So your point is Paladins only has a consumer friendly pricing structure because Hi-Rez are using the profits from their other game to subsidise this non-profitable game? That sounds pretty far fetched. Then what about Dota2? Is Valve also subsidising that with their other profits?
More quest places?
In fact they probably were in the beginning. Valve has the ressources to not suffer from losing money on their f2ps at first, so they can be really generous, they also have lots of money available to advertise it, so the playerbase can grow rapidly. This results in the fact that games like TF2 can exist based solely on the back of cosmetics. CPG can’t afford to lose money, even if its just for a short period of time, since they most likely don’t have the financial backup.
Dota has more cosmetics than any other game you could possibly find. Also, Valve makes money like 10 different ways from steam alone and they probably were, like Cassador says. It’s like they say, you have to spend money to make money.
It’s not far-fetched, either. Operating costs for digital ventures operate on economies of scale, and generally scale very favorably. For a free-to-play game, therefore, it is more important to have a stable, large base of players. It absolutely would make sense for them to lose money to gain that, you could almost look at it like buying revenue (except it’s not as straightforward or guaranteed as a purchase, so you can’t)
CPG could sell complete sets for a reasonable price like Faeria did (sadly does not anymore) instead of selling overpriced booster packs. You cannot seriously tell me that one cannot develop a game like Duelyst (that I cannot really call AAA) for a price of a AAA game around $60 with additional say $20 for expansion packs but instead have to sell it in booster packs with a total cost that is 4-5 times as much.
This discussion is pointless without knowing CPGs books, which we won’t get to look at. You can get competitive without spending money really fast, maybe you just are focussing way too much on complaining instead of trying to get gud.
And sure, the development itself doesn’t cost as much, but you realize that there are prolly >10 people working at CPG, all of them want their money per hour, to feed their family right? Thats the issue with F2Ps, they need support even after being developed.
Most of a AAA’s budget is in marketing. Like, 90%. Also, I don’t think you or I are qualified to give opinions on development costs or difficulties.
1 Like
I am currently rank 8 with my cobbled together decks still missing basic commons so I cannot be that bad. Btw that ‘get gud’ comment makes you look like real immature and makes it hard to take you seriously.
Idc about you taking me serious lmao, you are the one not having fun with the game after all. I already told you to craft the commons in the other thread, since your mathematical logic is flawed because it doesn’t take psychology into account.
I could go ahead, create a new account, and be diamond in 100 games.
1 Like
That is simply untrue. Witcher 3 definitely did not spend 90% of its total cost on marketing neither did other games. That is an extreme only true for a handful of example like GTA5.
That being said that argument does not even make sense. Since Duelyst is not spending much money on marketing compared to a AAA game it should be cheaper not 4-5 times as expensive.
Can anyone tell me how to use the ignore function?
Gimme a minute, i’ll figure it out for ya 
Profile -> Preferences -> Users: Muted: 'cassador’
Welcome.
Now that we got that done: People are not only working to pay the cost of what they are doing, but also to make profit of it, to afford some luxury or save money up for when they are old. You want to get the product of their work for free. I assume you have a job? What would you tell people that wanted you to work for nothing but the cost of your virgin material?
1 Like
i think duelyst has the most generous gold awarding system compared to other CCGs i played. also, most legendaries are situational and/or mesh only with a particular synergy deck build.
faeria: $50 to buy all the cards is a fair deal. but i don’t think they offer it anymore. most legendaries are very good/OP, so ppl that bought into the whole deck has a significant advantage over someone that tries to grind it out. and grinding cards out is very slow compared to duelyst.
infinity wars: same thing. lots of high rank cards that are very good. grinding cards out takes a very long time. and i think there are 7 or so factions, and they have lots of faction cards, there are no neutral cards.
Chronicle: RuneScape Legends: lots of cards. grind is very slow.
1 Like
Thank you and goodbye.
You’re missing the point, AAA is a semantics term based on marketing, but you’re right, 90% is an exaggeration.
My internet is really, really bad right now (downgraded from fios to free wifi) so I can’t do much searching but you could probably easily find a great deal of results similar to this.
Stop this flaming, both of you
I am not flaming but bringing up valid arguements IMHO, except the get gud thing.
Yeah ok. Let us say 40% is marketing. Then Duelyst which does not do much marketing should be 40% cheaper and not 4-5 as expensive. Or am I wrong?
Also while AAA is often used as a marketing term it also says something about quality or at least production value. AAA games have cinematic cutscenes, voice acting, great soundtracks and music, highly polished graphics, strong story line. While there are less opportunity for fluff like cutscenes in card games, the example of Elder Scrolls Legends shows how this could possibly be used during a single player experience with a story line. To be fair I have played no card game yet that I would call AAA. The sole reason I brought it up is that the production cost of a highly polished AAA game is significant but even they are fine selling for ‘only’ $60. Compared to Duelyst which does not have that expensive polish which asks its players to fork over 4-5 times that much.
The only thing I have to add to this thread is that the pricing structure is kind of awful compared to how easy it is to earn gold ingame. If I can get an easy pack a day by playing about 4 games, then I’m not going to pay >1€ a pack for more of them.
Gentlemen, you’re deviating from the subject. My idea is ( as the topic says ) to have MORE QUEST PLACES . Right now I have to get in daily into Duelyst or I will “lose” gold - and by that I mean, not have the gold that others will. So automatically, others will go ahead of me.
In hearthstone, I don’t have to login AND PLAY on a daily basis. Here, if I want to keep up with other players, I need to, or I’ll be left behind. That’s the big problem that my friends and I have with Duelyst, and it’s a major problem.
Looking at the steam spy stats for Duelyst, you’ll notice that during the last two weeks, the number of active daily players has decreased from 90.000 to 60.000 . I believe that - that - the need for logging in daily in order to keep up, is the issue.
More quest places would solve this problem, and would keep a lot of players coming again.
Collecting cards is done asynchronously and individually. There is no “catching up” to be done. The system that is currently in place rewards dedicated players by offering more gold over time, and helps those who are not as dedicated or without such free time with the welcome back quest.
Yeah sorry for that. It is maelrawn’s fault. 
But to stay on the original topic. Having a single quest each day for 50/60 gold and the ability to queue up 3-4 would be nice. It kinda is the industry standard so I wonder why CPG went a different way. Guess it has something to do with artificially raising the player numbers in the statistics like Steam charts.
1 Like