3036 replies to this topic

[benth]

Noobzorz, on 04 March 2013 - 09:31 PM, said:

I'm willing to believe that was about resource constraints and scheduling. EA has a pretty driven track record of that. If you really want to rag one Bioware for something, consider Dragon Age 2. Not to mention that the microtransaction scheme in ME 3 was flawlessly implemented. I could pay $3 and get a whole shitload of cool stuff, or I could grind (well, play, really) for 3 hours to get the same. I spent some cash, I spent some time, and in the end I thought "This was worth both the time and money I spent on this [a lot of both] and I would do this again in their next similar offering."

As it was, Mass Effect 3 is proof of concept that complaining when you deserve better gets you better. I considered the redux ending to be an acceptable (if not incredible) and satisfying end to the series, and I was very happy with SPOILERS TO FOLLOW HERE ABOUT ME3 SO STOP READING RIGHT NOW YES THAT MEANS YOU

SPOILERS OVER

That's what I want. I want lots of cool content and the opportunity to spend reasonable amounts of money on cool stuff that does not give me a competitive advantage, or the option to grind for the same length of time. If hero mechs were closer to League of Legends heroes, I suspect PGI would make a lot more money on them, and if I could grind for one with 45 hours of play, I would be a lot less likely to say "*&%!@# you" when they finally release that hero mech that is obviously overpowered (of course they'll balance it eventually, but making a mistake like this is inevitable; it's just part of the industry).

The multiplayer was well done, if not a bit predatory. I know people that spent hundreds of dollars to unlock weapon level X.

I will never forgive Bioware for what they did with the ending. But that's besides the point here and has been discussed to death in the previous year.

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if PGI was pressured into creating more sources of revenue.
They should've been smarter than this, however.

AceTimberwolf, on 04 March 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

What is it Like? I never played WOT

It's basically a map with the various factions on it.

You fight a match for faction X. Faction X gets Y points on the leaderboard.

That's about it.

Edited by benth, 04 March 2013 - 09:42 PM.

[MacKoga]

Thirdstar, on 04 March 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

Long time Star Trek Online player here. I could tell you exactly how the slippery slope works. Eventually the P2W is just a part of the entire system. Did I mention that PvP is very very dead in STO?

Good thing we have PvE to fall back on in case MWO goes P2W.... Oh, wait.

[FeralBerserker]

So far, I don't think anything is unbalanced in this game. ECM, as some people may say it's overpowered, isn't altogether useful or useless. I've killed many mechs with ECM. LRM's? That's what ECM's and intelligent maneuvering are about combatting. I don't have an ECM, but I've dodged many LRM's with careful maneuvering. 'Splat-cat's' or whatever, not unbalanced. They have serious disadvantages. So far, I think everything is fairly balanced, I've killed and been killed by many mechs and in many mechs.

Paying for a coolant flush? It throws a monkey wrench in the balance, but doesn't make it totally unbalanced... as per the consumable effect and the module limits. It will just make skilled players without cash need to be better players. Bad players with cash will remain bad players. Maybe they 'pay to win,' but having a coolant flush doesn't make them invulnerable.

My only problem with this idea is that, as they say, 'you give an inch, they take a mile.' Pay for advantage will eventually lead to pay to win. Honestly, I do have the money to pay to win, but I would not do that. More custom camo, more cash only mechs (as in having the same hardpoints but the slots to use an AC/20 as opposed to an AC/10), and premium accounts (which doesn't give an advantage, but a capacity for people who have less time available to achieve similar results in advancement) are good ideas.

From a capitalistic standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Any 'pay to win' patrons will shell out the dough for an advantage, and the company will realize there's a lot of profit in such an idea, and it will lead to bigger advantages and bigger profits. Then it will be a bunch of guys with 'gold shells' shooting each other with one shot kills repeatedly. Exactly why I didn't get into World of Tanks.

That is my opinion. And my two cents, for the developers and MWO fanatics alike.

Please preserve the integrity of this game.

[HRR Insanity]

Quote

Product Director – Online Games

The Product Director will be responsible to lead the business side of the game’s development, with responsibility for developing metrics, analysis, pricing and marketing strategy. He will be responsible for product strategy, revenue optimization (ROI) and ongoing support to help deliver hit games that are fun and meet the revenue goals. The incumbent must be able to build influence with the developer(s) and establish credibility with the Analytics, Marketing, Live Ops along with internal and external partner groups.
Responsibilities
• Ensure profitability and business direction and provide analysis and long term strategic thinking to help decisions and product development, ensuring profitability of the business
• Work closely with the developers and internal departments to plan the development and deployment of revenue-generating features and to evaluate and tune the game to maximize user acquisition, retention and monetization.
• Own the economic model used for our business forecasts and performance targets, using bottoms-up analysis of key daily metrics to drive both product iteration.

If you make a bad game, you get no money... and trying to make the money part come first nearly guarantees a bad game design.

Make the game good. Then make money off it. It's called an investment for a reason. You invest in it... then you make money.

Asking your Product Director for MWO to jam Coolant flushes and other crap down the pipe is going to kill the game.

Fire the current Product Director for MWO, because they're screwing up their first two responsibilities pretty badly.

Edited by HRR Insanity, 04 March 2013 - 09:42 PM.

[Tarman]

Thirdstar, on 04 March 2013 - 09:33 PM, said:

Long time Star Trek Online player here. I could tell you exactly how the slippery slope works. Eventually the P2W is just a part of the entire system. Did I mention that PvP is very very dead in STO?

I beamed out before that happened completely, but that game is a good (bad?) example of the slope. Felt like it was just hitting the major windup when I left. No way I was buying a replica Enterprise (or any other tiered ship) when it would only be viable for ten levels and garbage for the rest of forever, not with the warp speed of level progression meaning you'd be pitching the ship in less than two weeks max. My buddy who stayed longer mentioned before he beamed out that the PvP was pretty much all lockbox/store ships and kit, with a free-spacer having zero chance to survive.

[Noobzorz]

benth, on 04 March 2013 - 09:38 PM, said:

The multiplayer was well done, if not a bit predatory. I know people that spent hundreds of dollars to unlock weapon level X.

I will never forgive Bioware for what they did with the ending. But that's besides the point here and has been discussed to death in the previous

That said, I wouldn't be surprised if PGI was pressured into creating more sources of revenue.

They should've been smarter than this, however.




It's basically a map with the various factions on it.

You fight a match for faction X. Faction X gets Y points on the leaderboard.

That's about it.

I definitely wont be buying their next game until I get an unconditional all clear.

And yes, it was a little predatory. But I was cool with that. I never had any need to get level X, and I'm totally cool with playing one thing to the exclusion of all others. I paid about what I would spend on CoD map packs in a given year and I got some good solid enjoyment out of the game.

PGI's handling has to be a little more deft, since this isn't PvE. Sales stuff should be 100% cosmetic or out-of-game. A lot of people are saying that League of Legends isn't a fair comparison, but it absolutely is. That is the model they should follow. Not WoT. It's not fair to us, and we'll walk.

[Thirdstar]

AceTimberwolf, on 04 March 2013 - 09:36 PM, said:

What is it Like? I never played WOT

Sort of like this.



Also this guide

http://worldoftanks....global-map-time

Not a very long read.

[benth]

FeralBerserker, on 04 March 2013 - 09:40 PM, said:

So far, I don't think anything is unbalanced in this game. ECM, as some people may say it's overpowered, isn't altogether useful or useless. I've killed many mechs with ECM. LRM's? That's what ECM's and intelligent maneuvering are about combatting. I don't have an ECM, but I've dodged many LRM's with careful maneuvering. 'Splat-cat's' or whatever, not unbalanced. They have serious disadvantages. So far, I think everything is fairly balanced, I've killed and been killed by many mechs and in many mechs.

Paying for a coolant flush? It throws a monkey wrench in the balance, but doesn't make it totally unbalanced... as per the consumable effect and the module limits. It will just make skilled players without cash need to be better players. Bad players with cash will remain bad players. Maybe they 'pay to win,' but having a coolant flush doesn't make them invulnerable.

My only problem with this idea is that, as they say, 'you give an inch, they take a mile.' Pay for advantage will eventually lead to pay to win. Honestly, I do have the money to pay to win, but I would not do that. More custom camo, more cash only mechs (as in having the same hardpoints but the slots to use an AC/20 as opposed to an AC/10), and premium accounts (which doesn't give an advantage, but a capacity for people who have less time available to achieve similar results in advancement) are good ideas.

From a capitalistic standpoint, this makes perfect sense. Any 'pay to win' patrons will shell out the dough for an advantage, and the company will realize there's a lot of profit in such an idea, and it will lead to bigger advantages and bigger profits. Then it will be a bunch of guys with 'gold shells' shooting each other with one shot kills repeatedly. Exactly why I didn't get into World of Tanks.

That is my opinion. And my two cents, for the developers and MWO fanatics alike.

Please preserve the integrity of this game.

In my opinion, paying for an advantage is pay-to-win.

Even if they make the large coolant flush available for c-bills it could still be pay-to-win if they make it prohibitively expensive to buy and maintain for free players.

I appreciate your opinion though.

[ragingmunkyz]

What really makes me sad is there is such a great thread pinned in suggestions about the things we would all GLADLY pay for. They even took some of those ideas to heart. But now, for whatever reason, they've decided to ignore the many wonderful ideas for fun stuff would we'd give our money for, and follow in the footsteps of games which saw some success, but are ultimately dying because they went P2W.

Also there are some seriously naive people who have clearly never played a f2p game before. If you'd played even a couple, you would know what a bad sign this is.

[Noobzorz]

benth, on 04 March 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

In my opinion, paying for an advantage is pay-to-win.

Even if they make the large coolant flush available for c-bills it could still be pay-to-win if they make it prohibitively expensive to buy and maintain for free players.

I appreciate your opinion though.

He's actually agreeing with you though.

Not everyone agrees that the coolant flush is a deal breaker just because the advantage is "low." This is silly, in my opinion, for reasons that I consider self-evident. They will, in my opinion, do grievous damage to the game with this move. Again, though I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with those who feel otherwise, there are dissenters.

What everyone agrees on is escalation.

There has yet to be a F2P game that went down this road that didn't end where WoT or StarTrek online is now.

[benth]

ragingmunkyz, on 04 March 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

What really makes me sad is there is such a great thread pinned in suggestions about the things we would all GLADLY pay for. They even took some of those ideas to heart. But now, for whatever reason, they've decided to ignore the many wonderful ideas for fun stuff would we'd give our money for, and follow in the footsteps of games which saw some success, but are ultimately dying because they went P2W.

Also there are some seriously naive people who have clearly never played a f2p game before. If you'd played even a couple, you would know what a bad sign this is.

Cosmetics, cosmetics, cosmetics.

More camo. Purchasable menacing eye-glow for Atlas. Novelty horns for mechs. Betty voicepacks.

So many possibilities.

But we get pay-to-win coolant.

Noobzorz, on 04 March 2013 - 09:48 PM, said:

He's actually agreeing with you though.

Not everyone agrees that the coolant flush is a deal breaker just because the advantage is "low." This is silly, in my opinion, for reasons that I consider self-evident. They will, in my opinion, do grievous damage to the game with this move. Again, though I fundamentally and vehemently disagree with those who feel otherwise, there are dissenters.

What everyone agrees on is escalation.

There has yet to be a F2P game that went down this road that didn't end where WoT or StarTrek online is now.

I wasn't trying to say that he disagreed with me, just making the pay-to-advantage / pay-to-win distinction.

You're right, a lot of people will tolerate "some" level of real money advantage. We need zero tolerance for it.

[ragingmunkyz]

there isn't even a fine line between Pay-to-win and Pay-for-advantage. It more of a murky grey area.

The greater point really is that the slightest pay-for-advantage implementations always lead to full on P2W. It is mind boggling to me that devs have released numerous statements saying "we've all played those P2W games, we don't want that here,"and then they're going and following the exact model of those same games.

I don't even care about the actual mechanics of the coolants. As soon as something exists which can increase performance, but can only be bought with real money, you have a broken game.

[AceTimberwolf]

Thirdstar, on 04 March 2013 - 09:44 PM, said:

Sort of like this.



Also this guide

http://worldoftanks....global-map-time

Not a very long read.

Yea I guess I could see that being the Inner Sphere and a Smoky Bloody patch of vengeance coming from the northern part of space

[Gandalfrockman]

CMON Guys Dont stop now! were almost up to 150 pages in 1 day!

[Adrian Steel]

The second page with Garth is still the best page.

[benth]

ragingmunkyz, on 04 March 2013 - 09:58 PM, said:

there isn't even a fine line between Pay-to-win and Pay-for-advantage. It more of a murky grey area.

The greater point really is that the slightest pay-for-advantage implementations always lead to full on P2W. It is mind boggling to me that devs have released numerous statements saying "we've all played those P2W games, we don't want that here,"and then they're going and following the exact model of those same games.

I don't even care about the actual mechanics of the coolants. As soon as something exists which can increase performance, but can only be bought with real money, you have a broken game.

Let's take an example from another game: APB Reloaded.

Despite the fact that the items to buy are 60$ per gun, they don't actually give you a strict stat advantage over normal players.

The key point lies in the fact that to get guns of similar stature to the 60$ ones, you have to put in literally hundreds of hours to achieve top "level" in the game.

Once you reach the point in the game where paid items or their analogues are too cost or time-cost prohibitive for free players, you've reached pay-to-win territory without having strictly better paid items.

[AceTimberwolf]

Gandalfrockman, on 04 March 2013 - 10:01 PM, said:

CMON Guys Dont stop now! were almost up to 150 pages in 1 day!

No we shouldn't give NIKO the satisfaction

[trickm0nkey]

I've been a lurker in these forums. I've put about $40 bucks into MWO, I love this game.


If they start putting in P2W **** in this game, I'm out. Uninstalling and finding something else to play. **** that.

[Aethon]

Akkuflex, on 04 March 2013 - 09:04 PM, said:

The very moment that coolant flush for MC gets introduced I'm out of this game for sure. I'm not having WoT pay2win premium consumables again, and I strongly asume that this will be the case for many others.

Good day.

I am undecided, but I am heavily leaning toward leaving if this happens; if I do not leave, I definitely will not put more money into MWO in that case. I saw where it went in WoT, where gold ammo and consumables were effectively required for CW matches. I love MWO the way it is, and I want it to succeed; this is not the way to do that.

MC-purchased consumables are NOT the way to go, PGI. I do not care what they do; they are a performance bonus that will only be available to those willing/able to throw a steady stream of money at the game.

Want some steady income from MWO? Convince more players to maintain premium status (offer more perks than just extra xp/C-Bill income, if necessary). That is steady income that is NOT pay-to-win, no matter how you look at it.

[Aym]

ragingmunkyz, on 04 March 2013 - 09:47 PM, said:

What really makes me sad is there is such a great thread pinned in suggestions about the things we would all GLADLY pay for. They even took some of those ideas to heart. But now, for whatever reason, they've decided to ignore the many wonderful ideas for fun stuff would we'd give our money for, and follow in the footsteps of games which saw some success, but are ultimately dying because they went P2W.

Also there are some seriously naive people who have clearly never played a f2p game before. If you'd played even a couple, you would know what a bad sign this is.

We should all post in that thread that we'll buy MC for a game that doesn't have coolant flush or any real-money only items that are better than their in-game money alternatives.