I have yet to see any evidence that the # of players who will only play an ARPG if it has trade is greater than the # of players who will not play an APRG if trading is required for gear.
In my experience, the latter is a larger group than the former.
It seems your entire discussion as devolved into “How does LE generate ongoing revenue and/or player retention” rather than “Trading should be possible, but not an economy” which was the thread title.
I agree we’ve started to drift a little too much, we should bring it back on topic.
While this is all relatively connected to the topic, the start of the thread was more focused.
I concur with your experience, in my estimation trade is always relatively popular, but it is never the deciding factor for the majority, the core gameplay loop and ongoing content is imo.
No game “requires” trading for gear in this genre, for one. Two, you have seen that evidence. You just may not recognize or admit it as such, but basically everyone here is familiar with PoE. It has the largest player base, for the longest time, and has seen the most commercial success of any game in the genre.
This relates to the topic because the question essentially comes down to whether the game needs trade or not. It absolutely does.
I’ll briefly reply to this one, but then I suggest we leave the revenue question for another thread.
Basically, you need to calculate with fewer players being attracted (due to the box price hurdle), but them automatically spending an equivalent amount or more to the majority of F2P players. That model counts on a certain % of players converting into revenue, for most games it’s well below <50%. We don’t have to devolve into this here now, we can continue that particular topic in DMs or a different thread, if you want.
More players in PoE do not trade than do. PoE makes it that way with their ridiculous system.
As much as people say that each form of proposed trade may have certain drawbacks or issues associated with it, I’ve outlined a huge number of issues that go with not having it. The original argument was some form of, “Because trade inevitably carries very difficult problems, we might be better off without it.” My argument shows how there is no avoiding issues whether you include trade or not, but that the ones which involve trade still benefit the game in the long run more than the exclusion of trade.
I find that claim a bit suspect, but even if true, I still find their system to be a problem. However, the presence of trade still does far more good for the game than not having it would.
Trade was bad enough in PoE that people screamed for (and got) SSF mode.
I do agree with that other post in my thread about “As long as drops aren’t balanced around trade, then it won’t impact non-traders”.
The SSF thing is kind of meme, tbh. There was nothing stopping them from playing that way and they were always a vocal minority. They just wanted to have a tag to flex with. They got it because it was an easy way for GGG to satisfy them that cost them very little.
(On a more personal note, not sure why “I’m an anti-social no-life grinder” is a flex, but okay.)
Well yes, but you seem unwilling to acknowledge that PoE is also the only ARPG thusfar in history that has managed to deliver such a consistent and ongoing history of new content. That is in my opinion the single biggest difference to any ARPG that came before and, so far, has come after.
Insisting that Trade is the key factor here seems to me to be willfully disregarding too much else - especially when you consider that retention plummets in the weeks and months after release. If the economy were indeed the key aspect keeping people interested, the vast majority wouldn’t be “done” with a League after experiencing most of it - or as much as their interest and/or schedule allows them to.
I feel like you’re generally focusing too much on the more dedicated, 20-30+ hr per week player.
It does? I’ve not been convinced thusfar. You mostly sidetrack into insisting that Trade is the make-or-break aspect for the longevity of an ARPG (which I disagreed with), and that LE’s loot needs to drastically improve and diversify to accommodate an economy existing (which I also disagree with somewhat).
Here’s the problem: unless you’re doing a full-blown barter system (without a currency medium), this is a virtual impossibility. You cannot “just allow Trade” without endangering the core gameplay loop of “i enjoy killing monsters, i want to find loot, so i kill more monsters to find more loot”.
LOL sure. I’m sure SSF is more populated than League SC.
I think what he means to say is that the vast majority views Trade as a means to an end, and doesn’t play because of Trade. At least, that’s what i’ve been arguing so far and how I understood it, because that seems to be the general sentiment in the community, if you look outside of the bubble of more dedicated Trade players.
But it’s not the only game. You can keep saying that “You can’t compare it to other games/MMOs,” but you actually can. It’s the model that’s important, unless you’re going to try to argue that a game like Warframe isn’t primarily loot-driven.
You may not be convinced, possibly because you refuse to be, but the case is there and you haven’t refuted it in any meaningful way. In fact, you insist on misstating it. It’s the combination of content updates and trade that makes the live service model possible. You don’t get to just exclude one element of it and think it’s going to work. That’s taking one wheel off a motorcycle–good luck with that one.
This is just downright false. D2 wasn’t balanced around it and was still playable without engaging in it, yet it was there and plenty of people enjoyed it.
No, I mean more players “Are not item flippers/market cornerers/live in their hideout trading all day long at level 1” vs. actually just play the game and occasionally trade for an item.
That is the crux of “Trade w/no economy” vs “Trade w/ Economy” and clearly very few players in PoE “Trade ™” for the bulk of their time, which is evident by looking at poe.trade and who’s selling items.
Correct
This is a false binary. The presence of the economy is why casual players can just pick up an upgrade or a build-enabling piece easily, then continue playing normally.
I’m sure the both of you knows what the vast majority is thinking. Look. I’m get you guys have a position. But pls stop with the “in my experience, I know the vast majority…” I can do the same. Prove to me your position is the general sentiments.
No its not, its a side effect, and not necessary.
Prove it.
@Albinosaurus What’s your take on Destiny 2? As an example of ARPG (with MMO elements) AFAIK Destiny 2 does not have trade, is PvE focused and is doing quite well it seems?
Not much of an opinion on it. Never played it, but was actually under the impression it only had a small dedicated player base, not the big hit it hoped to be. I know it was dragged through the mud on several occasions for its MTX and failing to deliver on some claims, but that’s about it.