The inevitable Bushwhacker price thread.

(EvoSteven) #81

I agree that the comparison isn’t 1:1 ofcourse. I know people spend money on champions in LoL but there are a LOT of champions (over 120 now I believe, not sure) and are easier to get by playing than in DB (30k is a grind already, let alone 50k).

But there are very few mercs right now so it’s kind of obvious that they are harder to get?

One thing League of Legend has is… many, MANY different tiers of pricing. You can get a new champion in 2 games if you get the cheapest ones.

But not the same game, ofcourse. Just stating that whatever you do in DB, it’s either a lot of money to spend, or a grind. In LoL you have cheaper options, and not too expensive champions.

(immenseWalnut) #82

[quote=“ivoryQuestion;13173”]I had Early Access, and I still brought all the goodies including Bush, Just because I wanted to support the game and I like Bushwacker, also - Reasons.
Also - Nexon … like … go figure :wink:
#Nosurprisesthere
[/quote]

If there are no surprises there, then why did you choose to support them? If you are are willing to pay for overpriced content, then you are validating their monetisation plan.

Not a big deal if just a few people choose to say yes, but when more and more do it, you are telling Nexon that even if you hate them, even if you hate their monetisation plan, you are still going to get your wallet out regardless (and they just love people like that, fools that are still willing to hand over money even if they hate themselves for doing so).

I highly doubt this idea of releasing a new merc every few weeks has anything to do with balance, it is more about injecting something new once the game starts to grow stale, and giving everyone that has already spent money enough time to forget about it. If we had every merc available from day one, it would be easy enough to add up the real money unlock value, at which point you would be looking at $100-$150 to unlock every merc. Most people would ditch the game at that point, but adding them to the game in a trickle makes it easier to fool people. Does anyone actually believe this game is worth that amount of money?

(EvoSteven) #83

It does help balancing though, adding them one by one.
Start with a balanced set of merc and add them one by one. If anything changes about balance, you know what merc is the problem.

Else, you’ll be buffing and nerfing everything everywhere.

(immenseWalnut) #84

[quote=“EvoSteven;13892”]It does help balancing though, adding them one by one.
Start with a balanced set of merc and add them one by one. If anything changes about balance, you know what merc is the problem.

Else, you’ll be buffing and nerfing everything everywhere.[/quote]

Or, you could add a new merc every few weeks and ‘accidentally’ make them OP, and then blame ‘lack of testing’ followed by a period of investigation, then the promise of a balance update within the next few weeks?

Giving everyone enough time to purchase said merc and run around blasting people until they get nerfed. At which point the new super merc is ready for release.

Yeah yeah, I know, I’m cynical, but I saw this happen with Tribes Ascend and Hi Rez. And I wouldn’t put anything past Nexon, past experience has shown me they are far more motivated by greed than making great games with a fair monetisation plan.

Food for thought.

(EvoSteven) #85

I know. League of Legends is also subject to this. Release a new champion every week that is somehow overpowered and nerf it a week later (after cashing in ofcourse).

I do have hopes for SD though. So far they haven’t done anything wrong really (apart from the pricing ofcourse…)

(ivoryQuestion) #86

I dont mind paying for things I want in games within reason for me.
i.e spent £20 on a pre-order premium ship for WoWs, Nexons sales strategy doesn’t surprise me at all because its Nexon, Will I spend $150 on all the Mercs, no because im lucky enough to had played the ones I already like.
The reason I got the starter pack was twofold, mercs and credit, it obviously supports SD and Nexon as well.
Also unfortunately this is the marketing model for most and I say most here so dont list the ones that are use some kind of microtransactions in there f2p games, now the pricing is obviously different with every company and every game as well as the amount people are willing/unwilling to spend.

I have less time to grind and I think that the current price both in credits and in $$ is too high but hey, its Nexon dude, not Trion.

(immenseWalnut) #87

[quote=“EvoSteven;13895”]I know. League of Legends is also subject to this. Release a new champion every week that is somehow overpowered and nerf it a week later (after cashing in ofcourse).

I do have hopes for SD though. So far they haven’t done anything wrong really (apart from the pricing ofcourse…)[/quote]

SD has no say in it though. Dirty Bomb doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to Nexon, they own the publishing rights, and they are notorious for being greedy and more interested in conning people instead of offering fair value.

I would say Valve is the only F2P company out there that actually gets it right, the rest are more interested in fast cash grabs, and to hell if the game dies as a result (and they often do).

(EvoSteven) #88

[quote=“immenseWalnut;13899”][quote=“EvoSteven;13895”]I know. League of Legends is also subject to this. Release a new champion every week that is somehow overpowered and nerf it a week later (after cashing in ofcourse).

I do have hopes for SD though. So far they haven’t done anything wrong really (apart from the pricing ofcourse…)[/quote]

SD has no say in it though. Dirty Bomb doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to Nexon, they own the publishing rights, and they are notorious for being greedy and more interested in conning people instead of offering fair value.

I would say Valve is the only F2P company out there that actually gets it right, the rest are more interested in fast cash grabs, and to hell if the game dies as a result (and they often do).

[/quote]
They have some say if they meet their expectations. I doubt they’re going to force SD to make OP mercs. But yes, Nexon is notorious and I’ve never really enjoyed any of their services or doings.

(Zenity) #89

If you have such an axe to grind with Nexon, then what are you doing here? Don’t say “to keep them honest” because that’s not what you are doing if you are prejudging them.

The “accidentally release new stuff OP, then tweak it later with a price reduction” scheme is annoying, which is why I am pleasantly surprised that Bushwhacker seems to be perfectly in line.

What pisses me off a bit is that people expect SD not just to refrain from any “cheap” marketing tactics, but at the same time keep prices incredibly low. Sometimes you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

If you think that things were so much better in the past, then let me tell you exactly which two options we would have had:

  1. SD releases the game then moves on to the next project, the game is dead after a couple of years.

  2. You pay a monthly subscription fee.

Now which of these two options do you prefer over the current model exactly?

(Szakalot) #90

Yup. Mercs are released as super OP to later be nerfed. Esp. the free starting Aura.

Not sure where you got the 100-150$ price tag from. You can get 5 mercs for 4$ each (starter pack); and presumably Bushy’s price will be downplayed in the following weeks. One merc is for free due to the 24k level-up bonuses (plus some random missions). Out of the currently-known-to-be-playable 15, 7 more mercs remain. Altogether the price doesn’t go above 50$ for all the mercs. We shall see. In the meantime let us spin more theories on how SD has no control over the game they are developing.

(EvoSteven) #91

I don’t expect them to be super cheap. But not this expensive.
It’s better to have 100 people buying something that costs 5 dollars, than 20 people buying something that costs 10 dollars.

(immenseWalnut) #92

[quote=“Zenity;13905”]If you think that things were so much better in the past, then let me tell you exactly which two options we would have had:

  1. SD releases the game then moves on to the next project, the game is dead after a couple of years.

  2. You pay a monthly subscription fee.

Now which of these two options do you prefer over the current model exactly?[/quote]

How about the one that successful games use? You know, Dota 2, TF2 etc.

Ones that aim for a large playerbase, longevity and offer real value for real money payed.

You make is sound as though those are the only options we have, which isn’t the case. The monetisation plan for this game will hurt it in the long run in terms of a large playerbase and longevity.

And Szakalot, I stopped taking you seriously weeks ago, even if the payment model was even more ludicrous than it already is (rent-a-merc!, £7 per merc per week etc) you would still support it. I wonder what it would actually take before you stopped fanboying for them.

(Szakalot) #93

You will definitely win arguments, if you put words in the other’s people mouths. Good job!

Fortunately, this is a digital forum; so everybody can see what is what.

I def. think that 10$ for a merc is overpriced. I’ve went against merc-rental on multiple occasions. And I’m pretty confident to say that >50% of my posts are about what is wrong with the game : )

Feel free to point out where you got that 100-150$ price from. I’m gonna look for more donkey pictures, for when you’ve got the answer.

(Zenity) #94

[quote=“EvoSteven;13912”]I don’t expect them to be super cheap. But not this expensive.
It’s better to have 100 people buying something that costs 5 dollars, than 20 people buying something that costs 10 dollars.[/quote]

Yeah but sadly it doesn’t usually work like that. That’s the argument gamers always use to ask for cheaper prices, but some people have actually researched this stuff and figured out the “ideal” prices to sell things at.

By the same logic you could say that CoD should lower their price to $30 and sell three times as much. But again, sadly it doesn’t work like that. There is always a fixed number of people who really want a product, and a certain price they are willing to pay. There will always be some who would only pay a lower amount (e.g. I could be tempted with CoD at a certain low price point, definitely not for what it’s actually selling), but the numbers need to add up.

If the number of people who would buy a product at a lower price point isn’t high enough to make up for the lost revenue from the lower price point (and that’s what market research can determine pretty well), then you are much better off targeting those customers with sales or after some time when most of those who are willing to pay the higher price have already bought the product.

So, is 10 bucks really excessively expensive? If you look at it only in terms of the amount of content you get for it then yes, absolutely. If you look at it as a way to support the game and subsidize the free content, then not so much.

Everybody will decide for themselves, and if not enough people buy at this price point, then perhaps they will change their pricing strategy. But there is nothing immoral about picking the prices which they believe will work best. You can choose to spend the full amount, skip this bit of content, or wait for a better deal.

If none of those options are at all acceptable to you, then you also have the option to stop playing the game altogether. And if a lot of people choose that option, then they will of course also take this into consideration. But when it comes to this, actions really do speak louder than words.

(EvoSteven) #95

It does SORT OF work like that. Hence, there’s a sweet spot.
As it stands right now, only a very limited amount of people will buy the content.
Putting it at 1$ is then again, not profitable.

10$ is a lot for a single merc. It’s by far not worth it. I don’t have money to waste on things that are not even remotely worth it. I’m a founder so I have already supported the game somewhat and I am not disappoint with the amount of content I got for it (which is, now, almost nothing, but the point of “founder” isn’t content).

Everyone has a different price, just what price is the most profitable? I don’t have to be a marketing guy to know that 10$ for a single merc isn’t going to work very well and limits the audience to only those who have that money and: are very desperate to get a merc, or willing to support the game. In this stage, there are a lot more people willing to support the game than any later stage obviously.

I should’ve explained a bit more what I meant by what I said, apologies.

(immenseWalnut) #96

You obviously forgot the option to purchase credits for real money, in order to purchase crates.

Granted, that isn’t what I would call an ‘upfront’ cost, and I highly doubt anyone would be willing to stump up a large amount of money just for mercs (unless it was part of a bonus package).

But if you look at what someone that actually enjoys the game might be willing to pay, to unlock all mercs (when they become available) and then to attempt to purchase loadout cards, you are looking at somewhere in that region.

I used dollars as a rough example anyway, I am British, so I would be thinking in terms of pounds. I have no idea how many more mercs are to come, but looking at the wiki, there are 19 mercs in total.

So lets take the given, that Skyhammer and Aura are free, that leaves 17, then lets assume that the average player uses his free credit giveaways to purchase one of the cheaper mercs. That leaves 16 mercs.

From the 8 available, 2 of them are free, and 2 of them are high price. That leaves 3 of them for the price of £4.79 (you got one free remember), and 2 more for £6.99. That comes to £28.35, just for the mercs we have available right now today (and not counting the one you get for the ‘free’ credit charity).

That leaves 11 potential mercs, and let’s be conservative here, and assume Nexon wont raise the price, and will stay will £6.99 for the rest of them. That would be £76.89 for the remaining, unreleased mercs, assuming they all cost the same as Fragger.

So here we go, simple addition, £76.89 + £28.35 = £105.24. And using the current exchange rate, that is $153.98.

Granted, there are many assumptions there, and in actual fact, I just made a rough guess when I chose that previous number, and it wasn’t far off.

So tell me, is my maths wrong? Is my digital information wrong? Are my assumptions too wild or inaccurate?

(Zenity) #97

I wonder if you can actually expand on the “etc”…

Valve is everybody’s role model, but unfortunately not everybody can be Valve. If it would be so easy, everybody would be doing this. Practically every game developer would like to be like them, and of course it’s acknowledged that there isn’t any system that is more awesome for gamers.

The catch is this…

  • Valve is making a ton of money from Steam, and even if Dota2 and TF2 would make no money at all, they could still afford the development just for the advertising it provides for the Steam service.

  • Both games already had a massive established fanbase before they were even released. Anything so massively popular can be monetised rather easily. The more niche your product is, the more you have to charge for it.

  • With Steam, Valve already had the perfect platform to profit from community markets. A share of each sale goes to the game, and another share of each sale goes to Steam. In other words, both shares go to Valve… No other publisher has this kind of platform, not even Nexon.

As much as I love Valve and this business model, it’s really annoying when people point to them and say “if they can do it, why can’t you? You must suck!”

Meh.

(Szakalot) #98

Good post, hopefully Devs will listen.

I still don’t think you are accurate (Seeing how a merc starter pack gives you 5 mercs for 20$ plus enough credits to get another one.), but I can see where you are coming from now.

I’d expect the Bushwhackers price to be toned down in the future, according to a timeline post some time ago bundles will be coming as well; so we can expect a sale.

I would definitely not expect the prices to be raised.

(EvoSteven) #99

F2P is a really difficult market, especially starting from nothing. You win some, you lose some. Only in Valve’s case is it a win-win for both the devs and the gamers.

I despise rental systems and overpriced items. Pay 2 win is terrible too, it may get you some easy buyers at first but it’ll slowly thin out your playerbase and eventually it’s not profitable enough and the remaining 10 players lose their game.

But you know, they actually need a LOT of money. And it’s only profitable in the long run. They need money to cover previous development (which is more than you might think) and to keep it going, servers, support, etc.

Nothing is free. Only few games are “free” as in allowing you to enjoy the full experience without spending a dime such as Valve games and I’d say League of Legends is a close follow-up.

(immenseWalnut) #100

[quote=“Szakalot;13927”]Good post, hopefully Devs will listen.

I still don’t think you are accurate (Seeing how a merc starter pack gives you 5 mercs for 20$ plus enough credits to get another one.), but I can see where you are coming from now.

I’d expect the Bushwhackers price to be toned down in the future, according to a timeline post some time ago bundles will be coming as well; so we can expect a sale.

I would definitely not expect the prices to be raised.[/quote]

I agree there, I doubt they will be raised (although I am still curious as to why Fragger and Bushwhacker cost more), and I would even expect to see a ‘deal of the day’ where you get a discount to encourage you to buy any given merc.

And yes, I was going for raw cost, and not taking packaged bundles into account, so there is that too.

But at the same time, I didn’t throw in any particular cost for buying crates (no way could I predict how much anyone would be willing to spend on those). So it could vary dramatically.

But still, even being conservative, and accounting for bundles, I would still consider anything more than £25 for the full merc complement to be overpriced and greedy. But that is just me, I have the money to pay for the whole lot individually if I wanted to, but I would consider it such a rip off I would feel like I had been conned if I did.

These monetisation schemes only work if enough people fall for them (sadly), they would fall off and die if they were universally boycotted, but good luck with that. The young average age of gamers makes them a prime target for being ripped off, us older folks (I’m 37 in July) tend to be a bit more cynical about such things.

EDIT: And another point to consider in particular for me, I work in the Merchant Navy, so I spend long periods of time away from home where I can’t play games (usually 4 months as a rule). In the past I have stumped up money to contribute to a game, and bought myself some new stuff, only to come back from sea and find the game has died while I was away. When you spend money on a game, you want it to be an investment instead of a flash in the pan waste. And the more you get burned, the more cynical and tight with your money you will become. Hence my lack of choice to pay anything towards DB, I am due back at sea in June, which means I wont be back until October. I fully expect DB to be dead by then, unless the publishers come up with something new.