**KNOWN AW ISSUE**
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Please be aware, there is a known issue with Saga badging when observing the AW map.
The team have found the source of the issue and will be updating with our next build.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Options
Comments
Since they are succesful they have to be charitable? They have to give more free stuff?
They don't work from a homeless shelter; but they dont have a big bowl of f2p sweat for breakfast either do they?..
Its the way the real world works.
Also yes a lot of trashy games go out of business, how many mobile games do you know that have been running for 8 years?
Btw, this isn't about the F2P vs P2W model, or about the Cap event. It was in response to the other commenter who unironically believes without MTX, game developers would be starving to death.
While MCOC makes money, they aren't swimming in cash at their headquarters. They're owned by Netmarble. Netmarble funds MCOC.
If you make a purchase, the devs aren't putting that directly in their pockets.
If we can all acknowledge that, how about looking up when finding people to blame rather than looking down at the consumer? Loot boxes are a science, and trigger the same dopamine mechanics as gambling does. Blaming consumers for succumbing to gambling mechanics in games that are aimed at kids too is hella silly, ngl. Let's pretend you didn't say that.
It is basically gambling.
Not exactly sure what it has to do with the main topic of f2ps asking for more, they could give you 50 Paragon crystals and all you get is 50 4* champs for all you know.
and for carnivals, each time you pay, you get on the complete ride, if you wanna get on it again, you pay again, so not really as well
I went to Vegas with my nephew, they told me he is underage he can't be walking in the casino area.
I took him to the arcade, they had great games like hoops, a punching bag for points, a rolling game, tons of games. Of course you has to pay to play them, and as a reward for performing the machine would give you tickets. Later on you exchange those tickets for rewards. 20k tickets and you could even take a bicycle home!!!.. As a thinking human being, do you see what they did in there? Its gambling the only difference is that you spend money to not win money and exchange it for a prize worth money
Is a Kabam developer sitting next you holding a gun to you saying you have to buy things?
People aren't addicted to the loot boxes, people are addicted to taking the easy way which is to buy their way though content and advance quicker.
You're also wrong in blaming the developers. They're paid a salary. A dev could care less what microtransactions are in the game. Offers and what not are from the economy teams and part of the U.I.
Again, you're not be forced by anyone to buy anything. It's your choice. These are businesses. Without MTXs it's unlikely this game would still be around. Ads are the only other way to generate revenue.
You're upset because companies want to make money and you think the consumer has no fault in the choices they make.
Prior to the rise of the F2P/Microtransaction model subscription games could easily survive, because they were not competing with F2P games. But once F2P arrived, they had to compete on two different fronts. For most players they had to figure out how to market their games when their game cost money and their F2P competitors were giving it away for free. And for players willing to spend money they had to convince spenders to spend $15 a month and get what everyone else gets when they could spend $25 a month in a different game and get more.
Just exactly how many game developers did you know in 2010? How many did you discuss this transition with, back then? Even before the F2P model really started taking off, back in 2008, I stopped buying used games from Game Stop. Why? Because I had a conversation with a game dev who told me he opposed Game Stop's business model, because the used game market deprived game developers of revenue. Ten different people could play the same game and the game developer would only collect revenue once. In terms of trying to support good game development, buying used games had the same effect as direct piracy. I have never bought a used game again. Because economic game models and putting my money where my mouth is to support game developers is something I didn't just discover yesterday. I've been there for as long as there has been there.
I know how it all happened, and I know why it happened. I played the games, I saw the business models evolve, and I saw the games fall, and take their dev teams with them. And I know who's responsible for it all. We are.
We can blame the game publishers for being greedy, but their greed does not allow them to invent player motivations. We tell them what we're willing to spend money on, and then they try to make as much money as possible selling it to us. And we don't want games where everyone pays a little. We want games in which almost everyone pays nothing and a few whales pay for the rest of us, so that we can play for free and blame the whales for the fact that the game isn't fair.
People still spend around $300 million USD on this game. When subscriptions went the way of the Dodo, they had dropped from an average of $20 USD to $10-$12 USD per month. If you think you can find two million people to pay twelve bucks a month to play MCOC, you're delusional. And the day the Kabam devs take their eyes off the ball and decide to become humanitarians, Disney will take the Marvel license away and give it to someone else with more business sense. And they can't all pay the rent making Flappy Bird clones in Godot.
There will always be exceptions. But Elden Ring isn't one of them. Elden Ring is not a games as a service. Elden Ring is not free to play. Elden Ring is an original IP and doesn't have licensing fees. And while it does have a multiplayer mode, it is primarily a single player game, with a beginning, a middle, and an end. If that is the sort of thing you're interested in, great. Go play that. Single player closed-ended content games can support themselves in theory without recurring fees, because there are no substantive recurring support costs. And in fact, I am in general opposed to microtransactions showing up in those kinds of games, because that is a completely different business model than the free to play massively multiplayer online gaming one. We're talking about MCOC, not Monopoly. A game like Elden Ring can estimate the cost of the contents of the box and charge for the box. And it does not compete with games as a service like MCOC. And that's why there is essentially no price pressure exerted by either game upon the other. No one says Steam games cost $50 so our microtransactions have to be some fraction of that. And no one looks at MCOC in-app purchases and says well, if they are doing that, we need to sell our game for this. They are completely unrelated markets.
Most games fail, and fail quickly. Surviving for over eight years puts MCOC in the top one percent of the top one percent of the top one percent of games. It used to be a common past time on the forums to compare MCOC to other games. This game has better offers. That game has better graphics. Those games have better mechanics. Most of those games no longer exist. I specifically remember all those people who used to say that the only reason MCOC survives is because of the Marvel license: any Marvel game would last because it would have a guaranteed market. That statement certainly aged well.
Oh wait you don't because no one paid enough.
Their success is due to something, and that something has to be a something they do differently from their competition. It isn't the Marvel license, it isn't game addiction, it certainly isn't their rock solid game platform. I believe it is the very careful economy balance between the free to play players and the spenders.