Payment Model info and post release strategy


  • TF#5 - LEGATE

    Hey there, I was just curious as to how the game intends to sustain itself in the long term. I recently checked out Warframe (a procedurally generated 3rd person PvE shooter similar to Mass Effect 3's multiplayer system with way more content) and was pleasantly surprised by how consumer friendly their F2P system was. For those who don't know, in short in Warframe, every single last item in the game, including cosmetics, can be gained through grinding alone, without paying a single cent. The game has a system where a player can trade valuable items in game, such as rare blueprints, for 'platinum' (a bought currency). This means that even F2P players can grind up items, sell them for plat, and use the plat to buy other rare items or cosmetics. All the gear in the game is also craftable rather than looted directly, meaning that every session will feel meaningful, even if you loot a top tier rare blueprint that you weren't after (as you can simply sell it for plat, then buy the one you want). Of course the game also has a great core combat experience on top of that, so grinding the game itself is actually fun!

    This is also quite similar to how EVE Online works, with Plex (representative of a one month subscription with a IRL dollar value), buyable with the in game currency, ISK. Following the huge success of these two games, (Warframe is particularly significant to Fractured I feel, as it runs on procedural generation as well, unlike EVE). I think we can safely say that successful F2P games allow their players to feel like they have progressed with each session in a meaningful way, where nothing is payment locked, and most importantly, there are constant updates to provide fresh content to players at a similar rate of consumption. In this case, I feel that Fractured has the best of both worlds in terms of content generation, we have EVE's sandbox concept where the players' interactions will be the content, plus we have procedural generation to constantly churn out fresh scenarios (PvE wise) at a low cost (particularly important to beastmen, but is important to all factions regardless).

    I was wondering if the devs are drawing any inspiration from these two models, and if so, can they create meaningful progression that can satisfy both grinders and payers? Along the same point, are they going to treat the F2P model in the future as a viable possibility? (F2P drastically lowers the barrier to entry, and the Warframe model means that the grinders provide a living economy (not all items can be grinded all the time, some items are limited time only before they go into a 'vault' where it may take years to be able to be grinded again, creating rarity which boosts the economy). Building everything will also require a huge amount of manpower, even if Fractured is a lot less graphically intensive (which hopefully reduces the workload, although netcode, FPS issues, and desync are usually extremely challenging problems in all MMOs compared to an instanced 4 man 'level' like Warframe).

    EDIT: I'm using Warframe as an example because it has recently claimed Dota 2's top spot in Steam Charts, plus it was a game where all the publishers said it would fail pre-launch (with lots of very good and valid points, such as how ambitious projects with lots of moving parts tend to be slow on updates etc), the devs essentially all-ined on an untested concept, and now has 50 million players, plus runs on procedural gen.



  • @basileus said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    Warframe is particularly significant to Fractured I feel, as it runs on procedural generation as well, unlike EVE

    Except for asteroids, Fractured doesn't run on procedural generation the same way Warframe does. They use procedural generation to generate the world instead of crafting the landscape and placing everything by hand. It's procedurally generated the same way Elder Scrolls Oblivion is.

    There are elements of its business model that can be borrowed (like Prime Access), but Warframe's business model is so incredibly specific to Warframe that I can't see it translating well into any other game. A huge part of why it works is because Warframe is mostly non-competitive. If you introduce the same economic system into any game with PvP or other forms of competition, it turns into a pay to win mess.

    I'm against any payment model that includes the ability to open your wallet for in game wealth. Fractured already has a box price, a cash shop, and a vip subscription. If it needs to further supplement its business model, a non-p2w option is a cosmetic version of Warframe's prime access or Path of Exile's supporter packs.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    Buy to play and optional VIP subscription plus cash shop.

    Problem is any form of trade goods for cash shop currency could be considered p2w. Even in Eve it's possible to spend $70k in a war (but lose because you didn't out spend the opponent).

    Warframe is a PvE grinding game with a horrible PvP tacked on.

    I've pointed to PoE's cash shop and Backer Packs many times!


  • TF#5 - LEGATE

    @target said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    @basileus said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    Warframe is particularly significant to Fractured I feel, as it runs on procedural generation as well, unlike EVE

    Except for asteroids, Fractured doesn't run on procedural generation the same way Warframe does. They use procedural generation to generate the world instead of crafting the landscape and placing everything by hand. It's procedurally generated the same way Elder Scrolls Oblivion is.

    There are elements of its business model that can be borrowed (like Prime Access), but Warframe's business model is so incredibly specific to Warframe that I can't see it translating well into any other game. A huge part of why it works is because Warframe is mostly non-competitive. If you introduce the same economic system into any game with PvP or other forms of competition, it turns into a pay to win mess.

    I'm against any payment model that includes the ability to open your wallet for in game wealth. Fractured already has a box price, a cash shop, and a vip subscription. If it needs to further supplement its business model, a non-p2w option is a cosmetic version of Warframe's prime access or Path of Exile's supporter packs.

    Actually, the devs have said that the in game world for Fractured is procedurally generated as well. It was in one of their videos (the very first gameplay footage one I believe). There is simply no way that a 8 man team can create a handcrafted world at all, and if they were trying to do this, the game would die very soon post-launch (no ability to update). As for players opening their wallets for in game wealth, that is generally not a problem, as people still have to generate in game wealth in the first place. The VIP sub is unlikely to be a great source of income without the ability to buy it with in game resources (and therefore the whales will have plenty of premium currency to spend on in game items, while F2P players will be able to access the premium content). We should all be concerned with making this game as profitable and as friendly to F2P players as possible. Furthermore, it's highly likely that the box price for fractured will have to be dropped post launch. Even AAA level games like SWTOR and EVE Online went F2P (and made a profit after that); a high barrier of entry to an indie game is generally not a super good idea. Things like founder packs are a great way to establish a seed fund, but it is a one off cash injection, not a constant revenue stream that can continue to support game development years into the future.

    @jetah In EvE, some of the most powerful guilds in the game simply had way more F2P grinders, like Goonswarm back in the day (even back before the game went F2P, I easily played it for free as it only cost 500 million ISK per month of sub, and I could easily get billions a month). An individual can never outspend thousands of F2P grinders coordinated in an effective fashion with actual logistics and a chain of command. Besides, Fractured itself claims that most progression is sideways; as such paying for in game resources (especially the buying from players part, which means that someone must play the game for these resources to be generated) cannot be P2W as long as this holds true, as anything you buy will be sideways progression at most (aside from knowledge points, which I believe requires the game itself to be played, and that is the only real upward progression that the devs have indicated). Our progress will be measured in knowledge and reputation, and so long as the devs ensure that this cannot be bought and one must play the game to attain it, it will not fall into the P2W territory.

    Bottom line is, I really want the game to succeed, but it will not do so if it doesn't have a viable business model. Relying on subs and an 8 man team to generate cosmetics (who also have to constantly churn out updates and new content; many games end up in a state where the devs focus solely on cosmetics in a desperate attempt to recoup costs until the game implodes from a lack of updates) in a niche, indie, B2P (a.k.a high barrier to entry) game is not going to be possible.

    The only way the game (and any modern "games as a service" style of game) will survive long term is if the devs can create a constant revenue stream, hire more people (generally I think most games on this scale runs with at least 30 people) in order to constantly churn out even more content, use said content to attract more players etc until the game gets to the point where the revenue stream outstrips the costs of all hires (any needed new ones and old), rental cost, marketing etc. The game needs to be self sustaining, and it's highly likely that the first year will be complete cash burn (much like any business, and this is ignoring the initial development cost which is 100% cash burn with no revenue aside from cash injections from kickstarter and investors). The earlier we can sort this out, the easier it will become to create a consumer friendly F2P model that also generates a strong revenue stream. As for Warframe being a PvE grinding game, well the fact is that most MMOs are also PvE grinding games, so it is a great comparison point; we just aim to have better PvP too. Even games famous for their PvP content usually has a ton of PvEers doing all the boring grind work that powers the rest of the economy. Imagine PvEers as serfs, and PvPers as lords who spend the serfs' hard work waging endless war amongst themselves; for this type of game to be successful, both playstyles need to be innately fun and rewarding (much like EVE Online in this case). This means constant updates, constant changes. And to do that, we need the game to be very profitable while still being consumer friendly; if games like Warframe has offered us a look at what a successful model looks like, then we should imitate it. Like Machiavelli states, if you're not a true genius, just imitate them and we'll at least get a shadow of their success.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @basileus

    They are procedurally generating the planets once then they’ll be static.

    Asteroids will be constantly procedurally generated.


  • TF#11 - PROCONSUL

    @target said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    I'm against any payment model that includes the ability to open your wallet for in game wealth. Fractured already has a box price, a cash shop, and a vip subscription. If it needs to further supplement its business model, a non-p2w option is a cosmetic version of Warframe's prime access or Path of Exile's supporter packs.

    One thing that this can be a good idea for is that it can help to anchor an in-game currency to a real-world currency, and that can be

    in the box for combating mudflation.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    A Path of Exile payment system would fit this game very nicely.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    Indeed i mentioned PoEs payment also some times. I think it will be most comparable with this what Dynamight want to do. Some small benefits (PoE the Stashes, Fractured the time bonus) and for items just cosmetical.

    Any other gameplay related things will be pay2win.

    But since we get a system, where all equip and consumables will be crafted by player, there is no need for getting this with real money.

    As for PoE it is obvisious, that this kind of payment method works very well. I mean, look at this game, there is absolutely no need to look nice, but people want to have the biggest Wings and the super cool skilleffects. People pay for such things, even it gives absolutly no extra power.

    Me personally don‘t want a game, where people can put money in it, just to be the UberHero.
    I wont play such a game.


  • TF#11 - PROCONSUL

    @kralith said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    As for PoE it is obvisious, that this kind of payment method works very well. I mean, look at this game, there is absolutely no need to look nice, but people want to have the biggest Wings and the super cool skilleffects. People pay for such things, even it gives absolutly no extra power.

    My only beef with the cosmetics shop thing is that weapon and armor reskins remove the visual cues that could have been used to communicate information about what another player has equipped.

    This is very much a minor quibble and I think that a cosmetic cash shop is the lesser of evils when it comes to monetization strategies, so I'm not all bent out of shape over it or anything like that.

    It's just one of those things where I wish there was an easy way to do both.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @kairosval said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    My only beef with the cosmetics shop thing is that weapon and armor reskins remove the visual cues that could have been used to communicate information about what another player has equipped.

    Well at PoE you still can watch out the Account Page of the Player, if he opened it public to see, what he/she wears.
    Many people use it for guides to show, what they equip and which Skills they use.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @kairosval said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    @kralith said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    As for PoE it is obvisious, that this kind of payment method works very well. I mean, look at this game, there is absolutely no need to look nice, but people want to have the biggest Wings and the super cool skilleffects. People pay for such things, even it gives absolutly no extra power.

    My only beef with the cosmetics shop thing is that weapon and armor reskins remove the visual cues that could have been used to communicate information about what another player has equipped.

    This is very much a minor quibble and I think that a cosmetic cash shop is the lesser of evils when it comes to monetization strategies, so I'm not all bent out of shape over it or anything like that.

    It's just one of those things where I wish there was an easy way to do both.

    depends if they allow a dagger to be changed into a 2h sword. If it's same weapon type then it won't matter as the gear is insignificant to power.


  • TF#11 - PROCONSUL

    @jetah said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    depends if they allow a dagger to be changed into a 2h sword. If it's same weapon type then it won't matter as the gear is insignificant to power.

    The example I have in mind is a mage that uses ice magic reskinning their mage robes to look like massive fire-covered full plate with a over-designed glowing orange halo and flame-based particle effects as they move, that kind of thing.

    I get it because that looks cool and everything. But it's confusing, and has the consequence that you can't infer anything about a character from their appearance.

    Good game design should use the appearance of a character to communicate something meaningful about that character in gameplay terms. The sword that does fire damage can have a fire particle effect, the mace that does electrical damage can have an electrical effect, if they're in full plate they're probably a tanky warrior, if they're in light armor they're probably an agile DPS, if they're in robes and cloth they're probably a mage, that kind of thing. Cosmetics can spoil the ability to communicate that information quickly and cleanly.

    Like where Kralith said about looking up the hero's data in PoE? I get that that's a thing, but it shouldn't be neccesary. But the amount of over-designed cosmetic items in PoE makes that a requirement. If you have to look up raw data on a character sheet to get a basic feel for what kind of equipment a character is currently using, to me that feels like an art design failure.

    In games with loot progression it also makes the visual progression of the design of gear meaningless too, but given Fractured's horizontal progression model that's probably less of a concern here.

    But like I said: This is a minor quibble, and the lesser of all evils. So I'm not throwing my toys out of the cot about it or anything like that.

    It'd be nice if there was a way to preserve the informational content of well designed art assets while still allowing for cosmetic customization. But I think that the conflict there is very real and those servers aren't going to pay for themselves.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @kairosval said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    @jetah said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    depends if they allow a dagger to be changed into a 2h sword. If it's same weapon type then it won't matter as the gear is insignificant to power.

    The example I have in mind is a mage that uses ice magic reskinning their mage robes to look like massive fire-covered full plate with a over-designed glowing orange halo and flame-based particle effects as they move, that kind of thing.

    I get it because that looks cool and everything. But it's confusing, and has the consequence that you can't infer anything about a character from their appearance.

    Good game design should use the appearance of a character to communicate something meaningful about that character in gameplay terms. The sword that does fire damage can have a fire particle effect, the mace that does electrical damage can have an electrical effect, if they're in full plate they're probably a tanky warrior, if they're in light armor they're probably an agile DPS, if they're in robes and cloth they're probably a mage, that kind of thing. Cosmetics can spoil the ability to communicate that information quickly and cleanly.

    Like where Kralith said about looking up the hero's data in PoE? I get that that's a thing, but it shouldn't be neccesary. But the amount of over-designed cosmetic items in PoE makes that a requirement. If you have to look up raw data on a character sheet to get a basic feel for what kind of equipment a character is currently using, to me that feels like an art design failure.

    In games with loot progression it also makes the visual progression of the design of gear meaningless too, but given Fractured's horizontal progression model that's probably less of a concern here.

    But like I said: This is a minor quibble, and the lesser of all evils. So I'm not throwing my toys out of the cot about it or anything like that.

    It'd be nice if there was a way to preserve the informational content of well designed art assets while still allowing for cosmetic customization. But I think that the conflict there is very real and those servers aren't going to pay for themselves.

    it's possible that any elemental gfx is native to the weapon so that you can change the visual but never change the gfx unless there are gfx cosmetics. even then the type of element doesn't change just the looks (ie electric gfx can look like static electricity or singular bolts sparking off. fire gfx can be like a match or like a torch.)

    you can still give the visual feedback and retain the type of element the character has. i doubt we see cloth that changes into plate or vise versa. but I would love to see robes over leather and plate...

    maybe the color could be an indication however a color blind mode would be needed in some what.


  • TF#12 - PEOPLE'S HERALD

    @jetah in PoE you can just change the weapon of same type.
    Just the Cloth are undependend, but in PoE is no limit in wearing Armor, you also can run as a witch in full iron.

    I mention another system of clothing.
    In The Secret World the cloth are not part of the equip with values, so the clothslots are just cosmetics at all.
    I liked that system somehow. But i can also understand, that it would maybe not fit well into Fractured system.


  • TF#5 - LEGATE

    @kralith I think you have forgotten that we're supposed to get a game where gear doesn't matter. If that is the case, then the ability to buy anything in game with the premium currency wouldn't actually impact the game in a P2W way. Rather it becomes an excellent way for people to just trade premium currency for time (i.e buying all your travelling food, tents, and correct clothes for the environment instead of grinding for them; if you meet them in PvP, they are still just as easy to kill compared to a regular player).

    If you would like a more stringent system, what about a system where you can only use Premium Currency to buy blueprints of items? That way you would still have to craft the item in order to attain it (and then imagine if crafting something took time). That way grinders would have a great way to get premium currency for free (farm rare blueprints, say building blueprints for instance). If someone wants to pay $100 USD to get a rare palace blueprint for example, I have no issue with it, since it doesn't translate into in game strength, and is essentially just paying money to look cool. Or perhaps the VIP sub per month could be sold for the in game currency too, thus ensuring that the in game currency doesn't inflate like crazy a year in (much like how EVE Online does it, as mentioned by @KairosVal).

    As for the PoE strategy, it is great if you have time to ramp up, but they developed that game for six years (for most of that period, they received no income). If Fractured can get to the point where they can develop the game for six years with no income, I think nobody would be really worried about it. As it is however, the devs will likely need to launch early before many planned game features are complete. In order for it to succeed, they will have to make do with less content, less developer time to spend on cosmetics and etc and STILL manage to retain and grow a player-base and push out updates at a fast rate at the same time while growing their profit margins. Tying the premium currency to in game items could really help boost their income and thus give us all a better game (or just an alive game) in the long runs. If you look at examples, games that started off with a 'decent' consumer friendly model, only to turn P2W, like Albion Online, only do so because they realize that they will never get a return on their investment, and therefore decide to milk the whales in their game before it dies in order to try to recoup costs.



  • @basileus said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    I think you have forgotten that we're supposed to get a game where gear doesn't matter. If that is the case, then the ability to buy anything in game with the premium currency wouldn't actually impact the game in a P2W way.

    Gear does matter, probably a lot; there's just no gear treadmill. And you're assuming direct combat is the only form of competition. More wealth could buy guilds stronger materials to build settlements with, allowing them to more easily defend against raids. More wealth can buy you more rare crafting mats so that you can produce rare gear faster than people who aren't using their wallet. More wealth means a greater ability to influence the economic and social dynamics of the game.

    If you would like a more stringent system, what about a system where you can only use Premium Currency to buy blueprints of items? That way you would still have to craft the item in order to attain it (and then imagine if crafting something took time). That way grinders would have a great way to get premium currency for free (farm rare blueprints, say building blueprints for instance).

    You're leaving out a major aspect of what makes the Warframe business model so successful. Warfame doesn't have a non-premium currency. With Warframe's model the only way to gain currency would be to buy it or trade for it with someone else who bought it. If wealth has any influence at all (which is near guaranteed in a sandbox MMO), that would make the game pay to win.

    Digital Extremes has never hired an economist and they didn't have any experience designing an online business model. They lucked their way into their business model and refined it to be very specific to their game. Other games cannot just start throwing in aspects of what they did without extreme consideration for the systems and circumstances that led to Warframe's success.

    Or perhaps the VIP sub per month could be sold for the in game currency too, thus ensuring that the in game currency doesn't inflate like crazy a year in

    I don't see how that's supposed to combat inflation unless you can buy VIP directly with in-game currency, but then DS doesn't get any money. If you can trade it with other players for in game currency, then DS gets money, but it doesn't affect inflation.


  • TF#5 - LEGATE

    @target About the first point, the Devs have specifically said that gear does not matter in combat (only player skill) and that someone is competitive from day one with no gear at all; this is stated in multiple places (can easily look it up on the main page). And as for buying materials to build stronger settlements, that is generally a case where it's doomed to fail; anyone who needs to buy materials with cash obviously doesn't have enough members to grind for it. So if suddenly a 500 man guild decides to kill your 5 man guild with the one whale... they could sack your town, destroy all your work and leave you with nothing (unless settlements are permanent safe zones for Beastmen, or even if they are invincible in general, in which case then it becomes mere cosmetics and I have no problem if someone decides to spend $10,000 on virtual real estate to look cool). Look to EVE Online, the strongest players in the game aren't the ones who pay the most (despite IRL money being directly linked to ISK and in game wealth through PLEX). In fact, the strongest players/corps in EVE just play it 100% for free, using the income from the moons they control to just buy anything they need.

    As for the second point, Warframe does indeed have non premium currencies. There's credits, all the basic crafting materials, rare mods, blueprints etc (all of these apart from credits and materials can and are often traded for each other directly without the use of the premium currency). Again, look to EVE online here, you can pay directly for the in game value of PLEX (whatever it is these days, when I played in 2013 it was 500 million ISK per Plex, so $25 USD = 500 mill ISK. In 2018, the median for one PLEX is 3.2 billion ISK, a very small rate of inflation for an MMO. Compare this to something like ESO gold, which has inflated sky high. I remember paying 1k gold for a top tier piece of gear on ESO's launch in 2014. Houses now cost millions of gold), and yet EVE was 100% not pay to win. Instead, it was the F2P grinders/smart traders/clever scammers/guilds with massive resource income who benefited, as they could buy Plex from the in game market and not pay a dime. Again, this is due to the fact that everything in EVE can and will be destroyed at some point, much like how Fractured plans to be (full loot, destructible gear, consumables like food being key to travel etc). Paying for something that will be consumed leads to a healthy economy. Paying for things that will never disappear leads to inflation, basic Econ 101.

    As for the third point, it is simple. A player can pay for a VIP sub ticket for say, $20 USD. They can then either activate this ticket, or put it on the market for $X In game currency. A F2P player can buy this VIP sub ticket with the $X in game currency, thus not paying a dime. The Devs still get their money because someone had to buy the sub ticket in the first place. By doing this, you are tying a theoretically worthless currency (the in game one) with a currency that has actual value in the real world (USD in this example), thus ensuring the in game currency always has some value. This is the same as the Plex system in EVE, and is also used in multiple real life scenarios, although IRL we tie things far more directly by fixing the exchange rate, rather than letting it vary (such as the Bulgarian Leva being pegged to the Deutsche Mark (before the Euro was made) in value, or the Hong Kong Dollar being pegged to USD).


  • TF#10 - CONSUL

    @basileus you are missing the fact that cash shop item are just like skins fro mobas. Can not be stolen or destryed. Said so if you lose your guild settlement you can start a new one an put your cosmetic things again. Anyway remeber that a guild settlement can not be destryed but just the defences.


  • TF#5 - LEGATE

    @finland said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    @basileus you are missing the fact that cash shop item are just like skins fro mobas. Can not be stolen or destryed. Said so if you lose your guild settlement you can start a new one an put your cosmetic things again. Anyway remeber that a guild settlement can not be destryed but just the defences.

    I'm fully in support of cosmetics, and they are a decent source of income if you have a stable game that has reached cash cow status. The thing is that they all take time to make, especially high quality ones. The fact is that the devs will need to churn out content extremely frequently in order to maintain and grow the player base in order to make this game a cash cow, and if they have to produce cosmetics, fix bugs, market the game, take in player feedback and create events at the same time, it's a very tough job for such a small team (currently at eight I believe, and planning to hire four more after the kickstarter).

    For your second point, if a guild settlement cannot be destroyed or conquered, then there would be little point to attacking it in the first place. This is unless of course you can loot everyone inside plus any stored materials, in which case the whales paying for the top tier stuff still won't change anything. You can try to be a whale in a game like EVE, but you will be overrun by the highly coordinated guilds with tons of players and just be blown up (a single titan used to cost the equivalent of $1000 IRL cash, and the top guilds of F2Pers had hundreds of them, and this was in 2013. They probably have thousands by now. Plus one person needs to train their skills for ages (probably about a year at least?) before you could even fly it, let alone be skilled in all the mechanics required to use it properly. This didn't stop whales from spending a ton on the game and supporting the devs, but it was never P2W as their 'super' ships often just got mobbed by about 100 players in super cheap ships (equivalent to IRL $0.005 USD ships that every player can get on their first day) , killed, and looted.



  • @basileus said in Payment Model info and post release strategy:

    About the first point, the Devs have specifically said that gear does not matter in combat (only player skill) and that someone is competitive from day one with no gear at all; this is stated in multiple places (can easily look it up on the main page).

    Again, you're misinterpreting the devs message, just like with procedural generation. Gear will play a role in how you want to build your character and will likely matter a lot to min-maxers.

    So if suddenly a 500 man guild decides to kill your 5 man guild with the one whale

    Why do people defending these systems always concoct such wildly uneven scenarios? Two guilds with similar numbers and similar skill levels, but one massively outspends the other — do they have an advantage? Even within your scenario, what's stopping the whale from hiring highly skilled mercenaries to help out? There are already mercenary guilds floating around the forums.

    I don't know enough about Eve to decide whether it's pay to win or not, so I googled it and find conflicting info, with most of the people defending it making up the same uneven scenarios that you just did. It's not very convincing.

    As for the second point, Warframe does indeed have non premium currencies. There's credits, all the basic crafting materials, rare mods, blueprints etc (all of these apart from credits and materials can and are often traded for each other directly without the use of the premium currency)

    Those aren't currencies in any meaningful way. Credits can't be traded nor exchanged for platinum, or even used to buy the basic necessities from the market. I can't exchange prime parts for slots or catalysts/reactors on the market. Warframe's entire economic model hinges on the fact that every single person requires platinum. Without platinum, Warframe's experience is so gimped that it's nearly unplayable.

    By doing this, you are tying a theoretically worthless currency (the in game one) with a currency that has actual value in the real world (USD in this example), thus ensuring the in game currency always has some value.

    I still don't see how that combats inflation. No game currency is taken out of the economy when trading for premium. As you say, Eve combats inflation by having massive gold sinks in the form of destroyable ships. As far as I know, this system seems divorced from the ability to trade for PLEX and would function just as well without it.


Log in to reply
 

Copyright © 2021 Dynamight Studios Srl | Fractured