| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Joseph Ridgeson
WarRavens
Imperium Eden
4519
   |
Posted - 2016.06.18 23:03:00 -
[1] - Quote
Dear old dad just got his commercial rift, so I stole his DK2. He is out of town so, hell, I'mma play his Valkyrie.
Something that I want to point out:
The game is 60 dollars in the Oculus store. The game will, probably, be 60 dollars as well in the Steam store when it comes out on the Vive.
And the game has got micro-transactions in it.
Big ones.
Big, hairy chested sumo wrestlers with inverted nipples type of micro-transactions.
The game uses an XP system in order to upgrade your ships. Want to move faster? 750 XP. Want to more shields? Same thing (note: this seems to be at odds with what I heard at EVE Vegas: 2015. Alright, player progression. Seems like a cool idea. Make your ships better and the like, give us a reason other than "the game is fun" to play.
Annd you can buy 30 day boosters for 50% additional XP. That, to me, is a big concern. A paid game that has micro-transactions beyond hats, skins, and other 100% cosmetic things that do not affect gameplay is a hell of a scary thing. I spent... too much money in DUST. I bought boosters and the like because, yup, I wanted day SP faster and more, more!
I also didn't spend 60 dollars on the game to begin with though.
In a Free to Play game, it is kind of accepted at face value that there is going to be the kind of things that test your patience. DUST certainly had 'em, though the change from 192k to 750k a week helped that quite a bit. But, still, it was going to take you between 2-3 months of play without a booster to get reach role up to prototype; about 4-8 million additional SP depending on how big of a change it was. It is the nature of Free to Play games.
The problem with having that in a 60 dollar game, micro-transactions that give a tangible difference in gameplay, is that it becomes too tempting to purposefully fool with how fast you get XP in order to make those Boosters more enticing. The game is using a Free to Play tactic after already taking 60 dollars from you.
Just something I wanted to point out.
To the mods: sorry if this is in the wrong spot; just wanted to be sure some of my fellow mercs could see this.
"This is B.S! This is B.S! I paid money! Cash money, dollars money, cash money!"
|
Alena Asakura
Rogue Clones
Yulai Federation
1144
|
Posted - 2016.06.18 23:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
It has long been my feeling that CCP is now making decisions on game design and hosting based on the idea of maximising profits. To an extent this is reasonable, given they're a company that needs to make profits and the more profits they make, the better they will make their games.
There will come a point where their profit-chasing will become a negative, when their profit curve starts to turn down again, through driving their customers away. That is the point where they can be expected to stop increasing their profit-chasing and maybe dial it back a bit in the interest of keeping their new and existing customers and maybe winning back a few of the ones they lost.
EvE currently doesn't have microtransactions that actually do anything much other than cosmetics. We may see that change if it proves to be profitable for other games. We can expect to see CCP try to find some sort of happy mix of pre-paid or subscriber payments and microtransactions which may eventually see EvE go the same way. Personally, I really dislike the whole pay-to-win aspect of microtransactions for anything other than cosmetics, but it's arguable that this already exists in EvE through the payment for training of additional characters or accounts and the use of plexing to finance better ships, equipment, implants, etc.
I think we just have to accept that people will be increasingly allowed to use some sort of pay-to-win advantage in all CCP games in the future. EvE will not be immune to this. But we will see it first in CCP's new games as they explore this concept with new audiences, before applying what they learn to existing games like EvE. |
Mobius Wyvern
Night Theifs
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
8243
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 14:50:00 -
[3] - Quote
EVE: Valkyrie is still in early Alpha, and might even be Pre-Alpha or whatever. If the micro-transactions are received negatively at this early stage, it won't require much effort to drop them.
As far as I know, the in-game paint jobs seem to be available for in-game currency only. I'm kind of mystified as to their aversion to monetizing cosmetics given that seems to work for pretty much every other game.
As for EVE Online, I think part of their push for micro-transactions is an intent to eventually reduce the subscription fee, given how most new gamers are used to all the free-to-play or one-time-purchase games on the market and the subscription based MMO has pretty much disappeared with the exception of EVE Online and World of Warcraft.
CCP did in the past make a pretty ironclad pact with the community that they would never attempt to go fully free-to-play with EVE Online, and part of that is that they'd have to rewrite many mechanics of playing the game in order to further push as many micro-transactions as possible to act as a stable income source, like with most other MMOs that have gone F2P.
However, if they were to set up MTs that supplemented their income enough to allow them to drop the monthly rate to $10 or maybe even lower than that, that'd make playing the game a lot more attractive to more people, especially if they reduced PLEX prices by the same percentage. Doing that would mean that the in-game cost of Pilot License Extensions would be reduced so they were more affordable by more players, and more people could play EVE for free without having to make giant Alt armies or grind menial tasks for days every month.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
DUST Fiend
18389
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 20:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
I always took issue with skill boosters in DUST since I very much like how EVE does their SP, but since DUST was f2p I sort of just accepted it and dealt with it. This type of thing is exactly why I distanced myself from Black Desert even though I love that game, it just doesn't sit well when you buy a game outright just to get repeatedly slapped in the face with advertising; even just in the background.
Again, this can be fine if like you say, it's mostly cosmetic crap. The second you include creep towards things that influence gameplay, you end up with a nightmare lava swirly when it comes to balancing, since now you have to balance both for skill and for benjamins.
Lord of all things salty, purveyor of gloomish doom and naysayer extraordinaire.
AV Incubus Specialist, Ex Prometheus
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7858
|
Posted - 2016.06.20 22:48:00 -
[5] - Quote
There's also the factor on how goddamn expensive VR is to begin with.
You're paying hundreds of dollars in order to have access to a handful of games, all for a gimmick. Granted it's a good gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless.
The way I see it, the VR market is going to die in no time unless it gets significantly cheaper.
The anti-tunnel snake taskforce has assembled
|
Mobius Wyvern
Night Theifs
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
8243
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 00:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:There's also the factor on how goddamn expensive VR is to begin with.
You're paying hundreds of dollars in order to have access to a handful of games, all for a gimmick. Granted it's a good gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless.
The way I see it, the VR market is going to die in no time unless it gets significantly cheaper.
Part of why Razer and that other company are pushing the OSVR initiative, and have a $400 headset on the market.
Amidst the blue skies
A link from past to future
The sheltering wings of the protector
|
Scheneighnay McBob
Penumbra or something
7858
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 01:09:00 -
[7] - Quote
Mobius Wyvern wrote:Scheneighnay McBob wrote:There's also the factor on how goddamn expensive VR is to begin with.
You're paying hundreds of dollars in order to have access to a handful of games, all for a gimmick. Granted it's a good gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless.
The way I see it, the VR market is going to die in no time unless it gets significantly cheaper. Part of why Razer and that other company are pushing the OSVR initiative, and have a $400 headset on the market.
$400 is still outrageously high for the little you're actually getting out of it.
The anti-tunnel snake taskforce has assembled
|
Maken Tosch
DUST University
Ivy League
13560
|
Posted - 2016.06.21 01:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
Scheneighnay McBob wrote:There's also the factor on how goddamn expensive VR is to begin with.
You're paying hundreds of dollars in order to have access to a handful of games, all for a gimmick. Granted it's a good gimmick, but a gimmick nonetheless.
The way I see it, the VR market is going to die in no time unless it gets significantly cheaper.
It already has gotten cheaper thanks to Samsung with the GearVR and Google with Cardboard. The difference between now and back in the 80's and 90's is that the industry has prior experience with VR and have begun applying the harsh lessons that many companies in the gaming industry experienced. It's kind of like how the electric car (the TESLA) is making a comeback compared to EV cars of the past.
EDIT:
That and lack of technology back then didn't help VR. No NFC technology for Google Cardboard and AR tech like Microsoft's Hololens never existed. The hardware limitations were pretty bad to the point that it was no surprise that VR failed back in the 90's.
Eve Online Invite
https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=ed64524f-15ca-4997-ab92-eaae0af74b7f&action=buddy
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |