Brainstorming: New member perk to replace unlimited cash

Or they can barter/trade with ppl 1-on-1 for items they want on the broker for rare items in their inventory. Which costs nothing

After reading the post got to leave my two cents, well maybe 20, lol

The game is in need of more players, PLAYERS period, that help to faster queues.

As a former member, almost seven years of paying monthly fee, the cash cap from going premium is the biggest reason people quit completely, and even if you knew before hand that fact, is extremely frustrating to the point quitting for good, THAT IS NOT GOOD BUSSINESS FOR THE GAME OVERALL.

After seeing the arguments in between TORI and PROXI, I got to agree with tori, since I am probe of his points, at least some of them anyway, I got lots of goodies as old auras valuable ones, collections rare ones and other stuff in my inventories that I can’t sell, I can’t buy either other stuff I might need. Proxi said that I might sub to buy or sell those things, well he is wrong with this premium why would I sell if after a month my cash will be 2000 is futile, I prefer leaving all those thing there for if I decide to go legendary again. PRoxi said that is a rip of for members, to give more or infinite cash to premiums, How it is so? As legendary I didn’t care one cent what they give to premiums or not as long as doesn affect me at all. If I buy a lollipop and my neighbor gets one for free, good for him.

I don’t care if the devs give full cash access or not, but I am sure there would’ve be more players in game and less people quiting altogheter, simply because the transition from member to premium could be less frustrating. And no if I don’t pay for full access way less five dollars for 5-7days of cash

So yea I do think, devs should consider some of these suggestions threads, because ultimately the game need all kind of players freebies premiums and subs too.

True, hopefully they don't end up getting scammed though.

You realise you've just proven my point right. You'll hoarde your items until you sub again.

That is exactly what I'm saying premium players will hoarde their items then sub and dump.

Thus my point the supply is already in the market.

The supply therefore wont increase on any meaningful level but the demand will.

Then at that point you've opened pandoras box and that significant member perk is gone forever.

Also I disagree with your assertion the primary reason people quit is the cash cap. Neither of us have numbers naturally, but I actually think the primary reason people leave is stale, reused or lacklustre content.

Infact I think time capsules over the past year have driven away more players than the cash cap ever did.

As in life players should make informed decisions & know the approximate "game value" as well as their "perceived value" before making any trades. Don't click accept until ready. Know when to walk away. Work with people you trust.

I barter with leaguemates for expensive items for sale on the broker. They buy it, I trade them items I have that are of equal or greater value. WIN-WIN

Well I said if I decide to come back, and is a big if, is not a fact I will, but the point is while I am premium I am out of the economy of the game. Tori is right with it.
Even if I sub for a month I won’t dump, no point in doing so, that is why I said tori was right premiums are out of the games economy,

And that is not ok, still might be premiums like me who might had expended way more than any other sub member, and well from my very personal point of view, the cash cap is the one thing that is driving some away, not the opposite(sub) and that is not good for anyone on a bigger scale, yes quality content, mindless grind and feats in TC made me unsub, now premium the cash cap is making me quit altogheter. Again not good, nor for the devs, nor for playersbase[/quote]

No, the straw man fallacy that Proxystar has constructed is that he asserts my position is that the economy will improve because Premium players can sell their stockpile of rare goods. That isn't my opinion. It's his mis-interpretation of my opinion. I explained almost immediately that this isn't my opinion but he keeps referring to it and dismantling it as a distraction to his weak argument. It's a text book example of straw manning and you've bought into it.

No, that's not what I'm saying. That's what Proxystar is saying that I'm saying. Nobody knows what anyone has in their inventories, not even him, meaning that he can't even prove his own position when arguing against his straw man. Opening up the economy to all players at no extra cost increase the amount of potential customers that sellers can sell to.

It also enables all players to sell their items at any price they choose, so long as they can afford the fee, instead of limiting the maximum selling price to $40k. If you don't believe that this will increase the amount of buying and selling that takes place within our economy, then it's up to you to disprove the fundamentals of economics.

I appreciate your honesty. It's refreshing and better than the rhetoric being spouted by other people who adamantly defend the cash restrictions on non-paying customers. I don't agree with your opinion that non-members should face heavy restrictions. I do agree that members should have perks, but those perks shouldn't infringe on the quality of the game for anyone else. Perks such as marketplace discounts and exclusive sales, bonus inventory slots, monthly grants, free vanity products are examples of acceptable perks.

Nope, that's not the direction I'd like to see the game head. But there's also no evidence to suggest that this is where the game would go if it removed harsh limitations from the subscription. There isn't even any evidence to support a theory that everyone would cancel their subscriptions if the perks of access to all Episodes and the cash limit were no longer exclusive to the subscription, aside from a few assertions by some. It's just one of many theories. Besides, the DCUO subscription hasn't protected us from micro-transactions.

Hang on so you quit subbing for reasons other than the cash cap now you're blaming the cash cap for quitting entitely.

You knew what would happen when you unsubbed. No the real reason isn't the cash cap its the reasons you stopped subbing in the first place.

Now if you believe you're taking some kind of moral stand not to sub or you've decided a sub isn't worth it then deal with that choice and own the consequences.

You're not paying anymore so you don't get unlimited cash its that simple

So you're the one demanding a fundamental change to the game but are somehow claiming the burden of proof is with those defending the status quo.

No the burden of proof lies with you Torikumu and you're failing to do so on every level.

You can't hide behind the guise of "but it's basic economics" thats just trying to hide behind a statement that lacks data.

You want to make fundamental economic changes to the game without showing any real data.

1. How many premium players are there
2. How many premium players participate already
3. What stocks do they have

You're lacking the critical data behind what actual effect there will be on supply and demand and the impact this could have on members who then lose a significant member perk.

You can't just sit there with no numbers and just preach "supply and demand bro".

What sort of economist have you ever seen do that without presenting numerical data... That's right none. Only one that is trying to pull the wool over your eyes.

The reality is you are advocating to strip away membership rights because this all comes down to one thing. People don't want to pay and what's worse is its 50c a day.

Theres no strawman here other than your strawman that I've created a strawman . Nice attempt at the reverse strawman buddy.

Let me know when you've got the economic data behind your assumptions and we'll talk more about whether any pros and cons really exist.

If being premium were this comfortable, what would be the point of spending $10-15 a month? I would be able to afford all of the supposed perks by just purchasing them from the MP and still have money left over... True, we can't be 100% certain of what would happen in any instance (no one ever can, not even the devs), in any business. But it seems likely that if the biggest thing that irritates premiums and former Legendary players is the cash cap, then wouldn't removing it take away the incentive to sub? This has been my personal experience, at the very least (can't speak for everyone of course), when I have preferred to simply quit the game rather than deal with no access to the broker.

What brought me back subbing? Booster bundles. I wanted to grab the one-time items for some of my toons by purchasing them off the broker while still reasonably cheap.

Would I have stayed playing without the cash cap? Definitely, because it's extremely cheap to pick up the latest episode and I already have the U belt and lair from when I first started playing. I would have simply purchased an unlimited escrow unlock, but unfortunately I forgot to consolidate my cash between 14 alts (9 million each on 14 alts doesn't by a mat, but put it together, lol) and premiums can't mail cash, lol.

If other people feel the way I do, then the devs would have to choose between fewer subs and players who pay far less but stick around instead of leaving. I can't honestly fathom how spending $5 on an escrow is treating premiums badly, though, lol. It's like if subscribers were complaining because armories, extra bank slots, extra inventory slots, and other items cost above and beyond the subscription.

Sorry, I seem to have digressed.

Um...about your point that DCUO utilizes subs and microtransactions, true, they do. And SP attached to TCs bug me. BBs were totally fine IMO. Cosmetic items are no big deal whatsoever. But all MMOs I have ever played (there are others I haven't played, so maybe you have examples I don't know about) lean towards one or the other.

Sub more obligatory = lighter, mainly cosmetic microtransactions

Sub offers only slight perks = heavy, gameplay-related microtransactions, very expensive cosmetic shop prices, periodic events that give people who spend more a definite advantage via more powerful moves, higher stats or tiers that free players can't reach for 3-6 months.

I think you on purpose fail to see the point here.
First I am not asking nor complaining for anything, as I said before cap or not I will remind unsubbed.
Second I saw the debate between you two guys, I just came to leave my two cents on the matter as a former member. I think tori is right.
Third, I don’t care if they remove the cap, or not, just expressing that if they do, maybe more former memebers would be playing instead of quitting and that is something to consider, period.
Finally I do play now here and there as premium, and I am ok, since now I don’t expend, what they do or not for me is irrelevant, still think cap is a bad move for the better game, even if I would’ve be member I stand to this POV.
As an example with booster bundle I always purchased 5 of them, I saw the announcement I thought “cool I will buy some” but as premiums duplicates will stay render useless on my inventory so decided to buy none, again not a smart move from their side. (On a bigger scale)

Now what they do or not with the cash cap I couldn’t care less, not asking anything just expressing my POV, and that is that the cash cap is a bad business for everyone. And did explain my logic Behind the POV above.

Edit: you asked tori; HOW many premiums are there?
I am positive there a lot, how many actives? Maybe not so much, but if there were a way less punishing cap cash, there could be way more. And that would’ve be better for the game, the devs and the player base.

Can I ask a stupid question? When this discussion comes up, and it comes up a lot recently, why is it you either have to be for 100% cap removal or 100% no change to cap? Personally I could see the cap being raised to 10 or 20K, along with some of the gear/consumable prices. The premium player would still be locked out of the pricey items and the Legendary player would still have a considerable benefit from subbing(no cash cap at all), but given a bit more of a taste of what they could do with more cash, maybe premiums would be more inclined to sub. BTW.... I do think they should make it so that Premium either comes only after $20 in random spending or if you sub for at least a month. That would make a 1 month sub much more attractive, and again, the idea should be to make more legendary subs coming in. And I say this as someone who has subbed on my main account for 5+ years, and someone who has other premium accounts I run almost daily. I can see both sides of the argument.

Also, I'd love to know the escrow unlock token sale rate. Does anyone really buy those? Personally when I started as premium and on the premium accounts I still run that thought never crossed my mind....I'd sub for the month vs buying a 7 day unlock, but I guess there are some who would think different.

On the original OP's post of remove cash cap and give more marks to legendary....Nope. The gear prices would just go up, otherwise revenue from replays would go way down...that would be a money loser in more ways than one.

Reinheld

This is a perfect solution, IMO. That way premium players don't feel the noose super-tight around your neck (seriously, who wants to have to buy colas in bursts and constantly micro-manage your inventory to make sure you have enough for instances? 10 or 20k makes players confortable PLAYING THE GAME, which is the main thing, and they see the cool cosmetics and base items and either work towards unlocking them (takes far longer) through purchases and gameplay, or say, hey, I'm going to sub and buy them straight off the broker.

It's not bad for business though it's clearly pushing people towards subbing or buying escrow tokens which is its desired effect.

The fact that people make these threads is proof enough that it is creating the exact frustration it intends to push people to pay.

The only ones truly unhappy with that are the ones not wanting to pay.

Now I'm making an assumption that players save their stuff up and then buy escrow and sub and sell it and participate because they don't want it cluttering their inventories and bank spaces. Its not like premium players have tonnes of bank characters to access.

Is that a reasonable conclusion?

Or are we to believe the assumption made by you - premium players are just letting all the rare items build up forever until they rage quit or run out of space.

Really you expect me to believe that? Come on buddy, really?

To what end do you increase it to 20k though? So they can buy vendor items? Is that the problem?

The only thing I do understand is that we disagree on a fundamental level, if I appear to be glossing over details is only because I see them as irrelevant or very contradictory. Which is why I will completely skip over your example about an immigrant sending money home as it bares 0 relevancy.

Just think about what you said earlier about what happens to supply when new TCs are released. You said supply goes up and prices go down. That's true and I agree with that. I also say that demand will also increase, but you seem to need evidence for this? So why do you state that demand will go up too :

Seems like you provided your own evidence.

Understand this: both supply and demand go up but you cant predict with certainty whats going to happen with prices, this is basic economics and I thought I wont have to do this since its common knowledge but here it is

"If both demand and supply increase, there will be an increase in the equilibrium output, but the effect on price cannot be determined."
https://www3.nd.edu/~cwilber/econ504/504book/outln3b.html

I fail to see how is this relevant since it only takes rare items into account. But short answer is: it could, but not necessarily. If some premiums are holding on to rare stuff because they cant trade 1:1 for it, that could potentially increase their supply as they'll be putting them on the broker. If you're asking me to speculate how much rare stuff is in premiums and if that will impact their supply in any measurable way and drive prices down, well I cant answer that.

As I said before, the same effect will occur if DCUO's population gets a boost and we get new Legendary members. So lets pose the question with that in mind and then perhaps you can see why your argument doesn't work: is getting more new subscribers a good thing for Legendary players?You don't have to answer it, but hopefully it illustrates the absurdity of your way of thinking.

Not sure why you cannot understand that both supply and demand will go up, you're only thinking about the increased supply and therefore think that prices will drop and that is somehow bad for Legendary members. I'm arguing that demand will go up too, which you also agree with from time time when it suits your argument, as evident from your quote above. So the crux of your problem is that you think it will lead to lowering of prices and that it might be a bad thing for Legendary members. However I provided you with a link that proves you're wrong in the assumption that it will lead to decrease in prices. It might or it might not, no one can say for sure what will happen.

I can give you my view on what can happen: different players will be affected differently, you cant say that every Legendary member will be affected in the same way. That's like saying, every person on this planet is affected in the same way when there are changes in the economy. That's absolutely not true, some people get rich even during depression and some people get poor even when the economy is booming. If it were to happen in DCUO, some players will get richer and some will get poorer, but you cannot say that all Legendary members will be affected negatively. You cannot predict with a good level of certainty what the prices will settle at, who's going to win or loose from that situation, you can only speculate and your guess will be as good as anyone's.

I will copy/paste this from my first post because its easy for people to jump in and take things out of context:

Stressing again, Im not for removal of cash cap, in fact I'm against it under the current circumstances, unless the game is completely restructured to accommodate such a change. This would also entail Legendary membership to be restructured from the ground up and while it can be interesting to discuss such a possibility, I'm not convinced that such a restructure can be healthy for the game.

For those legendary members going back & forth about what they speculate premium members do with items that sell for a high value on the broker, as an end-game long time premium player (6 years in & off) here's my input.

* I don't know what current items are of high value, because I don't play the broker game.
* I don't play the broker game because I can only sell a few items @ a $40k limit
* I don't go farming high value items, because I can't sell them.
* When I get colections/styles/auras/etc I consume them on my main, then alts, then email stuff to friends for them to do the same.
* If I get something I know is of value I hold on to it for future bartering.
* I barter with leaguemates for items I want off the broker. They buy it & I trade them my items. The trade is usually in their favor to cover broker costs & convenience
* When my escrow is high enough & I have enough high value items, I pop a 7-day escrow token, and play the broker game for a few days. Then spend as much as I can before it all goes back into escrow (average of 2 times per year)

Basically as a premium member I really just don't care about the broker much. It has its uses but seems much more important to other players. Plus as I mentioned I can barter with players independent of the broker.

You're seriously comparing the effect on the game if we get more legendary players than if premium players get unlimited cash?

I don't have a problem if prices drop somewhat because we get more legendary members, for 2 reasons.

1. They paid just like I did to have that perk, so it remains a perk.

2. I am firmly convinced (unlike your "um, well...I don't know, maybe") that members open far more TCs and BBs than premium players. Let's see, do I have logic on my side here? Well, legendary members have already shown they're willing to spend more than the bare minimum to play the game, premium members have not. Legendary members have increased chances to open time capsules each month.

So, is it more probable (and let's be honest here, considering that even players actively trying to open hundreds of time capsules have a hard time getting rare collections, auras and other items) that premiums or legendary members will add additional rare items to the economy?

You skip over this question, just like I said, glossing over. All of my examples show that supply and demand do not always balance out when adding a new population to the equation. You keep asserting miraculously that they will, but without any proof.

I showed how they will relate to both rare items obtained from capsules and in-game items, based on what is already observable in game.

I even numbered them clearly to separate the two, but you don't seem to understand. Let me reiterate, UNLIMITED CASH WILL HAVE NO EFFECT ON LOWERING PRICES OR INCREASING SUPPLY OF RARE ITEMS FROM TIME CAPSULES, BUT WILL INCREASE DEMAND, MAKING THEM HARDER/MORE EXPENSIVE TO OBTAIN.

Basis: While premium players obviously desire rare items, and would like to purchase them, it is not reasonable to expect them to add a significant number of these rare items to the market.

UNLIMITED CASH WILL INCREASE THE SUPPLY OF ITEMS OBTAINED IN-GAME THROUGH NORMAL GRINDING/ALTS, ETC. AND INCREASE THE DEMAND BY THE SAME PERCENTAGE. HOWEVER, MORE ITEMS ALWAYS MEAN LOWER PRICES, EXCEPT IN SITUATIONS WHERE 100% OF ITEMS ARE PURCHASED.

Basis: Premium players don't have to spend any money to obtain these items, only time and in-game marks. So it's reasonable to expect them to obtain and sell them, adding additional copies to the market. Basic math shows that when a large quantity is added, percentages create larger gaps. If there are 10,000 members selling items, and 5,000 premium are added, the supply goes up, but purchasing percentage doesn't. 50% of 10,000 is 5,000, but 50% of 15,000 is only 7,500, not 10,000. This leaves an excess 2,500 units that weren't there before.

These are relatively simple for any reasonable individual to see, with abundant evidence above, so I'm done replying to this topic.

Did you actually read your own link, btw?

Chapter 3 Outline
II. THE EFFECTS OF CHANGES IN DEMAND AND SUPPLY ON EQUILIBRIUM PRICE AND QUANTITY
A. Change in Demand
1. A change in demand will cause equilibrium price and output to change in thesame direction.
a. A decrease in demand will cause a reduction in the equilibrium price and quantity of a good.
1. The decrease in demand causes excess supply to develop at the initial price.
a. Excess supply will cause price to fall, and as price falls producers are willing to supply less of the good, thereby decreasing output.
b. An increase in demand will cause an increase in the equilibrium price and quantity of a good.
1. The increase in demand causes excess demand to develop at the initial price.
a. Excess demand will cause the price to rise, and as price rises producers are willing to sell more, thereby increasing output.

B. Change in Supply
1. A change in supply will cause equilibrium price and output to change inopposite directions.
a. An increase in supply will cause a reduction in the equilibrium price and an inase in the equilibrium quantity of a good.
1. The increase in supply creates an excess supply at the initial price.
a. Excess supply causes the price to fall and quantity demanded to increase.
b. An dcrease in supply will cause an increase in the equilibrium price and a decrease in the equilibrium quantity of a good.
1. The decrease in supply creates an excess demand at the initial price.
a. Excess demand causes the price to rise and quantity demanded to decrease.

You can't buy all the perks of membership off the Marketplace, so it's impossible to have an identical experience to members at the same price. There's no evidence to support the theory that everyone will drop their subscription if restriction perks were removed from membership, beyond a few empty threats in response to this line of discussion. There will still be an incentive to subscribe. However, I believe the membership option needs completely overhauled and replaced with something that's less about punishment relief and more about being desirable and wanted by all.

So what you're saying is that the subscription model helps discourage the developers from doing things like selling Items on the Marketplace to counteract their system which is set up to fail more than it is to succeed at higher levels? It discourages the developers from attaching feats to items that originate from loot boxes that are opened with real world currency? It prevented the developers from distributing the best gear in content that can only be played for rewards once a week, selling a product that removes that lock prematurely? Because it doesn't and it never has.

This is my last comment on the subject, anyway. I've got better things to spend my free time on