MMORPG's are included in E-Sports vs say... MLB, NFL, NBA, etc.,..
Think of item shops as the BALCO. Performance enhancing drugs vs in-game character/combat enhancing items.
... these guys know that the average gamer isn't going to stick around for a long time and play their game. 2-3 months usually. So, they want to get money from people any way that they can.
I won't argue that F2P models cannot be implemented that don't corrupt a game's integrity (i.e. fluff items only, selling content rather than progress or advantages, etc). The problem is that the temptation to item shop the +5 sword of ownage is too strong to resist, especially in the world of F2P where 80%+ of players never spend a penny. Thus the reason I simply avoid the games entirely, because the model is too corrupting, the gameplay too forsaken for item shop success, and the general problem I have with not being the player a developer is directly targeting since I do not spend money in RMTs.
That is an illogical position. So what if there is a sword +5 in the item shop? Do you really care if you are in a PvE game? Is the game still fun for you?
There is no reason to avoid the game completely. The whole point about being free is that you can TRY it before deciding and there is little reason (except a lack of time may be) not to do so. If indeed all the fun stuff is in the item shop, you can always quit and move onto the next game.
You are imaging problems which may or may not exist. You can simply play the game and find out.
And this "targeting" part is really irrelevant. As long as there is fun content for the free part, do I care if the develoeprs spend more effort in the paid part of the game? Not really? I will play till i consumer all the free content then leave.
It isn't illogical at all, an aversion to items, particularly quality or necessary items, being sold and not earned goes to the heart of any game. Why not have the NFL sell first downs or field goals? How about if you can buy a 4th out in baseball? Or if you must consider a game that doesn't have two people in direct competition what if at the Masters you could buy birdies or mulligans? Those things would ruin those games because the games would lose their integrity just as most all F2P games have lost theirs. Again, sure it is possible to structure things such that the game's integrity is not compromised but the temptation of profit is such that it is hard to resits and even if it is resisted the appearance of compromising integrity is often enough to sour the game.
And you notice you only use SPORTS games as analogies, which have winners and losers (even in golf). There is no winner and losers in PvE games. This integrity thing has no meaning for a PvE game. You may envy the guy with the better sword but you will envy him anyway even if he got it from a dungeon run instead of buying it.
I mean, if this integrity thing is important, why are millions of players playing F2P games? OBVIOUSLY it is not as important as a free price.
I don't think you need winners and losers for the issue of game integrity to matter. Golf, for example, is played by amateurs and pros alike often without the game being part of a tournament with winners and losers. The whole point in golf is that everyone plays by the same rules so any achievement, such as breaking 80 or some such thing, has merit based on the difficulty of doing that benign the same for everyone within those rules. To me this is much like PvE, I don't directly compete with another player in terms of me winning and them losing or vice versa, but we all work inside the same rules to achieve goals and other merit. As soon as some can buy their way pass some rules or obstacles the integrity breaks down without regard to whether it directly affects me or not. And even in those other sports and games, where there is direct competition, the idea of bought advancement or achievement is simply counter to the spirit of the game, without regard to if or how others are affected.
Why be afraid? Why worry about the eventual loss of integrity I described, the disconnect between developers being "paid' by the gamers enjoyment of the game rather than there need of the item shop or other revenue streams? Why worry?
"In the next step for their Free 2 Play model, Turbine Entertainment, publisher of Dungeon and Dragons: Online, Lord of the Rings: Online and Asheron's Call, has partnered with notorious 'lead generation company' SuperRewards. Initial testing by forum users shows that just accessing the page without clicking on any offers sends the user's email and game login in clear text to SuperRewards. Reports of new spam and fresh malware infections on test systems are already being reported on the company's forums. Is the Zynga business model the future of internet gaming?"
Discussion here, at MMORPG, with detailied info. Now, who was it flaming us for warning of the slippery slope?
Comments
MMORPG's are included in E-Sports vs say... MLB, NFL, NBA, etc.,..
Think of item shops as the BALCO. Performance enhancing drugs vs in-game character/combat enhancing items.
... these guys know that the average gamer isn't going to stick around for a long time and play their game. 2-3 months usually. So, they want to get money from people any way that they can.
That is an illogical position. So what if there is a sword +5 in the item shop? Do you really care if you are in a PvE game? Is the game still fun for you?
There is no reason to avoid the game completely. The whole point about being free is that you can TRY it before deciding and there is little reason (except a lack of time may be) not to do so. If indeed all the fun stuff is in the item shop, you can always quit and move onto the next game.
You are imaging problems which may or may not exist. You can simply play the game and find out.
And this "targeting" part is really irrelevant. As long as there is fun content for the free part, do I care if the develoeprs spend more effort in the paid part of the game? Not really? I will play till i consumer all the free content then leave.
It isn't illogical at all, an aversion to items, particularly quality or necessary items, being sold and not earned goes to the heart of any game. Why not have the NFL sell first downs or field goals? How about if you can buy a 4th out in baseball? Or if you must consider a game that doesn't have two people in direct competition what if at the Masters you could buy birdies or mulligans? Those things would ruin those games because the games would lose their integrity just as most all F2P games have lost theirs. Again, sure it is possible to structure things such that the game's integrity is not compromised but the temptation of profit is such that it is hard to resits and even if it is resisted the appearance of compromising integrity is often enough to sour the game.
And you notice you only use SPORTS games as analogies, which have winners and losers (even in golf). There is no winner and losers in PvE games. This integrity thing has no meaning for a PvE game. You may envy the guy with the better sword but you will envy him anyway even if he got it from a dungeon run instead of buying it.
I mean, if this integrity thing is important, why are millions of players playing F2P games? OBVIOUSLY it is not as important as a free price.
I don't think you need winners and losers for the issue of game integrity to matter. Golf, for example, is played by amateurs and pros alike often without the game being part of a tournament with winners and losers. The whole point in golf is that everyone plays by the same rules so any achievement, such as breaking 80 or some such thing, has merit based on the difficulty of doing that benign the same for everyone within those rules. To me this is much like PvE, I don't directly compete with another player in terms of me winning and them losing or vice versa, but we all work inside the same rules to achieve goals and other merit. As soon as some can buy their way pass some rules or obstacles the integrity breaks down without regard to whether it directly affects me or not. And even in those other sports and games, where there is direct competition, the idea of bought advancement or achievement is simply counter to the spirit of the game, without regard to if or how others are affected.
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD
Why be afraid? Why worry about the eventual loss of integrity I described, the disconnect between developers being "paid' by the gamers enjoyment of the game rather than there need of the item shop or other revenue streams? Why worry?
Hrm, I wonder ... Turbine partners with notorious SuperRewards
"In the next step for their Free 2 Play model, Turbine Entertainment, publisher of Dungeon and Dragons: Online, Lord of the Rings: Online and Asheron's Call, has partnered with notorious 'lead generation company' SuperRewards. Initial testing by forum users shows that just accessing the page without clicking on any offers sends the user's email and game login in clear text to SuperRewards. Reports of new spam and fresh malware infections on test systems are already being reported on the company's forums. Is the Zynga business model the future of internet gaming?"
Discussion here, at MMORPG, with detailied info. Now, who was it flaming us for warning of the slippery slope?
--------------------------------
Achiever 60.00%, Socializer 53.00%, Killer 47.00%, Explorer 40.00%
Intel Core i7 Quad, Intel X58 SLi, 6G Corsair XMS DDR3, Intel X-25 SSD, 3 WD Velociraptor SATA SuperTrak SAS EX8650 Array, OCZ 1250W PS, GTX 295, xFi, 32" 1080p LCD