MPQ Zombies

Phumade

Kojubat said:

Transferring accounts essentially allows someone to skip past the "pressure" stage of a free to play game without utilizing the in-game methods designed to relieve that pressure. And thus, undesirable to the companies relying on those in-game methods to remain profitable.

Why not just monetize via a surcharge fee via in game mechanism?

You can monetize or define a monetary value to that "pressure" stage, and ask for compensation to provide a "manufacturer's warranty" to effectuate a transfer.

Many different monetization schemes can be developed to fit the changing needs of the player base and still ensure the same /more revenue to the companies.  That's ultimately the role of the business analyst, ops specialist, whatever their title/function is

The rockett

Brigby said:

*Please note that buying and/or selling accounts is not allowed, therefore any discussion encouraging it (hypothetical or not) is also not allowed on our forum.

If you believe that an account may be sold and/or cheating, then please submit a ticket to Customer Support with any pertinent information, and our team will be sure to investigate further. Thank you!

But it has been reported.  Up to 8 different Accounts that I personally have reported and nothing done. SS and all sent directly to the D3/Demi team.  This is the same as the XXXXXXX that has happened in the past and not addressed.  I personally have sent too many emails in about this with 0 resolution. Why is it the players responsiblely to watch all of this?  Why can D3/Demi track this once info is sent into CS about this and the Dev team?  Maybe I don’t understand how this works but it is extremely frustrating to see this happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again with it seeming we are screaming into the black hole that is CS.  Sorry if I come off like a troll but this, on top of the other things that I cannot post about or I might get banned from the forums, it just is very frustrating. 

fmftint

@The rockett
Here's the problem, in most cases the original owner verifies to CS that they are still in control of the account. 

LifeofAgony

Nothing gets done by CS.  People don’t get boxed.  There’s a slew of things that go unpunished/undealt.

Im curious since they’re allegeding it’s that last little bit of “proof” is what prevents the ban, what information from $2 cp exploit was missing that bans or rollbacks couldn’t be handed out?  Purchases have to be the absolute easiest things track.  So why the double standards?

chris0001

LifeofAgony said:

Nothing gets done by CS.  People don’t get boxed.  There’s a slew of things that go unpunished/undealt.

Im curious since they’re allegeding it’s that last little bit of “proof” is what prevents the ban, what information from $2 cp exploit was missing that bans or rollbacks couldn’t be handed out?  Purchases have to be the absolute easiest things track.  So why the double standards?

LOL  Look at how big certain rosters got after the $2 exploit....and ya nothing done!

//Removed In-Game Alliance Name -Brigby

tiomono

The rockett said:

Brigby said:

*Please note that buying and/or selling accounts is not allowed, therefore any discussion encouraging it (hypothetical or not) is also not allowed on our forum.

If you believe that an account may be sold and/or cheating, then please submit a ticket to Customer Support with any pertinent information, and our team will be sure to investigate further. Thank you!

But it has been reported.  Up to 8 different Accounts that I personally have reported and nothing done. SS and all sent directly to the D3/Demi team.  This is the same as the XXXXXXX that has happened in the past and not addressed.  I personally have sent too many emails in about this with 0 resolution. Why is it the players responsiblely to watch all of this?  Why can D3/Demi track this once info is sent into CS about this and the Dev team?  Maybe I don’t understand how this works but it is extremely frustrating to see this happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again with it seeming we are screaming into the black hole that is CS.  Sorry if I come off like a troll but this, on top of the other things that I cannot post about or I might get banned from the forums, it just is very frustrating. 

Yes but how do you absolutely definitively know? You are basing all assumptions on someone switching alliances, ignoring alliance "treaties", or not answering to other players. 

Yes selling accounts is against the tos, but how do you know the accounts you report are actually a different person? I'm not saying your wrong, just asking how do you know for sure?

Silly me thought this conversation was going to be about wanting the marvel zombie universe tied into the game.

@kujobat but if a player is willing to pay someone to skip the early game would it be impossible to think that they would continue to spend in game to skip to the newest released content so they are more competitive or have all the shinies?

bluewolf

Part of the micro transaction model’s plan is to create a habit or practice of making purchases. In this game, the first bundle you hit as a new player is 7.99, a gateway price essentially, to get you to accept that making purchases in the game is something you might do.  Then they get more expensive gradually.  Buying a roster all at once circumvents this process entirely.

If someone sold an account to a new player for any of the in game purchase points, that would greatly devalue the same level expenditure  in game in the eyes of that player.  Maybe they keep spending, but the new person may feel that it’s silly to spend $ on HP or a few covers after getting a functioning champed roster for about the same amount of money.

Phumade

I don't understand why anyone thinks reselling accounts will deprive the devs or the publishers money.

Allow transfers and charge a $25 dollar premium on top of the seller's fee and validate the roster in process.

You all assume that they can't recapture the value of previous scl bundles.  That is wrong.

They can recapture those profit components in the transfer premium   You could even tack on a Sellers fee to the auction house to pay the costs of validating that roster for resale.

Many business buyback and refurbish goods for players who can't afford to be in the first wave of whales, but could swing a later shift at a value price.

Apple does it with hardware,  Gamestop does it with physical games. and rest assured resale of digital game installs will come soon enough via LEGAL channels vs grey market codes.

Kojubat

Phumade said:

I don't understand why anyone thinks reselling accounts will deprive the devs or the publishers money.

Allow transfers and charge a $25 dollar premium on top of the seller's fee and validate the roster in process.

You all assume that they can't recapture the value of previous scl bundles.  That is wrong.

They can recapture those profit components in the transfer premium   You could even tack on a Sellers fee to the auction house to pay the costs of validating that roster for resale.

Many business buyback and refurbish goods for players who can't afford to be in the first wave of whales, but could swing a later shift at a value price.

Apple does it with hardware,  Gamestop does it with physical games. and rest assured resale of digital game installs will come soon enough via LEGAL channels vs grey market codes.

Envision the kind of roster you would hypothetically be willing to spend money on. For most people, I would make the assumption that the roster would include some of the better 5* characters that are at least championed and some seed currency for shields, skips, boosts, whatever. This kind of roster would be competitive in all areas of play and likely considered "worth it".

But instead, let us aim lower. Perhaps you go to the budget gray market, and all they have are some rosters with half of the 4* tier championed and zero in-game currency. The price you negotiate with the seller is immaterial. We will just look at the transfer fee being proposed.

What would be the in-game equivalent of 35+ 4* champions?

• How much ISO is needed to level those characters?
• What sort of HP/CP is required to overcome random results in a token pool or purchase in a Hero for Hire store?
• How much invested time in event performance to earn these things?

I'm not going to do the math, because it isn't important to the thought exercise.

The question I pose is, if someone wanted that roster within the current Terms of Service, could they get TWO of them for the equivalent of 8500 HP? (In case it isn't clear, the price being proposed to facilitate this function is $24.99 US. Within the game itself, buying just 8500 HP would cost you $49.99 US.)

That is what is being proposed: People should be able to get a mature roster and only spend about 4250 HP within the in-game economy, the only profit source for this game.

What benefit does the company running a game like this get from investing in functionality that allows players to sidestep around all other profitable monetization?

As for the Apple/Gamestop comparison (ignoring the completely different business models), quick check:

Marvel's Spider-Man (PS4) New: $59.99

Cash Trade-In Value w/ No Membership: $20.00

Marvel's Spider-Man (PS4) Pre-Owned: $54.99

Seller gets $20. (We are comparing to 'leaving the ecosystem', so no membership or trade credit desired.)

Buyer pays $54.99 (New to the ecosystem, membership would be a separate expense.)

Gamestop made the same $24.99, but at 175% profit on the sale.

Phumade

Kojubat said:

Phumade said:

I don't understand why anyone thinks reselling accounts will deprive the devs or the publishers money.

Allow transfers and charge a $25 dollar premium on top of the seller's fee and validate the roster in process.

You all assume that they can't recapture the value of previous scl bundles.  That is wrong.

They can recapture those profit components in the transfer premium   You could even tack on a Sellers fee to the auction house to pay the costs of validating that roster for resale.

Many business buyback and refurbish goods for players who can't afford to be in the first wave of whales, but could swing a later shift at a value price.

Apple does it with hardware,  Gamestop does it with physical games. and rest assured resale of digital game installs will come soon enough via LEGAL channels vs grey market codes.

Envision the kind of roster you would hypothetically be willing to spend money on. For most people, I would make the assumption that the roster would include some of the better 5* characters that are at least championed and some seed currency for shields, skips, boosts, whatever. This kind of roster would be competitive in all areas of play and likely considered "worth it".

But instead, let us aim lower. Perhaps you go to the budget gray market, and all they have are some rosters with half of the 4* tier championed and zero in-game currency. The price you negotiate with the seller is immaterial. We will just look at the transfer fee being proposed.

What would be the in-game equivalent of 35+ 4* champions?

• How much ISO is needed to level those characters?
• What sort of HP/CP is required to overcome random results in a token pool or purchase in a Hero for Hire store?
• How much invested time in event performance to earn these things?

I'm not going to do the math, because it isn't important to the thought exercise.

The question I pose is, if someone wanted that roster within the current Terms of Service, could they get TWO of them for the equivalent of 8500 HP? (In case it isn't clear, the price being proposed to facilitate this function is $24.99 US. Within the game itself, buying just 8500 HP would cost you $49.99 US.)

That is what is being proposed: People should be able to get a mature roster and only spend about 4250 HP within the in-game economy, the only profit source for this game.

What benefit does the company running a game like this get from investing in functionality that allows players to sidestep around all other profitable monetization?

As for the Apple/Gamestop comparison (ignoring the completely different business models), quick check:

Marvel's Spider-Man (PS4) New: $59.99

Cash Trade-In Value w/ No Membership: $20.00

Marvel's Spider-Man (PS4) Pre-Owned: $54.99

Seller gets $20. (We are comparing to 'leaving the ecosystem', so no membership or trade credit desired.)

Buyer pays $54.99 (New to the ecosystem, membership would be a separate expense.)

Gamestop made the same $24.99, but at 175% profit on the sale.

Great questions.  In another career, I worked for a large hardware manufacturer/vendor (infact 2 of them that everyone would be familiar with).  And this case directly came up in the context of.   How can we address the market to soak up surplus inventory  (in the form of used equipment coming off lease, buy back programs, etc)  and all of those issues questions were debated (including do we understand our customers.  is their another lower tier segment that we can address without devaluing current structure..

To address the question of the bad valuation between $ and Hp:  The $100 stark is used to buy resources HP/CP which is presumable used to "purchase" tokens etc.  While it might make sense to us laypeople to equate $100 to those "purchased" rewards.  An economist might say, that really you paid $1 for the actual work,  and $99 dollars for the priviledge of shield hopping every 3hrs.

So from an account buyers perspective.  I don't care how many starks it took you to achieve that roster, but I value your investment at a 100:1 discount for the simple reason, that you the original owner had the priviledge of running that account in your preferred fashion.  In fact because there is no physical base product,  The market value of an Account = The value the buyer assigns to whatever purpose they intend to use it for.  (and let me remind,  not every player wants to win T1,  there are a LOT of different ways to use accounts)

In considering question 2.  Have you considered that people prefer to use different sized accounts for different reasons?  In thinking about a mid tier 4*, the account value question is based on what that account can do.  Is it scl 7,8,9 eligible.  What is the value of a live pve bracket scout?  What is the value of having a second account to see what ques are active and who's climbing?

You worry about cannibalization and its absolutely an issue to monitor and track, but I think most organization would accept a certain level cannibalization especially if they can migrate players into sustainable purchasing profiles. (3 stark buys aren't really sustainable for most players)

Your right to say that this is a complex questions with many areas fraught with risk both legal and gameplaywise.  But Its not a new or novel concept.  The only real issues are whether the accountants/ business analysts have the widith and depth to consider other non traditional monetization plans.

I'm sure the meeting where an accountant first proposed, "stop one time purchases, and goto an ongoing micro transaction model."  was just as nontraditional as offering an account clearinghouse.

The rockett

Oh hey look. Another Zombie has come back to life.  Exciting. 

tiomono

The rockett said:

Oh hey look. Another Zombie has come back to life.  Exciting. 

If you cannot use player names to call them out for cheating on the forums why continue to imply you know who is cheating? Send in your ticket to CS and be done with it.

trat73

Off topic but when I read the title I thought of Marvel Zombies the comic book. How cool would it be if they released Zombie equivalents of popular characters? Maybe as 6* but not a tier above 5* just a special. Even 1 or 2* might be fun.  

pheregas

Kojubat said:

Dormammu said:

Space Dwarf said:

I don’t really see what the big deal is. If someone wants to sell their account & there's a willing buyer, what does it matter?  Let them & allow for a name change. 

I tend to agree. What do I care who is behind a username? I'm sure the developers have a few reasons why its a big deal, however, otherwise they wouldn't have included a restriction in their terms of service.

1. If I make a game with microtransactions and someone purchases them, I am very happy.
2. If I make a game with microtransactions and someone opts to play for free, I am still happy due to marketing and population intangibles. I can put gameplay pressure to encourage spending and perhaps make them a future purchaser at some point.
3. If I make a game with microtransactions and someone invests their time or money in my game, then opts to transfer their investment, I will consider that as lost revenue regardless of the compensation agreement between the two parties.
   

The seller was already going to leave the game, so they no longer contribute to the economy. The buyer can be either an existing or new player, it doesn't matter. They wish to bypass the game economy by using a real-world agreement of some kind. In fact, the transfer conditions in the real world are irrelevant - it could be freely given to a family member and have the same effect.

Consider how many mechanisms are in place in any mobile game to encourage early spending for new players - Get A Head Start With These Resources! Buy This New Character That Will Totally Jump You Ahead In Competitive Play! Have A Bigger Repository So You Never Have To Discard New Shiny Things!

Transferring accounts essentially allows someone to skip past the "pressure" stage of a free to play game without utilizing the in-game methods designed to relieve that pressure. And thus, undesirable to the companies relying on those in-game methods to remain profitable.

I very much like this synopsis.

I instantly thought a parallel with the Disney Vacation Club.  You can totally buy into it.  But then there is this not talked about resale market.

The neat thing about this is that you can buy a preexisting DVC agreement, but it has to be approved by Disney before going through.  In doing so, however, the resale buyer loses perks that the original buyer had.  So the second buyer pays full price for those items/services.

Therefore I posit this question:  Should selling of accounts be allowed under the TOS with the blessing of D3/Demi to approve the transaction?  D3/Demi could even charge for this service and the account is transferred with only characters.  No CP, No HP, no Iso and no items, characters and levels only.  

Theoretically, this puts Demi/D3 in the position to make money and circumvent the lost income scenario from Kojubat's Item number 3.

Phumade

pheregas said:

I instantly thought a parallel with the Disney Vacation Club.  You can totally buy into it.  But then there is this not talked about resale market.

The neat thing about this is that you can buy a preexisting DVC agreement, but it has to be approved by Disney before going through.  In doing so, however, the resale buyer loses perks that the original buyer had.  So the second buyer pays full price for those items/services.

Therefore I posit this question:  Should selling of accounts be allowed under the TOS with the blessing of D3/Demi to approve the transaction?  D3/Demi could even charge for this service and the account is transferred with only characters.  No CP, No HP, no Iso and no items, characters and levels only.  

Theoretically, this puts Demi/D3 in the position to make money and circumvent the lost income scenario from Kojubat's Item number 3.

There is always a pricing demand curve that says some people will pay x amount for y char and resources.

The trick is understanding the demand curve.
i.e.  is it realistic to make every new buyer slog through every single day and battle?

Thats the pricing analyst's job.  To figure out, how to generate activity and money out of those accounts sitting fallow.  and the only way they can do that is accurate value what those accounts can and can't do.  otherwise the gray market will do that for  them.

realistically who would bother in the face of leviathan vets? 

What they want to manage is some profile of their user base that says some % elite tier whales down to some % noob seal fodder.

At the end of day.  Does D3/demi want to profit from that segment of unsused/ fully developed rosters sitting in the "unplayed" pile or let some some gray market develop by itself and determine its own exchange value for 4* and 5* etc...

At the end of the day, these are just policy questions that can be successfull in either direction

The rockett

tiomono said:

The rockett said:

Oh hey look. Another Zombie has come back to life.  Exciting. 

If you cannot use player names to call them out for cheating on the forums why continue to imply you know who is cheating? Send in your ticket to CS and be done with it.

Because it has been reported, many times.  The MPQ players that deal with it know.  So why post here?  Because this is all we got to bring light to it. We have no other tool.  

tiomono

The rockett said:

tiomono said:

The rockett said:

Oh hey look. Another Zombie has come back to life.  Exciting. 

If you cannot use player names to call them out for cheating on the forums why continue to imply you know who is cheating? Send in your ticket to CS and be done with it.

Because it has been reported, many times.  The MPQ players that deal with it know.  So why post here?  Because this is all we got to bring light to it. We have no other tool.  

But bringing nameless vague "I know someone is doing wrong" posts to the forums does nothing except violate forum rules. 

You do not have all the info on these "zombies". From what I have seen it's that they are acting different, moved alliances, or any number of other small things that cannot be called wrong. So you inform CS then they have to look into it. If CS decides not to pursue it that is their choice. Or if CS does pursue and cannot see anything glaringly wrong and they drop it, that is also their choice. They have no responsibility to inform you whether you were right or not.

The forums never have been the place for calling out cheaters. Whether you agree with that or not is irrelevant because its currently against forum rules. 

I feel cheaters should not be tolerated at all. But it is not the players call to determine who is cheating. You can turn in questionable behavior through a CS ticket and that's it.

Brigby

*Since buying and selling accounts is not allowed, any discussion encouraging it (hypothetical or not) is also not allowed on our forum.

Since this thread is starting to get heated, and fingers are starting to get pointed, I am closing this thread. If you believe that an account may be sold and/or is cheating, then please submit a ticket to Customer Support with any pertinent information, and our team will be sure to investigate further.

Due to the sensitive nature of account investigations, I'm afraid we cannot publicly communicate any updates or results of the case, however rest assured that our team utilizes all tools and techniques at our disposal to thoroughly investigate these claims. Thank you for understanding.