#Increase escrow cap to 1mil:D

Dammit, I should have said increase escrow permanently;_;(Dont dare say lifetime)

Now let us know how much money they make in comparison to DCUO

If the developers believed a permanent escrow token would gain them more money and not affect subscription numbers, they'd probably have done it already and if they did and you decided it was worth it to you and you paid the money then, no, i would have no objection.

Why would I?

My point all along has been that premium players don't pay, however i would imagine the price point in such an escrow token might prohibit many premium players who already think 50c a day is too much

Can't get all, but I can get some:

• Candy Cash(Mobile Game)
• League of Legends
• Now what happend when dcuo became a "trully free 2 play", outch.

I would like the sources of the information, and I really shouldn't need to point point out 700% increase on what figure, do you have that figure..

my point is you don't, so you're suggesting an inferiority exists with Daybreaks business model based upon information you do not have and you don't believe there's a problem with taking that position?

I'm sorry that if I truly care for the game, to be honest, I would be highly against the current system that we have now.

One of the multiple sources can be found here, this one gives a good context thought: https://www.vg247.com/2011/11/22/dc-universe-online-daily-revenue-up-700-after-freemium-conversion/

Is an unstable system, it gets barely new players, some top players move on and population decreases and decreases. Pvp got shut down, period. Sm, shutdown either. Lpve, went down the hill. New powers, we almost did not got water, The game is trying the hardest to survive, you may not see it, but is true. If the subscription u so much praise was enough there wouldn't be the necessity of exploring new ways to profit in the first place.

As a company would I sell lifetime? Hell, no unless I really desperate and need funding...

To me the current business model was a thing that was not very well though out, they were like "We will change it, later" but later never came and keep going and going.

The point is you're using dated information and information that doesn't have the facts, you nor are the article writers privy to Daybreaks financial data, you're suggesting the model is broken because it "isn't earning as much money as 'x' game with 'y' system" but you have no idea how much the game is earning.

You can't draw an educated conclusion from partial data or assumptions.

There's nothing wrong with believing a system could be or should be run differently but if you're going to convince another person that it should be you'll need to have the data in order to generally do so, because you have no proof the system is currently broken other than your own belief that it is.

In fact everything you've said above is based upon an assumption, well also neglecting other factors that contribute towards an area of the game being neglected or meeting its demise, it's not always financial either.

SM for example had nothing to do with finances but rather end game player engagement, that related primarily to the fact it was broken half the time and old and stale.

The reality is you're assuming Daybreaks financial position and using that assumption as justification to overhaul a system you can't prove with any verifiable evidence is broken.

You can look here. This is an investment company.
https://www.martincurrie.com/corporate/em-disruption/online-gaming

FORBES is a good source.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikka...-dominates-video-game-streaming/#5a58a8d015ce

FOX
https://www.foxsportsasia.com/espor...loaded-free-to-play-games-on-the-ps4-in-2018/

Business Insider
https://www.businessinsider.com/fortnite-price-free-to-play-2018-5

https://www.businessinsider.com/steam-top-earning-pc-games-2018-12

I appreciate the links, but really wasn't the point I was expressing, I was merely making him go to the effort of presenting his sources as I believe any person should, in addition to that, I can't help but point out you're comparing games within completely different genres and or intellectual property restrictions with fundamentallly different earning potential.

(Also contrary to that poorly written article above as well, fortnite is popular for a raft of reasons far exceeding the fact it is "free", such narrow poor journalism work that it's actually quite shocking)

Notwithstanding that point, he doesn't and nor do any of those sites have Daybreaks or DCUO's financial data, so the question is simple, do you know how much money DCUO is making?

As we both know the answer is "No" this can lead on to the next question of, "how can you prove a different business model would earn more money, when you don't know how much money DCUO are making on their current model?"

Um... just saying "micro-transactions" doesn't provide us any relevant information. What kind of microtransactions? Stat-related or cosmetic related?

Are they p2w? How do you obtain gear? How do you obtain the best stats?

What kind of backdrop does the game have? Is it filled nothing but a dozen repetitive maps? Does it contain an artificial grind? Does it have story content with spoken dialogue?

I don't know why after 11 pages this thread is still going but your argument style as always leaves a lot to be desired. You have been critical of people presenting information without evidence not noticing you are doing the same thing"

Nothing Mepps has ever posted on this forums can be used as evidence. In fact in a neutral environment it should be completely disgarded as evidence. Mepps just gave us a statement, he didn't show us any data or anything else to back up the statement he made. Mepps is community manager not 'correct data giver'. It's important to remember that his main job is not to inform the community of the truth, but to keep the community on side.

The reality is you are assuming everything you hear from Mepps to be factual, when there is every reason for that information to be biased. If you are going to insist on others using actual evidence, you way want to find some better, non biases sources.

Mepps has nothing to do with my argument, nor do I rely upon anything he has to say, what is this absurdity, lol

I don't have to provide evidence when I'm not the one suggesting a systemic change, if you assert the system is broken, then prove it. Convince me the system should be changed... (and citing Fortnite is not doing so) you haven't so far and you never will because what this is really about is

"Give me what subscribers get without me paying for it"

All I've seen and all I ever see in threads of this topic are premium players crying because they want subscription perks without paying for them.

Ask yourself why the thread is a"give me more escrow access" rather than a "reduce repair costs price" in the first place, we both know which one is more valuable to obtain.

You have to provide evidence for any claim you make. You made a claim, which was supported by a Mepps comment, not by data.

"SM for example had nothing to do with finances but rather end game player engagement,"

You have no evidence for making this claim. It could be true, but at the moment you do not know that, unless you are privy to some data that the rest of us are not

Oh that's what you're clinging too, whether true or not, the statement was made by Mepps and should be considered an official statement by Daybreak, I believe the natural onus would be on you to prove otherwise at this point, remember you're not proving me wrong, you're proving Mepps wrong. please by all means attempt to do so; or perhaps you're just outright suggesting Mepps is misleading people? that's quite the allegation...

In any case and regardless of your view, which I'm sure you'll no doubt express... If you believe that helps with your argument about an entirely different topic being the escrow then you're really reaching at this point.

No, and you know, I could never answer that question whit data because is confidential.

Logical assumption is the only way we can handle the problem since the only thing we know is percentages. One of the links og gave: Showed a company, Valve, investing in a Full free to play experience on cs:go.

As you can see in og link: https://www.businessinsider.com/ste...12#counter-strike-global-offensive-by-valve-7

The link even mentions the steam population. Well, we have that data, don't we? Cs:Go has 300k vs 1k Dcuo.
I don't need to be a mathematician to see that an abysmal difference, there is no way Dcuo, whatever amazing business model have can keep up whit CS:GO. Lets see how many teoricaly CS:GO vs DCUO makes.

Let's say u waste 5$ monthly on CS:GO vs 12$monthly on DCUO.

--Everyone pays!

300,000 players * 5$ = 1,500,000 $ - CS:GO

1,000 players * 12$ = 12,000$ - DCUO

--Jhonny Refuses to pay! Timmoty 2! Half of the population drop 5$ a month

150,000 players * 5$= 750,000 $ - CS:GO

500 players * 12$ = 6,000$ - DCUO

I don't need to be a wizard to see that maybe pc players alone wouldn't be enough to sustain the game, after all, I can say dcuo try their best to be one of the first games in every new console. Did you think merging XBOX US whit EU was a terrible idea? Yes and it is, the further the servers are from you the more time it takes for reaching the server, after all, that's why companies have different servers. But it was necessary, they couldn't merge them whit PC/PS4 servers, because Sony wouldn't allow it and even if they did, it would be a terrible idea because people wouldn't get the feeling of the game, and subsequencial leave.

So ye, you can keep on thinking that sub up methodology is amazing and does it best until you realize that the game needs at least 2 of your of sub ups from each player in order to stay alive.

We're going back to Steam player data now?

If you have other sources of data, i would be more then happy to explore them.

I think you misunderstand my point of view.

I don't need sources, nor do I need to look for them. the status quo functionally works and has been working for 8 years and believe it or not is a common business model across numerous MMO's, including cash caps.

You're the one attempting to convince me that it's broken and needs to be changed, not the other way around.

I have a curious question at what point does a purchase become acceptable to you? How cheap does escrow have to be in order for you to purchase it, subjectively

You seem to be having an emotional rather than rational response to my comment. To be clear, i'm not clinging to anything, I just reposted exactly the same quote I did from my first comment. I suspect your still in offensive mode which is fair when you are often debating with multiple people across multiple threads. Perhaps you've gotten me confused with someone else.

I haven't presented an argument on the matter and to clarify, other than raising the cap a minimal amount (possibly as a gesture, certainly not necessary) I am on your 'side' of this debate.

So lets address my criticism of you in long form so hopefully I can help you understand better.

You stated in an earlier comment: "SM for example had nothing to do with finances but rather end game player engagement, that related primarily to the fact it was broken half the time and old and stale."

Claim - SM for example had nothing to do with finances but rather end game player engagement
So you have made a claim there without data, the evidence to back up this claim is Mepps comment. However as I pointed out earlier Mepps comment can be considered biased but more importantly, a statement or a comment is not data. Now I conflated the two in my earlier post, but to be clear Mepps comment may be evidence, but it's not data. So what I should have said instead of saying evidence is that you do not have the data to back up that claim.

I am not attacking you, nor am I trying to prove you or Mepps wrong I am simply saying that a statement by a community manager (essentially the PR department) is not data. There is no 'natural onus' (lol nice try with burden of proof fallacy) since no data has been given, just a PR statement. Even if there was the onus or burden of proof would be on the person making the claim (the devs).

I could go even further and say that you have literally zero evidence for the beginning part: "SM for example had nothing to do with finances" since Mepps comment didn't mention finances as well as the end bit that engagement was low due to it being broken and stale of which you have no evidence for and is completely an assumption.

I was just pointing out that you are making assumptions too, pretending that every assumption should be outright dismissed as you are attempting to do means you would have to disregard most of your own statements. Something I'm sure you're not actually advocating for. I think it's a bit hypocritical to chastise others for using assumptions when you are doing so yourself. That is all I was saying.

I would be happy to drop:
1k - 2,5$
2k - 5$
even if I had to pay 10$ for 1k
as long as they were permanent just like exactly the same way I brought the dlcs.

So back to the question a purchase is acceptable when all variables keep the same way if I can brought A why B is special? I dont think you, like as a customer, ask for A then you ask for B and the owner says: No, oh! but we have this A+B. But I want to pay B! No, you pay A+B.

Very interesting. If you want to do that, you may as well stop selling A. You did that amazing "1 month for members only" Bombshell Paradox and I was more then happy to drop the game.

But regardless of my "opinions or actions", the game has alot of maneuver in order to be a trully free-to-play game, instead of a misleading one where the customer feels betrayed. That would be more than beneficial for it.

• They could easily remove escrow completely, make last DLC subscription member only and open SM for everybody forcing players to have a sub if wanted even a chance to beat it and advertise sm a lot, it really deserves.
• They could change how escrow works and make escrow worthless on vendors, but still, apply it to the broker, but like i said open episodes is a must.

However, if I don't care about free players much:

• They could allow me to increase escrow by the amount of episodes I have paid for the upgrade, seems more than far.
• They could decrease the amount of repair costs and keep it the same as it was from t4, no more Titanic chorno emitters, we get a Generic one and we good also r&d appreciates it too, but like I said there are necessary items like chronometers that you need, some of those plans even drop in the dlc I brought, figures.
• They could increase escrow upon content level just like they do whit sp allocation.

What they cannot do is give me 3 crappy options that no one ever buys, because they are just awful. And the worst part is, Hey look 1k. You buy it and you discover you temporarily unlocked 1k that only decreases until reaches the cap 2000. I not sure about you but that's very, but very shady.