But you only have to buy it once as long as you keep playing
3 Likes
Isn’t this just quantity vs quality?
Yeah you can have the opinion its not enough or not good enough…
Hard to argue with opinions
1 Like
The thing is, listening to players in terms of sales is not as simple as you think it is and probably not the best for the company(which almost every company aims for obviously). Especially if only a handful of the actual player base is on social media to raise their (sometimes too personal) concerns. You’ll never make everybody happy unless your game is totally free without any way to spent money on it. (Even then you would have people complaining about how they want to support the company but cant because there is no way)
Most of you also do not understand the processes behind the curtain to the fullest. May it be cause you’re no marketing or sales expert or because you do not have insight in earnings and the overall well-being of the company nor how much of a say 10cent has in all of this.
4 Likes
Don’t have to hope. That one has been confirmed already. Single player will be fine
1 Like
Well there in lies the big problem. Remember when they put out four DLC’s in a year? I believe that was year two. It is no one’s fault but Funcom’s own that they trickled that down to only 1 or 2 a year since then. If they kept that rate up, or even increased the cost to $15 a DLC with 4 DLC’s a year they would be making a lot more than what you have just claimed while not engaging in the practices that are being discussed in this and many other threads here, the steam forums, reddit and youtube. The negative reaction alone from this is turning people who have bought every single DLC away from even considering using their shop.
2 Likes
That is more of a psychological problem, like I said they could communicate item to return in a later rotation on the shop page. And they could add a line in the battle pass items are limited time not to return.
If they do so they are very transparant on their practices, they’ve been transparant all the time so far.
I’m not going to argue about FireSpark and your feelings of it being predatory, I think its overreacting to something. Predatory is REALY bad, like hiding cost and such so the end user pays more than he/she expects…
I just can’t agree with the word predatory used in this way. A lot of players use this term in the worst way possible jsut to make it look more dark and evil like I explained in my other comment. I’m not going to repeat myself because someone doesn’t agree with it I’m not asking to agree with me. Lets agree to disagree.
Side note: I’m so glad they don’t add pay 2 win or lootboxes.
3 Likes
it’s all a matter of perspective. if you are a streamer/youtuber/influencer it’s exactly the right word because it creates clicks 
5 Likes
I should have clarified a bit more, i just meant it doesnt have a cost to replicate each sale. Typically with a sale you have matierial costs, and other associated costs figured into the price which is why i cant see some of the prices based as high as they are - especially since it will put off alot of return customers. I was going to do alot of equations, but i cant do that without touching subjects id rather not get into.
I know they need money to keep going and im not against that at all.
I guess im more worried that rather than keep the game going this may further serve to drive of population and in turn kill the game faster.
1 Like
Of course! Why even point that out? Name one thing that is not an opinion and I will prove you wrong. 
So we agree, thank you. That is all. I occasionally see Karans on youtube making the same points as you though so I suspect you’re not alone in thinking that if something was drastically underpriced then you are entitled to demand that they continue to be.
Well, when even FC employees say so on live streams I think it is, yes.
That’s your OPINION. Ha! See how that works!?! 
Yup, like I said… I see a lot of Karan videos saying the same things! “*MANAGER!!! This was $1 last week, why do I have to pay $5 now?? I’m reporting you! I’m going to sue!” etc.
LOL
You missed the point. It’s not catering to whales… It’s reconfiguring the system so that if you want to posses everything in the game, you’re going to have to be a whale… Or, find a different way to enjoy the game as they seem to be intending. You know… playable content, etc.
1 Like
Does that make Steam predatory because of times sales of digital games? Since the consumer has no idea if it will ever be at that price point again?
1 Like
Trying anyway. The one thing I do agree with is that these price points seem to be rooted with free2play precedent and since the game is a purchase item, I would expect a discounted costs on the storefront from the precedent price point or a recouping cost in terms of Crom coin upfront.
1 Like
K…
Just a note though, you really don’t need to continually preface your remarks to ensure they’re not perceived as attacks. That perception is assumed by the language used. Anyway…
I think most of our disagreement here on this detail is just over the definition of the term. I think you’re using it in context of a targeted prospect. I’m using the term as it describes the behavior of an individual.
2 Likes
Whahaha!
1 Like
I’d like to add:
A whale can also spend loads of money on cosmetics. Often happens when lootboxes get involved.
Funcom here doesn’t give an option to spend a “whale” amount of money on cosmetics or other services.
People can of course call spending 10 cents already too much. Lol.
1 Like
Even at 4 dlcs a year, that won’t cover the expectations of their situation. But here is the irony of all of this…you and others including some popular content folks are negative because these aren’t the same value as the dlcs…well no because those dlcs were bleeding out the company.
So with all the bravado about how greedy the company and how predatory it has become…the negative reactions all stem from the same base of wishing the same value that you once got that was bleeding the company dry and it’s their own fault for not being able to stay in the black, right? So they have to have a moral high ground but the consumer does not and can walk away without fear of loosing their means of living…am I hearing this right? I mean I see everyone saying they are allowed to make money but apparently if it’s an other value proposition outside of the one that just isn’t feasible to run the fiscal goals of the company, people are just going to walk away.
Yeah this isn’t remotely a negotiation that makes sense IMHO. It simply goes back to this…don’t like it, fine put up another way for FC to make the numbers above. If you can’t, you got a decision to make because the rest of us sort want to keep playing and want these crazy characters in FC to keep doing what they are doing.
2 Likes
Yup and the battle pass has 2 values along with the shop.
- Items for the player who unlock it by purchasing
- Future updates for everyone
Everyone is so busy with complaining about its value but I think a lot here forget the last bullet, which is very important.
1 Like
If Funcom prices anything in a way that can be perceived as greedy, they will turn a portion of their customers into lifelong critics who won’t throw them a dollar to save their life.
I already have a love-hate relationship with Conan Exiles.
Art is good, but some other basics have been lacking for a long time.
I am already expecting to be disappointed. That’s the world we live in today. But if Funcom thinks they (and 1,000’s of other corporations) can just take money out of my wallet without consequence…
I do have priorities.
Those priorities are not to spend $18 on a digital candle/table for a game I hate to love.
If I feel offended or dirty making any of these purchases I won’t make them. I will simply wash my hands of the game and walk away with a bitter taste in my mouth.
Funcom will either make money by charging a lot of people a reasonable fee or by charging fewer people a less reasonable fee.
Global recession looming and all, I feel like sticking with reasonable pricing might be the wise choice.
That and the potential negative publicity that comes with one but not the other.
Affordable pricing, friendly non-rapey vibe in the customer store will result in glowing reviews.
Predatory practices and questionable pricing will result in a lot of negative feedback.
Here is me, preparing to be disappointed. Hoping to be pleasantly surprised.
Not that I have much of a horse in this race, but did they say that? My understanding was that they wanted to release sorcery to everyone for free, as it is core to the sword and sorcery genre, but needed a way to monetize such a release. Hence the new monetization model.
FWIW to the general discussion, the best pricing model we can hope for is one that equally prioritizes profits and not isolating too great a portion of the customer base with too high of a price point. The battle pass seems to strike that balance and should be taken as evidence of their intent IMO.
It could be that the overpriced place holders are indicative of the cash shop portion of the model being more profit motivated, but it seems to me just as likely that they are just place holders - Given the implications of the confirmed BP pricing.
3 Likes
Yeah… it was indirect and on two occasions… but I suppose it could be taken either way, sure.
On BP pricing, I’ve read and heard people mention that some price was mentioned or announced. I missed that myself. What was it? Anyone know?
1 Like
It could very well be that they implied the old model wasn’t sufficient even in its time, my question was genuine and my understanding far from perfect. I keep seeing $10 tossed around as confirmed, though I cannot source it. Bearing in mind that we can get that price refunded through play, IMO one of the most reasonable “battle pass” models I have seen.
4 Likes