Sure, some people, including myself, would be happy to pay up to $20 per month for a polished game that we enjoy. But I wonder how many players would not be willing to pay the extra and how many games would lose large portions of their playerbases were subscription fees to rise above to $15 per month standard. Perhaps the cash shops are a means to preventing those huge losses which really would, in my opinion, hurt all of the various gaming communities.
It's at least worth considering, in my opinion,
It is. I do not believe the typical MMO is having any problems making money with a $15 per player sub fee.
That being said - I would be fine with paying (and I have said this before) $30 or even $45 a month - if it was for my ideal game. Before MMOs, I used to spend $100 or more a month on various forms of gaming (I was once into CCGs). The right game would definitely be worth a much larger sub fee. The companies aren't even trying to make those games, though.
And I would agree with you in that assessment. But again, our opinion regarding the current subscription model games on the market is subjective. There may be millions of players worldwide in various gaming communities who may feel very differently about their game of choice. Personally, I'm not willing to pay more for WoW, but I know hundreds who might be. Personally, I'm not willing to pay $1 per month, let alone $15 or more for STO, but there are people who might be. CCP has a very dedicated fanbase for EVE (which I also play from time to time, and am playing now), and I think it may be safe to presume that a good chunk of EVE players would consider that game worth a few extra bucks a month even if I might not be willing to pay it. Personal tastes in gaming are as varied as they are in clothing or automobiles, so I don't necessarily believe that it's for me to say that there is no game publisher currently making a game that is worth the extra subscription price because the statement is an entirely subjective one that is up to each individual player.
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
I have to say Hellmarauder has come up with the only defence of F2P that has ever resounded with me. I can certainly see how indie companies would find it easier to launch as a F2P MMO. And we really need a strong Indie element in the MMO world. I do wonder why a reduced subscription with a free trial is not the answer for indie MMOs though?
Nifa – I did a poll on here, 75% would prefer their MMO to up the subscription rather than get a cash shop in to fund rising costs or an expansion. But MMO companies are not bringing in cash shops to fund rising costs or expansions. They are bringing them in to make a shed load of money at your expense.
I have to say Hellmarauder has come up with the only defence of F2P that has ever resounded with me. I can certainly see how indie companies would find it easier to launch as a F2P MMO. And we really need a strong Indie element in the MMO world. I do wonder why a reduced subscription with a free trial is not the answer for indie MMOs though?
Nifa – I did a poll on here, 75% would prefer their MMO to up the subscription rather than get a cash shop in to fund rising costs or an expansion. But MMO companies are not bringing in cash shops to fund rising costs or expansions. They are bringing them in to make a shed load of money at your expense.
I haven't read this entire thread, hardly any of it in fact. Forgive me, time is short, and I hope I'm not repeating.
But of course, ease of launch, draw people in with free play (what do they have to lose?), and make your money off those who want the "more". And yes, it's about profits, nothing new there.
What I've wondered is, why not do this in a more "worldly" feeling way? FTP, but if you want to be a "land owner" you must buy in with a subscription. Substitute or include "nobility", or "training" of more elaborate skill sets.
Unfortunately, we folk here are more heavily into gaming, while there's a much, much larger subset of more casual gamers who don't look at MMOs quite the same way. For them, cash shops are fine because they don't really care about the game or how it's played. They just try it out and if they like it all is good. But we, whether we are "sandbox" or "level grind", we have expectations. We have a clearly defined game that we want. However that world is presented, we expect a "world" in a game and cash shops don't jive with that. It's not a game if you can buy teh win. There's a competitive edge there, we expect that just as any world has natural selection of one kind or another. Those others, those casual gamers without expectations, they just don't care about that.
Nifa – I did a poll on here, 75% would prefer their MMO to up the subscription rather than get a cash shop in to fund rising costs or an expansion. But MMO companies are not bringing in cash shops to fund rising costs or expansions. They are bringing them in to make a shed load of money at your expense.
Unfortunately, we folk here are more heavily into gaming, while there's a much, much larger subset of more casual gamers who don't look at MMOs quite the same way. For them, cash shops are fine because they don't really care about the game or how it's played. They just try it out and if they like it all is good. But we, whether we are "sandbox" or "level grind", we have expectations. We have a clearly defined game that we want. However that world is presented, we expect a "world" in a game and cash shops don't jive with that. It's not a game if you can buy teh win. There's a competitive edge there, we expect that just as any world has natural selection of one kind or another. Those others, those casual gamers without expectations, they just don't care about that.
My apologies, Scot, I don't recall having seen your poll on the subject. As I've said, I would be more than happy to pay a higher subscription to fund rising costs as well.
But I think that Amaranthar really hit the nail on the head with his (or her?) post in that I believe there is a vast difference between the majority of those of us who read the information here and post on these forums and more "casual" players. While 75% of those of us who are members here would be more than happy to pay more in order to get rid of cash shops, I do wonder what might happen to the populations of various games if a similar poll showed that 75% of casual players weren't willing to do so.
Granted, those of us who game more seriously and heavily might be a lot happier (I'll be honest, I'm already kind of nauseated by having to look at that blasted Celestial Steed everywhere I go), but I wonder if there'd be enough population left for us to play with in some games with lower subscription numbers if cash shops didn't exist for the more casual players who are happy to fork over real world cash for a character race, mount, or a one hour XP bonus.
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
I would just like to be given an option. I want to choose between the 2 - either item shop game or a game WITHOUT an item shop. Or at least have a server without an item shop. That way in my server everyone's equal. I don't want to compete or play with people who buy their content instead of playing and earning it the way it meant to be.
Ok, this is gonna be a long one. I wonder how many "wall of text" replies I'll get :P
Sure you can compare apples and oranges. You could even compare basketballs and oranges. This does not mean the comparison is sound. in this case, it's not, because instead of sticking with common aspects that are of merit, it's just trying to equate one change in a game with another.
Now I think you're just being deliberately obtuse. There's nothing even remotely mystifying about Ceredith's comparison.
You're right. It's not mystifying. It's just wrong. Sorry. Obviously we're not going to agree on that though, so I'm going to stop bothering.
Really? Is that what you think? You think that I can't accept other people's tastes?
Yes really. Let's look at some of the things you've said you've said to Ceredith.
Nothing to do with tastes in the bit you quoted. That was not related to taste, but rather with regards to his position on a subject.
Here's the difference between taste and what Ceredith wants:
"I don't like Hot dogs" is a taste.
"I don't like Hot Dogs so I don't think anybody should eat hot dogs" is not a taste, but something else.
See the difference?
Now maybe you're saying his problem is more like not liking hot dogs, but liking donuts, particularly a donut shop down the street which suddenly starts serving hot dogs...and he's so upset over it that he refuses to ever go in there again.
Yeah, that's fine. But then he wants to stop me from going in. That's not fine.
Sounds like an inability to discriminate between two rather different things.
Just because you have a problem with it does not mean that others are disallowed from thinking your problem is nothing but your own silliness causing you to grief yourself.
See, that's the thing, I don't respect your view. I respect your right to quit the game for any damn reason you like, but I can still think your reasons are nothing for me to worry about.
It's pretty obvious that you can't appreciate that others' tastes can be different from your own. Which is further reinforced when you say:
It is pretty obvious you didn't understand what I said very well. In fact, it seems you took it out of context. Please read my explanation above.
People are quite indignant and up in arms at the very idea of the offering. This is substantially different because it is making the idea of accepting it out to be wrong. Or in your words, some kind of personal deficiency on my part.
I don't know if you've noticed, but this isn't blueharp.com. It's mmorpg.com. People are perfectly entitled to express their views here, even the indignant ones.
Sure, and I'm entitled to say what about that? Oh I know...that I disagree and do not respect that particular indignant view.
I can, right? Or is that not allowed because this isn't blueharp.com??
Besides, if you want I could take out the personal personal pronoun and make it just as applicable. The word "my" is not key there. I just didn't like how "some kind of personal deficiency on the part of those who accept it" flowed.
Sorry if that usage confused you with an idea about personal association.
I don't know if you're at all aware of the basic premise of this thread, but it's that the OP is sick of having fallacious arguments supporting MTs rammed down their throat.
And I'm sick of fallacious arguments against them rammed down my throat. You don't like something? Don't buy it. I can even accept saying to me not to buy it because you don't like it.
But don't tell me not to buy it because of some principle against the item being available and expect me to remain silent when I find your arguments to be fallacious, outrageous and otherwise just plain bad.
There's been a bizarre concerted effort in the MMO industry to tell us that we should love combined subscription and MT payment models.
There's been a bizarre reaction from certain MMO players that tells us to hate and despise subscriptions and MT.
It's not been concerted, AFAIK, but damn it's all over the place it seems. I'd give a comparison, but it'd be to a political affair and I don't want to digress off topic.
Those two models work perfectly fine separately. And it's true that some players can also tolerate or even like them together.
But a very significant proportion of players who prefer subscription models prefer them specifically for the absence of RMTs. For that group of players, combined subscription + MT models are never going to be their liking.
So no-one is "up in arms" because some players, like yourself, have no problem with MTs.
Do you want me to quote a few posts where people do get upset over tolerating it? Or can you just look over these two cash-shop threads and see them and spare me the burden of having to read that nonsense again?
Sorry dude, but I see a lot of folks clamoring against these things, and yes, even accusing some people as being shills.
What people are "up in arms" about is the incessant stream of nonsense arguments which boil down to you "your taste is bad - this is how you need to think", eg. SOE's:
And I'm up in arms about the incessant stream of nonsense arguments which boil down to "Your acceptance of this model is bad - this how you need to think" .
Your comments (quoted earlier) in response to Ceredith fall into the same aggressive category.
Really? I think that that's being aggressive in response to aggression. Yeah, bad on my part I know, but it's sometimes hard not to bark right back.
I would just like to be given an option. I want to choose between the 2 - either item shop game or a game WITHOUT an item shop. Or at least have a server without an item shop. That way in my server everyone's equal. I don't want to compete or play with people who buy their content instead of playing and earning it the way it meant to be.
Reasonable enough if anything in the cash-shop impacts game play as opposed to cosmetic affairs.
And here's the difference between cosmetic and gameplay:
Cosmetic is choosing the top hat, the train, or the thimble in Monopoly. Or the Red or Green Army in Risk.
Gameplay is getting to start with a property in Monopoly. Or choosing Australia or South America in Risk.
I would just like to be given an option. I want to choose between the 2 - either item shop game or a game WITHOUT an item shop. Or at least have a server without an item shop. That way in my server everyone's equal. I don't want to compete or play with people who buy their content instead of playing and earning it the way it meant to be.
Reasonable enough if anything in the cash-shop impacts game play as opposed to cosmetic affairs.
And here's the difference between cosmetic and gameplay:
Cosmetic is choosing the top hat, the train, or the thimble in Monopoly. Or the Red or Green Army in Risk.
Gameplay is getting to start with a property in Monopoly. Or choosing Australia or South America in Risk.
Most cosmetics matter. If you couldn't be the top hat (iconic Monopoly piece) without paying extra cash in a sub game, people would rightly call fall. Common, iconic, and other looks for a genre/game should definitely not be something you have to pay extra for. Now, I suppose there are some cosmetic things that can be ok (though honestly, hardly any in a Superhero game), such as the Pandaran in WoW. Other things such as a great looking and iconic mount are not good things. The subscription is supposed to pay for that sort of thing, as you are paying for the genre experience.
I think SOME RMT stuff is ok. Things that are non-genre in some way that are cosmetic can be ok. Mini-expansions that content at a SENSIBLE price are ok (as long as you are still getting the proper amount of free content and probably the RMT content should be added for free at some point as the game progresses just for ease of play). That said, most RMT stuff is a blatant cash grab and even cosmetic stuff does quickly cross the line in P2P games as WoW, CO, and other games have shown.
Gameplay is getting to start with a property in Monopoly. Or choosing Australia or South America in Risk.
Most cosmetics matter.
Only in terms of personal preference. Not in terms of gameplay. The top hat and the little dog does not change the game itself at all.
Right?
Or are you flying past that point?
If you couldn't be the top hat (iconic Monopoly piece) without paying extra cash in a sub game, people would rightly call fall. Common, iconic, and other looks for a genre/game should definitely not be something you have to pay extra for.
Fair enough, but if you want the special gold-plated hat with the diamond sparkles...that's going to cost you extra. Got a problem with that? And no, it doesn't impact the game one bit whether you have the regular top hat or the gold one.
Same as it doesn't impact Monopoly one bit if it's set in Atlantic City or Springfield.
Hardly, most people would like to see both gold sellers and gold buyers permanently banned from games. Absolutely nobody is ignoring it, there has been very vigorous opposition to it in many threads.
There is no ethical difference between buying gold and buying that Celestial Steed.
I can't seem to find the "screw up the face and look oddly at you" emote.
Regardless of whether people like it or not, buying that steed is doing something that is sanctioned by the developers and the company that runs the game.
Buying gold from a third party is not sanctioned.
Buying the steed doesn't seem to really give anyone a huge advantage from what I can see. Buying gold will allow me to buy anything my heart desires from the A.H.
You can't argue ethics when the person you are pointing the finger at has a different ethical sense. Well, I suppose you can argue it but there won't seem to be a common ground.
As far as I'm concerned, if you are a subscriber to WoW then you are in the house of blizzard. Their game, their rules. If players don't like it they can take their money elsewhere.
I"m pretty sure that most of us have done that in our lives. Whether it is ceasing the patronage of a restaurant or refusing to go to the movies because they raise the prices to high.
But ethics?
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Nifa – I did a poll on here, 75% would prefer their MMO to up the subscription rather than get a cash shop in to fund rising costs or an expansion. But MMO companies are not bringing in cash shops to fund rising costs or expansions. They are bringing them in to make a shed load of money at your expense.
BINGO.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
Frankly .. the "greater good" is not that great anyway. So what if Blizz has more mount to sell down the road? I will just buy the ones i like. What is so bad about that?
It won't stop at mounts. The items will be more useful. More imbalancing.
There will be a 'class' system among WoW players.
LOL you say that as if there isnt already.... those who have no life and can play 16-20 hours a day every day vs those who have jobs and families. All a cash shop really does (in MOST situations, not all) is elminate that gap between the hardcore and the casual by allowing the casuals to purchase things that they just dont have the time to spend ingame getting. Now of course theres the problem of Hardcore + cash shop having more than either of the other... but well those people are both playing more than anyone else and spending mor ethan anyone else. So who the hell are you to say they shouldnt have some sort of bonus? Its like watching jealous poor people IRL who rather than actually getting off their asses and going to school to get a better job, or even just getting a job period, find it more comforting to bitch and whine that they should be handed more welfare money for nothing, and that it should come from those who actually work for a living, and then on top of it find it entertaining to damage & steal the property of the people who earned it, and then turn around and talk shit about the workers, as if whatever theyre doing makes them some great person.
I think you have it exactly the opposite.
It isn't the "casual gamer" who spends money in the cash shop to advance. They really don't care about "quick results." In fact, there's little evidence that I've seen that the "casual gamers" really care much about advancement at all. They are in it to waste time, not advance, because they aren't really emotionally attached to what goes on in the game.
It has been, and always will be, the "hardcore" that wants to save time, maximize the math, etc. These are the people who spend money in the cash shops. Those things are important to them, because their goal is not to "waste time" like the casual gamer. The "hardcore's" goal is to maximize his productiveness in the game, because he has a high degree of emotional investment in the goings on.
The OP has it right. "Fluff" is just as important as stat-enhanging gear. In fact, I'd say it's more important than stat-enhancing gear.
Stat-enhancing gear is only important to us because we are hardcore MMO junkies. Only us would take virtual gear that has a +10 bonus over a +9 bonus seriously. Sally the housewife doesn't care.
But the one thing Sally the housewife does care about is if her toon looks good. That's something--perhaps the only thing--that we MMO junkies have in common with Sally the housewife.
Therefore, is it any wonder why the RMT people sell fluff? Everyone likes fluff, but only the fanatics care about tools (stat-enhancing gear).
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Nifa – I did a poll on here, 75% would prefer their MMO to up the subscription rather than get a cash shop in to fund rising costs or an expansion. But MMO companies are not bringing in cash shops to fund rising costs or expansions. They are bringing them in to make a shed load of money at your expense.
BINGO.
What is the problem with these companies making money? If they were not making money, you would have no game! You would also not be funding better games down the line. The internet has spoiled many of you into thinking things should always be free.
Fluff items do not have any effect on gameplay and most of us can care less. That it makes a big difference for some of you, that is your preference, but trying to sell it to the rest of us is a waste of time.
Nifa – I did a poll on here, 75% would prefer their MMO to up the subscription rather than get a cash shop in to fund rising costs or an expansion. But MMO companies are not bringing in cash shops to fund rising costs or expansions. They are bringing them in to make a shed load of money at your expense.
BINGO.
What is the problem with these companies making money? If they were not making money, you would have no game! You would also not be funding better games down the line. The internet has spoiled many of you into thinking things should always be free.
Fluff items do not have any effect on gameplay and most of us can care less. That it makes a big difference for some of you, that is your preference, but trying to sell it to the rest of us is a waste of time.
We're talking about P2P games, aren't you paying attention? YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE GAME and that includes cosmetic aspects appropriate for the game.
And are you seriously arguing that making money any way possible is acceptable given the current examples in the news that easily disprove that thesis? If you want to argue cash shops are ok, then you're going to need a better argument than that.
Gameplay is getting to start with a property in Monopoly. Or choosing Australia or South America in Risk.
Most cosmetics matter.
Only in terms of personal preference. Not in terms of gameplay. The top hat and the little dog does not change the game itself at all.
Right?
Or are you flying past that point?
If you couldn't be the top hat (iconic Monopoly piece) without paying extra cash in a sub game, people would rightly call fall. Common, iconic, and other looks for a genre/game should definitely not be something you have to pay extra for.
Fair enough, but if you want the special gold-plated hat with the diamond sparkles...that's going to cost you extra. Got a problem with that? And no, it doesn't impact the game one bit whether you have the regular top hat or the gold one.
Same as it doesn't impact Monopoly one bit if it's set in Atlantic City or Springfield.
I think talking about Monopoly confuses the issue. A better example might be a 900AD Europe MMO where you have to pay extra for a NICE viking helmet. Such a helmet really should just be part of the game since you can play a Viking.
Like I said, some items would fall out of this sort of criteria, though I am not sure ANYTHING cosmetic should be charged for in a Superhero game (what ISN'T iconic there?) Then again, items that are out of place in a given MMO are rather suspect in any MMO that takes itself seriously (WoW is one of the few counter examples of this, though they are now having iconic stuff for sale).
What is the problem with these companies making money? If they were not making money, you would have no game! You would also not be funding better games down the line. The internet has spoiled many of you into thinking things should always be free.
Fluff items do not have any effect on gameplay and most of us can care less. That it makes a big difference for some of you, that is your preference, but trying to sell it to the rest of us is a waste of time.
What is wrong with customers trying to get the best value for their dollars?
If we didn't buy their games, they would be starving and homeless.
We are paying them - it is their job to satisfy us.
I don't know if you work in the gaming industry, but if you do - you should make that known.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
What is the problem with these companies making money? If they were not making money, you would have no game! You would also not be funding better games down the line. The internet has spoiled many of you into thinking things should always be free.
Fluff items do not have any effect on gameplay and most of us can care less. That it makes a big difference for some of you, that is your preference, but trying to sell it to the rest of us is a waste of time.
What is wrong with customers trying to get the best value for their dollars?
If we didn't buy their games, they would be starving and homeless.
We are paying them - it is their job to satisfy us.
I don't know if you work in the gaming industry, but if you do - you should make that known.
This is my thinking as well. There's nothing wrong with wanting to get the most of out of the money you spend, and looking at what you actually get per what you spend on much of the newer RMT, you're getting gouged.
It's nonsensicle that some people are so adamently defending ridiculous RMT. I really can't see people actually prefering to pay more to get less. The whole "it gives the developer more funds to work with" is largely bunk too, because most of those profits are icing for the stakeholders, not for development resources.
Blizzard is a perfect example of this. Time and time again Blizzard has consistently proclaimed that stuff gets done when it gets done, and hiring more developers would not speed things up. With as much profit as they are making, and the fact that they openly admit spending more on development would be frivilous, then it's obvious that any funds raised by RMT for WoW are not going back into the development of WoW.
Not being bothered by RMT is one thing, I can understand that point of view. Those who are arguign tooth and nail in defense for it... I question their motivation for doing so.
I think talking about Monopoly confuses the issue.
I think talking about this Viking game confuses the issue. You're really just quibbling, and not getting the point I was making about cosmetic versus gameplay.
You want to argue what should be included as normal? Well, whatever dude, as long as you don't make it out to be some unpardonable sin that I'm fine with accepting some items as being purchasable on their own outside the game, you're welcome to a difference of opinion as to that.
It's just when you can't accept that I might be terribly bothered by something being fore sale that we have an issue.
What is wrong with customers trying to get the best value for their dollars?
If we didn't buy their games, they would be starving and homeless.
We are paying them - it is their job to satisfy us.
I don't know if you work in the gaming industry, but if you do - you should make that known.
Nothing. You are more than welcome to say "That's not enough value for my money" and walk away but when you stand in front of a storefront with a bunch of signs and so forth, and call people names for supporting the store, for patronizing it...
Yeah. That changes the story.
I've been wrongly impugned enough before that if there's one thing that guarantees I'll get in your face...that's it. Right there.
The OP has it right. "Fluff" is just as important as stat-enhanging gear. In fact, I'd say it's more important than stat-enhancing gear.
Only if you want it to. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't like the price? Don't pay for it.
Your life will continue.
Agreed.
My point wasn't that it is somehow unfair or unjust to sell fluff in item stores. Even if I did say such things, it isn't going to matter much.
My point was that your same argument can be applied to games that sell loot that gives an edge in PvP or PvE just as much as it can be applied to games that sell fluff.
The +10 sword that allows you to pwn with impunity in the PvP zones is only important if you want it to be. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't like the price? Don't pay for it.
Your life will continue.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I would just like to be given an option. I want to choose between the 2 - either item shop game or a game WITHOUT an item shop. Or at least have a server without an item shop. That way in my server everyone's equal. I don't want to compete or play with people who buy their content instead of playing and earning it the way it meant to be.
Reasonable enough if anything in the cash-shop impacts game play as opposed to cosmetic affairs.
I don't care what you think impacts the gameplay and what does not. I just don't want people like you in the same game (or at least server ). I'm sure such a server (without any kind of item shop) would be very popular in EQ2 or WoW.
Those who are arguign tooth and nail in defense for it... I question their motivation for doing so.
I wonder why you'd rather attack the people, impugning their honesty rather than dealing with their opinions directly.
To me, you're the one who is arguing tooth and nail in offense against it, coming up with any argument you can and hoping it sticks.
Like this baseless accusation.
The motiviation of someone's views tells a lot about their argument. As a consumer, I strive to get the most value for my money. This isn't abnormal, it's actually expected consumer behavior, for all consumers.
RMT runs contrary to my goal of getting the most value for my money. The business practice of nickel and diming is done with the express intent of charging several small costs that seem insignificant on their own, to add up into a considerable price hike when combined together. That is exactly what RMT is. Breaking up content into several "optional" pieces, that end up costing the consumer significantly more for the full experience than were they to simply purchase everything in one lumped together product or service.
Which is why I have a hard time believing why any consumer would advocate for such a payment model. Any benefits of actually being able pick and choose what content you do and do not want, is quickly buried at the overall price hike when you look at the bigger picture of complete package, which many players do want.
And I am one of those customers. I want access to the entire game if I pay my subscription. I will pay what is reasonable for an expansion, if the expansion offers sufficient content. Outside of that, things such as RMT in subscription based MMOs are an attempt to gouge customers who are otherwise paying a sufficient amount for the game.
That said, you are one of those people who I question the motivation of their views. As such, I have, and will continue to, take anything you say with a grain of salt.
Comments
And I would agree with you in that assessment. But again, our opinion regarding the current subscription model games on the market is subjective. There may be millions of players worldwide in various gaming communities who may feel very differently about their game of choice. Personally, I'm not willing to pay more for WoW, but I know hundreds who might be. Personally, I'm not willing to pay $1 per month, let alone $15 or more for STO, but there are people who might be. CCP has a very dedicated fanbase for EVE (which I also play from time to time, and am playing now), and I think it may be safe to presume that a good chunk of EVE players would consider that game worth a few extra bucks a month even if I might not be willing to pay it. Personal tastes in gaming are as varied as they are in clothing or automobiles, so I don't necessarily believe that it's for me to say that there is no game publisher currently making a game that is worth the extra subscription price because the statement is an entirely subjective one that is up to each individual player.
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
I have to say Hellmarauder has come up with the only defence of F2P that has ever resounded with me. I can certainly see how indie companies would find it easier to launch as a F2P MMO. And we really need a strong Indie element in the MMO world. I do wonder why a reduced subscription with a free trial is not the answer for indie MMOs though?
Nifa – I did a poll on here, 75% would prefer their MMO to up the subscription rather than get a cash shop in to fund rising costs or an expansion. But MMO companies are not bringing in cash shops to fund rising costs or expansions. They are bringing them in to make a shed load of money at your expense.
I haven't read this entire thread, hardly any of it in fact. Forgive me, time is short, and I hope I'm not repeating.
But of course, ease of launch, draw people in with free play (what do they have to lose?), and make your money off those who want the "more". And yes, it's about profits, nothing new there.
What I've wondered is, why not do this in a more "worldly" feeling way? FTP, but if you want to be a "land owner" you must buy in with a subscription. Substitute or include "nobility", or "training" of more elaborate skill sets.
Unfortunately, we folk here are more heavily into gaming, while there's a much, much larger subset of more casual gamers who don't look at MMOs quite the same way. For them, cash shops are fine because they don't really care about the game or how it's played. They just try it out and if they like it all is good. But we, whether we are "sandbox" or "level grind", we have expectations. We have a clearly defined game that we want. However that world is presented, we expect a "world" in a game and cash shops don't jive with that. It's not a game if you can buy teh win. There's a competitive edge there, we expect that just as any world has natural selection of one kind or another. Those others, those casual gamers without expectations, they just don't care about that.
Once upon a time....
My apologies, Scot, I don't recall having seen your poll on the subject. As I've said, I would be more than happy to pay a higher subscription to fund rising costs as well.
But I think that Amaranthar really hit the nail on the head with his (or her?) post in that I believe there is a vast difference between the majority of those of us who read the information here and post on these forums and more "casual" players. While 75% of those of us who are members here would be more than happy to pay more in order to get rid of cash shops, I do wonder what might happen to the populations of various games if a similar poll showed that 75% of casual players weren't willing to do so.
Granted, those of us who game more seriously and heavily might be a lot happier (I'll be honest, I'm already kind of nauseated by having to look at that blasted Celestial Steed everywhere I go), but I wonder if there'd be enough population left for us to play with in some games with lower subscription numbers if cash shops didn't exist for the more casual players who are happy to fork over real world cash for a character race, mount, or a one hour XP bonus.
Firebrand Art
"You are obviously confusing a mature rating with actual maturity." -Asherman
Maybe MMO is not your genre, go play Modern Warfare...or something you can be all twitchy...and rank up all night. This is seriously getting tired. -Ranyr
I would just like to be given an option. I want to choose between the 2 - either item shop game or a game WITHOUT an item shop. Or at least have a server without an item shop. That way in my server everyone's equal. I don't want to compete or play with people who buy their content instead of playing and earning it the way it meant to be.
Really? I think that that's being aggressive in response to aggression. Yeah, bad on my part I know, but it's sometimes hard not to bark right back.
Reasonable enough if anything in the cash-shop impacts game play as opposed to cosmetic affairs.
And here's the difference between cosmetic and gameplay:
Cosmetic is choosing the top hat, the train, or the thimble in Monopoly. Or the Red or Green Army in Risk.
Gameplay is getting to start with a property in Monopoly. Or choosing Australia or South America in Risk.
Most cosmetics matter. If you couldn't be the top hat (iconic Monopoly piece) without paying extra cash in a sub game, people would rightly call fall. Common, iconic, and other looks for a genre/game should definitely not be something you have to pay extra for. Now, I suppose there are some cosmetic things that can be ok (though honestly, hardly any in a Superhero game), such as the Pandaran in WoW. Other things such as a great looking and iconic mount are not good things. The subscription is supposed to pay for that sort of thing, as you are paying for the genre experience.
I think SOME RMT stuff is ok. Things that are non-genre in some way that are cosmetic can be ok. Mini-expansions that content at a SENSIBLE price are ok (as long as you are still getting the proper amount of free content and probably the RMT content should be added for free at some point as the game progresses just for ease of play). That said, most RMT stuff is a blatant cash grab and even cosmetic stuff does quickly cross the line in P2P games as WoW, CO, and other games have shown.
Fair enough, but if you want the special gold-plated hat with the diamond sparkles...that's going to cost you extra. Got a problem with that? And no, it doesn't impact the game one bit whether you have the regular top hat or the gold one.
Same as it doesn't impact Monopoly one bit if it's set in Atlantic City or Springfield.
I can't seem to find the "screw up the face and look oddly at you" emote.
Regardless of whether people like it or not, buying that steed is doing something that is sanctioned by the developers and the company that runs the game.
Buying gold from a third party is not sanctioned.
Buying the steed doesn't seem to really give anyone a huge advantage from what I can see. Buying gold will allow me to buy anything my heart desires from the A.H.
You can't argue ethics when the person you are pointing the finger at has a different ethical sense. Well, I suppose you can argue it but there won't seem to be a common ground.
As far as I'm concerned, if you are a subscriber to WoW then you are in the house of blizzard. Their game, their rules. If players don't like it they can take their money elsewhere.
I"m pretty sure that most of us have done that in our lives. Whether it is ceasing the patronage of a restaurant or refusing to go to the movies because they raise the prices to high.
But ethics?
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
BINGO.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
I think you have it exactly the opposite.
It isn't the "casual gamer" who spends money in the cash shop to advance. They really don't care about "quick results." In fact, there's little evidence that I've seen that the "casual gamers" really care much about advancement at all. They are in it to waste time, not advance, because they aren't really emotionally attached to what goes on in the game.
It has been, and always will be, the "hardcore" that wants to save time, maximize the math, etc. These are the people who spend money in the cash shops. Those things are important to them, because their goal is not to "waste time" like the casual gamer. The "hardcore's" goal is to maximize his productiveness in the game, because he has a high degree of emotional investment in the goings on.
The OP has it right. "Fluff" is just as important as stat-enhanging gear. In fact, I'd say it's more important than stat-enhancing gear.
Stat-enhancing gear is only important to us because we are hardcore MMO junkies. Only us would take virtual gear that has a +10 bonus over a +9 bonus seriously. Sally the housewife doesn't care.
But the one thing Sally the housewife does care about is if her toon looks good. That's something--perhaps the only thing--that we MMO junkies have in common with Sally the housewife.
Therefore, is it any wonder why the RMT people sell fluff? Everyone likes fluff, but only the fanatics care about tools (stat-enhancing gear).
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Only if you want it to. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't like the price? Don't pay for it.
Your life will continue.
What is the problem with these companies making money? If they were not making money, you would have no game! You would also not be funding better games down the line. The internet has spoiled many of you into thinking things should always be free.
Fluff items do not have any effect on gameplay and most of us can care less. That it makes a big difference for some of you, that is your preference, but trying to sell it to the rest of us is a waste of time.
We're talking about P2P games, aren't you paying attention? YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE GAME and that includes cosmetic aspects appropriate for the game.
And are you seriously arguing that making money any way possible is acceptable given the current examples in the news that easily disprove that thesis? If you want to argue cash shops are ok, then you're going to need a better argument than that.
I think talking about Monopoly confuses the issue. A better example might be a 900AD Europe MMO where you have to pay extra for a NICE viking helmet. Such a helmet really should just be part of the game since you can play a Viking.
Like I said, some items would fall out of this sort of criteria, though I am not sure ANYTHING cosmetic should be charged for in a Superhero game (what ISN'T iconic there?) Then again, items that are out of place in a given MMO are rather suspect in any MMO that takes itself seriously (WoW is one of the few counter examples of this, though they are now having iconic stuff for sale).
What is wrong with customers trying to get the best value for their dollars?
If we didn't buy their games, they would be starving and homeless.
We are paying them - it is their job to satisfy us.
I don't know if you work in the gaming industry, but if you do - you should make that known.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
This is my thinking as well. There's nothing wrong with wanting to get the most of out of the money you spend, and looking at what you actually get per what you spend on much of the newer RMT, you're getting gouged.
It's nonsensicle that some people are so adamently defending ridiculous RMT. I really can't see people actually prefering to pay more to get less. The whole "it gives the developer more funds to work with" is largely bunk too, because most of those profits are icing for the stakeholders, not for development resources.
Blizzard is a perfect example of this. Time and time again Blizzard has consistently proclaimed that stuff gets done when it gets done, and hiring more developers would not speed things up. With as much profit as they are making, and the fact that they openly admit spending more on development would be frivilous, then it's obvious that any funds raised by RMT for WoW are not going back into the development of WoW.
Not being bothered by RMT is one thing, I can understand that point of view. Those who are arguign tooth and nail in defense for it... I question their motivation for doing so.
I think talking about this Viking game confuses the issue. You're really just quibbling, and not getting the point I was making about cosmetic versus gameplay.
You want to argue what should be included as normal? Well, whatever dude, as long as you don't make it out to be some unpardonable sin that I'm fine with accepting some items as being purchasable on their own outside the game, you're welcome to a difference of opinion as to that.
It's just when you can't accept that I might be terribly bothered by something being fore sale that we have an issue.
I wonder why you'd rather attack the people, impugning their honesty rather than dealing with their opinions directly.
To me, you're the one who is arguing tooth and nail in offense against it, coming up with any argument you can and hoping it sticks.
Like this baseless accusation.
Nothing. You are more than welcome to say "That's not enough value for my money" and walk away but when you stand in front of a storefront with a bunch of signs and so forth, and call people names for supporting the store, for patronizing it...
Yeah. That changes the story.
I've been wrongly impugned enough before that if there's one thing that guarantees I'll get in your face...that's it. Right there.
Agreed.
My point wasn't that it is somehow unfair or unjust to sell fluff in item stores. Even if I did say such things, it isn't going to matter much.
My point was that your same argument can be applied to games that sell loot that gives an edge in PvP or PvE just as much as it can be applied to games that sell fluff.
The +10 sword that allows you to pwn with impunity in the PvP zones is only important if you want it to be. Don't like it? Don't buy it. Don't like the price? Don't pay for it.
Your life will continue.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
I don't care what you think impacts the gameplay and what does not. I just don't want people like you in the same game (or at least server ). I'm sure such a server (without any kind of item shop) would be very popular in EQ2 or WoW.
Gamers are fighting for what is good for gamers. That means - content in a game.
You are fighting for what is profitable for game company. That means - content in item shop.
The motiviation of someone's views tells a lot about their argument. As a consumer, I strive to get the most value for my money. This isn't abnormal, it's actually expected consumer behavior, for all consumers.
RMT runs contrary to my goal of getting the most value for my money. The business practice of nickel and diming is done with the express intent of charging several small costs that seem insignificant on their own, to add up into a considerable price hike when combined together. That is exactly what RMT is. Breaking up content into several "optional" pieces, that end up costing the consumer significantly more for the full experience than were they to simply purchase everything in one lumped together product or service.
Which is why I have a hard time believing why any consumer would advocate for such a payment model. Any benefits of actually being able pick and choose what content you do and do not want, is quickly buried at the overall price hike when you look at the bigger picture of complete package, which many players do want.
And I am one of those customers. I want access to the entire game if I pay my subscription. I will pay what is reasonable for an expansion, if the expansion offers sufficient content. Outside of that, things such as RMT in subscription based MMOs are an attempt to gouge customers who are otherwise paying a sufficient amount for the game.
That said, you are one of those people who I question the motivation of their views. As such, I have, and will continue to, take anything you say with a grain of salt.