Heroforge introduces microtransaction model with Daggerheart collaboration

[mamba]

I'm trying to figure out why new features costing additional money is a bad thing.

because you are already paying a subscription for the service I guess

 

[Imaro]

My only point was that it does appear that what is happening here is some sort of unprecedented move by the company.

I'll thank you not to impose your assumptions on my motives.

No imposing anything... hoping you weren't assuming something, but ok, I'll just ask... why bring WoW up in the discussion?

 

[Imaro]

So I am running two Daggerheart campaigns. I just noticed that Heroforge has these ancestries. I'm trying to understand the model, but it wasn't clear from the website.

Is it that I have to pay to get access to be able to buy a miniature? I'm really confused.

Yep... you can't even use the assets to create a virtual mini and see if you like the way it looks without buying the pack first.

 

[Reynard]

No imposing anything... hoping you weren't assuming something, but ok, I'll just ask... why bring WoW up in the discussion?

An example of a system that asks both a subscription fee and has microtransactions. There are tons of other potential examples -- it was just the first one to come to mind.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

No imposing anything... hoping you weren't assuming something, but ok, I'll just ask... why bring WoW up in the discussion?

I'd hazard a guess that the reason to bring up WoW is they have a subscription, and microtransactions. Most notably, the $90 mount you can buy.

I know it would be easy to say - 'simple, don't buy the mount' - but the mount isn't just a cosmetic dinosaur. It gives material, in-game benefits that appear to remove the need for you to go back to a city to auction goods (make in-game money) as well as receive your auction house payments and have a vendor. You're trading real money for something that cuts down on having to stop what you're doing to sell loot.

And it's been quite successful but apparently hated.

WoW's Infamous $90 Dinosaur Mount May Be Coming Back

Nothing is ever really gone.

www.gamespot.com

 

[Imaro]

I'd hazard a guess that the reason to bring up WoW is they have a subscription, and microtransactions. Most notably, the $90 mount you can buy.

I know it would be easy to say - 'simple, don't buy the mount' - but the mount isn't just a cosmetic dinosaur. It gives material, in-game benefits that appear to remove the need for you to go back to a city to auction goods (make in-game money) as well as receive your auction house payments and have a vendor. You're trading real money for something that cuts down on having to stop what you're doing to sell loot.

And it's been quite successful but apparently hated.

WoW's Infamous $90 Dinosaur Mount May Be Coming Back

Nothing is ever really gone.

www.gamespot.com

Yeah I get that, but from @Reynard 's earlier posts... he didn't understand why people were irritated and/or against HF & DP using a sub + micro-transaction model... He then first presented Fortnite (Which is free to play but uses microtransactions) and then WoW as (positive??? or maybe successful??) examples of the model in action and proceeded to use these games (Incorrectly IMO) as some type of evidence that people don't really dislike the model but instead just dislike change itself. @Reynard if I am not following your argument correctly or misinterpreting your intent please let me know.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah I get that, but from @Reynard 's earlier posts... he didn't understand why people were irritated and/or against HF & DP using a sub + micro-transaction model... He then first presented Fortnite (Which is free to play but uses microtransactions) and then WoW as (positive??? or maybe successful??) examples of the model in action and proceeded to use these games (Incorrectly IMO) as some type of evidence that people don't really dislike the model but instead just dislike change itself. @Reynard if I am not following your argument correctly or misinterpreting your intent please let me know.

I'm only saying it isn't unusual, and that it does not appear to be enshittification. Unless i am misunderstanding, these weren't elements that had been included in the sub but then put behind a pay wall. They were new things put behind the payroll.

 

[definiteFreakyFishGuy]

Something smells fishy.

First, there was this thing with Daggerheart licensing that got a lot of people upset. Then, there was the Daggerheart kickstarter for cards, which was less controversial but still stirred up bad feelings. And now this Hero Forge partnership.

What is going on here? I feel like Charlie Day.

EDIT: In case you didn't notice, the fishy bit is just my reference to my username, which is a reference to Maiko Tsunami (my profile image), who is a character in Yugioh, who is referred to as the freaky fish guy in Yugioh Abridged.

 

[Imaro]

I'm only saying it isn't unusual, and that it does not appear to be enshittification. Unless i am misunderstanding, these weren't elements that had been included in the sub but then put behind a pay wall. They were new things put behind the payroll.

They are new versions... there were frog-men (DnD has them) and monkey-men (DnD has them) and fungus/plant-men (DnD has them) originally included in the sub, along with numerous other species. Lately HF has been updating the models offered in their sub for better prints, details, etc..., but guess which ones haven't been updated... well unless you pay the $8 a pop to gain access to the new "Daggerheart" version of their assets? IMO that's where the enshitification comes in and if they see that this is a viable way to do business then the better models, sculpts, assets, etc. will always be placed behind a secondary paywall.

EDIT: Unless this is a Darrington Press thing where a higher than normal licensing fee or some such needed to be paid... welll then that's just crappy on their part. I'm honestly not sure which company (or if both) are responsible but it's a bad look overall.

 

[Zaukrie]

"company trying to make money has increased costs, so they pass them on" sure seems like a bad thing to be mad about.....Like, if there are really better alternatives, use them.