Jump to content

A Critical Summary of Warframe's Monetization Methods


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, (PS4)Madurai-Prime said:

Why do people recognize anything yet still defend it? We know fast food is bad, yet still eat it, and bunch of other stuff I'm not gonna get into.

An actual casino can be fun: go there with some friends and do a few slots and have some drinks for example. Another guy can completely lose his child's college money in a couple hours. 

Are people just supposed to stop everything and quit all videogames? Like I said before: I don't have data, but I have a hunch most people really aren't dumb enough to actually buy plat, then buy 500 plat worth of nano spores on the market. 

Most people are probably selling stuff, buying plat outright then just making it last, or buying plat for boosters and farming resources like crazy. Some people are just grinding to sell stuff to buy something cool they like like a Tennogen. I recently found out some of our Tennogen money actually goes back to the artists that create it....I think that's cool because I wanna support an artist.

 

i'm asking you, not "people"

the problem comes down to f2p monetization schemes (and progressively, p2p) being extremely exploitative and actively psychologically malicious and engineered to be as addictive as possible and the bankruptcy of ethics concerning that.

as you say, gambling can lead to horrific, life-altering consequences, and the unscrupulous will have no qualms with exploiting and abusing people for their personal profit.

where DE has shown to be exploitative and abusive, why should we not pressure DE to change their ways? or even to pressure federal and/or provincial governments to legislate against such things (ex. including lootboxes under existing gambling, for a start)?

particularly when the epidemiology and pathology of addiction (and gambling addiction) indicate that symptoms and treatment are parallel to any other disease? the implication here, as a result, is that anyone willing (ex. DE) to exploit people are willingly spreading disease for their personal benefit.

Why do YOU bother to defend practices like this? Do you just not care about other people? (Some people literally do not have a sufficiently developed theory of mind or are psychopathic or sociopathic and as a result *cannot* care and as a result have stunted emotional intelligence and as a result come to very antisocial conclusions about what is fair and what is not.)

it's not just a question of what an individual is willing to spend their resources on. when examining monetization practices, we are looking to hold accountable the companies engaged in the practice. if a scammer is scamming, and it is considered public knowledge, then the next logical step obviously includes obstructing the scammer's ability to scam (besides what you already do and suggest which is educating others -- great!) given that that is the root problem.

(and of course, even further up the tree of consequence we can hold accountable the social, political, and economic systems (ergo capitalism, neoliberalism, private property) that have permitted the situation to arise in the first place.)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Scruffel said:

snip

I wanted to make an informative list for everything that effects customers, and Tennogen is definitely a weird one to tackle. Customers do buy the stuff, so it is an aspect of monetization, and there is some weirdness in how they do (because of how platinum is handled), and the monetization does effect the creators themselves (so do they count in all this?). I justified including the section because it is something informative (I didn't actually realise that Tennogen creators had it so much better compared to TF2 before researching stuff), and it is an aspect that people might care about.

7 hours ago, Scruffel said:

I'm not saying you're necessarily wrong, but do you mind backing up this information? At least the TF2 part since, I am aware that nowadays with the Steam Market that creators have been losing more potential revenue, but am I not aware that apparently that have been cut down to a lower amount. I am aware that an item with multiple creators can each have a different share amount due to the type of contribution made towards it (for ex. the amount the concept artist takes vs the amount the model/texture artist makes).

So I was slightly wrong because I noted down some things incorrectly, but probably not in the direction you might expect. I was using this old post as reference (things may have changed by now - for instance, it seems to vary a lot between updates). Basically, because selling most cosmetic items moved from out of the store and into lootboxes, the creators are given a share of the key price for opening the lootboxes instead. Not only do the keys generally cost less than the cosmetics would otherwise be in the store, Valve also takes a bigger cut (93%) from key sales and that remaining cut is split between all items in the crates, so in reality individual creators make less than a 7% cut.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's really sad how many traps are in this game. A lot of players have eventually learned to avoid many of the abusive elements, yet new players suffer these monetization attempts, and it cheapens the experience for them, shaming the referral who introduced them.

The game needs a serious cost analysis to reframe what's appropriate for each feature. But every expansion reminds us that someone in DE is trying their hardest to wrench the community for more money and time rather than respectful content value. 

Heart of Deimos had a lot of beautiful content that was very impressive, but everyone was so busy fighting the oppressive progress system that they could hardly appreciate it, beyond just how buggy it is. I really hope they remedy their value analysis, because it shouldn't take an episode of Jimquisition to highlight scummy practices. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

i'm asking you, not "people"

the problem comes down to f2p monetization schemes (and progressively, p2p) being extremely exploitative and actively psychologically malicious and engineered to be as addictive as possible and the bankruptcy of ethics concerning that.

as you say, gambling can lead to horrific, life-altering consequences, and the unscrupulous will have no qualms with exploiting and abusing people for their personal profit.

where DE has shown to be exploitative and abusive, why should we not pressure DE to change their ways? or even to pressure federal and/or provincial governments to legislate against such things (ex. including lootboxes under existing gambling, for a start)?

particularly when the epidemiology and pathology of addiction (and gambling addiction) indicate that symptoms and treatment are parallel to any other disease? the implication here, as a result, is that anyone willing (ex. DE) to exploit people are willingly spreading disease for their personal benefit.

Why do YOU bother to defend practices like this? Do you just not care about other people? (Some people literally do not have a sufficiently developed theory of mind or are psychopathic or sociopathic and as a result *cannot* care and as a result have stunted emotional intelligence and as a result come to very antisocial conclusions about what is fair and what is not.)

it's not just a question of what an individual is willing to spend their resources on. when examining monetization practices, we are looking to hold accountable the companies engaged in the practice. if a scammer is scamming, and it is considered public knowledge, then the next logical step obviously includes obstructing the scammer's ability to scam (besides what you already do and suggest which is educating others -- great!) given that that is the root problem.

(and of course, even further up the tree of consequence we can hold accountable the social, political, and economic systems (ergo capitalism, neoliberalism, private property) that have permitted the situation to arise in the first place.)

I'm not an activist, sorry. The game's been here 7 years already, they have a system in place. Do you think a couple people telling DE what you told me is gonna magically change their mind? Yea, it's worth a shot....You could make a feedback thread and tell them some of the things you've told me, but what happens if they don't change anything? Many people have tried to hold many institutions accountable the mature and responsible way, and it's up to the institution to listen or lose customers.

I've already watched another forum go through the same thing. I was there when the first loot box came out. It was the equivalent of DE putting Tennogen and deluxe skins in boxes you paid money for, or basically the equivalent of getting riven slivers in game to get 1 box a week. But people would obviously just buy 20 boxes at a time.

The forums were in uproar, people pleaded, begged and made intelligent feedback threads. Now they're probably on their 20th loot box release full of exclusive cosmetics and even some trinkets that do damage.

Like I said before: it's a good thread, I think it just belongs in feedback since everyone says devs don't read General Discussion. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish people were this critical of games like ESO. It's fun but you could also easily argue that its pay to win since lots of meta armor sets and weapons are locked behind dlc which is locked behind a pay wall or a decently expensive subscription program. when you have an elitist community that flat out kicks players for being a lower level than you or not having all the meta armor and weapons that you need to reach an insane 65k dps or something Things like pay walls behind major content actually do matter. There are also loot boxes and stuff but thats only cosmetic. Warframe is not that and it's significantly less toxic.

Edited by (PS4)i7081277
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

the problem comes down to f2p monetization schemes (and progressively, p2p) being extremely exploitative and actively psychologically malicious and engineered to be as addictive as possible and the bankruptcy of ethics concerning that.

Hold up. You've moved from describing things that you don't like for whatever reason, into calling things that you don't like malicious. I can agree with you saying that listing a pittance of a common in-game resource for sale isn't cool, but when you claim that it's flat out malicious then you're on your own, because that's BS.

If we were FORCED to buy it to progress in the game, THAT would be malicious. Just offering it for purchase, to those who want to do so, isn't. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it's bad.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Hold up. You've moved from describing things that you don't like for whatever reason, into calling things that you don't like malicious. I can agree with you saying that listing a pittance of a common in-game resource for sale isn't cool, but when you claim that it's flat out malicious then you're on your own, because that's BS.

If we were FORCED to buy it to progress in the game, THAT would be malicious. Just offering it for purchase, to those who want to do so, isn't. Just because you don't like something doesn't mean that it's bad.

 

consider the concept of "negligence."

it is systemic negligence to leave Nano Spores (something you can rack millions up just playing the game) up for sale on the market for 3000/30p, when it would cost no effort to remove and, presumably, doesn't make money anyway for DE because all (presumably) players know it's a worthless purchase.

So then why would DE leave it up for sale?

If not to abuse ignorance? Or malice?

but i mean yeah i don't like child abuse or abuse in general so yeah "i don't like it" and "i call it abuse" and "abuse is malicious, even if accidental"

any incident of some poor fool buying 3000 Nano Spores for 30p is directly the result of DE having created a pitfall trap and not doing anything to remove the pitfall trap, and so DE retains full culpability for creating the pitfall trap even if someone falls for it.

cuz, like, y'know... DE dug the hole. The hole that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

consider the concept of "negligence."

it is systemic negligence to leave Nano Spores (something you can rack millions up just playing the game) up for sale on the market for 3000/30p, when it would cost no effort to remove and, presumably, doesn't make money anyway for DE because all (presumably) players know it's a worthless purchase.

So then why would DE leave it up for sale?

If not to abuse ignorance? Or malice?

but i mean yeah i don't like child abuse or abuse in general so yeah "i don't like it" and "i call it abuse" and "abuse is malicious, even if accidental"

any incident of some poor fool buying 3000 Nano Spores for 30p is directly the result of DE having created a pitfall trap and not doing anything to remove the pitfall trap, and so DE retains full culpability for creating the pitfall trap even if someone falls for it.

cuz, like, y'know... DE dug the hole. The hole that shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Again, just because you don't like something doesn't make it bad, malicious, negligent, or abusive. I don't like the fact that supermarkets around the world put massive markups on vegetables, but that doesn't make it an abuse, because I'm not forced to buy it from the supermarkets. I don't like the fact that the bars you go to have such a huge markup on alcohol, but I'm not going to sit here and demand that they change their prices on the grounds that you might be so backwards as to not know that you can get it cheaper elsewhere.

Honestly it looks like you're just fishing for reasons to call something abusive, and demanding that we agree with you about it.

The reason to leave it up for sale is the same reason that people offer any luxury item for sale, it's so someone who wants to buy it, can buy it. Nobody forced you to buy a gold plated Wii console, did they? How is it's existence for sale going to be abusive to you?

Edited by (PS4)guzmantt1977
missing n
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

any incident of some poor fool buying 3000 Nano Spores for 30p is directly the result of DE having created a pitfall trap and not doing anything to remove the pitfall trap, and so DE retains full culpability for creating the pitfall trap even if someone falls for it.

Here's another example of caveat emptor that you may enjoy labelling as "abusive":

https://auto.hindustantimes.com/auto/cars/costly-click-man-accidentally-buys-28-tesla-cars-worth-1-4-million-euros-online-41593406988835.html

Is a system that would let you buy 28 Teslas inherently abusive? What if a Saudi prince wants to but three dozen and share them out as presents to his extended families? Should he have to buy one at a time?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Again, just because you don't like something doesn't make it bad, malicious, negligent, or abusive. I don't like the fact that supermarkets around the world put massive markups on vegetables, but that doesn't make it an abuse, because I'm not forced to buy it from the supermarkets. I don't like the fact that the bars you go to have such a huge markup on alcohol, but I'm not going to sit here and demand that they change their prices on the grounds that you might be so backwards as to not know that you can get it cheaper elsewhere.

Honestly it looks like you're just fishing for reasons to call something abusive, and demanding that we agree with you about it.

The reason to leave it up for sale is the same reason that people offer any luxury item for sale, it's so someone who wants to buy it, can buy it. Nobody forced you to buy a gold plated Wii console, did they? How is it's existence for sale going to be abusive to you?

you don't get it. that is totally irrelevant.

f2p monetization schemes (and frankly, many retail tricks as well) are often explicitly designed to exploit psychological weaknesses of people, and especially people with psychological profiles that suggest vulnerability to schemes that encourage gambling (i.e. some people are more vulnerable to gambling addiction than others).

And frankly, those situations people exploit for quick cash SHOULD stop because it's bullS#&$ and doesn't actually add any real, concrete value to anything. At the very least you could argue something about opportunity cost for grocery stores, esp in food deserts, but even in those situations, the grocery store is taking advantage of a dire situation.

and no, a gold plated Wii already targets rich #*!%s whom i don't give a S#&$ about.

 

2 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Here's another example of caveat emptor that you may enjoy labelling as "abusive":

https://auto.hindustantimes.com/auto/cars/costly-click-man-accidentally-buys-28-tesla-cars-worth-1-4-million-euros-online-41593406988835.html

Is a system that would let you buy 28 Teslas inherently abusive? What if a Saudi prince wants to but three dozen and share them out as presents to his extended families? Should he have to buy one at a time?

wow, you are so off the mark i couldn't pin you on a globe.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

you don't get it. that is totally irrelevant.

f2p monetization schemes (and frankly, many retail tricks as well) are often explicitly designed to exploit psychological weaknesses of people, and especially people with psychological profiles that suggest vulnerability to schemes that encourage gambling (i.e. some people are more vulnerable to gambling addiction than others).

And frankly, those situations people exploit for quick cash SHOULD stop because it's bullS#&$ and doesn't actually add any real, concrete value to anything. At the very least you could argue something about opportunity cost for grocery stores, esp in food deserts, but even in those situations, the grocery store is taking advantage of a dire situation.

and no, a gold plated Wii already targets rich #*!%s whom i don't give a S#&$ about.

 

wow, you are so off the mark i couldn't pin you on a globe.

And supermarkets lay out the design of the store to encourage you to buy things, with the sorts of snacks, magazines and other luxury items near to the tellers. Casinos remove clocks and walls to encourage you to play longer. 

Neither of them force you to do anything, and this game certainly doesn't either.

Your personal views, likes and dislikes don't form the basis of ethics, or the definition of malicious intent. And claiming vicarious victimization, especially for someone you described as a "poor fool", isn't the same as showing that a thing is unfair, or malicious. 

The value that's added by the monetization you're complaining about should be obvious even to you. It allows the company to keep producing a game you've been playing for over three years. 

 

Finding me on a globe can be a bit tricky. A lot of the time my country is so small that they just leave us off. 🤷‍♂️

Edited by (PS4)guzmantt1977
Last paragraph.
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Casinos remove clocks and walls to encourage you to play longer. 

Neither of them force you to do anything, and this game certainly doesn't either.

if you don't see what's wrong with this, i don't think any amount of explanation can help

anyway i'm gonna go and set the price for insulin to be 400$+/mo and since no one is forcing diabetics to do anything this is fair and okay /s

my thoughts and prayers to you that you develop whatever it is you need to understand 🙏🏼🙏🏼

cuz i sure as S#&$ dont care anymore LMAO

Edited by Gwyndolin-chan
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Aldain said:

Liechtenstein?

That's the first comically small country that popped into my head.

Not quite that small, although the Vatican is smaller. It's Trinidad and Tobago, off the coast of South America. A lot of the islands near us get the short shrift too.

1 hour ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

if you don't see what's wrong with this, i don't think any amount of explanation can help

anyway i'm gonna go and set the price for insulin to be 400$+/mo and since no one is forcing diabetics to do anything this is fair and okay /s

my thoughts and prayers to you that you develop whatever it is you need to understand 🙏🏼🙏🏼

cuz i sure as S#&$ dont care anymore LMAO

Do you not grasp that insulin is one of the things that people are in fact, FORCED to buy in order to stay alive? I get that you are trying to play the victim card, but that's really not something that is comparable at all. As for whether or not that's fair or good, let me put it this way, in most countries, and even in my crappy, third world country, insulin is given to patients who need it for a minimal charge, and stores in the country you're talking about, do actually sell some brands of insulin for way less. 

If you want to soapbox about the unfairness of the health care system in that particulary country, you're free to do so, because most of us will agree with you about how terrible it is, but that ain't what we have here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Do you not grasp that insulin is one of the things that people are in fact, FORCED to buy in order to stay alive? I get that you are trying to play the victim card, but that's really not something that is comparable at all. As for whether or not that's fair or good, let me put it this way, in most countries, and even in my crappy, third world country, insulin is given to patients who need it for a minimal charge, and stores in the country you're talking about, do actually sell some brands of insulin for way less. 

but no one forces them to buy insulin (no one forces them to buy cheaper insulin that they might be allergic to) /s

but no one forces anyone to buy food /s

but no one forces anyone to be (born with) or (develop over the course of their life) a psychological weakness to the rush of dopamine associated with gambling making them vulnerable to exploitative monetization practices (and it's no secret either that entertainment businesses engage in these all the time) /s

you think i'm playing the victim card? lol, no. I haven't fallen for the S#&$tiest of DE's practices, but others have. as long as you operate under the false belief that freedom of will exists in any meaningful form, let alone rational thinking, you won't be able to change anything because you and many others always fall into the trap of using "freedom of will" as justification to enable scummy practices, business-related or otherwise.

and even under the context of choice and morality, DE has just as much choice in not providing terrible deals as anyone has in refusing/participating in their charade.

which brings us back to your point on ethics formation. whether you think what DE does (and what they do is encouraged by the business status quo in Canada and the USA) is ethical or not is formed from your own beliefs, personality, and knowledge. but it's obvious to me that it isn't ethical. (and obviously it's symptomatic of the status quo/capitalist forces of Canada and the USA)

but at least in this localized scenario, DE is the one holding the cards, some/all of which they knowingly crafted specifically to maximally profit themselves without regard to their players

anyway #*!% capitalism

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

but no one forces them to buy insulin (no one forces them to buy cheaper insulin that they might be allergic to) /s

but no one forces anyone to buy food /s

Considering that the alternative is death, then yes they are forced to. The alternative to buying nanospores on the market is, playing the game for a few minutes. If you can't figure out what the difference between the two is, you may want to find someone working in the local mental health field to help you with that. 

2 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

but no one forces anyone to be (born with) or (develop over the course of their life) a psychological weakness to the rush of dopamine associated with gambling making them vulnerable to exploitative monetization practices (and it's no secret either that entertainment businesses engage in these all the time) /s

You remember the whole "roll for kubrow colour combo" thing that got taken out? That would arguably be a case of a gambling addiction. Most of the stuff you're trying to present as evil, is straight up "I want to buy this thing" or "I wish to pay to bypass the wait because I value my time more than this plat". There's nothing inherently scummy about either. HoD didn't have any monetization and then people literally demanded that they put it in, because those people didn't want to put in the effort of playing the game. 

2 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

you think i'm playing the victim card? lol, no. I haven't fallen for the S#&$tiest of DE's practices, but others have. as long as you operate under the false belief that freedom of will exists in any meaningful form, let alone rational thinking, you won't be able to change anything because you and many others always fall into the trap of using "freedom of will" as justification to enable scummy practices, business-related or otherwise.

Oh Tenno, i KNOW that you are trying to play the victim card. Perhaps you think that playing it vicariously, on behalf of a theoretical "poor fool" that makes it something else, but it really doesn't. You are just taking something that you find unpleasant presenting it as truly evil, and doing the whole SJW thing, and pretending that individual agency is not a thing, while simultaneously trying to portray yourself as having been able to exercise such agency to not fall into a trap. 

How can you sit there and pretend that freedom of will doesn't exist, while saying that you chose not to fall for the practices? If there was no freedom of will, you would have no option. It's just a silly and easily disproven claim you're making. 

2 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

and even under the context of choice and morality, DE has just as much choice in not providing terrible deals as anyone has in refusing/participating in their charade.

Yes, but so does any other business that sells luxury items or services. And those represent a thriving, vibrant and, some would say important part of the global economy. Nobody will take you seriously if you try to shut down your local bar, supermarket, luxury car dealership because you don't particularly like the idea of their markups. Why would this be any different? 

2 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

which brings us back to your point on ethics formation. whether you think what DE does (and what they do is encouraged by the business status quo in Canada and the USA) is ethical or not is formed from your own beliefs, personality, and knowledge. but it's obvious to me that it isn't ethical. (and obviously it's symptomatic of the status quo/capitalist forces of Canada and the USA)

I suggest that you ask a lot of questions, of a lot of people, when trying to find out what is considered ethical. That is, after all how ethics works. You are absolutely allowed and entitled to have your own personal ethics, but society as a whole decides whether or not you are allowed to act in that way, and despite what you may have been taught in your university courses, you really can't dictate to a society what is and isn't ethical, especially not by trying to present something innocuous as evil. (I was willing to go along with most of what you wrote in the first post, but you will notice that even in that first reply I pointed out that you were making subjective statements that I didn't really agree with. When you tried to call stuff straight up malicious that is when I chose to voice clear disagreement and give reasons for doing so.) 

3 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

but at least in this localized scenario, DE is the one holding the cards, some/all of which they knowingly crafted specifically to maximally profit themselves without regard to their players

You do grasp that this is not an inherently bad thing for a business that wants to stay in business to do, right? 

 

2 hours ago, Gwyndolin-chan said:

anyway #*!% capitalism

Have you ever truly tried any of the alternatives? I mean one of the definite, actual socialist, communist or even anarchist societies in real life? As opposed to reading a propaganda piece or an idealised manifesto? I've been to a few, and while the visits were interesting, it's not something I would like to opt into. So given your stance, I'm curious to know if you have.

 

And for the record, even America isn't a purely capitalist society. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2020-09-17 at 1:37 AM, Gwyndolin-chan said:

i'm asking you, not "people"

the problem comes down to f2p monetization schemes (and progressively, p2p) being extremely exploitative and actively psychologically malicious and engineered to be as addictive as possible and the bankruptcy of ethics concerning that.

as you say, gambling can lead to horrific, life-altering consequences, and the unscrupulous will have no qualms with exploiting and abusing people for their personal profit.

where DE has shown to be exploitative and abusive, why should we not pressure DE to change their ways? or even to pressure federal and/or provincial governments to legislate against such things (ex. including lootboxes under existing gambling, for a start)?

particularly when the epidemiology and pathology of addiction (and gambling addiction) indicate that symptoms and treatment are parallel to any other disease? the implication here, as a result, is that anyone willing (ex. DE) to exploit people are willingly spreading disease for their personal benefit.

Why do YOU bother to defend practices like this? Do you just not care about other people? (Some people literally do not have a sufficiently developed theory of mind or are psychopathic or sociopathic and as a result *cannot* care and as a result have stunted emotional intelligence and as a result come to very antisocial conclusions about what is fair and what is not.)

it's not just a question of what an individual is willing to spend their resources on. when examining monetization practices, we are looking to hold accountable the companies engaged in the practice. if a scammer is scamming, and it is considered public knowledge, then the next logical step obviously includes obstructing the scammer's ability to scam (besides what you already do and suggest which is educating others -- great!) given that that is the root problem.

(and of course, even further up the tree of consequence we can hold accountable the social, political, and economic systems (ergo capitalism, neoliberalism, private property) that have permitted the situation to arise in the first place.)

Wait you can't say this though, it makes you a "hater" /s

I really wish more people understood you can like the game, but understand there are fundamental flaws within the game that just aren't okay, whether it be with the development, the game itself, or the marketing.monetization.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2020-09-15 at 8:56 PM, Atkana said:

Before going into this, please bear in mind:

  • You can both like, and be critical of a thing that you like.
  • Valuing and making affordances for something is subjective. You might personally give more or less slack to the monetization of a product because of your own reasons, such as a game being Free to Play (though I'd personally suggest challenging that idea given that the a good portion of the highest grossing modern video games are Free to Play titles, but I digress :P). This list is to inform customers, so they can make their own judgements.
  • For all the topics that I discuss, there can be or are legitimate positive reasons for their inclusion in the game. I will only be focusing on the points that negatively impact the customer, as that's what I consider most important (sorry if I come across as a downer ^.^;)

Sad to see that so many people seem to not have read this part at all and just immediately jump to the conclusion that you're doing something bad.

I had fun reading through it and as you mentioned yourself, I would have forgotten about some of those as well.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, saghzs said:

Sad to see that so many people seem to not have read this part at all and just immediately jump to the conclusion that you're doing something bad.

I had fun reading through it and as you mentioned yourself, I would have forgotten about some of those as well.

Haven't they? Has someone said "don't criticize it"? Or have people been trying to discuss whether the criticism is fair? (As much as any criticism that only includes what the author believes are negatives can be considered fair, that is.) 

 

My first response was to point out that one of the negatives was blatantly misattributed to DE setting the prices in the market higher than the prices for the primed version in trade chat. That doesn't happen. The price on the market is fixed, while the price in trade fluctuates because people are willing undercut one another to get plat. The argument would be valid if DE decided the market value of the vanilla frames by checking what the Primes sell for, and then moving their market prices to be higher. But they don't do that. 

The rest of the post I was willing to let slide because it's a matter of how they see it, and how they feel about it, and whether I agree with them isn't worth debating because in general the points are valid enough. And I'm fine with that. I thought it was a good post, had mostly valid information, and was generally well thought out, if one sided. 

The problem arose when the usual crew show up on any thread that they figure is negative enough to open the flood gates for bashing. Unlike the original post which sought to inform people and acknowledged that there can be valid reasons for the negatives that were presented (like players literally begging for it in HoD for whatever reason), all they care to do is illogical and unproductive bashing, attributing anything they don't like as intentionality malicious. 

I mean, the instant someone demands to know why someone else can dare to provide the counter arguments for why such things exist (which the OP said can exist but they wouldn't be addressing) you know something is off kilter. 

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, (PS4)guzmantt1977 said:

Haven't they? Has someone said "don't criticize it"? Or have people been trying to discuss whether the criticism is fair? (As much as any criticism that only includes what the author believes are negatives can be considered fair, that is.) 

I was referring to the people that were commenting, Free to Play, deal with it. and other stuff like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, saghzs said:

I was referring to the people that were commenting, Free to Play, deal with it. and other stuff like that.

But don't you see? That's a pretty valid reply in and of itself. It's a response that reminds that regardless of all the subjective negatives the OP posted, we have the option to not pay anything at all, and the agency to choose whether we want to do that. 

The game really is free to play, (at least for all you PC Tenno some of us have to pay monthly subscriptions to be able to pay). All the monetization options in the world don't make much of a difference, because players can choose to not pay for any of them, or all of them, as we wish. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just can't agree with....any of this, really. As literally everyone stated - it's a free to play game, so there will ALWAYS be some sort of way to speed up the grind or look prettier than other people or make things convenient and so on. Some of you might not like people pointing that out, but it's the truth.

And the whole point about the riven market is off, in my opinion. I've been playing this game since before Rivens were even a thing, and not once have I felt the need to purchase one. In fact, you can easily make yourself immensely powerful without the need for a riven. They're purely for minmaxers and are NOT mandatory in any way, shape, or form. I even choose to not use Rivens sometimes on a number of my weapons even when they have good rolls because they're simply not needed. The riven market's prices aren't dictated by DE other than when riven dispositions change. And they straight up told us right from the start that dispositions WILL change depending on how powerful a weapon is. You want to get mad about the riven market? Blame the riven mafia who jack up the prices for no reason other than their personal benefit. Not to mention, rivens are exceptionally easy to obtain if you're "at endgame". I'm always at or past cap even though I'm not farming them.

As for everything else, the most important things on the market that was pointed out in that first post can be obtained purely by trading prime parts or mods that you can easily farm. Can even get a steady income from doing Maroo's quests, getting Ayatan sculptures, socketing them, and selling them to other players. Getting ready for a big grind session soon? Hit up the relics, sell your findings, get yourself a booster. Eyeing some plat cosmetics? Sell a few rare mods you got lying around. Before Deimos hit, I sold prime parts and ayatan sculptures and came out with around 800 plat. Not a dime spent.

Sorry but I just don't see it. If plat trading wasn't a thing, you may have a leg to stand on but it is. Couple that with this game being F2P and I just can't back this idea of Warframe having bad monetization. You want bad monetization? Marvel's Avengers. full priced "live service" game with abhorrent microtransactions at every turn.

Oh, and as for "traps"? A good consumer should do some research into what they're buying. There are no traps, but there are things that may not be as valuable to a new player as other things. It's up to the player in question to figure that out by either carefully choosing or seeking aid. All DE needs to do is provide information pertaining to what the player is about to purchase. I've yet to see an item with absolutely no description.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...