Jump to content

Progression Double-Monetized in 6.0?


FlatTax

Recommended Posts

I thought you were reaching in the first post, but you completely lost me with 'aggressively re-monetizing' and ' hyper-monetized end-game gear'. Because of experience boosts. Holy hyperbole, Batman.

 

Monetization feeding gearing isn't an accident. It's a bright line, it's been crossed, and we can bet the farm it'll get worse before it gets better.

Edited by FlatTax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Monetization feeding gearing isn't an accident. It's a bright line, it's been crossed, and we can bet the farm it'll get worse before it gets better.

 

Amps and tacticals are not limited to Renown Crates. This simple fact negates your entire arguement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Amps and tacticals are not limited to Renown Crates. This simple fact negates your entire arguement.

 

No, it doesn't. Double-boosted Renown drops need only be the easier method to have a terrible pay-to-win problem.

 

Remember, sencondary grinds for anything cash-purchasable aren't game design. They're pain points to incentivize financial transactions.

Edited by FlatTax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. Double-boosted Renown drops need only be the easier method to have a terrible pay-to-win problem.

 

Remember, sencondary grinds for anything cash-purchasable asren't game design. They're pain points to incentivize financial transactions.

 

Find the point in the stream where they say tacticals are limited to the crates or where in the AMA they state this. Otherwise, nothing makes me think their statement in doubling up boosts “if that is you world” means anything other than “if you are that greedy for fear you think doubling up on boosts is going to make it better”.

 

The way I, and others in my group took that statement was that the crates are not the best way to gear, but if you wanted to boost your speed of getting them then yes, boost away.

Edited by MacCleoud
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it doesn't. Double-boosted Renown drops need only be the easier method to have a terrible pay-to-win problem.

 

Remember, sencondary grinds for anything cash-purchasable asren't game design. They're pain points to incentivize financial transactions.

 

I'm probably the one person here who understands and agrees with your base argument: yes, the base XP boost coupled with RXP boost will create an incentive to buy more boosts (and incentive that doesn't exist now because regular XP boosts become worthless when the CXP/70 kicks in). I agree there is probably a monetization element here (and I don't have an issue with that). It's relatively minor though, and it's easily traversable (just a slightly longer grind - and for someone like me, that's the preferred approach). Someone unwilling to do that extra grind should be able to pay to get out of it -- that's just a smart model, if....

 

...the reward itself isn't purchasable (i.e. only grind time is being shortened). And additionally, the rewards here, gear, are the ends (not the means). They're the prize. None of the content will require this new gear (that I'm aware of); at least none of the existing content will. But even if the new content will require it, there are plenty of ways to get the gear just by playing. So yes, there will be microtransactions--those are here to stay--but they're being done right here IMO.

 

Pay to win is an overused pejorative. I don't want to run down the rabbit hole of defining the term, but the core thing for modern gaming is that the more there are options to attain the items just by playing the game, the less of the "ick" factor there is. And that ick is even less so where, as here, there is no option to directly purchase any of the prizes (the classic P2W)....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm probably the one person here who understands and agrees with your base argument: yes, the base XP boost coupled with RXP boost will create an incentive to buy more boosts (and incentive that doesn't exist now because regular XP boosts become worthless when the CXP/70 kicks in). I agree there is probably a monetization element here (and I don't have an issue with that). It's relatively minor though, and it's easily traversable (just a slightly longer grind - and for someone like me, that's the preferred approach). Someone unwilling to do that extra grind should be able to pay to get out of it -- that's just a smart model, if....

 

...the reward itself isn't purchasable (i.e. only grind time is being shortened). And additionally, the rewards here, gear, are the ends (not the means). They're the prize. None of the content will require this new gear (that I'm aware of); at least none of the existing content will. But even if the new content will require it, there are plenty of ways to get the gear just by playing. So yes, there will be microtransactions--those are here to stay--but they're being done right here IMO.

 

Pay to win is an overused pejorative. I don't want to run down the rabbit hole of defining the term, but the core thing for modern gaming is that the more there are options to attain the items just by playing the game, the less of the "ick" factor there is. And that ick is even less so where, as here, there is no option to directly purchase any of the prizes (the classic P2W)....

 

This is correct on every front. Will people do the double boost? Yes.

 

Are they being forced to? No

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Find the point in the stream where they say tacticals are limited to the crates or where in the AMA they state this.

 

As I said, having a non-monetized grind for them doesn't get us around the problem, if double-boosted Renown drops are the more efficient method.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that ick is even less so where, as here, there is no option to directly purchase any of the prizes (the classic P2W)....

 

I disagree. Laundering a financial transaction through a couple game mechanics doesn't reduce the 'ick' at all.

Edited by FlatTax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I disagree. Laundering a financial transaction through a couple game mechanics doesn't reduce the 'ick' at all.

 

How then, do you justify paying a sub? Especially here, considering a sub here does a lot things you're complaining about coming up. I mean, w/out paying for a sub, or buying the unlocks, you can't equip purple gear, isn't that the very definition of P2W? it's certainly one you want to use, at least when you can argue about your point of view on boosts being the only accurate view on boosts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How then, do you justify paying a sub? Especially here, considering a sub here does a lot things you're complaining about coming up. I mean, w/out paying for a sub, or buying the unlocks, you can't equip purple gear, isn't that the very definition of P2W? it's certainly one you want to use, at least when you can argue about your point of view on boosts being the only accurate view on boosts.

 

No. Nothing is free, and I expect to pay for a quality game. Monetizing advantages on top of monetized access is what I have a problem with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Nothing is free, and I expect to pay for a quality game. Monetizing advantages on top of monetized access is what I have a problem with.

 

...and as we can see from all the posts here, very few people are interpreting the information we do have the way you are. "But they're going to milk us", only if you allow it. The boosts for the current iteration of Command ranks is available for in-game currencies. You'd have to not play at all to feel like you were forced to buy them from the CS. You're making a choice to spend money on something you can get w/out touching your wallet doesn't mean BW/EA is doing something bad, however. They made them available w/out spending a dime, so your choice to spend isn't a reflection on them. "But they're in the store" doesn't mean a lot. There's beer in the grocery store, and I haven't bought any for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

your choice to spend isn't a reflection on them. "But they're in the store" doesn't mean a lot.

 

Have you seen the documentary Leaving Neverland? It's an amazing parable about the dangers of allowing culturally-beloved figures to cross bright lines.

 

Microtransactions that feed gearing? The bright line has been crossed. It's not a time to make excuses because of the uglier things it hasn't yet become. That ends poorly.

 

Whether it's Michael Jackson, or EA/BioWare, the moral obligation is for powerful people not to solicit inappropriate things from others.

Edited by FlatTax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you seen the documentary Leaving Neverland? It's an amazing parable about the dangers of allowing culturally-beloved figures to cross bright lines.

 

Microtransactions that feed gearing? The bright line has been crossed. It's not a time to make excuses because of the uglier things it hasn't yet become. That ends poorly.

 

Whether it's Michael Jackson, or EA/BioWare, the moral obligation is for powerful people not to solicit inappropriate things from others.

 

Nice snip job, not sure what you're really replying to, since what you left in, and what you decided to talk about don't seem all that related.

 

The way you feel about something does not entitle you to claim it's "inappropriate" for anyone else. The fact that the current boosters are available in game for 0 dollars worth of investment means that you're fussing to fuss. "But EA is milking us"!!!!eleven11! No, they're not. They might be milking you, but there are more than a few posts in this very thread commenting on how they're not important, and even the official references that you chose to pull out of context point the same way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you feel about something does not entitle you to claim it's "inappropriate" for anyone else.

 

You don't see a problem with soliciting gear-feeding microtransactions, as a matter of principle?

 

If it's more or less circumventable now, it doesn't alleviate the moral failure of its existence. It's the unwelcome touch that forebodes the darkness to come. A very bright line crossed.

 

I won't rationalize what's going on in EA/BioWare's Neverland.

Edited by FlatTax
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't see a problem with soliciting gear-feeding microtransactions, as a matter of principle?

 

If it's more or less circumventable now, it doesn't alleviate the moral failure of its existence. It's the unwelcome touch that forebodes the darkness to come. A very bright line crossed.

 

I won't rationalize what's going on in EA/BioWare's Neverland.

 

What I'd see as a problem would be being able to direct purchase the gear from the store. Since that's not a thing now, and it's not going to be a thing later, you're blowing smoke, and the amount of conflation here is almost criminal. Other than ranks being meaningless in context with gear drops, nothing's changing, and frankly, that's a change for the better. No more gear two tiers lower than what you're wearing, all w/out having to worry about what rank you are.

 

Feel free to accelerate your rank gains all you like, you're not going to be any better off than the player that isn't doing it. It's almost sad how much you focus on one part of the changes, but ignore everything else. I say almost because I'm aware that you're doing it deliberately. "But it's EA, it has to be bad". It's getting a little stale. I'll be sure to call 'em out when they need to be, but as it stands right now, they don't need to be. The way this is presented, it's a marked improvement on what we have now, and it starts being a marked improvement from the first time you start getting crates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I'd see as a problem would be being able to direct purchase the gear from the store.

 

Truly direct gear purchases will never happen because it's too transparent. When then next pox arrives, it'll be advantages sold in gambling products, to conceal costs and incentivize repeated transactions. FIFA-style.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feel free to accelerate your rank gains all you like, you're not going to be any better off than the player that isn't doing it.

 

I'd love for you to be right, but it's overwhelmingly likely Renown crates will be the primary feeder for Amps.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is correct on every front. Will people do the double boost? Yes.

 

Are they being forced to? No

This is the same tired argument that gets dragged out every time people try to call out problems with monetization systems. Are you being forced to buy the game? No. Are you being forced to participate in the entertainment economy? No. Does it matter whether you are? No. In this context, it has nothing to do with any of it.

 

The whole point of these systems is to make money. They don't put time and effort into something like this only to have it be ignored. So when people say things like "it's optional," they're missing the point; that time and money and thought goes into designing these things so that they will make money. It's the entire job of marketing departments to convince people to spend money on things they don't want or need.

 

Is it optional when they funnel you into a system where you feel pressured to pay for something that was designed to get you to want to pay for it? Technically, yes, but the whole point is that in that moment, you don't feel like it is optional. You feel like it's essential and you have to have it. That's the difference between offering something people may want and trying to pressure people into something they don't want or need by designing an artificial system to deprive them of something in the moment where they are at their most vulnerable. Offering something of value versus setting a trap, to put it one way. Boosts are obviously a case of setting a trap, as these are artificial numbers and progression to begin with and there is no inherent value in artificially making them hard to get through precisely to the extent that people want boosts, other than to make money.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the same tired argument that gets dragged out every time people try to call out problems with monetization systems. Are you being forced to buy the game? No. Are you being forced to participate in the entertainment economy? No. Does it matter whether you are? No. In this context, it has nothing to do with any of it.

 

The whole point of these systems is to make money. They don't put time and effort into something like this only to have it be ignored. So when people say things like "it's optional," they're missing the point; that time and money and thought goes into designing these things so that they will make money. It's the entire job of marketing departments to convince people to spend money on things they don't want or need.

 

Is it optional when they funnel you into a system where you feel pressured to pay for something that was designed to get you to want to pay for it? Technically, yes, but the whole point is that in that moment, you don't feel like it is optional. You feel like it's essential and you have to have it. That's the difference between offering something people may want and trying to pressure people into something they don't want or need by designing an artificial system to deprive them of something in the moment where they are at their most vulnerable. Offering something of value versus setting a trap, to put it one way. Boosts are obviously a case of setting a trap, as these are artificial numbers and progression to begin with and there is no inherent value in artificially making them hard to get through precisely to the extent that people want boosts, other than to make money.

 

Say it isn't so, a business is trying to make money? Tell me, do you return your paychecks to your employer on payday? It's amazing how quickly this seems like a strawman, or a tangent, but yes, they put items in the store for people to buy so they can make money. It's the same reason you see ads on YouTube, or creators asking for donations. "But they make billions", I'm sure they do, how much do they spend? Gotta cover that overhead after all.

 

Now you call me when purchasing those items is required, because until then, it's just faux outrage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say it isn't so, a business is trying to make money? Tell me, do you return your paychecks to your employer on payday? It's amazing how quickly this seems like a strawman, or a tangent, but yes, they put items in the store for people to buy so they can make money. It's the same reason you see ads on YouTube, or creators asking for donations. "But they make billions", I'm sure they do, how much do they spend? Gotta cover that overhead after all.

 

Now you call me when purchasing those items is required, because until then, it's just faux outrage.

If you mean what you're knocking down is a strawman, then yes, that's what you're doing. As I stated, there's a difference between offering something of value and setting up a trap. You can pretend I haven't made any distinction, but I have, so there is no point addressing the argument you're trying to make since it assumes I haven't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A business practice doesn't have to be compulsory to be unethical.

 

This will address both posts at once:

 

There is nothing about this that is required to play the game, and get the associated rewards, unlike the sub model, right? I think there are titles associated with the new system, but since titles are purely flavor here, and carry no benefit, there's nothing to win, except getting those titles faster. If you feel compelled to buy these to accelerate your acquisition of cosmetics, knock yourself out. However, don't pretend that it's a company doing bad things, this is one instance where they're actually not doing bad things.

 

The boosts for the current system drop from crates, and can be purchased with in game currency. Considering that this is the current model, and what we've been told, nothing about this is going to change. If making an item that is available in the CS available for in game currency is unethical, then there is no ethical thing anywhere, including arguing against said system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If making an item that is available in the CS available for in game currency is unethical, then there is no ethical thing anywhere, including arguing against said system.

 

The reverse is unethical: making an earned advantage cash-purchasable.

 

Microtransactions shouldn't be linked to progression and gearing, as a matter of bedrock principle. And, if customer respect were a thing, microtransactions wouldn't exist at all for actively paying subscribers.

Edited by FlatTax
Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...