Page 76 of 120 FirstFirst ... 2666747576777886 ... LastLast
Results 751 to 760 of 1193

Thread: Buy-to-Play model and the GrandMaster Pack

  1. #751
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
    There is actually no long term discount for 1yr in terms of actual points received, subscription points expire unlike B2P Funcom Points, and it is a DEFICIT for anything shorter than 1yr at normal prices.
    You put too much emphasis on points expiry. As I said, but which you ignored to make your entire argument, I spend points at a rate of 1200 a month, so there is no expiry of points in my account.

    The expiry argument is a bad one because there is absolutely no way you can account for the different spending habits of different people.

  2. #752
    Quote Originally Posted by Claretta View Post
    You put too much emphasis on points expiry. As I said, but which you ignored to make your entire argument, I spend points at a rate of 1200 a month, so there is no expiry of points in my account.

    The expiry argument is a bad one because there is absolutely no way you can account for the different spending habits of different people.
    See this is what gets me..

    Some people will treat the completely subjective fruit of the month + milkshake as definitely having a real $5 value but arn't willing to admit there's some real value in having points last the lifetime of the game that should be made up for those getting the use'em or lose'em variety.

  3. #753
    Quote Originally Posted by Claretta View Post
    You put too much emphasis on points expiry. As I said, but which you ignored to make your entire argument, I spend points at a rate of 1200 a month, so there is no expiry of points in my account.

    The expiry argument is a bad one because there is absolutely no way you can account for the different spending habits of different people.
    Actually, if you read the history of my posts (use find all posts under my name), you will see that I actually am not opposed to points expiring and have stated this many times even directly to the developer - but I am noting that as yet another disadvantage in this case of bonus points vs Funcom points (sub vs nonsub). I also would use all my points, but we can't discount that the expiry IS a big problem for some people even if it is not for you and I. I am trying to present a collective evaluation rather than focusing on any one issue. Also, it is worth noting that this problem COULD BE ELIMINATED by Funcom simply putting subscriber-exclusive GAMEPLAY-impacting convenience items in the shop on top of the DLC - and then allowing someone to mark all that for auto DLC. That would allow someone to automatically spend all their points on gameplay stuff instead of 50% going to cosmetics they don't want. This is just one of the many suggestions I have made to fix the problem.

    My biggest problem is the overall value proposition, as a poster above stated. Even though I probably would not have bought all the points being given, the main problem here is that what WAS given evaluated on its own regardless of the sub level was insufficient for the sub price (frankly at all sub durations). So even though I can deal with that change, what I can't deal with is getting a raw deal compared to someone who pays no sub fee. That is plain wrong, and where Funcom needs to do work.

    Too many people are framing this as GM's being upset because that they got an unfavorable deal. My argument is that ALL SUBSCRIPTION LEVELS get an unfavorable deal vs a free account with this system, and solving that problem will in turn solve the GM problem.
    Last edited by Ruined; 12-21-2012 at 06:03 PM.

  4. #754
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruined View Post
    Actually, if you read the history of my posts (use find all posts under my name), you will see that I actually am not opposed to points expiring and have stated this many times even directly to the developer - but I am noting that as yet another disadvantage in this case of bonus points vs Funcom points (sub vs nonsub). I also would use all my points, but we can't discount that the expiry IS a big problem for some people even if it is not for you and I. I am trying to present a collective evaluation rather than focusing on any one issue. Also, it is worth noting that this problem COULD BE ELIMINATED by Funcom simply putting subscriber-exclusive GAMEPLAY-impacting convenience items in the shop on top of the DLC - and then allowing someone to mark all that for auto DLC. That would allow someone to automatically spend all their points on gameplay stuff instead of 50% going to cosmetics they don't want. This is just one of the many suggestions I have made to fix the problem.

    My biggest problem is the overall value proposition, as a poster above stated. Even though I probably would not have bought all the points being given, the main problem here is that what WAS given evaluated on its own regardless of the sub level was insufficient for the sub price (frankly at all sub durations). So even though I can deal with that change, what I can't deal with is getting a raw deal compared to someone who pays no sub fee. That is plain wrong, and where Funcom needs to do work.

    Too many people are framing this as GM's being upset because that they got an unfavorable deal. My argument is that ALL SUBSCRIPTION LEVELS get an unfavorable deal vs a free account with this system, and solving that problem will in turn solve the GM problem.
    ^This. The problem hits GMs harder however, because subbers have the option to cancel their sub and go the more economic and rewarding non-sub route whereas GMs paid up front.

  5. #755
    It's not all that different from real economics. You really want less scarcity so the question people ask before spending their points is 'Would I like this' rather than 'Do I want this?' or worse 'Do I need this?'

    Once you have people spending freely they are more likely to top-up to carry on buying what they like.

    Or at least that's my take on the psychology behind a successful item store.

    You want people to run out of points mid month and buy more because the stipend is far away. Think payday loans. But they will -not- do that if you give them so little that they keep a tight reign on their points and talk themselves out of spending.
    Last edited by Alessia Sedai; 12-21-2012 at 06:48 PM.

  6. #756
    Quote Originally Posted by Alessia Sedai View Post
    It's not all that different from real economics. You really want less scarcity so the question people ask before spending their points is 'Would I like this' rather than 'Do I want this?' or worse 'Do I need this?'

    Once you have people spending freely they are more likely to top-up to carry on buying what they like.

    Or at least that's my take on the psychology behind a successful item store.

    You want people to run out of points mid month and buy more because the stipend is far away. Think payday loans. But they will -not- do that if you give them so little that they keep a tight reign on their points and talk themselves out of spending.
    This is all true, but the key here is that if the subscription holder feels they were unfairly cheated due to a weak subscription benefits package they were forced into, they may decide not to give any more money to the company out of principal. Hence, the model backfires with those customers, who are arguably probably in the best financial position to buy points given the amount of money they already have thrown in at the game. Why tick off your biggest spenders??

    A better solution is to make the sub model a strong value so people are happy with it and will continue to spend money on the game instead of misering their points to give the company as little as possible due to feeling an injustice was done.

    Funcom has PLENTY of options to fix this, they just need to pick a few of them and execute em before people get even more upset.
    Last edited by Ruined; 12-21-2012 at 07:21 PM.

  7. #757
    "Funcom has PLENTY of options to fix this, they just need to pick a few of them and execute em before people get even more upset."

    Lots O' luck on that. It sounds like to me that the choices have been made and they will stick with it. The GM holders have no say in the matter, heck we already paid and the people currently holding subs will certainly vanish because of lack of value.

    It's a sad state because I do love the game however the management leaves a lot to be desired. I do hope they can look at the big picture down the road and not just the short term gains.
    "Never jump into a pile of leaves with a wet sucker".
    Linus Van Pelt

    The League of Monster Slayers - Fun loving Cabal

    www.deadgamessociety.com

  8. #758
    Quote Originally Posted by Claretta View Post
    You put too much emphasis on points expiry. As I said, but which you ignored to make your entire argument, I spend points at a rate of 1200 a month, so there is no expiry of points in my account.

    The expiry argument is a bad one because there is absolutely no way you can account for the different spending habits of different people.
    Well, that's sort of the thing. It's clearly basically a showstopper for some people, while having no effect at all on others.

    About all you can say is that it is absolutely the case that the logical value of points which must be spent within a given time or they expire is lower than the value of points which don't expire. Now, if you always spend them, the value to you isn't significantly lower. And since they're not tradeable, it may not directly affect you that they're of lower value.

    For me, the primary issue is that since these are now not freebies but points given in exchange for money, expiring them is basically fraud. The secondary issue is that we've been given "explanations" of why they must expire ("we get better metrics" and "the accountants tell us that if we give out non-expiring points it's really bad") which cannot possibly be correct. I don't just mean that they contradict evidence; I mean that they are logically incoherent. If the accounting argument were remotely possible, it would not be the case that every other game in the world with a point system uses non-expiring points. Including other games made by Funcom. And yes, I'm considering point stipends for account holders, too.

    If the real answer is, yes, it's a cash grab, the company can't stay solvent without trying to push people to buy points, well. I would be a lot happier if they'd just say that instead of offering excuses which cannot possibly be correct.

    Seriously, if their accountants are unable to figure out a way to give people who are paying them money every month real points which do not expire? Their accountants are the problem, not the rest of the game's business model.
    You can play WoW in any MMO. You don't have to play WoW in TSW. Not having fun any more? Learn to play, noob!
    Yes, I'm the_real_seebs on the RIFT forums, and used to be seebs on the CoH forums.

  9. #759
    still no news about biz decisions, Nusquam?
    Crying Dragon Gank Squad

  10. #760

    Funcom

    So the final outcomes of the discussions I have been involved in.

    1. Veteran Rewards System: As was suggested by quite a few people here, we will be adding a veteran rewards system to The Secret World. This will be retroactive back until launch and we will be offering a mix of boosts, cosmetics and other useful items for veterans to purchase using their points.
    The full list of items which will be available to veterans will be made available during January, once the team has come back from holidays and we have a chance to sit down and sort it all out.

    2. We will be adding a "price" guarantee to all subscriptions and GMs. This is basically a policy that states that if any DLC costs more than the points given to a subscriber in a month, they will receive the DLC for price of the maximum number of points. This will be added to the descriptions of those account types during January (when the guy who does it is back from holidays). A practical example of how this works is if we were to release a $20 DLC, subscribers and GMs would never pay more than 1200 ($10) points for it.
    Please note that this does not apply to stand alone expansions or DLC bundles which may contain multiple DLC.

    3. As mentioned previously we will be implementing an autobuy DLC feature for accounts, which will ensure that players who don't want to worry about using the store, will receive the DLC each month. More details on the system will be provided in January.

    Those are the results of my discussions with management regarding the concerns of the playerbase regarding the change in business model.

    For now. As with everything in this business, adjustments can be made.

    I am sure the discussions will continue. More importantly we will be watching and listening. Not everyone will be happy with the calls made, but the great thing about MMOs are that things are always up for being adjusted.


    I will be around on the forums, answering questions here and there, but I will probably leave this topic to simmer for a while.

    I appreciate the feedback and frank dialogue that I have been able to have with you guys, I wish all of you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •