33 replies to this topic

[Jables McBarty]

Wintersdark, on 12 July 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

The "base" pricing for mechs with real money is translated from cbill value as I said before, and that's really the way they should stay.

That way it's a direct dollar to time-to-get-for-"free" translation .

I've never heard the "dollar-to-time translation" side of the Cbills-to-MC argument, and while it's interesting I disagree that it's a good idea.

When I'm thinking of buying a 'mech, I'm not calculating the exact number of games/hours/days it takes me to get it. I'm calculating "now" versus "later."

And when it comes to "now" I'd pay a flat rate for pretty much any 'mech to get instant access to it. Concrete instant gratification is worth $5 to me. The abstract sense of "saving on grinding another 12M Cbills" isn't worth $20 to me.

Which is to say, I'd buy far more single 'mechs if they could be had for a flat or relatively flat rate capping out at about $5. Say MC equivalents of $6 for each Assault, $5 for each Heavy, $4 for each medium, $3 for each Light. Then maybe price your Heroes and Champions a bit higher.

Because ultimately, I don't see it as "Paying to save the grind," rather as "Paying to have a new toy." My perspective on gaming purchases is forward-looking (what do I get) rather than retrospective (what am I cutting out).

[Intrepid]

grievoussmaug, on 12 July 2016 - 12:53 AM, said:

A concern was raised in the forums about how freaking expensive the earlier packs are compared to what we are witnessing now.

The older packs are cheaper...

[Jables McBarty]

Intrepid, on 12 July 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

The older packs are cheaper...

$55 for three TBRs a la carte.

$20 for three KDKs, plus 30 days Premium Time, a badge, a title (FWIW), and three cockpit items.

You were saying?

[Malleus011]

They've got a real problem with 'mech pricing.

20$ for three Kodiaks is 'cheap' compared to what they'll cost in C-Bills or MC.
20$ for three Locusts, however, isn't 'cheap' compared to what they cost in C-Bills or MC.

35$ for three Kodiaks and a Hero is cheap compared to what they'll cost in MC.
35$ for three Locusts and a Hero, however, isn't 'cheap' compared to what they cost in MC.

Those are extreme examples, but they highlight the problem.

When you have to compare them to:

55$ for three Mad Cats, one of them a hero ...
20$ for three Wolfhounds, one of them a hero ...

And you can go on and on and on.

IMHO, they should standardize everything on the 20/40/15/15 model, but they need to figure out the 'mech cost in MC and sweeten to deals to make a Locust pack or Cheetah pack feel like the same value as a Kodiak pack.

[Bud Crue]

Wintersdark, on 12 July 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

Well, only heroes are priced based on tonnage. Every mech pack is flat rate, though the older style need to be bought in (equally priced) tiers.

The "base" pricing for mechs with real money is translated from cbill value as I said before, and that's really the way they should stay.

That way it's a direct dollar to time-to-get-for-"free" translation .

I'm not understanding so please bare with me...

Hero mech...old hero mechs that is...are indeed priced based on tonnage. New Hero mechs are not. They are all a flat rate of $15 bucks.

Older mechs, which for the really old ones are only available in bundles via Mastery Packs, are based loosely on tonnage (Assaults are mostly more expensive than Heavies, Heavies are mostly more expensive than Mediums, etc.), but within their respective weight classes are priced based on their c-bill values (or so I assume).

Those c-bill values however ignore actual value attributed to things like hardpoint numbers and locations, quirks, and of course player perception of value (example a Vindicator Mastery Pack is $30 whereas a Black Jack Master Pack is $20...the former may have a greater c-bill value, but not an actual value by the vast majority of subjective views (see countless forum posts about how the Vindi is one of the worst mechs and the BJ is one of the best mediums). But isn't this also true of the new mechs ($20 packs)? Their cbill value is totally ignored for determining their price, otherwise a Kodiak Basic Pack would be a vastly different price than the Phoenix Hawk Basic Pack. Right?

[Wintersdark]

Intrepid, on 12 July 2016 - 07:56 AM, said:

The older packs are cheaper...

Only if you actually wanted all the mechs. If you even didn't want the light, suddenly the old pack costs more.

The new packs allow you to pick and choose - and even if you buy the base+hero, you're getting FOUR distinct mechs +cbill bonus vs. $35 per clan chassis at max discount ala carte.

[Wintersdark]

Bud Crue, on 12 July 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

I'm not understanding so please bare with me...

Hero mech...old hero mechs that is...are indeed priced based on tonnage. New Hero mechs are not. They are all a flat rate of $15 bucks.

Older mechs, which for the really old ones are only available in bundles via Mastery Packs, are based loosely on tonnage (Assaults are mostly more expensive than Heavies, Heavies are mostly more expensive than Mediums, etc.), but within their respective weight classes are priced based on their c-bill values (or so I assume).

Those c-bill values however ignore actual value attributed to things like hardpoint numbers and locations, quirks, and of course player perception of value (example a Vindicator Mastery Pack is $30 whereas a Black Jack Master Pack is $20...the former may have a greater c-bill value, but not an actual value by the vast majority of subjective views (see countless forum posts about how the Vindi is one of the worst mechs and the BJ is one of the best mediums). But isn't this also true of the new mechs ($20 packs)? Their cbill value is totally ignored for determining their price, otherwise a Kodiak Basic Pack would be a vastly different price than the Phoenix Hawk Basic Pack. Right?

That there are different pricing schemes is stupid, no doubt. But we are never going to see pricing based on performance for the reasons I gave before - it's impractical.

New mechs are just flat rate in packs, and I like that. You know exactly what they'll cost, and that's that.

Mastery pack pricing is based on the sum of the components with a discount, so is mostly cbill+tonnage from the hero mech (MC prices for hero mechs, not to be confused with dollar prices for Hero adding to mech packs) are 100% tonnage - but they are the ONLY things that are tonnage based.

The logic behind MC pricing being based on cbill pricing is simple. It allows them to establish a guideline for MC to CBill exchange (note that just buying cbills with MC will be done at a poor exchange rate relative to buying mechs, obviously) so they can find a balance point between how long you'd have to play (assuming average cbills per hour) vs. the dollar cost of the mech.


Because those mechs are alternatively priced with cbills, you need a consistent cbill to MC value for individually purchased mechs.

Packs are different, because they're bundle offers, not base pricing.

[Jables McBarty]

Bud Crue, on 12 July 2016 - 08:48 AM, said:

I'm not understanding so please bare with me...

Hero mech...old hero mechs that is...are indeed priced based on tonnage. New Hero mechs are not. They are all a flat rate of $15 bucks.

$15 if bought for cash from the website store, not for in-game MC. I'm at work, but according to Smurfy's, the Bounty Hunter II is 5625MC and the Black Widow is 5250MC, so the MC prices for new Heroes are still scaled by tonnage.

Quote

Older mechs, which for the really old ones are only available in bundles via Mastery Packs, are based loosely on tonnage (Assaults are mostly more expensive than Heavies, Heavies are mostly more expensive than Mediums, etc.), but within their respective weight classes are priced based on their c-bill values (or so I assume).

Those c-bill values however ignore actual value attributed to things like hardpoint numbers and locations, quirks, and of course player perception of value (example a Vindicator Mastery Pack is $30 whereas a Black Jack Master Pack is $20...the former may have a greater c-bill value, but not an actual value by the vast majority of subjective views (see countless forum posts about how the Vindi is one of the worst mechs and the BJ is one of the best mediums). But isn't this also true of the new mechs ($20 packs)? Their cbill value is totally ignored for determining their price, otherwise a Kodiak Basic Pack would be a vastly different price than the Phoenix Hawk Basic Pack. Right?

I for one am 100% on board with value-neutral pricing, for a variety of reasons:

1) As I mention before, I pay for instant gratification, not abstract in-game values.
2) Pricing to performance is highly fluid. As patches come and quirks go, PGI would have to constantly adjust their pricing schemes.
3) Pricing to Cbill value makes sense from a certain standpoint (TT values; also Winter's "pay-to-save-proportional-grinding" theory), but from a development standpoint it's a red herring. It takes the same amount of resources to produce a Kodiak as a locust.
4) Most importantly, having a flat pricing scheme helps to mitigate expectations of "more money = better performance." There are already frequent P2W accusations thrown about, but I also think--and I'm putting on my Light Pilot tinfoil hat here--on a semi-conscious level, when someone drops $20 of MC on an assault 'mech, they feel that it should outperform the Locust that someone else got for $3.

The 20/40/15/15 scheme detaches us from all of these preconditions. Performance and grind-worthiness are done away with, and while there will always be issues (real or perceived) with P2W, at least the KDK isn't 2x the price of an Archer.

[Bud Crue]

I think I get it now, but still am convinced that the pricing is just nuts -cbills to MC to cash comparisons be dammed. The fact that a Kodiak or even a Warhammer pack costs the same as a Phoenix Hawk seems, well, just wrong. From a cbill perspective, a value perspective, an instant gratification perspective, etc. its still seems like a bad idea.

It would be interesting to see actual sales, but I would guess that a heck of a lot less people bought the PHX packs as compared to other packs. If they would have been a bit cheaper...who knows? Meh. PGI knows best.

[Malleus011]

Below a certain tonnage range (40?), it's cheaper to wait and buy the 'mech and heroes for MC.

That's a big issue with the 20/40/15/15 system.

[JC Daxion]

You know i have been thinking about this as well.. But honestly i think the best thing they can do are put um on sale from time to time.. I think it is the best way to deal with the older packs, and mechs.

this way, they don't have to worry about changing all the old prices and restructuring everything, and older content might get big boosts in sales from time to time.. Just add in disclaimer perhaps, if you bought something in the previous week or month, you get a sale refund?

maybe put the packs on sale at random(even if it is just one pack at a time), but know a few times a year something will happen. to me this is the best option over all.. as right now we have so many options. Don't forget, that lots of the older packs come with lots of extra's and new packs after pre-order are just mechs for the most part.

Edited by JC Daxion, 12 July 2016 - 10:43 AM.

[chucklesMuch]

+1 for standardising/modernising the la-carte pricing of the older mechs chassis to the new pricing scheme... so long as people know that this is happening in advance... like a month out "Hey Mechwarriors next patch we are going to be standardising all the la-carte pricing for existing mech packs". Then i don't see a big problem... in RL products/software pricing change all the time.

And for the mechs with Heroes, five other variants and cbill versions why not just create the entire set of 20/40,15,15... maybe add x number of decals and or x paint unlocks as part of the collectors pack as an incentive?

[C E Dwyer]

Bishop Steiner, on 12 July 2016 - 05:53 AM, said:

There was a time when the Victor and Highlander were the epitome of performance. How good are they now? So was the BoomJager, SplatCat, GaussaPult, etc.

Where are all the above sitting now, performancewise?

THAT is the issue he is pointing out. As Metas shift, so does "performance". So unless PGI implements an algorithm that adjusts prices dynamically based on Meta, how exactly do you propose they implement a performance based pricing?

Well due to the size of it now, the SplatCat is making a big comeback, but yeah who's going to spend MC on a victor these days unless its a new hero lol

[Yellonet]

davoodoo, on 12 July 2016 - 06:08 AM, said:

By that logic, baldurs gate 2 should cost 60$, while baldurs gate 2 enhanced edition should also cost 60$
Skyrim 60$ and skyrim remake 60$.

Lets extrapolate it further, wolfenstein 3d 60$, new order with wolfenstein 3d lvls as easter egg 60$. Why isnt starcraft and starcraft 2 both sold at 60$??
If someone started playing games today then these old games are new to him/her right??

Before you start putting ideas do simple thought experiment, bring your idea to most extreme without distorting it, if it sounds ******* stupid then it was ******* stupid to begin with.

Examples.
Absolute equality is ******* ridiculous, i would be equal with ants and elephants and they would equal with each other.
Equal rights for every citizen, sounds reasonable, regardless of my skin color orientation and my ideas i can work and vote.

Apparently all mechs of same weight should be sidegrades and should be equally valuable, yet old mechs cost 55$ or 30$ if you wanted just lights while new mechs cost 20$. Why such price difference.

I think you read a little bit much into what I actually wrote.

Anyway, your comparison is quite flawed as you brought up different games, some that are even released decades apart, while this thread is about different assets in one and the same game. Key difference that.

I'm not at all opposed to getting cheaper mechs, but I can well understand why PGI wants the same prices on older and newer mechs. Although it's difficult to see why older mechs should be more expensive in some cases...