605 replies to this topic

[A51Glock36]

I'm the business manager at a doctors office My employer and I both I have money, We love to play video games together when no patients are being treated (I'm the luckiest guy in the world), but we have to work long hours to care for people. We don't have the hours that younger people have to invest in this game, which we have been waiting for for years.

We want to buy stuff so we can at least compete.

We support pay to win.

So don't go too far with this experience always trumps money. We own a gaming community and that community is looking for the next big thing and World of Tanks turned out to not be it. We just recently heard about this. We have been wondering for years why someone did not make MechWarriors into an online game like World of Tanks, Guildwars, WOW, etc.

World of Tanks is coded so that those who play with the Russian Version have the advantage. I used to code for a living and I can see the signs. But you can at least buy gold

World of Warcraft was good only because we play the illegal servers where you can buy gold. Most of the members of our community are older people like us with more money than time.

I understand that you have a balancing act to do but don't forget that this is capitalism...for the moment anyway...and that pay to win can motivate kids to get out there and get a job.

LOL...I bet this one gets a lot of responses.

Edited by A51Glock36, 07 November 2011 - 08:37 AM.

[A51Glock36]

you censored the word d a m??? this may be too low brow for us

[Deliverator]

I disagree with pay to win. The whole concept of micro transactions wasn't to make two different games for two different segments of the market, it is to allow EVERYONE to play the game, and then the people who don't have the time to invest in the game can push a little bit more cash into their experience to keep up with the rest of the world. In World of Warcraft when you buy gold, or buy items, you aren't paying to win. You are paying X dollars to save Y time in having to hunt down that one item or farm all that gold. Pay to win is when you HAVE to fork out cash to be able to compete at the top level of the game, which is bullshit. I have no problem with allowing players who have less time and more money to be able to forego the expansive amount of time required to build their equipment the hard way. I have a problem with the guy with the biggest wallet getting better toys than everyone else. If I can get everything you buy by spending 4 million hours playing the game, then I like that system. If you can buy things that effect game play that I can never attain through time in game, that is not a level playing field.

[Ashar]

Deliverator, on 07 November 2011 - 08:54 AM, said:

I disagree with pay to win. The whole concept of micro transactions wasn't to make two different games for two different segments of the market, it is to allow EVERYONE to play the game, and then the people who don't have the time to invest in the game can push a little bit more cash into their experience to keep up with the rest of the world. In World of Warcraft when you buy gold, or buy items, you aren't paying to win. You are paying X dollars to save Y time in having to hunt down that one item or farm all that gold. Pay to win is when you HAVE to fork out cash to be able to compete at the top level of the game, which is bullshit. I have no problem with allowing players who have less time and more money to be able to forego the expansive amount of time required to build their equipment the hard way. I have a problem with the guy with the biggest wallet getting better toys than everyone else. If I can get everything you buy by spending 4 million hours playing the game, then I like that system. If you can buy things that effect game play that I can never attain through time in game, that is not a level playing field.

Exactly.

I am ALL for "Pay to Proceed". I could care less if you could outright buy any top level Mech. If you don't have the time to grind out those behemoths (and I totally understand with a 1 year old daughter), you SHOULD be able to cut your "grind-time" with money. If done right, it offers no in-battle benefits, but still allows those with expendable income to proceed despite lower play times.

What I am ABSOLUTELY against is "Pay to Win". You should NOT be able to buy in-battle advantages where you will outperform someone with the same skill, same mech and same loadout just because you bought the +5 lasers of killing (only $5.99! Not available without forking over actual money). Every single item / mech / skill should be available to those that don't pay money, even if it takes them X times longer to get it.

[Dozer]

Ashar, on 07 November 2011 - 09:06 AM, said:

Exactly.

I am ALL for "Pay to Proceed". I could care less if you could outright buy any top level Mech. If you don't have the time to grind out those behemoths (and I totally understand with a 1 year old daughter), you SHOULD be able to cut your "grind-time" with money. If done right, it offers no in-battle benefits, but still allows those with expendable income to proceed despite lower play times.

What I am ABSOLUTELY against is "Pay to Win". You should NOT be able to buy in-battle advantages where you will outperform someone with the same skill, same mech and same loadout just because you bought the +5 lasers of killing (only $5.99! Not available without forking over actual money). Every single item / mech / skill should be available to those that don't pay money, even if it takes them X times longer to get it.

I like the term - Play to Proceed. Two thumbs up to that description. Having a 2 year old but a good discretionary income I can balance my progress with my real life commitments via my wallet. I don't however wish to Play to Win because, well, it's boring after a while frankly,

[Black Sunder]

First time poster but here is my thing on F2P.

F2P is fine but it has to have a fine balance between free and pay items. There needs to be enough free stuff to get people interested but also make people want to pay for some goodies as well. Would I pay for a Star League mech? Hell Yes. Would I pay for gold ammo? No. I would not.

My other thing is as a company that has such a good base if the company notices certain things come up and up and up again and again then it needs to be looked at immediately and not dismissed. The WoT devs do this now with matchmaker(they say they are going to make it better next year...) but so far there is alot of silence. If you want to get players going then be a very responsive company to the needs to players.

Thats all.

Edited by Black Sunder, 07 November 2011 - 11:15 AM.

[Dunkare]

fact: the moment you can buy stuff for real money that has any noticable impact on damage in pvp battles, the balance gets screwed. aka p2w.

if you have 2 players with exactly the same (real) skill, but one has the uber rocket launcher and an extra fast repair kit from the cash shop, the money wins the battle.

[Amarus Cameron]

Hmmmm that video from the escapist made a whole ton o sense. Thank you for the post.

[Liquidrider]

Any pay-2-win format the developers may think sounds fair is completely false. There is no such thing as a fair game when a person can use cash to gain the upper hand. No matter how you twist it. Warrock is a perfect example of this. Their community dropped from the planet the moment they started giving an individual who had money an upperhand.

There are other ways to earn money in this game.

• Pay to get the cool looking headband
  
• Pay to play in tournaments / ladder system
  
• Pay to gain a reserved slot in a server
  
• Pay to get a cool icon next your name
  
• Donations

and so on.


I am in agreement with many here in the comments that pay-to-level is fine. Pay-2-win is extremely dangerous, and with such a popular title behind you, please do not release a game without addressing this issue closely. You will not just hurt the community, but your reputation as a developer as well. There is no such thing as a fair P2W format.

Edited by Liquidrider, 07 November 2011 - 02:36 PM.

[Tierloc]

I would not be so quick to think anything less of the developer, that's going to be more based on gameplay. Having played MW for years and years, I have an open mind but also some basic expectations. There are plenty of games that have done well with the free to play model. If you're worried, at least you can decide you like the game then you put money into it before you walk away.

I'll be voting for this game with my wallet.

[Miles Tails Prower]

Tierloc, on 07 November 2011 - 05:03 PM, said:

I'll be voting for this game with my wallet.

When it comes to crunch time that's the most any of us can do.

[Russ Bullock]

Overall I am completely fine with all the conversations people are having debating the whole subject of the F2P business model. There was just one point I will address. Many people keep asking why there aren't more details and what are we hiding !!

We are hiding absolutely nothing.

The truth is were not done the game yet, and we still have yet to start our beta phase which is where each of our design choices will be put to the test. So about the worst thing we could do at this point would be to start throwing out specific points just to find in beta we have to change this or that.

Sorry no small details on the specifics of F2P just yet but please know there is no big secret and were committed to making sure competitive advantage comes through skill not cash.

[Skygrunt]

Liquidrider, on 07 November 2011 - 02:35 PM, said:

Any pay-2-win format the developers may think sounds fair is completely false. There is no such thing as a fair game when a person can use cash to gain the upper hand. No matter how you twist it. Warrock is a perfect example of this. Their community dropped from the planet the moment they started giving an individual who had money an upperhand.

There are other ways to earn money in this game.

• Pay to get the cool looking headband
  
• Pay to play in tournaments / ladder system
  
• Pay to gain a reserved slot in a server
  
• Pay to get a cool icon next your name
  
• Donations

and so on.



I am in agreement with many here in the comments that pay-to-level is fine. Pay-2-win is extremely dangerous, and with such a popular title behind you, please do not release a game without addressing this issue closely. You will not just hurt the community, but your reputation as a developer as well. There is no such thing as a fair P2W format.

I like the pay for tournament idea ie entrance fee. It is a way for developer to get money and maybe award cash that's right cash to the winner. Naturally the developer get a large portion of the entry fee and maybe the losers get I hope you had fun but it is a good idea that is both fair and rewards skilled pilots.

[Draco Argentum]

Russ Bullock, on 07 November 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Overall I am completely fine with all the conversations people are having debating the whole subject of the F2P business model. There was just one point I will address. Many people keep asking why there aren't more details and what are we hiding !!

We are hiding absolutely nothing.

The truth is were not done the game yet, and we still have yet to start our beta phase which is where each of our design choices will be put to the test. So about the worst thing we could do at this point would be to start throwing out specific points just to find in beta we have to change this or that.

Sorry no small details on the specifics of F2P just yet but please know there is no big secret and were committed to making sure competitive advantage comes through skill not cash.

Quick, mob the Piranah Games guy with questions about when the beta is.

[Dozer]

Russ Bullock, on 07 November 2011 - 09:39 PM, said:

Overall I am completely fine with all the conversations people are having debating the whole subject of the F2P business model. There was just one point I will address. Many people keep asking why there aren't more details and what are we hiding !!

We are hiding absolutely nothing.

The truth is were not done the game yet, and we still have yet to start our beta phase which is where each of our design choices will be put to the test. So about the worst thing we could do at this point would be to start throwing out specific points just to find in beta we have to change this or that.

Sorry no small details on the specifics of F2P just yet but please know there is no big secret and were committed to making sure competitive advantage comes through skill not cash.

Perfect legitimate response. Hence why I have cautioned others to simply spend their time helping develop the game rather than discuss the pro's and con's of the pricing model A perfectly sound business decision imo.

Edited by Dozer, 08 November 2011 - 01:36 AM.

[Apocalypse Dan]

I like the F2P model, it works well for World of Tanks, no reason why it won't work for mechs. Besides, people who support the game purely by buying stuff while lacking the skill to use it properly just means people with skill will have bigger fish to fry. And in the BattleTech/Mechwarrior universe it's not unheard of for a rich patron to buy lots of mechs and yet lack the qualified mech pilots to use them.

[Smiffy]

rollermint, on 04 November 2011 - 03:38 PM, said:

With regards to WOT, it doesn't ruin gameplay...for random matches.

It totally ruins gameplay for competitive clan matches. You are forced to buy gold ammo and kits if you want to even hope to have a chance to be competitive.

But yes to certain mechs, custom paintjob, or forming a full lance or even multiple lances, to form a mercenary company, extra mechbays etc etc.

having spent the better part of the last year playing WoT competitively I can say without a shadow of a doubt that you do not need gold bullets to compete.

[wargames]

Smiffy, on 08 November 2011 - 03:42 AM, said:

having spent the better part of the last year playing WoT competitively I can say without a shadow of a doubt that you do not need gold bullets to compete.

Going to have to agree with this statement.

[wpmaura]

Everything he said is a lie. Its going to 100% be pay to win like every single f2p out there and he as already admitted it.

for exmaple scount mechs vs big wallet scout mech. who do you think is going to win otherwise, this post happens.

I just put down $30 to put my tricked out scout mech and some f2p noob took me out. aint going to work.

Even if you can play the entire game and get every mech and weapon for free, the level restricitions are going to be nuts.

But I guess we live in the age of the liar and the politician no this **** is not ****, its organic meat its awesome.

If you want us to trust spell out in black and white EXACT items you will be paying for and how they differ from the free ones.

the only way this is not P2W is if you only pay for paint custimization.

[Dozer]

wpmaura, on 08 November 2011 - 05:18 AM, said:

If you want us to trust spell out in black and white EXACT items you will be paying for and how they differ from the free ones.

the only way this is not P2W is if you only pay for paint custimization.

I just want to say that the staff have already addressed the reasons why they haven't release more detailed info yet. Try to take the time to read it. To me it's entirely reasonable.

As for the rest of your post sorry if you feel that it's lies. I don't. I'll let their actions rather than our speculation determine the end result.

Edited by Dozer, 08 November 2011 - 05:56 AM.