For you cable analogy... I've never paid for a cable service where a single "added value option" cost the better part of the base monthly fee.
If you want to say the price is too high, that's all well and good, and I'll get behind that.
This is about the offering though, not the price. They are two different arguments.
So what's so special about this new one they added?
Well, for one thing, this is buying the same mount for all your characters, not just one.
I might be willing to do something once. Twice. Three times....but let's say I play 9 characters. Am I going to want to do the same thing that many times? And then there's some other stuff in the game that I just don't want to do at all. Like the Arena mounts. Never going to get one of them. Ever. So...I have to be satisfied with not getting some mounts no matter what they do.
And if you only have to do it once, then get it automatically on all your characters...well, there are going to be people complaining about that too.
I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if I had earned it in-game, rather than buying it.
And I will enjoy it ZERO if it is not available.
So i would rather have the choice to buy it than not.
So... if given the choice of something being added to the game that you could A) Acquite entirely by actually playing the game for your normal monthly fee or Spend $25 for on top of your sub.. You'd prefer B?
Just want to make sure I understand your statement.
Nope. If the choices are
A) buy it $25, or
NOT having it at all (not available in-game nor in item shop)
Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.
And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.
I'd have enjoyed it a lot more if I had earned it in-game, rather than buying it.
And I will enjoy it ZERO if it is not available.
So i would rather have the choice to buy it than not.
So... if given the choice of something being added to the game that you could A) Acquite entirely by actually playing the game for your normal monthly fee or Spend $25 for on top of your sub.. You'd prefer B?
Just want to make sure I understand your statement.
Nope. If the choices are
A) buy it $25, or
NOT having it at all (not available in-game nor in item shop)
Then I chose A. This is the choice I am faced with TODAY. No the one you are stating. There is NO option to acquire it entirely by playing the game.
We will never know if artists that are currently employed to work on the game are pulled away to make these items for the cash shop. So we both have no definite answer. I believe if you pay a sub all content must be included in the game.
And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.
Or it would never exist at all.
Proof either way?
Nobody has it.
You're joking right? It isn't like Blizzard hired extra people to just make RMT content. Part of their staff is making that which would be making other things instead since they are employed. As I have said elsewhere, RMT also devalues content that is already in the game.
We will never know if artists that are currently employed to work on the game are pulled away to make these items for the cash shop. So we both have no definite answer. I believe if you pay a sub all content must be included in the game.
Eh, what else would the arists who are employed to work on the game be doing?
I have to wonder how many people that are bitching about SoE in this thread....have actually played EQ2. I'm sure there are bitter SWG players represented here, but I rather doubt there are many current EQ2 players here that are pissing and moaning about the item shop, because....people that enjoy EQ2 and are playing it....I don't see them bitching in game...like...ever.
The ones who like it use it. The ones who don't care don't. The ones who hate it...leave. Seems really pretty simple.
But it's another good old conspiracy thread. Blizzard ruined MMOs being challenging, and having decent communities, and SoE ruined the meaning of subscriptions by intermingling RMTs. I wonder what developer with get blamed for the next thing someone comes along and doesn't like?
You know....I don't even CARE what a developer's "motives" are for ANY damn thing they do.....AS LONG AS....they are providing me with a game that is entertaining and exciting to me. I don't care if they drive Lamborghini's, I don't care if their children all go to Ivy League schools....I simply don't care. All I care about is that they present me with a product that I can sink my teeth into and enjoy. And if they raise the monthly payments too high for my budget, or fill the item shop with things I personally deem are unfair....then I....just ME....have a decision to make about whether I want to continue to financially support them. If I....just ME (since I'm the only one paying my bills) feel that they entertainment provided to me is worth the money that I spend....I couldn't care less WHAT the dev's motives are or what anyone else thinks of them.
We all pay our own gaming bills. We can all choose who gets that money...and how much...and what game entertains us the most for our money spent.
[1] The problem with that is...it's not accurate all. It's like chemistry. Too little of some things...may kill you. So may too much of the same thing. Or cooking. Add some salt? May make the soup better. Add too much? That's probably going to ruin the soup. Somebody might not like pepper. Doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't want it.
Not all things are automatically negative, or even universally negative.
[2] The benefit as I see it is that some players who want some things can get it without the rest of the players having to subsidize them. Those players may even subsidize the rest of the player base
[3] Goals and reality often divergent. Nothing necessarily nefarious there.
[1] It is just an exercise for perspective. Sometimes is exposes something like here, and sometimes it doesn't, like in the case of soups, etc. It's ok if we disagree.
[2] That doesn't float either. People paying $15 a month don't need funding from other players. Also it defeats the entire purpose of an all access subscription fee and only further reinforces the mentality of "premium players" as far as developers are concerned. Every item now has a pricetag choice to it. Give it free to the masses or sell it to the premium members.
Furthermore, I can't think of any subscription based mmo that has added a cash shop and then increased development cycles or content. The few case I can think of have all seen a decress in free content releases. I've yet to see an example of cash shop money enhancing the rest of the game for everyone.
So again I ask, where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?
[3] I'm not saying it is nefarious or evil. What I am saying is the basic elements that make a cash shop fucntion conflict with the basic elements that make a subscription game function. One process thrives on denying players content and the other thrives on supplying players with content. It is a conflict that doesn't blend well together.
And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.
Or it would never exist at all.
Proof either way?
Nobody has it.
You're joking right? It isn't like Blizzard hired extra people to just make RMT content. Part of their staff is making that which would be making other things instead since they are employed. As I have said elsewhere, RMT also devalues content that is already in the game.
You're the one who is posting things I find to be silly. Sadly it's no joke. I certainly don't pretend to know how Blizzard's staff is compensated, how many they have, or what they'd be doing instead. If you do have actual evidence, feel free to present it.
Until then...we're just shooting bull. It could be either way.
Let's all go check the President of Blizzard/Activision's house for gold-plated bathtubs!
[1] The problem with that is...it's not accurate all. It's like chemistry. Too little of some things...may kill you. So may too much of the same thing. Or cooking. Add some salt? May make the soup better. Add too much? That's probably going to ruin the soup. Somebody might not like pepper. Doesn't mean somebody else wouldn't want it.
Not all things are automatically negative, or even universally negative.
[2] The benefit as I see it is that some players who want some things can get it without the rest of the players having to subsidize them. Those players may even subsidize the rest of the player base
[3] Goals and reality often divergent. Nothing necessarily nefarious there.
[1] It is just an exercise for perspective. Sometimes is exposes something like here, and sometimes it doesn't, like in the case of soups, etc. It's ok if we disagree.
Well...ok. In this case, I don't think absolutes proves that any is unacceptable.
[2] That doesn't float either. People paying $15 a month don't need funding from other players.
That all depends on how much of their subscription fee is cost and how much is profit. I don't pretend to know, but I can believe that it is conceivable.
Further analysis? Not going to worry too much about it, but if you want to investigate Blizzard's interanl budgeting as to assets and accounting...well, I'm in favor of trasparency as a general rule.
Also it defeats the entire purpose of an all access subscription fee and only further reinforces the mentality of "premium players" as far as developers are concerned. Every item now has a pricetag choice to it. Give it free to the masses or sell it to the premium members.
That's part of why I only support cosmetic items being for sale. So you bought a mount. Cool beans for you.
I can not care and be happy with myself. It works out very well for me.
Furthermore, I can't think of any subscription based mmo that has added a cash shop and then increased development cycles or content. The few case I can think of have all seen a decress in free content releases. I've yet to see an example of cash shop money enhancing the rest of the game for everyone.
I believe D&D online is the widely named example of a dying game revitalized by cash shops. I don't know if they've achieved any increase in development cycles or content, but at least they didn't shut down.
So again I ask, where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?
I gave you a potential benefit. People can buy what they want without it costing everybody else. If you don't agree it is one, well we can't really resolve that disagreement with out limited evidence.
[3] I'm not saying it is nefarious or evil. What I am saying is the basic elements that make a cash shop fucntion conflict with the basic elements that make a subscription game function. One process thrives on denying players content and the other thrives on supplying players with content. It is a conflict that doesn't blend well together.
A lot of people are saying it is nefarious and evil. And yes, that dichotomy is true. Which is I don't support a wholesale cashshop as a rule, but am willing to accept a limited one. A few items here and there? Great bonus. Use it to support further stuff that you wouldn't otherwise. Or make parts of your playerbase happy with some item they wouldn't get otherwise.
It's also why I don't mind the Arena Tournament. And it's the same reason I can accept being charged extra for sour cream at the Taco Shop.
And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.
Or it would never exist at all.
Proof either way?
Nobody has it.
You're joking right? It isn't like Blizzard hired extra people to just make RMT content. Part of their staff is making that which would be making other things instead since they are employed. As I have said elsewhere, RMT also devalues content that is already in the game.
You're the one who is posting things I find to be silly. Sadly it's no joke. I certainly don't pretend to know how Blizzard's staff is compensated, how many they have, or what they'd be doing instead. If you do have actual evidence, feel free to present it.
Until then...we're just shooting bull. It could be either way.
Let's all go check the President of Blizzard/Activision's house for gold-plated bathtubs!
Hah, because making a three pets and a mount over the course of a year, some of which use the same base models as things in game are clearly full-time activities. :P
Frankly, if they had pure RMT staffers then there'd be more RMT content.
Hah, because making a three pets and a mount over the course of a year, some of which use the same base models as things in game are clearly full-time activities. :P
Why would they need to be? Who only works on one thing at a time ever?? The real question is the one we can't answer with what we know, namely how much work is being done, under what auspices...
If you want to insist on inside details of Blizzard's operations...fair enough, but good luck getting it.
I was recently reading an interview with EQ2's producer, Dave Georgeson and he had this to say:
"If you look at it the right way you're not paying for pixels you're paying for entertainment. It's kind of like when you go to a movie you don't own the movie when you come out of the movie. Does that make sense?"
Well yes Dave, it makes sense...if you're talking about movies...but you aren't, and you neglect to mention (or perhaps even notice) some important differences. I'll point them out for you.
-When you pay to see a movie, the theatre does not reserve the right to switch films in the middle of the show. Last time I checked, SOE reserved the right to sell items at their cash shops and then change them any way they see fit, after the transaction. That's not cool Dave.
-Also, notice the language used in the transaction. When I go see a movie, I'm not told that I'm "purchasing" anything at an "item shop." I'm paying for admission to a show. This is like paying for a subscription to your video games. It gets me in the door. Your items shops are more like the snack shop in the lobby. Except, I may order and pay for popcorn, but you can give me spinach puffs, or take my (oops sorry, your) popcorn back anytime you like and throw it in the trash--which brings me to my next point.
-The theatre does not reserve the right to cancel the show part way through, and refuse me a refund. Again, last time I checked SOE reserved the right to delete items purchased at the cash shop at any time, at their sole discretion.
When I look at all of these difference Dave, I don't think you're selling entertainment at all. I think you're trying to code yourself easy access to my Visa card. I don't find that very entertaining.
And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.
Or it would never exist at all.
Proof either way?
Nobody has it.
Actually, proof abounds. Take one of SOE's flagship IP's, StarWars. This game was subscription only, for years. It regularly received content updates. Included in these were new schematics for crafters to create and sell StarWars vehicles to players.
Did the new vehicles exist? Most certainly. Did you have to pay extra for them at a cash shop? Nope.
Now people are spending money at the cash shop on Trading Card booster packs, because one of them may contain a shiny new vehicle for the MMO.
If the original business model was maintained, new vehicles would continue to be provided to players as part of the content updates. This was one thing that probably kept many players subscribing, especially the vehicle crafters.
Now in response to some other posts: I believe I understand Mr. Georgeson's purpose for choosing the film analogy. He's attempting to compare purchasing virtual items to purchasing entertainment in the form of a movie ticket. "Oh," we're supposed to say, "buying virtual goods is just like going to the movies; that's not so bad."
What I believe I have demonstrated is that no, purchasing virtual goods is not like buying a ticket to see a fim, at all. You may never get the entertainment you pay for. If you do, you have no way of knowing how long it will last, or if it will retain the entertainment value it had when it was purchased. Movie tickets simply aren't like that. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any entertainment that is packaged like virtual goods.
In response to comments on the EULA: I know why they exist in theory. I've also observed--too often in this industry--how they've actually been used. E.G. Advertise profession updates in a dev chat, then actually delete all of those professions, without another dev chat to warn customers. When customers cry foul, point to the EULA, and the company's right to "enhance" their game. Deny them refunds, despite the fact that they paid for more time because of what they heard in the dev chats. Consumer distrust of SOE in particular, has been well-earned imo.
I was recently reading an interview with EQ2's producer, Dave Georgeson and he had this to say:
"If you look at it the right way you're not paying for pixels you're paying for entertainment. It's kind of like when you go to a movie you don't own the movie when you come out of the movie. Does that make sense?"
Well yes Dave, it makes sense...if you're talking about movies...but you aren't, and you neglect to mention (or perhaps even notice) some important differences. I'll point them out for you.
-When you pay to see a movie, the theatre does not reserve the right to switch films in the middle of the show. Last time I checked, SOE reserved the right to sell items at their cash shops and then change them any way they see fit, after the transaction. That's not cool Dave.
MMOs are a service, so it's not even in the realm of movies unless you paid monthly in order to camp out in the theatre. It also says right in the EULA that "the owners reserve the right to revoke/change the terms of service at their sole discretion". This is something I noticed back when I was waiting for SWG to dl in my early days, then sat to myself going "holy crap, I don't own anything and they could take it out from under me". They changed the game, and messed up imo, but I knew from the start they could.
If you really don't wanna deal with it, stop lying and click [no] when you are asked to agree to these terms. Then stop buying/playing them, I'm sure that would show those bigwigs. *snort*
-Also, notice the language used in the transaction. When I go see a movie, I'm not told that I'm "purchasing" anything at an "item shop." I'm paying for admission to a show. This is like paying for a subscription to your video games. It gets me in the door. Your items shops are more like the snack shop in the lobby. Except, I may order and pay for popcorn, but you can give me spinach puffs, or take my (oops sorry, your) popcorn back anytime you like and throw it in the trash--which brings me to my next point.
I keep hearing they can change item shop purchases after you buy them, but I have yet to see/hear of it beyond price changes. Again, they reserve the right to change the prices, and if they want to remove or change existing items, they have the right as well. It's just never happened afaik, and you're blowing smoke out your ass over it.
Beyond the CS 'offending' you when placed in a subscription game, it does nothing to affect you whatsoever. Besides getting pissy over a 25 dollar astral mount, which is only what kids do when mommy won't hand the cash over. You don't need the damn thing, and your definitely not doing this to protect anyone else - it's pure selfishness over the greed of the companys, almost like they owe you. They don't.
-The theatre does not reserve the right to cancel the show part way through, and refuse me a refund. Again, last time I checked SOE reserved the right to delete items purchased at the cash shop at any time, at their sole discretion.
Yes they can. If they find out you snuck into another film or are underaged at a rated R flick, they are going to kick your ass out with no refund... and you'd be lucky to not get blackballed by the place. That is just like breaking their personal EULA, which also involves bringing outside food mind you (a comparison to 3rd party programs). The theater can also close down and stop showing movies, but it's not like you'd get it shut off in the middle of the film. Because it's not a membership!
Your gym can shut down with you still on the treadmill, and you'd not get a refund for your leftover time. That is a better comparison, because there are no movie 'permits' you pay monthly for that they can kill your lost time over.
When I look at all of these difference Dave, I don't think you're selling entertainment at all. I think you're trying to code yourself easy access to my Visa card. I don't find that very entertaining.
That is epic. You are goon to me.
Fix't.
Actually, SOE did put changes to one of their RMT items on the test server. There was such a player backlash that they relented...for now. So this really isn't just hypothetical. SOE also has an unfortunate history of making changes to gameplay that invalidate player progress. Heck they even sold an expansion to players once, without telling them that they were planning to remove or disable many of its features two weeks after its release.
As for your film example. SOE can delete or modify the virtual goods you purchase, not because you broke the rules (e.g. sneaking into the wrong film), but because they just decide to. I realize that you're a game designer, that you like RMT and that you want to make money at this someday, but surely this doesn't prevent you from seeing such an obvious difference.
Actually, proof abounds. Take one of SOE's flagship IP's, StarWars.
{citation needed}. Or at least...dates. Give me some perspective. Also which developer told you they'd still make the vehicle models in question?
Also for movies...tell you what, go to a movie, complain that a week later the movie wasn't as funny to you anymore. Or heck, complain that the movie wasn't as funny as it was in the trailer.
I was recently reading an interview with EQ2's producer, Dave Georgeson and he had this to say:
"If you look at it the right way you're not paying for pixels you're paying for entertainment. It's kind of like when you go to a movie you don't own the movie when you come out of the movie. Does that make sense?"
Well yes Dave, it makes sense...if you're talking about movies...but you aren't, and you neglect to mention (or perhaps even notice) some important differences. I'll point them out for you.
-When you pay to see a movie, the theatre does not reserve the right to switch films in the middle of the show. Last time I checked, SOE reserved the right to sell items at their cash shops and then change them any way they see fit, after the transaction. That's not cool Dave.
-Also, notice the language used in the transaction. When I go see a movie, I'm not told that I'm "purchasing" anything at an "item shop." I'm paying for admission to a show. This is like paying for a subscription to your video games. It gets me in the door. Your items shops are more like the snack shop in the lobby. Except, I may order and pay for popcorn, but you can give me spinach puffs, or take my (oops sorry, your) popcorn back anytime you like and throw it in the trash--which brings me to my next point.
-The theatre does not reserve the right to cancel the show part way through, and refuse me a refund. Again, last time I checked SOE reserved the right to delete items purchased at the cash shop at any time, at their sole discretion.
When I look at all of these difference Dave, I don't think you're selling entertainment at all. I think you're trying to code yourself easy access to my Visa card. I don't find that very entertaining.
Actually, proof abounds. Take one of SOE's flagship IP's, StarWars.
{citation needed}. Or at least...dates.
Also for movies...tell you what, go to a movie, complain that a week later the movie wasn't as funny to you anymore. Or heck, complain that the movie wasn't as funny as it was in the trailer.
As I've demonstrated, this isn't a change in the customer's feelings about the product. That's what you're talking about. This is about a change to the actual "goods" after they have been purchased.
As I've said (did you not understand this?), this is like paying to see Avatar and having the theatre reserve the right to change films half-way through.
P.S. Regarding dates or citations, you can find SWG's publish history online. What you're looking for are updates that include vehicle schematics under the original business model. Then you'll want to find out when their TCG went live, with its booster packs containing vehicles for SWG. I don't feel an obligation to do this research for you. The information is available if you wish to find it.
Actually, proof abounds. Take one of SOE's flagship IP's, StarWars.
{citation needed}. Or at least...dates.
Also for movies...tell you what, go to a movie, complain that a week later the movie wasn't as funny to you anymore. Or heck, complain that the movie wasn't as funny as it was in the trailer.
As I've demonstrated, this isn't a change in the customer's feelings about the product. That's what you're talking about. This is about a change to the actual "goods" after they have been purchased.
So you agree there are things that aren't the fault of the theater? Good. Let's move on. But remember, entertainment value is...feelings. Don't forget that.
As I've said (did you not understand this?), this is like paying to see Avatar and having the theatre reserve the right to change films half-way through.
Ever seen a trailer and notice a scene was not in the movie? I have. Ever been to a movie twice, and have something changed? I have? Not too often, but I've seen it. Ever bought a movie on DVD/Video and it was changed from the theater version?
The theater isn't going to change films half-way through because they have a contract with somebody else to show the film. They don't even own the content really. It's probably too much work for them.
But yeah, the original author? Will change things without consulting you. George Lucas did it in Star Wars the Phantom Menace. Cut Darth Maul in Half. Disney did it with Aladdin. No more biting off of ears. I'm sure I can look up some others if you want.
Bit of a different relationship as far as that's concerned. You could worry about that too. But all this just tells me how you've missed the whole point of the analogy being used. Oh well, guess it failed to get the point across. Sometimes understanding is achieved not by finding the little details you can twist to break the analogy, but rather seeing the similarities, but sometimes people just won't see the point you're trying to make.
That's the tough thing about analogies, sometimes what expresses something clearly to you, doesn't work for somebody else.
But hey, you want to pay 10 bucks for 2 hours, yeah, I'll respect that you don't want changes in those two hours.
P.S. Regarding dates or citations, you can find SWG's publish history online. What you're looking for are updates that include vehicle schematics under the original business model. Then you'll want to find out when their TCG went live, with its booster packs containing vehicles for SWG. I don't feel an obligation to do this research for you. The information is available if you wish to find it.
Translation: I don't want to back up my claims with any sort of real information.
My view on RMT in subscription based games is based on human psychology. And in particular business psychology. You may also notice that I enjoy making up numbers in order to try to allow readers to get some perspective, to think in concrete terms and to understand where I'm coming from. But you should bare in mind that the exact numbers aren't important - the importance is in understanding how the various parties think and act.
Lets, for the moment, assume that the supporters are correct - that it will bring more developer resources into a game. Suppose the Celestial Mount sales allow Blizzard to have 20 additional mounts available for when the next expansion is released instead of 12.
However, businessmen are naturally greedy. Getting people to pay more is their job. So I don't think there's a chance in hell that the Celestial Mount is the last mount Blizzard will ever sell for cash. There will be more mounts in the store. Perhaps out of those 20 mounts made for the new expansion, 5 of them will be available in the store rather than through the game.
Now the RMT supporters will point out that people not using the store now have access to 15 mounts whilst they might have only had 12. So surely everyone is getting a better deal?
But lets think more deeply. Consider, for example, which mounts will be available through the new store. It's long been the case in Warcraft that some mounts are seen by players as being more valuable than others. A dragon mount is seen as considerably better than a horse mount. Often, visual attractiveness is important. A mount that looks good is clearly better than an ugly mount.
If Blizzard put a bunch of the uglier mounts in their cash shop, then no one would buy them. So it's pretty obvious to me that 5 of the prettier looking mounts will be put into the cash shop, in order to maximise revenue.
So what does that mean for the plain old subscribers? If it wasn't for the cash shop, they'd have a choice of 12 mounts of mixed quality - some ugly, some really good looking. Now, with the cash shop, they have a choice of 15 mounts, but all of those 15 will be ugly or average - the best mounts will be in the shop.
So people not using the shop start looking drab and second rate. They become second class citizens in a game they are paying a regular fee to play. That's how I see RMT hurting games, and that's why I have ended my Warcraft subscription.
So people not using the shop start looking drab and second rate. They become second class citizens in a game they are paying a regular fee to play. That's how I see RMT hurting games, and that's why I have ended my Warcraft subscription.
Well, I think part of your problem is judging people based on the mounts they have. Or the pets. I prefer to look at it as "Do I like flying around on that for me, is it something I enjoy?" rather than "HAHA I have a better and cooler mount than him".
That sort of attitude is one I hate. Not the mounts themselves being available.
The other part of your problem is your assumptions about the availability of mounts based on their "looks" which...you're just making up. It's not the numbers. It's the fact that you're making up something entirely.
Originally posted by Blueharp Originally posted by Antipathy So people not using the shop start looking drab and second rate. They become second class citizens in a game they are paying a regular fee to play. That's how I see RMT hurting games, and that's why I have ended my Warcraft subscription.
Well, I think part of your problem is judging people based on the mounts they have. Or the pets. I prefer to look at it as "Do I like flying around on that for me, is it something I enjoy?" rather than "HAHA I have a better and cooler mount than him". That sort of attitude is one I hate. Not the mounts themselves being available. The other part of your problem is your assumptions about the availability of mounts based on their "looks" which...you're just making up. It's not the numbers. It's the fact that you're making up something entirely.
I agree. It's all based on assumption. Taking the example portrayedin that post, what if the 12-15 mounts introduced for "free" (not in cash shop) were just as good as the ones in the shop? What if it was better? Would that stop people from crying "Greed and corrupt"? Probably not but then again thats also based assumption and you can see how two sides can go on forever like this. Quit basing things on assumption because its moot and pointless.
So people not using the shop start looking drab and second rate. They become second class citizens in a game they are paying a regular fee to play. That's how I see RMT hurting games, and that's why I have ended my Warcraft subscription.
Exactly. Blizzard is creating a caste system in-game. It's unfair, and that is why I quit.
The best stuff will go to the cash shop, because that is the stuff people will pay for.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
And here I thought they were getting rid of the raiding-caste system and how unfair it was and people bitched about that.
Look, if you want to see being able to spend money on a mount as a caste system...it's your values that are a problem. I really think you should be less judgmental towards other players.
So people not using the shop start looking drab and second rate. They become second class citizens in a game they are paying a regular fee to play. That's how I see RMT hurting games, and that's why I have ended my Warcraft subscription.
Well, I think part of your problem is judging people based on the mounts they have. Or the pets. I prefer to look at it as "Do I like flying around on that for me, is it something I enjoy?" rather than "HAHA I have a better and cooler mount than him".
That sort of attitude is one I hate. Not the mounts themselves being available.
The other part of your problem is your assumptions about the availability of mounts based on their "looks" which...you're just making up. It's not the numbers. It's the fact that you're making up something entirely.
You're misunderstanding the intent of the poster. It has less to do with the fact that one player is inferior or superior to another due to whatever mount they have. It is the "badass" factor that these items evoke, and this is an important aspect. Yes, they're just pixels in a game that have no impact on real life, or necessarily even the game mechanics. That does not change the fact that 'cool' looking items still hold value. If they didn't, then noone would have bought the celestial steed.
Which is where the disconnect in whole issue is, which Antipathy was getting at. If the trend continues, all of the cool looking mounts will be exclusively reserved to RMT. Meaning, that those mounts achieved via ingame means will always be trumped look wise by the RMT monuts. Therefore, there is a diminishing in the aethetics reward for ingame achievements, which makes actually playing the game itself less rewarding.
The assumption of the poster is just that, an assumption. It is not a bad one however, as it is quite likely that the most unique and 'cool' looking things would be reserved for the item shops. It only makes sense, because noone is going to pay much afor pet or mount from the item shop that looks bland or very close to something else in the game.
Comments
If you want to say the price is too high, that's all well and good, and I'll get behind that.
This is about the offering though, not the price. They are two different arguments.
Well, for one thing, this is buying the same mount for all your characters, not just one.
I might be willing to do something once. Twice. Three times....but let's say I play 9 characters. Am I going to want to do the same thing that many times? And then there's some other stuff in the game that I just don't want to do at all. Like the Arena mounts. Never going to get one of them. Ever. So...I have to be satisfied with not getting some mounts no matter what they do.
And if you only have to do it once, then get it automatically on all your characters...well, there are going to be people complaining about that too.
And that's why RMT hurts gameplay and is bad game design, because it removes content from the game that would otherwise be in it.
Or it would never exist at all.
Proof either way?
Nobody has it.
We will never know if artists that are currently employed to work on the game are pulled away to make these items for the cash shop. So we both have no definite answer. I believe if you pay a sub all content must be included in the game.
You're joking right? It isn't like Blizzard hired extra people to just make RMT content. Part of their staff is making that which would be making other things instead since they are employed. As I have said elsewhere, RMT also devalues content that is already in the game.
Eh, what else would the arists who are employed to work on the game be doing?
I have to wonder how many people that are bitching about SoE in this thread....have actually played EQ2. I'm sure there are bitter SWG players represented here, but I rather doubt there are many current EQ2 players here that are pissing and moaning about the item shop, because....people that enjoy EQ2 and are playing it....I don't see them bitching in game...like...ever.
The ones who like it use it. The ones who don't care don't. The ones who hate it...leave. Seems really pretty simple.
But it's another good old conspiracy thread. Blizzard ruined MMOs being challenging, and having decent communities, and SoE ruined the meaning of subscriptions by intermingling RMTs. I wonder what developer with get blamed for the next thing someone comes along and doesn't like?
You know....I don't even CARE what a developer's "motives" are for ANY damn thing they do.....AS LONG AS....they are providing me with a game that is entertaining and exciting to me. I don't care if they drive Lamborghini's, I don't care if their children all go to Ivy League schools....I simply don't care. All I care about is that they present me with a product that I can sink my teeth into and enjoy. And if they raise the monthly payments too high for my budget, or fill the item shop with things I personally deem are unfair....then I....just ME....have a decision to make about whether I want to continue to financially support them. If I....just ME (since I'm the only one paying my bills) feel that they entertainment provided to me is worth the money that I spend....I couldn't care less WHAT the dev's motives are or what anyone else thinks of them.
We all pay our own gaming bills. We can all choose who gets that money...and how much...and what game entertains us the most for our money spent.
President of The Marvelously Meowhead Fan Club
[1] It is just an exercise for perspective. Sometimes is exposes something like here, and sometimes it doesn't, like in the case of soups, etc. It's ok if we disagree.
[2] That doesn't float either. People paying $15 a month don't need funding from other players. Also it defeats the entire purpose of an all access subscription fee and only further reinforces the mentality of "premium players" as far as developers are concerned. Every item now has a pricetag choice to it. Give it free to the masses or sell it to the premium members.
Furthermore, I can't think of any subscription based mmo that has added a cash shop and then increased development cycles or content. The few case I can think of have all seen a decress in free content releases. I've yet to see an example of cash shop money enhancing the rest of the game for everyone.
So again I ask, where is the benefit to the playerbase as a whole?
[3] I'm not saying it is nefarious or evil. What I am saying is the basic elements that make a cash shop fucntion conflict with the basic elements that make a subscription game function. One process thrives on denying players content and the other thrives on supplying players with content. It is a conflict that doesn't blend well together.
You're the one who is posting things I find to be silly. Sadly it's no joke. I certainly don't pretend to know how Blizzard's staff is compensated, how many they have, or what they'd be doing instead. If you do have actual evidence, feel free to present it.
Until then...we're just shooting bull. It could be either way.
Let's all go check the President of Blizzard/Activision's house for gold-plated bathtubs!
A lot of people are saying it is nefarious and evil. And yes, that dichotomy is true. Which is I don't support a wholesale cashshop as a rule, but am willing to accept a limited one. A few items here and there? Great bonus. Use it to support further stuff that you wouldn't otherwise. Or make parts of your playerbase happy with some item they wouldn't get otherwise.
It's also why I don't mind the Arena Tournament. And it's the same reason I can accept being charged extra for sour cream at the Taco Shop.
Hah, because making a three pets and a mount over the course of a year, some of which use the same base models as things in game are clearly full-time activities. :P
Frankly, if they had pure RMT staffers then there'd be more RMT content.
Why would they need to be? Who only works on one thing at a time ever?? The real question is the one we can't answer with what we know, namely how much work is being done, under what auspices...
If you want to insist on inside details of Blizzard's operations...fair enough, but good luck getting it.
That is epic. You are god to me.
Actually, proof abounds. Take one of SOE's flagship IP's, StarWars. This game was subscription only, for years. It regularly received content updates. Included in these were new schematics for crafters to create and sell StarWars vehicles to players.
Did the new vehicles exist? Most certainly. Did you have to pay extra for them at a cash shop? Nope.
Now people are spending money at the cash shop on Trading Card booster packs, because one of them may contain a shiny new vehicle for the MMO.
If the original business model was maintained, new vehicles would continue to be provided to players as part of the content updates. This was one thing that probably kept many players subscribing, especially the vehicle crafters.
Now in response to some other posts: I believe I understand Mr. Georgeson's purpose for choosing the film analogy. He's attempting to compare purchasing virtual items to purchasing entertainment in the form of a movie ticket. "Oh," we're supposed to say, "buying virtual goods is just like going to the movies; that's not so bad."
What I believe I have demonstrated is that no, purchasing virtual goods is not like buying a ticket to see a fim, at all. You may never get the entertainment you pay for. If you do, you have no way of knowing how long it will last, or if it will retain the entertainment value it had when it was purchased. Movie tickets simply aren't like that. In fact, you'd be hard-pressed to find any entertainment that is packaged like virtual goods.
In response to comments on the EULA: I know why they exist in theory. I've also observed--too often in this industry--how they've actually been used. E.G. Advertise profession updates in a dev chat, then actually delete all of those professions, without another dev chat to warn customers. When customers cry foul, point to the EULA, and the company's right to "enhance" their game. Deny them refunds, despite the fact that they paid for more time because of what they heard in the dev chats. Consumer distrust of SOE in particular, has been well-earned imo.
Actually, SOE did put changes to one of their RMT items on the test server. There was such a player backlash that they relented...for now. So this really isn't just hypothetical. SOE also has an unfortunate history of making changes to gameplay that invalidate player progress. Heck they even sold an expansion to players once, without telling them that they were planning to remove or disable many of its features two weeks after its release.
As for your film example. SOE can delete or modify the virtual goods you purchase, not because you broke the rules (e.g. sneaking into the wrong film), but because they just decide to. I realize that you're a game designer, that you like RMT and that you want to make money at this someday, but surely this doesn't prevent you from seeing such an obvious difference.
{citation needed}. Or at least...dates. Give me some perspective. Also which developer told you they'd still make the vehicle models in question?
Also for movies...tell you what, go to a movie, complain that a week later the movie wasn't as funny to you anymore. Or heck, complain that the movie wasn't as funny as it was in the trailer.
Just callin' it like I see it -_^.
As I've demonstrated, this isn't a change in the customer's feelings about the product. That's what you're talking about. This is about a change to the actual "goods" after they have been purchased.
As I've said (did you not understand this?), this is like paying to see Avatar and having the theatre reserve the right to change films half-way through.
P.S. Regarding dates or citations, you can find SWG's publish history online. What you're looking for are updates that include vehicle schematics under the original business model. Then you'll want to find out when their TCG went live, with its booster packs containing vehicles for SWG. I don't feel an obligation to do this research for you. The information is available if you wish to find it.
Translation: I don't want to back up my claims with any sort of real information.
My view on RMT in subscription based games is based on human psychology. And in particular business psychology. You may also notice that I enjoy making up numbers in order to try to allow readers to get some perspective, to think in concrete terms and to understand where I'm coming from. But you should bare in mind that the exact numbers aren't important - the importance is in understanding how the various parties think and act.
Lets, for the moment, assume that the supporters are correct - that it will bring more developer resources into a game. Suppose the Celestial Mount sales allow Blizzard to have 20 additional mounts available for when the next expansion is released instead of 12.
However, businessmen are naturally greedy. Getting people to pay more is their job. So I don't think there's a chance in hell that the Celestial Mount is the last mount Blizzard will ever sell for cash. There will be more mounts in the store. Perhaps out of those 20 mounts made for the new expansion, 5 of them will be available in the store rather than through the game.
Now the RMT supporters will point out that people not using the store now have access to 15 mounts whilst they might have only had 12. So surely everyone is getting a better deal?
But lets think more deeply. Consider, for example, which mounts will be available through the new store. It's long been the case in Warcraft that some mounts are seen by players as being more valuable than others. A dragon mount is seen as considerably better than a horse mount. Often, visual attractiveness is important. A mount that looks good is clearly better than an ugly mount.
If Blizzard put a bunch of the uglier mounts in their cash shop, then no one would buy them. So it's pretty obvious to me that 5 of the prettier looking mounts will be put into the cash shop, in order to maximise revenue.
So what does that mean for the plain old subscribers? If it wasn't for the cash shop, they'd have a choice of 12 mounts of mixed quality - some ugly, some really good looking. Now, with the cash shop, they have a choice of 15 mounts, but all of those 15 will be ugly or average - the best mounts will be in the shop.
So people not using the shop start looking drab and second rate. They become second class citizens in a game they are paying a regular fee to play. That's how I see RMT hurting games, and that's why I have ended my Warcraft subscription.
D&D Home Page - What Class Are You? - Build A Character - D&D Compendium
Well, I think part of your problem is judging people based on the mounts they have. Or the pets. I prefer to look at it as "Do I like flying around on that for me, is it something I enjoy?" rather than "HAHA I have a better and cooler mount than him".
That sort of attitude is one I hate. Not the mounts themselves being available.
The other part of your problem is your assumptions about the availability of mounts based on their "looks" which...you're just making up. It's not the numbers. It's the fact that you're making up something entirely.
That sort of attitude is one I hate. Not the mounts themselves being available.
The other part of your problem is your assumptions about the availability of mounts based on their "looks" which...you're just making up. It's not the numbers. It's the fact that you're making up something entirely.
I agree. It's all based on assumption. Taking the example portrayedin that post, what if the 12-15 mounts introduced for "free" (not in cash shop) were just as good as the ones in the shop? What if it was better? Would that stop people from crying "Greed and corrupt"? Probably not but then again thats also based assumption and you can see how two sides can go on forever like this. Quit basing things on assumption because its moot and pointless.
Exactly. Blizzard is creating a caste system in-game. It's unfair, and that is why I quit.
The best stuff will go to the cash shop, because that is the stuff people will pay for.
"" Voice acting isn't an RPG element....it's just a production value." - grumpymel2
And here I thought they were getting rid of the raiding-caste system and how unfair it was and people bitched about that.
Look, if you want to see being able to spend money on a mount as a caste system...it's your values that are a problem. I really think you should be less judgmental towards other players.
Maybe they just don't like the Celestial Steed.
You're misunderstanding the intent of the poster. It has less to do with the fact that one player is inferior or superior to another due to whatever mount they have. It is the "badass" factor that these items evoke, and this is an important aspect. Yes, they're just pixels in a game that have no impact on real life, or necessarily even the game mechanics. That does not change the fact that 'cool' looking items still hold value. If they didn't, then noone would have bought the celestial steed.
Which is where the disconnect in whole issue is, which Antipathy was getting at. If the trend continues, all of the cool looking mounts will be exclusively reserved to RMT. Meaning, that those mounts achieved via ingame means will always be trumped look wise by the RMT monuts. Therefore, there is a diminishing in the aethetics reward for ingame achievements, which makes actually playing the game itself less rewarding.
The assumption of the poster is just that, an assumption. It is not a bad one however, as it is quite likely that the most unique and 'cool' looking things would be reserved for the item shops. It only makes sense, because noone is going to pay much afor pet or mount from the item shop that looks bland or very close to something else in the game.