Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Champions Online: Champions Online, F2P & The Governator
SBFord
Former Associate EditorMember LegendaryPosts: 33,129
In his latest Free Zone column, MMORPG.com's Richard Aihoshi takes a look at two larger than life news items that came across his virtual desk last week: CHampions Online going 'F2P' and The Governator taking on the EMA (Entertainment Merchants' Association). See what Richard thinks of Atari's announcement about Champions Online and whether or not the EMA can successfully challenge California Governor Schwarzenegger. Let us know your thoughts on the forums!
Predictably, it took somewhere in the vicinity of a nanosecond for the first comments to appear about this being the so-called "Turbine model", which isn't really F2P. It's certainly true that what Atari and Cryptic will implement isn't the "classic" scheme with an item shop as the sole means of revenue generation. However, monthly package options aren't new; while they're not universal by any means, they became available in some MMOGs years ago. Since that time, I don't recall seeing even a single instance where the valiant defenders of P2P - presumably some of whom are the very same people speaking up now - said this meant such titles weren't actually F2P. Might this be a convenient double standard?
Read more of The Free Zone: Champions Online, F2P & The Governator.
Comments
I really dont have much to say on champions going f 2play. Or its turbine model. Which is more a hybrid then a true free 2 play. That said the banning of violence in video games to children is a huge issue.
What right does the goverment have to get involved in this at all. Its a parents job to choose what kind of games there kid can and can not play its not the goverments job to raise peoples children for them. Anymore then its up to tv to raid the kids.
Parents get to choose what there kids can play and not play they get to choose what there kids can watch and not watch on tv. Im so tired of people wanting the goverment or tv to change what they program so they dont have to be the bad guy.
Raise your own kids people. Its not the goverments job to raise our kids for us dont want your kids playing a violent game dont let them. It really is that simple. This is just taken the idea that parents dont want to raise there own kids so its up to the goverment to do so.
NO its not. . I hope this law gets shot down. I just dont believe its the goverments job to police this stuff. Or pass laws on this kind of thing. Dont they have alot more important things to look after like i dont know. The economy , and creating jobs.
I just have to say...
I see a lot of violence in power rangers and the stuff children watch. Whats wrong with video games?
They do have a point! Raise your children and tell them "THIS IS REAL...THIS IS NOT REAL!...THIS ISSOMETHING YOU SHOULD NOT DO! BEING MEAN IS BAD! DO NOT SMASH YOUR NEIGHBOUR IN THE FACE WITH A LIGHT SABER!"
''/\/\'' Posted using Iphone bunni
( o.o)
(")(")
**This bunny was cloned from bunnies belonging to Gobla and is part of the Quizzical Fanclub and the The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club**
If you have kept track of the political world at all in the last decade or so.. You will notice something. That our rights and liberties are slowing being stripped from us. (if you are from america that is) More and more our federal and even local governments have been handing down more and more regulations on pretty much all aspects of life including Parental rights. Everytime the government hands something out to "help" the people it always comes at a cost and that cost is usually money and freedom. Just 2 weeks ago in Arizona a Principal announced that his school would no longer be serving or allowing food with white flour due to the obecity issue. A few days later he then took a Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwhich away from a student who brought their own lunch. Which in all honesty he didnt have a right to do. Seeing as its the parents who paid for and bought the lunch food for the kid. I can understand the fact that the school can decide what to serve in its cafeterias. But more and more schools (goverment) is deciding whats best for the kids and of coarse us the ignorant masses of people.
Without the government there to protect you and guide you. What would you do you own. Health Care for instance. Freedom of Choice is going to be taken away in that case as well. So I say STAND UP... STAND UP AMERICA!
The law if put into effect would enforce what retailers are already doing or are supposed to be doing already. Letting the parents decide if a rated M and such game is ok for their child instead of letting the child decide lol.
The retailer won't be fined for selling the parent the game, they would be if they sold the child the game.
It's just funny that you went into a tangent about how this law is BS and parents should be the one to decide what games their kids play, when all this law would do is insure just that lol.
In any case, carry on this subject doesn't intrigue me that much. Both of these stories are pretty dull.
With the Governator thing, it's just lot of pretentious posturing. The law won't change anything. Retailers already don't sale rated M games to minors. If a parent wants their kid to play a rated M game they have to come in and buy it anyways lol. So... what changes exactly?
Champions Online was free to play bound lol. I called it last year lol.
http://www.mmorpg.com/discussion2.cfm/thread/259624/page/3
"But lets face it, CO is stuggling to keep subs as it is now because of it's own short commings. Add in DCUO to the mix and you will see the game either go free to play or slowly die (Which it already is doing)."
So not even thats really news lol.
Don't have much more to say about CO that I haven't already said elsewhere. They're in a pickle like DDO was in, and are looking for a way out. This is their best shot.
Good point on the Governator bit. Never really thought about it. What's the precedent regarding entertainment? Is it illegal to sell/rent a rated R movie to a kid? Then I suppose a rate M game should be, as well. If it's not illegal to sell an R movie, then we're looking at a double standard.
And yes, assuming movie/game sales to minors are illegal, it should be illegal in every form. And yep, I know how difficult that is. These difficulties should be considered before passing legislation, particularly when legislating morality.
That and violent media has no effect on children commiting violent crimes (or doing so as adults). Study after study proves this.
"Society in every state is a blessing, but government even in its best state is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one ..." - Thomas Paine
I am a definate beleiver in blocking kids access to some games and media, but we have to realize that most parents are complete idiots. And that, unfortunately, is why some people beleive the government should step in.
I have a different suggestion. Why not give adults a legitimate location to buy adult games. As it is right now, Adult rated games are banned from the major games vendors and so they are not a viable investment. Games like GTA IV are forced to "tone it down a notch" to keep a mature rating. AoC pushes the envelope as far as they could and maintain the "mature" rating, but you know they would have done more with that IP.
Having a different way of purchasing adult content creates the distinction and maybe more parents would clue in. As a previous poster stated, the parents are usually the ones buying it anyhow, so making them buy it really doesn't change anything. Most wouldn't even notice that anything has changed. Having a different outlet for adult/mature games where kids couldn't even browse, would have much better results then just making the kids unable to buy them.
All of my posts are either intelligent, thought provoking, funny, satirical, sarcastic or intentionally disrespectful. Take your pick.
I get banned in the forums for games I love, so lets see if I do better in the forums for games I hate.
I enjoy the serenity of not caring what your opinion is.
I don't hate much, but I hate Apple© with a passion. If Steve Jobs was alive, I would punch him in the face.
My problem with the law is that it was passed by the same idiots who passed a law saying a kid could get an abortion without the consent of a parent. So what message does that send to kids? It is ok to murder your child but we will not let you play a specific video game. Think about how screwed up that philosophy is...
Let me start with a qualifying statement: kids need parents to control their access to media. Therefore, since I expect this to be a required component to raising kids I do not see a need to limit free speech (the production of any kind of media). I do however, think it makes sense to ban the sale of M games to minors. This is already the case with access to R rated movies and should really come as no surprise. In fact Wal-Marts and Targets all around my area have carded people for the last 10 years or more on the purchase of any of these titles. Previously this was at their discretion, but under the new law it would be a requirement. This is no different from limiting the sale of tobacco, alcohol, pornography, etc. to minors.
This law is not a replacement for good parenting and is not intended to be. This isn't a case of "if you're a good parent you can keep your kids from accessing this stuff anyway." If you truly believe that then lets open up the sale of tobacco and alcohol to minors and see what happens. The fact is that as long as these games are allowed to be sold directly to minors, then tons of other kids that hang out with your kid will have the product and expose them to it. Sure you can say "oh if you were a good parent your kid wouldn't be hanging out with those kids anyway." Seriously though, you can't keep your kid locked in a box with no social contact at all, so guess what? Even if you are the best parent in the world you will fail at keeping your kid away from all the stuff you don't want them exposed to. Therefore, it doesn't hurt to have an occasional law here and there to lend a parent a helping hand (I'm generally a libertarian so you know if I'm supporting governmental intervention it's probably not that bad).
As far as violent media not being related to future violence (I'm broadening the scope from solely violent crime here as the above poster stated) this is simply not true. There are actually many studies that show quite that opposite. You can look at the BoBo Doll experiments done by Albert Bandura in the 50's and 60's for some of the earliest experiments covering this issue. If another individual models violent behavior for a child it is more likely that the child will engage in violent behavior when placed in a similar situation to the individual that modelled the behavior (this is true for adults too). However, none of these studies truly show anything except that two factors tend to happen together (Correlation not Causation). In the case of the BoBo doll we see that increased aggressive behaviors tend to follow aggressive modelling. However, it is not clear what actually caused the increase in violent behavior as any number of factors can influence an outcome (genetics, family environment, room temperature, etc.).
Much more interesting in my mind as a student of psychology (already finished school, but always learning) is what the actual effects of playing video games are on individuals. Current research is showing a suprising blunting of affect related to video game exposure. This is largely a lack of emotional connectivity, empathy, etc. between a video game player and other real life individuals. What's more distressing is that the content of the video games played does not appear to matter. From Reading Rabbit to GTA this result has been found to hold steady.
To put this in more polarizing terms and to stir up debate for excitement's sake this research is basically saying that if a video game player and a non-video game player were both watching their mom die, the non-gamer would actually feel more emotion and the end result of that is that the non-gamer would actually care more. Again this is not saying that playing video games causes reduced emotional connectedness simply that the two phenomenon are related. I could certainly write an entire dissertation on this topic so I will stop here for now before the wall of text grows too large...
Steam: Neph
Hm. A F2P Champions Online....eh. I might play it, if that works.
For the California law...thankfully I don't live there, just in case. But, honestly, if the parents don't object to it, kids are going to find a way to play these violent video games anyways. So, honestly, I doubt that if the law is passed it's going to work well.
Eh. Don't want to make one.
All I can say was i played 3 out of thirty days game time on CO. I played more STO than that lol.
Now lets get back to the political discussion. You know what that kind of law gets you. Kids who break the law as well as parents.
What is to keep Fred's father from buying then creating an account then giving Fred the keys to the kingdom. This kind of law governing games is unneeded. We already had this kind of things on games. How has that worked, games with teen marked now have more pre-teens playing than adults. Wow, Lotro, STO, and yes even Fallen Earth (even with their so called age verification).
All laws do is create fines to line the pockets of the government, cash grab as they know they are going to find folks breaking the law.
Oh well shame on the Governor.
Every new medium goes through this same nonsense. Movies did. TV did. Even printed books did. Every new form of music has. Jazz corrupted our youth. Then rock and roll did it. Then it was heavy metal. Now it's gangsta rap. And it's the same dumbass people who are always attacking new media. No invention has destroyed children yet, and no invention ever will.
Important facts:
1. Free to Play games are poorly made.
2. Casuals are not all idiots, but idiots call themselves casuals.
3. Great solo and group content are not mutually exclusive, but they suffer when one is shoved into the mold of the other. The same is true of PvP and PvE.
4. Community is more important than you think.
" Several other states have declared their support for California in this matter. Being Canadian, I'm not directly in line to be affected. "
I think you under estimate the influence the U.S. has over Canada and vice versa.
I'm impress that the U.S. government can interfere almost anything now days but still can't do something about the bullying at schools.
This is actually a good move for CO. With DCUO on the horizon, and what I've seen in beta CO had to do something or crash and burn. This could be a good new model. I have a F2P account on Lotro (that was converted from a sub account) and it seems to work great for me since I can go back to it whenever I want (I bought all the quest packs on one of the point deals they had since I already owned all the expansions).
Also, funny thing is I just had to write a bunch on Albert Bandura for an exam (I actually AM a Psych student). Unfortunately, while Bandura is a huge advocate of producing less violent media and instead producing some with more desirable behaviors modeled (think sesame street lol), the Bobo doll experiment merely showed that children can learn behaviors when they are modeled for them but does not say anything about violent acts. If the child observed a person violently mutilating another person there is no guarantee that they will go do the same thing (more likely they will develop trauma based on such an event). Ultimately their immediate environment and social circle will need to reinforce any of the said behaviors for them to stick around, so behaviorists are also correct. While children DO infact learn by observation, reinforcement as well as family and social makeup play just as an important role as the modeling itself.
Just another Republican effort to start up the Thought Police. Coming from Schwartzinegger with his career this law is unusually hypoctical. Tomorrow's election day- all you out in California go vote. Send your governator a message.
Rather have my kids beat somone up in a game then have to bind thier wounds from street fighting like us oldies used to do when we had no games or movies all day long.
It seems like most people want to talk about censorship. I don't.
Champions Online isn't going free to play. Right now, it has a free trial. The "free to play" consists of a more generous free trial. But in both cases, if you don't pay the subscription fee, you get a crippled account. And how do you remove the restrictions? By paying a subscription fee. Players will be able to remove some restrictions by purchasing separate things a la carte, but not all.
If you want an account that isn't crippled, a subscription fee will be the only way to get it, even after it goes "free to play". The subscription is not a package deal of things that can be purchased separately. Is that really "free to play"? No, not really.
I'm all in favor of giving the game a more generous free trial than the current one, provided that there are adequate restrictions in place to block spammers. But let's not swallow the press release and call it something that it isn't.
@eladi, true in some sense but, the youth today since all they do is play video games an arnt out there in the real world gettin into scuffles, they think they can take on the world. but when they piss off the wrong person, and get there ass beat cause they didnt have the common sense the older generation have. the run cry bitch an moan to there parents/gaurdians ant hey go on a rampage. now what does that solve? i know i learned fast after gettin my ass beat that there are some ppl you can fuck with an some you DONT fuck with. i get 14 year olds startin shit with me an im 6'1 200 lbs an 23 years old. i just look an laugh. if that dont prove these kids NEED to go out an get into scuffles to learn life lessons and values. but thats my opinion. i know my kid will be outside playin an not sittin on video games all day.
OH EM GEE ITS MEH
You should try watching something other than Fox News.
It is the evolution of the nanny state. There are people who believe the know more than others (claiming some parents are too stupid to oversee their kids, etc.) and thus believe they should impose their values on others for their own good. These people demand laws/regulations such as what we see with controlling content in video games. They argue that the kids exposed to this will eventually become violent, imposing a big cost to society in the future.
We have other people who say free-for-all, personal responsibility and get out of controlling what I can and cannot do (my personal point of view, but I'm trying to see both sides). They argue that as we lose one freedom, another new crusade will emerge to control another part of our lives, and eventually we will live in a very controlled society. Furthermore, they argue that innovation and changes in the market can better adapt to these things than stale laws/regulations.
It is important to note that both sides are looking to improve things, but have very different opinions on how to do it. There are no reasons to make personal attacks on other people on either side of the debate.
Personally, I don't think more laws are needed, just better enforcement or understanding of what the recommended age system means. Kids can't smoke, drink, or go to R-rated movies unless an adult gives it to them. Yet, there are the kids to smoke, drink, do drugs, etc. despite the "laws". Rather than focusing on these much more important law-enforcement issues, we're engaging in a legal battle over video games? Really? Seems like priorities are a bit mixed up. It certainly gives some credibility to the free-for-all argument that after this crusade, another crusade "for our own good" will be on the horizon.
Finally, many games are played by adults, and the key demographic for video game makers are men age 25-40 since they have lots of money. As such, if you want a game to succeed with that demographic, it may not be appropriate for kids. If you put a lot of restrictions on games, they may not appeal to the 25-40 male crowd and hence you'll see a lot of game companies go out of business. If the Supreme Court overturns the lower court rulings and supports control on video games, I think the smart money will short several game companies that have made a name for themselves with edgy-titles. So, even though I personally hope they don't overturn the lower court rulling and keep their hands off video games, if they do I'm looking to make some money on it.
"about this being the so-called "Turbine model", which isn't really F2P"
Here we go again Richard, Turbine's model is most certainly F2P. Where you come up with these notions is beyond me.
Sure in Turbine's model you eventually have to buy quest packs. How is that different from ROM, Atlantica, etc., etc.,? All those games make you purchase stuff from the item shop too once past mid level. Only a masochist would continue playing any of those games without help from the item shop, same could be said about Turbine's model.
You would think by now you would have figured out this segment of the genre to write about it without having a narrow view of it.
How can you call Cryptic's model the "Turbine model" when Turbine gives its' subscription players 500 tp a month for cash shop purchases, and Cryptic isn't going to?
Also, LotRO is F2P, since you can earn TP in game in various ways. Granted, you'll have to do a lot of grinding, but you *could* eventually buy everything you need in the cash shop without ever spending any real cash...it's just a question of how much torture you're willing to endure.
A label is ok with me.. im a parent... though im a gamer, many parents arnt. So they havent a clue to what content is going to be shown to thier children.. a label will give them an idea... It helps.
But, in no way should the power of parenting be taken from the parent and inforced by something as extream as a law.
Its my job to monitor and mentore my children, not the state.
Cought a article about how some group wanted to have a law made to force mcdonalds to remove the toys in happy meals. The representitives reasoning for such an action was.. "the nag levels up to here" ( she waved her hand over her head back and forth).
I do not need a court nor state law to tell me how to say NO to my children.. Im a parent my job is to parent. Why cause im the mother fkin boss. ]
No means no and i have that foundation built i don t have these issues. I wear big boy pants. Lots of these marshmallow "i wanna do what i wanna do " parents need to grow the hell up and do the job! If you didn't want them then you should have wore something fkin excuses are just that excuses, You accept through your eyes.. i see you with mine and your sorry assed cases of fail from my view.
Stop trying to live through them and teach them to live for them selves. They are alive, they hurt feel and see the world from their universe not yours..
And remember they are the ones that are going to have the say when your too old to choose. Better be good to them.. that ghetto assed rest home may be your final destination.
Mainly its movements like these that push the nanny state agenda have way too much money and time on their hands.. if they focused that time and energy on their children they wouldn't have these problems.
I will do the job and never stop!
FoE Fist of the Empire
I can't wait to read how the Supreme Court threw this one out, just like it has been tossed so many times before.