I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
If we do not like it, we're not required to. That's the beauty of it. Only opinion matters in this issue, period. If I feel Cryptic is being too greedy and the MT will ruin the game and I think it's a horrid idea, I'm 100% right. Because I decide how I spend my money, and I decided long ago this was too greedy for me to stomach, hence I do not give them a cent if they go through with this. And if you think this is a good idea, fine. But, justifying a corp gouging us, or micro-gouging us if you wish, seems a bit much.
When did it become popular opinion a company has an absolute right to firmly grasp our skulls and begin boning away, and it's now common courtesy to just lay there and take the gang rape as they line up with "awesome new payment models 100% for you!"? Did I miss a collective meeting were the people of the United States of Apathy decided you're a bad guy if you say "I think this sucks and I think being greedy isn't the main reason I got into the hobby 28 years ago?"
Originally posted by LynxJSA Originally posted by EricDanie Originally posted by LynxJSA Originally posted by EricDanie ... it's a first-of-a-kind game.
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here? Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model. The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
UO and successful probably shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Just saying.
If we do not like it, we're not required to. That's the beauty of it. Only opinion matters in this issue, period. If I feel Cryptic is being too greedy and the MT will ruin the game and I think it's a horrid idea, I'm 100% right. Because I decide how I spend my money, and I decided long ago this was too greedy for me to stomach, hence I do not give them a cent if they go through with this. And if you think this is a good idea, fine. But, justifying a corp gouging us, or micro-gouging us if you wish, seems a bit much. When did it become popular opinion a company has an absolute right to firmly grasp our skulls and begin boning away, and it's now common courtesy to just lay there and take the gang rape as they line up with "awesome new payment models 100% for you!"? Did I miss a collective meeting were the people of the United States of Apathy decided you're a bad guy if you say "I think this sucks and I think being greedy isn't the main reason I got into the hobby 28 years ago?"
I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding on Cryptic's part on this issue.
There are also other reasons why subscriptions are holding their own against the other business models. First, some content is undoutedly better suited to a monthly set-fee model rather than micro-transactions, and developers continue to produce that content for the Western markets.
Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items.
Thirdly, consumers in the West are used to paying for all sorts of services in the form of subscriptions and, importantly, the payment mechanisms and infrastructure exists for regular subscription payments to be made. This has been helped by the introduction of other payment methods such as pre-paid cards and SMS payments for subscriptions.
Part of what I pay for when I pay a subscription, is an mmo that doesn't have a shopping mall. Cos let's face it, if I was happy to play an mmo that had shopping malls, wouldn't I just play one of the many free ones?
I think it boils down to they're really pumped to whore out any game they can Guitar Hero style. They can't justify gouging folks with a console if they don't bend us over too. I'm hoping Roper had nothing to do with this, because we see how well his "exciting and new payment models" work...
I think it boils down to they're really pumped to whore out any game they can Guitar Hero style. They can't justify gouging folks with a console if they don't bend us over too. I'm hoping Roper had nothing to do with this, because we see how well his "exciting and new payment models" work...
What really gets me is how unecessary all of this is.
Cryptic could plug into both the subscription and MT markets separately and no-one would complain. If they'd had a lick of sense, they'd have launched with separate subscription and free + MT versions.
It's a bizarre notion to some, but often the easiest way to get money out of peoples' wallets is to offer to sell them something they want!
It's the Bill Roper effect mate. Why charge the same price as all the other premium priced games when you can charge so much more?
I wouldn't be surprised if Bill saw this as his way back to the good path. Hellgate London was a failure, but if he can manage to sell a subscription + MT model, then he'd be like a god in the mmo industry..... or at least in his own imagination.
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
UO and successful probably shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Just saying.
You're 'just saying' not to put much credence in any further responses from you. Just saying.
-- Whammy - a 64x64 miniRPG - RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right? - FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
Where is the UO Item Mall information? Couldn't find it in the www.uo.com website.
They should make official polls on this before they release and lose half customer base because of MTs.
Question: Do you feel the views of the people on this forum regarding RMT are indicative of the average MMO gamer's views on RMT?
Do you have any reason to believe that mmorg.com members aren't representaive of MMO gamers?
Though I think you might have misunderstood him. When he says "official polls" I read this as a "real survey". So while I think you'd probably get a representative sample from mmorpg.com forum members, you couldn't control for people doing silly things like participating multiple times under different account names.
Game developers do conduct this kind of research, as do academics and market research firms. I think that's what he was talking about.
"Do you have any reason to believe that mmor(p)g.com members aren't representative of MMO gamers?"
. . . Vanguard, Ryzom and Atlantica are among the top 7 rated games on this site based on votes. Think about that -- Atlantica and Ryzom. I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games. The votes on mmorpg.com also place Warhammer in the top 7 (#4 as of this post) as far as mmo's go. It's the best thing since sliced bread.
From what I've seen, half of the posters on this site should be in charge of their own development studio, they so know what's best for the genre. The other half go on and on about how the genre isn't what it used to be, back in the EQ, UO or even Meridian days. But they'll still try out new MMO's to trash them and prove themelves correct. And post here of course.
Even the site name says it all, "MMORPG.com". I don't recall the last time I heard anyone use that term in conversation, MMORPG, the games are simply "MMO's" now.
We, the posters on this site, are not typical MMO gamers. Those typical guys are busy playing their games or posting on their games' offical forums. The only reason I visit this site is to see what's in deveopment and double-check on release dates. Every now and then I'll post in a thread when it gets boring at work. With any luck, a flame war will break out and give me something to chuckle about.
For the reasons mentioned above, no, I don't believe mmorpg.com members are representative of MMO gamers. The Warcraft development team would have been kidnapped and burned to death with cigarette butts long ago if that was the case.
Any gaming forum on the planet pretty much has it's fair share of people who use the old, "go back to WoW" as an insult, it's not a rarity here. As for the website, I'm not sure how it ranks the games but I find it suspect too. Or maybe the average player that comes here isn't so mainstream in their likings?
The thread for MTs on the Champions Online homepage was well over 2,500 posts and 260 pages when I last checked it. A few of those posts were even against the idea of a MT store... Cryptic is banking on apathy, ignorance and bad judgement to push this through. Only they stand to gain from it, we gain nothing but smoke and mirrors.
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
UO and successful probably shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Just saying.
You're 'just saying' not to put much credence in any further responses from you. Just saying.
I've tried figuring out the code you posted in but I keep coming back to you wanting to give me the keys to your Prius. Truth?
They should make official polls on this before they release and lose half customer base because of MTs.
Question: Do you feel the views of the people on this forum regarding RMT are indicative of the average MMO gamer's views on RMT?
Do you have any reason to believe that mmorg.com members aren't representaive of MMO gamers?
Though I think you might have misunderstood him. When he says "official polls" I read this as a "real survey". So while I think you'd probably get a representative sample from mmorpg.com forum members, you couldn't control for people doing silly things like participating multiple times under different account names.
Game developers do conduct this kind of research, as do academics and market research firms. I think that's what he was talking about.
"Do you have any reason to believe that mmor(p)g.com members aren't representative of MMO gamers?"
. . . Vanguard, Ryzom and Atlantica are among the top 7 rated games on this site based on votes. Think about that -- Atlantica and Ryzom. I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games. The votes on mmorpg.com also place Warhammer in the top 7 (#4 as of this post) as far as mmo's go. It's the best thing since sliced bread.
From what I've seen, half of the posters on this site should be in charge of their own development studio, they so know what's best for the genre. The other half go on and on about how the genre isn't what it used to be, back in the EQ, UO or even Meridian days. But they'll still try out new MMO's to trash them and prove themelves correct. And post here of course.
Even the site name says it all, "MMORPG.com". I don't recall the last time I heard anyone use that term in conversation, MMORPG, the games are simply "MMO's" now.
We, the posters on this site, are not typical MMO gamers. Those typical guys are busy playing their games or posting on their games' offical forums. The only reason I visit this site is to see what's in deveopment and double-check on release dates. Every now and then I'll post in a thread when it gets boring at work. With any luck, a flame war will break out and give me something to chuckle about.
For the reasons mentioned above, no, I don't believe mmorpg.com members are representative of MMO gamers. The Warcraft development team would have been kidnapped and burned to death with cigarette butts long ago if that was the case.
Yep, ok I thought about it. And nothing you've said speaks at all to the question of representativeness because you are misinterpreting the mmorpg.com statistics.
You said it yourself or Ryzom and Atlantica - "I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games." The ratings of mmos here are taken from mmorpg.com members who bother to go and rate each game. Not all mmorpg.com members have played all of the games and there are probably many who haven't bothered to rate all of the games that they have played.
These ratings are not drawn from a single sample that played and rated each game.
For one to reasonably reach the conclusion that mmorpg.com members are an unrepresentative sample because the ratings don't match market performance, your expectations, mmorpg.com official reviews etc. etc. you have to assume that all mmorpg.com members have rated all games.
You go so far as to cite the site's name "mmorpg.com" as an outdated term as some justification for dismissing mmorpg.com members as unrepresentative of the market - but fail to explain how that works....
Speaking as someone who has research qualifications and has worked in this field, there is no reason to believe that members of these forums aren't representative. This is backed up by the results which match a) what is known from existing research and b) common sense.
Players who like subscription mmos generally don't like microtransactions. Ninety percent of players who like freebie+MT mmos will never buy anything, i.e. they like the free part not the MTs.
Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items.
So on a question like this - yes, absolutely, mmorpg.com members are a representative sample.
A good example of an unrepresentative sample would be CO beta players. These players would have a fairly high sense of involvement and investment in the game and are just about guaranteed to buy and play it. So if, eg. Cryptic put the question to them "If we added microtransactions on top of a subscription, would you still play it?" and took that as an indication of how to proceed....
I think the poll was poorly done. Reason is that is doesn't distinguish between microtransactions that are game impacting vs cosmetic.
Then asking general questions about microtransactions doesn't get anyone the ability to do anything other then reject it if they are ok with cosmetic but not ok with non cosmetic MT..
Further bringing up the specifics in the beginning of the forums makes sure that people that don't want game changing MT will have to reject microtransactions in the following questions.
So ultimately the polls will create a bias in the results due to this mixing of options.
I think the poll was poorly done. Reason is that is doesn't distinguish between microtransactions that are game impacting vs cosmetic.
Then asking general questions about microtransactions doesn't get anyone the ability to do anything other then reject it if they are ok with cosmetic but not ok with non cosmetic MT..
Further bringing up the specifics in the beginning of the forums makes sure that people that don't want game changing MT will have to reject microtransactions in the following questions.
So ultimately the polls will create a bias in the results due to this mixing of options.
I didn't create the poll, and if I had I would have asked a few additional questions...
But your objections are completely nonsensical.
You say the poll doesn't distinguish between cosmetic and game impacting microtransactions, but the first two questions are:
Do you want microtransactions for aesthetic items?
Do you want microtransactions for items with in-game effects (stats, new powers, etc)?
Your other two objections are equally irrelevant. Look at the pattern of results - which I've detailed already - and you can see that your claims simply aren't true.
I think the poll was poorly done. Reason is that is doesn't distinguish between microtransactions that are game impacting vs cosmetic.
Then asking general questions about microtransactions doesn't get anyone the ability to do anything other then reject it if they are ok with cosmetic but not ok with non cosmetic MT..
Further bringing up the specifics in the beginning of the forums makes sure that people that don't want game changing MT will have to reject microtransactions in the following questions.
So ultimately the polls will create a bias in the results due to this mixing of options.
I didn't create the poll, and if I had I would have asked a few additional questions...
But your objections are completely nonsensical.
You say the poll doesn't distinguish between cosmetic and game impacting microtransactions, but the first two questions are:
Do you want microtransactions for aesthetic items?
Do you want microtransactions for items with in-game effects (stats, new powers, etc)?
Your other two objections are equally irrelevant. Look at the pattern of results - which I've detailed already - and you can see that your claims simply aren't true.
All the followup questions after the first two set the definition of microtransactions being aesthetic and game effecting items use the generic microtransactions.
I'm ok with aesthetic items in the game via microtransactions. I don't really care.
I'm strongly opposed to items in game that effect the game play.
So do I care about microtransactions, will this impact my decision to buy the game?? Since microtransactions can only be assumed to include both aesthetic and game effecting items I can only say I'm strongly opposed?
A better thing would have been to break it down and drop the first two questions altogether.
If the game has aesthetic microtransactions would this effect your buying decision?
If the game has game impacting microtransactions would this effect your buying decision?
Anyway this was what made me feel frustrated in the poll not really giving me the ability to express my opinion.
All the followup questions after the first two set the definition of microtransactions being aesthetic and game effecting items use the generic microtransactions. I'm ok with aesthetic items in the game via microtransactions. I don't really care. I'm strongly opposed to items in game that effect the game play. So do I care about microtransactions, will this impact my decision to buy the game?? Since microtransactions can only be assumed to include both aesthetic and game effecting items I can only say I'm strongly opposed? A better thing would have been to break it down and drop the first two questions altogether. If the game has aesthetic microtransactions would this effect your buying decision? If the game has game impacting microtransactions would this effect your buying decision? Anyway this was what made me feel frustrated in the poll not really giving me the ability to express my opinion.
The questions were written in the specific context of Champions Online. And at the moment it appears that there will be both game-changing and aesthetic items for sale in the shopping mall.
I can see your point - there are some players who might not want aesthetic MTs but might tolerate the presence of aesthetic ones.Harking back to where this element of the thread started - someone suggested that this is exactly what Cryptic should have done.
But Cryptic don't communicate well with their potential customers. The information about microtransactions being added to the game came to us indirectly via beta previewers who happened to notice the in-game mall, and via sites selling the pre-order which mentioned "Cryptic Bucks" and when the topic became too hot for them on their own forums, they moved the huge merged thread to a German section of the forums to try to kill it.
SOE took a similar approach. There was no communication about this - they just dropped a shopping mall into a few of their mmos overnight.
All the followup questions after the first two set the definition of microtransactions being aesthetic and game effecting items use the generic microtransactions. I'm ok with aesthetic items in the game via microtransactions. I don't really care. I'm strongly opposed to items in game that effect the game play. So do I care about microtransactions, will this impact my decision to buy the game?? Since microtransactions can only be assumed to include both aesthetic and game effecting items I can only say I'm strongly opposed? A better thing would have been to break it down and drop the first two questions altogether. If the game has aesthetic microtransactions would this effect your buying decision? If the game has game impacting microtransactions would this effect your buying decision? Anyway this was what made me feel frustrated in the poll not really giving me the ability to express my opinion.
The questions were written in the specific context of Champions Online. And at the moment it appears that there will be both game-changing and aesthetic items for sale in the shopping mall.
I can see your point - there are some players who might not want aesthetic MTs but might tolerate the presence of aesthetic ones.Harking back to where this element of the thread started - someone suggested that this is exactly what Cryptic should have done.
But Cryptic don't communicate well with their potential customers. The information about microtransactions being added to the game came to us indirectly via beta previewers who happened to notice the in-game mall, and via sites selling the pre-order which mentioned "Cryptic Bucks" and when the topic became too hot for them on their own forums, they moved the huge merged thread to a German section of the forums to try to kill it.
SOE took a similar approach. There was no communication about this - they just dropped a shopping mall into a few of their mmos overnight.
I think MMOs are trying to increase revenues. Lets face it they have been at 15.99 for a long time. So I'm thinking that they are trying to do something to increase revenue without increasing the price.
Adding a mall with cosmetic items is something that doesn't bother me in the slightest and if people buy stuff from it I'm thinking great that means I won't have to pay more for the game support and future development.
If you asked people would you rather have a item mall with cosmetic items or have the sub price increase to 19.99 I'd bet people would be quite a bit more in favor of an item mall. I would definitely be.
Now why not talk to customers about this? Again that is pretty obvious because people aren't going to like either option and will just leave the game knowing there isn't any good choice even before it's out the door. Frankly just dropping an undesirable change in unannounced is the best thing for customer retension. Talking about it and broadcasting it when it is gonna have a negative perception just adds to people awareness of the feature and drives more people away. Many people never even noticed the item mall in eq2 and when it appeared maybe glanced at it and then forgot it.
I think there is a line when the item mall become necessary to play the game. If the item mall contains "good or great items" like weapons, armor, tools etc that impact game play to the point that people without the items are seriously hindered in playing the game then it damn well better be a free game cause they are forcing you to buy items from the item mall to enjoy the game.
Anyway thats my opinion...
In a polls I'd never say I like any MT, I mean why would I? I don't use them and I don't care much about it so it adds nothing to my game.
If I like a game and it has cosmetic MT then I'm not going to be concerned about it except in a mild way since while it might be cosmetic now tomorrow it could change. Thats probably paranoiya on my part.
If the game has a sub and MT that affect the game play significantly then I'd be very resistant to playing the game.
Would I prefer playing a game with cosmetic item mall and a $15.99 sub price or a game with a $19.99 sub price I'd definitely choose the first option.
Personally this is what I think is happening. Companies are looking for ways to increase the price without actually increasing it. This is why I think all games will soon have cosmetic MT. I think every game in the past 5 years has started selling items as perks for preording, or staying with the game for a certain amount of time, or even just attending a show they run. Companies have learned they can sell you on simple cosmetic items. Give you a cool pet deamon and people will preorder an expansion or attend a conference, or something else. Sometimes spending large amounts of money for these perks. This is likely what set the groundwork for having MT in games.
I think MMOs are trying to increase revenues. Lets face it they have been at 15.99 for a long time. So I'm thinking that they are trying to do something to increase revenue without increasing the price. Adding a mall with cosmetic items is something that doesn't bother me in the slightest and if people buy stuff from it I'm thinking great that means I won't have to pay more for the game support and future development. If you asked people would you rather have a item mall with cosmetic items or have the sub price increase to 19.99 I'd bet people would be quite a bit more in favor of an item mall. I would definitely be.
I definitely wouldn't.
If you examine the reasons why people like the subscription model, it isn't because they're cheap. They like the flat fee. They don't want to play a game that includes money sinks. If we were happy to play a game with a shopping mall, we'd go and play the free ones that don't charge us a subscription.
And FYI, CO's shopping mall won't just have cosmetic items.
They should make official polls on this before they release and lose half customer base because of MTs.
Question: Do you feel the views of the people on this forum regarding RMT are indicative of the average MMO gamer's views on RMT?
Do you have any reason to believe that mmorg.com members aren't representaive of MMO gamers?
Though I think you might have misunderstood him. When he says "official polls" I read this as a "real survey". So while I think you'd probably get a representative sample from mmorpg.com forum members, you couldn't control for people doing silly things like participating multiple times under different account names.
Game developers do conduct this kind of research, as do academics and market research firms. I think that's what he was talking about.
"Do you have any reason to believe that mmor(p)g.com members aren't representative of MMO gamers?"
. . . Vanguard, Ryzom and Atlantica are among the top 7 rated games on this site based on votes. Think about that -- Atlantica and Ryzom. I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games. The votes on mmorpg.com also place Warhammer in the top 7 (#4 as of this post) as far as mmo's go. It's the best thing since sliced bread.
From what I've seen, half of the posters on this site should be in charge of their own development studio, they so know what's best for the genre. The other half go on and on about how the genre isn't what it used to be, back in the EQ, UO or even Meridian days. But they'll still try out new MMO's to trash them and prove themelves correct. And post here of course.
Even the site name says it all, "MMORPG.com". I don't recall the last time I heard anyone use that term in conversation, MMORPG, the games are simply "MMO's" now.
We, the posters on this site, are not typical MMO gamers. Those typical guys are busy playing their games or posting on their games' offical forums. The only reason I visit this site is to see what's in deveopment and double-check on release dates. Every now and then I'll post in a thread when it gets boring at work. With any luck, a flame war will break out and give me something to chuckle about.
For the reasons mentioned above, no, I don't believe mmorpg.com members are representative of MMO gamers. The Warcraft development team would have been kidnapped and burned to death with cigarette butts long ago if that was the case.
Yep, ok I thought about it. And nothing you've said speaks at all to the question of representativeness because you are misinterpreting the mmorpg.com statistics.
You said it yourself or Ryzom and Atlantica - "I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games." The ratings of mmos here are taken from mmorpg.com members who bother to go and rate each game. Not all mmorpg.com members have played all of the games and there are probably many who haven't bothered to rate all of the games that they have played.
These ratings are not drawn from a single sample that played and rated each game.
For one to reasonably reach the conclusion that mmorpg.com members are an unrepresentative sample because the ratings don't match market performance, your expectations, mmorpg.com official reviews etc. etc. you have to assume that all mmorpg.com members have rated all games.
You go so far as to cite the site's name "mmorpg.com" as an outdated term as some justification for dismissing mmorpg.com members as unrepresentative of the market - but fail to explain how that works....
Speaking as someone who has research qualifications and has worked in this field, there is no reason to believe that members of these forums aren't representative. This is backed up by the results which match a) what is known from existing research and b) common sense.
Players who like subscription mmos generally don't like microtransactions. Ninety percent of players who like freebie+MT mmos will never buy anything, i.e. they like the free part not the MTs.
Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items.
So on a question like this - yes, absolutely, mmorpg.com members are a representative sample.
A good example of an unrepresentative sample would be CO beta players. These players would have a fairly high sense of involvement and investment in the game and are just about guaranteed to buy and play it. So if, eg. Cryptic put the question to them "If we added microtransactions on top of a subscription, would you still play it?" and took that as an indication of how to proceed....
From the article you quoted:
It was very interesting, thank you for providing the link. It affirmed what I had been thinking.
"You are right, it is inevitable that there will be some cannibalisation of the subscription opportunity by micro-transaction based games . . ." -- An admission that RMT is going to inevitably eat into the subscription opportunity for, say, MMOs. We all knew that. The article makes no judgement as to whether it's good or bad -- it's just gonna happen.
"But there is also much in the argument that states that micro-transaction based spending is often incremental to the subscription market." -- The RMT spending increase is IN ADDITION to the subscription market. It's not gonna kill it.
"So while micro-transaction revenue is growing strongly, our research shows that consumer spending on subscriptions is also growing at a solid pace." -- There's room for both RMT and subscription. It doesn't need to be an "us" vs "them" deal. What about ppl that work long hours and have more money to spend on a game than time? It just sux to be them, lulz?
You state that ppl who like subscription mmo's "generally" don't like RMT's. Then you quote the following as support: "Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items. "
Hmmmm. So i could say that "Many democrats are liberal". You would conclude democrats are generally liberal? I could say that "Many ppl who post on this site are whiners"? You would conclude ppl who post on this site generally are whiners? I am a Mexican-Amercian. Many of us like beans =p You would conclude Mexican-Americans generally like beans? Are these "reasonable" conclusions to reach?
To borrow one of your phrases, 'for one to reasonably reach the conclusion' that players that like subscriptions generally don't like RMT, you have to assume . . . errrr . . . hmmmm. Assume what? What's the standard? Poll every single person who likes subscriptions on the face of the planet and ask them about RMTs to learn that "many" don't like them?
The article didn't even use the word "majority", just "many". I wouldn't feel comfortable using the word "generally" myself about anything important (much less a video game), unless there was at least a confirmed majority. And even then I'd want to know if it was 51% to 49%. A 49% minority qualifies as "many" in my book.
Do you know for one second what it means that you generalized the quote based on your point of view (it may be that you don't believe you did . . . as someone who claims to have a research backgound no less) to affirm that there is no reason to think that mmorpg.com memers are not representative of mmo players in general and attitudes about RMT in particular?
Do you know what that means?
I don't have a clue. Just an opinion, as do you. I rarely respond to posts more than once--no point in it--and this is no different, so to save time for any future responses in this post, here's my response: "I respect your opinion".
From the article you quoted: It was very interesting, thank you for providing the link. It affirmed what I had been thinking. "You are right, it is inevitable that there will be some cannibalisation of the subscription opportunity by micro-transaction based games . . ." -- An admission that RMT is going to inevitably eat into the subscription opportunity for, say, MMOs. We all knew that. The article makes no judgement as to whether it's good or bad -- it's just gonna happen. "But there is also much in the argument that states that micro-transaction based spending is often incremental to the subscription market." -- The RMT spending increase is IN ADDITION to the subscription market. It's not gonna kill it. "So while micro-transaction revenue is growing strongly, our research shows that consumer spending on subscriptions is also growing at a solid pace." -- There's room for both RMT and subscription. It doesn't need to be an "us" vs "them" deal. What about ppl that work long hours and have more money to spend on a game than time? It just sux to be them, lulz?
You state that ppl who like subscription mmo's "generally" don't like RMT's. Then you quote the following as support: "Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items. " Hmmmm. So i could say that "Many democrats are liberal". You would conclude democrats are generally liberal? I could say that "Many ppl who post on this site are whiners"? You would conclude ppl who post on this site generally are whiners? I am a Mexican-Amercian. Many of us like beans =p You would conclude Mexican-Americans generally like beans? Are these "reasonable" conclusions to reach? To borrow one of your phrases, 'for one to reasonably reach the conclusion' that players that like subscriptions generally don't like RMT, you have to assume . . . errrr . . . hmmmm. Assume what? What's the standard? Poll every single person who likes subscriptions on the face of the planet and ask them about RMTs to learn that "many" don't like them? The article didn't even use the word "majority", just "many". I wouldn't feel comfortable using the word "generally" myself about anything important (much less a video game), unless there was at least a confirmed majority. And even then I'd want to know if it was 51% to 49%. A 49% minority qualifies as "many" in my book. Do you know for one second what it means that you generalized the quote based on your point of view (it may be that you don't believe you did . . . as someone who claims to have a research backgound no less) to affirm that there is no reason to think that mmorpg.com memers are not representative of mmo players in general and attitudes about RMT in particular? Do you know what that means? I don't have a clue. Just an opinion, as do you. I rarely respond to posts more than once--no point in it--and this is no different, so to save time for any future responses in this post, here's my response: "I respect your opinion".
You argue like Bill Roper :P
"You are right, it is inevitable that there will be some cannibalisation of the subscription opportunity by micro-transaction based games . . ." -- An admission that RMT is going to inevitably eat into the subscription opportunity for, say, MMOs. We all knew that. The article makes no judgement as to whether it's good or bad -- it's just gonna happen.
All they've said is that there is some degree of competition between MT-based and subscription-based mmos. I'm not sure why you bothered to quote that. It's irrelevant to this discussion, which is about a single game trying to be both.
"But there is also much in the argument that states that micro-transaction based spending is often incremental to the subscription market." -- The RMT spending increase is IN ADDITION to the subscription market. It's not gonna kill it.
If we read the paragraph in full, what they're saying is that while there is some degree of competition between MT-based and subscription-based games, they are also to a substantial degree, separate markets. A very interesting point, particularly in relation to an mmo trying to be both.
"So while micro-transaction revenue is growing strongly, our research shows that consumer spending on subscriptions is also growing at a solid pace." -- There's room for both RMT and subscription. It doesn't need to be an "us" vs "them" deal. What about ppl that work long hours and have more money to spend on a game than time? It just sux to be them, lulz?
They say this in the context of separate payment models.
No-one is saying there's no room for a hybrid model of the type CO plans to use - but it is going to be very unpopular with a lot of gamers because:
the vast majority of players of free+MT mmos like it for the fact that it's free, not the MTs
subscription players like to get everything for a flat fee
So this hybrid model mixes the least popular elements of the two individual ones.
You state that ppl who like subscription mmo's "generally" don't like RMT's. Then you quote the following as support: "Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items. "
Hmmmm. So i could say that "Many democrats are liberal". You would conclude democrats are generally liberal? I could say that "Many ppl who post on this site are whiners"? You would conclude ppl who post on this site generally are whiners? I am a Mexican-Amercian. Many of us like beans =p You would conclude Mexican-Americans generally like beans? Are these "reasonable" conclusions to reach?
Now you're just being silly.
Yes, I'm quite comfortable with the claim that people who like subscription mmos generally don't like RMTs. Do I base that solely on the quoted text? Oddly enough, no, my experience of the world reaches a beyond that paragraph - sorry for not cramming it all in there. There's the rest of the article that paragraph belongs to, and extending a bit further to the poll which is the subject of this thread, and the responses from players who don't want MTs in CO, other relevant statistics, the general disdain for RMTs in the mmo community and even, dare I say it, common sense.
Even amongst the players saying they'll still play CO even if it has MTs, the majority of those would rather the game not include them.
To borrow one of your phrases, 'for one to reasonably reach the conclusion' that players that like subscriptions generally don't like RMT, you have to assume . . . errrr . . . hmmmm. Assume what? What's the standard? Poll every single person who likes subscriptions on the face of the planet and ask them about RMTs to learn that "many" don't like them?
You made a completely specious claim. You tried to take the mmorpg.com ratings and argue that they are proof that mmorpg.com forum members aren't representative. You were wrong, for the reasons I outlined. I note that you haven't tried to argue the point, just tried to come off as clever by throwing that single phrase back at me.
The conclusion that players that like subscriptions generally don't like RMTs is one of the many conclusions you could reach just from the poll that is the subject of this thread. And I could point to other studies which lead us to the same conclusion.
The article didn't even use the word "majority", just "many". I wouldn't feel comfortable using the word "generally" myself about anything important (much less a video game), unless there was at least a confirmed majority. And even then I'd want to know if it was 51% to 49%. A 49% minority qualifies as "many" in my book.
The results from this poll show 68% not wanting MTs for aesthetic items. That's a significant majority. It's even higher if we include ones with in-game effects. Similarly 82% indicate they'd prefer a straight subscription model, with only 13% saying they prefer the subscription + MTs.
Should we take into consideration things like SOE's recently laying off 5% of their staff, hot on the heels of the supposedly incredibly successful launch of Free Realms? And what else have they done recently? Oh yes, they dropped shopping malls into several of their mmos.
Of course, SOE could be screwing up in many other spectacular ways - they have some history for this sort of thing - but it doesn't look good for the MT supporters, does it? Indeed, just the fact SOE has done this would be proof positive in many mmo'ers minds that it's a very bad idea.
Perhaps Cryptic even has an NGE up their sleeve? :P
Do you know for one second what it means that you generalized the quote based on your point of view (it may be that you don't believe you did . . . as someone who claims to have a research backgound no less) to affirm that there is no reason to think that mmorpg.com memers are not representative of mmo players in general and attitudes about RMT in particular?
Do you know what that means?
I don't have a clue. Just an opinion, as do you. I rarely respond to posts more than once--no point in it--and this is no different, so to save time for any future responses in this post, here's my response: "I respect your opinion".
You really argue like Bill Roper!
So let's break this down and try to demystify it.
You claim I made a generalisation from a single statement - which I didn't (see above) - and further that I used this generalisation to affirm that there is no reason to think that mmorpg.com members aren't representative....
I didn't break my post into subsections with headers. If this were an academic essay, I could be spanked for that. But I think it's clear to a reasonable person that when I said this:
So on a question like this - yes, absolutely, mmorpg.com members are a representative sample.
that it was a concluding statement in relation to all of the points I'd made in my post.
You tried to make the argument that mmorpg.com members are an unrepresentative sample. Your argument was horribly flawed - I demonstrated that. There's absolutely no reason to believe that mmorpg.com members are an unrepresentative sample particularly in relation to the questions it asks.
I do like the old "Let's just respect each other's opinions". Good for you if you want to do that. People believe all sorts of weird stuff. If you want to believe the things you've said in the face of overwhelming evidence, then I've no doubt that you'll do it.
Personally I prefer to deal with what's real. It's a shame Cryptic aren't of a similar mind - but that $48 million they're chasing is probably blurring their vision.
get experience for the launch of Aion EU and NA servers, and WIN !!!! Enjoy the lowest Kina and experience various items. 1M=1.79 US, for more detials, pls visit http://wangxiaoshuo.com/tj/?id=2&tid=3
get experience for the launch of Aion EU and NA servers, and WIN !!!! Enjoy the lowest Kina and experience various items. 1M=1.79 US, for more detials, pls visit http://wangxiaoshuo.com/tj/?id=2&tid=3
Comments
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
If we do not like it, we're not required to. That's the beauty of it. Only opinion matters in this issue, period. If I feel Cryptic is being too greedy and the MT will ruin the game and I think it's a horrid idea, I'm 100% right. Because I decide how I spend my money, and I decided long ago this was too greedy for me to stomach, hence I do not give them a cent if they go through with this. And if you think this is a good idea, fine. But, justifying a corp gouging us, or micro-gouging us if you wish, seems a bit much.
When did it become popular opinion a company has an absolute right to firmly grasp our skulls and begin boning away, and it's now common courtesy to just lay there and take the gang rape as they line up with "awesome new payment models 100% for you!"? Did I miss a collective meeting were the people of the United States of Apathy decided you're a bad guy if you say "I think this sucks and I think being greedy isn't the main reason I got into the hobby 28 years ago?"
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
UO and successful probably shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Just saying.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
I think there's a fundamental lack of understanding on Cryptic's part on this issue.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23003
There are also other reasons why subscriptions are holding their own against the other business models. First, some content is undoutedly better suited to a monthly set-fee model rather than micro-transactions, and developers continue to produce that content for the Western markets.
Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items.
Thirdly, consumers in the West are used to paying for all sorts of services in the form of subscriptions and, importantly, the payment mechanisms and infrastructure exists for regular subscription payments to be made. This has been helped by the introduction of other payment methods such as pre-paid cards and SMS payments for subscriptions.
Part of what I pay for when I pay a subscription, is an mmo that doesn't have a shopping mall. Cos let's face it, if I was happy to play an mmo that had shopping malls, wouldn't I just play one of the many free ones?
I think it boils down to they're really pumped to whore out any game they can Guitar Hero style. They can't justify gouging folks with a console if they don't bend us over too. I'm hoping Roper had nothing to do with this, because we see how well his "exciting and new payment models" work...
www.hellgatelondon.com
I'll save you a click:
Address Not Found
Firefox can't find the server at www.hellgatelondon.com.
The browser could not find the host server for the provided address.
* Did you make a mistake when typing the domain? (e.g. "ww.mozilla.org" instead of "www.mozilla.org")
* Are you certain this domain address exists? Its registration may have expired.
* Are you unable to browse other sites? Check your network connection and DNS server settings.
* Is your computer or network protected by a firewall or proxy? Incorrect settings can interfere with Web browsing.
Yeah, it was bound to happen. I just can't wait until I can do this with Dark Fall too. Uh-oh, prepare for derailment and rabid frenzy in 3...2...1.
What really gets me is how unecessary all of this is.
Cryptic could plug into both the subscription and MT markets separately and no-one would complain. If they'd had a lick of sense, they'd have launched with separate subscription and free + MT versions.
It's a bizarre notion to some, but often the easiest way to get money out of peoples' wallets is to offer to sell them something they want!
It's the Bill Roper effect mate. Why charge the same price as all the other premium priced games when you can charge so much more?
I wouldn't be surprised if Bill saw this as his way back to the good path. Hellgate London was a failure, but if he can manage to sell a subscription + MT model, then he'd be like a god in the mmo industry..... or at least in his own imagination.
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
UO and successful probably shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Just saying.
You're 'just saying' not to put much credence in any further responses from you. Just saying.
- RPG Quiz - can you get all 25 right?
- FPS Quiz - how well do you know your shooters?
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
Where is the UO Item Mall information? Couldn't find it in the www.uo.com website.
Question: Do you feel the views of the people on this forum regarding RMT are indicative of the average MMO gamer's views on RMT?
Do you have any reason to believe that mmorg.com members aren't representaive of MMO gamers?
Though I think you might have misunderstood him. When he says "official polls" I read this as a "real survey". So while I think you'd probably get a representative sample from mmorpg.com forum members, you couldn't control for people doing silly things like participating multiple times under different account names.
Game developers do conduct this kind of research, as do academics and market research firms. I think that's what he was talking about.
"Do you have any reason to believe that mmor(p)g.com members aren't representative of MMO gamers?"
. . . Vanguard, Ryzom and Atlantica are among the top 7 rated games on this site based on votes. Think about that -- Atlantica and Ryzom. I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games. The votes on mmorpg.com also place Warhammer in the top 7 (#4 as of this post) as far as mmo's go. It's the best thing since sliced bread.
From what I've seen, half of the posters on this site should be in charge of their own development studio, they so know what's best for the genre. The other half go on and on about how the genre isn't what it used to be, back in the EQ, UO or even Meridian days. But they'll still try out new MMO's to trash them and prove themelves correct. And post here of course.
Even the site name says it all, "MMORPG.com". I don't recall the last time I heard anyone use that term in conversation, MMORPG, the games are simply "MMO's" now.
We, the posters on this site, are not typical MMO gamers. Those typical guys are busy playing their games or posting on their games' offical forums. The only reason I visit this site is to see what's in deveopment and double-check on release dates. Every now and then I'll post in a thread when it gets boring at work. With any luck, a flame war will break out and give me something to chuckle about.
For the reasons mentioned above, no, I don't believe mmorpg.com members are representative of MMO gamers. The Warcraft development team would have been kidnapped and burned to death with cigarette butts long ago if that was the case.
Any gaming forum on the planet pretty much has it's fair share of people who use the old, "go back to WoW" as an insult, it's not a rarity here. As for the website, I'm not sure how it ranks the games but I find it suspect too. Or maybe the average player that comes here isn't so mainstream in their likings?
The thread for MTs on the Champions Online homepage was well over 2,500 posts and 260 pages when I last checked it. A few of those posts were even against the idea of a MT store... Cryptic is banking on apathy, ignorance and bad judgement to push this through. Only they stand to gain from it, we gain nothing but smoke and mirrors.
I agree on your point about a poll on their forums, but... what is the 'first of a kind' feature here?
Sorry, I didn't make it very clear, it's regarding the commercial model.
The Item Mall MT + Retail and Subscription model, it's like the sum of F2P and P2P models. Games either chose one or the other, or aimed at used a cheap "premium" subscription that is not technically required to play. This is the first one I know attempting both models in this way, and it's why I call it a gamble.
UO has done this successfully for over a half a decade.
UO and successful probably shouldn't be used in the same sentence. Just saying.
You're 'just saying' not to put much credence in any further responses from you. Just saying.
I've tried figuring out the code you posted in but I keep coming back to you wanting to give me the keys to your Prius. Truth?
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
Question: Do you feel the views of the people on this forum regarding RMT are indicative of the average MMO gamer's views on RMT?
Do you have any reason to believe that mmorg.com members aren't representaive of MMO gamers?
Though I think you might have misunderstood him. When he says "official polls" I read this as a "real survey". So while I think you'd probably get a representative sample from mmorpg.com forum members, you couldn't control for people doing silly things like participating multiple times under different account names.
Game developers do conduct this kind of research, as do academics and market research firms. I think that's what he was talking about.
"Do you have any reason to believe that mmor(p)g.com members aren't representative of MMO gamers?"
. . . Vanguard, Ryzom and Atlantica are among the top 7 rated games on this site based on votes. Think about that -- Atlantica and Ryzom. I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games. The votes on mmorpg.com also place Warhammer in the top 7 (#4 as of this post) as far as mmo's go. It's the best thing since sliced bread.
From what I've seen, half of the posters on this site should be in charge of their own development studio, they so know what's best for the genre. The other half go on and on about how the genre isn't what it used to be, back in the EQ, UO or even Meridian days. But they'll still try out new MMO's to trash them and prove themelves correct. And post here of course.
Even the site name says it all, "MMORPG.com". I don't recall the last time I heard anyone use that term in conversation, MMORPG, the games are simply "MMO's" now.
We, the posters on this site, are not typical MMO gamers. Those typical guys are busy playing their games or posting on their games' offical forums. The only reason I visit this site is to see what's in deveopment and double-check on release dates. Every now and then I'll post in a thread when it gets boring at work. With any luck, a flame war will break out and give me something to chuckle about.
For the reasons mentioned above, no, I don't believe mmorpg.com members are representative of MMO gamers. The Warcraft development team would have been kidnapped and burned to death with cigarette butts long ago if that was the case.
Yep, ok I thought about it. And nothing you've said speaks at all to the question of representativeness because you are misinterpreting the mmorpg.com statistics.
You said it yourself or Ryzom and Atlantica - "I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games." The ratings of mmos here are taken from mmorpg.com members who bother to go and rate each game. Not all mmorpg.com members have played all of the games and there are probably many who haven't bothered to rate all of the games that they have played.
These ratings are not drawn from a single sample that played and rated each game.
For one to reasonably reach the conclusion that mmorpg.com members are an unrepresentative sample because the ratings don't match market performance, your expectations, mmorpg.com official reviews etc. etc. you have to assume that all mmorpg.com members have rated all games.
You go so far as to cite the site's name "mmorpg.com" as an outdated term as some justification for dismissing mmorpg.com members as unrepresentative of the market - but fail to explain how that works....
Speaking as someone who has research qualifications and has worked in this field, there is no reason to believe that members of these forums aren't representative. This is backed up by the results which match a) what is known from existing research and b) common sense.
Players who like subscription mmos generally don't like microtransactions. Ninety percent of players who like freebie+MT mmos will never buy anything, i.e. they like the free part not the MTs.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23003
Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items.
So on a question like this - yes, absolutely, mmorpg.com members are a representative sample.
A good example of an unrepresentative sample would be CO beta players. These players would have a fairly high sense of involvement and investment in the game and are just about guaranteed to buy and play it. So if, eg. Cryptic put the question to them "If we added microtransactions on top of a subscription, would you still play it?" and took that as an indication of how to proceed....
I think the poll was poorly done. Reason is that is doesn't distinguish between microtransactions that are game impacting vs cosmetic.
Then asking general questions about microtransactions doesn't get anyone the ability to do anything other then reject it if they are ok with cosmetic but not ok with non cosmetic MT..
Further bringing up the specifics in the beginning of the forums makes sure that people that don't want game changing MT will have to reject microtransactions in the following questions.
So ultimately the polls will create a bias in the results due to this mixing of options.
---
Ethion
I think the poll was poorly done. Reason is that is doesn't distinguish between microtransactions that are game impacting vs cosmetic.
Then asking general questions about microtransactions doesn't get anyone the ability to do anything other then reject it if they are ok with cosmetic but not ok with non cosmetic MT..
Further bringing up the specifics in the beginning of the forums makes sure that people that don't want game changing MT will have to reject microtransactions in the following questions.
So ultimately the polls will create a bias in the results due to this mixing of options.
I didn't create the poll, and if I had I would have asked a few additional questions...
But your objections are completely nonsensical.
You say the poll doesn't distinguish between cosmetic and game impacting microtransactions, but the first two questions are:
Your other two objections are equally irrelevant. Look at the pattern of results - which I've detailed already - and you can see that your claims simply aren't true.
I think the poll was poorly done. Reason is that is doesn't distinguish between microtransactions that are game impacting vs cosmetic.
Then asking general questions about microtransactions doesn't get anyone the ability to do anything other then reject it if they are ok with cosmetic but not ok with non cosmetic MT..
Further bringing up the specifics in the beginning of the forums makes sure that people that don't want game changing MT will have to reject microtransactions in the following questions.
So ultimately the polls will create a bias in the results due to this mixing of options.
I didn't create the poll, and if I had I would have asked a few additional questions...
But your objections are completely nonsensical.
You say the poll doesn't distinguish between cosmetic and game impacting microtransactions, but the first two questions are:
Your other two objections are equally irrelevant. Look at the pattern of results - which I've detailed already - and you can see that your claims simply aren't true.
All the followup questions after the first two set the definition of microtransactions being aesthetic and game effecting items use the generic microtransactions.
I'm ok with aesthetic items in the game via microtransactions. I don't really care.
I'm strongly opposed to items in game that effect the game play.
So do I care about microtransactions, will this impact my decision to buy the game?? Since microtransactions can only be assumed to include both aesthetic and game effecting items I can only say I'm strongly opposed?
A better thing would have been to break it down and drop the first two questions altogether.
If the game has aesthetic microtransactions would this effect your buying decision?
If the game has game impacting microtransactions would this effect your buying decision?
Anyway this was what made me feel frustrated in the poll not really giving me the ability to express my opinion.
---
Ethion
The questions were written in the specific context of Champions Online. And at the moment it appears that there will be both game-changing and aesthetic items for sale in the shopping mall.
I can see your point - there are some players who might not want aesthetic MTs but might tolerate the presence of aesthetic ones.Harking back to where this element of the thread started - someone suggested that this is exactly what Cryptic should have done.
But Cryptic don't communicate well with their potential customers. The information about microtransactions being added to the game came to us indirectly via beta previewers who happened to notice the in-game mall, and via sites selling the pre-order which mentioned "Cryptic Bucks" and when the topic became too hot for them on their own forums, they moved the huge merged thread to a German section of the forums to try to kill it.
SOE took a similar approach. There was no communication about this - they just dropped a shopping mall into a few of their mmos overnight.
The questions were written in the specific context of Champions Online. And at the moment it appears that there will be both game-changing and aesthetic items for sale in the shopping mall.
I can see your point - there are some players who might not want aesthetic MTs but might tolerate the presence of aesthetic ones.Harking back to where this element of the thread started - someone suggested that this is exactly what Cryptic should have done.
But Cryptic don't communicate well with their potential customers. The information about microtransactions being added to the game came to us indirectly via beta previewers who happened to notice the in-game mall, and via sites selling the pre-order which mentioned "Cryptic Bucks" and when the topic became too hot for them on their own forums, they moved the huge merged thread to a German section of the forums to try to kill it.
SOE took a similar approach. There was no communication about this - they just dropped a shopping mall into a few of their mmos overnight.
I think MMOs are trying to increase revenues. Lets face it they have been at 15.99 for a long time. So I'm thinking that they are trying to do something to increase revenue without increasing the price.
Adding a mall with cosmetic items is something that doesn't bother me in the slightest and if people buy stuff from it I'm thinking great that means I won't have to pay more for the game support and future development.
If you asked people would you rather have a item mall with cosmetic items or have the sub price increase to 19.99 I'd bet people would be quite a bit more in favor of an item mall. I would definitely be.
Now why not talk to customers about this? Again that is pretty obvious because people aren't going to like either option and will just leave the game knowing there isn't any good choice even before it's out the door. Frankly just dropping an undesirable change in unannounced is the best thing for customer retension. Talking about it and broadcasting it when it is gonna have a negative perception just adds to people awareness of the feature and drives more people away. Many people never even noticed the item mall in eq2 and when it appeared maybe glanced at it and then forgot it.
I think there is a line when the item mall become necessary to play the game. If the item mall contains "good or great items" like weapons, armor, tools etc that impact game play to the point that people without the items are seriously hindered in playing the game then it damn well better be a free game cause they are forcing you to buy items from the item mall to enjoy the game.
Anyway thats my opinion...
In a polls I'd never say I like any MT, I mean why would I? I don't use them and I don't care much about it so it adds nothing to my game.
If I like a game and it has cosmetic MT then I'm not going to be concerned about it except in a mild way since while it might be cosmetic now tomorrow it could change. Thats probably paranoiya on my part.
If the game has a sub and MT that affect the game play significantly then I'd be very resistant to playing the game.
Would I prefer playing a game with cosmetic item mall and a $15.99 sub price or a game with a $19.99 sub price I'd definitely choose the first option.
Personally this is what I think is happening. Companies are looking for ways to increase the price without actually increasing it. This is why I think all games will soon have cosmetic MT. I think every game in the past 5 years has started selling items as perks for preording, or staying with the game for a certain amount of time, or even just attending a show they run. Companies have learned they can sell you on simple cosmetic items. Give you a cool pet deamon and people will preorder an expansion or attend a conference, or something else. Sometimes spending large amounts of money for these perks. This is likely what set the groundwork for having MT in games.
---
Ethion
I definitely wouldn't.
If you examine the reasons why people like the subscription model, it isn't because they're cheap. They like the flat fee. They don't want to play a game that includes money sinks. If we were happy to play a game with a shopping mall, we'd go and play the free ones that don't charge us a subscription.
And FYI, CO's shopping mall won't just have cosmetic items.
I'd rather pay 19.99 as well over a CS.
Alltern8 Blog | Star Wars Space Combat and The Old Republic | Cryptic Studios - A Pre Post-Mortem | Klingon Preview, STO's Monster Play
Question: Do you feel the views of the people on this forum regarding RMT are indicative of the average MMO gamer's views on RMT?
Do you have any reason to believe that mmorg.com members aren't representaive of MMO gamers?
Though I think you might have misunderstood him. When he says "official polls" I read this as a "real survey". So while I think you'd probably get a representative sample from mmorpg.com forum members, you couldn't control for people doing silly things like participating multiple times under different account names.
Game developers do conduct this kind of research, as do academics and market research firms. I think that's what he was talking about.
"Do you have any reason to believe that mmor(p)g.com members aren't representative of MMO gamers?"
. . . Vanguard, Ryzom and Atlantica are among the top 7 rated games on this site based on votes. Think about that -- Atlantica and Ryzom. I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games. The votes on mmorpg.com also place Warhammer in the top 7 (#4 as of this post) as far as mmo's go. It's the best thing since sliced bread.
From what I've seen, half of the posters on this site should be in charge of their own development studio, they so know what's best for the genre. The other half go on and on about how the genre isn't what it used to be, back in the EQ, UO or even Meridian days. But they'll still try out new MMO's to trash them and prove themelves correct. And post here of course.
Even the site name says it all, "MMORPG.com". I don't recall the last time I heard anyone use that term in conversation, MMORPG, the games are simply "MMO's" now.
We, the posters on this site, are not typical MMO gamers. Those typical guys are busy playing their games or posting on their games' offical forums. The only reason I visit this site is to see what's in deveopment and double-check on release dates. Every now and then I'll post in a thread when it gets boring at work. With any luck, a flame war will break out and give me something to chuckle about.
For the reasons mentioned above, no, I don't believe mmorpg.com members are representative of MMO gamers. The Warcraft development team would have been kidnapped and burned to death with cigarette butts long ago if that was the case.
Yep, ok I thought about it. And nothing you've said speaks at all to the question of representativeness because you are misinterpreting the mmorpg.com statistics.
You said it yourself or Ryzom and Atlantica - "I'll go out on a limb and say most current mainstream MMO (i.e., the majority) gamers haven't even heard of these games." The ratings of mmos here are taken from mmorpg.com members who bother to go and rate each game. Not all mmorpg.com members have played all of the games and there are probably many who haven't bothered to rate all of the games that they have played.
These ratings are not drawn from a single sample that played and rated each game.
For one to reasonably reach the conclusion that mmorpg.com members are an unrepresentative sample because the ratings don't match market performance, your expectations, mmorpg.com official reviews etc. etc. you have to assume that all mmorpg.com members have rated all games.
You go so far as to cite the site's name "mmorpg.com" as an outdated term as some justification for dismissing mmorpg.com members as unrepresentative of the market - but fail to explain how that works....
Speaking as someone who has research qualifications and has worked in this field, there is no reason to believe that members of these forums aren't representative. This is backed up by the results which match a) what is known from existing research and b) common sense.
Players who like subscription mmos generally don't like microtransactions. Ninety percent of players who like freebie+MT mmos will never buy anything, i.e. they like the free part not the MTs.
http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=23003
Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items.
So on a question like this - yes, absolutely, mmorpg.com members are a representative sample.
A good example of an unrepresentative sample would be CO beta players. These players would have a fairly high sense of involvement and investment in the game and are just about guaranteed to buy and play it. So if, eg. Cryptic put the question to them "If we added microtransactions on top of a subscription, would you still play it?" and took that as an indication of how to proceed....
From the article you quoted:
It was very interesting, thank you for providing the link. It affirmed what I had been thinking.
"You are right, it is inevitable that there will be some cannibalisation of the subscription opportunity by micro-transaction based games . . ." -- An admission that RMT is going to inevitably eat into the subscription opportunity for, say, MMOs. We all knew that. The article makes no judgement as to whether it's good or bad -- it's just gonna happen.
"But there is also much in the argument that states that micro-transaction based spending is often incremental to the subscription market." -- The RMT spending increase is IN ADDITION to the subscription market. It's not gonna kill it.
"So while micro-transaction revenue is growing strongly, our research shows that consumer spending on subscriptions is also growing at a solid pace." -- There's room for both RMT and subscription. It doesn't need to be an "us" vs "them" deal. What about ppl that work long hours and have more money to spend on a game than time? It just sux to be them, lulz?
You state that ppl who like subscription mmo's "generally" don't like RMT's. Then you quote the following as support: "Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items. "
Hmmmm. So i could say that "Many democrats are liberal". You would conclude democrats are generally liberal? I could say that "Many ppl who post on this site are whiners"? You would conclude ppl who post on this site generally are whiners? I am a Mexican-Amercian. Many of us like beans =p You would conclude Mexican-Americans generally like beans? Are these "reasonable" conclusions to reach?
To borrow one of your phrases, 'for one to reasonably reach the conclusion' that players that like subscriptions generally don't like RMT, you have to assume . . . errrr . . . hmmmm. Assume what? What's the standard? Poll every single person who likes subscriptions on the face of the planet and ask them about RMTs to learn that "many" don't like them?
The article didn't even use the word "majority", just "many". I wouldn't feel comfortable using the word "generally" myself about anything important (much less a video game), unless there was at least a confirmed majority. And even then I'd want to know if it was 51% to 49%. A 49% minority qualifies as "many" in my book.
Do you know for one second what it means that you generalized the quote based on your point of view (it may be that you don't believe you did . . . as someone who claims to have a research backgound no less) to affirm that there is no reason to think that mmorpg.com memers are not representative of mmo players in general and attitudes about RMT in particular?
Do you know what that means?
I don't have a clue. Just an opinion, as do you. I rarely respond to posts more than once--no point in it--and this is no different, so to save time for any future responses in this post, here's my response: "I respect your opinion".
You argue like Bill Roper :P
"You are right, it is inevitable that there will be some cannibalisation of the subscription opportunity by micro-transaction based games . . ." -- An admission that RMT is going to inevitably eat into the subscription opportunity for, say, MMOs. We all knew that. The article makes no judgement as to whether it's good or bad -- it's just gonna happen.
All they've said is that there is some degree of competition between MT-based and subscription-based mmos. I'm not sure why you bothered to quote that. It's irrelevant to this discussion, which is about a single game trying to be both.
"But there is also much in the argument that states that micro-transaction based spending is often incremental to the subscription market." -- The RMT spending increase is IN ADDITION to the subscription market. It's not gonna kill it.
If we read the paragraph in full, what they're saying is that while there is some degree of competition between MT-based and subscription-based games, they are also to a substantial degree, separate markets. A very interesting point, particularly in relation to an mmo trying to be both.
"So while micro-transaction revenue is growing strongly, our research shows that consumer spending on subscriptions is also growing at a solid pace." -- There's room for both RMT and subscription. It doesn't need to be an "us" vs "them" deal. What about ppl that work long hours and have more money to spend on a game than time? It just sux to be them, lulz?
They say this in the context of separate payment models.
No-one is saying there's no room for a hybrid model of the type CO plans to use - but it is going to be very unpopular with a lot of gamers because:
So this hybrid model mixes the least popular elements of the two individual ones.
You state that ppl who like subscription mmo's "generally" don't like RMT's. Then you quote the following as support: "Secondly, many MMO gamers in North America and Europe accept and like the idea of monthly subscriptions and the type of gameplay that model involves. Conversely, many of these gamers don't like the idea of micro-transactions and sale of virtual currency/items. "
Hmmmm. So i could say that "Many democrats are liberal". You would conclude democrats are generally liberal? I could say that "Many ppl who post on this site are whiners"? You would conclude ppl who post on this site generally are whiners? I am a Mexican-Amercian. Many of us like beans =p You would conclude Mexican-Americans generally like beans? Are these "reasonable" conclusions to reach?
Now you're just being silly.
Yes, I'm quite comfortable with the claim that people who like subscription mmos generally don't like RMTs. Do I base that solely on the quoted text? Oddly enough, no, my experience of the world reaches a beyond that paragraph - sorry for not cramming it all in there. There's the rest of the article that paragraph belongs to, and extending a bit further to the poll which is the subject of this thread, and the responses from players who don't want MTs in CO, other relevant statistics, the general disdain for RMTs in the mmo community and even, dare I say it, common sense.
Even amongst the players saying they'll still play CO even if it has MTs, the majority of those would rather the game not include them.
To borrow one of your phrases, 'for one to reasonably reach the conclusion' that players that like subscriptions generally don't like RMT, you have to assume . . . errrr . . . hmmmm. Assume what? What's the standard? Poll every single person who likes subscriptions on the face of the planet and ask them about RMTs to learn that "many" don't like them?
You made a completely specious claim. You tried to take the mmorpg.com ratings and argue that they are proof that mmorpg.com forum members aren't representative. You were wrong, for the reasons I outlined. I note that you haven't tried to argue the point, just tried to come off as clever by throwing that single phrase back at me.
The conclusion that players that like subscriptions generally don't like RMTs is one of the many conclusions you could reach just from the poll that is the subject of this thread. And I could point to other studies which lead us to the same conclusion.
The article didn't even use the word "majority", just "many". I wouldn't feel comfortable using the word "generally" myself about anything important (much less a video game), unless there was at least a confirmed majority. And even then I'd want to know if it was 51% to 49%. A 49% minority qualifies as "many" in my book.
The results from this poll show 68% not wanting MTs for aesthetic items. That's a significant majority. It's even higher if we include ones with in-game effects. Similarly 82% indicate they'd prefer a straight subscription model, with only 13% saying they prefer the subscription + MTs.
Should we take into consideration things like SOE's recently laying off 5% of their staff, hot on the heels of the supposedly incredibly successful launch of Free Realms? And what else have they done recently? Oh yes, they dropped shopping malls into several of their mmos.
Of course, SOE could be screwing up in many other spectacular ways - they have some history for this sort of thing - but it doesn't look good for the MT supporters, does it? Indeed, just the fact SOE has done this would be proof positive in many mmo'ers minds that it's a very bad idea.
Perhaps Cryptic even has an NGE up their sleeve? :P
Do you know for one second what it means that you generalized the quote based on your point of view (it may be that you don't believe you did . . . as someone who claims to have a research backgound no less) to affirm that there is no reason to think that mmorpg.com memers are not representative of mmo players in general and attitudes about RMT in particular?
Do you know what that means?
I don't have a clue. Just an opinion, as do you. I rarely respond to posts more than once--no point in it--and this is no different, so to save time for any future responses in this post, here's my response: "I respect your opinion".
You really argue like Bill Roper!
So let's break this down and try to demystify it.
You claim I made a generalisation from a single statement - which I didn't (see above) - and further that I used this generalisation to affirm that there is no reason to think that mmorpg.com members aren't representative....
I didn't break my post into subsections with headers. If this were an academic essay, I could be spanked for that. But I think it's clear to a reasonable person that when I said this:
So on a question like this - yes, absolutely, mmorpg.com members are a representative sample.
that it was a concluding statement in relation to all of the points I'd made in my post.
You tried to make the argument that mmorpg.com members are an unrepresentative sample. Your argument was horribly flawed - I demonstrated that. There's absolutely no reason to believe that mmorpg.com members are an unrepresentative sample particularly in relation to the questions it asks.
I do like the old "Let's just respect each other's opinions". Good for you if you want to do that. People believe all sorts of weird stuff. If you want to believe the things you've said in the face of overwhelming evidence, then I've no doubt that you'll do it.
Personally I prefer to deal with what's real. It's a shame Cryptic aren't of a similar mind - but that $48 million they're chasing is probably blurring their vision.
get experience for the launch of Aion EU and NA servers, and WIN !!!!
Enjoy the lowest Kina and experience various items. 1M=1.79 US, for more detials, pls visit
http://wangxiaoshuo.com/tj/?id=2&tid=3
get experience for the launch of Aion EU and NA servers, and WIN !!!!
Enjoy the lowest Kina and experience various items. 1M=1.79 US, for more detials, pls visit
http://wangxiaoshuo.com/tj/?id=2&tid=3
get experience for the launch of Aion EU and NA servers, and WIN !!!!
Enjoy the lowest Kina and experience various items. 1M=1.79 US, for more detials, pls visit
http://wangxiaoshuo.com/tj/?id=2&tid=3
get experience for the launch of Aion EU and NA servers, and WIN !!!!
Enjoy the lowest Kina and experience various items. 1M=1.79 US, for more detials, pls visit
http://wangxiaoshuo.com/tj/?id=2&tid=3