View Single Post

TheIrage's Avatar

12.12.2012 , 01:13 PM | #435
I am glad to see less and less P2W discussions and more about the business model itself and its consequences.

I will leave ( to continue playing) with one last thought to add.

I feel game developers are diving uncharted waters tapping into a supplies model for the gaming industry. They are gauging how far they can go. You can look at it as how much money they can squeeze out of us ( one one end) or how can they achieve a steady and balanced business model that enables them to survive in a business market where gamers are constantly hoping from game to game( the other side). We don't know not should really care to know which end EA/BW is pointing towards... its likely more of a little of both at this stage.

The one thing that is more certain however is that money will lead direction. Our forum discussions I feel may have little impact in terms of direct feedback ... the higher impact is on creating/altering perceptions on readers about company values, competitiveness, game direction and such.... which, if you can skim through the bias, it is easy to filter out.

I say this because ultimately I believe the answers to many of this questions lie in our cumulative wallet. I may think is wrong, unfair and/or don't have the money to pay for X item regardless of whatever ones opinion of what P2W constitutes. If it sells and enough people are willing to purchase said item to offset the 15$ of one's monthly subscription, well, math wins. Also, consider that the generic supplies sales model has been around for a long time and proven very lucrative. Remember inkjet printers and the cost of cartridges? Companies can and will utilize this model... how far they go depends on how much are we willing to pay for it, and , as in the inkjet business example, there are limits to how far/how long you can push this model.