Is fair play important in F2P by Developers?

IFORANI

Note: If you answered above poll please provided opinions of subject matter. Please try to think of this in terms of fair play in competition and not as just businesses period.

Should fair play in F2P games such as MPQ important to the integrity of the developers future and the competition between it's players?

Is the inherent lack off transparency between Developers and it's players important to the future of the game. This includes the profitability, gameplay growth, community longivity vs short term playability.

Does fair play even matter to the games players or is just game play?

These questions are all coming from the side effect I have seen in the deconstructing of duplicates for leveling the new Champion feature.

However, it seems that it is not equally being done and is only being done selectively by costumer service with criteria that they won't release.

I am a long time console gamer with little PC or Mobile game experience. However over the last couple years console gaming has become almost impossible for me due to change in lifestyle.

I have dapped little in mobile apps since smart phones arrived but MPQ has been my first long term investment of time. Over 400 days of play and I am pleased my with progress. I have made decent growth with spending almost nothing. This has been mostly due to reaccuring customer service issues. The reoccurring issues force me to pause due to unable to invest with confidence. I would not regret it and not be financial unwillingness to do so if I wasn't both a victim and informed of these issues.

However, as a console gamer the term F2P in my mind says cost nothing to download, play and able to progress as those who pay just at a slower pace, and there will be an equal opportunity to purchase things by everyone with in the game. Also my definition of costumer service is to provide help with user related issues in a equal and very a standard manner set forth in available criteria by the company.

I do not know if I am flawed in this thinking or not. That's why I question the previous issue of fair play. I don't know if it even matters to anyone else or not but I have these issue that if you want me to spend money or time on your product that claims F2P then I should feel that at least costumer service is a equal area of the game and not a special VIP package area. Just asking what everyone else is thinking.

I'm sorry for spelling and grammar issues my phone has the dumbest auto correct ever.

Forums are also a first for me and therefore I am learning about this world slowly. So etiquette and other things common with this forums are a learning experience on here for me. So I apologize if I break any protocol or seem to have issues with proper etiquette.

Also if criteria is not finically dictated which is completely possible I apologize now. However, it seems to be the logical assumption due to the perception of not releasing criteria. I am also not stating that I have any evidence that it is even involved in thier criteria. I also welcome any solid and official evidence from the company to prove this assumption incorrect.

In discussing this the matter of doing for some but not for all is still the issue of fair play. I'm adding this cause I'm sure some one will say it's not based on financially spending. In terms of fair play issue involved with CS this doesn't matter.

puppychow

You threw quite a bundle of points in the OP, and I'm not really sure where to begin. I'm not sure if MPQ is really free 2 play. While you DO get access to many areas of the game, you would be hampered severely w/o spending money.

I see free to play more as a "lure" to reel in players, and then the developers try to convince players to open up their wallets to progress further into the game. So yes, F2P is important---as a starting point and only that.

AlexxKats

What he means is what I was about to post in forums as well.
It seems customer support treats players differently. Such as allowing some players to convert their duplicate characters (I know many who had) and not allowing some other players the same thing (myself included).

Worst of all, it is due to some hidden reasons they will not share (I have screenshots of their replies if you want).

Now,if game developers want to treat players differently, do let us know please. That way I (and everyone bothered by the above treatment) can make up our minds on whether we want to continue being treated worse than others intentionally or by accident.

IFORANI

AlexxKats wrote:

What he means is what I was about to post in forums as well.
It seems customer support treats players differently. Such as allowing some players to convert their duplicate characters (I know many who had) and not allowing some other players the same thing (myself included).

Worst of all, it is due to some hidden reasons they will not share (I have screenshots of their replies if you want).

Now,if game developers want to treat players differently, do let us know please. That way I (and everyone bothered by the above treatment) can make up our minds on whether we want to continue being treated worse than others intentionally or by accident.

BINGO AlexxKats! I don't believe that costumer support is the area that any such special treatment in a called F2P game or any game should occur. Presenting a VIP package that allows special features is different.

Also deconstructing characters should be a game feature and not a costumer support feature in anyway. By manipulating a games previous allowed feature to benefit a newly introduced feature but not allowing everyone this ability is nothing less then cheating.

To me this has damaged any validate in statements made that there is no such shady stuff going on by the company such as token pull rates being manipulated and percentage of these new rates not being updated. Just my opinion based on the refusal to release criteria to us is a perception given that they are hiding something. Why is probably because the criteria will not be pleasant for a majority of the player base to know about. But none of this matters if fair play doesn't matter to the players.

AlexxKats

I'll check the forum rules, and if all good, I'll post tomorrow screanshots of my conversation with customer support regarding the matter above (still unfamiliar with this forum's rules,3rd post but 600+ day player).

I'm actually quite frustrated with customer support, given that it's not the 1st time they do that to me, but I do plan on staying civil on my posts.

Thanks for starting the topic man, let's hope it leads somewhere

wymtime

I will say this in almost all industries those who spend more tend to get more in CS. Those who have more political clout and public outlets get more out of CS. Is it fair no. But if it was your business and you had 2 long time customers and one had paid you thousands of dollars and the other has not who would you make the exception for?

I have gotten to make these types of decisions and when I did not make an exception for the higher paying customer, mainly because they acted like a jerk, they would escalate the issue higher than me and the exception was made. This is when I learned about the clout some people have over others. It might not be fair, but it is the correct decision for the bottom line of the company.

tiomono

I voted no.

Simply because I do believe they should treat all players fairly but really have no reason to divulge what constitutes "fair".

If they come out and say "This is how our CS works...." people will 100% exploit the system of "fairness" to get what they want.

However them not making it public puts those cheaters at the same point as everyone else.

People want 100% transparency in everything they get involved in but go apey if their life and choices are made 100% transparent. You cannot have it both ways.

I am not saying you as the topic creator or other people that gripe about this would exploit. I am saying there are definitely people that would.

IFORANI

wymtime wrote:

I will say this in almost all industries those who spend more tend to get more in CS. Those who have more political clout and public outlets get more out of CS. Is it fair no. But if it was your business and you had 2 long time customers and one had paid you thousands of dollars and the other has not who would you make the exception for?

I have gotten to make these types of decisions and when I did not make an exception for the higher paying customer, mainly because they acted like a jerk, they would escalate the issue higher than me and the exception was made. This is when I learned about the clout some people have over others. It might not be fair, but it is the correct decision for the bottom line of the company.

I do understand exactly what you are saying and I competely agree your statement is valid. In reality of business the company will break is own rules if that rule is standing in the way of profit gain or loss. Also I am glad you stood your ground with those guidelines and allowed those above you to risk their integrity no matter what that might have cost you with in furthering your career with that company. However, specifically speaking to the game play itself and not the world of business does the rules we have become accustomed to in one still apply in the other? Just asking in original questions in those terms.

For example if you entered a competition that stated prior to entering its free and you will compete to get special gear needed during race with the possibility to paying for those special gears also option. There is no different special gear that can bought they just don't have to compete to get instead are buying. You enter the race and started competing for the gear along with others. Then certain people started paying for gear and so do you some but not to much. Some people paid for a majority of their gear.

You've dedicated time and energy and little money as others and some people have paid for more gear then others. But they had no special gear same as yours. Only difference is they bought more then you. So the race begins and through or the race everyone is told which special gear they can and can't use. Same rules across board.

Then someone walks up during one event ask the organizers to use a piece of gear in a manner that seems legitimate but not intended use previously. The organizers say no and they ask why and also gives them no reason why. Then right afterwards someone else ask same question and they say yes. Now others try and it's a mixture of yes and no's. Does this process give fair play? Does the cheating occur through competitors or organizers selecting certain ones and not telling what the criteria for this is?

To stay with original title and idea do you think seeing this you will be spending any more money during? Do you think those who recieved a no will be also? When asked about the competition from people wanting to join, will you leave this out when telling them? Is it beneficial for the organizers to do this both in perception from current members and future profitability? This is in terms of competing in a game.

In business of reality people usually aren't directly competing or able to see if others are treated differently. Hope this helped get my aim of what I mean is happening here.

Also does even doing this seem that upon release of a new feature seem fair? Since people were carrying duplicates in the first place cause eventually the cycle will restart and the issue of repeat covers is still there. So why not do this universally and prevent duplicates.

Have they also already said before if you could or could not deconstruct prior to Championing? If not then why would only certain people receive this option risking losing future profit? I wonder if anyone might have done this before Championing release to provide insight of how they were treated. I hope someone does have this info.

I appreciate your voice and in no way do I think anything you said is wrong. I'm just wondering do you think that the difference between game play fairness and business is that constitute the process of giving an option to one but not all based on criteria so everyone Will possible be able to meet if known I.e spend the required amount of money or maybe only before this date. Once again thank you for the food for thought.

IFORANI

tiomono wrote:

I voted no.

Simply because I do believe they should treat all players fairly but really have no reason to divulge what constitutes "fair".

If they come out and say "This is how our CS works...." people will 100% exploit the system of "fairness" to get what they want.

However them not making it public puts those cheaters at the same point as everyone else.

People want 100% transparency in everything they get involved in but go apey if their life and choices are made 100% transparent. You cannot have it both ways.

I am not saying you as the topic creator or other people that gripe about this would exploit. I am saying there are definitely people that would.

Thank you for voicing your opinion it is appreciated and I understand your correct. People will always try to exploit fairness or manipulate the system.

However, isn't it the companies responsibility to prevent such from happening and not facilitate these exploits. I understand once Championing was announced that those with duplicates would want to do this. It is just logical thinking to me that hey i already have extra covers. I would also be wanting to do this.

But If it is not a feature to deconstruct in game and requires CS to do this then the selecting of only certain players and not all is the method of the cheating.

They could've said no if they had the fore thought of this ( surprises me no one in the company didn't think of this and asked) or when the first player brought it up. If they have said yes we will do this before or when they started doing such then no matter what they must continue doing it.

And if they are selecting based on guidlines then wouldn't they release criteria to prevent unnecessary tickets from being sent.

Buret0

IFORANI wrote:

wymtime wrote:

I will say this in almost all industries those who spend more tend to get more in CS. Those who have more political clout and public outlets get more out of CS. Is it fair no. But if it was your business and you had 2 long time customers and one had paid you thousands of dollars and the other has not who would you make the exception for?

I have gotten to make these types of decisions and when I did not make an exception for the higher paying customer, mainly because they acted like a jerk, they would escalate the issue higher than me and the exception was made. This is when I learned about the clout some people have over others. It might not be fair, but it is the correct decision for the bottom line of the company.

I do understand exactly what you are saying and I competely agree your statement is valid. In reality of business the company will break is own rules if that rule is standing in the way of profit gain or loss. Also I am glad you stood your ground with those guidelines and allowed those above you to risk their integrity no matter what that might have cost you with in furthering your career with that company. However, specifically speaking to the game play itself and not the world of business does the rules we have become accustomed to in one still apply in the other? Just asking in original questions in those terms.
For example if you entered a competition that stated prior to entering its free and you will compete to get special gear needed during race with the possibility to paying for those special gears also option. There is no different special gear that can bought they just don't have to compete to get instead are buying. You enter the race and started competing for the gear along with others. Then certain people started paying for gear and so do you some but not to much. Some people paid for a majority of their gear. You've dedicated time and energy and little money as others and some people have paid for more gear then others. But they had no special gear same as yours. Only difference is they bought more then you. So the race begins and through or the race everyone is told which special gear they can and can't use. Same rules across board. Then they walk up during one event someone ask to use a piece of gear in a manner that seems legitimate but not intended previously and they say no and they ask why and they give him no reason. Now right after they walk away someone else ask Same question and they say yes. Now others try and it's a mixture of yes and no's. Does this process give fair play? Does the cheating occur through competitors or organizers selecting certain ones and not telling what the criteria is for this?
To stay with original title and idea do you think seeing this you will be spending any more money during? Do you think those who recieved a no will be also? When asked about the competition from people wanting to join, will you leave this out when telling them? Is it beneficial for the organizers to do this both in perception from current members and future profitability? This is in terms of competing in a game. In business of reality people usually aren't directly competing or able to see if others are treated differently. Hope this helped get my aim of what I mean is happening here.
Also does even doing this seem that upon release of a new feature seem fair? Since people were carrying duplicates in the first place cause eventually the cycle will restart and the issue of repeat covers is still there. So why not do this universally and prevent duplicates. Have they also already said before if you could or could not deconstruct prior to Championing? If not then why would only certain people receive this option risking losing future profit? I wonder if anyone might have done this before Championing release to provide insight of how they were treated. I hope someone does have this info.
I appreciate your voice and in no way do I think anything you said is wrong. I'm just wondering do you think that the difference between game play fairness and business is that constitute the process of giving an option to one but not all based on criteria so everyone Will possible be able to meet if known I.e spend the required amount of money or maybe only before this date. Once again thank you for the food for thought.

My only suggestion here is white space.

Paragraphs are your friend.

IFORANI

Buret0-
I apologize for that your correct and I should know better. I will pay more attention about that from now on. I get caught up in thought and typing and lose sight of proper grammar etiquette. I hope it doesn't effect the point though in the end. Thanks for the mentioning this.

Have since went back and tried to fix this issue. Hope it helps everyone. My apologizes once again.

Steellatch

I agree, cs shouldn't depend on whether or not I've paid for in-app-purchases. I don't think they need to be transparent with all their rules.

BUT consistency is important. I've seen posts of players get their dups deconstructed that were paying players and free players. And I've seen players not get the dups deconstructed that were apart of both camps. No one knows what it takes to qualify. We don't even know if it takes butt kissing to make it happen. That's the issue. Inconsistency.

Hindsight being 20/20, they should have known that players would want this option when they announced Championing(It was asked in the announcement thread). They should have had a statement of what was the line to get your covers back. "This counts, This doesn't"

But you know, who would have guessed that would have been a decent idea to begin with? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

IFORANI

Steellatch wrote:

I agree, cs shouldn't depend on whether or not I've paid for in-app-purchases. I don't think they need to be transparent with all their rules.

BUT consistency is important. I've seen posts of players get their dups deconstructed that were paying players and free players. And I've seen players not get the dups deconstructed that were apart of both camps. No one knows what it takes to qualify. We don't even know if it takes butt kissing to make it happen. That's the issue. Inconsistency.

Hindsight being 20/20, they should have known that players would want this option when they announced Championing(It was asked in the announcement thread). They should have had a statement of what was the line to get your covers back. "This counts, This doesn't"

But you know, who would have guessed that would have been a decent idea to begin with? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

I agree with you it is par for the course with them. I don't expect change to come this either but rather I decided to use the voices given to discuss this and to gauge if it even matters. I know it can be a complicated issue with CS and a group of other issues involved with them. I just want to discuss it. Thanks for stopping in and I appreciate your opinions.

Unknown

think of it this way, marvel and puzzle quest both already existed, this game is a blatant money grab. Disney loves money more than anything, every brand they buy is whored out to its fullest.

fair play isnt profitable in business, but looking good is, the first couple of deconstructs were probably strictly paying customers, but there are jobs in such companies that notice hiorrid thing like favoritism and find ways to his it, just clear a few for non payers and refuse a couple lower paying players and now the illusion of criteria created

its a business and they've found a loyal fanbase to profit off of, p2w isn't just gameplay stradegy its a business model. you can't take it personally the rich will always favor money and for players like me who will never pay for minute services such as in game currency the most we can ever hope for is that their wheel of charity will land on us.

fair play only exsist to us because we are comic book geekdom, our heroes are staring us in our faces reminding us of everything we are, and we expect them to be what they've always been to us, symbols of everything good and fair, but now their faces images are just their to drive profits and we feel cheated,

we bought their games in the past to roleplay and to live and relive epic story arcs, but this f2p model is more like slot machines set up in convenience stores. final boss doesn't exist, progression will stop one day for some, every hero n villain rosters and maxed, but there is no true end. just a profit driven machine trying to stay alive feeding off our wallets. if the product fails to produce it can be scrapped

we are all playing a game with one real objective, match 3 with varying rules on each match, different covers help nullify different rules to win more covers to win more in game currency. an option to pay RL money to get ahead negates any notion of fairness.

AlexxKats

Added my vote. A definite yes.

I understand those that pay should have more gains than those that don't. But they already do get more benefits as they pay to get something (unlike other games that you donated just because you liked the game).

Either way, customer support in my opinion should either provide their criteria to be open and avoid their customers being treated worse than others, or treat them all the same.

I won't comment on the devs not seeing the obvious part of people asking their dupes to be converted, discussion here is about customer support.

Eddiemon

Absolutely not.

The key to customer support is the word 'customer'. If you've never put a cent into the game then you're not a customer, you're just a user. In most other free software, users need to buy a support contract to obtain support.

Developing the game and to a large extent running the servers is a sunk cost. You develop it and run the servers and you allow the free players to play because it doesn't significantly increase your costs. And you hope to reap the reward in customer payments.

But customer service is an operational cost, and you want to scale it to match your customers, as you are spending a percentage of your revenue on them. While you may be able to service a number of user calls without increasing headcount, if you need extra resources you are making losses.

Users who have been playing long enough to have duplicate characters they want dissassembling are extremely unlikely to ever convert into customers, so there is no projected revenue loss in just ignoring them.

IFORANI

Eddiemon wrote:

Absolutely not.

The key to customer support is the word 'customer'. If you've never put a cent into the game then you're not a customer, you're just a user. In most other free software, users need to buy a support contract to obtain support.

Developing the game and to a large extent running the servers is a sunk cost. You develop it and run the servers and you allow the free players to play because it doesn't significantly increase your costs. And you hope to reap the reward in customer payments.

But customer service is an operational cost, and you want to scale it to match your customers, as you are spending a percentage of your revenue on them. While you may be able to service a number of user calls without increasing headcount, if you need extra resources you are making losses.

Users who have been playing long enough to have duplicate characters they want dissassembling are extremely unlikely to ever convert into customers, so there is no projected revenue loss in just ignoring them.

I agree that everything you said it's correct 100%. There is or might be an existing separation of two terms. If this is the view of the developers then fair play doesn't matter, correct? Just want clarification if that's what your saying.

What about in the view of fair play within a product such as this which does not separate its user's and customers equally in competition? Would you not separate them in competition if they are in services available that affect fairness?

Also would you not state this separation of user's and costumer's openly in services such as there costumer service? You obiviously have nothing to hide if that's your view or is there a reason to not publicly divulge this information?

Also what are the side effects of this knowledge publicly. By own admission. Here are some I thought of quickly maybe you can think of others.

1)You are having to up keep to separate areas of game which doubles some overhead and employee cost.
2) There would need to be a financial standard set to reach this status which could limit profitability over longevity of game.
3) Your games competition has become deluded with disadvantaged competition which could deter whales also due to legitimacy of games credibility.

Those were just real quick. Again in a business sense I can't disagree with any statement you make. If view strictly of developers okay I will not argue that either. However, but in a game of competition such as MPQ does it matter in the sense of fair play to both developers and players?

Also there are reports this deconstructing of duplicates is not financially directed. Users and Costumers should both then be receiving deconstructiin if true based on other criteria. Correct? Then wouldn't your costumers deserve the eligibility requirements at a minimum? Remember we are not aware of critiera used here and it being non universally given through costumer service on reported non financial criteria.

IFORANI

AlexxKats wrote:

Added my vote. A definite yes.

I understand those that pay should have more gains than those that don't. But they already do get more benefits as they pay to get something (unlike other games that you donated just because you liked the game).

Either way, customer support in my opinion should either provide their criteria to be open and avoid their customers being treated worse than others, or treat them all the same.

I won't comment on the devs not seeing the obvious part of people asking their dupes to be converted, discussion here is about customer support.

Thank you for voicing your opinion it is much appreciated.

tiomono

It seems like everyone is only looking at this from the standpoint of "did the customer spend or not."

There is most definitely some other factor here that is determining whether or not they will do it. As there are examples of people that have spent not being able to do it.

There is also the thought of, from a legal and even gaming viewpoint, that when you agree to terms of use when installing a game it pretty much says right in there "We the company can change or delete content on a whim, do you wish to play?"

Whether or not you spend money, or end up regretting you spent money has absolutely no bearing on the fact that you are at the mercy of the decisions of the company.

Will they lose customers over this? Probably. Have they ever advertised deconstructing dupes as something to do? No.

Before champions were here people were playing a certain way because they thought it brought them more benefit. Now that area is slightly more gray and they want to change the way they chose to play. And expect the company to bend over backwards to make them have an edge when they have no obligation to do so.

Again they should absolutely treat players fairly, but have no reason to fully divulge to the players what the criteria for desicions they make is.

Eddiemon

IFORANI wrote:

I agree that everything you said it's correct 100%. There is or might be an existing separation of two terms. If this is the view of the developers then fair play doesn't matter, correct? Just want clarification if that's what your saying.

I don't understand this 'fair play' you go on about. The game itself doesn't change regardless. Access to customer services is different to 'fair play', just liek having more characters slots, covers, ISO or covers because you paid doesn't affect 'fair play'. If they dissect a duplicate for you because you are a good payer that just gave you more covers for your dollars, it still doesn't change the game.

What about in the view of fair play within a product such as this which does not separate its user's and customers equally in competition? Would you not separate them in competition if they are in services available that affect fairness?

No, why would I? Users only cost money so why would I be giving them any advantage by separating them from customers? You like to throw the word 'fair' around but people who play the game for over a year and give nothing back to the developer for a year of entertainment have a strange sense of 'fair'.

Sure it's a 'free to play' model, but at some point most people think they should give something in return. But if you're happy to live off the whales funding the game then you shouldn't also be unhappy that the whales get better service.

Also would you not state this separation of user's and costumer's openly in services such as there costumer service? You obiviously have nothing to hide if that's your view or is there a reason to not publicly divulge this information?

No, that way just leads to more issues for the company. What advantage do they gain from any of this? It's not about having 'anything to hide', it's about having to commit to things that may get abused.

Also what are the side effects of this knowledge publicly. By own admission. Here are some I thought of quickly maybe you can think of others.

1)You are having to up keep to separate areas of game which doubles some overhead and employee cost.

If they were to do that then one section of the game, the 'users' is just a cost. And if you pay then you get to join the customer section that is tougher competition. So that business model shoots itself in the foot.

2) There would need to be a financial standard set to reach this status which could limit profitability over longevity of game.

Exactly. Or you would get people paying only when they needed a specific service and then overloading customer service and running up your costs.

3) Your games competition has become deluded with disadvantaged competition which could deter whales also due to legitimacy of games credibility.

I don't even understand that one.

Those were just real quick. Again in a business sense I can't disagree with any statement you make. If view strictly of developers okay I will not argue that either. However, but in a game of competition such as MPQ does it matter in the sense of fair play to both developers and players?

So what was the point of the exercise? If you're proposing a different system then you need to point out how it is better than the current system. I've been playing the game for over 2 years now and I'm happy enough with it. I don't agree with everything taht has been done and not everything has made me happy, but given that I am still playing they have done more right than wrong.

Also there are reports this deconstructing of duplicates is not financially directed. Users and Costumers should both then be receiving deconstructiin if true based on other criteria. Correct? Then wouldn't your costumers deserve the eligibility requirements at a minimum? Remember we are not aware of critiera used here and it being non universally given through costumer service on reported non financial criteria.

Maybe. But 'other criteria' is vague. Maybe customer service perform deconstructions when there are no other more pressing issues in their queue so it doesn't inflict any cost on them. Possibly they prioritise whales over other customers when they do have bandwidth.

This is why not telling people works. Because you can speculate and complain all you want and it isn't their problem. If they are prioritising whales then people will demand on knowing what dollar value is the cutoff. Whereas if all they say is they do it at their discretion then they can use whatever process they like. If they are deconstructing whales and deny it, what difference does it make to anyone? Some peopel will get deconstructed, some won't. Nothing changes.

Letting you know their systems so you can criticise them and hold them potentially legally liable, or not letting you know their systems and just letting you criticise anyway, I can see only one difference between those two.

IFORANI

Thank you tiomono because this answer makes sense in terms of fair play in game. I echo your thoughts almost exactly that they DON'T have to and CAN do whatever they want because of the fine print in the terms. Therefore they don't need to explain nothing right including divulge criteria.

I just have never expected costumer support to be the area in which it would be carried out. Just thought it would be more game related as in removing content not giving special privileges.

Game developers have always had this right. It is had not commonly occurred or was it rarely heard of in my history in console gaming. Since this is my first encounter with something this blantant in a game. I'm trying to gauge mostly other more experience F2P players to inform me and others about this type of treatment as it relates to F2P.

Such as if this common in F2P on mobile? If so are gamers now just use to it and therefore is it kinda expect at some point?

Or is this uncommon? If so is this also your first encounter and what do we do as gamer?