harrasser proves dedicated driver is great - Page 25

Whiteagle · 2013-06-24, 08:39 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

By not selling SC at full real world monetary value (e.g. 1 SC = $1 USD), SOE is effectively losing money (or giving money away) when it sells 2 or 3 SC for $1 USD.

Wow, way to show a lack of research...

Station Cash normal monetary value is $0.01 USD, or 100 SC per US Dollar...

Originally Posted by Shogun

the whole shareholder arguments are hollow bullshit. just don´t call it "refund" and everything is ok. enable a recert option in general, or just for limited time after patches, for the affected items, problem solved.

Indeed, especially considering how they've ALREADY done this with redundant account and bundle purchases.

While they can't refund Station Cash, supposedly due to some gobblety goop involving their transaction system, they can refund for the equivalent the Certifcation Point cost.

omega four · 2013-06-24, 08:41 AM

It's clear that my attempts to educate you have failed. The only recourse is for you to learn the fundamentals of business and microeconomics to understand where I'm coming from for our conversation on this topic to continue in a meaningful fashion.

Until then, you're free to interpret what I've said from the perspective of a gamer that isn't versed in business concepts and disagree to your heart's content.

Or to put it in simpler terms, I can tell you that 2+3 = 5 until I'm blue in the face. But until you learn simple arithmetic, you'll continue to tell me that I'm wrong and I'd be foolish to continue attempting to convince you otherwise.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm glad SOE continues to allow PS2 gamers to solo heavy tanks.

Originally Posted by Shogun

nice way of avoiding to acknoladge defeat...
and very arrogant to send people off to read a book or get aditional education. especially for someone who doesn´t know the difference between there their and they´re.

omega four · 2013-06-24, 08:49 AM

You do know that "E.g." means "for example", right? It's not to be confused with "i.e.", which means "that is". There IS a difference.

I wasn't sure of the exact ratio of SC to USD, as its been a while since I last purchased SC for money.

There must be an "adults only" forum somewhere around here....

Originally Posted by Whiteagle

Wow, way to show a lack of research...

Station Cash normal monetary value is $0.01 USD, or 100 SC per US Dollar...

Indeed, especially considering how they've ALREADY done this with redundant account and bundle purchases.

While they can't refund Station Cash, supposedly due to some gobblety goop involving their transaction system, they can refund for the equivalent the Certifcation Point cost.

Figment · 2013-06-24, 09:14 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

Thank you. It's good to see others who understand where I'm coming from, even if some like Figment are too young/immature/childish/inexperienced to do so.

Do continue being a twat.

You're working from obsolete dogma and misunderstandings. But hey, easier to insult others while distracting from your extremely mature selfish "I want this" whining, isn't it?

You've asked an excellent question. Double and triple SC sales are one of SOE's ways to incentivize gamers to spend real money on SOE games (e.g. PS2). As you've astutely noted, SOE does leave some money on the table, so to speak, when it runs these sales. By not selling SC at full real world monetary value (e.g. 1 SC = $1 USD), SOE is effectively losing money (or giving money away) when it sells 2 or 3 SC for $1 USD.

Only, it doesn't. Because you make the false assumption that that money would have been spend on Station Cash anyway by the consumer (you'd only "lose" money if that money was guaranteed, but it is not, therefore it is not a loss, it's a reduced profit margin!). SOE is selling a virtual good. Therefore, there's no significant product investment made by SOE beyond initial production and any gain on a virtual currency (which is basically an image and integer value in a database, nothing more) is a 100% gain for SOE.

The Station Cash deals are frequent because they bring in a lot more money than regular sales do.

Not sure when you did your economics, but Free-to-play was considered to be more volatile and risky business than fixed subscription rates, but SOE found out that F2P is actually extremely lucrative and PS2 is actually making tons of money due to huge profit margins on extremely cheap to produce products like cosmetics. Camo texture etc. is very simple to make and doesn't cost an awful lot.

You have to remember these are mass sales of an endless supply (endless copies) of a digital product with relatively high margins. The goal is to get players to spend money on the virtual currency. If they get it returned due to a product change only to have the same money invested again doesn't matter at all:

That money is considered invested by the player. Where the player invested it will not matter, because he purchased some sort of product that is entirely interchangeable from the perspective of the company.

Such incentive programs are viewed by SOE (and other companies) as the cost of doing business. But, it is a painful cost to bear. That is why SOE does not run these SC sale deals very often (especially the Triple SC deals).

Completely wrong! It's a very lucrative incentive that can be used to earn quick cash. Companies are just now discovering the micro-transaction market and find that there are tons of psychological things to exploit to get the consumer to purchase products.

The reason it is not done more frequently is to create the "RARE EVENT" effect and use the "Do not miss out on this chance!" psychological effect. If they were to do it too often, the "rare event" would be a common event. They would devaluate the regular sale of Station Cash if they were too common. Beyond that, they're extremely lucrative because players invest money instantly they would otherwise probably not spend over time.

Wargaming utilises this principle very well on a weekly basis. How? By constantly putting other things on discount. SOE does the same discount, limited time offer thing with all sorts of micro-transactions.

But in the end, they are not selling a limited resource product, they are selling a virtual good. A good which has been produced once by developers, so the only costs involved is the original development time (paying the employee who made it for the time it took to create it). Which they got out of it after the first round of sales. So any future sale are pure and unadultered profit that can be sold again to new consumers endlessly!

This is what makes free to play so profitable.

Furthermore, shareholders and stock analysts view incentive program deals like SC sales in a more favorable light than they do refunds, as these incentive program deals actively bring in more real money, whereas refunds do not.

Refund programs in virtual currency for rebalance purposes are one time deals and extremely rare events per item (if they occur at all). They do not effect the opinion of shareholders, at all.

If you think so, you are unable to differentiate between an actual good or service and a virtual good or service.

But to prevent such refund programs, the best thing to do is extensive testing before selling the product or accessories for the product and ensuring it doesn't need to be rebalanced tremendously. Extensive testing of a virtual good doesn't cost a whole lot of money as you can test it alongside loads of other things. That cost is shared by all the new things under test.

Hmr85 · 2013-06-24, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

Thank you. It's good to see others who understand where I'm coming from, even if some like Figment are too young/immature/childish/inexperienced to do so.

Showing your age aren't ya.

Figment · 2013-06-24, 09:51 AM

Funny thing is, I understand where he is coming from, but he can't accept that people simply think he is wrong.

That's how mature he is.

You ask him what gameplay reasons there are that justify him getting the heaviest vehicle solo? "I want it" and then thinking that is actually a reason. Imagine him at an investment meeting:

"Let's invest money in this thing!"

"Why? What does it do for the company?"

"Because I want it."

Mature, convincing argument.

omega four · 2013-06-24, 10:06 AM

I love how some young gamers compare playing games to investment meetings. Classic!

Figment · 2013-06-24, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

I love how some young gamers compare playing games to investment meetings. Classic!

It's a good enough argument for you to make design decisions on. As a designer, it isn't for me, since I have to consider everyone involved. ALL stakeholders, not just you.

I love how you don't understand that a game design is actually more than "what I want" though. As long as you don't comprehend that, you shouldn't be in a GAMING forum, NOR a management role for a GAMING company.

So go back to playing with finances and ripping people off for "good shareholder economics", the real world and virtual world are too hard a thing for you to grasp and it really is questionable who is wearing the mature pants, unfortunately I'm letting you troll a bit by dignifying with a response to your constant stream of insults and content lacking posts.

omega four · 2013-06-24, 10:13 AM

That's where your youthfulness and inexperience shines through. You're NOT a PS2 game designer. You're a PS2 gamer (as I am).

As such, gamers know what they like and want, without having to necessarily justify such desires to anyone, let alone anonymous persons on a public internet forum.

I enjoy soloing heavy tanks. PS2 and its developers thankfully allow me to do so by catering to my wants. And that is good enough for me. Nothing you say or do will change my wants or desires with respect to PS2. You can keep trying, but it'll all be for naught.

Likewise, I can keep telling you that 2+3 = 5, but you can continue to say I'm wrong and rationalize why, as is your prerogative. It's of no consequence to me, as some persons are unwilling or incapable of learning and expanding their horizons.

Originally Posted by Figment

It's a good enough argument for you to make design decisions on. As a designer, it isn't for me, since I have to consider everyone involved. ALL stakeholders, not just you.

I love how you don't understand that a game design is actually more than "what I want" though. As long as you don't comprehend that, you shouldn't be in a GAMING forum, NOR a management role for a GAMING company.

So go back to playing with finances and ripping people off for "good shareholder economics", the real world and virtual world are too hard a thing for you to grasp and it really is questionable who is wearing the mature pants, unfortunately I'm letting you troll a bit by dignifying with a response to your constant stream of insults and content lacking posts.

Shogun · 2013-06-24, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

It's of no consequence to me, as some persons are unwilling or incapable of learning and expanding their horizons.

lol. yeah, those persons exist. it is just too ironic, that they don´t realise it and blame others for the same thing...

omega four · 2013-06-24, 10:32 AM

I can understand why older adults said what they did when I was younger. Perhaps you will too as you get older and hopefully mature.

Originally Posted by Shogun

lol. yeah, those persons exist. it is just too ironic, that they don´t realise it and blame others for the same thing...

Whiteagle · 2013-06-24, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

I can understand why older adults said what they did when I was younger. Perhaps you will too as you get older and hopefully mature.

Yeah kid, keep telling yourself that...

Figment has been playing the Original Planetside for, what, a decade now?

Figment · 2013-06-24, 10:49 AM

Originally Posted by omega four

That's where your youthfulness and inexperience shines through. You're NOT a PS2 game designer. You're a PS2 gamer (as I am).

Actually, I'm a designer and PS2 gamer. You're just a PS2 gamer.

It's funny that you continue with the youthfulness and inexperience, because you show your complete and utter disregard and disrespect for game design and make assumptions about my age in a way to attack my authority and personality.

Ie. you are unable to make an actual argument, so you reach, once again, to unfounded assumptious insults.

Very mature. In fact, that's so mature, you must probably get your diaper changed by now because you'll have peed in it from the giggles you gained out of being so exceptionally sharp and witty.

(Yes, that is sarcasm).

Can you be mature and polite for once?

As such, gamers know what they like and want, without having to necessarily justify such desires to anyone, let alone anonymous persons on a public internet forum.

When a design decision is to be made, justification is extremely important especially in balance. If a gamer wants to preserve or change a status quo (or in fact, a change), providing a thoroughly argumented reasoning is completely relevant. Otherwise that person should be completely ignored because he has no argumented opinion, just random opinion.

And you should be ignored as you present no argument and have no idea why you formed that opinion. You render yourself void even if you are given a chance to be heard and make your case. You refuse to, so why should anyone listen to you?

I enjoy soloing heavy tanks.

Some people enjoyed playing with BFRs in the exact way they were when they were released. Completely killed PS1 by skewing the entire gameplay experience in favour of a few individuals in soloable units and boring and frustrating everyone else to hell.

So that's not an argument, that's called a "sample consumer sentiment". It's not enough to base a decision on, certainly not if there's no reasoning to back it up.

With gaming balance, EVERYONE involved should be able to be happy with the balance, not just the users. In fact, if only the users like it, it's probably in need of change. In this case, even a lot of the users DO NOT like it.

PS2 and its developers thankfully allow me to do so by catering to my wants. And that is good enough for me. Nothing you say or do will change my wants or desires with respect to PS2. You can keep trying, but it'll all be for naught.

It's irrelevant what you want, that's the whole point. That you got catered to is your luck, but that doesn't mean you should continue to get catered to.

I'm not trying to convince you, I'm just showcasing why your argument is void and shouldn't be listened to - you make it exceptionally easy by refusing to even back up your side of the argument. In fact, you've done a lot of harm to your side of the story by providing a textbook case example of the type of player that does like this: people that act like egotistical, selfish, immature little kids with an instant gratification need, but aren't actually interested in fair competitive balance and good overarching gameplay.

So, thanks for that.

You are not actually my target group (other designers are), you're just the subject of annoyance and irritation. And not because you're trolling, but one that defends an undefendable design decision out of personal greed while refusing to back it up with any reasoning.

Likewise, I can keep telling you that 2+3 = 5, but you can continue to say I'm wrong and rationalize why, as is your prerogative. It's of no consequence to me, as some persons are unwilling or incapable of learning and expanding their horizons.

Maybe you don't (want to) realise this, but you're not telling us that. You're telling us:

"I want 2 or 3, because the rest is 1, because 2 and 3 > 1 and I like having the power of three on my own without sharing it."

That's your argument. In fact, I'm the one telling you that 2 (players) + 3 (players) should be equal to 5 (players).

Your maths are flawed. You're not telling us 2+3=5, you're telling us "1=5 because I like it that way", which is an utterly ridiculous and childish statement. Pretending you state 2+3=5 doesn't mean you actually are telling us that. So stop making that suggestion (as long as YOU want a heavy tank alone, while others are infantry or a light tank alone, you ask for more individual power than others. Capiche?).

Naturally, given your self-centered personality and lack of respect, regards and interest for and in the people playing the game around you, you like being more powerful than the rest. And since you're acting like a selfish egotistical bastard when non-socially playing the game alone, you think there's nothing wrong with having the same or more power than a group of other people.

We know that. We find that attitude horrifying and insulting and most of all, extremely dumb and from a game point of view even self-destructive: chasing of everyone but the powerhungry leads to a bad gaming experience for the remainder.

That this ruins the gaming experience for other people? Eh. Not your problem, as long as you have what YOU want. That's why you should not influence balance design. You would purposefully distort them to your own desires and screw others over in the process.

Worse, you just refused to make a reasoning why IN A DESIGN DEBATE ABOUT THE DEEPER MEANINGS, EFFECTS, CONSEQUENCES AND IMPLICATIONS OF A PARTICULAR DESIGN, by saying "I don't have to have a reason, just an opinion, I'm a gamer and all I need to know is what I like or don't". Great. But consider that we will completely disregard anything you have to say on this matter.

To prevent further fueding with you, I'll put you on ignore since you stated you will never contribute something constructive.

Wahooo · 2013-06-24, 10:54 AM

I think the same thing hold true for repeating that you are a mature person.

omega four · 2013-06-24, 11:13 AM

Not as catchy as "A Lannister always pays his debts" in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Wahooo

I think the same thing hold true for repeating that you are a mature person.