117 replies to this topic

[Phaid Knott]

Like WoT MWO is going to be a FTP/Hybrid MMO funded by microtransactions.

But WoT is suffering in its fanbase after the advent of "Premium Tanks". These Tanks should confer a slight advantage, but issues have arisen. The Cost of these Tanks forms the prime funding to keep WoT going, so are needed. However once someone has paid cash for one of these things, then the playerbase gets annoyed when these are tweaked for game balance.

Unlike a simple subscription model, when a player "buys" one of these tanks they feel a certain sense of entitlement. "I paid good money for this, so I better get my monies worth Devs". And the "free" players feel like they are merely there to provide target practice for the players who paid for their tanks. The advent of Premium tanks has split the community down the middle and to an extent many players have left (from both sides). A subscription model never seemed to do this to the players, you paid to just access the game (a change in mindset perhaps)

I do hope the Devs here don't take this route, if they do then alligations of it being a PTW model will arise and again the community will suffer.

I do like the idea of micro transactions, I'd like to see paid models of mechs appear and for the game to be funded. However any "slight advantage" offered would be to the detrement of the game.

From what I've seen the Devs said they have no plans to go down this route, but then again the Devs of WoT made similar statements while the game was in Beta. I quite like the community here (it was a bit like the comminty for WoT in Beta), and I'd hate to see similar things happen. Just a bit jaded but previous experiences I guess. But I also like the Subscription model personally as this gives the Devs more free reign to make changes...but then I guess thats just me (perhaps a 5 dollar subscription model would be better than offering certain things in the microtransaction store).

Edited by Phaid Knott, 16 June 2012 - 10:05 AM.

[Knusern]

Will it matter if certain chassies cost money? Im guessing that some of the unseens will apear as cash only,
But a 60 ton catapult and a 60 ton Rifleman will still use the same arnour and weapon systems
It will be more like buying a skin (with a slightly altered loadout) than a killer-for-cash.

As long a as bought mechs functions by the same rules i see no problem with this.

[Aegic]

I wish the tanks were not freaking 50 bucks. Its so retarded.

[Master Cerberus]

Phaid Knott, on 16 June 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

Like WoT MWO is going to be a FTP/Hybrid MMO funded by microtransactions.

But WoT is suffering in its fanbase after the advent of "Premium Tanks". These Tanks should confer a slight advantage, but issues have arisen. The Cost of these Tanks forms the prime funding to keep WoT going, so are needed. However once someone has paid cash for one of these things, then the playerbase gets annoyed when these are tweaked for game balance.

Unlike a simple subscription model, when a player "buys" one of these tanks they feel a certain sense of entitlement. "I paid good money for this, so I better get my monies worth Devs". And the "free" players feel like they are merely there to provide target practice for the players who paid for their tanks. The advent of Premium tanks has split the community down the middle and to an extent many players have left (from both sides). A subscription model never seemed to do this to the players, you paid to just access the game (a change in mindset perhaps)

I do hope the Devs here don't take this route, if they do then alligations of it being a PTW model will arise and again the community will suffer.

I do like the idea of micro transactions, I'd like to see paid models of mechs appear and for the game to be funded. However any "slight advantage" offered would be to the detrement of the game.

From what I've seen the Devs said they have no plans to go down this route, but then again the Devs of WoT made similar statements while the game was in Beta. I quite like the community here (it was a bit like the comminty for WoT in Beta), and I'd hate to see similar things happen. Just a bit jaded but previous experiences I guess. But I also like the Subscription model personally as this gives the Devs more free reign to make changes...but then I guess thats just me (perhaps a 5 dollar subscription model would be better than offering certain things in the microtransaction store).

Or you know, they could have done the smart thing like Guild Wars and Guild Wars 2 with a one time payment of approximately what a regular game would cost on the market to support the development and etc. It has only worked sucessfully for both titles and you dont see infighting in their communities. However, if they do tend to go through with the microtransaction route the changes better be only cosmetic, otherwise this will be one of those games that really lets me down on my expectations of it. There is nothing worse than PTW.

[RogueFox]

A combat sim game I use to enjoy called Navy Field had ships you could buy that were superior in every way for about $5 or $6. It didnt kill that game at all.

It wouldnt surprise me at all that in the future we will be able to buy clan OmniMechs

[Pax Noctis]

Things to learn from WoT:

1) Things that are technically in my line of sight but invisible are annoying. Things are that technically in my line of sight, invisible, and can see and shoot me are really bloody annoying.

2) Microtransactions start with the word 'micro' for a reason. Riot pricing model == good. WoT pricing model == not good. Even though I'd probably pay 50 bucks for some awesome, premium mech (just like I did for the Lowe), I'm going to dislike you for it.

3) "Gold" ammo, weapons and armor are a bad idea.

4) Make sure the team dedicated to your match-making algorithm consists of more than a somewhat clever chimpanzee named Carl. Don't let people buy good matchmaking.

[CCC Dober]

Nobody that I knew from Closed Beta saw what was coming when the first premium tanks came with the first gold deals. What basically happened was that those who bought the Mutant6 (US Tier8 Heavy) could jump straight into a tank that was frontally immune to most tanks up to tier7 and basically made more cash and exp than anything else. Since it came piggyback with a gold deal and a small mountain of gold they could skip a lot of tanks with free exp and get straight to the top. It was so unreal, the devs basically let that happen over and over again with every other Tier8 premium tank they released. And these tanks, make no mistake, gave new players an edge, especially in the beginning and that went totally against what we had been told. They basically changed the rules of the game upon its release. It was so damn ugly ...

The F2P concept of WoT died that day.

Edited by CCC Dober, 16 June 2012 - 10:34 AM.

[Morang]

Never ever was upset about any premiums in WoT. I may troll owners of certain premiums a little (mainly M6A2E1 when it was numerous after sales - it looks so funny), but it's always with a good heart and I have premiums too. I also may troll the team when I ride a premium, stating that I'm kid and my papa bought me that tank (instead of me having to grind to open something cool), so what button should I press to shoot?

But WoT premiums are not better than their non-premium counterparts. I'd prefer riding my non-premium German tier 8 heavy Tiger II to my premium German tier 8 heavy Lowe anytime (and it's better to see underarmored Lowe in my sights, I can just shoot square in the hull front and not aim in lower front plate because upper glacis is impenetrable). Skoda T-25 have terrible turret traverse and gun accuracy (which is unlike all germans. I had to change my tactics to more "soviet" to better suite T-25) and T-15 is undergunned. They are not ubers, just for making money. I just feel grinding better that way, with permanent premium tanks than with time-limited premium account.

[IRaigothI]

They need to go the way League of Legends did and only sell boosts and cosmetic things for money, not actual power.
Give people a chance to either pay real money, or in game money for mechs as well, dont make any mech chassis's IRL money only.

That was always one thing I hated about some games, they would sell some things for only real money, instead of making it available to both free players as well as paid players.

Tl;Dr
Make everything accessible to everyone, none of this "Premium, cash only" stuff.

[Heldar1]

Morang, on 16 June 2012 - 10:34 AM, said:

But WoT premiums are not better than their non-premium counterparts. I'd prefer riding my non-premium German tier 8 heavy Tiger II to my premium German tier 8 heavy Lowe anytime (and it's better to see underarmored Lowe in my sights, I can just shoot square in the hull front and not aim in lower front plate because upper glacis is impenetrable). Skoda T-25 have terrible turret traverse and gun accuracy (which is unlike all germans. I had to change my tactics to more "soviet" to better suite T-25) and T-15 is undergunned. They are not ubers, just for making money. I just feel grinding better that way, with permanent premium tanks than with time-limited premium account.

ONLY true for all premiums other than the American line. The T34 completely owns the T32 IMO. (at least the T34 can pen tier 9s and 10s, unlike the T32 unless theres an act of god)

[CCC Dober]

Thankfully we don't have tiered vehicles and none of that "I'm bigger than you because I paid and you didn't".
More like, "Check ma chrome bra!"

[RogueFox]

xXKrogothXx, on 16 June 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Tl;Dr
Make everything accessible to everyone, none of this "Premium, cash only" stuff.

That isnt gonna happen, the Devs seem to be a very nice group but they do want to make some money off their work, expect some premium "stuff".

[Sadnebula]

OP, this post is not quite accurate. premium tanks do not offer any advantage
except credits. They are icing on the cake but are not where Wargaming makes their money.

The only split is the fact the newer players buy tier XIII tanks and do not play them well, that and the fact that many f2p players resent anyone who spent money for a tank.

Wargaming makes their money on the grind in game. They charge high prices
for ammo and repairs, an issue that grows, higher tiers equal reduced profit. To get around this, you can play lower tiers. buy a premium accout, which increases proft and xp by 50%, or buy a premium tank that makes more credits per match with a lower repair cost, and generates free xp, cutting down on the grind. Any way you chose, they have repeatedly changed ammo and repair costs to keep players grinding and buying.

Their other hook is insane amounts of xp needed to unlock modules at higher tiers. This is designed to once again increase gold sales, as gold can be used to convert free xp to usable xp. You will spend a good amount of cash on this game if you are not careful. 90% of content added in the last year is designed to encourage players to grind, ie, new tanks. one game mode in a game 2 years old, 2 spin off games using the same engine, yet the majority of updates seem to include new platforms to grind, which makes them money for their other projects.

It is not a pay to win game, it is a pay to get out of the grind game. Most see the grind as top tier control, or all the 0 damage hits as poor aim. What you are seeing is a clever business model based on grind and deception.

Edited by Sadnebula, 16 June 2012 - 10:59 AM.

[Pax Noctis]

RogueFox, on 16 June 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

That isnt gonna happen, the Devs seem to be a very nice group but they do want to make some money off their work, expect some premium "stuff".

Yeah, that Riot company sure hasn't made any money at all off that League of Legends game where everything is accessible to everyone except cosmetics.

Also, from some other guy:

Quote

OP, this post is not quite accurate. premium tanks do not offer any advantage except credits.

You forgot preferential matchmaking letting them almost always be the bully instead of the redshirt tank that can't damage anything on the field. I know that's the main reason I play my premiums. They might as well say, "Want to be guaranteed a balanced match where you can actually make a difference? Click here to give us money."

Edited by Pax Noctis, 16 June 2012 - 10:58 AM.

[Atomfire]

My thoughts on this are that the only enhancing stuff for real money should be exp and c-bill boosters. There should be no pay2win options.

[Rhapsode]

I work in the F2P industry and specialize in game monetization and microtransactions. I have to say that the I agree and disagree with you.

WoT has a problem with premium tanks but it's not what you think. The issue with premium tanks is primarily how they function and, secondarily, how strong they are. Wargaming set up a system where 1 x $35 (at the release of the first T8 premium tanks) dollar payment would allow a player to immediately participate in the highest level of tank battles and also build directly toward T10 tanks without the same time investment as other players (all free exp). They didn't just sell convenience, they sold dominance and strength.

An old adage in the F2P industry is that you don't sell power, this is generally a good strategy but not always practical or applicable. If you sell power, as happens in WoT, it must be done carefully so as not to split the community and also not damage the life span of your game (either because of a declining player base or declining spending). You don't want some players complaining about "Wallet Warriors" because that means you have divided your community.

WoT could have sold premium tanks without engendering the negative feelings between spenders and non-spenders but they chose not to go that route.

As for the subscription model, I don't like games that try to go with a hybrid, both a subscription service and micro-transactions. Games can be very profitable using only micro-transactions (and without becoming blatantly pay to win in such a way that engenders bitterness from low spenders and non spenders) and can have very long lives. There are some poorly made F2P mmos out there that are in their 6th year of life and still going strong. If those bad games can do it, a well-made, supported, and thoughtfully designed mmo such as MWO should be able to last a very long time with a strong player base and solid revenue.

With MWO, PGI and IGP have an opportunity to create solid and sustainable monetization systems that fund a long and healthy game while not chasing away their community or discouraging players with smaller wallets. The point of a F2P game is that everyone can play. All spenders, big and small, need the free players in the game to ensure the best gaming experience. That gaming experience will keep everyone around and playing and keep PGI and IGP making new content updates and improvements. A subscription model shuts out everyone who won't pay before playing. That's a bad idea in a pvp game.

Edited by Rhapsode, 16 June 2012 - 11:03 AM.

[Stray Ion]

Though I never played WoT, I have played Global Agenda. All the premium account got you there was a boost to your XP and credits for every match and a daily allotment of credits and agenda points. If you were in an agency that placed in AvA you could get agenda points and everything else you could grind for. Really everything could be obtained if you never payed a cent if you wanted to spend the time (except in game mail and the ability to form an agency), It can be done.

[IRaigothI]

RogueFox, on 16 June 2012 - 10:52 AM, said:

That isnt gonna happen, the Devs seem to be a very nice group but they do want to make some money off their work, expect some premium "stuff".

Pax Noctis, on 16 June 2012 - 10:55 AM, said:

Yeah, that Riot company sure hasn't made any money at all off that League of Legends game where everything is accessible to everyone except cosmetics.

Basically my thoughts.

[HoldinJohnson]

Pax Noctis, on 16 June 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Things to learn from WoT:

1) Things that are technically in my line of sight but invisible are annoying. Things are that technically in my line of sight, invisible, and can see and shoot me are really bloody annoying.

2) Microtransactions start with the word 'micro' for a reason. Riot pricing model == good. WoT pricing model == not good. Even though I'd probably pay 50 bucks for some awesome, premium mech (just like I did for the Lowe), I'm going to dislike you for it.

3) "Gold" ammo, weapons and armor are a bad idea.

4) Make sure the team dedicated to your match-making algorithm consists of more than a somewhat clever chimpanzee named Carl. Don't let people buy good matchmaking.

I agree with all of these points.

I would also like to not see a bias against certain player groups. If you've played WoT long enough, then you'll know that the devs like the Russian players a lot more. Deny it if you must, but it is a fact that the North American players get different specials, sales, bonus codes, and premium vehicles. When the Russian player-base asks for something, the devs quickly include it in the next patch. However (and you'll know about this if you've read the last dev Q&A) , when the North America players ask for a few things, most of which would make the game 10000000X better, the devs say that "We're not doing that" or "We're not planning to include that at this time."

In MWO's case, I don't want to see the devs alienate the European players and others around the world. Not saying that they will, since I have seen the devs make a ton of effort to appease the non-North America players, but it is still possible.

[Beazle]

I think a lot of the problems i see expressed about WoT aren't going to be an issue with MWO for the simply reason that there are no "Tiers" in Battletech. You will never face an issue where you out maneuver, out gun, and just plain out play another player only to have your shots "Ding" off the other players heavier armor.

This is because in BT mechs all have access to the same weapons. Lights can mount weapons just as big as Heavies, just not as many of them. There is also no "penetration" mechanic, armor is ablative in nature. If you keep pinging away with the smallest gun you can get, you'll kill him eventually, without having to aim for "weak spots", although shooting them in the back is generally quicker.