Audio Interview of DE_Reb about Live Service Games & Warframe, by Planet Money

[UnstarPrime]

8 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Do they strictly mean pay real currency at all, or like more those that pay past a certain amount.

The quote from the interview is "In Warframe's case, only about 10% of Warframe's players pay anything at all."  So to me it seems like the threshold is probably 1 cent.

 

8 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

So when I hear a number for Warframe like 10%, I wonder about more specifics, like they counting every player that downloaded the game, or play regularly.

That's a very good question.  Considering that 10% is already a high proportion of paying players for a F2P game, my guess would be that this number only includes active players; this is because 10% of active players is going to be significantly lower than 10% of players who tried Warframe even once over the last 10 years.

 

8 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Also am I considered a whale? I'm not actually sure, I have probably definitely spent more than the average Warframe player, but I have also probably definitely spent more time playing the game over the years more than the average player as well. I mean, I have max standing with Ventakids. Every few years I might but a Prime Access or two, usually for the accessories/cosmetics and to support the game. I like grinding for Prime stuff. In my mind, whales are the kind of players who just but Plat without ever waiting for a discount or the kinds of players who buy plat just because they want to buy Rivens for 2k plat or engage in that sort of thing. 

First and foremost we should probably ground ourselves by recognizing that "whale" is an extremely subjective made-up term.  When the term "whale" was first coined, it was created with a purpose, and that purpose was not to tag and categorize every actual human as either a whale or a non-whale.  Rather, it was intended to be an abstract archetype to broadly and vaguely talk about kinds of spending behavior at a high level.  Because of that, there are people who are definitely whales, and there are people who are definitely not whales, but there's also a third category of people who are "undetermined"; that's a whole vast array of people who don't clearly fall into either group, because "whale" is such a vague idea that people containing the slightest bit of nuance are immediately too complex to categorize.  And that's not a flaw, because the folks who are talking about spending habits don't need to painstakingly identify which individuals are or aren't whales; they're talking about macro ideas at a macro scale where individuals are not their concern.

For your purposes, whether you are a whale or not matters exactly as much as whether you are a "gamer" or not: for your purposes, it's just a subjective label that doesn't really have any bearing on your life.  I'd hazard that the only reason you care at all is because there's a stigma around the term whale, and at some level you don't want that label to be applied to you because you're not fond of those negative vibes.  Which is fair enough.

But I'd recommend doing what you can to stop caring about the categorization at all; when used in reference to actual people, terms like these are just a way for people create in-groups and out-groups and to lazily cast judgment on others.  We're all better off without it.

Also I feel like this post would be incomplete if I didn't link you this video, which provides a more comprehensive answer to the rough shape of your question.  Based on the thoughtful nature of your posts, I'm guessing this might be up your alley:

Edited April 25 by UnstarPrime

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

20 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

The quote from the interview is "In Warframe's case, only about 10% of Warframe's players pay anything at all."  So to me it seems like the threshold is probably 1 cent.

 

20 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

That's a very good question.  Considering that 10% is already a high proportion of paying players for a F2P game, my guess would be that this number only includes active players; this is because 10% of active players is going to be significantly lower than 10% of players who tried Warframe even once over the last 10 years.

 

20 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

First and foremost we should probably ground ourselves by recognizing that "whale" is an extremely subjective made-up term.  When the term "whale" was first coined, it was created with a purpose, and that purpose was not to tag and categorize every actual human as either a whale or a non-whale.  Rather, it was intended to be an abstract archetype to broadly and vaguely talk about kinds of spending behavior at a high level.  Because of that, there are people who are definitely whales, and there are people who are definitely not whales, but there's also a third category of people who are "undetermined"; that's a whole vast array of people who don't clearly fall into either group, because "whale" is such a vague idea that people containing the slightest bit of nuance are immediately too complex to categorize.  And that's not a flaw, because the folks who are talking about spending habits don't need to painstakingly identify which individuals are or aren't whales; they're talking about macro ideas at a macro scale where individuals are not their concern.

For your purposes, whether you are a whale or not matters exactly as much as whether you are a "gamer" or not: for your purposes, it's just a subjective label that doesn't really have any bearing on your life.  I'd hazard that the only reason you care at all is because there's a stigma around the term whale, and at some level you don't want that label to be applied to you because you're not fond of those negative vibes.  Which is fair enough.

But I'd recommend doing what you can to stop caring about the categorization at all; when used in reference to actual people, terms like these are just a way for people create in-groups and out-groups and to lazily cast judgment on others.  We're all better off without it.

Also I feel like this post would be incomplete if I didn't link you this video, which provides a more comprehensive answer to the rough shape of your question.  Based on the thoughtful nature of your posts, I'm guessing this might be up your alley:

 

Oh. I appreciate your reply, and am grateful you took the time to entertain my questions. Some of them were more a tad on the rhetorical side as sort of lead ins to others, and some were on the more literal and direct. Regardless I still enjoy discussions around this subject, linguistics and peoples takes around language, perception and communication. 

My purposes or question in regards to whales is more in regards to what Rebecca or DE would potentially consider (well perhaps also, and specifically Wailin Wong, as well, since they invoked the terminology), because of how it could inform or frame such discussions. I personally don't care in the context of myself, because thats not how I personally understand or frame language in regards to myself (or others), even with or without stigma, since I am big on context and interpretation. So to clarify, I am curious as to whether Wailin Wong considers the 10% of Warframe players that pay whales, or whether she would consider a percentage of that 10%, like hypothetically the percentage of them that has spent over $100.00 per year, or up to $500 total, or some higher cash amount. Hence tying back to my original question.(If she considers the entire 10%, then in her eyes I would be a whale, even if I might not fit some of the aforementioned thresholds, but then technically that might mean in her eyes, some people who have only spent $20 in 8 years a whale as well. Which just seems unusual to me. Not necessarily in a judgement way, just as far as framing.

Like i would probably assume any amount of real currency too, but just that would lead to more questions, because there are some pretty cheap bundles/packs that can be brought for like around $10, and then some one time purchases can be nearer to $100. If the 10% of players is including any payment, then it would be even more interesting breaking down the percentages within. Perhaps its a very very small percentage that could be say, doing over or around 50% of Warframes business in that specific sense. So also by Walin Wong's usage, a neutral idea. Like if I had to make assumptions, I would probably assume that Reb or Steve don't actually strategise around trying to appeal to whales. They might come and dine n the product, but I assume, they'd probably be more keen on more accessible bundles, and ideally even if they are away a lot of players aren't paying, those that are, might feel pretty satisfied with one off or irregular rare purchases (I can clarify if that sounds a bit vague). 

Hope that makes sense, but I appreciate your sentiment (about ones perception of negative ables and concern for them) and agree with it. 

Oh and great recommendation, much thanks. I am actually already very familiar with Philosophy Tube/Abigail, from their very first videos from about... Well I think around a decade now. How time flies, but it warms me (and makes sense that you would also be familiar and appreciate their channel enough to recommend it as well, given your thoughtful posts as well. Plus you were right, it is right up my alley hehe)

Much thanks and appreciation once again. (Also feel free to PM me any other Youtube suggestions, because you probably have great taste).

 

 

 

[OniDax]

On 2024-04-24 at 10:49 AM, Circle_of_Psi said:

Still oof

that number could be easily better, I mean look at the ways they tried to get money out of players, like that Pack and then nerfing Dante

Well, only 10% of the player base funding Warframe is what happens when your monetization model is built around selling highly expensive in-game content for a free game, instead of selling a game for $60-$70 and having a much lower price for premium content. Sure, $70 games have less players, but they make up for that with the revenue they make. The free games that are very successful have to appeal to a wider group of players.

With Warframe's state, DE couldn't get away with selling Warframe for $70. If it were sold like your typical game, they wouldn't succeed because the game doesn't appeal to a wide enough audience. So, they have to have their current model. However, the gameplay appeal isn't there and the kind of content they sell just doesn't have the same appeal as other free-to-play games.

All of that aside, though, why aren't players more willing to spend money on Warframe? I doubt it's because of any individual packs sold or the Dante nerf. Is it because of the gameplay itself, is it something about the player base DE has attracted, or is this typical of F2P games? Does the gameplay not appeal to enough players to encourage them to buy content (look at Warframe's estimated active player count across all platforms)? Is it that the player base DE has attracted to the game not want to spend money on the content (and if so, why?)? Or is this typical of F2P games where 10% of the users spend 90% of the money?

Can't really say "oof" without knowing what actually drives this. The only real "oof" is if anyone expects Warframe to be so popular, and DE so loved, that the majority of players are spending money on the game, especially with many in this community bragging about not spending money on the game.

Edited April 26 by OniDax

[Trollocaustic]

On 2024-04-24 at 9:21 AM, TeaHands said:

Reb talks for maybe 2 minutes worth of the podcast? Maybe less

Reb has been behind a lot of the monetization options in the game. Getting players to pay for power made them mad, but were fine with cosmetic purchases. According to Reb about 10% of players are funding Warframe.

She has spent over $1,000 in the game so far, does not use any sort of employee discount so she can get the "raw" experience.

Game industry is looking to lean a lot more into Live Service type games and there's been some pushback from gamers, like with the new Suicide Squad.

It was pretty short and had a long ad at the beginning lol.

Damn. I spent over 1000 USD over the span of 3 years not even as a founder.

[SneakyErvin]

22 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Also am I considered a whale? I'm not actually sure, I have probably definitely spent more than the average Warframe player, but I have also probably definitely spent more time playing the game over the years more than the average player as well. I mean, I have max standing with Ventakids. Every few years I might but a Prime Access or two, usually for the accessories/cosmetics and to support the game. I like grinding for Prime stuff. In my mind, whales are the kind of players who just but Plat without ever waiting for a discount or the kinds of players who buy plat just because they want to buy Rivens for 2k plat or engage in that sort of thing. 

A whale is someone that spends obscene amounts on a game. It is a direct transfer of the term as used in gambling. Like those seen in games like Diablo Immortal for instance that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on gem RNG etc. Or those in the early days of Diablo 3 that spent tens of thousands of euro/dollars on the RMAH to buy gear from others. You are... uhm... not a whale. I'm not sure if you'd even clock in as a minnow, goldfish or a can of fermented herring. 

And yes a whale would be somewhat like what you describe with plat and plat+rivens, but they'd need to do this on a constant basis, not just on some occassion where they need plat for something they want and cant wait for a discount, or want a riven "nao!" badly. Whales are just so far beyond that to a point where it is hard to comprehend how someone can even consider spending that much on a game.

19 hours ago, quxier said:

If they have enough money and I can still farm stuff in reasonable time then I don't care. It's just they won't get money from some people. Whatever.

I think an important thing the "poor" people need to consider is that if the cash-shop monetization catered to them they might have not been able to play the game at all, since the game at that point might have not been free as it is now. Maybe new content would instead be sold, or a constant sub needed or similar. Or some of the current free things would be locked behind payment only, like new frames. Or have harsh grinds like Star Trek Online, where taking the free path to a new ship results in a year long grind.

[quxier]

57 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

20 hours ago, quxier said:

If they have enough money and I can still farm stuff in reasonable time then I don't care. It's just they won't get money from some people. Whatever.

I think an important thing the "poor" people need to consider is that if the cash-shop monetization catered to them they might have not been able to play the game at all, since the game at that point might have not been free as it is now. Maybe new content would instead be sold, or a constant sub needed or similar. Or some of the current free things would be locked behind payment only, like new frames. Or have harsh grinds like Star Trek Online, where taking the free path to a new ship results in a year long grind.

This is just speculation. It may be other way around. Say from 10%, only 5% are regulars. People could afford more so they spend more on more regular basis. That 5% that spends e.g. 50$ per year may spend 100$. More people could be regulars. And having more fair prices (for them) may introduce new players aka potential regulars.

Another thing to consider is quality of updates. Some incarnons and teneet melees cannot be even bought. Same goes for archon shards. You want to buy something new and you have not many new things to buy. Or consider early changes to our gear or some massive one that changes part of gears. Most recent early change were Dante. Nerf were so strong that it resulted in tons of pages written. It might be good now (I find it pretty strong, not too strong not too weak, but it has still some bad stuff). People were saying that they won't buy next bundle & stuff when the frame they are buying will be changed. Massive changes were Overguard & CC nerf. Imagine buying Limbo, master of the Rift. Next day after Overguard tons of enemies enter Cataclysm, Nullies are still there YET it has still some old problems. Of course good stuff happens.

ps. and it's just me rambling without too much (or any) knowledge about economics

[SneakyErvin]

1 hour ago, quxier said:

This is just speculation. It may be other way around. Say from 10%, only 5% are regulars. People could afford more so they spend more on more regular basis. That 5% that spends e.g. 50$ per year may spend 100$. More people could be regulars. And having more fair prices (for them) may introduce new players aka potential regulars.

Another thing to consider is quality of updates. Some incarnons and teneet melees cannot be even bought. Same goes for archon shards. You want to buy something new and you have not many new things to buy. Or consider early changes to our gear or some massive one that changes part of gears. Most recent early change were Dante. Nerf were so strong that it resulted in tons of pages written. It might be good now (I find it pretty strong, not too strong not too weak, but it has still some bad stuff). People were saying that they won't buy next bundle & stuff when the frame they are buying will be changed. Massive changes were Overguard & CC nerf. Imagine buying Limbo, master of the Rift. Next day after Overguard tons of enemies enter Cataclysm, Nullies are still there YET it has still some old problems. Of course good stuff happens.

ps. and it's just me rambling without too much (or any) knowledge about economics

I dont see why a $50 spender would suddenly spend $100. Wasnt their restriction that they couldnt pay more than 50 to start with? You'd have DE sell what was otherwise worth $100 for $50, you wouldnt see the $50 spender suddenly spending $100. That $50 spender would just get $100 value from his $50, or be able to cut it down to $25 and get the same as he got previously for $50.

And this second part is just good, since too many items should not be buyable with cash. Since when games start to introduce more and more in a cash shop, the harsher the drop tables get for that loot. And the Dante people exaggerate most of it, since he is just as powerful as before, they just removed a low level nuking thing really. Which is likely what most people used him for since it required less than any other frame since he has such insanely high base stats on everything coupled with low costs. They also claim it was bait and switch, even though there was never any info released regarding how Dantes kit would work specifically. It's also good if they wont buy the next bundle since it will result in less abusive comments towards the devs over minor changes. Most of what we've seen coming from the Dante crowd is pure filth.

[quxier]

26 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

1 hour ago, quxier said:

This is just speculation. It may be other way around. Say from 10%, only 5% are regulars. People could afford more so they spend more on more regular basis. That 5% that spends e.g. 50$ per year may spend 100$. More people could be regulars. And having more fair prices (for them) may introduce new players aka potential regulars.

Another thing to consider is quality of updates. Some incarnons and teneet melees cannot be even bought. Same goes for archon shards. You want to buy something new and you have not many new things to buy. Or consider early changes to our gear or some massive one that changes part of gears. Most recent early change were Dante. Nerf were so strong that it resulted in tons of pages written. It might be good now (I find it pretty strong, not too strong not too weak, but it has still some bad stuff). People were saying that they won't buy next bundle & stuff when the frame they are buying will be changed. Massive changes were Overguard & CC nerf. Imagine buying Limbo, master of the Rift. Next day after Overguard tons of enemies enter Cataclysm, Nullies are still there YET it has still some old problems. Of course good stuff happens.

ps. and it's just me rambling without too much (or any) knowledge about economics

Expand  

I dont see why a $50 spender would suddenly spend $100. Wasnt their restriction that they couldnt pay more than 50 to start with? You'd have DE sell what was otherwise worth $100 for $50, you wouldnt see the $50 spender suddenly spending $100. That $50 spender would just get $100 value from his $50, or be able to cut it down to $25 and get the same as he got previously for $50.

It really depends. Some spenders would have indeed N$ per year/month for certain stuff (e.g. entertainment). Some spender have for example 100$-200$ per year. If you developers have 150$ pack, player would just buy 1 pack for 150$. On other hand if you have 100$ packs player could buy 2, meaning 50$ more spent. When I go to shops and I see discounts I end up buying more (aka more money spent). It's because I get more value from money.

It's true that some player would just pay less.

37 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And this second part is just good, since too many items should not be buyable with cash.

I feel like everything (at least gear) should be buyable/tradeable. However that's just opinion.

39 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

Since when games start to introduce more and more in a cash shop, the harsher the drop tables get for that loot.

Well, let's look at Tenet melees & incarnosn.

With void storms you can get unlucky and run many missions without holokeys. Only way to buy teneet melees are sisters, 1-4 per time. Sister way is still loooooong.

Incarnon has another grind wall & time gates.

We still have pretty easy to farm grinds nowadays.

44 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

And the Dante people exaggerate most of it, since he is just as powerful as before, they just removed a low level nuking thing really. Which is likely what most people used him for since it required less than any other frame since he has such insanely high base stats on everything coupled with low costs.

No, it's not that powerful. I've used it on release and I could nuke (or damage a lot) stuff in Netracells. That's not Low level.

1 hour ago, SneakyErvin said:

They also claim it was bait and switch, even though there was never any info released regarding how Dantes kit would work specifically. It's also good if they wont buy the next bundle since it will result in less abusive comments towards the devs over minor changes. Most of what we've seen coming from the Dante crowd is pure filth.

It wasn't minor change. Have you seen this:

Is this minor thing? I don't think so.

The thing is that they have released it. People have watched and bought different version. ToS prevents any "give me back my money" things. So at least spamming forums with "revert LoS nerf" fixed some issues with LoS. Sure, some went overboard with their post but in general it was "good thing" to do. Without so much posts this would be ignored.

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

3 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

A whale is someone that spends obscene amounts on a game. It is a direct transfer of the term as used in gambling. Like those seen in games like Diablo Immortal for instance that spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on gem RNG etc. Or those in the early days of Diablo 3 that spent tens of thousands of euro/dollars on the RMAH to buy gear from others. You are... uhm... not a whale. I'm not sure if you'd even clock in as a minnow, goldfish or a can of fermented herring. 

And yes a whale would be somewhat like what you describe with plat and plat+rivens, but they'd need to do this on a constant basis, not just on some occassion where they need plat for something they want and cant wait for a discount, or want a riven "nao!" badly. Whales are just so far beyond that to a point where it is hard to comprehend how someone can even consider spending that much on a game.

 

My apologies, like I was explaining to @UnstarPrime several parts of my post were rhetorical, but I likewise appreciate the explanation. Thank you. 

For additional clarity if needed, you are both probably somewhat aware that I can make longer and larger posts. Usually one reason my posts can get a bit lengthy, is because I personally like to provide additional context for my reasoning and points. Like what I am about to do right now. That being said, I do actually try to be concise a fair bit, because I am aware that not everyone is a fan of thread discussions having walls of text. I personally don't mind, and quite like seeing people write a lot, but still. 

So sometimes I rely more on implicit contextual framing, rhetorical framing, and so on. Forgive my assumption if otherwise, and it's intended as a compliment to both yourself SneakyErvin, and yourself UnstarPrime, but you both seem older than teenagers. I assume as much because of the types and depth of knowledge you both can impart with your messages here and there, as well as references you may make here and there. I assume you also probably generally know a lot about well, a lot. As do I. 

A few weeks back, UnstarPrime made a lovely and relatively in depth delve into the relatively short history behind terminology like P2W, its original usages and application, how and why some of the original variables and context have or can change, and its influence and affect on how people may apply the term. Great read especially for anyone interested in etymology. I have also made similar breakdowns to that terminology, and similar a few times in the past as well, as I have terms like whale as well. (I am too lazy to try and remember the exact dates of when I made such posts, but I think it would have been around 2021 or maybe when Regal Aya started being a talking point. They are somewhere in my forum history, but i have a lot of posts so.)

For a lot of older folk, a lot of video game terminology is actually younger than we are. We may have been around when they were originally used/formed, so its a lot easier to track and know the development of them, as opposed to you know, many other words and concepts that are centuries old. 

Like at the moment if you were to try to track the usage of the term whale in regards to the video gaming application, you'll probably run into a bunch of different sources from the last decade "reporting" how the term is borrowed from... online gambling websites, or linking to them. Which to anyone a bit older or more familiar with the term, is a bit silly, because whales as a concept definitely existed prior. IIRC even some large Hollywood movies like Snake Eyes (the Nicolas Cage, Brian De Palma one from the 90's) touched on whales aka high rollers, far before online gambling was popularised, but a lot of online sources neglect that. Then it's not like that movie invented the term either, and IIRC the slang term can be referenced as far back as the late 80's in Casinos. With some slight variation on the price meaning, like the idea most people are minnows, small fish, as far as spending habits, whales then obviously... or to some that whales visiting is great because it means the casino will be eating good for weeks (off the whale, since when biological whales die, the ecosystem they are in, gets a boost as far as feeding opportunity). Then whales in more figurative senses to do with impressive size, have naturally existed in various ways for longer. 

Oh and also to be super clear, when I talk about above and mention it? I don't actually know or believe whether you both or others already know (or don't know) and are familiar with the history, context or meaning. I write all that to give context to other points I might make. Since it wouldn't surprise me, if you both, and several others already knew everything I wrote above, from whales being included in various movies, from its uses in Casinos in the 80's and 90s. For all I know, someone reading this might have been a Casino Host from Las Vegas in the late 80's, or a video game developer in 2005 when P2W was starting to see early usage. 

So my question, to elaborate and clarify, was in this interview, host Wailin Wong, who I am unfamiliar with, had this "And that revenue comes from just a few players. In Warframe's case, only about 10% of Warframe's players pay anything at all. In the gaming community, the top spenders are called whales. They sustain this large ongoing production team, which can be expensive. Jason Schreier is a reporter on gaming at Bloomberg News."

See by some peoples criteria of a whale, especially if we go back to its more original and regular usage in real life casinos, whales were a pretty big deal. Casinos would figuratively and perhaps even literally roll out the red carpets for them. Treat them especially well, lavish attention and customer service, freebies, so on. Video games industry as a whole, isn't something I pay as much attention to anymore, nor am I as well researched or knowledgeable in, well, relatively speaking, as compared to my past. For one, its a lot larger and broader than it use to be. Having a light interest is going to be insufficient. That being said, it doesn't surprise me, when I hear ideas or accusations of certain games or certain developers or publishers, being accused of being "whale bait" or encouraging or incentivising their monetisation models, to be as attractive and desirable to "whales" even if potentially it may clash with other types of customers. In a sort of balancing act. Which isn't new, its been a thing in business and advertising for ages. There is economic/financial disparity, some people can afford a little, some can afford a lot, having ways to attract and get both types to buy from you... I obviously can't go into the complexities, nuance, ethics involved. 

However there is something else interesting and important to keep in mind. Warframe launched in 2012/2013, a few years (even if it was conceived a lot earlier) after the popularisation and surge in platforms/models such as Kickstarter. Crowdfunded, crowd sourced projects, pledging, so on. The two general ideas aren't necessarily at conflict or odds or mutually exclusive, but they can be competitive. Some crowd funded, crowd sourced projects, have a really low barrier to entry as far as contributing, and some may even have an even lower/non existent barrier to participation. Like you are both probably familiar with Patreon as well? That there are free options for some people's Patreon. Since there can also be the idea of tiers. Like I was a backer for Bloodstained: Ritual of the Night, way back when. Lower tier, I was/am still a bit skeptical of some of the more abstract issues around such methods, because of possible long term consequences... Bloodstained itself was great though. Plus you know, you didn't have to be a backer to be able to eventually purchase the game. 

It gets a little nuanced, because of how and why some people are motivated and how that can differ. Many people are willing to support a project, but not necessarily so they personally can get exclusive or better treatment (like a whale in a real casino might come to expect), many may actually prefer and desire, that even if they pledging a higher amount than others, that the actual barrier to participating and enjoying the project or product is non existent. Or potentially a "Tier 4, $300 Ultra Premium Pledge Member", may be on the view, that whatever they can get access to, as far as the project and product, is as easily or generally available to the minimum low tier 1 entry pledges member who just donated $1. Of course there are also some people who want to be treated like casino whales too, exclusively treats and privileges and better than normal treatment and services, so this is something contextual, with products and projects that can be emphasised or deemphasised, incentivised or not incentivised so on. 

Just speaking personally, when I spend money on a Prime Access Accessories? For myself, its purely about keeping the lights on at DE, and I would not only be fine with, I would prefer if such cosmetics were made more readily accessible and available cheaper for others. I am not purchasing them for exclusivity or to stand out. Personally I would rather anyone and everyone be able to participate in the product/project, with no barrier to entry. Like a tier system is fine, like temporary incentives, for those that are being more supportive. Its like if you pledge or support someone on Twitch or Youtube, to support the creator, but you still want all their content to ultimately be accessible for free. 

So... Some of these ideas can therefore conflict, because in my mind and to my perception, Warframe doesn't actually try to attract and appeal to "whales" to the detriment of everyone else. I wouldn't say that DE/Warframe is anti whale, or discourages them. I am sure they would be happy to get any financial support/contributions, but overall, generally speaking, I don't think they actually preplan monetisation models or strategies around attracting whales. Generally. I say this for a few reasons, like obviously being FTP, and how peoples time and engagement can be valuable in other indirect ways, how and why they use tier systems, and a wider range of options around pricing, have discounts, have trading within the game. Over time their can be other types of discounts or with time cheaper options (Like comparing a brand new Prime Access to prices years later on the unvaulting). Like generally, DE seems like the type, where the entry level/barrier to participating is non existent. Stuff returns and rotates, and usually often gets easier and more accessible to get. That being said... occasionally Warframe and DE do stuff that does actually seem like whale baiting/incentivising. Heirlooms for example. It can be argued that if you like having really cool skins for some of your favourite Warframes, you now definitely need to have near $100 ready to spend each year potentially. Otherwise you "miss out permanently". Doesn't matter if you already spent $100 on the game that year, on a Prime Access that will still eventually be available... just spend $200 that year. Doesn't matter if you only want the skins and not everything else, or you might not be able to spend that much right then... or that you might have brought $100 worth of Platinum earlier, and wish you could buy them with Platinum... You got 3 months to cough up that money, to get special treatment. 

To myself, that could be argued to be incentivising whale like behaviour. Which I also actually saw a few times as counter arguments to some peoples issues, with some people just saying "Well I am sorry you are poor and can't afford the skins, LOL, but I like them and I can afford them, so too bad for you". 

So lets go back to what Wailin Wong said, which to me, was a little odd and interesting to me. "And that revenue comes from just a few players. In Warframe's case, only about 10% of Warframe's players pay anything at all. In the gaming community, the top spenders are called whales. They sustain this large ongoing production team, which can be expensive." 

Its a little odd, because I am not exactly sure if they are implying that 10% of Warframe players are whales, or that she was just generally covering a few different ideas right after each other, because they can overlap and are generally related. (Though I suspect the latter). Whales contribute to supporting/paying for the game. However as delved into above, whales can (and usually) have a certain connotation around relative excess. Someone spending more than a $1000 dollars a year, in Warframe, is more whale like, than someone spending around $100 a year, or even $20 a year. Even though there can be subjective criteria and interpretation about "whale" like behaviour and meaning. Though maybe Wailin Wong might also agree with my assertion/criteria as well, because its not like they said anything explicitly otherwise. Then ultimately I also personally care more about what Rebecca and Steve (and other DE people in high positions), attitudes, ideas and views around such ideas would be. In regards to their monetisation strategies and plans. About whether they are trying to rely more on the idea overall "crowdfunding", every small contribution is important, even just your time and engagement is appreciated, and we want everyone to be able to participate in the project and product (including all the cool things, granted you may have to chip in for that, but it will always be available to you, so take your time, don't rush), OR... we view whales as integral to our future monetisation plans, and we need to incentivise and attract them, with limited time exclusives, and other people should learn to be okay with that, since its that 10% that are supporting and paying for the game. 

Since that latter may be true, but also as someone in that 10%... I am only contributing money to DE because I view them having the former approach, not the latter. Which I know some consumers and fans can sometimes struggle in comprehending, but they as developers I expect will know, and understand with nuance a bit better. 

So when I ask, am I a whale? Its rhetorical, unless well you are Wailin Wong, DE Reb, DE Steve, and with regards to why and how people are motivated and incentivised to spend money on the game, how much money, and why and how there can be different opposing reasons and motivations (and conflict and competition there), regardless of terminology. Its also still a bit rhetorical to them as well, since I am ultimately questioning them about assumptions I have in regards to how they view their product or project, and barriers to participating, and strategies in regards to the general player base and those that spend money, and how much money and why do some versus others. I don't personally consider myself a whale, and I am not anti Whale either, because I think they have a place in the eco system, but I am very weary and critical of strategies that prioritise whales at the expense of other players, especially in FTP models, especially in Warframe specifically. Then just speaking as someone who has spent a few hundreds over the years, just speaking to myself, its strictly been to support and have access to cool things, however strictly and specifically, not limited, or exclusive access. I strongly desire others to have opportunity for such items, too. I am the middle tier person who wants the project to succeed but also wants everyone to have access to it as well, even those that maybe can't support it right now with money (but do with time and engagement). 

Hope that explains my thought process and rhetoric (also why my original post was attempting to be concise lol)

Good day to you both (and well anyone else who read everything I wrote, but I don't imagine that's many. I appreciate it none the less.). 

 

[mac10smg--Toa_of_Green]

Unrelated to the discussion at hand, but I heard a bit of this over the radio and I was honestly kinda shocked.

The moment I heard Digital Extremes, it's like I became laser focused on what was being said.

[UnstarPrime]

2 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

you are both probably somewhat aware that I can make longer and larger posts.

I read this sentence in the same tone as Liam Neeson saying "I have a very particular set of skills." XD

 

22 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

My purposes or question in regards to whales is more in regards to what Rebecca or DE would potentially consider.

Personally, I would hope that they don't think of any players as whales.  From my own history in game dev, I've generally found that labeling any individual or demographic as a whale results in discussions and strategies that dehumanize such players and treat them as little more than bottomless wallets with legs.  Which I find distasteful, to say the least.  I would far rather devs not directly think about "whales", instead just focusing on the balance and quality and value of their game's transactions.  If the economic situation for the game becomes one where the devs don't simply need to consider these general aspects of microtransactions, but need to actually think about ways to cater to the desires of whales, then I think something has gone significantly wrong elsewhere.

22 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

I would probably assume that Reb or Steve don't actually strategise around trying to appeal to whales.

Same!

 

3 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

Just speaking personally, when I spend money on a Prime Access Accessories? For myself, its purely about keeping the lights on at DE, and I would not only be fine with, I would prefer if such cosmetics were made more readily accessible and available cheaper for others. I am not purchasing them for exclusivity or to stand out. Personally I would rather anyone and everyone be able to participate in the product/project, with no barrier to entry. Like a tier system is fine, like temporary incentives, for those that are being more supportive. Its like if you pledge or support someone on Twitch or Youtube, to support the creator, but you still want all their content to ultimately be accessible for free. 

Yeah, that's how I feel about them as well.  And the price tag on these is sizeable enough relative to other offerings in the Market that my guess is that this is supposed to be how most players interpret them: that you're giving DE a big chunk of change to support the game, and in exchange you're getting some nice trinkets (almost like backer rewards) as a thank-you.  It's not common to hear people say something like, "80?  For that much I could buy a new game," and it's like, "Yeah, that's the point!"

 

3 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

So lets go back to what Wailin Wong said, which to me, was a little odd and interesting to me. "And that revenue comes from just a few players. In Warframe's case, only about 10% of Warframe's players pay anything at all. In the gaming community, the top spenders are called whales. They sustain this large ongoing production team, which can be expensive." 

Its a little odd, because I am not exactly sure if they are implying that 10% of Warframe players are whales, or that she was just generally covering a few different ideas right after each other, because they can overlap and are generally related. (Though I suspect the latter).

Personally, given only the text and no access to the writer, my best guess is that it's the latter as well.

 

3 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

So when I ask, am I a whale? Its rhetorical,...

Ah, I understand.  That makes a lot of sense. ^^

Thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly and thoughtfully share your thoughts!

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

48 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

I read this sentence in the same tone as Liam Neeson saying "I have a very particular set of skills." XD

 

48 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

Personally, I would hope that they don't think of any players as whales.  From my own history in game dev, I've generally found that labeling any individual or demographic as a whale results in discussions and strategies that dehumanize such players and treat them as little more than bottomless wallets with legs.  Which I find distasteful, to say the least.  I would far rather devs not directly think about "whales", instead just focusing on the balance and quality and value of their game's transactions.  If the economic situation for the game becomes one where the devs don't simply need to consider these general aspects of microtransactions, but need to actually think about ways to cater to the desires of whales, then I think something has gone significantly wrong elsewhere.

 

48 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

Yeah, that's how I feel about them as well.  And the price tag on these is sizeable enough relative to other offerings in the Market that my guess is that this is supposed to be how most players interpret them: that you're giving DE a big chunk of change to support the game, and in exchange you're getting some nice trinkets (almost like backer rewards) as a thank-you.  It's not common to hear people say something like, "80?  For that much I could buy a new game," and it's like, "Yeah, that's the point!"

 

48 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

Personally, given only the text and no access to the writer, my best guess is that it's the latter as well.

 

48 minutes ago, UnstarPrime said:

Ah, I understand.  That makes a lot of sense. ^^

Thank you for taking the time to so thoroughly and thoughtfully share your thoughts!

 

Hah yes, I do also imagine that for some, the threat of long posts talking about perceptions and definitions of words could also be a bit threatening too, heh. 

I agree with your take as well regarding Devs and their approach to consumers, and how that relates to the idea of "whales". Which is also why I thought it was interesting or maybe telling that it was Wailin Wong  that used such terminology, and not say Rebecca herself. That being said, I could even understand why they (Wong) might use the term, because it is a wide spread industry idea when it comes to various game monetisation models. I suppose I wish that the interview was longer and moire in depth, and had more back and forth over different topics (and that in general we had more transparency and more clarity about decisions, to better inform peoples spending decisions. 

No worries. The other day I was busy so had extra reason to be concise, today I had to wake up early to catch the Dev stream so had some time to kill, and could go more into depth. I also appreciate your perspective and input on the subject, much thanks. 

[SneakyErvin]

18 hours ago, quxier said:

It really depends. Some spenders would have indeed N$ per year/month for certain stuff (e.g. entertainment). Some spender have for example 100$-200$ per year. If you developers have 150$ pack, player would just buy 1 pack for 150$. On other hand if you have 100$ packs player could buy 2, meaning 50$ more spent. When I go to shops and I see discounts I end up buying more (aka more money spent). It's because I get more value from money.

It's true that some player would just pay less.

That is looking at it wrong. Since you also have the people that already spend plenty that would potentially end up spending less by purchasing the items at a lower price suddenly.

If you have say 3 special packs a year currently costing $150 and the one spending less buys one and another person buys all 3. Then you'd gain $50 from the lower spender if his budget is $200, since he could suddenly purchase 2 packs a year. But at the same time the person already buying all 3 would make you lose out on $150, since there is no guarantee he will buy something else for $150. So you would risk facing a loss of $100 in the end on those two players.

18 hours ago, quxier said:

I feel like everything (at least gear) should be buyable/tradeable. However that's just opinion.

And you are free to have it!

18 hours ago, quxier said:

Well, let's look at Tenet melees & incarnosn.

With void storms you can get unlucky and run many missions without holokeys. Only way to buy teneet melees are sisters, 1-4 per time. Sister way is still loooooong.

Incarnon has another grind wall & time gates.

We still have pretty easy to farm grinds nowadays.

Some unique items are allowed to exsist with lengthy investments. And Incarnons arent exactly hard to get either, we just need to wait and do the task the game demands from us and then we own them forever. I'm talking about if practically everything can be bought, which results in everything becoming a slog to get. Quite frankly we have too few "unique" farms in this game. Even the longtime investments that were really just slight power increases got turned into "nao! nao! nao!" items since the community in general want instant gratification. Which practically ruined every reason to keep doing RJ since the items because 90% rolls as baseline, the thing people farmed for over and over earlier.

19 hours ago, quxier said:

No, it's not that powerful. I've used it on release and I could nuke (or damage a lot) stuff in Netracells. That's not Low level.

Yes really he is. Because he deals exactly the same (even more) damage compared to before. All that LoS did was remove the ability to wipe low level maps. Since the damage that didnt require LoS previously deals abyssmal amounts in high levels since it is just flat slash damage. The damage that matters comes from detonating your DoTs, which few did to enemies on the other side of a wall for instance, since those mobs were never primed.

19 hours ago, quxier said:

It wasn't minor change. Have you seen this:

19 hours ago, quxier said:

Is this minor thing? I don't think so.

The thing is that they have released it. People have watched and bought different version. ToS prevents any "give me back my money" things. So at least spamming forums with "revert LoS nerf" fixed some issues with LoS. Sure, some went overboard with their post but in general it was "good thing" to do. Without so much posts this would be ignored.

Yes it was and yes I have. That is the version that lasted for roughly a day. Maybe uhm actually play the frame and dont rely on extremely outdated videos? I hope you are also aware that in one of the videos complaining about Tragedy they are really complaining on a bug on Dark Verse (Dante blocking the skill), which has also been fixed over a week ago by now.

So yeah it is a minor thing that doesnt even exsist anymore. And it isnt on DE if someone rushes to buy something based on some random nobody hyping an item. DE did not, and never have, gone out and explained in detail how a frame will work. You get to know that once you own it. So it is on the hypetrain conductors and the passengers if someone ends up buying an item with knowledge about the mechanics prior to purchase, it is not on DE since they do no provide that info.

18 hours ago, (PSN)slightconfuzzled said:

-snip-

No snipping out of disrespect or any such, just to save space here.

You touch on some great things with good observations. Yes, I'm old, thank you for noticing it through the text. And like you say, some of us do indeed laugh when we read the origin assumptions spread regarding some terms. Regarding whale, you mention some older movies aswell. I wonder if the old movie The Sting didnt also refer to whales at some point. Though I havent seen that in a long time so cant really recall. But yeah it is an old term to describe certain gamlers and like you say, they were treated like royalty since they were walking ATMs for the casinos. Cause I mean, why not spend a couple of bucks on the work behind rolling out the red carpet and maybe uncorking a "nice" bottle of while or "champaign" when you can rack in times more from the fool farting cash like a unicorn farting rainbows?

I think you are also quite observant on DE and their intent here and I'm of the exact same idea. They are limiting whaling hard in this game. And when we had (before my time) a real whale inviting option with the pets, it quickly was removed because the spending habbits on it was seen as unhealthy by DE. That alone should tell us something about DE and their relation to the playerbase. Right now I guess we have rivens that could still potentially invite whale behavior.

We can look at other games that do the opposite. I reserve that I might be wrong on this example, but last I checked Star Citizen really tries to cash in on whales with absurdly high prices on certain ships that help(ed) fund the game.

I would like to point out a personal opinion regarding this. I see little wrong with a company having something in their monetization that attracts whales, since those people have the money to throw on it and with few regards regarding how much or on what they spend. Which is beneficial for the rest of us since it helps fund the game for everyone. However, at the same time these things that may attract the whales may also end up attracting those who are just habitual addiction spenders, which is not good in this case. While I am of the opinion that general cash-shop availability should not account for and be limited due to potential addicts, whale setups should, since those things that attract the whales are often not needed for the game to prosper.

It reminds me of a friend I had way back when poker (but I hardly even knew her) was the thing. He watched alot of it and was hooked on the idea of whale big spenders. This resulted in him acting that way within his poker circles and just blew his money on nothing. Since he wasnt all that great at poker, but his self image said otherwise since he could namedrop huge players. And that same risk, although not skill related, could end up being a thing in a cash-shop trying to attract whales. Since there is always someone that sees that random neon-god with zero sense in his head puking dollars on random S#&$ in a game since he has the capital to do it, and ends up wanting to be like that and do the same. But instead he just wastes his monthly earning, forcing his wife out on the streets and his kid to a duel to the death with the local house rat over some breadcrumbs or an old dried piece of a salami slice.

Anyways. Always a massive pleasure to read what you write @(PSN)slightconfuzzled. If the world was made up of yous we'd have no wars since everyone would either contemplate some wise words or roll on the floor laughing because they got presented a hilarious made up "anecdotal" story.

I raise my 🤘 and 🍺 to you. And please never stop being you!

[helioth137]

live service?

Sounds like i'm about to have a near life experience! 

[(PSN)slightconfuzzled]

4 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

No snipping out of disrespect or any such, just to save space here.

You touch on some great things with good observations. Yes, I'm old, thank you for noticing it through the text. And like you say, some of us do indeed laugh when we read the origin assumptions spread regarding some terms. Regarding whale, you mention some older movies aswell. I wonder if the old movie The Sting didnt also refer to whales at some point. Though I havent seen that in a long time so cant really recall. But yeah it is an old term to describe certain gamlers and like you say, they were treated like royalty since they were walking ATMs for the casinos. Cause I mean, why not spend a couple of bucks on the work behind rolling out the red carpet and maybe uncorking a "nice" bottle of while or "champaign" when you can rack in times more from the fool farting cash like a unicorn farting rainbows?

I think you are also quite observant on DE and their intent here and I'm of the exact same idea. They are limiting whaling hard in this game. And when we had (before my time) a real whale inviting option with the pets, it quickly was removed because the spending habbits on it was seen as unhealthy by DE. That alone should tell us something about DE and their relation to the playerbase. Right now I guess we have rivens that could still potentially invite whale behavior.

We can look at other games that do the opposite. I reserve that I might be wrong on this example, but last I checked Star Citizen really tries to cash in on whales with absurdly high prices on certain ships that help(ed) fund the game.

I would like to point out a personal opinion regarding this. I see little wrong with a company having something in their monetization that attracts whales, since those people have the money to throw on it and with few regards regarding how much or on what they spend. Which is beneficial for the rest of us since it helps fund the game for everyone. However, at the same time these things that may attract the whales may also end up attracting those who are just habitual addiction spenders, which is not good in this case. While I am of the opinion that general cash-shop availability should not account for and be limited due to potential addicts, whale setups should, since those things that attract the whales are often not needed for the game to prosper.

It reminds me of a friend I had way back when poker (but I hardly even knew her) was the thing. He watched alot of it and was hooked on the idea of whale big spenders. This resulted in him acting that way within his poker circles and just blew his money on nothing. Since he wasnt all that great at poker, but his self image said otherwise since he could namedrop huge players. And that same risk, although not skill related, could end up being a thing in a cash-shop trying to attract whales. Since there is always someone that sees that random neon-god with zero sense in his head puking dollars on random S#&$ in a game since he has the capital to do it, and ends up wanting to be like that and do the same. But instead he just wastes his monthly earning, forcing his wife out on the streets and his kid to a duel to the death with the local house rat over some breadcrumbs or an old dried piece of a salami slice.

Anyways. Always a massive pleasure to read what you write @(PSN)slightconfuzzled. If the world was made up of yous we'd have no wars since everyone would either contemplate some wise words or roll on the floor laughing because they got presented a hilarious made up "anecdotal" story.

I raise my 🤘 and 🍺 to you. And please never stop being you!

 

No worries, I usually assume when people snip quoted content its to make it more manageable to reply to. Especially when you are quoting multiple people or in longer conversations. 

Thank you, and hah, I imagine there are quite a few of us that are in the older category. Its a great thing. When I was younger, games were viewed as something just for young people, but I have also read enough of history to know that many things, like science fiction, magazines, television, rock music, fantasy and even books have all had times when they were viewed as immature and for too easily impressionable youths. Its great that games are starting to get to the point of normalisation for all. 

I agree with your point in regards to DE as well. I personally think they sort of backed themselves into an awkward position with Rivens. I don't think they actually expected that market to become what it was, but it would be a bit too risky to try and remove, but also at the same time, there is also the perception of ridiculous Riven prices/trading, but then perhaps the actual every day reality, and DE can track such trades, and then a lot of much more regular and mundane trades go on all the time. I've brought and sold a lot of Rivens in the 50 to 100 Plat range, that were of similar or better range as other peoples more ludicrous offers. Usually the bigger issue is just trying to manage to navigate the tools of interaction.

I also agree with what you say about attracting "whales", but for myself and you might agree based on some of your other points, its the idea of just attracting everyone and anyone, inclusive of whales, and not attracting to them, to the detriment of others. I might liken it to how a community gym or restaurant may desire to be as accessible and available to as much of the community as possible. So they have cheap pricing. Then they may even have a relationship with the community, where people will make regular donations to the gym or restaurant, so that they might assist poorer people. Then the gym or restaurant could be really good, like its really popular, so much so that some celebrities from other cities or locations may want to visit it, and just be treated like anyone else, but they might also happen to be wealthier, and they might leave bigger tips. The gym or restaurant wouldn't be unhappy to have such customers. That being said imagine a restaurant or gym, that gives special treatment to Instagram and Tiktok influencers, who are expecting special treatment because they have 500k followers, and then the gym/restaurant cancelling regulars bookings, because "the girl from the Viral farting video" called and wants to visit and she has 500k followers so thats good exposure. Sounds horrible, but i have heard of a few marketing strategies around giving certain people special treatment and thats its own potential long conversation (depending on if they special treatment comes at the cost of others, or doesn't). Also on the behaviour of the person getting special treatment (whether they prefer a normal genuine experience like others or whether they think they deserve more because of status). 

Ah yeah I have known a few people like your Poker friend. It can be pretty sad seeing when some can believe in a lie or deception or just warped realty and they try to follow on as well, to much worse results. Especially with social media, where there are plenty of examples of people just documenting such behaviour as well. Like when people try to record "spontaneous" moments, when like... we know they have also set up a camera, to record themselves being in such a position to cry. Like staged "sincerity" its bizarre. 

Appreciate the kind words SneakyErvin, and I enjoyed reading your thoughts and response on the various topics and matter. Take care and all the best! 

[quxier]

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

On 2024-04-26 at 6:50 PM, quxier said:

It really depends. Some spenders would have indeed N$ per year/month for certain stuff (e.g. entertainment). Some spender have for example 100$-200$ per year. If you developers have 150$ pack, player would just buy 1 pack for 150$. On other hand if you have 100$ packs player could buy 2, meaning 50$ more spent. When I go to shops and I see discounts I end up buying more (aka more money spent). It's because I get more value from money.

It's true that some player would just pay less.

That is looking at it wrong. Since you also have the people that already spend plenty that would potentially end up spending less by purchasing the items at a lower price suddenly.

It's not wrong. It's just looking at one side of coin. Both situations are possible. Without data we cannot do too much.

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

On 2024-04-26 at 6:50 PM, quxier said:

Well, let's look at Tenet melees & incarnosn.

With void storms you can get unlucky and run many missions without holokeys. Only way to buy teneet melees are sisters, 1-4 per time. Sister way is still loooooong.

Incarnon has another grind wall & time gates.

We still have pretty easy to farm grinds nowadays.

Some unique items are allowed to exsist with lengthy investments. And Incarnons arent exactly hard to get either, we just need to wait and do the task the game demands from us and then we own them forever. I'm talking about if practically everything can be bought, which results in everything becoming a slog to get.

If you are on weak after specific incarnon OR you have picked 2 from 5 (and want more) then it's not quick to get. Sure, they are not (super) hard to get. However time gate is still horrible.

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

Quite frankly we have too few "unique" farms in this game. Even the longtime investments that were really just slight power increases got turned into "nao! nao! nao!" items since the community in general want instant gratification. Which practically ruined every reason to keep doing RJ since the items because 90% rolls as baseline, the thing people farmed for over and over earlier.

At the same time community is fine with "slight power increase" of archons. So we have both.

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

On 2024-04-26 at 6:50 PM, quxier said:

No, it's not that powerful. I've used it on release and I could nuke (or damage a lot) stuff in Netracells. That's not Low level.

Yes really he is. Because he deals exactly the same (even more) damage compared to before. All that LoS did was remove the ability to wipe low level maps. Since the damage that didnt require LoS previously deals abyssmal amounts in high levels since it is just flat slash damage. The damage that matters comes from detonating your DoTs, which few did to enemies on the other side of a wall for instance, since those mobs were never primed.

Well, I had different experience. I don't have any video because I'm not good at it. So don't ask any proof.

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

On 2024-04-26 at 6:50 PM, quxier said:

Is this minor thing? I don't think so.

The thing is that they have released it. People have watched and bought different version. ToS prevents any "give me back my money" things. So at least spamming forums with "revert LoS nerf" fixed some issues with LoS. Sure, some went overboard with their post but in general it was "good thing" to do. Without so much posts this would be ignored.

Yes it was and yes I have. That is the version that lasted for roughly a day. Maybe uhm actually play the frame and dont rely on extremely outdated videos? I hope you are also aware that in one of the videos complaining about Tragedy they are really complaining on a bug on Dark Verse (Dante blocking the skill), which has also been fixed over a week ago by now.

Yes it was quickly fixed (not sure if all things were fixed but I don't see some huge issues). However you still missed the point about many posts. It wouldn't be fixed if lot of people haven't posted so much. There are frames that are "ignored & moved to next frame'.

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

So yeah it is a minor thing that doesnt even exsist anymore. And it isnt on DE if someone rushes to buy something based on some random nobody hyping an item.

You know... I farmed Dante myself. Even 2nd one. It wasn't rush (full 3.5 days building). I've played it myself because I'm into magic & stuff so theme pick my interested.

8 hours ago, SneakyErvin said:

DE did not, and never have, gone out and explained in detail how a frame will work. You get to know that once you own it. So it is on the hypetrain conductors and the passengers if someone ends up buying an item with knowledge about the mechanics prior to purchase, it is not on DE since they do no provide that info.

I've mentioned ToS already. It's still not great to change frame so much. Glad they fixed. I personally enjoy Dante.

[SneakyErvin]

On 2024-04-27 at 11:35 PM, quxier said:

It's not wrong. It's just looking at one side of coin. Both situations are possible. Without data we cannot do too much.

That is what I mean is wrong, looking at only one side. Need to account for all factors in the end. We are just looking at two types of people here, DE has more info on what the spread looks like in reality. It really comes down to whom is their biggest income and if a change over to attract more sporadic buyers impact that too much or not. If it was heavily influenced by whales, shifting over to cheaper prices could be beneficial since it is possible the whales would spend as much by just buying more things. However WF is very limited on whale bait.

On 2024-04-27 at 11:35 PM, quxier said:

If you are on weak after specific incarnon OR you have picked 2 from 5 (and want more) then it's not quick to get. Sure, they are not (super) hard to get. However time gate is still horrible.

Yeah but it is guaranteed. The time investment in getting them is minimal, you just have to wait while picking the order of preference. The thing that could have made it better is having a pool for all of them and picking any 2 per week.

On 2024-04-27 at 11:35 PM, quxier said:

At the same time community is fine with "slight power increase" of archons. So we have both.

I'm not sure what you mean with we have both. Of course people are fine with slight power increases, that is my whole point. People complained because they wanted that small power increase instantly with RJ items, which then made the system completely pointless since it automatically dropped 90% rolls.

On 2024-04-27 at 11:35 PM, quxier said:

Well, I had different experience. I don't have any video because I'm not good at it. So don't ask any proof.

Well "had" isnt really specific. I had issues with him early on aswell due to Dark Verse having problems. Right now there arent really any issues with him.

On 2024-04-27 at 11:35 PM, quxier said:

Yes it was quickly fixed (not sure if all things were fixed but I don't see some huge issues). However you still missed the point about many posts. It wouldn't be fixed if lot of people haven't posted so much. There are frames that are "ignored & moved to next frame'.

It would have been fixed all the same if people were actually honest. Since many of the issues that remained that people complained about werent even issues tied to Tragedy. But somehow they never realized these issues or bothered to give feedback on them prior to thinking it was Tragedy issues. Those issues with LoS were rooted in Dark Verse since his release day, but the riots didnt start until people couldnt nuke whole maps anymore. Meaning that many of those people claiming they only ran high level content never actually did, and relied on just Tragedy to nuke low level crap, hence why they never noticed the issues on Dark Verse, since they never relied on the detonator part of the skill in the content they ran. So if they missed priming enemies due to the DV LoS bug it didnt matter to them, since things would still die to the basic slash damage of Tragedy on cast.

On 2024-04-27 at 11:35 PM, quxier said:

You know... I farmed Dante myself. Even 2nd one. It wasn't rush (full 3.5 days building). I've played it myself because I'm into magic & stuff so theme pick my interested.

I'm just saying people shouldnt blame DE for bait and switch or false marketing, since the things they imply with that are never a reality on DEs part. We get treated with "You know nothing Jon snow!" when it comes to how a frame actually works before we get our hands on it. We see some showcase in a Devstream, but we never know the actual mechanics behind every skill. I still didnt know Qorvex pillars required LoS since I saw it in the recent LoS fix notes, since I've played him so little and still read through all his skills etc.

On 2024-04-27 at 11:35 PM, quxier said:

I've mentioned ToS already. It's still not great to change frame so much. Glad they fixed. I personally enjoy Dante.

I dont care about the size of changes aslong as they are done for a reason. And with Dante it was just a slight shift in playstyles for some while keeping his potential fully intact for damage and support. I'm happy the nerfs happened and the screaming started since it also buffed his wordwarden and gave us the pageflight damage buff aswell as an intended addition. The librarian is one mean mofo with a weapon now aswell.