118 replies to this topic

[Mercules]

Mister Blastman, on 27 November 2012 - 02:08 PM, said:

I realize that but it won't get me to spend money. I never spent a dime more on Team Fortress 2 than the original Orange Box purchase I made when it first came out. Since then, I've logged almost 1600 hours in it.

I loathe MMO subscriptions. I refuse to pay them. Others here do too. If I refuse to pay for cable tv for my family, why the hell should I pay a monthly fee to game for myself?

That's selfish.

Single purchase. Play. Buy an expansion later. That's the only model I will support.

I wish you luck in the future of your gaming. While there are still games that follow that model there are many more that are moving to a micro-transaction economy. You may be limited if you chose to self-limit your purchases. What you could do is purchase $60 worth of whatever game credit there is for these F2P games and simply not spend once you are out. You have now spent as much as your "only buy" games.

Dechan Fraser, on 27 November 2012 - 02:14 PM, said:

Oh I must have missed that (I blame it on bad ui again!), I was trying to change color on my founder's Atlas and everything seemed to be 125 MC or 250 MC for some colors.

Click on the filters at the bottom. There is "Basic Colors" as a filter and that will show you the ones that are C-bill only in cost.

[TruePoindexter]

Poopy Joe, on 27 November 2012 - 02:24 PM, said:

Im too broke to have fun with play a free to play game. But I can afford a P2P game.

Love the logic

[Naeron66]

Dechan Fraser, on 27 November 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:

Hmm it may be longer since I played the game than I thought, but I remember being able to clearly see the terrain in heat vision before (now everything except the mechs seem to have the same shade of blue). Surely they would be have heat-vision that is actually usable in the future.

As for the screen getting darker I don't remember that either and it's really annoying in combination with all the shaking.

You can see the terrain well on both the frozen city maps, other maps not so much. I think its good that some maps work well with thermal vision and some don't. Looks like we will be seeing a map for nightvision mode in the near future.

[Joseph Mallan]

Mike Theumer, on 27 November 2012 - 01:52 PM, said:

maybe they should've gotten a loan.

You heard what that did to Dragon's Dogma... Right?

[Poopy Joe]

TruePoindexter, on 27 November 2012 - 02:26 PM, said:

Love the logic

Was that a sarcastic tone or legit tone.

Also re read it. I fixed a slight oversight.

Edited by Poopy Joe, 27 November 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[Comguard]

Since open beta it is the same routine for me:

Play two or three patches. Wait till next patch.

Today: nothing has changed.

First match. Two teams, every team had four lights. First: battle of the lights. Meds, heavys and assaults: they were not important. First the lights duked it out. And then: they annihilated the rest. I watched it in the observer-camera, and it looked really strange: teleporting mechs, lights shooting lasers in the air, hitting the enemy...so, lag-detection did not improve I thought.

Second game. More varied teams. First second: Disconnect. During the whole match there were 2 disconnects on each side, including the ones where you're not listet as DC in the overview.

I died because I somehow clipped inside an out of bounds area and could not return to the battlefield. Wanted to text something - but the "chat when someone dies" bug is still not solved. Other players were complaining about the HUD and minimap-bug. Didn't encounter them in my two games, but obviously they still exist.

Performance still bad.

So, yeah. Same game again. Waiting till next patch and hoping there will be improvements.

[TruePoindexter]

Poopy Joe, on 27 November 2012 - 02:29 PM, said:

Was that a sarcastic tone or legit tone.

Consider it appreciative.

[tyrone dunkirk]

I know they have to make money, but they went about camo spec purchasing options in the absolute worst way they possibly could have. In order to maximize potential, they could have made them purchasable by both CB and MC, with MC costing less and taking up less time on the players part, essentially implying that the easiest route to go with it is to purchase with MC.

As it stands, I'm not even going to bother with the purchasing of the most limited and basic colors and options they could've provided a free player, while also doing their best to limit funds by forcing a pay per spray policy. The game is still fine, the economy is just about even, and I love the slugfests online, and it looks great; but the decisions with aesthetic aspects are starting to worry me. You can have fun with the slugfests for a while, believe me, but a 'mech doesn't really feel like yours instead of a rental until you get your custom scheme on there. If I have to pay for anything more advanced than default stripes, it's not really worth it.


They have to eat, they have to make money, they have to ensure finances for the game's longevity. But by neutering one of the coolest aspects of the 'mech lab- making your 'mech YOURS- they aren't doing their fans a big service. When I purchase a weapon in Tribes:Ascend, I don't have to buy it again every time I want to switch weapons for my loadout. It encourages the player to look foward to the next unlock, and the next paycheck to purchase the next weapon and fill up their gun rack/paint selection. Having a full paint selection to chose from would be a fun hobby of it's own to tide me over until Comm. Warfare gets here. In short, my opinion of the way they implemented camo spec is not a high one, and I believe it was made poorly.

Edited by tyrone dunkirk, 29 November 2012 - 06:08 PM.

[Yankee77]

Dechan Fraser, on 27 November 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

2. Paying for colors?
Am I seriously not even going to be able to change a basic color without having to pay money for it? Feels like they are trying to rob me of money wherever I go in the menus. I'd be totally fine with paying for a cool mech skin, but just to switch color is taking it way too far.

Actually, this is _PRECISELY_ what they should charge for. It's a purely cosmetic change that does not affect gameplay at all. THAT is where microtransactions should focus the most.

That's basically the point of F2P games, after all. The alternative, of course, would be Pay 2 Win, and I don't think people would like that.

[Ralit]

Mike Theumer, on 27 November 2012 - 02:10 PM, said:

Now how do other MMOs finance a game without microtransactions? A bank loan? A financial backer?

Generally speaking they use a subscription model. Guild Wars is the exception to this, but they, technically still sell items (and characters) to get additional revenue.

If you're talking about initial development then, yes, either a loan and/or investors (which must at somepoint be repaid plus interest (or instead of interest a % of income over the life of the product after the repayment of the initial investment). Note the more loans and investment in a project the less profit the developers and distributers see from the product. Game companies are finding ways (such as 'paid beta' like what we are in) as a means of getting consumers to pay for the developement costs increasing profit by the developing studio making it easier to fund further development while giving a greater reward to the people doing the work rather than investment bankers and other 'traditional' financial backers.

[XvDraxvX]

"QQ i have to spend money QQ"

Its a for profit game, its not charity. Pay for paint or dont pay for paint thats your choice, but dont begrudge them trying to make money on a product. Vanity stuff is exactly what they should be charging for.

In-fact when i get home i will spend some of my MC and buy a Cataphract and some Paint for my Founders Cat.

See you in game, i will be the cool looking guy killing you.

Edited by XvDraxvX, 27 November 2012 - 02:51 PM.

[Chrithu]

TruePoindexter, on 27 November 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

F2P game devs need to eat too.

Which is solely the Problem of IGP and PGI. Admittedly the usual F2P crowd is a lot more fogiving and can be fed a lot more **** before they stop throwing money than the usual P2P crowd. But even in F2P there are examples where the players went running in masses or simply never were there in the first place because the game was not really worth paying for it in their view or mostly because the pricing was just off.

I can not stress enough that the main argument of publishers and devs to sell F2P to the customer as a good thing is "The player decides if, when and how much he pays".

So don't come around telling me stuff like "The devs need to be paid", when I tell the devs that their pricing sucks or that I feel almost harassed by all the "oportunities" to throw money at them. Because your aiming that **** at the wrong people. Firstly paying the devs is not my responsibilty and secondly if I come here telling the devs that I would pay if things were affordable they should listen. People that do not pay money for F2P games usually don't come around to the forums to tell stories about it. They just play the game, thus cost IGP and Piranha money, and will never pay a penny whatsoever.

Also on the "... how much part", that's just laughable when the smallest investment you can make is 7$ and to buy anything remotely useful for real money you're starting at 15$.

[XvDraxvX]

Jason Parker, on 27 November 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Which is solely the Problem of IGP and PGI. Admittedly the usual F2P crowd is a lot more fogiving and can be fed a lot more **** before they stop throwing money than the usual P2P crowd. But even in F2P there are examples where the players went running in masses or simply never were there in the first place because the game was not really worth paying for it in their view or mostly because the pricing was just off.

I can not stress enough that the main argument of publishers and devs to sell F2P to the customer as a good thing is "The player decides if, when and how much he pays".

So don't come around telling me stuff like "The devs need to be paid", when I tell the devs that their pricing sucks or that I feel almost harassed by all the "oportunities" to throw money at them. Because your aiming that **** at the wrong people. Firstly paying the devs is not my responsibilty and secondly if I come here telling the devs that I would pay if things were affordable they should listen. People that do not pay money for F2P games usually don't come around to the forums to tell stories about it. They just play the game, thus cost IGP and Piranha money, and will never pay a penny whatsoever.

Also on the "... how much part", that's just laughable when the smallest investment you can make is 7$ and to buy anything remotely useful for real money you're starting at 15$.

Then Play for free and dont worry about cool paint jobs, Hero Mechs, and skipping the grind to buy the mech you want.

Having said that, if you post in a public forums, such as this you invite people to disagree with you.

If you want to make a point and not have people comment, Email a ticket to the support team.

[TruePoindexter]

Jason Parker, on 27 November 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

Which is solely the Problem of IGP and PGI. Admittedly the usual F2P crowd is a lot more fogiving and can be fed a lot more **** before they stop throwing money than the usual P2P crowd. But even in F2P there are examples where the players went running in masses or simply never were there in the first place because the game was not really worth paying for it in their view or mostly because the pricing was just off.

I can not stress enough that the main argument of publishers and devs to sell F2P to the customer as a good thing is "The player decides if, when and how much he pays".

So don't come around telling me stuff like "The devs need to be paid", when I tell the devs that their pricing sucks or that I feel almost harassed by all the "oportunities" to throw money at them. Because your aiming that **** at the wrong people. Firstly paying the devs is not my responsibilty and secondly if I come here telling the devs that I would pay if things were affordable they should listen. People that do not pay money for F2P games usually don't come around to the forums to tell stories about it. They just play the game, thus cost IGP and Piranha money, and will never pay a penny whatsoever.

Also on the "... how much part", that's just laughable when the smallest investment you can make is 7$ and to buy anything remotely useful for real money you're starting at 15$.

So don't buy it. Seriously - no one is holding a gun to your head.

[Gallowglas]

Are you paying a monthly fee? Did you pay for a copy of the game? Does having a specific paint job impact your gameplay in any appreciable fashion? Are YOU willing to work for free?

If the answer to any of these questions is no, then I think you have your answer. If you don't understand that so-called "nickel and diming" on non-performance items is kind of the point, then perhaps you need to educate yourself on how real-world economics work. They're not forcing a fee out of you to play, nor are they assigning big dollar values to anything that's been introduced so far. So how, exactly, are you being scammed out of your money?

Edited by Gallowglas, 28 November 2012 - 09:09 AM.

[LoveCake]

He have a point about pricing.....and its seems very few people do understand how F2P Model works

[Adridos]

Jason Parker, on 27 November 2012 - 02:54 PM, said:

They just play the game, thus cost IGP and Piranha money, and will never pay a penny whatsoever.

So first. They give you the option to buy from a basic pallete of colors by in-game money (something that would be monetized too, in other games) and secondly, a server costs a fixed amount of money. What does that mean? That F2P players cost the F2P devs as much as your friends do when they watch the TV alongise you... nothing.

[Particle Man]

Mister Blastman, on 27 November 2012 - 01:55 PM, said:

In Mechwarrior 4, for instance, I could pick multiple skins for my mechs, all for the entry price of 60 bucks or so to buy the game.

so go play that.

[Red squirrel]

stjobe, on 27 November 2012 - 01:49 PM, said:

I just wish you hadn't.

If instead you had spent a few minutes reading the forums and patch notes, this thread wouldn't have happened, and the forums would have been that tiny bit better.

Yes would be good to read the forums. But then you cannot expect every new player to go to the forum and read for two days in order to know all bugs.
The usual/casual new player will
1) Install the game
2) Play the game
3) Quit the game since it does not work

That's why 100% in closed beta were against open beta.
As soon as you can spend real money the game is released no matter what the label says.
Paying customers expect value and frankly in the current condition the game does not deliver.
Ever since the Nov patch it became unplayable for me too.

Also the economy is way too harsh. I am one of those (see founders tag) people willing to invest money into this game. But right now I feel ripped. Paying to get DHS. Paying to remove them again. Paying for red. Oh now lets try blue (paying for blue). Ah red looked better (paying for red).......Oh cool I won and only lost my right arm (repair bill still eating 75% of income)

TruePoindexter, on 27 November 2012 - 01:46 PM, said:

Not going to touch most of that since it's been done to death but...


F2P game devs need to eat too.

I (and I am surely not the only one) would pay more money if prices felt more realistic.
It's like with taxes. If you increase them too much you will get less revenue overall since fewer people are able to pay them.

[Hedonism Robot]

Colors/Bobbleheads are what they SHOULD be charging real money for. These don't interrupt the balance of the game like players being able to buy a super mech that can't be purchased with c-bills. What would be awful is if they released the Dire Wolf for 20,000 MC and let it load up 4 AC 20's.