We never disagreed on that subject. I’m perfectly aware that retaining certain customers – or any other concern that can’t be measured in terms of direct impact on profit – does not matter to Funcom.
One of the subjects we do disagree on are whether people should be allowed to provide their feedback about the BLB and the overall direction of the game without being attacked for it.
Another subject we disagree on is whether prioritizing profit above everything else is the only correct way for a company to behave.
I think this is as good as it is going to get, thank you.
My question is mainly around the idea of the outrage of the prices and the counter points to the subjective reasoning about value.
We shouldn’t compare these prices to other games, real world objects or services. We already had an expectation of what items should cost based on the previous DLC bundles. The differences are not even accounting for reasonable inflation… they’re so much higher that of course it looks like greed even if it isn’t.
I think it is okay to compare the prices to other games or other leisure activities. I’m not sure you can make a fair valuation proposition looking at CE in a vacuum. A person who only plays CE will have a different evaluation than one who plays seasonally.
Anyone who calls a person cheap for finding the prices an unacceptable value proposition should just be ignored. You are no better than those calling people who find it acceptable whales. We don’t have to negate the perspectives of others through insults, grow a spine and be comfortable with your own or adapt it to new data.
There is a lot to be discussed about the new monetization, but I actually don’t think price is the crux. I think most of the people who have problems with price and are being called cheap would pay $30 for a dlc pack ala the old monetization strategy. It’s the “prey”/“predator” paradigm we now reside in that I think most take issue with. I could be wrong in thinking that.
Feedback, I have no problem with. I have a problem of ascribing nefarious intent to funcom. I take this personally because I’ve come to know some of them and they are some of the best people I’ve ever met online. They are professional, take their job personally, and do deeply care about the game. It infuriates me when people jump to the whole “funcom bad” bit. Too expensive? Fine. Dont like a change to the game? Again, fine just say what you dont like, what could be better, and leave the whole “funcom doesnt care about anything but profit” bit at the door, because funcom is made of of people who do care, but the individuals cannot do what it may be their desire to do and act in the best interest of the employer at the same time.
I know how that sounds to people, but it is a fact that prioritizing profit means prioritizing customer needs. The two go hand in hand. A company that listens to the desires of the most customers will be the best off in the end. That does mean that the interests of some customers will not be served; can’t please everyone.
So without airing dirty laundry, has every inout I ever given to funcom been included during test? No. Have I had strong disagreements with some of the changes? Yes. The difference is that though I didnt like some things that have been changed, I voiced my opinion once, very strongly and after that, I dropped it. The reason is, once input is received, its either acted on or not. My repeated protests after my first comments do not move the ball; it just causes discomfort to those hearing it at funcom because they heard me, and for the betterment of the game, my desires don’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Its not about me as one customer.
I dont know if that matters to anyone really, but yeah I get hacked off when I see over the top vitriol pointed at people I know care. The whole funcom staff would wave their wand and make it all free if we lived in a world where that lead to a successful business. They have to live in the real world, and that does not involve getting down into our petty squabbles in the forums over decisions that have been made and made for the ultimate goal of making CE the best game it can possibly be during the time they have it in their charge. To us, this game is a hobby. To the devs, this is their career and art. There is a piece of them in the game.
Tldr; yeah I get testy when people monday morning quarterback with attitude.
Wasn’t meant to be negative, per se, but just stating many of us didn’t buy the dlcs for the bowls or the figurines or the minor whatnots. We bought each one due to something we immediately saw as valued and the rest was fluff…the extra that at the time we didn’t care about. The only one I can say I bought more as a collector was khitan. I didn’t have anything of immediate néed on that one. Each of the others were less than a handful of items that lead me to the purchase…these are the items I use to compare with the bazaar. It would be unfair to remotely consider pieces I barely know of existence in the dlc as part of the value…if I haven’t used them and probably won’t ever…I can’t consider that as value to consider as part of the price…it’s just window dressing around what I consider valuable. It’s sort of like saying how great of a deal you get at warehouse clubs buying on bulk but only consume half of it…leaving you paying the same costs if not more because the uneaten half is wasted.
I think it just bugs me because the expectation was already set by the previous DLCs. Being a price apologist by comparing it to other stuff, unrelated or not, irks me because it’s not like they just started offering any kind of DLCs with 3.0
Agreed. I am in a privileged enough position where I do have some disposable income. I could “afford” it if I really wanted… it would be a frivolous purchase though.
I really do love the game. I am so appreciative of the fine work put in, it’s beautiful and my experiences have been amazing, my life enriched by the friends I have made. I will always congratulate and celebrate Funcom for providing me this opportunity.
Being an artist who believes in getting paid for my work… I understand why they want to make money in order to support their costs, up to and including paying the developers and artists. They have to regardless. The increase is nuts though.
Just out of curiosity, is “whale” really perceived as an insult? I’ve been using it myself, but that’s because – unlike “cheap” – it has a technical meaning and it’s actually being used, non-offensively, by salespeople (and game devs, too).
If people aren’t aware of that meaning, maybe I should stop using it to avoid misunderstandings.
It’s not the crux, but it certainly is one of the common complaints about monetization. However, you’re right that it’s not the only one, by far.
Here’s an idea: when people say “Funcom does or doesn’t X”, maybe you could understand that they’re talking about the company as a whole and not about the individual people you got to know and care about?
I’ve worked at workplaces with lots of good people who genuinely wanted to do “the best thing”, however they defined that, but that didn’t mean much because of the way the company was structured and/or managed.
It’s perfectly possible to be talented, passionate, and professional, and be surrounded with other people who are like that, and not be able to employ that talent, passion, and professionalism in a way that you and your colleagues consider correct. Worse, it’s possible that what you consider to be correct is actually correct and your users or clients or customers (or whoever it is you’re ultimately supposed to be doing your job for) would have been better off if only you had been allowed to do “the right thing”.
So when I, personally, say that Funcom doesn’t seem to care about anything but profit they can extract from Conan Exiles, at any cost, I am not saying that the people you care about are shіtty humans. I am saying that the company as a whole isn’t the sum of its parts, and whoever is driving the whole does not care. Maybe a lot of the people that form the company do care and are trying to make “the company” as a whole care.
Or maybe they aren’t. I don’t know, and to be blunt, I don’t care. As a player who is on the receiving end of the attitude the company-as-a-whole, the battles the employees choose to fight within the company are not my concern.
That’s the theory. In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
I’m too tired to engage in the discussion of all the ways the ideal you paint can fail or be subverted. And to be blunt again, I don’t really care about discussing it with you, especially when it will allow you to derail yet another thread.
We’re not comparing value, we’re comparing prices. If you bought stuff you didn’t want because it was the only way to get the stuff you wanted, you still paid for the stuff you didn’t want.
I do understand what you’re trying to say. If I use only 5 out of 100 items in a $10 DLC, you claim that I paid $10 for 10 items worth of value, and therefore that should be equivalent to a $10 BLB bundle of 10 items where I only like 5.
There are two things wrong with that idea.
One is that value we place on different bits of digital content is entirely subjective. Trying to make people discuss value instead of price is effectively an attempt to shut down the discussion. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying it’s intentional, but the end result is that this line of reasoning precludes discussion.
The other problem with this is more subtle and, I believe, more important: just because you’re not using now something from a bundle you bought (be it DLC or BP or BLB content), it doesn’t mean you won’t use it ever. It might have no value for you now, but it’s still there, and it will still be there in the future, and you might have value for it then.
For example, there were many armor pieces that I wouldn’t even consider because they didn’t give me the bonuses I wanted. And then Funcom implemented sorcery, and with sorcery came the illusion system, and now I have use for those armor pieces.
In conclusion, the only real way to have a reasonable discussion about the prices is to discuss prices, because value is subjective and subject to change
FWIW I agree, I’m not keen on people defending Funcom’s right to price their goods such that profitability is more important than availability. I didn’t mean to insinuate in my previous post that you were among those name calling to dismiss arguments.
As you point out ones ability and willingness to afford something are two separate matters. Accusing the latter of the former is not only callous, it’s flat out missing the point.
I think only in the context of dismissing conversation would I consider “whale” an insult. As in “you would buy anything at any price so your opinion is invalid in any such discussion”. It seems to me a place holder to “white knight” when these discussions veer into the territory of monetization. I wish I had an example to point to, but nevertheless it the attitude of dismissal I am speaking to more so than verbiage.
Too right, I should specify. I think it’s not the increase in price specifically, rather the tactics. I honestly believe that had Dennis come forth and said the old prices weren’t sustainable and that we would see a price increase, there would be less upset. Maybe not, and ppl would whine about a 100% increase in DLC pricing, but that is at least a continuation of the transparent monetization relationship we had developed.
You may have rebutted this in your link already, sorry if so, I am going to read it thoroughly now!
Totally agree there but value dictates what we find acceptable with pricing. I was paying for a full DLC and used only a fraction of those goods and still found it of value. Pricing discussion is fine but pricing per item? No that’s not real for a majority of the folks playing as it doesn’t weigh the items accordingly. An armor set is not the same thing as 5 different bowls that you can place around your table by my viewpoint. I guess that is where I am getting to in a very long way…the items are not equal so saying you got 60 for $10 and only 5 for $7 is counting the weight of the item with respect to what the customer is wanting. It is subjective because I’m sure there are folks that would ditch armor for more flexibility in setting tables.
It’s OK to have different tastes and we can discuss the subjective without killing the discussion because, if we are open, we can relate and continue on. There are conversations where there are true objective answers and there are those that are more nebulous and have none. Both are valuable as long as the obvious weakness of in nebulous topics isn’t exploited to stop conversation.
Yeah, that whole is the sum of its parts. People don’t get to wriggle out of it with blaming a faceless “company”. There isnt an evil monocled overlord making all the decisions. Its made by the people who work there. People making the best decisions they can to try and please the most customers by selling the most content. This isnt a utility. Everyone makes a choice to buy/play this game.
Go back to the live stream where the funcom employees unveiled the battle pass and BLB and you will see that the people who work there straight up tell you to your face that these decisions were… drum roll… forced on them!!! Hey guess what, I guess there are people well above them that do make (at least) some of the decision out there!
If by pleasing the marking team who tells them “this is what you are adding to the game to bring in the highest amount of revenue” is what you mean by customers… then I guess in some strange twisted way? Again, go back and watch the live stream. This decision was forced upon the devs. They said it outright. This isn’t speculation.
That is absolutely true. I chose to buy this game back in early access. I chose to play it still. And I chose not to buy anything from the BLB. Those are my choices. I do not care if someone else chooses to buy anything or not, those are their choices. We can all chose for ourselves.
Forced by markets, forced by business decisions or climates; there are many ways things occur by force. This notion of “evil corporate entities” always amuses me when these same “entities” are what bring people the things they want and pay for with a convenience unheard of 25 years ago.
Really, at what point did I claim anything about any “evil corporate entities”? Oh that’s right, never!
That being said, what exact convenience are we getting exactly now what we did not get previously? I remember in the 90’s I would purchase a brand new game and it was COMPLETE! It did not need any updates to it. It did not need any subscriptions. It did not have any cash shops. None of that complete and utter garbage that you seem to think is “convenient” was there. What was there was a fully functional 100% complete game out of the box and it was f***ing good. (Side note, not claiming every game from that era was good)
So where exactly is the convenience you speak of in modern games? Some game (not going to name any but I’m sure you can chose plenty to fit these scenarios) are released incomplete, filled with bugs, sometimes completely unplayable on certain formats (not even speaking hyperbolic here) and may other crazy issues at an unprecedented scale. Things that would financially ruin a company previously are now just accepted as common practice because “if you just buy stuff from our store we can pay to fix it”. How is that convenient?
I’m sorry but your entire attempt at an argument has been in bad faith this entire time. You have been making fallacious claims consistently. I truly wonder if even you believe the claims you are making.
I usually agree with you on these topics, and for the most part I agree with your whole post. Except for the “forced” part.
Please understand I’m learning and evolving on the subject matter, but I’ll stand by what I said at the time: they looked excited, enthused but worried about simping, and as comments started to roll in became more guarded. If anything, they closed in, steeling for the massive overreaction. I won’t point anyone out, but one for whom I have a lot of affection looked unpreparedly uncalm. Their reaction looked like recovery from an ambush.
Truly I don’t agree with the choices made, and have myself proposed some fixes. This was undeniably a good financial move, both then and from hindsight, now.
Pardon the second poast, I missed this. Some very clever people back then tried to warn me the instant devs called it a Game As A Service. They said “look around you Barnes, look around – one day soon none of these problems will ever get solved.” If I could, I would go back in time and take back my resistance to this. THAT was tilting at windmills.
Unfortunatelly reason what gaming industry has become - very much predatory money machines is us - the community… People even defend that kind of monetization in fanboyism manner and keep it going even worse.
Obviously cost of developement raised by a lot but… not that much, most of it is just pure profit that goes to management, ceos, investors, share holders.
If we wanna compare to black desert lmao those prices are 4 times the prices of what Conan exiles has if we wanna go there so in a way I think Conan exiles pricing is decent and also I keep seeing products coming back in the store for a lower price most games won’t do that
I look forward to all the parallel posts about how people refer to white knights and fanboys just like uttering the word “cheap”. Can’t wait for that scintillating discussion.
Yes, maybe forced was a little too strong of a word. However it was clear that the decision was not their, but that of the “marketing specialist” hence why I chose it. I appreciate your input on their mannerisms and how it had started, and then altered. That is actually pretty accurate.
