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!

Cash Shops Ruined MMO's

124

Comments

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by thinktank001
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

     Yes, how they achieve it is their problem.  If a f2p game slows me down and it's still fun I don't care, same with a p2p. 

    The point was there was no difference there between a f2p and p2p in terms of them putting in roadblocks like that.

     

    That is until your friends by those experience boosters and are at end game, but you are still leveling.    I guess there is always the possibility that you play all MMOs solo, but that always brings the question, why do you play MMOs?

     The why do you play MMO's if you solo has been answered so many times anyone still asking it is just trolling.

    edit - and if I enjoy the leveling I don't care if friends pass me.  If I don't enjoy the leveling, xp boosters won't change that.  I won't play the game.

    edit -end game means nothing to me.  Never made it there in any game ever anyway.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • aleosaleos na, INPosts: 1,863Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by aleos
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by aleos

    The original model was Subscription

    then games started to suck.. real bad

    now the model is f2p or b2p

    MMO's still suck real bad

     

     

    Cash shops went crazy the day world of warcraft sold a mount to 10 million people for 15 or 20 bucks.

    my numbers could be wrong but i do remember the moment.

     Hmm well the original model was pay per hour. 

    P2p and f2p emerged at about the same time but p2p became more popular.  MMo's have always had a large percentage of people who think they suck.

    However today there are hundreds of MMO's which likely has a lot of influence in why it's hard to retain customers.

    However I do believe new games have just as much longevity as old games and have/will old roughly the same size audience as old games for the same amount of time. 

    i started on ultima so p2p was "my original model" .. regardless

    Just because there are a lot of MMO's is no excuse as to why people arent sticking to one.. when 80% of them are all the same anyway. why play the copy of the copy when you could play the original.

    These games today arent built for longevity at all.. They're built for tourism.. come in, see the sights, visit the gift shop and gtfo.

    Thats why there are so many. Spinning a web hoping to catch the money falling out of the sky.

    Who cares if they're business and need to make money.. i play games

     

     Your points could be considered true if it wasn't for the fact that they are retaining the same amount of players as games of old.  Between 50k and 500k.  Nothing has changed in that regard.  Approximately that many people stuck with old games, approximately that many people stick with new games.

    I didn't mention anything about them being businesses and need to make money - red herring argument.

    lmfao.. i'd like to see that pie chart that says 50k to 500k players are ACTUALLY playing their game. Not logging on for an hour.. playing.. and never logging on again.

  • Ghost12Ghost12 Boston, MAPosts: 684Member
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    snip 
    snip

    alrighty then.

    first off, nowhere in my post did i suggest or give evidence to a "vendetta against P2P..." i was merely pointing out the fact, which many people seem happy to ignore in fits of partisanship, that p2p game sare just as vulnerable to greed as f2p. both models are simply ways to get money, and some people will, and have, innevitably abused them. also addiction, in many cases, goes a little beyond personal accountability. while it is certainly the player's fault for spending money on a cahs shop, the compulsion to play goes well beyond will. just ask a smoker or alcoholic.

    Well the way that you described WoW, sounds like many of the people hating the model that WoW uses. 

    See once again this stems from the notion that there is some sort of "greed" factor. But I wouldnt call it greed, these companies need to make  money in order to stay afloat. 

    The main different between a cash shop and a P2P model is that with P2P you are garunteed the full game for a set price. 

    With a cash shop, you can exploit the playerbase much more. You are not giving the full game with a cash shop game, especially if its P2W. Its unclear how much money you are going to spend in order to play the full game and be competitive!

    Once again I will use Inotia 4 as an example. This is a single player action-rpg and I estimate in order to stay competitive throughout the entire game I would have spent an easy 50$ in the cash shop - 5 times as much as the average game in the Android store!.

    which leads me to your second point: if one buys from a cash shop, one can only blame oneself. your desire to have it be cosmetic is understandable, and is one which i share, but even if it is, buying something from it is on the purchaser. if someone buys something from a cash shop in a p2w game, they don't get to complain about how awful p2w games are. 

    I agree

    lastly, i will concede that you may have more experience in older games than me. however. the community you encounter is created by one thing: the people. i have found the same types of players you remember in every game i have ever played. most lately in gw2. sure there are some people who are just rushing content, and who demand certain specs from the people they play with, but i have also seen level 80s help out newbies, and people laugh off a party wipe. and that's in a dreaded b2p game with a cash shop. so yeah. it's the people not the game, and people always have a choice on how they want to play.

    I could not disagree more. 

    Tell me, if you are running a strip club, what kind of patrons do you have in your facility? Now are you going  to have the same patrons coming to a kid's playground? I think not. The same goes for games. You are not going to have the same community in a themepark rpg game then in FFA PvP Darkfall.  

    personally, i enjoy the freedom which f2p grants me. since i am allowed to determine how much, or how little, i want to spend on the game i feel less like i am wasting money if i want to stop playing. that said, i also enjoy having the full game open to me, since there are often content gates like in LotRO or DDO in f2p games, which is why i like b2p games a lot. GW2 has an excellent model right now in my opinion. and because i enjoy their game and their model, and because i want to support them, i give them $10 when i can afford it. on the flip side of the coin, no, i am not a fan of WoW, either in terms of its mechanics or its pay style (i.e. box+sub+expac+cash shop). whether it is actually motivated by greed... i have no idea. it certainly comes off that way though. EvE is an excellent example of p2p done right in my opinion.

    nice to see we agree on something.

    and for the final point, i believe you misunderstood me. i was talking about how player's approach the game, as opposed to the kind of activities they engage in. grinds and the like only occur if the players allow them to. that is, if it takes x to get to level y, the player can either mess around, do x when they feel like it, and get to y later without grinding, or they can do x until y and have... grinded? ground? so what i was saying is you can either enjoy the game as you want to, on your terms, or you can go hardcore at it. player attitude essentially, and it is this attitude to which i am referring.

     

    See the problem is that theres simply not many games that have the model of DDO, LOTRO and GW2. I agree, these  models arent bad per se. I would not mind models like these. But the problem is that there simply arent that many games that follow these models. 

    Most F2P games have a cash shop that you must use in order to stay competitive. And thats a big problem. I have an android phone. In both multiplayer and single player F2P games, 99% of them have cash shops. Hell, even Angry birds have cash shops now. And its a big problem. People asking for F2P dont know what they are asking for. They are asking for P2W. Now there are exceptions of course, but they are few in far between and I fear they will be ignored in favor for P2W.

     

    With P2W, developers will have full control over how much money you need to spend in order to stay competitive. Hell, you could buy the best sword of destruction for 30$ today and tommorow they could release an even stronger weapon that you will have to pay for. To me, thats scary. Really scary.

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by aleos
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by aleos
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by aleos

    The original model was Subscription

    then games started to suck.. real bad

    now the model is f2p or b2p

    MMO's still suck real bad

     

     

    Cash shops went crazy the day world of warcraft sold a mount to 10 million people for 15 or 20 bucks.

    my numbers could be wrong but i do remember the moment.

     Hmm well the original model was pay per hour. 

    P2p and f2p emerged at about the same time but p2p became more popular.  MMo's have always had a large percentage of people who think they suck.

    However today there are hundreds of MMO's which likely has a lot of influence in why it's hard to retain customers.

    However I do believe new games have just as much longevity as old games and have/will old roughly the same size audience as old games for the same amount of time. 

    i started on ultima so p2p was "my original model" .. regardless

    Just because there are a lot of MMO's is no excuse as to why people arent sticking to one.. when 80% of them are all the same anyway. why play the copy of the copy when you could play the original.

    These games today arent built for longevity at all.. They're built for tourism.. come in, see the sights, visit the gift shop and gtfo.

    Thats why there are so many. Spinning a web hoping to catch the money falling out of the sky.

    Who cares if they're business and need to make money.. i play games

     

     Your points could be considered true if it wasn't for the fact that they are retaining the same amount of players as games of old.  Between 50k and 500k.  Nothing has changed in that regard.  Approximately that many people stuck with old games, approximately that many people stick with new games.

    I didn't mention anything about them being businesses and need to make money - red herring argument.

    lmfao.. i'd like to see that pie chart that says 50k to 500k players are ACTUALLY playing their game. Not logging on for an hour.. playing.. and never logging on again.

     Well a very quick search does give me this

    http://www.mmodata.net/ - for what data it is worth.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • Cephus404Cephus404 Redlands, CAPosts: 3,675Member
    Actually, in Far Cry 3, you sort of did have to farm before you could unlock weapons at the shops, you had to go climb the towers and flip the switches.  Cash shops, while I refuse to use one myself, didn't ruin MMOs, it's the idiots playing MMOs that ruined them for me.

    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

  • atticusbcatticusbc Posts: 1,067Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12
    Originally posted by atticusbc
    Originally posted by Ghost12  

    See the problem is that theres simply not many games that have the model of DDO, LOTRO and GW2. I agree, these  models arent bad per se. I would not mind models like these. But the problem is that there simply arent that many games that follow these models. 

    Most F2P games have a cash shop that you must use in order to stay competitive. And thats a big problem. I have an android phone. In both multiplayer and single player F2P games, 99% of them have cash shops. Hell, even Angry birds have cash shops now. And its a big problem. People asking for F2P dont know what they are asking for. They are asking for P2W. Now there are exceptions of course, but they are few in far between and I fear they will be ignored in favor for P2W.

    With P2W, developers will have full control over how much money you need to spend in order to stay competitive. Hell, you could buy the best sword of destruction for 30$ today and tommorow they could release an even stronger weapon that you will have to pay for. To me, thats scary. Really scary.

    i agree. p2w is a problem, and a scary one at that. however the f2p model in general allows us as players the greatest capacity to vote with out wallets. i give GW2 $10 every few months, because i want to support them and that's what i can afford. and i can take a break for a few months, hopping back in when i have time without sweating the $15/month. and if i play some idiotic p2w? i give them nothing (and probably quit after a day). so i like the model for its potential, and don't fault the entire concept for a few lousy devs. generalizations like that are also problematic, and the mindset stops a lot of players from experiencing some really great games.

    oh and app cash stores are getting silly, i agree. defenitely an issue. but again, i never buy, or even download, an app that has a bloated cash shop, or one which sells the ingame currency (if you see "bag of 1,000,000 money," you're gonna have a bad time).

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member

    The problem with Cash Shops is that they become a much trickier (though potentialy more profitable) design decision for the Developer and it's frankly one that alot of Developers and publishers don't do a particulary good job with.

    With the pure sub model the design question is.....

    Can I make the game experience fun enough that the user will buy the $15 admission ticket?

    With the Cash Shop model it's....

    How much can I get the user to spend before it no longer becomes fun for him?.....AND can I make it unfun enough to play for free that I'll get enough users to spend something so I can make a proffit?

    The latter requires alot more nuanced judgement on part of the Developer and Publisher.

    Imagine if you were in charge of producing a movie and had to make it so that people who spent an increasingly larger amount of money had an increasingly greater amount of fun watching it. That's alot more complex task then simply making a fun movie to watch.

     

     

     

  • Ghost12Ghost12 Boston, MAPosts: 684Member
    Originally posted by GrumpyMel2

    The problem with Cash Shops is that they become a much trickier (though potentialy more profitable) design decision for the Developer and it's frankly one that alot of Developers and publishers don't do a particulary good job with.

    With the pure sub model the design question is.....

    Can I make the game experience fun enough that the user will buy the $15 admission ticket?

    With the Cash Shop model it's....

    How much can I get the user to spend before it no longer becomes fun for him?.....AND can I make it unfun enough to play for free that I'll get enough users to spend something so I can make a proffit?

    The latter requires alot more nuanced judgement on part of the Developer and Publisher.

    Imagine if you were in charge of producing a movie and had to make it so that people who spent an increasingly larger amount of money had an increasingly greater amount of fun watching it. That's alot more complex task then simply making a fun movie to watch.

     

     

     

     

    Exactly

     

    And like I said before, there are versions of F2P cash shops that work, theres just not many. Its much easier for developers to abuse the cash shop. 

     

  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon

    I agree with everything you said.  It is a much tricker model.

    This part needs further comment though:

    "How much can I get the user to spend before it no longer becomes fun for him?.....AND can I make it unfun enough to play for free that I'll get enough users to spend something so I can make a proffit?"

    You forgot to also mention that the f2p, like the p2p, needs to be fun enough to keep them even without the shop.  If they don't keep them, there is zero chance of getting them to buy anything.

    edit - while they do not change the movie, they do change the theatre.  In my own city there are cheap movies for less than 5 dollars.  Typically floor is a bit sticky, chairs dont recline.

    Normal movie - pretty clean, nice sloped theatre, comy chairs.

    More expensive - better screens, better sound, chairs that recline

    Great theatre - very clean, reclining chairs, cup holder on both sides and can flag staff down to deliver you your food.  Much more expensive.

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

  • pantheronpantheron calhoun, GAPosts: 170Member

    I saw a few people talking about how Cash Shops keep you from seeing the "whole game", and then go on to say that people will kick your ass in PvP with their uberweapons they upgraded with Cash shop items. I have played a LOT of F2P MMORPGs, from Maplestory, to Perfect World and Forsaken World, to Scarlet Blade and Shaiya, to Lord of the Rings and DDO. 

     

    in games like PWI, and FW, there are those weapon and armor upgrades that get talked about. A lot of us who played, however,  could give a rats ass about PvP. in my 500 hours of gametime I spent 50 bucks, on a tiger pet with wings, a mount, and some pets skills, in forsaken world. None of these Items were the P2W items that were in the shop, heck you could get those items out in the in-game markets for cheap for the lower level ones, which were all you needed for dungeons, and I got to experience the whole game until I quit, which was because there wasn't any new content at the time, and before the next new set of content came out GW2 came out. 

     

    I really prefered that model to the LOTR model and the DDO model, because I got to experience the whole game for what could have been nothing if I had chosen. I could PVP (and I did, i got destroyed a LOT of the time but I did it) I did the highest end dungeons, I saw the whole game world. A lot of people, thats all we want, and the Much Lauded Freemium model, or subscription model, end up costing us a LOT more money in the long run to do what we want to do. I think those people like us are the ones who are really driving the Cash Shop market, not just the whales who spend 1000s a month, and I think its us who are ruining your games by supporting CS games, because we populate them and give the Whales somebody to... Wail on. 

    I play MMOs for the Forum PVP

  • WizardryWizardry Ontario, CanadaPosts: 8,437Member Uncommon

    The problem is that to make a game or items intriguing they need to be RARE.If everyone has the same items,it is no longer a realsitic or fun game.Everyone should not be the same.

    Now once you create the rarity,you can setup as mentioned a purposely designed game to lure cash shop.However ,even if you don't ,there is always RMT waiting to step in to fill that void,so no matter what,someone is going to ruin your game.

    I don't liek the way Eq/EQ2 does it,i have seen the fail imn thaty design.I do liek the RARE/EX design of FFXI.However i feel yo ushould be able to transfer  all your items among your "family" "lineage" "players".I think it is dumb to say once you wear an item,nobody else can.

    Then once you establish a design that gets rid of cash shop in game or out,you have eliminated the Auction house and market system.Even if yo utry to find a new way to implmenet and make use of a auction house or market system AKA economy,RMT will once again chime in and ruin it.

    It is an extremely fine line to creating a good MMORPG that also takes into consideration RMT and cheating.You basically need a solid develoepr that CARES,cares about the integrity of the game and about the players.We all know why that is so tough to expect,it is becuase no matter what they wil ltell you,their profits are FIRST on the list,then each individual inside are next on the list and somewhere down the chain comes the players.

     


    Samoan Diamond

  • maplestonemaplestone Ottawa, ONPosts: 3,099Member
    Originally posted by Loktofeit
    Originally posted by maplestone ...so I'm confident you can see my reasoning (give or take my ability to explain it).  

    I do. I was just having some fun being an ass there. ;) 

    It always amazes me how easily I take the bait for that sort of thing :)

  • AlBQuirkyAlBQuirky Sioux City, IAPosts: 3,828Member


    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky
    I happen to agree that cash shops have killed my enjoyment. Nothing breaks my immersion like paying as I go, having my credit card at hand along with my computer as I journey in games.Unfortunately, cash shops are here to stay. There are enough people who care not about them and some who pay enough to keep the games afloat that they will not be gone in a long, long while, if ever. With F2P games, some even consider it a mini-game to get as far as they can for free.I would much rather pay once a month and then play without worrying about paying as I go. That way, my real world and the game world stay separated.
    How do you feel that you are paying for the welfare players?  Since you are footing the bill don't you believe you should be getting a lot more for spending your money than the welfare players?
    I don't support welfare players. In the last few games I have played that had a cash shop or F2P, I found nothing in the shop I wanted to buy, nor did I consider the game worth my money. I thought about more character slots in GW2, but am glad I waited until I finished the game with my first character.

    I would much rather pay a sub. Unfortunately, there has not been a game released that warranted that from me in the past few years.

    - Al

    Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.
    - FARGIN_WAR

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,473Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by Icewhite
    Originally posted by Yaevindusk

     

    MMOs today are just giant cash grabs. 

    $12 per hour was a "cash grab", I guess. Arguable if the primitive networks at the time could have been kept running with cheaper price structures, or not.

    Everythng else since has been relatively mild.

    Smile and enjoy, your hobby is still an order of magnitude cheaper than some comparable forns of entertainment.

     Us old people remember the bad old days of AOL and TSN.  Obviously they were great at the time or we wouldn't have spent our money on it.   Cost barriers were always something that were of concerned to the beancounters.  Getting a fixed sub  was a big step.  Now we are seeing the welfare games where it's free but the game is carried by those who pay for the freeloaders.  When the paying consumer wakes up and sees that he isn't getting much for his buck, things might start changing.

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,473Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by aleos
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar
    Originally posted by aleos

    The original model was Subscription

    then games started to suck.. real bad

    now the model is f2p or b2p

    MMO's still suck real bad

     

     

    Cash shops went crazy the day world of warcraft sold a mount to 10 million people for 15 or 20 bucks.

    my numbers could be wrong but i do remember the moment.

     Hmm well the original model was pay per hour. 

    P2p and f2p emerged at about the same time but p2p became more popular.  MMo's have always had a large percentage of people who think they suck.

    However today there are hundreds of MMO's which likely has a lot of influence in why it's hard to retain customers.

    However I do believe new games have just as much longevity as old games and have/will old roughly the same size audience as old games for the same amount of time. 

    i started on ultima so p2p was "my original model" .. regardless

    Just because there are a lot of MMO's is no excuse as to why people arent sticking to one.. when 80% of them are all the same anyway. why play the copy of the copy when you could play the original.

    These games today arent built for longevity at all.. They're built for tourism.. come in, see the sights, visit the gift shop and gtfo.

    Thats why there are so many. Spinning a web hoping to catch the money falling out of the sky.

    Who cares if they're business and need to make money.. i play games

     

     Yet you said THE ORIGINAL model not your first experience.  It was a statement of fact that wasn't facturally true.  Not a good way to discuss issues if you are going to spin it wrong.  IMO, cash shops are the symptom.  The problem is revenue to support games.  Then we get discussion points that if a game were good enough it would make money which is kind of magicial thinking.  What is specifically good to be good enough?  Real game play points.

    I like level based games.  Others abhor level based games.  We are unlikely to get a single game for both of us.

  • TheocritusTheocritus Gary, INPosts: 3,739Member Uncommon
    the cash shops helped save the genre for me......Prior to 2005 or so, the only option we had was to pay a sub....Not only that but we had to buy expansions also......The 5 years I played EQ I spent well over 1K......Once the cash shops came along and games started offering no subs, I started to save alot more money.....The cash shops are no temptation for me....i dont care if I dont have the biggest sowrd, the fastest mount, uber XP, or whatever else they want to throw in there, I just want to play.
  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,473Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     


    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky
    I happen to agree that cash shops have killed my enjoyment. Nothing breaks my immersion like paying as I go, having my credit card at hand along with my computer as I journey in games.

     

    Unfortunately, cash shops are here to stay. There are enough people who care not about them and some who pay enough to keep the games afloat that they will not be gone in a long, long while, if ever. With F2P games, some even consider it a mini-game to get as far as they can for free.

    I would much rather pay once a month and then play without worrying about paying as I go. That way, my real world and the game world stay separated.


    How do you feel that you are paying for the welfare players?  Since you are footing the bill don't you believe you should be getting a lot more for spending your money than the welfare players?
    I don't support welfare players. In the last few games I have played that had a cash shop or F2P, I found nothing in the shop I wanted to buy, nor did I consider the game worth my money. I thought about more character slots in GW2, but am glad I waited until I finished the game with my first character.

     

    I would much rather pay a sub. Unfortunately, there has not been a game released that warranted that from me in the past few years.

     Cool. I too prefer sub based games.  Although I have been enjoying World of Tanks and spent a few bucks to add to my pool of tanks.  Character slots are a good use of cash shops. 

  • udonudon Durham, NCPosts: 1,797Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by waynejr2
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     


    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky
    I happen to agree that cash shops have killed my enjoyment. Nothing breaks my immersion like paying as I go, having my credit card at hand along with my computer as I journey in games.

     

    Unfortunately, cash shops are here to stay. There are enough people who care not about them and some who pay enough to keep the games afloat that they will not be gone in a long, long while, if ever. With F2P games, some even consider it a mini-game to get as far as they can for free.

    I would much rather pay once a month and then play without worrying about paying as I go. That way, my real world and the game world stay separated.


    How do you feel that you are paying for the welfare players?  Since you are footing the bill don't you believe you should be getting a lot more for spending your money than the welfare players?
    I don't support welfare players. In the last few games I have played that had a cash shop or F2P, I found nothing in the shop I wanted to buy, nor did I consider the game worth my money. I thought about more character slots in GW2, but am glad I waited until I finished the game with my first character.

     

    I would much rather pay a sub. Unfortunately, there has not been a game released that warranted that from me in the past few years.

     Cool. I too prefer sub based games.  Although I have been enjoying World of Tanks and spent a few bucks to add to my pool of tanks.  Character slots are a good use of cash shops. 

     

    You honeslty complain about cash shops but buy into WOT?  World of Tanks must have what is in my opinoin one of the most customer unfriendly shops out there.  If it's not gold ammo which I admit is easy to resist in PUG matches it's elite XP.  The need to spend real money to convert any XP you earn on a tank into general XP you can use to level something else is the number one reason they can in house fund 2 new game developers at the same time and still be rolling in money.  And gold tanks make the matter even worse since you are earning tons more XP though bonuses on those things.  A gold tank even played casually will cost you $30+ a month just to pull the XP off of.

  • DamonVileDamonVile Vancouver, BCPosts: 4,818Member
    Originally posted by udon

     

    You honeslty complain about cash shops but buy into WOT?  World of Tanks must have what is in my opinoin one of the most customer unfriendly shops out there.  If it's not gold ammo which I admit is easy to resist in PUG matches it's elite XP.  The need to spend real money to convert any XP you earn on a tank into general XP you can use to level something else is the number one reason they can in house fund 2 new game developers at the same time and still be rolling in money.  And gold tanks make the matter even worse since you are earning tons more XP though bonuses on those things.  A gold tank even played casually will cost you $30+ a month just to pull the XP off of.

    That's total nonsense. I have 4 or 5 tier 10 tanks a max tier arty and a bunch of other crap ( i haven't played in a while)  and have never once converted xp with gold. You don't need to do it to play, you just can't resist the easy way out. The amount of credits you make without a sub or premium tank is a bit nasty....but it's how they make money, and you still don't HAVE to do it.

    You not being able to resist may make the game expensive but it's not an argument for why f2p is unfriendly. Preying on people with no willpower or people who need everything now is nothing new to any business.

  • Sevenstar61Sevenstar61 Centreville, VAPosts: 1,690Member Uncommon
    It's not cash shops that ruined MMOs. It's F2P which makes cash shop necessary so company can get some money for their investment.

    image
    Sith Warrior - Story of Hate and Love http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxKrlwXt7Ao
    Imperial Agent - Rise of Cipher Nine http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBBj3eJWBvU&feature=youtu.be
    Imperial Agent - Hunt for the Eagle Part 1http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQqjYYU128E

  • GrumpyMel2GrumpyMel2 Catskills, NYPosts: 1,832Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

    I agree with everything you said.  It is a much tricker model.

    This part needs further comment though:

    "How much can I get the user to spend before it no longer becomes fun for him?.....AND can I make it unfun enough to play for free that I'll get enough users to spend something so I can make a proffit?"

    You forgot to also mention that the f2p, like the p2p, needs to be fun enough to keep them even without the shop.  If they don't keep them, there is zero chance of getting them to buy anything.

    edit - while they do not change the movie, they do change the theatre.  In my own city there are cheap movies for less than 5 dollars.  Typically floor is a bit sticky, chairs dont recline.

    Normal movie - pretty clean, nice sloped theatre, comy chairs.

    More expensive - better screens, better sound, chairs that recline

    Great theatre - very clean, reclining chairs, cup holder on both sides and can flag staff down to deliver you your food.  Much more expensive.

    The problem here is that if it is TOO MUCH fun to play for free....then they are not making a proffit since no one is going to bother to pay for something that you can get for free.

    You also tend to have the pressure that tends to come down from the execs on lost POTENTIAL revenue. If you do something that gets a user to spend $4...could you have gotten something more extreme that would have gotten the user to spend $5 without having him walk away. Not doing that is seen by the exec as a loss of POTENTIAL revenue.

    It's not exactly a new thing. Car manufacturers sell thier base models for price X and then they sell thier add-ons for X + whatever and have been doing that forever. However, the car manufacturers have had alot of time and experience to perfect those skills. They also know that at least with the base model, they are still making a proffit.

    The F2P guy is under more pressure....as each user playing for free DOES actualy cost him something to support...even if that's not a heck of alot....so they really do need to make sure they make thier minimum conversion....and frankly alot of Dev's/Publishers haven't had nearly as much experience with perfecting those kind of pricing decisions that the car manufacturers who have been doing it for decades (and sometimes running into trouble themselves) have. YMMV.

     

  • waynejr2waynejr2 West Toluca Lake, CAPosts: 4,473Member Uncommon
    Originally posted by udon
    Originally posted by waynejr2
    Originally posted by AlBQuirky

     


    Originally posted by waynejr2

    Originally posted by AlBQuirky
    I happen to agree that cash shops have killed my enjoyment. Nothing breaks my immersion like paying as I go, having my credit card at hand along with my computer as I journey in games.

     

    Unfortunately, cash shops are here to stay. There are enough people who care not about them and some who pay enough to keep the games afloat that they will not be gone in a long, long while, if ever. With F2P games, some even consider it a mini-game to get as far as they can for free.

    I would much rather pay once a month and then play without worrying about paying as I go. That way, my real world and the game world stay separated.


    How do you feel that you are paying for the welfare players?  Since you are footing the bill don't you believe you should be getting a lot more for spending your money than the welfare players?
    I don't support welfare players. In the last few games I have played that had a cash shop or F2P, I found nothing in the shop I wanted to buy, nor did I consider the game worth my money. I thought about more character slots in GW2, but am glad I waited until I finished the game with my first character.

     

    I would much rather pay a sub. Unfortunately, there has not been a game released that warranted that from me in the past few years.

     Cool. I too prefer sub based games.  Although I have been enjoying World of Tanks and spent a few bucks to add to my pool of tanks.  Character slots are a good use of cash shops. 

     

    You honeslty complain about cash shops but buy into WOT?  World of Tanks must have what is in my opinoin one of the most customer unfriendly shops out there.  If it's not gold ammo which I admit is easy to resist in PUG matches it's elite XP.  The need to spend real money to convert any XP you earn on a tank into general XP you can use to level something else is the number one reason they can in house fund 2 new game developers at the same time and still be rolling in money.  And gold tanks make the matter even worse since you are earning tons more XP though bonuses on those things.  A gold tank even played casually will cost you $30+ a month just to pull the XP off of.

     Lots of people have black/white thinking.  Life is more sophisticated than that.

  • AyulinAyulin Mt marion, NYPosts: 334Member
    Originally posted by VengeSunsoar

     

     

    Except they don't do that. Especially these days. You simply have the wrong understanding of what MMO is supposed to be...as do many, many others.

    Many old MMO's did do just that for the reason of getting you to play longer.  I never stated or implied anything of what an MMO is or is not supposed to be.  I personally do not believe what an MMO is supposed to be has anything to do with time.  Please do not make assumptions.

    They were designed as on-going, long-term hobbies. Period. Playing them for a long period of time is/was the entire point of their design to begin with. This is irrefutable. MMOs are designed as on-going, persistent experiences. Not "play it, finish it, move on". You can choose to play it that way. But then, you're choosing to play the game in a way that isn't in line with its design which, again, is fine. Just don't complain about the game "being too slow", or whatever. Again, you're trying to force a square peg into a round hole, while blaming the hole for being the wrong shape.

    And "time" has everything to do with a MMOs design. They are designed to support and entertain players for months or years, by providing enough on-going content to continue doing. This is why people are playing the older 1st and 2nd Gen MMOs, still to this day, 8+ years later, and still finding stuff to do and fun to have... because they're designed to entertain players over longer periods of time. It's completely self-evident, and it's ridiculous that you keep trying to spin it into some devious 'scheme'.

    Again, complaining that "they were designed to get you playing longer" is to completely miss the point of them.  It's like going into a Vegan restaurant and complaining that they don't offer steak on the menu. It makes absolutely no sense, yet that's what you're doing. You're complaining about something being exactly what it's supposed to be.

    That you disagree with that does not make the game/developers the perps of some "devious plot to trick people into paying more money by playing longer". For the most part, at least traditionally, people expect to play a MMO longer, much longer, because that's the kind of games MMOs are by their very nature. I know you dont' want to understand that, and you want to argue "well, I don't think time has anything to do with it", but you are wrong in that view. Plain and simple. A MMO that fails to keep people entertained and paying money over a long period of time tends to end up becoming either  a F2P/Cash Shop MMO, or a canceled/failed MMO.

    I have no problem with paying for an MMO.  The payment model, b2p, f2p or p2p I could care less about.  I object to things being put in the way just to make things take longer.  The OP talked about f2p being like that, well p2p was/did the exact same thing.

    Only nothing was put in your way to "make it take longer". That's how you're choosing to perceive it because it took longer than you would have liked it to. 

    "How long it should take" to do anything is a personal preference. It's not a mandate for "how the game is supposed to be designed". There is no universal "rule" for "how long getting money for a mount is supposed to take". It took longer than you'd have liked, and that's it. That's all there is to it. It's not a design flaw. It's not "the developers deliberately trying to hold you back".

    Again, I know people who, starting from scratch, had earned the money for their first mount by the time they were ready to ride one. If it was possible for them, then it's possible for anyone, you included. So, while I know you want to blame it on the game's design (blaming the hole for being the wrong shape), it still comes back to how you were approaching the game, no matter how you want to spin it otherwise.

    Your problem is you keep conflating "how you'd like the game to be" with "how the game should be".  But hey, at least you're not alone. Many people seem to feel games they play should be designed to cater specifically to their preferences. And, like you, they get angry and blame the developers when they find that to not be the case.

    Sub-based MMOs are designed around the idea of keeping people entertained and engaged in the game enough to make that sub fee seem worthwhile month after month, so they'll keep playing. They have to earn that sub fee, 30/31 days at a time. No easy task.

    This is what makes your argument about "dragging it out so people have to pay another month" flawed and rather short-sighted. If players aren't enjoying the game enough to stick around in the first place, the developer isn't getting another penny from them, no matter what their intentions are.

    Same with f2p mmo's.  If they aren't enjoying the game in the first place, they won't stick around to buy something in the market. 

    First, I never claimed otherwise. Second, that your response completely side-steps the point I was making in those two paragraphs is not lost on me.

    Cash Shop MMOs are designed to entice and compel people to spend as much money as possible, as often as possible. They design inconvenience, speed bumps, road-blocks, and reduced effectiveness into the "free game", so it'll make paying to eliminate all those things seem more desirable.

    Someone posted a description a while ago on here that describes cash shops perfectly. It said something to the effect that if you want to understand how a cash shop works, you just need to take a step back, see all the pot-holes in the road, and the cash shop conveniently selling asphalt.

    They make their money off selling convenience, "social standing" and, all too often, power. They place no cap on how much one can spend, because their goal is to get as many players as they can, to spend as much as they can, as often as they can.

    Conversely, and the point I was making in those two first paragraphs, is that P2P MMO developers have to earn that subscription, month after month. They have to deliver content to keep their players entertained so that when the next billing cycle comes up, they're not left debating whether to keep subbing or to cancel.

    P2P MMOs earn their revenue by providing an ongoing gameplay experience that players want to continue paying for.

    Cash Shop MMOs earn their revenue by making the game as inconvenient, slow and painful as they can get away with, so enough people will open their wallets to pay for more convenient, faster progress and a less painful experience. Rare and so-called aesthetic-only items? That's the developers cashing on social pressures; the need to "fit in" or the need to "stand out". The entire game is designed around those goals. Dont' take my word for it. There are entire courses designed to teach game developers how to "monetize their players" by exploiting all those very things.

    If you're okay with all that, then more power to ya. You have more than enough options out there to choose from. For me, I'd much rather know the money I'm paying every month is going into the development of new enjoyable content for me to have fun participating in, rather than "research into new ways to monetize me from the moment I log in".

    As with many, your arguments/complaints about sub-based MMOs are very much rooted in a fundamental misunderstanding of what they are, what they've always been, and how they're intended to be played/experienced.

    No.  I don't believe MMO"s are supposed to be anything other than entertainment.  Anything they are supposed to be is simply your interpretation.

    Your arguments and attitude toward P2P MMOs overall paints a very different picture, especially the "dragging things out to make people play longer" remark - that's a clear indication of someone who doesn't understand what MMOs are designed to be. Other arguments you make only underscore and support that.

    That said... A week to get enough money to get something that's going to benefit you for the rest of your time playing (which is , again, ideally months or years.. not days or weeks), is a worthy time investment. And it didn't cost you a single dime more out of your RL wallet to get. You earned that money by playing the game.

    And it was seriously boring.  It was not how I played the game to that point, not how I chose to play the game after that point. 

    Okay, well at least you acknowledge that it's a product of how you chose to play the game this time, and not just blaming the game itself :). That's a step in the right direction, at least.

    No.  I have no expectations of an MMO other than entertaining me.  That is the only purpose.

    But you do expect more than that. In your arguments, you've demonstrted a very clear expectations of how quickly it should reward what you're after. You've argued some vague notion of "not being rewarding enough", which indicates that you had certain expectations for that as well. Your previous arguments make that very clear. What you've said is what you've said. You can't backpedal and retract or revise those statements now because they've been addressed by someone else.

     

  • MagiknightMagiknight McKinleyville, CAPosts: 782Member
    MMOs were ruined before cash shops. They are just one step further in the direction of hell.
  • VengeSunsoarVengeSunsoar Posts: 5,316Member Uncommon

    @ayulin

    I am not, nor have I ever complained about a game being too slow.  I have complained about these in the game done to deliberately make the game slower in order to get you to stay longer.  These things were there for that reason.

    Old games did have systems that artificially and unneccessarily inflated the time it took to do things.  In many old games you literally had to wait to play.  Waiting for the boat for 20 minutes followed by a 20 minute ride – unnecessary time sink.  10 minutes of sitting medding looking at a spell book, unnecessary time sink.  Hell levels, completely unnecessary time sink.  They were done to extend your time, that’s it.  This is also why they were taken out, devs realized they were stupid. 

    So the devs agree with me.  They took those things out of their games.

    I do understand your view.  I do not agree with it.  Some MMO’s were meant for long term play, some were not.  The classic ones we played (EQ, UO, DAOC…) were, those were not the first nor the only MMO’s. 

    F2P MMO’s with a cs have been around since the very beginning of MMO’s and before MMORPG.

    I am not “conflating how I’d like the game to be vs how the game should be”  I’m stating how it actually was.  I choose whether to play it or not. 

    Whether you believe it or not, many things in old games were done “just to make you play longer” and devs got rid of them.

    CS games have to be fun first.  The only way the devs get any money is if the game is fun enough.  A p2p game has your money before you even step foot in the game.

    IMO there are more pot holes and inconveniences in most p2p games, than in the newer and better f2p games. 

    I don’t care how long a game takes to play or finish (if it does), that doesn’t concern me.  I’m more interested in if it is fun at that moment I am playing, and once again p2p has just as many potholes and inconveniences for the same reasons as f2p. 

    Quit worrying about other players in a game and just play.

Sign In or Register to comment.