smart enough to identify when one's complaints are pointless and a waste of time. Didn't even need to get my MBA to figure out that one.

The business model for this game is not changing, as if the investors backing this game cared about the "viewpoint" of some internet rando such as yourself, or even the rest of us here on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Plasmafogking said:

When this project started the developers promised that the only cash-shop items will be cosmetic and will not offer any advantages. Did it changed since then? It appear so.

The developers said in the Kickstarter that the business model would be buy-to-play with an optional subscription and optional cash shop. They stated the cash shop would sell Eternal Kingdom items, cosmetics, and game time (subscription). Nothing has changed.


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, DocHollidaze said:

The business model for this game is not changing, as if the investors backing this game cared about the "viewpoint" of some internet rando such as yourself, or even the rest of us here on this forum.

but you're an investor backing the game dont you care about our opinions

i care about your opinion

 

 

 

 

 

 

also my take on the situation is that like. look okay the game is gonna let you buy gold, officially. that's basically a done deal, the boat has sailed the pack has pigged whatever. but how much is that gold really gonna buy you/??? can it buy you happiness? no I really doubt it, only you can bring yourself happiness, okay. plus like. are people gonna bring VIP tokens into the campaign worlds n trade them? can you even do that? that seems like a good question actually

can you bring vip tokens into campaign worlds? cause if you cannot, then all you can do is trade for poorly made socks in your EKs, and really what are you gonna buy that truly matters, maybe like a fancy chair, or like pay some guinecian EK prostitute for a couple hours or something, but none of that carries with you to the campaign worlds, probably. I mean. I guess we don't really know yet

in closing it's really hard to say what being able to pay to win cash shop loot boxes will do to the in-game economy / gameplay because there's no game yet

 

I think it'll be alright though


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/1/2018 at 10:32 PM, jetah said:

There are games that allow trading of premium currency for game items and are doing well. 

How many of them have a central focus of competition and win/losing virtual goods?

EVE and Albion Online come to mind, sure there are others.

I prefer less cash involvement myself but understand and accept the model for a quality experience. ACE could spell it out better.

18 hours ago, Plasmafogking said:

When this project started the developers promised that the only cash-shop items will be cosmetic and will not offer any advantages. Did it changed since then? It appear so. Would care to admit that not getting what you were promised to get might be an issue?

Wildstar? Elder Scroll Online? Tera? AION? Any game which started with subscription model (except two exceptions of FF and WOW) had to go F2P to survive, because subscription model=death.

ESO is the only exception and that is because of great improvement it got after going B2P. Everyone who have splayed this game said the same thing: dropping P2P model was the greatest improvement of that game.

The Kickstarter FAQ stated it would be cosmetics only that didn't impact "balance," but guess what? The Kickstarter offered items that did just, items that impact "balance" from pledge packages and stretch goal rewards. Far as I remember, VIP was always to be used as a currency and don't believe they said store items couldn't also be traded. Considering EVE's influence, this shouldn't be a surprise.

That is my issue. Devs and FAQs say one thing, yet beyond them having their own unique meaning, they are offering "balance affecting" through cash purchases, even if not major. Along with having a system that on paper appears to allow folks to gain potentially quite a lot of power/advantage through trading/cash, but falling back to "we don't offer it ourselves so we aren't P2W." 

The FAQ and the devs could make it more clear as to what the model really allows one to do and what challenges players will face. Of course they won't because $$$.

While I agree that subs are hard to sustain, I don't know of one sub gone B2P/F2P/P2P that didn't have much larger game design/management issues that no pay model magically fixes. Going F2P forces companies to improve their product enough to make people want to come back and pay for optional subs or buy vanity cosmetics.

Personally, if I dislike a game for the design, being free or offering $25 costumes isn't going to change my mind. Maybe others are different, but that's me.

You seem to have missed what ACE had in mind from day 1 till now and expecting them to change it seems rather pointless, but you can request/demand/hope for whatever.

IMO, CF isn't going to last at $50 and fluffy cash shop items. At least without a lot of improvement to what they have so far along with adding in everything missing and then some.

Saying "it's like shadowbane" doesn't hold enough value to compensate for half baked idea.

Launch might be okay, but early retention will be hard unless they like AAA companies with massive resources learn, things have to improve quickly.

I assume that if Crowfall is as "dead" as ESO, Black Desert, SWTOR, Archeage and pretty much the majority of MMOs, they'll be more than happy. Hundreds of thousands to millions of fans with even a fraction paying for VIP and shop items will allow them to keep going for a day or two.

16 hours ago, Gummiel said:

Therefore I would say for a game like CF, that is made by a new studio, and is a new franchise as well, in todays market, a forced sub yes would most likely spell the doom of the game

Will be interesting how Camelot Unchained and Ashes of Creation pan out. Both will require subs and are much stronger "anti-P2W." Could spell their doom or create a strong core player base for years, who knows.

10 hours ago, entityofsin said:

You want to say that a subscription model means the death of a game. It doesn't necessarily mean that. What kills MMOs more often than a subscription model is how the developers behind the game fail to actually listen to their monthly regular customers. Poor game management is why these games start dying in population, servers get merged, and resources to support the game get tightened up.

What I am tired of seeing is MMO devs that have a game which has pve and pvp content and they only balance for pve. It sours the experience for the other pvpers and if that's most of your game's players then say goodbye to a lot of that revenue. That's honestly one of the most common things I've seen to cause the decline in MMO populations. Balancing for PvE instead of PvP cause PvE can be tuned up to accommodate PvP a lot easier. This is only going to become more apparently as MMOs tailor more towards a pvp focused game design than pve.

I agree that management seems to be the key factor in game success or lack of. Obviously certain factors can have a strong influence on customers, but usually it is a larger issue.

Unfortunately, I've seen this with CF and ACE. Likely could of done things a bit different early on and not run off a large chunk of active supporters and future customers. Along with how they choose to communicate with the fan base.

As far as PVE over PVP dev support, again I look at CF as doing this. They appear to be spending so much time on making the game "complex" with all these systems (mostly windowed/UI based) that have little to do with direct player vs player interaction. Combat is still in need of work yet doesn't seem to be progressing much anymore beyond tweaks/polish to a system that IMO doesn't really work or appeal to folks beyond those already invested with time/money. What's funny is folks saying things like gear and training won't really matter, yet that is a huge aspect of the game and development cost. There is very little in terms of "player skill" or "skill ceiling" due to the combat system and limitations.

CF may be a PVP game, but if someone can get better PVP in a PVE game, what's the point?

5 hours ago, DocHollidaze said:

Old enough and smart enough to identify when one's complaints are pointless and a waste of time.

Welcome to the internet?

5 hours ago, miraluna said:

The developers said in the Kickstarter that the business model would be buy-to-play with an optional subscription and optional cash shop. They stated the cash shop would sell Eternal Kingdom items, cosmetics, and game time (subscription). Nothing has changed.

Except the shop has non-cosmetics that are usable in campaigns or influence player performance in them... 

4 hours ago, Hi. said:

are people gonna bring VIP tokens into the campaign worlds n trade them? can you even do that? that seems like a good question actually

in closing it's really hard to say what being able to pay to win cash shop loot boxes will do to the in-game economy / gameplay because there's no game yet

It is a very good question and seems extremely easy for ACE to clarify, even if it comes with a "this may change" disclaimer.

If they are going to offer virtual goods for cash, listing what we can do with them wouldn't hurt.

Things change, but like everything, getting feedback sooner than later can impact how players and devs approach the product.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, DocHollidaze said:

I'm 36, co-own a business, and have a family. Old enough and smart enough to identify when one's complaints are pointless and a waste of time. Didn't even need to get my MBA to figure out that one.

The business model for this game is not changing, as if the investors backing this game cared about the "viewpoint" of some internet rando such as yourself, or even the rest of us here on this forum.

16a45uc.png
2dbpetk.png

Oh, i am so happy to hear that, that fact that they aren't gonna change what they promised and offer NO ADVANTAGES which might affect the balance of players, just like they promised in their kick-starters.
P.S. i did not ask for you imaginary life story, ain't anybody cares about you. Keep you (imaginary) life detail to yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/3/2018 at 12:21 AM, Plasmafogking said:

Oh, i am so happy to hear that, that fact that they aren't gonna change what they promised and offer NO ADVANTAGES which might affect the balance of players, just like they promised in their kick-starters.

From the KS, they were selling or "rewarding" mounts, pack animals, relics, and VIP for cash support.

VIP did change due to the Vessel system, but depending on who you ask, the new version still offers "options" instead of advantage. Actually appears to provide less as 3 characters with 1 general each is more than 1 character with 2 general. 

Beyond that, the KS FAQ and early Dev comments match up with what they are still doing today.

Unfortunately, they appear to not believe that the items mentions impact gameplay or "balance" as they call it. IMO, they do and unless they are entirely pointless fluff, don't see how they won't.

I can understand disliking what they have planned, but to say they've back tracked or changed their promise is false.

Edited by APE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Pay to win being subtly reworded to "pay for advantage" was clever.

These types of arguments should always be preferenced by how old you are and at what point you paid something for Crowfall. Was it yesterday? 3 years ago?

Curious minds want to know. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey I'd just like to interject with my key gripe with the VIP system and how their "Breadth not Depth" motto is pure spin. Firstly is worth noting that having more choices almost always amounts to having more power. For example the ability to choose fighter or confessor rather than be locked into one or the other will always give you a bit more power in a multiplayer game, especially as is the wheels of re-balancing push the in and out of favor.

Now most F2P games will typically give you between 50% and 100% more character/vehicle/gun/deck slots if you buy vip. TYPICALLY, yes I know there are a few games that have more in the order of 5 times as many character slots.

We don't have character slots in crow fall anymore, instead we have the breadth of class and race training. I argue that your "character slots" would now effectively be how many different race/class combos you have training in.

On average a late game VIP player has THREE TO FOUR times as many max trained unique race/class combos. That is a lot of extra versatility. That VIP player has much more resistance to meta shifts, bad match ups and bad team comps.

And sure, a cashless player can trade his in game work for VIP using in game currency... but wasn't the entire point of having a passive skill system to AVOID grinding for skill points. "Some people have more time than money, some people have more money than time, we cater to both" That's the microtransaction motto right? I like how they neglect the fact that most people have very little of both. Most people are working full time and only just covering the groceries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...