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

WildStar's Payment Model Revealed

Discussion in 'WildStar News' started by Yakzan, Aug 19, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Failedlegend

    Failedlegend Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    HA!!! Here's something we can agree on, sometimes the world/internet/companies forget about us....act like were some minor country and not the 2nd largest country in the world.


    Woot 2 for 2...yeah sorry roadblock when Destrin said "does anyone work for free" he was referring to the fact that he thinks F2P makes no money...he's wrong of course and I really wish we would start using a different term for it...Commission or A-La-Carte would be apt terms but again I prefer the B2P+Expansions model because its a guarantee that the devs will continue to give us quality content because as long as they do so we'll keep buying the expansions and all will be well...if they make a bad expansion few people will buy it but the people who find the content dissatisfied are not kicked out of the game for disagreeing with the devs decisions.

    I wouldn't complain...at least I'd get a general idea of whether I even care about the game at all or if its worth keeping an eye on the for when it goes F2P or at least the monthly price is lowered.

    Also who knows maybe this will be the greatest game that has ever been or will be created and it will hurt my very existence to not play it 15/month be damned...you never know :p (or you know the community will police itself as far as CREDD goes and it will actually be a viable option...unlikely I know but a man can dream)

    Give me a general idea of your preferred MMO style...the more detailed the better (and no P2P is not a style) and I'll see if I can find a few MMOs to suggest, I think your view of the F2P/B2P market is skewed....also for a fun experiment if you even have an inkling that you might like an MMO I show you try spending approx 15$ a month on w/e that MMO store points happen to be and see what happens.


    I'm actually really surprised NC Soft allowed Carbine to go P2P when all their other MMOs are F2P...I still think a P2P ONLY model is doomed to fail and I hope Carbine learns before its too late to recover.


    @Cash Shop Question: I'll edit this post with the exact video but I'm pretty sure it was the housing dev speak that they mentioned being able to buy furniture etc. in our cash shop.
  2. Destrin

    Destrin Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
    *Thread relevance at the bottom of post*

    The MMOs that I have really liked playing are Ultima Online, WoW, EQ2, Rift, and most recently The Secret World. I have tried going back to all of these games in the last five months. None of them do it for me anymore.

    UO made me fall in love with this genre. I played for a few years and I really think that enjoyment I felt from this game is the feeling I chase when playing an MMO. The games that gave me those same feelings were WoW Pre-BC, and EQ2. I enjoyed EQ2 far more than WoW. I found the game play and questing to be far more rich, complex, and in-depth. I did do a lot more raiding in EQ2 than I did in WoW. I also really loved PvP in all of these games. I really do end up playing these games for the PvP. At least that is where I spend most of time in game.

    Rift really did not end up doing it for me. I did not get that same thrill of enjoyment. Did not feel as deep as EQ2 nor was it any better than WoW. The F2P system Rift has is one of the better F2P models I have seen. Still, if I am not enjoying the game it is not worth me playing.

    I really liked a lot of the combat systems in TSW. Unfortunately sitting with all the gear that I wanted, for all the builds, roles, and specs for months (Mutli-Classing hurts replayability and alts) . There was no new challenging end game content on the horizon. TSW must have had some severe infrastructure problems because old game breaking bugs would always resurface. This game is a perfect example of why games that are not great fail at P2P.

    The only two MMOs I quit before playing before 30 days were GW2 and SWTOR.

    The only MMO I regret not playing was DOAC.

    To try to keep the thread on track: UO, EQ2, and WOW are still all sub based games at this point. You could argue EQ2 is F2P, but with the gear gating and requirement to buy the expansions it is P2P/P2W-ish?. Hell, even UO, the Grandfather of MMOs, is still subscription. I have re-subbed to WoW then promptly quit. Too much has changed (for the worse) since i played. I am playing the F2p EQ2 right now, the gear gating is making me angry and I might sub again. I also played a little bit of UO on one of the private F2P servers a month or two back. Not one of my friends wanted to play it with me cause it was too old school for them :D. And I am also playing Tera right now, but just for some quick PvP. The F2P is not bad on Tera, but i do not like the game and still almost feel guilty for not giving them cent.

    If you have any suggestions please feel free to let me know.
  3. Failedlegend

    Failedlegend Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Hmmm different tastes than me definitely as I loathe PVP and play primarily for the story and PVE with my buddies, than my end-game is primarily rading and decking out any "property" I won (ie. Housing, Guuld Hals, Airship, etc.) but I'll seen what I can find...quick question though

    Do you prefer the stand still and mash keys style of MMOs like WOW, Rift or EQ2 where everything is based on stats and gear or do you prefer the more active combat stylings of Tera, Vindictus, Dungeons and Dragon Online, NWO and other similar MMOs (think like monster hunter) where skill can trump gear/build although a good build/good gear can really help.

    Sidenote: It's unfortunate your so focused on PvP though because DDO is a GREAT game but lacks PVP in any capacity. On the other hand the game holds NO hands its got a massive learning curve and can frustrate new players immensely.
  4. Destrin

    Destrin Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
    I sent you a private message so we do not derail this thread completely.
  5. Failedlegend

    Failedlegend Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Heh good idea

    Well WoW has been bleeding subs like no tommorow even Cataclysm only saw an upswing for a few weeks but than continued plummeting and they've already said their next MMO is going to be F2P. Also honestly the fact that their a Sub game that charges for it's expansion AND has a cashshop is not cool.

    As for UO I can't say much but congrats to them on getting a P2P system to work its a rare occurrence...on the other hand I doubt they have a very large player base as you mentioning is the only time I've heard anything about it in recent years...that's entirely guessing though so take it as you will.

    EQ2 of course is F2P but I haven't had a chance to experience the P2W you claim it to be as I didn't like it so I never ended up spending any money on that one (played for maybe a week...so basically a trial) I'm hoping Everquest Next will be more fun which FYI is going to be F2P as well

    So in short WoW is failing and Blizzards Next MMO is going to be F2P, Everquest in boring and their next MMO is going to be F2P (and actually looks pretty fun so far), somehow UO is still surviving as a P2P game but hasn't been in gaming news in at least 3 years so can't say whether its still currently a success or not. I really don't see many positive or successful P2P games out there to be honest.

    Oh man I am LOVING me some Tera...its unfortunately got the dread "lockbox" but of course it easily ignored I've spent a decent amount of cash on them for some conveniences my only real complaint is server transfer are ridiculously expensive other than that everything is fairly reasonable an completely ignorable if you wish but judging from the fact that almost everyone's running around with something cosmetic pretty pretty profitable. Oh and of course its a REALLY fun game the combat is really dynamic the ability to chain power together really helps keep my eyes on the screen instead of my keyboard (or in my case my gamepad) it really is a F2P success story.

    The other big success story imo is Turbine itself...the company they run both Lord of the Rings Online which is very reminiscent of WoW except set in the world of LOTR and has some of the most creative quests I've ever seen(has your standard get X or kill X quests as well of course) and is a good alternative to WoW for people who prefer the Expansion Model (no B2p here just expansions)...it of course has a Sub option as well which just unlocks everything and offers some minor perks for people who like WoW but would prefer to play in the LOTR setting and honestly I find the classes, quests,etc. to be more fun it this one.

    Than Turbine's other game...my prefered of the two...Dungeons and Dragons online also a Expansions type model (w/ P2P option)...this ones less popular than LOTRO mostly due to the fact that its got a massive learning curve as everything is very free range you can have up to 3 classes mix and matched in any combination with a maximum of 20 Levels (each level is essentially 5 levels in WoW terms) than another 8 (soon to be 10) EPIC levels which allow you to choose your "destiny" (basically a forth class) granting some unique an awesome abilities.

    This game is very much based on skill mainly due to the fact that is a very active style of combat I haven't found an MMO thats been able to replicate this yet (TERA is the closest) and whilst a good build and good gear can overcome a lack of skill running around with the worst build on the planet and only basic non-raid gear can still work in the hands of a skilled player. It's major weaknesses are a lack of a proper crafting system and that it can be a bit buggy at times....it also has no PVP but I view that as a positive.

    The one great thing about both these games is the communities both from the players and from the devs the forums despite occasional upset due to changes (aka biffs/nerfs) the devs are a constant presence (although tend to disappear for a short time before big releases due to the fact that they have work to do :p) and in general the community is good to each other despite there being a wide range of playstyles due to the open nature of the game. Any trouble causers are promptly dealt with by either the community shutting them out/straight up ignoring them or the devs stepping in. I really do think the lack of PVP in DDO really assists with this. LOTRO does have PVP but only has one faction...PvP consists of one team of players playing monster characters its a really fun way to implement PvP without bringing in the normal vitriol it invites.
  6. Kayelia

    Kayelia Cupcake

    Joined:
    May 20, 2013
    Likes Received:
    18
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Then replace netflix and amazon prime with whatever service of your choice is if any. Heck, even spending $15 a month on steam or gog games counts as far as I'm concerned. (Or are those unavailable in Canada too?) The point is that just because someone is willing to pay $15 a month for entertainment does not mean that they will pay $30 a month total to add another service. Some will, sure. But there will be those that do not think wildstar is worth the money and go elsewhere.

    As for the $60, they do not have to pay it at all if they go with something else.

    Rich Burlew, author of the webcomic Order of the Stick, spends a large chunk of his time making an entirely free webcomic. No ads on any comic page. It works because he sells merchandise and books based on the comic. As such, the comic is effectively advertising for those products. I say "effectively" because he's only done product placement one time in a currently 918 strip comic. So he's not actively pushing for people to buy the merchandise. Even with all of that, he still pulled off a 1.2M kickstarter for reprints.

    If that's not a good enough example for you, I don't have a better one.

    To go back on topic, a f2p mmo isn't that far off. The mmo is basically advertisement for it's own cash shop. The problems come from pushing people into buying (p2w, etc). LoL, while not an rpg, is still an example of a f2p game working without the pushing. Can a mmorpg do the same? I believe so. Vanity items can be rather popular. There are aspects of vanity I have never seen monetized (for example, glows).

    Even current methods, like lockboxes, can be improved upon. What if the lockboxes are ways to get new items before they're released as normal content or normal cash shop items in 3-6 months? For you, that might not sound good, but it is a twist on the formula others might accept.

    I'm not roadblock.
  7. Destrin

    Destrin Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2013
    Likes Received:
    69
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Location:
    Regina, Saskatchewan, Canada
    P2P for life. If it is worth the sub people will pay. If you like F2P games go play one that offers everything Wildstar is putting on the table.

    Okay, so one guy works for free. Good for him! He still sells merchandise and comics to make money, so technically he is not working for free. Good example though.
  8. Failedlegend

    Failedlegend Cupcake

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2013
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    Actually that's pretty much how all web comics do it and if your good enough its quite lucrative the same applies to MMOs.

    Honestly regardless of the payment plan the statement "If it's good people will pay it" applies the only difference with P2P you get punished for not paying when the game demands whereas with an Expansion model you can pay when you want to/can afford it...either way Carbine gets the money assuming good content...P2P is just feels a punishment/demand whereas Exp Models feel like Freedom/Your Choice.

    I still think NOT offering a sub option is a bad idea because certain people refuse to accept that its an old way of doing things and it would hurt your numbers to not offer it just as much as it would hurt your options not to offer an B2P+Expansions system.

    I'm sorry Destrin this isn't about opinions its about cold hard facts...assuming a well made game offering a varied forms of payment options will always make more money than limiting your consumers options.
  9. Arkay

    Arkay Cupcake

    Joined:
    May 11, 2013
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    8
    Anti-Sub people don't really have an excuse to whine with a Credd like system in place. People who plan to hold off 'till it fails and goes f2p' actually come off as the type who shoots themselves and the rest of us in the foot to me. They are basically helping to kill a product and make it's quality decrease from the start.

    F2P and B2P games suck ultimately. At least for the hardcore crowd. Now I hate to differntiate between hardcore and casuals but oh well. We know from experience that a f2p game is essentially a terminally ill patient from launch with it's days numbered. Those who opt for f2p only don't invest themselves in to the game too much really don't care and likely aren't the type to care (as much)about the quality of game they are playing.

    With a sub you can at the least expect regular content that is more than fluff. You can expect for the game to provide everyone with a fair playing field and access to content. You can actually expect your opinion and more importantly, your subscription to matter. That sub is a visible and tangible piece of data, it's money.

    I've always been happy to pay a subscription for something worthwhile. Something that has had serious effort put in to it. To support the game and help it grow in quality is the best thing we can do if we actually want a long living, high-quality title. You pay for what you get, it's a pretty standard rule of life.
  10. Roadblock

    Roadblock Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Between 0 and 1
    I'm not anti-sub, on the contrary, it's my second most favorite payment option.
    CREDD is anti-sub, since it's a premium feature on top of the base subscription.
  11. Farmerbob

    Farmerbob New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    3
    As I mentioned above, at an earlier point, part of the rationale for starting Wildstar as a P2P model might be because they don't want 20,000,000 people trying to log into the newbie zones on release day.

    I don't have a problem with either F2P or P2P. They both work fine if the game is worth playing. What I have a problem with is people whining that this awesome game they really want to play is going to *gasp* cost them MONEY! Oh noes! It's not free! End of World! <add your favorite description of entitlement issues here>

    It would not suprise me in the least if Wildstar changes to a F2P model a few months after release, once populations spread out into different content areas a bit and the team has a chance to patch up the ugliest inevitable bugs.

    Some of us not only look at the facts, but also understand the context.

    Destrin likes this.
  12. Vilonic

    Vilonic Cupcake

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    13
    Location:
    New Jersey
    These past couple posts have really confused me. It was my understanding that CREDD is used to pay the monthly subscription. How is that anti-sub? Also, I'm not trying to come off as snarky, I really just don't know.
  13. Roadblock

    Roadblock Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Between 0 and 1
    Subscription based access to a game has plus and minus.
    A big plus is that it's usually all-inclusive-access.
    You only have to worry about paying a fee to access the game world.
    Once you are in the game, everything is accessible to you as a potential.
    Not readily but as a progressive endeavor.
    You're also on an equal footing with other players with only your skill, time, direction, your individualism making you different, in a way "you are your avatar" the outside world doesn't intrude anymore.
    It's this 'fire and forget' attribute of subbing that's so appealing to gamers (myself included).

    CREDD creates an extra layer on top of subscription, let's call it a premium subscription.
    Buying CREDD (not consuming it in game to add gametime to your account) on Carbine's store (a) makes you a more valuable paying customer because you're not only paying for your own subscription but for other player(s) subscriptions as well, (b) lets you funnel gold from gamers that can't afford or don't want to pay a subscription to yourself.
    Buying CREDD to use is not optimal because 1 month CREDD costs more than even the most expensive subscription option (20 vs 15). If you have 20$ it makes much more sense to buy the 1month subscription and keep your 5$ than buy 20$ CREDD and use it yourself. (this is self-evident that buying CREDD from the store is not an alternate way to pay for YOUR subscription, but making sure we're on the same page)

    Most players buying CREDD from the store won't do it out of philanthropy (because among other things it can't even be directly traded, it's put on the CX and you never know who will buy it) they do it to gain an in-game monetary advantage.

    For the system to work it must provide incentive.
    Content available for gold must be both valuable to players and gold hard enough to get in-game to make CREDD buying tempting.
    So now you have 2 classes of paying customers, base subscription and base subscription + CREDD (from store) to gold.
    You also have a class of non-paying customers that the premium subscribers are indirectly paying for their access to the game.

    Now as a logical person answer me which class of customer would pull more weight with a company, the premium subscriber (that pays the constant access fee AND buys CREDD on top of that from the store) or the non-paying customer.

    Does that picture sound anything like the 'all inclusive' access most gamers associate with subscriptions?
    You have a system that makes poor gamers (let's say that at least a part of those attempting to 'play to pay' find the subscription expensive) into poor players in the game as well (since part of their gold has to go into extending their gametime), makes rich gamers (willing to buy 3 or 4 subscriptions worth of CREDD from the store) filthy rich players as well, giving them a leg up on anything gold related to both 'play to pay' and base subscription customers.
    Base subscription are 'encouraged' to buy CREDD to catchup to premium customers else they can't compete on the AH / professions / housing / plots etc.
    "Play to pay" are given an ultimatum at the end of each month. Did you make enough gold to buy CREDD to consume and keep playing? No? Buy a subscription or good riddance.

    There's also incentive to make sure you always have more demand for CREDD in-game than there is supply.
    Because a whale trying to push CREDD, not finding buyers is 1 premium subscriber less.
    A 'play to pay' gamer not finding CREDD to buy is (a) a potential subscriber (even 'temporarily' so they have another chance to earn gold for CREDD) or (b) doesn't affect the company bottomline anyway since they weren't paying anything. As long as new 'warm bodies' are coming in to try the game "for free" that's fine.

    Does that cut-throat, nightmarish community sound anything like a 'pay your access fee (subscription) and go make your name into the world'?

    I call the system anti-sub because it stands against everything that makes the classic subscription system superior to F2P or B2P, CREDD is a Frankenstein monster attempting to graft the worse elements of F2P and B2P on top of sub and get away with it by calling it "hybrid", I call it "abomination". :devilish:
  14. Farmerbob

    Farmerbob New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    3
    PLEX and KRONO have pretty much destroyed the gold farmer market on EVE and EQ1. I've been playing both since release off and on, and the number of gold farmers in either game plummeted like a rock almost immediately after the respective ingame subscription trading items were implemented.

    CREDD is Wildstar's way of giving gold farmers the middle finger, and I (almost) always approve of giving gold farmers the middle finger.

    Yes, some of your arguments hold some water. But I would rather deal with CREDD than with "1 million credit only 9.98 @ goldmarket.com" spam in all the general channels, and even in tells or ingame mail.
  15. Vilonic

    Vilonic Cupcake

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2013
    Likes Received:
    58
    Trophy Points:
    13
    Location:
    New Jersey

    So here's my thought:

    I was having a hard time formulating my response to this. I'll apologize in advance if you or anyone else takes offense. It's certainly not intended. Also apologies for for jumping around in the post. That being said...

    I don't see the issue here at all. Maybe I'm missing the point. I'm a subscription player. However, I don't see why I would be any less of a subscriber as somebody who buys CREDD. The person that buys CREDD doesn't get an advantage (aside from gold) in game. They don't get preferential treatment. Also, I make note of your point about the "poor" (and I really don't think this is the best way to put this) player being unable to play because he didn't make enough gold to buy CREDD. A business is still a business. They are here to bring us a product we want, at a price we can be comfortable with. If this "poor" player can't afford the subscription, isn't it nice to offer him another option of continuing play? Either way, the "buy a subscription or good riddance" line applies. He either can or can't afford the subscription, the difference being CREDD gives him the opportunity to play if he can't afford it.

    I don't see how this is cut-throat at all. If a player wants to play for free, they have to pay a little more with CREDD to make it work. If they want to pay, they just pay (less) and get all the content. It is my understanding that CREDD won't have any effect on the actual game. Meaning you can't buy Rep or items of value with CREDD. I would imagine (and I could certainly be wrong) that CREDD can be used for game time, as well as in-game vanity items/fun things (i.e., Guild Wars 2) that don't change the core gameplay. Because if WoW has taught us anything, it's that if you make a sparkly pony and sell it for $15 dollars, tons of people will buy it.

    So lets say I want to buy (ugh...and did :speechless:) the sparkly pony, but I really don't want to spend "real" money on it. Why would it be bad for me to save up my gold and buy CREDD in order to get that mount off the market at no cost to me? I get the CREDD I need to get this pony, and the seller gets gold for him to use as he pleases? Be it buying items from rep vendors or just mats off the AH to do crafting with. Or maybe that guy just really wants to have the gold necessary to craft a sweet motorcycle that costs way more than any item should ever cost. Haha. I'm sure there are downsides, but I don't know that this post really highlights many of them.

    Also regarding the "competing" with CREDD players for gold related items. I mean, I guess some people aren't patient and some people are. Some people need to have that items right now, and others don't mind saving up more gold to get it themselves. What kind of housing competition is there? To see how can get the biggest house the fastest? The only legitimate claim I see here, is the one about the AH. A player having a ton of gold to monopolize the AH wouldn't be great, but it also seems very unlikely for a player to control the entire market. Even in WoW, one player couldn't control the entire market. Generally, there were a few players that controlled one section (of many) of the market, like the enchanting materials. And even in this case, if a player in Wildstar wanted to control a section of the market, and people didn't buy, he would lose his "real" money in the process.

    There are always going to be players that buy gold. That's why gold farming still exists. People buy. At least CREDD gives players a way to buy gold while also benefiting the community. It really doesn't seem that bad to me.
  16. Roadblock

    Roadblock Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Between 0 and 1
    I don't have time (right now) to respond to all your arguments but I want to at least dispel one misconception.
    CREDD is not currency for cash shop items (based on information given out sofar by Carbine).
    It is sold on the store in units of 1 month game-time.
    It is consumed in game (after buying it from the CX) to add exactly 1 month of game-time.

    1 CREDD = 1 month gametime extension, can't be used on anything else (no sparkle ponies).

    The only reason to buy CREDD from the store (for $) is to sell it to 'play to pay' players in exchange for their gold.
    The only reason to consume 1 CREDD in game (use the item) is to extend your access to the game for 1 month.

    The point is that if Carbine cares for the extra subscriptions that CREDD brings (when 'rich' gamers buy the subscription of 'poor' gamers that wouldn't be customers otherwise in exchange for their gold), gold must be valuable.

    I also see a big difference between a game producer that is actively trying to combat gold-selling and punishes those participating (even when they fail to control it 100%) because of the adverse effects it has on the game (by creating an unfair advantage for "cheaters") and a producer that embraces gold-selling and cares more for getting a piece of that pie themselves, elevating the cheaters to premium status and damned be the consequences.

    As far as CREDD goes the only effect it would have on gold-selling is getting Carbine a share of that market.
    It can't control it because it poses an unsolvable riddle.
    Will a normal 'play to pay' player be able to farm enough gold in a month to buy next month's CREDD on CX?
    What do you consider normal play? 20hours a week? 40?
    Let's go with 40 which is rather excessive (same as a full-time job).
    If that 'hardcore' legitimate player can make next month's CREDD in the current month and have 'something' left-over for other expenses in the game, a botter or gold-seller employee will make 3-4 months worth of CREDD in gold, buy a CREDD to extend their gametime and sell the excess gold for "less than subscription money" $ per mean CREDD price on the CX.
    Essentially offering a cheaper subscription option to players. If they can go below $5/1CREDD worth of gold it even makes them a direct competitor to store CREDD for premium subscribers (why buy a 5$ extra sub - CREDD from the store to 'maybe' sell for enough gold and not buy the gold directly and have it now - well the risk to your account might be a deterrent but then you have to decide why that deterrent doesn't work for all those other games that in your words failed to combat gold-selling).

    If Carbine tries to make it impossible to farm more than 1 CREDD worth gold in the month by limiting gold generating abilities in the game, they will screw over (even more than the system proposed inherently does) normal 'play to pay' players, drive them out, shrink the CREDD CX market down and drive their premium subscribers away too (or turn them into base subscribers and forgo the extra $$ they bring the company) since they won't have anyone to sell their CREDD to.
  17. Farmerbob

    Farmerbob New Cupcake

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2013
    Likes Received:
    8
    Trophy Points:
    3
    You seem to almost understand. Most players and all serious game designers came to the realization years ago that there is absolutely no possible way that they are going to effectively control gold farming in any popular game. This leaves two options. 1) Ignore gold farmers. 2) Co-opt gold farmers with legitimate offerings.

    So let's look at those two options.

    #1 - ignoring gold farmers. The game developer does nothing and allows the gold farmers to establish how players redistribute wealth within the game. Players get scammed, accounts get compromised, anger and frustration abound.

    #2 Co-opting gold farmers. The game developer knows it's going to happen anyway, so they give the gold farmers a hearty "Fork You" one finger salute and implement a system for players to transfer currency ingame using out of game money. The linkage ties the transfers to account payments. This is a proven method of controlling gold farmingEVE has been doing it for years, and EQ1 has implemented it a few months ago. It doesn't stop gold farmers completely, but it makes it FAR less attractive to players.

    If you are a game developer, which choice are you going to make? Option #1 where the more popular your game is, the more painful the Gold Farmer problem gets, or option #2 where you put yourself in a place where you cut the gold farmer out of the loop, and create a safer way for players to trade gold using out of game currency?

    After 14 years of MMO gaming, I've seen a lot of terrible decisions, but CREDD is certainly not one of them.

    Carbine is adopting a proven system that works in order to protect their players from internet gaming parasites. Just like with any other decision that a gaming company makes, there are going to be people who disagree with it.
    Malorak and Darkfaith like this.
  18. Roadblock

    Roadblock Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    May 9, 2013
    Likes Received:
    79
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Between 0 and 1
    I can reciprocate the "compliment"; you as well "almost get it" :)
    1. I have a million other problems with the CREDD system (some of which I outlined in previous posts).
    2. I sincerely doubt Carbine's top priority is protecting us from gold farmers seeing as the system proposed greatly favors the other category of undesirables, namely botters.
    Main difference is the first category is cutting into their potential profits while the latter is adding to it in the short term.
    3. I'm glad you agree that the issue with combating gold-farming is one of degree. That is exactly what I said, they're setting up shop next to the gold farmers, trying to make their wares more desirable, maybe it will work and push them out of the market maybe it won't.
    Either way the player gets screwed because the problem with RMT is not just the unsavory side-effects, it's central to the mechanic and how it affects game systems.

    What I find very interesting is what's not there more than what is.
    I mean while this is obviously a hot topic we have no more info from Carbine now than we had when it was first announced and while they routinely make their presence felt in other serious or even frivolous / joke topics they've been very careful to steer clear of payment model discussions.
    All we have to go on is that misleading infomercial. (in the interest of brevity - I already tend to type large - I'll skip what's misleading about it, but I can come back to it)

    Anyone remembers "spreadsheet"-BoB?
    The model Carbine uses to tune NPC combat power that measures their power in terms of player-power units?
    You might remember it from one of the early round-table videos where one of the designers was saying "I managed to solo a 1.7 BoB NPC so I feel pretty good about myself, a mob that's almost equivalent to 2 players in power".
    Does the game economy guy/team have a "spreadsheet"-SaM?
    I bet they do or are they just winging it and hoping for the best?
    Can they tell us what's their goal for gold generating in game for an average player?
    What's the mean they're aiming at?
    What are the avenues of gold generation in the game?
    What are the main gold sinks in the game?
    How many hours should an average player spend in the month to make enough gold to buy CREDD for next month?
    How many hours is he/she expected to spend to be able to afford a nice house plug?
    You can't entirely control the player market that's ok, give us ballpark figures/estimates/plans for the parts you do control.
    How much gold does a quest reward give? How much gold do monsters drop when killed? How much gold does a house plug cost? Are there vendor bought crafting mats, gear, mounts, xx? How much do they cost?
    (ie how many quests would I need to do, npcs killed, dungeons completed to buy a cool prop, how much questing content is there going to be in terms of hours -> get an estimate of time expended for gold earned)
    We know they're aiming for 150+ hours of content to level cap.What parts of the game generate income, what parts of the game deplete it? Specifics.

    Until someone steps up and starts giving some actual information all we're left with is assumptions and combining bits and pieces picked up from various official sources be it announcements, videos or whatever.

    So until they come out and engage in a proper discussion about payment model I'm justified to make what to me seem like common-sense assumptions and expect rational/analytical counter-arguments.
    1. CREDD creates a 3-tier customer system.
    2. Two of those tiers are paying customers, one is not, the top tier is paying for the bottom tier's access to the game.
    3. To make CREDD desirable as a store purchase, 'for-gold' items and services in game need to be valuable at least to some players.
    4. In-game gold must not be trivial to acquire, it must be time-consuming or tied to less popular activities.
    5. Having less CREDD consumers than CREDD sellers is a bigger problem than having less CREDD sellers than CREDD consumers. CREDD sellers not being able to sell their store purchased CREDD for gold pisses off your premium/highest paying customers, while the opposite pisses off your non-paying customers.
    6. If the game is built-around a progressive competitive concept (as its advertised) what works as 'catchup' for casual (in terms of time investment, not skill) / rich gamers, works as fast-lane to progress for hardcore (in terms of time investment) rich gamers, giving them a leg up over base subscription, hence no "level playing field once you're paid for access to the game", which is the main selling point of straight-up subscription.

    I take issue with several of these and more, cutting into the profits of gold-sellers while boosting botter numbers is not enough (for me) to offset.
    I'm not even touching on the 'pay to win' concerns because that's a hornet's nest.

    PS. A general comment unrelated to the immediate discussion.
    I think a bunch of people interested in the game made a 'stage exit left' when the payment model was announced from these forums.
    These I think fall into two broad categories.
    1. Gamers hoping it would go F2P so they could test/sample it without a big commitment or play it cheap/free. (maybe the largest)
    2. Gamers hoping to commit to it long term (monetarily as well) immediately seeing the 'hybrid' model presented as a subscription model so modified that it's no longer subscription in the traditional sense. (some of these would be proponents of P2P, B2P, "other" and wanting to pay for the game in a standard well defined way)
    That second category got quickly lumped together with the first as freeloaders, and shouted down/out.
    You can find many examples of gamers that asked for a traditional subscription and not a thinly veiled cash shop (cash -> credd -> gold -> content) on top of the base subscription.
    The response to those concerns has largely been emotional more than analytical / rational, "it has a subscription component so it must be subscription, get out freeloader scum" glossing over the unsavory details.

    I persist because I still have hopes and not just from the forum-goers but the developers themselves that they will at some point engage in the conversation with data, not infomercials.
    These plots/graphs will happen anyway the day the game goes into open beta, why not give an outline of your economic plan now than let the community throw it at you later with "I told you so".
  19. Malorak

    Malorak Cupcake-About-Town

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2013
    Likes Received:
    146
    Trophy Points:
    43
    This is how I see it, too.

    Just don't throw in an item shop. I pay like 150 bucks per year into your game, so don't exclude me from style items.

    At ALL the walls of text: TL;DR. Sorry..But dude, so many of them D:
  20. Kataryna

    Kataryna Super Cupcake

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2013
    Likes Received:
    1,876
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Arkansas
    CREDD you can either sell for Gold OR consume for 1 month game time. You cannot do anything other than that. Which means if you have gold - you can buy your Shiny Pony Mount. If you do not have gold, but do have extra cash laying around, you can buy CREDD, sell it to Joe Farmer (who wants game time for his efforts at gaining gold) for gold, and THEN buy your Shiny Pony Mount.

    All this means is that whoever is selling CREDD is getting the gold just a slight bit faster than those that like to farm for their Subscription instead of pay for it. AND it means that they're not able to buy anything that everyone else isn't also able to buy - meaning they only get a slight advantage of time, and no advantage of power!
    Methios, Vilonic and Destrin like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page