|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
byte modal
1164
   |
Posted - 2017.01.11 22:15:00 -
[1] - Quote
Honest gut reaction after reading the first few replies? This makes me ...uneasy, to say the least. Unless the conversation took a wide turn on page two, then what I'm reading is "pay for end game content."
I saw it noted that the license could be purchased for ISK as well, but even with that a precedence is made where a player can access progressive content only after paying a fee, whether in cash, or ISK, or cash to get ISK. There is no in-game progression incentive or requirement from that point forward.
A few points for me:
Do you honestly want to pay money to enter an FPS arena? There is no PVE, there is no level design for campaign mode progression. You are running a map shooting people and paying to do it. That is weird to me. That seems to be about the same as paying a monthly fee to arena or even battleground in WoW, where the arena is the only thing that exists in WoW. Granted, Warcraft has a sub, but that sub pays for the world. Not just arena.
On the progression side, an argument can be made that "of course there is incentive for progression! As soon as you have your ass handed to you for entering PC/FW you have incentive to level up for better gear!" except that now, I am buying gear. I mean, why not?
Slightly off topic (not really), but it is a strange transition that I am seeing play out as I get older. Before, I would buy a game with a one-time-fee and have that game forever to play indefinitely. Eventually, a subscription model came out and required a continued purchase agreement to maintain access to a game. Even DLC is an expansion of sorts, at least in theory. This was silly to me at first, but then I rationalized the continuing fee as an access point to an ever-evolving gaming world. So I eventually conceded and subbed a few games. Then micro-transactions started popping up. The game might have been free, and the purchases were not required as they were for novelty items. Novelty became boosters. Now it seems that boosters are becoming keys through locked doors. Pay to play...again.
I see arguments for both sides. But I am very concerned that younger consumers are getting to a point where it is totally normal to pay subscription fees for anything.
My company used to buy a license for various Adobe applications (primarily Photoshop, Illustrator, and InDesign). We might pay an average of $1,600 for a license that gave us those primary apps but in doing so we were also paying for secondary apps that we just did not need. From the licensee's perspective, that was acceptable because we had a license for what we needed and could expand our productivity should the desire or necessity demand it. Two years later, Adobe would release a major update and we had the option to purchase the update or continue working with our current version. Our work effort requirements rarely changed and the software updates were rather insignificant except for maybe every other or every third update. So we usually opted to keep our current version---without losing access to our single-purchase license. We might get 4-6 years out of our purchase before we found a true need or desire to upgrade and, at that point, we reinvested.
Now we are subscribed to the CC plan and have been so for a while. While it is arguably more convenient to have immediate access to the latest updates, those updates are still relatively useless. Now we pay maybe $50 a month per license. That's about $3,600 over a six year window now compared to approximately $1,600 average per to use a license for the same time frame. The justification now comes down to convenience; however, convenience eventually leads to complacency in that we stop being aware of just how much we are spending over time. Complacency leads to ignorance that primes an individual to conveniently subscribe to the next whatever as that seems to be the shift now.
It is mind-boggling.
Now I see this post where users are actively proposing more ways to pay into something? I admit that my head twitched a time or three.
I would argue that the financial faults of DUST514 were less to do with individual players not paying enough and more to do with the number of players from which a viable portion who might choose to pay was just too low.
TL/DR:ranty rant-rant followed by not enough players.
Funny, no? That we put the TLDR at the end of a post? After people have to read it?
P.S. I will continue reading from where I left off once my blood pressure drops. ;)
There was another major point, but I lost it in the desperation to jot these thoughts down before the stroke. Thank you for your patience.
kitten bacon taco (nom)
|
byte modal
1173
|
Posted - 2017.01.16 18:19:00 -
[2] - Quote
First, I applaud the enthusiasm in the OP. My criticism is not in that. I do believe though, you are going way out of your way to find a solution to a problem that likely doesn't exist. Basically, you're trying to change the oil when really you just have a flat tire.
For my arguments on the downside, please refer to my earlier post. Also, reference Mobius Wyvern's comments. While we're sort of focusing on slightly different things, I think both views are based on practical and holistic observations to work with what we know existed and the known restrictions in that environment, rather than assuming very specific cause-and-effect consequences to justify what (at least in my opinion) is a rather extreme suggestion.
Mobius: if I'm misreading you, then my apologies.
kitten bacon taco (nom)
|
byte modal
1176
|
Posted - 2017.01.17 19:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Talos Vagheitan wrote:Echo 1991 wrote:My problem isn't paying money, while i saw your system would allow for people to buy a way to play PC using isk, which is great, I shouldn't have to pay in order to be able to take part. It's not EVE online where having a subscription makes your clone better and it stops people making ults that can just pop cynos in a risk free clone.
Cosmetic items would generate more revenue than a subscription of a $1 a month. Sorry, but "I shouldn't have to pay" is just not valid (even though you wouldn't have to with this system, you'd basically just be encouraged to buy Aurum). A game is a service, which requires money to develop and maintain. Cosmetics do not automatically guarantee indefinite profit. If CCP can't profit off this game, then they won't make it at all.
sorry, but saying "it's not valid" because you disagree is... well. not valid. your words.
If the game is F2P then by definition it is valid that the player should not have to pay to play. Revenue is, instead, brought in through optional in-game/app transactions that serve to enhance the player's experience.
In-app micro-transactions exist for a reason. And they are profitable. No one is denying that a game developer needs income to support itself. That is a given. You seem to continually redefine your opposition's argument to an extreme that you then counter to justify your assumptions. He did not type "cosmetics automatically guarantee indefinite profit." You typed that as a misrepresentation of what he actually said, which was that "cosmetic items would generate more revenue than a subscription of $1 a month." it was a reasonable comparison.
Again, I think you are trying to change the oil of a car to fix a flat tire. You can distort the opinions of those around you to make your assumptions seem more reasonable in contrast, but the reality here is that your entire basis for profit is off. Not recognizing the criticism from those that offer it is... well. silly.
Good luck all the same.
kitten bacon taco (nom)
|
byte modal
1176
|
Posted - 2017.01.17 22:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
I responded in my original reply that I believe the fundamental problem was player count and retention. Increase count, and you arguably increase revenue.
I may very well be wrong, but I do not believe DUST514 is a good case study to draw hard conclusions from as the player base was simply too low on average. CCP did say that they were turning a profit near the end doing what they were doing. Sure there's the argument as to whether it was right or wrong or practical or efficient, but that's another topic. They saw profits. Tweak the system progressively and let it find equilibrium. Increase player count, and it stands to reason that profits increase as well. Without the risk that comes with changing the core product. I mean product as a commodity.
In my opinion, DUST simply did not have enough players. Other developers profit off of in-game purchases. To suggest that this model does not work ignores all games that do work. Again, I think it is unfair to use DUST as a single point of proof of that assumption because it is a poor example to begin with.
To my "changing the oil to fix a tire" comment, I mean to say that I do not think transactions specifically need to change. I believe obvious improvements within the game will make a bigger impact.
To insure the game is profitable enough for CCP to build NOVA, my answer is to first attract a larger market through a better game. Not by charging to gain access to game zones.
How? Basically what they are probably trying to do already:
A. Improving/correcting core game mechanics. They appear to have already done that, at least based on the demo.
B. Improving balance between teams to help avoid a repeat in protostomping mentality.
C. Make better use of EvE-like philosophies of player access tiers. Start players in a new-player friendly zone and give them access to move forward as desired. It doesn't matter much how this happens, but it needs to be addressed. New players need to learn and advance at their relative progression level to feel confident enough to risk investing money into a suicidal meat-grinder experience.
D. Provide proper PVE level learning objectives to help direct new players. Whatever that may be. Again, this is all to help guide new ignorant players to the philosophies of the EvE/DUST/LEGION/WTFever play style and attitudes.
E. Market the damn thing properly.
F. Provide something to the player type that wants to explore (PVE).
...or whatever. CCP can do ANY number of things to improve the game to make it more attractive to new players while offering more than a protostomp environment that will send kids running.
Ultimately, increasing player numbers should increase playing purchases. If not, then reevaluate! But I do not believe measuring DUST with all of its flaws is a valuable indicator of potential profit---which is what seems to be going on.
Improve the game to be as desirable as possible for a wider community, within the limits of the game's spirit of course. If profits do not change still, then at least you have a much clearer idea of what is failing. You know, it's like troubleshooting anything really. Start small and go through the list of possible errors. Once you rule out an error, check it and move to the next. By the end of the check, you find the issue and move on. Otherwise, you're all over the place rebuilding the foundation every time you want to make a change effectively creating a whole new list of undiscovered bugs to resolve ...again.
I won't derail this thread any more. If that's what I'm doing, then my apologies! Carry on. I'll keep quiet from here on. At least I'll try ;)
kitten bacon taco (nom)
|
|
|
| |
|