Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Monetization Takes Center Stage in Magic: Legends Open Beta | Quick 5 | MMORPG.com

SystemSystem Member UncommonPosts: 7,110
edited March 29 in Videos Discussion

imageMonetization Takes Center Stage in Magic: Legends Open Beta | Quick 5 | MMORPG.com

If you've got 5 minutes to spare, this week's Quick 5 will get you all caught up on the news to know over the past week.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • razor247razor247 Member UncommonPosts: 147
    Magic the wallet gathering legends of cash ....why even bother making a cash grab single player diablo wanna be..your first supposed to hook them then later charge them...you clowns started with gimme your wallet...DOA
    XodicfoppoteeMcSleazalkarionlogFrodoFraginsTacticalZombehcheyane
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,144
    edited March 29
    It's a Cryptic game published by PWE that uses the same monetization scheme as Neverwinter and STO. It shouldn't* be a surprise the monetization is aggressive and predatory. I like Neverwinter and STO, but the way the money thing works and how the games are built to drive those sales ruins it for me.

    Cryptic made a big mistake, in my opinion, by selling MTG as an ARPG. They should have billed it 89as a "unique" deck-building multiplayer experience and went with that. Trying to sell it as an ARPG just put the wrong message and expectations out there.

    *fixed a typo.
    Post edited by Torval on
    foppoteeTuor7GdemamiFrodoFragins
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • foppoteefoppotee Member UncommonPosts: 340
    Having a cash-shop during a phase for testing a video game exposes their true priority, microtransactions.

    With the developer being Cryptic & the publisher being PWE I wouldn't be surprised that if/when the game officially releases there'll still be bugs around from the testing phase yet the cash-shop will work just fine.

    The actual video game takes a backseat to the disguise of the online casino operations.
    Tuor7TorvalGdemamiMcSleazFrodoFraginsTacticalZombeh
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 15,409
    Torval said:
    It's a Cryptic game published by PWE that uses the same monetization scheme as Neverwinter and STO. It should be surprise the monetization is aggressive and predatory. I like Neverwinter and STO, but the way the money thing works and how the games are built to drive those sales ruins it for me.

    Cryptic made a big mistake, in my opinion, by selling MTG as an ARPG. They should have billed it 89as a "unique" deck-building multiplayer experience and went with that. Trying to sell it as an ARPG just put the wrong message and expectations out there.
    The thing is that they could have made it anything - even an ARPG - and still have "deck building" without the need for the extra RNG for which skill you can use while fighting,

    The character building part of ARPGs is separate from the combat and there's a lot of flexibility in how you build a character from one game to the next. It's in fact, IMO, how they differentiate themselves from each other.

    They could have done the building part of the game in the traditional P2W analog card game way with "booster packs" (loot crates) etc. for which skills your character has available to use.

    But they didn't stop there and tried to bring the same randomized card drawing mechanic into the combat itself. I get that they're trying to emulate that part of the MTG analog game but that's where it falls apart because that difference does not feel better in an ARPG - I would actually expand that to be any computer game - than the conventions that already exist.

    It didn't work for Richard Garriott any better when he tried the same thing with SOTA. In the context of computer games it doesn't feel better, just different. It doesn't advance the ARPG genre in any meaningful way just like that part of SOTA didn't advance MMO combat either. It's just different for the sake of being different.


    TorvalGdemamiFrodoFraginsTacticalZombeh
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    It's a game based on a game that was all about you paying lots of money to get rare cards.. and people are shocked that it's all about making money. 
    McSleazcheyane
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,144
    Ungood said:
    It's a game based on a game that was all about you paying lots of money to get rare cards.. and people are shocked that it's all about making money. 

    World of Warcraft is based on a game and is all about a low drop rate RNG to get rare drops and Blizzard seems to manage being able to offer interesting game play. In fact, that could be said about most games, especially GAAS/MMO games that are continually monetized.
    GdemamiMcSleaz
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,144
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    It's a Cryptic game published by PWE that uses the same monetization scheme as Neverwinter and STO. It should be surprise the monetization is aggressive and predatory. I like Neverwinter and STO, but the way the money thing works and how the games are built to drive those sales ruins it for me.

    Cryptic made a big mistake, in my opinion, by selling MTG as an ARPG. They should have billed it 89as a "unique" deck-building multiplayer experience and went with that. Trying to sell it as an ARPG just put the wrong message and expectations out there.
    The thing is that they could have made it anything - even an ARPG - and still have "deck building" without the need for the extra RNG for which skill you can use while fighting,

    The character building part of ARPGs is separate from the combat and there's a lot of flexibility in how you build a character from one game to the next. It's in fact, IMO, how they differentiate themselves from each other.

    They could have done the building part of the game in the traditional P2W analog card game way with "booster packs" (loot crates) etc. for which skills your character has available to use.

    But they didn't stop there and tried to bring the same randomized card drawing mechanic into the combat itself. I get that they're trying to emulate that part of the MTG analog game but that's where it falls apart because that difference does not feel better in an ARPG - I would actually expand that to be any computer game - than the conventions that already exist.

    It didn't work for Richard Garriott any better when he tried the same thing with SOTA. In the context of computer games it doesn't feel better, just different. It doesn't advance the ARPG genre in any meaningful way just like that part of SOTA didn't advance MMO combat either. It's just different for the sake of being different.



    I agree, and they could have done so and not just make an excuse for a cash shop. However, seeing the game play it doesn't look like an ARPG to me and by billing it as such they created some expectations they couldn't deliver.

    Wizard 101 is a deck builder and quite interesting in my opinion. Wizard is probably the earliest game I can think of that offered dynamic grouping. When you and another player attack the same monster you're both put in the combat scene. I think Cryptic missed a huge opportunity to one up Wizard 101 with the MTG IP.

    Much like the Warhammer IP, the license holders seem to care more about the revenue first while the game is just a low effort vehicle to act as a wallet tapper.
    IselinGdemamiNildenTacticalZombehcheyane
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • NycteliosNyctelios Member EpicPosts: 3,920
    Torval said:
    Iselin said:
    Torval said:
    It's a Cryptic game published by PWE that uses the same monetization scheme as Neverwinter and STO. It should be surprise the monetization is aggressive and predatory. I like Neverwinter and STO, but the way the money thing works and how the games are built to drive those sales ruins it for me.

    Cryptic made a big mistake, in my opinion, by selling MTG as an ARPG. They should have billed it 89as a "unique" deck-building multiplayer experience and went with that. Trying to sell it as an ARPG just put the wrong message and expectations out there.
    The thing is that they could have made it anything - even an ARPG - and still have "deck building" without the need for the extra RNG for which skill you can use while fighting,

    The character building part of ARPGs is separate from the combat and there's a lot of flexibility in how you build a character from one game to the next. It's in fact, IMO, how they differentiate themselves from each other.

    They could have done the building part of the game in the traditional P2W analog card game way with "booster packs" (loot crates) etc. for which skills your character has available to use.

    But they didn't stop there and tried to bring the same randomized card drawing mechanic into the combat itself. I get that they're trying to emulate that part of the MTG analog game but that's where it falls apart because that difference does not feel better in an ARPG - I would actually expand that to be any computer game - than the conventions that already exist.

    It didn't work for Richard Garriott any better when he tried the same thing with SOTA. In the context of computer games it doesn't feel better, just different. It doesn't advance the ARPG genre in any meaningful way just like that part of SOTA didn't advance MMO combat either. It's just different for the sake of being different.



    I agree, and they could have done so and not just make an excuse for a cash shop. However, seeing the game play it doesn't look like an ARPG to me and by billing it as such they created some expectations they couldn't deliver.

    Wizard 101 is a deck builder and quite interesting in my opinion. Wizard is probably the earliest game I can think of that offered dynamic grouping. When you and another player attack the same monster you're both put in the combat scene. I think Cryptic missed a huge opportunity to one up Wizard 101 with the MTG IP.

    Much like the Warhammer IP, the license holders seem to care more about the revenue first while the game is just a low effort vehicle to act as a wallet tapper.
    I saw early builds and I don't remember seeing the card mechanic...

    Am I wrong or did they add it later in the production pipeline?

    Because it does feel tacked on. I don't mind the RNG but in MTG (and most card based games) you have mechanics to kinda control the RNG. So I think it missing from the game is what hurts it the most.

    At least I'm unaware if there is a way to, Idk, spend mana and draw more cards or spend mana and discard a certain spell.
    Discord ID: Night # 6102
    Current playing: 
    Elite Dangerous

    "There is a fine line between consideration and hesitation. The former is wisdom, the latter is fear." Izaro Phrecius, Holy Emperor of the Eternal Empire, Last of Royal Phrecius Family.
  • WargfootWargfoot Member RarePosts: 455
    Ungood said:
    It's a game based on a game that was all about you paying lots of money to get rare cards.. and people are shocked that it's all about making money. 
    Now I'm wondering how they got around 'rare' cards being a form of gambling?
    Is that why baseball cards at one time contained a stick of gum?

    Torval
  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 3,220
    Ungood said:
    It's a game based on a game that was all about you paying lots of money to get rare cards.. and people are shocked that it's all about making money. 
    I've seen a couple people say this and from my point of view it's not shock, it's disgust.

    The bar is so low they might as well just drop it on the floor. 

    They should sell a card back with a modified M:TG logo of a wallet opening.
    TorvalMcSleazFrodoFragins

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer

    Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/ 

  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    It's a game based on a game that was all about you paying lots of money to get rare cards.. and people are shocked that it's all about making money. 

    World of Warcraft is based on a game and is all about a low drop rate RNG to get rare drops and Blizzard seems to manage being able to offer interesting game play. In fact, that could be said about most games, especially GAAS/MMO games that are continually monetized.
    Warcraft is an IP created by Blizzard. World of Warcraft is based off their Original RTS called Warcraft, that has nothing to do with spending money to collect rare anything,. or even RNG at all for that matter.

    Magic the Gathering was a CCG (Collectable Card Game) where the whole point of the game was to get players to buy huge amounts of cards to play the odds in their favor and collect powerful and rare cards to give them an edge to win the game.

    The two really have nothing in common.

    However, to expect that a game based off MtG, to not somehow be a Gacha game at it's core, is just being naïve', and in fact, if it's not, I would be amazed.

    Wargfoot said:
    Ungood said:
    It's a game based on a game that was all about you paying lots of money to get rare cards.. and people are shocked that it's all about making money. 
    Now I'm wondering how they got around 'rare' cards being a form of gambling?
    Is that why baseball cards at one time contained a stick of gum?

    That is because it was not a an actual gamble, you could not lose nor could you win, as every booster pack was guaranteed to have a fixed set of cards of equal rarity.

    You would always get 15 cards, that would be broken down as follows.
    1 Rare.
    2 Uncomon
    4 Commons
    8 Basic Land

    You would always get this exact breakdown, every single time you bought a booster pack. As such, It's was not a gamble, because you always got your dollars worth with each and every single pack.

    It became purely a matter of which rares a player wanted, not if might or might not get a rare card.

    Modern loot boxes are a gamble, because you might get a rare, you might not. That did not exist with MtG cards, you always got your guaranteed 1 rare card with every booster, you always got your 2 uncommons, and you always got your 4 commons, and 8 land cards.

    This was a fixed ratio, and truth be told, if Loot boxes played the same way, they would not be a gamble either, but instead Lootboxes were set it up so that it was a total gamble that you might get an ultra rare, you might get total crap, and that is a gamble.

    As far as the open trade market, and dollar value of the cards, was placed by players, based on demand, not on the actual rarity of the cards themselves. 

    Ergo, there might be a million Mox Emeralds and a million Mox Ruby in circulation, but because the people that play Red decks far outnumber the people that play Green, the Mox Ruby becomes more sought after, and thus has a higher trade market value, but as far as the production, circulation, and the company itself is concerned, they are of equal rarity, as such, it is not gambling as far as they go.
    Gdemami
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • TwistedSister77TwistedSister77 Member RarePosts: 746
    Nobody answered my question about this for the game, can you trade any card and any item with other players?
    Torval
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,144
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    It's a game based on a game that was all about you paying lots of money to get rare cards.. and people are shocked that it's all about making money. 

    World of Warcraft is based on a game and is all about a low drop rate RNG to get rare drops and Blizzard seems to manage being able to offer interesting game play. In fact, that could be said about most games, especially GAAS/MMO games that are continually monetized.
    Warcraft is an IP created by Blizzard. World of Warcraft is based off their Original RTS called Warcraft, that has nothing to do with spending money to collect rare anything,. or even RNG at all for that matter.

    Magic the Gathering was a CCG (Collectable Card Game) where the whole point of the game was to get players to buy huge amounts of cards to play the odds in their favor and collect powerful and rare cards to give them an edge to win the game.

    The two really have nothing in common.

    However, to expect that a game based off MtG, to not somehow be a Gacha game at it's core, is just being naïve', and in fact, if it's not, I would be amazed.
    Sure it is and you're making completely obtuse illogical leaps to conclusions based on very poor assumptions.

    Let's use Warhammer and IP also based on spending large sums of money in a miniatures game. It is possible, and there are plenty of example games that show the IP can used for games that aren't heavily monetized.

    Claiming the MTG IP demands extensive monetization is completely illogical. Nothing about the lore surrounding the game demands that. Nothing but the CCG aspect itself demands that and I would even go so far as to say a CCG doesn't need to be predatory or heavily monetized any more than any other loot chase game with items rarity.
    Gdemami
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 15,409
    Nobody answered my question about this for the game, can you trade any card and any item with other players?
    Cards yes through their version of an AH but not gear. Gear is all BOP.
    TwistedSister77
    “Microtransactions? In a single player role-playing game? Are you nuts?” 
    ― CD PROJEKT RED

    "... the "influencers" which is the tech name we call sell outs now..."
    __ Wizardry, 2020
  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    edited March 29
    Torval said:
    Claiming the MTG IP demands extensive monetization is completely illogical. Nothing about the lore surrounding the game demands that. Nothing but the CCG aspect itself demands that and I would even go so far as to say a CCG doesn't need to be predatory or heavily monetized any more than any other loot chase game with items rarity.

    It's a video game based on a CCG... Any Publisher that did not jump on that premise to monetize their game, really should not be into game design to start with, or even business in general to pass up such a opportune means to make money.


    Anyone that did not see that coming, really needs to rethink how easy they can be played.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,144
    edited March 29
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Claiming the MTG IP demands extensive monetization is completely illogical. Nothing about the lore surrounding the game demands that. Nothing but the CCG aspect itself demands that and I would even go so far as to say a CCG doesn't need to be predatory or heavily monetized any more than any other loot chase game with items rarity.

    It's a video game based on a CCG... Any Publisher that did not jump on that premise to monetize their game, really should not be into game design to start with, or even business in general to pass up such a opportune means to make money.


    Anyone that did not see that coming, really needs to rethink how easy they can be played.

    So, you're saying Creative Assembly and SEGA never should have made and published the Warhammer: Total War series. The series is wildly popular and has reasonably priced DLC without going overboard. Your wild assumptions make no sense.

    Sometimes overpricing and overcharging backfires. I guess we'll see how successful this venture really ends up.
    Gdemami
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Claiming the MTG IP demands extensive monetization is completely illogical. Nothing about the lore surrounding the game demands that. Nothing but the CCG aspect itself demands that and I would even go so far as to say a CCG doesn't need to be predatory or heavily monetized any more than any other loot chase game with items rarity.

    It's a video game based on a CCG... Any Publisher that did not jump on that premise to monetize their game, really should not be into game design to start with, or even business in general to pass up such a opportune means to make money.


    Anyone that did not see that coming, really needs to rethink how easy they can be played.

    So, you're saying Creative Assembly and SEGA never should have made and published the Warhammer: Total War series. The series is wildly popular and has reasonably priced DLC without going overboard. Your wild assumptions make no sense.

    Sometimes overpricing and overcharging backfires. I guess we'll see how successful this venture really ends up.

    It's a video game based on a Iconic CCG, anyone that did not expect the publisher to take advantage of that feature to monetize their game, is.. well.. adorably innocent.
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,144
    edited March 29
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Claiming the MTG IP demands extensive monetization is completely illogical. Nothing about the lore surrounding the game demands that. Nothing but the CCG aspect itself demands that and I would even go so far as to say a CCG doesn't need to be predatory or heavily monetized any more than any other loot chase game with items rarity.

    It's a video game based on a CCG... Any Publisher that did not jump on that premise to monetize their game, really should not be into game design to start with, or even business in general to pass up such a opportune means to make money.


    Anyone that did not see that coming, really needs to rethink how easy they can be played.

    So, you're saying Creative Assembly and SEGA never should have made and published the Warhammer: Total War series. The series is wildly popular and has reasonably priced DLC without going overboard. Your wild assumptions make no sense.

    Sometimes overpricing and overcharging backfires. I guess we'll see how successful this venture really ends up.

    It's a video game based on a Iconic CCG, anyone that did not expect the publisher to take advantage of that feature to monetize their game, is.. well.. adorably innocent.

    You keep repeating yourself with the same empty argument. It won't make it any truer if you keep reposting it, although that seems to be a popular tack right now in the US.

    If you've played STO or Neverwinter you'd know already how Cryptic would setup the currency system. It was already destined for heavy aggressive monetization no matter what the IP which was my original point before you tried to share some special insight into how MTG has to work.



    Gdemami
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Claiming the MTG IP demands extensive monetization is completely illogical. Nothing about the lore surrounding the game demands that. Nothing but the CCG aspect itself demands that and I would even go so far as to say a CCG doesn't need to be predatory or heavily monetized any more than any other loot chase game with items rarity.

    It's a video game based on a CCG... Any Publisher that did not jump on that premise to monetize their game, really should not be into game design to start with, or even business in general to pass up such a opportune means to make money.


    Anyone that did not see that coming, really needs to rethink how easy they can be played.

    So, you're saying Creative Assembly and SEGA never should have made and published the Warhammer: Total War series. The series is wildly popular and has reasonably priced DLC without going overboard. Your wild assumptions make no sense.

    Sometimes overpricing and overcharging backfires. I guess we'll see how successful this venture really ends up.

    It's a video game based on a Iconic CCG, anyone that did not expect the publisher to take advantage of that feature to monetize their game, is.. well.. adorably innocent.

    You keep repeating yourself with the same empty argument. It won't make it any truer if you keep reposting it, although that seems to be a popular tack right now in the US.

    If you've played STO or Neverwinter you'd know already how Cryptic would setup the currency system. It was already destined for heavy aggressive monetization no matter what the IP which was my original point before you tried to share some special insight into how MTG has to work.



    If you already knew the company was into heavy monetization, and still did not expect them to take advantage of the CCG feature of MTG to further that end.. I have no idea what to tell you man.
    SkitzoX
    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • TorvalTorval Member LegendaryPosts: 21,144
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Claiming the MTG IP demands extensive monetization is completely illogical. Nothing about the lore surrounding the game demands that. Nothing but the CCG aspect itself demands that and I would even go so far as to say a CCG doesn't need to be predatory or heavily monetized any more than any other loot chase game with items rarity.

    It's a video game based on a CCG... Any Publisher that did not jump on that premise to monetize their game, really should not be into game design to start with, or even business in general to pass up such a opportune means to make money.


    Anyone that did not see that coming, really needs to rethink how easy they can be played.

    So, you're saying Creative Assembly and SEGA never should have made and published the Warhammer: Total War series. The series is wildly popular and has reasonably priced DLC without going overboard. Your wild assumptions make no sense.

    Sometimes overpricing and overcharging backfires. I guess we'll see how successful this venture really ends up.

    It's a video game based on a Iconic CCG, anyone that did not expect the publisher to take advantage of that feature to monetize their game, is.. well.. adorably innocent.

    You keep repeating yourself with the same empty argument. It won't make it any truer if you keep reposting it, although that seems to be a popular tack right now in the US.

    If you've played STO or Neverwinter you'd know already how Cryptic would setup the currency system. It was already destined for heavy aggressive monetization no matter what the IP which was my original point before you tried to share some special insight into how MTG has to work.



    If you already knew the company was into heavy monetization, and still did not expect them to take advantage of the CCG feature of MTG to further that end.. I have no idea what to tell you man.

    I don't really need you to tell or "enlighten" me about anything man. To me it sounds like you're saying people should just put up with it and I reject that.  I'm pointing out how predatory and vulgar this monetization model is and criticizing them for going full-on with it. This has nothing to do with mismatched expectations and everything to do with pushing back against bad industry practices that get virtue signaled by people willing to throw money at anything they're told to.
    Gdemami
    traveller, interloper, anomaly, iteration


  • UngoodUngood Member LegendaryPosts: 5,563
    Torval said:
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    You keep repeating yourself with the same empty argument. It won't make it any truer if you keep reposting it, although that seems to be a popular tack right now in the US.

    If you've played STO or Neverwinter you'd know already how Cryptic would setup the currency system. It was already destined for heavy aggressive monetization no matter what the IP which was my original point before you tried to share some special insight into how MTG has to work.



    If you already knew the company was into heavy monetization, and still did not expect them to take advantage of the CCG feature of MTG to further that end.. I have no idea what to tell you man.

    I don't really need you to tell or "enlighten" me about anything man. To me it sounds like you're saying people should just put up with it and I reject that.  I'm pointing out how predatory and vulgar this monetization model is and criticizing them for going full-on with it. This has nothing to do with mismatched expectations and everything to do with pushing back against bad industry practices that get virtue signaled by people willing to throw money at anything they're told to.
    No. It's about some illusion of expectation that a game built off a predatory system of getting players to spend money to beat an CCG RNG system would not be predatory in and of it's own right.

    Couple that with a company known for being aggressive with their monetization systems, you have only yourself to blame if you expected anything other than this outcome.



    Egotism is the anesthetic that dullens the pain of stupidity, this is why when I try to beat my head against the stupidity of other people, I only hurt myself.
  • Mars_OMGMars_OMG Member EpicPosts: 3,317
    edited March 29
    Torval said:
    It's a Cryptic game published by PWE that uses the same monetization scheme as Neverwinter and STO. It shouldn't* be a surprise the monetization is aggressive and predatory. I like Neverwinter and STO, but the way the money thing works and how the games are built to drive those sales ruins it for me.

    Cryptic made a big mistake, in my opinion, by selling MTG as an ARPG. They should have billed it 89as a "unique" deck-building multiplayer experience and went with that. Trying to sell it as an ARPG just put the wrong message and expectations out there.

    *fixed a typo.
    I have to disagree with you on Cryptic. Since Cryptic began the free to play system, they have always had a currency exchange. The currency exchange allows players to exchange in game currency for item shop currency and vis versa. 

    I'm not getting where the system is "predatory" ? 

    How many other games give player the opputtunity to earn cash shop currency from inside the game ? 2 come to mind, SWtoR and LotrO..

    IMHO predatory means shady or deceitful, Crytic in my opinion have been one of the more transparent developers in how they use the cash shop. By the same standards isn't every game published predatory ? really need to define the word "predatory" first because it not really saying why, but "it just is"  and that is not enough to formulate an honest repsonse to something that is completely subjective. 
    - abandoning social media could possibly save the world.  
    #RestoreTheSnyderVerse 
  • TwistedSister77TwistedSister77 Member RarePosts: 746
    edited March 29
    I believe there will be a lot of players that have never before played a Cryptic/pw game, simply are MTG fans or ARPG fans (or both)... not as informed as people here on this forum.

    So buyer beware on the publisher will not apply to the fresh blood.
    UngoodGdemamitzervo
  • FrodoFraginsFrodoFragins Member EpicPosts: 5,046
    foppotee said:
    Having a cash-shop during a phase for testing a video game exposes their true priority, microtransactions.

    With the developer being Cryptic & the publisher being PWE I wouldn't be surprised that if/when the game officially releases there'll still be bugs around from the testing phase yet the cash-shop will work just fine.

    The actual video game takes a backseat to the disguise of the online casino operations.
    While it does look really bad to have a fully functional shop but a buggy game.  It's likely that they reused tons of their store code from their other games and thus just need to make new entries.
  • NildenNilden Member EpicPosts: 3,220
    Ungood said:
    Torval said:
    Claiming the MTG IP demands extensive monetization is completely illogical. Nothing about the lore surrounding the game demands that. Nothing but the CCG aspect itself demands that and I would even go so far as to say a CCG doesn't need to be predatory or heavily monetized any more than any other loot chase game with items rarity.

    It's a video game based on a CCG... Any Publisher that did not jump on that premise to monetize their game, really should not be into game design to start with, or even business in general to pass up such a opportune means to make money.


    Anyone that did not see that coming, really needs to rethink how easy they can be played.
    The monetization is a sign of the times and the absolute greed these companies have. I remember M:TG Battlegrounds and buying it for the box price. 

    Magic Battlegrounds Coverjpg
    TorvalGdemami

    "You CAN'T buy ships for RL money." - MaxBacon

    "classification of games into MMOs is not by rational reasoning" - nariusseldon

    Love Minecraft. And check out my Youtube channel OhCanadaGamer

    Try a MUD today at http://www.mudconnect.com/ 

Sign In or Register to comment.