DUST Search - Concerning monetisation and Omega boosters

Arkena Wyrnspire wrote:

With the reintroduction of Omega boosters at significantly increased prices, it appears that monetisation is going from bad to worse.

The cost-benefit ratio of these is overwhelmingly swung towards cost rather than benefit, especially compared to the normal boosters. Spending upwards of 20 quid for a month of boosting is insanely expensive - but this has been increased to 50 for a slightly further increased rate of boosting.

Is that really necessary? These prices seem very excessive. Compounding this issue is the new tactical pack - which is much, much worse value for money than the mercenary pack that we currently have. The removal of BPOs could signal the advent of a player market, or maybe it's just encouraging more spending on consumable AUR items.
The combination of these has the overall effect of milking Dust for more money.

I find it extremely questionable that this is being done at a time when content is literally being removed from the game. It's almost as if the marketing department is determined to alienate the remaining community.

Thoughts?

Pages: 1 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Arkena Wyrnspire Turalyon 514 Turalyon Alliance 3686	Posted - 2013.10.05 23:31:00 - [1] - Quote With the reintroduction of Omega boosters at significantly increased prices, it appears that monetisation is going from bad to worse. The cost-benefit ratio of these is overwhelmingly swung towards cost rather than benefit, especially compared to the normal boosters. Spending upwards of 20 quid for a month of boosting is insanely expensive - but this has been increased to 50 for a slightly further increased rate of boosting. Is that really necessary? These prices seem very excessive. Compounding this issue is the new tactical pack - which is much, much worse value for money than the mercenary pack that we currently have. The removal of BPOs could signal the advent of a player market, or maybe it's just encouraging more spending on consumable AUR items. The combination of these has the overall effect of milking Dust for more money. I find it extremely questionable that this is being done at a time when content is literally being removed from the game. It's almost as if the marketing department is determined to alienate the remaining community. Thoughts?
SgtDoughnut Red Star Jr. EoN. 258	Posted - 2013.10.05 23:40:00 - [2] - Quote You do know the omegas were originally brought in at a discount right?
Ion Crush Militaires-Sans-Frontieres 133	Posted - 2013.10.05 23:53:00 - [3] - Quote They are virtual goods, you can put any price on them and call it a sale.
Rogatien Merc Red Star. EoN. 1401	Posted - 2013.10.06 00:52:00 - [4] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: With the reintroduction of Omega boosters at significantly increased prices, it appears that monetisation is going from bad to worse. The cost-benefit ratio of these is overwhelmingly swung towards cost rather than benefit, especially compared to the normal boosters. Spending upwards of 20 quid for a month of boosting is insanely expensive - but this has been increased to 50 for a slightly further increased rate of boosting. Is that really necessary? These prices seem very excessive. Compounding this issue is the new tactical pack - which is much, much worse value for money than the mercenary pack that we currently have. The removal of BPOs could signal the advent of a player market, or maybe it's just encouraging more spending on consumable AUR items. The combination of these has the overall effect of milking Dust for more money. I find it extremely questionable that this is being done at a time when content is literally being removed from the game. It's almost as if the marketing department is determined to alienate the remaining community. Thoughts? From bad to worse? From whose standpoint? If people are paying the prices, **** it and good for CCP. If you're not willing to pay, then it's no big whoop - not even game breaking if you don't have them.
Kaminoikari Pradox One 46	Posted - 2013.10.06 00:53:00 - [5] - Quote I think it's more of a tactic to negate the use of the booster. People wanted it back, right? So they brought it back, but at a much higher price. Why? Because of there ever increasing gap between 'veteran' players and new people. The way I see them doing this is "If you want to get ahead of the game so badly, it will cost you. Otherwise you can play fair like everyone else." This way if people want to spend $50, that's a clear sign of them wanting to be ahead badly enough. If you can handle playing the game without boosting I think that shows a level of respect as a person. People should stop bitching because the price of a ~booster~; an object designed to spring you above other people for real money (ie: pay to win) is higher than the normal one. You don't really deserve to complain about it. You want to get ahead, you pay for it. Otherwise you can make do and play (fairly, essentially) just like half of the players do. TL;DR - You want to get ahead of people, you pay for it. You don't get "a deal" for Pay2Win, so QQ more.
Wey Yu Onikanabo Brigade Caldari State 2	Posted - 2013.10.06 01:04:00 - [6] - Quote All they needed to do was auto match the non faction games into SP brackets, anyone in particular SP ranges will be auto matched. Then the need for fast SP to compete is removed. Then specific rewards should be introduced for Faction matches to encourage anyone in any SP bracket to take chances in it, and if they felt spending a few quid to catch up to harvest rewards in Faction games where most are running around it proto gear, fair enough, spend away! Probably hurt sales though. Though it should be said people should probably not waste most of the SP they have, gimp their character and then moan about it.
Chase Chouhada Osmon Surveillance Caldari State 15	Posted - 2013.10.06 20:46:00 - [7] - Quote I'm at a loss with this too. It's mostly the retirement of the mercenary pack that I just don't get. Given the booster and AUR, it seems the best value for a casual player like myself, priced at -ú16. I think that's a bit high personally still, as most MMO games are not over a tenner these days. If it was around that price, I'd be buying one every month without fail. But after looking at the 'replacement' and other packs, I just can't see anywhere to spend my money now. The prices are just unreasonable for me, certainly if they are limiting some packs to one purchase. I just don't get it. It's going to go from me spending 16 quid or so every month-ish, to nothing. I'm not dropping any more than that on a console based average FPS game. Certainly with so many issues. The Eve universe can only tie me in for so much, I just feel like the prices are milking it. shrug. Maybe I'm just getting old, but the kinda money needed for a few boosters is rapidly approaching the cost of a full triple A game.
Django Quik Dust2Dust. Top Men. 1593	Posted - 2013.10.06 20:53:00 - [8] - Quote I don't get these people who complain about the prices of this sort of stuff. You don't have to buy it. You don't have to buy anything in this game. If you've got stupid tons of money, go ahead spend hundreds on boosters and stuff but you're still only going to be as well equipped as everyone else with the same SP. If you don't have the money or don't want to spend the money to get whatever marginal bonus is possible, you're really not going to suffer that much and after a while you'll be in the same position you would have anyway.
Crash Monster Snipers Anonymous 1573	Posted - 2013.10.06 20:59:00 - [9] - Quote Yeah, I don't get the complaining either. I looked at the omega boosters, and the AUR prices, and I'm going to sit this one out. That doesn't make me upset at CCP or anything -- I'm sure some people will buy them. My expectation is that CCP will learn some details about the elasticity of demand for these... and use that information when making pricing decisions in the future. Big deal.
Delanus Turgias Subdreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore 141	Posted - 2013.10.06 21:00:00 - [10] - Quote Arkena Wyrnspire wrote: With the reintroduction of Omega boosters at significantly increased prices, it appears that monetisation is going from bad to worse. The cost-benefit ratio of these is overwhelmingly swung towards cost rather than benefit, especially compared to the normal boosters. Spending upwards of 20 quid for a month of boosting is insanely expensive - but this has been increased to 50 for a slightly further increased rate of boosting. Is that really necessary? These prices seem very excessive. Compounding this issue is the new tactical pack - which is much, much worse value for money than the mercenary pack that we currently have. The removal of BPOs could signal the advent of a player market, or maybe it's just encouraging more spending on consumable AUR items. The combination of these has the overall effect of milking Dust for more money. I find it extremely questionable that this is being done at a time when content is literally being removed from the game. It's almost as if the marketing department is determined to alienate the remaining community. Thoughts? My thoughts on the removal of all BPOs is thus: CCP is getting ready to make militia versions of most gear and weapons. Think about it, with all the players who bought the Militia BPOs for the original 20-30AUR cost would feel cheated by CCP. But, with the removal of all BPOs, the players who already have BPOs will be happy to have a now-extremely rare item(s), and Militia versions of all weapons can finally be added without controversy. No AUR items are added to the market, newbros get to try out weapons they aren't skilled for without paying AUR. Everyone's happy.

Vell0cet Royal Uhlans Amarr Empire 411	Posted - 2013.10.07 01:34:00 - [11] - Quote There is a 16% increase per SP between the standard passive boosters and the Omega. So you're paying a 16% penalty to get the SPs in half the time. For some people, this isn't worth it and that's cool. For others that have busy lives and can afford it, and want to support the game, this is worth it. I think the monthly cost to run boosters is arguably too high given the missing core content, but the cost of the omegas relative to the standard is pretty reasonable IMO.


Pages: 1 :: [one page]