Spiral Knights - "Full Game" DLC + minor subscription model

"Full Game" DLC + minor subscription model

16 replies [Last post]

Mon, 12/11/2017 - 16:51

Fangel

With the backlash against lootboxes worldwide from EA's Battlefront II, we may start to see some legislation come down on the methods of profit many F2P games face. While it may be easy to say "oh, it's just cosmetic it doesn't matter here", the lawmakers today aren't exactly always going to be able to differentiate a free cosmetic box in a video game VS a pay-to-win box from another game. As such, certain "gambling"-esque elements in F2P models might start getting hit by the law all over the world despite having fair and/or non-problematic loot boxes.

One way to allow games to remain F2P would be to allow for two new modes of in-game purchases - a "Full Game" DLC, and a subscription model.

FULL GAME
Several early access games use something similar for their early adopters. For such games, this unlocks several benefits. In fighter games, you get the whole roster from the beginning. Shooter-like games like to give special items, cosmetics, and a permanent EXP boost. Adventure games may give you a unique dungeon or name tag, etc.

Here's what I would recommend: Purchasing the "full game DLC" would cost somewhere between $30 to $60, but give the player the following benefits-

Permanent heat amplifier effect - can be doubled via heat amps
Permanent single krogmo coin booster effect
A single permanent trinket slot upgrade
A single permanent weapon slot upgrade
Operation: Crimson Hammer DLC

This may not seem like much, but this in-game value would be met after about a month and a half.

I know I've been personally against permanent slots in the past, however a single time purchase of the "game" like this would be about on-par with others. The benefit is also not as vastly high immediately, as most of the cost comes from the two things people don't worry about as much - the coin booster and the heat amp. However, a permanent slot is very important if you're spending money the cost of a full game on a F2P game, and it opens up so many more options for players of all styles.

SUBSCRIPTION MODEL
Here's where things get a bit more interesting. For those that do not know, Spiral Knights used to have a pseudo subscription model with its monthly elevator passes. You paid $6 a month and got free elevator access - back when it cost 10 energy per floor to progress (with a free limit of 100 energy a day).

Obviously, with the change over to a more F2P friendly model, the game would need a new take on a subscription model. Here's what I propose:

$5 for 30 day subscription unlocks:

A single trinket slot upgrade
A single weapon slot upgrade
500 energy
5% Rarity drop rate increase
1 cosmetic loot box exchange ticket

$10 for 30 day subscription unlocks:

A single trinket slot upgrade
A single weapon slot upgrade
1500 energy
10% Rarity drop rate increase
3 cosmetic loot box exchange ticket
5% off supply depot purchases

$20 for 30 day subscription unlocks:

A single trinket slot upgrade
A single weapon slot upgrade
5000 energy
7 cosmetic loot box exchange ticket
15% Rarity drop rate increase
10% off supply depot purchases
1 mirrored lockbox

With this change, it allows players to unlock a small boost similar to the full game model with "upkeep", as well as help with some progression based walls both early and late game players run into. They will get small amounts of energy on top of tokens they can cash in for a promotional box when it comes around... Which brings me to my next point

If lootboxes are banned from being purchased with real money, the only proper way to continue having them is through the supply depot with energy purchases and/or reverting them back to purchase bonuses. By allowing players to purchase boxes from the supply depot using a loot box exchange ticket, it would give them an incentive to pay every month to stack up on them while also maintaining their usual energy flows. The subscription model also give subscribers the ability to purchase promotional boxes more in bulk since they get a blanket discount on all goods, which also means more flash sale items re-entering the economy.

Additionally, adding these cosmetic loot box exchange tickets allows for more creative rewards for completing missions, obtaining achievements, and prize giveaways for forum contests.

- - - - - - - - - -

What do y'all think? I believe it's a pretty balanced path to walk down in terms of current costs along with the perceived value by the customer. This is all assuming loot boxes and lawmakers don't blend, but it would be pretty nice to have anyways. The main value from these purchases is in the slot upgrades, which equal about 4,800E a year for each set (1 trinket + 1 weapon), meaning a F2P player can easily make up that amount in a year's time should they be dedicated.

Fri, 12/15/2017 - 06:06

Mintagen

A lesson in MMO econamics

1) The lesson:
Let's take two kinds of players. One that does not want to spend real money (let's call him "the wolf"), and one that does spend money (let's call him "the fox"). There is the main currency of the game world, one that has unlimited drops. In our case, those are crowns, and a secondary currency that only comes to existence when the fox buys them. In our case, energy.

The fox can spend money to get a large pool of energy or could spend money to get items that only foxes can buy. However the fox can never buy crowns. That's where the wolf comes in.

The wolf is willing to fight on hours end to get a ton of crowns. He however does not buy energy with real money, instead he'll exchange it for crowns. He does not want to buy prize boxes, but wants the items you get from them, so he'll buy them from the fox with crowns.

The foxes in turn relies on the wolves in order to get their crowns and the wolves will stick around knowing that they don't need to spend real money to get energy and fox items. It's a tough balance, lose one of the two and you will also lose the other.

If you make the items dropped from the prize boxes more useful than the ones you can get regularly, then wolves will either turn into foxes or leave entirely if they don't want to become a fox. And if you lose the wolves you lose the foxes in the long run. Goodbye player base. That's why the foxes items are never necessities but are still shiny and worth it enough that wolves will still want them.

The secondary currency, i.e energy, is another story however. Energy can be a necessity if the wolf needs it be. This allows for the fox to have a more steady income of crowns, than whether or not the item they have is shiny enough for the wolf to want. The price for the wolf to get energy is low enough and is energy useful enough that the wolf will most likely always exchange his crowns for energy. And that expansion that can be bought with energy is very tempting for the wolf.

This is also why the prize boxes have a chance to drop less favorable items. A fox may not want that item, but a wolf will think it's worth any amount of crowns you sell them for. In that case the fox still get's his money back in the form of crowns, and the wolf get's an item that he otherwise couldn't get without the help of a fox.

Both the fox and wolf are happy, and the devs will always get their money since even the non-paying wolves will still be helpful and make the game more inviting to foxes who will buy, and the economy stays alive for a very long time.

2) Now let's compare that working economy to yours shall we?

The foxes have a ginormous pool of energy that will refill. A fountain! Energy is now a unlimited resource for foxes and so will start selling large amounts of energy for cheap crown prices and now have to worry about other foxes who have bigger fountains. The value of energy is shot down to the ground. Wolves can get all the cosmetics and can get the energy easily. The foxes will start turning into wolves. They can also get things easily now as long as there is one fox alive.

The devs are left with a small amount of paying foxes and a large amount of wolves. They need to increase prices in order to stay alive but that will scare of the foxes and the game will die in the long run.

There needs to be a balance with foxes and wolves, and both must rely on each other.

Don't get me started with the full game DLC thing. Assuming you want make the expansion and the boosters paid. If you do that, then wolves will not exchange crowns for energy and will turn into foxes and then go back to being wolves if they even want to play the game by then, if they think that a game is worth it now that something is hidden under a paywall. And if it were to be able to bought with energy then remember that energy is now unlimited and cheap, the "full game" pack will be redundant.

The paid booster thing is the worst and will be even more worse if the expansion is also paid. That is literally a scare of for all wolves. And with low amount of wolves, there will be a decrease in an already low population of foxes.

With your suggestion, you are not only killing one kind of player, you are killing them both off. Goodbye player base.

3) In conclusion
What you are suggesting will kill the game faster than if the government were to deem it illegal to buy prize boxes.

Being deemed illegal is unlikely for Spiral Knights to begin with, since both the fox and wolf always win. If the fox gets something they don't want, then sell it to a wolf for crowns who isn't willing to spend real money for that item. The chance to not get what you want is simply so the wolves can get something and the foxes always get their money back in some way thus the foxes always win. The paying people always win. And the wolves are happy with what they can get, so even the none-paying people are happy. And the devs get their money fairly. It's not illegal in any way. Spiral Knights is not "pay to win", it's free because it's economy keeps it alive. You are suggesting killing the economy, that is worse than any unlikely illegal take-down.

If a Spiral Knights developer is reading this, I highly do not support the above model. Do not implement it. With my knowledge of MMO economies, I can safely say that you are good the way you are.

Fri, 12/15/2017 - 18:32

Falminar

The foxes have a ginormous

The foxes have a ginormous pool of energy that will refill. A fountain!

I'm pretty sure the original quote is intended to indicate what used to exist in the past as an example of a sort of "subscription" the game used to have, while the proposed energy bonus now is a one-time thing when paying for the subscription and does not refill unless you also pay more to refund the subscription. So no, energy will not become such an easy free currency.

Assuming you want make the expansion and the boosters paid. If you do that, then wolves will not exchange crowns for energy and will turn into foxes and then go back to being wolves if they even want to play the game by then, if they think that a game is worth it now that something is hidden under a paywall.

No, the boosters would not be paid-only. Fangel does mention that the permanent paid heat booster stacks with the current booster (and the trinket/weapon parts only unlock 1 slot out of 2), so presumably the purchasable ones would remain as-is; there is no mention or implication that the others would become paid only in addition to that. The only difference here is that the full game DLC would apply these boosters permanently while the wolves have to give up crowns to the foxes regularly if they want to upkeep the benefit (as it is now).

If the boosters remain as-is, of course OCH will also remain purchasable with energy too - it's just an extra, less important benefit on the side if you didn't buy it already.

And if it were to be able to bought with energy then remember that energy is now unlimited and cheap, the "full game" pack will be redundant.

^ As mentioned above, no it would not be unlimited and cheap, and therefor the full game pack would not be redundant as it still provides permanent bonuses that have to be purchased repeatedly otherwise (and the added heat boost stacks with the existing heat boost).

Sat, 12/16/2017 - 04:30

Mintagen

Corrections and a lesson in gambling

I was comparing my original response to the game as it is now. Now I know I should compare it to the old one we had before.

4) Let's compare the old unsuccessful economy to the working one we have now.

Do you know why the developers changed the F2P mechanics to begin with? It's because everyone thought it was "pay to play". This caused many wolves to leave and it to be dominated by foxes. As I mentioned, you cannot tilt your player base so much to one side. You will lose your player base that way. You need to balance them. They had to change it so that they had an equal amount of wolves who would join, resulting in a balance economy and resulting in a player base growth. Haven't you realized the ginormous growth the game got after swapping their economic style?

Now you still want them to go back with what I have typed? I can assure you that the player base will reduce to nothing. Grey Haven saved themselves from that by swapping their F2P mechanics. This new subscription model will send Spiral Knights back to the stone age.

My 3rd part of the original response still stands. Spiral Knights is in no danger to be taken down for being illegal. This model will kill it faster and more painfully. The economy now works, because of which it is growing a larger and larger fanbase. It's striving! Why change it?

5) (I forgot to add this part) Let's compare Spiral Knight's prize box to StarWars Battlefront II's loot boxes.

A fox buys the a winterfest prize box. He really wants that sweater! He buys it but doesn't get what he wanted. He instead get's a different costume. He, as a fox who doesn't like farming, is in need of crowns. So he sells the costume to a wolf who doesn't like spending money and would otherwise never get that costume. The fox has a splattering of crowns now and is happy even though he didn't get what he wanted yet. Luckily he has a high chance that the next few boxes will drop what he wants.
,
In Battlefront II, the fox buys a loot box. He really wants that (whatever you get from Battlefront loot boxes), he doesn't get what he wants. Too bad that Battlefront II is not a F2P game, so nobody wants that item he got due to the lack of wolves. He sells it for a low price back to the game and is very unhappy with what he got. He spends a bunch more dollars to try getting what he wants. He does not due to how low the chances are for him. He is pissed. He really needs that item he wants if he wants to have a fighting chance in the battlefront.

You see the difference? One is fair and the other is not. battlefront II is a paid game with unfair F2P mechanics strapped to it. That is utterly despicable. Spiral Knights is a F2P game with fair F2P mechanics strapped to it. People don't mind it whatsoever.

6) Now let's compare Spiral Knight's prize boxes to another game's loot boxes who actually got illegal claims for being considered gambling.

CS:GO skins. Very low chances to get what you want, and there is a trading system that works with real money. Pay someone with real money for that skin you want. However, some people had an idea. Let's call them "the sharks". What they did is use CS:GO skins as gambling chips, get a good spin and you can get paid from the sharks. Lose a spin and you lose money to the shark. CS:GO is quite a popular game. The sharks can have the largest virtual gambling gig in the world. Luckily, Valve took down the sharks, so the game continued to exist without being taken down completely.

Now let's compare that to Spiral Knights... you can't. They are not alike at all. There is no way for you to buy a costume from another player with real money, in fact, only crowns can be used. Not to mention, compared to CS:GO, Spiral Knights has quite fair odds for the fox. Those skins do not have a large real money value as the ones in CS:GO, so sharks stay away. The fox will buy 10 lootboxes knowing that his chances are high enough that he'll get what he wants, or he may not even need to buy 10 if he is lucky. He always has a wolf who will buy the costume, so he never loses knowing that he does not need to buy 100 boxes in a paid game like in so many AAA games nowadays.

In gambling, the house always wins. In Spiral Knights, the player always wins. There is no relation and Spiral Knights is safe. Let's not change a working F2P economy that is becoming so successful because of some false belief.

Sat, 12/16/2017 - 13:50

Falminar

Can you explain how the game would revert to the old economy?

If I'm correct, your argument is based on:

1. The subscription model's energy bonus would function like the mist energy of the old economy, making energy plentiful and turning everyone into wolves, causing an economic collapse.

2. Expansion and boosters become real-money only rather than being available with energy. This will lock useful content behind a paywall and scare off the wolves as they can no longer grind to obtain what they want, causing an economic collapse.

As I interpreted the original post, neither of these would happen.

The subscription model's energy bonus would be a one-time boost on purchase, like any other energy boost as is currently in the game, so the energy economy's basic concept would be unchanged and the foxes would have little reason to suddenly become wolves. At most there might be a little more energy put into the economy, but nothing as crippling as you describe.

The expansion and boosters remain exactly as they are, with an added bonus with the "full game DLC" that, while providing a good benefit for the foxes who bite it, gives nothing entirely unique that the wolves cannot get normally through gameplay; they're still obtainable from the energy that is purchased from foxes. There is no paywall created and the wolves would have no reason to be scared off.

Neither part of the playerbase would be scared off; I don't think the balance would be thrown off much.

-----

I have no comment about the prizeboxes being banned or not though.

Sat, 12/16/2017 - 15:25

Fangel

Falminar got it

None of my suggestion replaces anything in the current game, however it does provide a solution to a monetary issue should promotional boxes be banned from being purchased with real money. I don't believe they will be banned either, but that's more due to the size of Spiral Knights and not being well known. If the law decides that all boxes are bad, however, that's when we run into an issue where the main source of Spiral Knight's income is banned in certain countries. It wouldn't be fair to said countries to not allow them access to promotional boxes.

The "full game" unlocks boosts, it doesn't replace their acquisition. All boosts listed will stack with any other boosts listed, meaning you still have a use for those krogmo coin boosters if you need those tokens. You can still purchase all upgrade usables from the Supply Depot and stack their usage.

The "subscription" model would not become a refilling mist tank. The subscription model would simply grant players its bonuses (rarity drop rate, supply depot discount, slot upgrades) for a 30 month period, and grant players its rewards (energy, loot box tickets, mirrored lockbox) immediately upon purchase. Think of it as a monthly "starter pack" or "battle pack" with some timed bonuses tagged on. Additionally, if you have 3 months on a weapon slot upgrade and you get a 1 month subscription, your weapon slot upgrade is boosted to 4 months. It is another method of buying things you want, not a replacement.

Subscriptions, however, would not stack with themselves. You would not be able to buy, say, a $5 subscription and then a $20 subscription back to back - if you want more cosmetic boxes, you must spend your energy on the supply depot for the boxes.

Both of these new payment methods do not negate any previous payment methods. If you want energy then an energy package will be the best option. If you want promotional boxes, promotional boxes will be the best option. If you want to play the game to its highest potential, the full game DLC will be the best value. If you play the game frequently and like many aspects to it (farming, cosmetics, etc), the subscription model will best fit your needs.

Sun, 12/17/2017 - 16:35

Mintagen

There is no reason to change in my opinion

I will accept that I was wrong with my previous two comments. I was confused with the first and double confused for the second. Let's keep in mind my lesson on Spiral Knights's MMO economics and my lesson on Gambling pertaining to Spiral Knights.

I assume that you understood them both. Now why should we change it to this subscription model? Changing it will not cause an apocalypse like I first entailed (twice) and actually, looking back at it, it might work. You may make most of the wolf population unhappy by tilting a lot of advantages to the fox but that won't necessarily kill the wolves off. You can still have a player base, but, in my opinion, it is very risky to change it and the player base then probably won't last very long considering other F2Ps that tilted highly to the fox didn't last long either.What we have now is perfect enough that both wolves and foxes are happy at least to an above moderate extent. But I don't just think the current ecosystem works, I love how it works. Many people do to. Spiral Knights is a forgiving F2P, it is forgiving largely due to how well the ecosystem works.

But of course there is the gambling problem...
There may be people who think that loot boxes are gambling but there are a lot more officials (pretty large one's as well like the ESRB and the UK gambling commission) that do not think that they are considered gambling. Even a person like me who thinks that loot boxes in other games are dangerously like gambling thinks that Spiral Knights's prize boxes in particular are not gambling. There is no danger in my opinion thus there is no reason to change.

I can assume we all here love Spiral Knights. It's noble that you want to save it even if that means people who liked the previous F2P mechanics will be pissed, but in my eyes, this change is more of a gamble than those prize boxes are.

Sun, 12/17/2017 - 20:00

Fangel

aye

Yeah, the change does favor the "fox", however I tried to make sure it didn't favor them excessively. In fact, such purchases would actually benefit new players the most, but would be a good investment for old players - none of this "pay to be better than non-payers".

The "full game" gives the "fox" an easier time should they leave and come back - I know some people who have weapon slots unlocked for literally years, but haven't logged on for a while because of life and work. The "full game" purchase gives them a nice bit of footing when they come back, and if they still love the game they may throw down a subscription on top of it.

The goal of this was never to replace any payment options, but to offer an alternative that makes the fox keep wanting to spend every month. Right now, if you don't like a promotional box, the fox has no reason to spend on the game for that entire month. However, the wolves still may want what's in the boxes, or they may need energy, but without a reason to spend the foxes really won't. As such, paying a small fee in preparation for the next month, that may have the boxes you want, is an incentive to spend.

I don't foresee the "wolves" being overly jealous by the "foxes" in this scenario, namely because they can get the boosts the "foxes" paid for for significantly less up front, but have it cost more over time in upkeep. The only exception to this would be the rarity boost, but should that be added into the subscription model I would advocate for a 2 day 50% rarity booster to be available on the supply depot to grant F2P players access to said boost, as well as give paying players the option for a much heftier rarity boost that is limited.

Mon, 12/18/2017 - 05:29

Mintagen

Balancing

I went from this model causing an apocalypse (twice) to thinking it is risky, to thinking this could work well if it were balanced.

Note that it is fine to have either the fox or wolf to have an advantage over each other, as long as they have a disadvantage that requires the other type of player to balance them. Since I have a sort of good understanding of F2P MMO economy, let me have a crack at balancing your model a bit.

First of; let's change the name from a "subscription" into "30 day booster pack" or anything besides a "subscription". This is a boost that lasts 30 days, not a boost you have forever as long as you pay up monthly, so it doesn't constitute as a subscription necessarily, and people will accept it better if it is treated as optional (which it is). Subscription sounds a lot like membership and memberships are not optional.

Secondly; let's have the third type of booster pack have a 20% loot drop increase and not 15% and not let wolves get that booster for energy. The wolf can get a 30 day 5% and 10% booster with energy but not a 20%. That is reserved for the fox. You want the fox to have a slight advantage but never have them have too much of one. Since foxes hate farming, they might be inclined to buy the highest booster pack, especially during events, since they have 30 days till it wears off and that's basically the same time as events.

Thirdly; the pricing for the boosters in terms of energy should be as such: 5% loot drop increase for 350 energy and a 10% loot increase for 600 energy. This makes it just about affordable for a wolf while making the booster packs still seem worth it.

Fourthly; let's also include "costume loot box tickets" along side the "cosmetic loot box ticket". Let's also have the cosmetic loot box purchasable with energy. This is an equalizer. The wolf can also get both types of loot box with energy, but the fox will always have some sugar added to the mix. Slight tilt but not too forward to the fox.

Fifthly; cosmetic loot boxes should cost 300 energy, and cotume boxes 800 energy. I'm not sure about this pricing, but you need to make sure it is only just affordable for a wolf. A fox will still always have the better costume and cosmetic, since they have a more abundance with the loot boxes. So their costumes and cosmetics are still valuable to a wolf. The wolf can get costumes but they still need a fox from time to time.

Sixthly; we will need to reduce how much energy you give with the booster packs. Reducing each one by 50% or 25% will do. This is to make sure that the fox is not overwhelmed with energy. He should get a bit, but for the current energy pricing to be the same, you need to make sure those energy purchases still seem worth it.

And lastly; let's completely remove the "full game" idea. Payed permanent boosters are bad for balancing. When a fox returns after a long while, they should be inclined to buy the booster pack, and not still have a permanent boost of their own. If they know they can spend time for the next 30 days, they can buy a booster pack especially during the holidays. Since the booster pack also includes drop rate increases, the fox doesn't need to spend as much time. So for a busy fox, the booster packs make sense. All doing so without giving them a large advantage.

If you like my balancing solutions, then feel free to take them, change them a bit, and make a new suggestions forum post. I may not fully support it, but with how I balanced it, I can at least understand it a bit.

Mon, 12/18/2017 - 15:31

Midnight-Dj

Pointless

Instead of going through all of this subscription shenanigans, why not just make a prize box's reward fixed?

Just buy the box you want and you will get exactly what you asked for? That is capitalism, you get what you paid for and hence, not gambling.

For example, prize box can be separated into 3 tiers: standard, advanced, luxury.

So if you want the wings and aura, buy the expensive luxury. And you want the normal costumes, buy a standard.

Tue, 12/19/2017 - 09:14

#10

Mintagen

Fangel 's idea was better

The point of Fangel 's post was not to dodge the unlikely bullet of being considered gambling. It was the solution to the lowered income the developers will surely have over having the prize boxes being purchasable for energy (basically free). Changing the prize boxes into a simple bonus for your already purchased booster pack (not subscription) that does not only consist of the box and the box cannot be directly bought with real money, cannot in any way count in being considered gambling and will also insure that the devs still make a good income from it. It will also not touch the economics of the game as much, as values are tampered with less.

With Midnight-Dj 's idea, the values of costumes and cosmetics will skyrocket, and will be sold less likely since the fox (paying player) has a zero chance to not get what he wants and thus, does not need to sell anything unless he wants crowns and in that case he'd just make the costume cost a ton of crowns, which in turn will scare of wolves (non paying players) from ever getting any prize box costume with in game money.

But either way, in my eyes both changes are pointless, even if Fengel 's model can work well if balanced. Prize boxes do not constitute as gambling. In gambling, you can and will lose money, no matter what you think or if you make up for it later. A bad spin in gambling will cause you to lose everything you have bid. That is nothing like in Spiral Knights. You will always get something in return in Spiral Knights even though it is something that you don't want, but even then, you can always sell them for a splattering of crowns and everyone loves crowns. I can understand other games being taken down for being considered gambling but I do not see that happening to Spiral Knights.

Tue, 12/19/2017 - 14:08

#11

Midnight-Dj

All this talk about foxes and wolves...

@Mitagen

If anything, my system can make expensive costumes cheaper.

Imagine this, the whales know that wings are worth a fortune in its current status as a 1% item from most boxes, so if more whales buys the boxes with wings and tried to sell them, the price of wings will go down. This is a simple demand vs supply. The price of many expensive items can now go down since more people are selling them. It is simple free market at work, none of that fox wolf shenanigans.

Whales aren't the only ones who gets to set the price. And if costumes become scarce, it will encourage more F2P players become P2P, the two are not fixed roles.

SK prize boxes are still gambling, each of them is simply a ticket for a player to hopefully get a chance at acquiring what they want. So in essence, they are gambling, and not any amount of 'it is just cosmetic' argument will change that, since COSMETIC IS A PART OF THE GAME EXPERIENCE.

Wed, 12/20/2017 - 08:47

#12

Mintagen

Oh contrare! @Midnight-Dj

Demand doesn't work like that in MMO economics. It will for real life economics but not with MMOs. In the real world, if something is in demand, more companies will try selling that same thing, creating competition. The only way for one company to have a better chance to get their goods sold is to cheapen them or increase the quality of them. That's not how MMOs work.

Let's take Spiral knights with your idea implemented into it. We will stick with the example of paying foxes and none-paying wolves, because, just because the roles can be interchanged or disengaged, doesn't mean that they don't exist. What we want, (or at least what a developer wants) is to make sure both roles depend on each other equally. With your idea, the wolf will have more a need for a fox than a fox needs a wolf. A fox will always get what he wants from a prize box (since he has a zero chance of not getting what he wants). If he had a chance to not get what he wants, he will have a bulk of costumes he does not want, so will sell them for cheaper prices.

Note that a fox is not a whale. Foxes are smart and will only spend money if necessary. If a fox (with your idea) needs crowns, he'd either just sell his energy, or he'll sell the costume for a bigger price since those costumes are now even more rare since a fox won't spend a ton of money just for a costume since they are not whales. And since as we both know, the roles are not fixed for foxes or wolves, so the fox can just turn wolf if he needs crowns. (a whale is a fixed role however so I didn't pick it. Whales also have a low population in SK so they're not what I am looking for for an example)

In the real world, demand will cause price decreases. In spiral knights, demand will increase the price. And scarcity will increase the price for both the real world and the MMO world prices. You cannot say that a high demand and a high scarcity will make the costumes cheaper in Spiral Knights. It's the opposite.

Fangel also wanted a monetary solution for the devs if the storm ever hits, your idea does not do that. Reason number one, why their idea is better.

Now also note that my argument against SK prize boxes being gambling was not "they are just cosmetic they don't count". My argument was that gambling and SK prize boxes do not resemble each other. You can lose everything with a bad spin in gambling, but will always get something in return in SK. Nothing like gambling. Many officials agree with this and I agree with them. And SK has the advantage of also being a ton more fair with their boxes while also having a MMO economic advantage if you get a bad spin.

In gambling, the house always wins in the end. In Spiral Knights, the players always win in the end. Even the none paying ones. That's why I love the game as it is. Even Fangel 's idea supports this sacred trust between player and developer as well so I think is a safer bet for the unlikely storm. Reason number two, why their idea is better.

Wed, 12/20/2017 - 18:07

#13

Midnight-Dj

Contrary? What do you know about contrary?

@Mitagen

The only way for one company to have a better chance to get their goods sold is to cheapen them or increase the quality of them. That's not how MMOs work.

How is it not? Are you telling me the foxes in this game aren't in it for the quickest or the most efficient profit? This is why radiant crystals are expensive while sprite food are not. IRL economic work the exactly the same as in a game with an open free market, where the foxes and wolves set the price depending on supply vs demand.

We will stick with the example of paying foxes and none-paying wolves, because, just because the roles can be interchanged or disengaged, doesn't mean that they don't exist.

How about no? You clearly created this economical ecosystem to fit your narrative, so I am not going with it. There are only two types of players in this game as far as I cared, F2P and P2P. The role can be changed at the slash of a credit card.

ps. 5 states in US have started to petition a bill to ban predatory loot box transaction, since GH is still in US. This storm may not be as unlikely as you may think.

What we want, (or at least what a developer wants) is to make sure both roles depend on each other equally.

This is a rather generalized assumption, how do you know that is what GH want? How do you know that the roles depend on each other equally? If we are going by your fox wolf relationship, then I am far less in need of Fangel than he is of me, since his buying of prize boxes do not impact my ability to enjoy the game.

A fox will always get what he wants from a prize box (since he has a zero chance of not getting what he wants). If he had a chance to not get what he wants, he will have a bulk of costumes he does not want, so will sell them for cheaper prices.

So, what if a fox likes a costume, and he notices other wolves want the costumes as well, why can't he then buy multiple of those boxes and sell them in a way that will give him a higher return in crowns than he would simply selling the energy needed to buy them? And now more foxes noticed the trend, they would do the same thing and price drop as the result of competition.

The price of good costume won't sky rocket, since more people want them, and my system made it possible for the foxes to have ready access to them. This would make the price drop as the result of more foxes buying those costumes and put them on sale. Supply versus demand. And if their price do increase for some mind boggling reasons, then all a wolf need to do is become a fox. Buy the costumes for themselves since it is cheaper that way.

The price increase you seemed to refer to has some similarities with expensive things IRL, like housing prices in China back into the 2010's, and guess what? The price eventually crashed as the housing bubble burst. The prices of costumes on high demand would no doubt face a similar fate, SK is a free market after all, if nobody buys your stuff, your price hike will eventually come crashing down, this hurts the foxes a whole lot than it hurts the wolves.

In the end of the day, the only difference between a fox and a wolf is a slash of the credit card. It is just one of them hasn't given in to the temptation yet.

Now... as for gambling...

My argument was that gambling and SK prize boxes do not resemble each other. You can lose everything with a bad spin in gambling, but will always get something in return in SK. Nothing like gambling.

I think you should have draw the line at the randomness in the reward, because that is where I drew the line. If a game depends on RNG for its reward system and requires REAL LIFE money for a spin, then it is gambling.

To give you an example, my local McDonald's have periods where they promote monopoly, where you get a chance to spin on a prize wheel when you buy a certain combo. You can peel stickers off the packages and scanned them in an app, and you will always get something (digital prizes with a small chance for free food and ect.), however, this app can only be used by those who are 18+. So yes, just because you always get something in the end doesn't make it not gambling. The fact that a system can compel a human being to 'just buy one more spin' is predatory in nature and ultimately exploit the weaknesses of a human mind, which makes it despicable. Even I was compelled to get a large fry and a large drink so I can get two ticket as supposed to one, this is predatory marketing at its worst.

In gambling, the house always wins in the end. In Spiral Knights, the players always win in the end.

I can almost hear the sadistic cackle of a racist stereotype Jewish man laughing in a dark corner of the GH studio as you said that. Bear in mind, all GH gave us at the end of the day are a series of ones and zeros. The fact that they have the audacity to ask for real money for something that is not even real is disgusting.I want to reward a game developer if they shows passion and invest genuine effort in a F2P game. But if the game seemed to be designed from the ground up to wring out my cash or the developer doesn't care about the player base, then they get no respect from me.

Now granted, I have no qualm with those who want to support the game with their wallet, but they need to know what they are getting into, if this game ever shuts down, their investment goes with it. This is why while I didn't spend a single dime on this game I spent thousands on warhammer 40K miniatures, because i know my investment is permanent while the company creating them is not.

Even Fangel 's idea supports this sacred trust between player and developer as well so I think is a safer bet for the unlikely storm. Reason number two, why their idea is better.

And my idea guarantees a player will get his/her money worth (in their own mind of course) somehow damages the 'sacred trust'? WHAT?!

If anything my idea can strengthen it. more than Fangel's ever will, since some people may come to begrudge GH since they didn't get their money worth out of the subscription due to real life commitments.

If you think the storm is unlikely then you deceive yourself, sure, maybe in the end SK will retain its prize boxes, but that is not the important part, the important part is the stigmatization of prize boxes in the mind of your average gamers. So the next time when you introduce someone to SK, they may frown at you and say, 'Really? You still play a game with prize boxes in it? You are contributing to the problem'. If this trend continues with EA's unwillingness to give up loot boxes, you can bet SK's bottom line will too be stretched.

Thu, 12/21/2017 - 12:57

#14

Mintagen

@Midnight-Dj What you missed

I actually was going to disprove each sentence of your post, but I don't think you deserve it. I don't like "debating" with someone who does not care for the proof that I have already typed down or a person who will take my sentences out of context or ignore everything we have already typed. I will however, show you big points that you have missed:

All prize boxes (both fair like SK and unfair like EA) are not considered as Gambling. Your opinion and the opinion of only 5 US states matters not if the large majority think otherwise. Because of which, your opinion cannot hold in debate, and shouldn't be kept above your opponent's. I will respect your opinion and can say you are right for feeling that way, but I do not consider it hard proof. I have already typed, "the ESRB and the Gambling Commission do not consider prize or loot boxes gambling", "You can lose everything with a bad spin in gambling, but will always get something in return in SK. Nothing like gambling" That's hard proof that you lovingly pushed aside, along with a lot of other things you've pushed aside.

Another thing that you missed is how this forum post was supposed to be a solution to the monetary depravity that Grey Havens will have if their primary source of income is now considered illegal or if they change it so that they are purchasable with energy, which, in your definition if gambling, won't count it as gambling as no real money is required to get a box. This is another thing that you have shrugged underneath the carpet that I have already typed.

The only time you got me is with my poor choice of words in player/developer trust. In context that point makes more sense but I will still admit the bad choice of words. Other than that, I cannot say that any other argument you have made is strong enough to change my mind.

I will say that I am mostly right but I will accept being wrong if I am properly disproved with hard facts. @Fangel and @Falminar simply showed me the parts I was wrong, but kept the parts I was right in mind. And @Falminar quoted me without removing context. I am able to admit that I was wrong there since it made sense that I was, and I was willing to accept their idea as long as it was balanced. They have changed my mind fairly with a well typed, mature response. I cannot say the same for you.

You should read the entire post and all the comments. The debate is actually very interesting.

Thu, 12/21/2017 - 15:32

#15

Midnight-Dj

What I didn't miss

@Mitagen

Whatever, your fox - wolf relationship is based on YOUR opinion on how the game economy work, NOT how it actually work. If I can only 'debate' in the world you constructed, I will always loose. So until you can back up your economical ecosystem with facts, ie. how many people buy, sell in a proper statistic sheet. I am calling it a farce and only use a tried and tested economic model.

It feels as if you are trying to jam players of all spending habits into two predesignated categorie without considering the proper intricacy of a free MMO market. For example, you predict that a fox will only buy what he need with my fixed loot box, but how would you know that a fox will always stays as a fox? Maybe more merchant would emerge and fox become whales and wolves replaces the power vacuum left by the fox.

This is the same type of stuff people pulls whenever an update happens, they then pull a suggestion thread out from three years ago to show as the proof that GH listen to the players (I am referring to the pirate prize boxes here). Really? How do you know maybe GH simply made a pirate prize box that just so happen to have pirate costumes in it. GH certainly wasn't going to give out a clear answer.

And speaking of ignoring facts, you have yet to offer a counter argument of my projection as to how the new economy work under my system. I have already compared the MMO market to market IRL and I see no reason in separating the two as two isolated systems. And the price hike of costumes you keep bringing up, seems to be only a temporary market reaction and will fade out as free market does its work.

Your opinion and the opinion of only 5 US states matters not if the large majority think otherwise.

I don't know, five states are still a lot of people on my side, and the 'large majority' hasn't spoken yet. Do you have any statistic to show that they think it is not gambling?

ps. oh btw, it is six states now that want loot boxes banned

"the ESRB and the Gambling Commission do not consider prize or loot boxes gambling", "You can lose everything with a bad spin in gambling, but will always get something in return in SK. Nothing like gambling" That's hard proof that you lovingly pushed aside, along with a lot of other things you've pushed aside.

Not only have I pushed it aside, I crushed it and spat on it. Just because some company came out and say that it isn't gambling, DOESN'T make it right. I have already given you an example IRL where even if every spin gets you something, doesn't make it NOT gambling, whenever a system compels someone to 'just buy one more' is exploitative in nature and is harmful. What you seemed to be pushing aside is my fact that RNG based reward system with real money involved is harmful in its very nature, and shouldn't be in games that were built to be enjoyed in the first place.

It doesn't matter how many times you sugar coat the matter, the fact is, people's life (IRL life) are being ruined by this type of loot box system.. AND you, as well as anyone who is still down with RNG based loot boxes, are a part of this problem. Removing gambling for good from video games is a boon for every gamers, everyone would buy a game at its asking price and get exactly what they paid for, this is capitalism at its best.

If they change it so that they are purchasable with energy, which, in your definition if gambling, won't count it as gambling as no real money is required to get a box. This is another thing that you have shrugged underneath the carpet that I have already typed.

But if new energy (ie, not buying new CE from the market but create new ones) can only be purchased by IRL money, then it is still gambling, it is now just a small obstacle between a player and a prize box. I never shrugged it under the carpet, you seemed to be the one who is grasping on straws in your attempt at defending GH and its horrible actions.

You should read the entire post and all the comments. The debate is actually very interesting.

I am not really interested, my debate is defending my fixed loot box system and gambling, not the subscription model.

Thu, 12/21/2017 - 17:44

#16

Mintagen

Someone is triggered

I really had hoped that you'd read the forum post. I don't see how you can assume everyone is wrong except for yourself when you did not care to read anything. There is so much wrong with everything you have typed, a lot of which I already typed down the reasons in this forum post. I will not correct every mistake you have made as there are so many and you can literally read my previous comments (that weren't disproved by Falminar or Fangel) in order to get a contradicting point against all of your arguments.

Why are you bringing up debates that do not coincide with this one? The debate (if you have actually read what it was) was "should Fangel 's idea be added into the game". Yes gambling is morally wrong and yes people spend all their money on loot boxes, but that has nothing to do with the current argument. The gambling argument died when the primary debate swayed away from it. I included so much in my previous comment about this but you just threw out what you can't even try to disprove. And you did a terrible job at disproving everything that you did try to. You even contradicted yourself in the same comment and made your previous mistake twice.

You still ignore all proof that I have already typed down, you still ignore the actual discussion for a rant about another. I can only assume that someone is very triggered. I cannot debate or discuss anything with a person like that, as I have already proven with your responses.

If you don't care to read and understand the discussion we are having at this moment, don't join it.

Search

"Full Game" DLC + minor subscription model