Menu
What's New
By:
Filters

Teleporter Fees on the way, says President of the Virtual Reality...

Sadly ND is only victim of MA and not even aware of what is going on. By him MA will be incorporating into game some stupid/risky/dangerous ideas along with some propaganda that it is players will ( represented by him ). In case of failure they have already scapegoat on place to blame.

So there is not even tiny bit of democracy here in game. Last remnants were removed long time ago by removing voting terminals from game. If ma would want really know players decision on anything ( real ones, active ones ) there is no better way than doing that by votin exactly in game with own avatar.

Whole that "president" election stunt is also cover up for real dangerous changes ingame.
 
If the TP system is privatised, I wonder if the shareholders will get to elect a board of directors to manage the vision of the future of the entropian TP system...

In the future I believe teleporting will become so popular that there will be a teleporter in every apartment block and shopping district on Calypso and direct teleporters to every apartment block and shopping centre across every planet in the universe :wise:.

For those who wish the teleporter system will facilitate private (and public if you want) access directly into your apartment or shop using a personalised teleporter pad.


On a separate note, I wonder if each planet's TP system will be privatised as a separate company or the entire system as a whole... If separate I propose the calypso company be called "The Great Calypso Teleporter Company" :yay:
 
matthew said:
On a separate note, I wonder if each planet's TP system will be privatised as a separate company or the entire system as a whole... If separate I propose the calypso company be called "The Great Calypso Teleporter Company" :yay:
Click to expand...

i vote Calyp'n'Go
 
At the risk of getting flamed I felt I should chime in with a different view from the masses...

To preface this - there's always a backlash with all new progression to the game...
- Cost for using clothes
- Limited items
- Cry engine update
- Explosive projectiles (to isolate gamblers from the economy thus making crafting more accessible to new players as resources have less markup)
- ...etc

Nobody likes change. Especially when that change negatively impacts a persons wallet or usability of the game. But the fact remains that in order for EU to survive in the long run they need to make these types of major changes to stimulate the economy and help fund the future growth and maintenance of the game.

Everyone wants a tons of cool new things implemented but no one takes the time to think where this money is supposed to come from to do those things. People don't work for free. And despite what people think, they're not just using the loot pool to fund this stuff.

The structure of EU was never a sustainable one and as such it's had to evolve constantly.

I read a fantastic thread that talked about a lot of these points about the economy here:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?284481-The-Changing-EU-Economy-An-Analysis

I think the idea of adding a fee to TP's makes sense. But they need to tread VERY lightly with this. I see it as a good cashcow to help the game grow, stimulate the economy and provide a lot of opportunity but they need to avoid pure greed. They need to find a happy balance.

With that said, I feel that what was proposed is a little pie in the sky and need to be dialed back a bit for sure. For example, some of those numbers seem skewed and don't think it takes into account the backlash that will happen and the decreased usage when people become aware that there is a cost associated with using a TP.

Also, let's not forget the fact that we already HAVE teleporter fees. Any time you either TP down from a space station or fly to a planet you have to pay 2 - 7 peds. And remember when the cry engine update happened and space wasn't fully implemented how you could tp back and forth between planets and space stations...

Everyone loved it because they were already used to paying to go to space and back and the TP was so much more convenient and cheap rather than having to co-ordinate with a pilot and paying 25 peds each way.

Of course the pilots were pissed and really got a raw deal since they only got unlimited space thrusters for their trouble which are essentially worthless but there's always going to be some people that slip between the cracks of major changes.

And as much as I really hate to say it but it's pretty evident the desire MA has to have the older players leave because of the problems they cause with progress. They're the ones that have the unfair skill advantages, they are the ones that put up the most fuss about new major changes since the "good ol days" (how many of the old timers have left because they don't like what the game has become?), they are the ones pulling money out of the game more frequently, and every change MA wants to make they have to consider how the original players with those advantages are going to be affected and how much it's going to increase the gap between new and old (see the thread mentioned above).

I think it's safe to say that more money is made off the noobs that are just starting and doing things inefficiently than the old timers that know more how to work the system, right? So it makes sense they would like the old avatars to move on despite recognition for loyalty. But of course it's a double edge sword because they are often the ones championing the game and helping with player retention and mentoring... So maybe they just want to reduce the numbers and have the biggest complainers and those hanging by a thread already to leave?

but I digress...

In time, people will get used to the TP fees just like everything else. But they need to really think about how to implement things...

For starters, rather than a flat rate it would need to be based on distance. And the value of the tokens used would need to be in the PECS to accommodate the most users. So going from port atlantis to fort icarus might be just 1 pec (worth in tokens) where as going from port atlantis to fort zeus might be 18 pecs or going from port atlantis to arkadia (via instant TP) might be 25 ped or more. They should base it on the going rate for VIP flights and have it be more expensive that way it doesn't screw the pilots (yet again). And it gives people with lots of extra cash to burn the option to opt for convenience at cost.

I mean many people are already paying upwards of 15 peds to warp from one planet to another how is it ok to pay for a space ship warp but paying for a TP is not ok? It's kind of a double standard.

With the small amount of time people actually use a TP anyways, most won't even feel the fee compared to money being spent elsewhere.

I imagine that in an effort to keep balance with new players there would have to be special "presidentialy subsidized" TP credits that are non-tradeable and are issued to all new colonists to allow them to get around for free as the explore and discover the game. They could also be given in loots or in missions too.

Anyways here's the breakdown of pros and cons as I see it:

Negatives
- An additional drain on peoples bankrolls if they choose to use TPs
- A hassle keeping track that you always have tokens on hand.

Pros
- A new item to be crafted
- A new useful commodity that can be used as mission rewards and loot instead of fragments that are pretty much useless
- An increased demand in a few resources needed to craft these tokens.
- A new income stream to help fund the growth of EU
- Additional convenience to rapidly get from planet to planet (for an extra cost)
- A new potential investment for players (TP deeds)
- Increased vehicle usage (benefits vehicle crafters)
- Increased opportunity for taxi services
- Increase participation in missions? (to get TP tokens)
- Encourages new players to put money in the game


On another note I still have mixed feelings about this whole president of virtual reality thing...

Presidents are elected by the people and serve the will of the people through democracy and voting. Dictators rise to power through circumstance (often without official public vote) and serve their own will regardless of public outcry.

...and I don't recall getting the notice that it was time to vote. So I'm wondering how this will play out down the line.
 
jambon said:
At the risk of getting flamed I felt I should chime in with a different view from the masses...

To preface this - there's always a backlash with all new progression to the game...
- Cost for using clothes
- Limited items
- Cry engine update
- Explosive projectiles (to isolate gamblers from the economy thus making crafting more accessible to new players as resources have less markup)
- ...etc

Nobody likes change. Especially when that change negatively impacts a persons wallet or usability of the game. But the fact remains that in order for EU to survive in the long run they need to make these types of major changes to stimulate the economy and help fund the future growth and maintenance of the game.

Everyone wants a tons of cool new things implemented but no one takes the time to think where this money is supposed to come from to do those things. People don't work for free. And despite what people think, they're not just using the loot pool to fund this stuff.

The structure of EU was never a sustainable one and as such it's had to evolve constantly.

I read a fantastic thread that talked about a lot of these points about the economy here:
https://www.planetcalypsoforum.com/forums/showthread.php?284481-The-Changing-EU-Economy-An-Analysis

I think the idea of adding a fee to TP's makes sense. But they need to tread VERY lightly with this. I see it as a good cashcow to help the game grow, stimulate the economy and provide a lot of opportunity but they need to avoid pure greed. They need to find a happy balance.

With that said, I feel that what was proposed is a little pie in the sky and need to be dialed back a bit for sure. For example, some of those numbers seem skewed and don't think it takes into account the backlash that will happen and the decreased usage when people become aware that there is a cost associated with using a TP.

Also, let's not forget the fact that we already HAVE teleporter fees. Any time you either TP down from a space station or fly to a planet you have to pay 2 - 7 peds. And remember when the cry engine update happened and space wasn't fully implemented how you could tp back and forth between planets and space stations...

Everyone loved it because they were already used to paying to go to space and back and the TP was so much more convenient and cheap rather than having to co-ordinate with a pilot and paying 25 peds each way.

Of course the pilots were pissed and really got a raw deal since they only got unlimited space thrusters for their trouble which are essentially worthless but there's always going to be some people that slip between the cracks of major changes.

And as much as I really hate to say it but it's pretty evident the desire MA has to have the older players leave because of the problems they cause with progress. They're the ones that have the unfair skill advantages, they are the ones that put up the most fuss about new major changes since the "good ol days" (how many of the old timers have left because they don't like what the game has become?), they are the ones pulling money out of the game more frequently, and every change MA wants to make they have to consider how the original players with those advantages are going to be affected and how much it's going to increase the gap between new and old (see the thread mentioned above).

I think it's safe to say that more money is made off the noobs that are just starting and doing things inefficiently than the old timers that know more how to work the system, right? So it makes sense they would like the old avatars to move on despite recognition for loyalty. But of course it's a double edge sword because they are often the ones championing the game and helping with player retention and mentoring... So maybe they just want to reduce the numbers and have the biggest complainers and those hanging by a thread already to leave?

but I digress...

In time, people will get used to the TP fees just like everything else. But they need to really think about how to implement things...

For starters, rather than a flat rate it would need to be based on distance. And the value of the tokens used would need to be in the PECS to accommodate the most users. So going from port atlantis to fort icarus might be just 1 pec (worth in tokens) where as going from port atlantis to fort zeus might be 18 pecs or going from port atlantis to arkadia (via instant TP) might be 25 ped or more. They should base it on the going rate for VIP flights and have it be more expensive that way it doesn't screw the pilots (yet again). And it gives people with lots of extra cash to burn the option to opt for convenience at cost.

I mean many people are already paying upwards of 15 peds to warp from one planet to another how is it ok to pay for a space ship warp but paying for a TP is not ok? It's kind of a double standard.

With the small amount of time people actually use a TP anyways, most won't even feel the fee compared to money being spent elsewhere.

I imagine that in an effort to keep balance with new players there would have to be special "presidentialy subsidized" TP credits that are non-tradeable and are issued to all new colonists to allow them to get around for free as the explore and discover the game. They could also be given in loots or in missions too.

Anyways here's the breakdown of pros and cons as I see it:

Negatives
- An additional drain on peoples bankrolls if they choose to use TPs
- A hassle keeping track that you always have tokens on hand.

Pros
- A new item to be crafted
- A new useful commodity that can be used as mission rewards and loot instead of fragments that are pretty much useless
- An increased demand in a few resources needed to craft these tokens.
- A new income stream to help fund the growth of EU
- Additional convenience to rapidly get from planet to planet (for an extra cost)
- A new potential investment for players (TP deeds)
- Increased vehicle usage (benefits vehicle crafters)
- Increased opportunity for taxi services
- Increase participation in missions? (to get TP tokens)
- Encourages new players to put money in the game


On another note I still have mixed feelings about this whole president of virtual reality thing...

Presidents are elected by the people and serve the will of the people through democracy and voting. Dictators rise to power through circumstance (often without official public vote) and serve their own will regardless of public outcry.

...and I don't recall getting the notice that it was time to vote. So I'm wondering how this will play out down the line.
Click to expand...
agree with a lot of these, i thought about the distance costs, but it would screw amtheria, unless there was a free tp to new oxford. i think it has potential, but 1 ped is way too much, and the jobs probably unnecessary as jobs would be created in gathering the resources.

depending on the work possible, tp costs could vary by the condition of the tp (repairing the tp gives you skills and pay, while reducing the costs for everyone else)
 
jambon said:
Nobody likes change. Especially when that change negatively impacts a persons wallet or usability of the game. But the fact remains that in order for EU to survive in the long run they need to make these types of major changes to stimulate the economy and help fund the future growth and maintenance of the game.
Click to expand...

Your post is probably the most sensible and well thought out post I have read on this entire debate + rep.
 
the problem whit this fee its the poeple that are going to pay for it

the job it going to create is going to bring just farmers well most of them

and one of the biggest one they only want to get there hand on the 10 million dollars this what they want

and the last one do dont finish what they start stable are still not fully done space mission still not done and
look at poeple that have shop and booths that still have probles at this day is that a job for someone ingame that that use what he paid for

like nd said transport aint free in real life

nest expect to pay later for food to keep your avatar alive pay tax on the land plot you have dam i forgot like the rich nd may be able to hide his money offshore and maybe other also so they just take

that job he say he going to creates what happen in the last 10 years ingame a real sain person know what going to happen
 
jambon said:
Nobody likes change. Especially when that change negatively impacts a persons wallet or usability of the game. But the fact remains that in order for EU to survive in the long run they need to make these types of major changes to stimulate the economy and help fund the future growth and maintenance of the game.
Click to expand...

ARRRGH!!!

Why does anyone think that new fees, higher taxes etc. stimulate ANY economy? Get people to spend more money on STUFF by arbitrarily taking away some more of their disposable income?
 
Ape Drape said:
ARRRGH!!!

Why does anyone think that new fees, higher taxes etc. stimulate ANY economy? Get people to spend more money on STUFF by arbitrarily taking away some more of their disposable income?
Click to expand...

Seriously, this idea that they are going to make more money taxing players is just ignorant. Want to make more money? Make hunting mining and crafting work so more people will turn over more, don't put in things that create friction for players being able to freely do those activities.

"Everyone" doesn't want new stuff. I don't want new stuff. All I want them to do is fix the broken shit they already have.
 
lootable pvp dead again and again

lootable pvp dead again and again....
 
Simply brilliant.
MA wants to make more cash by sucking more cash out of their current customers.

Don't use a proven method like advertising MA, That would make too much sense.
 
I have to say that i think the system, how they want to implement it, is pure crap. the idea itself may be good, to charge for the "convenient" teleportation. but rather than implementing jobs and make more deeds is just stupid. as well know MA will never implement those jobs. they will say it will come later or they will just leave it bugged for years like they do with any other change they wanted to implement (look at the things mentioned in a previous post). the only thing they are doing is more deeds and the fee. finish. id rather see a tp fee where the fee is distributed into the lootpool. so people who stay at the same spot may sustain a tiny bit better or lets say it promotes the lootpool in an area so the are that is frequented a lot will benefit from it lootwise. but not this half ass shit they are trying to do. and pls. no more deeds... cld are allready shit, auds are ok and compet is worthless right now and will crash after the "game"releases... so pls just stop that.
better loot= better turnover= more decay = more money for MA. but this simple calculation they dont seem to understand...
 
Ape Drape said:
ARRRGH!!!

Why does anyone think that new fees, higher taxes etc. stimulate ANY economy? Get people to spend more money on STUFF by arbitrarily taking away some more of their disposable income?
Click to expand...

In this case, it likely will actually stimulate the economy.

Why?

Because vehicles are underutilized, and therefore there is very little purpose in crafting them. They are in fact less convenient by and large than a teleporter, and if EU were reflective of reality they would have long since been disposed of as a means of personal transportation due to the free service being available.

However in its current state EU is not reflective of this. Vehicles and Teleporters simultaneously exist.

There are two ways to remedy this:

1) Get rid of vehicles outside of space entirely, because they are virtually useless.

2) Rebalance the cost of transport to favor the use of vehicles and thus justify their continued existence.

It's obvious that the choice to be made is #2, as #1 would basically end vehicle crafting as a profession and further erode confidence in EU as an investment platform. There is no investment in teleporters, therefore they are a resource capable of being substantially changed overnight.

Am I in favor of this?

No. I think that the player base is too small to make this scheme work right now.

But I can see the ultimate value in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DoA
Magyar_Republic said:
Am I in favor of this?

No. I think that the player base is too small to make this scheme work right now.

But I can see the ultimate value in it.
Click to expand...

NDs numbers are way off, I think we all agree with this.

But let's tune them down and see if they can make sense.

1) Teleporters are currently used almost 10,000,000 times per year; I won't presume like ND that this number will increase to 10 billions by 2020 and 100 billions by 2030, but I'll presume they will stay about the same (there will be some decrease from current players using them less, there will be some increase from some reasonable player base increase, so I think we can safely assume they will stay about the same).

2) I also think that the initial IPO should drop from $10,000,0000 to $5,000,000 and it should be a fixed number of deeds (so no infinite number of deeds diluting the value of each one). I also presume that all money from the initial IPO would go to MA for improving their stability and liquidity; no jobs or anything at this point.

3) Now, at $0.10 (1 PED) per teleport use, and 10,000,000 uses per year, that will mean $1,000,000 income per year; let's presume this would be split like it follows: 50% towards deed owners (similar to how CLD owners get 50% of profit from PC), 25% towards jobs and 25% towards MA.

4) For investors (who could even be investors outside the game, not players) that would mean a 10% annual ROI ($500,000 / year at a total investment of $5,000,000), which beats not only both CLDs and AUDs ROI, but also any IRL bank rates or something like that - so the investors should be happy.

5) For MA, on top of the initial cash influx from the IPO, they will still get $250,000 / year from something they didn't got anything far now; may not be a lot, but would sure help them keep the servers alive.

6) For jobs, dropping the $2.5, $5 and $10 jobs and sticking with the conscript jobs only (for now), the $250,000 / year could finance $250,000 / (15 * 12) = 1,388 jobs - not a huge number, but still a decent one to act as a good promotional tool.

Of course, these money would have to come from somewhere; ND may not agree with this, but this is indeed a tax, but for reasons I'll continue to explain I doubt many people would quit over this tax or anything like that.





I will look at some historical data, from another game, but one quite similar with this one (about same age, also Swedish company, not really RCE, but pretty close - you could buy in-game currency from shop and you can and are encourage to sell currency/avatars/deeds/items to other players for RL$ via official site).

On May 2nd 2013, the cost-to-play in said game raised with 60% (subscription raised from 10 to 16 euros, price for 10 silver raised from 10 to 16 euros); that was definitely not something optional or which one could adapt to, but an unavoidable huge price hike. I think I don't have to tell you how many cries there were over it - people threatening to quit, predicting the apocalypse and everything else I saw here, just at a much bigger scale.

Here's the graph with what happen with population (before and after said event):

0iQr592.png


Population indeed dropped by about 10% (mostly alts, since alts were allowed in that game) in the first two months, then reached a top bottom of about 15% loss during summer.

After 8 months the population was back to old values; after 14 months, following the connecting of a new server, population reached an all time peak; even after the excitement of the new area worn off, the population was still higher than before the price increase.

And we talk about an unavoidable, 60% increase in cost-to-play; how many of you could realistically say that the TP cost will increase your cost to play with even 10%?

That's one of the facts on which I base my estimation that most people that cry to quit and predict EU death if this is implementing right now, will just swallow it, adapt and move on if it actually happens. I'm not worried at all about these apocalyptic scenarios, just like I was not worried at all about the end of WURM on that May 2nd or the end of the world on December 12, 2012.
 
^^ This analysis is basically correct.
 
DoA said:
5) For MA, on top of the initial cash influx from the IPO, they will still get $250,000 / year from something they didn't got anything far now; may not be a lot, but would sure help them keep the servers alive.
Click to expand...

And again, you may have the data correct, but you completely misunderstand it. That $250,000 per year represents the income that they receive from a very small number of the actual paying customers. Seriously, that would be wiped out by the loss of maybe 50 depositors, certainly less than 100.
 
That's a pop graph. The issue in EU is turnover.

Turnover dropping by reduced numbers or literally the fact that people have to spend time travelling will have a serious effect on MA's bottom line.

Try again to justify freeloading.
 
Rumsponge said:
And again, you may have the data correct, but you completely misunderstand it. That $250,000 per year represents the income that they receive from a very small number of the actual paying customers. Seriously, that would be wiped out by the loss of maybe 50 depositors, certainly less than 100.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is this is not exactly true (but it is almost true!).

MA already has the money from these folks. If these 50-100 depositors attempt to cash out, the money for all their goods stays in the system, because somebody has to buy them.

So whether its one player that has invested enough to utilize all these skills, or 50 players utilizing a fraction of these skills to make up the whole, each single player who quits and sells out continues to feed the economy even after they leave, through bolstering the output of others that follow them.

Yes, we may lose one whale, but the only way MA is going to lose is if the player simply lets all of their investments completely rot on their avatar and walks. Most players would rather keep playing than let that happen, so there's no real danger here.
 
Aio said:
That's a pop graph. The issue in EU is turnover.

Turnover dropping by reduced numbers or literally the fact that people have to spend time travelling will have a serious effect on MA's bottom line.

Try again to justify freeloading.
Click to expand...

That graph is of paying players (subscribers), not free players, so that equates with income for company.
 
Magyar_Republic said:
The funny thing is this is not exactly true (but it is almost true!).

MA already has the money from these folks. If these 50-100 depositors attempt to cash out, the money for all their goods stays in the system, because somebody has to buy them.

So whether its one player that has invested enough to utilize all these skills, or 50 players utilizing a fraction of these skills to make up the whole, each single player who quits and sells out continues to feed the economy even after they leave, through bolstering the output of others that follow them.

Yes, we may lose one whale, but the only way MA is going to lose is if the player simply lets all of their investments completely rot on their avatar and walks. Most players would rather keep playing than let that happen, so there's no real danger here.
Click to expand...

This ^^

Any items MU would stay in game, because someone else would have to (deposit and) pay for it.

You may have assets valuing $100,000, but I doubt that's TT value, probably 90% (or in many cases even 99%) of it or more is MU, which has to be paid from another player's deposits first before you can withdraw.
 
DoA said:
... after 14 months, following the connecting of a new server, population reached an all time peak; even after the excitement of the new area worn off, the population was still higher than before the price increase.
Click to expand...
The graph tells us a different story. Population all time high was before the price increase (6400) and it never reached this level again.

Reminds me the population boom in EU before engine switch. There are some mistakes that can cripple games for years.
Is this that kind of mistake? Maybe, maybe not. Wanna find out, go ahead.

Magyar is wrong btw. There's several reasons why it doesn't work like that. Otherwise selling 5000% skill pills would make MA rich overnight.
 
Fifth said:
The graph tells us a different story. Population all time high was before the price increase (6400) and it never reached this level again.

Reminds me the population boom in EU before engine switch. There are some mistakes that can cripple games for years.
Is this that kind of mistake? Maybe, maybe not. Wanna find out, go ahead.
Click to expand...

If you want to be pedantic yeah... you are technically right... the first peak was 6,300 - 6,400 for one month, the second peak was 6,100 - 6,200 for two months... also take in account the second peak happened exactly during summer time (think it was a July 10th), compared with first one that took place on mid January, and we all know that is way harder to reach a population peak in a MMO during summer season.

But, anyway, I think that the graph shows clear that even such a huge price spike (60% on everything - subscription, deed costs, deposits!) not only that didn't killed the game, but had a rather minor effect.

So yeah, I really doubt that a change that will raise the cost of play with 1, 3, 5, maybe 10% at most even for the "frequent flyers" would represent any major danger to EU.
 
Magyar_Republic said:
The funny thing is this is not exactly true (but it is almost true!).

MA already has the money from these folks. If these 50-100 depositors attempt to cash out, the money for all their goods stays in the system, because somebody has to buy them.

So whether its one player that has invested enough to utilize all these skills, or 50 players utilizing a fraction of these skills to make up the whole, each single player who quits and sells out continues to feed the economy even after they leave, through bolstering the output of others that follow them.

Yes, we may lose one whale, but the only way MA is going to lose is if the player simply lets all of their investments completely rot on their avatar and walks. Most players would rather keep playing than let that happen, so there's no real danger here.
Click to expand...

The funny thing is this is not exactly true (but it is almost true!).

I wasn't talking about the money lost from people chipping out and withdrawing. I was simply referring to the lost revenue if those people quit playing and no longer deposited.

As far as the selling out and withdrawing, I think it is a misconception that the money being withdrawn would necessarily be offset by new deposits. In a lot of cases, there is already a ton of money sitting idle in the game that gets spent on items from departing players. Also, people tend to blow windfall money on items from sell outs. Most people get a big HoF, they start looking for something to buy with it, otherwise they often end up cycling it back into ammo and repairs. In the first case, the departing player gets the money. In the second case, it goes back into the game and stays in MA's pocket.

Just my current thoughts, anyway.
 
Aio said:
That's a pop graph. The issue in EU is turnover.

Turnover dropping by reduced numbers or literally the fact that people have to spend time travelling will have a serious effect on MA's bottom line.

Try again to justify freeloading.
Click to expand...

This is exactly the point that any skilled corporate leader should understand. MA leadership seems to be too stupid to understand that there absolute objective with the game should be to make it more convenient and interesting for their customers to cycle their PEDs. That's it. End of story.
 
DoA said:
This ^^

Any items MU would stay in game, because someone else would have to (deposit and) pay for it.

You may have assets valuing $100,000, but I doubt that's TT value, probably 90% (or in many cases even 99%) of it or more is MU, which has to be paid from another player's deposits first before you can withdraw.
Click to expand...

To reiterate, I was simply speaking of the lost weekly revenue from the money these people spend on ammo and repairs.
 
DoA said:
Of course, these money would have to come from somewhere; ND may not agree with this, but this is indeed a tax, but for reasons I'll continue to explain I doubt many people would quit over this tax or anything like that.
Click to expand...
For me TP tax will be from $100 to $200 per month (I can use TP's up to 50 times per day due to my mining activity and too many spots with my beloved ores/enmatters). With my turnover in about $2000 or less, I cant break these taxes with MU of my mining activity. 10% of tax of MA + 5% tax of AU (LA) + 5-10% tax of TP fees = 20-25%!!! This is too high even for me. And I plan about 90% cash out after introducing 1 PED TP fees, and stop all operations except free or almost free. I live without deposits now and plan to continue living without deposits in future. All my depo is in the past. I can also say, that I'm not alone in this opinion.
 
Rumsponge said:
This is exactly the point that any skilled corporate leader should understand. MA leadership seems to be too stupid to understand that there absolute objective with the game should be to make it more convenient and interesting for their customers to cycle their PEDs. That's it. End of story.
Click to expand...

There are two ways (excluding the lowering your expenses part) to increase income/profit:

- make your customers spend more on their average order (by overselling, cross selling or whatever)

- attract more customers

Now we could debate a lot over which is more effective, both in general as in this particular case, but the fact remains that there isn't a single solution that ends the story. ;)



If you ask me, I would say that the game can't survive only counting on old players... old players quit the game every year, every month (dying, getting married, having kids, having less free time or whatever)... without fresh blood to replace them, the game is doomed to die. Sure, it may not happen today, this year or this decade, but is doomed to happen.

I was told (almost obsessively) by some people (especially OzTwo) to look at the age of some people in game/on forums and I did; the result scared me - the vast majority of the players have 5+ years in here, there are hardly ever people that are 1-2-3 years old. Sure, there are some amazing example, like Messi, but the general numbers are terrifying - there are very, very few people that are actively replacing the people that quit the game in this time. I would almost say that there are more people that stopped playing, but still post on forums then people that joined in the last three years and sticked with the game.

That's why I think that MA and ND tries to move the focus on attracting new players.

I honestly hope that I'm wrong, but I really doubt it.
 
One more reason why I talked about that other game and about that price increase.

When it was proposed (it was also in April - April 2nd IIRC, one month before being applied) lots of people also thought to be an April joke; when it was obvious that it wasn't, lots of people thought that's just a scare - say 60%, so they raise it with 20% and have everyone being content it wasn't 60%; when it was obvious that it won't happen, lots of people thought that if they threaten to vote with their wallet, the owner will back-off; that didn't happened either.

Sounds like a familiar scenario?

That's why I propose to act differently - instead of believing is an April joke, a bad dream of ND, something that can never happen, something that is just a scare and risk to eventually seeing it go like that (and in this form even I don't think is a good idea), why not try to sit on a virtual table and try to find alternatives... so it allows MA to get (a part of) the money they need, allow game promotion and expansion, while not putting so much pressure on existing players.

Maybe have some life-time, monthly, daily subscriptions (they exist IRL public transport if ND went that route anyway) or anything like that. Let's just not blindly negate the idea and force MA to either go with it through like that or drop it all together, but try to find a middle ground that can be acceptable (if not good) for everyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top