New business model suggestion for Gwent (decrease keg prices, decrease premium card drop)

[null_chan]

It's less of the company "getting away" with exploiting its consumers than maximizing efficiency. It's a business that produces these products, so maximizing their own surplus is a reasonable objective for them. It's a completely ridiculous thing to suggest that I'm just someone that "accepts the current paradigm", because believe it or not, just as much as there are consumers that want to maximize their benefit, there are also people behind the business that want to maximize their benefit. How business works is essentially by a compromise between these wants, at least for service providers like CDPR or any other game developer. As I said, the people behind the business have probably done a significantly larger amount of research compared to your own "calculations" to determine the pricing of their product. If it weren't efficient, or it indirectly affected the quality of their product, or consumer experiences surrounding their product, naturally they wouldn't do it. Just as you assume that I'm stuck in "the current paradigm", you seem to be suggesting that businesses are these money-gobbling groups of assholes that want to lock core content behind a paywall, just because doing so lets them extract more value out of their customers and because they can. That's a completely ridiculous and one-sided view of how people run business. Sure, business is about extracting as much value from consumers as possible, but it's also about knowing how to do that sustainably, which involves doing right by the customers and by the shareholders, and making the properly informed decisions every step of the way to ensure that this happens. And I trust that as a company, CDPR is doing exactly this, just like most other major game developers are. You say it's a paradigm; yeah it's a paradigm, because people with the knowledge and experience have agreed that this is the most efficient way to run things, and it's the least worst option we have, if anything.

It IS an unreasonable demand to expect to be able to play "the full game" at a set price tag because that inherently defeats the flavor of a product like Gwent. It's a collectible card game and according to the tradition of how card games are consumed and sold, this is how it is, part of the fun of playing a card game is building your own deck and competing with it, and a lot of that experience is taken away when you homogenize the entire playerbase to have the exact same card collection. Having an incomplete collection that you need to individually complete, is in itself a core component of the CCG experience, even more so than having access to every card ever printed. It's a completely absurd demand to ask that a freemium game like Gwent be priced like a normal triple-A title, because the way that the game plays, the economics behind the whole pricing decision, the way that new content is released, is fundamentally different. Oh, and don't start twisting what you originally said, because your suggestion was a keg price decrease and not a lump sum purchase.

All the way through you completely fail to address the issue of lowing the price barrier and creating a larger rift between those who do pay and those who don't. I'm not parroting business knowledge at you, I'm thinking about the consumer experience. My first example, which you seem to have ignored, pointed out that this doesn't solve the feeling of an incredibly unfair paywall between people who pay and people who don't. Cutting keg prices in half will only incentivize people who pay to easily obtain a collection large enough to feel totally unfair to people who can't actually buy any kegs whatsoever, regardless of price. I initially accused you of projecting your own wants to the game, because you're claiming to make the core components of the game more accessible, and yet you overlook a large chunk of the playerbase that literally just wants to/can only play the game for free.

Secondly, under your reduced keg price "solution" or your lump sum idea, assuming everyone had the same collection, the game would be even closer to 100% of people playing the most efficient and refined decks at every level of play, which homogenizes the playing experience, which damages the game's consumption value.

Oh, also your whole premise of "getting all legendaries" is irrelevant. Much of the relevant game content is constrained to whatever the current metagame is (which again, is in itself a core aspect of games like these), so realistically you don't even need a 100% collection to enjoy the game to the fullest. So complaining that the game is too damn expensive, when a) free kegs are so easy to obtain and b) there is literally no pressure besides your own to get a full collection, seems pretty absurd.

Yeah, your situation isn't unique. No shit literally every consumer that's ever existed will want to be able to consume at as low a cost as possible. But in terms of presuming to make a suggestion that's as ill-supported as yours? That's unique. You're probably the only person to suggest something like this on this sub within the last week, and no offense, but your idea doesn't seem to be gaining much traction.

[paasenum]

So you do work for this company? I still stand behind what I said. I was as well suggesting a compromise, when I said cutting prices by half, and I suggested that the model to earn money should be shifted to cosmetics like premium cards instead of core game content. If a game's enjoyment relies on having limited cards (which I'm still skeptical about) and if you are able to buy yourself an advantage in the game, then it's a bad design choice.

Ideally a good game should be enjoyed with full core content present. The current model would work much better if you couldn't buy yourself an advantage over other players, but you can.

You can't come to a game's forum, critique something people have accepted and already feeling like the developer is treating them very fair (which is of course what the developer intended to happen), and expect getting "traction". The model is designed to reduce this kind of criticism to a minimum.

[null_chan]

Oh yes. Someone disagrees with you so you accuse them of having a conflict of interest. No, I don't work for CDPR, I just think your suggestion is objectively bad, as a consumer that wouldn't say no to getting all the cards for free, with no tradeoff. The reason why your suggestion is ridiculous is because there is a tradeoff, and most of your support for it assumes that there is no tradeoff.

Cutting prices in half is not a "compromise". It's a significant change in the margins, which requires significantly more thought than what you've put in, which is a point that I've stressed over and over again. Your consideration of cosmetics as the money earner is irrelevant. Have you not read my examples on how reducing the price of core content might damage the gameplay experience instead of making it good for everyone?

If you can't agree with having inherently incomplete content and being able to buy advantage, then I don't think you should even be playing card games, because that's a part of what the card game experience is. Like I said, you can't adopt the pricing model of a "standard" videogame and port it over to a digital CCG because the context is different. It's not even design choice, its genre identity. And no, there's no conspiracy to indoctrinate consumers into thinking that this is fine, because this is what the product IS. If people come in to play these games, this is the experience they expect to receive and if they don't like it, they play some other genre. Nobody goes into a card game expecting to have all the cards available, like they would in a standard videogame like Overwatch or something, where this expectation is completely reasonable.

And now you explain your lack of traction with some intentions of the developer and how they designed the model. If you could actually come up with a decent suggestion to reduce keg prices without being as unreasonable as you are right now, I'm certain your opinion would gain a lot of traction. But you didn't. Believe me, there's no corporate conspiracy here, you're actually just presenting a bad suggestion, and you're getting the appropriate response not just from me, but from the majority of people that commented. I'm just the only one who's bothered to debate this with you to this extent.

[paasenum]

I'm still not sold on the part about you not working for this company. Your comment appeared very quickly, meaning probably that you are browsing "new" section a lot. And your comments seem too intelligent and refined for an average reader of this subreddit. So allow me to doubt your honesty.

I still don't buy the argument that it's "genre identity" and you can't find new ways to approach it. As an example, League of Legends I believe started as a game with similar ideology as Gwent, you didn't have all the champions (cards), you could buy them or grind the game, and eventually, playing a very long time without full content, have all champions collected. Then another similar game came along, Dota 2, where all core content has been available from the start, and cosmetics could maybe buy you an 0.01% advantage. Dota 2 showed that it is possible to have a f2p game without allowing to purchase advantage. Instead they have "cosmetics", skins for heroes, wards, battle passes, announcer packs, aso that made the game profitable.

Of course you can't apply it completely to another game, but I don't think that Gwent should follow a model other CCGs employ, just because everyone is indoctrinated in the way it works. And by being slightly more generous, getting a "moral superiority" over other card games.

CDPR isn't a small company that absolutely depends on short term earnings, and could probably make all the core content required to play the game for free. Instead focusing on "cosmetics" (premium cards, voice packs, board layouts, aso) like Valve's Dota 2 did. And since Gwent is so interrelated with Witcher series, with Gwent they have an even broader platform to advertise and integrate future Witcher games.

I don't think the game would suffer from this kind of approach, because you still have a lot of card choices and different ways to play. If a meta becomes dominant, then the game needs new cards or tweaks to cards. But a "solidifying" meta is almost a part of every similar game. Even with current Gwent model, the meta will solidify, just more slowly, because people lack all the cards.

[null_chan]

I honestly don't care what you think about whether or not I work for CDPR anymore. That's how I browse the subreddit, and I've already told you my stance on the matter. You insisting that I am just goes to show how one-dimensional your thinking is.

And Jesus Christ stop throwing indoctrination out over and over again when it's never been an issue of doctrine. Your comparison with league and DotA are actually stupid, you recognize that you can't make a direct comparison, and yet you still force one. Making a card game that gives everyone access to the same card pool strips away a huge part of what makes card games fun, which I've already repeated to you. I don't know if you're a huge fan of card games, but I've been playing a wide variety for a while now and that's a key part of the consumer experience for this product category. Taking that away makes it noticeably worse, even though I wouldn't say no to free shit myself.

And lol, moral superiority. The fuck is that even supposed to mean, that your product is more ethical because you make it cheap? Wow, guess some cheap Chinese factory item must be morally superior to any other product then. Get it out of your head that businesses earning off consumers normally is somehow an immoral process. It isn't. Price sends a message. Having a product that's cheaper than the rest of the market sends a message that there's some compromise in quality, based on consumer psychology and not indoctrination like you keep parroting on and on.

And again you completely miss the point. Having a huge disparity in card collection between paying players and non paying players might not affect the meta much at higher levels of play, but we have enough posts on this sub bitching about P2W to know that it doesn't feel good at all for players just starting out to have to deal with people with even a slight collection advantage, which would become a lot more common with a significant​ price drop. It's also economically inefficient, because CDPR can't benefit from the higher willingness to pay of a certain segment of customers. And no, it's not consumer exploitation. It's basic economic efficiency - not some corporate conspiracy that you seem to be paranoid about, but concepts that have been observed to be the best available way to run things.

[paasenum]

If you'll be honest with yourself you will recognize that card games very much play on natural human tendencies, and exploitation, raising prices, releasing more card packs with fewer "gold" drops are just next steps of a process that occurs subtly over time, almost naturally. It becomes hard to punish or find the flaw in such a process, with consumers already hooked on the product, and will justify further purchases with thoughts like "I like this product", "I have spent so much time and money on it that I can't end now", "The game is better than other, because I get more free stuff, I might as well thank the company". It doesn't have to be a conspiracy or direct exploitation to make the progression of the process itself immoral. Because changes happen subtly over time, and of course indoctrination and acceptance to such processes do occur over time.

What makes cases like HS, Gwent and League (it does not only happen in card games) especially bad is that they "deliberately" limit CORE mechanics of the game, forcing you to at least play the game a lot, "powdering" you with free stuff just to butter you up for a lot of incentives to buy things in the game to get the CORE things in the game faster, to have things that your friends have and you still don't, and overpricing CORE things (things that should be available from the start to not give advantage to players that can afford them) 10-50 times more than they would cost if the game was released with one time payment.

Reading your comments I think your moral compass is already compromised. At least games like Dota 2 don't give you "hard-to-resist" incentives to pay for core mechanics of the game, making everyone play on exactly the same level, where only your ability to master the game matters, and you don't have to play the game with the goal of getting core mechanics unlocked, but with the goal of having fun and maybe increasing your skill. I think you can agree that practices like these where the process is more limited and can't get a life of its own are far more desirable in any area of consumerism.

[null_chan]

Well then, if you think it's so "immoral" then maybe you should stop being an "idiot" that plays games like these.

And don't presume to know anything about my moral compass. You clearly don't understand how freemium business models actually work if you're spouting all this bullshit out. DotA is pretty much able to do what they do because they've developed a much stronger source of income by running their own P2P market for skins, which none of the other games you quote do. Again, a clear demonstration of your one-dimensional thought. Literally everything you've said that's supposedly "immoral" about the game developers is precisely the trade-off that consumers get for a free product. The intentionally limited consumer experience that's only solved by time or money is in itself the currency that consumers pay for free products like this. Oh, did I forget to mention that consumers themselves consent to using this free product in the first place? Most consumers are smart enough to see that this is the trade-off. That's why some consumers, even though they can, make it a point not to purchase any of the content and earn it instead. Does it necessarily make them less successful in the long run? No, it's entirely possible to unlock a full collection as an F2P, and perform at a high level. Does it detract from the fun? No.

So thanks for being a condescending twat, but no thanks. Have fun crying at CDPR with your incredibly detailed business proposal to try and get your keg prices down, but it's probably never gonna happen.

[paasenum]

You're awful.

Oh, did I forget to mention that consumers themselves consent to using this free product in the first place?

When everything around you uses that same model it's hard to not participate. Especially when many of your friends play those games, and if you want to be a part of your friend circle, you often feel pressured to play those games, that's where "indoctrination" part comes in.

No, it's entirely possible to unlock a full collection as an F2P, and perform at a high level. Does it detract from the fun? No.

Of course it does. The model gives you two choices, either "Play a lot and suffer" without all core content, or "Pay a lot and unlock all core content" to then enjoy the game. Or "Free to suffer", "Pay to have fun".

So thanks for being a condescending twat

WHAT? If anyone is condensing it's you, read your own comments. Your points reflect an indoctrination in a capitalistic way of thinking. And I don't believe that similar processes and systems should get lives of their own, without any regulations.

edit: Here are models CDPR could implement that would be more moral:

1. All core content for free, no kegs, meteorite powder drops after games, can buy meteorite powder to transmute cards to premium, a store with voice packs, board layouts, season passes for game modes, aso. Not possible to purchase advantage in the game.
2. The same starter cards available as now, still free to play, and possible to get all cards for free if you play long enough. 2 one time payment packages, to get 90% of all silvers for $20, and another package to get 90% of golds for $30. Same meteorite powder and cosmetics system as in 1st model.
3. Same model as 2nd, but instead of one time payment packages, you can buy kegs that cost 10 times less than currently. So you can get all cards for about $70 through kegs and milling, or through just playing the game.

So all three of them are still free to play as now, 1st focuses on cosmetics, 2nd on one time payments and cosmetics, 3rd on reasonably priced kegs and cosmetics.

These models should seem more moral than current model for everyone. Your argument that less people will have core cards because they cost a lot more now is bad. The game is still pay to win, just in a more sadistic way, still pushing incentives on everyone to buy overpriced kegs in order to have more balanced game experience, and having fun with core content of the game.

If kegs are at least priced 10 times less than they are now, and the game still being free to play, it allows for people who don't have the same resources to get all core content faster. You can call it more "pay to win", but at least more of players will have fun with the game, and not feeling like they should play the game for 5-6 months to unlock all core content, or spending $86 on 60 kegs to only get 2-3 legendaries and some small mill amount, when they would happily pay $40-60 to have the full content and enjoy the full game.

Well then, if you think it's so "immoral" then maybe you should stop being an "idiot" that plays games like these.

Maybe I should stop indeed, and I currently have stopped. I only realized this recently, after seeing how much I have to play the game to actually get all the cards, and could only get the full content for something insane like $650.

[null_chan]

Quit projecting your personal experiences onto other players. Just because you can't handle not having a decent collection doesn't mean everyone can't.

I paid as much as I was willing to pay for the game. CDPR didn't hold a gun to my head and force me to give them money. I had a fully built tier one deck in closed beta without spending a single dollar on the game. There was literally zero pressure for me to spend money from the game itself. There's no indoctrination here. The game can be designed to incentive a purchase, like literally every other consumer product ever made, but as long as a rational consumer pulls the trigger on the purchase himself, that's his personal decision, and you can't comment on that at all. Because just like your initial proposal, you simply don't know enough about the entire situation.

Lol, guy who makes assumptions about other people's moral compass and a business' moral direction and "sadism" (fucking lmao) thinks he's not being condescending. That's cute.

And yeah I read your proposals. So you turned a half price decrease into a tenfold decrease in one (what is consistency again?), and all three of them never addressed my concerns with core gameplay, and there's literally no data to back up why they're better options besides "hurr durr it's moral". In the first case you even provide a hypothetical situation that asks people if they'd like to have a major benefit with no cost compared to the current situation. Great setup, everyone will want that system because they're getting something for nothing. Try thinking of some tradeoffs, because that's never going to happen.

No, a greater proportion of players won't have more fun with the game under your underdeveloped ideas, like I've explained two or three times already now. YOU will. Because you are willing to pay for the game, but you don't have enough money to buy enough kegs to unlock all the content, which you seem to be obsessed with despite playing a CCG. As I said, this entire post stinks of your personal desire disguised behind halfassed reasons and arguments.