140 replies to this topic

[Ecto Cooler]

Burke IV, on 22 October 2013 - 08:41 AM, said:

The prices should have never been so high in the first place, some of the MC mech prices are just rediculous. The whole F2P thing is starting to attract attention, maybe not just yet but there might just be sometihng of a crackdown, at least in some countrys. The whole selling pixels for money thing is really dodgy in my mind at least, people might say they are supporting the game but really they are nothing more than consumers (if you want to support a game then buy shares in the company making it)

Dont get me wrong i want MWO to stay around, but somebody misjudged something. The pricing combined with the wording of some of the announcements could really give somebody the wrong impression about PGI

Grow up, Peter Pan. I doubt that PGI are Nigerian Princes.

You think that F2P games and selling virtual pixels are going to bring on a "crackdown"? I'm sorry to hear the whole idea is "dodgy" to you. Consumers support companies and if you don't like what the company is selling, you don't buy it. It's that simple, but don't add a layer of deception to the business model because you don't like it.

Dreamslave, on 22 October 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

It's not loaded at all. prices have been to high for over a year. This exact poll has been done over a dozen times and each time people have voted to lower MC costs.

If you did a nationwide vote for lowering gas prices, I dare say that most people would vote that they are lowered. If you did a vote for lowering taxes, I dare say that most people would vote that those are lowered. People don't want to willingly pay more money for the same product / service if they have a choice.

The whole point isn't if you think the pricing model is fair, but if PGI is being profitable and funding their company and this project. If they're meeting budgets to expectations, the cost of MC is acceptable.

I keep reading how the prices are "too high" but according to what exactly? If enough people agreed with this, PGI wouldn't be selling enough MC to keep the game servers turned on.

You do bring up a good point about this poll being done dozens of times and yielding zero results in terms of lowering pricing. Stop wasting your time.

Edited by Ecto Cooler, 22 October 2013 - 10:42 AM.

[Primez]

Randalf Yorgen, on 22 October 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Also, once again, there is no grind, there is playing the game, and nothing else. No hunting and skinning to level your skill, no making bandages to level your First aid. No rep grind (yet).

Grinding is where you engage in repetitive tasks during a video game. Right now the only grinding avialable is to grind out some assault or conquest games to get cbills or exp/gxp. As it stands, lots of the community feel the grind to fun ratio is way off.

Ecto Cooler, on 22 October 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

If you did a nationwide vote for lowering gas prices, I dare say that most people would vote that they are lowered. If you did a vote for lowering taxes, I dare say that most people would vote that those are lowered. People don't want to willingly pay more money for the same product / service if they have a choice.

The whole point isn't if you think the pricing model is fair, but if PGI is being profitable and funding their company and this project. If they're meeting budgets to expectations, the cost of MC is acceptable.

That is true and I agree with the MC prices being where they are at the company needs to pay for themselves. But the cbills earnings needs to be increased atleast to there 8v8 earnings, since cbills are not directly related to cash or the real world they should have no problem changing them. Since in the past we know the earnings were higher we have a proven track record with PGI that the company wouldn't go under by having them higher.

Edited by Primez, 22 October 2013 - 11:21 AM.

[Rofl]

ITT: Socioeconomic majors.

The fact remains that PGI/IGP make games to make money. If their market analysts thought they could make more money by reducing the price, I guarantee you the price would be different. No amount of personal experiences and promises is going to trump market research.

Let's say it costs a company X dollars to design a camo. They look at past trends and determine that at Y sell cost, it will take Z purchases to make even. Therefore, any combination where (X < Y*Z)[1] is required for the product to succeed. You then look at all those past trends to find the best combination of Y and Z. You can't add into Z all the "we will promise to buy it if you make it cheaper!" The only things you can do are look at markets or take prepays. Obviously prepaying works for packages in MWO but wouldn't work so great for other things.

If you really want to blame something for the cost being what it is, blame the markets. Blame the people buying it. To purchase an item (MC bundles in this case) is basically saying "I find this price acceptable." They are voting with their wallet, and that's the only vote that really matters here.

[1] The neat thing about digital sales is there is almost no difference in selling 1 vs selling 100 in terms of delivery. You're not actually making 100 items. You made one, and are copying it for a fraction of a cent 100 times. All the cost is design and marketing. Once that is reached, it is basically pure profit.

[Burke IV]

Ecto Cooler, on 22 October 2013 - 10:40 AM, said:

Grow up, Peter Pan. I doubt that PGI are Nigerian Princes.

You think that F2P games and selling virtual pixels are going to bring on a "crackdown"? I'm sorry to hear the whole idea is "dodgy" to you. Consumers support companies and if you don't like what the company is selling, you don't buy it. It's that simple, but don't add a layer of deception to the business model because you don't like it.

Well deception is a strong word but psychology might be better. Specifically i was speaking about... wait for it! my little pony online got an evening news slot particularly how people might walk in blindly and feel cheated afterwards . Now i know its funny but they said trading standards was investigating. Does this mean the axe is going to fall tomorrow? unlikely but it means somebody has taken notice. Too much money gets funneled away from people in free to play games. Out of concern for the lifetime of this game i just think maybe a more delicate pricing strategy might be nice. We could start with colour packages. $5 and you get 10 colours. thats nice.

[WarHippy]

Roadbeer, on 20 October 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

F2P Micro-transaction: Selling you the content you want.
Subscription: Forcing you to buy all the content, whether you want it or not.

Which one is squeezing you again?

Both can be squeezing you. If the f2p option becomes too tedious, or too time consuming you start to have the effect where people are feeling forced to pay instead of them wanting to pay. I'm more or less fine with the price of MC, but I do think the c-bill earnings are pretty far off the mark. Current earning averages for c-bills are rather low, and puts in a rather sizable time sink for some people. Not everyone is going to agree where that line in the sand is, but we are seeing a lot more people unhappy with where things are than we did before the earnings reduction. Frankly, I'm not exactly looking forward to spending 40-50 hours grinding out the c-bills to buy one stock Dire Wolf should Clan mechs ever arrive.

[Blo0dGusHeR]

WarHippy, on 22 October 2013 - 11:52 AM, said:

Frankly, I'm not exactly looking forward to spending 40-50 hours grinding out the c-bills to buy one stock Dire Wolf should Clan mechs ever arrive.

Exactly

[Blo0dGusHeR]

MC is too high, for the price of the items in the game. The cbills are too low per game.

[Julian Tifflor]

Well besides everyones opinion about whats right or wrong...did you ever consider that people from other countries playing this game might have a smaller income even with a decent job?

And all this marketcrap...if the market would be fine everyone would be able to afford to buy what they need...ofc not what they want or wish to have as in luxury goods. The gap between poor and rich are wide open so is it ok for the better earning ones to say this pricing is ok and thus exclude the ones wanting to buy...but cannot buy cause some things like hero mechs are luxury for them?

i am not rich...but not poor still i would never buy a hero mech for money they want from me...while others with better earnings dont find it that much and want to support pgi which is fine.

but...will this game be like real life...creating a gap between poor and rich also? sure the advantages of being able to buy hero mechs isnt that big...i mean when it comes to the mechs being better...its rather the raise in CB earning with them are the bigger advantage and eases the grind some might feel.

no hero or champion mech that helps you lessen the grind (yes some feel like this even if they do enjoy the game...but sometimes wanting to have a new mech and its taking weeks is a just a bit far stretched and some leave to other games cause of it) should be priced this high...a single item that can get you a full price game is just wrong.

and well kids...so you want them to save all their pocket money for 1-2 months to be able to afford it and tell them ask mommy?
are we that mean and is this how we look on people who have less than some others? sure the world isnt equal...but it doesnt mean we should be ok with it in here that some can easily afford it while for others its a luxury good.

it saddens me how some defend their position so hard...ofc they want to make money...they are not making the game just for us to have fun...but this is greedy...as many companies are and ofc their aim is to rake in the most they can get. but...what are they without the players? nothing...

so is it ok to cater to the rich ones...the ones having the money to afford it and exlude the ones thinking twice about spending...or not being able to spend cause of this pricing method?

this is the question.

[DaZur]

Is the cost of MC (Or more accurately the value of MC to the dollar spent) too high?... In short "No". It's the agreeable value of the content / services one can purchase with it...

This issue is exacerbated by the misguided attempts to compare it to "other" F2P offerings and trying to draw apples to apples comparisons and contrasts. In short, with the exception of WOT, most of the other F2P games are well / long established, have deeper pools of users and primary source of revenue is derived from micro-transactions.

MW:O is for the moment a macro-transaction revenue model in that their primary revenue source is derived from mechs sales, premium time and mech bays... With the exception of paint, camo and cockpit buables... there is little in the way of "micro" transactions.

So in short... It's disingenuous to form the opinion that PGI is price gouging without understanding, for the moment, their revenue model does not contain enough micro-transaction "trinkets" to offset the costs of the macro-items and as such, their relative individual costs are inflated.

I've seen verbiage in this thread multiple times to the effect that PGI is abusing us with their prices... blah, blah, blah... dirty rotten capitalists for making more profit than necessary. Really? We're going to resort to socialist dogma?

The market sets the pricing... period. If consumers don't agree with the pricing they don't buy anything... If they don't buy anything, PGI fails to net expected revenue... Market reaction is to lower pricing until net sales meet expectations. Clearly this has not happened as pricing has largely gone unchanged.... so I hazard we, the consumers have agreed that while we'd love the prices to be lower (as the poll shows)... We have largely rationalized the costs and agreed to them.

C-bills-per-match is a different animal entirely...

[Blo0dGusHeR]

Quote

Is the cost of MC (Or more accurately the value of MC to the dollar spent) too high?... In short "No". It's the agreeable value of the content / services one can purchase with it...

For instance, a simple skin running 5$.

Quote

This issue is exacerbated by the misguided attempts to compare it to "other" F2P offerings and trying to draw apples to apples comparisons and contrasts. In short, with the exception of WOT, most of the other F2P games are well / long established, have deeper pools of users and primary source of revenue is derived from micro-transactions.

So it's okay for a skin to cost 5$?

Quote

MW:O is for the moment a macro-transaction revenue model in that their primary revenue source is derived from mechs sales, premium time and mech bays... With the exception of paint, camo and cockpit buables... there is little in the way of "micro" transactions.
So in short... It's disingenuous to form the opinion that PGI is price gouging without understanding, for the moment, their revenue model does not contain enough micro-transaction "trinkets" to offset the costs of the macro-items and as such, their relative individual costs are inflated.

They understand they are price blemishing, taking advantage of all the die hard mech fans.

Quote

I've seen verbiage in this thread multiple times to the effect that PGI is abusing us with their prices... blah, blah, blah... dirty rotten capitalists for making more profit than necessary. Really? We're going to resort to socialist dogma?

They are abusing the community, because they know die hards will still pay their prices even if they don't agree with them. Lower the prices so that new people don't get turned away from the community was the gist of my opening statements. (or increase cbills per match)

Quote

The market sets the pricing... period. If consumers don't agree with the pricing they don't buy anything... If they don't buy anything, PGI fails to net expected revenue... Market reaction is to lower pricing until net sales meet expectations. Clearly this has not happened as pricing has largely gone unchanged.... so I hazard we, the consumers have agreed that while we'd love the prices to be lower (as the poll shows)... We have largely rationalized the costs and agreed to them.

Hence why I made the polls: so that the market can see that the community doesn't agree with it. PGI needs to make the items cost less MC in-game, or lower the price of MC.

Quote

C-bills-per-match is a different animal entirely...

[DaZur]

Blo0dGusHeR, on 23 October 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

For instance, a simple skin running 5$.

Yes, considering the dearth of micro-transaction level "trinkets" skins would be the closes equivalent to one.

Blo0dGusHeR, on 23 October 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

So it's okay for a skin to cost 5$?

It's volume equivalence... If I only have two items in my store, the scarcity of salable items requires inflated pricing to support operational costs. So, while I agree $5 is hard to rationalize / accept... It's ultimately necessary to meet revenue expectations / meet operational costs.

Blo0dGusHeR, on 23 October 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

They understand they are price blemishing, taking advantage of all the die hard mech fans.

Supply and demand + markup strategy. As a "for profit" endeavor, PGI / IPG is desirous of netting as much profit as possible. Markup strategy dictates you never prices something below what you anticipate what the market will bear. Doing so robs one of potential profit and removes any wiggle-room for sales and or agreeable price-reduction.

This is not a socialist society where we only ask the price of what we think we need... We strive for maximum profit. Capitalism 101.

Blo0dGusHeR, on 23 October 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

They are abusing the community, because they know die hards will still pay their prices even if they don't agree with them. Lower the prices so that new people don't get turned away from the community was the gist of my opening statements. (or increase cbills per match)

Again... We the consumers have already spoken, thus the static pricing. This a beyond just "die-hards"... The community majority has bought into MW:O, evidenced by the wealth of Founders, Phoenix, heros and champion mechs on the battlefield and the number sporting the cornucopia of paints, camos and cockpit trinkets.

Blo0dGusHeR, on 23 October 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:

Hence why I made the polls: so that the market can see that the community doesn't agree with it. PGI needs to make the items cost less MC in-game, or lower the price of MC.

Honestly... The poll is useless and only shows what everyone already knows... Everyone would like cheaper MC... well "duh?" It's a baseless poll... anyone who says they would not like cheaper MC is being disingenuous. Of course we would all like cheaper MC, but that is not necessarily indicative of what the community considers a reasonable / equatable prices...

I think $300,000 to $500,000 for a Lamborghini is outrageous... I'm pretty sure most everyone would agree. That said, they (the car maker) obviously net enough people who are willing to pay these prices regardless of the general consensus and thus the market sets the reasonable / equatable price.

Equally, It's clear you do not agree with PGIs pricing... That said, there are enough people who choose to pay these prices and in doing so have what is reasonable / equatable price...

LOL! You might be more thankful of people like myself who can rationalize parting with our hard-earned dosh. It's our liquidity that keeps the MW:O furnace running after all!

Edited by DaZur, 23 October 2013 - 02:31 PM.

[Ghogiel]

Blo0dGusHeR, on 19 October 2013 - 01:44 PM, said:

Bug fixes should be instant.....

I lol'd

Funniest thing I read all day.

[Ecto Cooler]

Julian Tifflor, on 23 October 2013 - 04:39 AM, said:

Well besides everyones opinion about whats right or wrong...did you ever consider that people from other countries playing this game might have a smaller income even with a decent job?

And all this marketcrap...if the market would be fine everyone would be able to afford to buy what they need...ofc not what they want or wish to have as in luxury goods. The gap between poor and rich are wide open so is it ok for the better earning ones to say this pricing is ok and thus exclude the ones wanting to buy...but cannot buy cause some things like hero mechs are luxury for them?

i am not rich...but not poor still i would never buy a hero mech for money they want from me...while others with better earnings dont find it that much and want to support pgi which is fine.

but...will this game be like real life...creating a gap between poor and rich also? sure the advantages of being able to buy hero mechs isnt that big...i mean when it comes to the mechs being better...its rather the raise in CB earning with them are the bigger advantage and eases the grind some might feel.

no hero or champion mech that helps you lessen the grind (yes some feel like this even if they do enjoy the game...but sometimes wanting to have a new mech and its taking weeks is a just a bit far stretched and some leave to other games cause of it) should be priced this high...a single item that can get you a full price game is just wrong.

and well kids...so you want them to save all their pocket money for 1-2 months to be able to afford it and tell them ask mommy?
are we that mean and is this how we look on people who have less than some others? sure the world isnt equal...but it doesnt mean we should be ok with it in here that some can easily afford it while for others its a luxury good.

it saddens me how some defend their position so hard...ofc they want to make money...they are not making the game just for us to have fun...but this is greedy...as many companies are and ofc their aim is to rake in the most they can get. but...what are they without the players? nothing...

so is it ok to cater to the rich ones...the ones having the money to afford it and exlude the ones thinking twice about spending...or not being able to spend cause of this pricing method?

this is the question.

What absolute dribble.

If you're "poor" in any definition of the word, you are not in any position to even look at purchasing online goods from MW:O. You think the prices should be lowered so that everyone can afford them? The problem isn't with people not being able to afford MW:O but whether they find value in the marketplace.

There is no gap between poor and rich in MW:O that holds any consequence. When people use arguments about income it's based on people being able to afford necessities like food, shelter and clothing... not giant virtual robot mechs.

Thanks for writing one of the most short-sighted and ignorant posts I've read on these forums in awhile.

[Blo0dGusHeR]

Ghogiel, on 23 October 2013 - 10:50 AM, said:

I lol'd

Funniest thing I read all day.

With the amount of money they have, they should be fully invested in fixing little problems.

[Ghogiel]

Blo0dGusHeR, on 23 October 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

With the amount of money they have, they should be fully invested in fixing little problems.

Yeah they should buy that instant bug fixer robot with all that founders money.

[Sandpit]

Blo0dGusHeR, on 23 October 2013 - 02:25 PM, said:

With the amount of money they have, they should be fully invested in fixing little problems.

Eh, the minor bugs are just that. I'd rather they invest their time and energy into UI2.0 and CW at this point. The game is arelady floundering when it comes to most reviews for this very reason.

[Floowid]

RogueLdr, on 20 October 2013 - 08:03 AM, said:

What i fail to understand is why new companies don't simply look at what the competition does and see what works.

Look at steam for example. It could be argued that it's probably one of the best distrubution systems in existence. Why, because they give you value.

A game will sit and languish with low sales until steam puts it on sale and suddenly everyone and their mother buys it and plays it.

I know many, many people (myself included) that will buy a game that we only have passing interest in if it goes on sale. We're not willing to buy it at full price, but for 50% off... hell why not.

There are many times that i'd love to buy some MC to play with but it's just not worth it. You can easily drop $50 on MC and walk away with one item, two if your lucky, that's just insane, you can buy a brand new game for that.

If they were to put MC on sale for 50% off i'd buy it instantly, but yet i refuse to spend a dime more at the current price structure, and lots of people feel the same way.

Do the math PGI, 100 people buying MC at full price or 500 buying it at half off...
They would make more money by lowering the prices. It's not like there's a production cost that you have to cover, the more you move the better you are.

^^ This exactly. I spent $50 on MC once. I bought some mechbays, some custom colors, a hero mech (Yen Lo Wang which I LOVE). I like the game enough that $50 does not seem too much to pay for it. I felt OK supporting a game financially that I like. But what I actually got with $50 worth of MC did not go far. I will not buy more MC at the current exchange rate. I would buy $50 worth in a heartbeat if it was half off ($25 for the same amount) or went twice as far. I know there are lots of people who feel the way I do. I'm not poor, I have disposable income, but I also have a family, mortgage, cars, food, insurance etc. etc. I have learned discretionary spending. I look for a certain value in the things I spend my money on. Right now I don't feel like MC is a good value, no matter how much I want a Heavy Metal.

[Sandpit]

Floowid, on 24 October 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

^^ This exactly. I spent $50 on MC once. I bought some mechbays, some custom colors, a hero mech (Yen Lo Wang which I LOVE). I like the game enough that $50 does not seem too much to pay for it. I felt OK supporting a game financially that I like. But what I actually got with $50 worth of MC did not go far. I will not buy more MC at the current exchange rate. I would buy $50 worth in a heartbeat if it was half off ($25 for the same amount) or went twice as far. I know there are lots of people who feel the way I do. I'm not poor, I have disposable income, but I also have a family, mortgage, cars, food, insurance etc. etc. I have learned discretionary spending. I look for a certain value in the things I spend my money on. Right now I don't feel like MC is a good value, no matter how much I want a Heavy Metal.

Take your sensical and articulate post elsewhere! This is a place of trolls, flames, and war! lol Unfortunately people who are ok with the prices fail to see the other side of it. They want to see it as "it's free so you're not required to pay anything" instead of as hey if they would lower their prices on a few things here and there a bit there's a larger customer base willing to spend money

[DaZur]

Sandpit, on 24 October 2013 - 09:39 AM, said:

Take your sensical and articulate post elsewhere! This is a place of trolls, flames, and war! lol Unfortunately people who are ok with the prices fail to see the other side of it. They want to see it as "it's free so you're not required to pay anything" instead of as hey if they would lower their prices on a few things here and there a bit there's a larger customer base willing to spend money

That's a little disingenuous characterization of people who are "okay" with current prices...

I don't think anyone participating in this discussion have said emphatically that they would not appreciate lower prices, sales etc... They have, myself included, attempted to deflect the notion that we are ignorant enablers for electing to accept the prices by continuing to make purchases, thus contributing to the stagnant price-point.

I recall a study I read somewhere (I'll return and post the link when I re-discover it) that attempted to ascertain if there was a direct correlation between increased sales and price reduction secondary to consumer complaints...

They concluded that while discounts did infact spur increased net sales... the percentage of the sales did not in fact sway a large percentage of those who complained about the prices in the first place!

In short... Even with reduced pricing, people who objected to the prices still were unable to rationalize the value and still did not contribute in any meaningful way to the percentage of increased net sales.

Reality is regardless of what PGI elects to do with their pricing... There will always be a segment that doesn't think it's enough.

[Burke IV]

Floowid, on 24 October 2013 - 09:16 AM, said:

^^ This exactly. I spent $50 on MC once. I bought some mechbays, some custom colors, a hero mech (Yen Lo Wang which I LOVE). I like the game enough that $50 does not seem too much to pay for it. I felt OK supporting a game financially that I like. But what I actually got with $50 worth of MC did not go far. I will not buy more MC at the current exchange rate. I would buy $50 worth in a heartbeat if it was half off ($25 for the same amount) or went twice as far. I know there are lots of people who feel the way I do. I'm not poor, I have disposable income, but I also have a family, mortgage, cars, food, insurance etc. etc. I have learned discretionary spending. I look for a certain value in the things I spend my money on. Right now I don't feel like MC is a good value, no matter how much I want a Heavy Metal.

and the worst bit is you want to spend your money, you want those items but you know if you pay up you are only encouraging the current model so you go without and suffer that hit to you enjoyment of the game. This is the pointer that value is out of balance.