Blueprints on the steam store? A bad idea or the Baddest idea? - Rust

Blueprints on the steam store? A bad idea or the Baddest idea?

433 replies, posted
In This Thread

Utilitron, that is how most people understand the system to work under Garry's expanded explanation of global vs. local inventory. The big problem that still remains is about "jiggled attributes" and whether or not the recipes will remain the same for the mostly cosmetic items. Even "jiggled" attributes can have a pretty big effect on an item. Say LocalGun#1 does a base 32 damage per torso shot against leather. WorldGun#1 only gets 5% increase in damage. All of a sudden LocalGun#1 is a 4-shot kill weapon vs WorldGun#1 being a 3-shot kill weapon. But wait, the target is wearing GlobalLeather#1 which has 5% increased armor against bullets compared to LocalLeather#1. Now both weapons are back 4-shot kill weapons against someone who owns GlobalLeather#1 as opposed to LocalLeather#1. This is a very basic argument, but it highlights a scenario where global gear can gain a pretty major advantage unless everything is painstakingly balanced. That could get incredibly difficult as Garry stated that he wants hundreds of player designed gear in the game.

[QUOTE=withnail;46286954]You're preaching to the choir, but people won't give as much of a shit about cosmetic changes to their character if they can't go 3rd person. I think it should be removed too, but I doubt it will be.[/QUOTE] Not true. Look at TF2 and hats. Also have to say steam is gouging dev if its only 10%.

now people understand what is going on, well done dumb dumbs now where is my gum gum

[QUOTE=oXYnary;46288622]Not true. Look at TF2 and hats. Also have to say steam is gouging dev if its only 10%.[/QUOTE] Dev gets 10%, Steam takes 5%, and 85% goes to the person selling the item on the Steam Marketplace. This applies to everything that can be put on the marketplace: trading cards, TF2 items, BattleBlock Theatre heads, emoticons/wallpaper, etc.

[QUOTE=Unemphatic;46288687]now people understand what is going on, well done dumb dumbs now where is my gum gum[/QUOTE] Doesn't mean we agree, Twildoldee.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46288695]Dev gets 10%, Steam takes 5%, and 85% goes to the person selling the item on the Steam Marketplace. This applies to everything that can be put on the marketplace: trading cards, TF2 items, BattleBlock Theatre heads, emoticons/wallpaper, etc.[/QUOTE] So basically about 90% goes to Steam because you can't convert it back into USD or euro etc as far as I know.

[QUOTE=SCE_CJs;46288385]Utilitron, that is how most people understand the system to work under Garry's expanded explanation of global vs. local inventory. The big problem that still remains is about "jiggled attributes" and whether or not the recipes will remain the same for the mostly cosmetic items. Even "jiggled" attributes can have a pretty big effect on an item. Say LocalGun#1 does a base 32 damage per torso shot against leather. WorldGun#1 only gets 5% increase in damage. All of a sudden LocalGun#1 is a 4-shot kill weapon vs WorldGun#1 being a 3-shot kill weapon. But wait, the target is wearing GlobalLeather#1 which has 5% increased armor against bullets compared to LocalLeather#1. Now both weapons are back 4-shot kill weapons against someone who owns GlobalLeather#1 as opposed to LocalLeather#1. This is a very basic argument, but it highlights a scenario where global gear can gain a pretty major advantage unless everything is painstakingly balanced. That could get incredibly difficult as Garry stated that he wants hundreds of player designed gear in the game.[/QUOTE] So your assumption is that the jiggle will be completely unbalanced? really? 100% gains and no trade offs or balancing? Have a little more faith in the developers to not be complete morons. GlobalGun#1 only gets 5% increase in damage... [B]But[/B] it also gets a 5% decrease in accuracy. GlobalLeather#1 which has 5% increased armor against bullets... [B]But[/B] a 5% decrease against melee. Balancing makes all the difference.

[QUOTE=vachon644;46288741]So basically about 90% goes to Steam because you can't convert it back into USD or euro etc as far as I know.[/QUOTE] I know artists who have gotten some pretty hefty checks from Valve from TF2 & DOTA2.

[QUOTE=jackool;46275209]Wrong, [b]you still have to find the base blueprint.[/b] Did you even read the quote above from Garry on reddit? Specifically this part: Basically, what this means is let's say you have the "Clown Shoes" item in your steam inventory. This would require the base blueprint "Burlap Shoes" (or whatever) in the server. So, in order to be able to craft your "Clown Shoes" - you first have to [b]find the burlap shoes blueprint in the server you play on[/b] before you can craft your "Clown Shoes". This is just a cosmetics thing. You can basically skin the items you can craft, in a way. You still need the original, base blueprint in the server you're playing on before you can craft the "reskin". This doesn't give any advantages. Same stats as the original "Burlap Shoes", it's just a reskin. That's it. I don't see what's so wrong about this. Sounds awesome to me. How is this bad if it's just cosmetics, seriously?[/QUOTE] Hi Jackool I re-read Garry's post and I think it's you who needs to take another look. The global (steam dropped) stuff would be variants of those items with[B] jiggled attributes[/B]. So a pair of burlap trousers would be a server blueprint.. and a pair of jeans would be a global blueprint. The jeans wouldn't offer any[b] significant advantage - it'd be mostly cosmetic[/B]. This would indicate that the stats do change with the global blueprints wouldn't you say? You know what's really going on here people, this is what we call in business "value add". Valve want to introduce a new revenue stream into the game. GREED is the only explanation for what is happening here. The game isn't even complete and they are focusing development into revenue streams instead of finishing the core game. Don't be fanboys for a second and look at the big picture. point one - only 15 staff - over $30 million raised. point two - 11 months and we have a new procedural landscape and better textures on some items point three - we have less ingame assets than legacy does still. The only thing I am unsure on is whether Garry is driving this or Valve? I would love anyone involved with the development of the game to post a reply to my observations. I understand that some of you will just call me a troll but that is not my intent. I have been in business for over 30 years now and I love PC gaming in my free time. I loved Rust when I originally purchased it but in my mind we have here a perfect demonstration of why developers want to move away from publishers. It's just business to them. When Cloud Imperium Games crowd funded the first $30 million they already had 280 staff onboard.

[QUOTE=Mattly;46290013]Hi Jackool I re-read Garry's post and I think it's you who needs to take another look. The global (steam dropped) stuff would be variants of those items with[B] jiggled attributes[/B]. So a pair of burlap trousers would be a server blueprint.. and a pair of jeans would be a global blueprint. The jeans wouldn't offer any[b] significant advantage - it'd be mostly cosmetic[/B]. This would indicate that the stats do change with the global blueprints wouldn't you say? You know what's really going on here people, this is what we call in business "value add". Valve want to introduce a new revenue stream into the game. GREED is the only explanation for what is happening here. The game isn't even complete and they are focusing development into revenue streams instead of finishing the core game. Don't be fanboys for a second and look at the big picture. point one - only 15 staff - over $30 million raised. point two - 11 months and we have a new procedural landscape and better textures on some items point three - we have less ingame assets than legacy does still. The only thing I am unsure on is whether Garry is driving this or Valve? I would love anyone involved with the development of the game to post a reply to my observations. I understand that some of you will just call me a troll but that is not my intent. I have been in business for over 30 years now and I love PC gaming in my free time. I loved Rust when I originally purchased it but in my mind we have here a perfect demonstration of why developers want to move away from publishers. It's just business to them. When Cloud Imperium Games crowd funded the first $30 million they already had 280 staff onboard.[/QUOTE] As a buisnessman you cant blame buisnessmen for being buisnessmen whether thats developers or publishers. Money is the real reason developers want to move away from publishers. However, I agree this feature seems largely based on a need for revenue streams despite what some belive to be only for cosmetic purposes or to help allievate server wipe issues. I think in game purchases can be managed to provide revenue with out sacrificing the integrity of the game but almost always bean counters see the short sighted dollar and want to captizlie. Hope this does not ocur.

To those of you who think this is just an awful idea, I'd like to point out a couple things. Global vs. server blueprints This is the most important distinction and was not explained in the devblog. Each server will have their own blueprints for the standard items. Global blueprints (the ones on Steam) will be variants of the server blueprints with comparable stats. You will not be able to join a server and craft your global blueprint items right away. You'll have to actually find the server blueprint in game before you can craft its global equivalent. Server wipe? You have to find them again. Join a different server? You have to find them again. So it's cosmetic and it will add a lot more variety to the game. These details were said by Gary himself so that's how it will be.

[QUOTE=Dylwolfe;46290534]To those of you who think this is just an awful idea, I'd like to point out a couple things. Global vs. server blueprints This is the most important distinction and was not explained in the devblog. Each server will have their own blueprints for the standard items. Global blueprints (the ones on Steam) will be variants of the server blueprints with comparable stats. You will not be able to join a server and craft your global blueprint items right away. You'll have to actually find the server blueprint in game before you can craft its global equivalent. Server wipe? You have to find them again. Join a different server? You have to find them again. So it's cosmetic and it will add a lot more variety to the game. These details were said by Gary himself so that's how it will be.[/QUOTE] For some reason, some of you seem to look right past the critical issue and keep spouting this same thing while ignoring the very real danger that this feature will present [I]if [/I]abused. He's made mention of non-cosmetic things (pistols and guns), he made anaologies to games that are "pay to win" (CCG's) and he's stated the differences would not entirely be cosmetic (jigged stats). So, many of you may think this feature will only provide cosmetics, the objective ones of us, see something very troubling. This coming from somone who does not object outright to the idea but rather advising people of the potential danger of this feature, if its implemented and exploited by the developers. Gary could come out tomorrow and say, "Its going to entirely cosmetic" and I would still voice my concern becasue ulimtately I believe the temptation to sell rare and useful prints will be great. I'm hoping the developers are aware of this and mindful when creating prints to sell, if they do decide to go forward with this. This "they wont go "pay to win" route naivete is kind of astounding and why those of who understand buisness speak up...at least be aware this is possible as long as you able to purchase content for the game.

[QUOTE=Mattly;46290013] This would indicate that the stats do change with the global blueprints wouldn't you say? You know what's really going on here people, this is what we call in business "value add". Valve want to introduce a new revenue stream into the game. GREED is the only explanation for what is happening here. The game isn't even complete and they are focusing development into revenue streams instead of finishing the core game. Don't be fanboys for a second and look at the big picture.[/QUOTE] What are you even talking about? Valve has nothing to do with the content in Rust. Facepunch makes these decisions and this system really doesn't bring in a revenue stream for them. It is a way to get people to play the game when they aren't playing the game. Meta concepts like this are all about growing a community. Facepunch gets free content and players get more content. Win - Win. [QUOTE=Mattly;46290013]point one - only 15 staff - over $30 million raised. [/QUOTE] What is this even supposed to mean? Are you trying to say because they have more money they have to hire more people? That is a BAD idea when it comes to software production. I am a programmer, professionally for over 6 years. I have seen this first hand. It's called [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brooks's_law"]Brook's Law[/URL] [QUOTE]adding manpower to a late software project makes it later[/QUOTE] The best analogy describing Brook's Law I have ever heard was "You can't hire 9 women to make a baby in 1 month" [QUOTE=Mattly;46290013]point two - 11 months and we have a new procedural landscape and better textures on some items[/QUOTE] The rewriting of Rust began around [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog/"]end of March[/URL], but didn't really take on a life of it's own until [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-2/"]April[/URL]. [QUOTE]This code re-writing is kind of like a virus. The more you change, the more you need to change. You get into the situation where it’s quicker and easier to replace existing code than integrate it with the new system. That’s what’s happening.[/QUOTE] It has been WAY beyond "a new procedural landscape and better textures"... I feel a rant coming on, so I apologise in advance -- [B]tldr[/B] - He's wrong. ----------- The new terrain system has way more then the old map ever did. With new biomes, caves, water, and so much more. But, with the implementation of the new procedurally generated terrain, some technical issues arose. Specifically, the inability to use Unity's built in [URL="http://playrust.com/thursday-devblog-11/"]pathfinding[/URL]. This resulting in a from scratch version of pathfinding being added to Rust. [QUOTE]Because we’re generating terrain on the fly we can’t use Unity’s built in AI pathfinding.. because that’s all pre-baked. So we need to do it all dynamically. All the thirdparty solutions to this problem we’ve explored have been missing some pretty big features.[/QUOTE] This was not the only technical limitation that needed to be worked around in Rust. The addition of caves also required special [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-22/"]terrain clipping[/URL] had to be created that would allow for holes to be created in the height map for the addition of caves. Along with a new UI system that runs off [URL="http://coherent-labs.com/overview/"]CoherentUi[/URL], Garry also created a new [URL="http://playrust.com/updateless-week/"]item system[/URL] that will allow the artists to easily put items in game by automating the scripting for it. Garry wrote from scratch new [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-4/"]netcode[/URL], utilized [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-6/"]Mechanim for player animations[/URL], implemented [URL="http://www.easyanticheat.net/"]EAC[/URL], added a [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-7/"]third person[/URL] view, implemented [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-8/"]swimming[/URL], created a [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-9/"]new footstep technology[/URL], revamped the [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-12/"]building system[/URL] with the ability to [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-20/"]upgrade[/URL], added the ability to [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-14/"]loot people/sleepers[/URL], added [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-15/"]cannibalism[/URL], [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-17/"]replaced outdated hitboxes[/URL] with the use of the skin mesh collider, added [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-18/"]spectator mode[/URL] for admins, and an [URL="http://playrust.com/friday-devblog-23/"]upgrade[/URL] to [URL="http://unity3d.com/5"]unity 5[/URL]. These aren't all the new additions, there were several other significant additions to the game. [QUOTE=Mattly;46290013]point three - we have less ingame assets than legacy does still.[/QUOTE] Not really, most the assets for the reboot haven't been implemented yet. [QUOTE=Mattly;46290013] The only thing I am unsure on is whether Garry is driving this or Valve? I would love anyone involved with the development of the game to post a reply to my observations. I understand that some of you will just call me a troll but that is not my intent. I have been in business for over 30 years now and I love PC gaming in my free time. I loved Rust when I originally purchased it but in my mind we have here a perfect demonstration of why developers want to move away from publishers. It's just business to them. When Cloud Imperium Games crowd funded the first $30 million they already had 280 staff onboard.[/QUOTE] I don't know what buisness you are in, but it's definatly not software if you are unaware of how team structures work or how development scales. Who cares if cloud imperium has 250 employees. It's not the same company. Facepunch is an indie shop who hit it big with one of it's prototypes. You are making an awful jump to assume there next step would be to hire 10x the people. Team dynamics don't work that way, the production of Rust would have come to a screeching hault while they tried to figure out their new paradigm. It is insane to believe that any of this was fueled by greed. Read Garry's posts on the subject. The team never thought this game would take off thew way it did.

[QUOTE]It is insane to believe that any of this was fueled by greed.[/QUOTE] Stop thinking of greed as being an antagonistic insult. Its seems you are put off by someone stating the obvious...developers make games to make money. There is nothing wrong with this but sometimes its wise to have a voice that says, becareful.....too much greed can be bad. [QUOTE=utilitron;46290659]The team never thought this game would take off thew way it did.[/QUOTE] A buisness owner does not willings attempt to fail. You can say they did not expect Rust to be a hit, but they expected one of their games to be sucessful

[QUOTE=billy79;46290740]Stop thinking of greed as being an antagonistic insult. Its seems you are put off by someone stating the obvious...developers make games to make money. There is nothing wrong with this but sometimes its wise to have a voice that says, becareful.....too much greed can be bad. A buisness owner does not willings attempt to fail. You can say they did not expect Rust to be a hit, but they expected one of their games to be sucessful[/QUOTE] Not to derail or anything but calling someone greedy is an insult in every aspect of the word. It's a cardinal sin for crying out loud. Saying someone is motivated by greed is the exact same thing as calling them greedy. Garry has said on at least two occasions in his devblog that he did not expect rust to take off in popularity as QUICKLY as it did. He never said he expected his game to fail, only that he thought it would take longer before people started purchasing en masse. Because of that massive player spike they had to completely readjust the way they went about their design priorities.

[QUOTE=Zipper Bear;46290775]Not to derail or anything but calling someone greedy is an insult in every aspect of the word. It's a cardinal sin for crying out loud. Saying someone is motivated by greed is the exact same thing as calling them greedy. Garry has said on at least two occasions in his devblog that he did not expect rust to take off in popularity as QUICKLY as it did. He never said he expected his game to fail, only that he thought it would take longer before people started purchasing en masse. Because of that massive player spike they had to completely readjust the way they went about their design priorities.[/QUOTE] Okay, so your more upset at the term used as opposed to the point thats being made...Gotcha.

No, but if someone calls you an idiot but then changes their statement right after to say they think you made a bad decision, it's not exactly saying the same thing is it? Any person that chooses to write an argument for something has an obligation to make a clear and concise statement. To ask if someone is upset because they failed to read the mind of the poster speaking unclearly is pretty silly, don't you think?

You know, I'm not sure how you can not understand the justification for this feature is born out of the desire to make money (greed). It's the only logical conclussion when reading what Gary has said about the topic. His idea is not bad or good, yet, but presents considerable concerns. I've posted several times pointing out how this feature will have no practical effect on server wipes (the justificaiton given) as the game will be played exactly the same after a wipe with or with out this feature, if its a pure cosmetics play. This isnt a given though, considering the other things he's said that implies otherwise (ccg's and jigged stats).

i'm not sure i follow the issues here. everyone seems to agree this is a potential income stream from the game. but we can find the global blueprints in game. and from there sell them or trade them for steam "money". and yes, the devs get a cut of that (which is only fair), but it's honestly scraps compared to what they made and will continue to make in sales. so i doubt they are rubbing their hands together going "ahhh, this way we can make 0.003 cents from every sale of a global blueprint, bwahahah". this game is all about emergent gameplay. interactions between players. "we give you the tools, and see what you do with them". and this is just another tool. you guys seem concerned about the worst case scenario; biased, overpowered weopons only available to people who pay through the nose, that destroy the game, and are instantly available when you buy them. forget fucking us though, that would fuck THEM! i trust that the devs aren't stupid enough to cash in their investment so they can get a few cents for every trade because they would actually lose customers and therefore revenue if this game ends up painfully imbalanced. so calm down, see how it plays out, and if it's imbalanced, give them feedback. as the old adage goes..."its alpha" ;)

[QUOTE=mrknifey;46291072]i'm not sure i follow the issues here. everyone seems to agree this is a potential income stream from the game. but we can find the global blueprints in game. and from there sell them or trade them for steam "money". and yes, the devs get a cut of that (which is only fair), but it's honestly scraps compared to what they made and will continue to make in sales. so i doubt they are rubbing their hands together going "ahhh, this way we can make 0.003 cents from every sale of a global blueprint, bwahahah". [/QUOTE] I agree its too early and frankly stupid to make a determination of impact of something not yet created. The only thing we can do is speculate and comment on the potential good and bad of such a feature. You mention the global prints can be found in the game....I would ask why they need to sell them at all then? [QUOTE]you guys seem concerned about the worst case scenario; biased, overpowered weopons only available to people who pay through the nose, that destroy the game, and are instantly available when you buy them. forget fucking us though, that would fuck THEM! [/QUOTE] I think you embellish the issue to absurdity. It does not have to be an insanely overpowered item to warp the game. Its can be the combination of several slightly tweaked items that will destroy the game. [QUOTE]i trust that the devs aren't stupid enough to cash in their investment so they can get a few cents for every trade because they would actually lose customers and therefore revenue if this game ends up painfully imbalanced. so calm down, see how it plays out, and if it's imbalanced, give them feedback.[/QUOTE] I trust the developers are smart people and would not be as obvious as you stated above and they do not have to be. It's be like wooden spear 1pt increase to attack damage....blue shirt gives 1% protection, green shorts gives 1% more protection, baseball hat gives 1% more evasion, shoes increase movement speed by .5%, etc, etc. Further, they'd be stupid to sell their items for three cents when there will be people who will pay more for that stuff. The market determines the price, not the developers. When they see the revenue that stuff generates, there are going to want more of it...so the first step is to decrease the frequency of drop with in-game content to drive more sales, then you'll see a power creep in prints sold in the store. This is not a worse case scenario but a scenario that typically occurs with purchasing content for games. Its not about trust either. They are not evil for wanting to do this either but it can cause the health of the game down the road. Simply saying you "trust them" means nothing. You trust them to not make money when money is to be made?

[QUOTE=TheQuagmire;46273480]You aren't buying them directly from FP though. You are trading/steam market what other player's have found. It's not a 100% guarantee there will be a blueprint you want to get. So you still have to earn it regardless.[/QUOTE] Doesn’t matter where you buy/trade them from, that isn’t the issue, the point is still the same. Its less effort to go on steam market and trade than it is to grind through the game. And I guarantee, after 4 months they will ALL be in the market. [editline]21st October 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=jackool;46275209]Wrong, [b]you still have to find the base blueprint.[/b] Did you even read the quote above from Garry on reddit? Specifically this part: Basically, what this means is let's say you have the "Clown Shoes" item in your steam inventory. This would require the base blueprint "Burlap Shoes" (or whatever) in the server. So, in order to be able to craft your "Clown Shoes" - you first have to [b]find the burlap shoes blueprint in the server you play on[/b] before you can craft your "Clown Shoes". This is just a cosmetics thing. You can basically skin the items you can craft, in a way. You still need the original, base blueprint in the server you're playing on before you can craft the "reskin". This doesn't give any advantages. Same stats as the original "Burlap Shoes", it's just a reskin. That's it. I don't see what's so wrong about this. Sounds awesome to me. How is this bad if it's just cosmetics, seriously?[/QUOTE] First of all I think you didn’t fully understand my comment or the ones related to the one you quoted (mine). Second, you read it wrong, not me, Garry is quoted as saying some of the items those blueprints will produce will have “jiggled attributes” so for the time being it isn’t purely cosmetic. 100% cosmetic would be ok if and only if you find the base item first, I still don’t like it, I prefer you find them in game, but I could live with it. [editline]21st October 2014[/editline] I would also like to say, that other than this steam market blueprint thing, I think this game is AWESOME and has the potential to become one of the best games of the year, way above most AAA titles. Keep up the good work Garry. ;-)

[QUOTE=billy79;46291218]I agree its too early and frankly stupid to make a determination of impact of something not yet created. The only thing we can do is speculate and comment on the potential good and bad of such a feature.[/QUOTE] agreed:) [QUOTE]You mention the global prints can be found in the game....I would ask why they need to sell them at all then?[/QUOTE] i don't interpret it as fp selling them at all, but the users who find the items. [QUOTE]I think you embellish the issue to absurdity. It does not have to be an insanely overpowered item to warp the game. Its can be the combination of several slightly tweaked items that will destroy the game.[/QUOTE] i do like my little dramatic quips. yes i am exaggerating, but in kind. several slightly tweaked items are unlikely to make enough difference to break the game. for example if you have 4 clothing pieces with 1% cold resistance, you get a total of 4% bonus cold resistance. add to that the likely offset of -1% heat resistance or something else to balance it, and you get a flavour, not a gamebreaker. the insanely overpowered weopon metaphor is just to emphasise the "worst case scenario" arguments flying around. [QUOTE]...they'd be stupid to sell their items for three cents when there will be people who will pay more for that stuff. The market determines the price, not the developers. When they see the revenue that stuff generates, there are going to want more of it...so the first step is to decrease the frequency of drop with in-game content to drive more sales, then you'll see a power creep in prints sold in the store.[/QUOTE] sounds pretty worst case scenario to me. you are right of course that the market determines the price. if someone really wants my clown shoes blueprint, they will pay what i want. just look at the prices of "strange australium blah blah blah" on TF2...some of those literally sell for > $100. but again, its not fp selling them, and its not them choosing the price. yeah they could influence the market by changing the drop rate, but they could change the difficulty of the game by marginally increasing or decreasing the animal spawn rate too. its a matter of balancing the game in a way that doesn't negatively gear their user base. [QUOTE]Its not about trust either. They are not evil for wanting to do this either but it can cause the health of the game down the road. Simply saying you "trust them" means nothing. You trust them to not make money when money is to be made?[/QUOTE] i agree in part. they are not evil if they decide to make money from this game. if they just wanted to make a game and not earn money from it, it would be f2p shareware with its own client. but perhaps i need to reword my previous statement; i trust that the facepunch devs are not greedy enough or foolish enough that they will risk their player base on imbalanced decisions to obtain what is ultimately a lesser income than that obtained by people buying rust itself. i trust that they will do what is in their best interests. i have been watching the decisions they have made for the 6 months, and have yet to be disappointed by their adaptability, and willingness not only to try new things, but try everything once and reassess if it works. (as a point of interest, it's nice to have an actual conversation that doesn't degenerate into "stfu noob!!")

[QUOTE=billy79;46290935]You know, I'm not sure how you can not understand the justification for this feature is born out of the desire to make money (greed). It's [B]the only logical conclussion[/B] when reading what Gary has said about the topic.[/QUOTE] I strongly disagree. [QUOTE=billy79;46290410]As a buisnessman you cant blame buisnessmen for being buisnessmen whether thats developers or publishers. Money is the real reason developers want to move away from publishers. However, I agree this feature seems largely based on a need for revenue streams despite what some belive to be only for cosmetic purposes or to help allievate server wipe issues. I think in game purchases can be managed to provide revenue with out sacrificing the integrity of the game but almost always bean counters see the short sighted dollar and want to captizlie. Hope this does not ocur.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=billy79;46290740]Stop thinking of greed as being an antagonistic insult. Its seems you are put off by someone stating the obvious...developers make games to make money. There is nothing wrong with this but sometimes its wise to have a voice that says, becareful.....too much greed can be bad.[/QUOTE] Unless garry's lying to us about how much money Rust and Gmod have made, they don't need new revenue streams directing pennies to them every time someone moves a blueprint through the marketplace. Rust's made $30 million in straight profit on Steam already, likely more, in under a year [B]as an Early Access title[/B]. Of all the things this might be, a cash grab is the [B]last[/B] one. Steam provides certain functions for the inventory, and if you're going to make blueprints inventory items, you might as well make use of all of the functions, including the player marketplace. If the solution turns out to be to make blueprint items not Marketeable, and only tradeable, I imagine garry would do it without a second thought, because the implementation is more important than a 10% cut of the pennies in marketplace transactions.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46294732]I strongly disagree. Unless garry's lying to us about how much money Rust and Gmod have made, they don't need new revenue streams directing pennies to them every time someone moves a blueprint through the marketplace. Rust's made $30 million in straight profit on Steam already, likely more, in under a year [B]as an Early Access title[/B]. Of all the things this might be, a cash grab is the [B]last[/B] one. Steam provides certain functions for the inventory, and if you're going to make blueprints inventory items, you might as well make use of all of the functions, including the player marketplace. If the solution turns out to be to make blueprint items not Marketeable, and only tradeable, I imagine garry would do it without a second thought, because the implementation is more important than a 10% cut of the pennies in marketplace transactions.[/QUOTE] You keep saying pennies based on Gary stating an obvious arbitrary price in his post. I do not think we can assume that's what the actual cost will be. Even if this is an unobtrusive feature that brings no lasting harm, Gary will only set the introductory price and unless he stupidly keeps it artificially low, the market determines the price, so it could be pennies, its could be dollars. You also underestimate a business persons willingness to cash in. So they made 30 million, what if they can make 100 million (arbitrary number)? Its not that easy to turn down that money, irrelevant how much money they've made. I would not turn down the potential of several million more. You may be right that Gary will not sell out, but who would blame someone if they have the opportunity to rake in a massive fortune?

[QUOTE=billy79;46294874]You keep saying pennies based on Gary stating an obvious arbitrary price in his post. I do not think we can assume that's what the actual cost will be. Even if this is an unobtrusive feature that brings no lasting harm, Gary will only set the introductory price and unless he stupidly keeps it artificially low, the market determines the price.[/QUOTE] Er, how will garry set the introductory price? Unless garry seeds the blueprints on the Marketplace himself, garry won't be setting any prices at all (and the point is for the blueprints to be obtained in-game). Valve sets initial prices on TF2 items, but only because it's also running the Mann Co. store. The community decides for itself what the real market value of something is from there. There's no Rust Co. store planned. Unless this system comes out to be blatantly abusive and blueprints yield superior items to what you find by default in-game, I don't see prices reaching dollars for a stupid pair of boots. And if someone wants to spend that much, that's up to them, I don't think you can blame garry for someone else being willing to spend ten bucks for a hoodie (and remember that most of that goes to the player with the blueprint, not Valve or the devs -- so the bigger worry if this happens is scamming and Rust being used for market speculation).

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46294914]Er, how will garry set the introductory price? Unless garry seeds the blueprints on the Marketplace himself, garry won't be setting any prices at all (and the point is for the blueprints to be obtained in-game). Valve sets initial prices on TF2 items, but only because it's also running the Mann Co. store. The community decides for itself what the real market value of something is from there. There's no Rust Co. store planned. Unless this system comes out to be blatantly abusive and blueprints yield superior items to what you find by default in-game, I don't see prices reaching dollars for a stupid pair of boots. And if someone wants to spend that much, that's up to them, I don't think you can blame garry for someone else being willing to spend ten bucks for a hoodie (and remember that most of that goes to the player with the blueprint, not Valve or the devs -- so the bigger worry if this happens is scamming and Rust being used for market speculation).[/QUOTE] I see no near term ill-effects from this feature. I do see long-term catastrophe though. Someone will see the ability to make money quickly and take advantage of it, while destroying the game in the process and they will not give a damn about destroying the game. You think this wont happen because the developers are a bunch of cool people...they are cool and are doing great work but ultimately that's irrelevant to the broader issue. EDIT: You are quite optimistic about Gary not selling out. I've read things that he wants to spend more time with his family, which is admirable and good for him, really...but as a fan of rust, its troubling. You put this game in the wrong hands and no more rust, at least in its current iteration.

[QUOTE=billy79;46294927]I see no near term ill-effects from this feature. I do see long-term catastrophe though. Someone will see the ability to make money quickly and take advantage of it, while destroying the game in the process and they will not give a damn about destroying the game.[/QUOTE] You keep implying that garry will sell out. Sure, if someone comes to garry with a billion dollars he might think about it for a while, but if you want to hold off on implementing blueprints because they could theoretically be abused in a hypothetical future where Rust is bought out by some other company, I think garry's going to be able to confidently proceed with implementing his blueprints plans. That's a really feeble reason not to do something during alpha. The likelihood of that happening, regardless of how small or large it may be (and it isn't very large--who'd want to take over Rust [B]right now[/B]?), is not an argument worth worrying about. Besides, if it were to happen, I don't think it matters what garry's done. If, say, EA bought Rust, they're free to do whatever the fuck they want with it, and if they wanted to start charging monthly fees for private servers and implementing abusive pay-to-win item store shit, [B]they could and would[/B] and it wouldn't matter one inch what Rust looked like before they started corrupting it. You should really drop that argument, because it doesn't accomplish anything except imply that garry is greedy and is doing this for profit regardless of how it affects players.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46294951]You keep implying that garry will sell out. Sure, if someone comes to garry with a billion dollars he might think about it for a while, but if you want to hold off on implementing blueprints because they could theoretically be abused in a hypothetical future where Rust is bought out by some other company, I think garry's going to be able to confidently proceed with implementing his blueprints plans. That's a really feeble reason not to do something during alpha. The likelihood of that happening, regardless of how small or large it may be (and it isn't very large--who'd want to take over Rust [B]right now[/B]?), is not an argument worth worrying about. Besides, if it were to happen, I don't think it matters what garry's done. If, say, EA bought Rust, they're free to do whatever the fuck they want with it, and if they wanted to start charging monthly fees for private servers and implementing abusive pay-to-win item store shit, [B]they could and would[/B] and it wouldn't matter one inch what Rust looked like before they started corrupting it. You should really drop that argument, because it doesn't accomplish anything except imply that garry is greedy and is doing this for profit regardless of how it affects players.[/QUOTE] Problem is, this is the only aspect of my argument you are touching, as if its the only point i'm making. It seems you still have no idea what my objection is despite telling you in numerous threads. Once again, my objection and concern goes to the long-term health of the game. I do not think any long-term good can come from this for the game. Doesn't mean it will be bad for the game either, its just the potential bad mitigates any sort of good you could conceive. I've also mentioned several times that the developers should make the game they want to make, not what the players want and that I'm just voicing my concern. The emphasis on Gary and the business side of it is a legitimate concern when you start introducing paid content in the game. I have to say, your head is in the sand on this.

We disagree on the long-term effect on the health of the game, but I'm not interested in challenging your opinion on that. I'm taking a wait-and-see approach on the blueprints, since I'm not sure how garry's exact implementation will play out and I think we need real-world testing to come to a conclusion, which is something that dozens of people consider unthinkable. However, the "it could be abused by the controller of the game" argument is logically weak.

[QUOTE=elixwhitetail;46295066]We disagree on the long-term effect on the health of the game, but I'm not interested in challenging your opinion on that.[/QUOTE] Of course not. This idea adds only one thing....the abilty to pay for in game content. You can trade, discover and keep prints in game all with out involving the marketplace and content purchases. There is no clear value to adding a feature so you can pay for content you've already purchased (i.e. discoverable in game global prints). [QUOTE]However, the "it could be abused by the controller of the game" argument is logically weak [/QUOTE] Not in the context of the feature we are talking about. As indicated above this feature only adds the ability to pay for something you've already paid for....there is no other reason for this feature to exist, it's redundant to what you can already do. This can only be exploited by the developers to increase the bottom line and reduce the amount of time spent playing the game for the consumer who pays for it. That is not to say they will but this feature is nothing more than laying the foundation for pay to win, when and if someone choose to go that route. [editline]21st October 2014[/editline] I'm willing to bet no one can name one aspect of this idea/feature that is different from what you can, will or should be able to do in the game, other than provide the ability to buy something.

Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.