Jump to content

Pay2Win Space Missions ???


Dirtyshadow

Recommended Posts

What this boils down to is this:

Bioware, what is your plans for the Cartel Market? Do you see selling item upgrades that are highest tier for that group okay? Are you planning to extend this beyond ship upgrades, to things such as companion gear, PvE gear, and/or PvP Gear? If you're not sure, what is BW's stance on it? Right now, you may be against it, but I just want to hear that you guys have no intention of ever releasing top tier gear for PvP or PvE on the cartel market. If you guys have that intention, then let us know.

 

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 921
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

P2W means. i give you 5 dolars and you give me 4500 RWZ Commendaton

 

that is PW2

 

this is just buy the gear and make the space combat missions easier.

 

nothing else

 

You're right... they didn't just give you X amount of comms. They gave you the item upgrade.

 

What they did was ask you for $5 and gave you your PvP gear. They didn't make it so you would auto-win WZ's or suddenly give you 100 Valor ranking. They just gave you the gear directly to make PvP WZ's easier thus tipping the scales in your favor against people who didn't get auto-loot for $5. That's what they did.

 

Don't think that's P2W?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Opinionative and this is at least the second thread you have made on the subject in as many days. Winning isnt only a factor in PvP

 

Opinionative, in the same sense as how buying the DDE upgrade was p2w for unlocking the STAP I take? After all, it made questing just so much easier on low levels. So well yeh, nothing new to see here, people QQ'ing over nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that microtransactions are going to be the future of the gaming industry. Like them or hate them, the last 5-6 years have proven that MTs, DLC, Cash Shops, and their ilk are a lucrative business for developers and publishes. So yes, the face of gaming has changed from what it was 30 years ago when I got involved in playing and making games (as a hobby – damn my shortsidedness for not taking it more seriously back then). I don’t agree that the subscription based model is going to go away completely.

 

Even though WoW now has a free trial, they are still just too big at this point to completely throw out the sub until the very EoL of the game. For the most part, I think we will see fewer and fewer sub based “AAA” games coming down the pike, and that most of what we will see will be the continuation of established niche games like Eve and the classic ones still hanging around. Those games have a much lower overhead cost per player than any games that are released today, so they have an easier time maintaining a healthy profit margin. A few years ago, I would have liked to see more games jump on the Anet bandwagon and do what they did with Guild Wars 1. To me, that is the best way to sell a game (partly because I am old school and believe in paying one up front fee to buy “my” game and play it whenever I want). However, within the last couple of years, we have seen the rise of the pure F2P game, and the switch from sub to “Freemium”, so I think that is where the industry is headed. I see it as a good thing, again because of my old school way of thinking when buying and playing games. It wasn’t until GW1 that I finally broke down and decided to try MMOs simply because it looked like it was a great game I would enjoy playing. It has since led me to at least try many others (a couple of which I still pop in on now and again) and finally land on SWTOR.

 

I haven’t looked at some of the other big games that have gone F2P recently, even STO, which I originally purchased a Lifetime membership for, in order to compare their offerings and restrictions to SWTOR’s but I do agree that some things are a big puzzling to say the least. I think part of that problem is that what BW is giving for free is the best part of the game and there is no real way to gate that, so other restrictions have to be made, and the fact that it wasn’t built from the ground up to be a F2P or B2P model. Personally, I think unlimited Flashpoints and Warzones would be fine, but allow no rewards to be gained from playing them for F2P players. I don’t agree that only two hotbars are allowed, though you can technically get through the game with just two. Three should be standard for F2P and “Premium” players, with us subs still getting our six.

 

Obviously my view on P2W is more restrictive than many other players who define the term, but I think what we see in SWTOR, and may be seen in other games as well at this point, is the way the Western Market will be implementing F2P in the future. As several of us have mentioned before – this industry is a business and businesses exist to make money. As such, I think that while the Western Market is much less inclined to tolerate a P2W model (and we won’t see any of the “pure” P2W games like those in the Eastern Market ), we will see more of a tolerance for what we have in SWTOR. Look at how DLC for single-player games was first received. Now, even though there are players who still disagree with it, it is an accepted form of additional revenue for a game. I see this happening as well, partly because P2W is not easily defined and primarily based upon individual feelings of players. Certainly, the industry would view the definition in a more strict way (as I do) in order to “ease” the entry into the model. In the end, I think it will eventually become a necessary evil and if not fully accepted at least tolerated. I delt with the same types of feelings when digital downloads began to become the rage – I prefer to have a physical object that I can hold and call my own when I spend my money, but now, I understand the benefits the new distribution model has to the industry using it. I think it will be the same for the current trend of F2P and Freemium models – eventually they will be accepted as being better for the industry.

 

BJ

Edited by BJWyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What this boils down to is this:

Bioware, what is your plans for the Cartel Market? Do you see selling item upgrades that are highest tier for that group okay? Are you planning to extend this beyond ship upgrades, to things such as companion gear, PvE gear, and/or PvP Gear? If you're not sure, what is BW's stance on it? Right now, you may be against it, but I just want to hear that you guys have no intention of ever releasing top tier gear for PvP or PvE on the cartel market. If you guys have that intention, then let us know.

 

Those are fair questions to ask. Then again, they already answered the last one on previous occasions. At this point, they have no intention of releasing the top tier PvP and PvE gear on the CM at this point in time. That, of course can change in the future if they see that selling those items would mean more money rolling into the game than not.

 

BJ

Edited by BJWyler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So much for end game gear not being for sale...

 

Let me ask this:

If they were to offer the Tier 7 ship parts in one complete package for $5 on the CM and also offer it from a Vendor in game for 500,000 credits, would it still be a problem?

 

BJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those are fair questions to ask. Then again, they already answered the last one on previous occasions. At this point, they have no intention of releasing the top tier PvP and PvE gear on the CM at this point in time. That, of course can change in the future if they see that selling those items would mean more money rolling into the game than not.

 

BJ

You know, I'm not even sure what's the point of these questions because, you're right, BW is going to do what makes them the most money and they're not going to say "never going full P2W" if their research shows, at some point, it will make them more money.

 

I just need to accept they'll do what's best for themselves and I guess I'm just basically saying, "Bioware, if you start selling any top-end gear through the CC beyond ship upgrades, I'm going to unsub."

 

Let me ask this:

If they were to offer the Tier 7 ship parts in one complete package for $5 on the CM and also offer it from a Vendor in game for 500,000 credits, would it still be a problem?

 

BJ

That is an interesting question. I mean, I didn't really cause a big hoopla that you could buy all of the end-game mods/hilts/enh/armorings off the gtn right now, so what's the difference if End Game gear was available on patch day for X amount of credits as well as Y amount of dollars, right?

 

That's a good question. I guess I made allowances for the current case of gear because BW's itemization is so bad it was much easier to have a crafter make all of my BiS gear versus trying to farm it. I guess I'm more okay with credits and community prices in game because generally you have to work a little bit for your credits and earn them while you don't have to do anything in game to whip our your credit card and buy it.

 

That opens up a whole realm of questions. If BW was okay with selling top-end gear on the CC, then why would they be against someone selling their account? I mean, BW already bans the selling of credits, but they seem to be okay with someone buying items from CC and selling it on the GTN, so it's sort of like buying credits (though the credit amount fluctuates due to market costs). In short, BW is against it because they do not profit from the transactions unless they control it via the Cartel Market, that's the bottom line.

Edited by Lostpenguins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask this:

If they were to offer the Tier 7 ship parts in one complete package for $5 on the CM and also offer it from a Vendor in game for 500,000 credits, would it still be a problem?

 

BJ

 

Not sure where you're leaning with this but I'll bite. No, it would not be a problem. The cost would be more consistent. Right now the cost between gameplay hours/effort/hoop-jumping and real world money is so imbalanced that anyone who values their time will be compelled to simply buy these items and move on. Possibly feeling scammed in the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask this:

If they were to offer the Tier 7 ship parts in one complete package for $5 on the CM and also offer it from a Vendor in game for 500,000 credits, would it still be a problem?

 

BJ

 

We sort of have that already with HK51, don't we?

 

And I didn't see a real problem with it on HK51. But that's because there's other factors than what you put in there. And I did do the full quests twice now and probably will a third time (waiting on someone who said will be back into the game next month to run it with). But I wanted to see if there was any difference doing it REP or IMP side. One of the factors is we didn't get BH comms for HK (although doing the quest way to get him, it might have been a nice added bonus) but we didn't get that with HK. If the BH comms were taken out of the equation, I'd have a little less issue with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure where you're leaning with this but I'll bite. No, it would not be a problem. The cost would be more consistent. Right now the cost between gameplay hours/effort/hoop-jumping and real world money is so imbalanced that anyone who values their time will be compelled to simply buy these items and move on. Possibly feeling scammed in the process.

 

Basically my thoughts on that, too. Someone who really enjoys the space combat could get 500,000 on their goal for a full set of high-end space gear. Hell, that's more than buying a full set of Grade 6 off the GTN by at least double. But the current standings - 1500 fleet comms, 400 or so daily comms, 300k credits, and then your choice of either more fleet and daily comms with cybertech, or even more credits on the GTN?

 

That's a lot of hoops to jump through for someone who was planning on using their "free" subscriber coins on, oh, I don't know, the Life Day holiday "event." You know, because "subscribers get free coins, so they have no reason to complain about anything in the Cartel Shop." The whole process reminds me of a Dane Cook skit involving going to the "Whopper Lair."

 

Anyway, I'm done ranting. Found out that the other pieces are in the game, albeit also at insane amounts of "things," so screw it. Space Combat, one of the things I found fun in the game, can now go perform acts on itself in private with an iron stick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that microtransactions are going to be the future of the gaming industry. Like them or hate them, the last 5-6 years have proven that MTs, DLC, Cash Shops, and their ilk are a lucrative business for developers and publishes. So yes, the face of gaming has changed from what it was 30 years ago when I got involved in playing and making games (as a hobby – damn my shortsidedness for not taking it more seriously back then). I don’t agree that the subscription based model is going to go away completely.

 

Even though WoW now has a free trial, they are still just too big at this point to completely throw out the sub until the very EoL of the game. For the most part, I think we will see fewer and fewer sub based “AAA” games coming down the pike, and that most of what we will see will be the continuation of established niche games like Eve and the classic ones still hanging around. Those games have a much lower overhead cost per player than any games that are released today, so they have an easier time maintaining a healthy profit margin. A few years ago, I would have liked to see more games jump on the Anet bandwagon and do what they did with Guild Wars 1. To me, that is the best way to sell a game (partly because I am old school and believe in paying one up front fee to buy “my” game and play it whenever I want). However, within the last couple of years, we have seen the rise of the pure F2P game, and the switch from sub to “Freemium”, so I think that is where the industry is headed. I see it as a good thing, again because of my old school way of thinking when buying and playing games. It wasn’t until GW1 that I finally broke down and decided to try MMOs simply because it looked like it was a great game I would enjoy playing. It has since led me to at least try many others (a couple of which I still pop in on now and again) and finally land on SWTOR.

 

I haven’t looked at some of the other big games that have gone F2P recently, even STO, which I originally purchased a Lifetime membership for, in order to compare their offerings and restrictions to SWTOR’s but I do agree that some things are a big puzzling to say the least. I think part of that problem is that what BW is giving for free is the best part of the game and there is no real way to gate that, so other restrictions have to be made, and the fact that it wasn’t built from the ground up to be a F2P or B2P model. Personally, I think unlimited Flashpoints and Warzones would be fine, but allow no rewards to be gained from playing them for F2P players. I don’t agree that only two hotbars are allowed, though you can technically get through the game with just two. Three should be standard for F2P and “Premium” players, with us subs still getting our six.

 

 

BJ

 

I snipped half of your post just to save some people bandwidth :)

 

But a lot of what you put, I have to agree with. And it's already known the part we disagree on so just agree to disagree on the now dead horse.

 

But the action bar, I originally said that free should get 3, Preferred 4 (which is what old subs had already before they left if they left), and subs get 6. So you are only 1 bar for Preferred off from what I think.

 

And STO setup is, you'd have to be a nut to be paying a monthly sub now. Basically, people should either been old school LTS still remaining or free. The money people spend on a sub every month gets them nothing they couldn't have just flat out bought with a couple of months sub poured into their Zen (the coins formerly known as C-Points).

 

TOR gets crippled when you unsub with too many restrictions on things like quickbars and such.

 

That's the main reason I say TOR went too heavy handed with restrictions but STO went too light handed.

 

EDIT: They had a thread on STO site a few months back that showed that the difference between a lifer and a free player only took about 45-75 dollars worth of Zen then 5 dollars a month for Zen. Only difference was the liberated borg captain which has yet to appear in their store and at least Cryptic is not going back on that statement. You know like they did with the Mirror Universe uniforms and other things. So why someone would hand them 15 each month is crazy.

Edited by Jacen_Starsolo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That opens up a whole realm of questions. If BW was okay with selling top-end gear on the CC, then why would they be against someone selling their account? I mean, BW already bans the selling of credits, but they seem to be okay with someone buying items from CC and selling it on the GTN, so it's sort of like buying credits (though the credit amount fluctuates due to market costs). In short, BW is against it because they do not profit from the transactions unless they control it via the Cartel Market, that's the bottom line.

 

Well see, now we are getting into a whole new realm of discussion with that, and the affect of EULA's in the gaming industry. But that's best saved for another thread/forum I think.

 

Not sure where you're leaning with this but I'll bite. No, it would not be a problem. The cost would be more consistent. Right now the cost between gameplay hours/effort/hoop-jumping and real world money is so imbalanced that anyone who values their time will be compelled to simply buy these items and move on. Possibly feeling scammed in the process.

 

That's exactly what I am getting at. And if that be the case, why not then ask for a reduction in the grind? I have to jump on board the ArenaNet ship here and say that having less grind in a game is a good thing. We can ask to have RW prices raised on these items, but where do we then draw the line on what's fair vs. what will prevent the item from selling enough to make it worthwhile to sell in the first place? Perhaps, instead of screaming P2W at every turn, perhaps we should be asking for a reduction to required grind which would save us our time, and thus allow that time to be used towards things in game that we find more enjoyable.

 

Let me take this a step further. I explained some of my feelings on selling end game gear in the store in a post on page 35. Since we can determine there can be a median where RW cost of a "P2W" item can be acceptable and equitable to the in game acquisition of said item, if the CM offered the top tier PvE gear set for $15 and it was also available in game via 2 million credits, would that be OK as well?

 

BJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You actually have to be able to win for it to be pay-to-win. As it stands now, it's more of a pay-to-hate-space-missions-with-a-buring-passion.

 

LOL. I said before in the thread it might be more P2F for Pay 2 Fail. I kind of wished I didn't say that though because of the earlier convo about if this was P2W or not. Luckily, nobody thought to use that against me. ;)

Edited by Jacen_Starsolo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. I said before in the thread it might be more P2F for Pay 2 Fail. I kind of wished I didn't say that though because of the earlier convo about if this was P2W or not. Luckily, nobody thought to use that against me. ;)

 

I thought about it - but let it slide. :D

 

BJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To me this is not about these space missions in specific but the direction that Bioware seems to be taking. The game world, FOR ME, is a place where I should have the exact same chance at success as everyone else who plays it. Now obviously those who invest more time would reach the end goal faster than those who don't. That part is OK.

 

However creating "shortcuts" to achieve end game goals whatever they might be is not OK. First of all it defeats the purpose of the entire game. I mean it would be like if you started a single player at the very last boss in the game with best gear and everything. Defeat the boss... game over.

 

Second and more important, it kills any notion of achievement for those who actually did the grind to acquire this gear. At the very least Bioware should color code these items differently so if there is someone who acquired an armor set by grinding he/she and the others like him/her should be the only people that have say green version of that armor. All versions of the armor bought on cartel shop are some other color. Even better the cartel item should be slightly worse than the one acquired in the game. NOTHING in the cartel should be "best in game" items.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me ask this:

If they were to offer the Tier 7 ship parts in one complete package for $5 on the CM and also offer it from a Vendor in game for 500,000 credits, would it still be a problem?

 

BJ

 

For me that would be almost as bad as the current implementation. This would still totally kill all the sense of progress and achievement (and challenge from earlier tiers).

 

Now if you could only buy / use the parts only after completing the earlier missions in combination to your suggestion might be a decent solution. Offering few of the items only as prize for completing certain missions and maybe one or two only with comms would be even better.

 

Somehow it seems Bioware completely forgot the basic rules of keeping a game interesting and are only going for a money grab. Buying better gear with grinded creds or a credit card is definitely the least interesting way to progress in a game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a huge change guys!

 

Previously one had to grind space missions into the dirt to get commendations or save up in-game credits to get what they need to win a space mission.

 

Now we have to grind space missions into the dirt to get commendations or save up in-game credits or use cartel coins to get what they need to win a space mission.

 

[sarcasm]The Game is Broken!!![/sarcasm]

 

Seriously guys, I'm not a fan of F2P but some of the commentary is forcing me to defend it.

 

- Arcada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I agree that microtransactions are going to be the future of the gaming industry. Like them or hate them, the last 5-6 years have proven that MTs, DLC, Cash Shops, and their ilk are a lucrative business for developers and publishes. So yes, the face of gaming has changed from what it was 30 years ago when I got involved in playing and making games (as a hobby – damn my shortsidedness for not taking it more seriously back then). I don’t agree that the subscription based model is going to go away completely.

 

I *sort of* agree with you (and yes, that does sound wishy-washy.)

 

Free-to-play/microtransaction models are the near-future of the genre, of that there is no doubt. I think it's going to be cyclical, though. We'll see the genre move towards the free to play model for a while yet, but sometime down the road, there will be a shift back to a system of... let's call them "bundles".

 

You know how I know this? Everything is cheaper when bundled. For any player who wants to log in every day, bundled content packages will be cheaper than pay-per-use type of content unlocks.

 

Let's look at some examples from other markets. Telephones. I pay a monthly phone bill instead of pay-as-you-go, because I want unlimited access. I have a bundle that allows me "unlimited evenings and weekends" because it's cheaper and easier for everyone involved when I bundle my services.

 

I bundle my power and heating through one company, because it's cheaper. I bundle my internet and TV cable because it's cheaper. When I buy a car, the car company lists certain "option packages." I don't pick and choose absolutely everything, I buy a certain bundle that comes with what I want, because it's cheaper for them to produce 3 different "option packages" than to produce each vehicle fully customized for each individual consumer.

 

Costco. Walmart. How do these big store chains undercut the little guys? Easy, producers give them a reduced rate for buying a ton of stuff all at once, then they give you a reduced rate when you buy a ton of stuff from them all at once. Bundles. Are. Cheaper.

 

And what's more, pay-to-play systems like BioWare's are inconvenient. Say I want to run a dungeon with my friend, but he's all out of dungeon access tokens. So he buys some more. We run the dungeon once, and afterward he asks if I want to go again, but now I'm out of tokens. So we decide to go PvP. We invite 3 of our other friends along, but 2 of them have used up their weekly allotment of PvP access tokens, so they decline, since they haven't budgeted for more PvP tokens this week...

 

Eventually, someone thinks, "Man, this sure would be easier if we all just had access to everything."

 

One day, years from now, once the subscription model is all but forgotten, we'll see this revolutionary new "all access pass" advertised by the free to play MMOs. These all access passes will grant full access to the game for, say, 1 week. Or maybe they'll grant full weekend access, so you can play all you want from 6:00pm Friday until 11:59 Sunday night. And we'll eat those up, thinking, "Oh, what a great deal this is! I can play all I want for just one simple transaction! Why wasn't it like this all along?"

 

-Macheath.

Edited by Macheath
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's one of the things I mentioned about some of these restrictions BW put in place for F2P players. As I said, they are kind of behind the 8 ball because the game wasn't designed to be F2P from the ground up and the meat of the game is the 1-49 content, which is kind of tough to gate without making a sub based model, which we already know failed.

 

I don't disagree with your assessment of an All-Access Pass. That is pretty much what we have with the "Freemium" model that SWTOR and other games are using. Perhaps this model will be the one that takes over the genre in the coming years with pure F2P games offering a Lifetime All-Access pass in their cash shop (similar to STO's and CO's Lifetime Subscriber offers).

 

Thelrage is correct in that the debate on what defines P2W is a pointless task (for the most part). Even if there were an official definition of the term, those who oppose the side where the definition falls would still disagree with it regardless, because in the end it all comes down to personal playstyle and feelings on what constitutes P2W, regardless of how it is defined. So what I want to try to do here (and am leading up to with my questions), is try to bring the community together to find some common ground on the topic. I want to try to meet in the middle and find a way where something can be implemented that may or may not fall under your feelings of P2W, but is tolerable enough not to be that much of an issue.

 

We already know that BW will listen to feedback on the F2P implementation, so let’s see what we can come up with here that would be equitable for most if not all and present that to BW for consideration. My goal to have enough in the CM to make purchasing from it worthwhile and yet not let it feel like a sham or a cash grab for the subscribers.

 

BJ

Link to comment
Share on other sites


×
×
  • Create New...