Quote:
Originally Posted by Luidefuenesse
Ok, this discussion is very one-dimensional. For every good discussion there needs to be at least two points of view. Since there have been only pro pt plus opinions in here so far i guess itĀ’s up to me to represent the other side.
The argument is you get a ton of packs for 6,99 $, you get items with a net worth higher than your pay. Well, my argument is: everybody will get this. This of course will have influence on card prices and the resulting inflation will burn everything you expect to be a win. Under the final line you will pay about 80 $ (6,99 $ x 12 till everybody leaves for pt25) more for a game you already payed 35,99 $. The game purchase is already high enough and i donĀ’t see any need in paying an extra 80 bucks to be at least a tiny bit of competitive. You can call pt plus many names but it is F2P killer for sure. ItĀ’ll allow the company to grow in sales for short terms but it will limit itself in growing its player base. I have already made my decision to leave and therefore not even spend the 35,99 $. I hope management made a wise choice. I just donĀ’t see it!
|
You know what else will get you as many PP/packs as a year's PT+ subscription? A month of entering quick tourneys and watching Twitch streams. (Or opening Twitch streams and leaving them muted in the background, at the case may be.) It's very easy to get 100+ packs a week with minimal effort that way. A couple months of live card speculation will also do it. I don't even get too heavily into speculation, and it's relatively easy to make 200k or more/month in profit. There are also, at various points throughout the season, times at which you can make this much by pulling the right historical perfect, or winning a tournament with the right reward, but those are a little less certain. But the idea that this is some enormous insurmountable boost is plainly inaccurate -- it's maybe 10% of what a reasonably active player gets playing the game.
I mean, it's a boost. It's a reasonable boost for people willing to put a reasonable amount of money into supporting the game mode. That is something that was not available before -- you either went full whale or you were essentially F2P. (I probably spent about $50 a year on PP the last few seasons, but it wasn't because I got a significant material advantage from it, or expected to. It was because not doing so would make me feel like a freeloader.)
But it's not going to outweigh the fact that a F2P player who puts a moderate amount of effort -- who enters quick tournaments, speculates on live cards, watches streams, etc. -- is going to make many times what PT+ offers. And until I see differently, I'm guessing that player will be able to finish most missions and have most of the competitive cards they really want, the same way as every other year. Maybe not all on release day, maybe not at once -- you may have to sell off your second-tier guys to afford your first-tier roster. When you do get a new hot card, you may have to sell your big money cards and buy them back once they drop. But for the most part, it has never been hard for a F2P player to keep up a respectable roster, and while PT+ is a good deal, it doesn't change things enough to singlehandedly alter that.
Just a few more points:
How much do you value the time you spend on recreational activities? My metric has always been that, if I enjoy something and it costs me less than $1 an hour to do it, I don't think twice about that expense. Not saying I'll never spend
more than $1 an hour, but if it's less, I don't even ask myself "is it worth it?" And that $1 baseline has held true for me since I was a teenager making minimum wage. Functionally, it's a little higher for me now. But I find it hard to imagine a situation for anyone in a developed country where <$1 an hour is a problem and spending the free time isn't. I'm going to spend more than 7 hours a month playing PT, therefore spending $7 a month isn't worth considering. (And I'm
definitely going to spend more than 7 hours a month on the main game, so that's a bigger bargain.)
And that's before I factor in the ethical question: if someone creates something that adds enjoyment to my life, do I have a duty to support them? I mean, maybe "duty" is a strong word. But I prefer to live in a world where it is possible to make a living producing a really enjoyable baseball simulation. And if I'm going to play the game -- which cost money to produce, and more money for bandwidth etc. -- not acting accordingly with those wishes feels
not great to me. And that's both an ethical decision and a practical one (in that not paying one's way increases the likelihood that the game will struggle or be discontinued.)
And I'm not saying you have to feel the same way! There are definitely things in this world I do not enjoy enough to pay for! But I have to confess I don't see the point of enjoying the game and getting angry that there's a reasonably priced way to get a moderate/easily surmountable boost in the game and support the producers of the game. (And even if I did, there's a whole main game right there.)