141 replies to this topic

[Riptor]

DaZur, on 11 March 2014 - 01:57 PM, said:

Wow... a strawman and a red herring all in the same paragraph... nice.

There's a big difference between a corporation skimping on safety to skim the bottom line and a company establishing multiple parallel profit vehicles to maximize revenue.

Difference is one is unconscionable when you place profit above safety. The other only become an irritation when some social-entitlement Kool-Aid drinker determines that the companies net profits is stifling their freedom...

Social entitlement kool aid drinker.. i like it.. kinda like the corporation kool aid drinker that believes any tall tale they are told from the suits.. like Elder scrolls online NEEDING a monthly subscription... and a cash shop... and a 60 dollar upfront buy price... or that private matches somehow cause more traffic and costs then normal matches.. despite the fact that theres no hightened traffic.. 24 people playing a match is still only 24 people playing a match.. private or not.

But what can i say.. i learned from the best here on the board! You dont hang around these forums without picking up the rediculus from the black and the white crowd.

Ofcourse its completly different, but can be excused by using your logic all the same, after all you didnt define where that silly excuse ends to begin with. What i wanted to show with this outragous example is that companies should not be tolerated to do whatever they well please just "because they are a company and companies need to make money!"

They also have to provide incentives for buying their products, and at a reasonable price at that. What we see here is that they monetize functionality that is free in other comparable products, to unreasonable prizes.. and they are not above lowering the value of the product you have bought (as was shown by the earnings nerf last year that lowered the value of premium time)

They want my money, they better stop screwing around and hold game features ransom. They want to make money? Give me incentives to spend money on their game.. not lock content behind paywalls. Make the game fun and the revenue will come in automatically.. or how come TF2 makes money hand over fist without locking ANY content behind paywalls?

The relationship between customer and company should be one of mutual benefit, i get fun and they get money. But for the longest time now it looks like PGI doesnt care about providing the fun and worries more about how they can empty my wallet.. in short, i feel neither apreciated as a customer nor do i feel any incentive of doing more business with them. Wich is sad since i am more then willing to spend some cash every month or two for a fun product.

So why am i still here hoping against all reason that they will get the idea? Because they pretty much hold one of my most beloved IPs ransom thats why. There wont be any other Mechwarrior game aslong as MWO is around.. so thats what I and everyone else that feels that way have to work with. Ofcourse alot of people have simply given up on the game entirely and it shows.

Edited by Riptor, 12 March 2014 - 03:35 AM.

[DaZur]

Riptor, on 12 March 2014 - 03:32 AM, said:

It's easy to come to the conclusion that PGI is going out of its way to pick the pocket of the player and hold key assets ransom... They've been effectively making up their pricing policy as they've moved along.

That said, it's disingenuous for anyone to accuse them of not honoring the premise of "free-to-play"... The core game, all the standard mech variants and everything else... is accessible to the "non-paying" player if they have the time and the inclination. Is it tedious?... Yup. Does it force a player to make concessions that paying players don't?... Yup. Again... fundamental mechanics of a F2P model and should be expected.

Here's the issue... Aside from the Clan packs and the recent issue regarding premium launch modules... A large contingency of this player base has reluctantly agreed to their adhoc freemium offerings. This is the essence of a consumer driven price model. "We" the consumers define the price-model by what we agree to purchase and at what price.

There's a reason Starbucks gets away with selling a 8-dollar cup of coffee... There's consumers willing to pay for it.

Should a company not endeavor to net profit? Absolutely not... If they did they would be negligent to the company, it's employees and and stakeholders.

We can wax poetically all day about whether PGI / IGP is making "enough profit" and no one is going to agree. The reality is, we've reluctantly agreed to their terms and I can only assume since they've not adjusted anything down... They are still hitting their margins.

That said, the original Clan packages (in specific the Golds) and the more recent premium drop module are examples where the player base pushed back... The Clan stuff got re-adjusted and the drop module is apparently under re-consideration.

Edited by DaZur, 12 March 2014 - 06:09 AM.

[Charons Little Helper]

Riptor - I have the perfect response for you towards PGI - and towards any other company that you think is charging too much.

Don't buy it.

That's it.

That's kind of the basis of a free market.

They're free to sell whatever they want at whatever price they want to.

You're free to decide whether or not you buy it.

End.

[Lukoi Banacek]

He is also free to complain vehemently regarding their pricing model in hopes of changing opinion on its value so that others stop buying, so the company lowers the price points to meet market demand.

[Charons Little Helper]

Lukoi, on 12 March 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

He is also free to complain vehemently regarding their pricing model in hopes of changing opinion on its value so that others stop buying, so the company lowers the price points to meet market demand.

Lol - fair enough. (though by that logic - I'm free to rip on him for it. And you're free to call me on that... )

[Lukoi Banacek]

Charons Little Helper, on 12 March 2014 - 06:24 AM, said:

Lol - fair enough. (though by that logic - I'm free to rip on him for it. And you're free to call me on that... )

Absolutely and absolutely.....frankly its a wonder we can keep any conversations on topic around here lol.

[DaZur]

Lukoi, on 12 March 2014 - 06:19 AM, said:

He is also free to complain vehemently regarding their pricing model in hopes of changing opinion on its value so that others stop buying, so the company lowers the price points to meet market demand.

The market demand or his personal view of it?

Okay...

Let's do a little roll playing: To use my previous Starbucks reference... I think it's absolutely ridiculous anyone is willing to pay what they do for a Starbucks coffee. I'm well within my right to object to their pricing and I'm well within my right to share my view with other patrons.

Where I would cross the line is when I inform another patron they are fools for buying their coffee and question their judgment skills and accuse them of being corporate shills for agreeing to Starbucks terms.

That's largely the tone many (not necessarily Riptor in specific) have inferred in this thread... And this is what I object to.

If you think you can sway the majority who has largely complied with PGIs pricing... good luck. That said, don't give me dirty looks when I buy that Hero mech.

Edited by DaZur, 12 March 2014 - 07:01 AM.

[Charons Little Helper]

DaZur, on 12 March 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

If you think you can sway the majority who has largely complied with PGIs pricing... good luck. That said, don't give me dirty looks when I buy that Hero mech.

Frankly - I don't plan to put any more $ into this game - except perhaps enough MC for mechbays when I run out.

However - I like it when others buy hero mechs.

I like it when they buy those silly gold clan mechs.

Because it means that this game will keep going... at someone else's expense.

[DaZur]

Charons Little Helper, on 12 March 2014 - 06:49 AM, said:

Frankly - I don't plan to put any more $ into this game - except perhaps enough MC for mechbays when I run out.

However - I like it when others buy hero mechs.

I like it when they buy those silly gold clan mechs.

Because it means that this game will keep going... at someone else's expense.

And that good sir.... Is the F2P model "working as intended".

[Lukoi Banacek]

DaZur, on 12 March 2014 - 06:44 AM, said:

If you think you can sway the majority who has largely complied with PGIs pricing... good luck. That said, don't give me dirty looks when I buy that Hero mech.

Or what?

You'll either 1) do nothing or 2) get into a pissing match when someone accuses you of being a fool for overpaying. Guess what, that's life.

I'm not arguing that anyone needs to be a jerk about their "counter-marketing" of a product if they feel passionate about it and agree that it's poor form, but again....so what? As life teaches us routinely, there are repercussions for one's comments and actions. If you take it too far, perhaps you get shunned by society. Or ignored for being "over the top" but that's just how it goes. Doesn't mean they cannot routinely an aggressively promote their counter-marketing agenda.

Voting with your wallet is the best way to get PGI to notice...but if not enough people vote against their price points, counter-marketing can and does work and it's employed quite a bit in the Western world.

Does anyone honestly think that the horrible scores PGI garnered at metacritic did not influence some measure of people to not even bother trying the game? It's word of mouth (via the internet) that works. It impacts the bottom line of PGI/IGP. Advertising plays both ways.

Do I personally think its worth the time and energy to come to the game's forums and rant and rave? No. But it *might* be worth the time and energy to have a reasonable discussion on the prices to many, and reasonable discussion is something many paying customers pay attention to (myself included).

I don't agree with PGI's price points for their ingame services right now (well some at any rate). I vote with my wallet and my commentary. There are quite a few people who's only reply here seems to be "you can vote with your wallet, but shutup otherwise." I don't think that's particularly reasonable either. So, I'll continue to debate the merits, point out the "price-points" I feel are too high or not reasonable for the market, point out counter-point options as I see fit, just as others do and the world will keep spinning.

Maybe I won't cross your particular line by calling you a fool for paying Starbuck's prices, but I'll gladly you alert you to quality options (were you in my neighborhood) to get an as good/better cup of coffee at a better price so hopefully you spend there instead of at Starbucks.

For every shrill voice here that's anti-PGI for their pricing model, there's an equally shrill voice complaining that "voting with our wallets" is the only "respectful" way of carrying on the debate, which is utter non-truth.

[DaZur]

Lukoi, on 12 March 2014 - 09:30 AM, said:

Or what?

LOL! I was not giving any ultimatums, I was simply inferring that while it's your right to object to MW:O's price-points... I'm equally within my rights to continue to placate them.

Here's the reality... there is not one person in this player base that would not like to see lower price points. That said, it's a non sequitur... Just because everyone would like to see lower prices does not necessarily mean everyone believes the prices are grossly out of line with same / similar...

To that end, apparently there is an appreciable amount of players (like myself) who place a premium on time that supersedes denying ourselves that benefit or we would have seen PGI making stronger pricing adjustments as a result of lackluster sales.

​I fully support anyone's efforts to exercise their free-market rights... And while I agree the "shouting down" commentary is not necessary... It rings with a little truth. We vote with our wallets... period.

Campaigning for the player-base to refrain from opening their wallets in an effort to force something that should naturally happen if the sales metrics warrant it is a little Draconian... If PGI's price-point is so off-kilter should it not self correct without any external campaigning to force the mechanic?

Edited by DaZur, 12 March 2014 - 12:06 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

No it should not self correct. That is free market sloganism at its finest.

I know you were not making ultimatums btw, was just making a point. But your comment "we vote with our wallets period" simply makes my point for me. You are not doing it intentionally but you are in practice being dismissive of peoples' point of view on price points quite literally.

MWO is like a semi or regional monopoly much like a cable company in the US. Only in recent memory were content consumers really capable of voting with their wallets after years of complaints and counter-marketing efforts. In many ways, smart companies (ex. Netflix) figured out how to create less expensive products to meet that demand and now cable suffers for it. MWO holds a popular IP, giving them a small measure of monopolized leverage over consumers. Calling them out for their pricepoints is a secondary but valid method of voting.

Its influencing others to vote with their wallets in concert in order to pressure them to reduce their price points. People passionate for this product shouldnt be discounted just because they disagree with the price points. But that doesnt mean I advocate people being jackasses about it either.

Edited by Lukoi, 13 March 2014 - 04:22 PM.

[Lukoi Banacek]

P.s. You have got to be kidding about Draconian......is the lobbying and counter marketing done by, for example the AARP against health care costs that somehow fail to "self-correct" harsh and severe? Corporations counter market each other, non-governent organizations do it for public interests etc.

Complaining that PGI might be charging too much for pixels is hardly draconian man lol.

[DaZur]

Lukoi, on 12 March 2014 - 12:33 PM, said:

P.s. You have got to be kidding about Draconian......is the lobbying and counter marketing done by, for example the AARP against health care costs that somehow fail to "self-correct" harsh and severe? Corporations counter market each other, non-governent organizations do it for public interests etc.

Complaining that PGI might be charging too much for pixels is hardly draconian man lol.

Firstly... I'm very appreciative that we can have this discussion, even not necessarily seeing eye-to-eye with a reasoned sense of decorum... It's refreshing in this community to say the least. "Kudos".

Okay... maybe draconian was mild hyperbole.

That said, the premise that the community might be too naive to self-analyze and form their own opinion on what is an acceptable price-point and must essentially be let to pasture is a might bit presumptive no?

[Charons Little Helper]

Sorry - but MWO is not a monopoly. That's like saying McDonald's is a monopoly because it's the only place I can get a Big Mac.

Cable companies had a borderline monopoly because the gov passed laws preventing multiple lines of cable being put down in the same areas as it would have been 'wasteful'. (most monopolies are gov sanctioned to some degree) Though satellite broke it somewhat before Netflix etc.

[Lukoi Banacek]

Charons Little Helper, on 12 March 2014 - 07:26 PM, said:

Sorry - but MWO is not a monopoly. That's like saying McDonald's is a monopoly because it's the only place I can get a Big Mac.

Cable companies had a borderline monopoly because the gov passed laws preventing multiple lines of cable being put down in the same areas as it would have been 'wasteful'. (most monopolies are gov sanctioned to some degree) Though satellite broke it somewhat before Netflix etc.

If you're going to quote and try to correct me, use what I said. Don't reword it. I said semi-monopoly and for the reasons stated it is. IT holds the IP for this niche market. (too be 100% fair I should have said "like a semi-monopoly" initially, as that's what I meant).

You can play stompy robots in Hawken and similar games, with similar feel but they are not part of the IP. That's where MWO has an edge for a very niche community of gamers, lore-hounds and nostalgic players....they are the ones trying to expand their playerbase to more casual types who don't necessarily know a thing about the IP.

Btw, Satellite may have "set the stage" but they are carrying similar price points to cable in almost all venues. They are similar competitors, unlike Netflix and other streaming services that actively change the paradigm. Whether a monopoly is supported via government propping or IP control, is immaterial to the point I made.

Daz....presumptive? Welcome to Western capitalism my friend. Whether it's presumptive or not is a matter of a opinion. It's a matter of fact that marketing and marketing AGAINST perceived price problems is par for the course in that form of economy.

Edited by Lukoi, 13 March 2014 - 04:23 PM.

[Praslek2]

I think the whole community is pissed off by all the wallet-reaching at this point.

Personally, I couldn't even bring myself to login for the free mech promotion. Which says something: it's a really great promotion, and I should've been all over that.

[Lukoi Banacek]

this has been an interesting thread, lemme just add that, lol.

[Charons Little Helper]

Lukoi, on 13 March 2014 - 04:01 PM, said:

If you're going to quote and try to correct me, use what I said. Don't reword it. I said semi-monopoly and for the reasons stated it is. IT holds the IP for this niche market. (too be 100% fair I should have said "like a semi-monopoly" initially, as that's what I meant).

And McDonald's has a trademark on 'Big Mac'.

If you prefer - I could say that by your logic Starbucks has a monopoly because they're the only place that serves Starbucks coffee. But the logic is the same.

[AdamBaines]

Ordellus, on 01 March 2014 - 09:05 PM, said:

Don't forget: *Ability to set game mode, *Ability to select map

Add them all up and what do you get?

The features the community has wanted since day one, finally being made availiable..... for MORE money.

And no, when every single aspect of a game costs money...rage is completely justified.

I'm stunned that there are actually people supporting this amount of selling out.

Its these sorts of threads and posts that make me wish there was a Not Like option......