Hi guys, maybe im a bit late. but i have one request for your Stash Tab decision: PLEASE give us at least the amount of Stash Tabs, that you can store every single Unique & Set Item at least once. For me that is one point why i prefer PoE over all other games of this genre, because i can store every single items i want (for a few $ ofc but i spend so much into PoE that i dont realy care about 3$ per stash) and dont have to decide if i want to store Unique a) or Unique b). I also dont like the method from D3 where you can get one more stash tab if you get a special condition in the Season, because i want at any time dicide if i want to play this game. And this feature feels like i have to play to “unlock” the full game. Wich is why i cancled to play D3 too (this and many other reasons).
tl:dr - Please give us a huge amount of stash stabs to store every single Unique & Set Item at least once
Been reading through this topic and I must say whining about stash tabs being some sort off buy to play, that’s… just…
15 bucks is already cheap as it is - yeah sure PoE is free - 15 bucks is a fucking sandwich.
Micro transactions are fine though I would prefer a subscription model like WoW for access and micro transactions on the side. It’s a lot more stable and you could’ve even reward people for time subscribed, for even more friendliness eg you are playing our game for 4 months now, here’s 1 month subscription free to use whenever you want
Edit: that’s subscription per game account, not characters ^^
Capprice brings up an idea which I think is worth taking a closer look at: subscription for MTXs.
I’ll set aside the suggestion for subscription in exchange for access, since it’s already been established that this will not happen. But subscription for MTXs puts me in mind of HumbleBundle’s monthly subscription in exchange for a set of games every month. While I happen to think that HumbleBundle has implemented that idea quite horribly, I also think that the idea itself is sound.
Consider this: Subscribers pay monthly ($10?), and in exchange they get access to certain MTXs earlier, they get access to exclusive MTXs (I’m actually not sure about this one), they get a few pre-set free MTXs a month, and–here’s the clincher–they get MTX points equal to the amount they spent on the subscription rate. While that last one may seem overly generous at first glance, consider the need to REALLY tempt people before they will commit to subscribing, and to demonstrate that a subscription nets guaranteed value.
Also consider the (well-established) value to revenue streams that comes with subscriptions as opposed to one-off purchases.
[quote quote=8168]I agree with Synopsis that a good rule of thumb is “If the MTX relates in any way to QoL, it should be added to the base game for all to enjoy and not made into an MTX.”
A popular defense for monetizing QoL MTXs is, “You can accomplish the same thing as the paying players by jumping through hoops; therefore you can’t call it pay2win.” But that defense does not hold water: In any economy-driven multiplayer game, the ratio of loot gained : time spent becomes the win condition, and QoL improvements almost always save players time.
[/quote]
One of the issues here though is Dev time. In an older model, QOL improvements would frequently be included in an expansion, so part of the cost was to offset dev time spent on the QOL. This is dev time not spent on extending content. Not sure what the model looks like for future content (free like POE or paid expansions), but that might factor into the equation as well.
POE is a slightly different beast though, because it’s free to play to begin with. It can easily be argued that if you play enough to need some of the QOLs, paying for them isn’t the worst thing.
It also really depends on price point. In POE, I think the currency stash tab costs like $10-15 . Even for F2P, that feels a bit steep. If it were like $5 (without having to wait for a sale or whatever), that might feel more fair to more people.
Since this game will have a base cost (for some solid reasons), toeing that line will be harder.
Subscription model barely works anymore. There’s a reason MMOs aren’t coming out with them, it just doesn’t work anymore. We’re not in the age of UO and EQ where it worked.
Hell, the only reason the subscription model is working with Adobe software is because people need the software to get their jobs done.
Still works for WoW me thinks ^^ and yes we all know WoW is declining since a few years ago and yet it still has a couple of millions subscribers. More so I would like to think the reason for its decline is not the subscription model. People complained about a lot of things in WoW but not so much about the subscription.
Personally I think that status: VIP/Plus/Elite or whatever you want to call it that games offer is pretty similar to a full fledged subscription. In most cases it offers more than just QoL stuff and it becomes mandatory for any serious player. Take ESO for example, without it your mats bag has limited capacity.
It still works for WOW because it built it’s playerbase earlier on, and was the go to MMO for while. The landscape has changed a lot since then though. For a new game, with all of the games being developed, players are tending to chose either f2p or cheaper non-subscriber based games. A number of games that have launched with a subscriber model and transitioned to a different approach (f2p with micros or box sale) because the barrier for entry is smaller. If a player is not sure if they are going to like a game, paying for the key and then having to pay for a subscription if/when they decide to play is often a turn off, and this limits your player base.
The VIP type system can work, since it usually allows players to experience the game and then make a decision as to whether it’s worthwhile to invest more money, but when it’s a recurring cost, it can have the same issues that are seen with subscriber models. At least this is what I’ve observed recently.
I just wanted to pop in and thank you for the discussion - we’ve been paying attention!
One concern we would have about an MTX-focused subscription is that it places an uncomfortable expectation of us releasing a certain number of MTX in a given time frame, or else people will be disappointed, and think that we’ve offered them poor value for their money. And that would not be unfair. While the revenue could be invaluable, we do need to be very careful about anything which could harm the relationship between EHG and the community. We’ll continue to read your suggestions and discuss them internally.
Hello, I’ve been a Diablo player since the beginning and most arpg’s since, including PoE, Grim Dawn etc etc (basically very different business models). I beleieve there is no ‘short answer’ and also from experience gamers tend to go very emotional on this topic of F2P, pay to play etc as these topics are often mixed with botting etc etc.
But, a sustainable arpgs HAS to have an economy and also has to allow players some kind of trades. A ‘closed’ system like D3 right now won’t work, people are used to spend time / money / their resources in game to get what they want. It’s up to you the editor to draw the line where you want to stop and what you’re ok with : i think grim dawn vs diablo 3 are 2 perfect absolute opposite examples. My point is : trading your resources imo is a must have and a long term bonus for a player to actually know you can ‘acquire’ / trade some stuff. Now it’s all about YOU, the editor controls that, allows some of it while preventing massive non legit trades coming from various marketplaces.
Again, i thing the endless farming / questing for resources and items like D3 won’t work in the future, there has to be a way that allowws gamers to trade / buy their resources.
For me the best payment is F2P with MTX like PoE (with steady development) or a one time purchase (around 20$) for a full polished game. I dislike every monthly subscribtion like WoW or VIP etc because these types of payment give me the feeling i have to (!!) play. otherwise it would be a waste of money btw i never spend so much $ in a game like PoE (around 3k $) just because i love it and i realy want to support the devs for their great work and im sure i had never played PoE so long (since beta) if it were a monthly payment.
hello, i agree with the monthly payment. for example i just subscribed again to wow for 3 months and i felt, beyond the monthly subscription i am so, so far behind anyone else in this game there is absolutely no chance i can actually experience any ‘end game’ raid, dungeons etc. My point is i’m part of that bunch of people that wander mostly solo, try to grab bits and pieces and of course never really make it so they can pretend to be in a group, a raid etc. Some players have time, lots of it, some others have money, some have both, well, let’s be smart and the end goal should be anyone willing to invest a bit of both should have a reasonable chance to enjoy the game, not just farming and leeching. Most of the time, that group of player end up leaving the game, too much frustration, obviously no real challenge etc.
I tried PoE and grim Dawn and loved them for various reasons, being an hardcore Diablo fan, why ? because i felt the system was more ‘open’ and i could actually get some nice stuff if i wanted. It didnt take away any excitement in the game, i actually had the chance to try end game and really enjoy some stuff that took me countless hours of farming in diablo 3.
That being said, I have contributed over $600 to Path of Exile, frankly because I was enamoured with what was the only up and coming (back in 2011) that could scratch that ARPG gaming ‘itch’, and because I was involved in the closed beta and had frank discussion about gaming mechanics while the game was still being built, I felt my contributions were having an actual impact on the game I would eventually play.
I understand where you’re coming from; I’ve spent just over €1,500 on Path of Exile myself. But my concern is that Last Epoch existing doesn’t affect my disposable income – and as World of Warcraft has proven a dozen times over, when a new game arrives in a genre it’ll be compared to the established juggernaut. WoW / PoE have much more content than any freshly released game could hope to have, with established communities to boot.
Path of Exile’s model has been proven successful. But I don’t know whether duplicating it too closely is learning from GGG’s experience or attempting to out-PoE PoE. A few studios tried making WoW clones. Their problem was that the people who wanted to play WoW did so.[/quote]
Hey Sarno! This will be my first post here but I think I have a solution for you that will cover the people not wanting to spend $15 to try the game. Simply allow a “demo” with limited progression to level 15 or whatever you think is best without access to any chat features or trading. Then if they want to continue they spend the $15 and everything opens up to them. This solves the chat spam/bot influx while also giving potential consumers a small taste of the game.
Rewriting this because my post was deleted . I think 20$ is fair for this game. Grim Dawn sells like hotcakes for 20$ and Last Epoch is promising even more content than grim dawn. I’m a long time diablo 3 player and every new season the player base returns for the competition or for the goals of the season(stash tabs/cosmetics). I personally think you should have a 1 month arena ladder and some other type of season(3-4 months) for players that want a longer grind to make it to the top of the leader-boards. Many players on D3 wish the seasons were shorter because it keeps things fresh. To keep it short, the more time people spend on your game, the more likely they are to buy the cosmetics. Many players get bored when there is no competition(myself included) and leader-boards will keep players coming back for more each month to compete. I can’t make it past level 30(out of 100 levels) in grim dawn because the game gets stale after a while for me, so keep it fresh each month to see a surge in your player-base.
Edit: Regarding the stash tab discussion. Maybe placing stash tabs behind a goal oriented system would be the solution? Like create achievements which unlock stash tabs, just an idea. This would make players play longer to unlock the tabs and thus more chance at them purchasing cosmetic MTX.
[quote quote=9226]Rewriting this because my post was deleted . I think 20$ is fair for this game. Grim Dawn sells like hotcakes for 20$ and Last Epoch is promising even more content than grim dawn. I’m a long time diablo 3 player and every new season the player base returns for the competition or for the goals of the season(stash tabs/cosmetics). I personally think you should have a 1 month arena ladder and some other type of season(3-4 months) for players that want a longer grind to make it to the top of the leader-boards. Many players on D3 wish the seasons were shorter because it keeps things fresh. To keep it short, the more time people spend on your game, the more likely they are to buy the cosmetics. Many players get bored when there is no competition(myself included) and leader-boards will keep players coming back for more each month to compete. I can’t make it past level 30(out of 100 levels) in grim dawn because the game gets stale after a while for me, so keep it fresh each month to see a surge in your player-base.
Edit: Regarding the stash tab discussion. Maybe placing stash tabs behind a goal oriented system would be the solution? Like create achievements which unlock stash tabs, just an idea. This would make players play longer to unlock the tabs and thus more chance at them purchasing cosmetic MTX.[/quote]
The ideal length of a league is inversely proportionate to how much gaming time a given player has in an average day. It cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of accuracy without a demographic analysis of the players.
It also varies by playing style. For example, I (and many others) feel that PoE leagues are too short. And others feel that they are too long. Trading players who don’t mind “chasing the meta” are more likely to feel they are too long. As an SSF player who finds the very concept of “chasing the meta” anathema, I am not in that camp.
I wonder if a compromise would be unrealistic. For example, shorter trade leagues but longer SSF leagues (for reasons which are probably obvious).
choosing the right business model - this will decide the fate of your game - i wouldn’t wanna be in your shoes right now - hopefully you’ll make the right decision - good luck to everyone involved
[quote quote=9243]The ideal length of a league is inversely proportionate to how much gaming time a given player has in an average day. It cannot be determined with any reasonable degree of accuracy without a demographic analysis of the players.
It also varies by playing style. For example, I (and many others) feel that PoE leagues are too short. And others feel that they are too long. Trading players who don’t mind “chasing the meta” are more likely to feel they are too long. As an SSF player who finds the very concept of “chasing the meta” anathema, I am not in that camp.
I wonder if a compromise would be unrealistic. For example, shorter trade leagues but longer SSF leagues (for reasons which are probably obvious).[/quote]
I think it depends on how leagues are implemented. POE leagues bring so many mechanics that dividing things up between SSF and trade leagues might make sense, although it presents interesting questions for major patch cycles, since those revolve around the leagues in general, and closing a trade league but making those players wait for the new patch until the SSF league ends is probably not much better (or maybe worse for some) than letting it go for the same length of time.
That said, if leagues aren’t as mechanically involved as POE leagues, SSF may not need to be league-bound at all. Having an option to merge current SSF characters with standard characters and start fresh could just be a feature of that mode.
btw i never spend so much $ in a game like PoE (around 3k $) just because i love it and i realy want to support the devs for their great work and im sure i had never played PoE so long (since beta) if it were a monthly payment.
. I think 20$ is fair for this game. Grim Dawn sells like hotcakes for 20$ and Last Epoch is promising even more content than grim dawn. I’m a long time diablo 3 player and every new season the player base returns for the competition or for the goals of the season(stash tabs/cosmetics). I personally think you should have a 1 month arena ladder and some other type of season(3-4 months) for players that want a longer grind to make it to the top of the leader-boards. Many players on D3 wish the seasons were shorter because it keeps things fresh. To keep it short, the more time people spend on your game, the more likely they are to buy the cosmetics. Many players get bored when there is no competition(myself included) and leader-boards will keep players coming back for more each month to compete. I can’t make it past level 30(out of 100 levels) in grim dawn because the game gets stale after a while for me, so keep it fresh each month to see a surge in your player-base.