EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire

 

Go Back   EQ2 Forum Archive @ EQ2Wire > EverQuest II > Support Forums > Tech Area > Station Cash
Members List Search Mark Forums Read

Notices

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-03-2009, 10:46 AM   #31
Guy De Alsace

Loremaster
Guy De Alsace's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: England
Posts: 1,902
Default

After waiting so long for better armour models and expansion after expansion its the same old model recoloured...we finally get something thats slightly different and end up having it arrive on LoN or SC instead of where it should be - in the game.

Guy De Alsace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 11:26 AM   #32
Eugam

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 1,403
Default

The sailors cap shouldnt be ingame, or on SC or LON or anywhere but the trashcan SMILEY Its embarassing but a good sign where the game is.

Eugam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 12:16 PM   #33
Zarador

Loremaster
Zarador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,194
Default

shaunfletcher wrote:

Zarador wrote:

Respectfully, what gets me in so many of these arguments is the inability for many gamers to accept the game as a business model.  Everyone should have everything for the same price per month? It's a business and just how many businesses do that?

People joined a game that offers a flat playing field based on subscription. It has been for 4 years a subscription model. It is being CHANGED in a fundamental way to a microtransaction model, but with the subscription retained (an almost unique achievement by the way, skimming people at both ends is hard). People therefore can have a legitimate objection to that change. If they joined a game that was running a combined subscription/microtransaction model then complained you would be correct.

I dont buy for a second the 'this is to avoid prices going up' argument. There is precisely zero evidence of that as reasoning. Its a long term strategy experiement, as has been stated.. part of a program of moving to what are seen as long term more profitable business models. The game makes money based on subscription only, and noone has ever said it doesnt, in fact they explicitly say it does. They would just like to make some more money.

It has not been "changed to a micro-transaction model"; micro-transactions for "fluff" type items simply have been added and are "optional".

As far as "evidence" goes; there is plenty of that.

  • They did the "Living Legacy" Program and admitted that the promotion for the TSO Expansion and events leading up to that would not have been on the same scale were it not for their "desire" to bring more players into the game, admittedly that they needed more subscriptions. Subscriptions = Revenue.
  • There were special perks in the "Living Legacy" program of both a "fluff" and a "Utility" nature that one could argue gave a *special* advantage with unique items that could not have been obtained any other way.
  • We now have "RAF" (Recruit a Friend) as a promotion. Again "Unique" no way to obtain items in the game given as a reward PLUS a 300% experience modifier.  Purpose of this program? Subscriptions = Revenue.
  • They admitted that some of the players will spend significant amounts on "Micro-Transactions" that will exceed what the average player will spend on subscriptions over the course of a few years. Revenue wise, this means that one player can fill the revenue place of several players.
  • Several games have closed down. Other games have cut back staffing.  Sony has added staff to SoE , even while cutting back in other divisions of the company.
  • If people continue to spend additional revenue beyond subscriptions on items linked to the core games, then SoE has an incentive to continue to enhance the game based on revenue potential.

In your post you are attempting to use "game play" as a reasoning not to change a business model. The two are connected, yet separate issues.  Yes, the game has to be enjoyable to the player, yet it still is a product that has to remain a profit center to SoE.

Take your local gas station.  Many of them started out as just that, a place to fill up on gas, get some oil or whatever.  Then many of them discovered that adding vending machines brought in more revenue.  Then some added "Mini-Marts".  Some even added Fast Food franchises.

Now in the past I might have gone there just for gas.  Now I have to wade through the traffic headed to the "Mini-Mart" where people are spending additional revenue on something other than the focus of the business of selling fuel.  Did they cheat me somehow?  No, because I can still pull up and just get gas.

Zarador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 12:23 PM   #34
Galldora

Loremaster
Galldora's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,145
Default

Eugam wrote:

The sailors cap shouldnt be ingame, or on SC or LON or anywhere but the trashcan Its embarassing but a good sign where the game is.

There's a sailor's cap?  What cap is that?

__________________
Galldora is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 12:32 PM   #35
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

Zarador wrote:

Respectfully, what gets me in so many of these arguments is the inability for many gamers to accept the game as a business model.  Everyone should have everything for the same price per month? It's a business and just how many businesses do that?

You pay $15 a month for a basic plan, you get basic.  Want add in's like LoN or SC, they cost you extra money. Indirectly though, those addional revenues help maintain a healthier bottom line that supports the "Basic" service.

Not willing to pay extra money for LoN or SC?  That means the items are not worth extra money to you or you can't afford them. If their not worth the money, then don't buy them or complain that you can't have them for free.  If you can't afford them, then be glad that the game is raising additional funding through these services instead of raising the "Basic" subscription fee which you might not be able to swing in your budget.

When you log into the game you log into a "Fantasy World".  When your account is billed for the month your paying a real business for a service they provide in a real, not virtual world.  You get what you pay for and when they add in additional revenue (Pay-Per-View) services, they cost you extra.  You can elect to not utilize those services, but that's where you choice ends and their choice takes over.

I have a choice to order the "Value Meal" at the local fast food place.  I can't order the meal and ask for all the extras explaining that they made enough profit off my purchase and I deserve more.  Now I can choose not to go there if I find the "Value Meal" does not have enough "Value" to it.  I can't however point to the guy next to me and say " I wan't the super-sized premium quadrupple bonus meal for the same price since I pay to eat here just like him".  Yes, you both paid to eat there, but he was willing/able to spend more on what he wanted and they were willing to provide more for his extra dollars.

This business model argument is sound if you can unequivocally show me that these products add value, somehow, to the core part of the game.

The way I see it, is that there is meant to be a very distinct line between LoN and the game itself (as expressed by SoE), so I am left to assume that any revenue is fed back into the LoN end of things and does nothing for EQ2 itself. As far as Station Cash is concerned, I don't know where this fits, exactly, in the business model. Again, however, I would suspect that and generated revenues go back into supprting the SC infrastructure and development of new items for sale.

I would be more compelled to envisage the LoN and SC business models as a means to balance ebbing revenues in EQ2, not as a means to support the game itself.

The LoN and SC items are, for the most part, fluff items designed to pretty up the game for those where that is of priority. Like the peripheral iPod market - you might have the plain jane silver nano, but the dude next to you has one that has Vincent Van Gogh's Starry Night on it. OMG!!!!! The difference here is that, for the most part, it is other companies building this peripheral iPod market, not Apple itself. Apple's business model focusses on its product - enhancing its core performance/storage, etc... With LoN/SC it is SoE itself creating these products. They have gone out of their way to establish new business unit(s) to develop a new game, a new Marketplace, new in-game items, etc... So at the very core of it all, you encounter this ever-present resource issue.

So, we should all realize (and I think we do) that in any capitalist environment things are available to some that are not to others simply because of financial disparity. The issue here, however, (to build on your analogy) is that the 14 year old at McDonald's is serving the super-sized extras to someone else while ignoring whether or not you wanted pickles on your cheeseburger.

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 12:56 PM   #36
Jovie
Server: Guk

Can't decide...
Jovie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 880
Default

Look everyone, I am talking about silly fun things that in the past would normally be gotten from a claim or a preorder or a quest.

Silly pets, house items, things like that.

Now sc is on the scene and those things are all but gone. It's the old bait and switch tactic. Smed knows what he is doing.

I am not asking him to completely reverse things, i am asking for a CHANCE to get some of those fun items without spending money. Make it small enough that you won't see much of an influx of items.

I am taking a chance by reactivating four accounts. I left because of sc and the bad business model that is coming to light for soe. All things aside, it is the game that i enjoy and the friends that i have made in it. THAT is what brings me back. I still stand firm that these fun items should be made available in some way shape or form or at least a guarentee that an equal amount of fun items will continue to be introduced into the game without spending any more [Removed for Content] money.

btw go ahead and hate on spyder, or do what i do and if i see that ugly [Removed for Content] rat, i just scroll down past his post.

Jovie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 12:56 PM   #37
Zarador

Loremaster
Zarador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,194
Default

Vain wrote:

This business model argument is sound if you can unequivocally show me that these products add value, somehow, to the core part of the game.

The way I see it, is that there is meant to be a very distinct line between LoN and the game itself (as expressed by SoE), so I am left to assume that any revenue is fed back into the LoN end of things and does nothing for EQ2 itself. As far as Station Cash is concerned, I don't know where this fits, exactly, in the business model. Again, however, I would suspect that and generated revenues go back into supprting the SC infrastructure and development of new items for sale.

I would be more compelled to envisage the LoN and SC business models as a means to balance ebbing revenues in EQ2, not as a means to support the game itself.

The LoN and SC items are, for the most part, fluff items designed to pretty up the game for those where that is of priority. Like the peripheral iPod market - you might have the plain jane silver nano, but the dude next to you has one that has Vincent Van Gogh's Starry Night on it. OMG!!!!! The difference here is that, for the most part, it is other companies building this peripheral iPod market, not Apple itself. Apple's business model focusses on its product - enhancing its core performance/storage, etc... With LoN/SC it is SoE itself creating these products. They have gone out of their way to establish new business unit(s) to develop a new game, a new Marketplace, new in-game items, etc... So at the very core of it all, you encounter this ever-present resource issue.

So, we should all realize (and I think we do) that in any capitalist environment things are available to some that are not to others simply because of financial disparity. The issue here, however, (to build on your analogy) is that the 14 year old at McDonald's is serving the super-sized extras to someone else while ignoring whether or not you wanted pickles on your cheeseburger.

I know people that frequent that "WaWa" or "On-The-Run"  fuel stations in our area.   Does that mean that the coffee and snacks are there for people that want the gas, or the gas is there for people that want the snacks and coffee?

Would it make sense for them to say "lets have the worst gas that no one will purchase, we make our money on the Coffee"?  Would it make sense for them to say "We have the worst coffee, but people will buy it anyway because we have the best gas"?  At the end of the month I'm sure they separate out where they made most profit.

I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, but one obviously feeds off the other.  Does LoN give the money to EQ2? Maybe not directly, but it provides an incentive for SoE to make the core game better.  SC is even a bigger example of that, since the items are all "In Game Use".  The more "content" that player who spent the money on SC or LoN is; the more likely they are to stay with the core game and continue to spend additional revenue.

Zarador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 01:04 PM   #38
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

The thing is, those extra items offered are not made there at the gas station by the tender loving hands of gas jockeys or cashiers. They're shipped in, stocked and sold at a mark-up. Fine and sound business model.

The LoN/SC items require SoE time, resources and support. Whatever peripheral benefit they provide to the game (in keeping players playing, etc...) also results in time that could have been better spent improving the core of the game had they decided to throw resources that way instead of into new business units.

Simply adding more and more fluff content to a game does not make the game better. It keeps the finances in a position to make the game economically viable. This is, however, a very short term fix if the game itself does not improve proportional to the resources burnt up in these other business units.

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:07 PM   #39
liveja

General
liveja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 4,793
Default

Vain wrote:

This business model argument is sound if you can unequivocally show me that these products add value, somehow, to the core part of the game.

Define "value."

You're going to find it somewhat difficult to define the term objectively, which means that any arguments made on the basis of "value" are going to be subjective, which means they're open to argument, interpretation, opinion, & equivocation. IOW, there's no way to show you this "value" unequivocally.

As SOE sees it, they've added new fluffy stuff to the game, & given people a method of purchasing it. Quite obviously, that method is working enough to please SOE -- IOW, enough players have spent enough money on Station Cash purchases that SOE considers the experiment a success.

Now, since that is apparently true, what does it say about the "value" the players see in the service? Obviously, all the people who have spent real money for Station Cash purchases saw some "value" to doing so; otherwise, they wouldn't have made the purchase.

The point of all this, is that while YOU may not ever see any "value" in the addition of Station Cash, your opinion is not shared by enough people to make SOE care. There are, in short, enough people to whom SOE has already shown "value" to make SOE decide to keep Station Cash.

So, there's the "value" they've added. It's not a "value" to you, nor is it a "value" to me, but my values are no more a reflection of the community as a whole than are yours, & neither of us should be complaining about Station Cash on the basis that it doesn't add "value" to the core game.

In fact, at this point, it's a complete waste of time to even bother complaining about Station Cash. It's over, it's a done deal, & those of us who hate it LOST THE ARGUMENT. Move on, already; there's nothing left to say, here.

Edited to remove an extraneous ampersand.

__________________
liveja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:14 PM   #40
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

If we want to argue the rhetoric of "value" we can start a Zen and the Art of Motrocycle Maintenance thread.

The idea of "value-added" is simple enough in the sense of business models and is independent of the individual clients. No need to abstract it to the degree you have.

I'm not complaining about Station Cash, here, I am looking for people who use the argument that SC/LoN are somehow improving the game, to show me the correlation.

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:19 PM   #41
liveja

General
liveja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 4,793
Default

Vain wrote:

I'm not complaining about Station Cash, here, I am looking for people who use the argument that SC/LoN are somehow improving the game, to show me the correlation.

I know that's what you're doing.

The problem is that the argument you're looking for is entirely subjective, because what THEY think is "improving the game" most likely is not the same thing as what YOU think will do so, but both arguments are pure opinion based entirely on the values each person holds.

You may think you're getting somewhere, but you're just running a treadmill.

__________________
liveja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:22 PM   #42
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

Treadmills are fine and dandy by me.

I appreciate you volunteering to be my spotter, though

edit: I think that there would be some pretty objective answers to this argument, but the chances of seeing the individual business models and books is zero to none. Those on the other side of the argument, however, have only subjective answers to the issue.

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:23 PM   #43
liveja

General
liveja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 4,793
Default

Vain wrote:

Treadmills are fine and dandy by me.

O, well, in that case, carry on!

__________________
liveja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:24 PM   #44
Zarador

Loremaster
Zarador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,194
Default

Vain wrote:

The thing is, those extra items offered are not made there at the gas station by the tender loving hands of gas jockeys or cashiers. They're shipped in, stocked and sold at a mark-up. Fine and sound business model.

The LoN/SC items require SoE time, resources and support. Whatever peripheral benefit they provide to the game (in keeping players playing, etc...) also results in time that could have been better spent improving the core of the game had they decided to throw resources that way instead of into new business units.

Simply adding more and more fluff content to a game does not make the game better. It keeps the finances in a position to make the game economically viable. This is, however, a very short term fix if the game itself does not improve proportional to the resources burnt up in these other business units.

The "Gas Jockey's" and cashiers don't make the gas. They simply distribute one part of the companies product to the consumer.  Overall, the companies employees working on the distribution of various end uses of the products when combined make up a business model.

Your implying that it would be better for them to spend money the "core game" while taking in no additional revenue.  That's like saying it would be better for WaWa to take those clerks inside the store and have them wash the windows on cars that are getting gas or something to that effect.

They have stated numerous times that the staff that works with the development of LoN and SC are in addition to the regular EQ2 Staff.  The fact that they continue to market and develop the LoN/SC items indicate,  as Flaye mentioned that it's enough of a success to continue development.

Making the game more "financially viable" better insures their position of being able to continue the operations that keep the game alive.

Zarador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:30 PM   #45
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

LoN/SC may be a "revenue" success at present, but they are completely useless without the actual game (EQ2).

You'll note my use of the phrase "short-term fix".

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:33 PM   #46
Zarador

Loremaster
Zarador's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,194
Default

Vain wrote:

If we want to argue the rhetoric of "value" we can start a Zen and the Art of Motrocycle Maintenance thread.

The idea of "value-added" is simple enough in the sense of business models and is independent of the individual clients. No need to abstract it to the degree you have.

I'm not complaining about Station Cash, here, I am looking for people who use the argument that SC/LoN are somehow improving the game, to show me the correlation.

Your looking for a direct improvement, when the improvement is indirect.

  • Players enjoy playing Everquest II so they subscribe. (Basic Subscription)
  • Other players enjoy playing LoN as a side game, so they invest money into LoN which gives SoE an incentive to keep improving on the "core game". (Basic + Lon)
  • Some players enjoy having "Premium" items that can't be just obtained through the normal game mechanisims, so they spend money on SC.  This keeps them interested and spending. (Basic + SC)
  • Still other players will engage in LoN and SC in order to "refine" their character in a way that pleases them. (Basic + SC + LoN).

Short of a small percentage of players that will only engage in LoN, the majority of players spending that additional money are interested in gaining what they perceive to be a benefit in the "core game" of Everquest II.  The more revenue gained by SoE, the more interest they hold in keeping the game going.

Zarador is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:45 PM   #47
liveja

General
liveja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 4,793
Default

Vain wrote:

LoN/SC may be a "revenue" success at present, but they are completely useless without the actual game (EQ2).

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Dasein at least has disputed the notion that Station Cash is useless without EQ2, because it's not just applying to EQ2: it's something you can buy in Vanguard, & use in Free Realms. That's why it's called "Station Cash", not "EQ2 Cash."

The idea is to get more people getting Station Access passes, because not only can they play a whole bunch of games with one subscription fee, the Station Cash marketplace is also linked to all of those games, & from there, hopefully someone who spent a bunch of money on Station Cash in one game, might want to check out one of the others as well.

It seems to be a round-about, convoluted way to attract more players to the entire brand, rather than just one game. This may not be relevant or important to any individual EQ2 player, but to SOE, it's a subtly important change. Whether any of this "works" or not, it's simply not true to argue that Station Cash is useless without EQ2.

LoN also appears in EQ1, so it's not entirely useless without EQ2 either.

__________________
liveja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 02:53 PM   #48
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

Zarador wrote:

Short of a small percentage of players that will only engage in LoN, the majority of players spending that additional money are interested in gaining what they perceive to be a benefit in the "core game" of Everquest II.  The more revenue gained by SoE, the more interest they hold in keeping the game going.

But, without the resources to keep the game viable, how do they intend to keep the game going?

[email protected] wrote:

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Dasein at least has disputed the notion that Station Cash is useless without EQ2, because it's not just applying to EQ2: it's something you can buy in Vanguard, & use in Free Realms. That's why it's called "Station Cash", not "EQ2 Cash."

The idea is to get more people getting Station Access passes, because not only can they play a whole bunch of games with one subscription fee, the Station Cash marketplace is also linked to all of those games, & from there, hopefully someone who spent a bunch of money on Station Cash in one game, might want to check out one of the others as well.

It seems to be a round-about, convoluted way to attract more players to the entire brand, rather than just one game. This may not be relevant or important to any individual EQ2 player, but to SOE, it's a subtly important change. Whether any of this "works" or not, it's simply not true to argue that Station Cash is useless without EQ2.

LoN also appears in EQ1, so it's not entirely useless without EQ2 either.

Which of these games is the premiere SoE game at present? And how long do you think the rest of the infrastructure lasts when the flagship game drops down to a nominal population?

The key to my side of the argument is that these peripherals end up draining resources that were better spent maintaining the core of the game. The fact that they are given resources at all, I think, really underlines the fact that the core games are failing from a business sense and that SoE felt that giving priority to a band-aid solution was the way to go.

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 03:05 PM   #49
liveja

General
liveja's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Foster's Home For Imaginary Friends
Posts: 4,793
Default

Vain wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but Dasein at least has disputed the notion that Station Cash is useless without EQ2, because it's not just applying to EQ2: it's something you can buy in Vanguard, & use in Free Realms. That's why it's called "Station Cash", not "EQ2 Cash."

The idea is to get more people getting Station Access passes, because not only can they play a whole bunch of games with one subscription fee, the Station Cash marketplace is also linked to all of those games, & from there, hopefully someone who spent a bunch of money on Station Cash in one game, might want to check out one of the others as well.

It seems to be a round-about, convoluted way to attract more players to the entire brand, rather than just one game. This may not be relevant or important to any individual EQ2 player, but to SOE, it's a subtly important change. Whether any of this "works" or not, it's simply not true to argue that Station Cash is useless without EQ2.

LoN also appears in EQ1, so it's not entirely useless without EQ2 either.

Which of these games is the premiere SoE game at present?

EQ2 is, "at present", but whether that's still true in a year or so is another question. However, I don't see EQ2 failing entirely the way games like Tabula Rasa & such have died, so I don't really hold the concern you're expressing, & I doubt SOE does, either.

In any event, all I was responding to was the notion that LoN & Station Cash are "useless" outside of EQ2, which is simply not true.

__________________
liveja is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 03:11 PM   #50
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

Okay, "virtually useless".

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 04:29 PM   #51
Nighrbringer

Loremaster
Nighrbringer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 184
Default

[email protected] wrote:

The idea is to get more people getting Station Access passes, because not only can they play a whole bunch of games with one subscription fee, the Station Cash marketplace is also linked to all of those games, & from there, hopefully someone who spent a bunch of money on Station Cash in one game, might want to check out one of the others as well.

This is an unrelated issue I have. I would love to have Station Access as a yearly subscription as I use a pre-paid card.(it costs me $$ everytime I put money on the card.) Under the current plans, not only do I not have the option to pay for more than one month at a time but it's actually cheaper for me to pay for two games seperatly than to use Station Access ($144 * 2 = $288, $30 * 12 = $360).

If they want me to subsribe to Station Access they need to make a yearly option for no more than $300

__________________
Nighrbringer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 04:46 PM   #52
ke'la

Loremaster
ke'la's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,445
Default

shaunfletcher wrote:

[email protected] wrote:

shaunfletcher wrote:

I cheerfully spend money on the playstation store, because PSN is free. EQ2 costs money, I dont spend money in the EQ2 store. Get it? Sell me the game and sell extras or sell me the game and charge a subscription. Ya cant have it all ways.

Ahhhh.. if that is the argument. Well in that case, this thread needs to be locked. I was under the impression that this thread was about introducing SC items for free in to the game.

Not whether SC is right or wrong in general. There is already a thread here for feedback.

No, my post was a response  to your comment HERE that "If everyone paid for it, then it would be the same art seen all over the game wouldn't it?" I mean yes, of course it would be the case that putting something all over the game would mean it being all over the game.. Im not sure what information you intended to convey with that though, apart from the odd impression that making something available to the peons makes it dull.

And yes, there are some new bits trickled into the main game here and there (void armour and special event stuff for the most part). recently it seems mostly shoulder pads for some reason but its still a good thing. However the vast bulk of gear received as rewards and drops is not at all new in art terms, Im sure you would accept that.

UM, the SC stuff (in reguards to armor) is not IMO "New art" either it is just like EVERY OTHER piece of armor, just a recoloring... The interesting thing is though that we are going to be getting 12 NEW SETS of armor that are in fact new models when Lavastorm goes live...How do you think they are suddenly able to justify the addtional labor that we know is involved in making new armor sets... could it be that versions of these sets will be available on SC and LoN and it is though those addtional revinue sources that the cost/benifit ratio tipped in favor of new armor Models?

Also while yes new art in other areas of fluff have come out via LoN and SC, but the question is if LoN/SC didn't exist would these fluff items come out at all? You deem it a waste of art resources that they came out in a version that requires people to pay for them... that is only true IF those items would have been made anyway... I seriously doupt the vaste majority of them would have been done.

__________________

ke'la is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 04:59 PM   #53
ke'la

Loremaster
ke'la's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,445
Default

Galldora wrote:

Eugam wrote:

The sailors cap shouldnt be ingame, or on SC or LON or anywhere but the trashcan Its embarassing but a good sign where the game is.

There's a sailor's cap?  What cap is that?

Accually it's a "Good Humor Man" hat... though without the Trademark infringment.

__________________

ke'la is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:08 PM   #54
ke'la

Loremaster
ke'la's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 5,445
Default

Vain wrote:

The thing is, those extra items offered are not made there at the gas station by the tender loving hands of gas jockeys or cashiers. They're shipped in, stocked and sold at a mark-up. Fine and sound business model.

The LoN/SC items require SoE time, resources and support. Whatever peripheral benefit they provide to the game (in keeping players playing, etc...) also results in time that could have been better spent improving the core of the game had they decided to throw resources that way instead of into new business units.

Simply adding more and more fluff content to a game does not make the game better. It keeps the finances in a position to make the game economically viable. This is, however, a very short term fix if the game itself does not improve proportional to the resources burnt up in these other business units.

This argument assumes that without SC/LoN that those devs working on those items would be employed working on the EQ2 dev team, designing stuff and improving the game... the fact of the matter is if SC/LoN didn't exist chances are NOTHING that came from them would be in game now... SC and LoN are both self supporting entities meaning that they take NO resources from EQ2 core because the money they make goes right back into supporting thier programs... If anything EQ2 gets more resources because of SC and LoN as EQ2 being a viable game is what makes SC and LoN profitable. Also they can use SC and LoN to justify the additional artiest required to make Base Models and then turn around and recolor them for non-SC/LoN uses.

__________________

ke'la is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:18 PM   #55
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

Well, SoE developed LoN and SC right? They did this while developers in EQ2 had difficulties meeting deadlines for RoK; while developers in EQ2 wrestle with resources to properly implement a fighter re-vamp (the 1st of many re-vamps); the list goes on.

So, instead of allocating resources directly to EQ2 to alleviate these problems, SoE allocated them to the LoN and SC business units in some sort of attempt to solve issues with fluff.

You will note that my argument does not deal with current resources, but with the initial idea to dedicate resources to a non-essential aspect for any of their exisiting games.

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:27 PM   #56
Armawk
Server: Everfrost
Guild: Nos Es Rutilus
Rank: Tirones

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,240
Default

kela, Firstly some of them ARE new art. completely so. Secondly, a subscription model is ONLY sustainable in return for value on that subscription.

Should they stop making new stuff then people will stop paying. Its the whole basis and the great charm of the subscription model for me and why I pay into it.. the fact that the game evolves and changes constantly. Im happy as larry to pay for 3 accounts every month to get it. You say you dont think they would make many new fluff items without getting  a bunch of extra cash? how outrageously complacent of them if so! to take their customers for granted so much. What they think there are no other games out there? We fund ongoing development of the game by paying every month, but only if we get the fruits of the labours that payment funds. If I want a static game where I pay cash for extras I will buy those.

If you go down a road of saying 'ah no, the subcription only gets you the basics' then I and many others will lose interest. It seems to be the long term trend frankly, and marketing speak or ramblings about capitalistic systems will not cover it up for ever.

Armawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:29 PM   #57
Armawk
Server: Everfrost
Guild: Nos Es Rutilus
Rank: Tirones

Loremaster
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,240
Default

Vain wrote:

Well, SoE developed LoN and SC right? They did this while developers in EQ2 had difficulties metting deadlines for RoK; while developers in EQ2 wrestle with resources to properly implement a fighter re-vamp (the 1st of many re-vamps); the list goes on.

I think thats unfair. LoN was made by a different subcompany, and station cash was made by a broader unit. There is integration work of course, but its small and certainly wouldnt significantly involve devs who would be working on game balance or whatever!

Armawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:29 PM   #58
Vain

Lord
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 190
Default

Vain wrote:

You will note that my argument does not deal with current resources, but with the initial idea to dedicate resources to a non-essential aspect for any of their exisiting games.

that.

Vain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:40 PM   #59
zhiDarkivel

Loremaster
zhiDarkivel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Kansas
Posts: 160
Default

What about expansions?

Those are large amounts of additional content you have to pay for.  Those you don't get access to for free as part of your base subscription.  And yet, people accept those as a normal part of the MMO business model.

For as long as EQ2 has been out, we have gotten both free content and pay content added to this game.  It's not a new model by any means.  The only new approach is the manner of payment (stationcash) and the fact that it comes in tiny additions rather than big lumps.  We have no evidence that this is going to change in the future, other than people's paranoia that the addition of station cash means they're going to stop all continuing development on the rest of the game.

Just looking at the zone revamp due out in the next game update, I see lots of free content coming my way.  I don't see anything like a static game here.

If all you did was buy the base game when it came out and never paid any more money beyond the subscription fee, you'd be pretty limited in the game you were playing right now.  It's how things work.  It's how things have always worked.  The only thing that matters is if the additional paid content has enough value you want to pay for it.

__________________
zhiDarkivel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 08:01 PM   #60
Tinrae

Loremaster
Tinrae's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 345
Default

So far there hasn't been much in the SC store that I'd have been willing to quest for even if it was offered in game honestly. The hats are silly, the potions unneeded, and I'm not into pets though I did buy a bear for the charity promo because I'm a sucker for charity programs. I actually don't like any of the new round of LoN loot either. Guess I'm just happy in general with what I already have. /shrug

I'm more excited by Lavastorm revamp than any SC stuff!

__________________
Coercer L80 - Master Jeweler

Warden L80 - Master Provisioner

Troubador L80 - Master Tailor

Inquisitor - Master Alchemist

Paladin - Armorer

Tinrae is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:40 PM.

vBulletin skin by: CompleteGFX.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
All threads and posts originally from the EQ2 and Station forums operated by Sony Online Entertainment. Their use is by express written permission.