Even if we paid to get bonus from store. Won't there be bonus in game for people??? From the tyranids or the pvp. Or capping . Etc or npc shops or rf points??? I heard Caron saying you can give gear to players or something like that .
No. We're discussing items that cannot be found without buying them, as an extra cost on top of the game itself. It couldn't be pay to win if people who don't pay got it too...
Oddly enough this is not the case, no matter how much we might like it to be the truth. There was an article i had a few months back (and now i can't find it i'll keep looking) but basically it was a prominent game dev explaining why from a business sense no only is Pay 2 win NOT bad for a game it in fact drives better profits in an MMO, largely because those that want to win will pay as long as the cost is reasonable as perceived by the players. There is a line where it's too much and drives people away but apparently the number crunchers say a little bit of P2W drives financing really really well. I don't endorse this, and I don't think it's right, but it is a mistake to rely on the "Any P2W will kill a game" argument because that is just patently false. We just need to remain vigilant and speak up about the actual issues when they seem to appear not illusory ones. At this point Bike/vyper might actually be an issue, sidegrades until we see in game effects are not but we should keep an eye on it.
Well hopefully this game turns out well. If it fails. This will be last 40k or warhammer mmo we will get.
Only if one measures success by profit alone, which I'm not sure many players do. How many players actually care how much money the game makes, as long as it's enough to keep it online and new features coming? Sure, it might be successful in terms of profits. Most game's profit comes the hardcore few, anyway. But will it stay online long? Doubtful, even the most hardcore few will get bored fighting the same few people repeatedly. And why would anyone new join, if they can't possibly be as good as the people already there without dropping a few hundred bucks more?
Well, the idea that I am getting from all this is that Behaviour should consider: 1) Make all weapons and armor available in-game. One skin (maybe two for armors, to allow for a little character variation). 2) Make several (many!) alternate skins available in the shop for a relatively inexpensive cost (theory being that if skins are inexpensive more people will buy them, and they will buy more of them). Perhaps move to a 5-10-15 dollar scale, simple skins being $5, fancy skins with glow-y features, etc. being in the $10 range, and top end skins, like alternate vehicle or hero skins being $15-ish. 3) Provide an extensive and deep in-game system for modifications and customization, and have this system be the only source of statistical variance. This appeals to the purist, in that every performance increase is available in-game and only in-game, which totally shuts down the P2W stigma. This potentially appeals to the crafter, because you can have upgrades available from both in-game drops from Underworld runs, and from your local Techmarine/Bonesinger/MekBoy for Requisition Points. Of course these would have to be further tested/tweaked to come up with the optimal values, but I think it would allow Behaviour to monetize the game, while soothing the concerns of the anti-P2W crowd, and institute what I believe would be a very interesting upgrade system to add to general game play. This is where my mind has been going of late. T
Well, for one, a tiny little game called 'World of Tanks' for one, it's so small you might never have heard of it. But it has this golden ammo mechanic that is almost the definition of pay to win and it's doing quite well. But I'm sure you are still right somehow and will come back with yet another quip to attempt to invalidate facts. Actually that's the root of the issue here and it's why P2W seems ever present. It's because from a business perspective it's absolutely NOT against their best interests to sell advantages and there is a player segment that will happily buy advantages. It's a perspective thing, we the players (who don't want damaging P2W) see it as an evil, but business wisdom say it's good for the bottom line. The game is successful in our mind if we want to keep playing it, the game is successful to the business if it makes money. Where those intersect in an MMO is that enough people have to want to keep playing to maintain a critical mass so that other players keep playing and so long as people are playing people will spend money. The essential balance that has to be struck is how far the publisher is willing to push the players base and how much the player base is willing to accept. We are lucky (so it seems) the Behavior is actively and vocally against P2W but it's in our best interests to understand that even then boundries will be pushed as its' the reality of business to see how far you can go to make money. We have to keep them honest, but crying wolf long before a problem is apparent goes a long way to prevent legitimate complaints fall on anything but deaf ears. Again I am ANTI-P2W (I'm a bit more liberal than some in that regard to be fair) and I am only discussing the realities of the business side of P2W as it conflicts with the player side.
That stance entirely ignores the fact that items which are not P2W in any way (skins, etc) have still been shown as profitable. It also ignores the fact that the game isn't free to begin with - comparing it to FTP titles is, if I may say so, folly. Out of interest, can you name any successful MMOs which include P2W elements, which are not free to play games?
I think some of the most important "products" this game will have are going to be the heroes. And I actually don't mind if those are paywalled. Heroes feature in the game very rarely, and will have a sort of "event" impact where they rally everyone around them but become a big target for the enemy. They don't exist to be spammed, and they have a requisition cost, so their relative power level isn't really that important. In this case, a "Pay To Win" character, though perhaps philosophically distasteful, would have a negligible effect on the game overall and would reap a lot of financial benefit. People like collecting heroes, and it's a good opportunity for monetization. But other stuff, like vehicles and weapons, are the consistency of zergs. They don't exist in isolation, they exist in great numbers, and have a lasting effect on the game that isn't limited to a short period of time. This is were paid exclusion mechanics will get really messy. The PS2 Harasser FAV and Striker AA rocket were game changing, because they appeared in great numbers and added entirely new strategic options to fights (fast attack anti armor, and infantry swarm AA) that tipped the entire balance of combat. If that level of importance was restricted only to paying players, or even just to founders as is scheduled for the current FAVs as discussed, it's going to cause massively negative stigma as these tactical options are leveraged against paying customers (they bought the game, for chrissake) who are unable to retaliate in kind.
Are we forgetting that this game has a HUGE F2WAAAGGH! portion, even though it doesn't come into effect for another year and half?
