test content
What is the Arc Client?
Install Arc

So, Cryptic/CrypticNorth

2»

Comments

  • pantagruel01pantagruel01 Posts: 7,061 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    jonesing4 wrote: »
    Did they ever fix the bug that wouldn't let you load costumes in the nemesis creator?
    I've done it, though it was a costume saved from another nemesis so dunno if it works in general.
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited February 2015
    jonesing4 wrote: »
    Did they ever fix the bug that wouldn't let you load costumes in the nemesis creator?

    Last I saw, you couldn't load costumes from the Nemesis creator, but from the editor you can.
    biffsig.jpg
  • quasimojo1quasimojo1 Posts: 642 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    spinnytop wrote:
    To me it actually looks like the total amount that could be spent will actually go down. The number of sets that will see a price increase look to be in the minority, and only the more recent ones, while the ones that will see a price decrease appear to be the vast majority. Remember, the majority of the costume sets are practically ancient at this point, and Trail Turtle did say that the older ones would be seeing the decrease.

    I think calling it a cash grab is a symptom of "free2play-itis" where people see corporate cash grabs everywhere. Overall, this looks like they're capitalizing on their newest, best material, while admitting that the vast majority of their material is old and sub-par by the new standards and are lowering the prices accordingly.

    This isn't based on faith. I don't have faith in Cryptic.

    Is that your final answer?
    LTS since 2009. Author of ACT parser module for CO. Founder of Rampagers. Resident curmudgeon.

    "Without data, you're just another person with an opinion." -- W. Edwards Deming
  • crosschancrosschan Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    If you create a nemesis costume in the regular tailor or the character creator, you should be able to load it into the nemesis costume creator, and the weapon choices you made might stick. However, that seems like a quite large amount of testing to find out, since you don't get the chance to actually fight your nemesis, other than the first, for quite a while.

    To my knowledge, this was "repaired" sometime shortly after the release of On Alert.:frown:
    jonesing4 wrote:
    Did they ever fix the bug that wouldn't let you load costumes in the nemesis creator?

    To my knowledge, the issue exists with the creation of the 1st nemesis on a toon. The solution is to just create the "Default Costume Nemesis" and set everything else the way you want it(including the name), exit the creator(thus creating the nemesis), go back into the creator, edit the nemesis, and THEN load the costume file you wish to use. Yes, this will cost you a few G(I do not recall how much) and it is mildly annoying...but that is the current workaround.
    2s9bzbq.jpg
    Join Date: Aug 2009 | Title: Devslayer
  • decorumfriendsdecorumfriends Posts: 2,798 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    pantagruel01 has a guess:

    If you create a nemesis costume in the regular tailor or the character creator, you should be able to load it into the nemesis costume creator, and the weapon choices you made might stick.

    I've only tested it once a while back, but in that case, it did not. I'm not surprised, since Nemeses have no selection spot for weapons.
    'Dec out

    QDSxNpT.png
  • sorceror01sorceror01 Posts: 210 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    Well?

    When are you going to tell them?

    As usual, Brou knows something we don't knou.
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,447 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    quasimojo1 wrote: »
    Is that your final answer?

    Is that yours? Somebody doesn't wanna be a millionaire.
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    I don't know, looking at the posted list of tiers and the sets in them, it looks to me like the majority of the costume sets are going up in price from 475Z to either 600Z - 1000Z.

    This is content that has already been monetized and sold to users. Deciding that they are going to restructure the system and increase existing content is not a good practice with any kind of benefit to the consumer or customer. Are they doing this because they are not seeing the return on investment for those particular sets? I doubt it. I think it's more likely that those are the top selling sets that have recouped their ROI and are turning a profit. Increasing the price after the initial sales will keep the ROI level, and sets the expectation that new content will be released at this new price point.

    I think it's more likely that they are seeing that people are using their subscription stipend to purchase the new sets with them being marked at 475Z, and Zen sales to their subscription base is going down with people selling keys for gold in game.

    So, I have to toss my hat in with the "Not a good business practice with the customers in mind" folks. This isn't for us, this is strictly a move to capitalize on their most profitable items, and stimulate more Zen purchase from their subscribers pool.

    My 2 cents, anyway..

    LM
  • roughbearmattachroughbearmattach Posts: 4,784 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    [QUOTE=ladymarrus;4651281
    So, I have to toss my hat in with the "Not a good business practice with the customers in mind" folks. This isn't for us, this is strictly a move to capitalize on their most profitable items, and stimulate more Zen purchase from their subscribers pool.

    My 2 cents, anyway..

    LM[/QUOTE]

    Capitalizing on profitable items is a good business practice is a good business practice to stay in business. As long as the revenue this move gains is greater than what is lost, it's a winner.
    ___________________________________________________________

    Whoever you are, be that person one hundred percent. Don't compromise on your identity.
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    I don't think I said that it was a bad business decision for making money... I think I actually laid out how it is meant to achieve that, and the higher reaching purpose behind the costing realignment.

    My point, is that this is not being done for any benefit to the user base or the customer experience, this is strictly a realignment to keep the ROI on existing work level and to stimulate revenue without further investment... so, "Not a good business practice with the customers in mind" is, in my opinion an accurate statement :D

    LM
  • jonsillsjonsills Posts: 6,314 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    Stimulating revenue, however, means the game stays in business, which is to my benefit, as I enjoy playing it.

    I'm under no illusion that anyone at Cryptic is my personal friend; it doesn't hurt my feelings in the least that they want to squeeze every penny from me that they can. I'd like to think the pennies they squeeze will be reinvested right here in CO, of course, but I can't fault them for wanting those pennies in the first place.
    "Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"

    - David Brin, "Those Eyes"
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    Oh, service based companies will squeeze, and I'm not saying that this is a bad business decision at all. The restructuring fixes some of the short term problems that were built into the balance of their subscription benefits plan vs their micro-transaction model. All I am saying, is that this particular realignment is good for the companies bottom line, and has an immediate negative value in balance to the user vs the current system.

    Now, I would really like to think that this is for the benefit of increasing the likely hood of more content development, but that is a "Time will tell" situation.

    LM
  • crosschancrosschan Posts: 920 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    jonsills wrote: »
    Stimulating revenue, however, means the game stays in business, which is to my benefit, as I enjoy playing it.

    I'm under no illusion that anyone at Cryptic is my personal friend; it doesn't hurt my feelings in the least that they want to squeeze every penny from me that they can. I'd like to think the pennies they squeeze will be reinvested right here in CO, of course, but I can't fault them for wanting those pennies in the first place.

    While trying to remain positive...those red bits are a bit of a concern to me in all honesty. Perhaps if these changes had either come after a Costume/Tailor/Creator Pass and/or come with a decent State of The Game then I wouldn't have an issue with it in the least. The 1st bit has been confirmed in multiple places in the past, most notably here on the forums with the, "We're in the black. We're not shutting down the game," statements. The 2nd bit hasn't really come up in the "Cryptic North Era" but has proven to be all but false in the "Old Cryptic Era." For me, it's not so much about the cost...it's about my actual ROI. :wink:

    IMO, from a business standpoint, extra profit is built ontop of a solid base model and then you expand upon that to achieve those results. Now it's in no way CN's fault that they got a pretty shoddy, hardcoded, nightmarish base model but they have been taking steps to improve upon it over time(as they learned the ins and outs of the system itself). I just don't know if what I would consider a proper base model and company/customer relationship has been formed yet to move forward on these steps at this particular time is all. The 2015 QoL Changes were decent beginning steps towards this but alot more of them, repairing the stability issues of recent, a State of The Game, and the next big "STUFF" announcement could have been packaged in with this price change announcement and been a far less bitter pill to swallow. Also, honestly, this happening alongside Mad Scientist and Space Scoundrel...that didn't, IMO, so much help the issue either.

    Course, that's just my opinion on it. :cool:
    2s9bzbq.jpg
    Join Date: Aug 2009 | Title: Devslayer
  • itsbrou#5396 itsbrou Posts: 1,764 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    I had my doubts, but I'll give this a shot.

    July is my personal deadline.
    I think 3 months is reasonable to see if this bears fruit or ends in a burning failure.
    Brou in Cryptic games.
  • deadman20deadman20 Posts: 1,528 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    I had my doubts, but I'll give this a shot.

    July is my personal deadline.
    I think 3 months is reasonable to see if this bears fruit or ends in a burning failure.

    You're a lot more patient and optimistic than I am. I've already got my stuff packed and am prepared to give my dedication to another, not that I WANT to leave the City for it. It's just... I'm kinda tired of chasing my tail, ya know? I feel like a stray here and I can't do anything about it. :frown:

    Not-so-obvious Roleplay and Double Meanings aside, everyone should know by now that I absolutely HATE not being able to do anything about any situation. The feeling of being trapped, helpless, unable to act in a meaningful manner is both depressing, and frustrating. It's like being back at the hospital with tubes attached to a vacuum attached to a wall stuck in my sides because I woke up with my internal organs not in the right place all over again...
    Steam Guide to Modifications and Equipment (Champions Online) - DZPlayer's Builds (Last updated: 3/26/2018)
    And I will always be @DZPlayer122.

    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • crypticbuxomcrypticbuxom Posts: 4,439 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    If this doesn't bare fruit, than the Blue Dog's premonition would have failed for the first time at least in recent memory. Of course you can't predict the whims of people who think a price change is needed.

    I'm just tired of CO being made to pay the way for the other games. If you think CO needs more money to make it great than ask for an investment from PWE like Jack did for STO when it was doing poorly. Its about time that STO and NWO paid their debts.
  • kaosarcannakaosarcanna Posts: 124 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    I'll play Champions Online as long as there is a Champions Online to play, but I have to admit if they have something-- ANYTHING planned for this year it should have been announced the same time as the price increase.

    At this point I'm not sure if Neverwinter going to the Xbox One will be a good thing for CO or not. I had hopes that an increase in resources would lead to a little extra development capital making its way back to Champions ... I suppose the alternative could be that Cryptic decides the cost of keeping the lights open here could be better used elsewhere.

    It'd be a real shame if Cryptic-- who pretty much CREATED the super hero MMO-- decided to leave the genre entirely. The Champions Character creator is still the best one I've ever tried (yes, even better than City of Heroes), and no one loved City of Heroes more than I did.

    Hopefully we're reading into things that aren't there, and Champions will have a good year ahead of it. Heck, maybe they're working on some way to make an Xbox One version of CO as we speak. :D
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,447 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    Capitalizing on profitable items is a good business practice is a good business practice to stay in business. As long as the revenue this move gains is greater than what is lost, it's a winner.

    ^ simple rule of capitalism. Happens every day, in every store you've ever wandered into guys.

    When they do it with your food, or your heating oil, or your gas that you need to get to work...then you can talk about greedy corporations (even though it's still not valid). But when they wanna raise the price of a costume in a video game? Time to put your adult shoes on.
    deadman20 wrote: »
    You're a lot more patient and optimistic than I am. I've already got my stuff packed and am prepared to give my dedication to another, not that I WANT to leave the City for it. It's just... I'm kinda tired of chasing my tail, ya know? I feel like a stray here and I can't do anything about it. :frown:

    Not-so-obvious Roleplay and Double Meanings aside, everyone should know by now that I absolutely HATE not being able to do anything about any situation. The feeling of being trapped, helpless, unable to act in a meaningful manner is both depressing, and frustrating. It's like being back at the hospital with tubes attached to a vacuum attached to a wall stuck in my sides because I woke up with my internal organs not in the right place all over again...

    Well I mean... one thing you could do to improve your situation is stop obsessing and tone* down the melodrama... no seriously, did wonders for me shortly after my teenage years.


    * - spelling correction, previously town. Apparently it made Brou have a seizure.
  • itsbrou#5396 itsbrou Posts: 1,764 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    spinnytop wrote: »
    town down.
    ]]]]]]]]]]]]
    Brou in Cryptic games.
  • decorumfriendsdecorumfriends Posts: 2,798 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    Great, now I have Petula Clark mis-singing that for an ear worm.:mad:
    'Dec out

    QDSxNpT.png
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    Spinnytop, I'm not sure that discouraging people on a forum thread discussing a topic from discussing that topic is really in the spirit of the whole thing :P

    But, to your point, because I see this argument brought up a lot in discussions of digital purchase...
    When they do it with your food, or your heating oil, or your gas that you need to get to work...then you can talk about greedy corporations (even though it's still not valid). But when they wanna raise the price of a costume in a video game? Time to put your adult shoes on.

    So, if you want to talk commodities and economics, that is one thing, but it doesn't apply comparatively to a digital market.

    Real world commodities are controlled by supply and demand. So the prices of your food, oil and gas are dictated by a variety of factors. to name a few...

    - Current yield of said commodity available at this time (does not apply to unrestricted digital distributed items)
    - Current costs of labor to produce new quantities for distribution (Does not apply, these items are self sustaining outside of an initial bug fix window)
    - Your global location / population density (this is most likely valid in the population density factor in terms of player population)
    - Planned operations growth (Valid in any business model)

    I'll cap it here and focus on these points, as this is at least a balanced argument discussing these factors.

    The first two items are a huge factor to take into consideration when looking at a comparison between real world commodities and in game digital content. If they were planning on restricting the number of costume unlocks they were going to sell, then it would make sense to tier the pricing based on number of available units, and the sales velocity of the item.

    As a simple example, look at the ingame price of the low drop rate items in the AH or even the in game sale price of the lock box costume content. These items more closely follow the model of the two points, and users are happily paying the costs, in game to the players selling them.

    Now, population density... I can't say what the current user base looks like vs the numbers they baked in for their revenue plan, so everything here is speculation. I am going to assume that the population is lower than expected, because if everything was biscuit wheels, I don't see why they would shake up the system. So, the idea here is to get more money out of the already contributing player base... the rub, is that it is with what they have already provided with no added value or benefit to their player base... but I covered that above.

    Operations growth is kind of the lynch pin here. If the plan here is to increase revenue in the short term to stimulate development, and provide new content to sell to the user base and revitalize their profit model... then YAY. If that isn't the case then this... is what it is.

    So in summary, this all comes down to the "why" of the restructuring, and if this is to stimulate content development. These are things we can't know without confirmation from the company itself.

    Most of what I am reading from people on here is based around a want for some kind of confirmation one way or the other. Everyone seems more than willing to continue to contribute monetarily to the growth of the game, but that isn't something that they feel they are seeing and the developers are being very quite about any plans for the future.

    I am going to be playing this game until it goes dark, and will continue to keep my subscription active until then (baring some unforeseen reason, of course). I think it's absolutely valid, as a player base to discuss development and changes to the service that we support.

    that was a bit of a text wall for me, so uh, that's my 25cents ;)

    LM
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,447 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    ladymarrus wrote: »
    Spinnytop, I'm not sure that discouraging people on a forum thread discussing a topic from discussing that topic is really in the spirit of the whole thing :P

    The topic is greedy corporations? In a game that has as much free content as this one?


    Really?


    These costumes are luxury items. You know, like a Gucci handbag. http://www.gucci.com/us/category/f/handbags
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    The topic is greedy corporations? In a game that has as much free content as this one?


    Really?

    If you are asking if the topic is "greedy corporations", I would say that it is not. I would say that it is more a thread expressing a want for an update on development plans. A part of that discussion has been the new tiered pricing and what that means in relation.

    As for the amount of free content that there is available in the game, I agree, it's great. If you want to have the full experience, however, then it is not free. If you have been playing for years, have played through the free content and the new content is provided in the way of a purchasable add-ons... well, then there is a topic for discussion around the pricing. I see this as a completely valid topic for discussion.

    Yes, costumes are a vanity item. Would you say that customization, in both visuals and gameplay, is not a major intended feature of this game's design? Is a major component of this game's F2P model not centered around selling vanity items to it's user base? As members of that target audience and user base, should we not discuss our opinions on changes to a service that we are supporting and how it impacts us and our user experience?

    If a company makes a change to a service that is being provided to a client base, and the value of the service after that change has decreased for the user, should they not discuss or question it?

    LM
  • rianfrostrianfrost Posts: 578 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    If this doesn't bare fruit, than the Blue Dog's premonition would have failed for the first time at least in recent memory. Of course you can't predict the whims of people who think a price change is needed.
    I dunno,his premonitions, which are likely just conversations he and terra and a few others have with the devs on test server(would be nice if they ever visited here, or gave a state of the game like most mmo teams, but whatever), are generally not very specific, which makes sense because they probably dont tell him everything, just that stuff is coming with some few details. Its not unlikely that we will get something small this year, they have gotten incrementally better since the development of neverwinter where the game was pretty much only added lockboxes and some small and straightforward alerts. we started getting new costume sets again last year, which I have dutifully purchased, and last year we only got one real content addition, but it was an actual perm content with new maps. and a small amount of powers, about 6 and maybe a few passives, they weren't in power-sets i used,with relatively little new art or mechanical addition, and initially broken animations on the psychic powers.

    so its less that a vague promise of new stuff is unlikely, its how much and with which frequency. we only got one real new "issue" last year and it was of moderate length(though i have to give major respect for the create a costume contest) so it would be nice if, with their continued proficiency we actually got more, maybe 2 "issues" and an actual power framework would be nice. we could even go crazy and havean informative dev post before christmas.
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,447 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    ladymarrus wrote: »
    If you are asking if the topic is "greedy corporations", I would say that it is not. I would say that it is more a thread expressing a want for an update on development plans. A part of that discussion has been the new tiered pricing and what that means in relation.

    That's a bit of a stretch. Sometimes it seems like people will use anything as an excuse to criticize the pace of development.

    "I had a cheeseburger for lunch."

    "Yeah, just like the cheeseburgers we don't have in the game because the devs don't come out with real content updates!"
    ladymarrus wrote: »
    If a company makes a change to a service that is being provided to a client base, and the value of the service after that change has decreased for the user, should they not discuss or question it?

    LM

    Sure. But why does it always turn into discussions about cash grabs and greedy corporations? Can't people discuss these things in a mature manner? It always goes from "Hm, I don't like this." directly to whining and screeching way too quickly.
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    We may be reading this thread in completly different ways Spinnytop, but I don't think that what I am reading is much of a stretch. The initial post is right in line with what I am saying, and many of the posts are in much the same tone.

    It should never be discouraged for a user base to express the things they want from an evolving service. I agree, some requests are a little more out there, but just the same, they are on the table for discussion.
    Sure. But why does it always turn into discussions about cash grabs and greedy corporations? Can't people discuss these things in a mature manner? It always goes from "Hm, I don't like this." directly to whining and screeching way too quickly.

    I can't speak for others, but some people lead with passion first, then anaylitics. I personally am not like that, I go super anaylitic first... obviously :P

    I like the idea of forums and communities that take in information and express their views differently. I may not agree with everything folks say, or points they make, but I love to read their ideas an opinions. If I have an idea or opinion that I want to share, I'll share it in my own way too. I don't expect that everyone will appreciate my unique balance of analytics nerd and hippy speak.

    One thing that I have learned being part of gaming communities, is that you never know how much an outlet like an MMO can mean to someone. A lot of people find a lot of different kinds of comforts in these communities. I can say, I personally get a kind of comfort from this game, that is why I'm here and why I care enough to comment.

    I love forum discussions, and I read the ones that interest me... leave the ones that don't, and comment where I feel I can contribute to the discussion.

    Anyway, thats my bit

    LM
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,447 Arc User
    edited February 2015
    ladymarrus wrote: »
    Communication is wonderful!

    I don't really get the point you're trying to make anymore.... you're saying people should be allowed to post what they want... while saying I shouldn't have posted what I posted? :confused: Feels like a mixed message.
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    I have to assume this is the comment you are referring to?
    Spinnytop, I'm not sure that discouraging people on a forum thread discussing a topic from discussing that topic is really in the spirit of the whole thing :P

    Not a mixed message at all, I would think. I did not post anything that said you shouldn't post what you like. I just pointed out that discouraging discussion in a forum thread seems counter productive to the intention of the thread. I apologize if it came off that I was telling you not to contribute.

    Forums are a place for discussion, and I love reading peoples opinions and their take on things that are happening with the game and in the community. There are many times that I take in another perspective reading through forum posts and it changes my view on certain topics.

    In a discussion, if there are points that you disagree with, you challenge them and see what the basis for the argument is. I live by the rule that there is no "Win" in a discussion, only sharing perspectives and information, so I try never to enter a thread with a contentious mind set. If I can't make a solid counter point, then I take it as something to consider.

    My summarized points are...
    - Open discussion and questioning of changes to game systems and service mechanics should be encouraged.
    - There is a quantifiable reduction in value to the user with the new tiered costume pricing structure vs the current system, and this forms a valid basis for discussion around development plans and concerns about the user experience.
    - (and this is not so much a point, but...) My assessment of the overall driving factors, and catch points to increase revenues.

    I hope that clears it up :)

    LM
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,447 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    ladymarrus wrote: »
    I have to assume this is the comment you are referring to?



    Not a mixed message at all, I would think. I did not post anything that said you shouldn't post what you like. I just pointed out that discouraging discussion in a forum thread seems counter productive to the intention of the thread.

    Intention of the thread (in case anyone forgot what the original topic was):
    flyingfinn wrote: »
    Can we hear some news/plans for the year 2015?
    Because you got something planned, right?
    For Champions Online's future.

    Yea, we know that talking makes people angry if those talks don't become reality, or something.
    But silence also makes people walk away. Some for good.

    And we can play the guessing game for only so long.

    I don't see how accusing Cryptic of being a greedy cash grabbing evil corporation contributes to that intention. Seems more like a case of any excuse to smear the latest gripe all over any thread in existence.

    You still defending this?
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    I think you might be projecting a little... if you can point out where where someone posted that they believed that Crypic was an evil corporation in the thread, that would be appreciated. I can't seem to find it.

    Changes to game systems and service mechanics is game development. The tiered costume pricing is in plan for 2015, and fits that criteria. It also impacts the end user for any additional feature development of this kind. So, I would have to ask how you see these subjects being off topic from the initial thread post?

    Do you have any counter points to my assessment of the reduced value to the customer vs the current model after the tiered costume system goes into place? Do you think that it is somehow inaccurate? If so, in what way... perhaps I am missing something?
    You still defending this?

    Um... yes, of course. Aside from inflated emotional statements against a perceived ungrateful CO user community, you haven't provided any arguments counter to any points that I have raised.

    All I have taken away from this, is that you personally have some issues with some members of the CO user community, and that in itself should be cause to dismiss their perspectives outright without consideration. That isn't something I am willing to do.

    LM
  • jonsillsjonsills Posts: 6,314 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    ladymarrus wrote: »
    Do you have any counter points to my assessment of the reduced value to the customer vs the current model after the tiered costume system goes into place? Do you think that it is somehow inaccurate? If so, in what way... perhaps I am missing something?
    Perceived value is not absolute, but depends strictly upon personal inclination. You may well perceive reduced value in this arrangement; another may not. Trying to assess this in terms of "reduced value", as if there were some real-world value to these items that is being mishandled here, is very nearly as silly as the famed "labor theory" of value.
    "Science teaches us to expect -- demand -- more than just eerie mysteries. What use is a puzzle that can't be solved? Patience is fine, but I'm not going to stop asking the universe to make sense!"

    - David Brin, "Those Eyes"
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Ah, see that's what i'm talking about! Counter points :D

    So, I am working off of a model where the value is defined by the current system vs the new system. That is where I am setting the basis of the "value" with the real world qualifier being on a per dollar basis.

    This is my point, is that there is a quantifiable reduction in value to the user with a switch to this system.

    Case in point:

    I am a subscriber. Every month, I receive access to the gold content behind the subscription wall. I also receive 500Z as part of my subscription perk package.

    The current pricing structure allows me to afford to unlock a new vanity costume unlock each month with my subscription stipend at no additional cost. With the majority of the vanity items being priced above the 500Z stipend after the price restructuring, that means that I either need to wait for 2 subscription cycles to afford the top tier costume unlocks, or include an additional purchase of Z.

    The math on this translates to dollar value, vs the current content at the current price:
    For the 1000 Zen Tier costumes, I have an increased cost per month of $5.71 (there abouts)
    For the 600 Zen Tier costumes, I have an increased cost per month of $1.14 (there abouts)

    There is a definable value to real world dollars. There is a player base of subscribed users that can be used as an example case. This is only for content that is currently offered in game, to me as a subscriber. This is an apples to apples comparison of the system changes and how it effects the value to subscribers as end users, aside from any personal feeling on the matter.

    Now, to be clear, I haven't said that this restructuring is a bad thing. I can't make that judgement until we have clear plans for the future vanity costume set development, if they will be developing vanity costume content for all tiers, or if the additional revenue from the cost increase will translate into additional content. All I am saying, is that there is a quantifiable reduction in value with this change, and that validates discussion over concerns.

    LM
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,447 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    ladymarrus wrote: »
    I think you might be projecting a little... if you can point out where where someone posted that they believed that Crypic was an evil corporation in the thread, that would be appreciated. I can't seem to find it.

    Pages 3 through 5. Also, plenty of other recent threads since the change was announced. If you can't find the accusations, then you're just simply not looking, or choosing to ignore their presence.

    ladymarrus wrote: »

    Now, to be clear, I haven't said that this restructuring is a bad thing. I can't make that judgement until we have clear plans for the future

    Then stop talking about a "reduction in value" as if you know the future. You've sure been making it sound like you think it's a bad thing, the way you go on and on about how we're getting screwed over. If you can't make that judgement, then don't.

    If anything, if you look at this with a clear head, you'll realize that in some cases you've actually been getting too much value for what you've been paying - the fact that some of the prices are going up makes this clear. Oops! We let you have the Lamborghini for the price of a dodge stratus... well, all you people who got it at that price got lucky I guess, but we'll have to be adjusting that now.

    Oh right, I forgot, we're not allowed to acknowledge that the folks at the office actually deserve to get paid for their work around here.
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Pages 3 through 5.

    Read through them... I did not read the words "Cryptic is an evil corporation" or any variation of those words. Again, if you can quote where this is said, it would be appreciated.

    I have read through every post in this thread at face value, and considered what everyone was posting. I can assure you, I am not being ignorant of anything posted on this thread.
    Also, plenty of other recent threads

    Again, not a part of the discussion on this thread. Not the topic that is being discussed. Your personal negative opinion of a games community has very little to do with the development plans of Cryptic, but this is the only thing that you are referencing.
    Then stop talking about a "reduction in value" as if you know the future.

    I'm not talking in terms of some unknown future. I'm talking about Thursday. All of my assessments are based off of the current model and pricing, vs the restructuring being rolled out, again, on Thursday. All based on known, quantifiable factors. I am making no assumptions and if you look at what I have posted, and actually run the numbers yourself, you will get the same conclusion... there IS a reduction in value. I am saying it, because I can show you how I have come to that conclusion. I have explained in great detail, how and why I am confident in that statement.
    You've sure been making it sound like you think it's a bad thing, the way you go on and on about how we're getting screwed over. If you can't make that judgement, then don't.

    Strange... I went back over my posts, and again, I couldn't find any statement where I said I was being "Screwed Over". I also can't find a post where I say this is a bad thing... I do find a bunch of posts where I clarify... many times, that what I am doing is providing information to back up a statement, and where I am NOT saying it's a bad thing, however.
    If anything, if you look at this with a clear head,

    A clear head, as opposed to what? I am legitimately confused by this qualifier.
    you'll realize that in some cases you've actually been getting too much value for what you've been paying - the fact that some of the prices are going up makes this clear.

    How so? Show me how you can back this statement up with quantifiable information. If it is such a clear fact, then I would expect you are basing this off of more than "the prices are changing"?
    Oh right, I forgot, we're not allowed to acknowledge that the folks at the office actually deserve to get paid for their work around here.

    ... um ... what? Do you believe that the SEs, project managers, artists and programmers that completed the "Magic Girl" vanity set have not been paid for their work?

    Do you believe that Cryptic accidentally had a revenue model that they used for a couple of years? That it wasn't meticulously planned out, and that the work for the sets that have been released wasn't scope and capacity planned with the companies defined value models and ROI goals in mind?

    I believe that this is a change to boost the revenue flow with minimal initial investment. Period. It's a business decision and a smart play on paper as long as it does not drive away the consumer base. I am sure they have the metrics to feel confident that this won't cause a reduction in the player base.

    What will qualify whether this was successful or not, in my opinion, is how this new model informs the companies development plans and how it impacts content delivery. So, again, too early to judge so I'm not.

    LM
  • jonesing4jonesing4 Posts: 793 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    spinnytop wrote: »
    If anything, if you look at this with a clear head, you'll realize that in some cases you've actually been getting too much value for what you've been paying - the fact that some of the prices are going up makes this clear.
    lol

    Are you drunk?
  • flyingfinnflyingfinn Posts: 8,357 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    0005.gif
    Time for thread closure.

    Waiting to read about the future of CO at the SNN.
    CHAMPIONS ONLINE:Join Date: Apr 2008
    And playing by myself since Aug 2009
    Godtier: Lifetime Subscriber
    tumblr_n7qtltG3Dv1rv1ckao1_500.gif
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • ealford1985ealford1985 Posts: 3,582 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    flyingfinn wrote: »
    0005.gif
    Time for thread closure.

    Waiting to read about the future of CO at the SNN.

    I blame you for this madness!
  • flyingfinnflyingfinn Posts: 8,357 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Good thing this is not SPARTAAA!!!

    33842.gif
    CHAMPIONS ONLINE:Join Date: Apr 2008
    And playing by myself since Aug 2009
    Godtier: Lifetime Subscriber
    tumblr_n7qtltG3Dv1rv1ckao1_500.gif
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • ladymarrusladymarrus Posts: 17 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    Sorry about that...

    I am also looking forward to seeing what the dev schedule looks like for this year. I am putting all of my wishful thinking into a vanity costume set or power bundle with shields :D

    But yeah, thats my piece :P

    LM
  • spinnytopspinnytop Posts: 16,447 Arc User
    edited March 2015
  • flyingfinnflyingfinn Posts: 8,357 Arc User
    edited March 2015
    0005.gif
    CHAMPIONS ONLINE:Join Date: Apr 2008
    And playing by myself since Aug 2009
    Godtier: Lifetime Subscriber
    tumblr_n7qtltG3Dv1rv1ckao1_500.gif
    Get the Forums Enhancement Extension!
  • biffsmackwellbiffsmackwell Posts: 4,739 Community Moderator
    edited March 2015
    Closing this because it's gone so far off the rails.
    biffsig.jpg
This discussion has been closed.