Potential For Selling Pay To Win - Page 10

Envenom · 2012-06-04, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

You know what microtransactions are fine for? Single player games and games from korea and asia in general.

Care to elaborate or was that just bigotry?

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 09:38 PM

Originally Posted by CTheRain

Well I did play MapleStory for 2 years before the Big Bang update and spent around $300 on 2x experience boosts to get to level 200 in 4 months.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexon_Co._Ltd.

Headquarters
Tokyo, Japan[4]
Global Offices
Seoul, South Korea
El Segundo, California, USA
Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

The US market is quite a bit different from the korean/china market.

Dagron · 2012-06-04, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

You know what microtransactions are fine for? Single player games and games from korea and asia in general.

That's a very extreme attitude.

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

That's a very extreme attitude.

post no. 1 in this thread I say:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...37&postcount=1
I am an extremist when it comes to what an advantage is with regards to micro-transactions.

And, have you ever played Aion for example? The korean version, that is. Its grindy as hell. They like that over there. Over here... not so much, for a great many people a grind is mind numbing and not fun.

CTheRain · 2012-06-04, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nexon_Co._Ltd.

Headquarters
Tokyo, Japan[4]
Global Offices
Seoul, South Korea
El Segundo, California, USA
Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

The US market is quite a bit different from the korean/china market.

Combat Arm was very successful in America. Especially Global MapleStory. Almost half of Nexon revenue comes from America.

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by CTheRain

Combat Arm was very successful in America. Especially Global MapleStory. Almost half of Nexon revenue comes from America.

Has it come to your attention that its because people don't like grinding as much and the hellacious experience that it is for some people coaxes them to buy exp modification to make it less terrible? Asia has been on micro transactions 3.0 for fucking years.

I've said it now for ten pages where this is going. I feel this is like.. rote at this point. Has it come to you that this is I don't know... the intent?

CTheRain · 2012-06-04, 09:51 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

Has it come to your attention that its because people don't like grinding as much and the hellacious experience that it is for some people coaxes them to buy exp modification to make it less terrible?

I've said it now for ten pages where this is going.

The Big Bang update got rid of Experience boost and changed the grind to something of getting the max level within a month. Yet it still has almost half the revenue for Nexon. People love to buy an advantage over people. Combat Arms you could buy guns that had 2-3 day timers on them but would be OP as shit.

The F2p model is fine. If you don't like people buying an advantage then don't play. You won't be missed.

Dagron · 2012-06-04, 09:55 PM

I was going to put this in my last post (I'm a slow typer, sry).

First of all, i'm aware you intend to support the creators of a game if they deserve it.
Now say you'd pay a subscription and everyone would be on equal ground.
What about those people who don't have enough disposable income to pay a subscription but they want to try it out, they can't play at all?
What if they don't mind being underpowered as long as they get to play?
Seems to me you're using the "equal ground" argument from the wrong perspective.

If i really liked a game but didn't have much money to spend on it, i'd rather play as a grunt and buy an ocasional hat to support the game than not play at all.

Originally Posted by p0intman

And, have you ever played Aion for example? The korean version, that is. Its grindy as hell. They like that over there. Over here... not so much, for a great many people a grind is mind numbing and not fun.

Nobody here likes a grind, i get that. I don't like it either.
But doesn't the ammount a free player "has" to grind depends on how much more powerful the paying players would get?
Is it absolutely mandatory that the power level of paid items is insanely godlike for them to want to buy them?
Maybe if done carefully, buying power could be worth it to those players who have the income, but it wouldn't squash free players' fondness for the game, while keeping the game as profitable as possible for the company.

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 10:01 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

I was going to put this in my last post (I'm a slow typer, sry).

First of all, i'm aware you intend to support the creators of a game if they deserve it.
Now say you'd pay a subscription and everyone would be on equal ground.
What about those people who don't have enough disposable income to pay a subscription but they want to try it out, they can't play at all?
What if they don't mind being underpowered as long as they get to play?
Seems to me you're using the "equal ground" argument from the wrong perspective.

If i really liked a game but didn't have much money to spend on it, i'd rather play as a grunt and buy an ocasional hat to support the game than not play at all.

Nobody here likes a grind, i get that. I don't like it either.
But doesn't the ammount a free player "has" to grind depends on how much more powerful the paying players would get?
Is it absolutely mandatory that the power level of paid items is insanely godlike for them to want to buy them?
Maybe if done carefully, buying power could be worth it to those players who have the income, but it wouldn't squash free players' fondness for the game, while keeping the game as profitable as possible for the company.

The microtransaction game is this: you make your gaming experience enjoyable to start with, but as people progress, unless they pay you, their experience slowly deteriorates into a mindnumbing experience where its next to impossible to get anything done without paying extra for it. That is where they want to go, and that is where it has been stated they want to go for a long time now. It isn't a matter of being reasonable, its a matter of, 'How terrible of an experience will people tolerate before they quit or pay up?'

That is the problem, because that is where gaming stagnates and becomes unsustainable.

Xyntech · 2012-06-04, 10:03 PM

Extremists are so well known for their rationality...

These threads are such jokes. Some good points wrapped up in so many layers of pomp and bluster and leaping to conclusions.

If you have any interest in getting things changed for the better, you'd look for solutions that achieved what the devs need out of the game while being acceptable to your own gaming sensibilities. Instead you seem interested in drawing as much attention to yourself as possible and calling Higby out like some sort of grade school grudge match.

On the other hand, if you simply see Planetside 2 as impossibly flawed and doomed to fail, yet enjoy making these threads instead of just ignoring the project as a disappointment, then you are one of the very few people who could legitimately be considered a bittervet.

I do have a hard time pegging which you are, concerned fan or one of those rare actual bittervets, but either way your approach seems futile and counter productive. At least until beta comes where you can actually back up some of your extremist points with data, and others can back up counter points on changes that actually turn out not to be so bad. Not that I think you'll necessarily listen to those fact based counter points, but at least they could legitimately be made at that time.

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Extremists are so well known for their rationality...

I do have a hard time pegging which you are, concerned fan or one of those rare actual bittervets

Call me both and its fair while being accurate. I'm about as practical as you can get, I rather care for the end objective more than the means of getting there in just about anything. I also hate stagnation and greed, because they ruin anything good they touch.

Dagron · 2012-06-04, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

its a matter of, 'How terrible of an experience will people tolerate before they quit or pay up?'

Like you i'm somewhat cynical, some bad experiences made me that way. But i hate that, so i try to have some faith.
Change doesn't occur overnight, but maybe some day companies will start trying to profit over their games on the long run instead of burning the community over a few years, which gives them bad reputations and slows down future sales.

But i'm rambling... i guess it's like Xyntech said, this topic is hardly constructive right now and we might aswell put it on hold until we know more.

CTheRain · 2012-06-04, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

So does anyone know how much resource/XP boosts will cost, and more importantly, how fast resources will drain (i.e. how expensive vehicles etc. are)?

If this balance doesn't grow completely out of proportion, I could accept it. I paid for Planetside for at least 30 months. I then paid for WoW for even longer. I'm not a cheapskate (even though I'm Dutch), I just don't want to see a complete travesty where one empire is continuously pushed into a corner because they attract cheapskates (it will be TR, just to be clear).

It will be the one reddit is on.

Xyntech · 2012-06-04, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by p0intman

The microtransaction game is this: you make your gaming experience enjoyable to start with, but as people progress, unless they pay you, their experience slowly deteriorates into a mindnumbing experience where its next to impossible to get anything done without paying extra for it. That is where they want to go, and that is where it has been stated they want to go for a long time now. It isn't a matter of being reasonable, its a matter of, 'How terrible of an experience will people tolerate before they quit or pay up?'

We know that F2P has been a successful business model for many games. Some clearly P2W, others where we would disagree on the definition. The point being, it is a successful way to make money.

Now in those games, the number of players who pay most of the money are a relatively small percentage, while many players pay nothing at all. These free players are willing to put up with what ever restrictions are placed on them to play the game for free. Other players pay money and get to do things like level up with less grind.

In the end, it ends up being like having a subscription cost, except that players have the option of not paying it. It's like if the reservists in the first Planetside were allowed to level beyond their low BR cap, but it would take 10x as long per level.

So as long as players aren't able to purchase exclusive cash shop guns, or abuse resource boosters to spam grenades, it's really not that big a deal. The game gets more players (players = content) and the game gets paid for. Players who want to can pay a subscription (or just spend the money on things like xp boosters), while the free players can still gain access to all of the same things eventually.

It's an FPS where levels and sidegrades don't make a drastic difference, especially in the huge multi-dozen squad fights. Having more players to shoot at is going to be a benefit to the game which will far outweigh the small power advantage that paying players may have, provided the devs don't go over the top and start selling extreme direct power. I think they understand that going to that extreme would kill the game more than it would help fund it though.

p0intman · 2012-06-04, 10:16 PM

Originally Posted by Xyntech

We know that F2P has been a successful business model for many games. Some clearly P2W, others where we would disagree on the definition. The point being, it is a successful way to make money.

Now in those games, the number of players who pay most of the money are a relatively small percentage, while many players pay nothing at all. These free players are willing to put up with what ever restrictions are placed on them to play the game for free. Other players pay money and get to do things like level up with less grind.

In the end, it ends up being like having a subscription cost, except that players have the option of not paying it. It's like if the reservists in the first Planetside were allowed to level beyond their low BR cap, but it would take 10x as long per level.

So as long as players aren't able to purchase exclusive cash shop guns, or abuse resource boosters to spam grenades, it's really not that big a deal. The game gets more players (players = content) and the game gets paid for. Players who want to can pay a subscription (or just spend the money on things like xp boosters), while the free players can still gain access to all of the same things eventually.

It's an FPS where levels and sidegrades don't make a drastic difference, especially in the huge multi-dozen squad fights. Having more players to shoot at is going to be a benefit to the game which will far outweigh the small power advantage that paying players may have, provided the devs don't go over the top and start selling extreme direct power. I think they understand that going to that extreme would kill the game more than it would help fund it though.

Now see, the only way its acceptable to me is if those sidegrades and such are destructable and consumable type items, where if I kill you with an implant in.. you lose its bonus, flat out, or if I kill your tank, that sidegrade is gone. with that, their effects would be as minimal as is possible. the regulating factor in that would be death frequency and actual cost to begin with.