Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
TheDreadnought

Why do some people on here have a problem with WG earning money?

124 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

2,073
[WOLF2]
Beta Testers
4,701 posts

They act like it’s evil to run a for profit business.

I get the concerns over loot boxes.  I don’t agree with them, but I understand why some are concerned.

I’m even currently in the camp of having massively scaled back my purchases due to my treatment at the hands of WG customer service.

But what I don’t understand is why some people get on here and complain about WG offering digital products... even specific products... for sale at a price they feel will be profitable for them.  

They act like “revenue” is a bad word that WG should give away stuff for free or that everything should be “pay what you want.”

WG has a lot of overhead from infrastructure to advertising, to employees to benefits to cover.  All that takes money and a lot of it.  Plus there has to be profit to make it worthwhile in the first place.

Look if you do t like a product or don’t want to pay the ask... don’t buy it.   Don’t act like you’re on some moral high ground and WG is evil for even offering you the chance to buy a ship or a skin or flags or whatever.

  • Cool 14
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,358
[BFBTW]
Members
4,181 posts
9,556 battles

Most people have morals around how businesses make money. In a lot of people's minds, lootboxes are gambling. Because, well... they are gambling.

It's surprising to me you don't seem to understand why people might find the practice of encouraging people to gamble in a non-official gambling/regulated way problematic, given the amount of regulation that exists around gambling currently in the USA (your profile suggests USA).

In fact, almost all objections I see to how WG sells products are against lootboxes - people who dislike pricing say so, but not "WG shouldn't sell a ship for $X." 

  • Cool 6
  • Boring 3
  • Meh 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[WAG]
Beta Testers
782 posts
7,220 battles

im fine with things being free. im fine with things costing money. but there needs to be consistency, the azure lane stuff was twice as expensive as the other boxes, with 0 ways to purchase them. if they had originally been only available with loot boxes i might have been fine, but you are taking away what at one time was a choice and forcing a tax on us. also they reduced what we got on the azur lane collab ships compared to before. HSF had a free T10 cammo (thats huge) previous azur lane gave out Nelson and let us purchase relatively reasonably priced cammos (still to expensive in my opinion but not so much so i didnt buy them), and ARP had 9 free ships and 18 free captains... this time, we get a basically unknown azur lane char, who has not char recognition, and Hood which is nice, but... most of us who want hood already have her, heck i already had 2 copies of her, and the prem ships where lackluster (they also only came with standard AL cammo no option for a historical cammo like the HSF ships did) with no cammo to purchase.

im fine with WG making money, but be reasonable at least when compared to your self... be consistent.

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,925
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,793 posts
4,631 battles
2 minutes ago, GX9900A said:

im fine with things costing money. but there needs to be consistency,

Why?

 

  • Cool 1
  • Funny 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
223
[WAG]
Beta Testers
782 posts
7,220 battles
6 minutes ago, iDuckman said:

Why?

 

else there is no values with which currency can be compared. inflation is a thing that happens yes, but not 100% in 1/2 a year in the US (it happens elsewhere and its terrifying when it does. if you set something as a price and we agree to that price, by buying it, then the next time its offered you double the price, and we decline, then clearly there is an issue with the price. being able to randomly set prices and expecting no recourse to it is not capitalism its monopoly, and not a fun game of it either.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,925
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,793 posts
4,631 battles
On 5/12/2019 at 11:10 PM, GX9900A said:

if you set something as a price and we agree to that price, by buying it, then the next time its offered you double the price, and we decline, then clearly there is an issue with the price

Why sure!  You've just illustrated the principle of Supply and Demand.   It describes a rule of nature, not a moral flaw.

On 5/12/2019 at 11:10 PM, GX9900A said:

expecting no recourse to it is not capitalism its monopoly

Just pulled that out of your <ahem>?  The recourse is the option to decline.  When there is an option to decline, there is no coercive monopoly, only some vocal people who wish the price were lower.

 

Edited by iDuckman
Added "coercive" to make the sentence technically correct.
  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,727 posts

The key word being earn. I don't have any issue with them earning money.

I don't have an issue with pharma earning money.

I do have issue with them jacking up the price of generics 1000% or jacking up the price of life saving medicines like epipen by 600%.

Most people can easily distinguish between profits that are earned versus scammed.

  • Cool 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,480
[GOB]
Members
2,060 posts
6 minutes ago, CaptainTeddybear said:

The key word being earn. I don't have any issue with them earning money.

I don't have an issue with pharma earning money.

I do have issue with them jacking up the price of generics 1000% or jacking up the price of life saving medicines like epipen by 600%.

Most people can easily distinguish between profits that are earned versus scammed.

Off topic.....  Your handle is so sweet I bet people are shocked when you Blapp the crap out of them.. So disarming.   lolol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,005
[DPG]
Members
1,928 posts
9,578 battles

The issue with a lot of free to play games is that eventually development becomes less about making the game fun and more about driving players to a cash shop.  No one has a problem with a company making money.  The problem lies with how the company wants to make that money.  Fortunately,  Lesta seems to be doing a pretty good job of providing players a lot of free content that can be earned.  The loot boxes aren't that egregious, prices are a bit high, but nothing in them really provides a significant advantage to those that buy a ton.  When they start selling boxes that have content that can only be acquired from those boxes, or boxes that contain items that can directly influence a battle, then I might change my mind.

  • Cool 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
553
[_SMS_]
Members
936 posts
4,341 battles

I'm great with them getting money.  They just arent getting any more of MY MONEY.  I wish them all the best and hope they make billions off all the suckers that continue to support their shady business practices and broken [edited]game

Edited by T_O_dubl_D
  • Funny 1
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,876
[PVE]
[PVE]
Members
9,014 posts
22,574 battles
1 hour ago, iDuckman said:

Same reason some people are still unrepentant communists.  It's an article of faith (among people who largely eschew Faith) that profit and return on investment (i.e. capitalism) are tools of oppression.  Everything must be free!  As in beer!  The whole world would be a better place if everyone had free beer.  (And presumably cows would fart less.)

Beyond that, I'd best not go.

Nice iDuck! Yeah some people just want everything for free. We used to call them parasites and would tell them to get a job but now that is seen as mean and you get labeled with one of the made up "phobic" words.

Free is one thing, I expect to pay for a product BUT I don't like being fleeced either. As a good consumer I will complain if I feel a product is priced too high or is not a good value. Voicing my objection and withholding my money is an integral part of how the free market works. I can not be (should not be) compelled to buy a product and the manufacturer should be able to price their goods in a way that covers expenses and makes a profit for their investors. The market only works if there is trust between both parties or barring that, regulation and legislation to keep both groups in check.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
163
[CHMC]
Members
367 posts
8,807 battles

I don't have a problem with them making money. I have a problem with loot box gambling, artificial scarcity, and price gouging.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,378
[-KIA-]
Members
3,475 posts
14,834 battles

It's fine for WG to make profit but some high tier ship like Alaska had a cost of a triple A game. While I can understand the higher the tier is the more expensive a ship can be, I can also understand why some people are a bit annoyed at some prices.

  • Cool 1
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,281
[SALVO]
Members
24,828 posts
25,898 battles
2 hours ago, GX9900A said:

im fine with things being free. im fine with things costing money. but there needs to be consistency, the azure lane stuff was twice as expensive as the other boxes, with 0 ways to purchase them. if they had originally been only available with loot boxes i might have been fine, but you are taking away what at one time was a choice and forcing a tax on us. also they reduced what we got on the azur lane collab ships compared to before. HSF had a free T10 cammo (thats huge) previous azur lane gave out Nelson and let us purchase relatively reasonably priced cammos (still to expensive in my opinion but not so much so i didnt buy them), and ARP had 9 free ships and 18 free captains... this time, we get a basically unknown azur lane char, who has not char recognition, and Hood which is nice, but... most of us who want hood already have her, heck i already had 2 copies of her, and the prem ships where lackluster (they also only came with standard AL cammo no option for a historical cammo like the HSF ships did) with no cammo to purchase.

im fine with WG making money, but be reasonable at least when compared to your self... be consistent.

The Azur Lane boxes were more expensive because you were guaranteed to get a 10 point captain in each, IIRC.  And 10 point captains have more value than 3 or 5 or 10 dragon flags.

  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9,281
[SALVO]
Members
24,828 posts
25,898 battles
1 minute ago, AlcatrazNC said:

It's fine for WG to make profit but some high tier ship like Alaska had a cost of a triple A game. While I can understand the higher the tier is the more expensive a ship can be, I can also understand why some people are a bit annoyed at some prices.

If they don't like the price, then they can decide NOT to buy it.  Same as with any other product.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,925
[WOLF9]
Privateers
13,793 posts
4,631 battles
2 minutes ago, AlcatrazNC said:

some high tier ship like Alaska had a cost of a triple A game

Really?  And here I thought it was FREE.  Some people aren't even satisfied with FREE.  They want the seller to admit to deviant thoughts.

 

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
182 posts
2,817 battles
3 hours ago, iDuckman said:

When there is an option to decline, there is no monopoly

That there is an option to decline does not make it not a monopoly.  A monopoly means that if you decline, there is no alternative source for that good/service.

And WG does in fact have a monopoly on all virtual goods in this game.

  • Cool 1
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
5,263 posts
9,965 battles
6 hours ago, enderland07 said:

Most people have morals around how businesses make money. In a lot of people's minds, lootboxes are gambling. Because, well... they are gambling.

It's surprising to me you don't seem to understand why people might find the practice of encouraging people to gamble in a non-official gambling/regulated way problematic, given the amount of regulation that exists around gambling currently in the USA (your profile suggests USA).

In fact, almost all objections I see to how WG sells products are against lootboxes - people who dislike pricing say so, but not "WG shouldn't sell a ship for $X." 

The OP specifically was not talking about lootboxes and there have been a TON of posts about the cost of ships or that they are doing things to encourage buying premium time, flags  - you know - spending money as if the company of a F2P game needs no revenue to operate.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,179
[5BS]
Banned
8,864 posts
7 hours ago, TheDreadnought said:

But what I don’t understand is why some people get on here and complain about WG offering digital products... even specific products... for sale at a price they feel will be profitable for them.  

How you earn money is as important as if you do or do not. The fact they deliberately [edited] with your experience to make it just frustrating enough, rather than actually going for a fair setup, to encourage you to buy premium ships/time, rather than just offer them as alternative skins/ship types, and then to offer them at HUGELY inflated prices; the same level of coding, mapping, and texturing of a Premium ship sold here for $50 USD is what it takes to make a hat in TF2 that sells for $3 USD, to say nothing that the net work levels for a T4 is the same as a T8 yet the T8 costs more? Because the price points are [edited], inflated, and self serving to the design of the tiering system. Or, put another way, WGing *created* a problem in the tiering and balance system, and are selling you the solution. Even if the prices were as inflated as they were but not being leveraged in a way to create frustration, that would be MAYBE tolerable, as other games have sold DLC/Microtransaction items for high prices as well without relying on such tactics, but the combination here is grating.

The reality is, from a business standpoint, WGing is getting away with practices that would not work if they had competition, and likely, should a meaningful attempt at a competitive game be produced, they would lose significant portions of their market share. Additionally, it is always worth remembering that while WoWs and WoTs do not even rate in the top 25 most played MMO's either by peak or average player counts, WoT's is in the top 10 most profitable and WoWs is in the top 15. So despite having FAR fewer players, they are generating FAR more income, and most of that has to come from price gouging. Now a chicken or the egg situation comes to mind; if they lowered their prices, would more people make purchases? Evidence from other games suggests yes: LoL does not offer skins for $20-30-50 USD; they are in the $5-$10 typically, and it is *far* more profitable than all WGing products combined, so clearly you can make not just some, but more money, without the price gouging (it is worth noting that LoL also releases new content far more regularly so they are making more money and SPENDING more money, despite charging less).

So the ire, if it exists em masse, is primarily due to WGing's deliberate decisions to prioritize price gouging and not just over player experience, but, as shown in their patents, by DELIBERATELY making negative impacts on player experience in order to sell that overpriced DLC. If it was one or the other, it might be less grating, but, for my part at least, it is the combination that makes me a dis-loyal customer (I would jump ship to a competent competitor the *moment* one was offered). If the ships were $8 but the gameplay deliberately frustrating, fine, plenty of games have done that. If the game was very well balanced and not *expressly* designed to be frustrating (again, it's in their *patents*, this is not something accidental or assumed; it is DELIBERATE), but the premium ships cost $50 each, also fine, I've bought expansion packs for well balanced games that cost $30-$40, not a big deal. But combined they make for a very negative customer experience and it is tolerated purely because they fill a niche no one is (yet) interested in attacking. That said, I suspect a competitor product is coming sooner than later, depending on the performance of Skull and Bones, as slowly but surely Ubisoft is starting to realize there is a niche to be filled in the Naval Themed game market, and they can leverage a much heavier hand than WGing could ever dream of in regards to marketing, existing customers, and development. Basically a Ubisoft version of WoWs would more or less bury this product into WoWP's territory.

  • Cool 3
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12,053
[ARGSY]
Members
20,158 posts
14,340 battles
4 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

should a meaningful attempt at a competitive game be produced

That's the catch, isn't it?

There IS no meaningful competition, and the reason for this is that despite all its flaws, this game does what it does very well indeed and nobody since 2015 has been able to produce a half-decent competitor.

I came here because I was looking for a ship game, and WOWS gave me (and continues to give me) exactly what I've wanted in a warship video game since 1982. And I don't care if W*r Th*nd*r has ships; what I have here is good enough that I see no reason to leave or try something else.

If I were looking for an airplane game, however, you can bet your bottom dollar I'd be a W*r Th*nd*r customer, because they were first with the most and what I have seen of WOWP just can't compete. And that's no slight on Wargaming; it's just that they do ships better and the other crowd has a far better airplane product. 

10 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

The fact they deliberately [edited] with your experience to make it just frustrating enough, rather than actually going for a fair setup, to encourage you to buy premium ships/time

This is potentially a libellous accusation, and you are on very shaky ground here.

3 hours ago, Pseudovector said:

And WG does in fact have a monopoly on all virtual goods in this game.

And that is probably a good thing, because if you could buy this stuff on E-bay the price gouging would be horrific.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,569
[WOLF2]
Members
4,985 posts
19,909 battles
7 hours ago, TheDreadnought said:

They act like it’s evil to run a for profit business.

I get the concerns over loot boxes.  I don’t agree with them, but I understand why some are concerned.

I’m even currently in the camp of having massively scaled back my purchases due to my treatment at the hands of WG customer service.

But what I don’t understand is why some people get on here and complain about WG offering digital products... even specific products... for sale at a price they feel will be profitable for them.  

They act like “revenue” is a bad word that WG should give away stuff for free or that everything should be “pay what you want.”

WG has a lot of overhead from infrastructure to advertising, to employees to benefits to cover.  All that takes money and a lot of it.  Plus there has to be profit to make it worthwhile in the first place.

Look if you do t like a product or don’t want to pay the ask... don’t buy it.   Don’t act like you’re on some moral high ground and WG is evil for even offering you the chance to buy a ship or a skin or flags or whatever.

A good business profits by serving its customers 

A bad business profits by screwing its customers 

 

This doesn't mean anyone goes to hell … it just means they deserve to fail :)

 

Edited by Commander_367
  • Boring 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,280
[PVE]
Members
4,264 posts
18,653 battles
31 minutes ago, _RC1138 said:

How you earn money is as important as if you do or do not. The fact they deliberately [edited] with your experience to make it just frustrating enough, rather than actually going for a fair setup, to encourage you to buy premium ships/time, rather than just offer them as alternative skins/ship types, and then to offer them at HUGELY inflated prices; the same level of coding, mapping, and texturing of a Premium ship sold here for $50 USD is what it takes to make a hat in TF2 that sells for $3 USD, to say nothing that the net work levels for a T4 is the same as a T8 yet the T8 costs more? Because the price points are [edited], inflated, and self serving to the design of the tiering system. Or, put another way, WGing *created* a problem in the tiering and balance system, and are selling you the solution. Even if the prices were as inflated as they were but not being leveraged in a way to create frustration, that would be MAYBE tolerable, as other games have sold DLC/Microtransaction items for high prices as well without relying on such tactics, but the combination here is grating.

The reality is, from a business standpoint, WGing is getting away with practices that would not work if they had competition, and likely, should a meaningful attempt at a competitive game be produced, they would lose significant portions of their market share. Additionally, it is always worth remembering that while WoWs and WoTs do not even rate in the top 25 most played MMO's either by peak or average player counts, WoT's is in the top 10 most profitable and WoWs is in the top 15. So despite having FAR fewer players, they are generating FAR more income, and most of that has to come from price gouging. Now a chicken or the egg situation comes to mind; if they lowered their prices, would more people make purchases? Evidence from other games suggests yes: LoL does not offer skins for $20-30-50 USD; they are in the $5-$10 typically, and it is *far* more profitable than all WGing products combined, so clearly you can make not just some, but more money, without the price gouging (it is worth noting that LoL also releases new content far more regularly so they are making more money and SPENDING more money, despite charging less).

So the ire, if it exists em masse, is primarily due to WGing's deliberate decisions to prioritize price gouging and not just over player experience, but, as shown in their patents, by DELIBERATELY making negative impacts on player experience in order to sell that overpriced DLC. If it was one or the other, it might be less grating, but, for my part at least, it is the combination that makes me a dis-loyal customer (I would jump ship to a competent competitor the *moment* one was offered). If the ships were $8 but the gameplay deliberately frustrating, fine, plenty of games have done that. If the game was very well balanced and not *expressly* designed to be frustrating (again, it's in their *patents*, this is not something accidental or assumed; it is DELIBERATE), but the premium ships cost $50 each, also fine, I've bought expansion packs for well balanced games that cost $30-$40, not a big deal. But combined they make for a very negative customer experience and it is tolerated purely because they fill a niche no one is (yet) interested in attacking. That said, I suspect a competitor product is coming sooner than later, depending on the performance of Skull and Bones, as slowly but surely Ubisoft is starting to realize there is a niche to be filled in the Naval Themed game market, and they can leverage a much heavier hand than WGing could ever dream of in regards to marketing, existing customers, and development. Basically a Ubisoft version of WoWs would more or less bury this product into WoWP's territory.

Ah, well said and stuff I've been saying for a while now....  Universities actually study e-Business and games !  In fact, they are making money "despite themselves..."  Scary stuff that.  Talk about mature product, small niche market mis-handling!

They don't have competition; and, they can and are "doing whatever they want'...... 

They are no where near LoL or any of the +1 million player per hour games....  Where a single micro-transaction brings in millions of clean, net profit. 

Good thread and well said.......  Stop spending is the response to poor quality....  After all, we have an open market in the US and can find hundreds of other games to play !  Money talks........

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
987
[INTEL]
Members
3,058 posts
16,819 battles
7 hours ago, GX9900A said:

else there is no values with which currency can be compared. inflation is a thing that happens yes, but not 100% in 1/2 a year in the US (it happens elsewhere and its terrifying when it does. if you set something as a price and we agree to that price, by buying it, then the next time its offered you double the price, and we decline, then clearly there is an issue with the price. being able to randomly set prices and expecting no recourse to it is not capitalism its monopoly, and not a fun game of it either.

First, monopoly is a part of capitalism.  Governments regulate monopolies already by either price controls or by removing/lowering barriers to market entry by competitors.

Secondly, a product is not a monopoly.  It's a game and there are many games out there.  It's true there are no other companies selling WoWs ships and products but there are also no other companies producing and selling iPhones.  There are other companies selling smart phones.

  • Cool 2
  • Meh 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,387
[WOLFG]
Members
9,619 posts
8,610 battles
8 hours ago, iDuckman said:

Why?

 

Because a Ferrari should cost as much as a Chevy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×