Fairly disappointed in the microtransactions.

"

Torin wrote:

Why is everyone using a car comparison, it is not a good one in this case. BTW to use such a comparison you need to prove why each option in GGG shop costs exactly like this. Can you?
It can be done with cars. You see with expensive cars their prices is not only because someone decided so, they use more expensive components, developing their parts and techonology takes more money and assembling them costs more. They cannot in any way be priced less, or they would lose money on each sold unit without even taking into cosideration what the market is prepared to pay.

These GGG offerings are just bytes and pixel, development time between versions is nowhere near your comparison between Ferrari and Nissan and GGG loses nothing when selling anything, they are just bytes and pixels.

So all these comparisons with real life items you can all throw out of the window, they mean nothing in this conversation. This conversation is about Economics 101, or is it more profitable to sell something for 10$ to XXX people or for 100$ to XX people. And only GGG knows their numbers and only they can decide.
What we can and do is say, well you current prices and/or quality is not good enough.
Nothing wrong, sickening or greedy about this.

"

Elynole wrote:

Ok, a better example. Since cosmetics do not offer any sort of actual gameplay ability - the shop, as a well known fact, is there strictly to support the game.

"

Elynole wrote:

"

Torin wrote:

Why is everyone using a car comparison, it is not a good one in this case. BTW to use such a comparison you need to prove why each option in GGG shop costs exactly like this. Can you?
It can be done with cars. You see with expensive cars their prices is not only because someone decided so, they use more expensive components, developing their parts and techonology takes more money and assembling them costs more. They cannot in any way be priced less, or they would lose money on each sold unit without even taking into cosideration what the market is prepared to pay.

These GGG offerings are just bytes and pixel, development time between versions is nowhere near your comparison between Ferrari and Nissan and GGG loses nothing when selling anything, they are just bytes and pixels.

So all these comparisons with real life items you can all throw out of the window, they mean nothing in this conversation. This conversation is about Economics 101, or is it more profitable to sell something for 10$ to XXX people or for 100$ to XX people. And only GGG knows their numbers and only they can decide.
What we can and do is say, well you current prices and/or quality is not good enough.
Nothing wrong, sickening or greedy about this.

Ok, a better example. Since cosmetics do not offer any sort of actual gameplay ability - the shop, as a well known fact, is there strictly to support the game. So, by example - it'd be like Girl Scouts coming to your door, asking if you'd like to buy Girl Scout cookies to help support their organization - then slamming the door in their face and bitching that you're not buying any because they're too high priced. Granted, you have every right to do this...you just end up looking like a complete jackass when you do.

For your donation, you receive cookies...in which you may care or careless about. The object of the purchase though is the support itself.

Pretty much what you're saying about GGG. Hopefully you can make the correlation as to this example, if not then I fail to understand how you know Economics 101.

As far as distinguishing between what to sell at what price, the prices on these items are NOT based around how much it cost to develop them - it's based around giving a sense of rarity based around the price itself of the item. You see this a good bit, with limited edition sales, playing cards, etc. The price includes development and maintenance, as well as payroll costs, of all GGG employees/projects/ventures. You're looking at the pricing based on the product itself, which isn't the case when the product is used to support an actual cause.

If this were not a free-to-play game, then I can understand your argument as income for the actual game content, development fees, and employee cost would be factored into the monthly fee. However, they are not - in which case their only form of income is based around the shop - which helps fund this game so YOU can continue playing.

"

Torin wrote:

I still feel like we are running in a circle, but at least now I got a better picture why you are claiming what you are claiming.

Ok so lets explain problem #1. GGG is not a charity. They didn't create this game to help poor people or to solve problems, and to cure diseases. They made it to earn money just like any other business out there. It is as simple as that. Once you understand that all the rest is pretty clear and logical.

Their free to play model is not a charity or out of goodness of their hart. It is their chosen economic model, it is what they feel with earn them the most profit over next 10 years. Are their more open and fair then most gaming companies? Yes. But they are still a business trying to make a profit.

So, this game being free to play or not makes no difference. If they offer services that cost money we as customers have a right to complain about cost, quality or availability of such services.
People who play the game but give 0 money are not freeloaders, they are not abusing the charity or as you say, slamming the door into girl scout faces. (From your posts I feel like you have a really low opinion about anyone not being able to afford to give money to GGG.)
They are most important part of this economic model. Without them there is no community or trade. They are the most numerous members of this game, they make the game run. Without them the people who would pay for game would be playing in a ghost town and have nobody to party with and nobody to trade with and nobody to chat with.

PoE is not the first F2P game that I played, and in each of them although I always payed for premium service (which was not P2W any more then stash tabs are in PoE) I would not have played then if not for all the non premium players. Actually after few months once many such players moved to other games or to new seasons it became less fun to play the game.

Please Elynole, try to understand what I am talking about or I am really going to start wondering how you managed to earn 1000$ extra to give to GGG (or if you earned it at all).

"

Elynole wrote:

"

Torin wrote:

I still feel like we are running in a circle, but at least now I got a better picture why you are claiming what you are claiming.

Ok so lets explain problem #1. GGG is not a charity. They didn't create this game to help poor people or to solve problems, and to cure diseases. They made it to earn money just like any other business out there. It is as simple as that. Once you understand that all the rest is pretty clear and logical.

Their free to play model is not a charity or out of goodness of their hart. It is their chosen economic model, it is what they feel with earn them the most profit over next 10 years. Are their more open and fair then most gaming companies? Yes. But they are still a business trying to make a profit.

So, this game being free to play or not makes no difference. If they offer services that cost money we as customers have a right to complain about cost, quality or availability of such services.
People who play the game but give 0 money are not freeloaders, they are not abusing the charity or as you say, slamming the door into girl scout faces. (From your posts I feel like you have a really low opinion about anyone not being able to afford to give money to GGG.)
They are most important part of this economic model. Without them there is no community or trade. They are the most numerous members of this game, they make the game run. Without them the people who would pay for game would be playing in a ghost town and have nobody to party with and nobody to trade with and nobody to chat with.

PoE is not the first F2P game that I played, and in each of them although I always payed for premium service (which was not P2W any more then stash tabs are in PoE) I would not have played then if not for all the non premium players. Actually after few months once many such players moved to other games or to new seasons it became less fun to play the game.

Please Elynole, try to understand what I am talking about or I am really going to start wondering how you managed to earn 1000$ extra to give to GGG (or if you earned it at all).

Can you please tell me what an acceptable price would be for an item that you get to keep forever is then? What you would determine that cost by? and, would making cosmetic items at higher prices for players who would want to purchase more premium options be against what you feel is a way, like you stated, for the company to make money to continue to produce the game?

I don't see people who play this game for free as freeloaders, as GGG has stated in multiple interviews that they've left the game as F2P so that ALL could enjoy the ARPG that they would also enjoy playing. I see a problem with people complaining about pricing of something that's totally optional just because they want the best thing but don't want to shell out the money to get it.

Your argument is that you do not feel that the items are worth the money that you'd have to pay for them, so say they cut all prices in half just for you. What happens when the next person doesn't think that the half-priced items are worth what GGG has set them to. Worth is valued based on the individual, we have the option of buying or not buying. the only thing a company can do to limit their loss on this is to give a wide variety of pricing with a wide variety of products.

"

Torin wrote:

"

Elynole wrote:

"

Torin wrote:

I still feel like we are running in a circle, but at least now I got a better picture why you are claiming what you are claiming.

Ok so lets explain problem #1. GGG is not a charity. They didn't create this game to help poor people or to solve problems, and to cure diseases. They made it to earn money just like any other business out there. It is as simple as that. Once you understand that all the rest is pretty clear and logical.

Their free to play model is not a charity or out of goodness of their hart. It is their chosen economic model, it is what they feel with earn them the most profit over next 10 years. Are their more open and fair then most gaming companies? Yes. But they are still a business trying to make a profit.

So, this game being free to play or not makes no difference. If they offer services that cost money we as customers have a right to complain about cost, quality or availability of such services.
People who play the game but give 0 money are not freeloaders, they are not abusing the charity or as you say, slamming the door into girl scout faces. (From your posts I feel like you have a really low opinion about anyone not being able to afford to give money to GGG.)
They are most important part of this economic model. Without them there is no community or trade. They are the most numerous members of this game, they make the game run. Without them the people who would pay for game would be playing in a ghost town and have nobody to party with and nobody to trade with and nobody to chat with.

PoE is not the first F2P game that I played, and in each of them although I always payed for premium service (which was not P2W any more then stash tabs are in PoE) I would not have played then if not for all the non premium players. Actually after few months once many such players moved to other games or to new seasons it became less fun to play the game.

Please Elynole, try to understand what I am talking about or I am really going to start wondering how you managed to earn 1000$ extra to give to GGG (or if you earned it at all).

Can you please tell me what an acceptable price would be for an item that you get to keep forever is then? What you would determine that cost by? and, would making cosmetic items at higher prices for players who would want to purchase more premium options be against what you feel is a way, like you stated, for the company to make money to continue to produce the game?

I don't see people who play this game for free as freeloaders, as GGG has stated in multiple interviews that they've left the game as F2P so that ALL could enjoy the ARPG that they would also enjoy playing. I see a problem with people complaining about pricing of something that's totally optional just because they want the best thing but don't want to shell out the money to get it.

Your argument is that you do not feel that the items are worth the money that you'd have to pay for them, so say they cut all prices in half just for you. What happens when the next person doesn't think that the half-priced items are worth what GGG has set them to. Worth is valued based on the individual, we have the option of buying or not buying. the only thing a company can do to limit their loss on this is to give a wide variety of pricing with a wide variety of products.

#1 You don't get to keep them forever, only until GGG servers close down.

Acceptable price is different for each customer. I can only say for myself which depends on my circumstances. There is really no point in putting numbers here, they are not going to change anything because of one person. Also they will certainly not change anything if their purchase data is good enough for their goals.
What I feel is that current low cost effects are bad. For example: Low cost effects should be flaming swords and such and high level effects some lightning swords with small arcs firing from them in random directions whenever you use the weapon (well for any weapon not just swords). I am currently playing a fire build with searing touch and was looking at making my searing touch look cool so I can more easily get into my character. Putting a red glow (or any glow onto it) looks bad, even at that low price. It is just not good enough, even the higher ones don't look good. As I said before, I got nothing against high cost premium items but first even low cost ones much look like a must buy to anyone with money to spend (like me; I don't have much but at least I am willing to spend that little I got) and high level ones like "I want one one those one day!!", currently both are just Meh.

My point is that low cost ones must look cool so anyone with money to spend would buy them, they already must look and feel like something worth getting. Higher prices ones must look like an upgrade. Currently high prices ones look passable and low cost ones look like an insult. For pets low cost Wolf would look like a nice cool wolf, not one color bad animation wolf. High cost wolf would have few animations when idle, would get extra sounds during combat, or would run around your targets acting like it is attacking your target.
When low cost pet looks bad and high cost pet looks a low cost one but with extra color there is nothing to buy here, nothing to save money for and nothing to want here.

"

Elynole wrote:

Can you please tell me what an acceptable price would be for an item that you get to keep forever is then? What you would determine that cost by? and, would making cosmetic items at higher prices for players who would want to purchase more premium options be against what you feel is a way, like you stated, for the company to make money to continue to produce the game?

I don't see people who play this game for free as freeloaders, as GGG has stated in multiple interviews that they've left the game as F2P so that ALL could enjoy the ARPG that they would also enjoy playing. I see a problem with people complaining about pricing of something that's totally optional just because they want the best thing but don't want to shell out the money to get it.

Your argument is that you do not feel that the items are worth the money that you'd have to pay for them, so say they cut all prices in half just for you. What happens when the next person doesn't think that the half-priced items are worth what GGG has set them to. Worth is valued based on the individual, we have the option of buying or not buying. the only thing a company can do to limit their loss on this is to give a wide variety of pricing with a wide variety of products.