There is something that hasn't changed that should with this game.

The game isn't pay to win but it's definitely pay to collect.

I have played 600 hours of this game and paid $200 to get 12% of what the game has.
In 100+ hours and with $60 I can get everything (even stuff I don't need) in a triple AAA.

It doesn't take too much brain power to know it's a waste of money. People who play, play because they like this game way more than others, not because it's a great game to play next to other games.

The hardcore community has been transforming into know it all ******** lately but since the player base is so low, you can't risk "fixing" them up.


Just please tell me how do you plan to compete with that?

Are your bundles getting cheaper each expansion? Maybe slightly but not enough. As you add more runes, it should be FASTER to get the 1-28th expansion's ones.

Hell. exos should be 300 shards by now. Decrease it with every two expansions.

I CAN'T KEEP UP with the new runes even for one faction.
I PLAY OTHER GAMES, get it in your head. Ain't nobody got time for this.

I'm trying to help and if you don't do this, then pray that playstation's side is successful.
At least make it easier for loyal players like me to be able to play 4 factions up to date without playing like is the only thing that matters in my life before the game... you know.

 

Just a note on this point. When you buy most AAA titles you are paying for a predefined product. It does not grow. You are paying X dollars for Y content. If they do later add content you almost always have to pay for that too via DLC.

Pox has never advertised itself as a normal game. It is basically a collectable card game similar to Magic the Gathering. I have never played MtG Online so I cant speak for their business model but from conversations I have had it is just as expensive as pox if not more.

 

I just paid $420 for a netrunner collection. $50 every couple months for pox ain't bad

 

Sounds... Dope...

 

This is a TCG. A trading card game. You signed up for this when you decided to play. It's the same as magic the gathering and hex. Don't like it, don't play. But this is how this genre works. The changes your suggesting would require making an entirely different game, and it likely wouldn't even be a TCG anymore, it would be a CCG at best. Even then, even hearthstone isn't as cheap as you want this game to be, and its a *C*CG.

 

Then they chose the wrong genre to make a game.

 

Sounds more like you chose the wrong genre to play.

 

Since you seem intent on comparing to a game you might pick up at the store let me ask, how many AAA titles from a decade ago do people still play?

 

I mean, if you want to advocate for an easier experience for free to play players, sure. I actually left Hex because it was so antagonistic towards them (especially as a community). But saying you want t have everything in the game for a set amount of money? Even at 200-300 dollars as a request thats insane for a game of this genre.

 

haha
hahaha
I'm sorry, I didn't see this comment and couldn't help but laugh.
"Just as expensive if not more?"
MTG online is better then the real thing, but even there the large majority of decks cost several hundred dollars to play. For *one* deck. If your playing vintage, which is actually closer to pox noras way of doing things (as it allows every released card), your looking at decks in the range of $500 on average.

FYI, though, I don't think MTG, online or not, is a fair comparison. I don't think it's buisness model is very good, which makes sense because its developer tried too hard to keep it tied to its paper version. IE: They have a policy where you can convert all of your paper, real, cards to the online versions and vice versa. Because of this the online cards cost just as much as the paper ones, making them far to expensive. They also pretty much just don't have a free to play model- from what I hear it's possible, but not if you want t play at all well.

EDIT: Oh, that doesn't even mention the fact the usually if you want to play at the highest level, vintage or not, your deck will likely cost several thousand dollars. With that kind of money you probably actually would be able to buy every card in pox nora, harbingers included.

(So, tldr, MTG is actually far worse then Markoth makes it out to be, but due to how bad it is and it's position it's not a very good comparison).

 

As if pox was growing. We can't even get ******* deck size increase after having twice+ more runes released than there were at the time of the last change, and dog keeps designers on salary while the game had zero functional additions for the same time.
It doesn't matter much though, functional updates could keep old players active for longer, but new players still laugh at being offered to pay upfront.

 

Pox has held par for the course for a few years. How can you say that pox has had no meaningful additions with DoG at the helm when they have already revealed that they have redesigned the entire client and UI from the ground up while simultaniously working on the game for console? I dont kmow if it will change anything but the UI and PS4 release will be the single greatest change to the game from a workload standpoint.

But from a gameplay standpoint every expansion changes the game. Imagine Call of Duty releasing new weapons every few months that shake up gameplay. Changing the maps and adding new sightlines.

 

ummmm. This is an irrational argument. What, would you expect the deck size to constantly be in the same proportion to amount of cards released? Thats not how ANY card game works.
Now, if you want a format where you can include more cards sure. But the way you put it? Thats ridiculous.

EDIT: And fyi, this deck size is about the same deck size as every other card game in existence, as well. Magic the gathering has a 60 card minimum, būt half of that is normally made up of mana (their equivalent to nora). Eventually under your jurisdiction we'd end up with 200 card decks.

 

Firk TCGs

they're all dying

 

Your not wrong, but at the same time I'd rather we not just eliminate the genre. I far prefer to be able to share my cards and trade with other people... makes me feel like they actually mean something.

I'd much rather we try and find a way to solve the problem. Personally I think it's that no TCG in existence has a good free to play model. I expect this is due to the fact that in TCG's, you can trade cards for money. This essentially means anyone who develops one is making a way to give people money- which, I think, makes devs less willing to go the F2P route. The first most obvious solution, then, would be to clamp down *HARD* on anyone trying to sell cards for money. Problem is, this isn't very feasible from both a PR and functional standpoint.

 

I Firking love spending unreasonable amounts of money on non tangible trading cards.

 

We'll, non- tangible isn't really relevant- considering these cards are FAR cheaper then any physical ones (by like, at least half). I think that makes up for it.
Now, unreasonable, well, IDK. I mean, a point made by totalbiscuit was actually that us gamers have it easy with our hobby- video games are far and above cheaper then actual, physical hobbies. It makes sense that, since TCG/CCG's are so closely related to physical hobbies, they'd cost the most to maintain in videogames.

 

player base speaks for itself.

 

Wow.... really great argument you have there. Which has already been rebuked, with me explaining how that is an innate problem of TCG's that's insanely hard to solve.
That's like saying a single MUD is a horrible game due to it having few players, even though the entire genre has that problem. Though, I think it'll be easier to solve in TCG's then in MUD'S.
Also, I guarantee you a large portion of the loss in players was due to the SOE era, in which this game actually WAS pay to win.