I have nothing against cash shops if they just sell aesthetic items like cosmetic clothes and accessories that have no impact on the game. To have option to buy items that will give someone advantage if he purchase them over those that dont is at least to say unfair. Everybody knows why nowdays this happens - money of course. But, publishers forget one thing or dont care, that cash shops with there microtransantions in this way are killers of gameplay. Where are old days when you got to work for something to get, for hours or days, but in the end you would fell good about yourself for accomplishing task and getting that item you need. Today, players just have to give there credit number and instantly they are epic fighters. So lame. To conclude, work for it, work hard or work easy, just work for your mmo character, dont be lazy.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post.
This isn't how a discussion works, if a person can't use their own rationale to approach a topic, rather they are held to a strict and forced rule of the topic, there's no discussion that will come of it, only you pushing your subjective reasoning on others.
Which is EXACTLY what he intended to do with the thread. "Let's have a discussion, but you must agree with me and MY definitions first." What a crock of shit.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
No offense Badgered but I read this as 'Either agree with me or don't contrubute to this convo'
And while I DO agree with the cash shop thing, this comment makes me want to turn and walk away.
Paying for advantages just gives the developer a money printing machine, because they appeal to the natural competitive nature of many players. To me, that ruins the integrity of the game.
I have no problem with the idea of a cash shop if it is to provide players with aesthetic options, like clothing or armor appearance, additional hair styles or faces, etc. Items with stats or that give an advantage would not be good for the game though.
You are now entering a no-spin zone. If you feel the need to jump through hoops to justify certain models of cash shops, kindly exit the thread. We don't need spin doctors and cash shop apologists polluting the conversation here. Thank you!
Let's talk about paying real life money for in-game advantages in general terms. Before we begin though I want to eliminate the possiblity of a moving goal post. In order to do so I'd like to define what I consider to be a paid-for in-game advantage. This is what we shall use as the definition of synonyms for "pay to win", "pay to cheat", "pay for power", "pay for advantages", and any similar labels in this thread.
Advantage (n.) (cash shops)
Paying real-life money for an item or benefit that:
Grants access to other items or other benefits that are commonly seen in the game but are not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (Imagine if a Zod rune were a key, and said rune was the only manner of opening commonly dropped chests, but Zod runes were purchaseable from a hypothetical Diablo II store.)
Modifies the standard game rules (experience gain, resource gain, movement speed, combat modifiers, etc.) and is either exclusive to the cash shop or not available in adequate quantities for players who do not use the cash shop. (IP Boosts in League of Legends, Skill Unlock Packs in Guild Wars 1. Not the skills themselves, but the packs.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a statistical edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that provides a larger statistical bonus than items normally found in the game. The amount of statistical edge is irrelevant.)
Is exclusive to the cash shop and provides a probability edge to the purchaser over players who do not use the cash shop. (An item that loads the dice of the RNG in your favor. The amount of the probability edge is irrelevant.)
I feel this is a fair definition of an advantage as it relates to games with cash shops. The intent is to identify any cash shop item that gives you a perk (even if it is a tiny one) over people who don't buy that item from the cash shop, however short-lived the effects may be.
That said, are you comfortable with items such as these being sold in MMORPGs with cash shops regardless of the game's subscription model? If yes, why? If not, why not? I appreciate your time and cooperation with this excercise. Thanks for reading!
First off, let's talk about spin. You put the word "advantages" in there in a format similar to a dicitonary listing. In other words, you intentionally formatted your words to look like fact and not opinion. This will sway people to view anything said therein as being more likely to be factual, because our brains are trained to read certain things certain ways and take back impressions from them. So much for no spin. Moving on. I will address each numbered point in kind
1) The quanitity of those items available in the cash shop vs the amount available in gmae is unknown. However, may I remind you that in game resources can be used to buy gems, which in turn can buy these same items. Quantity is unlimited dependant on market value and the amount of time one wants to put in. That is YOUR decision as a player, not something hard set by game mechanics.
2) Few items in the shop in its present iteration affect game rules. And most, like the IP boosts in LoL, just reduce the amount of time a player needs to earn something they would have earned anyway. And, as in any game with caps, the advantage of that earning things faster narrows as the cap is reached, eventually becoming pointless. Unless, as I have said elsewhere, your goal is to be first. Than your concern is much more valid.
3) No items of this description, thus far, appear to exist in the shop. In addition Anet has said repeatedly this is the sort of thing they do not want. Yes they have the capacity to lie, just as much as you or I do. But, innocent until proven guilty.
4) Thus far the only item we've seen that does that I beleive is the salvage kits. Which, again, can effectively be purchased for in game currency. And whose actually utility in the long run is yet to be determined. This is however a valid concern, for this one item.
That said, I CAN see room for concern. I can NOT see room for panic. For now I observe, and continue to look forward to the game, until something proves to me there's reason to do otherwise.
without RMT, if you have an advantage it's because you played more, not because you paid more.
Making an advantage is not the same as buying one.
Isn't getting a job which will make enough money so you can buy RMT items making your own advantage?
I'm never going to be in a position where I can make 'time' to have an advantage in an mmo ever again. I have a wife, child, social and financial obligations well beyond anything that would allow me the time I had in '99-2004. Just ain't gonna happen.
You can't be suggesting that I should abandon my other responsibilities to create 'time' for video games.
You can't be suggesting that 'mmo's can never be for your demographic'.
You can't be suggesting that I don't have a perfect right to spend my money how I choose.
What you SHOULD be suggesting is that there should be some games available where time is the only advantage you can make for yourself. And guess what there are. So play them. And be glad my demographic has games suitable for my lifestyle. So I'll play those.
Why would you want to shut down a system that others enjoy, just because you don't? I know it stinks that all mmos aren't made to specially cater to your needs, but there are millions of gamers out there with a different schedule than yours.
So let me get this straight.
You pay 15 bucks
I pay 15 bucks
you get 1 month (AT time of purchase)
I get 1 month (At time of purchase)
You take your family to Disneyland for two weeks while I raid and get gear but I paid to win because of a choice you made?....No, because you had the exact same opportunity as me to raid. Probably wouldn't be good for your marriage, but you could tell your family that you have chosen to earn epics instead of vacation {oh, I guess you are suggesting that...}. It's your choice to do it or not to do it. Weather you get those epics at this point has nothing to do with any money either of us spent that the other didn't
You can't make your decisions about how you chose to play your game my responsibility by telling me I paid to win because I have more after we both got the same portion for the same price.
Besides, I know plenty of people that spend tremendous amounts of time in a game and don't have all epics. They mostly have fun just running around doing whatever on a whim..don't have a lot to show for it, but they are always online.
Or what about the person who spends hours on the internet reading on their class. He has power. over someone who doesn't I mean where does it stop?
No that isn't what I meant at all, in any way, shape or form.
I meant that games that offer some sort of real market trade allow me to buy experience potions to catch up with you. I am the one paying more than you to equal out the advantage of time you have that I don't.
And so, I take my wife and family to disneyworld, and let's say in this scenario, you are my real life friend. You got to raid and get gear and so forth while on my vacation. I get back and you say, 'dude, go to the cash shop so you can get an xp potion to catch up with me". I say, 'damn straight, because you and I want to play video games together'.
And the tambor of this thread is that I am somehow a morally deficient person because I 'paid for advantage'. BS. I paid a little bit extra to catch up with my buddy who I've played mmo's with for 10 years. It's my money - who is anyone to judge my moral character based on paying 5 extra bucks for an xp potion. It is silly.
These games exist and will continue to exist and probably grow in size because there are simply more gamers who have a 'normal' schedule to play video games.
There are still games out there that cater to those who have the time to play. They will also continue to exist. And I'm glad. I remember my EQ days most fondly of all, but I was single and in my twenties and I had a ton of time to devote to gaming. I wouldn't take away that type of game for anything. But that demographic is small. Small small. That's why the initial gamers of the late 90s and early 21st century numbered no more than say 1 million total. So we can extrapolate that of the gaming comunity, only about 1 million (out of what? 20 million, 30 million, 100 million gamers) have the time to devote to those types of games.
So let's keep developing those games to meet that demographic. They will still exist, but it will be a lot fewer and a lot further between because the market simply won't bare more.
And at the same time, there will be more rmt games of all varieties because the vast majority of mmo's don't have the 'time' to be purists anymore. But damn if I'm going to have to give up mmo gaming because a small percentage of the gaming population doesn't like me spending 5 bucks to catch up with my rl buddy. Screw that.
Again I say, I'm glad the free market doesn't work that way.
There is another model as well....games that aren't primarly based upon power progression (or that have an easly reachable cap). For instance in Chess...you pawn doesn't gain +50 to attack just because you've played 100 hours.
Thus you aren't at a mechanical disadvantage against other players.... or unable to play with friends who have different amounts of play time to devote to the game... the only thing which play time may impact might be the players knowledge/understanding of the game itself.
Personaly I'm looking for more of those types of games myself....sadly they seem to be somewhat limited in availability of offerings.
No that isn't what I meant at all, in any way, shape or form.
I meant that games that offer some sort of real market trade allow me to buy experience potions to catch up with you. I am the one paying more than you to equal out the advantage of time you have that I don't.
But what about the people that do have the time advantage AND buy those experience potions. That puts you at a greater disadvantage by forcing you to spend even more on potions to keep up with them. So while you buy even more potion (basically changing the game into a pay to win scenario) that player with little time and little money is left even further behind.
Basically its a slippery slope that I beleive a game is better for not treading on.
That's definately true - when we gain more freedom, people freely choose to do things we don't approve of. I don't lose sleep over it - there always have been and always will be people playing mmo's more hardcore than me, they will always be ahead of me in content and gear, no matter what the price structure.
The implication is that somehow these people 'cheated' to 'win'. But there is no 'winning' an mmo. So the guy with time and money beats you to the big boss at end game, and you don't get there for 2 weeks. Do you really feel he unfairly 'beat' you? Are you competing against other players or the mobs?
Do you really feel, 'damn if it werent for the people paying money, I WOULD BE KING'. Of course you aren't. Those who get to the end game first aren't the 'winners' they are the ones who did it first. Who cares if they bought xp potions or whatever to get there. I wasn't the first of anything in EQ, EQ2, vanilla WoW, or any game that didn't have a cash shop and I just had to get used to it that there would always be those more hardcore than me.
I can gaurentee you that those players who use RMT to maximize advantage, maximize advantage no matter what the pay structure is. Without the RMT, you still won't 'beat' these people to end game, they are simply more hardcore than you or I or most everyone else.
If you really feel that RMT's give an unfair advantage - play a game without them, show business that it is still a model they can make a profit from.
But the free market is telling business right now that there are more people who don't mind RMTs than people who do.
To lambast the developers for developing games that we enjoy playing with a pay structure that makes them money.....or to try and convince millions upon millions of RMT players they are immoral bad sport cheaters.......
Or to act as if one is more noble, more skilled, more badass because they had 10 hours of gameplay vs. my 3 hours....you aren't 'winning the mmo'. You win battles. You win quests. You win dungeons. You have individual victories. You don't win WoW.
It just all seems petty to me.
P.S.
I do however have to clarify that I do not believe in having to buy 'gear' to complete content. I strongly believe that everything to be the most uber player is available in game. I do have a line I draw and it is when I can't 'win' the sword of uber strength, I have to buy it. But I don't care that there are games out there. If that is what works for some, great. I don't lose sleep over those games existance however much I disagree with their pay structure, I simply don't play those games. Every game that releases doesn't have to be for 'me'. I want there to be so many games to choose from, with so many different pay structures that we can all play a game that is right for us; and I'd love to see different demographic segmants of the gaming community stop berating the developers everytime they make a game for someone elses demographic. They make them because we buy them - to them that signals we enjoy them. It is not the developers to blame, the anti-RMT people should really just admit that they can't come to terms that most gamers disagree with them, at least with their wallets.
I think that many of us "anti-RMT" people are just pubilcaly expressing our market preferences...just as any other consumer would do on a hobby forum devoted to thier hobby.
I would also forward that it is NOT just a question of Publishers FOLLOWING market trends. There are many instances where industries/businesses try to PUSH market trends as well. This often occurs when a business/industry see's an opportunity to increase it's revenue stream or gain an alternate revenue stream and percieves that there might be significant consumer sentiment against such activity. It's well known the industries/businesses engage in PR to try to sway consumer opinion into accepting such practices. This can be done in a number of different ways....either articals or position pieces that try to rationalize or highlight the "positives" of such practices....or publication that the "Majority Sentiment" really is accepting of such practice....thus trying to present to those consumers who are resistant that they are being "unreasonable" or are isolated in thier opinion. It's a sort of "herd" tactic.....many people are sometimes a little uncomfortable if they percieve that thier opinions are "isolated" or outliers from the norm....it's the reason why "Push Polls" exist in other venues.
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything....but note the number of articles here (and elsewhere) that present a positive spin on RMT and FTP trends. I think the articles on this site are something like 95% favorable to RMT and FTP.... whether that's representative of the gaming audience as a whole or not I don't know....but simply judging from posts and polls here it is decidedly NOT representative of THIS sites audience..... whether the Majority of MMORPG.COM's readership is in favor of RMT/FTP....I'll leave open to debate...but it is decidedly NOT 20:1 unreservedly in favor for this audience. Yet that generaly is the tenor and nature of the articles presented here on the subject..... so I think you are also seeing a little bit of pushback from some of the readership here simply do to that.
No that isn't what I meant at all, in any way, shape or form.
I meant that games that offer some sort of real market trade allow me to buy experience potions to catch up with you. I am the one paying more than you to equal out the advantage of time you have that I don't.
But what about the people that do have the time advantage AND buy those experience potions. That puts you at a greater disadvantage by forcing you to spend even more on potions to keep up with them. So while you buy even more potion (basically changing the game into a pay to win scenario) that player with little time and little money is left even further behind.
Basically its a slippery slope that I beleive a game is better for not treading on.
Why do you need to keep up with them? you are not at war with anyone on your server at any time where exp matters (structured pvp is the only place you fight people from your server and your max level gear stat)
in pve if your friends leveling Faster/Slower than you you side kick up or down to them. WvW you are max level. So i just dont see the point as where i have to stay on a leveling pace or ill be left behind. I may have a few less traits or lower level gear for a little while but its my choice to enter WvW at whatever level i want. if i enter at level 20 then thats on me
Note it's not neccesarly just PvP that is effected. Dev's tend to adjust difficulty of content and also "level of grind" in PVE games based upon what they percieve is the "norm" or "average" for thier expected player base. Thus if alot of people are playing the game with certain purchased "enhancements" it WILL effect your play of the game as well....because the Dev's will adjust the game based what those other players are doing.
In many instances they often do this PURPOSEFULLY in order to incentivize purchasing behavior and increase thier revenue stream. There is ALOT of pressure from above, in many cases, upon system designers and developers to do JUST this sort of thing. It may happen subtlely and gradualy....but don't kid yourself that this is not a regular topic of discussion in back-room design meetings.... and often one that devs/designers are overruled on even when they clearly articulate the kind of negative effects it will have on the design, the player experience and the longevity of the game.
Note it's not neccesarly just PvP that is effected. Dev's tend to adjust difficulty of content and also "level of grind" in PVE games based upon what they percieve is the "norm" or "average" for thier expected player base. Thus if alot of people are playing the game with certain purchased "enhancements" it WILL effect your play of the game as well....because the Dev's will adjust the game based what those other players are doing.
In many instances they often do this PURPOSEFULLY in order to incentivize purchasing behavior and increase thier revenue stream. There is ALOT of pressure from above, in many cases, upon system designers and developers to do JUST this sort of thing. It may happen subtlely and gradualy....but don't kid yourself that this is not a regular topic of discussion in back-room design meetings.... and often one that devs/designers are overruled on even when they clearly articulate the kind of negative effects it will have on the design, the player experience and the longevity of the game.
I think you're sorely mistaken to think that there even is a "norm" or "average." One person's norm is drastically different than anothers, and they should both be catered to. XP bonuses is one way to do this.
However, you are correct that there is incentive for developers to intentionally amplify the time required to accomplish something in order to raise the value of xp boosts. I think the exact same incentive exists in subscription games to increase subscription times.
In either case it's up to the game providers (publisher,developer,etc.) to provide a fair, honorable cost structure, and up to the players to accept or reject that structure. But those need to be looked at on individual bases, instead of applying a blanket "all cash shops bad" or "all subs bad" reasoning.
Note it's not neccesarly just PvP that is effected. Dev's tend to adjust difficulty of content and also "level of grind" in PVE games based upon what they percieve is the "norm" or "average" for thier expected player base. Thus if alot of people are playing the game with certain purchased "enhancements" it WILL effect your play of the game as well....because the Dev's will adjust the game based what those other players are doing.
In many instances they often do this PURPOSEFULLY in order to incentivize purchasing behavior and increase thier revenue stream. There is ALOT of pressure from above, in many cases, upon system designers and developers to do JUST this sort of thing. It may happen subtlely and gradualy....but don't kid yourself that this is not a regular topic of discussion in back-room design meetings.... and often one that devs/designers are overruled on even when they clearly articulate the kind of negative effects it will have on the design, the player experience and the longevity of the game.
I think you're sorely mistaken to think that there even is a "norm" or "average." One person's norm is drastically different than anothers, and they should both be catered to. XP bonuses is one way to do this.
However, you are correct that there is incentive for developers to intentionally amplify the time required to accomplish something in order to raise the value of xp boosts. I think the exact same incentive exists in subscription games to increase subscription times.
In either case it's up to the game providers (publisher,developer,etc.) to provide a fair, honorable cost structure, and up to the players to accept or reject that structure. But those need to be looked at on individual bases, instead of applying a blanket "all cash shops bad" or "all subs bad" reasoning.
Oh there absolutely is....otherwise Dev's cant....
1) Determine that a Level 42 troll has X number of hit points and has an attack strength of Y....and is therefore able to provide an "appropriate" level of challenge for a level 42 player. Dev's take into calculation what capabilities they believe the "typical" player might go into that encounter with....and if they believe the "typical" player will have purchased enhancements then they'll take those into account when designing the encounter.
2) Determine how long/how much effort it SHOULD take the average player to accomplish some goal....and match that with thier schedule for producing additional content/updates/expansions. Dev's, in progression focused games, generaly don't want people sitting around with nothing to accomplish/advance so they'll try to tailor just how long/how much effort it takes to achieve some goal to work with thier release schedule so that the "typical" player isn't sitting around for too long without something to advance. Again if purchased enhancements effect this....then they'll take it into account in thier design.
Players may vary quite widely from one to another....but when working with metrics...there IS such a thing as a median or average or typical user.... and developers will take that into account in thier designs.
If the point of life is to be selfless and altruistic, why would I ever pay for an advantage?
because the point of video games is NOT to be selfless and altruistic. It is to have fun.
But whenever a community of people get together, on videogames or otherwise, the basic ethical principals will still apply. For example, it might be fun to be a ninja looter, but it's the opposite of altruism and everyone will hate you. OR it might be fun to be a Player Killer against the noobs, but again it's the opposite of altruism and people will try to get you to stop.
Or it might be fun to buy out the cash shop and be #1, but you'll have once again done the opposite of altruism. By taking advantages unrelated to the game, such as personal IRL wealth, and applied it to the game, you have shown that you will spend money to be #1... It's not the same as say, buying an expensive car, or subscribing to a health club. It's spending money to literally beat other people at a game. It would be like using real life money to buy more Monopoly Money, or using real life money to buy more soldiers in Risk, etc. etc.
And that's why I won't ever pay for an advantage on a game!
Note it's not neccesarly just PvP that is effected. Dev's tend to adjust difficulty of content and also "level of grind" in PVE games based upon what they percieve is the "norm" or "average" for thier expected player base. Thus if alot of people are playing the game with certain purchased "enhancements" it WILL effect your play of the game as well....because the Dev's will adjust the game based what those other players are doing. In many instances they often do this PURPOSEFULLY in order to incentivize purchasing behavior and increase thier revenue stream. There is ALOT of pressure from above, in many cases, upon system designers and developers to do JUST this sort of thing. It may happen subtlely and gradualy....but don't kid yourself that this is not a regular topic of discussion in back-room design meetings.... and often one that devs/designers are overruled on even when they clearly articulate the kind of negative effects it will have on the design, the player experience and the longevity of the game.
I think you're sorely mistaken to think that there even is a "norm" or "average." One person's norm is drastically different than anothers, and they should both be catered to. XP bonuses is one way to do this.
However, you are correct that there is incentive for developers to intentionally amplify the time required to accomplish something in order to raise the value of xp boosts. I think the exact same incentive exists in subscription games to increase subscription times.
In either case it's up to the game providers (publisher,developer,etc.) to provide a fair, honorable cost structure, and up to the players to accept or reject that structure. But those need to be looked at on individual bases, instead of applying a blanket "all cash shops bad" or "all subs bad" reasoning.
Oh there absolutely is....otherwise Dev's cant....
1) Determine that a Level 42 troll has X number of hit points and has an attack strength of Y....and is therefore able to provide an "appropriate" level of challenge for a level 42 player. Dev's take into calculation what capabilities they believe the "typical" player might go into that encounter with....and if they believe the "typical" player will have purchased enhancements then they'll take those into account when designing the encounter.
2) Determine how long/how much effort it SHOULD take the average player to accomplish some goal....and match that with thier schedule for producing additional content/updates/expansions. Dev's, in progression focused games, generaly don't want people sitting around with nothing to accomplish/advance so they'll try to tailor just how long/how much effort it takes to achieve some goal to work with thier release schedule so that the "typical" player isn't sitting around for too long without something to advance. Again if purchased enhancements effect this....then they'll take it into account in thier design.
Players may vary quite widely from one to another....but when working with metrics...there IS such a thing as a median or average or typical user.... and developers will take that into account in thier designs.
After all Without doing that work Devs can't set the game mechanics to not obviously force you into buying the shop goods but instead to consistently nickel and dime you without making you feel bad about it.
Note it's not neccesarly just PvP that is effected. Dev's tend to adjust difficulty of content and also "level of grind" in PVE games based upon what they percieve is the "norm" or "average" for thier expected player base. Thus if alot of people are playing the game with certain purchased "enhancements" it WILL effect your play of the game as well....because the Dev's will adjust the game based what those other players are doing.
In many instances they often do this PURPOSEFULLY in order to incentivize purchasing behavior and increase thier revenue stream. There is ALOT of pressure from above, in many cases, upon system designers and developers to do JUST this sort of thing. It may happen subtlely and gradualy....but don't kid yourself that this is not a regular topic of discussion in back-room design meetings.... and often one that devs/designers are overruled on even when they clearly articulate the kind of negative effects it will have on the design, the player experience and the longevity of the game.
I think you're sorely mistaken to think that there even is a "norm" or "average." One person's norm is drastically different than anothers, and they should both be catered to. XP bonuses is one way to do this.
However, you are correct that there is incentive for developers to intentionally amplify the time required to accomplish something in order to raise the value of xp boosts. I think the exact same incentive exists in subscription games to increase subscription times.
In either case it's up to the game providers (publisher,developer,etc.) to provide a fair, honorable cost structure, and up to the players to accept or reject that structure. But those need to be looked at on individual bases, instead of applying a blanket "all cash shops bad" or "all subs bad" reasoning.
Note, I'm not trying to say that "All cash shops bad" but adding a cash shop does have design/business implications that are very different from a pure sub-based model....
In a pure sub-based model, the amount of revenue that you recieve is FIXED regardless of what the user does with thier subscription. You recieve your $15 per month revenue whether the user plays 2 hours per month or 240. You recieve that revenue REGARDLESS of what the player does while they are playing as well. In fact, the player playing LESS per month is actualy more profitable for you because they use up fewer operating resources when doing so (i.e. CPU Cycles, Bandwidth, CS requests, etc). But your main concern really is just to keep the player interested/entertained enough to maintain thier subcription and play again next month.
In a RMT based model, you have an additional consideration. The amount of revenue you recieve is VARIABLE dependant upon how the user interacts with the product. Namely the more the user engages in purchasing behavior (RMT) in the cash shop the MORE REVENUE you make....upto a potentialy INFINITE amount. A user that spends $150 per month is 10 times as proffitable as a user who spends $15. As every business wants to maximize proffit, there is alot of pressure to try to push purchasing behavior in the product....upto the maximum the user will tolerate in fact....because that translates directly to revenue. That naturaly is going to effect design considerations.... and it's going to be a very different (and more complicated) set of considerations then simply trying to get the user to return next month.... you are trying to control/influence the users behavior to a much finer degree then in the sub-based model. Now obviously a smart RMT game will try to make sure the push of purchasing behavior isn't so extreme that it will drive the average player away....but that a much more complicated and nuanced calculation to have to make....and much easier to get wrong.
If cash shops that offer said items are Pay2Win....What about "Vet Rewartds"?....Hmmmmmm...Are they not simply the same thing? Take for example the CIty series. For years NC has offered Vet Rewards that give access to abilities that VERY much offer an advantage. AM I to believe that there is/was outrage over these?...NO...
SO to the OP: Yes lets be honest, the only advantages "we" don't like to seen "paid" for are ones "we" don't want to pay for. If "you" don't like how a publisher chooses to market their product, don't buy/play it.
Basically you want for people to pay lots of their hard earned money into keeping the games you enjoy (and probably play while they earn said hard earned money) and want to keep playing alive yet you want for them not to gain any really noticeable or advantageous benefit out of it because then you feel cheated on.
I voted no but I disagree with your definition of pay to win. I would agree with 3 and 4. Anything that provides a solid, comparable statistical advantage is unfair. XP boosts etc I think are merely convenient, so I completely disagree with 1 and 2, largely due to the way you've worded them and the bias that's been included.
The whole problem with this debate is where the goal posts are. You'll never get everyone to agree on what's pay to win and what isn't. That being said I have never bought anything from a game's cash shop, and if I find that progression becomes hindered by that I have stopped playing the game.
Would you find experience boosts simply a "matter of convenience" in a competitive open PvP MMORPG? Would you disagree that leveling faster/gaining more gold/gaining better armor through various consuambles that increase your XP gain, gold gain, and probability at finding quality gear would constitute an advantage in the hypothetical game world?
And 4 posts in to your own thread you are breaking your own rules and are 'discussing the goalposts'. Kind of hard to take you seriously when a) you have an agenda and b) try to prohibit discussion that could hinder that agenda.
Sadly the world is not binary either. League of Legends (the largest multiplayer online game on the planet) has a cash shop that to me seems aceptable, (I don't really play myself cause Im crap, but my son does). By your rather strict definition it is 'pay 2 win' as you can buy character unlocks, not many would agree however. So LoL OK - but most Nexon/Frogster/Gpotato are clearly not OK.
2) Determine how long/how much effort it SHOULD take the average player to accomplish some goal....and match that with thier schedule for producing additional content/updates/expansions. Dev's, in progression focused games, generaly don't want people sitting around with nothing to accomplish/advance so they'll try to tailor just how long/how much effort it takes to achieve some goal to work with thier release schedule so that the "typical" player isn't sitting around for too long without something to advance. Again if purchased enhancements effect this....then they'll take it into account in thier design.
Players may vary quite widely from one to another....but when working with metrics...there IS such a thing as a median or average or typical user.... and developers will take that into account in thier designs.
For your first point I don't think it's related to time spent if we can get away from the power must = time spent model.
For this second point, I do agree with you to a point, but I also want you to acknowledge that it's a specific playerbase that does not want to be sitting around for too long without something to advance: Progressionists. Subscription games fit very well for this. However, if you are not necessarily targetting Progressionists (which as you can see here a lot of people aren't), the need to be constantly advancing goes away.
Also, the amount of effort it SHOULD take for the average player could hamper the experience for the below median player, in which case offering a way to speed up the progression would benefit the player and the developer both.
So yes, if you're targetting the same market as WoW, this is important. Otherwise it's not.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
In a pure sub-based model, the amount of revenue that you recieve is FIXED regardless of what the user does with thier subscription. You recieve your $15 per month revenue whether the user plays 2 hours per month or 240. You recieve that revenue REGARDLESS of what the player does while they are playing as well. In fact, the player playing LESS per month is actualy more profitable for you because they use up fewer operating resources when doing so (i.e. CPU Cycles, Bandwidth, CS requests, etc). But your main concern really is just to keep the player interested/entertained enough to maintain thier subcription and play again next month.
Agree with RMT info (though I'm pro RMT myself). However, this reasoning is flawed. You're not considering player limitations on time, and how they affect subscription length.
If a player plays 2 hours per month, you can artificially extend the progression timeline (which is already done, grossly) in order to make it so he has to sub for 2 years before he ever sees mid-range content.
The same motivation is there for both business models.
2) Determine how long/how much effort it SHOULD take the average player to accomplish some goal....and match that with thier schedule for producing additional content/updates/expansions. Dev's, in progression focused games, generaly don't want people sitting around with nothing to accomplish/advance so they'll try to tailor just how long/how much effort it takes to achieve some goal to work with thier release schedule so that the "typical" player isn't sitting around for too long without something to advance. Again if purchased enhancements effect this....then they'll take it into account in thier design.
Players may vary quite widely from one to another....but when working with metrics...there IS such a thing as a median or average or typical user.... and developers will take that into account in thier designs.
For your first point I don't think it's related to time spent if we can get away from the power must = time spent model.
For this second point, I do agree with you to a point, but I also want you to acknowledge that it's a specific playerbase that does not want to be sitting around for too long without something to advance: Progressionists. Subscription games fit very well for this. However, if you are not necessarily targetting Progressionists (which as you can see here a lot of people aren't), the need to be constantly advancing goes away.
Also, the amount of effort it SHOULD take for the average player could hamper the experience for the below median player, in which case offering a way to speed up the progression would benefit the player and the developer both.
So yes, if you're targetting the same market as WoW, this is important. Otherwise it's not.
Originally posted by GrumpyMel2
In a pure sub-based model, the amount of revenue that you recieve is FIXED regardless of what the user does with thier subscription. You recieve your $15 per month revenue whether the user plays 2 hours per month or 240. You recieve that revenue REGARDLESS of what the player does while they are playing as well. In fact, the player playing LESS per month is actualy more profitable for you because they use up fewer operating resources when doing so (i.e. CPU Cycles, Bandwidth, CS requests, etc). But your main concern really is just to keep the player interested/entertained enough to maintain thier subcription and play again next month.
Agree with RMT info (though I'm pro RMT myself). However, this reasoning is flawed. You're not considering player limitations on time, and how they affect subscription length.
If a player plays 2 hours per month, you can artificially extend the progression timeline (which is already done, grossly) in order to make it so he has to sub for 2 years before he ever sees mid-range content.
The same motivation is there for both business models.
Not really. Both models have motivation to retain the customer so they can gain recurring revenue....but RMT has the additional motivation of pushing the user into purchasing behavior WHILE he's playing.
Sub-based they pretty much don't care what the player is doing WHILE he's playing...as long as he returns to play next month. They may care how long it takes before the player consumes all the content (i.e. see's everything there is to see and does everything there is to do) because that influences when they'll need to introduce new content...which has a cost associated with it.
RMT cares about that AND how frequently the player clicks the "BUY" button while playing. A player who consumes X content while pressing BUY 50 times is MUCH better for them then a player who only clicks it 10 times which in turn is much better then one who never clicks it. So thier design attempts to push that behavior.
Note also, because of the way capital works....a business VASTLY prefers making $1000 from a customer over the course of 1 month then over the course of 10 years... because the business can turn around and use that $1000 to invest once they get it.
Sub-based they pretty much don't care what the player is doing WHILE he's playing...as long as he returns to play next month. They may care how long it takes before the player consumes all the content (i.e. see's everything there is to see and does everything there is to do) because that influences when they'll need to introduce new content...which has a cost associated with it.
And what can sub models commonly do to ensure that he will return to play next month? Artificially extend the progression cycle. This is accomplished through things like increased travel time, gear progression, etc. It's a very basic and obvious thing we're talking about here, and a very common practice.
Plus the "need" to introduce new content often injects more revenue into the system, and is considered a good thing, not a bad thing.
No. I am not comfortable with purchasable advantages through a CashShop.
The reasons are numerous, but mainly because any game is a Controlled Environment based on calculated results by nature and therefore can be manipulated at will to yield any desired result in advantage of player X versus player Y.
Now you may say that this is no different than a newbie starting off today and trying to go against a veteran player that has been playing for a year. But it is not, because at one point the newbie will also graduate to veteranship and will be able to catch up to the veteran and the factors of the differences equalised as far as the calulated portion of the gameplay is concerned.
When you offer unequal advantages for real cash you are looking to make money as a business but at the same time you are introducing in to your game unequal elements, and a way for some players to cheat their way to them using their wallet.
It can even be argued that the practice is based on an unnethical principle, yet lets not go to that direction at this time.
Plain and simply from a pure gameplay perspective it renders that gameplay unequal between players and most players expect and want systemic equality or balance, so that then their own qualities as players make the difference faced with any given challenge within that game.
Cash shop advantages destroy the systemic equality of players and balance of gameplay. As simple as that.
Does that mean that Microstransactions as a Concept is a flawed one?
Not necessarilly, I beleive it all depends on its implementation. If the Microstransaction Plan is based on some sound principles that the Designer/Dev/Publisher set for their game, in a way as to never offer unequal advantages to players, and only offer, convenience and customisation (cosmetic items), then I think a microtransaction plan can work.
Will it offer the same income opportunities? In the short term no, but in the long term I think yes.
The truth is that many players, I would say most, play in a very coservative way when it comes to real cash, and the moment we know that there is no direct advantage to be had we will prefer the items available within the game and ignore the cash shop. But this up to a point, there comes a time when most players will also like to express own individuality within the virtual world and seek originality. It does take some time to reach that point however.
Yet, to this day I do not beleive that there has been any F2P game which actually was able to wait long enough for a game community to establish itself in a game, grow and prosper within what is offered by default by the game and reach the level of originality and luxury.
If we examine our History the same can be observed by any society upon this planet. The great empires of the ancient world did not start with prosperity, originality and Luxury they started very humbly, many as tribes no different than the next, achieved step by step greatness and once Combat Prowess, Conquest and Glory became things everyone had tasted, experienced and talked about then the next level became greatness via originality, this is when Fashion takes over, this is when Coliseums and Acropilises are built, great and lavishly decorated Palaces and Temples.
The same behavior I beleive works within a virtual world because the behavior is all too Human. Yet, no game has ever given the opportunity to its player base to mature to that level before showering the game with all kinds of Advantage and Unbalancing Offerings.
A B2P game (such as GW2), may actually be able to afford leting the game's population mature enough so that when that population reaches a certain level of it, such as most players having discovered the world and its secrets most players having fought countless battles and most players having experienced the greatest challenges and have had the rewards, then many of these players may seek to pass on to the next level pushed by their own individualism, and hunger for novelty as well as originality to spend a few bucks so that they can be a bit different than the next player besides them, customize their look according to their own world view of and experiences within the virtual world.
So, it depends in the end if a given company can afford to invest to the long term or is out for the short term income.
We shall see what comes, all i know is that I quit playing games that offer such Artificial Advantages for Cash the moment that my own efforts as a player are overtaken by these, it is the signal to me that the game is no longer Balanced or ofering equal opportunity for success to all its players.
- Duke Suraknar - Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
A 13 page thread currently going isnt enough. All the other dozen+ threads on the subject wasnt enough. No we have to have another one to "just simply state their preference to the devs". Maybe another 50 or so threads might make a difference? I do give you credit for attempting to pigeon hole everyone into only agreeing with what you want them to say and others cannot be apart of the conversation LOL.
Yes I am fine with people buying things in a cash shop because it balances with other real life advantages like game time. Oh you may say that my opinion here wont matter because it doesnt fit your little definition of what is and isnt allowed in this discussion but that doesnt make points you disagree with go away.
Comments
I have nothing against cash shops if they just sell aesthetic items like cosmetic clothes and accessories that have no impact on the game. To have option to buy items that will give someone advantage if he purchase them over those that dont is at least to say unfair. Everybody knows why nowdays this happens - money of course. But, publishers forget one thing or dont care, that cash shops with there microtransantions in this way are killers of gameplay. Where are old days when you got to work for something to get, for hours or days, but in the end you would fell good about yourself for accomplishing task and getting that item you need. Today, players just have to give there credit number and instantly they are epic fighters. So lame. To conclude, work for it, work hard or work easy, just work for your mmo character, dont be lazy.
Which is EXACTLY what he intended to do with the thread. "Let's have a discussion, but you must agree with me and MY definitions first." What a crock of shit.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
No offense Badgered but I read this as 'Either agree with me or don't contrubute to this convo'
And while I DO agree with the cash shop thing, this comment makes me want to turn and walk away.
People complain for games not beeing realistic,but when devs start selling advantages in games then even more people complain.
Nothing is more realistic than buying advantages for cash,copied just from the real world.
Paying for advantages just gives the developer a money printing machine, because they appeal to the natural competitive nature of many players. To me, that ruins the integrity of the game.
I have no problem with the idea of a cash shop if it is to provide players with aesthetic options, like clothing or armor appearance, additional hair styles or faces, etc. Items with stats or that give an advantage would not be good for the game though.
First off, let's talk about spin. You put the word "advantages" in there in a format similar to a dicitonary listing. In other words, you intentionally formatted your words to look like fact and not opinion. This will sway people to view anything said therein as being more likely to be factual, because our brains are trained to read certain things certain ways and take back impressions from them. So much for no spin. Moving on. I will address each numbered point in kind
1) The quanitity of those items available in the cash shop vs the amount available in gmae is unknown. However, may I remind you that in game resources can be used to buy gems, which in turn can buy these same items. Quantity is unlimited dependant on market value and the amount of time one wants to put in. That is YOUR decision as a player, not something hard set by game mechanics.
2) Few items in the shop in its present iteration affect game rules. And most, like the IP boosts in LoL, just reduce the amount of time a player needs to earn something they would have earned anyway. And, as in any game with caps, the advantage of that earning things faster narrows as the cap is reached, eventually becoming pointless. Unless, as I have said elsewhere, your goal is to be first. Than your concern is much more valid.
3) No items of this description, thus far, appear to exist in the shop. In addition Anet has said repeatedly this is the sort of thing they do not want. Yes they have the capacity to lie, just as much as you or I do. But, innocent until proven guilty.
4) Thus far the only item we've seen that does that I beleive is the salvage kits. Which, again, can effectively be purchased for in game currency. And whose actually utility in the long run is yet to be determined. This is however a valid concern, for this one item.
That said, I CAN see room for concern. I can NOT see room for panic. For now I observe, and continue to look forward to the game, until something proves to me there's reason to do otherwise.
Something to note, ZOD runes cost about $1.00 each. Plus, who the hell plays normal D2, it's so slow compared to the mods.
P.S. Every game has a hard cash currency, to deny it is ignorance. Even raid mounts from WoW sell for $500.00 USD, that's $500.00 a week, every week.
There is another model as well....games that aren't primarly based upon power progression (or that have an easly reachable cap). For instance in Chess...you pawn doesn't gain +50 to attack just because you've played 100 hours.
Thus you aren't at a mechanical disadvantage against other players.... or unable to play with friends who have different amounts of play time to devote to the game... the only thing which play time may impact might be the players knowledge/understanding of the game itself.
Personaly I'm looking for more of those types of games myself....sadly they seem to be somewhat limited in availability of offerings.
I think that many of us "anti-RMT" people are just pubilcaly expressing our market preferences...just as any other consumer would do on a hobby forum devoted to thier hobby.
I would also forward that it is NOT just a question of Publishers FOLLOWING market trends. There are many instances where industries/businesses try to PUSH market trends as well. This often occurs when a business/industry see's an opportunity to increase it's revenue stream or gain an alternate revenue stream and percieves that there might be significant consumer sentiment against such activity. It's well known the industries/businesses engage in PR to try to sway consumer opinion into accepting such practices. This can be done in a number of different ways....either articals or position pieces that try to rationalize or highlight the "positives" of such practices....or publication that the "Majority Sentiment" really is accepting of such practice....thus trying to present to those consumers who are resistant that they are being "unreasonable" or are isolated in thier opinion. It's a sort of "herd" tactic.....many people are sometimes a little uncomfortable if they percieve that thier opinions are "isolated" or outliers from the norm....it's the reason why "Push Polls" exist in other venues.
I'm not saying it's a conspiracy or anything....but note the number of articles here (and elsewhere) that present a positive spin on RMT and FTP trends. I think the articles on this site are something like 95% favorable to RMT and FTP.... whether that's representative of the gaming audience as a whole or not I don't know....but simply judging from posts and polls here it is decidedly NOT representative of THIS sites audience..... whether the Majority of MMORPG.COM's readership is in favor of RMT/FTP....I'll leave open to debate...but it is decidedly NOT 20:1 unreservedly in favor for this audience. Yet that generaly is the tenor and nature of the articles presented here on the subject..... so I think you are also seeing a little bit of pushback from some of the readership here simply do to that.
Note it's not neccesarly just PvP that is effected. Dev's tend to adjust difficulty of content and also "level of grind" in PVE games based upon what they percieve is the "norm" or "average" for thier expected player base. Thus if alot of people are playing the game with certain purchased "enhancements" it WILL effect your play of the game as well....because the Dev's will adjust the game based what those other players are doing.
In many instances they often do this PURPOSEFULLY in order to incentivize purchasing behavior and increase thier revenue stream. There is ALOT of pressure from above, in many cases, upon system designers and developers to do JUST this sort of thing. It may happen subtlely and gradualy....but don't kid yourself that this is not a regular topic of discussion in back-room design meetings.... and often one that devs/designers are overruled on even when they clearly articulate the kind of negative effects it will have on the design, the player experience and the longevity of the game.
If the point of life is to be selfless and altruistic, why would I ever pay for an advantage?
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
I think you're sorely mistaken to think that there even is a "norm" or "average." One person's norm is drastically different than anothers, and they should both be catered to. XP bonuses is one way to do this.
However, you are correct that there is incentive for developers to intentionally amplify the time required to accomplish something in order to raise the value of xp boosts. I think the exact same incentive exists in subscription games to increase subscription times.
In either case it's up to the game providers (publisher,developer,etc.) to provide a fair, honorable cost structure, and up to the players to accept or reject that structure. But those need to be looked at on individual bases, instead of applying a blanket "all cash shops bad" or "all subs bad" reasoning.
because the point of video games is NOT to be selfless and altruistic. It is to have fun.
Oh there absolutely is....otherwise Dev's cant....
1) Determine that a Level 42 troll has X number of hit points and has an attack strength of Y....and is therefore able to provide an "appropriate" level of challenge for a level 42 player. Dev's take into calculation what capabilities they believe the "typical" player might go into that encounter with....and if they believe the "typical" player will have purchased enhancements then they'll take those into account when designing the encounter.
2) Determine how long/how much effort it SHOULD take the average player to accomplish some goal....and match that with thier schedule for producing additional content/updates/expansions. Dev's, in progression focused games, generaly don't want people sitting around with nothing to accomplish/advance so they'll try to tailor just how long/how much effort it takes to achieve some goal to work with thier release schedule so that the "typical" player isn't sitting around for too long without something to advance. Again if purchased enhancements effect this....then they'll take it into account in thier design.
Players may vary quite widely from one to another....but when working with metrics...there IS such a thing as a median or average or typical user.... and developers will take that into account in thier designs.
But whenever a community of people get together, on videogames or otherwise, the basic ethical principals will still apply. For example, it might be fun to be a ninja looter, but it's the opposite of altruism and everyone will hate you. OR it might be fun to be a Player Killer against the noobs, but again it's the opposite of altruism and people will try to get you to stop.
Or it might be fun to buy out the cash shop and be #1, but you'll have once again done the opposite of altruism. By taking advantages unrelated to the game, such as personal IRL wealth, and applied it to the game, you have shown that you will spend money to be #1... It's not the same as say, buying an expensive car, or subscribing to a health club. It's spending money to literally beat other people at a game. It would be like using real life money to buy more Monopoly Money, or using real life money to buy more soldiers in Risk, etc. etc.
And that's why I won't ever pay for an advantage on a game!
Taru-Gallante-Blood elf-Elysean-Kelari-Crime Fighting-Imperial Agent
I think you're sorely mistaken to think that there even is a "norm" or "average." One person's norm is drastically different than anothers, and they should both be catered to. XP bonuses is one way to do this.
However, you are correct that there is incentive for developers to intentionally amplify the time required to accomplish something in order to raise the value of xp boosts. I think the exact same incentive exists in subscription games to increase subscription times.
In either case it's up to the game providers (publisher,developer,etc.) to provide a fair, honorable cost structure, and up to the players to accept or reject that structure. But those need to be looked at on individual bases, instead of applying a blanket "all cash shops bad" or "all subs bad" reasoning.
Oh there absolutely is....otherwise Dev's cant....
1) Determine that a Level 42 troll has X number of hit points and has an attack strength of Y....and is therefore able to provide an "appropriate" level of challenge for a level 42 player. Dev's take into calculation what capabilities they believe the "typical" player might go into that encounter with....and if they believe the "typical" player will have purchased enhancements then they'll take those into account when designing the encounter.
2) Determine how long/how much effort it SHOULD take the average player to accomplish some goal....and match that with thier schedule for producing additional content/updates/expansions. Dev's, in progression focused games, generaly don't want people sitting around with nothing to accomplish/advance so they'll try to tailor just how long/how much effort it takes to achieve some goal to work with thier release schedule so that the "typical" player isn't sitting around for too long without something to advance. Again if purchased enhancements effect this....then they'll take it into account in thier design.
Players may vary quite widely from one to another....but when working with metrics...there IS such a thing as a median or average or typical user.... and developers will take that into account in thier designs.
After all Without doing that work Devs can't set the game mechanics to not obviously force you into buying the shop goods but instead to consistently nickel and dime you without making you feel bad about it.Note, I'm not trying to say that "All cash shops bad" but adding a cash shop does have design/business implications that are very different from a pure sub-based model....
In a pure sub-based model, the amount of revenue that you recieve is FIXED regardless of what the user does with thier subscription. You recieve your $15 per month revenue whether the user plays 2 hours per month or 240. You recieve that revenue REGARDLESS of what the player does while they are playing as well. In fact, the player playing LESS per month is actualy more profitable for you because they use up fewer operating resources when doing so (i.e. CPU Cycles, Bandwidth, CS requests, etc). But your main concern really is just to keep the player interested/entertained enough to maintain thier subcription and play again next month.
In a RMT based model, you have an additional consideration. The amount of revenue you recieve is VARIABLE dependant upon how the user interacts with the product. Namely the more the user engages in purchasing behavior (RMT) in the cash shop the MORE REVENUE you make....upto a potentialy INFINITE amount. A user that spends $150 per month is 10 times as proffitable as a user who spends $15. As every business wants to maximize proffit, there is alot of pressure to try to push purchasing behavior in the product....upto the maximum the user will tolerate in fact....because that translates directly to revenue. That naturaly is going to effect design considerations.... and it's going to be a very different (and more complicated) set of considerations then simply trying to get the user to return next month.... you are trying to control/influence the users behavior to a much finer degree then in the sub-based model. Now obviously a smart RMT game will try to make sure the push of purchasing behavior isn't so extreme that it will drive the average player away....but that a much more complicated and nuanced calculation to have to make....and much easier to get wrong.
I vote yes.
I follow with a question:
If cash shops that offer said items are Pay2Win....What about "Vet Rewartds"?....Hmmmmmm...Are they not simply the same thing? Take for example the CIty series. For years NC has offered Vet Rewards that give access to abilities that VERY much offer an advantage. AM I to believe that there is/was outrage over these?...NO...
SO to the OP: Yes lets be honest, the only advantages "we" don't like to seen "paid" for are ones "we" don't want to pay for. If "you" don't like how a publisher chooses to market their product, don't buy/play it.
So let us see if i get this right.
Basically you want for people to pay lots of their hard earned money into keeping the games you enjoy (and probably play while they earn said hard earned money) and want to keep playing alive yet you want for them not to gain any really noticeable or advantageous benefit out of it because then you feel cheated on.
Yeah, not gonna happen.
Rawr.
And 4 posts in to your own thread you are breaking your own rules and are 'discussing the goalposts'. Kind of hard to take you seriously when a) you have an agenda and b) try to prohibit discussion that could hinder that agenda.
Sadly the world is not binary either. League of Legends (the largest multiplayer online game on the planet) has a cash shop that to me seems aceptable, (I don't really play myself cause Im crap, but my son does). By your rather strict definition it is 'pay 2 win' as you can buy character unlocks, not many would agree however. So LoL OK - but most Nexon/Frogster/Gpotato are clearly not OK.
For your first point I don't think it's related to time spent if we can get away from the power must = time spent model.
For this second point, I do agree with you to a point, but I also want you to acknowledge that it's a specific playerbase that does not want to be sitting around for too long without something to advance: Progressionists. Subscription games fit very well for this. However, if you are not necessarily targetting Progressionists (which as you can see here a lot of people aren't), the need to be constantly advancing goes away.
Also, the amount of effort it SHOULD take for the average player could hamper the experience for the below median player, in which case offering a way to speed up the progression would benefit the player and the developer both.
So yes, if you're targetting the same market as WoW, this is important. Otherwise it's not.
Agree with RMT info (though I'm pro RMT myself). However, this reasoning is flawed. You're not considering player limitations on time, and how they affect subscription length.
If a player plays 2 hours per month, you can artificially extend the progression timeline (which is already done, grossly) in order to make it so he has to sub for 2 years before he ever sees mid-range content.
The same motivation is there for both business models.
Not really. Both models have motivation to retain the customer so they can gain recurring revenue....but RMT has the additional motivation of pushing the user into purchasing behavior WHILE he's playing.
Sub-based they pretty much don't care what the player is doing WHILE he's playing...as long as he returns to play next month. They may care how long it takes before the player consumes all the content (i.e. see's everything there is to see and does everything there is to do) because that influences when they'll need to introduce new content...which has a cost associated with it.
RMT cares about that AND how frequently the player clicks the "BUY" button while playing. A player who consumes X content while pressing BUY 50 times is MUCH better for them then a player who only clicks it 10 times which in turn is much better then one who never clicks it. So thier design attempts to push that behavior.
Note also, because of the way capital works....a business VASTLY prefers making $1000 from a customer over the course of 1 month then over the course of 10 years... because the business can turn around and use that $1000 to invest once they get it.
And what can sub models commonly do to ensure that he will return to play next month? Artificially extend the progression cycle. This is accomplished through things like increased travel time, gear progression, etc. It's a very basic and obvious thing we're talking about here, and a very common practice.
Plus the "need" to introduce new content often injects more revenue into the system, and is considered a good thing, not a bad thing.
No. I am not comfortable with purchasable advantages through a CashShop.
The reasons are numerous, but mainly because any game is a Controlled Environment based on calculated results by nature and therefore can be manipulated at will to yield any desired result in advantage of player X versus player Y.
Now you may say that this is no different than a newbie starting off today and trying to go against a veteran player that has been playing for a year. But it is not, because at one point the newbie will also graduate to veteranship and will be able to catch up to the veteran and the factors of the differences equalised as far as the calulated portion of the gameplay is concerned.
When you offer unequal advantages for real cash you are looking to make money as a business but at the same time you are introducing in to your game unequal elements, and a way for some players to cheat their way to them using their wallet.
It can even be argued that the practice is based on an unnethical principle, yet lets not go to that direction at this time.
Plain and simply from a pure gameplay perspective it renders that gameplay unequal between players and most players expect and want systemic equality or balance, so that then their own qualities as players make the difference faced with any given challenge within that game.
Cash shop advantages destroy the systemic equality of players and balance of gameplay. As simple as that.
Does that mean that Microstransactions as a Concept is a flawed one?
Not necessarilly, I beleive it all depends on its implementation. If the Microstransaction Plan is based on some sound principles that the Designer/Dev/Publisher set for their game, in a way as to never offer unequal advantages to players, and only offer, convenience and customisation (cosmetic items), then I think a microtransaction plan can work.
Will it offer the same income opportunities? In the short term no, but in the long term I think yes.
The truth is that many players, I would say most, play in a very coservative way when it comes to real cash, and the moment we know that there is no direct advantage to be had we will prefer the items available within the game and ignore the cash shop. But this up to a point, there comes a time when most players will also like to express own individuality within the virtual world and seek originality. It does take some time to reach that point however.
Yet, to this day I do not beleive that there has been any F2P game which actually was able to wait long enough for a game community to establish itself in a game, grow and prosper within what is offered by default by the game and reach the level of originality and luxury.
If we examine our History the same can be observed by any society upon this planet. The great empires of the ancient world did not start with prosperity, originality and Luxury they started very humbly, many as tribes no different than the next, achieved step by step greatness and once Combat Prowess, Conquest and Glory became things everyone had tasted, experienced and talked about then the next level became greatness via originality, this is when Fashion takes over, this is when Coliseums and Acropilises are built, great and lavishly decorated Palaces and Temples.
The same behavior I beleive works within a virtual world because the behavior is all too Human. Yet, no game has ever given the opportunity to its player base to mature to that level before showering the game with all kinds of Advantage and Unbalancing Offerings.
A B2P game (such as GW2), may actually be able to afford leting the game's population mature enough so that when that population reaches a certain level of it, such as most players having discovered the world and its secrets most players having fought countless battles and most players having experienced the greatest challenges and have had the rewards, then many of these players may seek to pass on to the next level pushed by their own individualism, and hunger for novelty as well as originality to spend a few bucks so that they can be a bit different than the next player besides them, customize their look according to their own world view of and experiences within the virtual world.
So, it depends in the end if a given company can afford to invest to the long term or is out for the short term income.
We shall see what comes, all i know is that I quit playing games that offer such Artificial Advantages for Cash the moment that my own efforts as a player are overtaken by these, it is the signal to me that the game is no longer Balanced or ofering equal opportunity for success to all its players.
Order of the Silver Star, OSS
ESKA, Playing MMORPG's since Ultima Online 1997 - Order of the Silver Serpent, Atlantic Shard
A 13 page thread currently going isnt enough. All the other dozen+ threads on the subject wasnt enough. No we have to have another one to "just simply state their preference to the devs". Maybe another 50 or so threads might make a difference? I do give you credit for attempting to pigeon hole everyone into only agreeing with what you want them to say and others cannot be apart of the conversation LOL.
Yes I am fine with people buying things in a cash shop because it balances with other real life advantages like game time. Oh you may say that my opinion here wont matter because it doesnt fit your little definition of what is and isnt allowed in this discussion but that doesnt make points you disagree with go away.