So what happened? Did they just carry on and screw the protests? I'm guessing people just quit otherwise there would have been threads on the turn-around...
Yeah they did it. Also ZERO response to the community feedback they supposedly wanted.
Proof is in the action - their response was to go ahead with their plan.
That is a CLEAR response to player feedback, meaning that there was probably less than 10k players protesting, so it's safe to ignore.
Exactly what is clear? Nothing has been proven except that they went ahead with the plans. That's the only thing that is clear. Was it due to a lack of player feedback or maybe in spite of it? Which is it For certain? You speak as though you know which is which, but you do not know. You made an assumption that there was not enough player feed back based on the fact they moved forward. As if there were no other factors. But there are many other unknowns you haven't accounted for.
You came out and claimed that forums are nothing but a small group of the outspoken who do not represent the whole. But you treat the rest of the player base like mindless sheep who'll approve of anything done and said because you know they aren't speaking for themselves, so it's easy for you to speak for them isn't it?
But I could just as easily say that the forum is an accurate sample group of the larger player base and that the proportions in those polls accurately represent the overall opinions of the entire population playing the game.
We can say anything we want can't we, but the only fact you know for sure is they are moving forward.
So what happened? Did they just carry on and screw the protests? I'm guessing people just quit otherwise there would have been threads on the turn-around...
Yeah they did it. Also ZERO response to the community feedback they supposedly wanted.
Proof is in the action - their response was to go ahead with their plan.
That is a CLEAR response to player feedback, meaning that there was probably less than 10k players protesting, so it's safe to ignore.
Exactly what is clear? Nothing has been proven except that they went ahead with the plans. That's the only thing that is clear. Was it due to a lack of player feedback or maybe in spite of it? Which is it For certain? You speak as though you know which is which, but you do not know. You made an assumption that there was not enough player feed back based on the fact they moved forward. As if there were no other factors. But there are many other unknowns you haven't accounted for.
You came out and claimed that forums are nothing but a small group of the outspoken who do not represent the whole. But you treat the rest of the player base like mindless sheep who'll approve of anything done and said because you know they aren't speaking for themselves, so it's easy for you to speak for them isn't it?
But I could just as easily say that the forum is an accurate sample group of the larger player base and that the proportions in those polls accurately represent the overall opinions of the entire population playing the game.
We can say anything we want can't we, but the only fact you know for sure is they are moving forward.
The fact that they went with it and didn't even bother to respond speaks volumes of how unimportant the protesters were.
If this was 90% of the playerbase, they probably wouldn't have done it.
So, it's either 90% or 10%? Only 51% need to quit for the majority to have quit.
Maybe "only" 10,000 players protested, but that doesn't mean the other whatever number of players like the change.
It's like the march on Washington to protest segregation. Did you know that far less than 1% of the US population went to that protest? Does that mean the other 99% of the population loved segregation?
Not only that, just because someone is still playing doesn't mean they will ever spend money in the game again. It's still a b2p game and if you've already bought it, it's free to keep playing and you might do it if you're bored.
Kakao showed their cards here to most people beyond a shadow of a doubt. They will certainly get no more money from me, at least.
And no, the fact that they didn't respond proves nothing except they are dickheads and know that anything they say will be turned against them, especially since there is nothing to say except "Fuck you all, we're doing it anyway."
So what happened? Did they just carry on and screw the protests? I'm guessing people just quit otherwise there would have been threads on the turn-around...
Yeah they did it. Also ZERO response to the community feedback they supposedly wanted.
Proof is in the action - their response was to go ahead with their plan.
That is a CLEAR response to player feedback, meaning that there was probably less than 10k players protesting, so it's safe to ignore.
Exactly what is clear? Nothing has been proven except that they went ahead with the plans. That's the only thing that is clear. Was it due to a lack of player feedback or maybe in spite of it? Which is it For certain? You speak as though you know which is which, but you do not know. You made an assumption that there was not enough player feed back based on the fact they moved forward. As if there were no other factors. But there are many other unknowns you haven't accounted for.
You came out and claimed that forums are nothing but a small group of the outspoken who do not represent the whole. But you treat the rest of the player base like mindless sheep who'll approve of anything done and said because you know they aren't speaking for themselves, so it's easy for you to speak for them isn't it?
But I could just as easily say that the forum is an accurate sample group of the larger player base and that the proportions in those polls accurately represent the overall opinions of the entire population playing the game.
We can say anything we want can't we, but the only fact you know for sure is they are moving forward.
The fact that they went with it and didn't even bother to respond speaks volumes of how unimportant the protesters were.
If this was 90% of the playerbase, they probably wouldn't have done it.
That's not my point. You made an assumption. You jumped to a conclusion and presented it as a fact that may or may not be true as far as you know.
And no, the fact that they didn't respond proves nothing except they are dickheads and know that anything they say will be turned against them, especially since there is nothing to say except "Fuck you all, we're doing it anyway."
I don't really think most businesses work that way. I think his point is that if a business does something then they usually believe that they are doing "the right thing".
My guess is that they have a lot of data from this sort of thing and they know that it's a non-issue.
Is it possible that they have made the most grave error and the game will actually go down in flames? Possible but I seem to doubt it.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I'd be more impressed If instead of signing a petition, those people would start voting with their wallets and stop supporting companies that practice this. Let the p2win people wallow in their own fecal matter.
Second, while you're at it, start supporting games that specifically stand against P2W.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
I'd be more impressed If instead of signing a petition, those people would start voting with their wallets and stop supporting companies that practice this. Let the p2win people wallow in their own fecal matter.
Second, while you're at it, start supporting games that specifically stand against P2W.
Done and done. Unfortunately, MMOs that stand against p2w are hard to come by.
One day I believe I will be able to recreate the fun I had early on with MMORPGs when they were all sub-based, playing them for multiple years and being proud of my achievements in game.
And no, the fact that they didn't respond proves nothing except they are dickheads and know that anything they say will be turned against them, especially since there is nothing to say except "Fuck you all, we're doing it anyway."
I don't really think most businesses work that way. I think his point is that if a business does something then they usually believe that they are doing "the right thing".
My guess is that they have a lot of data from this sort of thing and they know that it's a non-issue.
Is it possible that they have made the most grave error and the game will actually go down in flames? Possible but I seem to doubt it.
Not sure why "the game won't go down in flames" should be a goal for Dev or gamer.
I mean, yeah, obviously a company is not going to do something against their own interest. Considering they are moving away from gaming, their interests don't seem to align with ours, though.
MMORPGs have so much potential. All they're being used for nowadays is quick cash and e-peen stroking for whales.
Main thing I'm confused about is you guys championing the practice of deceiving players and outright ignoring thousands of their pleas.
And no, the fact that they didn't respond proves nothing except they are dickheads and know that anything they say will be turned against them, especially since there is nothing to say except "Fuck you all, we're doing it anyway."
I don't really think most businesses work that way. I think his point is that if a business does something then they usually believe that they are doing "the right thing".
My guess is that they have a lot of data from this sort of thing and they know that it's a non-issue.
Is it possible that they have made the most grave error and the game will actually go down in flames? Possible but I seem to doubt it.
Not sure why "the game won't go down in flames" should be a goal for Dev or gamer.
MMORPGs have so much potential. All they're being used for nowadays is quick cash and e-peen stroking for whales.
Well, its not entirely encouraging that the company now in charge of the EU/NA versions of the game is more interested in hair salons than in the game itself, its just a source of revenue for them, for however long that lasts, no doubt when the pearl shop items being sold in the games market doesn't increase the revenue gains, they will think up some more measures to increase revenue, and if that doesn't work, they have probably staked out a few street corners for their female relatives, just in case.
And no, the fact that they didn't respond proves nothing except they are dickheads and know that anything they say will be turned against them, especially since there is nothing to say except "Fuck you all, we're doing it anyway."
I don't really think most businesses work that way. I think his point is that if a business does something then they usually believe that they are doing "the right thing".
My guess is that they have a lot of data from this sort of thing and they know that it's a non-issue.
Is it possible that they have made the most grave error and the game will actually go down in flames? Possible but I seem to doubt it.
Not sure why "the game won't go down in flames" should be a goal for Dev or gamer.
MMORPGs have so much potential. All they're being used for nowadays is quick cash and e-peen stroking for whales.
Well, its not entirely encouraging that the company now in charge of the EU/NA versions of the game is more interested in hair salons than in the game itself, its just a source of revenue for them, for however long that lasts, no doubt when the pearl shop items being sold in the games market doesn't increase the revenue gains, they will think up some more measures to increase revenue, and if that doesn't work, they have probably staked out a few street corners for their female relatives, just in case.
Yeah man. They should also use the player's credit card info to launder money in foreign countries. That would make them money so it's surely something a few here could really get behind.
Just had an epiphany... If im using that correctly..
I own BDO....dont play it....also not a fan of the cash shop hullaballooo but I never really followed it because I dont play...
Might start playing it now because I used to play eve...gave y pilots a much needed break. Ive bought PLEX and sold....used moongooo to buy plex..sell plex..buy plex...so forth so on and so on...
Its really no different... DAUM or whatever they are called....cutting out the RMT....I think its a good thing for BDO...and... I probably will start playing it
If that is, I can start BDO instead of Overwatch...which I dont think is happening any time soon....
So what happened? Did they just carry on and screw the protests? I'm guessing people just quit otherwise there would have been threads on the turn-around...
Yeah they did it. Also ZERO response to the community feedback they supposedly wanted.
Proof is in the action - their response was to go ahead with their plan.
That is a CLEAR response to player feedback, meaning that there was probably less than 10k players protesting, so it's safe to ignore.
Exactly what is clear? Nothing has been proven except that they went ahead with the plans. That's the only thing that is clear. Was it due to a lack of player feedback or maybe in spite of it? Which is it For certain? You speak as though you know which is which, but you do not know. You made an assumption that there was not enough player feed back based on the fact they moved forward. As if there were no other factors. But there are many other unknowns you haven't accounted for.
You came out and claimed that forums are nothing but a small group of the outspoken who do not represent the whole. But you treat the rest of the player base like mindless sheep who'll approve of anything done and said because you know they aren't speaking for themselves, so it's easy for you to speak for them isn't it?
But I could just as easily say that the forum is an accurate sample group of the larger player base and that the proportions in those polls accurately represent the overall opinions of the entire population playing the game.
We can say anything we want can't we, but the only fact you know for sure is they are moving forward.
The fact that they went with it and didn't even bother to respond speaks volumes of how unimportant the protesters customers were are
If this was 90% of the playerbase, they probably wouldn't have done it.
I think the only bit i disagree with is the supposition that they wouldn't go ahead with it if 90% of the playerbase didn't agree with it, there is no indication at all that this is the case. Chances are, the only thing that matters is the revenue stream, so every incentive possible is likely to be utilised in order to encourage 'customers' however many are left that is, to engage more with the in game cash shop. Which, when you think of it, considering the game was popular because it proclaimed itself to be anti-rmt and anti-p2w, then suddenly expecting those same players to get onboard and go on a buying spree is unrealistic, it will take a new playerbase in order to achieve this. So, does it matter if even 100% of the playerbase is against it? Probably not, because they aren't the target demographic, the ones they want are the ones that probably stayed away in the first place because they couldn't 'buy' success in the game. As for those players who don't engage in using the cash shop, they are a liability, it doesn't matter how many of them leave the game, because Kakao already has as much money from those guys as they are likely to get. Whichever way the whole thing is spun out, when games become all about the money, then its only a matter of time before even those people with the large disposable incomes, get fed up and move on because they don't have anyone to show off to, they need other players to display their 'bling' to, and if they aren't playing then it becomes an 'empty win'.
Exactly what is clear? Nothing has been proven except that they went ahead with the plans. That's the only thing that is clear. Was it due to a lack of player feedback or maybe in spite of it? Which is it For certain? You speak as though you know which is which, but you do not know. You made an assumption that there was not enough player feed back based on the fact they moved forward. As if there were no other factors. But there are many other unknowns you haven't accounted for.
You came out and claimed that forums are nothing but a small group of the outspoken who do not represent the whole. But you treat the rest of the player base like mindless sheep who'll approve of anything done and said because you know they aren't speaking for themselves, so it's easy for you to speak for them isn't it?
But I could just as easily say that the forum is an accurate sample group of the larger player base and that the proportions in those polls accurately represent the overall opinions of the entire population playing the game.
We can say anything we want can't we, but the only fact you know for sure is they are moving forward.
The fact that they went with it and didn't even bother to respond speaks volumes of how unimportant the protesters customers were are
If this was 90% of the playerbase, they probably wouldn't have done it.
I think the only bit i disagree with is the supposition that they wouldn't go ahead with it if 90% of the playerbase didn't agree with it, there is no indication at all that this is the case. Chances are, the only thing that matters is the revenue stream, so every incentive possible is likely to be utilised in order to encourage 'customers' however many are left that is, to engage more with the in game cash shop. Which, when you think of it, considering the game was popular because it proclaimed itself to be anti-rmt and anti-p2w, then suddenly expecting those same players to get onboard and go on a buying spree is unrealistic, it will take a new playerbase in order to achieve this. So, does it matter if even 100% of the playerbase is against it? Probably not, because they aren't the target demographic, the ones they want are the ones that probably stayed away in the first place because they couldn't 'buy' success in the game. As for those players who don't engage in using the cash shop, they are a liability, it doesn't matter how many of them leave the game, because Kakao already has as much money from those guys as they are likely to get. Whichever way the whole thing is spun out, when games become all about the money, then its only a matter of time before even those people with the large disposable incomes, get fed up and move on because they don't have anyone to show off to, they need other players to display their 'bling' to, and if they aren't playing then it becomes an 'empty win'.
Kakao/Daum have already gotten their ill-gotten gains from the non-whale gamer demographic who fell for the "B2P, no P2W" BS and have already spent the initial $30 to purchase the game. Now that that source of income has dried up significantly, they are now going after the whales of the gamer demographic. At this point, although they are aware that they will lose a significant portion of their non-whale gamer population, they are hopeful that the loss in population from that gamer demographic will be replaced by the pro-whale demographic who will be more than happy to spend money in an effort to win.
Apparently and unfortunately, given the many pro-P2W posters in this and other forums, and by the poster's comments several posts earlier, there are still many players out there who have no problem, and in fact prefer, a game in which they can spend their real life money in an effort to make up for their lack of skills, qualities, abilities, determination and/or perseverance, in an effort to increase their chances of achieving greater success of winning in a game.
Kakao/Daum are not concerned about population numbers. Cash grab MMO ventures like BDO are not as concerned about population numbers as they are about their immediate bottom line profit margins. In their short-sighted cash grab mindset, it is much more profitable, and indeed desirable, to maintain a population of 50 happy whales, than it is to maintain a population of 10,000 happy non whales. It's all about immediate profit. Viable long range profit calculations do not factor into their profit margin equations. They are worried about the here and now. They aren't looking that far ahead into future profit margins and projections.
Anyone who doesn't see the P2W phasing in of BDO is being massively naive. They are implementing their P2W elements into the game in incremental carefully planned stages. These are just the initial stages of their P2W plans. The worst is yet to come.
Exactly what is clear? Nothing has been proven except that they went ahead with the plans. That's the only thing that is clear. Was it due to a lack of player feedback or maybe in spite of it? Which is it For certain? You speak as though you know which is which, but you do not know. You made an assumption that there was not enough player feed back based on the fact they moved forward. As if there were no other factors. But there are many other unknowns you haven't accounted for.
You came out and claimed that forums are nothing but a small group of the outspoken who do not represent the whole. But you treat the rest of the player base like mindless sheep who'll approve of anything done and said because you know they aren't speaking for themselves, so it's easy for you to speak for them isn't it?
But I could just as easily say that the forum is an accurate sample group of the larger player base and that the proportions in those polls accurately represent the overall opinions of the entire population playing the game.
We can say anything we want can't we, but the only fact you know for sure is they are moving forward.
The fact that they went with it and didn't even bother to respond speaks volumes of how unimportant the protesters customers were are
If this was 90% of the playerbase, they probably wouldn't have done it.
I think the only bit i disagree with is the supposition that they wouldn't go ahead with it if 90% of the playerbase didn't agree with it, there is no indication at all that this is the case. Chances are, the only thing that matters is the revenue stream, so every incentive possible is likely to be utilised in order to encourage 'customers' however many are left that is, to engage more with the in game cash shop. Which, when you think of it, considering the game was popular because it proclaimed itself to be anti-rmt and anti-p2w, then suddenly expecting those same players to get onboard and go on a buying spree is unrealistic, it will take a new playerbase in order to achieve this. So, does it matter if even 100% of the playerbase is against it? Probably not, because they aren't the target demographic, the ones they want are the ones that probably stayed away in the first place because they couldn't 'buy' success in the game. As for those players who don't engage in using the cash shop, they are a liability, it doesn't matter how many of them leave the game, because Kakao already has as much money from those guys as they are likely to get. Whichever way the whole thing is spun out, when games become all about the money, then its only a matter of time before even those people with the large disposable incomes, get fed up and move on because they don't have anyone to show off to, they need other players to display their 'bling' to, and if they aren't playing then it becomes an 'empty win'.
Kakao/Daum have already gotten their ill-gotten gains from the non-whale gamer demographic who fell for the "B2P, no P2W" BS and have already spent the initial $30 to purchase the game. Now that that source of income has dried up significantly, they are now going after the whales of the gamer demographic. At this point, although they are aware that they will lose a significant portion of their non-whale gamer population, they are hopeful that the loss in population from that gamer demographic will be replaced by the pro-whale demographic who will be more than happy to spend money in an effort to win.
Apparently and unfortunately, given the many pro-P2W posters in this and other forums, and by the poster's comments several posts earlier, there are still many players out there who have no problem, and in fact prefer, a game in which they can spend their real life money in an effort to make up for their lack of skills, qualities, abilities, determination and/or perseverance, in an effort to increase their chances of achieving greater success of winning in a game.
Kakao/Daum are not concerned about population numbers. Cash grab MMO ventures like BDO are not as concerned about population numbers as they are about their immediate bottom line profit margins. In their short-sighted cash grab mindset, it is much more profitable, and indeed desirable, to maintain a population of 50 happy whales, than it would be to maintain a population of 10,000 happy non whales. It's all about immediate profit. Viable long range profit calculations do not factor into their profit margin equations. They are worried about the here and now. They aren't looking that far ahead into future profit margins and projections.
Maybe it's not pro-P2W posters, maybe it's realists. Please, I would encourage you to post a business plan that would show how a game developer could maintain profitability while not offering a cash shop, or offering a cash shop that is cosmetic only (although some still believe that's P2W anyway).
Honestly, if you came up with this, it would lead to a world of new, non-P2W games, games that are better than what is currently on offer. Just think of it, you could be the savior of the entire western MMORPG industry. My guess? You'll fail horribly because people in the west won't pay for anything and, believe it or not, think that they were ripped off for their $30 box purchase of a game that they've now been playing 30 hours a week for 6 months. The fact that you see 6-months as being short-sighted is pretty much point-proven here.
If you had any clue about profitability then you'd know damn well that if a gamer isn't spending money now, they won't be spending money a year from now. Look at any statistic on cash shops. So trying to play it off like "We were ALL going to spend money.... soon.... you just couldn't factor in the 'long range profit' into your calculation" is hilariously misinformed. Any F2P data that you look at shows that the likelihood of you making a purchase from a cash shop drastically decreases starting after the first week of playing a F2P game. There is, really, no long-term viable plan for profit that has been proven. So if you're sitting on the golden ticket, please, feel free to share with everyone here.
I think the only bit i disagree with is the supposition that they wouldn't go ahead with it if 90% of the playerbase didn't agree with it, there is no indication at all that this is the case. Chances are, the only thing that matters is the revenue stream, so every incentive possible is likely to be utilised in order to encourage 'customers' however many are left that is, to engage more with the in game cash shop. Which, when you think of it, considering the game was popular because it proclaimed itself to be anti-rmt and anti-p2w, then suddenly expecting those same players to get onboard and go on a buying spree is unrealistic, it will take a new playerbase in order to achieve this. So, does it matter if even 100% of the playerbase is against it? Probably not, because they aren't the target demographic, the ones they want are the ones that probably stayed away in the first place because they couldn't 'buy' success in the game. As for those players who don't engage in using the cash shop, they are a liability, it doesn't matter how many of them leave the game, because Kakao already has as much money from those guys as they are likely to get. Whichever way the whole thing is spun out, when games become all about the money, then its only a matter of time before even those people with the large disposable incomes, get fed up and move on because they don't have anyone to show off to, they need other players to display their 'bling' to, and if they aren't playing then it becomes an 'empty win'.
Kakao/Daum have already gotten their ill-gotten gains from the non-whale gamer demographic who fell for the "B2P, no P2W" BS and have already spent the initial $30 to purchase the game. Now that that source of income has dried up significantly, they are now going after the whales of the gamer demographic. At this point, although they are aware that they will lose a significant portion of their non-whale gamer population, they are hopeful that the loss in population from that gamer demographic will be replaced by the pro-whale demographic who will be more than happy to spend money in an effort to win.
Apparently and unfortunately, given the many pro-P2W posters in this and other forums, and by the poster's comments several posts earlier, there are still many players out there who have no problem, and in fact prefer, a game in which they can spend their real life money in an effort to make up for their lack of skills, qualities, abilities, determination and/or perseverance, in an effort to increase their chances of achieving greater success of winning in a game.
Kakao/Daum are not concerned about population numbers. Cash grab MMO ventures like BDO are not as concerned about population numbers as they are about their immediate bottom line profit margins. In their short-sighted cash grab mindset, it is much more profitable, and indeed desirable, to maintain a population of 50 happy whales, than it would be to maintain a population of 10,000 happy non whales. It's all about immediate profit. Viable long range profit calculations do not factor into their profit margin equations. They are worried about the here and now. They aren't looking that far ahead into future profit margins and projections.
Maybe it's not pro-P2W posters, maybe it's realists. Please, I would encourage you to post a business plan that would show how a game developer could maintain profitability while not offering a cash shop, or offering a cash shop that is cosmetic only (although some still believe that's P2W anyway).
Honestly, if you came up with this, it would lead to a world of new, non-P2W games, games that are better than what is currently on offer. Just think of it, you could be the savior of the entire western MMORPG industry. My guess? You'll fail horribly because people in the west won't pay for anything and, believe it or not, think that they were ripped off for their $30 box purchase of a game that they've now been playing 30 hours a week for 6 months. The fact that you see 6-months as being short-sighted is pretty much point-proven here.
If you had any clue about profitability then you'd know damn well that if a gamer isn't spending money now, they won't be spending money a year from now. Look at any statistic on cash shops. So trying to play it off like "We were ALL going to spend money.... soon.... you just couldn't factor in the 'long range profit' into your calculation" is hilariously misinformed. Any F2P data that you look at shows that the likelihood of you making a purchase from a cash shop drastically decreases starting after the first week of playing a F2P game. There is, really, no long-term viable plan for profit that has been proven. So if you're sitting on the golden ticket, please, feel free to share with everyone here.
And if you had any clue about short range, as well as long range, business planning you'd know dam well that there are many ways that a business can get players to spend money not only now, but well into the future, even if they aren't immediately, in the here and now, spending any money. It's called hooking a player into a game in the long run, as opposed to trying to siphon every penny out of a player before they have even sunk their teeth into it's game play. To say that just because a gamer isn't spending money now, they won't be spending money a year from now is the epitome of ignorance when it comes to long range business planning.
And I never said that a game developer could maintain profitability while not offering a cash shop, or offering a cash shop that is cosmetic only. That mindless assumption is the gist of your entire first paragraph and one in which you not only based your entire argument, but had the nerve to attempt to belittle and demean the quoted poster. Just because cash shops have been an acceptable norm whereby developers have been able to generate a source of income that helps to provide a better product for the gamer doesn't mean that cash shops can not be implemented in a reasonable and responsible manner. Many games have done so and still remained profitable.
Better yet, the implementation of a reasonable yet profitable cash shops can be a achieved with the mixture and/or combination of other revenue generating mechanics such as those offered with subscription models. Examples of this type of business model are the business models provided by perhaps two of the most successful MMORPGs in MMO history. And those are the World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy franchises.
So yes, there really are long-term proven vaible profit plans currently in existence. No golden ticket required. Might want to try doing a little research and educating yourself a bit before posting next time.
Why does this site seem to always operate under the premise that there is the "Vocal Minority" that does not represent the "Silent Majority"? Where did that assumption come from? Where is there any evidence that suggest that the "Vocal Minority" is not an accurate sample group of "Silent Majority"?
Who suggested these two groups are at odds? Doesn't anyone find it convenient that someone can come out and speak for the "Silent Majority" given they don't speak for themselves, and thus anything can be said about them?
Why does this site seem to always operate under the premise that there is the "Vocal Minority" that does not represent the "Silent Majority"? Where did that assumption come from? Where is there any evidence that suggest that the "Vocal Minority" is not an accurate sample group of "Silent Majority"?
Who suggested these two groups are at odds? Doesn't anyone find it convenient that someone can come out and speak for the "Silent Majority" given they don't speak for themselves, and thus anything can be said about them?
It probably comes from a few articles by developers where they stated that they saw inconsistencies between what people were saying on the forums and what was happening in game.
hence "vocal minority".
But it's a good point in that the vocal members of a forum may or may not represent the gaming community as a whole and probably should be taken by a case by case basis.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Why does this site seem to always operate under the premise that there is the "Vocal Minority" that does not represent the "Silent Majority"? Where did that assumption come from? Where is there any evidence that suggest that the "Vocal Minority" is not an accurate sample group of "Silent Majority"?
Who suggested these two groups are at odds? Doesn't anyone find it convenient that someone can come out and speak for the "Silent Majority" given they don't speak for themselves, and thus anything can be said about them?
It probably comes from a few articles by developers where they stated that they saw inconsistencies between what people were saying on the forums and what was happening in game.
hence "vocal minority".
But it's a good point in that the vocal members of a forum may or may not represent the gaming community as a whole and probably should be taken by a case by case basis.
You mean these same developers who blamed the player bases and the business models for problems with their games?
Why does this site seem to always operate under the premise that there is the "Vocal Minority" that does not represent the "Silent Majority"? Where did that assumption come from? Where is there any evidence that suggest that the "Vocal Minority" is not an accurate sample group of "Silent Majority"?
Who suggested these two groups are at odds? Doesn't anyone find it convenient that someone can come out and speak for the "Silent Majority" given they don't speak for themselves, and thus anything can be said about them?
It probably comes from a few articles by developers where they stated that they saw inconsistencies between what people were saying on the forums and what was happening in game.
hence "vocal minority".
But it's a good point in that the vocal members of a forum may or may not represent the gaming community as a whole and probably should be taken by a case by case basis.
You mean these same developers who blamed the player bases and the business models for problems with their games?
Are you actually saying that the developers who wrote those articles are the EXACT same developers who blamed their player base and business models?
I don't think you are; that sounds a bit more like hyperbole to me.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Why does this site seem to always operate under the premise that there is the "Vocal Minority" that does not represent the "Silent Majority"? Where did that assumption come from? Where is there any evidence that suggest that the "Vocal Minority" is not an accurate sample group of "Silent Majority"?
Who suggested these two groups are at odds? Doesn't anyone find it convenient that someone can come out and speak for the "Silent Majority" given they don't speak for themselves, and thus anything can be said about them?
It probably comes from a few articles by developers where they stated that they saw inconsistencies between what people were saying on the forums and what was happening in game.
hence "vocal minority".
But it's a good point in that the vocal members of a forum may or may not represent the gaming community as a whole and probably should be taken by a case by case basis.
You mean these same developers who blamed the player bases and the business models for problems with their games?
Are you actually saying that the developers who wrote those articles are the EXACT same developers who blamed their player base and business models?
I don't think you are; that sounds a bit more like hyperbole to me.
Infame, infame, they've all got it infame, well, one mans paranoia is another mans hyperbole, or as Julius Cesare said, et tu Brutus, to which the reply was, you lying sod you ate the lot! sorry got a bit carried away, but since the thread seems to be turning into jokes i thought i'd try and win
I don't know who Jaluvshuskies is, but they've gone above and beyond. If the company listens, the playerbase should shower Jal in gifts and thanks. There is enough good data there (polls from different places, over 2000 responses in a poll, links to news, streamers, etc) to let any dev know it's worth taking a look at.
I quit the game months ago. It was not what I wanted in an MMO. The graphics are the best by far and combat was great. Just got boring after the grinding and the fact that World bosses took forever to bring down. Not going to miss it at all.
Why does this site seem to always operate under the premise that there is the "Vocal Minority" that does not represent the "Silent Majority"? Where did that assumption come from? Where is there any evidence that suggest that the "Vocal Minority" is not an accurate sample group of "Silent Majority"?
Who suggested these two groups are at odds? Doesn't anyone find it convenient that someone can come out and speak for the "Silent Majority" given they don't speak for themselves, and thus anything can be said about them?
It probably comes from a few articles by developers where they stated that they saw inconsistencies between what people were saying on the forums and what was happening in game.
hence "vocal minority".
But it's a good point in that the vocal members of a forum may or may not represent the gaming community as a whole and probably should be taken by a case by case basis.
You mean these same developers who blamed the player bases and the business models for problems with their games?
You made a valid complaint about unsubstantiated vague broad generalizations and then went and made an unsubstantiated vague broad generalization that has no specific related real world event. No one can argue against it because the questions of what developers, what game, what business model, which problems, aren't defined.
In the best world there would be no assertions manufactured from baseless assumptions. In a thoughtful discussion people would make assertions based on facts, or at least verifiable observations. If someone implies that a majority group has a certain preference then they need to prove that. Facts first, conclusions after.
But we always skip all that because I think that sort of arguing actually takes effort and may not easily promote the preconceived agenda we're coming here to argue about, especially when it's subjective.
I know with a bit of work, I can find statements I have read in the past, released by SOE, Zneimax, Carbine, BioWare and with a bit of research I can probably find more. These publishers released official statements explaining that the reason their games were not doing as well as expected was due to the player base's desire to eat through content too quickly, or that the issue was that the subscription model itself was obsolete.
I it's not hyperbole to make this claim because They did it. Not all, but some. Can we go back and find statements, from the very same publishers saying players don't know what they want or that there is a vocal minority that didn't represent the whole? I don't know, I'm not doing it, but I would honestly be surprised if it was not the same ones. At least in part.
Why does this site seem to always operate under the premise that there is the "Vocal Minority" that does not represent the "Silent Majority"? Where did that assumption come from? Where is there any evidence that suggest that the "Vocal Minority" is not an accurate sample group of "Silent Majority"?
Who suggested these two groups are at odds? Doesn't anyone find it convenient that someone can come out and speak for the "Silent Majority" given they don't speak for themselves, and thus anything can be said about them?
It probably comes from a few articles by developers where they stated that they saw inconsistencies between what people were saying on the forums and what was happening in game.
hence "vocal minority".
But it's a good point in that the vocal members of a forum may or may not represent the gaming community as a whole and probably should be taken by a case by case basis.
You mean these same developers who blamed the player bases and the business models for problems with their games?
Are you actually saying that the developers who wrote those articles are the EXACT same developers who blamed their player base and business models?
I don't think you are; that sounds a bit more like hyperbole to me.
Infame, infame, they've all got it infame, well, one mans paranoia is another mans hyperbole, or as Julius Cesare said, et tu Brutus, to which the reply was, you lying sod you ate the lot! sorry got a bit carried away, but since the thread seems to be turning into jokes i thought i'd try and win
Fine sir you get an "awesome".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Maybe it's not pro-P2W posters, maybe it's realists. Please, I would encourage you to post a business plan that would show how a game developer could maintain profitability while not offering a cash shop, or offering a cash shop that is cosmetic only (although some still believe that's P2W anyway).
Honestly, if you came up with this, it would lead to a world of new, non-P2W games, games that are better than what is currently on offer. Just think of it, you could be the savior of the entire western MMORPG industry. My guess? You'll fail horribly because people in the west won't pay for anything and, believe it or not, think that they were ripped off for their $30 box purchase of a game that they've now been playing 30 hours a week for 6 months. The fact that you see 6-months as being short-sighted is pretty much point-proven here.
If you had any clue about profitability then you'd know damn well that if a gamer isn't spending money now, they won't be spending money a year from now. Look at any statistic on cash shops. So trying to play it off like "We were ALL going to spend money.... soon.... you just couldn't factor in the 'long range profit' into your calculation" is hilariously misinformed. Any F2P data that you look at shows that the likelihood of you making a purchase from a cash shop drastically decreases starting after the first week of playing a F2P game. There is, really, no long-term viable plan for profit that has been proven. So if you're sitting on the golden ticket, please, feel free to share with everyone here.
And if you had any clue about short range, as well as long range, business planning you'd know dam well that there are many ways that a business can get players to spend money not only now, but well into the future, even if they aren't immediately, in the here and now, spending any money. It's called hooking a player into a game in the long run, as opposed to trying to siphon every penny out of a player before they have even sunk their teeth into it's game play. To say that just because a gamer isn't spending money now, they won't be spending money a year from now is the epitome of ignorance when it comes to long range business planning.
And I never said that a game developer could maintain profitability while not offering a cash shop, or offering a cash shop that is cosmetic only. That mindless assumption is the gist of your entire first paragraph and one in which you not only based your entire argument, but had the nerve to attempt to belittle and demean the quoted poster. Just because cash shops have been an acceptable norm whereby developers have been able to generate a source of income that helps to provide a better product for the gamer doesn't mean that cash shops can not be implemented in a reasonable and responsible manner. Many games have done so and still remained profitable.
Better yet, the implementation of a reasonable yet profitable cash shops can be a achieved with the mixture and/or combination of other revenue generating mechanics such as those offered with subscription models. Examples of this type of business model are the business models provided by perhaps two of the most successful MMORPGs in MMO history. And those are the World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy franchises.
So yes, there really are long-term proven vaible profit plans currently in existence. No golden ticket required. Might want to try doing a little research and educating yourself a bit before posting next time.
I do agree with most of what you're saying. I think that maybe where I made a mistake was in assuming that with your attitude against these "pro-P2W" people, I felt as though maybe you were one who believed that all cash shop implementations are bad. I would agree with you that I don't want a cash shop that is full-on P2W. I don't want them selling best-in-slot gear in a cash shop. However, I don't think that selling items in a cash shop that are not bound to your account is, necessarily, P2W. I might see it as a grey area. However, the issue is that there has been so little consensus on what P2W means that it allows developers to leave lots open to interpretation. So, if I were to take BDO and put it up against, say, SWTOR? I see no difference in the monetization strategy. Same goes for WoW. WoW is about as P2W as you can get now, if we're using BDO as a standard, with the Time > Gold conversion.
Who knows, maybe this isn't an issue of education, but an issue of defining what P2W is, and companies taking advantage of the ambiguity of that term while they still can, at least in the North American market. I don't believe this is an issue in the Asia Pacific market at all.
Hey guy's. Currently took a break from playing BDO and came back shortly before Pay2Win was annoucned. I too was mad, but after looking at the prices/changes, it's actually a good thing for the game. Currently playing right now at a semi high level. I haven't read the thread yet, but ask me anything.
I will sum this up. The addicted out of control poor souls cannot control their behavior when it comes to spending money. They think spending money will relieve mental problems they might have in real life. The reasonable type of gamer who has just as much passion realizes that P2W is wrong. Of course there is the first time player who buys the game, and maybe buys a few things more then has an awakening. They stop playing when they realize it is a bad system. Bottom line P2W systems is almost like gambling except there are some differences which are minor if you look very deeply into it. A spade is a spade people. Rose is a rose no matter what name you call it.
Comments
You came out and claimed that forums are nothing but a small group of the outspoken who do not represent the whole. But you treat the rest of the player base like mindless sheep who'll approve of anything done and said because you know they aren't speaking for themselves, so it's easy for you to speak for them isn't it?
But I could just as easily say that the forum is an accurate sample group of the larger player base and that the proportions in those polls accurately represent the overall opinions of the entire population playing the game.
We can say anything we want can't we, but the only fact you know for sure is they are moving forward.
Maybe "only" 10,000 players protested, but that doesn't mean the other whatever number of players like the change.
It's like the march on Washington to protest segregation. Did you know that far less than 1% of the US population went to that protest? Does that mean the other 99% of the population loved segregation?
Not only that, just because someone is still playing doesn't mean they will ever spend money in the game again. It's still a b2p game and if you've already bought it, it's free to keep playing and you might do it if you're bored.
Kakao showed their cards here to most people beyond a shadow of a doubt. They will certainly get no more money from me, at least.
And no, the fact that they didn't respond proves nothing except they are dickheads and know that anything they say will be turned against them, especially since there is nothing to say except "Fuck you all, we're doing it anyway."
My guess is that they have a lot of data from this sort of thing and they know that it's a non-issue.
Is it possible that they have made the most grave error and the game will actually go down in flames? Possible but I seem to doubt it.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I'd be more impressed If instead of signing a petition, those people would start voting with their wallets and stop supporting companies that practice this. Let the p2win people wallow in their own fecal matter.
Second, while you're at it, start supporting games that specifically stand against P2W.
"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."
- Friedrich Nietzsche
One day I believe I will be able to recreate the fun I had early on with MMORPGs when they were all sub-based, playing them for multiple years and being proud of my achievements in game.
Probably won't be for awhile, though.
I mean, yeah, obviously a company is not going to do something against their own interest. Considering they are moving away from gaming, their interests don't seem to align with ours, though.
MMORPGs have so much potential. All they're being used for nowadays is quick cash and e-peen stroking for whales.
Main thing I'm confused about is you guys championing the practice of deceiving players and outright ignoring thousands of their pleas.
I own BDO....dont play it....also not a fan of the cash shop hullaballooo but I never really followed it because I dont play...
Might start playing it now because I used to play eve...gave y pilots a much needed break. Ive bought PLEX and sold....used moongooo to buy plex..sell plex..buy plex...so forth so on and so on...
Its really no different... DAUM or whatever they are called....cutting out the RMT....I think its a good thing for BDO...and... I probably will start playing it
If that is, I can start BDO instead of Overwatch...which I dont think is happening any time soon....
Chances are, the only thing that matters is the revenue stream, so every incentive possible is likely to be utilised in order to encourage 'customers' however many are left that is, to engage more with the in game cash shop.
Which, when you think of it, considering the game was popular because it proclaimed itself to be anti-rmt and anti-p2w, then suddenly expecting those same players to get onboard and go on a buying spree is unrealistic, it will take a new playerbase in order to achieve this.
So, does it matter if even 100% of the playerbase is against it?
Probably not, because they aren't the target demographic, the ones they want are the ones that probably stayed away in the first place because they couldn't 'buy' success in the game.
As for those players who don't engage in using the cash shop, they are a liability, it doesn't matter how many of them leave the game, because Kakao already has as much money from those guys as they are likely to get.
Whichever way the whole thing is spun out, when games become all about the money, then its only a matter of time before even those people with the large disposable incomes, get fed up and move on because they don't have anyone to show off to, they need other players to display their 'bling' to, and if they aren't playing then it becomes an 'empty win'.
Kakao/Daum have already gotten their ill-gotten gains from the non-whale gamer demographic who fell for the "B2P, no P2W" BS and have already spent the initial $30 to purchase the game. Now that that source of income has dried up significantly, they are now going after the whales of the gamer demographic. At this point, although they are aware that they will lose a significant portion of their non-whale gamer population, they are hopeful that the loss in population from that gamer demographic will be replaced by the pro-whale demographic who will be more than happy to spend money in an effort to win.
Apparently and unfortunately, given the many pro-P2W posters in this and other forums, and by the poster's comments several posts earlier, there are still many players out there who have no problem, and in fact prefer, a game in which they can spend their real life money in an effort to make up for their lack of skills, qualities, abilities, determination and/or perseverance, in an effort to increase their chances of achieving greater success of winning in a game.
Kakao/Daum are not concerned about population numbers. Cash grab MMO ventures like BDO are not as concerned about population numbers as they are about their immediate bottom line profit margins. In their short-sighted cash grab mindset, it is much more profitable, and indeed desirable, to maintain a population of 50 happy whales, than it is to maintain a population of 10,000 happy non whales. It's all about immediate profit. Viable long range profit calculations do not factor into their profit margin equations. They are worried about the here and now. They aren't looking that far ahead into future profit margins and projections.
Anyone who doesn't see the P2W phasing in of BDO is being massively naive. They are implementing their P2W elements into the game in incremental carefully planned stages. These are just the initial stages of their P2W plans. The worst is yet to come.
Maybe it's not pro-P2W posters, maybe it's realists. Please, I would encourage you to post a business plan that would show how a game developer could maintain profitability while not offering a cash shop, or offering a cash shop that is cosmetic only (although some still believe that's P2W anyway).
Honestly, if you came up with this, it would lead to a world of new, non-P2W games, games that are better than what is currently on offer. Just think of it, you could be the savior of the entire western MMORPG industry. My guess? You'll fail horribly because people in the west won't pay for anything and, believe it or not, think that they were ripped off for their $30 box purchase of a game that they've now been playing 30 hours a week for 6 months. The fact that you see 6-months as being short-sighted is pretty much point-proven here.
If you had any clue about profitability then you'd know damn well that if a gamer isn't spending money now, they won't be spending money a year from now. Look at any statistic on cash shops. So trying to play it off like "We were ALL going to spend money.... soon.... you just couldn't factor in the 'long range profit' into your calculation" is hilariously misinformed. Any F2P data that you look at shows that the likelihood of you making a purchase from a cash shop drastically decreases starting after the first week of playing a F2P game. There is, really, no long-term viable plan for profit that has been proven. So if you're sitting on the golden ticket, please, feel free to share with everyone here.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
And if you had any clue about short range, as well as long range, business planning you'd know dam well that there are many ways that a business can get players to spend money not only now, but well into the future, even if they aren't immediately, in the here and now, spending any money. It's called hooking a player into a game in the long run, as opposed to trying to siphon every penny out of a player before they have even sunk their teeth into it's game play. To say that just because a gamer isn't spending money now, they won't be spending money a year from now is the epitome of ignorance when it comes to long range business planning.
And I never said that a game developer could maintain profitability while not offering a cash shop, or offering a cash shop that is cosmetic only. That mindless assumption is the gist of your entire first paragraph and one in which you not only based your entire argument, but had the nerve to attempt to belittle and demean the quoted poster. Just because cash shops have been an acceptable norm whereby developers have been able to generate a source of income that helps to provide a better product for the gamer doesn't mean that cash shops can not be implemented in a reasonable and responsible manner. Many games have done so and still remained profitable.
Better yet, the implementation of a reasonable yet profitable cash shops can be a achieved with the mixture and/or combination of other revenue generating mechanics such as those offered with subscription models. Examples of this type of business model are the business models provided by perhaps two of the most successful MMORPGs in MMO history. And those are the World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy franchises.
So yes, there really are long-term proven vaible profit plans currently in existence. No golden ticket required. Might want to try doing a little research and educating yourself a bit before posting next time.
Who suggested these two groups are at odds? Doesn't anyone find it convenient that someone can come out and speak for the "Silent Majority" given they don't speak for themselves, and thus anything can be said about them?
hence "vocal minority".
But it's a good point in that the vocal members of a forum may or may not represent the gaming community as a whole and probably should be taken by a case by case basis.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I don't think you are; that sounds a bit more like hyperbole to me.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
sorry got a bit carried away, but since the thread seems to be turning into jokes i thought i'd try and win
I it's not hyperbole to make this claim because They did it. Not all, but some. Can we go back and find statements, from the very same publishers saying players don't know what they want or that there is a vocal minority that didn't represent the whole? I don't know, I'm not doing it, but I would honestly be surprised if it was not the same ones. At least in part.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
I do agree with most of what you're saying. I think that maybe where I made a mistake was in assuming that with your attitude against these "pro-P2W" people, I felt as though maybe you were one who believed that all cash shop implementations are bad. I would agree with you that I don't want a cash shop that is full-on P2W. I don't want them selling best-in-slot gear in a cash shop. However, I don't think that selling items in a cash shop that are not bound to your account is, necessarily, P2W. I might see it as a grey area. However, the issue is that there has been so little consensus on what P2W means that it allows developers to leave lots open to interpretation. So, if I were to take BDO and put it up against, say, SWTOR? I see no difference in the monetization strategy. Same goes for WoW. WoW is about as P2W as you can get now, if we're using BDO as a standard, with the Time > Gold conversion.
Who knows, maybe this isn't an issue of education, but an issue of defining what P2W is, and companies taking advantage of the ambiguity of that term while they still can, at least in the North American market. I don't believe this is an issue in the Asia Pacific market at all.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------