POE 2 early access paywall

double post.

There are opinions and then there are facts. One's opinion is not necessarily compatible with facts. Presenting one's opinion AS fact is the reason this topic has reached 20 pages of "content".

"

BaumisMagicalWorld#0673 wrote:

"

AlvinL_#4492 wrote:

There are opinions and then there are facts.

So, have you read the papers yet?

I skimmed the master thesis by Razhkou. In light of the conclusion, however, it paints triple G in a much better light.

"

Games as a Service have become the industry
standard. Publishers tend to stray away from the pay-to-play model, as it provides less room to monetise content.

That is correct and pay-to-play for the poe2 beta is a very generous move. I would add on top that we are seeing results in terms of game design/improvement for poe relative to how much money triple G's received from mtx. At the same time, Blizzard has received an 4$$load more money and what do they have to show for it..? Fits, excuses and allegations of employer abuse.

So good business move by GGG and much more customer friendly. I will gladly pay them more.

Based on that reaction I dare say I have read more of it than you did XD I
m not a referee of the thesis, so I'm not getting into it more than I need to.

Too bad I don't reach your preconceived conclusions.


EDIT:
Ok, I read Petrovskaya & Zendle and am now even more confused about the point you are trying to make (provided you even have one).

You specifically quoted these parts

"

Multiple Currency Types Cause Confusion

Fixed Purchase Rates are Unfair

How is this applicable in this discussion!?

1. The only currency is the tokens you receive for purchases. The goal of it is not confusion, but convenience. There is no need for different purchases for different items in the mtx store - rather one purchase for a stack of tokens to spend on the items. It reduces transaction costs for both the buyer and the vendor.

2. The unfair rates is definitely applicable to early days FO76, for one. I want to see a case being made for poe.

The parts of the paper that could be relevant now include at least

1. Early Access Content—End Up with Something Different
to What was Paid for

We'll have to see. We didn't see only prerendered animations, we saw the actual game - so right now I'd say we are getting what we paid for.

2. Limited Inventory Space Without Paying

Debatable ad nauseum. A group of people argues that poe can't be played without extra storage space, but (largely) the same group of people also say most of the drops are useless garbage. So what do you need the storage space for, again?

3. Overpricing

Again, arguable indefinitely. There is effort involved in designing the assets and animations/sounds/effects of the cosmetics - so I would argue the relative price per player is generous for poe store. The one part I haven't engaged with is the mystery boxes - so I'll stay neutral on this one.


If you're gonna "appeal to authority" make sure you pick relevant arguments. Don't just quote a paper to sound smart. It is worth a try for you to functionally read what you are quoting in the first place .. bloody redditor.

Sidenote: You successfully wasted an hour of my time to edumacate you on proper academic conduct. Congratulations.

"

BaumisMagicalWorld#0673 wrote:

You know, I'm really tired of people on this forum misquoting me all the time to make up their own narratives to battle against. I never said that; read the context it was said in or leave me alone.

My bad, I was actually mixing things, people and even threads up.

To just answer the OP here: I think it's totally fine to charge a small sum for EA. It's not "the game", it's not the full experience. You opt in if you want to participate in the testing.

"

Johny_Snow#4778 wrote:

Can't post opinions here now? What, are you afraid you'll get a bad case of buyer's remorse or something?

"

AlvinL_#4492 wrote:

There are opinions and then there are facts. One's opinion is not necessarily compatible with facts. Presenting one's opinion AS fact is the reason this topic has reached 20 pages of "content".

"

Phrazz#3529 wrote:

"

BaumisMagicalWorld#0673 wrote:

You know, I'm really tired of people on this forum misquoting me all the time to make up their own narratives to battle against. I never said that; read the context it was said in or leave me alone.

My bad, I was actually mixing things, people and even threads up.

To just answer the OP here: I think it's totally fine to charge a small sum for EA. It's not "the game", it's not the full experience. You opt in if you want to participate in the testing.

Dude, I can't believe you give us your opinion.

"

MorsExTenebris#3427 wrote:

POE 2 will be a free-to-play game at launch.

But you want to charge us for beta-testing your product during early access?..

Did you guys think this through?

Poor person mentality.

Apparently not tired of misrepresenting a research paper. Noo, never tired of that.

"

No, the goal of that is to make you underestimate how much you are actually spending:

And in some cases that is true. But you can't assume that it applies in all games. That's what you are doing here.

"

I already educated myself on this issue in the past

And now you apply your own biases freely, because you have read about extreme cases.

"

Are you done with the ad hominem?

Are you done with your binary thinking?

Now you quote a new paper and you think are making counterarguments. Just stop. Review your post about when you quoted Petrovskaya & Zendle and address my complaint based on that alone, if you're going to.

Name dropping papers is not impressive. I'll assume from hereon that the opinions you formulate are not even your own.

Getting the vibes of arguing with a "green energy" promoter who categorically rejects any form of fossil/nuclear based energy production. Quotes some papers about numerous environmental hazards to sound more credible.

Regardless, enough, we'll agree to disagree.

"

AlvinL_#4492 wrote:

Now you quote a new paper and you think are making counterarguments. Just stop. Review your post about when you quoted Petrovskaya & Zendle and address my complaint based on that alone, if you're going to.

Name dropping papers is not impressive. I'll assume from hereon that the opinions you formulate are not even your own.

Getting the vibes of arguing with a "green energy" promoter who categorically rejects any form of fossil/nuclear based energy production. Quotes some papers about numerous environmental hazards to sound more credible.

Regardless, enough, we'll agree to disagree.

And you're the promoter for fossil/nuclear based energy, right?