starfall said: wereotter said: madwren said: I don't mind the existence of a subscription model. It largely won't affect me.What I do mind is the removal of RT. Subscription models should augment an already equitable reward pool. They shouldn't replace it. The combination of the two creates very poor optics and is yet another marketing failure. I must have missed this. Did they announce/confirm that the event is dead? I thought it was just missing the last two days. It's all spelled out in here:https://forums.d3go.com/discussion/78305/no-rising-tensions/p1Not 'dead', but certainly played a lot less, looks like the frequency will drop to about 30%.
wereotter said: madwren said: I don't mind the existence of a subscription model. It largely won't affect me.What I do mind is the removal of RT. Subscription models should augment an already equitable reward pool. They shouldn't replace it. The combination of the two creates very poor optics and is yet another marketing failure. I must have missed this. Did they announce/confirm that the event is dead? I thought it was just missing the last two days.
madwren said: I don't mind the existence of a subscription model. It largely won't affect me.What I do mind is the removal of RT. Subscription models should augment an already equitable reward pool. They shouldn't replace it. The combination of the two creates very poor optics and is yet another marketing failure.
Magic123 said: jtwood said: At the risk of flaming, this seems like a silly perspective:I am against this and will be seriously ramping down my playing because of itWhy would you play less because someone else is offering to pay for a game?If you want to play less, do it because they remove features, functionality, or enjoyment.But just putting in a subscription system alone doesn't seem like a reason to change your gaming habit. Removing the best event in the whole game, and then saying you can get back 1/3 of what that event gave you every month IF you payed $30/mo... Yes, thats why you would stop playing.
jtwood said: At the risk of flaming, this seems like a silly perspective:I am against this and will be seriously ramping down my playing because of itWhy would you play less because someone else is offering to pay for a game?If you want to play less, do it because they remove features, functionality, or enjoyment.But just putting in a subscription system alone doesn't seem like a reason to change your gaming habit.
jtwood said: Magic123 said: jtwood said: At the risk of flaming, this seems like a silly perspective:I am against this and will be seriously ramping down my playing because of itWhy would you play less because someone else is offering to pay for a game?If you want to play less, do it because they remove features, functionality, or enjoyment.But just putting in a subscription system alone doesn't seem like a reason to change your gaming habit. Removing the best event in the whole game, and then saying you can get back 1/3 of what that event gave you every month IF you payed $30/mo... Yes, thats why you would stop playing. I consider those changes as unrelated and poorly timed happenstance. The reason for RT being pulled had nothing to do with VIP, and was consistent with what they’ve done with prior events, like Across Ixalan.
Bil said: VIP is not a problem as is, as none is forced to pay for it, however I'm pretty shocked about different things around it. The following list is non-exhaustive. 1) The price is too high to make it realistic. It's insane to ask players to spend that much ... monthly ... on a game in such an instable state and with so less variety in the content. 2) The benefit is underwhelming ... The players should at least be granted Latest set boosters, latest set cards, or be able to choose what they wanna pick.3) It shouldn't be implemented at the expense of non-paying players (removing generous content to create currencies and boosters starvation is a terrible move).4) it won't solve cash problems ... If you want cash incomes, you need to create seductive offers. Mtgpq prices have always been so high that paying for them is almost a profession of faith.5)The timing is awful... The communication too.
bobby_2613 said: Cost is way too high 30 USD for top one. You gotta be kidding. I wouldn't pay higher than 15$ CAD for it.