Thanks for the interview, because it really proves my point:
Bill Roper: The idea is wanting to be able to have things there that players can get if they want to, but they don’t negatively impact the balance of the game. It’s not like we’re expecting players to go and purchase things through micro-transactions that then give them some huge leg up. All those things I think people get worried about, but really the focus is on having things that are fun, cosmetic or are things that are more account-wide and maintenance based.
World of Warcraft has micro-transactions and people don’t even think about it. Their micro-transactions are fairly steep at times - like $25 to move your character to another realm – and that’s account-wide micro-transactions. WoW also, if you think about it, does micro-transactions through their card games as well, right? It’s an interesting cross-over where it’s a physical product and you’re buying this other game, but that game has cards that can give you effects in-game. And people have gone out and spent a ton of money on that. Granted, they do get a secondary game out of it, but they’re also paying a pretty steep price for that. So they are paying for another game but they kind of have the perks of having in-game items.
The thing is there will be a lot of things we’ll never micro-transact. And one of the things we put out there – less because it’s planned, and more because it’s making sure people understood it – was the fact that if we were to ever put anything out that did have a game effect, there would be a way to earn it. I think that’s really important.
Now that CO has been out for these months, can you dispute anything Roper said above? I don't see anything in conflict with what they have done. Therefore all the paranoid raving in the thread on the CO forums that you mention has not panned out.
On the issue of respecs, by saying "respecs in the store period" I accuse this of being intentionally misleading. Respecs are availible in the store, but they are also quite easy to obtain in game (at launch in-game respecs took a bit of a grind, but that was fixed BEFORE THE C STORE EVEN SOLD RESPECS*). Now the only time you have to grind more than an hour for an in-game respec is on a max-level character, but they also give you a free respec when you reach the level cap. Therefore the C store respec is an option for players that (1) have squandered their free respecs and their earned respec for reaching level cap and (2) have chosen not to earn an in-game respec.
I have a lot of disposable income, and I only get to play 10 hours per week, but with over a dozen characters I have never bought anything from the C store. It consists of either cosmetic stuff that I don't care about or stuff that I can earn in game / get enough of.
*It says a lot about the unimportance of the C store that it did not even sell anything besides vanity pets until several weeks after launch, by which many powergamers had reached max lvl and explored all content, etc.
You ignored every aspect of the quote that said otherwise and focused on him spinning. I am correct for one simple reason, CO was punished for it's greed. Nothing you say or ignore, as the case may be, will change that. Roper said that game effecting items would be included, they are not, he also goes on about how prepared we are for MT stores after a huge initial investment, we were not. As a matter of fact the limit and the scope of the store is nothing like Rock Band, the limit and scope of the store is small. Which in fact supports me saying it CHANGED due to consumer backlash. But it didn't change enough to help CO.
You're not here for discourse, fine, I accept that, hell I expect that, but you have to accept not all of us are willing to suspend believe to the extent you are just because you're a fan. If you believe the interview supports only what you think is to be true and correct, fine. But the fact is your exact quote supports exactly what I was saying all along.
I love discourse, and I may have some bias problems that are getting in the way, but I reread the article and take issue with some of the things that you say are in there:
Irishoak: As a matter of fact the limit and the scope of the store is nothing like Rock Band.
Bill never said it would be. He just said that Rock Band is a great example of precident in the market for an upfront cost + microtransactions, lets roll the exchange:
TTH: Do you think the concept of micro-transactions is something that the western market simply hasn’t completely warmed up to yet?
BR: Actually I think it really has. I think a great example of that is Rock Band. That game is based wholly on micro-transactions and has a really high cost of entry, you know?
Irishoak: he said directly game effecting items would be included
please show me what text you are reading as this, because I read:
TTH: With the items that you’d be able to earn in-game that would also be offered through micro-transactions, will you be giving players any kind of information or description within the store for how they could earn that item if they don’t necessarily want to pay for it?
BR: So the idea with that would be for something that had an in- game effect. Off the top of my head I don’t know that there’s anything like that on the docket, but I think that might be a good idea to do that, or at least have a place for players to find that information pretty easily. But since that hasn’t really been an issue yet that’s not something we’ve looked at.
Please read the underlined phrases [underlined by me of course]. Instead of 'directly saying game effecting items would be included', he says that they didn't have any planned, that it might be a good idea, but that it's not something they had even looked at! The underlined statements are consistent with the C store we have today.
You think he just casually mentioned all these things? Sure he mentioned Rock Band so he could talk about the initial investment and then play down the monthly fee+full game price+ MT model, no one believed they'd assume the exact same business model as them, it was a way to distract from being fleeced. So to be clear, everything said was in an off-handed manner and had no real meaning or context? Heh. We're done.
I'll agree with you one thousand percent, the store is exactly as they envisioned and people protesting it had zero impact on the inclusion of items. Soon CO will reach 11 million subscribers and we all need to embrace the full price for the game, plus a premium monthly subscription rate and learn to enjoy a MT store for all of our expanded content needs. What was I thinking this whole time, I'm gonna go suckle at the teat of Nike until I embrace consumerism. My bad, man. I won't try to think for myself again. Night night.
You think he just casually mentioned all these things? Sure he mentioned Rock Band so he could talk about the initial investment and then play down the monthly fee+full game price+ MT model, no one believed they'd assume the exact same business model as them, it was a way to distract from being fleeced. So to be clear, everything said was in an off-handed manner and had no real meaning or context? Heh. We're done.
Suit yourself, by quitting I know you just want to extricate yourself from an argument that you have lost. Sure, you offer the pretense that I have become unsuitable for discourse, but I have proceeded in good faith.
Your problem is that you mix up what BR is saying with the paranoid theories that his statements caused you to have. For example, please support this statement:
Irishoak: he said directly game effecting items would be included
The word "directly" has a very specific meaning. In fact, he directly said they had no plans to offer in-game items, directly contradicting your statement.
Irishoak: So to be clear, everything said was in an off-handed manner and had no real meaning or context?
No, for example BR mentioned Rock Band to answer the question asked by TTH. The question asked by TTH was not about CO, it was about the games industry in general. In your mind, was Bill also talking about CO during that question?
Without quoting specific lines in the above posts, my take on the interview you guys are talking about…
To that interview you guys are talking about…
I don’t know why it’s such a point of contention.
Bill Roper is a horrible front man. It’s mind boggling that Cryptic is using him as such.
His first sentences immediately tell you he’s full of poo.
Bill Roper: Actually I think it really has. [The Western Market has warmed up to microtransactions.] I think a great example of that is Rock Band. That game is based wholly on micro-transactions and has a really high cost of entry, you know?
That start right there is so typical of Bill. He’s already way, way off base.
Mmorpg players don’t even know Rock Band exists, and they don’t care. Nobody in the mmorpg world wants to hear about a Guitar-Hero- on-steroids console game. It’s a different kind of game and different business model.
Bill later on the first page points out that WoW has microtransactions.
One example is the card game, which is an invalid example because it’s a separate game unto itself. The items a person gets for WoW online from TCG are so rare and cosmetic as to be a nonissue.
Another example is character server transfers, which are NOT microtransactions, or at least aren’t lumped into with them usually.
Server transfers are one of those things that a developer can’t allow for free or lots of people would hop around like frogs from server to server looking for whatever floats their boat. A game can’t function well like that. On the other hand developers don’t want to disallow it completely because a tiny minority have compelling reasons to move, like getting onto the same server with rl friends or family. One solution is to charge a fee so only those who really want or need it will do it, while almost everyone else will stay where they are, or role a new character on the new server. Maybe there’s a better solution, but a fee is an ok solution as far as I can see. That is NOT, I repeat NOT at all the same thing as opening a store with lots of microtransactions for cosmetic items and such.
Mind you, I don’t want to convince anyone to like WoW or Blizzard, I’m just saying if you’re going to criticize them, make valid comparisons/contrasts or criticisms.
I’ll say now what I’ve said before and I think matters most and that is, people like Bill Roper should forget about looking at WoW and Rock Band and Club Penguin which make millions of dollars, at least forget about talking about them in interviews, and forget about trying to get ahead with a clever business model.
Bill Roper and his buddies should get ahead by making a great game that people love to play, and everything beyond that will work itself out. That’s it, just make a friggin good game that people love to play and everything else will work itself out.
Good game first, success and money follow.
All the focus on complicating his business model to magically create money out of thin air just doesn’t work.
I don’t want to see interviews about microtransactions added to box and subscription costs. The only good response to the first question of the interview would have been, “Forget the business model, let’s talk about how great the game is.” Instead we get two pages on how Bill Roper plans to get into our wallets. Just unbelievable.
Comments
Thanks for the interview, because it really proves my point:
Bill Roper: The idea is wanting to be able to have things there that players can get if they want to, but they don’t negatively impact the balance of the game. It’s not like we’re expecting players to go and purchase things through micro-transactions that then give them some huge leg up. All those things I think people get worried about, but really the focus is on having things that are fun, cosmetic or are things that are more account-wide and maintenance based.
World of Warcraft has micro-transactions and people don’t even think about it. Their micro-transactions are fairly steep at times - like $25 to move your character to another realm – and that’s account-wide micro-transactions. WoW also, if you think about it, does micro-transactions through their card games as well, right? It’s an interesting cross-over where it’s a physical product and you’re buying this other game, but that game has cards that can give you effects in-game. And people have gone out and spent a ton of money on that. Granted, they do get a secondary game out of it, but they’re also paying a pretty steep price for that. So they are paying for another game but they kind of have the perks of having in-game items.
The thing is there will be a lot of things we’ll never micro-transact. And one of the things we put out there – less because it’s planned, and more because it’s making sure people understood it – was the fact that if we were to ever put anything out that did have a game effect, there would be a way to earn it. I think that’s really important.
Now that CO has been out for these months, can you dispute anything Roper said above? I don't see anything in conflict with what they have done. Therefore all the paranoid raving in the thread on the CO forums that you mention has not panned out.
On the issue of respecs, by saying "respecs in the store period" I accuse this of being intentionally misleading. Respecs are availible in the store, but they are also quite easy to obtain in game (at launch in-game respecs took a bit of a grind, but that was fixed BEFORE THE C STORE EVEN SOLD RESPECS*). Now the only time you have to grind more than an hour for an in-game respec is on a max-level character, but they also give you a free respec when you reach the level cap. Therefore the C store respec is an option for players that (1) have squandered their free respecs and their earned respec for reaching level cap and (2) have chosen not to earn an in-game respec.
I have a lot of disposable income, and I only get to play 10 hours per week, but with over a dozen characters I have never bought anything from the C store. It consists of either cosmetic stuff that I don't care about or stuff that I can earn in game / get enough of.
*It says a lot about the unimportance of the C store that it did not even sell anything besides vanity pets until several weeks after launch, by which many powergamers had reached max lvl and explored all content, etc.
Cryptic is trying a Customer Development approach to MMO creation.
You ignored every aspect of the quote that said otherwise and focused on him spinning. I am correct for one simple reason, CO was punished for it's greed. Nothing you say or ignore, as the case may be, will change that. Roper said that game effecting items would be included, they are not, he also goes on about how prepared we are for MT stores after a huge initial investment, we were not. As a matter of fact the limit and the scope of the store is nothing like Rock Band, the limit and scope of the store is small. Which in fact supports me saying it CHANGED due to consumer backlash. But it didn't change enough to help CO.
You're not here for discourse, fine, I accept that, hell I expect that, but you have to accept not all of us are willing to suspend believe to the extent you are just because you're a fan. If you believe the interview supports only what you think is to be true and correct, fine. But the fact is your exact quote supports exactly what I was saying all along.
I love discourse, and I may have some bias problems that are getting in the way, but I reread the article and take issue with some of the things that you say are in there:
Irishoak: As a matter of fact the limit and the scope of the store is nothing like Rock Band.
Bill never said it would be. He just said that Rock Band is a great example of precident in the market for an upfront cost + microtransactions, lets roll the exchange:
TTH: Do you think the concept of micro-transactions is something that the western market simply hasn’t completely warmed up to yet?
BR: Actually I think it really has. I think a great example of that is Rock Band. That game is based wholly on micro-transactions and has a really high cost of entry, you know?
Irishoak: he said directly game effecting items would be included
please show me what text you are reading as this, because I read:
TTH: With the items that you’d be able to earn in-game that would also be offered through micro-transactions, will you be giving players any kind of information or description within the store for how they could earn that item if they don’t necessarily want to pay for it?
BR: So the idea with that would be for something that had an in- game effect. Off the top of my head I don’t know that there’s anything like that on the docket, but I think that might be a good idea to do that, or at least have a place for players to find that information pretty easily. But since that hasn’t really been an issue yet that’s not something we’ve looked at.
Please read the underlined phrases [underlined by me of course]. Instead of 'directly saying game effecting items would be included', he says that they didn't have any planned, that it might be a good idea, but that it's not something they had even looked at! The underlined statements are consistent with the C store we have today.
Cryptic is trying a Customer Development approach to MMO creation.
You think he just casually mentioned all these things? Sure he mentioned Rock Band so he could talk about the initial investment and then play down the monthly fee+full game price+ MT model, no one believed they'd assume the exact same business model as them, it was a way to distract from being fleeced. So to be clear, everything said was in an off-handed manner and had no real meaning or context? Heh. We're done.
I'll agree with you one thousand percent, the store is exactly as they envisioned and people protesting it had zero impact on the inclusion of items. Soon CO will reach 11 million subscribers and we all need to embrace the full price for the game, plus a premium monthly subscription rate and learn to enjoy a MT store for all of our expanded content needs. What was I thinking this whole time, I'm gonna go suckle at the teat of Nike until I embrace consumerism. My bad, man. I won't try to think for myself again. Night night.
Suit yourself, by quitting I know you just want to extricate yourself from an argument that you have lost. Sure, you offer the pretense that I have become unsuitable for discourse, but I have proceeded in good faith.
Your problem is that you mix up what BR is saying with the paranoid theories that his statements caused you to have. For example, please support this statement:
Irishoak: he said directly game effecting items would be included
The word "directly" has a very specific meaning. In fact, he directly said they had no plans to offer in-game items, directly contradicting your statement.
Irishoak: So to be clear, everything said was in an off-handed manner and had no real meaning or context?
No, for example BR mentioned Rock Band to answer the question asked by TTH. The question asked by TTH was not about CO, it was about the games industry in general. In your mind, was Bill also talking about CO during that question?
Cryptic is trying a Customer Development approach to MMO creation.
Laughable, at best. Pathetic, most likely. You speak of paranoia when you need to focus on delusion. Good laugh, thanks!
Without quoting specific lines in the above posts, my take on the interview you guys are talking about…
To that interview you guys are talking about…
I don’t know why it’s such a point of contention.
Bill Roper is a horrible front man. It’s mind boggling that Cryptic is using him as such.
His first sentences immediately tell you he’s full of poo.
Bill Roper: Actually I think it really has. [The Western Market has warmed up to microtransactions.] I think a great example of that is Rock Band. That game is based wholly on micro-transactions and has a really high cost of entry, you know?
That start right there is so typical of Bill. He’s already way, way off base.
Mmorpg players don’t even know Rock Band exists, and they don’t care. Nobody in the mmorpg world wants to hear about a Guitar-Hero- on-steroids console game. It’s a different kind of game and different business model.
Bill later on the first page points out that WoW has microtransactions.
One example is the card game, which is an invalid example because it’s a separate game unto itself. The items a person gets for WoW online from TCG are so rare and cosmetic as to be a nonissue.
Another example is character server transfers, which are NOT microtransactions, or at least aren’t lumped into with them usually.
Server transfers are one of those things that a developer can’t allow for free or lots of people would hop around like frogs from server to server looking for whatever floats their boat. A game can’t function well like that. On the other hand developers don’t want to disallow it completely because a tiny minority have compelling reasons to move, like getting onto the same server with rl friends or family. One solution is to charge a fee so only those who really want or need it will do it, while almost everyone else will stay where they are, or role a new character on the new server. Maybe there’s a better solution, but a fee is an ok solution as far as I can see. That is NOT, I repeat NOT at all the same thing as opening a store with lots of microtransactions for cosmetic items and such.
Mind you, I don’t want to convince anyone to like WoW or Blizzard, I’m just saying if you’re going to criticize them, make valid comparisons/contrasts or criticisms.
I’ll say now what I’ve said before and I think matters most and that is, people like Bill Roper should forget about looking at WoW and Rock Band and Club Penguin which make millions of dollars, at least forget about talking about them in interviews, and forget about trying to get ahead with a clever business model.
Bill Roper and his buddies should get ahead by making a great game that people love to play, and everything beyond that will work itself out. That’s it, just make a friggin good game that people love to play and everything else will work itself out.
Good game first, success and money follow.
All the focus on complicating his business model to magically create money out of thin air just doesn’t work.
I don’t want to see interviews about microtransactions added to box and subscription costs. The only good response to the first question of the interview would have been, “Forget the business model, let’s talk about how great the game is.” Instead we get two pages on how Bill Roper plans to get into our wallets. Just unbelievable.