Assembly Hall

So...let me get this straight:

Not only do we have to go to the hassle of setting up dual character training one month at a time, but it costs MORE to train an alt than it does a main?

On a month-by-month basis, it's the same price, granted. But normally you can buy chunks of time in advance which greatly reduces the cost. But with DCT, you have to pay $20/month.

Why is running an alt -- a secondary character, someone I'll spend less time playing -- more expensive than running a primary?

I think it should enable you to login with 2 characters from the same account as well.. or theres not really much point :S

This.

• Does it have a limited and niche appeal? Yes.
• Are you forced to use it? No.
• Could it be cheaper to get a second account? Yes, at around 3 months per char.
• Should it be cheaper than standard pricing to use? Hell no.

The choice is simple, either use it or don't.

If you're paying through PLEX, yes. If you're paying through account management, a year's worth of DCT is considerably more expensive than a primary character.



No, I don't have to use it. But I'd like to. And whether or not I use it has no bearing on whether or not I can critique the implementation of it. I'm glad they've added utility to the three character slots, but that doesn't change the fact that it's not what it could be -- for players and for CCP.

I've never understood the argument of "it's something, so don't complain". If you get paid below minimum wage, are you happy with the situation?



See above. Being forced or not doesn't enter the equation.

I'm not arguing for it to be cheaper than standard pricing. I'm saying it's less than a primary character for well over the cost of a primary character. Why is buying a second account both better and cheaper than DCT?



See above. This is never a valid response. I'm not arguing the feature shouldn't exist, I'm not saying I'm unhappy it does. I'm saying the implementation leaves quite a bit to be desired, and there's no reason it shouldn't be much better than it is.

The parts you snipped answered the rest.

Does it have a limited and niche appeal? Yes.

Could it be cheaper to get a second account? Yes, at around 3 months per char.

It's all very simple. This system works well for a very few and limited situations. It in no way is meant to replace second accounts and at no point do CCP suggest it does. It's purely to train alts without having to start a second account and then transfer that char. It's financial viability only last for 3 months per char, then at that point a second account would be cheaper.

Why on earth should they be concerned with whether you are happy or not, when the system is as described and you are not being forced to use it? I could understand this argument, if they had removed the option to have a second account. But they haven't.

So the choice remains firmly in your hands. Use it, or don't use it.

The list once more, for clarification.

• Does it have a limited and niche appeal? Yes.
• Are you forced to use it? No.
• Could it be cheaper to get a second account? Yes, at around 3 months per char.
• Should it be cheaper than standard pricing to use? Hell no.

CCP haven't explained their commercial reasons, but I'd guess they go something like this:

1 PLEX gives you 30 days account time = 30 days skilling

(1) CCP offer additional incentives to the price of starting a new account, because once you have a character on a new account you have a very strong incentive to keep maintaining that account. If you don't you lose access to the character. No such consideration applies to secondary characters on your main account, so there's no good reason to offer extra pricing incentives from CCP's point of view.

(2) Simplicity: DCT maintains the "list" price of PLEX, and the cost is simple to understand and simple for CCP to implement. Given that they explicity don't want DCT to directly compete with multiple accounts, the effort of adding in the spectrum of pricing incentives is high and the reward is negative from their point of view. Think of it as the difference in the per-month price you pay for watching 1 pay per view event compared to subscribing to the sports channel for a whole year. The 1-y sub is far cheaper per unit time because your total spend is higher, and you're very likely to renew. In terms of cost of delivery and administration, it doesn't cost the cable company any more than the PPV, but it's way better in terms of revenue to lock you in for a year. But if you just want to watch a single game, then it's better for you to pay $20 for 1 evening than $600 for 365 days, even though you're paying more than 10x the per-day price of a sub.

Anyway that's all I'm going to say on the matter; you can either accept that reasoning, or rant about it some more, but it won't change anything.

I don't appreciate having my side of a discussion being called a rant. Much like I don't like being told to "deal with it", or be told "your argument boils down to strawman x".

I had hoped for a more grown-up attitude. It disappoints me that you are one of the faces representing our community.

That said, my responses to your points:

1 -- As a consumer of the product, I don't agree that we as a community should so ardently defend CCP's methods of obtaining our cash, but obviously I'm not opposed to seeing a company make money.

That CCP has a monetary reason for the current setup doesn't change the fact that it's unfriendly to users. This is basically my point. DCT costs more than a second account, while offering the user less. That it makes sense from CCP's point of view doesn't change that it doesn't make much sense from a subscriber's point of view.

2 -- Your second point seems very similar to the first. CCP makes more money this way. The PPV analogy works so far as an account is concerned, but I don't see the comparison when applied to DCT. I want to run a second character constantly, year after year, on the same account as my primary. Where are the points of comparison with PPV there?

I want to be locked in for a year. Continuing your analogy, I'm being charged a year's worth of evenings at the per-evening charge, as opposed to the per-year, which I'd prefer.

Svetlana: "I'd like to drive passengers around in my car."

Malcanis: "Buy a bus. It's a better system for that."

Svetlana: "But I already have a car, and I'd like to use my car, and there's no reason I shouldn't be able to."

Malcanis: "Nope. Buy the bus."

@ Mag's

I'm not saying that's not the case -- obviously it is. I'm saying it's ridiculous, and it should be changed.