...they are nevertheless looking to hire a Monetization Designer.
"We are currently looking for a full-time Monetization Designer to work on our exciting new and ongoing projects. This design position is responsible for driving the monetization strategy of our games. Were looking for candidates that love to utilize game player data to make the ultimate player experience for our customers."
PWE's prerogative is not the player's concern. Will it effect whether our suggestion will be taken? Probably. But we are not getting anything free out of this, so, IMO we would not be doing anything wrong by Cryptic. If we do 2 for 1's etc etc, they still will make money from those who have less or no ships. So, that day, they will still make money. As it stands, according to PWE, there has been a loss of 30% of PC players for their games in a recent stock report. They can't afford to push more people away. So it would be wise, for once, that they listen.
Not sure about the profit loss. But on the part about player loss? Well if this involves anything with some of the expansion and gaming content added, then we factor the player base feel on the expanded content including this one? I could say it is plausible. But right now my only thought is trying to come up with something that Perfectworld would at least hear out. But again this is Perfectworld and if they don't listen well "Maybe we aren't as valuable as Latium" and "One short walk out the airlock" when it comes to STO gaming.
Not sure about the profit loss. But on the part about player loss? Well if this involves anything with some of the expansion and gaming content added, then we factor the player base feel on the expanded content including this one? I could say it is plausible. But right now my only thought is trying to come up with something that Perfectworld would at least hear out. But again this is Perfectworld and if they don't listen well "Maybe we aren't as valuable as Latium" and "One short walk out the airlock" when it comes to STO gaming.
If the new content is even pretty good there will not be any exodus. On the contrary there will be emigration.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
PWE's prerogative is not the player's concern. Will it effect whether our suggestion will be taken? Probably. But we are not getting anything free out of this, so, IMO we would not be doing anything wrong by Cryptic. If we do 2 for 1's etc etc, they still will make money from those who have less or no ships. So, that day, they will still make money. As it stands, according to PWE, there has been a loss of 30% of PC players for their games in a recent stock report. They can't afford to push more people away. So it would be wise, for once, that they listen.
PWE's prerogative is our concern. Whenever a game shows a lack of profit, the shareholders will begin to clamor for "cost savings" so they get their profit, and at these times the game(s) that are showing the least profit and/or loss are either drastically remade in an attempt to turn a profit or shut down. I, for one, don't want a drastic rebuild/shutdown. Therefore, I at least attempt to consider what's decent for both us and PWE.
On that note, remember that income is posted quarterly. The "monetary sources" you intend to use to finance your T6 purchases were accounted for many quarters ago - dang close to 8 if my memory serves in the case of my Thunderchild. Whatever plan we come up with has to influence that 4th qtr 2014 income statement, not use everything from past ones...
Now, would bypassing this T5U / T6 thing potentially cut back on further losses, or maybe convince the departed to return? Perhaps. Would those who came back significantly influence the Q4 '14 report? Yep. Would it project favorably for Q1 '15 and on? Maybe, maybe not - see what I described in the instance of not needing further ships because the canon ones are doing good enough to hold up to T6 and - since the precedent would be set, T7 content...
Right now Dareau, the idea first off about Cannon vs Power, Beam vs Cannon, Torpedo vs yadda yadda is a personal preference. And to note the ship alone doesn't always factor into the overall ability as well. What I find flawed here is the Boffs and Doffs that are used depending on condition of those officers. Then you also have weapons on energy type, plus traits and skills. Now yes I am NOT forgeting the fact that every ship has it's "abilities" here in each "class".
But the "idea" here would yes be a T5 Escort toward a T6 Escort, Science, Engineer, or whatever class the equivilent class it would be. But "lets not" forget about what ships for Tier 6 that they're coming out with here too. And that all does factor and play into this as well. That was also the reason why I did suggest that Z store ships could be grandfathered into Delta Rising for the T5-U. So if players wanted to? They could still play the same ones they like. It would just be grandfathered to the T5-U as well. As far as anyone knows T6 could be very different. Although the only thing about these upgrade fees in Z Store seem to get me concerned is also the consoles they might add, or even the special abilities upon level 60 might mean for respecing again. I "hope" that doesn't mean respecing my captain again even after Dyson. Heaven to Mergatroy! That would cause me to "Exit Stage Right" on the whole STO thing then. Well maybe.
I'm not talking "in game weapon selections". I'm talking having a "canon" - aka was on screen - ship vs these current "looks like they might have been on TV at some point" to the "completely wild mating of Fed ships and Elachi" blue-hulled, scanlined "monstrosities".
Right now, many of us Trek Gamers have both a "canon" ship, like my Gal-X, and non-canon ship(s). Some of the "around since Beta" types have multiple cruisers - say they start with an Excelsior. They bought the Oddy to try her out - and went back to the Excel cause it's "canon and useful". Regent comes out, same thing - buy, try, and either stick with her (cause it can reskin into a canon Sovvy) or go back to Excelsior. Avenger, another trial, perhaps they abandon her for the Excel because the Avenger is a KDF ship in a Fed hull and they want "Fed gameplay". Beancounter sees a $20 to $25 investment per year per player doing this. If the Excelsior or Galaxy were truly "powerful enough" to not need a more powerful version like the Oddy / Regent / Avenger, then Beancounter sees just the one investment and wonders how to get more money out of said player...
Geko has said, from day 1 and the murmurs that a new tier was coming - that the design process was being geared to give us both a "T6 equivalent" for our current stuff, and the "full on T6" with all the bells and whistles. At this second, we don't know enough to see if, financially and statistically, these claims of "T5U being competitive with T6" will hold true. As of right this second, it does somewhat seem to be on track to do so, especially with the "current 10 console T5.5 "fleet" grade ships" - they're gonna wind up with an 11th console and the "usual" fleet upgrades to hull / shields vs. a full-on T6 having a 13th BOff power and the specialist BOffs...
Detecting big-time "anti-old-school" bias here. NX? Lobi. TOS/TMP Connie? Super-promotion-box. (aka the two hardest ways to get ships) Excelsior & all 3 TNG "big hero" ships? C-Store. Please Equalize...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
...they are nevertheless looking to hire a Monetization Designer.
"We are currently looking for a full-time Monetization Designer to work on our exciting new and ongoing projects. This design position is responsible for driving the monetization strategy of our games. Were looking for candidates that love to utilize game player data to make the ultimate player experience for our customers."
This is like the restaurant that gets the idea to see if they can also charge for parking
You ever read Cryptic people talking about declining player base is normal. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are other space games out there, some of them even want more players
If the new content is even pretty good there will not be any exodus. On the contrary there will be emigration.
They hope for emigration for money sake. But the threat of an exodus has been mentioned many times in this thread. Most of which are probably just shooting off their mouthes (myself included) but people have already left. I no longer have any incentive to play. That's another bottom line.
I take it you two do not remember the Patrol Escort Retrofit. Owners of the Fleet Patrol Escort were not given an opportunity to have their ships upgraded when that ship was replaced by the Fleet Patrol Escort Retrofit. The EULA commenting on gameplay may change was referenced as being applicable as to why they did not retroactively change or upgrade the pre-existing ships.
Calling it a trade-in won't matter to the bean counters, they will still see it as a refund.
Exactly. If it's not a sale, it's a loss. Losses mean lack of profit. And corporations run on profit. No profit means no game.
Also, this idea fails to take into consideration the mechanics of how the "trade in" would actually work in game. If you de-unlock an account wide unlock, what happens to your already claimed gear? Poof into the aether? While you're using it?
But the real reason that idea is doomed is that it conflicts with the first rule of business: people are only customers when they buy stuff. People who demand stuff for free are an annoyance.
If the new content is even pretty good there will not be any exodus. On the contrary there will be emigration.
If they lose the whales they lose everything. They already admitted their noob retention is miserable. And its the whales that are being punished the most by these changes.
Exactly. If it's not a sale, it's a loss. Losses mean lack of profit. And corporations run on profit. No profit means no game.
Also, this idea fails to take into consideration the mechanics of how the "trade in" would actually work in game. If you de-unlock an account wide unlock, what happens to your already claimed gear? Poof into the aether? While you're using it?
But the real reason that idea is doomed is that it conflicts with the first rule of business: people are only customers when they buy stuff. People who demand stuff for free are an annoyance.
As for the loss of profit, they can reduce the refund value. As for re-locking stuff in use, demand that player delete the universal console(s) in question (and weaps) and retire the ship(s) in question before allowing re-lock/refund.
If they lose the whales they lose everything. They already admitted their noob retention is miserable. And its the whales that are being punished the most by these changes.
Punished? they're the ones who'll care LEAST. Peeps who buy masterkeys by the dozens will barely flinch at paying 500z to upgrade a ship as an account unlock.
Punished? they're the ones who'll care LEAST. Peeps who buy masterkeys by the dozens will barely flinch at paying 500z to upgrade a ship as an account unlock.
Wholesale abandonment is their reward for being loyal customers. Thank you for putting all that money into fleets and lockboxes, now here's a slice of FU pie. Just because they're wealthy and dont care about $100 per month or whatever, doesnt mean they want to get pissed on.
If they lose the whales they lose everything. They already admitted their noob retention is miserable. And its the whales that are being punished the most by these changes.
eh, i've made my point enough so I'll let y'all be. I'm excited about the new content and looking forward to it. I'm also very used to upgrading gear so this is no great burden for me. The fleet credits might be tight unless there's a new big holding. Other than that no worries here.
Captain Jean-Luc Picard: "We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then - before you can blink an eye - suddenly it threatens to start all over again."
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
As for the loss of profit, they can reduce the refund value. As for re-locking stuff in use, demand that player delete the universal console(s) in question (and weaps) and retire the ship(s) in question before allowing re-lock/refund.
Exactly! and then the character(s) that lose the ship(s) can then fly the T6. And if the cost is reduced than multi-turn in should be allowed.
Wholesale abandonment is their reward for being loyal customers. Thank you for putting all that money into fleets and lockboxes, now here's a slice of FU pie. Just because their wealthy and dont care about $100 per month or whatever, doesnt mean they want to get pissed on.
Abandonment? They'll be the ones with the most new toys to play with. I'd hardly call that being abandoned....
I would. I got a few ships I don't really use, But I got one I would upgrade, because it's my best by a long shot.
Same here. So why not be able to turn in ships you don't use or any ship ( even if you do use it) for new T6 ships or T6 versions of old ships?
Here has been the answer so far: PWE/Cryptic loses profit. Yes, but not enough for it to matter. Their financial state, which is VERY well off (over 1 Billion in revenue), is not our concern or responsibility. I don't understand why people act like this would essentially kill the company and therefore, kill the game. That's just extreme.
Would you rather turn in your existing ships or get a free upgrade? I'm just curious.
Absolutely not I have paid for those ships. And It is still fun competition within my fleet to take a T3 ship into an ISE to see how fast you can get through it without dying.
Absolutely not I have paid for those ships. And It is still fun competition within my fleet to take a T3 ship into an ISE to see how fast you can get through it without dying.
Even if you get the same zen back you used to get it? I completely understand.
its bs that we have to pay more money for ship we payed money for.if the game makers want to bring it all to tier 6 its all good but dont make people that pay money to the game and to buy ships pay more money its not right and i hope people put up a big ***** about this the game makers are get over on us and we are the people that keep the game going plz people say something or the game makers will get over on all you people
Comments
Right, so it's no sweat off their back if our suggestion were to be implemented.
Yes, the game has gotten more and more monetized - it's likely to continue in that fashion.
While the following position is not necessarily directly related to Star Trek Online...
http://crypticstudios.com/node/126
...they are nevertheless looking to hire a Monetization Designer.
"We are currently looking for a full-time Monetization Designer to work on our exciting new and ongoing projects. This design position is responsible for driving the monetization strategy of our games. Were looking for candidates that love to utilize game player data to make the ultimate player experience for our customers."
Not sure about the profit loss. But on the part about player loss? Well if this involves anything with some of the expansion and gaming content added, then we factor the player base feel on the expanded content including this one? I could say it is plausible. But right now my only thought is trying to come up with something that Perfectworld would at least hear out. But again this is Perfectworld and if they don't listen well "Maybe we aren't as valuable as Latium" and "One short walk out the airlock" when it comes to STO gaming.
Unfortunately... yes.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
PWE's prerogative is our concern. Whenever a game shows a lack of profit, the shareholders will begin to clamor for "cost savings" so they get their profit, and at these times the game(s) that are showing the least profit and/or loss are either drastically remade in an attempt to turn a profit or shut down. I, for one, don't want a drastic rebuild/shutdown. Therefore, I at least attempt to consider what's decent for both us and PWE.
On that note, remember that income is posted quarterly. The "monetary sources" you intend to use to finance your T6 purchases were accounted for many quarters ago - dang close to 8 if my memory serves in the case of my Thunderchild. Whatever plan we come up with has to influence that 4th qtr 2014 income statement, not use everything from past ones...
Now, would bypassing this T5U / T6 thing potentially cut back on further losses, or maybe convince the departed to return? Perhaps. Would those who came back significantly influence the Q4 '14 report? Yep. Would it project favorably for Q1 '15 and on? Maybe, maybe not - see what I described in the instance of not needing further ships because the canon ones are doing good enough to hold up to T6 and - since the precedent would be set, T7 content...
I'm not talking "in game weapon selections". I'm talking having a "canon" - aka was on screen - ship vs these current "looks like they might have been on TV at some point" to the "completely wild mating of Fed ships and Elachi" blue-hulled, scanlined "monstrosities".
Right now, many of us Trek Gamers have both a "canon" ship, like my Gal-X, and non-canon ship(s). Some of the "around since Beta" types have multiple cruisers - say they start with an Excelsior. They bought the Oddy to try her out - and went back to the Excel cause it's "canon and useful". Regent comes out, same thing - buy, try, and either stick with her (cause it can reskin into a canon Sovvy) or go back to Excelsior. Avenger, another trial, perhaps they abandon her for the Excel because the Avenger is a KDF ship in a Fed hull and they want "Fed gameplay". Beancounter sees a $20 to $25 investment per year per player doing this. If the Excelsior or Galaxy were truly "powerful enough" to not need a more powerful version like the Oddy / Regent / Avenger, then Beancounter sees just the one investment and wonders how to get more money out of said player...
Geko has said, from day 1 and the murmurs that a new tier was coming - that the design process was being geared to give us both a "T6 equivalent" for our current stuff, and the "full on T6" with all the bells and whistles. At this second, we don't know enough to see if, financially and statistically, these claims of "T5U being competitive with T6" will hold true. As of right this second, it does somewhat seem to be on track to do so, especially with the "current 10 console T5.5 "fleet" grade ships" - they're gonna wind up with an 11th console and the "usual" fleet upgrades to hull / shields vs. a full-on T6 having a 13th BOff power and the specialist BOffs...
To rob a line: [quote: Mariemaia Kushrenada] Forum Posting is much like an endless waltz. The three beats of war, peace and revolution continue on forever. However, opinions will change upon the reading of my post.[/quote]
You ever read Cryptic people talking about declining player base is normal. Talk about self-fulfilling prophecy.
There are other space games out there, some of them even want more players
They hope for emigration for money sake. But the threat of an exodus has been mentioned many times in this thread. Most of which are probably just shooting off their mouthes (myself included) but people have already left. I no longer have any incentive to play. That's another bottom line.
Also, this idea fails to take into consideration the mechanics of how the "trade in" would actually work in game. If you de-unlock an account wide unlock, what happens to your already claimed gear? Poof into the aether? While you're using it?
But the real reason that idea is doomed is that it conflicts with the first rule of business: people are only customers when they buy stuff. People who demand stuff for free are an annoyance.
My character Tsin'xing
If they lose the whales they lose everything. They already admitted their noob retention is miserable. And its the whales that are being punished the most by these changes.
^
| He's not the only one that feels this way. This can lead to an exodus of this game. Note: I said COULD.
As for the loss of profit, they can reduce the refund value. As for re-locking stuff in use, demand that player delete the universal console(s) in question (and weaps) and retire the ship(s) in question before allowing re-lock/refund.
Agreed!! They are forcing us to pay for the T6 ships and I will simply not comply. Looks like I will be switching to Star Citizen.
My character Tsin'xing
I to feel this way and will be walking with them
eh, i've made my point enough so I'll let y'all be. I'm excited about the new content and looking forward to it. I'm also very used to upgrading gear so this is no great burden for me. The fleet credits might be tight unless there's a new big holding. Other than that no worries here.
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably."
Exactly! and then the character(s) that lose the ship(s) can then fly the T6. And if the cost is reduced than multi-turn in should be allowed.
My character Tsin'xing
If they won't even give us a free upgrade, I will not be using t6 nor t5u, just t5.
Would you rather turn in your existing ships or get a free upgrade? I'm just curious.
I certainly would never turn in my old ships. I always level alts and fly old ships so no way they would be traded in for anything.
Still waiting to be able to use forum titles
What if you were turning them in toward a T6 version of the same exact ships?
I would. I got a few ships I don't really use, But I got one I would upgrade, because it's my best by a long shot.
Same here. So why not be able to turn in ships you don't use or any ship ( even if you do use it) for new T6 ships or T6 versions of old ships?
Here has been the answer so far: PWE/Cryptic loses profit. Yes, but not enough for it to matter. Their financial state, which is VERY well off (over 1 Billion in revenue), is not our concern or responsibility. I don't understand why people act like this would essentially kill the company and therefore, kill the game. That's just extreme.
Absolutely not I have paid for those ships. And It is still fun competition within my fleet to take a T3 ship into an ISE to see how fast you can get through it without dying.
Even if you get the same zen back you used to get it? I completely understand.
The game where they humbly ask for a donation ranging from $40~$10,000 preorder?
Mk.