I've read the responses, and I don't see anyone proving me wrong yet. Do you?
I think you're wrong from your premise, that you're effectively communicating anything by arguing with the analogy as opposed to using it as a route to an understanding of a perspective.
Or IOW, your understanding of the analogy's purpose is flawed.
People say that the RMT model is aimed at attracting casual gamers. I highly doubt that.
Perhaps their intent is to turn casual gamers into hardcore, but the RMT model can't sustain itself without the hardcore. In fact, the "harder core" the playerbase, the more successful the RMT games are.
Compare that to the sub model, where casual and hardcore pay the same flat fee.
See, only hardcore nuts like us would spend real money for coded perks, especially when they are as conditional as ArcAngel3 says they are. Think about the stuff we could get with that money--stuff that doesn't disappear or change--stuff with some consumer protection or quality control.
Only a real hardcore MMO addict would spend money on virtual goods, given the conditions. But since there are so many hardcore MMO addicts, I don't think the developers are going to have the incentive to make things any better anytime soon.
This is flat-out wrong when Farmville is considered. Very casual. Very successful. F2P RMT model.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
P.S. I'm aware that you are a game designer. Have you worked on any RMT games? Do you plan to?
I'm not getting paid for what I do yet, but hopefully someday.
As for RMT, hell yes I would, but the suits are going about it all wrong. I heard a long time ago that the game Rohan would have a player-auction system outside the game that allows you to sell your virtual items for real money, and the owners of the game collect their "associated fees". I am fairly sure EQ2 does something similar, and that Second Life thrives on this. If you ask me, it's the perfect financial device as it bypasses the need to go to goldsellers and allows players to collect the vast majority of 'interest' on whatever the market will pay for their efforts. It will in fact make goldsellers richer though, as they will still be the dominant force behind sales - but at that point I think all 3 parties (player, seller and host) won't care anymore.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4 Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
People will complain for having to spend $15 a month for a subscription fee, and call it "having to pay for the game twice" or whatever. The truth is, you're paying for the *service* part of a MMORPG. MMOs are as much an online service as they are a game. You already paid for the game portion when you bought the box, or digital download. What you are paying for with a sub is the bandwidth, servers, maintenance, electricity... and so forth... required to keep the online service portion of it going. And, for that subscription fee, you often *do* get more content updates, etc. thrown in.
That has been explained numerous times in the past. Yet, people will still cry foul about "being forced to pay for content twice!", when they're not.
That goes specifically for the retail box + monthly sub setup, of course. Other setups have the development cost worked into other areas, such as the cost of stuff in the item mall, etc.
However, we come to a situation like this, where you're being charged $25 for a mount ... for a single item that *is* content, which you *are* being charged for, on top of the original game cost *and* the sub fee (per the logic described above that some use) and people are fine with it or, in fact, *defend* it as being "a good idea".
There are people in this thread who actually seem to *like* the fact that they're being double-dipped, or nickel-and-dimed, as if to say "yes! I love that they're nickel and diming us for stuff that would normally be included in the game! Please! Do it more! I just can't be nickel-and-dimed enough! Best thing ever!!!!".
I can fully understand why some here would wonder if those people cheerleading the idea aren't actually company plants, because I have never known anyone who was happy about being nickel-and-dimed for individual items in a game they would otherwise have gotten in a normal content update.
I would bet real money that if this whole F2P/Item Shop thing was still firmly contained in the Eastern market where it started (and where it could have stayed for all I care, but that's another rant), that Blizzard's $25 mount, and other "pay for an individual item" type deals would be been added as either an update to the game itself with no additional cost, or at most as one small part of a full-blown expansion pack.
They handled it the way they did, because they've seen there are people out there who are only too willing to keep pulling out the credit card to get "cool stuff" from a game that - per the logic used by many to argue against subs - "they've already paid for".
The double-standard is amazing.... and sad.
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
To the people that support this BS: what you do not seem to understand is that you're telling these companies that you want less for more.
In the end, guess what you're going to end up with?
It's remarkable that the majority of gamers do not have the capacity to see where this is all leading. This should be common sense guys, wake up! This bending over shit is not only embarrassing, it's pathetic.
I'm fairly confident that I can make my own decisions on value for money.
I respect that this bothers you and I can commiserate but by no way am I in complete agreement.
People don't always agree with how money should be spent anyways. I can spend 9 or 10 dollars a day on coffee and I can assure you that there are people who would cringe at that. I can easily see them saying "what? Coffee should not cost that much. Can't you see that if you support this then you are encouraging over priced coffee?"
And all I can say to that is when cafes cross what I think is the line I'll stop buying coffee from them. Simple as that.
When I buy theater tickts I always get the best seats. However, when it crosses about 70 dollars per seat that is when I balk.
People will stop spending money on this stuff when what is offered does not coincide with what they find of value. You and others might have a considerably lower theshold for this type of stuff and you should vote with your wallet and not participate.
But as I've said elsewhere on these forums, I have NEVER met a person who doesn't spend money on something that I think is a waste of money. But it is certainly not my place to waggle a finger and give them a talking to. It's their money, they've earned it.
Will this mean that in the future games will be bare bones and we will have to purchase content a la carte? I highly doubt it but if that does happen then I will just stop participating. Problem solved for me.
I'm sure others will do the same.
Think people need to read and understand this, you said it better then i could have.
But it will be dismissed
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand." - Lewis Thomas
To the people that support this BS: what you do not seem to understand is that you're telling these companies that you want less for more.
In the end, guess what you're going to end up with?
It's remarkable that the majority of gamers do not have the capacity to see where this is all leading. This should be common sense guys, wake up! This bending over shit is not only embarrassing, it's pathetic.
I'm fairly confident that I can make my own decisions on value for money.
I respect that this bothers you and I can commiserate but by no way am I in complete agreement.
People don't always agree with how money should be spent anyways. I can spend 9 or 10 dollars a day on coffee and I can assure you that there are people who would cringe at that. I can easily see them saying "what? Coffee should not cost that much. Can't you see that if you support this then you are encouraging over priced coffee?"
And all I can say to that is when cafes cross what I think is the line I'll stop buying coffee from them. Simple as that.
When I buy theater tickts I always get the best seats. However, when it crosses about 70 dollars per seat that is when I balk.
People will stop spending money on this stuff when what is offered does not coincide with what they find of value. You and others might have a considerably lower theshold for this type of stuff and you should vote with your wallet and not participate.
But as I've said elsewhere on these forums, I have NEVER met a person who doesn't spend money on something that I think is a waste of money. But it is certainly not my place to waggle a finger and give them a talking to. It's their money, they've earned it.
Will this mean that in the future games will be bare bones and we will have to purchase content a la carte? I highly doubt it but if that does happen then I will just stop participating. Problem solved for me.
I'm sure others will do the same.
Think people need to read and understand this, you said it better then i could have.
But it will be dismissed
Sure... what Sovrath said is correct - people should determine when something is no longer "worth it" to them. However, it also sorta dances around the point Cecropia was making.
Of course you can and should decide to walk away from something if it's no longer worth it to you. That's common sense. However, it's also not the point.
That is to say... By continuing to support and even cheer on the practice of selling individual items for a significant portion of the cost of an *entire game* or expansion, that the message is being sent that players will happily lap it up and ask for more. So why wouldn't the developers keep doing it? And in doing so, yes, the players would continue to get less and less value for their money.
Case in point...
I spent $40 for Wrath of The Lich King.... an entire expansion, with a new continent, huge new zones, tons of new quests, new gear... new class, etc. etc.
In light of that, paying $25 for a *single mount* is not "added value". It's reduced value. You're getting *far* less for your money. I find it incredulous that anyone would say it's a "good deal" to pay over half the cost of a full game for a single item. Personally, I think it's bad enough the way it's set up in F2P MMOs with cash shops... To do so in a setup where you're already getting a monthly sub, at such a high percent of what you would charge for the entire game, is pure greed.
If the signal is sent that players are "okay" with that, then who's to say that Blizzard wouldn't continue adding more and more of those kinds of items... all of which would have normally been part of a major content update, or full-blown retail expansion? Will it happen that way? No one can say on either side of the discussion. But, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Blizzard (or any company) wouldn't follow that thread as far as they could so long as enough people went along with it.
SOE's been doing that for a while... tossing little bits out there at first to 'test the waters' so as to not "offend anyone too much". Then when it seems people have become used to it, they push it a little further.... then a little further...
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I have yet to buy anything in the cash shop, nor have I ever added any cash to my wallet. I got 500 added when I got the xpac her a couple of months back.
The ony problem was when they added the cash shop it was all cosmetic. Pets to put in your house, furniture an so forth.
Now you can buy xp potions that affects player progressions, rent status items again affects how much status is being pulled in your house. Character transfer the only real thing I agree with got to do it somehow. Then the kicker that I and a lot of folks in my guild hate the change your name one this allows theives to get away and change their name when discovred. Then the all time hated one of change your race!!!! Then they added backpacs.
I fully expect mounts to be added next, and possibly even levels.
I know folks who have spent tons in the cash shop, all you got to do is look at our guild hall. Me I am satisfied with making plat then using the broker to buy what I need.
But It does bother me to keep seeing stuff added to the cash shop in eq2 that affects player progression. I never minded the fluff, but its all the stuff that affects how quick you level and get aa and other things that gives folks who have the cash an unfair advantage.
But It does bother me to keep seeing stuff added to the cash shop in eq2 that affects player progression. I never minded the fluff, but its all the stuff that affects how quick you level and get aa and other things that gives folks who have the cash an unfair advantage.
I consider myself one of those folks who "have the cash" and I also would use a cash shop if the purchase was usefull to me but I don't see it as an unfair advantage.
Consider the folks who "have the time", they get to play for long stretches, make in game money and level while I have to use my time working for long stretches while I would like to be playing. To me the folks with the time to spend have an unfair advantage because they were able to play longer level faster than I and have more game money than I do. Whats the difference if i decided to purchase something with money I earned because I couldn't play long enough to do it within the game?
Seems to me that whatever happens, it happened because it was earned, one way (playing) or the other (paying).
But It does bother me to keep seeing stuff added to the cash shop in eq2 that affects player progression. I never minded the fluff, but its all the stuff that affects how quick you level and get aa and other things that gives folks who have the cash an unfair advantage.
I consider myself one of those folks who "have the cash" and I also would use a cash shop if the purchase was usefull to me but I don't see it as an unfair advantage.
Consider the folks who "have the time", they get to play for long stretches, make in game money and level while I have to use my time working for long stretches while I would like to be playing. To me the folks with the time to spend have an unfair advantage because they were able to play longer level faster than I and have more game money than I do. Whats the difference if i decided to purchase something with money I earned because I couldn't play long enough to do it within the game?
Seems to me that whatever happens, it happened because it was earned, one way (playing) or the other (paying).
Leads to tiered citizenship. It's bad for the same reason why net neutrality is good. Having systems that are balanced around people paying extra money on top of the standard subscription rate just become a tool for money gouging in one form or another and hurts game quality.
Consider that you don't have a lot of time to play. If given content takes X hours normally to do, then that should be FUN to do for X hours. If it isn't, then something is wrong with the game. Having people pay money to do that content in X/2 hours will help obscure the problem of "not fun" and indeed you'll have competing interests now with some people wanting the content to maximize fun for the X/2 crowd and others wanting the fun maximized for the X crowd, of course the people NOT paying extra have a decent chance of getting ignore because they are less profitable per person (hard to say). However it goes though, one group gets hurt. It's just not good for the game.
Now the same concerns ARE present in a F2P game with a cash shop, but it is less of an issue there since the people who aren't paying for X/2 aren't paying for the game at all, so naturally their concerns aren't that big of a deal. Quite different from the P2P scenario (this does provide an interesting argument again F2P games with cash shops though).
But It does bother me to keep seeing stuff added to the cash shop in eq2 that affects player progression. I never minded the fluff, but its all the stuff that affects how quick you level and get aa and other things that gives folks who have the cash an unfair advantage.
I consider myself one of those folks who "have the cash" and I also would use a cash shop if the purchase was usefull to me but I don't see it as an unfair advantage.
Consider the folks who "have the time", they get to play for long stretches, make in game money and level while I have to use my time working for long stretches while I would like to be playing. To me the folks with the time to spend have an unfair advantage because they were able to play longer level faster than I and have more game money than I do. Whats the difference if i decided to purchase something with money I earned because I couldn't play long enough to do it within the game?
Seems to me that whatever happens, it happened because it was earned, one way (playing) or the other (paying).
Paying a subscription fee allows you the same exact access to the game as every other player has. Everyone in this situation has the exact same potential to achieve in game. There is no advantage.
I've just never understood the notion that spending time at work should somehow translate into achievements in a video game. Filing TPS reports is not the equivalent of completing a quest Just the concept that someone actually playing a video game has an advantage over someone who doesn't as justification for purchasing "useful" advancement is absurd.
Video games are meant to be an escape from real life issues. Rewarding developers for dragging those issues into their design choices doesn't make much sense. No matter how it is justified.
People say that the RMT model is aimed at attracting casual gamers. I highly doubt that.
Perhaps their intent is to turn casual gamers into hardcore, but the RMT model can't sustain itself without the hardcore. In fact, the "harder core" the playerbase, the more successful the RMT games are.
Compare that to the sub model, where casual and hardcore pay the same flat fee.
See, only hardcore nuts like us would spend real money for coded perks, especially when they are as conditional as ArcAngel3 says they are. Think about the stuff we could get with that money--stuff that doesn't disappear or change--stuff with some consumer protection or quality control.
Only a real hardcore MMO addict would spend money on virtual goods, given the conditions. But since there are so many hardcore MMO addicts, I don't think the developers are going to have the incentive to make things any better anytime soon.
This is flat-out wrong when Farmville is considered. Very casual. Very successful. F2P RMT model.
I think Farmville makes my case extremely well.
Many think that the distinction between casual and hardcore is about "hours logged." It isn't, and never was.
It's about emotional attachment to the game. Hours logged is just one indication of emotional attachment. One does not need to have a lot of hours logged to be emotionally invested in what goes on. Take EVE. There are people there who buy and maintain accounts just to participate on the forums, or create characters for the whole purpose of being "placeholders."
__________________________ "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 can fully understand why some here would wonder if those people cheerleading the idea aren't actually company plants, because I have never known anyone who was happy about being nickel-and-dimed for individual items in a game they would otherwise have gotten in a normal content update.
And I can fully dislike and disdain anybody who starts throwing that kind of baseless accusation around.
Also, I know plenty of people who are willing to pay for individual items instead of going to a one-price AYCE buffet.
You are trying to quote someone from SOE. When did anyone in the world from SOE ever make a statement that made any sense? You have to look at the source before trying to argue your point.
I can fully understand why some here would wonder if those people cheerleading the idea aren't actually company plants, because I have never known anyone who was happy about being nickel-and-dimed for individual items in a game they would otherwise have gotten in a normal content update.
And I can fully dislike and disdain anybody who starts throwing that kind of baseless accusation around.
Also, I know plenty of people who are willing to pay for individual items instead of going to a one-price AYCE buffet.
Do you know anyone who would play a game where the only option to acquire items was to buy them in a cash shop? Sometimes that is how I look at issues like this to see if it would pass an extreme test.
I think what is really being debated here is how much tollerance people have for cash shops. I'm confident that if you ask people who don't mind shelling out for an item, that each of them would have their breaking point. At some point they would say enough is enough and it has a negative impact on the game.
Essentially cash shops are not good for mmo players, but people seem to have their own level to which they will look the other way and even support them.
To the people that support this BS: what you do not seem to understand is that you're telling these companies that you want less for more.
In the end, guess what you're going to end up with?
It's remarkable that the majority of gamers do not have the capacity to see where this is all leading. This should be common sense guys, wake up! This bending over shit is not only embarrassing, it's pathetic.
I'm fairly confident that I can make my own decisions on value for money.
I respect that this bothers you and I can commiserate but by no way am I in complete agreement.
People don't always agree with how money should be spent anyways. I can spend 9 or 10 dollars a day on coffee and I can assure you that there are people who would cringe at that. I can easily see them saying "what? Coffee should not cost that much. Can't you see that if you support this then you are encouraging over priced coffee?"
And all I can say to that is when cafes cross what I think is the line I'll stop buying coffee from them. Simple as that.
When I buy theater tickts I always get the best seats. However, when it crosses about 70 dollars per seat that is when I balk.
People will stop spending money on this stuff when what is offered does not coincide with what they find of value. You and others might have a considerably lower theshold for this type of stuff and you should vote with your wallet and not participate.
But as I've said elsewhere on these forums, I have NEVER met a person who doesn't spend money on something that I think is a waste of money. But it is certainly not my place to waggle a finger and give them a talking to. It's their money, they've earned it.
Will this mean that in the future games will be bare bones and we will have to purchase content a la carte? I highly doubt it but if that does happen then I will just stop participating. Problem solved for me.
I'm sure others will do the same.
Think people need to read and understand this, you said it better then i could have.
But it will be dismissed
Sure... what Sovrath said is correct - people should determine when something is no longer "worth it" to them. However, it also sorta dances around the point Cecropia was making.
Of course you can and should decide to walk away from something if it's no longer worth it to you. That's common sense. However, it's also not the point.
That is to say... By continuing to support and even cheer on the practice of selling individual items for a significant portion of the cost of an *entire game* or expansion, that the message is being sent that players will happily lap it up and ask for more. So why wouldn't the developers keep doing it? And in doing so, yes, the players would continue to get less and less value for their money.
Case in point...
I spent $40 for Wrath of The Lich King.... an entire expansion, with a new continent, huge new zones, tons of new quests, new gear... new class, etc. etc.
In light of that, paying $25 for a *single mount* is not "added value". It's reduced value. You're getting *far* less for your money. I find it incredulous that anyone would say it's a "good deal" to pay over half the cost of a full game for a single item. Personally, I think it's bad enough the way it's set up in F2P MMOs with cash shops... To do so in a setup where you're already getting a monthly sub, at such a high percent of what you would charge for the entire game, is pure greed.
If the signal is sent that players are "okay" with that, then who's to say that Blizzard wouldn't continue adding more and more of those kinds of items... all of which would have normally been part of a major content update, or full-blown retail expansion? Will it happen that way? No one can say on either side of the discussion. But, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Blizzard (or any company) wouldn't follow that thread as far as they could so long as enough people went along with it.
SOE's been doing that for a while... tossing little bits out there at first to 'test the waters' so as to not "offend anyone too much". Then when it seems people have become used to it, they push it a little further.... then a little further...
I understand the point as as I've noted elsewhere, I can commiserate with people hating this. Heck, my entire life is peppered with me liking something but having it no longer continued or supported becaues it is not popular or things tend to go another way.
but the thing is, and what is a bit amusing to me despite the pain of those who hate it (er, sorry) is that none of this is new.
Records went by the wayside because of CD's. Oh sure, now you can find them a bit more in stores but there was huge backlash from people who didn't want to go digital because records just give better quality.
Cable was a "pay once and get all this value" proposition. And didn't have commericals. But now it's a al carte and there are commericals.
And look, there are companies that want you to rent your music by subscribing to their system so you can have access to all of it any time you want. But you stop subbing and it's gone. That is the one that makes me shiver the most.
It is true, the more people buy into this the more it will be done. The problem is that it just isn't a big deal to many people. Players (who are against) can scream as much as they want but if they fall into the minority then they are going to have to make a decision.
Maybe it's my age or that I happen to enjoy media that others might cringe at, but I'm used to being in the minority when it comes to having things change that I don't like. Yes, people should complain and make their point be heard. But if it does go another way then that is that. It certainly is not the first time and won't be the last time.
And what it might mean is that some indy developer, years from now will make a game that doesn't have the greatest graphics or has issues but it will be a simple sub model. Maybe even a full sandbox, who knows. But if players don't get behind these people then it's going to be harder and hard for indy developers to justify doing things different than the larger mega-companies.
In the end you have to vote with your wallet, either accept the outcome or do things yourself (make your own game/company) and move on.
Things change. It just so happens that gamers are getting a reality dosage that they aren't immune to some of these changes that other media types have experienced for years.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
... The problem is that it just isn't a big deal to many people. Players (who are against) can scream as much as they want but if they fall into the minority then they are going to have to make a decision.
I'm just watching this discussion from the sidelines and this is one of the comments I most agree with.
I've played games with and without RMT and I don't see it as a big deal at all.
When selecting a new game I can honestly say that this RMT argument is about as important to me as the graphics on the loading screen.
I can fully understand why some here would wonder if those people cheerleading the idea aren't actually company plants, because I have never known anyone who was happy about being nickel-and-dimed for individual items in a game they would otherwise have gotten in a normal content update.
And I can fully dislike and disdain anybody who starts throwing that kind of baseless accusation around.
Also, I know plenty of people who are willing to pay for individual items instead of going to a one-price AYCE buffet.
Do you know anyone who would play a game where the only option to acquire items was to buy them in a cash shop? Sometimes that is how I look at issues like this to see if it would pass an extreme test.
And I think looking at polar extremes is sometimes just silly, and misses the point. But yes I might play in such a game, depending on the particulars. I see no reason to rule it out without details. What kind of items and how often will I buy them? What is the price? Is there an in-game exchange, or just out of game?
I think what is really being debated here is how much tollerance people have for cash shops. I'm confident that if you ask people who don't mind shelling out for an item, that each of them would have their breaking point. At some point they would say enough is enough and it has a negative impact on the game.
No, not really the debate here. The problem seems to be with shelling out for any item. I've got no particular argument with saying "Eh, that's too much" but rather with people saying "How dare you tolerate that being sold at all, do you not realize what evil horrors of capitalistic greed that entails, if you don't then you must be a shill put out to support the corporate line"
The one is not the same as the other.
Essentially cash shops are not good for mmo players, but people seem to have their own level to which they will look the other way and even support them.
People used to say that about subscriptions and gamers. I consider that argument as flawed then as it is now.
People say that the RMT model is aimed at attracting casual gamers. I highly doubt that.
Perhaps their intent is to turn casual gamers into hardcore, but the RMT model can't sustain itself without the hardcore. In fact, the "harder core" the playerbase, the more successful the RMT games are.
Compare that to the sub model, where casual and hardcore pay the same flat fee.
See, only hardcore nuts like us would spend real money for coded perks, especially when they are as conditional as ArcAngel3 says they are. Think about the stuff we could get with that money--stuff that doesn't disappear or change--stuff with some consumer protection or quality control.
Only a real hardcore MMO addict would spend money on virtual goods, given the conditions. But since there are so many hardcore MMO addicts, I don't think the developers are going to have the incentive to make things any better anytime soon.
This is flat-out wrong when Farmville is considered. Very casual. Very successful. F2P RMT model.
I think Farmville makes my case extremely well.
Many think that the distinction between casual and hardcore is about "hours logged." It isn't, and never was.
It's about emotional attachment to the game. Hours logged is just one indication of emotional attachment. One does not need to have a lot of hours logged to be emotionally invested in what goes on. Take EVE. There are people there who buy and maintain accounts just to participate on the forums, or create characters for the whole purpose of being "placeholders."
Well hardcore/casual are relative terms.
It's perfectly acceptable to say there are hardcore/casual Farmville players within the Farmville community. Some are more invested (in time/effort/money) than others. And it's these "hardcore" farmville players who indeed make Farmville's success possible.
The problem comes with the fact that most people are going to hear you say "hardcore Farmville players" and laugh.
And that's basically the fundamental reason "hardcore" is such a flimsy term. You have to define the specific parameters each time, so someone knows whether you're comparing Farmville players with each other, or gamers as a whole (99% of gamers are going to call all farmville players casual...even Zynga themselves call em casual.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I personally speak with my wallet and not subscribe to any soe games anymore. I am part of a growing trend.
A lot of people just want to pay the monthly fee, play and have fun, but SoE has taken the nickel and dime strategy in every direction they could and that just takes away from the game.
I can fully understand why some here would wonder if those people cheerleading the idea aren't actually company plants, because I have never known anyone who was happy about being nickel-and-dimed for individual items in a game they would otherwise have gotten in a normal content update.
And I can fully dislike and disdain anybody who starts throwing that kind of baseless accusation around.
Also, I know plenty of people who are willing to pay for individual items instead of going to a one-price AYCE buffet.
Do you know anyone who would play a game where the only option to acquire items was to buy them in a cash shop? Sometimes that is how I look at issues like this to see if it would pass an extreme test.
And I think looking at polar extremes is sometimes just silly, and misses the point. But yes I might play in such a game, depending on the particulars. I see no reason to rule it out without details. What kind of items and how often will I buy them? What is the price? Is there an in-game exchange, or just out of game?
I think what is really being debated here is how much tollerance people have for cash shops. I'm confident that if you ask people who don't mind shelling out for an item, that each of them would have their breaking point. At some point they would say enough is enough and it has a negative impact on the game.
No, not really the debate here. The problem seems to be with shelling out for any item. I've got no particular argument with saying "Eh, that's too much" but rather with people saying "How dare you tolerate that being sold at all, do you not realize what evil horrors of capitalistic greed that entails, if you don't then you must be a shill put out to support the corporate line"
The one is not the same as the other.
Essentially cash shops are not good for mmo players, but people seem to have their own level to which they will look the other way and even support them.
People used to say that about subscriptions and gamers. I consider that argument as flawed then as it is now.
Great reply. I would like to clarify a few of my comments that I see now are not very well defined.
As to the "extremes", you are right, but as a sort of litmus test they do put things in perspective in the games that are already on the market that we are discussing. Not some fictious games that don't exist yet, sorry I should have been clear about that.
If looking at something from an extreme view of 100% results in a completely negative view of the aspect with no redeeming qualities at all, then it is pretty safe to assume that at 10%, 5% or whatever it is still negative. Thus the "not a big deal" comments which do acknowledge it is a problem, just not on a large scale yet.
Would players in wow or eq2 [for example] be excited about all vanity items being cash shop only or the inclusion of raid/pvp items [again just as an example]? Would that be a benefit for players in comparison to what they have now? Even though I do not want to speak for everyone, I do think the answer would be no for almost everyone. Almost all of the discussion revolves around peoples unspoken tollerance levels. For some it is any sale at all, for others things have not gone to far yet. When people say things like "its not a big deal" or "its only fluff items" that indirectly speaks to the nature of it as well. Not a big deal.. until X happens. Its only X items.... and as long as they don't sell Y items it isn't a problem. It is like reading people say "it is a problem that doesn't affect me, so I don't care".
I don't think people have recognized this when making such comments.
As for my last comment, it should read 'cash shops are not good for mmo players in subscription based mmos'. I've asked the question a few dozens times on this site and never have I been given a half way decent response that wasn't centered around players avoiding actually playing the game.
So I ask again, What benefit is it to subscription based mmo players to have content not included for free (as in game achievement for in game acitivies) and instead have it be placed in a cash shop for 20-50% of the price of the entire game?
Where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?
Not only that, but cash shops are almost exactly opposed to the design goals of a subscription based game. One process wants to give players as much as possible to keep them subscribers and the other needs to deny enough gameplay the entice players into transactions.
But It does bother me to keep seeing stuff added to the cash shop in eq2 that affects player progression. I never minded the fluff, but its all the stuff that affects how quick you level and get aa and other things that gives folks who have the cash an unfair advantage.
I consider myself one of those folks who "have the cash" and I also would use a cash shop if the purchase was usefull to me but I don't see it as an unfair advantage.
Consider the folks who "have the time", they get to play for long stretches, make in game money and level while I have to use my time working for long stretches while I would like to be playing. To me the folks with the time to spend have an unfair advantage because they were able to play longer level faster than I and have more game money than I do. Whats the difference if i decided to purchase something with money I earned because I couldn't play long enough to do it within the game?
Seems to me that whatever happens, it happened because it was earned, one way (playing) or the other (paying).
Paying a subscription fee allows you the same exact access to the game as every other player has. Everyone in this situation has the exact same potential to achieve in game. There is no advantage.
I've just never understood the notion that spending time at work should somehow translate into achievements in a video game. Filing TPS reports is not the equivalent of completing a quest Just the concept that someone actually playing a video game has an advantage over someone who doesn't as justification for purchasing "useful" advancement is absurd.
Video games are meant to be an escape from real life issues. Rewarding developers for dragging those issues into their design choices doesn't make much sense. No matter how it is justified.
Paying the fee gives everyone access to a game but time is, and will always be, the advantage in MMO's. The more time invested the better your character gets, the better your character gets the more content you get to experience. In fact the way I see it time is the ultimate advantage in regards to MMO's
I don't understand the notion of working equalling achievements in a game either, I don't even know what you're talking about there. The only time I've ever even heard of a TPS report was in a movie but I'm sure there's no golden ! above the person who's suposed to recieve that report. Useful advancement can only be made if a game is being played so if I'm not playing theres no way I would even be able to purchase an advantage so I agree that notion is absurd.
What I am saying is that if I can spend a little money to get 1.5 or 2x xp than I see no unfair advantage as I would still be playing the game to level just as the person who played it through without the extra xp did because they had the time. Purchasing levels or better gear, now that I would consider an unfair advantage over someone who lacks the funds for that kind of instant advancement and is something I do not agree with nor is it something I would do.
Great reply. I would like to clarify a few of my comments that I see now are not very well defined.
As to the "extremes", you are right, but as a sort of litmus test they do put things in perspective in the games that are already on the market that we are discussing. Not some fictious games that don't exist yet, sorry I should have been clear about that.
If looking at something from an extreme view of 100% results in a completely negative view of the aspect with no redeeming qualities at all, then it is pretty safe to assume that at 10%, 5% or whatever it is still negative. Thus the "not a big deal" comments which do acknowledge it is a problem, just not on a large scale yet.
The problem with that is...it's not accurate all. It's like chemistry. Too little of some things...may kill you. So may too much of the same thing. Or cooking. Add some salt? May make the soup better. Add too much? That's probably going to ruin the soup. Somebody might not like pepper. Doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't want it.
Not all things are automatically negative, or even universally negative.
So I ask again, What benefit is it to subscription based mmo players to have content not included for free (as in game achievement for in game acitivies) and instead have it be placed in a cash shop for 20-50% of the price of the entire game?
Where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?
The benefit as I see it is that some players who want some things can get it without the rest of the players having to subsidize them. Those players may even subsidize the rest of the player base
Not only that, but cash shops are almost exactly opposed to the design goals of a subscription based game. One process wants to give players as much as possible to keep them subscribers and the other needs to deny enough gameplay the entice players into transactions.
Goals and reality often divergent. Nothing necessarily nefarious there.
I understand the point as as I've noted elsewhere, I can commiserate with people hating this. Heck, my entire life is peppered with me liking something but having it no longer continued or supported becaues it is not popular or things tend to go another way.
but the thing is, and what is a bit amusing to me despite the pain of those who hate it (er, sorry) is that none of this is new.
Records went by the wayside because of CD's. Oh sure, now you can find them a bit more in stores but there was huge backlash from people who didn't want to go digital because records just give better quality.
Cable was a "pay once and get all this value" proposition. And didn't have commericals. But now it's a al carte and there are commericals.
And look, there are companies that want you to rent your music by subscribing to their system so you can have access to all of it any time you want. But you stop subbing and it's gone. That is the one that makes me shiver the most.
It is true, the more people buy into this the more it will be done. The problem is that it just isn't a big deal to many people. Players (who are against) can scream as much as they want but if they fall into the minority then they are going to have to make a decision.
Maybe it's my age or that I happen to enjoy media that others might cringe at, but I'm used to being in the minority when it comes to having things change that I don't like. Yes, people should complain and make their point be heard. But if it does go another way then that is that. It certainly is not the first time and won't be the last time.
And what it might mean is that some indy developer, years from now will make a game that doesn't have the greatest graphics or has issues but it will be a simple sub model. Maybe even a full sandbox, who knows. But if players don't get behind these people then it's going to be harder and hard for indy developers to justify doing things different than the larger mega-companies.
In the end you have to vote with your wallet, either accept the outcome or do things yourself (make your own game/company) and move on.
Things change. It just so happens that gamers are getting a reality dosage that they aren't immune to some of these changes that other media types have experienced for years.
Still not following you, Sov.
For you cable analogy... I've never paid for a cable service where a single "added value option" cost the better part of the base monthly fee.
As far as the Record/CD analogy... maybe I just missed it, but I don't see how that relates at all to this. A closer analogy would be the Divx thing (not the codec) that was being tossed around by folks like Steven Spielberg, where they wanted people to buy a DVD and only get a set number of views out of it, and then have to pay more to watch it more times. Notice how that concept didn't take off? Because it was a bad idea... people don't like the idea of being nickel and dimed after they'd already purchased the product.
My point stands... It's a rather disturbing path we're going down where people will support - and even applaud - developers for charging the better part of the price for a full game, for something that amounts to barely 1% of it that would ordinarily be included as part of an expansion or content update. Blizzard's done it with how many mounts now, including rare ones? Well over a hundred last time I heard. So what's so special about this new one they added? Does it somehow do something that none of the others do, warranting a stand-alone $25 price tag?
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if I had earned it in-game, rather than buying it.
And I will enjoy it ZERO if it is not available.
So i would rather have the choice to buy it than not.
So... if given the choice of something being added to the game that you could A) Acquite entirely by actually playing the game for your normal monthly fee or Spend $25 for on top of your sub.. You'd prefer B?
Just want to make sure I understand your statement.
Nope. If the choices are
A) buy it $25, or
NOT having it at all (not available in-game nor in item shop)
Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.
I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if I had earned it in-game, rather than buying it.
And I will enjoy it ZERO if it is not available.
So i would rather have the choice to buy it than not.
So... if given the choice of something being added to the game that you could A) Acquite entirely by actually playing the game for your normal monthly fee or Spend $25 for on top of your sub.. You'd prefer B?
Just want to make sure I understand your statement.
Nope. If the choices are
A) buy it $25, or
NOT having it at all (not available in-game nor in item shop)
Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.
Okay... Thanks for the clarification
"If you just step away for a sec you will clearly see all the pot holes in the road, and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Comments
I think you're wrong from your premise, that you're effectively communicating anything by arguing with the analogy as opposed to using it as a route to an understanding of a perspective.
Or IOW, your understanding of the analogy's purpose is flawed.
This is flat-out wrong when Farmville is considered. Very casual. Very successful. F2P RMT model.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I'm not getting paid for what I do yet, but hopefully someday.
As for RMT, hell yes I would, but the suits are going about it all wrong. I heard a long time ago that the game Rohan would have a player-auction system outside the game that allows you to sell your virtual items for real money, and the owners of the game collect their "associated fees". I am fairly sure EQ2 does something similar, and that Second Life thrives on this. If you ask me, it's the perfect financial device as it bypasses the need to go to goldsellers and allows players to collect the vast majority of 'interest' on whatever the market will pay for their efforts. It will in fact make goldsellers richer though, as they will still be the dominant force behind sales - but at that point I think all 3 parties (player, seller and host) won't care anymore.
Writer / Musician / Game Designer
Now Playing: Skyrim, Wurm Online, Tropico 4
Waiting On: GW2, TSW, Archeage, The Rapture
Here's what kinda cracks me up...
People will complain for having to spend $15 a month for a subscription fee, and call it "having to pay for the game twice" or whatever. The truth is, you're paying for the *service* part of a MMORPG. MMOs are as much an online service as they are a game. You already paid for the game portion when you bought the box, or digital download. What you are paying for with a sub is the bandwidth, servers, maintenance, electricity... and so forth... required to keep the online service portion of it going. And, for that subscription fee, you often *do* get more content updates, etc. thrown in.
That has been explained numerous times in the past. Yet, people will still cry foul about "being forced to pay for content twice!", when they're not.
That goes specifically for the retail box + monthly sub setup, of course. Other setups have the development cost worked into other areas, such as the cost of stuff in the item mall, etc.
However, we come to a situation like this, where you're being charged $25 for a mount ... for a single item that *is* content, which you *are* being charged for, on top of the original game cost *and* the sub fee (per the logic described above that some use) and people are fine with it or, in fact, *defend* it as being "a good idea".
There are people in this thread who actually seem to *like* the fact that they're being double-dipped, or nickel-and-dimed, as if to say "yes! I love that they're nickel and diming us for stuff that would normally be included in the game! Please! Do it more! I just can't be nickel-and-dimed enough! Best thing ever!!!!".
I can fully understand why some here would wonder if those people cheerleading the idea aren't actually company plants, because I have never known anyone who was happy about being nickel-and-dimed for individual items in a game they would otherwise have gotten in a normal content update.
I would bet real money that if this whole F2P/Item Shop thing was still firmly contained in the Eastern market where it started (and where it could have stayed for all I care, but that's another rant), that Blizzard's $25 mount, and other "pay for an individual item" type deals would be been added as either an update to the game itself with no additional cost, or at most as one small part of a full-blown expansion pack.
They handled it the way they did, because they've seen there are people out there who are only too willing to keep pulling out the credit card to get "cool stuff" from a game that - per the logic used by many to argue against subs - "they've already paid for".
The double-standard is amazing.... and sad.
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Think people need to read and understand this, you said it better then i could have.
But it will be dismissed
"The great thing about human language is that it prevents us from sticking to the matter at hand."
- Lewis Thomas
Sure... what Sovrath said is correct - people should determine when something is no longer "worth it" to them. However, it also sorta dances around the point Cecropia was making.
Of course you can and should decide to walk away from something if it's no longer worth it to you. That's common sense. However, it's also not the point.
That is to say... By continuing to support and even cheer on the practice of selling individual items for a significant portion of the cost of an *entire game* or expansion, that the message is being sent that players will happily lap it up and ask for more. So why wouldn't the developers keep doing it? And in doing so, yes, the players would continue to get less and less value for their money.
Case in point...
I spent $40 for Wrath of The Lich King.... an entire expansion, with a new continent, huge new zones, tons of new quests, new gear... new class, etc. etc.
In light of that, paying $25 for a *single mount* is not "added value". It's reduced value. You're getting *far* less for your money. I find it incredulous that anyone would say it's a "good deal" to pay over half the cost of a full game for a single item. Personally, I think it's bad enough the way it's set up in F2P MMOs with cash shops... To do so in a setup where you're already getting a monthly sub, at such a high percent of what you would charge for the entire game, is pure greed.
If the signal is sent that players are "okay" with that, then who's to say that Blizzard wouldn't continue adding more and more of those kinds of items... all of which would have normally been part of a major content update, or full-blown retail expansion? Will it happen that way? No one can say on either side of the discussion. But, I don't think it's a stretch to say that Blizzard (or any company) wouldn't follow that thread as far as they could so long as enough people went along with it.
SOE's been doing that for a while... tossing little bits out there at first to 'test the waters' so as to not "offend anyone too much". Then when it seems people have become used to it, they push it a little further.... then a little further...
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
I have yet to buy anything in the cash shop, nor have I ever added any cash to my wallet. I got 500 added when I got the xpac her a couple of months back.
The ony problem was when they added the cash shop it was all cosmetic. Pets to put in your house, furniture an so forth.
Now you can buy xp potions that affects player progressions, rent status items again affects how much status is being pulled in your house. Character transfer the only real thing I agree with got to do it somehow. Then the kicker that I and a lot of folks in my guild hate the change your name one this allows theives to get away and change their name when discovred. Then the all time hated one of change your race!!!! Then they added backpacs.
I fully expect mounts to be added next, and possibly even levels.
I know folks who have spent tons in the cash shop, all you got to do is look at our guild hall. Me I am satisfied with making plat then using the broker to buy what I need.
But It does bother me to keep seeing stuff added to the cash shop in eq2 that affects player progression. I never minded the fluff, but its all the stuff that affects how quick you level and get aa and other things that gives folks who have the cash an unfair advantage.
I consider myself one of those folks who "have the cash" and I also would use a cash shop if the purchase was usefull to me but I don't see it as an unfair advantage.
Consider the folks who "have the time", they get to play for long stretches, make in game money and level while I have to use my time working for long stretches while I would like to be playing. To me the folks with the time to spend have an unfair advantage because they were able to play longer level faster than I and have more game money than I do. Whats the difference if i decided to purchase something with money I earned because I couldn't play long enough to do it within the game?
Seems to me that whatever happens, it happened because it was earned, one way (playing) or the other (paying).
Leads to tiered citizenship. It's bad for the same reason why net neutrality is good. Having systems that are balanced around people paying extra money on top of the standard subscription rate just become a tool for money gouging in one form or another and hurts game quality.
Consider that you don't have a lot of time to play. If given content takes X hours normally to do, then that should be FUN to do for X hours. If it isn't, then something is wrong with the game. Having people pay money to do that content in X/2 hours will help obscure the problem of "not fun" and indeed you'll have competing interests now with some people wanting the content to maximize fun for the X/2 crowd and others wanting the fun maximized for the X crowd, of course the people NOT paying extra have a decent chance of getting ignore because they are less profitable per person (hard to say). However it goes though, one group gets hurt. It's just not good for the game.
Now the same concerns ARE present in a F2P game with a cash shop, but it is less of an issue there since the people who aren't paying for X/2 aren't paying for the game at all, so naturally their concerns aren't that big of a deal. Quite different from the P2P scenario (this does provide an interesting argument again F2P games with cash shops though).
Paying a subscription fee allows you the same exact access to the game as every other player has. Everyone in this situation has the exact same potential to achieve in game. There is no advantage.
I've just never understood the notion that spending time at work should somehow translate into achievements in a video game. Filing TPS reports is not the equivalent of completing a quest Just the concept that someone actually playing a video game has an advantage over someone who doesn't as justification for purchasing "useful" advancement is absurd.
Video games are meant to be an escape from real life issues. Rewarding developers for dragging those issues into their design choices doesn't make much sense. No matter how it is justified.
I think Farmville makes my case extremely well.
Many think that the distinction between casual and hardcore is about "hours logged." It isn't, and never was.
It's about emotional attachment to the game. Hours logged is just one indication of emotional attachment. One does not need to have a lot of hours logged to be emotionally invested in what goes on. Take EVE. There are people there who buy and maintain accounts just to participate on the forums, or create characters for the whole purpose of being "placeholders."
__________________________
"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
And I can fully dislike and disdain anybody who starts throwing that kind of baseless accusation around.
Also, I know plenty of people who are willing to pay for individual items instead of going to a one-price AYCE buffet.
You are trying to quote someone from SOE. When did anyone in the world from SOE ever make a statement that made any sense? You have to look at the source before trying to argue your point.
Do you know anyone who would play a game where the only option to acquire items was to buy them in a cash shop? Sometimes that is how I look at issues like this to see if it would pass an extreme test.
I think what is really being debated here is how much tollerance people have for cash shops. I'm confident that if you ask people who don't mind shelling out for an item, that each of them would have their breaking point. At some point they would say enough is enough and it has a negative impact on the game.
Essentially cash shops are not good for mmo players, but people seem to have their own level to which they will look the other way and even support them.
I understand the point as as I've noted elsewhere, I can commiserate with people hating this. Heck, my entire life is peppered with me liking something but having it no longer continued or supported becaues it is not popular or things tend to go another way.
but the thing is, and what is a bit amusing to me despite the pain of those who hate it (er, sorry) is that none of this is new.
Records went by the wayside because of CD's. Oh sure, now you can find them a bit more in stores but there was huge backlash from people who didn't want to go digital because records just give better quality.
Cable was a "pay once and get all this value" proposition. And didn't have commericals. But now it's a al carte and there are commericals.
And look, there are companies that want you to rent your music by subscribing to their system so you can have access to all of it any time you want. But you stop subbing and it's gone. That is the one that makes me shiver the most.
It is true, the more people buy into this the more it will be done. The problem is that it just isn't a big deal to many people. Players (who are against) can scream as much as they want but if they fall into the minority then they are going to have to make a decision.
Maybe it's my age or that I happen to enjoy media that others might cringe at, but I'm used to being in the minority when it comes to having things change that I don't like. Yes, people should complain and make their point be heard. But if it does go another way then that is that. It certainly is not the first time and won't be the last time.
And what it might mean is that some indy developer, years from now will make a game that doesn't have the greatest graphics or has issues but it will be a simple sub model. Maybe even a full sandbox, who knows. But if players don't get behind these people then it's going to be harder and hard for indy developers to justify doing things different than the larger mega-companies.
In the end you have to vote with your wallet, either accept the outcome or do things yourself (make your own game/company) and move on.
Things change. It just so happens that gamers are getting a reality dosage that they aren't immune to some of these changes that other media types have experienced for years.
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
I'm just watching this discussion from the sidelines and this is one of the comments I most agree with.
I've played games with and without RMT and I don't see it as a big deal at all.
When selecting a new game I can honestly say that this RMT argument is about as important to me as the graphics on the loading screen.
And I think looking at polar extremes is sometimes just silly, and misses the point. But yes I might play in such a game, depending on the particulars. I see no reason to rule it out without details. What kind of items and how often will I buy them? What is the price? Is there an in-game exchange, or just out of game?
No, not really the debate here. The problem seems to be with shelling out for any item. I've got no particular argument with saying "Eh, that's too much" but rather with people saying "How dare you tolerate that being sold at all, do you not realize what evil horrors of capitalistic greed that entails, if you don't then you must be a shill put out to support the corporate line"
The one is not the same as the other.
People used to say that about subscriptions and gamers. I consider that argument as flawed then as it is now.
Well hardcore/casual are relative terms.
It's perfectly acceptable to say there are hardcore/casual Farmville players within the Farmville community. Some are more invested (in time/effort/money) than others. And it's these "hardcore" farmville players who indeed make Farmville's success possible.
The problem comes with the fact that most people are going to hear you say "hardcore Farmville players" and laugh.
And that's basically the fundamental reason "hardcore" is such a flimsy term. You have to define the specific parameters each time, so someone knows whether you're comparing Farmville players with each other, or gamers as a whole (99% of gamers are going to call all farmville players casual...even Zynga themselves call em casual.)
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
I personally speak with my wallet and not subscribe to any soe games anymore. I am part of a growing trend.
A lot of people just want to pay the monthly fee, play and have fun, but SoE has taken the nickel and dime strategy in every direction they could and that just takes away from the game.
Great reply. I would like to clarify a few of my comments that I see now are not very well defined.
As to the "extremes", you are right, but as a sort of litmus test they do put things in perspective in the games that are already on the market that we are discussing. Not some fictious games that don't exist yet, sorry I should have been clear about that.
If looking at something from an extreme view of 100% results in a completely negative view of the aspect with no redeeming qualities at all, then it is pretty safe to assume that at 10%, 5% or whatever it is still negative. Thus the "not a big deal" comments which do acknowledge it is a problem, just not on a large scale yet.
Would players in wow or eq2 [for example] be excited about all vanity items being cash shop only or the inclusion of raid/pvp items [again just as an example]? Would that be a benefit for players in comparison to what they have now? Even though I do not want to speak for everyone, I do think the answer would be no for almost everyone. Almost all of the discussion revolves around peoples unspoken tollerance levels. For some it is any sale at all, for others things have not gone to far yet. When people say things like "its not a big deal" or "its only fluff items" that indirectly speaks to the nature of it as well. Not a big deal.. until X happens. Its only X items.... and as long as they don't sell Y items it isn't a problem. It is like reading people say "it is a problem that doesn't affect me, so I don't care".
I don't think people have recognized this when making such comments.
As for my last comment, it should read 'cash shops are not good for mmo players in subscription based mmos'. I've asked the question a few dozens times on this site and never have I been given a half way decent response that wasn't centered around players avoiding actually playing the game.
So I ask again, What benefit is it to subscription based mmo players to have content not included for free (as in game achievement for in game acitivies) and instead have it be placed in a cash shop for 20-50% of the price of the entire game?
Where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?
Not only that, but cash shops are almost exactly opposed to the design goals of a subscription based game. One process wants to give players as much as possible to keep them subscribers and the other needs to deny enough gameplay the entice players into transactions.
Hopefully clears up my thoughts a bit more.
Paying the fee gives everyone access to a game but time is, and will always be, the advantage in MMO's. The more time invested the better your character gets, the better your character gets the more content you get to experience. In fact the way I see it time is the ultimate advantage in regards to MMO's
I don't understand the notion of working equalling achievements in a game either, I don't even know what you're talking about there. The only time I've ever even heard of a TPS report was in a movie but I'm sure there's no golden ! above the person who's suposed to recieve that report. Useful advancement can only be made if a game is being played so if I'm not playing theres no way I would even be able to purchase an advantage so I agree that notion is absurd.
What I am saying is that if I can spend a little money to get 1.5 or 2x xp than I see no unfair advantage as I would still be playing the game to level just as the person who played it through without the extra xp did because they had the time. Purchasing levels or better gear, now that I would consider an unfair advantage over someone who lacks the funds for that kind of instant advancement and is something I do not agree with nor is it something I would do.
Still not following you, Sov.
For you cable analogy... I've never paid for a cable service where a single "added value option" cost the better part of the base monthly fee.
As far as the Record/CD analogy... maybe I just missed it, but I don't see how that relates at all to this. A closer analogy would be the Divx thing (not the codec) that was being tossed around by folks like Steven Spielberg, where they wanted people to buy a DVD and only get a set number of views out of it, and then have to pay more to watch it more times. Notice how that concept didn't take off? Because it was a bad idea... people don't like the idea of being nickel and dimed after they'd already purchased the product.
My point stands... It's a rather disturbing path we're going down where people will support - and even applaud - developers for charging the better part of the price for a full game, for something that amounts to barely 1% of it that would ordinarily be included as part of an expansion or content update. Blizzard's done it with how many mounts now, including rare ones? Well over a hundred last time I heard. So what's so special about this new one they added? Does it somehow do something that none of the others do, warranting a stand-alone $25 price tag?
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops
Nope. If the choices are
A) buy it $25, or
Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.
Okay... Thanks for the clarification
and the cash shop selling asphalt..." - Mimzel on F2P/Cash Shops