The thing in my mind is that time alone should not be the criteria for "success". This is why these MMO's are so damn boring. "Go here and do this for your reward". Where's the adventure in that? Nowhere, and thus the reason for the overwhelming boredom so many gamers have been complaining about for years now, and ever growing as each new release is "just more of the same grind".
THIS!
This is where I was heading in this thread. RMT doesn't affect games where you are playing because you enjoy the game. Lets use a slightly more real world example using Disney, who I think gets entertainment.
When you are at Disney World, you can usually skip a line by using a fastpass. You can only have one fast pass at a time, but if you plan ahead, it's completely possible to go through the park without waiting in a single line. Disney gets that people hate lines. Yet, they also know that some people are going to end up in them. What do they do? On their newer attractions they put some amazing things to see in the line.
What happened? Well I met many people who actually don't use the fast pass because they want to see the line. Even though they could skip the wait to get to the attraction they still waited. Why? Well the wait was fun and neat to see.
Current MMOs don't get it. They know we need things to do, yet they have problems giving us things we want to do. Does anyone really want to kill 10 snipes? No, not really. Until they do get it, I fully support RMT in games to let people bypass the drugery, because that's all it is. No skill whack a mole courier type play... or I can do as I am now, and not play any of them.
People wouldn't resent RMT if the content they were playing was actually fun. As it is now, it's viewed as cutting in line as opposed to missing out on some cool stuff.
There are much better solutions to these problems other than milking the players with an item shop. Why pay to play the game in the first place if it has design that you consider to be a "grind and boring"? Why support a developer that is making games that are not for you? Even worse why still support the game developer for his bad game design for you AND give him more money to skip the bad content? Does not make sense. Buying your way through the bad content should not be seen as the solution to the percieved bad game design. I know the Developer would love for you to believe this is them helping you. Why not? You are forking over more money to them.
How about voting no with your wallet to the games that have design that you think is unfun? Don't pay some developer to skip it, demand better with your money. Hold out for games that are fun, games that you don't feel you need to buy your way through the game with a credit card to get to the fun spots. If people would do this and there are enough of you out there that feel this way about the current games, believe me you will get attention. Developers will ask themselves how do we get thos subscriptions. Believe me, if they are not getting the money they will provide you with a fun game .. not just an item shop to help you skip content of their boring game as you have stated.
We are obviously not oposing that alternative. What we are oposing is the unethical/imoral money usage as a substitute to time. The ideal, to be politically correct, as we already agreed upon in many other topics about it is that an MMORPG based on player skill as the main factor of success/efficiency in competition would be the best way. Ive seen it work in some games, but not without time and effort equation, those would make the game only a MOG. Time cant be fully ignored, its importance will still be there for multiple and obvious reasons. And money, well, no way money can fit in. Dont get me started on "oh, what about illegal RMT" again...
Now answer me this: Do you think you can have a Persistent world where people affect such world evolving along with it, without the chronological aspect?
First of all, I'm against using RMT to skip content as well. I do not know if you read the thread or not but I have made that clear from the very first post I made in this thread.
Second, some people do not have time for the more traditional MMORPG ,like Bstripp, so they want certain types of RMT to enhance their entertainment. I'm just proposing different ideas with less emphasis on time so people like him can enjoy an MMO without RMT.
Lastly, how does putting in more engaging content make the game any less chronological? Unless this type of content bends time around to a time before another event that you did ealier, I'm sure that you still do things one after another making it chronological. Besides I think a chronicle of events like
peasant tells the player woes of kingdom -> player meets king and learns that terror knight legion constantly pillaging -> player infiltrates terror knight territory and learns the secrets of their strength -> player uses this against knight leader and defeats him -> player takes head to king and becomes alinged with this kingdom
is much better than
player kills 10 terror knights -> player notifies the king of his efforts ->player kills 10 terror knights -> player notifies the king of his efforts ->player kills 10 terror knights -> player notifies the king of his efforts ->player kills 10 terror knights -> player notifies the king of his efforts ->player is aligned with kingdom.
Quality of play over Quantity of play that's all....
You had an example of a progressing persistent world where time is used to mark important events.
No problem with that at all. That also fit the idea of character progressing through that persistent world.
If that could be achieved only with player skill/wits/exploration/organization/etc, I see no problem if during all that the character didnt even changed to gain a single level or skill.
The problem is that that is akin to a single player story driven game. If it can be done online, great!
But how long would it take for people to get over with such content? Would that game longevity/timespan would be feasible for the MMO market? Does whatever investment on it worth it?
It would have to be a mix of certain elements like: organic, procedurally generated, awesome independent ai, player driven, open endedness, player created and developer scripted content... everything blending together to change the world over and over and still remains fresh and entertaining.
They would have to create every tool possible and give it to the players: "here, have fun, try not to break it"
There are much better solutions to these problems other than milking the players with an item shop. Why pay to play the game in the first place if it has design that you consider to be a "grind and boring"? Why support a developer that is making games that are not for you? Even worse why still support the game developer for his bad game design for you AND give him more money to skip the bad content? Does not make sense. Buying your way through the bad content should not be seen as the solution to the percieved bad game design. I know the Developer would love for you to believe this is them helping you. Why not? You are forking over more money to them. How about voting no with your wallet to the games that have design that you think is unfun? Don't pay some developer to skip it, demand better with your money. Hold out for games that are fun, games that you don't feel you need to buy your way through the game with a credit card to get to the fun spots. If people would do this and there are enough of you out there that feel this way about the current games, believe me you will get attention. Developers will ask themselves how do we get thos subscriptions. Believe me, if they are not getting the money they will provide you with a fun game .. not just an item shop to help you skip content of their boring game as you have stated.
Crikey! That's a reply to a post about 100 ago! Not that I mind of course.
Well first, I am playing no games at the moment, so if that is any indication as to how I am voting with my wallet then you have indeed hit on my current solution. However, do you have to like all parts of a game to enjoy the game? While I never played SWG I was told (by many vets over and over ) that people would like to play an entertainer and hang out in a canteena. While that doesn't appeal to me, the point is that we all have many different tastes.
Let's look at WoW. Perhaps I am a PvP player. I have been told that the best gear is raid oriented. For some reason I love the PvP in WoW. While I doubt they'll ever have any real balance, that doesn't mean that I'll want to roll over and be fodder all the time. So I might want the raid gear, but I really really dislike raiding, or in my case don't have time for raiding. Do I just not play? I love their PvP, but the raid part just doesn't cut it.
How about CoH. I loved that game enough to play for over three years, but I really hated the 1-20 push to where you got most your powers. After three years and 40+ heroes, I realized I wanted to be a hero from the start, not mess around as a sidekick with a few fledgeling powers. Again, that was part of the game I disliked and wished I had an alternative too. They also had task forces that took more time than I could allocate in a sitting. I could never get those rewards. I still liked the game.
In both of those cases, the developer might loose me as a customer if they can not satisfy my needs. Now they introduce RMT into the game to let me do the things I have been talking about. Not only do they keep me as a customer, but if they do it right, they keep most of you as well and make some extra money. I think they loose most of you when they give me an uber sword that you can't get or can't get in a reasonable fashion. To that, I would agree, I'd hate that as well because even if I am arguing for RMT I would be one of those that wouldn't have a whole lot to spend on it.
I think it is ironic to state someone else is obsessed with efficancy when you are the one arguing that RMT is okay to help speed up parts of the game. If you really didn't care about how fast you are doing content or how fast others are doing the content then you wouldn't be advocating for ways to speed up to catch others.
Assumptions, man... they'll kill you all the time.
You point out both one of the similarities and one of the differences between you and I. Neither of us use XP boosts (never assume, Q), thus the similarity. The difference is that I have no desire to tell another person how to enjoy the game as long as it is within the rules and the spirit of the game, whereas you feel that everyone should play as you. If someone else finds it fun to buy progress accelerating items, more power to them.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
We are obviously not oposing that alternative. What we are oposing is the unethical/imoral money usage as a substitute to time. The ideal, to be politically correct, as we already agreed upon in many other topics about it is that an MMORPG based on player skill as the main factor of success/efficiency in competition would be the best way. Ive seen it work in some games, but not without time and effort equation, those would make the game only a MOG. Time cant be fully ignored, its importance will still be there for multiple and obvious reasons. And money, well, no way money can fit in. Dont get me started on "oh, what about illegal RMT" again... Also, we hate grinding. Grinding as I said many times is just a side effect of developers inability to provide entertaining content to fill the time and effort activities players do that ALSO justify their progression in the persistent world. When I mention time, there is a clear distinction between time and effort as an requisite equation of MMORPGs and grind. Grind is a by product and Im not trying to protect its existance or justify it. I dislike it as well. Im discussing this from the principle that no game should throw boring repetitive activities as a way to fill the creative void and development time of the game. Now answer me this: Do you think you can have a Persistent world where people affect such world evolving along with it, without the chronological aspect?
Ok please tell me that you are not a collective this referring to we when you are talking is creeping me out. If I am talking to the Borg, I'd really like to know .
I would agree that time can not be fully ignored. To do so would make the game just a money fest or something else. However, just because you need time=progression in your game as one of the pillars doesn't mean that is the only thing holding the house up. However, there can be multiple paths to reduce the reliance on time=progression as the only, or even the most important of the pillars supporting your game.
While I with you on the grind point and will agree that time has to be considered in a progression scheme, I will obviously not agree whole heartedly on the rest.
If the developer puts money=progression as a model into the game, I would say that it is certainly not unethical, or immoral. I will also, obviously disagree that money can not find a place in such a scheme.
If there is grind, or any other time based roadblock in a game, does it really impact you as a player if I skip it by legal ingame methods (twinking/PLing) or by a legally supported developer RMT scheme? The impact is that I skipped it. While I might say that it shouldn't affect you at all, it certainly seems to bother some people. Why does the money aspect bother your to the point of calling it immoral?
Have you traded an item to a player who has not completed the task required to get it? What if he bought you dinner in thanks... is that RMT? Where does the trading of in game items or the acceleration of XP move from accepted to immoral?
People that are for RMT, let's address these issues right here: Let's look at an example of pure greed when item shops enter the picture. Sony's Everquest does not have rested xp, instead in Everquest you have to PAY more money for xp potions to speed up your leveling. Why did they not add rested xp as a feature in their game? Item shop. Once a greedy company adds an item shop then the features and content you would have gotten in game to entertain or fix problems with the game will be lessened. Why add rest xp to the game when you can charge 9.99 for an exp potion? Also YOU swiping a credit card to obtain a potion is not your character doing something to obtain the potion. How did your character get that potion? It ruins game immersion as well.
The rested XP system of P2P games without item shops is a great example of how in P2P games once an item shop goes in the subcription paying customer gets less for their money thereafter. I will not support those games, that is pure greed. They lose my subscription. If there are complete F2P games out there that start with an item shop, fine. I can avoid them from the start. My point is F2P with RMT and P2P without should stay seperate. Combining the two is pure greed and should not be supported, unless you want more developers to try to take away more of your content in the future you would normally get for your box prices and subcription fees.
I don't like item shops. I don't play games with item shops.
But what the heck is the "greed" thing about? A company has only one objective, goal, or duty, to make as much money as possible without breaking the law.
EVERY company does that. They are all "greedy" or else they are not companies, they are called Charities. If a company fails to make as much money as it can within the law, then the stock holders (if it's public) will tell the Board of Directors to fire the President and the rest of management, and hire some people that WILL make as much money as possible.
Adding an item shop is about profit not "greed". MMORPGs are not Charities. At least none I know of. If you open an item shop, you will make money from teh shop, and you will lose some monthly subs because some people dont' like item shop games.
It's a simple mathematical calculation that has nothing to do with "greed". Either you will make more money with the item shop, even though you lose some customers, or you will make less money with the item shop because of the customers you lose.
You do the math, you do whichever one makes the most money. Otherwise you are either a charity, you will be fired, or you will go out of business.
This is the kind of thinking behind the problems with companies like AIG. Companies exist to make money, yes. However, they do not exist only to make money. They exist to make money by providing valuable goods and services to consumers.
Making money, when not tied to a commitment to customer satisfaction and quality goods and services, is very short-sighted. It tends to lead to scandal and implosion. You can find example after example that proves this point. Cutting corners on safety to cars, cutting back on inspections at meat packing plants, selling financial products to consumers with hidden costs, making high risk investments with other people's money etc. etc.. All of these things were done in the name of making money, solely. No consideration was given to customer satisfaction or long-term consequences.
It's a popular philosophy in a society that is currently collapsing in on itself because of wrecklessness and greed. If you don't believe me, I think President Obama just said the exact same thing recently; along with economists from here to Asia.
I don't want to drag the thread off topic, but you just agreed with me.
I stated the job of the company, it's one and only job, the reason for existence, is to make as much money as possible within the law.
You just said providing quality goods and services and customer satisfaction will make you more money in the long run. Which is why a company would do that, to make MORE money.
Generally, you make more money with a good product and customer satisfaction than a crappy product and pissed off customers. And that's because of something called competition.
Bad companies that don't make a good product, go out of business. Good companies that make a good product stay in business, and make more and more money. So how is your point adverse to mine?
If companies dont' exist ONLY to make money, then they are callled Charities. Making a good product isn't done from kindness of the company, it's just good business and makes more money.
I think we approach this with a different mental paradigm. We may have to respectfully agree to disagree on this, and that's fine with me btw.
What I'm saying is that if your corporate philosophy puts cash alone at the top of the totem pole, you will inevitably cut corners or do things that disadvantage your customers. A successful corporate philosophy in my view puts cash and customer satisfaction on par with each other, and holds them as objectives in and of themselves.
In your philosophy, customer satisfaction appears to be a means to an end. In mine it is an objective in and of itself. Another objective in and of itself would be environmental responsibility. If these things are subordinate to profit, corners will be cut, mistakes will be made, short-term gain will lead to long-term pain.
There's a very subtle line between my thinking and yours. I think to many, its imperceptible.
Because the difference is moot. Same exact outcome, but one uses emotional pleas to justice, and cries about "greed" one does not.
I treat my customers well, because it's good business and I'll make more money.
You do the same, and say it has nothing to do with making more money, it's just the right thing to do, and the money doesn't matter.
Pardon me if I say you're full of baloney, and you're doing it for the money, just like me.
I'm not doing it (what I do for a living) just for the money. I have other objectives that I value equally; perhaps more so. For instance, I wouldn't knowingly give people less than a high quality product, even if I thought doing so would generate more revenue. If it doesn't meet certain personal standards, it's not made available. This isn't charity, because I do still want to generate a profit. This is one of my motivations; not the only one though.
If I was in it just for the money, I'd sell whatever crap people were willing to buy (and some people really will settle for crap). Believe it or not, I really just don't operate that way. There are many different business philosophies floating around. Everyone really doesn't think the same way.
In the context of this thread, I think this is important to recognize. Some companies will formulate a business model that provides entertainment for a reasonable price. Others will try to get people to spend as much money as they can for very little, if any entertainment value. RMT can fit nicely into the latter approach.
Paying real dollars for a random chance at performance enhancing loot is a perfect example. How much entertainment do you get from wasting 50 bucks trying to get new equipment only available via RMT? If I spent 50 bucks and got squat, entertained isn't how I'd feel.
You had an example of a progressing persistent world where time is used to mark important events. No problem with that at all. That also fit the idea of character progressing through that persistent world. If that could be achieved only with player skill/wits/exploration/organization/etc, I see no problem if during all that the character didnt even changed to gain a single level or skill.
The problem is that that is akin to a single player story driven game. If it can be done online, great! But how long would it take for people to get over with such content? Would that game longevity/timespan would be feasible for the MMO market? Does whatever investment on it worth it?
It would have to be a mix of certain elements like: organic, procedurally generated, awesome independent ai, player driven, open endedness, player created and developer scripted content... everything blending together to change the world over and over and still remains fresh and entertaining. They would have to create every tool possible and give it to the players: "here, have fun, try not to break it"
Seems like we are talking about a really good sandbox game or something now xD
Honestly though, if we do not think of something that takes some emphasis off time then we are doomed to put up with certain types of RMT.
If time is the issue for some then somehow something else needs to be emphasized to make progression. If you are going to outright refuse then prepare to suffer from RMT forever.
Hmmm...
Maybe alternatives that come to the same goal in the end?
Long repetitve raiding => sword of awesomeness
2-3 Shorter but harder mini dungeons => sword of awesomeness
very very hard quest chain => sword of awesomeness
Win PVP arena 10 times in a row => sword of awesomeness
Maybe not those exact objectives but you get my point.
Actually I could give you an example of a subscription based game that just introduced performance enhancing loot, superior vehicles and structures that you can only get via RMT. Actually you don't even get to purchase the buffs or items directly. You have to gamble for them with real cash. You pay the online store for a random chance of obtaining what you're after. If I mention the game, however, this thread will very likely get hi-jacked by people that want to defend this practice and the company behind it. It shall therefore remain nameless. The debate is ongoing in another forum, where I think it belongs. There is also a game that is free to play, but to make progress you have to either hit the item shop or engage in what seems like an endless, repetitive grind of doing things like harvesting sweat from animals. Nealy all the gear is tied to RMT, and it is most definitely performance enhancing.
That's the example I was waiting for. The issue there isn't RMT but a unique (IMO, poor) use of it. Your argument is based solely on the extreme exception and not the norm.
I'm against RMT done poorly ^_^. That's correct. I have no trouble with having the option of purchasing non-performance enhancing items via RMT. My favourite example would be the silver surfer-type travel graphics you can buy in City of Heroes. You don't go any faster than anyone else, but man zipping around on a surf-board made of light looks cool lol.
The "norm" I think at this point is hard to define. Many companies seem to be experimenting with different models of RMT. Some seem to be trying to find out how much customers will tolerate.
Okay, let's go with the 20 hour scenario again. (I enjoy discussing this with you btw ^_^). My 20 hour guy will be in the same ball park with other 20 hour people. Mind you, I may have beat quests that someone else struggles with and this may be due to some skill related issues. I think that's good btw. If I can beat this uberboss and get his magic sword, than I earned an edge via skill. The other guy could practice or get help to beat the uber boss, and then we're back on par again. I also think that's good. So, what I'm saying is that people playing the same amount of time are reasonable competitive with each other. This is unbalanced (intentionally) when a company sells me the magic sword at an item shop for 5 bucks. Now, other people need to hit the item shop to be on par. This is especially true if the latest gear is only available via RMT, or if it's so hard to get in game that people will feel compelled to hit the item shop to save themselves the hassle.This opens incredible opportunities for financial exploitation on the part of the game developer. That's one main issue for me as a customer. I suppose the other issue, which is related, is that I don't want to pay for a competitive advantage. I want to pay for entertainment. Buying performance enhancing gear (and possibly being manipulated into doing so) doesn't give me any gameplay entertainment. Now, the scenario you present is very specific. You may want to play alongside others who have progressed further than you. Even that scenario has been addressed without resorting to performance enhancing RMT items. In City of Heroes, they have the side-kick system. It's wonderful. If I'm a level 50 player (top tier) and I want to bring a friend into a level 50 zone, we meet at my batcave (hero-base) and I click on him to make him my side-kick. Voila, now we can play together. He still gets xp that is on par with his actual level too. City of Heroes also lets me drop to his level if I want. It's called exemplaring. Then I can do content in my friend's zones if I want. If I do this, I get cash (ingame) rewards. It's a nice way to boost the bank account. For PvP, I can be dropped to my friend's level to play in an entry level PvP zone also. We can also duel in arenas that allow us to set the level anywhere we choose. The options in City of Heroes ensure that people are paying for entertainment, not a competitive advantage. They also address the desire to want to play with or against one's friends. Some things I like about CoH, others I don't. I think they got this one right though.
Thank you, I have enjoyed the discussion with you, and really most people in this thread. I have a minority view, I realize that and don't expect people to come around to that viewpoint. Which doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the debate.
We'll have to drop exclusive game changing items from the discussion because I would totally agree with you. If the only way you can get the sword is via money, then while it's no more unbalanced than the time scenario, you shifted the point of balance to the folks with money, in effect perpetuating the same imbalance just with a different set of people. So I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is a bad scenario.
However, lets use the magic sword example and assuming that we both need the magic sword to be competitive. Perhaps the "quest" to get that sword takes four hours to do. It's kind of long and hard, but it's an MMO and most people get through it, whether by skill or help or what not. I don't have four hour blocks of time, I can get on for at most two hours at a time. I'm never going to get the sword, and if I need it to get to the next area, or to be competitive in the game then I am pretty much out of luck. If they introduce it in the item shop, you don't have to go buy it, you can spend the four hours and run the quest to get it. Ideally, it's a totally awesome quest and you not only get the item, but four hours of quality time.
You should feel happy you did it, happy that you perservered and won your sword, you did after all earn it. Now we meet again in the next area of the game. You have your sword, I have mine. Granted you've had to play longer than me, but we are still at the same place and can progress or compete as normal. Not only that, but assuming that it's not exclusive and the RMT is not over the top, you'll never know or care how I achieved mine.
See I think that people are so conditioned to bad RMT that they assume all RMT will be bad, because in a nut shell, that's what most of the RMT schemes have been. You see a dark sky that rains on you every time, the assumption is that all dark skys produce rain. Yet it doesn't have to be that way.
So while I agree with the statement that buying game items/xp doesn't give you entertainment, it does give you the ability to perhaps experience the entertainment that you wanted in the first place. Ask your die hard PvP players if they ever want to grind levels. Nearly all will tell you no. They want to play against people and most resent the lengthy level up process it takes them to continually shift characters to the metagame.
I'm glad you brought up CoH, as I did in my prior post. I do think they had a very good method of allowing for people with limited time. As I mentioned I did play that game for 3.5 years, and I think that was a big part of it. I could have a friend join and could play with them immediately. That kind of mechanic makes sense for a SuperHero game, but could be kind of odd in other systems. Still, it is a really good solution. On the downside in that game were the task forces, which game big time rewards. If you don't have time for them ( up to 8 hours per task force on the longers ones, Dr. Q I am looking at you) then you miss out on some of the game's best stuff. Thankfully the content was geared so you could play without, but not all games are that friendly.
Still CoH did have RMT in the game. You could buy packs which would give you in game benefits and none of which I thought were particularly game altering. Most related to travel, although a couple were situational powers like the cyborg self destruct. They were reasonably cheap and paid for the development time to make them. Again, while the company gets lambasted a lot, they had some really good ideas and their RMT was pretty well done. My prior post also said I would have happily have paid 10-20 to skip to level 20 and miss the really dull intro that I have done perhaps 40+ times.
Yet for every way that you can come up with making time less of an advantage, you should be able to come up with the same method for RMT. Why? Because most of us have limited quantites of either. Now finding the balance is hard, but I don't feel impossible.
Okay, I think I get where you're coming from even better now. First of all, if a company was willing to do the following, it might not lead to exploitation:
Magic sword: Lets say you can get this at the end of a one hour quest. If I'm paying 15 bucks a month to play the game, it just cost me 2 cents to get the magic sword. Really, I paid the 2 cents for the fun of playing the game for an hour, but getting the sword surely is part of the fun.
If some company wants to sell me the magic sword at an item shop for 2 cents, or give me the option of getting it via 2 cents worth of game-time. That's fine by me...for real. However, the game company would still have to ensure that the quest was accessible to all players, doable, and enjoyable.
I have yet to see anyone implement RMT in this manner yet. So far it's all about maximizing revenue, and minimizing development cost. That's really a losing scenario for the gamer. This is what happens I think when game companies care only about money. They do things for quick revenue, at the expense of customer satisfaction.
In one game, they make certain loot available via RMT, and then say it's also available ingame. Hmm, yes it is, but only in a paid expansion for high levels only. So, it's really not available in game for many people. It just looks like it is on paper.
Another problem with RMT is the notion that after you purchase an item, the game company has the right to devalue or delete it at any time. Again, this is a losing scenario for the gamer. If I pay for the magic sword, and it's then deleted immediately thereafter, I"m out of luck. If I earned the magic sword through an enjoyable quest, at least I can say I paid for an enjoyable entertainment experience. Even so, I think game companies should give consumers plenty of warning regarding changes of this nature, so they can decide whether or not they wish to continue subscribing. That's another thread though .
So, yes I think RMT can hypothetically be done ethically. However, in most cases it doesn't seem to be working this way. This is largely because most consumer protection legislation does not address cash transactions for virtual goods. Again, this lends itself to exploitation, and I see plenty of it.
Frankly, my preference would be to see crafted goods available for ingame currency in a well regulated game economy. Want a magic sword? Go to another player's sword shop and buy it. If you want, make friends with a sword-maker, and he'll give you one.
Where I've seen this go wrong is in purely market-driven ingame economies; the inflation goes through the roof. That doesn't make crafting and selling a bad system; it just means that the ingame economy wasn't properly regulated. A lot of devs don't seem to be very good economists unfortunately lol.
You had an example of a progressing persistent world where time is used to mark important events. No problem with that at all. That also fit the idea of character progressing through that persistent world. If that could be achieved only with player skill/wits/exploration/organization/etc, I see no problem if during all that the character didnt even changed to gain a single level or skill.
The problem is that that is akin to a single player story driven game. If it can be done online, great! But how long would it take for people to get over with such content? Would that game longevity/timespan would be feasible for the MMO market? Does whatever investment on it worth it?
It would have to be a mix of certain elements like: organic, procedurally generated, awesome independent ai, player driven, open endedness, player created and developer scripted content... everything blending together to change the world over and over and still remains fresh and entertaining. They would have to create every tool possible and give it to the players: "here, have fun, try not to break it"
Seems like we are talking about a really good sandbox game or something now xD
Honestly though, if we do not think of something that takes some emphasis off time then we are doomed to put up with certain types of RMT.
If time is the issue for some then somehow something else needs to be emphasized to make progression. If you are going to outright refuse then prepare to suffer from RMT forever.
Hmmm...
Maybe alternatives that come to the same goal in the end?
Long repetitve raiding => sword of awesomeness
2-3 Shorter but harder mini dungeons => sword of awesomeness
very very hard quest chain => sword of awesomeness
Win PVP arena 10 times in a row => sword of awesomeness
Maybe not those exact objectives but you get my point.
I think this is great thinking, and deals with the time issue without resorting to performance enhancing RMT with all its pitfalls. Neat stuff.
Seems like we are talking about a really good sandbox game or something now xD Honestly though, if we do not think of something that takes some emphasis off time then we are doomed to put up with certain types of RMT. If time is the issue for some then somehow something else needs to be emphasized to make progression. If you are going to outright refuse then prepare to suffer from RMT forever. Hmmm... Maybe alternatives that come to the same goal in the end? Long repetitve raiding => sword of awesomeness 2-3 Shorter but harder mini dungeons => sword of awesomeness very very hard quest chain => sword of awesomeness Win PVP arena 10 times in a row => sword of awesomeness Maybe not those exact objectives but you get my point.
I think this is great thinking, and deals with the time issue without resorting to performance enhancing RMT with all its pitfalls. Neat stuff.
Believe me, I would rather have methods in a game that don't require money, and I think that they would be welcome in any game. My ideal game is fun enough that you don't want to skip any of it and has enough freedom that you can play it like a single player game (IE you don't need extremely long sittings to progress).
However, knowing human nature, even my ideal game is going to have parts that someone is going to object too. As long as there are enough varied and reasonable paths to achieve what you are looking for in a game, then you should satisfy most of the people. When the content and game is enjoyable enough people forget about the competition for grind since they are lost in the world.
I'd kind of see a process where the devs put in this hard quest and the SOA (sword of awesomeness) is both a reward and an item shop sale.
They release the quest, it's dull boring and reviled by the community, nearly 95% of all SOAs are in game from the shop. The devs, realizing that yes this is good for short term revenue, but horrible for long term satisfaction and retention quickly release an alternate quest that's much more palatable. The ratio of earned to bought SOAs goes to 40/60. That doesn't meet their goals so they add in a couple more of your ideas, tossing it as a PvP reward and a mini quest chain. The ratio dips to 50/50. Finally they tweak the price up a bit and the ratio hits their targeted 75/25.
The next quest they release is so awesome and fun that nearly no one goes to buy the SOA2. So they tweak the price down and get a few lonely people that have no time to do it. The ratio hits 90/10 and while they'd love to sell more SOA2's they realize that ruining the quest is bad for the game and they leave things as they are and try to make more quests like this to keep their subs happy.
Is that likely? Probably not but hopefully so. While the devs might get it, the publisher is likely screaming for more revenue and profits and wants the SOA3 to cost a lot and be exclusive to the shop.
So yeah, I love those ideas and anything that addressed bad content, and alternate methods of advancement for those of us that love games, but don't have enough time to play them, can get into it and advance away is good by me. I'll still say that RMT done right in a game done right is transparent enough that it shouldn't affect anyone, but also be happy to see other changes to address what I think is the need for RMT.
Seems like we are talking about a really good sandbox game or something now xD Honestly though, if we do not think of something that takes some emphasis off time then we are doomed to put up with certain types of RMT. If time is the issue for some then somehow something else needs to be emphasized to make progression. If you are going to outright refuse then prepare to suffer from RMT forever. Hmmm... Maybe alternatives that come to the same goal in the end? Long repetitve raiding => sword of awesomeness 2-3 Shorter but harder mini dungeons => sword of awesomeness very very hard quest chain => sword of awesomeness Win PVP arena 10 times in a row => sword of awesomeness Maybe not those exact objectives but you get my point.
I think this is great thinking, and deals with the time issue without resorting to performance enhancing RMT with all its pitfalls. Neat stuff.
Believe me, I would rather have methods in a game that don't require money, and I think that they would be welcome in any game. My ideal game is fun enough that you don't want to skip any of it and has enough freedom that you can play it like a single player game (IE you don't need extremely long sittings to progress).
However, knowing human nature, even my ideal game is going to have parts that someone is going to object too. As long as there are enough varied and reasonable paths to achieve what you are looking for in a game, then you should satisfy most of the people. When the content and game is enjoyable enough people forget about the competition for grind since they are lost in the world.
I'd kind of see a process where the devs put in this hard quest and the SOA (sword of awesomeness) is both a reward and an item shop sale.
They release the quest, it's dull boring and reviled by the community, nearly 95% of all SOAs are in game from the shop. The devs, realizing that yes this is good for short term revenue, but horrible for long term satisfaction and retention quickly release an alternate quest that's much more palatable. The ratio of earned to bought SOAs goes to 40/60. That doesn't meet their goals so they add in a couple more of your ideas, tossing it as a PvP reward and a mini quest chain. The ratio dips to 50/50. Finally they tweak the price up a bit and the ratio hits their targeted 75/25.
The next quest they release is so awesome and fun that nearly no one goes to buy the SOA2. So they tweak the price down and get a few lonely people that have no time to do it. The ratio hits 90/10 and while they'd love to sell more SOA2's they realize that ruining the quest is bad for the game and they leave things as they are and try to make more quests like this to keep their subs happy.
Is that likely? Probably not but hopefully so. While the devs might get it, the publisher is likely screaming for more revenue and profits and wants the SOA3 to cost a lot and be exclusive to the shop.
So yeah, I love those ideas and anything that addressed bad content, and alternate methods of advancement for those of us that love games, but don't have enough time to play them, can get into it and advance away is good by me. I'll still say that RMT done right in a game done right is transparent enough that it shouldn't affect anyone, but also be happy to see other changes to address what I think is the need for RMT.
Every game isn't made for everyone. People like different things. When people learn this, we will all be better off. You find a game that isn't for you? Fine. Quit it. Go to another game. It isn't that hard. No one should feel they need to stay in a game they have to buy their way through. If you support these type of games then they will prosper. You hurt youself in the long run.
If you think RMT is fair, that's fine. I think it is unfair.
You'll play the RMT games, I'll play the P2P games, and that is that.
I've often thought there should be separate forums for P2P games, and RMT games. I don't play any F2P games, and I know some posters on here don't play any P2P games.
Every game isn't made for everyone. People like different things. When people learn this, we will all be better off. You find a game that isn't for you? Fine. Quit it. Go to another game. It isn't that hard. No one should feel they need to stay in a game they have to buy their way through. If you support these type of games then they will prosper. You hurt youself in the long run.
I would totally agree, I don't need to play every game, and really don't want to play every game. Even games that I lauded the developers and the mecanics as being interesting some times were not my cup of tea. However, games are not a binary state. It is very reasonable to assume that in a game as large and complex as a MMO there are going to be parts you do and don't like.
Most rational people will leave if the parts they don't like are so significant that it outweighs their enjoyment they get when playing the parts they do.
However, I have yet to find a single game that I liked every aspect, every level band, every quest, etc. I doubt I will, most developers seem to focus on getting bits in their game for different gamers. That's great, diversity is the spice of life.
While there are also people who would buy their way through a whole game, I would assume that most would not. The bulk of the people would spend a little here, a little there, nudge their progress when stuck and what not. Just as most people don't spend all of their free time in MMOs, just a small few.
I agree to disagree with those that support RMT. If you think RMT is fair, that's fine. I think it is unfair. You'll play the RMT games, I'll play the P2P games, and that is that. I've often thought there should be separate forums for P2P games, and RMT games. I don't play any F2P games, and I know some posters on here don't play any P2P games.
I thought we had done that a few hundred posts ago. I certainly had no illusions I was going to change your mind, which doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy discussing it.
The only thing I still was curious to hear is if you PLed in the games you played? I never recalled an answer, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the stance that you want to always play in the best manner possible?
It's just something that I saw as a juxtaposition.
Mind you, I'm totally ok if you say I don't PL and I would have to use RMT. I might not get it, but that's your opinion and so be it.
Why have the separate forums? Gamers are a contentious lot. If you separated that out, the WoW vs Non-WoW argument would take center stage. Or some other common argument. Hey, I don't mind if people disagree with me, and post as much. Even if 80% of them disagree with me, it just means I have to work harder to show them all the light .
I agree to disagree with those that support RMT. If you think RMT is fair, that's fine. I think it is unfair. You'll play the RMT games, I'll play the P2P games, and that is that. I've often thought there should be separate forums for P2P games, and RMT games. I don't play any F2P games, and I know some posters on here don't play any P2P games.
I thought we had done that a few hundred posts ago. I certainly had no illusions I was going to change your mind, which doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy discussing it.
The only thing I still was curious to hear is if you PLed in the games you played? I never recalled an answer, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the stance that you want to always play in the best manner possible?
It's just something that I saw as a juxtaposition.
Mind you, I'm totally ok if you say I don't PL and I would have to use RMT. I might not get it, but that's your opinion and so be it.
Why have the separate forums? Gamers are a contentious lot. If you separated that out, the WoW vs Non-WoW argument would take center stage. Or some other common argument. Hey, I don't mind if people disagree with me, and post as much. Even if 80% of them disagree with me, it just means I have to work harder to show them all the light .
I never powerlevel, never buy gold with real money, don't usually twink.
If I"m in a guild, I will hand down items that I no longer need to lower level guildees, and gladly accept when guildees do the same for me, that's about it.
In fact, I wonder if there is a major MMORPG where one cannot buy some gold with just a free clicks. As far as I know, there are none that will not punish you if you are caught buying it. Many of them will insta-ban your account. CoH and Eve come to mind. Because of that, a lot of people will not buy money even if they can afford it.
Of course that is the problem. Enforcing/catching illegal RMT is very difficult, particularly for those who buy little bit to nudge their char along.
Yee 2005 shows that, by survey, 22% of the players buy gold. That is not the majority but pretty significant. That is prob also a conservative number because people prob would NOT like to report themselves as gold buyers (like surveying cheating on spouses).
Sure instant-ban is a deterrent, but no where close to be 100% effective and that is most likely because it is difficult to enforce. For example, how can WOW tell whether I am selling 5000g to another player, or if I give my brother 5000g to buy his flying mount?
Me: As far as I know, there are none that will not punish you if you are caught buying it. Many of them will insta-ban your account. CoH and Eve come to mind. Because of that, a lot of people will not buy money even if they can afford it.
Of course that is the problem. Enforcing/catching illegal RMT is very difficult, particularly for those who buy little bit to nudge their char along.
If it is illegal, it isnt RMT. Its cheating.
And as long as developers make a sufficient effort to stop it, I will tolerate it enough to continue playing the game. Turning cheating legitimate (aka, RMT), would be enough to drive me away from the game though.
Yee 2005 shows that, by survey, 22% of the players buy gold. That is not the majority but pretty significant.
Not to me. Thats barely 1/5 of the player base, assuming the poll is an accurate representation of the whole.
That is prob also a conservative number because people prob would NOT like to report themselves as gold buyers (like surveying cheating on spouses).
Why the hell would they care in an anonymous poll? And I would hardly equate buying gold in an MMO to cheating on a spouse...I doubt most people would care enough to lie about it, even if names were used in the poll.
Sure instant-ban is a deterrent, but no where close to be 100% effective
It doesnt have to be 100% effective to be sufficient. It would be unreasonable for me to expect them to be perfect. I just want them to try, and to make an effort.
Legalizing cheating via RMT is not making an effort.
For example, how can WOW tell whether I am selling 5000g to another player
If they see the eBay account (or equivilent) and connect the names to game accounts. But more likely, you are buying it from a known gold seller. If they can determine you are getting large amounts of gold from an account they have determined is owned by a gold seller, that is enough to get you insta-banned.
A single player to player transaction might get under their radar. But the volume dealers (ie., chinese farmers) are much easier to catch.
The methods are far from perfect, but it doesnt have to be perfect to be effective.
Seems like we are talking about a really good sandbox game or something now xD Honestly though, if we do not think of something that takes some emphasis off time then we are doomed to put up with certain types of RMT. If time is the issue for some then somehow something else needs to be emphasized to make progression. If you are going to outright refuse then prepare to suffer from RMT forever. Hmmm... Maybe alternatives that come to the same goal in the end? Long repetitve raiding => sword of awesomeness 2-3 Shorter but harder mini dungeons => sword of awesomeness very very hard quest chain => sword of awesomeness Win PVP arena 10 times in a row => sword of awesomeness Maybe not those exact objectives but you get my point.
I think this is great thinking, and deals with the time issue without resorting to performance enhancing RMT with all its pitfalls. Neat stuff.
Believe me, I would rather have methods in a game that don't require money, and I think that they would be welcome in any game. My ideal game is fun enough that you don't want to skip any of it and has enough freedom that you can play it like a single player game (IE you don't need extremely long sittings to progress).
However, knowing human nature, even my ideal game is going to have parts that someone is going to object too. As long as there are enough varied and reasonable paths to achieve what you are looking for in a game, then you should satisfy most of the people. When the content and game is enjoyable enough people forget about the competition for grind since they are lost in the world.
I'd kind of see a process where the devs put in this hard quest and the SOA (sword of awesomeness) is both a reward and an item shop sale.
They release the quest, it's dull boring and reviled by the community, nearly 95% of all SOAs are in game from the shop. The devs, realizing that yes this is good for short term revenue, but horrible for long term satisfaction and retention quickly release an alternate quest that's much more palatable. The ratio of earned to bought SOAs goes to 40/60. That doesn't meet their goals so they add in a couple more of your ideas, tossing it as a PvP reward and a mini quest chain. The ratio dips to 50/50. Finally they tweak the price up a bit and the ratio hits their targeted 75/25.
The next quest they release is so awesome and fun that nearly no one goes to buy the SOA2. So they tweak the price down and get a few lonely people that have no time to do it. The ratio hits 90/10 and while they'd love to sell more SOA2's they realize that ruining the quest is bad for the game and they leave things as they are and try to make more quests like this to keep their subs happy.
Is that likely? Probably not but hopefully so. While the devs might get it, the publisher is likely screaming for more revenue and profits and wants the SOA3 to cost a lot and be exclusive to the shop.
So yeah, I love those ideas and anything that addressed bad content, and alternate methods of advancement for those of us that love games, but don't have enough time to play them, can get into it and advance away is good by me. I'll still say that RMT done right in a game done right is transparent enough that it shouldn't affect anyone, but also be happy to see other changes to address what I think is the need for RMT.
I believe you an I have arrived at a consensus ^_^. Thanks for the enlightening discussion.
Yee 2005 shows that, by survey, 22% of the players buy gold. That is not the majority but pretty significant.
Not to me. Thats barely 1/5 of the player base, assuming the poll is an accurate representation of the whole.
I guess it boils down to what is the percentage you can live with. 1/5 means that on average, you will be group with one cheater (good buyer) if you join a PUG 5-man dungeon group.
On average, every 25-man raid would have around 5 gold buyers in it. If you can live with that, great.
You can read up on the poll to see how accurate it is. It has almost 2000 data points, so a lot BETTER than any informal poll conducted here on this website.
Yee 2005 shows that, by survey, 22% of the players buy gold. That is not the majority but pretty significant. Not to me. Thats barely 1/5 of the player base, assuming the poll is an accurate representation of the whole. I guess it boils down to what is the percentage you can live with. 1/5 means that on average, you will be group with one cheater (good buyer) if you join a PUG 5-man dungeon group. On average, every 25-man raid would have around 5 gold buyers in it. If you can live with that, great. You can read up on the poll to see how accurate it is. It has almost 2000 data points, so a lot BETTER than any informal poll conducted here on this website.
Nothing is absolute.
This is the argument for not having speed limits. You can't catch all speeders, so why bother?
Yee 2005 shows that, by survey, 22% of the players buy gold. That is not the majority but pretty significant. Not to me. Thats barely 1/5 of the player base, assuming the poll is an accurate representation of the whole. I guess it boils down to what is the percentage you can live with. 1/5 means that on average, you will be group with one cheater (good buyer) if you join a PUG 5-man dungeon group. On average, every 25-man raid would have around 5 gold buyers in it. If you can live with that, great. You can read up on the poll to see how accurate it is. It has almost 2000 data points, so a lot BETTER than any informal poll conducted here on this website.
Nothing is absolute.
This is the argument for not having speed limits. You can't catch all speeders, so why bother?
I am not arguing for anything. I just want to know BRAIN DEAD's view. He seems to be so adamant against RMT but he is willing to live with a 22% of the players who engage in illegal cheating, as long as the developer is against it.
I guess 1 in 5 is not high enough for him (or you?) to avoid the game.
giantsquidRunes of Magic CorrespondentMemberPosts: 118
Why are people upset about RMT. It's the fastest growing video game business model in the world. Ultimately that's because players like it, and that like is measured through numbers of players playing and paying in these games.
I'm against RMT done poorly ^_^. That's correct. I have no trouble with having the option of purchasing non-performance enhancing items via RMT. My favourite example would be the silver surfer-type travel graphics you can buy in City of Heroes. You don't go any faster than anyone else, but man zipping around on a surf-board made of light looks cool lol. The "norm" I think at this point is hard to define. Many companies seem to be experimenting with different models of RMT. Some seem to be trying to find out how much customers will tolerate.
I agree here, and a good example. I don't want too much fluff though for RMT but implemented in a decent way with something that doesn't completely destroy the game economy or overpower characters and I'm all for it.
Comments
THIS!
This is where I was heading in this thread. RMT doesn't affect games where you are playing because you enjoy the game. Lets use a slightly more real world example using Disney, who I think gets entertainment.
When you are at Disney World, you can usually skip a line by using a fastpass. You can only have one fast pass at a time, but if you plan ahead, it's completely possible to go through the park without waiting in a single line. Disney gets that people hate lines. Yet, they also know that some people are going to end up in them. What do they do? On their newer attractions they put some amazing things to see in the line.
What happened? Well I met many people who actually don't use the fast pass because they want to see the line. Even though they could skip the wait to get to the attraction they still waited. Why? Well the wait was fun and neat to see.
Current MMOs don't get it. They know we need things to do, yet they have problems giving us things we want to do. Does anyone really want to kill 10 snipes? No, not really. Until they do get it, I fully support RMT in games to let people bypass the drugery, because that's all it is. No skill whack a mole courier type play... or I can do as I am now, and not play any of them.
People wouldn't resent RMT if the content they were playing was actually fun. As it is now, it's viewed as cutting in line as opposed to missing out on some cool stuff.
There are much better solutions to these problems other than milking the players with an item shop. Why pay to play the game in the first place if it has design that you consider to be a "grind and boring"? Why support a developer that is making games that are not for you? Even worse why still support the game developer for his bad game design for you AND give him more money to skip the bad content? Does not make sense. Buying your way through the bad content should not be seen as the solution to the percieved bad game design. I know the Developer would love for you to believe this is them helping you. Why not? You are forking over more money to them.
How about voting no with your wallet to the games that have design that you think is unfun? Don't pay some developer to skip it, demand better with your money. Hold out for games that are fun, games that you don't feel you need to buy your way through the game with a credit card to get to the fun spots. If people would do this and there are enough of you out there that feel this way about the current games, believe me you will get attention. Developers will ask themselves how do we get thos subscriptions. Believe me, if they are not getting the money they will provide you with a fun game .. not just an item shop to help you skip content of their boring game as you have stated.
First of all, I'm against using RMT to skip content as well. I do not know if you read the thread or not but I have made that clear from the very first post I made in this thread.
Second, some people do not have time for the more traditional MMORPG ,like Bstripp, so they want certain types of RMT to enhance their entertainment. I'm just proposing different ideas with less emphasis on time so people like him can enjoy an MMO without RMT.
Lastly, how does putting in more engaging content make the game any less chronological? Unless this type of content bends time around to a time before another event that you did ealier, I'm sure that you still do things one after another making it chronological. Besides I think a chronicle of events like
peasant tells the player woes of kingdom -> player meets king and learns that terror knight legion constantly pillaging -> player infiltrates terror knight territory and learns the secrets of their strength -> player uses this against knight leader and defeats him -> player takes head to king and becomes alinged with this kingdom
is much better than
player kills 10 terror knights -> player notifies the king of his efforts ->player kills 10 terror knights -> player notifies the king of his efforts ->player kills 10 terror knights -> player notifies the king of his efforts ->player kills 10 terror knights -> player notifies the king of his efforts ->player is aligned with kingdom.
Quality of play over Quantity of play that's all....
Thats perfectly fine by me.
You had an example of a progressing persistent world where time is used to mark important events.
No problem with that at all. That also fit the idea of character progressing through that persistent world.
If that could be achieved only with player skill/wits/exploration/organization/etc, I see no problem if during all that the character didnt even changed to gain a single level or skill.
The problem is that that is akin to a single player story driven game. If it can be done online, great!
But how long would it take for people to get over with such content? Would that game longevity/timespan would be feasible for the MMO market? Does whatever investment on it worth it?
It would have to be a mix of certain elements like: organic, procedurally generated, awesome independent ai, player driven, open endedness, player created and developer scripted content... everything blending together to change the world over and over and still remains fresh and entertaining.
They would have to create every tool possible and give it to the players: "here, have fun, try not to break it"
Crikey! That's a reply to a post about 100 ago! Not that I mind of course.
Well first, I am playing no games at the moment, so if that is any indication as to how I am voting with my wallet then you have indeed hit on my current solution. However, do you have to like all parts of a game to enjoy the game? While I never played SWG I was told (by many vets over and over
) that people would like to play an entertainer and hang out in a canteena. While that doesn't appeal to me, the point is that we all have many different tastes.
Let's look at WoW. Perhaps I am a PvP player. I have been told that the best gear is raid oriented. For some reason I love the PvP in WoW. While I doubt they'll ever have any real balance, that doesn't mean that I'll want to roll over and be fodder all the time. So I might want the raid gear, but I really really dislike raiding, or in my case don't have time for raiding. Do I just not play? I love their PvP, but the raid part just doesn't cut it.
How about CoH. I loved that game enough to play for over three years, but I really hated the 1-20 push to where you got most your powers. After three years and 40+ heroes, I realized I wanted to be a hero from the start, not mess around as a sidekick with a few fledgeling powers. Again, that was part of the game I disliked and wished I had an alternative too. They also had task forces that took more time than I could allocate in a sitting. I could never get those rewards. I still liked the game.
In both of those cases, the developer might loose me as a customer if they can not satisfy my needs. Now they introduce RMT into the game to let me do the things I have been talking about. Not only do they keep me as a customer, but if they do it right, they keep most of you as well and make some extra money. I think they loose most of you when they give me an uber sword that you can't get or can't get in a reasonable fashion. To that, I would agree, I'd hate that as well because even if I am arguing for RMT I would be one of those that wouldn't have a whole lot to spend on it.
Assumptions, man... they'll kill you all the time.
You point out both one of the similarities and one of the differences between you and I. Neither of us use XP boosts (never assume, Q), thus the similarity. The difference is that I have no desire to tell another person how to enjoy the game as long as it is within the rules and the spirit of the game, whereas you feel that everyone should play as you. If someone else finds it fun to buy progress accelerating items, more power to them.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
Ok please tell me that you are not a collective this referring to we when you are talking is creeping me out. If I am talking to the Borg, I'd really like to know
.
I would agree that time can not be fully ignored. To do so would make the game just a money fest or something else. However, just because you need time=progression in your game as one of the pillars doesn't mean that is the only thing holding the house up. However, there can be multiple paths to reduce the reliance on time=progression as the only, or even the most important of the pillars supporting your game.
While I with you on the grind point and will agree that time has to be considered in a progression scheme, I will obviously not agree whole heartedly on the rest.
If the developer puts money=progression as a model into the game, I would say that it is certainly not unethical, or immoral. I will also, obviously disagree that money can not find a place in such a scheme.
If there is grind, or any other time based roadblock in a game, does it really impact you as a player if I skip it by legal ingame methods (twinking/PLing) or by a legally supported developer RMT scheme? The impact is that I skipped it. While I might say that it shouldn't affect you at all, it certainly seems to bother some people. Why does the money aspect bother your to the point of calling it immoral?
Have you traded an item to a player who has not completed the task required to get it? What if he bought you dinner in thanks... is that RMT? Where does the trading of in game items or the acceleration of XP move from accepted to immoral?
I don't like item shops. I don't play games with item shops.
But what the heck is the "greed" thing about? A company has only one objective, goal, or duty, to make as much money as possible without breaking the law.
EVERY company does that. They are all "greedy" or else they are not companies, they are called Charities. If a company fails to make as much money as it can within the law, then the stock holders (if it's public) will tell the Board of Directors to fire the President and the rest of management, and hire some people that WILL make as much money as possible.
Adding an item shop is about profit not "greed". MMORPGs are not Charities. At least none I know of. If you open an item shop, you will make money from teh shop, and you will lose some monthly subs because some people dont' like item shop games.
It's a simple mathematical calculation that has nothing to do with "greed". Either you will make more money with the item shop, even though you lose some customers, or you will make less money with the item shop because of the customers you lose.
You do the math, you do whichever one makes the most money. Otherwise you are either a charity, you will be fired, or you will go out of business.
This is the kind of thinking behind the problems with companies like AIG. Companies exist to make money, yes. However, they do not exist only to make money. They exist to make money by providing valuable goods and services to consumers.
Making money, when not tied to a commitment to customer satisfaction and quality goods and services, is very short-sighted. It tends to lead to scandal and implosion. You can find example after example that proves this point. Cutting corners on safety to cars, cutting back on inspections at meat packing plants, selling financial products to consumers with hidden costs, making high risk investments with other people's money etc. etc.. All of these things were done in the name of making money, solely. No consideration was given to customer satisfaction or long-term consequences.
It's a popular philosophy in a society that is currently collapsing in on itself because of wrecklessness and greed. If you don't believe me, I think President Obama just said the exact same thing recently; along with economists from here to Asia.
I don't want to drag the thread off topic, but you just agreed with me.
I stated the job of the company, it's one and only job, the reason for existence, is to make as much money as possible within the law.
You just said providing quality goods and services and customer satisfaction will make you more money in the long run. Which is why a company would do that, to make MORE money.
Generally, you make more money with a good product and customer satisfaction than a crappy product and pissed off customers. And that's because of something called competition.
Bad companies that don't make a good product, go out of business. Good companies that make a good product stay in business, and make more and more money. So how is your point adverse to mine?
If companies dont' exist ONLY to make money, then they are callled Charities. Making a good product isn't done from kindness of the company, it's just good business and makes more money.
I think we approach this with a different mental paradigm. We may have to respectfully agree to disagree on this, and that's fine with me btw.
What I'm saying is that if your corporate philosophy puts cash alone at the top of the totem pole, you will inevitably cut corners or do things that disadvantage your customers. A successful corporate philosophy in my view puts cash and customer satisfaction on par with each other, and holds them as objectives in and of themselves.
In your philosophy, customer satisfaction appears to be a means to an end. In mine it is an objective in and of itself. Another objective in and of itself would be environmental responsibility. If these things are subordinate to profit, corners will be cut, mistakes will be made, short-term gain will lead to long-term pain.
There's a very subtle line between my thinking and yours. I think to many, its imperceptible.
Because the difference is moot. Same exact outcome, but one uses emotional pleas to justice, and cries about "greed" one does not.
I treat my customers well, because it's good business and I'll make more money.
You do the same, and say it has nothing to do with making more money, it's just the right thing to do, and the money doesn't matter.
Pardon me if I say you're full of baloney, and you're doing it for the money, just like me.
I'm not doing it (what I do for a living) just for the money. I have other objectives that I value equally; perhaps more so. For instance, I wouldn't knowingly give people less than a high quality product, even if I thought doing so would generate more revenue. If it doesn't meet certain personal standards, it's not made available. This isn't charity, because I do still want to generate a profit. This is one of my motivations; not the only one though.
If I was in it just for the money, I'd sell whatever crap people were willing to buy (and some people really will settle for crap). Believe it or not, I really just don't operate that way. There are many different business philosophies floating around. Everyone really doesn't think the same way.
In the context of this thread, I think this is important to recognize. Some companies will formulate a business model that provides entertainment for a reasonable price. Others will try to get people to spend as much money as they can for very little, if any entertainment value. RMT can fit nicely into the latter approach.
Paying real dollars for a random chance at performance enhancing loot is a perfect example. How much entertainment do you get from wasting 50 bucks trying to get new equipment only available via RMT? If I spent 50 bucks and got squat, entertained isn't how I'd feel.
Seems like we are talking about a really good sandbox game or something now xD
Honestly though, if we do not think of something that takes some emphasis off time then we are doomed to put up with certain types of RMT.
If time is the issue for some then somehow something else needs to be emphasized to make progression. If you are going to outright refuse then prepare to suffer from RMT forever.
Hmmm...
Maybe alternatives that come to the same goal in the end?
Long repetitve raiding => sword of awesomeness
2-3 Shorter but harder mini dungeons => sword of awesomeness
very very hard quest chain => sword of awesomeness
Win PVP arena 10 times in a row => sword of awesomeness
Maybe not those exact objectives but you get my point.
That's the example I was waiting for.
The issue there isn't RMT but a unique (IMO, poor) use of it. Your argument is based solely on the extreme exception and not the norm.
I'm against RMT done poorly ^_^. That's correct. I have no trouble with having the option of purchasing non-performance enhancing items via RMT. My favourite example would be the silver surfer-type travel graphics you can buy in City of Heroes. You don't go any faster than anyone else, but man zipping around on a surf-board made of light looks cool lol.
The "norm" I think at this point is hard to define. Many companies seem to be experimenting with different models of RMT. Some seem to be trying to find out how much customers will tolerate.
Thank you, I have enjoyed the discussion with you, and really most people in this thread. I have a minority view, I realize that and don't expect people to come around to that viewpoint. Which doesn't mean that I don't enjoy the debate.
We'll have to drop exclusive game changing items from the discussion because I would totally agree with you. If the only way you can get the sword is via money, then while it's no more unbalanced than the time scenario, you shifted the point of balance to the folks with money, in effect perpetuating the same imbalance just with a different set of people. So I wholeheartedly agree with you that this is a bad scenario.
However, lets use the magic sword example and assuming that we both need the magic sword to be competitive. Perhaps the "quest" to get that sword takes four hours to do. It's kind of long and hard, but it's an MMO and most people get through it, whether by skill or help or what not. I don't have four hour blocks of time, I can get on for at most two hours at a time. I'm never going to get the sword, and if I need it to get to the next area, or to be competitive in the game then I am pretty much out of luck. If they introduce it in the item shop, you don't have to go buy it, you can spend the four hours and run the quest to get it. Ideally, it's a totally awesome quest and you not only get the item, but four hours of quality time.
You should feel happy you did it, happy that you perservered and won your sword, you did after all earn it. Now we meet again in the next area of the game. You have your sword, I have mine. Granted you've had to play longer than me, but we are still at the same place and can progress or compete as normal. Not only that, but assuming that it's not exclusive and the RMT is not over the top, you'll never know or care how I achieved mine.
See I think that people are so conditioned to bad RMT that they assume all RMT will be bad, because in a nut shell, that's what most of the RMT schemes have been. You see a dark sky that rains on you every time, the assumption is that all dark skys produce rain. Yet it doesn't have to be that way.
So while I agree with the statement that buying game items/xp doesn't give you entertainment, it does give you the ability to perhaps experience the entertainment that you wanted in the first place. Ask your die hard PvP players if they ever want to grind levels. Nearly all will tell you no. They want to play against people and most resent the lengthy level up process it takes them to continually shift characters to the metagame.
I'm glad you brought up CoH, as I did in my prior post. I do think they had a very good method of allowing for people with limited time. As I mentioned I did play that game for 3.5 years, and I think that was a big part of it. I could have a friend join and could play with them immediately. That kind of mechanic makes sense for a SuperHero game, but could be kind of odd in other systems. Still, it is a really good solution. On the downside in that game were the task forces, which game big time rewards. If you don't have time for them ( up to 8 hours per task force on the longers ones, Dr. Q I am looking at you) then you miss out on some of the game's best stuff. Thankfully the content was geared so you could play without, but not all games are that friendly.
Still CoH did have RMT in the game. You could buy packs which would give you in game benefits and none of which I thought were particularly game altering. Most related to travel, although a couple were situational powers like the cyborg self destruct. They were reasonably cheap and paid for the development time to make them. Again, while the company gets lambasted a lot, they had some really good ideas and their RMT was pretty well done. My prior post also said I would have happily have paid 10-20 to skip to level 20 and miss the really dull intro that I have done perhaps 40+ times.
Yet for every way that you can come up with making time less of an advantage, you should be able to come up with the same method for RMT. Why? Because most of us have limited quantites of either. Now finding the balance is hard, but I don't feel impossible.
Okay, I think I get where you're coming from even better now. First of all, if a company was willing to do the following, it might not lead to exploitation:
Magic sword: Lets say you can get this at the end of a one hour quest. If I'm paying 15 bucks a month to play the game, it just cost me 2 cents to get the magic sword. Really, I paid the 2 cents for the fun of playing the game for an hour, but getting the sword surely is part of the fun.
If some company wants to sell me the magic sword at an item shop for 2 cents, or give me the option of getting it via 2 cents worth of game-time. That's fine by me...for real. However, the game company would still have to ensure that the quest was accessible to all players, doable, and enjoyable.
I have yet to see anyone implement RMT in this manner yet. So far it's all about maximizing revenue, and minimizing development cost. That's really a losing scenario for the gamer. This is what happens I think when game companies care only about money. They do things for quick revenue, at the expense of customer satisfaction.
In one game, they make certain loot available via RMT, and then say it's also available ingame. Hmm, yes it is, but only in a paid expansion for high levels only. So, it's really not available in game for many people. It just looks like it is on paper.
Another problem with RMT is the notion that after you purchase an item, the game company has the right to devalue or delete it at any time. Again, this is a losing scenario for the gamer. If I pay for the magic sword, and it's then deleted immediately thereafter, I"m out of luck. If I earned the magic sword through an enjoyable quest, at least I can say I paid for an enjoyable entertainment experience. Even so, I think game companies should give consumers plenty of warning regarding changes of this nature, so they can decide whether or not they wish to continue subscribing. That's another thread though
.
So, yes I think RMT can hypothetically be done ethically. However, in most cases it doesn't seem to be working this way. This is largely because most consumer protection legislation does not address cash transactions for virtual goods. Again, this lends itself to exploitation, and I see plenty of it.
Frankly, my preference would be to see crafted goods available for ingame currency in a well regulated game economy. Want a magic sword? Go to another player's sword shop and buy it. If you want, make friends with a sword-maker, and he'll give you one.
Where I've seen this go wrong is in purely market-driven ingame economies; the inflation goes through the roof. That doesn't make crafting and selling a bad system; it just means that the ingame economy wasn't properly regulated. A lot of devs don't seem to be very good economists unfortunately lol.
Seems like we are talking about a really good sandbox game or something now xD
Honestly though, if we do not think of something that takes some emphasis off time then we are doomed to put up with certain types of RMT.
If time is the issue for some then somehow something else needs to be emphasized to make progression. If you are going to outright refuse then prepare to suffer from RMT forever.
Hmmm...
Maybe alternatives that come to the same goal in the end?
Long repetitve raiding => sword of awesomeness
2-3 Shorter but harder mini dungeons => sword of awesomeness
very very hard quest chain => sword of awesomeness
Win PVP arena 10 times in a row => sword of awesomeness
Maybe not those exact objectives but you get my point.
I think this is great thinking, and deals with the time issue without resorting to performance enhancing RMT with all its pitfalls. Neat stuff.
I think this is great thinking, and deals with the time issue without resorting to performance enhancing RMT with all its pitfalls. Neat stuff.
Believe me, I would rather have methods in a game that don't require money, and I think that they would be welcome in any game. My ideal game is fun enough that you don't want to skip any of it and has enough freedom that you can play it like a single player game (IE you don't need extremely long sittings to progress).
However, knowing human nature, even my ideal game is going to have parts that someone is going to object too. As long as there are enough varied and reasonable paths to achieve what you are looking for in a game, then you should satisfy most of the people. When the content and game is enjoyable enough people forget about the competition for grind since they are lost in the world.
I'd kind of see a process where the devs put in this hard quest and the SOA (sword of awesomeness) is both a reward and an item shop sale.
They release the quest, it's dull boring and reviled by the community, nearly 95% of all SOAs are in game from the shop. The devs, realizing that yes this is good for short term revenue, but horrible for long term satisfaction and retention quickly release an alternate quest that's much more palatable. The ratio of earned to bought SOAs goes to 40/60. That doesn't meet their goals so they add in a couple more of your ideas, tossing it as a PvP reward and a mini quest chain. The ratio dips to 50/50. Finally they tweak the price up a bit and the ratio hits their targeted 75/25.
The next quest they release is so awesome and fun that nearly no one goes to buy the SOA2. So they tweak the price down and get a few lonely people that have no time to do it. The ratio hits 90/10 and while they'd love to sell more SOA2's they realize that ruining the quest is bad for the game and they leave things as they are and try to make more quests like this to keep their subs happy.
Is that likely? Probably not but hopefully so. While the devs might get it, the publisher is likely screaming for more revenue and profits and wants the SOA3 to cost a lot and be exclusive to the shop.
So yeah, I love those ideas and anything that addressed bad content, and alternate methods of advancement for those of us that love games, but don't have enough time to play them, can get into it and advance away is good by me. I'll still say that RMT done right in a game done right is transparent enough that it shouldn't affect anyone, but also be happy to see other changes to address what I think is the need for RMT.
I think this is great thinking, and deals with the time issue without resorting to performance enhancing RMT with all its pitfalls. Neat stuff.
Believe me, I would rather have methods in a game that don't require money, and I think that they would be welcome in any game. My ideal game is fun enough that you don't want to skip any of it and has enough freedom that you can play it like a single player game (IE you don't need extremely long sittings to progress).
However, knowing human nature, even my ideal game is going to have parts that someone is going to object too. As long as there are enough varied and reasonable paths to achieve what you are looking for in a game, then you should satisfy most of the people. When the content and game is enjoyable enough people forget about the competition for grind since they are lost in the world.
I'd kind of see a process where the devs put in this hard quest and the SOA (sword of awesomeness) is both a reward and an item shop sale.
They release the quest, it's dull boring and reviled by the community, nearly 95% of all SOAs are in game from the shop. The devs, realizing that yes this is good for short term revenue, but horrible for long term satisfaction and retention quickly release an alternate quest that's much more palatable. The ratio of earned to bought SOAs goes to 40/60. That doesn't meet their goals so they add in a couple more of your ideas, tossing it as a PvP reward and a mini quest chain. The ratio dips to 50/50. Finally they tweak the price up a bit and the ratio hits their targeted 75/25.
The next quest they release is so awesome and fun that nearly no one goes to buy the SOA2. So they tweak the price down and get a few lonely people that have no time to do it. The ratio hits 90/10 and while they'd love to sell more SOA2's they realize that ruining the quest is bad for the game and they leave things as they are and try to make more quests like this to keep their subs happy.
Is that likely? Probably not but hopefully so. While the devs might get it, the publisher is likely screaming for more revenue and profits and wants the SOA3 to cost a lot and be exclusive to the shop.
So yeah, I love those ideas and anything that addressed bad content, and alternate methods of advancement for those of us that love games, but don't have enough time to play them, can get into it and advance away is good by me. I'll still say that RMT done right in a game done right is transparent enough that it shouldn't affect anyone, but also be happy to see other changes to address what I think is the need for RMT.
Every game isn't made for everyone. People like different things. When people learn this, we will all be better off. You find a game that isn't for you? Fine. Quit it. Go to another game. It isn't that hard. No one should feel they need to stay in a game they have to buy their way through. If you support these type of games then they will prosper. You hurt youself in the long run.
I agree to disagree with those that support RMT.
If you think RMT is fair, that's fine. I think it is unfair.
You'll play the RMT games, I'll play the P2P games, and that is that.
I've often thought there should be separate forums for P2P games, and RMT games. I don't play any F2P games, and I know some posters on here don't play any P2P games.
I would totally agree, I don't need to play every game, and really don't want to play every game. Even games that I lauded the developers and the mecanics as being interesting some times were not my cup of tea. However, games are not a binary state. It is very reasonable to assume that in a game as large and complex as a MMO there are going to be parts you do and don't like.
Most rational people will leave if the parts they don't like are so significant that it outweighs their enjoyment they get when playing the parts they do.
However, I have yet to find a single game that I liked every aspect, every level band, every quest, etc. I doubt I will, most developers seem to focus on getting bits in their game for different gamers. That's great, diversity is the spice of life.
While there are also people who would buy their way through a whole game, I would assume that most would not. The bulk of the people would spend a little here, a little there, nudge their progress when stuck and what not. Just as most people don't spend all of their free time in MMOs, just a small few.
I thought we had done that a few hundred posts ago. I certainly had no illusions I was going to change your mind, which doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy discussing it.
The only thing I still was curious to hear is if you PLed in the games you played? I never recalled an answer, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the stance that you want to always play in the best manner possible?
It's just something that I saw as a juxtaposition.
Mind you, I'm totally ok if you say I don't PL and I would have to use RMT. I might not get it, but that's your opinion and so be it.
Why have the separate forums? Gamers are a contentious lot. If you separated that out, the WoW vs Non-WoW argument would take center stage. Or some other common argument. Hey, I don't mind if people disagree with me, and post as much. Even if 80% of them disagree with me, it just means I have to work harder to show them all the light
.
I thought we had done that a few hundred posts ago. I certainly had no illusions I was going to change your mind, which doesn't mean that I didn't enjoy discussing it.
The only thing I still was curious to hear is if you PLed in the games you played? I never recalled an answer, and if so, how do you reconcile that with the stance that you want to always play in the best manner possible?
It's just something that I saw as a juxtaposition.
Mind you, I'm totally ok if you say I don't PL and I would have to use RMT. I might not get it, but that's your opinion and so be it.
Why have the separate forums? Gamers are a contentious lot. If you separated that out, the WoW vs Non-WoW argument would take center stage. Or some other common argument. Hey, I don't mind if people disagree with me, and post as much. Even if 80% of them disagree with me, it just means I have to work harder to show them all the light
.
I never powerlevel, never buy gold with real money, don't usually twink.
If I"m in a guild, I will hand down items that I no longer need to lower level guildees, and gladly accept when guildees do the same for me, that's about it.
Of course that is the problem. Enforcing/catching illegal RMT is very difficult, particularly for those who buy little bit to nudge their char along.
Yee 2005 shows that, by survey, 22% of the players buy gold. That is not the majority but pretty significant. That is prob also a conservative number because people prob would NOT like to report themselves as gold buyers (like surveying cheating on spouses).
Sure instant-ban is a deterrent, but no where close to be 100% effective and that is most likely because it is difficult to enforce. For example, how can WOW tell whether I am selling 5000g to another player, or if I give my brother 5000g to buy his flying mount?
Me: As far as I know, there are none that will not punish you if you are caught buying it. Many of them will insta-ban your account. CoH and Eve come to mind. Because of that, a lot of people will not buy money even if they can afford it.
Of course that is the problem. Enforcing/catching illegal RMT is very difficult, particularly for those who buy little bit to nudge their char along.
If it is illegal, it isnt RMT. Its cheating.
And as long as developers make a sufficient effort to stop it, I will tolerate it enough to continue playing the game. Turning cheating legitimate (aka, RMT), would be enough to drive me away from the game though.
Yee 2005 shows that, by survey, 22% of the players buy gold. That is not the majority but pretty significant.
Not to me. Thats barely 1/5 of the player base, assuming the poll is an accurate representation of the whole.
That is prob also a conservative number because people prob would NOT like to report themselves as gold buyers (like surveying cheating on spouses).
Why the hell would they care in an anonymous poll? And I would hardly equate buying gold in an MMO to cheating on a spouse...I doubt most people would care enough to lie about it, even if names were used in the poll.
Sure instant-ban is a deterrent, but no where close to be 100% effective
It doesnt have to be 100% effective to be sufficient. It would be unreasonable for me to expect them to be perfect. I just want them to try, and to make an effort.
Legalizing cheating via RMT is not making an effort.
For example, how can WOW tell whether I am selling 5000g to another player
If they see the eBay account (or equivilent) and connect the names to game accounts. But more likely, you are buying it from a known gold seller. If they can determine you are getting large amounts of gold from an account they have determined is owned by a gold seller, that is enough to get you insta-banned.
A single player to player transaction might get under their radar. But the volume dealers (ie., chinese farmers) are much easier to catch.
The methods are far from perfect, but it doesnt have to be perfect to be effective.
I think this is great thinking, and deals with the time issue without resorting to performance enhancing RMT with all its pitfalls. Neat stuff.
Believe me, I would rather have methods in a game that don't require money, and I think that they would be welcome in any game. My ideal game is fun enough that you don't want to skip any of it and has enough freedom that you can play it like a single player game (IE you don't need extremely long sittings to progress).
However, knowing human nature, even my ideal game is going to have parts that someone is going to object too. As long as there are enough varied and reasonable paths to achieve what you are looking for in a game, then you should satisfy most of the people. When the content and game is enjoyable enough people forget about the competition for grind since they are lost in the world.
I'd kind of see a process where the devs put in this hard quest and the SOA (sword of awesomeness) is both a reward and an item shop sale.
They release the quest, it's dull boring and reviled by the community, nearly 95% of all SOAs are in game from the shop. The devs, realizing that yes this is good for short term revenue, but horrible for long term satisfaction and retention quickly release an alternate quest that's much more palatable. The ratio of earned to bought SOAs goes to 40/60. That doesn't meet their goals so they add in a couple more of your ideas, tossing it as a PvP reward and a mini quest chain. The ratio dips to 50/50. Finally they tweak the price up a bit and the ratio hits their targeted 75/25.
The next quest they release is so awesome and fun that nearly no one goes to buy the SOA2. So they tweak the price down and get a few lonely people that have no time to do it. The ratio hits 90/10 and while they'd love to sell more SOA2's they realize that ruining the quest is bad for the game and they leave things as they are and try to make more quests like this to keep their subs happy.
Is that likely? Probably not but hopefully so. While the devs might get it, the publisher is likely screaming for more revenue and profits and wants the SOA3 to cost a lot and be exclusive to the shop.
So yeah, I love those ideas and anything that addressed bad content, and alternate methods of advancement for those of us that love games, but don't have enough time to play them, can get into it and advance away is good by me. I'll still say that RMT done right in a game done right is transparent enough that it shouldn't affect anyone, but also be happy to see other changes to address what I think is the need for RMT.
I believe you an I have arrived at a consensus ^_^. Thanks for the enlightening discussion.
Yee 2005 shows that, by survey, 22% of the players buy gold. That is not the majority but pretty significant.
Not to me. Thats barely 1/5 of the player base, assuming the poll is an accurate representation of the whole.
I guess it boils down to what is the percentage you can live with. 1/5 means that on average, you will be group with one cheater (good buyer) if you join a PUG 5-man dungeon group.
On average, every 25-man raid would have around 5 gold buyers in it. If you can live with that, great.
You can read up on the poll to see how accurate it is. It has almost 2000 data points, so a lot BETTER than any informal poll conducted here on this website.
Nothing is absolute.
This is the argument for not having speed limits. You can't catch all speeders, so why bother?
Nothing is absolute.
This is the argument for not having speed limits. You can't catch all speeders, so why bother?
I am not arguing for anything. I just want to know BRAIN DEAD's view. He seems to be so adamant against RMT but he is willing to live with a 22% of the players who engage in illegal cheating, as long as the developer is against it.
I guess 1 in 5 is not high enough for him (or you?) to avoid the game.
Why are people upset about RMT. It's the fastest growing video game business model in the world. Ultimately that's because players like it, and that like is measured through numbers of players playing and paying in these games.
It's a business like subscriber based.
Just One MMOre
I agree here, and a good example. I don't want too much fluff though for RMT but implemented in a decent way with something that doesn't completely destroy the game economy or overpower characters and I'm all for it.
Fight my Brute Clicky!!
Memon 40 WH War-PT