**Mastery Loadouts**
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Due to issues related to the release of Mastery Loadouts, the "free swap" period will be extended.
The new end date will be May 1st.
Options
Comments
I've been waiting AGES for these kinds of balance updates to come to the game and putting them behind a paywall instead of integrating them into the game as part of it's growth shows me that you don't value the games future and instead only care about short term gains.
- The number of rank up materials needed to level champs has steadily increased and yet the inventory hasn't increased at all. Inventory Limit Paywall
- Veteran players who complete every single monthly quest, every AQ, every AW, every dungeon STILL DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH GOLD to rank up champions at a decent rate. Gold Quest Paywall
- We've been stuck at 70 energy for years with no additional levels and no way to use experience and every month there seems to be more quests with higher energy costs. Energy Recharge Rate Paywall
- Players at almost every tier in the game have overflowing resources and materials of lower tiers and we've been waiting for some kind of system to convert or use them. Exchange Market Paywall
These are all things that should be implemented to EVERYONE as part of the games natural evolution into higher tier champs needing more gold, resources, and energy. These are not changes you put behind a paywall unless you want to ruin your game.
You have a good game that makes good money without hamstringing the majority of the playerbase. This is so absolutely unnecessary. If you want us to invest in your game then you better be willing to do the same. Putting the balance of your game behind a paywall is the day this game dies.
HOWEVER, some of the services that they want to offer exclusively to subscribers are features that the community has been asking for for years and that should be a quality of life improvement for everyone. To me, the golden circle quests and +25% inventory cap should be free for everyone. Everything else, specifically the reduced quest energy timer, I think it's fine to be part of the subscription service.
You could even add in energy timer reduction to AQ and ONLY AQ, cause I'm fairly certain that people who are willing to subscribe would likely be playing map 5 and beyond of AQ anyway and would provide more incentive to subscribe if this was offered.
And let's face it, +20% experience is completely useless to most of the player base anyway.
I don’t say it to be mean, I just mean that that is a very “never shopping at this store again” mindset that doesn’t affect them in the slightest. Doesn’t accomplish much sadly.
I take issue with the spirit in which this content was introduced, as its fairly ham-fisted and abrasive to f2p people, but it is at least harmless walletwarrior fare as opposed to making it impossible to compete.
Maybe we’re communicating what we want from Kabam in a way that isn’t encouraging them NOT to monetize each individual aspect of the game from energy to featured 5*s. Thoughts?
I’ve played this game for over 4 years, I’m Cavalier and this subscription is the end to my spending and I might possibly even delete the game entirely out of principle.
All of these subscription “perks” should be free and standard in the game. Period.
£10 a month is hardly amything. Save 50p a day.
FTP cannot moan, as it’s your decisions not to spend
Don’t be a FTP player, and moan when something costs money; you can easily spend if you want to.
A lot of people play this game completely for free. Most, in fact, play this game completely for free: that's the reality of free to play gaming. If you want to lower the amount of monetization in the game, you are in essence saying you want to force more free players to pay - because if the people paying now pay less, someone else has to pay more. That includes the people currently paying zero.
Maybe you're fine with having more people pay, but the free to play model relies in part on attracting lots of free players, from which some small percentage become paying customers. In effect, the free players are like the "foot traffic" in a shopping mall. The more people walking around, the more likely one of them will step into a store and buy something. So stores like to be where lots of people are milling around.
Instead of having everyone pay the same amount, the free to play model allows most players to pay nothing, but some players end up paying a lot more. Is it better than the pure subscription model where everyone pays the same amount and everyone gets the same game? The answer is: look at the size of playerbases for the two types of games. F2P as a whole decimates pure subscription.
How do you communicate to a game developer that they shouldn't use this model when it works? How do you communicate to a game developer that they should monetize less, and shift the balance of free and paying customers in a way that will generate less foot traffic? How do you convince them to do what we all claim we want them to do, but then turn around and spend our time and money on the games that do the exact opposite?
I don't think you can.
A lot of people go to a theater to see a movie for the actual theater atmosphere. Otherwise they could just see it on Netflix or something, and skip the overpriced popcorn and soda. So in a sense, the people seeing the movie and not buying the overpriced popcorn and soda are part of the attraction for the other people: it is a social experience.
It isn't a perfect analogy because lots of people would be happy to see a movie in an empty theater, but the point is that the free to play players help make the game seem more interesting to play, because they help fill and expand the game. It isn't just about beating them, it is about the feeling that you're playing a game lots of other people think is valuable enough to spend time on. Free to play players are very important to an F2P game because they make the game more attractive to play, and because they are the prospective future customers of the game. You have to actually play the game to eventually be a customer of the game.
A free to play game that is not attractive to free players very quickly becomes a dead game.
U couldn’t put it in a more clear way mate.
Hope the game developers distinguish and give the appropriate weight to serious posts like this.