So, it seems like you agree that not having a Trade Economy (as you see it) won’t really affect the game negatively, because everyone who likes it would still like the other aspects of the game enough to play it.
That isn’t at all what I implied. I’m thoroughly tired of your disingenuous attitude and bad arguments–especially when they often take the form of these kinds of fallacies. Congrats on being the second person to make it to the exclusive club known as the “block list.” Maybe by next week you will have changed your tone and be ready to converse as an adult.
Pretty sure that’s you in that quote.
Trade is a controversial topic because it’s annoying to interact with, not because people wish it didn’t exist. The other reason is that most people want an auction house but GGG refuses to implement anything to make trade more smooth. If GGG took out trade they’d lose a MASSIVE % of their player base. Trade in PoE isn’t “the” selling point, but it’s a huge factor in bringing people back and keeping them around.
With this comment you actually brought to light one of the weakest parts of the anti-trade argument:
This game isn’t supposed to follow Grim Dawn, it’s supposed to follow PoE. They’re doing the same content delivery system, they’re investing heavily into end game systems, they are adding trade, they’re doing cycling supporter packs and will be funding the game through MTX, etc. Whether you like it or not, trade is going to be a necessary part of the game if they want to bring in the same kind of players who spend thousands of hours and dollars on a game throughout the course of several years. I spent $40 on Grim Dawn and its expansions once several years ago, and I haven’t spent a dime since. I have however dropped an embarrassing amount of money on PoE and have played it since beta. I am the target player for LE if the studio wants to continue to support the game for years to come, and I can confidently say that without trade this game is not going to garner the support of players like me who are drawn to online multiplayer ARPGS mostly because of trade and end game.
PoE players are LEs target demographic, because they’re the ones who will support the games content delivery system and monetary structure. People who play single-player ARPGs are not going to do that, so it’d be a pretty huge mistake to exclude a large % of those people just because a couple of those single-player ARPG fans are worried about it on the forum.
3 Likes
How so? This is how a f2p live services model functions - very high turnover rate, hoping for a sufficient % to translate into revenue, and a core of whales (which you optimally don’t need ro rely on, but they’re usually a factor nontheless, a game big enough such as Warframe doesn’t rely on them).
I did play for a few weeks and I can’t say I noticed a flourishing trade community, it seemed relegated to the more dedicated and active long term players.
Also, Trade in Warframe does precisely what other loot grinders in the past have with respect to an economy: make it cumbersome and a hassle (direct p2p barter). So this is kind of a bad example to use if you want to argue for a buyout AH, for example.
I’ll grant you my example was very poorly chosen, but others have given more comparable examples of loot grinders doing without an economy in MP.
As for the box price, it is very simply not irrelevant. You cannot base your entire argument around what games that run live service models need to do (in your opinion), and then dismiss a key fact that significantly alters the situation.
They are still barter systems, sure they are supported by additional tools to help facilitate the communication better than simply spamming chat ingame, but they incorporate a necessary amount of hassle and time/energy sunk into the process, quite unlike an ingame AH option. Warframe did this the same way over a decade later.
PoE is similarly still a barter system, it simply has external tools to aid visibility and interaction. It’s a far cry from an AH, especially with a buyout function (there’s a reason so many still vocally demand such an option).
This is actually a misconception. It kind of depends on the size of the game and the exact revenue model though, so I don’t want to derail this topic too much further. Suffice it to say a game with the numbers PoE has does not rely on whales, but on a sufficient translation rate on average. You can look into these figures more in other games too.
As for casuals interacting with Trade, yes ofc they do, because it is still the “easier” option compared to SSF, and as I said ppl still largely enjoy the feeling of added loot value. However, the majority views it as a means to an end, and not the main purpose of the game, and most are not comfortable or enjoy the hassle, as we’ve discussed.
This is the part where we have to agree to disagree, because I do believe GGG’s core manifesto (and I was of that opinion long before they posted it, due to my experiences in D3 1.0) was spot on a few key challenges in ARPG trade environment. You cannot lower the treshold to engage/increase the QoL of Trade interaction too much without risking the functional integrity of the core gameplay loop. You are not of that opinion, we’ve established that, so we’ll have to agree to disagree.
I’d be happy to see if a healthy medium can indeed be found that could facilitate a good compromise, I simply don’t hold out much hope that it is possible, and indeed that is where my general position of avoiding it entirely stems from.
I would argue that Trade is a relatively big factor in PoE because the game has failed to deliver on an intuitive, accessible crafting system, that the majority can interact with without resorting to spreadsheets, simulators and guides. While I enjoy that aspect personally, and it’s part of the draw for many, it’s also part of the issue with the game. Like I said before, people look to Trade because it’s the simplest option, meaning despite it having rather large hurdles in PoE, it is still the more efficient and straightforward method of progress. Which is a big problem, one acknowledged in the community at large for some time now. It goes into problems with loot inflation, crafting RNG/complexity and general access/player-friendly design.
LE is starting from a different basis here imo, and has a chance to take a different road.
Well we’re going to fundamentally disagree again here that Trade is the crux of player interest, I will maintain the regular content updates are. For another, it is precisely not following PoE exactly in its model by the simple fact that it has a box price, and (it seems at least at this point in time) is not looking at QoL or mandatory MTX.
I cannot stress enough how big of a difference maker the box price model is here, it’s a fundamental difference.
As to your bolded part: I don’t actually believe they will go in a direction without an economy, based on what they’ve stated. I’m discussing what I think would maybe be a more interesting option. But suffice it to say, as I’ve outlined thusfar ad nauseum, I don’t believe that the players who need Trade to exist are the deciding factor or long term success.
It sounds like you only “tried” the game. The definition of “dedicated” in that game looks a lot different than in many others because it behaves differently over a larger time scale. However, I didn’t say it had an AH style trade system. It’s closer to PoE in many ways, but the point is more about how most of these games that try to have a barter system inevitably evolve toward something approximating an AH–Warframe and PoE both did this through 3rd party tools/resources.
For most games, the box price is roughly equivalent to 2-3 MTX purchases. Sure, it contributes to the total revenue, but it’s not a source of continued revenue in the grand scheme of things. A live service model couldn’t survive on just that–the real income is from MTX, so it doesn’t matter if it’s “f2p” or b2p. This doesn’t change.
I think you think this argument works in your favor, but it really highlights how much more a regular AH is desired. As successful as these games are, I very strongly suspect that those impediments to trade translate to impediments to the game’s success. Put another way, these games succeeded despite these issues, not because they were good ideas.
Basically a “no u” that I don’t find true or persuasive. Not sure how we reconcile that one, tbh.
I have opposed their manifesto from the beginning and still believe it was/is a mistake. Players have been slowly prying trade open to get it to where it belongs, and I think the game may have fallen apart a long time ago if they hadn’t gained the ground they did.
I see you making the same mistake with Arundel that you do with me. Just because we recognize the importance of trade doesn’t mean it’s the entirety of what’s important to these games. I really wish you would stop repeating this straw-man, especially when we have explicitly stated otherwise.
I feel like you’re missing the key point here, namely that there is a reason so many different loot grinder games have specifically avoided going for a regular AH buyout system, especially since D3’s example.
Let me ask this provocatively: do you think it’s a complete coincidence that multiple studios have come to this conclusion, and that they are all wrong? Or could it possibly be that the community perception is not properly accounting for all the ramifications, and hyper-focusing on QoL without considering the long term effects on their own enjoyment as well as the health of a game?
I think you vastly underestimate how big of a deal that equivalent of 2-3 MTX purchases is. It is a fundamentally different approach, more comparable - as you’ve tried to allude to in previous comments for other reasons - to certain MMOs which come with box price and MTX, often even a sub on top of that. The box price in itself is already a strikingly different approach to player engagement, and relies on player interest before engaging.
You also seem to totally disregard the fact that the point of ongoing content development under a box price model would be primarily to attract more box price sales over time, with MTX supplementing that. You are pretty literally comparing apples and oranges here with one being a box price game with added cosmetic MTX, and one being a full-blown F2P model fully relying on live services for monetization.
I would encourage you to look at numbers in many other live service model games, where available, to maybe realize the stark difference here.
This point will essentially boil down to a game attempting one or the other - either a live services model with the type of Trade you desire, or a box price game attempting the type of content delivery PoE has, without a Trade economy (at least to the degree you desire) - and seeing if it works. I think neither of us has ready-made examples of exactly this niche being done successfully or unsuccessfully, because it really hasn’t been attempted yet.
So we’re just going to have to remain at an impassé of each of us believing one direction or the other to be a better guarantee for success.
I’m not sure where you get that drift from my reply. Like I stated above, we agree on the state of things, but disagree on the reasons and potential solutions, so we’ll just have to leave it at that. I think my biggest point of contention would be your view of LE’s business model, as I have described above.
I don’t think it’s a strawman at all, yes you both acknowledge that Trade is not the factor but an important one, but you both insist that a new ARPG would be doomed to failure without a Trade economy, that’s simply where we disagree and as stated above, will have to remain at that point until a game, maybe LE, attempts one or the other compromise/hybrid solution.
PoE’s history is of course another hypothetical, I will insist that the breackneck pace of content delivery is what has kept them growing and successful despite all issues, because at the end of the day, that is what keeps player turnover healthy and keeps generating interest both from new and returning players, with or without Trade. We simply disagree on the importance of an economy existing here, I guess we can leave it at that.
I can absolutely appreciate your views, I just don’t believe them to be accurate and am firmly of the belief that LE could succeed to become a sustainable. well-received genre representative by avoiding those pitfalls and focusing on quality content delivery on a box price model, with MTX supporting revenue by the most enthusiastic players (or “whales”, as it were).
Ultimately as I’ve said in the previous post, I don’t actually believe they will go my direction, and already have a rather specific model in mind to attempt a kind of hybrid model. I rather suspect that neither your nor my vision will be fully met, and we’ll have to see how it plays out.
This discussion has definitely got me into thinking even more about it and solidified my own convictions, though.
I was going to address each point, but fundamentally, you don’t recognize what this game’s model actually is. Box sales won’t drive revenue in the long-term and won’t sustain the studio for continued development on its own. Every live service model uses either subs or MTX (or both). Arguing that this isn’t going for the live service model despite understanding that it’s going for the leagues/cycles approach is simply incongruous.
You’re still only getting half the message here. Flip it the other way around. If we said this was a game about trade and didn’t need the content updates, do you really think that would be sustainable? Assume that the apparent design of the game pointed toward trade as the main focus. I think you would still argue for the importance of content updates. You point to Destiny 2 as an example of success, but everything I see about it points to it being on life support. I can confidently say that if it did include trade, there would be vastly more player interest, even if it “made the game easier.” Claims that it trivializes the game are absurd on their face, so I won’t entertain them as that has never been my experience in any of these games, nor of anyone I played with.
I’m quite skeptical, but reserved. Agree we’ll have to see what they do with it, but if they agree with the underlying presuppositions that you hold, I can’t see it working out well. At minimum, that’s likely to kill interest in the game for players who share my player demographic.
I’m tired of the “AH can’t work in ARPGs” fallacy and dealing with shitty/cumbersome trade systems. The kind of game I would gladly support through heavy MTX purchases will avoid these mistakes.
That is one valid purpose to them. It may not be the case we can change each other’s minds, but we can refine what we believe, why, and help others to do the same through valid points on either/both side(s).
What’s the best ARPG out there right now?
Name another loot-based ARPG with seasonal content where the player base has grown massively over time
I mean, that’s basically my entire point, it hasn’t been done since, and the seasonal content is the key factor here that’s working. All other genre representatives since have not gone for either an economy the way you want it, or regular content delivery. That’s what we’re discussing here, the reasons for PoE’s success.
I think we’re fine where we are now in the discussion.
We’d simply be restating each others’ opposing viewpoints on a few key aspects now (LE’s business model, the importance of a trade economy vs content delivery etc) by continuing.
I don’t believe “buyout (important distinction here) AHs can’t work in ARPGs” is a fallacy at all, I believe the reasoning holds merit.
I’d be very happy to be proven wrong, though, as like I said I do generally enjoy Trade value added to loot.
1 Like
Actually, we can talk about a slightly different aspect of the topic now, and put the other factors to the side right now:
I’m curious, would you be happy with a model the way they’ve been hinting at? (Bid-only AH ingame, restrictions to what can be traded) That seems to have been the point they very vaguely left it at thusfar, and to go back to my OP, while I agree with restrictions being a good thing, I’m not sure a bid-only model would make anyone happy, really.
No, if they settle on a bid-only system, I’m hard passing on continuing support for this game. That’s a firm line in the sand for me. I hate bid systems to an extreme degree.
1 Like
Interesting. I definitely wouldn’t stop playing, but I think it wouldn’t work out to make anyone wanting an economy very happy, so I can relate.
A bid-only economy to me is basically the equivalent of not really wanting the economy to be a predictable or valuable factor in progression at all, which kind of supports my own views, but really begs the question, as I outlined in my OP, of why you’d implement it at all.
If they do want an economy, i’d be game for them to attempt your model instead, though like we both said it would necessitate rather significant changes to the current loot model, so i’m not sure that’s on the table at all.
I think we can strongly agree here.
I’m okay with them trying some other ways to try to balance trade if it needs to be, assuming they make the needed changes to loot in general (especially providing for valuable non-gear loot), but I’m honestly just so sick of the hoops and hurdles games feel like they need to put in the way of trade. To me this is treating the symptoms, not the cause, and treating the cause involves careful attention to how players use trade, if these uses are acceptable, and what other measures can be taken if they are not.
What I find interesting to mention here, btw, is that D4 by all accounts is not going for a full-blown Trade economy model either, and placing heavy restrictions on it, with an actual marketplace/AH not even being on the table rn afaik.
I do think it would benefit us to return to the root premise here: you design an ARPG. The key gameplay elements are: you kill monsters, that process should be fun, and they drop loot. That loot should be motivating to pick up, and you should be motivated to repeat this process as much as possible without getting tired of it.
It really is a fundamental take on design philosophy to decide how much you want any other factors (crafting, trading) affect this loop.
If we go back to the earlier propositions - having a buyout AH, but placing heavy restrictions on what can be traded, I believe it might work out. I still think this kind of hyperfocuses the average player on endgame itemization and progress, and the steep drop-off from Trade accessibility early on, to relying on raw drops and crafting RNG for progress by the end.
In fact, i kind of sort of almost believe if you go for a buyout AH, you may as well allow Exalted items to be traded as well - their sheer rarity and the RNG involved would make them generally much more interesting as chase items with value attached. Once again we would run into the questions of how much this would bypass the intended duration of time you are supposed to be enjoying the core gameplay loop, however - and how much time being spent on simply browsing/interacting with the market is desirable.
You can also use that root premise to get rid of crafting & the gambler since they’re a method of obtaining loot that doesn’t involve killing mobs.
This is true, hence why I said “how much” you want it to affect that loop. Crafting rn works fine to finish items, but works very poorly to completely bypass raw drops, especially for Exalted items, where it’s an impossibility by design.
EDIT: you can also argue Crafting doesn’t completely bypass it anyway, being tied into other drops.
Gambling to me is a weird one, it doesn’t really fit into a buyout economy at all, to me. So i’m not sure what its existence currently says about the plans.
1 Like
It is very common for games that have trade to add value to loot that would have none without trade. Most commonly, this is because it is theoretically useful to someone else whose needs conditions are different enough that this loot would satisfy some portion of it, even if just temporarily. This encourages the core gameplay loop, because chasing that value becomes part of that loop.
Similarly, a properly structured and balanced crafting system does the same thing. Having both crafting and trade multiplies the effect of this.
To take it out of the abstract and into something concrete, I was never shy about buying low cost “leveling” uniques in PoE. Rather than decreasing my enjoyment of the game, it increased it, because I was able to more freely explore different leveling and build paths than if I was stuck with a strictly SSF loot pool. Buying a cheap Infractem with 3 sockets, decent rolls, and a high ilvl combined with being able to use the Jeweler’s Touch prophecy to make it 5L. I now had a cheap, but powerful bow (assuming it was appropriate for my build) that could help me progress through the later parts of the campaign or early maps before either finding something better to use or deciding if I should trade for/craft one. Having all these options provided me the means to enjoy the game more than being stuck with drops only.
This is why I won’t ever see eye to eye with the SSF crowd. It’s a fundamentally different approach to why the game is enjoyable.
Mine: I want to try a wide variety of builds and trade/crafting facilitates this because I can’t count on finding something usable from drops alone. (This is how games like PoE, Warframe to a degree, and many MMOs are.)
SSF: The game is a puzzle to be solved, so I will use the pieces given to me to look for different ways to solve it. (This is more or less how the first Diablo game was, before the expansion, rogue-likes, Darkest Dungeon, etc.)
Theirs is a valid playstyle, but if the game was designed to only satisfy them, players in my category would likely burn out really quickly and the game would probably not be very successful overall. The inclusion of trade still allows the SSF playstyle, but it may require those players to artificially restrict themselves (as they usually seem content to do).
A counter-argument could be that while Trade adds value to more loot, it also vastly complicates what you look at, pick up and want to engage with from drops. You could even arrive at the conclusion that “having to” (for efficiency and wealth) play with Trade value makes loot filtering more of a puzzle than pure SSF even, depending on your goals.
Obviously this would depend on the degree of your involvement either way. I do play largely the same way you do, but I think to many, Trade becomes too much of a chore and a timesink which distracts from the actual gameplay (even with the QoL of an AH, you spend a lot of time engaging with it).
Time is also a factor one could consider here, as time spent with trading and sifting through loot for value could also be spent on regular gameplay instead, or crafting, depending on the game.
I personally believe that Trade being possible, but not necessary (rather than SSF being possible, but Trade being far more efficient), would be the preferable weighting of this balance.