Originally posted by VengeSunsoar What about expansions then? Expansions are labor intensive extra pieces developed onto the game that took time and money for art and design. Not reskinned swords with a particle effect that you already payed for. And pre-order itemso or founder items. I think everyone agrees those are mostly BS. But they're timed exclusives, to indicate how long you've been with the game. Not the same deal. It monthly fees for that matter. Are to pay for the server farms that run the game... They all involve extra costs on top of buying the game.
And they're almost all tangible things that in a normal market WOULD get charged extra.
So what?
Each one of those things are extra item, with extra charges beyond the base game that if you want you need to pay extra for.
And in the post above when refering to expansions you stated you were ok with things that were beyond the base game as long as dev work went into it.
Spending 30 dollars on a boxed expansion filled with landmasses, dungeons, armor, weapons, mounts, new classes, new graphics, all things that cost substantial time and effort from the devs. Yes, paying for that makes sense.
A reskinned sword that took 10 minutes of dev work that you CANNOT GET unless you pay 20 dollars? Doesn't make sense.
Why not?
It still took 10 minutes of dev time that could have been put into something else, therefore is above the base game?
You can argue about the price all you want. But the same condition applies - work that was not part of the base game that devs are charging for - one is ok with you, the other is not.
One is part of a major, expensive and cohesive content update.
The other is something plucked out of the game you already payed for, and stuffed into a virtual store. Most FTP MMOs don't have proper expansions, so you're trying to compare two different things.
In a FTP MMO with a subscription option, I'm paying the subscription fee to play the game. I've bought the game and payed for the content. I pay each month for that content. There are no expansions, just updates. A sword gets added into the game.
In the past, FTP worked like this. The sword is incredibly hard to get and would take a lot of effort and players to get it. But you can get it. Or, you can buy it for money on the market.
The ABUSIVE way to do it, is to put a clearly superior sword (whether in stats or art) EXCLUSIVELY on the market where both paying and free players CANNOT access it without paying EXTRA.
Anyone who thinks that's a fair practice to paying customers is clearly just playing devils advocate.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar What about expansions then? Expansions are labor intensive extra pieces developed onto the game that took time and money for art and design. Not reskinned swords with a particle effect that you already payed for. And pre-order itemso or founder items. I think everyone agrees those are mostly BS. But they're timed exclusives, to indicate how long you've been with the game. Not the same deal. It monthly fees for that matter. Are to pay for the server farms that run the game... They all involve extra costs on top of buying the game.
And they're almost all tangible things that in a normal market WOULD get charged extra.
So what?
Each one of those things are extra item, with extra charges beyond the base game that if you want you need to pay extra for.
And in the post above when refering to expansions you stated you were ok with things that were beyond the base game as long as dev work went into it.
Spending 30 dollars on a boxed expansion filled with landmasses, dungeons, armor, weapons, mounts, new classes, new graphics, all things that cost substantial time and effort from the devs. Yes, paying for that makes sense.
A reskinned sword that took 10 minutes of dev work that you CANNOT GET unless you pay 20 dollars? Doesn't make sense.
Why not?
It still took 10 minutes of dev time that could have been put into something else, therefore is above the base game?
You can argue about the price all you want. But the same condition applies - work that was not part of the base game that devs are charging for - one is ok with you, the other is not.
One is part of a major, expensive and cohesive content update.
The other is something plucked out of the game you already payed for, and stuffed into a virtual store. Most FTP MMOs don't have proper expansions, so you're trying to compare two different things.
In a FTP MMO with a subscription option, I'm paying the subscription fee to play the game. I've bought the game and payed for the content. I pay each month for that content. There are no expansions, just updates. A sword gets added into the game.
In the past, FTP worked like this. The sword is incredibly hard to get and would take a lot of effort and players to get it. But you can get it. Or, you can buy it for money on the market.
The ABUSIVE way to do it, is to put a clearly superior sword (whether in stats or art) EXCLUSIVELY on the market where both paying and free players CANNOT access it without paying EXTRA.
Anyone who thinks that's a fair practice to paying customers is clearly just playing devils advocate.
So you would be ok with those thing that make up an expansion being part of an item mall?
Most f2p do not have the clearly superior sword in the cs, actually none of the ones that I've played do that. Can you name one that does?
The sub mmo's have cs now - pretty much all of them giving them the exact same issues as all f2p but you are paying for it.
edit - and I absolutely am playing devil's advocate, however I don't believe there is any fair or unfair issues about it.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar What about expansions then? Expansions are labor intensive extra pieces developed onto the game that took time and money for art and design. Not reskinned swords with a particle effect that you already payed for. And pre-order itemso or founder items. I think everyone agrees those are mostly BS. But they're timed exclusives, to indicate how long you've been with the game. Not the same deal. It monthly fees for that matter. Are to pay for the server farms that run the game... They all involve extra costs on top of buying the game.
And they're almost all tangible things that in a normal market WOULD get charged extra.
So what?
Each one of those things are extra item, with extra charges beyond the base game that if you want you need to pay extra for.
And in the post above when refering to expansions you stated you were ok with things that were beyond the base game as long as dev work went into it.
Spending 30 dollars on a boxed expansion filled with landmasses, dungeons, armor, weapons, mounts, new classes, new graphics, all things that cost substantial time and effort from the devs. Yes, paying for that makes sense.
A reskinned sword that took 10 minutes of dev work that you CANNOT GET unless you pay 20 dollars? Doesn't make sense.
Why not?
It still took 10 minutes of dev time that could have been put into something else, therefore is above the base game?
You can argue about the price all you want. But the same condition applies - work that was not part of the base game that devs are charging for - one is ok with you, the other is not.
One is part of a major, expensive and cohesive content update.
The other is something plucked out of the game you already payed for, and stuffed into a virtual store. Most FTP MMOs don't have proper expansions, so you're trying to compare two different things.
In a FTP MMO with a subscription option, I'm paying the subscription fee to play the game. I've bought the game and payed for the content. I pay each month for that content. There are no expansions, just updates. A sword gets added into the game.
In the past, FTP worked like this. The sword is incredibly hard to get and would take a lot of effort and players to get it. But you can get it. Or, you can buy it for money on the market.
The ABUSIVE way to do it, is to put a clearly superior sword (whether in stats or art) EXCLUSIVELY on the market where both paying and free players CANNOT access it without paying EXTRA.
Anyone who thinks that's a fair practice to paying customers is clearly just playing devils advocate.
So you would be ok with those thing that make up an expansion being part of an item mall?
If I can spend 30 dollars to buy an entire expansion in a package all at once in an item mall through an in game store vs through amazon, sure.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar What about expansions then? Expansions are labor intensive extra pieces developed onto the game that took time and money for art and design. Not reskinned swords with a particle effect that you already payed for. And pre-order itemso or founder items. I think everyone agrees those are mostly BS. But they're timed exclusives, to indicate how long you've been with the game. Not the same deal. It monthly fees for that matter. Are to pay for the server farms that run the game... They all involve extra costs on top of buying the game.
And they're almost all tangible things that in a normal market WOULD get charged extra.
So what?
Each one of those things are extra item, with extra charges beyond the base game that if you want you need to pay extra for.
And in the post above when refering to expansions you stated you were ok with things that were beyond the base game as long as dev work went into it.
Spending 30 dollars on a boxed expansion filled with landmasses, dungeons, armor, weapons, mounts, new classes, new graphics, all things that cost substantial time and effort from the devs. Yes, paying for that makes sense.
A reskinned sword that took 10 minutes of dev work that you CANNOT GET unless you pay 20 dollars? Doesn't make sense.
Why not?
It still took 10 minutes of dev time that could have been put into something else, therefore is above the base game?
You can argue about the price all you want. But the same condition applies - work that was not part of the base game that devs are charging for - one is ok with you, the other is not.
One is part of a major, expensive and cohesive content update.
The other is something plucked out of the game you already payed for, and stuffed into a virtual store. Most FTP MMOs don't have proper expansions, so you're trying to compare two different things.
In a FTP MMO with a subscription option, I'm paying the subscription fee to play the game. I've bought the game and payed for the content. I pay each month for that content. There are no expansions, just updates. A sword gets added into the game.
In the past, FTP worked like this. The sword is incredibly hard to get and would take a lot of effort and players to get it. But you can get it. Or, you can buy it for money on the market.
The ABUSIVE way to do it, is to put a clearly superior sword (whether in stats or art) EXCLUSIVELY on the market where both paying and free players CANNOT access it without paying EXTRA.
Anyone who thinks that's a fair practice to paying customers is clearly just playing devils advocate.
So you would be ok with those thing that make up an expansion being part of an item mall?
If I can spend 30 dollars to buy an entire expansion in a package all at once in an item mall through an in game store vs through amazon, sure.
Ok what about a brand new type and style of armor, never seen in the game before for 50 cents?
or say a brand new race or class for 1 dollar?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Originally posted by VengeSunsoar What about expansions then? Expansions are labor intensive extra pieces developed onto the game that took time and money for art and design. Not reskinned swords with a particle effect that you already payed for. And pre-order itemso or founder items. I think everyone agrees those are mostly BS. But they're timed exclusives, to indicate how long you've been with the game. Not the same deal. It monthly fees for that matter. Are to pay for the server farms that run the game... They all involve extra costs on top of buying the game.
And they're almost all tangible things that in a normal market WOULD get charged extra.
So what?
Each one of those things are extra item, with extra charges beyond the base game that if you want you need to pay extra for.
And in the post above when refering to expansions you stated you were ok with things that were beyond the base game as long as dev work went into it.
Spending 30 dollars on a boxed expansion filled with landmasses, dungeons, armor, weapons, mounts, new classes, new graphics, all things that cost substantial time and effort from the devs. Yes, paying for that makes sense.
A reskinned sword that took 10 minutes of dev work that you CANNOT GET unless you pay 20 dollars? Doesn't make sense.
Why not?
It still took 10 minutes of dev time that could have been put into something else, therefore is above the base game?
You can argue about the price all you want. But the same condition applies - work that was not part of the base game that devs are charging for - one is ok with you, the other is not.
One is part of a major, expensive and cohesive content update.
The other is something plucked out of the game you already payed for, and stuffed into a virtual store. Most FTP MMOs don't have proper expansions, so you're trying to compare two different things.
In a FTP MMO with a subscription option, I'm paying the subscription fee to play the game. I've bought the game and payed for the content. I pay each month for that content. There are no expansions, just updates. A sword gets added into the game.
In the past, FTP worked like this. The sword is incredibly hard to get and would take a lot of effort and players to get it. But you can get it. Or, you can buy it for money on the market.
The ABUSIVE way to do it, is to put a clearly superior sword (whether in stats or art) EXCLUSIVELY on the market where both paying and free players CANNOT access it without paying EXTRA.
Anyone who thinks that's a fair practice to paying customers is clearly just playing devils advocate.
So you would be ok with those thing that make up an expansion being part of an item mall?
If I can spend 30 dollars to buy an entire expansion in a package all at once in an item mall through an in game store vs through amazon, sure.
Ok what about a brand new type and style of armor, never seen in the game before for 50 cents?
or say a brand new race or class for 1 dollar?
Race or class? Sure.
Armor? I wouldn't mind paying to unlock access to it. But I'd much rather have the ability to EARN it through playing the game. As progression and aquiring items is the main draw of most of these games.
Armor? I wouldn't mind paying to unlock access to it. But I'd much rather have the ability to EARN it through playing the game. As progression and aquiring items is the main draw of most of these games.
Excellent. So now that we've established you don't object to the cash shop back to the orginal question.
What would you find acceptable to charge for in a cs (so in a f2p game)?
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
I'm not a fan of the F2P model period. However an acceptable answer to me would be access to content. So you get access to some of the base zones of the game for free, others as well as quests and dungeons you purchase access for. LOTRO did something similar and if that was the totality of thier cash shop I wouldn't have objected. I would also consider races and classes that have to be purchased to be unlocked acceptable as long as they are balanced with the other races and classes in the game, not clearly superior just different. Customization options in terms of appearance in character creation would be ok as well.
Honestly, in most games, the faction opposed to cash shops come across as having their undies in a bunch over absolutely nothing. The real question is how does *your* experience change as the result of somebody else buying something on the cash shop? What is it that is suddenly different about the way you play the game as the result of something being sold on the cash shop, as opposed to when that shop didn't exist? With a very small number of exceptions, people opposed to cash shops don't seem able to answer these questions with anything that makes their opposition sound rational.
A cash shop could sell an item that lets somebody one shot every NPC enemy in the game, and guess what? If you don't buy it, and you don't group with anybody who did, then *your* experience is exactly the same as if that item didn't exist. The only things that it's rational to oppose the sale of are things that allow a player to cause a direct negative impact on another player's experience of the game, and that is a very short list of possible purchases.
Another, more frivolous example, because most stuff sold in most cash shops is entirely frivolous. Say there is an exclusive hot pink dye added to the cash shop. Some people who sub complain that the cash shops shouldn't get anything they have to pay more for, that the sub should give access to all content. This is the wrong way to look at it. If the cash shop didn't exist, the dye wouldn't exist. This is not a case of something being "taken away" from subscribers and then presented as an additional cost. It's a case of something that only exists because the cash shop does. The subscriber experience is not changed one little bit.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
Honestly, in most games, the faction opposed to cash shops come across as having their undies in a bunch over absolutely nothing. The real question is how does *your* experience change as the result of somebody else buying something on the cash shop?
Even say there's no P2W and it's just useless trash in the cash shop the fact that the game is making money from selling that trash to other people means that I'm going to get less of the kind of content I like. You can just hear them at their board meeting "Well, what about that expansion we're going to launch? Nah...let's just make some more of those sparkle ponies! the cost us 50 cents each to make and people actually pay $10 for them!"
In a multiplayer game things other people buy do indirectly effect you by incentivizing the company to make more of what is being bought most.
I'm not saying cash shop games shouldn't exist at all but I am saying I will gladly pay a sub fee to avoid a cash shop in a game I like if it means the game will cater more directly to me and people like me.
It's a strange question for me, because I think they should be able to charge for whatever they want. People vote with their wallets, and if enough vote yes thusly then the game vindicates itself. No one is fooling anyone, and if they only charge for superfluous stuff, they will not make as much money. This is a job.
That said, I tend to dislike F2P games, not because I seethe at the idea of someone else "paying to win" or on some manufactured principle, but because oftentimes the design of the game itself is affected by said payment model. I prefer immersive virtual worlds where my character's actions are the sole available means of experiencing said world. A world filled with people paying for boons is going to be designed with said payment model in mind. I understand that many, many people don't care about this and just want a fun diversion or don't have a lot of time, but it's just not my bag.
So if a game is F2P, I think it should charge for whatever makes the devs and publishers money. These are their jobs, not charities. If that's a problem, look for other games and let those who obviously prefer F2P models have their fun.
Honestly, in most games, the faction opposed to cash shops come across as having their undies in a bunch over absolutely nothing. The real question is how does *your* experience change as the result of somebody else buying something on the cash shop?
Even say there's no P2W and it's just useless trash in the cash shop the fact that the game is making money from selling that trash to other people means that I'm going to get less of the kind of content I like. You can just hear them at their board meeting "Well, what about that expansion we're going to launch? Nah...let's just make some more of those sparkle ponies! the cost us 50 cents each to make and people actually pay $10 for them!"
In a multiplayer game things other people buy do indirectly effect you by incentivizing the company to make more of what is being bought most.
I'm not saying cash shop games shouldn't exist at all but I am saying I will gladly pay a sub fee to avoid a cash shop in a game I like if it means the game will cater more directly to me and people like me.
The problem with your logic is that games generally only add cash shops when they think that subscriptions alone aren't going to make them enough money. You probably aren't getting less of the content you like than you otherwise would, because it likely isn't a choice between "spend money on content X for the cash shop" or "spend money on content Y for an expansion" it's a choice between spend on content for the cash shop, or not have enough revenue to spend money on anything. The amount of "real" content developed for a game with a cash shop, however small, is still more than there would be if the game shut down.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion. Through passion, I gain strength. Through strength, I gain power. Through power, I gain victory. Through victory, my chains are broken. The Force shall free me.
IMO F2P MMOs should charge for whatever they need to in order to profit and continue providing a service, just like every other business. Just powering the equipment costs money so they aren't doing me any favors for simply being around. If what they have to offer is worth paying for then I will pay and I also realize if I like a title I probably want them well funded so it's a quality experience.
I think cosmetics are a really good start though not enough by itself to sustain a decent MMO with a pre-funded update schedule. I don't mind feature lockouts as long as it's in the "want" catagory and not "need" and there is an "all unlock" sub option. EQ2 is a great example of this. If you're a free player you can only get skill updates to Expert but in reality that's all you need unless you are endgame raiding. If you're endgame raiding that implies you're invested enough to spend money on it. It's a delicate balance for sure.
I do tend to stay away from the "blank check" MMOs which is anything with a lockbox or RNG dependent. I'd rather know the features I'm missing out on then keep throwing money at something hoping for the best.
I won`t play any MMO that tries to have both a sub and cash shop. Ever. It`s either one or the other as far as I`m concerned. B2P + cash shop or B2P + sub is the most I`ll accept. Games used to support themselves just fine on just subs and plenty still do so I don`t buy the argument that any games need both sub and cash shop to survive. It`s just pure greed when they do that and if that ever becomes the actual standard I`ll probably just quit MMOs.
Honestly, in most games, the faction opposed to cash shops come across as having their undies in a bunch over absolutely nothing. The real question is how does *your* experience change as the result of somebody else buying something on the cash shop?
Even say there's no P2W and it's just useless trash in the cash shop the fact that the game is making money from selling that trash to other people means that I'm going to get less of the kind of content I like. You can just hear them at their board meeting "Well, what about that expansion we're going to launch? Nah...let's just make some more of those sparkle ponies! the cost us 50 cents each to make and people actually pay $10 for them!"
In a multiplayer game things other people buy do indirectly effect you by incentivizing the company to make more of what is being bought most.
I'm not saying cash shop games shouldn't exist at all but I am saying I will gladly pay a sub fee to avoid a cash shop in a game I like if it means the game will cater more directly to me and people like me.
The problem with your logic is that games generally only add cash shops when they think that subscriptions alone aren't going to make them enough money. You probably aren't getting less of the content you like than you otherwise would, because it likely isn't a choice between "spend money on content X for the cash shop" or "spend money on content Y for an expansion" it's a choice between spend on content for the cash shop, or not have enough revenue to spend money on anything. The amount of "real" content developed for a game with a cash shop, however small, is still more than there would be if the game shut down.
Wow added a cash shop and is always pushing to expand what's in it so... the problem with your logic is.... ?
In a F2P game, I would expect them to charge for cosmetic items, boosts to xp, item find, in game currency, short term damage boosts, mounts and pets. Almost anything really. I would rather them not charge for actual gear, but if it is completely free to play, I wouldn't be upset at them doing so provided that the gear, or gear of equivalent value, was obtainable by free players if they invested the time.
As a side note, since people have brought up subscriptions, I think subs are a great way to maintain a steadier cash flow, but it keeps out people who can't/won't pay a sub to play a game (yes I've read the argument that ppl who can't pay a sub shouldn't be playing a video game but I think that's a different subject).
I'm sure everyone has seen at least one thread on at least one F2P game where whatever the developer or publisher is charging for is somehow P2W, underhanded or just a flat out rip-off.
So given that people are willing to go into such granular detail on what developers shouldn't charge for, what exactly should they charge for in a F2P game?
In your hypothetical scenario, keep in mind the following:
* The game must actually make money. Yes, this is a consideration. Even for your favorite game, they must make money. Not only must they make money to cover expenses, they have to make a profit, or the game will not continue to exist.
* "Subscription" as the answer will not work here. The game is F2P, and must sell stuff in their cash shop, either in or out of the game.
* Nothing is off limits. The only wrong answer is "Subscription".
**
"Some F2P Options OR Subscription" would be a fine answer. "Subscription" by itself is the only wrong answer here. It's a F2P game, so something has to be charged for in the cash shop.
Popular choices that can be implemented without turning a game into Pay-to-Win
Cosmetic items
Character Slots
Storage Space
Storage space is a particularly popular item given the packrat tendencies of many players. You can never have enough storage space.
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do. Benjamin Franklin
I'm sure everyone has seen at least one thread on at least one F2P game where whatever the developer or publisher is charging for is somehow P2W, underhanded or just a flat out rip-off.
Microtransactions by their definition make a game P2W. It is the inherent flaw of the business model. However, I find that a cash shop focused on items that indirectly impact the game seem to be a lot more fair.
i.e.
- Cosmetics
- Added stash sizes
- Added character slots
- Forum cosmetics
- Server buffs ( something that effects everyone )
Being a pack rat in most games, I find that storage space limitations are particularly frustrating. However, this really applies whether the game charges for it or not.
What about real estate? There is a game called Link Realms that is free to play, but players can purchase or rent land that allows them to build housing, dungeons and tourist attractions. Other players can play through the dungeons and it benefits the player holding the land, and I suppose it benefits the person running the dungeons too. Ever since the late 90s I've always thought that virtual real estate was something that people would be really interested in buying, but it never really seemed to take off.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Being a pack rat in most games, I find that storage space limitations are particularly frustrating. However, this really applies whether the game charges for it or not.
What about real estate? There is a game called Link Realms that is free to play, but players can purchase or rent land that allows them to build housing, dungeons and tourist attractions. Other players can play through the dungeons and it benefits the player holding the land, and I suppose it benefits the person running the dungeons too. Ever since the late 90s I've always thought that virtual real estate was something that people would be really interested in buying, but it never really seemed to take off.
EVE's mobile depots, Rift's dimensions, Free Realms (and more and more of the SOE titles, for that matter), Wildstar's housing... with the initial stigma of housing=bad almost a decade in the past, more and more MMOs are starting to reintroduce the feature as a more interactive and social experience compared to the lackluster offerings of pretty much everything from 2007-2010.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Loktofeit Originally posted by lizardbones Being a pack rat in most games, I find that storage space limitations are particularly frustrating. However, this really applies whether the game charges for it or not. What about real estate? There is a game called Link Realms that is free to play, but players can purchase or rent land that allows them to build housing, dungeons and tourist attractions. Other players can play through the dungeons and it benefits the player holding the land, and I suppose it benefits the person running the dungeons too. Ever since the late 90s I've always thought that virtual real estate was something that people would be really interested in buying, but it never really seemed to take off.
EVE's mobile depots, Rift's dimensions, Free Realms (and more and more of the SOE titles, for that matter), Wildstar's housing... with the initial stigma of housing=bad almost a decade in the past, more and more MMOs are starting to reintroduce the feature as a more interactive and social experience compared to the lackluster offerings of pretty much everything from 2007-2010.
Housing just seems like such a natural, non controversial thing to charge for. It seems weird to me that it's taken this long for developers to come around to the idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Something about EQ2 seemed boring to me, not sure what, a lot of little things I guess. From the time of launch I could never stay past a couple months.
Till they put in the option to build your house brick and board style. I then played the game, spent a few months getting my main to 92 carpenter and spent a good 4 months working on my castle. I spent a lot of money on the cs with that castle too. I didn't mind spending the money and had a lot of fun building the castle.
Till I hit the item limit -grrr.
Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it is bad.
Honestly, in most games, the faction opposed to cash shops come across as having their undies in a bunch over absolutely nothing. The real question is how does *your* experience change as the result of somebody else buying something on the cash shop? What is it that is suddenly different about the way you play the game as the result of something being sold on the cash shop, as opposed to when that shop didn't exist? With a very small number of exceptions, people opposed to cash shops don't seem able to answer these questions with anything that makes their opposition sound rational.
A cash shop could sell an item that lets somebody one shot every NPC enemy in the game, and guess what? If you don't buy it, and you don't group with anybody who did, then *your* experience is exactly the same as if that item didn't exist. The only things that it's rational to oppose the sale of are things that allow a player to cause a direct negative impact on another player's experience of the game, and that is a very short list of possible purchases.
Another, more frivolous example, because most stuff sold in most cash shops is entirely frivolous. Say there is an exclusive hot pink dye added to the cash shop. Some people who sub complain that the cash shops shouldn't get anything they have to pay more for, that the sub should give access to all content. This is the wrong way to look at it. If the cash shop didn't exist, the dye wouldn't exist. This is not a case of something being "taken away" from subscribers and then presented as an additional cost. It's a case of something that only exists because the cash shop does. The subscriber experience is not changed one little bit.
Utter bunk. The payment model intended for a game directly effects the design of the game itself. So that has a direct effect on the play experience of every user of that environment. Additionaly in a true multi-user environment, the behavior of one user of the environment directly effects (positively or negatively) the play experience of other users of the environment. It's not the equivalent of playing a single-player game where there is no interaction between users.
Some people don't mind the existance of a cash shop....that's great for them....but to pretend the existance of a cash shop has no impact on the player experience is simply false. If it had no impact, the company would be unable to get anyone to purchase anything within it.
Originally posted by CazNeerg Honestly, in most games, the faction opposed to cash shops come across as having their undies in a bunch over absolutely nothing. The real question is how does *your* experience change as the result of somebody else buying something on the cash shop? What is it that is suddenly different about the way you play the game as the result of something being sold on the cash shop, as opposed to when that shop didn't exist? With a very small number of exceptions, people opposed to cash shops don't seem able to answer these questions with anything that makes their opposition sound rational. A cash shop could sell an item that lets somebody one shot every NPC enemy in the game, and guess what? If you don't buy it, and you don't group with anybody who did, then *your* experience is exactly the same as if that item didn't exist. The only things that it's rational to oppose the sale of are things that allow a player to cause a direct negative impact on another player's experience of the game, and that is a very short list of possible purchases.Another, more frivolous example, because most stuff sold in most cash shops is entirely frivolous. Say there is an exclusive hot pink dye added to the cash shop. Some people who sub complain that the cash shops shouldn't get anything they have to pay more for, that the sub should give access to all content. This is the wrong way to look at it. If the cash shop didn't exist, the dye wouldn't exist. This is not a case of something being "taken away" from subscribers and then presented as an additional cost. It's a case of something that only exists because the cash shop does. The subscriber experience is not changed one little bit.
It affects me when the item I want is taken OUT of the game and placed into the Cash Shop. If I want to dye my armor black, I have to buy the dye in the Cash Shop.
It is not the action of someone buying anything in a cash shop that "gets my undies in a bunch", but rather the fact that what asset that other player is purchasing has been taken out of the game in first place. If I also want it, there is only one place to get it: The Cash Shop.
What Cash Shops do is split the game's assets.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
I think TERA's model is by far the best. While they do spend a lot of time on new mounts/costumes the main feature of the cash shop is that it has useful items that can be traded to other players thus it acts as a de facto rmt. The developer takes over all the profits that the traditional Chinese farmers/hackers make which in turn allows them not to have to charge subscriptions.
While there is no doubt an element of p2w it allows anyone who is good at making in game currency to aquire everything available in the cash shop without spending a dime, and the people who do use the cash shop to get ahead would be able to get that exact same advantage in a "non-p2w" p2p game from rmt companies, the only difference in p2p games is that there is a risk of having their account banned if they get caught.
Comments
One is part of a major, expensive and cohesive content update.
The other is something plucked out of the game you already payed for, and stuffed into a virtual store. Most FTP MMOs don't have proper expansions, so you're trying to compare two different things.
In a FTP MMO with a subscription option, I'm paying the subscription fee to play the game. I've bought the game and payed for the content. I pay each month for that content. There are no expansions, just updates. A sword gets added into the game.
In the past, FTP worked like this. The sword is incredibly hard to get and would take a lot of effort and players to get it. But you can get it. Or, you can buy it for money on the market.
The ABUSIVE way to do it, is to put a clearly superior sword (whether in stats or art) EXCLUSIVELY on the market where both paying and free players CANNOT access it without paying EXTRA.
Anyone who thinks that's a fair practice to paying customers is clearly just playing devils advocate.
So you would be ok with those thing that make up an expansion being part of an item mall?
Most f2p do not have the clearly superior sword in the cs, actually none of the ones that I've played do that. Can you name one that does?
The sub mmo's have cs now - pretty much all of them giving them the exact same issues as all f2p but you are paying for it.
edit - and I absolutely am playing devil's advocate, however I don't believe there is any fair or unfair issues about it.
If I can spend 30 dollars to buy an entire expansion in a package all at once in an item mall through an in game store vs through amazon, sure.
Ok what about a brand new type and style of armor, never seen in the game before for 50 cents?
or say a brand new race or class for 1 dollar?
Race or class? Sure.
Armor? I wouldn't mind paying to unlock access to it. But I'd much rather have the ability to EARN it through playing the game. As progression and aquiring items is the main draw of most of these games.
Excellent. So now that we've established you don't object to the cash shop back to the orginal question.
What would you find acceptable to charge for in a cs (so in a f2p game)?
Honestly, in most games, the faction opposed to cash shops come across as having their undies in a bunch over absolutely nothing. The real question is how does *your* experience change as the result of somebody else buying something on the cash shop? What is it that is suddenly different about the way you play the game as the result of something being sold on the cash shop, as opposed to when that shop didn't exist? With a very small number of exceptions, people opposed to cash shops don't seem able to answer these questions with anything that makes their opposition sound rational.
A cash shop could sell an item that lets somebody one shot every NPC enemy in the game, and guess what? If you don't buy it, and you don't group with anybody who did, then *your* experience is exactly the same as if that item didn't exist. The only things that it's rational to oppose the sale of are things that allow a player to cause a direct negative impact on another player's experience of the game, and that is a very short list of possible purchases.
Another, more frivolous example, because most stuff sold in most cash shops is entirely frivolous. Say there is an exclusive hot pink dye added to the cash shop. Some people who sub complain that the cash shops shouldn't get anything they have to pay more for, that the sub should give access to all content. This is the wrong way to look at it. If the cash shop didn't exist, the dye wouldn't exist. This is not a case of something being "taken away" from subscribers and then presented as an additional cost. It's a case of something that only exists because the cash shop does. The subscriber experience is not changed one little bit.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
Even say there's no P2W and it's just useless trash in the cash shop the fact that the game is making money from selling that trash to other people means that I'm going to get less of the kind of content I like. You can just hear them at their board meeting "Well, what about that expansion we're going to launch? Nah...let's just make some more of those sparkle ponies! the cost us 50 cents each to make and people actually pay $10 for them!"
In a multiplayer game things other people buy do indirectly effect you by incentivizing the company to make more of what is being bought most.
I'm not saying cash shop games shouldn't exist at all but I am saying I will gladly pay a sub fee to avoid a cash shop in a game I like if it means the game will cater more directly to me and people like me.
It's a strange question for me, because I think they should be able to charge for whatever they want. People vote with their wallets, and if enough vote yes thusly then the game vindicates itself. No one is fooling anyone, and if they only charge for superfluous stuff, they will not make as much money. This is a job.
That said, I tend to dislike F2P games, not because I seethe at the idea of someone else "paying to win" or on some manufactured principle, but because oftentimes the design of the game itself is affected by said payment model. I prefer immersive virtual worlds where my character's actions are the sole available means of experiencing said world. A world filled with people paying for boons is going to be designed with said payment model in mind. I understand that many, many people don't care about this and just want a fun diversion or don't have a lot of time, but it's just not my bag.
So if a game is F2P, I think it should charge for whatever makes the devs and publishers money. These are their jobs, not charities. If that's a problem, look for other games and let those who obviously prefer F2P models have their fun.
TL;DR I dunno.
http://www.mmorpg.com/blogs/PerfArt
The problem with your logic is that games generally only add cash shops when they think that subscriptions alone aren't going to make them enough money. You probably aren't getting less of the content you like than you otherwise would, because it likely isn't a choice between "spend money on content X for the cash shop" or "spend money on content Y for an expansion" it's a choice between spend on content for the cash shop, or not have enough revenue to spend money on anything. The amount of "real" content developed for a game with a cash shop, however small, is still more than there would be if the game shut down.
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
I think cosmetics are a really good start though not enough by itself to sustain a decent MMO with a pre-funded update schedule. I don't mind feature lockouts as long as it's in the "want" catagory and not "need" and there is an "all unlock" sub option. EQ2 is a great example of this. If you're a free player you can only get skill updates to Expert but in reality that's all you need unless you are endgame raiding. If you're endgame raiding that implies you're invested enough to spend money on it. It's a delicate balance for sure.
I do tend to stay away from the "blank check" MMOs which is anything with a lockbox or RNG dependent. I'd rather know the features I'm missing out on then keep throwing money at something hoping for the best.
I won`t play any MMO that tries to have both a sub and cash shop. Ever. It`s either one or the other as far as I`m concerned. B2P + cash shop or B2P + sub is the most I`ll accept. Games used to support themselves just fine on just subs and plenty still do so I don`t buy the argument that any games need both sub and cash shop to survive. It`s just pure greed when they do that and if that ever becomes the actual standard I`ll probably just quit MMOs.
Wow added a cash shop and is always pushing to expand what's in it so... the problem with your logic is.... ?
Just another reason why I don`t and won`t play WoW.
In a F2P game, I would expect them to charge for cosmetic items, boosts to xp, item find, in game currency, short term damage boosts, mounts and pets. Almost anything really. I would rather them not charge for actual gear, but if it is completely free to play, I wouldn't be upset at them doing so provided that the gear, or gear of equivalent value, was obtainable by free players if they invested the time.
As a side note, since people have brought up subscriptions, I think subs are a great way to maintain a steadier cash flow, but it keeps out people who can't/won't pay a sub to play a game (yes I've read the argument that ppl who can't pay a sub shouldn't be playing a video game but I think that's a different subject).
Popular choices that can be implemented without turning a game into Pay-to-Win
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do.
Benjamin Franklin
Microtransactions by their definition make a game P2W. It is the inherent flaw of the business model. However, I find that a cash shop focused on items that indirectly impact the game seem to be a lot more fair.
i.e.
- Cosmetics
- Added stash sizes
- Added character slots
- Forum cosmetics
- Server buffs ( something that effects everyone )
Being a pack rat in most games, I find that storage space limitations are particularly frustrating. However, this really applies whether the game charges for it or not.
What about real estate? There is a game called Link Realms that is free to play, but players can purchase or rent land that allows them to build housing, dungeons and tourist attractions. Other players can play through the dungeons and it benefits the player holding the land, and I suppose it benefits the person running the dungeons too. Ever since the late 90s I've always thought that virtual real estate was something that people would be really interested in buying, but it never really seemed to take off.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
EVE's mobile depots, Rift's dimensions, Free Realms (and more and more of the SOE titles, for that matter), Wildstar's housing... with the initial stigma of housing=bad almost a decade in the past, more and more MMOs are starting to reintroduce the feature as a more interactive and social experience compared to the lackluster offerings of pretty much everything from 2007-2010.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Housing just seems like such a natural, non controversial thing to charge for. It seems weird to me that it's taken this long for developers to come around to the idea.
I can not remember winning or losing a single debate on the internet.
Something about EQ2 seemed boring to me, not sure what, a lot of little things I guess. From the time of launch I could never stay past a couple months.
Till they put in the option to build your house brick and board style. I then played the game, spent a few months getting my main to 92 carpenter and spent a good 4 months working on my castle. I spent a lot of money on the cs with that castle too. I didn't mind spending the money and had a lot of fun building the castle.
Till I hit the item limit -grrr.
Utter bunk. The payment model intended for a game directly effects the design of the game itself. So that has a direct effect on the play experience of every user of that environment. Additionaly in a true multi-user environment, the behavior of one user of the environment directly effects (positively or negatively) the play experience of other users of the environment. It's not the equivalent of playing a single-player game where there is no interaction between users.
Some people don't mind the existance of a cash shop....that's great for them....but to pretend the existance of a cash shop has no impact on the player experience is simply false. If it had no impact, the company would be unable to get anyone to purchase anything within it.
It is not the action of someone buying anything in a cash shop that "gets my undies in a bunch", but rather the fact that what asset that other player is purchasing has been taken out of the game in first place. If I also want it, there is only one place to get it: The Cash Shop.
What Cash Shops do is split the game's assets.
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
I think TERA's model is by far the best. While they do spend a lot of time on new mounts/costumes the main feature of the cash shop is that it has useful items that can be traded to other players thus it acts as a de facto rmt. The developer takes over all the profits that the traditional Chinese farmers/hackers make which in turn allows them not to have to charge subscriptions.
While there is no doubt an element of p2w it allows anyone who is good at making in game currency to aquire everything available in the cash shop without spending a dime, and the people who do use the cash shop to get ahead would be able to get that exact same advantage in a "non-p2w" p2p game from rmt companies, the only difference in p2p games is that there is a risk of having their account banned if they get caught.