Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

A Summary of Increased Repair Cost Problems (for BW/EA)

STAR WARS: The Old Republic > English > General Discussion
A Summary of Increased Repair Cost Problems (for BW/EA)
First BioWare Post First BioWare Post

BobaScott's Avatar


BobaScott
02.15.2013 , 10:19 AM | #441
Quote:
I go to this one club and it's really fun. Great drinks, good atmosphere, lots of beautiful women.

Then, one day, they decided that everyone needed a swift kick in the junk on the way in. Well, most of us decided to stop going but a few people loved the club so much they kept going. The rest of us complained to management.

Well, lo and behold after a week of junk-kicking, the clubs's revenues fell so much that they decided to reverse the policy and apologize to us all for the silly mistake. Now most of us are back and the club's as good as ever.

We're asking EA to stop kicking us in the junk. We're not asking for free drinks.
To be fair, the club was called "Junk Kickers".

Hyfy's Avatar


Hyfy
02.15.2013 , 10:21 AM | #442
Quote: Originally Posted by Ratajack View Post
You left the club, and got them to stop kicking you in the junk. That's a good thing, I agree. But what happens when you decide that the drinks there are too expensive? What will you do then? Will you and your cronies take your business elsewhere again, or threaten to do so, in an attempt to get the your preferred club to lower its prices? If they lower the prices on their drinks, what's next? What will be the next thing you want--the next reason to threaten to go elsewhere unless your demands are met?
I used to DJ quite a bit up until a few years ago. I spent many a night in bars working or otherwise patronizing. When the state of Illinois imposed a no smoking ban in its bars business was greatly reduced for a lot of those bars. One though stood out, it was always packed with people from early in the evening until closing time. The owner of the bar said to hell with the smoking ban and let people light up anyways. Once in awhile the cops would come in and ticket the people smoking. The owner would then come around and collect every single one, pay them off, raise his drink prices a buck for a few weeks to a month to recoup cost and everyone was happy.

The point is there are other ways to keep your customers happy. The owner by the way made a killing.
US. ARMY Military Police Corps

Sarcasm, a bodies natural defense against stupid

Ratajack's Avatar


Ratajack
02.15.2013 , 10:29 AM | #443
Quote: Originally Posted by astrobearx View Post
ah the slippery slope fallacy, i was wondering when you were going to show up. i mean we already had the word "entitled" appear on this thread and something to do with democrats on the other, so it was only a matter of time for this appear.

OT: no what you said wont happen, and do you know how i know this? because ppl said the same thing with prefer players getting extra quickbars and that it will lead into a players demanding more and more lax restriction onto the f2p model...i have read these forum everyday since f2p and I HAVE NOT seen any threads where a majority , if not half of the players on this forum or in game continue ask more lax restrictions. ofc some do appear once in a while, but those thread normally simply just get the "no freeloader" responses.
In this very thread, you contradict your own argument. You use the extra quickbars as a "slippery slope fallacy". You know that people argued that giving preferred players extra quickbars would lead to players demanding more lax restrictions on the F2P model. You admit that there have been multiple threads on these forums asking for fewer restrictions on the F2P model. Seems like exactly what was predicted happened--more demands for fewer restrictions predicted, and more demands for fewer restrictions actually seen.

For the record, I agreed with the decision to give preferred players more quickbars and fewer restrictions than a true F2P player. That does not diminish the slippery slope that was created.

Anyone who reads these forums can see the multiple threads demanding a credit cap unlock, medical probe unlocks, permanent unlimited FP, OPS warzone unlocks. In fact, there are threads asking for, or demanding, unlocks for every feature that a subscriber gets.

Does it mean that just because there are threads demanding things that EA/BW will listen? No, it doesn't. The fact remains, though, that every time EA/BW changes something based on people threatening to quit, it further reinforces the "We can hold our breath til we get what we want" mindset some people have. Some changes are worth making. Some changes may not be. The ultimate decision on whether or not to change something should be not be based on the number of players threatening to quit, but rather on the merits of the possible change.

Vandicus's Avatar


Vandicus
02.15.2013 , 10:32 AM | #444
Quote: Originally Posted by astrobearx View Post
ah the slippery slope fallacy, .
That's not actually slippery slope fallacy. He's simply postulating that event A would lead to event B.

*EDIT

Or in clearer terms, his hypothesis is that rewarding undesirable behavior will encourage that undesirable behavior in the future.
Darasuum kote ner vode!
Darasuum kote Mando'ade!

Ratajack's Avatar


Ratajack
02.15.2013 , 10:37 AM | #445
Quote: Originally Posted by iamthehoyden View Post
I've been doing some looking at the literature about game economies and the necessity of gold sinks and how they should be structured. I haven't seen anything that indicates that gold sinks need to be universal in order to function properly. Gold sinks exist to remove credits from the game economy. As far as I've seen, whether the gold sink is "universal" or will only impact those with excess credits to burn doesn't seem to matter.

Have you found any sources that would indicate a gold sink needs to be universal in order to work?
I've not looked for any sources that claim a credit sink should be universal, nor do I have to find any to make an observation on already evident facts. I recall simply pointing out that the proposed alternate credit sinks are not universal while repair costs are.

Repair costs are not voluntary, while the proposed alternate credit sinks would be. Do I have to go find a source that claims that credit should not be universal to make that observation?

rbkrbk's Avatar


rbkrbk
02.15.2013 , 10:44 AM | #446
Quote: Originally Posted by Ratajack View Post
OOOOH. The "do what I want, or a lot of players will quit" threat. What happens if EA/BW reduces the cost to pre-1.7 costs due to the threatened numbers of players who would quit? I'll take a guess. A lot of people would be happy right now with the reduced repair costs, fine. But down the line, people get the idea that since EA/BW changed one thing due to threatened numbers of quitters, let's try it again. Maybe it's that someone doesn't like the fact that we only get tionese gear at 50. They want Rakata gear. They start a campaign that gathers a lot of support for Rakata gear to be handed to every new 50, or a lot of people will quit. Maybe EA/BW listens again, maybe they don't.

It's the old "If you give a mouse a cookie..." syndrome.
No...they wouldn't. Because that's dumb. MOST people posting on these forums are intelligent enough to understand they don't get handouts. What they are NOT, are doormats, that don't voice their opinions on a seriously game impacting issue.
"The Old Republic is in EA’s top 10 franchises in terms of profitability, “but it’s not in our top five”. “So it’s a business contributor, while important, is not as important as Medal of Honor or Battlefield or FIFA or Madden or The Sims or SimCity..."
- John Riccitiello, CEO, Electronic Arts

Ratajack's Avatar


Ratajack
02.15.2013 , 10:44 AM | #447
Quote: Originally Posted by Vandicus View Post
That's not actually slippery slope fallacy. He's simply postulating that event A would lead to event B.

*EDIT

Or in clearer terms, his hypothesis is that rewarding undesirable behavior will encourage that undesirable behavior in the future.
That rewarding of "undesirable behavior" encouraging future "undesirable behavior" is one of the major reasons why gambling is such a huge business. Just look at the number of casinos, lotteries, sports betting parlors, poker rooms, etc.

iamthehoyden's Avatar


iamthehoyden
02.15.2013 , 10:53 AM | #448
Quote: Originally Posted by Ratajack View Post
I've not looked for any sources that claim a credit sink should be universal, nor do I have to find any to make an observation on already evident facts. I recall simply pointing out that the proposed alternate credit sinks are not universal while repair costs are.

Repair costs are not voluntary, while the proposed alternate credit sinks would be. Do I have to go find a source that claims that credit should not be universal to make that observation?
If you can find one, I'd like to see it. I don't see it as evident that a credit sink must be universal in order to function properly, therefore more evidence would be helpful in proving your point.

As far as my understanding goes from doing some reading on game economies is that inflation is caused by too much gold (or credits in this case) in the game economy. People with excess amounts of credits will then be willing to spend exorbiant amounts on even low-value items because they can. By providing "luxury" items such as high-priced vanity items, credits are taken out of the game economy through those with excess credits.

Since the credit hoarders have less excess credit, they are less likely to buy overpriced common items, returning the game economy to some sane level (I've seen articles that actually speak of "sanity checks" when evaluating game economies).

Repair costs are paid by everyone who engages in activities that involve damage and combat-induced death. Repair costs are typically used in games because they are a relatively passive gold sink (relatively because people can actively choose not to partake in combat by avoiding flashpoints and operations - which is what we're seeing). There is a place for them in the game, but when they become excessive to the point of restricting play, they have a negative impact on the game. (Fewer people taking part in ops is not a good thing for the game as a whole.)
aren't you a little short for a stormtrooper?
---------------
Fan Fiction: My Name is Solomon Crae The Man in the Box

Stunblade's Avatar


Stunblade
02.15.2013 , 11:05 AM | #449
You guys saying that these gear repair cost are overprice? you r troll? if not, how do player who are F2P that reach 50 lvl and it's require to pay the credit which they are limited to 200k cap? This need to fix asap.

I cant image how much it cost to repair on next swtor's expansion.
Lack-luster Pvp server

Ratajack's Avatar


Ratajack
02.15.2013 , 11:08 AM | #450
Quote: Originally Posted by iamthehoyden View Post
If you can find one, I'd like to see it. I don't see it as evident that a credit sink must be universal in order to function properly, therefore more evidence would be helpful in proving your point.

As far as my understanding goes from doing some reading on game economies is that inflation is caused by too much gold (or credits in this case) in the game economy. People with excess amounts of credits will then be willing to spend exorbiant amounts on even low-value items because they can. By providing "luxury" items such as high-priced vanity items, credits are taken out of the game economy through those with excess credits.

Since the credit hoarders have less excess credit, they are less likely to buy overpriced common items, returning the game economy to some sane level (I've seen articles that actually speak of "sanity checks" when evaluating game economies).

Repair costs are paid by everyone who engages in activities that involve damage and combat-induced death. Repair costs are typically used in games because they are a relatively passive gold sink (relatively because people can actively choose not to partake in combat by avoiding flashpoints and operations - which is what we're seeing). There is a place for them in the game, but when they become excessive to the point of restricting play, they have a negative impact on the game. (Fewer people taking part in ops is not a good thing for the game as a whole.)
Please tell me where in that post I said that credit sinks must be universal. Pointing out an already evident fact-- that repair costs are universal while the proposed alternate credit sinks are not universal-- is a far cry from claiming that credit sinks need to be universal.