1. Hey Guest! If you're more than just a WildStar fan and want to keep up on the latest MMO news, reviews and opinion pieces then I'd like to suggest you visit our sister site MMO Central

K.I.C.K.S.T.A.R.T.R. an alternative to flat monthly fees

Discussion in 'Gaming Arena' started by Ohoni, Aug 25, 2013.

  1. Ohoni

    Ohoni Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Why not? Let's say, for the sake of argument, that six months into the game, raids are a very big deal, everyone runs them, everyone's tired of the current ones, but nobody plays warplots, it's like sPvP in GW2 was maybe eight months ago. Nobody cares. Now, they have been working on the new raid, and they have it mostly working, to a raid player, it's ready to go, but they still need to work on balancing the boss as a PvP mob, and if they release him in the current state he would be a mess. Now, why should they wait to release the raid? Why not release the raid to the raid players, but either make it impossible to obtain the boss for Warplots, or make it so that you can obtain some sort of "token" form that is non-functional? Then, when they do get around to fully balancing him in PvP, they can open him up to be used that way, but without holding up everything else until that point.

    Well, ideally they wouldn't put it behind content the gamer doesn't like. If they put it behind only one type of content, then it would be the type of content that the most players like (the other thing that got high votes). Ideally loot would never be available through only one means. Want that fancy new sword? Don't like to PvP? That's fine, you can get it in a raid. Don't like to raid? That's fine, you can get it through PvP. Don't like to do either? That's fine, you can do it through soloable quest chains. The base stats might be slightly tweaked to reflect the event type you got it from, but you'd have access to the skin for it. You should have to work for the item, but you should be able to determine what type of work that might be, and if you don't enjoy the game enough to work for anything, then why are you even playing?

    I think the polls would cover most of the "big" things," the discretionary budget would mostly be about the small things that players barely even notice you've added to the world, like when GW2 recently updated their achievement tracker UI, or that don't change the world at all, like paying CS staff.

    Perhaps, but people still pay into F2P games all the time. Perhaps they would need to tie more personal rewards into the voting system, like each vote (for any category) increments progress in some reward structure, or perhaps the early access to content would be made highly useful, so you'd want to get at least a certain amount into any category that you had any significant interest in. The players that are truly invested in all systems of the game should be chipping in more than those who only care about one or two areas.

    Yes, but sometimes the canary doesn't die, it just gets ennui. They know when players get bored enough to stop doing a certain thing, but they have no idea when players are bored enough that they're bored, but not yet bored enough to stop. Yes, they might eventually quit, and then Carbine would know that it was probably bad, but by that point it's too late, the players are gone, it would take months to correct the content to make them happy again, and even if they managed that, the player is likely long gone and not coming back. The goal would be to develop feedback mechanisms proactive enough that it catches them while they are still satisfied with existing content, if not enthusiastic about it, and make them enthusiastic again.

    Also, as you point out, sometimes players will do content they don't like because it's necessary to open up content they do like. This would give better feedback on that as well.

    That's a big assumption, considering that no MMO manages to avoid it yet.

    That's a relatively small sample size though. It might provide useful feedback, especially at this point in development, but it's a drop in the bucket after launch.

    No, all the player needs to know is what they want to see more of. This isn't like an election in which the candidates are both trying to be deceptive to some degree, the choices here would be honest and bare. "Do you want this content, or that content?" They don't need to know anything more than what they want, and unlike you, I believe that players do know what they want.

    Because mandatory cost is a barrier. I will not pay a sub. Ever again. Never. Not happening. It could be the greatest game ever made, and I will never pay a sub. I might be willing to pay $20 or more per month into a game that I enjoy though, if I felt that the purchases were worthwhile and entirely voluntary. You tell me I have to pay $15 per month just in order to keep playing the game and I'll tell you where to #### off and with what comedically shaped object, but you let me play the game I bought as long as I like, but offer me chances to put additional money to good use, and I'd be willing to spend it.

    If they're paying with CREED then they would either have almost no gold left by the end of the month, so they'd be paupers within the game, or they would be those hedge fund catcats that make fortunes off manipulating the markets, and nobody likes those guys.

    Believe what you will, I can't stop you from being wrong.

    If that were true every MMO would collapse, all of them, sub to F2P, are based on the idea of player momentum. People get invested in things, once you get them hooked, they have a tendency to stay longer than they would otherwise. You take any hardcore WoW players, wipe their account, block them from the game for six months, and then let them back in, starting from scratch, I doubt many would bother, they'd probably move to something else instead. But keep them consistently on the train, continually building up that character, and it's fairly easy to keep them on board, even if there are other things that they might enjoy more, they'll never know it.
  2. Kataryna

    Kataryna Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Arkansas
    Lets get Anhrez in here and tell him you don't like him (not that he'd care - he's just an example). He's a self proclaimed Econ PvP'er. He'll be one of the people playing the economy, most likely paying his sub through in-game currency with more to spare, and I happen to like him quite well! And actually, I've enjoyed all the people I've met that have played the markets in MMOs - they tell me what to do to make more money, 'cause I'm always horrible about having gold in MMOs! I'm ALWAYS broke! Having someone there that's knowledgeable about a game's economy that is willing to share (even if they keep some secrets to themselves) is helpful to all guilds!
    Extatica and BlindSear like this.
  3. Ohoni

    Ohoni Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I don't like him. I very much do not like him. I do not want my economy PKed.

    In fact, I said earlier that I would not pay a subscription fee. I will amend that statement. I would pay a subscription fee for any game that could guarantee that they would keep all market players out of the game.
  4. Extatica

    Extatica Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2013
    Likes Received:
    2,884
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Z-Lab
    So you don't like me either? :cry:

    [​IMG]

    But to me it just sound rubbish.....

    Marketing (how I like to call it) is another part of the game.
    Or are you such person who don't like people whenthey are better in PvP then you aswell?
    Or if someone has better Raiding gear?
    Or if someone has a better understanding of the market?

    It's all the same, they are better in 1 part of the game then you.....Try make friends with some so you can have a lot of money aswell it aint that hard ;)
    Kataryna likes this.
  5. BlindSear

    BlindSear Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    565
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For the sake of argument, let's assume we're going by Carbine's content release, so we're talking... a new raid every month (or there abouts). So, since the raids change every week, it's not likely everyone will be completely bored of all the raids if they get a new one every month. Also, Warplots are the top end of PVP, all the best PVP gear comes from it, so... again... everyone cares about Warplots. Now, let's continue your argument from actual statements coming from Carbine, not some imaginary content development you have in your head. Balancing a PVP mob isn't THAT hard, compared to tuning it for raiding, especially because it's the top end of PVP, so if the answer becomes "In order to warplot this month, you have to go get the boss if you want to win." Players will do it.

    So, given this information (which is all based on Carbine's statements, and how hardcore players play a game) there's no reason to release it in raid form if it's not able to be in the Warplot, due to the ease of putting it in a Warplot. Not to mention, you get 2 birds with one stone, in that there's now new content for both PVE and PVP players for very little effort. It's extremely cost effective, everyone's happy, and there's virtually no downside to taking your balancing staff and making them spend 2 days to put in a raid boss, which doesn't effect PVE development at all. This is all because you can afford to have a large enough staff of developers because of a sub model. Hence why sub models can work if done properly.

    So, yes, they could decide to release a raid, without having the other things it influences in the game, but what's the point of the raids influencing the rest of the game, if you're not going to develop new content to do this as well? Simple answer, there is no point, so they'll develop new content to implement all facets within the game.

    No, that's terrible design. Exclusivity is necessary to motivate players to continue to try harder and build community. I don't think PVP and PVE and solo content gear should look the same at all, in fact solo content should look less cool than PVE gear, but PVE and PVP should both look cool in different ways. If you like the look of one better than the other? Then go play that content. Don't like that content? Oh well, it's just a skin, and you'll get a new piece of gear next month anyway.

    So, you're giving the meat and potatoes to the players, sounds like a terrible idea, especially because they already have experienced game designers and business people working for them. I'd much rather someone who's been educated and clearly has more experience in the industry making the decisions on how to develop major portions of content, not some corporate sell-out wannabe that has kids and needs his game time to last less than an hour a day. So, completely disagree, you're giving the power to the casuals with that, and the casuals should not have power over game development EVER! This isn't at all to say that casuals shouldn't have content within the game, just not the driving force for content. Because guess what, the hardcore players rip through content, and the casuals can do the same content (eventually) but it just takes them longer, so new content is generally for the hardcore crowd.

    That's only when you're getting something meaningful from the game, or if it's the difference between the game being developed at all or not. Look at every F2P game on the market, generally sells in game items or boosts, or quality of life things. Look at kickstarter, this is crowdsourced for games to be developed, but the crowds have no say over how the game will be developed officially. There's a reason for this! It's because the people on kickstarter know that if they let their "investors" shape the way their games were made, they would simply flop and have bad decisions all over them.

    Also, with your system, the player who only care about one or two areas will be more likely to donate than those who like everything. This is because the ones who like everything don't care what gets developed as long as it's new content, and the ones that are partial have to chip in to ensure their content is made.

    That's when they go do something else. If their boredom is greater than the reward they leave that area and go do something else. If you have a lot of different type of content that's constantly pumped out, then they'll always have something else to do in the game. This way they can accurately find where people aren't and find the "fun" parts. The likelihood of someone saying "Man, this one quest that is the most effective gold/time that I have to do over and over is really boring. I'm gonna go do dungeons instead." Not, "Man this one quest that is the most effective gold/time that I have to do over and over is really boring. That must mean the game is boring, I'm cancelling sub."

    Generally that means they only have to do it once, of course there's going to be parts of games you like less than others, as long as it doesn't make you log out from it, that's no big deal if there's a couple speed bumps. Also, players will just mull through it anyway in most cases.

    Well... Don't we owe it to Carbine to see if they can pull it off before saying their business model is <REDACTED>? What if they manage to do it? Then, guess what, everything falls in line and subscription becomes an amazing business model and incredibly lucrative, but it does force them to continue to pump out amazing content and hold their standards high. THIS IS A GOOD THING!

    You really don't need a large sample size to be able to accurately correlate data to reactions if you have exact reactions to match up to the data. Also, we don't know how large a sample they did, maybe it was 100 people, that's enough to get fairly accurate reads on their data.

    So, you're saying every player that rolls on a PVP server likes ganking. No, they don't, players don't know what they want. They know what they like after they're in it, and QQ about things they don't like about certain content, even if it's the actual content they're complaining about. You're right I don't trust people to make correct decisions, that's because I believe people as a general population are dumb, and incapable of informed decision making.

    So, then, sounds like you're going to be playing GW2 for a long time. Hope you like it.

    IT'S CREDD NOT CREED.

    Also, you're basing your claims on what evidence? We have no clue how much in game gold CREDD is going to go for at all. We don't know the balancing point, or how long it will take to farm the gold for it, because guess what? It's a system based on a unit which basically is completely unknown. It's like saying how many turtles tall is the empire state building?

    So, first, you can't compare free to play to sub based games in any meaningful way because they're different games. All games that went free to play from a sub model failed at the sub model for one reason or another. We do know that when a game goes free to play, or releases as free to play, it gains many more players at release, which then taper off. We also have only 2 examples of games which are successful sub based models, those are WoW and EVE Online. So, you there's not enough information to give insight into the correlative effect of model and a good game versus a bad game.

    Second, SWTOR's F2P system was the worst ever seen, it charged for LITERALLY everything except levelling content. Honestly, if it's such a good F2P game, why are you no longer playing it? 'Nuff said. Stop heralding SWTOR like it was the most amazing game, but people just hate sub models, and it's a huge success story after it went F2P, that's simply not true. I'm sure they're making enough money to cover their current debt payments, but I'm seriously doubting they're making bank.

    It's called customer loyalty, not momentum. And it changes as soon as the customer's been wronged. You're right about the WoW example, because that breaks customer loyalty. The same thing would happen if you did that to someone who invested a lot of time into a F2P game. Also, you're wrong, because a lot of players from WoW tried out Rift and SWTOR on release, but they quit them, because WoW was better. WoW players generally try a lot of other games because they're starting to want something new, they just haven't found anything that's a better experience for them as a whole as WoW. Part of this is customer loyalty, the other part is friend loyalty. Either way, your example doesn't work, because if you did the same thing in any MMORPG the player would quit due to broken trust.
  6. Kataryna

    Kataryna Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Arkansas
    to do that they have to remove any and all forms of Auction House/Commodities Exchange/Player Shops/etc out of a game - and if they do that everyone (even those that don't play the AH game) gets pissed off...people EXPECT there to be at least an AH nowadays.
    BlindSear likes this.
  7. Ohoni

    Ohoni Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Probably not. I'm sure you're lovely people, I just don't want to have to deal with the economy you create through your actions.

    I don't play PvP, which is why I don't want PvP in the economy.

    Well, you chose to ignore the situation I proposed and make up your own, but I will say that if everything works out exactly like Carbine claims it will, then it will be the first game in the history of games where that happens.

    Except for people that don't PvP, of course, who couldn't care less.

    That's silly. If you like a look, you should be able to get it. It may take some effort, but it should be effort that you enjoy. If you don't enjoy PvP or raids then you shouldn't have to do either just to get the appearance that you like. There's no justification for it.

    I'm giving power to whoever's paying. If the casuals are the ones who're paying, then they should have ALL the power over the game development, ALWAYS. If the hardcore want to have the power over the game development, then they should pay their fair share for that privilege. It's like if you're running a store, it doesn't matter whether a customer wanders in, picks up a few things and leaves to come back later, or whether they spend all day rummaging around the store, what matters is what they pay on the way out. If there are a lot more of the former and they end up spending a lot more money, then those are the customs you want to cater your store towards, not the ones that rummage around but in agregate don't spend anywhere near as much.

    This system would at least give the hardcore a CHANCE to equal the investment in the game as the casuals, whether they take it or not is their choice.

    Not true. Most Kickstarter plans have all sorts of milestones, and hitting them obligates the developers to certain features. This is the same thing, players invest into the concepts they want, and the degree to which they invest influences how that content ends up.

    Perhaps, but if they like everything, they might vote for things that otherwise go underfunded, or just to progress the whole chain. Besides which, most of the new features would be either locked behind voting for it, or at least time locked behind it. The more we discuss the idea, the more I think it should just be permanently locked behind the pay wall , such that if you vote towards something by a given amount, you can access it immediately, if you don't invest in it then you have to pay that same amount (or perhaps more) to unlock it at a later date, similar to DCUO's DLCs.

    Depends on the type of content, it may be something that they have to do more than once, like if they want to do X, they have to grind at Y for a few hours each time, or something like that. It doesn't mean that they enjoy Y just because they do it several times per week.

    No. We owe to to them to be honest and realistic in our expectations of them.

    No, they might not like ganking, but thy would know that they don't like ganking, and if you asked them, they would tell you that. They kno what they want, even when what they want isn't always available.

    And yet you believe that Carbine will be able to deliver on promises that no AAA MMO dev house has yet been able to deliver on. Your faith in humanity is awfully inconsistent.

    I've played enough MMOs to understand how MMO economies work. Since CREED is a market valued commodity, in which people will not sell it for anything less than "a worthwhile amount of gold," and understanding what "a worthwhile amount of gold" means in an MMO, I understand that most players will be incapable of acquiring "a worthwhile amount of gold" through legitimate adventuring. The only people with those sums will be market players, extreme grinders, and those who buy their gold off of gold farmers.

    Yes, because they had subs. Most of those games succeeded as F2P games, so clearly all the things that weren't "it has a subscription fee" were not that big a deal.

    Yup, it was a terrible F2P model, and even a TERRIBLE F2P model kicked the pants off of a relatively standard subscription model. That's how big a difference it makes. Imagine how much better still it could have done with a good F2P model?

    And because they have a massive investment in Azeroth. Momentum. Do they completely abandon everything they've built in Azeroth for a game where they're starting from scratch, or do they stick with what they've spent eight years compiling? It's tough to abandon all that work, which is why people keep playing WoW. I'm sure they enjoy themselves well enough when they do, but just because they're willing to stick with WoW, and make certain compromises to do so, does not mean that they are prepared to offer the exact same deal to a new game.

    I've said before that if vanilla WoW were to launch today, even with modern graphics, it would fail as a subscription game. I would go even further, to say that even if Mists of Pandara were to launch today as a completely new game, if all previous WoW had never existed and the current WoW were launching out of nowhere, even then, WoW would fail as a subscription game. It might sell 1-1.5m copies out of the gate, and retain maybe 200-300k subscribers for a little bit, but within a year or two they'd drop bellow 100k. It only retains players because it's retained players for so long, through a period in which subscription models no longer work for new games.
  8. Ohoni

    Ohoni Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I like AHs, I just like them to be for playes, not for market players. I've suggested the solution before, which is to make all items in the game that are not Bind on Pick-up, into being Bind on Purchase. If you loot or craft an item, you can sell it, no problem. But only ONCE. The person who buys it has to use it for themselves, and cannot resell it to others. That, along with some other modest changes, would make it very difficult for people to manipulate the markets, while making it a very fluid economy for honest commerce.
  9. Kataryna

    Kataryna Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Arkansas


    There you go - reasoning from Gaffney as to why they chose the Sub Model.
    BlindSear likes this.
  10. Ohoni

    Ohoni Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
    I'll have to watch that later, but suffice to to say, there is no valid reasoning. It's like explaining to someone with peanut allergies why the french fry recipe just won't work without peanut oil.
  11. Kataryna

    Kataryna Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Arkansas
    until you've done all the research that someone IN the industry has done, whose JOB it is to do so. the looking, the watching, the researching, etc. you cannot say that P2P is bad. you can NOT. you can suggest that it is, you can say that you think it is, you can say you feel it is. you cannot say 100% or even 95% or eve 80% that it's bad. not until you've done the hundreds and hundreds of hours of research into the topic.
  12. Kataryna

    Kataryna Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Arkansas
    I CAN tell someone that the french fries won't taste the same and they won't cook the same as if you used peanut oil!
  13. Ohoni

    Ohoni Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
    But neither would they be lethal, and of the two of them, I would prefer non-lethal.
  14. Kataryna

    Kataryna Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Arkansas
    there's lots and lots more people that aren't allergic to peanuts than are. I'm one that isn't, so I'm gonna eat my fries fried in peanut oil!
  15. Kataryna

    Kataryna Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Arkansas
    also - this http://www.foodallergy.org/allergens/peanut-allergy

    http://www.peanut-institute.org/eating-well/allergy/peanut-oil-no-allergens.asp

    your argument is (mostly) invalid ;)
  16. Ohoni

    Ohoni Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
  17. Yakzan

    Yakzan "That" Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2013
    Likes Received:
    743
    Trophy Points:
    93
    Location:
    Iceland
    <Mod Monocle> Things are veering into extremely dangerous waters right now. I recommend all involved parties to just step back and consider their next moves more carefully. I'd rather see active and open-minded discussions rather than silly shenanigans. </Mod Monocle>
  18. Ohoni

    Ohoni Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 13, 2013
    Likes Received:
    247
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Ok, I watched the video, and it didn't really have much new to it. He fully explains why he likes the idea of the sub model, fair enough, but it doesn't really give me any new reasons why I should like it, since I'm neither a whale, nor a player who is likely to be able to afford CREED with gold, so I'm stuck in the middle with a subscription fee I will not be paying.I will make this deal though, with anyone from Carbine, or anyone outside of Carbine willing to stick with it:

    If I am able to buy the game box, and play that first month, and at the end of that month and every subsequent month I will have enough gold, just through standard fun gameplay (ie no market playing, no gold farmers, no gold farming myself, just doing stuff and having fun for a few hours per week), then I will buy the game. If that cannot be guaranteed, then I would not, since I don't want to pay sixty bucks for a game that will be bricked within a month. I'm by no means opposed to paying more at a later date, but if I pay more it has to be for something more tangible than "you get to keep playing that game you already paid for some more."

Share This Page