Hypocrite my ass. You're forgetting one very important detail - the gold sellers are there illegally.
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
Hypocrite my ass. You're forgetting one very important detail - the gold sellers are there illegally.
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
Firstly, I suggest you go back and re-read a few posts. Maybe understanding will dawn on you as I clearly stated I will play a game if it either has a monthly fee or a cash shop. Not a combination of both. Secondly, I couldn't care less what you find moronic. You clearly are the one in this equation who is being moronic as you can't seem to understand the very big difference between endorsed microtransactions and microtransactions which are illegal.
A company that charges a subscription fee and then introduces microtransactions speaks the following about itself:
1) They are greedy. Absolutely no one but the company wins in the form of a nice extra income every month.
2) They couldn't care less about their customers and enjoy milking them.
3) They support the illegal actions of gold sellers, and just like them they'd rather make more money than ensure their game is playable and enjoyable for all - not only those wish a bulging wallet.
A company who does not endorse cash shops on the other hand:
1) Is not looking for a quick way to make an extra buck.
2) Understands that demanding a monthly fee and usually a box purchase is more than enough.
3) Is not supporting what the gold sellers are doing, which is in fact hurting the game economy and rewarding the players who are willing to hand over the most cash.
It is beyond me how anyone can endorse microtransactions in such a form. Essentially you're supporting the company in its endevours to make money in whichever way it can? You may enjoy being a guinea pig and being manipulated by companies attempting to convince you that a cash shop will somehow better one's gaming experience, but I for one see right through it.
Hypocrite my ass. You're forgetting one very important detail - the gold sellers are there illegally.
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
20 years, eh? I wonder how you did a microtransaction by BBS and Fido-net. They have probably been here for quite some time, but please, no reason to exaggerate
BTW, wasn't the internet (if we can even call it that) just for the universities back in 1989?
Hypocrite my ass. You're forgetting one very important detail - the gold sellers are there illegally.
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
Hi
Agree
Microtransactions and goldsellers are not the same. Goldseller can ruin/trivialize a game. Microtransaction they do not influence the balance of a game are a bonus for the company. (i.e. selling useless pets, nice showable gear without stats, ...). So it depends on the purpose of the microtransactions.
my 2 coppers
"Die Vorzüge von gestern sind oft die Fehler von morgen" Anatole France
Hypocrite my ass. You're forgetting one very important detail - the gold sellers are there illegally.
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
Firstly, I suggest you go back and re-read a few posts. Maybe understanding will dawn on you as I clearly stated I will play a game if it either has a monthly fee or a cash shop. Not a combination of both. Secondly, I couldn't care less what you find moronic. You clearly are the one in this equation who is being moronic as you can't seem to understand the very big difference between endorsed microtransactions and microtransactions which are illegal.
A company that charges a subscription fee and then introduces microtransactions speaks the following about itself:
1) They are greedy. Absolutely no one but the company wins in the form of a nice extra income every month.
2) They couldn't care less about their customers and enjoy milking them.
3) They support the illegal actions of gold sellers, and just like them they'd rather make more money than ensure their game is playable and enjoyable for all - not only those wish a bulging wallet.
A company who does not endorse cash shops on the other hand:
1) Is not looking for a quick way to make an extra buck.
2) Understands that demanding a monthly fee and usually a box purchase is more than enough.
3) Is not supporting what the gold sellers are doing, which is in fact hurting the game economy and rewarding the players who are willing to hand over the most cash.
It is beyond me how anyone can endorse microtransactions in such a form. Essentially you're supporting the company in its endevours to make money in whichever way it can? You may enjoy being a guinea pig and being manipulated by companies attempting to convince you that a cash shop will somehow better one's gaming experience, but I for one see right through it.
I don't know Lydon, I think this is all opinion and strong opinion at that.
First of all, his remark, at least in the context of that post was spot on. Microtransactions have been going on in these games forever. The issue is that second parties are making money off of the content created by game companies. Yet game companies have to spend an innordinate amount of time and money fighting them. Yet, clearly there is a market to many for paid items, even if they give players unfair advantages.
Secondly, your assumption that a game company who goes for both monthly fee and microtransactions being greedy is just way off. Look at the monthly fees they charge. They haven't changed for quite some time but we all know inflation has made that fifteen dollars worth less then when it was first implemented. So game companies are left with the dilemma of raising fees which many players will balk at or implementing microtransactions that could bring in extra revenue with the hope (of course) that they are not game breaking.
Thirdly, game companies are not in business just for kicks or some sort of higher gamer religion, they are in business to make money. Not only do they have to continually develop but they also have to make sure they can pay employees, operating costs, benefits and a myriad of other charges that come up. And if they are publicly traded then they have the stock holders to answer to.
So unless you can show me a studio's costs in relation to their income and show that they are all sitting in solid gold chairs and using 100 dollar bills to light cuban cigars I think I will have to pass on the greedy assumption.
edit: I would also add that I support a game company using any means at their disposal to create revenue as long as I don't think it detracts from gameplay and that it is not illegal. There is nothing written in stone that revenue has to come from only one source.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
I don't know Lydon, I think this is all opinion and strong opinion at that.
First of all, his remark, at least in the context of that post was spot on. Microtransactions have been going on in these games forever. The issue is that second parties are making money off of the content created by game companies. Yet game companies have to spend an innordinate amount of time and money fighting them. Yet, clearly there is a market to many for paid items, even if they give players unfair advantages. Secondly, your assumption that a game company who goes for both monthly fee and microtransactions being greedy is just way off. Look at the monthly fees they charge. They haven't changed for quite some time but we all know inflation has made that fifteen dollars worth less then when it was first implemented. So game companies are left with the dilemma of raising fees which many players will balk at or implementing microtransactions that could bring in extra revenue with the hope (of course) that they are not game breaking. Thirdly, game companies are not in business just for kicks or some sort of higher gamer religion, they are in business to make money. Not only do they have to continually develop but they also have to make sure they can pay employees, operating costs, benefits and a myriad of other charges that come up. And if they are publicly traded then they have the stock holders to answer to. So unless you can show me a studio's costs in relation to their income and show that they are all sitting in solid gold chairs and using 100 dollar bills to light cuban cigars I think I will have to pass on the greedy assumption.
edit: I would also add that I support a game company using any means at their disposal to create revenue as long as I don't think it detracts from gameplay and that it is not illegal. There is nothing written in stone that revenue has to come from only one source.
Whilst I understand where you are coming from, I once again have to disagree.
Second parties may indeed be making money off of MMOs via gold selling, but that doesn't give the game company any reason to implement microtransactions themselves. Gold sellers are selling gold, which will allow for the in-game purchase of armor, weapons and other items which affect the balance of the game. However, a very small portion of the community buys gold so the affect isn't extremely devastating - at least in most games. The implementation of cash shops for cosmetic items is purely a method of the company gaining a profit out of customers that are willing to pay for said said items. They are two completely different things in essence, therefore the comparison between the two is rather silly actually.
That brings me to my next point. I once again understand that companies are out to make a profit, and the due to inflation monthly fees don't go as far as they used to. One needs to understand, however, that they'll be making money in other areas. Over time with a competent development team, a game will grow. This alone will account for inflation through the revenue from box sales, expansions and monthly fees. Secondly, the operation of servers is becoming cheaper due to advances in technology and as the internet grows it too becomes cheaper to use. Lastly, ArenaNet, the developers of Guild Wars, have proven that there honestly need not be a monthly fee in the first place. How can they release such a high quality, regularly-updated product that has no monthly fees (and no, it's not because of the instances as Guild Wars 2 will be free and persistent)? One has to question exactly what on Earth we are paying for in the first place.
Ultimately, that is where my opinion of them being greedy comes from. Most MMO companies already have three sources of income - box sales, expansion sales and monthly fees. The fact that many MMOs can survive without monthly fees and just from a cash shop proves that operation costs are nowhere near as high as they're being made out to be, as in a P2P game everyone is forced to pay whereas in a F2P only a portion of people pay for items. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that Turbine isn't holed up in a basement somewhere with the bare minimum resources at their exposal. They are indeed out to make a profit, but one has to come to a point where one says that enough is enough.
I don't know Lydon, I think this is all opinion and strong opinion at that.
First of all, his remark, at least in the context of that post was spot on. Microtransactions have been going on in these games forever. The issue is that second parties are making money off of the content created by game companies. Yet game companies have to spend an innordinate amount of time and money fighting them. Yet, clearly there is a market to many for paid items, even if they give players unfair advantages. Secondly, your assumption that a game company who goes for both monthly fee and microtransactions being greedy is just way off. Look at the monthly fees they charge. They haven't changed for quite some time but we all know inflation has made that fifteen dollars worth less then when it was first implemented. So game companies are left with the dilemma of raising fees which many players will balk at or implementing microtransactions that could bring in extra revenue with the hope (of course) that they are not game breaking. Thirdly, game companies are not in business just for kicks or some sort of higher gamer religion, they are in business to make money. Not only do they have to continually develop but they also have to make sure they can pay employees, operating costs, benefits and a myriad of other charges that come up. And if they are publicly traded then they have the stock holders to answer to. So unless you can show me a studio's costs in relation to their income and show that they are all sitting in solid gold chairs and using 100 dollar bills to light cuban cigars I think I will have to pass on the greedy assumption.
edit: I would also add that I support a game company using any means at their disposal to create revenue as long as I don't think it detracts from gameplay and that it is not illegal. There is nothing written in stone that revenue has to come from only one source.
Whilst I understand where you are coming from, I once again have to disagree.
Second parties may indeed be making money off of MMOs via gold selling, but that doesn't give the game company any reason to implement microtransactions themselves. Gold sellers are selling gold, which will allow for the in-game purchase of armor, weapons and other items which affect the balance of the game. However, a very small portion of the community buys gold so the affect isn't extremely devastating - at least in most games. The implementation of cash shops for cosmetic items is purely a method of the company gaining a profit out of customers that are willing to pay for said said items. They are two completely different things in essence, therefore the comparison between the two is rather silly actually.
That brings me to my next point. I once again understand that companies are out to make a profit, and the due to inflation monthly fees don't go as far as they used to. One needs to understand, however, that they'll be making money in other areas. Over time with a competent development team, a game will grow. This alone will account for inflation through the revenue from box sales, expansions and monthly fees. Secondly, the operation of servers is becoming cheaper due to advances in technology and as the internet grows it too becomes cheaper to use. Lastly, ArenaNet, the developers of Guild Wars, have proven that there honestly need not be a monthly fee in the first place. How can they release such a high quality, regularly-updated product that has no monthly fees (and no, it's not because of the instances as Guild Wars 2 will be free and persistent)? One has to question exactly what on Earth we are paying for in the first place.
Ultimately, that is where my opinion of them being greedy comes from. Most MMO companies already have three sources of income - box sales, expansion sales and monthly fees. The fact that many MMOs can survive without monthly fees and just from a cash shop proves that operation costs are nowhere near as high as they're being made out to be, as in a P2P game everyone is forced to pay whereas in a F2P only a portion of people pay for items. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that Turbine isn't holed up in a basement somewhere with the bare minimum resources at their exposal. They are indeed out to make a profit, but one has to come to a point where one says that enough is enough.
Ok, those are fair arguments so let's look at them.
It is true that they are selling gold and that is devastaing to a game world and economy. The point is not so much that what they are selling is right or wrong but that people are willing to spend money for something they find mitigates the parts of online games that they find tedious. This is a shame of course but it still points to the fact that they are willing to use money for online items.
This then shows game companies that people are willing to give their money to sketchy second party companies that are not condooned by the game devs. It's hard to argue that the game devs can't take advantage of allowing people to use their own money for things if it is proven that people will do this no matter what.
For the sake of the point, I'm all for cosmetic items or housing items by rmt but not much else as I think it ruins the point of these games.
As far as game company making money over time, that is a hit or miss argument. WoW has, that is true and possibly LOTRO. But many games do not grow their populations or can't at least count on it. One can say with a competant dev team the game will grow but all game companies think they have competant dev teams and designers only to find out otherwise in the face of real world scrutiny. They most likely wouldn't wast money on the game if they didn't think they had a shot.
And the Arenanet example doesn't fit because the whole model is based upon the diablo model of allowing the gameplay to take place on player's machines except for the upkeep of a few servers for the towns. Remember, many people panned GW because it didn't have one open world but just towns and many of them were iterations of those towns so that you could be in a town with a friend but a different iteration of that town.
They have yet to launch GW 2 which is supposed to have one open world. I think a wait and see approach is in order for that one.
As far as box sales, expansion sales and monthly fees, that's a tough one. It would seem that would be enough but is it? with these games costing millions upon millions to make and the likelyhood of success being "iffy" those might not be enough to cover past expenses, continue being in business and allowing for future development.
And in the end, if there are stockholders they are going to start saying "hey, there is another market you are not tappning and you are not making the most of our investment. So there is that double edge sword as well. Investors are good when you need money up front but you have to then deal with them after the fact as well.
So if you spend millions upon millions for an expansion and the majority of your playerbase does not buy it then you could be screwed. Will it be enough to stay in business let alone continue to develop.
That is why game companies are looking for additional ways to make money. To cut some of the risk that these game have. And they have a LOT of risk.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Originally posted by Sovrath Ok, those are fair arguments so let's look at them. It is true that they are selling gold and that is devastaing to a game world and economy. The point is not so much that what they are selling is right or wrong but that people are willing to spend money for something they find mitigates the parts of online games that they find tedious. This is a shame of course but it still points to the fact that they are willing to use money for online items. This then shows game companies that people are willing to give their money to sketchy second party companies that are not condooned by the game devs. It's hard to argue that the game devs can't take advantage of allowing people to use their own money for things if it is proven that people will do this no matter what. For the sake of the point, I'm all for cosmetic items or housing items by rmt but not much else as I think it ruins the point of these games. As far as game company making money over time, that is a hit or miss argument. WoW has, that is true and possibly LOTRO. But many games do not grow their populations or can't at least count on it. One can say with a competant dev team the game will grow but all game companies think they have competant dev teams and designers only to find out otherwise in the face of real world scrutiny. They most likely wouldn't wast money on the game if they didn't think they had a shot. And the Arenanet example doesn't fit because the whole model is based upon the diablo model of allowing the gameplay to take place on player's machines except for the upkeep of a few servers for the towns. Remember, many people panned GW because it didn't have one open world but just towns and many of them were iterations of those towns so that you could be in a town with a friend but a different iteration of that town. They have yet to launch GW 2 which is supposed to have one open world. I think a wait and see approach is in order for that one. As far as box sales, expansion sales and monthly fees, that's a tough one. It would seem that would be enough but is it? with these games costing millions upon millions to make and the likelyhood of success being "iffy" those might not be enough to cover past expenses, continue being in business and allowing for future development. And in the end, if there are stockholders they are going to start saying "hey, there is another market you are not tappning and you are not making the most of our investment. So there is that double edge sword as well. Investors are good when you need money up front but you have to then deal with them after the fact as well. So if you spend millions upon millions for an expansion and the majority of your playerbase does not buy it then you could be screwed. Will it be enough to stay in business let alone continue to develop. That is why game companies are looking for additional ways to make money. To cut some of the risk that these game have. And they have a LOT of risk.
Then surely that speaks more for the incompetence of game companies more than the fact that they need more money. It has been proven time and again that if you release a quality product that appeals to a target market (AKA. the company does its research well and creates a game that fits the bill) that you will make money. A company shouldn't need its existing customers making up for where they went wrong.
Now that's almost completely beside the point, but it leads back to the fact that these companies that are introducing cash shops (namely SOE, what we thought would be Turbine) to games with subscription models do not need more money, they want more money. Simply sitting back and letting them implement these measures is accepting the fact that they are trying to make more money off of their existing customers instead of going back to the drawing board and trying to attract new players. As you mentioned, Guild Wars was designed in a way that wouldn't cost ArenaNet much in server fees. Guild Wars 2 is in development and will be released (the latest interview was around three weeks ago), meaning there is no reason to believe it will not be. If they can host a persistent world without monthly fees, why can't other companies?
Let's take a look at singleplayer games. Companies release them and expect to make a profit from them. MMOs on the other hand have to pay for server teams and development teams. That is what the company charges a monthly fee for, and the impression under which you purchased the game in the first place. Now suddenly the company decides that they want more money...that they "need" it all of a sudden. So they introduce a cash shop in order to make this money. Now they spend time developing the cash shop and items for it for those willing to pay up and those who don't do not have access to the full game for which they paid. Why should I not be able to have an item in-game if I payed for the game and the only reason its still running is because I and a multitude of other people paid for it? It's not a matter of crying because one can't afford something, it's the fact that my monthly fee is going towards development of a cash shop that I have to pay more to use so that they can make more of a profit.
Then surely that speaks more for the incompetence of game companies more than the fact that they need more money. It has been proven time and again that if you release a quality product that appeals to a target market (AKA. the company does its research well and creates a game that fits the bill) that you will make money. A company shouldn't need its existing customers making up for where they went wrong.
Now that's almost completely beside the point, but it leads back to the fact that these companies that are introducing cash shops (namely SOE, what we thought would be Turbine) to games with subscription models do not need more money, they want more money. Simply sitting back and letting them implement these measures is accepting the fact that they are trying to make more money off of their existing customers instead of going back to the drawing board and trying to attract new players. As you mentioned, Guild Wars was designed in a way that wouldn't cost ArenaNet much in server fees. Guild Wars 2 is in development and will be released (the latest interview was around three weeks ago), meaning there is no reason to believe it will not be. If they can host a persistent world without monthly fees, why can't other companies?
Let's take a look at singleplayer games. Companies release them and expect to make a profit from them. MMOs on the other hand have to pay for server teams and development teams. That is what the company charges a monthly fee for, and the impression under which you purchased the game in the first place. Now suddenly the company decides that they want more money...that they "need" it all of a sudden. So they introduce a cash shop in order to make this money. Now they spend time developing the cash shop and items for it for those willing to pay up and those who don't do not have access to the full game for which they paid. Why should I not be able to have an item in-game if I payed for the game and the only reason its still running is because I and a multitude of other people paid for it? It's not a matter of crying because one can't afford something, it's the fact that my monthly fee is going towards development of a cash shop that I have to pay more to use so that they can make more of a profit.
maybe. Either most game companies are incompetant as you say or it's just so hard to find a way to make these games and make them well that only very few do.
And as far as the arena net thing, I highly suggest you "wait and see". I can easily say "oh yea, I'll not only make a game that requires no fees but we'll cut the price for the box in half AND make all our money. Sorry, but even they recognized that they couldn't continue to add to Guild Wars and keep it cheap as they constantly had to reinvent the wheel adding to costs. And will it be exactly that? A complete open world or is there some other thing that we have yet to see. Like what AoC pulled with their multiple instances?
but again, regarding the maintaining and growing a playerbase, there haven't been too many companies that have been successful in that. The only ones that I can think of are Eve and World of Warcraft.
And there is a shelf life to these games. Oh, not a "final it's all over" live but there is a point of no return where people are just not interested. It seems that there is an initial rush then either they maintain what they have or they enjoy a bit of loss with the hopes of regaining a bit with an expansion.
But ok, let's say that these game companies are incompetant. I can buy that a bit. So what? it becomes painfully apparent that they can't overcome their deficiencies so they look for alternate ways to add income.
And as many gamers are not in this for the religion or the teaching the companies a lesson (read: they just want to play the game they enjoy) they will not up and leave. Oh sure, a few will but the game will really have to suck in order to lose many.
You are also jumping to conclusions with the cash shop. Adding additional items that are not in game and never would have been in game but for the cash shop does not rob you of getting everything the game offered. Or doesn't have to.
I'm for cash shops for cosmetic and fluff items. Partially because I can't stand how my characters look in most of these games and if they were to offer decent alternatives I'd spend the measley 5 bucks or whatever to get what I wanted. There are others who feel the same. If that funds the artists making additional items so be it.
But depending on the game company, they can abuse this. I have no illusions about that. That is when a game company needs to make vital decisons otherwise they just undermine their game and turn it into junk.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Comments
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
Firstly, I suggest you go back and re-read a few posts. Maybe understanding will dawn on you as I clearly stated I will play a game if it either has a monthly fee or a cash shop. Not a combination of both. Secondly, I couldn't care less what you find moronic. You clearly are the one in this equation who is being moronic as you can't seem to understand the very big difference between endorsed microtransactions and microtransactions which are illegal.
A company that charges a subscription fee and then introduces microtransactions speaks the following about itself:
1) They are greedy. Absolutely no one but the company wins in the form of a nice extra income every month.
2) They couldn't care less about their customers and enjoy milking them.
3) They support the illegal actions of gold sellers, and just like them they'd rather make more money than ensure their game is playable and enjoyable for all - not only those wish a bulging wallet.
A company who does not endorse cash shops on the other hand:
1) Is not looking for a quick way to make an extra buck.
2) Understands that demanding a monthly fee and usually a box purchase is more than enough.
3) Is not supporting what the gold sellers are doing, which is in fact hurting the game economy and rewarding the players who are willing to hand over the most cash.
It is beyond me how anyone can endorse microtransactions in such a form. Essentially you're supporting the company in its endevours to make money in whichever way it can? You may enjoy being a guinea pig and being manipulated by companies attempting to convince you that a cash shop will somehow better one's gaming experience, but I for one see right through it.
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
20 years, eh? I wonder how you did a microtransaction by BBS and Fido-net. They have probably been here for quite some time, but please, no reason to exaggerate
BTW, wasn't the internet (if we can even call it that) just for the universities back in 1989?
And as mentioned - fail.
I dont mind microtransactions for fluff items like clothing, etc. so long as you dont gain a specific in game advantage
Torrential: DAOC (Pendragon)
Awned: World of Warcraft (Lothar)
Torren: Warhammer Online (Praag)
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
Hi
Agree
Microtransactions and goldsellers are not the same. Goldseller can ruin/trivialize a game. Microtransaction they do not influence the balance of a game are a bonus for the company. (i.e. selling useless pets, nice showable gear without stats, ...). So it depends on the purpose of the microtransactions.
my 2 coppers
"Die Vorzüge von gestern sind oft die Fehler von morgen" Anatole France
lol. It doesnt matter. Microtransaction have been there for 20 years and for you to be soooo frightened by them or so turned off to the point that you wont play a game with them enabled is moronic....becuase you are...you always have been.
Firstly, I suggest you go back and re-read a few posts. Maybe understanding will dawn on you as I clearly stated I will play a game if it either has a monthly fee or a cash shop. Not a combination of both. Secondly, I couldn't care less what you find moronic. You clearly are the one in this equation who is being moronic as you can't seem to understand the very big difference between endorsed microtransactions and microtransactions which are illegal.
A company that charges a subscription fee and then introduces microtransactions speaks the following about itself:
1) They are greedy. Absolutely no one but the company wins in the form of a nice extra income every month.
2) They couldn't care less about their customers and enjoy milking them.
3) They support the illegal actions of gold sellers, and just like them they'd rather make more money than ensure their game is playable and enjoyable for all - not only those wish a bulging wallet.
A company who does not endorse cash shops on the other hand:
1) Is not looking for a quick way to make an extra buck.
2) Understands that demanding a monthly fee and usually a box purchase is more than enough.
3) Is not supporting what the gold sellers are doing, which is in fact hurting the game economy and rewarding the players who are willing to hand over the most cash.
It is beyond me how anyone can endorse microtransactions in such a form. Essentially you're supporting the company in its endevours to make money in whichever way it can? You may enjoy being a guinea pig and being manipulated by companies attempting to convince you that a cash shop will somehow better one's gaming experience, but I for one see right through it.
I don't know Lydon, I think this is all opinion and strong opinion at that.
First of all, his remark, at least in the context of that post was spot on. Microtransactions have been going on in these games forever. The issue is that second parties are making money off of the content created by game companies. Yet game companies have to spend an innordinate amount of time and money fighting them. Yet, clearly there is a market to many for paid items, even if they give players unfair advantages.
Secondly, your assumption that a game company who goes for both monthly fee and microtransactions being greedy is just way off. Look at the monthly fees they charge. They haven't changed for quite some time but we all know inflation has made that fifteen dollars worth less then when it was first implemented. So game companies are left with the dilemma of raising fees which many players will balk at or implementing microtransactions that could bring in extra revenue with the hope (of course) that they are not game breaking.
Thirdly, game companies are not in business just for kicks or some sort of higher gamer religion, they are in business to make money. Not only do they have to continually develop but they also have to make sure they can pay employees, operating costs, benefits and a myriad of other charges that come up. And if they are publicly traded then they have the stock holders to answer to.
So unless you can show me a studio's costs in relation to their income and show that they are all sitting in solid gold chairs and using 100 dollar bills to light cuban cigars I think I will have to pass on the greedy assumption.
edit: I would also add that I support a game company using any means at their disposal to create revenue as long as I don't think it detracts from gameplay and that it is not illegal. There is nothing written in stone that revenue has to come from only one source.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Whilst I understand where you are coming from, I once again have to disagree.
Second parties may indeed be making money off of MMOs via gold selling, but that doesn't give the game company any reason to implement microtransactions themselves. Gold sellers are selling gold, which will allow for the in-game purchase of armor, weapons and other items which affect the balance of the game. However, a very small portion of the community buys gold so the affect isn't extremely devastating - at least in most games. The implementation of cash shops for cosmetic items is purely a method of the company gaining a profit out of customers that are willing to pay for said said items. They are two completely different things in essence, therefore the comparison between the two is rather silly actually.
That brings me to my next point. I once again understand that companies are out to make a profit, and the due to inflation monthly fees don't go as far as they used to. One needs to understand, however, that they'll be making money in other areas. Over time with a competent development team, a game will grow. This alone will account for inflation through the revenue from box sales, expansions and monthly fees. Secondly, the operation of servers is becoming cheaper due to advances in technology and as the internet grows it too becomes cheaper to use. Lastly, ArenaNet, the developers of Guild Wars, have proven that there honestly need not be a monthly fee in the first place. How can they release such a high quality, regularly-updated product that has no monthly fees (and no, it's not because of the instances as Guild Wars 2 will be free and persistent)? One has to question exactly what on Earth we are paying for in the first place.
Ultimately, that is where my opinion of them being greedy comes from. Most MMO companies already have three sources of income - box sales, expansion sales and monthly fees. The fact that many MMOs can survive without monthly fees and just from a cash shop proves that operation costs are nowhere near as high as they're being made out to be, as in a P2P game everyone is forced to pay whereas in a F2P only a portion of people pay for items. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that Turbine isn't holed up in a basement somewhere with the bare minimum resources at their exposal. They are indeed out to make a profit, but one has to come to a point where one says that enough is enough.
Whilst I understand where you are coming from, I once again have to disagree.
Second parties may indeed be making money off of MMOs via gold selling, but that doesn't give the game company any reason to implement microtransactions themselves. Gold sellers are selling gold, which will allow for the in-game purchase of armor, weapons and other items which affect the balance of the game. However, a very small portion of the community buys gold so the affect isn't extremely devastating - at least in most games. The implementation of cash shops for cosmetic items is purely a method of the company gaining a profit out of customers that are willing to pay for said said items. They are two completely different things in essence, therefore the comparison between the two is rather silly actually.
That brings me to my next point. I once again understand that companies are out to make a profit, and the due to inflation monthly fees don't go as far as they used to. One needs to understand, however, that they'll be making money in other areas. Over time with a competent development team, a game will grow. This alone will account for inflation through the revenue from box sales, expansions and monthly fees. Secondly, the operation of servers is becoming cheaper due to advances in technology and as the internet grows it too becomes cheaper to use. Lastly, ArenaNet, the developers of Guild Wars, have proven that there honestly need not be a monthly fee in the first place. How can they release such a high quality, regularly-updated product that has no monthly fees (and no, it's not because of the instances as Guild Wars 2 will be free and persistent)? One has to question exactly what on Earth we are paying for in the first place.
Ultimately, that is where my opinion of them being greedy comes from. Most MMO companies already have three sources of income - box sales, expansion sales and monthly fees. The fact that many MMOs can survive without monthly fees and just from a cash shop proves that operation costs are nowhere near as high as they're being made out to be, as in a P2P game everyone is forced to pay whereas in a F2P only a portion of people pay for items. I'd be willing to bet almost anything that Turbine isn't holed up in a basement somewhere with the bare minimum resources at their exposal. They are indeed out to make a profit, but one has to come to a point where one says that enough is enough.
Ok, those are fair arguments so let's look at them.
It is true that they are selling gold and that is devastaing to a game world and economy. The point is not so much that what they are selling is right or wrong but that people are willing to spend money for something they find mitigates the parts of online games that they find tedious. This is a shame of course but it still points to the fact that they are willing to use money for online items.
This then shows game companies that people are willing to give their money to sketchy second party companies that are not condooned by the game devs. It's hard to argue that the game devs can't take advantage of allowing people to use their own money for things if it is proven that people will do this no matter what.
For the sake of the point, I'm all for cosmetic items or housing items by rmt but not much else as I think it ruins the point of these games.
As far as game company making money over time, that is a hit or miss argument. WoW has, that is true and possibly LOTRO. But many games do not grow their populations or can't at least count on it. One can say with a competant dev team the game will grow but all game companies think they have competant dev teams and designers only to find out otherwise in the face of real world scrutiny. They most likely wouldn't wast money on the game if they didn't think they had a shot.
And the Arenanet example doesn't fit because the whole model is based upon the diablo model of allowing the gameplay to take place on player's machines except for the upkeep of a few servers for the towns. Remember, many people panned GW because it didn't have one open world but just towns and many of them were iterations of those towns so that you could be in a town with a friend but a different iteration of that town.
They have yet to launch GW 2 which is supposed to have one open world. I think a wait and see approach is in order for that one.
As far as box sales, expansion sales and monthly fees, that's a tough one. It would seem that would be enough but is it? with these games costing millions upon millions to make and the likelyhood of success being "iffy" those might not be enough to cover past expenses, continue being in business and allowing for future development.
And in the end, if there are stockholders they are going to start saying "hey, there is another market you are not tappning and you are not making the most of our investment. So there is that double edge sword as well. Investors are good when you need money up front but you have to then deal with them after the fact as well.
So if you spend millions upon millions for an expansion and the majority of your playerbase does not buy it then you could be screwed. Will it be enough to stay in business let alone continue to develop.
That is why game companies are looking for additional ways to make money. To cut some of the risk that these game have. And they have a LOT of risk.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
Then surely that speaks more for the incompetence of game companies more than the fact that they need more money. It has been proven time and again that if you release a quality product that appeals to a target market (AKA. the company does its research well and creates a game that fits the bill) that you will make money. A company shouldn't need its existing customers making up for where they went wrong.
Now that's almost completely beside the point, but it leads back to the fact that these companies that are introducing cash shops (namely SOE, what we thought would be Turbine) to games with subscription models do not need more money, they want more money. Simply sitting back and letting them implement these measures is accepting the fact that they are trying to make more money off of their existing customers instead of going back to the drawing board and trying to attract new players. As you mentioned, Guild Wars was designed in a way that wouldn't cost ArenaNet much in server fees. Guild Wars 2 is in development and will be released (the latest interview was around three weeks ago), meaning there is no reason to believe it will not be. If they can host a persistent world without monthly fees, why can't other companies?
Let's take a look at singleplayer games. Companies release them and expect to make a profit from them. MMOs on the other hand have to pay for server teams and development teams. That is what the company charges a monthly fee for, and the impression under which you purchased the game in the first place. Now suddenly the company decides that they want more money...that they "need" it all of a sudden. So they introduce a cash shop in order to make this money. Now they spend time developing the cash shop and items for it for those willing to pay up and those who don't do not have access to the full game for which they paid. Why should I not be able to have an item in-game if I payed for the game and the only reason its still running is because I and a multitude of other people paid for it? It's not a matter of crying because one can't afford something, it's the fact that my monthly fee is going towards development of a cash shop that I have to pay more to use so that they can make more of a profit.
maybe. Either most game companies are incompetant as you say or it's just so hard to find a way to make these games and make them well that only very few do.
And as far as the arena net thing, I highly suggest you "wait and see". I can easily say "oh yea, I'll not only make a game that requires no fees but we'll cut the price for the box in half AND make all our money. Sorry, but even they recognized that they couldn't continue to add to Guild Wars and keep it cheap as they constantly had to reinvent the wheel adding to costs. And will it be exactly that? A complete open world or is there some other thing that we have yet to see. Like what AoC pulled with their multiple instances?
but again, regarding the maintaining and growing a playerbase, there haven't been too many companies that have been successful in that. The only ones that I can think of are Eve and World of Warcraft.
And there is a shelf life to these games. Oh, not a "final it's all over" live but there is a point of no return where people are just not interested. It seems that there is an initial rush then either they maintain what they have or they enjoy a bit of loss with the hopes of regaining a bit with an expansion.
But ok, let's say that these game companies are incompetant. I can buy that a bit. So what? it becomes painfully apparent that they can't overcome their deficiencies so they look for alternate ways to add income.
And as many gamers are not in this for the religion or the teaching the companies a lesson (read: they just want to play the game they enjoy) they will not up and leave. Oh sure, a few will but the game will really have to suck in order to lose many.
You are also jumping to conclusions with the cash shop. Adding additional items that are not in game and never would have been in game but for the cash shop does not rob you of getting everything the game offered. Or doesn't have to.
I'm for cash shops for cosmetic and fluff items. Partially because I can't stand how my characters look in most of these games and if they were to offer decent alternatives I'd spend the measley 5 bucks or whatever to get what I wanted. There are others who feel the same. If that funds the artists making additional items so be it.
But depending on the game company, they can abuse this. I have no illusions about that. That is when a game company needs to make vital decisons otherwise they just undermine their game and turn it into junk.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo