EVE General Discussion

This.


Having played a few games that went F2P and some that were setup that way from the outset, I can honestly say that if any aspect of that wormed its way into EvE that would be me and my accounts done here.

When you have a fix price (monthly or whatever) the Dev time is allotted to make the game better, fix bugs and generally try to “sell” the game by making it a better product.
When you get to F2P/Microtransaction model then Dev time is spent making things to sell. Look at WoT, the Devs there are so blatantly geared towards new tanks, new tech trees etc etc that bugs that have been in there since beta just get ignored.

Just one question, out of curiosity:

What would you like to pay for?

If and when CCP decide to get greedy again, I'm not sure that handing them a list titled "things you can get away with before we will even *start* complaining" is really going to help us.

On the other hand, rabbling loudly and/or jumping ship instantly as soon as it appears on the radar has been shown to work.

Why is my 30 dollars a month + buying a plex with isk not enough to be able to get 100% of the games content?

I shouldn't have to pay MORE to be able to access things, especially things that take up dev time.

^^.

If you think Monoclegate was a big deal, wait until CCP decide to introduce pay2win. There is a real possibility that they'd be filing for bankruptcy within a year.

Oh, and everyone is fine with cosmetic stuff like ship skins. This has all been gone over like two years ago.

The physics engine, that was promised by the end of beta and arrived 12 months after release? Great example.

As to bugs, ghost shells and 0 damage hits. They have been in the game since beta, still in the game now.

No matter how, no matter what. Microtransactions are bad for gaming in general and are the Antichrist for a game like EVE. Even only for so-called cosmetic items: in the better case they're a trojan horse.

Yeah, more micro transactions are most likely coming. No idea when, but CCP needs to make money.

It'll finally give me a good reason to quit.

The games playing differently does not negate the fact that you must pay for both. While a small group of hardcore players will spend twice what they used to spend, most will spend the same(after a period of increased spending) and they will likely choose one over the other. The outcome the creators are hoping for is that World of Warplanes will preserve the majority of the playerbase as it is "new and exciting." Pay to win games face a major hurdle that other games do not. This is that at some point in time, depending on the fervor with which people spend, some portion of the playerbase become all powerful. They mitigate this in three ways. First they institute expiration dates on items which boost your power. This means that an item which doubles your lethality or experience gain is only available for a set amount of time after being obtained. Second they institute world "ages" where the game world exists for X amount of time before a winner is declared and the world resets. Finally they might release a new game which utilizes some or all of the same mechanics as well as often allowing some kind of exchange to occur. I've never played World of Tanks, so I don't know about the first two but World of Warplanes falls into the third.

As for your argument that they just bought two IPs, that has little bearing on anything. MoO is a defunct IP which they will undoubtedly use solely for it's name while the mechanics and gameplay will be nothing like the original. Total Annihilation... Is that the demo that lets you wreck worlds? I can't remember. Regardless, this is common for F2P, P2W games as they need to constantly release new games as previous releases lack staying power. The companies always argue that you don't have to pay to play, which is true, but you end up paying much more to be able to compete. That's why these games have such huge turnover rates.