Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Fuzzy Avatars Solved! Please re-upload your avatar if it was fuzzy!

The Strange Defense FOR Cash Shops

17891113

Comments

  • EverSkellyEverSkelly AlytusPosts: 334Member

    Originally posted by Torvaldr  

      If people want extra fluff because that is how they want to look they're going to pay for it on the broker or from the cash shop.  By your argument everyone players charging for fluff on the broker are impacting game play too.  

     Yes, let them buy it on the broker. It's how game economy works. And yes, it affects the gameplay - someone crafts or loot the item, someone buys it from them on the broker or directly. That's called player economy, it impacts the game and it's healthy for a game. When you buy it in item shop, it's already a direct interference to a game.

  • BlueharpBlueharp Red Bank, TNPosts: 301Member

    Originally posted by EverSkelly

     Yes, let them buy it on the broker. It's how game economy works. And yes, it affects the gameplay - someone crafts or loot the item, someone buys it from them on the broker or directly. That's called player economy, it impacts the game and it's healthy for a game. When you buy it in item shop, it's already a direct interference to a game.

    What about when we get it for free just by going to some website?  Or by getting an authenticator?

    See, given the choice between soulbound pets that have no value, but come from a cash shop, or rare-drop pets that cost a ton of gold on the AH...I prefer the former.

  • nariusseldonnariusseldon santa clara, CAPosts: 22,441Member

    Originally posted by EverSkelly

    Originally posted by Torvaldr  

      If people want extra fluff because that is how they want to look they're going to pay for it on the broker or from the cash shop.  By your argument everyone players charging for fluff on the broker are impacting game play too.  

     Yes, let them buy it on the broker. It's how game economy works. And yes, it affects the gameplay - someone crafts or loot the item, someone buys it from them on the broker or directly. That's called player economy, it impacts the game and it's healthy for a game. When you buy it in item shop, it's already a direct interference to a game.

     

    So it is. Why is it has to be a problem? So money affects gameplay. It is not like it is not happening already. You can buy GOLD for money, you know. Blizz is just wanting a piece of the RMT action.

    Plus, who is to prevent anyone from paying a friend $20 to grind me that rare pet?

  • EverSkellyEverSkelly AlytusPosts: 334Member

    Originally posted by Blueharp

    Originally posted by EverSkelly

     Yes, let them buy it on the broker. It's how game economy works. And yes, it affects the gameplay - someone crafts or loot the item, someone buys it from them on the broker or directly. That's called player economy, it impacts the game and it's healthy for a game. When you buy it in item shop, it's already a direct interference to a game.

    What about when we get it for free just by going to some website?  Or by getting an authenticator?

    See, given the choice between soulbound pets that have no value, but come from a cash shop, or rare-drop pets that cost a ton of gold on the AH...I prefer the former.

     Third party goldselling originally was never meant to be in mmorpgs... it's illegal. It's a crime :)

    About the pets.. i understand your point, but look at it that way. If i see your cool looking soulbound pet, maybe i want the same. In order to get it, i must buy it for real life money. That's when competion between players (which is what originally should be in MMORPG), transfers from the game to the real life - who can afford more real life money and look cooler... in game? That's what game company want. Not what a smart player want.

    If you buy that pet, someone else buys it, company eventually introduces a set of even better looking pets in item shop. Or adds some functionality to those pets, in order for better sales. And then again - the competition between our wallets begin. It should be the competition of who kills stronger monster, who has more skills, who can spare more time to play, who's guild or group is better and so on. But not between our real life wallets. It's easy to twist a virtual world to a virtual shop. And it's going that way. Used to be $15 a month and a occasional expansion.

  • HorusraHorusra maryland, MDPosts: 2,581Member Uncommon

    I would rather it be a question of money than a question of how large of a single amount of time you can sit behind the computer to get something.

  • BlueharpBlueharp Red Bank, TNPosts: 301Member

    Originally posted by EverSkelly

    Originally posted by Blueharp


    Originally posted by EverSkelly

     Yes, let them buy it on the broker. It's how game economy works. And yes, it affects the gameplay - someone crafts or loot the item, someone buys it from them on the broker or directly. That's called player economy, it impacts the game and it's healthy for a game. When you buy it in item shop, it's already a direct interference to a game.

    What about when we get it for free just by going to some website?  Or by getting an authenticator?

    See, given the choice between soulbound pets that have no value, but come from a cash shop, or rare-drop pets that cost a ton of gold on the AH...I prefer the former.

     Third party goldselling originally was never meant to be in mmorpgs... it's illegal. It's a crime :)

    Well, not so far as I know.  TOS violation, yes.   Crime?  Not anywhere I know about.   Yet.

    About the pets.. i understand your point, but look at it that way. If i see your cool looking soulbound pet, maybe i want the same. In order to get it, i must buy it for real life money. That's when competion between players (which is what originally should be in MMORPG), transfers from the game to the real life - who can afford more real life money and look cooler... in game? That's what game company want. Not what a smart player want.

    If you buy that pet, someone else buys it, company eventually introduces a set of even better looking pets in item shop. Or adds some functionality to those pets, in order for better sales. And then again - the competition between our wallets begin. It should be the competition of who kills stronger monster, who has more skills, who can spare more time to play, who's guild or group is better and so on. But not between our real life wallets. It's easy to twist a virtual world to a virtual shop. And it's going that way. Used to be $15 a month and a occasional expansion.

    Either way they're trying to get dollars from my wallet to theirs.   One way is just more direct than the other.  I'm a smart player, I get the pets I want...which is none, so far, and I don't try to keep up with the Jones and I'm happy.   The player who *must * have the pet, and gets it because the other guy is cooler than him for having it...is like the person who buys an expensive rare breed of pet in real life.

    I consider them to be quite dumb if they're getting it just because of some prestiege or value to look good to their friends.  

    Now if they get one because they like the looks of it, or the behavior...hey, that's their choice, and it's fine with me.

    But anybody who is getting things just because they like to wave their e-peen around?

    Sorry, but I can't respect that.

     

  • DrachasorDrachasor Columbus, OHPosts: 2,678Member

    Originally posted by Blueharp

    Originally posted by Drachasor



    I think talking about Monopoly confuses the issue.

    I think talking about this Viking game confuses the issue.  You're really just quibbling, and not getting the point I was making about cosmetic versus gameplay.

    You want to argue what should be included as normal?   Well, whatever dude, as long as you don't make it out to be some unpardonable sin that I'm fine with accepting some items as being purchasable on their own outside the game, you're welcome to a difference of opinion as to that.

    It's just when you can't accept that I might be terribly bothered by something being fore sale that we have an issue. 

    I thought you wanted to discuss arguments of quality and that's why you are posting here.  I point out how a board game analogy is not a good way to look at MMO dynamics and you respond with "if you arguments reach conclusion X, then they are no good!"  If a line if reasoning is sound, we should accept wherever it leads whether or not we personally like the conclusion.  If it isn't sound, then point out where.

    As others point out, RMT content affects the game economy.  It also affects immersion even if it is only cosmetic.  That sort of thing affects game play and if our primary concern with out games is game quality, play experience, and good design, then RMT, even for cosmetic stuff, is a problem.  It harms people that makes items, it harms content in the game that leads to similar items, and the more connections to the outside world the game has, the more it harms immersion.  Now in some cases this might be justified.  Blizzard providing a cosmetic bonus via the Corehound pet for securing your account (which costs extra money to provide the hardware) is an example of the benefits to the game outweighing the cost quite easily.

    Now if you just don't CARE where reasoning here leads and don't want to be bothered by it, then why are you even posting in this thread?

  • DrachasorDrachasor Columbus, OHPosts: 2,678Member

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    We're talking about P2P games, aren't you paying attention?  YOU ARE ALREADY PAYING FOR THE GAME and that includes cosmetic aspects appropriate for the game.

    And are you seriously arguing that making money any way possible is acceptable given the current examples in the news that easily disprove that thesis?  If you want to argue cash shops are ok, then you're going to need a better argument than that.

    Well, people are lining up to buy the mount so it must be acceptable to them. I don't see people boycotting WOW because of it.

    May be it is not acceptable to YOU but the world does not evolve around you. If it is acceptable for the market, it is acceptable in the developer's eye.

    Obviously not "any way possible" is acceptable. But obviously selling mounts is, based on the reaction of the market. Do you see outcry like those for the bank bailouts?

    Plus, there is no guarantee that the sub covers everything made in the future. So obviously this is totally legal. For an entertianment item (even a virtual one), i don't see the big fuss. Don't like it. Don't buy it. Don't like the game with it. Don't play it. You have choices.

     

    Plenty of things do go on and have gone on in the free areas of the market that aren't realized to be a problem for years.

    RMT in a P2P damages gameplay on several levels.  The main argument for it is "well, the game owners might be able to get away with it!" which isn't really a good argument and certainly doesn't touch on how it affects the game economy, value of in-game content, etc.  We're not arguing legality here.  We're arguing about what makes for a good and healthy game.  This is about game design.

  • qombiqombi Unknown, LAPosts: 1,180Member

    Originally posted by Horusra

    I would rather it be a question of money than a question of how large of a single amount of time you can sit behind the computer to get something.

    Because that is why we PLAY games .... oh wait. I also don't have time to sit through that 1hr 30min movie I purchased. Why must I watch it.

  • DrachasorDrachasor Columbus, OHPosts: 2,678Member

    Originally posted by qombi

    Originally posted by Horusra

    I would rather it be a question of money than a question of how large of a single amount of time you can sit behind the computer to get something.

    Because that is why we PLAY games .... oh wait.

    LOL, yeah I missed that comment somehow.  I think Horusra's sentiment probably speaks to a problem with how the game is designed.  If it isn't FUN to play the game, then that's a problem.  RMT is bad here because it can cover up such problems so they aren't addressed.

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,212Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by nariusseldon

    Originally posted by EverSkelly

    Originally posted by Torvaldr  

      If people want extra fluff because that is how they want to look they're going to pay for it on the broker or from the cash shop.  By your argument everyone players charging for fluff on the broker are impacting game play too.  

     Yes, let them buy it on the broker. It's how game economy works. And yes, it affects the gameplay - someone crafts or loot the item, someone buys it from them on the broker or directly. That's called player economy, it impacts the game and it's healthy for a game. When you buy it in item shop, it's already a direct interference to a game.

     

    So it is. Why is it has to be a problem? So money affects gameplay. It is not like it is not happening already. You can buy GOLD for money, you know. Blizz is just wanting a piece of the RMT action.

    Plus, who is to prevent anyone from paying a friend $20 to grind me that rare pet?

     A company's  failure to control explotation of their game for monetary gain by unscrupulous scumbags is no excuse for exploiting it's playerbase.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • BlueharpBlueharp Red Bank, TNPosts: 301Member

    Originally posted by Drachasor

    Originally posted by Blueharp


    Originally posted by Drachasor



    I think talking about Monopoly confuses the issue.

    I think talking about this Viking game confuses the issue.  You're really just quibbling, and not getting the point I was making about cosmetic versus gameplay.

    You want to argue what should be included as normal?   Well, whatever dude, as long as you don't make it out to be some unpardonable sin that I'm fine with accepting some items as being purchasable on their own outside the game, you're welcome to a difference of opinion as to that.

    It's just when you can't accept that I might be terribly bothered by something being fore sale that we have an issue. 

    I thought you wanted to discuss arguments of quality and that's why you are posting here.

    No, I'm afraid you don't understand my reasons.  But then why do we want to discuss people's reasons for posting?

     I point out how a board game analogy is not a good way to look at MMO dynamics and you respond with "if you arguments reach conclusion X, then they are no good!"  If a line if reasoning is sound, we should accept wherever it leads whether or not we personally like the conclusion.  If it isn't sound, then point out where.

    I'm sorry, but the reason I don't want to quibble over it is because it gets outside the point I was trying to make.  It has nothing to do with your reasoning.   Just not with bogging down the discussion. 

    You want to insist Viking games should have Viking Horned hats in the game?   Fair enough.  Go for it.   But you might want to open up another thread, perhaps in the forum of this game.   Is it even a real one?  I don't honestly know.   Can't say I've heard of it or looked it up.  

    Though I'd say from what I recall that the Horned hats are actually a historical myth and a really accurate game wouldn't have them so...if you want to worry about immersion, maybe you should exclude them.

    This would not, however mean that all things are core to a game, or that one shouldn't accept some things being sold.

    So why argue over it?

    I've got no desire to do so.  Did you get my point about cosmetic versus game-impacting though?

    As others point out, RMT content affects the game economy.  It also affects immersion even if it is only cosmetic.  That sort of thing affects game play and if our primary concern with out games is game quality, play experience, and good design, then RMT, even for cosmetic stuff, is a problem.  It harms people that makes items, it harms content in the game that leads to similar items, and the more connections to the outside world the game has, the more it harms immersion.  Now in some cases this might be justified.  Blizzard providing a cosmetic bonus via the Corehound pet for securing your account (which costs extra money to provide the hardware) is an example of the benefits to the game outweighing the cost quite easily.

    I can't even make sense of this paragraph.  Are you saying that crafted items and cash-bought items should be different and distinct?  Fair enough.   That's reasonable.    I can support that.   Or were you saying something else?

    Now if you just don't CARE where reasoning here leads and don't want to be bothered by it, then why are you even posting in this thread?

    Why should we make this thread about why I'm posting?   Is that really an interesting subject to you?   I don't want to know why you're posting. 

  • BlueharpBlueharp Red Bank, TNPosts: 301Member

    Originally posted by Drachasor

    Originally posted by qombi


    Originally posted by Horusra

    I would rather it be a question of money than a question of how large of a single amount of time you can sit behind the computer to get something.

    Because that is why we PLAY games .... oh wait.

    LOL, yeah I missed that comment somehow.  I think Horusra's sentiment probably speaks to a problem with how the game is designed.  If it isn't FUN to play the game, then that's a problem.  RMT is bad here because it can cover up such problems so they aren't addressed.

    Good luck finding that perfect combination of fun for everybody.

     

  • DrachasorDrachasor Columbus, OHPosts: 2,678Member

    Originally posted by Blueharp

    Originally posted by Drachasor


    Originally posted by Blueharp


    Originally posted by Drachasor



    I think talking about Monopoly confuses the issue.

    I think talking about this Viking game confuses the issue.  You're really just quibbling, and not getting the point I was making about cosmetic versus gameplay.

    You want to argue what should be included as normal?   Well, whatever dude, as long as you don't make it out to be some unpardonable sin that I'm fine with accepting some items as being purchasable on their own outside the game, you're welcome to a difference of opinion as to that.

    It's just when you can't accept that I might be terribly bothered by something being fore sale that we have an issue. 

    I thought you wanted to discuss arguments of quality and that's why you are posting here.

    No, I'm afraid you don't understand my reasons.  But then why do we want to discuss people's reasons for posting?

    Because if someone isn't interested in rational debate then talking to them can be a fruitless waste of time.

     I point out how a board game analogy is not a good way to look at MMO dynamics and you respond with "if you arguments reach conclusion X, then they are no good!"  If a line if reasoning is sound, we should accept wherever it leads whether or not we personally like the conclusion.  If it isn't sound, then point out where.

    I'm sorry, but the reason I don't want to quibble over it is because it gets outside the point I was trying to make.  It has nothing to do with your reasoning.   Just not with bogging down the discussion. 

    You want to insist Viking games should have Viking Horned hats in the game?   Fair enough.  Go for it.   But you might want to open up another thread, perhaps in the forum of this game.   Is it even a real one?  I don't honestly know.   Can't say I've heard of it or looked it up.  

    Though I'd say from what I recall that the Horned hats are actually a historical myth and a really accurate game wouldn't have them so...if you want to worry about immersion, maybe you should exclude them.

    This would not, however mean that all things are core to a game, or that one shouldn't accept some things being sold.

    So why argue over it?

    I've got no desire to do so.  Did you get my point about cosmetic versus game-impacting though?

    Do you not understand my argument at all?  I am saying that COSMETIC STUFF IS GAME IMPACTING IN MMOS the vast, vast majority of the time.  That's why I said the monopoly analogy was poor, because it obscured the MMO issue where appearance, presentation, and other factors are part of gameplay. The hypothetical game with "Vikings" was a better example, but I think you missed the point of it.  It would be very, very rare for a cosmetic thing to not relate to the game.

    As others point out, RMT content affects the game economy.  It also affects immersion even if it is only cosmetic.  That sort of thing affects game play and if our primary concern with out games is game quality, play experience, and good design, then RMT, even for cosmetic stuff, is a problem.  It harms people that makes items, it harms content in the game that leads to similar items, and the more connections to the outside world the game has, the more it harms immersion.  Now in some cases this might be justified.  Blizzard providing a cosmetic bonus via the Corehound pet for securing your account (which costs extra money to provide the hardware) is an example of the benefits to the game outweighing the cost quite easily.

    I can't even make sense of this paragraph.  Are you saying that crafted items and cash-bought items should be different and distinct?  Fair enough.   That's reasonable.    I can support that.   Or were you saying something else?

    I'm not sure how I was unclear.  I am saying if you can buy a mount as RMT.  Then it harms the game because the content for in-game mounts whether crafting, adventuring, or whatever become less valuable.  It harms content and damages gameplay.

    Now if you just don't CARE where reasoning here leads and don't want to be bothered by it, then why are you even posting in this thread?

    Why should we make this thread about why I'm posting?   Is that really an interesting subject to you?   I don't want to know why you're posting. 

    I only brought it up because you made a comment about why you are posting earlier in the thread.  You seemed to state it was about pointing out bad arguments and logic.  Again, it matters insofar as how productive conversation can be.  I only brought it up to remind you of what you said.

  • DrachasorDrachasor Columbus, OHPosts: 2,678Member

    Originally posted by Blueharp

    Originally posted by Drachasor


    Originally posted by qombi


    Originally posted by Horusra

    I would rather it be a question of money than a question of how large of a single amount of time you can sit behind the computer to get something.

    Because that is why we PLAY games .... oh wait.

    LOL, yeah I missed that comment somehow.  I think Horusra's sentiment probably speaks to a problem with how the game is designed.  If it isn't FUN to play the game, then that's a problem.  RMT is bad here because it can cover up such problems so they aren't addressed.

    Good luck finding that perfect combination of fun for everybody. 

    Gameplay doesn't have to be perfect for everyone, but it should be good for the intended audience.  RMT bypasses gameplay and harms the ability to tune gameplay so it is fun by harming the ability of the devs to focus on gameplay and harming how players approach gameplay.

  • qombiqombi Unknown, LAPosts: 1,180Member

    Originally posted by Blueharp

    Originally posted by Drachasor


    Originally posted by qombi


    Originally posted by Horusra

    I would rather it be a question of money than a question of how large of a single amount of time you can sit behind the computer to get something.

    Because that is why we PLAY games .... oh wait.

    LOL, yeah I missed that comment somehow.  I think Horusra's sentiment probably speaks to a problem with how the game is designed.  If it isn't FUN to play the game, then that's a problem.  RMT is bad here because it can cover up such problems so they aren't addressed.

    Good luck finding that perfect combination of fun for everybody.

     

    If the game isn't fun and you feel you have to result to purchasing items in a cash shop, it's time to move on. I enjoy to PLAY games that I find fun, not buy stuff with a credit card. That doesn't to me sound like fun gaming.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member

    Originally posted by EverSkelly

     Gamers are fighting for what is good for gamers. That means - content in a game.

    You are fighting for what is profitable for game company. That means - content in item shop.

    If we don't also fight for what is profitable for game companies, they won't keep making games for gamers to play.

    That shouldn't be that hard to understand.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • DrachasorDrachasor Columbus, OHPosts: 2,678Member

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Originally posted by EverSkelly



     Gamers are fighting for what is good for gamers. That means - content in a game.

    You are fighting for what is profitable for game company. That means - content in item shop.

    If we don't also fight for what is profitable for game companies, they won't keep making games for gamers to play.

    That shouldn't be that hard to understand.

    The games are already profitable because of the Sub.  No one is against the games turning a profit, but some of us are pointing out certain methods of making a profit ARE harmful to the game.

  • zymurgeistzymurgeist Pittsville, VAPosts: 5,212Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Originally posted by EverSkelly

     Gamers are fighting for what is good for gamers. That means - content in a game.

    You are fighting for what is profitable for game company. That means - content in item shop.

    If we don't also fight for what is profitable for game companies, they won't keep making games for gamers to play.

    That shouldn't be that hard to understand.

     Quality MMOs rake in the cash. Profitability isn't an issue for the well made games. It's the schlock ones that are the problem.

    "Strong and bitter words indicate a weak cause" ~Victor Hugo

  • AlberelAlberel LondonPosts: 1,121Member

    Originally posted by Cephus404

    Originally posted by EverSkelly



     Gamers are fighting for what is good for gamers. That means - content in a game.

    You are fighting for what is profitable for game company. That means - content in item shop.

    If we don't also fight for what is profitable for game companies, they won't keep making games for gamers to play.

    That shouldn't be that hard to understand.

    It doesn't work like that...

    The consumer should seek the best deal for them and the manufacturer/retailer seeks the best deal for them. The two balance out when they reach an equilibrium between the most the consumer will pay and the minimum the manufacturer/retailer will sell for.

    By you defending them charging more you simply allow the manufacturer to sway that equilibrium more in their favour since you're basically telling them that it's fine to charge more than you think things are worth.

    Anyway this has nothing to do with whether or not they continue to develop MMOs... do you think WoW was dying before they added the cash shop there? It's obvious they only added that to make more profit it had nothing to do with the survival of the game or Blizzard making future MMOs.

  • BlueharpBlueharp Red Bank, TNPosts: 301Member

    Originally posted by Drachasor

    I thought you wanted to discuss arguments of quality and that's why you are posting here.

    No, I'm afraid you don't understand my reasons.  But then why do we want to discuss people's reasons for posting?

    Because if someone isn't interested in rational debate then talking to them can be a fruitless waste of time.

    Well, I think if you want to spend so much time worrying about why I'm posting then you're not interested in a rational debate.    It's just wasting time for me because all you want to do is know why I'm posting.

     I point out how a board game analogy is not a good way to look at MMO dynamics and you respond with "if you arguments reach conclusion X, then they are no good!"  If a line if reasoning is sound, we should accept wherever it leads whether or not we personally like the conclusion.  If it isn't sound, then point out where.

     Did you get my point about cosmetic versus game-impacting though?

    Do you not understand my argument at all?  I am saying that COSMETIC STUFF IS GAME IMPACTING IN MMOS the vast, vast majority of the time.  That's why I said the monopoly analogy was poor, because it obscured the MMO issue where appearance, presentation, and other factors are part of gameplay. The hypothetical game with "Vikings" was a better example, but I think you missed the point of it.  It would be very, very rare for a cosmetic thing to not relate to the game.

    Well, you're wrong there.  Many people like playing a particular piece to them in Monopoly.   It's got no impact on the play of the game itself.   None.  It changes nothing.  (Unless you have some sort of House Rule I guess) But there are folks who really really like one piece or another.  

    But here's the difference.   They like it.   So it's valuable to them.   They might even want a sparkly golden hat and pay extra for it. 

    Sorry, but I guess you didn't get my point.   Maybe we just have different frames of reference regarding Monopoly?

    I can't even make sense of this paragraph.  Are you saying that crafted items and cash-bought items should be different and distinct?  Fair enough.   That's reasonable.    I can support that.   Or were you saying something else?

    I'm not sure how I was unclear.  I am saying if you can buy a mount as RMT.  Then it harms the game because the content for in-game mounts whether crafting, adventuring, or whatever become less valuable.  It harms content and damages gameplay.

    Sorry dude, but I disagree if the mounts are different.   If they were the exact same I could see your point.

    But they're not.  So...are you not satisfied with them being different?  I am.  And no, I don't complain that Paladins and Warlocks and Druids can not just buy their special training rather than do a quest etiher.

    I'm sure people do want to do the quests.  I've done them. It's just as fun for me as it would be if there was no trainer option.  But...I don't have the burden of having to do it if I don't want to do it.

    Probably why they also have pets that aren't soulbound.  Somebody might well decide that buying a pet is more valuable to them than killing some mobs.  OTOH...why take away the fun of finding a rare pet by pure chance from another person and then selling it?

    Room for all types in my world.

    Now if you just don't CARE where reasoning here leads and don't want to be bothered by it, then why are you even posting in this thread?

    Why should we make this thread about why I'm posting?   Is that really an interesting subject to you?   I don't want to know why you're posting. 

    I only brought it up because you made a comment about why you are posting earlier in the thread.  You seemed to state it was about pointing out bad arguments and logic.  Again, it matters insofar as how productive conversation can be.  I only brought it up to remind you of what you said.

    Yeah, in reading that, did you think I was enjoying it?   I don't want to have that conversation again and it only came up because of unsupported and baseless accusations.   I hated having to explain myself once.  I don't like having to do it again.   So let's not.

    OK?

    If that's not ok, then just say so and I'll stop talking with you.

  • BlueharpBlueharp Red Bank, TNPosts: 301Member

    Originally posted by Drachasor

    Gameplay doesn't have to be perfect for everyone, but it should be good for the intended audience.  RMT bypasses gameplay and harms the ability to tune gameplay so it is fun by harming the ability of the devs to focus on gameplay and harming how players approach gameplay.

    Or maybe it helps, because they realize players would rather buy a mount in the store than play through their game.   So they say "Well, how can we make doing this more fun so they want to do it?"

    Or maybe it helps them focus on the actual gameplay instead of worrying about what carrots they can dangle to make me move forward on the treadmill.

    The more I think about it, the more I want the choice to just buy some things.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member

    Originally posted by Alberel

    Originally posted by Cephus404


    Originally posted by EverSkelly



     Gamers are fighting for what is good for gamers. That means - content in a game.

    You are fighting for what is profitable for game company. That means - content in item shop.

    If we don't also fight for what is profitable for game companies, they won't keep making games for gamers to play.

    That shouldn't be that hard to understand.

    It doesn't work like that...

    The consumer should seek the best deal for them and the manufacturer/retailer seeks the best deal for them. The two balance out when they reach an equilibrium between the most the consumer will pay and the minimum the manufacturer/retailer will sell for.

    By you defending them charging more you simply allow the manufacturer to sway that equilibrium more in their favour since you're basically telling them that it's fine to charge more than you think things are worth.

    Anyway this has nothing to do with whether or not they continue to develop MMOs... do you think WoW was dying before they added the cash shop there? It's obvious they only added that to make more profit it had nothing to do with the survival of the game or Blizzard making future MMOs.

    Except that it does.  The developer also has to work to keep their investors happy, the people who have given them millions of dollars in development costs and expect a significant return on their investment.  The investors don't give a damn if the gamers are happy, at least in general, I'm sure they're the ones pushing for RMT and as much fast-turnaround on their money as they can get.

    The real question is, is it more important to you to have a game exactly as you want it, or to have a game at all.  If you're holding out for perfection, then you're going to be very disappointed.  The idea that game developers somehow owe *YOU* as an individual to make their game exactly the way you want it, just because you want it that way, is absurd.  They have to make it the way the majority of their paying players like it, and since the stupid mount made $3.2 million in the first day, I think they did exactly that.

    So now you need to decide if you're going to keep playing or if you're going to put your money where your mouth is and take it elsewhere.

    Played: UO, EQ, WoW, DDO, SWG, AO, CoH, EvE, TR, AoC, GW, GA, Aion, Allods, lots more
    Relatively Recently (Re)Played: HL2 (all), Halo (PC, all), Batman:AA; AC, ME, BS, DA, FO3, DS, Doom (all), LFD1&2, KOTOR, Portal 1&2, Blink, Elder Scrolls (all), lots more
    Now Playing: None
    Hope: None

  • slessmanslessman Shannon, ILPosts: 181Member

    I think that the argument is deeply flawed. If you think about it it is limiting players from expressing themselves by denying those players the ability to have certain cosmetic pieces. Their character cannot look the way it is intended because they are not able or willing to spend the money. I think that taking away a customizable option is one of the worst things an MMO can do.

    www.ryzom.com

  • BlueharpBlueharp Red Bank, TNPosts: 301Member

    Originally posted by slessman

    I think that the argument is deeply flawed. If you think about it it is limiting players from expressing themselves by denying those players the ability to have certain cosmetic pieces. Their character cannot look the way it is intended because they are not able or willing to spend the money. I think that taking away a customizable option is one of the worst things an MMO can do.

    My character cannot have some pets and mounts because I'm not willing to spend time doing many many different things.  

    Apparently it's not just money that hinders folks.  

    Maybe we should just make Blizzard hand out every mount and pet free to everybody.   Then nobody could complain they couldn't pick whatever they wanted!

    Oh wait...aren't there already people complaining about Blizzard spoon-feeding all the players rewards anyway?

Sign In or Register to comment.