They really buried the 27M MAUs in their last investor presentation. LOLOL. I must credit them for the honesty though.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players).
I'd say they are inventing new ways to get money from their long time fans. As their player base continues to decline it is the hardest of the hardcore that remain. So they are not neglecting their long time fans. They are getting better at extracting maximum cash from them.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players
that is interesting. care to expand on that?
If you auto log in to BNet and never play a single game ... are you a "Monthly Active User". It'll be interesting to see if ATVI changes the definition of what an MAU is. I doubt they will because many aspects are ATVI are doing just fine; I don't think they want to get into semantic word games just to obfuscate Blizzard's declining player base.
Adham got hired five years ago. We're getting to the point where Adham must show his cards... its time for Blizzard to produce something new.
"Success Has 1,000 Fathers... Failure is an orphan" Its time for all these various long time vets to produce something or get their funding cut. Pardo, Morhaime, Adham and the rest of the old Blizzard crew are living off of , at maximum, 2 more years of free money.
If any of these guys who've been part of some great games in the distant past fail to produce a game ...they'll go the way of Jon Van Canegham.
I say Blizzard either demoes a new game in the next 12 months or Adham leaves. ATVI ain't paying him to build a giant team that cranks out concept art.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players
that is interesting. care to expand on that?
It's mostly mounts, level and xp boosts, crappy costumes, gold. Stuff that old players don't really need.
You got any data that new players are the ones buying transmogs, mounts and level boosts?
I would personally imagine a new player would simply level through the content, because its all new to him. Its the Veterans that cba to do zone X for the 20th time that will buy the shortcut for their new alt or FotM class.
On May 06 2021 23:38 JimmyJRaynor wrote: They really buried the 27M MAUs in their last investor presentation. LOLOL. I must credit them for the honesty though.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players).
I'd say they are inventing new ways to get money from their long time fans. As their player base continues to decline it is the hardest of the hardcore that remain. So they are not neglecting their long time fans. They are getting better at extracting maximum cash from them.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players
that is interesting. care to expand on that?
If you auto log in to BNet and never play a single game ... are you a "Monthly Active User". It'll be interesting to see if ATVI changes the definition of what an MAU is. I doubt they will because many aspects are ATVI are doing just fine; I don't think they want to get into semantic word games just to obfuscate Blizzard's declining player base.
Adham got hired five years ago. We're getting to the point where Adham must show his cards... its time for Blizzard to produce something new.
"Success Has 1,000 Fathers... Failure is an orphan" Its time for all these various long time vets to produce something or get their funding cut. Pardo, Morhaime, Adham and the rest of the old Blizzard crew are living off of , at maximum, 2 more years of free money.
If any of these guys who've been part of some great games in the distant past fail to produce a game ...they'll go the way of Jon Van Canegham. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgqDArtNr5I
I say Blizzard either demoes a new game in the next 12 months or Adham leaves. ATVI ain't paying him to build a giant team that cranks out concept art.
Some people manage to sell concept art for 10 years. Looking at you, Star Citizen.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players
that is interesting. care to expand on that?
It's mostly mounts, level and xp boosts, crappy costumes, gold. Stuff that old players don't really need.
You got any data that new players are the ones buying transmogs, mounts and level boosts?
I would personally imagine a new player would simply level through the content, because its all new to him. Its the Veterans that cba to do zone X for the 20th time that will buy the shortcut for their new alt or FotM class.
The thing is, level boosted chars, shop-bought mounts and transmogs have 0 respect among veterans. Vets also don't need level boosts as they have enough knowledge of the game and friends in their guild to go through all the content they want in no time.
The in-game shop in WoW is definitely tailored towards newcomers, who just want to get boosted so they can participate in the end game where they've heard all the fun is, have cool mount right away without having to do something hard like soloing a dungeon to get one and some transmogs so they can look cooler than with the gear that everyone receives upon character creation.
Vets don't really care about any of that AFAIK. They will respect you for having a piece of gear that was only obtainable during some obscure event 10 years ago or a mount you get for topping the ranknings etc. but not for showing up in cash-shop stuff.
On May 06 2021 03:29 JimmyJRaynor wrote: EA employs slimey tactics to maximize profits of their annualized sports titles. However, one must also acknowledge that EA has brought more innovation and development resources towards Hockey video games than any other company in the history of the industry. And, its not close... has any other org brought even 2% as much to Hockey video games as EA has?
ATVI did everything it could to extract every $ from the SC2 playerbase. However, one must also acknowledge that the # of RTS games that had more development resources dedicated to it .... is right around zero.
Sometimes, you must give the devil its due.
Does EA have the licence to make NHL games? Pro Evolution throughout its iterations at many times has made the better product but historically has suffered through lack of licences, and when the Ultimate Team mode exploded EA, well they’re not in any position to lose licensing.
I don’t see any particular need to give the devil its due until another Starcraft. Warcraft or new RTS IP comes out of Actiblizz, Starcraft 2 was clearly a project out of Blizzard that persisted through the merger, one Blizzard could have made without the merger.
Their stalwart stewardship of the RTS genre is so laudable that they can’t even remaster old classic titles anymore.
They can get their dues in the making huge amounts of money and delivering customer satisfaction in the few genres and titles they do pursue, like fair enough.
Which is fine, by all means do that but let’s not pretend a venerable studio has been left to largely wither on the vine here.
Over the last 20 years EA has rarely , if ever , held an exclusive license for NHL games. It ain't worth the money. No one wants to put any kind of substantial resources into making hockey games.
Here is a look at the history of EA and Hockey Sims.
I don't think any other publisher has done one tenth as much for the genre as EA. Do I like every hockey game they've ever made? no. I do applaud their willingness to take risks and innovate within the genre. EA has published a few bad hockey games , a few great hockey games and a lot of "good but not great" hockey games over the past 20+ years.
^That seems incredibly specific and the vid tells me jack about the actual gameplay changes that happened. Like yes, up to date graphics and pretty animations (these faces in the current version look incredibly awkward though), but that's basically the one thing AAA publishers sell.
Because like Wombat said EATVI are mostly known for iterating the same product over and over with very minor changes. Like Nintendo had more changes between Pokémon games than EA between the few FIFAs I played and everyone has been shitting on game freak for ages for the fact that Pokémon basically had no large gameplay changes for decades.
They are mostly high quality iterations and selling the name over and over again creates a long term brand people get drawn to, so I get that the financial stability that brings and ease of marketing are desirable. If they stop being high quality iterations people also flock away, so I get that it isn't as easy as it looks like. And both occasionally do a leap of faith and introduce a new product, often more innovative or at least less mainstream than their standard games, so credit where credit is due.
I still think it's a disgusting portrayal of greed and a massive betrayal of customer trust that milking their customers once per year for massive benefits wasn't enough so they introduced addictive gambling mechanics into their games and increasingly centered their games around these.
On CEOs and boards: Usually management works longer hours, at least the management I know and it mostly goes up the more up the ladder you go. Most people don't want the responsibility and workload that comes with the paycheck, because once you climbed up a little you can live decently with your money without working 50-60 hours a week. These people also are fairly independent of their company because fundamentally business administration is micromanagement of costs and benefits, so companies have a high interest in keeping them if they are doing a good job (which is usually why they become shareholders too). So I get why their payouts are inflated.
The problem is that their wages and payouts increase faster compared to everyone else and have been for years. If the board gets as much money as the rest of the company you have to really wonder how much the board is worth and if you couldn't reinvest that money into more fruitful sources that help the company produce better or more products.
On May 07 2021 04:42 Archeon wrote: ^That seems incredibly specific and the vid tells me jack about the actual gameplay changes that happened. Like yes, up to date graphics and pretty animations (these faces in the current version look incredibly awkward though), but that's basically the one thing AAA publishers sell.
Because like Wombat said EATVI are mostly known for iterating the same product over and over with very minor changes. Like Nintendo had more changes between Pokémon games than EA between the few FIFAs I played and everyone has been shitting on game freak for ages for the fact that Pokémon basically had no large gameplay changes for decades.
They are mostly high quality iterations and selling the name over and over again creates a long term brand people get drawn to, so I get that the financial stability that brings and ease of marketing are desirable. If they stop being high quality iterations people also flock away, so I get that it isn't as easy as it looks like. And both occasionally do a leap of faith and introduce a new product, often more innovative or at least less mainstream than their standard games, so credit where credit is due.
I still think it's a disgusting portrayal of greed and a massive betrayal of customer trust that milking their customers once per year for massive benefits wasn't enough so they introduced addictive gambling mechanics into their games and increasingly centered their games around these.
On CEOs and boards: Usually management works longer hours, at least the management I know and it mostly goes up the more up the ladder you go. Most people don't want the responsibility and workload that comes with the paycheck, because once you climbed up a little you can live decently with your money without working 50-60 hours a week. These people also are fairly independent of their company because fundamentally business administration is micromanagement of costs and benefits, so companies have a high interest in keeping them if they are doing a good job (which is usually why they become shareholders too). So I get why their payouts are inflated.
The problem is that their wages and payouts increase faster compared to everyone else and have been for years. If the board gets as much money as the rest of the company you have to really wonder how much the board is worth and if you couldn't reinvest that money into more fruitful sources that help the company produce better or more products.
If i could work for CEO pay, i would absolutely do that, no matter the hours. Because i would know that i only need to do that shit for one year, and then i have enough money to retire comfortable and never work again.
On May 07 2021 04:42 Archeon wrote: ^That seems incredibly specific and the vid tells me jack about the actual gameplay changes that happened. Like yes, up to date graphics and pretty animations (these faces in the current version look incredibly awkward though), but that's basically the one thing AAA publishers sell.
Because like Wombat said EATVI are mostly known for iterating the same product over and over with very minor changes. Like Nintendo had more changes between Pokémon games than EA between the few FIFAs I played and everyone has been shitting on game freak for ages for the fact that Pokémon basically had no large gameplay changes for decades.
They are mostly high quality iterations and selling the name over and over again creates a long term brand people get drawn to, so I get that the financial stability that brings and ease of marketing are desirable. If they stop being high quality iterations people also flock away, so I get that it isn't as easy as it looks like. And both occasionally do a leap of faith and introduce a new product, often more innovative or at least less mainstream than their standard games, so credit where credit is due.
I still think it's a disgusting portrayal of greed and a massive betrayal of customer trust that milking their customers once per year for massive benefits wasn't enough so they introduced addictive gambling mechanics into their games and increasingly centered their games around these.
On CEOs and boards: Usually management works longer hours, at least the management I know and it mostly goes up the more up the ladder you go. Most people don't want the responsibility and workload that comes with the paycheck, because once you climbed up a little you can live decently with your money without working 50-60 hours a week. These people also are fairly independent of their company because fundamentally business administration is micromanagement of costs and benefits, so companies have a high interest in keeping them if they are doing a good job (which is usually why they become shareholders too). So I get why their payouts are inflated.
The problem is that their wages and payouts increase faster compared to everyone else and have been for years. If the board gets as much money as the rest of the company you have to really wonder how much the board is worth and if you couldn't reinvest that money into more fruitful sources that help the company produce better or more products.
If i could work for CEO pay, i would absolutely do that, no matter the hours. Because i would know that i only need to do that shit for one year, and then i have enough money to retire comfortable and never work again.
That's not how it works in reality though, because most of the time you have to put in the effort and produce good results and do good networking while studying and then produce results on the back of the 50-60 hours week on your workplace while doing all the shit almost everyone hates (organizing and networking) for a decade for your position to rise. And then while your responsibilities and working hours slowly climb up alongside you while you try to outperform everyone else in the company going for that job you might end up at CEO pay, but by then you had a decade of no personal life, so you'd probably not know how to start one even if you quit your job.
So yeah most people who could don't want to do that. Most people climb a bit and then think that more is not worth the hassle. Or don't want to take over management jobs because honestly fuck doing management jobs.
On May 07 2021 04:42 Archeon wrote: ^That seems incredibly specific and the vid tells me jack about the actual gameplay changes that happened. Like yes, up to date graphics and pretty animations (these faces in the current version look incredibly awkward though), but that's basically the one thing AAA publishers sell.
Because like Wombat said EATVI are mostly known for iterating the same product over and over with very minor changes. Like Nintendo had more changes between Pokémon games than EA between the few FIFAs I played and everyone has been shitting on game freak for ages for the fact that Pokémon basically had no large gameplay changes for decades.
They are mostly high quality iterations and selling the name over and over again creates a long term brand people get drawn to, so I get that the financial stability that brings and ease of marketing are desirable. If they stop being high quality iterations people also flock away, so I get that it isn't as easy as it looks like. And both occasionally do a leap of faith and introduce a new product, often more innovative or at least less mainstream than their standard games, so credit where credit is due.
I still think it's a disgusting portrayal of greed and a massive betrayal of customer trust that milking their customers once per year for massive benefits wasn't enough so they introduced addictive gambling mechanics into their games and increasingly centered their games around these.
On CEOs and boards: Usually management works longer hours, at least the management I know and it mostly goes up the more up the ladder you go. Most people don't want the responsibility and workload that comes with the paycheck, because once you climbed up a little you can live decently with your money without working 50-60 hours a week. These people also are fairly independent of their company because fundamentally business administration is micromanagement of costs and benefits, so companies have a high interest in keeping them if they are doing a good job (which is usually why they become shareholders too). So I get why their payouts are inflated.
The problem is that their wages and payouts increase faster compared to everyone else and have been for years. If the board gets as much money as the rest of the company you have to really wonder how much the board is worth and if you couldn't reinvest that money into more fruitful sources that help the company produce better or more products.
My sole issue with Actiblizz or EA to degrees is they aren’t merely milking x fanbase for all its worth, but they’re doing increasingly little besides that, not that I’m a fan of the former.
You milk FIFA UT for infinity billion dollars a year, it should give you more leeway to release other products as the risk is offset, it’s less.
Same with Actiblizz, who can’t even find the money to do a proper classic remaster job. I can avoid the stuff I don’t like, and do but they’re not making the stuff I do like either.
Which is of course the height of business genius.
Speaking of Nintendo I mean they recycle old properties but there’s usually a good bit of effort put in, I think they nailed it on hardware this generation after the Wii U stumbles, pretty good job in all. Don’t tend to milk their customer base via monetisation all that badly, what can I say after owning only a Gameboy previously I’m a pretty enthusiastic convert to their ways these days.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players
that is interesting. care to expand on that?
It's mostly mounts, level and xp boosts, crappy costumes, gold. Stuff that old players don't really need.
You got any data that new players are the ones buying transmogs, mounts and level boosts?
I would personally imagine a new player would simply level through the content, because its all new to him. Its the Veterans that cba to do zone X for the 20th time that will buy the shortcut for their new alt or FotM class.
The thing is, level boosted chars, shop-bought mounts and transmogs have 0 respect among veterans. Vets also don't need level boosts as they have enough knowledge of the game and friends in their guild to go through all the content they want in no time.
The in-game shop in WoW is definitely tailored towards newcomers, who just want to get boosted so they can participate in the end game where they've heard all the fun is, have cool mount right away without having to do something hard like soloing a dungeon to get one and some transmogs so they can look cooler than with the gear that everyone receives upon character creation.
Vets don't really care about any of that AFAIK. They will respect you for having a piece of gear that was only obtainable during some obscure event 10 years ago or a mount you get for topping the ranknings etc. but not for showing up in cash-shop stuff.
I imagine most veterans would disagree about level boosts. Shop bought cosmetics sure, but leveling boosts are paying blizzard to not waste your time leveling up. TBC just got a release date and I'm going to guess there are a lot of people who want to play TBC, but don't want to waste their time leveling to 60.
for me a paid level boost is a instant turn away because it means the leveling game doesn't matter / isn't interesting / is imbalanced or unfair between those who buy boost or not etc (it's a pay2win thing), i'll dodge a game or server like that and vanilla wow is not a game with level boosting if they also sell stuff like gold on their shop that's terrible, but well i already knew i'll never play next expansions since long ago lul tbh i'm pretty much against shop altogether cosmetics only have game meaning if they're acquired in game etc. Admins banning the bots and such is what I'd want to contribute for but there is already a subcription anyway (but a lot of bots apparently). I don't even think character transfers (from server to another) are a good idea : P paid name change and stuff? nah, why. It's just greedy. Any bonus subcription for extra support and admin/upgrade contribution though? Why not. It's just strongly dislike getting pretty much any in game stuff with money, cause that means anyone can get more by just paying.. not what we play the game for.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players
that is interesting. care to expand on that?
It's mostly mounts, level and xp boosts, crappy costumes, gold. Stuff that old players don't really need.
You got any data that new players are the ones buying transmogs, mounts and level boosts?
I would personally imagine a new player would simply level through the content, because its all new to him. Its the Veterans that cba to do zone X for the 20th time that will buy the shortcut for their new alt or FotM class.
The thing is, level boosted chars, shop-bought mounts and transmogs have 0 respect among veterans. Vets also don't need level boosts as they have enough knowledge of the game and friends in their guild to go through all the content they want in no time.
The in-game shop in WoW is definitely tailored towards newcomers, who just want to get boosted so they can participate in the end game where they've heard all the fun is, have cool mount right away without having to do something hard like soloing a dungeon to get one and some transmogs so they can look cooler than with the gear that everyone receives upon character creation.
Vets don't really care about any of that AFAIK. They will respect you for having a piece of gear that was only obtainable during some obscure event 10 years ago or a mount you get for topping the ranknings etc. but not for showing up in cash-shop stuff.
I imagine most veterans would disagree about level boosts. Shop bought cosmetics sure, but leveling boosts are paying blizzard to not waste your time leveling up. TBC just got a release date and I'm going to guess there are a lot of people who want to play TBC, but don't want to waste their time leveling to 60.
You can clone your existing char on the TBC servers for $40.
On May 06 2021 09:47 Manit0u wrote: (WoW cash shop is geared more and more towards new players
that is interesting. care to expand on that?
It's mostly mounts, level and xp boosts, crappy costumes, gold. Stuff that old players don't really need.
You got any data that new players are the ones buying transmogs, mounts and level boosts?
I would personally imagine a new player would simply level through the content, because its all new to him. Its the Veterans that cba to do zone X for the 20th time that will buy the shortcut for their new alt or FotM class.
The thing is, level boosted chars, shop-bought mounts and transmogs have 0 respect among veterans. Vets also don't need level boosts as they have enough knowledge of the game and friends in their guild to go through all the content they want in no time.
The in-game shop in WoW is definitely tailored towards newcomers, who just want to get boosted so they can participate in the end game where they've heard all the fun is, have cool mount right away without having to do something hard like soloing a dungeon to get one and some transmogs so they can look cooler than with the gear that everyone receives upon character creation.
Vets don't really care about any of that AFAIK. They will respect you for having a piece of gear that was only obtainable during some obscure event 10 years ago or a mount you get for topping the ranknings etc. but not for showing up in cash-shop stuff.
I imagine most veterans would disagree about level boosts. Shop bought cosmetics sure, but leveling boosts are paying blizzard to not waste your time leveling up. TBC just got a release date and I'm going to guess there are a lot of people who want to play TBC, but don't want to waste their time leveling to 60.
You can clone your existing char on the TBC servers for $40.
haha so that's how they did it? its just funny it's kind of the same as reselling the expansion as a remaster, though you'd pay more than once if you have more than one char to transfer hahaha it's funny i'll probably never play on their servers again actually seems to be a lvl 58 boost for a single char or something, idk exactly w/e don't like boosts etc
On May 07 2021 04:42 Archeon wrote: ^That seems incredibly specific and the vid tells me jack about the actual gameplay changes that happened. Like yes, up to date graphics and pretty animations (these faces in the current version look incredibly awkward though), but that's basically the one thing AAA publishers sell.
Because like Wombat said EATVI are mostly known for iterating the same product over and over with very minor changes. Like Nintendo had more changes between Pokémon games than EA between the few FIFAs I played and everyone has been shitting on game freak for ages for the fact that Pokémon basically had no large gameplay changes for decades.
Some years EA only offers a slight change/improvement to their annualized hockey titles. Some years they offer great innovations and features right down to the visceral feel of the game.
EA NHL '94 represented a 3 year improvement in EA's hockey sim. No other publisher put any kind of consistent effort into hockey games. NHL '94 represented an almost perfect balance of scoring skill and goaltending skill. Dekes, wrist shots, slap shots, one-timers etc. The tension between scoring and defense was also dead-on in NHL '94. However, getting to that perfect balance required three years of fine tuning. No other publisher was willing to put in the time and resources to finely tune their hockey titles. It was fire and forget. Other publishers pumped out a single title and moved on.
The big innovation for NHL '94 was manual goalie control. And, the balance//tension between scorers and goalies was PERFECT. Whether it was Cliff Ronning ( ultra fast, high acceleration, lousy shooting accuracy) , Pavel Bure ( top speed, high acceleration, great shooting skill) , Todd Gill (slow, low acceleration, lousy shot, knocks down every one) EA nailed every almost aspect of play.
in 1995 EA changed the feel of play right down to passing and puck carrying. EA knew they took the 1991 to 1994 ERA engine as far as it could go and they pivoted off of it making EA NHL 95 a totally different play experience.
The Skill Stick started with EA NHL '07. THat was an amazing innovation that added another layer of skill to puck carrying that no other hockey sim has.
I can go into much greater detail, however, the innovations I've described already make EA better than any other publisher.
On May 07 2021 10:03 ProMeTheus112 wrote: for me a paid level boost is a instant turn away because it means the leveling game doesn't matter / isn't interesting / is imbalanced or unfair between those who buy boost or not etc (it's a pay2win thing), i'll dodge a game or server like that and vanilla wow is not a game with level boosting if they also sell stuff like gold on their shop that's terrible, but well i already knew i'll never play next expansions since long ago lul tbh i'm pretty much against shop altogether cosmetics only have game meaning if they're acquired in game etc. Admins banning the bots and such is what I'd want to contribute for but there is already a subcription anyway (but a lot of bots apparently). I don't even think transfers are a good idea : P paid name change and stuff? nah, why. It's just greedy. Any bonus subcription for extra support and admin/upgrade contribution though? Why not. It's just strongly dislike getting pretty much any in game stuff with money, cause that means anyone can get more by just paying.. not what we play the game for.
I'm not sure how exactly "level boost" work, but if it's similar to EXP boost then it would be "pay2skip" rather than "pay2win", buying or not buying EXP boost can achieve the same result, the only difference is the time the player need to invest. I won't see this as an entirely bad thing, if the players think that a certain parts of a game are not enjoyable and they are ready to "pay2skip" them, then why not? I also don't have any issue with paid cosmetic, art department doesn't have much work to do in the late stage of development anyway, so why not giving them some extra work to do. I see it as the way to support the developer if you want to. Can't comment to other stuff you mention, but it seems they go too far.
On May 07 2021 10:03 ProMeTheus112 wrote: for me a paid level boost is a instant turn away because it means the leveling game doesn't matter / isn't interesting / is imbalanced or unfair between those who buy boost or not etc (it's a pay2win thing), i'll dodge a game or server like that and vanilla wow is not a game with level boosting if they also sell stuff like gold on their shop that's terrible, but well i already knew i'll never play next expansions since long ago lul tbh i'm pretty much against shop altogether cosmetics only have game meaning if they're acquired in game etc. Admins banning the bots and such is what I'd want to contribute for but there is already a subcription anyway (but a lot of bots apparently). I don't even think transfers are a good idea : P paid name change and stuff? nah, why. It's just greedy. Any bonus subcription for extra support and admin/upgrade contribution though? Why not. It's just strongly dislike getting pretty much any in game stuff with money, cause that means anyone can get more by just paying.. not what we play the game for.
I'm not sure how exactly "level boost" work, but if it's similar to EXP boost then it would be "pay2skip" rather than "pay2win", buying or not buying EXP boost can achieve the same result, the only difference is the time the player need to invest. I won't see this as an entirely bad thing, if the players think that a certain parts of a game are not enjoyable and they are ready to "pay2skip" them, then why not? I also don't have any issue with paid cosmetic, art department doesn't have much work to do in the late stage of development anyway, so why not giving them some extra work to do. I see it as the way to support the developer if you want to. Can't comment to other stuff you mention, but it seems they go too far.
Pay to skip puts perverse incentives onto game developers. Instead of making the gameplay fun, they make money through making the gameplay less fun. If levelling is pointless and unfun, just let people skip it instead of requiring them to spend money. Or, and this may be a revolutionary idea, just make the game fun to play.
Regarding paid cosmetics, i am part of a generation which still remembers stuff just being available in games, instead of trying to milk money from your player for fucking everything. I find this milking especially perverse if you already require a monthly fee on top of requiring people to buy your game.
On May 07 2021 10:03 ProMeTheus112 wrote: for me a paid level boost is a instant turn away because it means the leveling game doesn't matter / isn't interesting / is imbalanced or unfair between those who buy boost or not etc (it's a pay2win thing), i'll dodge a game or server like that and vanilla wow is not a game with level boosting if they also sell stuff like gold on their shop that's terrible, but well i already knew i'll never play next expansions since long ago lul tbh i'm pretty much against shop altogether cosmetics only have game meaning if they're acquired in game etc. Admins banning the bots and such is what I'd want to contribute for but there is already a subcription anyway (but a lot of bots apparently). I don't even think transfers are a good idea : P paid name change and stuff? nah, why. It's just greedy. Any bonus subcription for extra support and admin/upgrade contribution though? Why not. It's just strongly dislike getting pretty much any in game stuff with money, cause that means anyone can get more by just paying.. not what we play the game for.
I'm not sure how exactly "level boost" work, but if it's similar to EXP boost then it would be "pay2skip" rather than "pay2win", buying or not buying EXP boost can achieve the same result, the only difference is the time the player need to invest. I won't see this as an entirely bad thing, if the players think that a certain parts of a game are not enjoyable and they are ready to "pay2skip" them, then why not? I also don't have any issue with paid cosmetic, art department doesn't have much work to do in the late stage of development anyway, so why not giving them some extra work to do. I see it as the way to support the developer if you want to. Can't comment to other stuff you mention, but it seems they go too far.
Pay to skip puts perverse incentives onto game developers. Instead of making the gameplay fun, they make money through making the gameplay less fun. If levelling is pointless and unfun, just let people skip it instead of requiring them to spend money. Or, and this may be a revolutionary idea, just make the game fun to play.
Regarding paid cosmetics, i am part of a generation which still remembers stuff just being available in games, instead of trying to milk money from your player for fucking everything. I find this milking especially perverse if you already require a monthly fee on top of requiring people to buy your game.
"Levelling is pointless and unfun" is the biggest problem that I don't enjoy most MMO games in the market, It's a model that developer put new content behind a long time of grinding in order to keep the player playing it as long as possible to buy time until new content is introduced. Without the grinding, players will just finish and move on to other games. It's a business model exist since the dawn of MMO emphasize on getting more money rather than ethical and good game design in general.
Even with how much praise people give WoW, I simply don't see monthly subscription fee to be worth it, and it seems that even with monthly fee, the grinding problem is still there, at least in the late game given the review I read.
Regarding the paid cosmetic, it's only popular nowaday because of how easy it is to distribute small contents without hassle. And as I said, it's simply a way to support the developer if you want, because, hey, artist is not really an amazing job in term of income, it does not affect gameplay, and it's not that developer have to sacrifice something else to create and monetize it. And I mean it in any kind of games, not only MMO or WoW.
P/S: I think pay2skip is not inherently bad, it's a byproduct of the MMO model as I mentioned earlier. I don't have problem with it in free to play games. However if paying full price for a game and/or subscription fee, and then you have to pay to skip a certain part, then it's gone too far.
EPT
