|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1473
   |
Posted - 2015.02.08 15:23:00 -
[1] - Quote
Kevall Longstride wrote: ....snip....
As to the accusations of cash grab with Warlords..
Dust 514 is a free game funded by in game purchases. That much is known to all. But when you sit down and analyse the last two years, the monetisation model for the game has been disjointed and incoherent to say the least. With Warlords I think you'll find that a clear strategy is now in the process of being implemented. The use of components to reduce cool down and their purchase using real money is no different from Gems in Clash of Clans and other popular mobile free to play games
...snip...
Kevall,
Well thought out post and you touch on some solid concerns about the tone of the community. I believe the point was made previously that it certainly feels that without some fairly high level of outrage the needle doesn't move with CCP much, that said, could very well be perception gap with the community.
That said, I want to address the above excerpt directly. You are correct, the monetization strategy is now very clear. There is a reason that I don't play "Clash of Clans" and similar mobile games...you pay to win. Pay to win can be defined as having to pay for a distinct advantage in game that you normally couldn't get else where or couldn't be obtained in a reasonable amount of time though in-game effort. For all but the most casual player, this game is clearly drifting into that area. When you off AUR only accelerations that directly Impact in-match a advantages owned quickly become necessary items for competitive play...we've hit the pay to win zone.
Additionally, Dust514 is NOT a popular mobile free to play game nor should it seek to simply replicate the model in this format. I honestly excepted better as a customer. I have no problem with a working and healthy monetization system...but not the road we seem to be on now. I suppose we could have seen this coming a bit given CCP Rouge's background.
As for rumor comment about the lifespan of Dust and future systems it maybe on being foreshadowed by the implied progression / monetization structure I will tell you the same thing i have told, Cross, IWS, SirManBoy, and Soraya...comments like that at this point MUST come from CCP or all they do is sow confusion. Do not get me wrong, I was very interested in your fairly strong implication but until it is said publicly by CCP that's throwing a squirrel to chase in the room. I want CCP to address this if it is in fact part of their current behind the scenes vision and direction to provide clarity to the player (customer) base.
Again, I appreciate your commentary but took direct issue with the points above.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1473
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 17:32:00 -
[2] - Quote
Zaria Min Deir wrote:Jaysyn Larrisen wrote:Kevall Longstride wrote: ....snip....
As to the accusations of cash grab with Warlords..
Dust 514 is a free game funded by in game purchases. That much is known to all. But when you sit down and analyse the last two years, the monetisation model for the game has been disjointed and incoherent to say the least. With Warlords I think you'll find that a clear strategy is now in the process of being implemented. The use of components to reduce cool down and their purchase using real money is no different from Gems in Clash of Clans and other popular mobile free to play games
...snip...
*awesome stuff* You adressed the other issues I wanted to bring up, but was having a problem wording in a way that couldn't be perceived as hostile by some of the more sensitive potential readers. Thank you Jaysyn.
Just trying to help.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
Jaysyn Larrisen
OSG Planetary Operations
Covert Intervention
1476
|
Posted - 2015.02.08 20:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kevall, pokey, et all...
"Saying it is so over and over again simply does not make it so." Please note that this ascertation could equally be applied to your (Kevall's) definition of P2W and areas of commentary.
Honestly I'm all for a healthy monetization of Dust. Healthy is a somewhat defined by where you sit in the process and most of the concern is being genereated by those in the customer side of the equation. As Pokey noted a component of this is transparency...just a bit of plain up front communication.
I'm personally at the point where I think would simply prefer a subscription similar to what I pay for with my EVE accounts as far as monetization models. The shaping and alignment of the game to the current monetization model is quite indicative of many of the things that drove me away from quite a few other games. I'm fairly confident with positive interaction (in both directions) there can be an optimal solution arrived at for some model.
I'm re-evaluating my level of support to Dust 514 - no this isn't a "fix mah stuffz or I'll quit!" type comment. I have no more information than the average player that pays attention to goings on and that's the sum of data / information that I can base decisions on as a customer. I don't have the inside baseball of the CPM and the Dust Dev team as good as they are in communicating about granular in-game matters rarely communicate about the game in longer term matters. To Rattati's credit, I honestly believe he would be a quite transparent and forthright if he were allowed to do so.
I'm simply stating that I'm personally not prepared to put real money down, particularly in the current monetization structure, based on the overall information environment. This is juxtaposed by my desire to actually support the game that I do sincerely wish gets off the ground as we all wanted it to.
"Endless money forms the sinews of War." - Cicero
Skype: jaysyn.larrisen
Twitter: @JaysynLarrisen
|
|
|
| |
|