Adding a Boxcost
Xrael
Member
I know just how much Steven hates the concept of having both, a boxcost, as well as a subscription fee.
But adding a box cost puts a higher barrier of entry for multiboxers, botters and gold sellers. Keep in mind, this is NOT the main reason why I suggest adding a boxcost. The main reasons are as follows:
It also gives developers of a game we love, more financial freedom when it comes to creating content for the game, especially when starting out.
In compensation for adding a box cost, you could remove mount skins from the store. I personally feel like this shouldn't exist in the marketplace, as it takes away from the value of obtaining the original mount in game. If the marketplace skin for a mount looks a lot cooler, what is the point of obtaining the original one in game?
I think a boxcost of 25 or 30$, with one month of in game time, might be appropriate. What do you guys think?
But adding a box cost puts a higher barrier of entry for multiboxers, botters and gold sellers. Keep in mind, this is NOT the main reason why I suggest adding a boxcost. The main reasons are as follows:
It also gives developers of a game we love, more financial freedom when it comes to creating content for the game, especially when starting out.
In compensation for adding a box cost, you could remove mount skins from the store. I personally feel like this shouldn't exist in the marketplace, as it takes away from the value of obtaining the original mount in game. If the marketplace skin for a mount looks a lot cooler, what is the point of obtaining the original one in game?
I think a boxcost of 25 or 30$, with one month of in game time, might be appropriate. What do you guys think?
0
Comments
Intrepid need to be seen to not go back on their word, and their word is no box cost.
But if the reason is justifiable, I think it might still be possible.
Not without going back on their word, and that would be bad. I can't think of any reason that would justify Intrepid ruining their reputation before their game even launches.
I know just how bad it might sound to go back on their word. But if they don't, its just going to spell more trouble for them.
Its important to have financial flexibility, especially when starting out. It gives you a lot more room to design different types of content.
Adding a box cost will also significantly reduce the no. of botters, multiboxers, gold sellers and the like.
It also gives the option to remove mount skins from the store. I personally feel like this shouldn't exist in the marketplace, as it takes away from the value of obtaining the original mount in game. If the marketplace skin for a mount looks a lot cooler, what is the point of obtaining the original one in game?
Have you seen WoW? WoW has a box cost, also has box costs for expansions, botting, gold selling and multi-boxers are all inside WoW. A box cost will add more expense to you and me and won't stop anything. Why should normal players have to pay more because some people want to be abnormal?
Its not only for multiboxers. Also, NO, multiboxers, botters and goldsellers do NOT use hacked accounts to do it as it would be too easy to ban them. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
Also, I mentioned multiple other reasons in my post. Instead of being triggered, why don't you read my entire post?
WoW is different. Not only is it more expensive, due to the presence of EXPANSION costs, you can buy in game time in WoW with WoW tokens. That's why botting, gold selling and the like are so prevalent in WoW.
If WoW didn't have WoW tokens, you wouldn't see NEARLY the same amount of botters and gold-sellers.
Yoy can't stop people from having multiple accounts. I don't think any games have been successful. Reporting and in game GM presence is your only hope. Other than that its cat and mouse trying to catch botters using software cheats.
It isn't just about people with multiple accounts. What about the other 2 reasons I mentioned?
Let's say I see a youtube video and I seem to like the game.
Woah, now I have to pay 60 USD to just try the game, and those 60 come with 30 days trial, so I'm basically paying 45 USD to try the game.
Nowadays with so many free games, asking gamers to pay 60 bucks just to try a game is a huge entry barrier. On the other hand you can pay 15, try the game, get your money's worth and if you don't like it you didn't lose money.
Doesn't have to be 60$. I suggested 25 to 30$. This way its not super expensive for those who wish to try the game out. My main reasons for suggesting a box cost, was not multiboxing, but rather the other 2 reasons I mentioned in my post.
Reporting and GMs is the solution for botters. If software doesn't catch them then it has to be done manually.
I think they actually make more off the skins than any box cost. I actually prefer non advantage micro transactions over box cost or monthly fees.
I have 3 kids so I can't go crazy on spending for pixies. Also my wife wants to play but we're on a tight budget so buying 2 copies would not be possible.
Take path of exile. 100% micro transactions. Now over time I've spent more than a box cost but when I could and on what I wanted. With having micro transactions I actually lowered the sub to 9.99 / month maybe even 4.99.
$30 a month plus expansion cost is why I quit WoW in the first place.
That being said I will no longer play games where you can buy gear, exp pots, etc.
They will pay the cost because they make enough money to cover it. Multibox botting exists in games with a box cost.
Although I'm not a fan of cash shop, even with cosmetics only (a long time trauma), I really think that having sub fee only will do more good than bad for the game, attracting many more players, since you don't have a box 'barrier'.
While i have no problem with the game having a box cost because i can afford it and then some, i know plenty of people who wouldn't want to play it because it has a box cost and a subscription fee and they can't justify that kind of expense.
It also didn't do anything for huge games like WoW. Both retail and Classic WoW have a massive problem with botters and multiboxers - that issue has only skyrocketed in Classic. Box cost and sub do not stop bad actors because the risk vs reward for them is still too good to pass on.
At the end of the day, Intrepid have designed a business plan with only subscriptions and a cosmetic real money cash shop. Going back on that would be bad in a lot of ways, not to mention that it will lower their customer base in an age where everything is free. It just looks bad and for a company that hasn't even released a product yet it looks extra bad.
I heard a bird ♫
In my opinion, having only sub cost, is good balance in preventing game from going P2W free to play crap, but also attracting enough people to play it and growing player base naturally as time goes by.
Also, when the card is finally recovered those charges can be reversed.
Cost won't impact botters / gold sellers.