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!

Mike O'Brien (ArenaNet founder) on microtransactions

1192022242527

Comments

  • KholeKhole Irmo, SCPosts: 136Member Common

    Originally posted by jinxxed0

    Is everyone retarded?

    You either spend time or money to get anything in the game, including things like renames and other stuff. You can get everything for free after buying the box game. I mean seriously, why is everyone so butthurt. Who cares if Darklord55 got his max items within 2 days while Ruffles24 spent a month getting it. It doesn't affect you. Get over it. I don't even even know why I'm posting this. 99% of the people here are too ignorant to understand such a simple concept.

     

    If it's not far that some random guy has more money to waste than you, then how the hell is it far that you have more time to waste than him.

    I think most people underestimate how many mmo players actually buy in game currency with real money.

    Its exactly the same in other games. Except maybe swtor because money has no value there.

  • will75will75 Fatalis,The Combine, SoB... Semi retired, waiting for next big thing.., FLPosts: 353Member

    It's like complaining that i will only pay $40 for this weekends beta but the average price is $100 on RP.. I won't spend $100 for 3 days, but i'd spend $40

     

    If you got disposable income and you want to spend it on a game, that's fine. As long as the person w/o the money can eventually achieve the same who cares.

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,899Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    Such is the way of life.

    But not necessarily the way of gaming.  The developers actually have a choice about whether to make economic leverage a part of their game mechanics or not.

    In EVE and GW2 those with more money will have the advantage of leveraging that.  In RIFT I don't have that option.  I must game for what I want.

    I was only speaking toward his last sentence (which I should have highlighted). "Just saying - those with money will be able to buy more things."

    Yes there is a leverage in EVE, but in EVE ( an example we've seen in action) that leverage is only in terms of risk, IE what a player can risk. The advantage is disposability. It's also offset per capita by the fact that the system opens itself up to numerous players, meaning Corp A has people employing that advantage and so does Corp B. With the nature of a game like EVE there's too much that effects a victory to ensure a victory by such means. It can effect first strike capability that's for sure, even then that first strike could still fail due to the emergent nature of EVE and massive PVP in general.

    Does more siege equipment ensure a victory? Who knows, until we do it's hard to say whether it will be an issue or not. It's certainly an area A-net and players should monitor during testing

     

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • blognorgblognorg Roseburg, ORPosts: 643Member

    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    Originally posted by Distopia


    Originally posted by ElderRat


    Originally posted by drumchannell

    So you can purchase gems with money, that can be traded for gold in game. If I'm reading this correctly, this gives advantage to players who spend real money as opposed to those who don't.

    you can buy large quanties of gems and trade them for gold with wich you can buy the in game items - in my mind that is an unfair advantage.  I took advantage of it in EVE when I had some money to buy plex - bougth 2 plex for $35 from EVE and them sold them  in EVE for 700 million isk .  At the time I did that I only had earned $20 million isk.  Suddenly I was able to afford a top of the line Exhumer and outfit it.  Just saying - those with money will be able to buy more things.

     

    Such is the way of life.

    But not necessarily the way of gaming.  The developers actually have a choice about whether to make economic leverage a part of their game mechanics or not.

    In EVE and GW2 those with more money will have the advantage of leveraging that.  In RIFT I don't have that option.  I must game for what I want.

    While I agree with yout, I'd like to point out that every MMO has gold farmers. So, really, that option is available to people whether it is built into the system or not. Yes, I can buy gold in Rift, too. However, in Rift, the usefulness of the tradable currency is diminished by the other forms that must be earned. GW2 also as a similar system in place. I don't think the decision to make gems tradable for gold is game-breaking. 

  • weiiiweiii SingaporePosts: 11Member

    If you all feel so strongly against it i suggest that you all should just not play the game.

  • sanshi44sanshi44 BrisbanePosts: 1,085Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Alot

    Originally posted by aionix


    Originally posted by Alot

    And all of a sudden the forums exploded. I don't really like it, it is way too similar to Diablo 3's Auction House.

    Edit to the poster above me: But doesn't a system like this allow players to gain power by spending Real Money? Is this a problem in EvE?

    As Kuppa just said, you can only buy vanity items in the cash shop.  In D3, you can buy gear that gives you a statitical advantage over other players.  That is a HUGE difference, so they really arn't the same.  All this does is allow playares who devote more time to playing GW2 to use ingame currency for cash shop vanity items rather than using real money. 

    But what if someone would buy hundreds of Gems for example and offer to sell them to others for gold, couldn't that potentially give him an enormous advantage over others in terms of in-game wealth?

    Well if currency in GW2 like any other game then gold is usless anyway cause everything uses no trable currency for anything acualy good

  • arctarusarctarus nilPosts: 2,570Member Uncommon
    It will not totally get rid of gold sellers.

    example, a gem cost $10 to buy, and selling at AH earns you 1k gold, but if the gold sellers sells you 2k gold for $10, naturally players will buy from rmt instead of gems anymore.

    Tera claims to sell chronoscoll to battle rmt, in the end they still region block the entire Asia. Can see from this that they know chronoscoll won't work.

    RIP Orc Choppa

  • SpallieroSpalliero Fresno, CAPosts: 147Member

    I've read the blog post and I'm on the edge of just not buying the game now. It's b2w via rmt for gold so people can buy crafted items off of ah.

     

    To say I'm dissappointed in Anet is an understatement.

    Sic Luceat Lux

  • TorvalTorval Oregon CountryPosts: 7,187Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Distopia

    Originally posted by Torvaldr


    Such is the way of life.

    But not necessarily the way of gaming.  The developers actually have a choice about whether to make economic leverage a part of their game mechanics or not.

    In EVE and GW2 those with more money will have the advantage of leveraging that.  In RIFT I don't have that option.  I must game for what I want.

    I was only speaking toward his last sentence (which I should have highlighted). "Just saying - those with money will be able to buy more things."

    Yes there is a leverage in EVE, but in EVE ( an example we've seen in action) that leverage is only in terms of risk, IE what a player can risk. The advantage is disposability. It's also offset per capita by the fact that the system opens itself up to numerous players, meaning Corp A has people employing that advantage and so does Corp B. With the nature of a game like EVE there's too much that effects a victory to ensure a victory by such means. It can effect first strike capability that's for sure, even then that first strike could still fail due to the emergent nature of EVE and massive PVP in general.

    Does more siege equipment ensure a victory? Who knows, until we do it's hard to say whether it will be an issue or not. It's certainly an area A-net and players should monitor during testing

    This is in response to Blognorg too.  I just can't figure out how to reference both posts.

    I do understand I was over-simplifying and that you weren't necessarily asserting they don't have a choice.  I've seen that similar sentiment stated a few times in these discussions and it seems to have a tone of helpless fatalism.

    Why have we reviled PWI and Frogster for so long for similar practices yet now it's inevitible and acceptable?  I can't think of any cash shop game where some sort of advantage wasn't sold in the store.  Even if we could come up with one or two that don't, compare that to the slew of others that do.  Why should I think that advantage items won't be part of the store.  Why will that be okay in this game but isn't in others?

  • rikwesrikwes PuttePosts: 90Member

    Folks who go completely haywire over that blogpost  have never read anything about Guild Wars ( or Guild Wars 2 ) ,let alone actually played it .Everyone is treating the entire idea of microtransactions and thinking of this game ( or its predecessor) as they would treat any other game  they know . BUT there was and is a huge difference with other major titles we all know and played : Guid Wars isn't based on - nor will it ever be - GEAR-BASED progression .At level cap you never had ( and from what I have read the same will be the case in GW 2 ) a goal to get your next über-item in terms of stats . What you did have was estethics ( great looking armor or weapon ,pets,costumes etc.) which you could buy in the store . Never in the history of the game have those items impacted the gameplay in general and most definitely not progression . 

     

    Folks are so used to the gear-grind which is present in basically every other MMO ,they cannot imagine a game which isn't based on the "grind 'till you drop"  principle .In most of those games the progression  depends on the gear you happen to have: you can't reach levelcap/endcontent  unless you get the next tier in your gear (usually by raiding or running dungeons 50,000 times ) . Guild wars has always been about how skilled you were as a player ,the gear you had was basically irrelevant apart from how it looked  .The developers would never make the fatal mistake of turning this sequel into another gear-grinder .Nothing at all from what I have read or seen indicates GW 2 will rely on gear-grind (or even on gear progression like in traditional MMO's )  ...in fact : they have indicated repeatedly there will be zero raids .

     

  • FailthFailth LappeenrantaPosts: 17Member

    Originally posted by Spalliero

    I've read the blog post and I'm on the edge of just not buying the game now. It's b2w via rmt for gold so people can buy crafted items off of ah.

     

    To say I'm dissappointed in Anet is an understatement.

    Oh no this guy got high level on crafting easier, now he is looking rlly fancy in his new gear! (Not actually stronger via stats)

    Oh no, the game is ruined! Gem buyers now rule the game!

    Nah rlly, you are just overreacting ;) It's not a fashion competition 

  • DistopiaDistopia Baltimore, MDPosts: 16,899Member Uncommon

    Originally posted by Torvaldr

    This is in response to Blognorg too.  I just can't figure out how to reference both posts.

    I do understand I was over-simplifying and that you weren't necessarily asserting they don't have a choice.  I've seen that similar sentiment stated a few times in these discussions and it seems to have a tone of helpless fatalism.

    Why have we reviled PWI and Frogster for so long for similar practices yet now it's inevitible and acceptable?  I can't think of any cash shop game where some sort of advantage wasn't sold in the store.  Even if we could come up with one or two that don't, compare that to the slew of others that do.  Why should I think that advantage items won't be part of the store.  Why will that be okay in this game but isn't in others?

    Personally I've never given PWI or Frogster much thought, not sure I've even ever tried any of either companies games. So I can't relate to reviling them. 

     You can think what you want.  I never said selling items that out of the box give an advantage is okay. It's definitely not something I would support.

    For every minute you are angry , you lose 60 seconds of happiness."-Emerson

    It is a sign of a defeated man, to attack at ones character in the face of logic and reason- Me

  • rikwesrikwes PuttePosts: 90Member

    Originally posted by Distopia

    Originally posted by Torvaldr



    This is in response to Blognorg too.  I just can't figure out how to reference both posts.

    I do understand I was over-simplifying and that you weren't necessarily asserting they don't have a choice.  I've seen that similar sentiment stated a few times in these discussions and it seems to have a tone of helpless fatalism.

    Why have we reviled PWI and Frogster for so long for similar practices yet now it's inevitible and acceptable?  I can't think of any cash shop game where some sort of advantage wasn't sold in the store.  Even if we could come up with one or two that don't, compare that to the slew of others that do.  Why should I think that advantage items won't be part of the store.  Why will that be okay in this game but isn't in others?

    Personally I've never given PWI or Frogster much thought, not sure I've even ever tried any of either companies games. So I can't relate to reviling them. 

     You can think what you want.  I never said selling items that out of the box give an advantage is okay. It's definitely not something I would support.

    but that isn't the case with GW (2) because its progression isn't gear based .That's the basic problem with the entire debate about this feature : folks are assuming-wrongly - you need gear X or weapon Y to gain an advantage or progress . That hasn´t been the case for GW 1 and from all articles I have read  won´t be the case either in GW 2 . 

  • SepulcherSepulcher Phoenix, AZPosts: 216Member

    If it works the way it is described it is fine.   Time is money.  Some people have more time, others have more money.  Both get access to the same items.  I see no problems.  It is a game not an alternate reality.  Instead of spending 5 hours grinding for $5 worth of ingame items go get a part time job or sit on the corner for 30min begging for change.  You will get more value for your time, can buy the item you want, and then pocket the rest to eat something more than ramen noodles.  If someone buying an item with money offends you, take a step back and go get some therapy.

     

    Bottom line is this type of system is fair and only offends people who dont even understand what they are upset about or people who dont like to live in the real world.

     

  • GuelyGuely Palo Alto, CAPosts: 114Member

    Originally posted by arctarus

    It will not totally get rid of gold sellers.



    example, a gem cost $10 to buy, and selling at AH earns you 1k gold, but if the gold sellers sells you 2k gold for $10, naturally players will buy from rmt instead of gems anymore.



    Tera claims to sell chronoscoll to battle rmt, in the end they still region block the entire Asia. Can see from this that they know chronoscoll won't work.

    True, but I think most would rather just go the simple and safe route and buy from within the game.

  • xmentyxmenty SingaporePosts: 679Member

    If I am a gold sellers. I would farm gold and buy all the gems in AH and resell it for RL cash cheaper than Anet.

     

    Pardon my English as it is not my 1st language :)

  • AkulasAkulas GoldcoastPosts: 1,615Member Uncommon

    Make gems untradeable and only usable in the item mall. Make all item mall stuff untradeable. Solve all problems.

    This isn't a signature, you just think it is.

  • illeriller Aspen''s 4th hole, COPosts: 510Member

    Originally posted by evicton

    Because it will be cheaper, just like there are still companies that sell isk even though you can buy it via flex. 



    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damages

    ...only IP Ranges within areas of legal prosecution will be allowed to trade across international borders.

    Prior to this, Anet had no means of demonstrating Monetary harm was suffered via RMT.  Now that RMT'ers will be competing directly with Anet's Shop, Anet has a case and can prosecute all Moderate and Major offenders.

  • InFaVillaInFaVilla StockholmPosts: 592Member

    The sky is falling :).

     

    How big of a problem this will become, depends on what gold in practice can buy. If gold is worthless, then I see no problem with allowing people to trade their gems for other people's gold, since it won't matter at all for anything. However, if gold is worthless, that means that there is no flourishing in-game economy, which is a shame.

     

    Allowing gems to be traded for gold, does indeed hurt Arenanet's argumentation for b2p over p2p. 

     

    Edit: I would rather p2p without a "gem for gold" system, than b2p with a such system.

  • Kyuz0oKyuz0o FrankfurtPosts: 80Member

    Gems for RL money, for gold is the first thing that actually worries me... It´s not a problem that you buy cosmetic stuff in the Store with the gems, but that you can buy them with RL money and trade them against gold in game really sucks if you ask me.

    Thing that might make it work out is that depending how much is bought in the game store might not be as much as people buy gems to sell for gold, which could make gems in game real cheap because hardly anyone really wants them.

    I don`t know but I don`t like the thought even though it worked out for Eve with the Plex system. I have never played Eve so I have no idea how it is there.

    Still worried, kinda makes me sad.

    image

  • arctarusarctarus nilPosts: 2,570Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Guely


    Originally posted by arctarus

    It will not totally get rid of gold sellers.



    example, a gem cost $10 to buy, and selling at AH earns you 1k gold, but if the gold sellers sells you 2k gold for $10, naturally players will buy from rmt instead of gems anymore.



    Tera claims to sell chronoscoll to battle rmt, in the end they still region block the entire Asia. Can see from this that they know chronoscoll won't work.

    True, but I think most would rather just go the simple and safe route and buy from within the game.

     

    It depends, if the difference is 100% of gold like I mention, than players will be willing to risk.it. and Iirc u can use PayPal.

    RIP Orc Choppa

  • arctarusarctarus nilPosts: 2,570Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by xmenty

    If I am a gold sellers. I would farm gold and buy all the gems in AH and resell it for RL cash cheaper than Anet.
     

     

    It still have to depend on the economic whether isit worth it. Ultimately I still believe rmt will still be ingame. Especially if this game becomes very popular. In fact I believe nothing can stop rmt unless your game is totally fail or you don't have an economic.

    RIP Orc Choppa

  • jpnzjpnz SydneyPosts: 3,529Member

    Not exactly unexpected as I'm sure ANet's business guys did the numbers (most likely NCSOFT) but this will hurt the GW2 community.

    Gdemami -
    Informing people about your thoughts and impressions is not a review, it's a blog.

  • BetakodoBetakodo Poor land, FLPosts: 338Member

    It's OK if you buy currency from Anet, but if you buy it from RMT you get banned! Pretty stupuid, anyone remember 15k sets from GW1? Now they're $10 sets. Just buy gems, trade for gold and you have prestiege armors wooooo. Good bye achievement, hello kids walking around with a false sense of accomplishment. The new Anet is Greednet, bring back the GW1's Anet.

    He even tells us a half lie about microtransactions. Anyone buy microtransactions before the 4th anniversary update? Probably not, because the only thing they had in the shops were extra storage slots and character slots. Both of which you didn't neeed because they gave you soo much inventory and bank space. And you only were 2 slots below all the classes in the game. They added real microtransactions when the game died and barely anyone was playing it. It's like adding cash shop the day before the game died and saying the game had cash shop all along.

  • Kyuz0oKyuz0o FrankfurtPosts: 80Member

    If Anet just made the items in the cash shop untradable and the gems untradable, but the stuff in the cash shop also buyable via ingame gold, at lest certain items, it would be just like in LOL where you could purchase riot points for your skins etc, or you could just spend ingame currency for everything else, or choose to spend RL money.

    image

Sign In or Register to comment.