FOE VALUE FOR MONEY????

[cyllan]

this game cost 1 million to make you made 100 million .......i repeat 100 million.....revenue based on 2015 results.......

this game is a cash grab......graphics and physics look like 15 year+ old.......game

worse of it ...it is a grind fest.....and nothing to look at....but a few static screens and same animations.....

nothing has been spent making the game looking better ....lest of a grind fest or on animations or music.........

GVG.....it is a joke........half the guilds dont even bother cos too expensive on resources......and at the end of the day it is just a little sad tower on a little sad pathetic hex map.......

the prize goes to your psychology department......who has targeted middle age people with a credit card and little time to play.....

100 million on revenue.......by 2015.....and graphics / animations and mechanics.....truly pathetic....the grind is endless.....the rewards.....are a joke...

you make EA......(electronic arts......the most greedy AAA games producer) seem like a sister of charity.....

dont tell us about "free to play".......you have researched the game by psychologists.......to get people addicted soon and get them to pay lots of real cash in return....

there is no way you can get 100 million in 5 years without messing with peoples brains.......with graphics and gameplay from the 90s ...and i am being super generous........

and i fell for it.......i should have known better

 

[DeletedUser110131]

Their customer behaviorists do earn their keep, don't they? You're right that they should be able to afford some serious upgrade to the game. Don't complain about the graphics, though. They're the cheapest and simplest to upgrade, and if they think they can get away with claiming some superficial esthetics as a major upgrade, they will. What they need to fix, is gameplay: Battles, GvG, trade, etc.

 

[cyllan]

Their customer behaviorists do earn their keep, don't they? You're right that they should be able to afford some serious upgrade to the game. Don't complain about the graphics, though. They're the cheapest and simplest to upgrade, and if they think they can get away with claiming some superficial esthetics as a major upgrade, they will. What they need to fix, is gameplay: Battles, GvG, trade, etc.

oh their customer behaviorists totally earned their keep..........and INNO CASHED......BIG TIME ON IT

 

[rjs66]

free to play - so something for nothing

how is that not value for money ?

yes there are lots of things that could be improved, but ranting about how bad it is won't change anything

constructive criticism might get some attention

as it's free you get what you're given, if you don't like it , don't play

 

[DeletedUser110131]

free to play - so something for nothing
how is that not value for money ?

A common misconception, often employed to shut up criticism. However, Inno isn't a charity. MMOGs are using players as part of the game content. "Free" players are providing Inno with that content -- for "free". When each party gets something, in return for giving something, we generally stop calling it "free". We're all customers with a legitimate right to voice our opinions about the product we get, whether we buy diamonds, or not.

yes there are lots of things that could be improved, but ranting about how bad it is won't change anything
constructive criticism might get some attention

Constructive criticism may be more likely to get results, but even rants can both get results, and be constructive in their own way. Knowing that there are discontented customers is useful, and ignoring it is unwise, even if the criticism is a bit hyperbolic. OP is actually pretty specific about what he doesn't like, and he can't be faulted for lack of clarity about his opinion.

as it's free you get what you're given, if you don't like it , don't play

As stated, even when it's "free", it's not free. It's fully possible that OP has payed for diamonds, and virtually certain that he has spent time on the game. Now he has a city that represents that money and/or effort. Quitting the game, means loosing this investment.

However, neither the fact that they'll loose their city, nor the fact that they have payed with participation alone, or with diamonds as well, changes the fact that they can quit, if they don't like it. That goes for all products. If you payed for a broadband connection, and it turns out to barely be a thread, it's not like anyone is going to force you to use it. You can quit the service, at any time. That will hardly make you feel entirely fine about the situation, though. Even if it turns out that you misread the fine print, and haven't been legally cheated, you still have every right to feel like you have, and only a complete ******* would blame you for complaining.

If you don't buy diamonds, it's probably reasonable to price your participation lower than the cost of a broadband connection. On the other hand, quitting a broadband service won't actually loose you any object, physical or virtual, whereas in FoE, you'll loose a virtual object, your city. No analogy is perfect, and, in this case, I'd say the imperfections strengthens the conclusion. The same principle applies; if you haven't gotten what you believed you payed for, you shouldn't be faulted for voicing your opinion about it, especially when you have a reasonable argument, and stay clear of falsehoods, foul language, and defamation.

OP does all that.

 

[rjs66]

if you have a computer and a broadband connection anyway - then you are not paying specifically to play the game, that is incidental
if you are not paying Inno money to play the game then it is free
you choose to spend your time as you wish, Inno is not forcing you to play or pay them money

it only costs you anything if you decide to pay the money specifically to Inno, that is the very definition of them providing the game for free

 

[Vesiger]

dont tell us about "free to play".......you have researched the game by psychologists.......to get people addicted soon and get them to pay lots of real cash in return....

Just don't spend the money. Maybe my brain is unusually resistant to advertising (which may well be true; I've never had any money and have never got into the habit of spending it), but while I may be addicted I've honestly never considered spending a real-life penny on FoE, and the game is designed fairly enough that you actually don't need to do so.

 

[DeletedUser96901]

I am playing since 5 years and haven't spend one cent to play the game

why ?
because anything can reached without spending real money

they even give is so many diamonds so we can get the really important thing in the game we should buy with money (the diamond expansions)

unlike some other internet games where you can only play half of the game or less if you don't pay

 

[DeletedUser110131]

if you have a computer and a broadband connection anyway - then you are not paying specifically to play the game, that is incidental
if you are not paying Inno money to play the game then it is free
you choose to spend your time as you wish, Inno is not forcing you to play or pay them money
it only costs you anything if you decide to pay the money specifically to Inno, that is the very definition of them providing the game for free

I notice that you're a bit unclear on the concept of analogies. I never stated that paying for an Internet connection is a form of payment to Inno. Look up "analogy" in the dictionary, then read my post again.

Those who play for "free", do so because they like what they get in return. Inno offers it for "free", because they like what they get in return. That is a transaction, nearly identical to any transaction that includes money. It's a type of transaction that not only precedes money by thousands of years, but actually is the very thing that money exists to facilitate in a more flexible manner. Work -> pay -> buy -> receive good; the middle part of that series of transactions, the part that involves money, is non-essential. And, no, the fact that you love your work, doesn't mean that you haven't earned your pay.

the game is designed fairly enough that you actually don't need to do so.

That's very true. They maintain a fine balance in an impressive way. It's also their job to turn a profit. Still, I'm afraid there may be quite a few people that spend more than they should, due to some very sneaky sales tactics. The profit of such games, and the proliferation of customer profiling, certainly proves that there are many who aren't entirely immune. The morality of such tactics aren't just debatable, but actively being debated, both academically and politically.

Then, of course, there's the aspect that I really care about: How much will be plowed back into game development, and what kind of development?

 

[rjs66]

i understand perfectly well what analogies are thank you
(please read your own post earlier where you say about defamatory comments about other players)

my point earlier:
Inno are a business that is there to make money, unless you run the business or own part of it then you have no say in how they spend their money.
they are offering you the chance to play the game on their servers at their cost without charging you
you are the one who chooses to spend your time playing the game, you are not forced to do so

ranting about how they run their business is not going to change what they decide to do, being constructive in your approach to them might make a difference

if a cinema offered a free screening of a film, you went to see it and didn't like it, then they are under no obligation to show you a different film, or demand that the film makers re-shoot it to suit you

there are those those who would complain a free bus ride didn't go where they wanted and demand that it be changed for them

where there is no monetary transaction involved and the choice to participate is entirely at your own discretion then you can't complain if it doesn't suit your own personal tastes

 

[DeletedUser110179]

Inno are a business that is there to make money, unless you run the business or own part of it then you have no say in how they spend their money.

if a cinema offered a free screening of a film, you went to see it and didn't like it, then they are under no obligation to show you a different film, or demand that the film makers re-shoot it to suit you

where there is no monetary transaction involved and the choice to participate is entirely at your own discretion then you can't complain if it doesn't suit your own personal tastes

Governments have been toppled because citizens were unhappy about big-business conduct ... hence varying degrees of socialism around the world.

If you're a regular moviegoer ... you could encourage, coerce or otherwise demand which films might be included in a free-screening. It's not quite clear how anything can be totally free ... it's really a matter of perspective and deception (Sometimes things are given now and payment extracted later ... it depends on your willingness to accept random gifts without suspicion).

Eventhough, there may be no financial transaction ... you are quite entitled to complain, canvass and otherwise get involved in a movement for change. Quite frankly, you could get involved without even playing the game (or any game for that matter).

 

[DeletedUser110131]

Inno are a business that is there to make money, unless you run the business or own part of it then you have no say in how they spend their money.
they are offering you the chance to play the game on their servers at their cost without charging you

Let's go through your statement: Their purpose is to make money. They give away their product. This creates expenses. They get nothing in return. They keep doing so for years on end.

You do realize that this would require them to be incompetent beyond all belief, right?

Well, they're not. You're right that their purpose is to make money. You're wrong that they're spending money without getting anything in return. Obviously. This isn't even capitalism 101; it's kindergarten capitalism. Children with lemonade stands know this.

ranting about how they run their business is not going to change what they decide to do, being constructive in your approach to them might make a difference

You don't have to be polite, for a business to improve a product that customers don't want. That is, unless the business is run by incompetents, which Inno isn't.

if a cinema offered a free screening of a film, you went to see it and didn't like it, then they are under no obligation to show you a different film, or demand that the film makers re-shoot it to suit you

Of course not. They would probably still like to know if the audience liked their movie experience, though, especially if some information on the reason(s) was included. You know, filthy theater, rancid popcorn, rude employees, broken sound system. That is, unless they're run by incompetents, which Inno isn't.

there are those those who would complain a free bus ride didn't go where they wanted and demand that it be changed for them

You bet I would complain! I wouldn't get on a bus, unless I had good reason to believe it would go where I wanted. If they mislead me, and dropped me of somewhere else entirely, they'd be lucky if I stuck to verbal criticism. I'd be quite likely to report them to the police for abduction (by deception) and fraud, and/or sue them for fraud, expenses, and damages, and/or rearrange someone's face. I would certainly be angry enough to make the bus driver loose control of his bowels, for fear of the latter.

Jeez! You'd put up with that? Really? You must be missing several parts of your anatomy; I won't get into detail.

where there is no monetary transaction involved and the choice to participate is entirely at your own discretion then you can't complain if it doesn't suit your own personal tastes

So, if you do a job, without anyone holding a gun to your head, having been promised to receive part of the product, and they then refused to give it to you, or gave you something defunct, and not so due to any error of yours, then you couldn't complain, because no money was involved? Of course you could. In fact, you could sue them, and win. In many places, you might get away with punching their faces in; laws making exceptions for "justifiable anger" are quite common.

You do know that money is worthless, right? The value ascribed to it is the value of the items you can exchange it for. Your boss isn't paying you bits of paper, nor in digits stored in a bank's computers; he/she is paying you with the things you buy with the money. The money is just an intermediate in the transaction. Look it up; there's complete consensus among economists on the subject.

 

[rjs66]

as an aside - the bit about the bus, i never said i would get on the bus, merely that the bus trip could be offered, it being obvious that anyone would check the destination first, and that it was entirely at their own discretion whether to take that ride, but some would check and then complain that it didn't go where they wanted before getting on it

likewise i never said that inno were not making money or that they are in someway incompetent, those are your words

you appear to be throwing your own assumptions into what is said and trying to twist it to support your own view that you are somehow able to dictate that what is essentially given to you for free should be what you want not necessairly what is offered and that you somehow have a right or entitlement to demand that.

and once again you resort to insulting other players

 

[DeletedUser107476]

You do know that money is worthless, right? The value ascribed to it is the value of the items you can exchange it for. Your boss isn't paying you bits of paper, nor in digits stored in a bank's computers; he/she is paying you with the things you buy with the money. The money is just an intermediate in the transaction. Look it up; there's complete consensus among economists on the subject.

That is not precisely true. Money has assigned value, due to our belief that it is worth something. Money itself is a good with a limited supply, there is only so much in the world at one time. There is also a demand for it. This gives it value. The paper money itself may as you have said be worthless but the concept of it is not.

 

[DeletedUser110131]

some would check and then complain that it didn't go where they wanted before getting on it

Of course no one would do that. No one would complain about FoE, either, if they were fully informed about the game, before starting to play it.

likewise i never said that inno were not making money or that they are in someway incompetent,

No, you just said that it's their job to make a profit, yet they keep incurring expenses, without getting anything in return. You're entirely right that it was I who pointed out that this would be incompetence, if it was correct.

you appear to be throwing your own assumptions into what is said and trying to twist it to support your own view that you are somehow able to dictate that what is essentially given to you for free should be what you want not necessarily what is offered and that you somehow have a right or entitlement to demand that.

Don't talk about others twisting things. You've been twisting "criticism" into "dictating", all along. No one here has claimed the right to dictate anything. That is, except you, who seem to take offense that people are offering up their opinion, demanding that they cease and desist such impudence.

Money has assigned value, due to our belief that it is worth something. Money itself is a good with a limited supply, there is only so much in the world at one time. There is also a demand for it. This gives it value.

Money used to have an assigned value, the so called "gold standard". Of course, even then, the intrinsic value of the gold was nowhere near the value ascribed to it. Still, being a metal, it could be used for some things. Money no longer has any ascribed value. As you say, it's "worth" what we believe it's "worth". However, our belief is entirely dependent on what the money can be exchanged for. If that is nothing, then it's worth nothing.

An example: If you have $1, the only thing you're interested in is bread, and you can buy one bread for $1, then, to you, a dollar is worth one bread. However, if you can't buy a bread for any amount of dollars, then the money is completely worthless. The bread, however, is still worth a bread, and is still the one thing that you want. The value of the dollar was entirely dependent of the bread, and the value of the bread was entirely independent of the dollar.

Of course, the economy consists of more than a bread and $1, but the principle remains the same: The goods have an intrinsic value, while money is worth only the goods you can get for them, and absolutely nothing more. Well, I guess it'll still be worth its own weight in kindling, but that's it.

The value of money is an illusion. A useful illusion, and an illusion that we've built our entire civilization on, but, nevertheless, just an illusion. If you think that makes no sense, it's because you're sensible. It borders on insanity. It is, however, entirely true. I wasn't kidding when I said that there's a consensus among economists.

 

[TheKingOfKool]

Oh mama, I need to go warm up a bar stool after reading all of that long-winded action.

 

[DeletedUser10851]

this game cost 1 million to make you made 100 million .......i repeat 100 million.....revenue based on 2015 results.......

WOW!!! Smart people. Invest 1 million make a 100, I'd go for that....

To spend money on FoE is a choice. This is one of the very few Free To Play games out there. Like others have said, everything in game is achievable without spending any money at all. Oh, to play the game is a choice too

 

[DeletedUser107476]

Money used to have an assigned value, the so called "gold standard". Of course, even then, the intrinsic value of the gold was nowhere near the value ascribed to it.

You should do a more in depth study of coinage through the ages. Gold coins were worth their weight in gold as that is what they were made of, same with silver coins. You could just melt them down for the metal or you could exchange them for bars of gold or silver. It's why when you watch films about those times you see the characters bite the coin to make sure no alloy had been added, as that would devalue the coin.

As to how the belief systems work, it is not based on goods it is based on what businesses, economists and governments tell us it is worth. Not on the goods themselves. Even gold is only worth it's value due to rarity compared to other metals, if a rich vein was found tomorrow that made gold more common than silver then silver would become the more valuable. If there was unlimited money in the world then the value of money would drop and prices would soar..

 

[TheKingOfKool]

That's what we call runaway inflation - Remember Germany not to long ago - a wheelbarrow full of money was needed to buy bread.
When money no longer has value based on the institution supporting it - it becomes worthless.

Commanding Heights : The German Hyperinflation, 1923 | on PBS
In 1923, at the most fevered moment of the German hyperinflation, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Mark was one trillion Marks to one dollar, and a wheelbarrow full of money would not even buy a newspaper. ... It was a 20-year policy, and when it came due, he cashed it in and bought a single loaf of bread.

 

[DeletedUser110131]

This is one of the very few Free To Play games out there. Like others have said, everything in game is achievable without spending any money at all.

Actually, so called "freemium" games are plentiful. FoE has struck a uniquely good balance between playability with and without paying, though. You really can do anything, without paying. It just takes some more determination and time. It's that balance that sets them apart. That doesn't change the fact that they're pretty slick in separating people from their money, though. They're very good at that, as well.

You should do a more in depth study of coinage through the ages. Gold coins were worth their weight in gold as that is what they were made of, same with silver coins. You could just melt them down for the metal or you could exchange them for bars of gold or silver. It's why when you watch films about those times you see the characters bite the coin to make sure no alloy had been added, as that would devalue the coin.

Yes, gold was valuable (and is), due to its rarity. However, it was rare mainly because it was needed as a basis for the monetary system. Today it's rare mainly because it's still used as a safe investment. The reason why gold achieved this position, was probably that it was the first metal we had access to and could shape; it's found in it's pure form, rather than as ore, and it's soft enough to be hammered without significant heating. The near mystical property of being stainless also helped, of course. If the monetary system had vanished, it would've simply been one of the least useful metals around; try to make a sword or a plow from it. As for biting the coin, that was to check if there was lead under the outer layer. Lead is soft enough to dent with your teeth, while gold isn't, unless it's just a thin layer. While gold is softer than, for instance, brass, the distinction makes no difference to human teeth; you'd break them on both. Interestingly, a common punishment for counterfeiting, especially in the city states in what became Germany, was having melted lead poured down one's throat. They apparently enjoyed poetic justice...

As to how the belief systems work, it is not based on goods it is based on what businesses, economists and governments tell us it is worth. Not on the goods themselves. Even gold is only worth it's value due to rarity compared to other metals, if a rich vein was found tomorrow that made gold more common than silver then silver would become the more valuable. If there was unlimited money in the world then the value of money would drop and prices would soar..

None of which is counter to what I've said. If you simply print more money, the value falls, because the true values (goods, merchandise, commodities, labor, patents, etc.) that the money represents, haven't increased similarly. Back when the gold standard was in effect, the connection was even more immediate, and, indeed, some considered deflation to be a form of government theft. The lunatic fringe in the US still do. You're right that the market determines the value, but the market follows the money-to-values ratio, unless it's being manipulated -- which it occasionally is, by major capitalists, and by governments. "Values" in this context is almost synonymous with "size of the economy".

In 1923, at the most fevered moment of the German hyperinflation, the exchange rate between the dollar and the Mark was one trillion Marks to one dollar, and a wheelbarrow full of money would not even buy a newspaper. ... It was a 20-year policy, and when it came due, he cashed it in and bought a single loaf of bread.

They were trying to print money faster than people could keep up, to finance the government, with subsequent loss of faith in the currency, which exasperated the problem. You got your pay, often in a brand new, and much higher denomination than ever before, and before you reached the shop with your newly printed 100 trillion note, you'd need a wheelbarrow of it. Slightly exaggerated, but not by much, and the 100 trillion note was real. That's 100,000,000,000,000. It's a wonder they could fit the number on the bill...