Howdy, Stranger!

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

No Coverage of Elk-gate?

IkedaIkeda Member RarePosts: 2,751
I would have thought a $36 DLC Elk (that really isn't a very good model) would have at least made some statement over here.
«1

Comments

  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    A moose? 

    Sorry, Swedish humor.
  • syriinxsyriinx Member UncommonPosts: 1,383
    I dont see the controversy at all.  The price is ridiculous, but there are plenty of other ways to get a mount.  If players dont buy it, they wont have such nonsense pricing again.


  • Loke666Loke666 Member EpicPosts: 21,441
    syriinx said:
    I dont see the controversy at all.  The price is ridiculous, but there are plenty of other ways to get a mount.  If players dont buy it, they wont have such nonsense pricing again.
    Agreed, vote with your wallet or you see a lot more things like this.
  • AsheramAsheram Member EpicPosts: 5,063
    Loke666 said:
    A moose? 

    Sorry, Swedish humor.

  • syriinxsyriinx Member UncommonPosts: 1,383
    Torval said:
    How melodramatic. The elk isn't $36. Let's get our facts straight.

    It's 4500 Crowns.

    You can get crowns through subscribing at 1500/mo. They pay you up front so if you buy a 3 month sub you get 4500 crowns right there.

    You can buy them on sale. 5500 Crowns is $25 on sale.


    Turns out the mount doesnt have the same features as most mounts (cant hide saddlebags), so thats a little disturbing that they didnt mention that before people buy it.

    The cynic in me says this is their way of depleting peoples crown stock before housing comes out.

    Still, its not the end of the world.  When stuff goes beyond cosmetic and starts affecting game play, thats when there are issues.
  • IkedaIkeda Member RarePosts: 2,751
    Here I'd agree.  Put it on a $25 for 5500 sale.  And I'd bite.  But at normal price, the Elk isn't a good deal.  I almost hope mounts can be used in Housing (you know, a stable or something) but the Elk has a couple of issues (already noted above).  
  • IselinIselin Member LegendaryPosts: 17,916
    The only reason I would ever consider that elk is so I could shoot it with my bow (an arrow to the knee would probably do the trick) and mount its head over the fireplace in my new home.

    I just don't get, thankfully, what motivates people to buy all of these fluffy things. I think they play a different game than the one I play. I get excited about things like improving my 2 sharpened Viper daggers to legendary gold, beating Velidreth in vCOS HM and walking away with her mask in medium armor divines, getting a purple Red Mountain ring from a chest in Stonefalls, being part of a group of 8 who holds off an attack from 40+ at Alessia...

    Strutting around displaying my foolish conspicuous consumption just doesn't do anything for me. Heck, the only reason I ride around on my Stripped Senche instead of my basic mount is because that was a loyalty reward for subbing back in the early days that can't be bought. I hope it annoys everyone that can't have it for any price when they see me on it.

    OTOH, I do try not to laugh at your bling publicly since, after all, you're helping keep the lights on. 
    "Social media gives legions of idiots the right to speak when they once only spoke at a bar after a glass of wine, without harming the community ... but now they have the same right to speak as a Nobel Prize winner. It's the invasion of the idiots”

    ― Umberto Eco

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

  • Tiamat64Tiamat64 Member RarePosts: 1,545
    edited December 2016
    Many F2P games often times has $300 mounts or RNG-box mounts that cost hundreds of dollars on average to get (weeee Atlantica Online) that give huge stat boosts.  Not sure why a $36 one would be news-worthy.
  • AeliousAelious Member RarePosts: 3,521

    I'm no business expert regarding MMOs but don't companies that have real money curranices have to account for account surplus of those currancies at year end via taxes? This may explain the sudden item and cost.

  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,380
    It's still a $25 elk.  Considering that's what you could pay right now for Far Cry Primal or MGS5, entire games... why is this being defended?  Will we simply defend all ridiculous cash shop items now based on the fact that "I currently play and like this game?"

    I sure as shit don't defend EVE or CCP like that, and that's my favorite game.  If CCP steps in shit, I'm gonna point and say "CCP stepped in shit" like monoclegate.  I was on the front row sharpening my pitchfork as I played.
  • GrymmoireGrymmoire Member UncommonPosts: 114
    Torval said:
    How melodramatic. The elk isn't $36. Let's get our facts straight.

    It's 4500 Crowns.

    You can get crowns through subscribing at 1500/mo. They pay you up front so if you buy a 3 month sub you get 4500 crowns right there.

    You can buy them on sale. 5500 Crowns is $25 on sale.
    *Snipped*
    Although there are other perks to subscribing, buying a three month sub will cost one $35 to get those 4500 crowns, which you will entirely exhaust purchasing that hideous mount. So, in essence your are correct that the elk isn't $36, it becomes a mere $35; not a big savings there.

    Yes you could buy 5500 crowns for the $24.99 (plus tax) if they were on sale; however, they are presently not on sale and the discussion relates to buying that mount now at the cost of $39.99 (plus tax) for those 5500 crowns.

    I'll leave it to those with better math skills to break down the cost of using 4500 crowns out of  5500 to buy the elk.
  • LynxJSALynxJSA Member RarePosts: 3,320
    If no one buys it, the price will drop. If people do buy it, then it's obviously worth that to those players. I don't see the problem here, let alone any reason for "Elk-gate" drama. 

    -- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG 
    RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? 
    FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?  
  • GwapoJoshGwapoJosh Member UncommonPosts: 1,030
    I don't think it's selling as well as they thought it would.. I see people riding them pretty rarely.  I'm happy with my Snow Wolf that I bought with my subscription crowns :)

    "You are all going to poop yourselves." BillMurphy

    "Laugh and the world laughs with you. Weep and you weep alone."

  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    edited January 2017
    Aelious said:

    I'm no business expert regarding MMOs but don't companies that have real money curranices have to account for account surplus of those currancies at year end via taxes? This may explain the sudden item and cost.

    No. Unspent crowns nominally have the same status as unfulfilled subscriptions. Technically it is a liability - payment for a service not yet supplied. Zenimax may delay booking such income for profit purposes - so if anything crowns not being spent could lower the tax due - simplistically though, having received the money, they will pay tax on it. Only really an issue if a game closed down suddenly.
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    GwapoJosh said:
    I don't think it's selling as well as they thought it would.. I see people riding them pretty rarely.  I'm happy with my Snow Wolf that I bought with my subscription crowns :)
    Very hard to say though given the megaserver. Which also makes me wonder why they do at all but if that is what people want it gives me no problem at all.

    And at the end of the day something is paying for the Housing expansion. Although to be fair that could just be from new sales.
  • H0urg1assH0urg1ass Member EpicPosts: 2,380
    edited January 2017
    Torval said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    It's still a $25 elk.  Considering that's what you could pay right now for Far Cry Primal or MGS5, entire games... why is this being defended?  Will we simply defend all ridiculous cash shop items now based on the fact that "I currently play and like this game?"

    I sure as shit don't defend EVE or CCP like that, and that's my favorite game.  If CCP steps in shit, I'm gonna point and say "CCP stepped in shit" like monoclegate.  I was on the front row sharpening my pitchfork as I played.
    There's nothing to defend. Are you really trying to objectively justify one frivolous first world entertainment purchase over another?

    Why are you defending the outrageous price of Far Cry Primal when I could get an entire bundle of games on GoG DRM free. How can you or anyone else defend the ridiculous DRM prices the games you listed charge!

    I hope you don't defend CCP. They're one of the biggest offenders of the entire frivolous overpriced spending scam.
    I'm not defending anything at all.  I despise all cash shops in any form whatsoever.  The free to play movement, that so many vigorously campaigned for, has driven a wedge between the player base of those willing to spend hundreds for their experience and those who want an all-inclusive price.

    I fall into the all-inclusive category.  Maybe it's because I'm old, but when I bought Diablo 1, I got all of Diablo 1 and if there was some item I needed, then all I needed to do was play until it dropped.  The trend over the past half decade to itemize our games into chunks and sell different parts to different people, and sometimes at absurdist prices is sickening to me.  If I want to have the full Total War: Warhammer experience, for instance, then I would have to pay $110 for the game today.  They wouldn't even reduce the DLC price for the winter steam sale like 100% of the other games that I had in my wish list.  That's absolutely bullshit.

    I literally, in the first sentence of the second paragraph said that I don't defend CCP so that question was totally unnecessary.  I doubly hate any cash shop that's tied to a game with a subscription.  If I pay my $15 a month, then there shouldn't be a damn thing I would have to go to a cash shop to buy.
  • WizardryWizardry Member LegendaryPosts: 19,332
    I said it once,then i said it another 50+x,an immersive game world should contain EVERYTHING within ,we should not be buying stuff from some magical place in the sky.
    What else have i been saying over and over,developers are ONLY adding in a login screen so they can run cash shops.This is why the term MMO is false,just because you have thousands,millions go through a login screen does not make it a MMO,NOBODY plays a game for the login screen,your game NEEDS to be played as a mmo not as a single player cash shop game.
    It is so pathetic at this point,i bet most of the game studios are designing their cash shop before half the game ideas.

    Never forget 3 mile Island and never trust a government official or company spokesman.

  • QuarterStackQuarterStack Member RarePosts: 545
    edited January 2017
    "Elk-Gate"? Come on. Laying on the melodrama a bit thick, aren't we?

    I think, by now, we're beyond considering mounts or other optional items in a cash shop as "controversial". It's a freaking mount. It's fluff. Buy it if it's worth it to you. Don't buy it if it isn't. Simple, really.

    If this were a mandatory subscription game, then I could see a bit more of an issue. Though even then, it's still aesthetic/optional, and not at all compulsory. No one's game is impacted by someone else riding around on an Elk.

    But in a B2P game? No, I don't see the problem. I personally don't see the value in it, so I simply won't buy it. However, I'll be happy for those who got one for themselves.

    People looking for controversy where none exists.
    Post edited by QuarterStack on
  • waynejr2waynejr2 Member EpicPosts: 7,768
    Ikeda said:
    I would have thought a $36 DLC Elk (that really isn't a very good model) would have at least made some statement over here.

    I think after beaver-gate and moose-gate we lost interest in the *-gates.
    http://www.youhaventlived.com/qblog/2010/QBlog190810A.html  

    Epic Music:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1

    https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1

    Kyleran:  "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."

    John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."

    FreddyNoNose:  "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."

    LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"




  • KyleranKyleran Member LegendaryPosts: 41,537
    Gorwe said:
    syriinx said:
    I dont see the controversy at all.  The price is ridiculous, but there are plenty of other ways to get a mount.  If players dont buy it, they wont have such nonsense pricing again.



    Oh, they'll buy it. Idiots will buy it and then they will complain about being milked dry...
    I don't think the folks who complain about such purchases are from those who actually buy them.

    Rather most of the whining appears to come from those who chose not to pay for them.

    My guess is envy drives most of those who have the most issue with it.
     (but of course they will deny it)

    "True friends stab you in the front." | Oscar Wilde 

    "I need to finish" - Christian Wolff: The Accountant

    Just trying to live long enough to play a new, released MMORPG, playing New Worlds atm

    Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

    Don't just play games, inhabit virtual worlds™

    "This is the most intelligent, well qualified and articulate response to a post I have ever seen on these forums. It's a shame most people here won't have the attention span to read past the second line." - Anon






  • sayuusayuu Member RarePosts: 766
    edited January 2017
    H0urg1ass said:
    Torval said:
    H0urg1ass said:
    It's still a $25 elk.  Considering that's what you could pay right now for Far Cry Primal or MGS5, entire games... why is this being defended?  Will we simply defend all ridiculous cash shop items now based on the fact that "I currently play and like this game?"

    I sure as shit don't defend EVE or CCP like that, and that's my favorite game.  If CCP steps in shit, I'm gonna point and say "CCP stepped in shit" like monoclegate.  I was on the front row sharpening my pitchfork as I played.
    There's nothing to defend. Are you really trying to objectively justify one frivolous first world entertainment purchase over another?

    Why are you defending the outrageous price of Far Cry Primal when I could get an entire bundle of games on GoG DRM free. How can you or anyone else defend the ridiculous DRM prices the games you listed charge!

    I hope you don't defend CCP. They're one of the biggest offenders of the entire frivolous overpriced spending scam.
    I'm not defending anything at all.  I despise all cash shops in any form whatsoever.  The free to play movement, that so many vigorously campaigned for, has driven a wedge between the player base of those willing to spend hundreds for their experience and those who want an all-inclusive price.

    I fall into the all-inclusive category.  Maybe it's because I'm old, but when I bought Diablo 1, I got all of Diablo 1 and if there was some item I needed, then all I needed to do was play until it dropped.  The trend over the past half decade to itemize our games into chunks and sell different parts to different people, and sometimes at absurdist prices is sickening to me.  If I want to have the full Total War: Warhammer experience, for instance, then I would have to pay $110 for the game today.  They wouldn't even reduce the DLC price for the winter steam sale like 100% of the other games that I had in my wish list.  That's absolutely bullshit.

    I literally, in the first sentence of the second paragraph said that I don't defend CCP so that question was totally unnecessary.  I doubly hate any cash shop that's tied to a game with a subscription.  If I pay my $15 a month, then there shouldn't be a damn thing I would have to go to a cash shop to buy.
    so if you despise ALL cash shops in ANY form. . .do you not buy food? what about clothes?

    how do you survive???  

    but seriously. . .


     Going off your Warhammer example, how does having MORE options for a customer ever a bad thing?
    You could have parts of the game for X dollar amounts OR you could have the "All-Inclusive package" for $110.  so there it is 

    Now take Diablo, When I bought that game I had to play for ALL of the content, regardless of whether I used it or not. for example in Diablo I have only ever played the Warrior class yet you don't see me beating down the doors of Blizzard H.Q. demanding they compensate me for content (the two other classes) that I never used that was bundled in a product I bought. . .because there was no choice.


    and finally I will use the age old defense for cash shops in sub based games. . .mainly that while the purchasing power of $15 has sunk over the last 10-15 years the cost of development and running a MMO service has dramatically increased. Now businesses could have forced everyone to pay more, instead they mostly offered optional fluff content at a premium to offset rising costs. Again, they gave you and me a choice.

    More choice is never a bad thing, your main complaint seems to be on the opinion that prices of products are too high to be considered a good purchase in today's video game market. . .Your argument seems to be; take away choice and make everyone pay $110. . .


    . . .no thank you.


  • zellmerzellmer Member UncommonPosts: 442
    Didn't people get more distracted by how STUPID the tiger mount looks and the like?
  • SaunZSaunZ Member UncommonPosts: 472
    now i'm scared to buy a mount and be seen on it

    buying a mount in ESO is now like when my mom caught me smoking and guilted me into never ever smoking again

    wait... maybe that is good

    I am SO confused!

    Sz  :)
  • gervaise1gervaise1 Member EpicPosts: 6,919
    sayuu said:

    <SNIP> and finally I will use the age old defense for cash shops in sub based games. . .mainly that while the purchasing power of $15 has sunk over the last 10-15 years the cost of development and running a MMO service has dramatically increased. Now businesses could have forced everyone to pay more, instead they mostly offered optional fluff content at a premium to offset rising costs. <SNIP>

    If that is an argument made it doesn't hold water.

    First the original sub was $10; the jump to $15 only happened in 2004. 

    Cost of simply running an mmo has fallen. what changed though was companies pushing the idea of "content included". Originally new content was via DLC. 

    Development costs though? Software tools are more powerful; engines more powerful; ideas are already out there; QA systems are well defined etc. Salary costs are higher. Generalising is dangerous but looking at what is being produced today e.g. via crowd funding vs. what was produced 15-20 years suggests that better games are being produced for the same money. So probably not much different.  

    Expectation is also behind the other thing that has changed - what people expect in an mmo. game. Back then the internet simply couldn't handle "AAA" data. Myst - released years earlier in 1993 - looked better.

    So its not really the fact that development costs have increased and more about our - as in mass market -expectations.
  • sayuusayuu Member RarePosts: 766
    edited January 2017
    gervaise1 said:
    sayuu said:

    <SNIP> and finally I will use the age old defense for cash shops in sub based games. . .mainly that while the purchasing power of $15 has sunk over the last 10-15 years the cost of development and running a MMO service has dramatically increased. Now businesses could have forced everyone to pay more, instead they mostly offered optional fluff content at a premium to offset rising costs. <SNIP>

    If that is an argument made it doesn't hold water.

    First the original sub was $10; the jump to $15 only happened in 2004. 

    Cost of simply running an mmo has fallen. what changed though was companies pushing the idea of "content included". Originally new content was via DLC. 

    Development costs though? Software tools are more powerful; engines more powerful; ideas are already out there; QA systems are well defined etc. Salary costs are higher. Generalising is dangerous but looking at what is being produced today e.g. via crowd funding vs. what was produced 15-20 years suggests that better games are being produced for the same money. So probably not much different.  

    Expectation is also behind the other thing that has changed - what people expect in an mmo. game. Back then the internet simply couldn't handle "AAA" data. Myst - released years earlier in 1993 - looked better.

    So its not really the fact that development costs have increased and more about our - as in mass market -expectations.
    man you make so many assumptions it hurts my brain. . .

    1. Cost of simply running an mmo has fallen. what changed though was companies pushing the idea of "content included". Originally new content was via DLC. 

    So Everquest simply gave out their yearly content expansions for free back in '99? Did Ultima do so as well?
    I think not. . .
    As far as server costs go Blizzard paid $50~ million per year their first 4 years of WoW's operation.( 2008 investor conference call) the cost now? $82~ million. (2015 investment report)

    SE's FF14 server costs were $59~ million in 2016 (investment report). . .compared to FF11's $22 million at its peak of 2 million active players in 2009 (investment report)


    so I dont know what data you are looking at, but it is vastly different than what I've seen in investment reports. . .


    2.Development costs though? Software tools are more powerful; engines more powerful; ideas are already out there; QA systems are well defined etc. Salary costs are higher. Generalising is dangerous but looking at what is being produced today e.g. via crowd funding vs. what was produced 15-20 years suggests that better games are being produced for the same money. So probably not much different.  


    Really? better AAA games are being made now with the same budget as 15-20 years ago?? 20 years ago it was 1996, do you know the cost of AAA game development back then? it was $1-2 million. tell me, what AAA game released in 2016 for less than $2 million? I sure can't find one. . .

    But back on topic of MMORPG costs

    Everquest total production cost: $3 million (1999)
    Dark age of Camelot total production cost: $3.1 million (2001)
    City of Heroes total production cost: $7 million (2004) 
    World Of Warcraft total production and marketing costs: $60 million (2004) 
    Guild Wars total production cost: $20-30 Million (2005)
    Age of Conan total production cost: $22 million (2009)
    Rift production cost: $70 million (2011)
    Star Wars the Old Republic production and Marketing costs: $100-200 million (2011)
    DC Universe Online production cost: $50 million (2012)
    The Secret World production cost: $50 million (2012)
    Destiny production and marketing costs: $140 million (2014)

    and as an added bonus.

    Final Fantasy 14 1.0 production and marketing costs: $400 million! (2010)    
    yes that's not a lie, the original version of FF14 made SE lower their projected net earnings by a whopping 90% in 2010. SE also told investors that they spend more than the initial 400 million on even more marketing in 2010 after the game's poor review by critics and players.


    back on topic.
    Notice how the cost of EQ and DAoC was significantly lower than DCU or AoC?
    all of the MMOs on this list were considered AAA titles at the time of their release, now tell me of 1 MMO title released in 2016 that cost $3 million. . .


    3. Expectation is also behind the other thing that has changed - what people expect in an mmo. game. Back then the internet simply couldn't handle "AAA" data. Myst - released years earlier in 1993 - looked better.

    to be honest I really dont know what you are trying to say here.

    Are you saying that MMO games released years ago were not AAA because of internet technology?

    that does not make a whole lot of sense, just because AAA games look better today by leaps and bounds because of the inevitable progress of technology does not invalidate a past game's AAA status upon its release.

    20 years from now are you going to say that GTA5 was never a AAA title because GTA22 looks so much better?

    I really hope I simply misunderstood you, as that idea is simply idiocy. . .


    TL;DR
    Someone brought Facts to a Forum Discussion.
Sign In or Register to comment.